Kraggh's Works ♫♪

 
 
 
Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey before going to see this.  Trust me.  Just do.
 
There's something surreal about this film that reminded me a lot of Tron: Legacy, and then I found out why.  It shares the same director, Joseph Kosinski, and Legacy was his only feature film up until this point.  I think a major part of it was the techno music.  I might not have thought that such music would have fit into this type of film, but then I realized that Oblivion had a style to it that reminded me very much of a video game with a ton of cut scenes, something that could come from the creators of Halo or Mass Effect, and when you add on top of that the video-game music, the visual style of the film's world, the way the characters dress, and the titles, it definitely all adds up.
 
Nothing about the music is terribly memorable, but it was very enjoyable and was a powerful mover and shaper of this film.  For example, there were scenes that otherwise would have played as if they were slow, but something about the Tron-style music these scenes to feel far more driven.  I actively enjoyed its presence as an accompaniment to the film, even if I won't remember any particular melodies.
 
The other stylistic strongpoint of this film is its cinematography, in which it does a beautiful job of capturing as much as it can with simple camera work.  There are many wide shots that reveal the entire scene.  Perhaps this is another reason for why it feels like a video game, because I can't think of many cut scenes with closeups on actors.
 
Joseph Kosinski based this movie off of an unpublished graphic novel of his, and as such I can describe the storytelling as having an extremely visual component.  The film is definitely something pretty to look at, and has a lot of beauty.  Some people get annoyed by this sort of thing, but the film medium was always visual, and in fact it was a special effect before it was ever used to tell stories.  What's more, on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, there are movies that are about nothing but characters and story, and they suck.  Look at The Room for a prime example.  So I really hope that people who go to see this appreciate the serene scenery and visuals as means of enhancing the story.  And yes, there is a serious attempt at a story, and it's more original than Tron: Legacy, which gathered some complaints for its pot.
 
This is what I am sure a lot of people will be interested.  Obviously, I can't give away much, but here's the gist: One of the very first things that Jack Harper tells us is that he has dreams that feel like memories, but that can't be, because they are set on Earth and Earth was rendered uninhabitable some sixty years ago.  What's more, as a security measure, he had his memory erased before being sent to his outpost on Earth.  That's not suspicious at all.  On top of what we know from the trailers, there are people living down on Earth, so it's really obvious that there's some sort of conspiracy going on.  He's ever so slightly aware of it, and he says it outright in the very beginning, that he finds himself constantly questioning things, while his partner Victoria doesn't.  This can only mean that she's going to be very frustrating later on.
 
Victoria is an interesting character.  She doesn't seem to have much depth, and she's so reserved, but that's because she's obviously been brainwashed to be that way.  If it wasn't for her, this film wouldn't have its most memorable line, "Are you still an effective team?"  Remember these words well, for when you enter the theatre you should keep track of how many times that line is said and make an ironic comment every time.
 
Anyway, back to the story: another major note that everyone should know is that this is the type of movie that has a few plot twists.  Some of them you will see coming, others you won't.  It's evident from the trailer, of course, that it's that sort of movie.  Fortunately, the trailer doesn't give away the major plot twists.  While I can't guarantee that the major reveals left me in awe (so this isn't The Sting or The Usual Suspects), or surprised me necessarily, I didn't predict them.  They weren't landmarks, but they were solid in their delivery.
 
For those who go in expecting an action film, it expertly avoids that.  It actually is about story, for the most part, and I would personally have a story told through many visuals than a story told through tons of action.  Not a whole lot happens for the first half of the film, since there's a bit to establish, but there's a bit to establish and the music, meanwhile, keeps these scenes mesmerizing.  There are some explosions and the like, but only two moments that I would really consider action scenes, and pretty much all of these moments went to display just how scary a ruthless killing machine can be.  Those drones would make awesome video game characters, and I could definitely stand to see more of them.
 
That's about all I have to say in terms of the story.  The casting was pretty good, and all the actors felt really right for their roles.  Tom Cruise, as crazy as he is in real life, is a great actor and he never fails to deliver when playing a character such as this one.  Morgan Freeman is awesome, but what else is new?  The only potential casting change I would have made was the former Bond Girl, Olga Kurylenko.  If they were going to choose a French actress, I would have tried to book Eva Green.
 
Some people have complained that the film isn't original enough.  I realize there is some truth to that, but I also notice that the director admitted that a major part of the story was paying tribute to the science fiction of the 70's (give or take a few years).  unfortunately, I didn't get too many of them, but it would be cool if I did.  It would be interesting to play a drinking game, where someone took a shot for every reference he or she heard.  For me, it was all worth it, because the film had a ton of homages to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is my all-time favorite science-fiction movie.  The most obvious one is the drones, but I caught on to their use of surreal black geometric objects, throwback images to the Star Child, and one monumental salute to HAL 9000 that basically canonized him as patron saint of artificial intelligence.
 
So walking away from this, the main things I remember are the cinematography, the music, the beautiful visuals and style of the world, and some of the brilliant references.  That, and this would make an awesome video game.
 

24601

 
 
 
How to watch an Iron Man movie:

• Go to the theatre wearing a superhero t-shirt
• In my case, a Superman t-shirt, since I feel he symbolizes the genre
• Avoid sitting by loud people who have to comment on everything
• Have fun

Above all, Iron Man 3 is a fun movie.  The trailers make it out to be darker than the others, but it's really no more serious than other Disney movies such as The Lion King.  It's kid-friendly, filled with humor, and makes for a while ride.  Is Tony Stark pushed like never before?  Yes.  The villain has him struggling from the very beginning, and for a long while Tony has the low ground.  For much of the film, he's incapable of even using his suit, and has to resort to MacGuyver tactics in order to make progress.  It makes for good entertainment, although people expecting a serious drama should tone down those notions before watching this.  Shane Black wasn't trying to make Iron Man serious so much as he was trying to make him cool.  They don't have to be the same thing.  Even so, though it isn't a super-serious drama, it still has a very good story.
 
The film starts out with a favorite 90's song of mine.  I won't spoil it, but the way it just unexpectedly came up was doggone hilarious and was one of my favorite gags of the movie.  It certainly set a tone.  Meanwhile, the song is in the 90's because Tony treats us to a flashback to "where it all started", which was in 1999 at a New Year's party.  This is where he "creates his own demons" by being the playboy philanthropist he is.  He rejects a poor little looser and stands him up.  That guy looked suspiciously like Guy Pearce, who is supposed to be the villain in the film.  Simultaneously, Tony has his way with a woman who works with something called Extremis, which causes organisms to heal super-fast at the expense of blowing up.  I wonder if either of these details will become important later.
 
Alright, so it's obvious at this point where some things go from here.  That guy who Guy plays (just because of the way that statement came out, I'm going to take the time to say that Guy is one of the weirder names out there) will take on a new level of competency, become a villain, and become a real problem for Tony later.  The Extremis experiment will become a major plot mover.  Check.  This is not something that they are trying to hide.
 
Back in the present day, we're introduced to post-Avengers Tony.  The trailers let this on a little bit, but I'm going to elaborate a little further.  See, since "nothing has been the same since New York," Tony has changed.  It affected him, and in ways that he would not have expected.  Just mentioning New York gives him major anxiety.  Press the issue, and he will suffer a panic attack.  I recognize his reactions from footage I saw in a psychology class.  He suddenly panics, and he has to literally run away from the conversation.  The whole fight with the Chitauri and his near death experience traumatized him.  I found this to be an interesting bit of realism, something that I've never really seen in a superhero movie as of yet.  It means that we get to see him act very vulnerable from time to time in ways that genuinely make him sympathetic.
 
He's up for days on end.  JARVIS makes this pretty clear: "You haven't slept in 72 hours."  Tony has an obsession with making more "toys".  How far has he come?  Well, let's just say that the number of Marks he has under his belt now fits the answer to life, the universe, and everything.  Even without his sleep, he does a fairly awesome job, even if he seems a bit oblivious to the outside world or how reckless he's being.  Still, he comes up with an awesome suit that disassembles and flies to him, and that he can control with his mind.  Some of his experiments go wrong, but it turns out to be a brilliant idea, as we all know.
 
Still, it creates tension in his life.  I won't explain the full details, but his suits become a major distraction.
 
Then the villain comes, kicks his butt, and for a while Tony Stark is without any power.  He still has tricks up his sleeve, because he's a genius, but for a while he has to make due without the suit.
 
This is where I have to warn purists of the comic that the villain, the Mandarin, is absolutely nothing like he is in the comics.  If you complained about Nolan changing Bane's backstory, then you're going to hate what they do here, because the departure from the comics is even more drastic.  He's literally another villain with the same name with almost no real resemblance   You don't have to be a fan of the comics to tell that he's a complete rewrite.  The trailers lead you to believe otherwise, but he really has none of the mandarin's iconic or essential elements.  Perhaps something in the way of personality, but ultimately he's a different villain.  That doesn't mean he's poorly written in this script, because he's definitely the best villain of the Iron Man film franchise (which isn't saying much, because I can't really credit Iron Man's coolness as having anything to do with his villains), but I'm not going to put him up on a pedestal and say that this was a villain that inspired awe.  This wasn't a film where it was the villain's time to shine, even though this one pushed Tony Stark the most, both psychically and emotionally.  What I can say is that the movie has a good conflict, and that's good.
 
Another thing that might irk purists is that Iron Patriot is James Rhodes instead of Normal Osborn, who doesn't exist in this continuity of the Marvel cinematic universe.  However, it seems that the characters often joke about that.  Tony much prefers War Machine and thinks that Iron Patriot is a wimpy name.  James secretly agrees.  The banter that goes on about that throughout the film, I think, hit the right comedic notes.  People who haven't read the comics won't mind.  I can't speak for people who have, however.
 
Meanwhile, over the course of the film, Tony Stark befriends a little kid who helps him with some of the problems he has with his suit.  You can tell Disney made this movie.  Some people might take issues with this.  I know another reviewer thought it was cheap, and my friend thought it was cliche, but I personally didn't mind.  This is Disney, and they know how to handle these sorts of relationships onscreen.  Ultimately, your mileage may vary.  I enjoyed it because it forced Tony Stark to interact with people in a new way, all the while without him necessarily breaking character.  I mean, he was nice to the boy, because I almost forgot that he's a philanthropist, but he was still a narcissist.  He was rude, arrogant, but at least he was funny.  The kid seemed to understand.  After all, Tony's reputation precedes him.  There were times I wanted to slap him, but he had enough common sense to lighten up when it mattered.  That derogatory sense of humor of his is certainly a difficult habit to shrug off, though.  I can relate to that, since I tend to needlessly insult people.
 
The situation that led him to this kid is rather interesting, too.  I'm just going to say that, based on movie precedent, Iron Man is a better detective than Batman.  Take that, Bats.
 
Fast forward to the end, and Tony gets his suit working again.  Proceed to tons of fun  Eventually, the final battle with the boss takes place, in which Tony calls in all of his suits for support, as seen in the trailer.  I'm going to be honest here: the villain never stood a chance.  He had the power to destroy several of Tony's Iron Man suits, but he had enough of them that it didn't matter.  Tony's victory was inevitable, and not just because he was the protagonist.  When he had the full gang of suits and engaged the villain in a straight fight, no holds bar, winning was only a matter of time.  However, it was still fun.  It was the reason why people go to see superhero movies, because we got to see a bunch of different outfits and experimental designs that each had their purpose, and each was cool in their own way.  It also allowed for a very creative fight between Tony and the Mandarin revolving around the unique strengths each possessed.  It was ten times better than any of the final battles in the other Iron Man movies.
 
If people walk away from this movie remembering anything, it's going to be the ending.  It was solid, sound, and it completed Tony Stark's character arch.  As Entertainment Weekly put it, the movie "ended on a definitive note".  It's really where I think that the story of Iron Man should end.  It's going to be difficult to make another Iron Man movie after this.  I can see him appearing in The Avengers 2, but definitely not in the same way that he did in the first film.  His character has changed a lot.  The status quo is completely changed.
 
As if the director knew that this was the end of the series, the credits role and play clips from the three films, wrapping everything up. One thing that got at me was that, in-film, the title of the movie is Iron Man Three instead of Iron Man 3, but that's a minor nitpick.  As the montage rolled away, I found myself liking the Iron Man character much more, and I've finally decided that he's one of my favorite superheroes (not quite in the Top 3, though).  The movie made him more human, added depth to him, and did a good job of adding character change while staying true to the essence of Tony Stark.  As I said, I don't think people will be in awe, but the ending will definitely make an impression, and overall the movie was a very fun experience.
 
Oh, and as the kid suggested, if they do make another Iron Man film, he needs to add a cloaking device.
 

24601

 
 
 
If One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Juno had a baby, she would look something like this.  It doesn't make a dramatic case for neurotic people and how they are abused by society, though it still makes them into underdogs who compel audiences to root for them.  It breezes through the daily life of these individuals without earnest intensity, although that doesn't prevent it from being a sincere and serious story about these people.  From the perspective of Silver Linings Playbook, social disabilities are just one of many problems a person can go through in life, and it approaches the story with a fairly casual approach that's sophisticated enough for its subject matter, in which psychological disorders are depicted without stereotypes, but that sophistication also happens to include some good naturalistic comedy and heart.
 
Starting off in a psychiatric hospital, Patrick "Pat" Solitano attends group therapy sessions and pretends to take medication.  This is a familiar scene, although it doesn't last too terribly long.  The pacing is more indie, especially when the establishment shots capture Pat's quirks through his possessions instead of focusing on anything particularly dramatic.  Pat's talking, perhaps into a recorder or to his journal (I can't remember), but during his voice-over he speaks of his father.  So a lot is learned right off the bat.
 
Pat gets out of the hospital because of his very generous mother.  Something weird but minor happens on the way out, because the director's playing with the characters.  Pat's had a friend, Danny McDaniels, played by Christ Tucker.  Both of these characters are a bit off the wall.  McDaniels has to go back to the hospital, but he shows up later.
 
Meanwhile, it's an interesting scene to see an adult man accepting a ride from his mother.  It's a scene I relate with, because I'm nineteen and I still don't have a driver's license, and I probably won't for a few more years yet.  Dolores Solitano seems to be a nice lady, and often gets overwhelmed by her son.  Here's where I do want to make a comment about the acting, though.  She was played by Jackie Weaver, but I don't really see how Jackie Weaver got a nomination for Best Supporting Actress with this role, since the mother didn't play much a part in the movie, and in a year like 2012, there were some powerful alternative candidates that could have taken her place.  Still, I'm not saying that she's a bad actress, because she was good.  Yet, this film got nominated for all of the acting categories, which set up some big expectations that are better left at the doorstep.
 
That said, Pat and his mother reach home, and it turns out that the family is having problems.  Pat, Sr. (although his name is short for Patrizio, not Patrick), lost his job and gets by on football bets.  Apparently he had an anger problem.  For the first bit of the movie, I'll admit that I wasn't incredibly impressed with Robert De Niro in this role as well.  He acted it well, but for the most part he was a large ham actor who brings gravitas to his roles.  I never quite forgot that it was him playing that role, even though he was pretty good casting.  I could have also seen Jack Nicholson in this role, and really, both actors have played characters with mental illness before.  We all know Nicholson's legendary performance as McMurphy, and De Niro played a man with a split personality once.  In any case, this feels very much like his typical acting style, which I will admit is very diverse and applies to a lot of things, but he certainly had that "De Niro feel", as I would call it.
 
However, it is interesting to note that both De Niro and Bradley Cooper are of Italian descent, like their characters.  I know.  Bradley Cooper's Italian.  Go figure.
 
This would be where the film gets fun and interesting, except it's that way throughout the entire ride, but what I consider the first truly memorable moment was Pat's first night in his parent's house, when he was catching up on all of the reading material from his former job as a teacher.  He reads Ernest Hemingway  gets to the end, and then swears.  It wasn't a subtle bit of cussing.  He shouted it.  He threw the book out the window.  Then he goes downstairs to his parents, wakes them up at three in the morning, and rants about why he hated the ending to the book, because it had a sad ending instead of a sad ending, and he really wasn't in the mood for sad endings, given the current state of his life.
 
He also has some back story about his wife.  The reason why he spent time in a psychiatric hospital in the first place was because he blew up on another teacher when he found him in his own house, cheating with Pat's wife, Nikki.  He wasn't angry with his wife, just that guy.  In spite of what happened, Pat is adamant that the affair was not Nikki's fault.  He believes that they're still happily married, that he was only scary in that one moment, and that the restraining order between him and her wasn't her choosing.  He's still deeply in love with her and thinks that he needs to find a way to get back to his wife again.  I admire his faith, and it's weird seeing his quest to get in contact with his wife, because the structure is a lot like a love story where two people haven't fallen in love already, but this is a story of people who are still technically together and married.
 
Everyone else knows that their marriage is over.  Pat is optimistic, though.  In his words, "This is what I believe to be true.  You have to do everything you can, and if you stay positive, you have a shot at a silver lining."  Reconciling with his wife is his number one motivation behind everything he does.  He tolerates the therapy because it might bring him down to a place where he can be right for Nikki again.  He works hard on several other things.  He's a pretty determined guy, and I can relate.  It's just that it's obvious from the onset that this is never going to happen to everyone else but him, because he's convinced himself that something will work out because he thinks that it should work out.
 
It's clear that he's a bit obsessive.  He had an outburst at his first therapy session when his wedding songs played.  He also had a meltdown that woke up the whole neighborhood when he couldn't find his wedding video, which resulted in his poor mother getting physically overwhelmed by him wen he began thrashing out and his father punching him in the face, at which point he cooled down some because he knew he didn't want to punch a gray-haired old man.
 
He insisted that these were independent incidents and that he really was better, that he was feeling great.  I know what that's like.  However, after he hurt his mother, he realized that he had to take medication in order to better control himself, because otherwise he was on a tightrope.
 
Before, he talked about medication when he first met Tiffany, played by Jennifer Lawrence.  They were both familiar with medication, and they both disliked it because it made them feel different, not quite as clear.  They way they spoke, I figured that he would never go on it.  In fact, I never thought he did, because he spit out medication in the beginning of the movie, and throughout the movie he still seemed like the same guy and I didn't notice any personality changes save that there was less shouting.
 
Tiffany is an interesting person because, like Pat, she had no filter.  One of the first things he said to her was "You have poor social skills.  You have a problem."  This, after he said "You look nice.  How'd Tommy die?" moments after his friend told him he shouldn't bring up the death of Tiffany's husband.  They're very direct, frank, forthright, and it creates an interesting form of dialogue.  It creates problems, but it perhaps gets more done than regular conversation.
 
In fact, one of the main things that I have to say is that this film has great dialogue from a naturalistic standpoint.  It feels like I am in the room with these people.  They're slightly more extreme than I am, but as a person with a social disorder, I speak their language, with all the pitfalls of saying things that are insensitive and socially askew.  Although the two lead characters provide the most colorful lines, I have to comment the writing for all the other characters.  It's one of those pleasures as an audience member, the type that comes from eavesdropping on a conversation, because it's just a lot of snippets from real life.  To keep that tone throughout the entire movie, while also having the dialogue be entertaining, is a pretty cool achievement.  Either the writer was that good, or all of the actors are that good, because I honestly can't tell where the line is drawn, and there's always the possibility that there was a lot of add-libbing.  It's not as quotable as some other famous movies, but that's because it doesn't bother to be particularly eloquent.  After all, there's a lot of swearing that drags this movie up to an R rating, but it actually doesn't register much because it all feels reasonably like a real snapshot of life, like the swearing didn't feel like it was written in for effect.  There's little music in this movie that stands out, and it's mostly various songs that get played, but the real rhythm that keeps this movie is its dialogue.
 
It also makes a difference that I relate to the protagonist and his particular kind of problem, which is overcoming his disability.  That's a pretty consuming task, and the type where it's hard to imagine a way out.  I was personally very curious to see how it turned out, because I felt that part of myself is invested in that solution.
 
Meanwhile, this isn't just about people with disorders.  The father is obsessed with football.  He made his son his personal good luck charm for Eagles games to make him feel more special, which is a pretty bad idea considering Pat's bipolar disorder.  It wouldn't have been good for his mental health.  And his father was practically OCD, as his son observed.  Pat's friend had a lot of rants about his wife, and his therapists...Well, I won't spoil the bit about his therapist.  It's more like the entire world is an insane place, if only it was just a bit more honest in examining itself.
 
Yet, the rest of the world is supposedly normal.  Okay.  I don't think so, because I don't speak its language.  Neither does Pat, so we both agree that we often feel along and that we have to struggle against literally everything.
 
So Tiffany and Pat interacting with each other was a pleasure, even if it was chaotic.  They way they talked made more sense.  It didn't follow the rules that everyone else sets up.
 
There was also something about Tiffany in particular.  I had a déjà vu moment, like I had seen her face somewhere before, and not just from The Hunger Games.  She was like an amalgamation of various people I know.  There are a few people I know who dress like her, some others who have her hair, and others who have her face.  The effect is that she looked pretty normal.  Pretty, but actually pretty normal and not like the typical actress that would have been called for this role.
 
Actually, the first person considered for the job was Zooey Deschanel, an obvious typecast that would have made the acting merits of this movie less significant.  The director cast Anne Hathaway, but she dropped out because of scheduling conflicts with The Dark Knight Rises, which consisted of far more dramatic but less realistic dialogue.  Jennifer Lawrence was not considered for the role and convinced the director with a good audition.  Considering that this role gave her an Oscar for Best Actress, she must be happy that it came to be.  I'm wondering what the role would have been like if played by prominent, older and better established actresses, though.
 
She wasn't over the top, though.  Still a bit extreme, but consider how much more extreme the role would have been if an actress like Zooey added her typecast charm to the role or if someone like Anne Hathaway made the director figure he could go for a little more gravitas.  Since Jennifer Lawrence is still new, but also very talented while also having a very plain appearance, I think it works and helps ground the character.
 
It's still striking to see a female character who's so neurotic and to think of her as realistic, or at least when I'm looking at this from the perspective that she might have a form of autism.  I've met many people with autistic disorders, as well as people with ADHD, and in my experience there are not only fewer females, but the symptoms tend to show up less.  I've read up a lot about my own diagnosis, Asperger's Syndrome, since it interests me, and according to textbooks women tend to hide the symptoms very well.  I'm not saying that women don't suffer from psychological and neurological disorders, especially since that's far from the truth, but given my experience I was inclined to interpret her character as someone who shares some of the traits of a disorder similar to mine.  The only other time I really saw a character like this was (sort of) in a television movie about Temple Grandin, but I can honestly say I never met someone like this in real life.  Maybe she isn't a neurological oddball, though.  Maybe it was nurture instead of nature.  In any case, they never mentioned what exactly was up with her, besides a certain addiction of hers.  I might watch this film repeatedly just to psychoanalyze the character and figure that part out.
 
If she had been any other way, there would have been no chemistry between her and Pat, after all.  They're both very different from everyone else.  It's not insanity, and it's not something that makes them incapable of functioning.  It's the type of disability that, even though I feel that this is somewhat dramatized, pertains more to a person like me.  They're both rather determined to carry out on their objectives, both have missing spouses, and both need acceptance.  That's really great.
 
So great is their chemistry that she proposes to Pat, Sr. that her time together with Pat, Jr. is what gives good luck to the Eagles.
 
I love this.  Starting with the father's first big bet on the Eagles is when the character really begins to mature into his role in the story, but the moment when she tells him about her theory of where the positive vibes really came from, the way in which he gets convinced and gets everyone else in the room (both friends and family) to believe in the vibes simply sells the character, and I love him.  He may be recognizable and lack anonymity as an actor, but Robert De Niro is a genius.  It was at this point where I see why he was nominated as well.
 
The loser in this situation is Pat, because of the ridiculous pressure.  He's still responsible for bringing good luck to the Eagles, and he hates the new parley made over the duel success of the Eagles and his dancing routine with Tiffany.  Oh, and he figures out that Tiffany lied to him about something kind of major to the plot, though he reacted remarkably well.
 
In spite of how crazy everything was, with all the pressure and all the uncertainty and all the internal conflicts that he could have, things came out fine, just as everyone knew they would.  With such a wonderful rant about Ernest Hemingway at the beginning, how could the movie not have turned out with a happy ending?  Pat got a grip on reality and realized that he would not earn his wife back, but it didn't happen suddenly at the end of the film at the climax.  That came earlier, though it was really subtle.  It was a good ending, and I feel happy for the characters.
 
Confession time: I actually watched this movie because a few days before I was at my lowest point in a period of depression, and I wanted to watch this with my mother.  A lot of things went wrong with my life, and I felt crushed.  I couldn't focus, could't feel happy, couldn't help my low self-esteem, couldn't stop thinking about better times in my life, and couldn't shake off a feeling of despair for where my life is going.  A week ago, as of writing this, I even had a full day of crying.  Therapy sessions didn't seem to help.  As a means of escape and comfort, this movie seemed rather relevant to me and who I was.
 
I am glad that it was a happy movie, and that it was funny, because they made me feel better.  Even though I was feeling better that day, I still appreciated it, because it gives a person like me hope.
 
My depression started with a violent outburst a few months ago, and I feel that I have not caught up on homework or other daily aspects of my life since.  It has been difficult to function.  I even resorted to an all-time low for me, and throughout this time of depression I also stole about $100.  And it was in cookies.  It was like a drug addiction to chocolate, like "So long as I am not paying for it, I'm not actually addicted to it."  When I was caught, my self-esteem plummeted because then I not only saw myself as incompetent, but a bad person, so I confessed to how much I thought I stole and decided to pay it off through community service instead of a direct payment just to help me work on my character and give me time every day to focus.
 
Seeing this film, however, changed some perceptions I had.  Remember how I mentioned how I didn't notice when Pat went on his medication?  His personality didn't change, although he found it was easier to have control in moments where he was so much more prone to simply react.  The day after I watched this movie, I had a doctor's appointment scheduled.  I just started medication today, and I hope to get better in a couple of weeks.
 
This is something I always resisted.  If the warning labels weren't scary enough, I was always afraid that medication would do things for me so that my free will wouldn't have to do anything.  I also wanted to solve a lot of problems all by myself, and I found it demeaning that feeling regular nostalgia was a condition, since I choose to think about home and my old friends and family.
 
Some of those feelings, though, are literal, physical feelings.  For example, my depression makes my body feel terrible, week, cold, and frail.  I would sleep for twelve hours per day.  Maybe determination could have got me out of it, but I felt incapable of being determined.  Perhaps medication would help me get out of an impossible situation, and maybe I could think sad thoughts without getting sick or loosing all my energy.
 
Because Pat's fundamental way of thinking didn't change.  He was still far different from normal people.  His attitudes and behaviors didn't change at all, except he found he could prevent those destructive moments that he claimed were isolated incidents that represent him.
 
Props to him.
 
Hang in there.
 

24601

 
 
 
This movie makes me feel like a child again!  A major part of this is due to this movie being released on the year of my birth, 1993, but I also have to give credit to Steven Spielberg.  Somewhere in that bearded man is a kid that refused to go away, and he can capture this movie with not only spectacle but the rightful sense of wonder that children always wanted to see.  Rich with cinematic vision and attention to detail, from the incredible realism of the larger-than-life attractions to the bright, solid colors of the main cast, Jurassic Park riddles itself with timeless movie qualities.
 
One of the most magical moments in cinema history was when Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler arrive at Jurassic Park and witness a Brachiosaurus.  For a moment, even those adult characters are kids.  Their mute before the fulfillment of their fantasies.  Many people were.  Spielberg understands how special this moment is, and lets it play out, just in one's imagination.  In that moment, the Brachiosaurus, the tears of the adults, and the first appearance of a classic and inspired John Williams score left me in a sense of ultimate comfort.  I truly wanted this moment to last and for the happiness to last forever.  I smiled, and I continued to smile uncontrollably throughout the film as I sat in the front, center seat of the theatre.
 
Leading up to this moment, following a few classic Spielberg establishment shots, Alan and Ellie worked out in the open terrain of a Montana dig site.  There was an amazing chemistry between the characters that comforted me even more than the magical dinosaur reveal.  Alan doesn't really dig kids that much.  When he's seemingly unfamiliar with the term "child", Ellie has to tell him that they're miniature adults.  That's an interesting way of looking at it.  Ellie, meanwhile, wants to have children.  On one hand, this establishes who these characters are, the nature of their relationship, and what some of their background desires are.  This might have been unnecessary for the plot, but one of the things that makes this film so endearing and different from all other dinosaur films is that the two lead characters are framed as adults.  It's so subtle that many actual adults don't notice it, but children do.  Children see this and this couple is seen through the lens of how they are similar to their parents.  As a little boy on the playground, I used to brag about how cool my father was.  He went out and did cool things.  I idolized him for being a grown up.  My mother, meanwhile, loved me so much, and I loved her so much in return.  Together, they weren't naive Shakespearian lovers, but Mom and Dad.  Even though they didn't have children yet, Ellie and Alan were already my Mom and Dad, and somewhere in my heart, I think they always will be.
 
These characters, after being establishes, wanted to explore Jurassic Park, and then they had the exact same reaction that I as a child wanted them to have.  They needed to see more!  John Hammond puts them on a little documentary ride, but the paleontologist and the paleobotanist can't stand the restrictions and stop the ride.  They run through, and they must watch as an egg hatches in the laboratory.
 
There is a lot of exposition here, far more than a normal film could get away with.  This is usually the bane of many science fiction films, but it flies with grace in Jurassic Park because people want to know how this happened.  Kids are curious.  They want to believe that this can happen in real life, and it's fuel for the imagination.  After this film, it became a common dream of popular science to try out these new technologies.  I became fascinated with science because of the things that could be done with it, and when watching this film, I wanted to learn so much about dinosaurs, because dinosaurs were cool.  Spielberg doesn't make anything about the ancient beasts a mystery.  To a kid, this is almost as fascinating as the chase scenes and the action.  So long as it has to do with dinosaurs, it's pitch-perfect.
 
It was also perfect because of John Hammond's enthusiasm.  When I was younger, I thought he was played by John Williams, which would have been awesome, but the resemblance is enough on its own.  He's convincingly the lovable old man.  He certainly makes mistakes, but he's a determined person, and it's hard to blame him.  Like the other adults, he had an overwhelming enthusiasm and a love for the dinosaurs.  Certainly, he played God and didn't have enough respect for the power he wielded, but I found myself wanting to agree with him so much.  Jurassic Park could have been so right.  That magical moment with the Brachiosaurus could have lasted forever.  Most importantly of all, what he wanted more than anything was to fulfill the dreams of children.  When not reminding me of John Williams, he reminded me of my benevolent, silver-haired grandpa.
 
Enter the grandchildren, Lex and Tim.  These two kids are perfectly cast.  More than that, they are the best cast child characters ever.  They are adorable, impossible to dislike.  There is something cute about them, something endearing, and something about their faces that captured the screen.  Once I walked in on this movie, didn't recognize their faces, and thought that the feel was incredibly cool.  Then a cousin revealed to me that he was watching Jurassic Park, and I suffered from recoil shock.  Naturally, what most people remember the first time around is the dinosaurs, and it had been a while since I had seen it, but I remember thinking "Had the casting really been so perfect?"  There's just something about them, something fundamentally childlike.
 
So, naturally, I felt like a child again twice over.  I especially related to Tim for his fascination with dinosaurs and his boyish desire to show off his knowledge and gain the approval of his idol, Alan Grant.  It reminded me of the way I vied for my father's attention.  Alan, of course, dismisses the boy.  Lex approaches him, and tells him that Ellie told her to sit with him.  Alan's annoyance is entertaining, because it frustrates the children but they're sure he's a good guy.
 
There are other characters who are not good people.  There's the scumbag lawyer who's interested in money and doesn't care about the children.  There's the annoying Dennis Nedry, scumbag junior.  Both of them have embarrassing deaths at the hands of dinosaurs.  This is totally movie logic, and totally why I love this movie.  In the fantasy land of children, the scumbags always get what they deserve!  I like it when bad people who don't care for children get karmic deaths.  That's hash in real life, but I like having that escape when I go to the movies.
 
By contrast, Alan shows that he's compassionate to these kids.  That's not so difficult to believe.  After all, they had so much more in common than they did that was different.  When they passed by exhibits and looked out the window of their jeeps with excitement to spot out dinosaurs, they shared the same disappointment.  I would be disappointed too if I got my golden opportunity to see the Tyrannosaurus rex snuffed so by pure chaotic chance.  So when the T. rex does show, Alan is fast to save them.  Not only that, but he comforts them and assures them that everything is all right.
 
Where is Ellie in all this?  She didn't have to go through any of this because it wasn't her personal journey.  She's perfect.  She's Mother.  Superman is actually a woman and her secret identity is Mother.  That's how awesome Mom is.  Even though she doesn't have the journey with the kids, every moment with her is still precious.  She's one of my favorite parts of the film, more than half of all the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.  Even though she doesn't go through any sort of character development, that's fine.  She has nothing to prove, although she does have the compassion to show forgiveness to an old man, eating over a table with a souvenir shop nearby that will forever go unused.  One day, I will be old like John Hammond, and I too will have to admit defeat when after a lifetime of chasing my childhood dreams I realize that it amounts to nothing.  When that day comes, I pray that I will have someone like Ellie to care for me and love me as a human being, the way my mother did when I was a kid.  Ellie can do that.  She's my mom, and I really, truly mean that.
 
In 1993, minus a big belly full of yours truly, my mother looked just like Ellie Sattler.  People aren't supposed have memories of being a baby, and while only a few memories stick out, I remember what my mother looked like as clear as day.  It helps that near the beginning, Ellie wore jeans then went half up her waste, and her choice of clothing is such a clear reminder of the times and of the 90's when I was a toddler.  What I wouldn't give to have that moment stuck in time and live there forever.  Forget dinosaurs; I miss my mom.
 
Even though that particular thought caused me to crawl into my bed afterword, at least I still had a good number of tears of joy before that, because there was still so much that this film had to offer.  The perspective left the adults after Alan brought the kids back to the main museum.  The kids have that time to themselves, and for several scenes the spotlight is theirs.  In a game of children versus Velociraptors, the children win with ingenuity and sheer determination.  That, and simply by being kids.  Nobody can beat a lovable kid.  Not even Batman can win against a kid being a kid.  It's just not possible, because being a kid is awesome.
 
The ensemble cast gets back together and faces the raptors as a nuclear family.  That's another thing that not even Chuck Norris can defeat, which is the power of a loving family.  Mom, Dad, Brother, and Sister combine into some sort of ultimate force that is eternally in the favor of the story gods, and for good reason.  For a movie like this, I would not want it any other way.  They're not out of danger yet, and they haven't time to dance in a field of flowers yet.  They aren't the Incredibles, and they don't give the narrative puppy-dog eyes, but in that moment I sometimes forget that Lex and Tim aren't Ellie and Alan's children.  The unit seems so complete, and I loved every minute of them trying to escape the dinosaurs.  They are impossible not to root for, and I root for them harder than almost anyone I have ever rooted for in my whole life.  I know my parents could be as cool in that situation and help me through it, because my parents are dependable like that.
 
Then, when put in an impossible situation and brought closer together than every before, Spielberg pulls off a one-of-a-kind moment that can only be called the deus rex machina.  Was there ever any doubt that this family would make it out alive?  The Tyrannosaurus rex triumphantly bellows as a flag falls down saying "Welcome to Jurassic Park".  There's the Lion King and then there's the Tyrant Lizard King, and between the ending of this movie and the beginning of the other movie, I'm having trouble deciding which is more epic and cinematic.
 
John Hammond drives up and helps the family escape in reverence as Rex roars atop his thrown.  They have been humbled before him and learned their lesson.  They have every right to be fascinated by their beauty and their power, but under no circumstances will these majestic creatures ever be theirs.  What they did escape with, however, was each other.  While my heart breaks for John because of how all his dreams proved so wrong, I smile with Ellie when I see the children cuddle up against Alan.  Those kids learned of the best and the worst an adult can be.  Alan discovered he truly did love these kids.  This makes me want to be a kid again.  It makes me want to be a father so that I can rediscover childhood through kids, or find new meaning in life.  If life finds a way, then maybe I am a fool, but I also want so badly to find a way to realize my impossible dreams so I can give John Hammond to smile about.
 
Most of all, it makes me want my mom.
 
Mr. Hammond, after careful consideration, I have decided to endorse your part.
 

24601

 
 
 
Wow.  My expectations were pretty high when I entered into the theatre, because the trailers made this look like a pretty solid action film.  I love it when my expectations are high and they are still beat.
 
Where to start?  This film is technically perfect.  I am predicting that a year from now it's going to have a nomination for Best Picture. The whole package is good.  It has great directing, great acting, great characterization, great writing, great music, great pacing, great editing, great cinematography, and great action (thus championing its genre).  I know that many films get praised for daring to mix genres, such as The Dark Knight.  Others will play their genres straight, but tongue-in-cheek, such as The Expendables.  This manages to find an extraordinary balance.  It's strictly of the action genre, but it also manages to be more than that by being great as a movie.
 
There's a genre out there.  I like to call it the Movie Genre.  You won't find it in any books, and there's no rules for it.  All that is required is that a movie is a really good movie, and not just good for its type.  Hence, Olympus Has Fallen is a great action film, and also a great film even though it didn't bring in another genre to add appeal.  Right now, that's becoming the popular thing among directors and writers who aren't secure with what they have, and it's beginning to feel formulaic.  Olympus Has Fallen instead opts to master its own genre, while also proving itself in all the areas of expectation that I would have going in to see any other movie.  There's nothing for me to criticize, and there's not even anything that I feel I need to forgive, as with other films that are good with what they are.
 
"Action movie" has always had a dirty sound to it among cinema goers, like it's a guilty pleasure.  It's of an inherently lesser quality.  It's something that we can't apply the same standards to, something that can never be quite as tasteful as a movie such as A Beautiful Mind.  It can't be noble and can't be a fine art.  Yet, a lot of suppositions I had about the genre were flipped here.  Directors can make something out of an action premise alone, and turn it into a mature drama.
 
Without giving anything away, let me cover the beginning of the film.  The title shows right away as block words against a black background, with a shot of a waving American flag visible through the letters.  It's hard to describe, but the cinematography of the moment gave me a very good impression of what the rest of the film would be like, and that I was going to see more than just the best action film premise in years.
 
There are no surprises here, since it's clear from the trailer that the president's wife dies early on in the film, and Gerard Butler's character, Mike Banning, rescues the president instead of her.  As expected, the buildup here is devoid of action.  The opening scene is purely character establishment, which can be very forced, but there's a good flow, and Director Antoine Fuqua avoids overdoing it or taking cheap attempts at making the characters overly colorful.  Fuqua does something very subtle, and allows the actors to simply act.  They succeed, and they bring the characters to life without making them larger-than-life.
 
There is also a sense of momentum.  Many action movies contain scenes like these because they feel mandatory in order for the film not to feel like a cheap action flick.  This, on the other hand, feels necessary.  There's a good reason for Mike Banning and the president to go through this.  It also stays intriguing all on its own.
 
Skip ahead eighteen months, and there's explosive tensions between North and South Korea.  Something similar was attempted in the film Red Dawn, without success.  The president, his cabinet, and the Speaker of the House get together in a room, and they discuss the issue.  While it doesn't feel as to-the-tee as Spielberg's Lincoln, it doesn't feel as if they took any liberties in the behind-the-scenes discussions of politicians.  For that matter, nothing that happened behind the scenes in this film sounded speculative.  In any case, as the various officials spoke their first lines, their names and titles were put onscreen.  As a personal preference, I find this really stylish.  My realization that my high expectations were being broken continued to blossom.
 
It's also interesting that Olympus Has Fallen was filmed a year ago, and yet its release date corresponds almost perfectly with news about new tensions between the Koreas.  The way it is depicted in the movie is eerily similar, as if the script was written by a time traveler   Of course, as far as tensions go, it doesn't take much to say that the fictional tensions here are similar to those in real life. It's pretty easy to imagine what North Korea looks like whenever it saber-rattles.  The headlines of the movie match almost exactly the style of the headlines today, and it's a very convenient coincidence.  I don't know if the movie will ever have the same impact in a year as it will today for that reason, though it will still stand as a pretty good movie for those who watch it.
 
The Koreans attack the White House.  The plane revealed in the trailer was only a small fraction of what went on in that storming of the Bastille.  In fact, I'm going to say right here and now that everything about that trailer shows only a small fraction of what goes on in this film, and the best moments are saved for the film itself.  While nothing that happens in the movie contradicts what the trailer lets one on to believe, it's so much more than that.  In that way, this film had a perfect trailer, because it stays true to how it is advertised, it is so good that it's better than what you can imagine it to be and you have to see it for yourself.
 
Back to the details of the attack on the White House, I was surprised at how much sense it made.  There was a real, plausible reason for the plane being able to fly over U.S. soil without being intercepted, because in fact it was, but was adequately prepared for it.  The rest of their attack is intense.  Everyone has realistic marksman skills, and a lot of people die.  That included civilians, which was frightening, because in most films they score low on the sorting algorithm of mortality.   For a full thirteen-minute sequence of film, it had all the scale of a war movie.  The Koreans had incredible strategy.  It was fierce   It made me afraid for Mike Banning.  Because of the subtle acting skills of various characters, I was genuinely concerned about the life of everyone there.  A lot of them died during some intense action.  What's more, I was sickened to see the Koreans shooting every dead body they found in the head just in case.  I personally would have played possum, and in that situation my genius plan would have been useless.
 
After that glorious raid, I really wondered how the rest of the film was going to live up to that.  I was also wondering how in the world Mike was going to take care of the impossible situation the head terrorist set up, because the villain was smart, resourceful, vicious, and intimidating.  Yet, it made sense that Mike could make the difference he did, since his main option was engaging in guerrilla warfare and using his knowledge of the White House to his advantage.  The situation throughout movie was also in constant flow to keep up the suspense, and many times while watching it, my heart started racing, because I never really knew when the status quo was going to change.  I would call a lot of these moments "plot twists", but that term implies a surprise intended to change the way a film is to be viewed, or to put a more negative interpretation of it, a cheap novelty.  There were many times where I thought a large portion of the movie was going to be dedicated to one plot point, because films so often work out in certain ways, but shuffled through them and kept each scene fresh.
 
On the whole, when I went in faintly hoping for the coolest thing since Air Force One, or perhaps even Die Hard, as far as the action genre was concerned.  Now that I have seen it, I truly believe that it was.  Maybe I haven't seen enough action movies to figure out which ones are good "movie" movies, and I'm not denying that there could very well be ones that I haven't seen between now and the release of those classics.  That doesn't negate the solid basis for this film.
 
Finally, a personal story: Some of my buddies visited Washington D.C. a few weeks ago for a political convention and watched this movie in a hotel a week before its general release.  It must have been a unique cinematic experience, and I'm almost jealous of them, save for how freakishly weird it would have been.  Also, one of those "buddies" is a manipulative prick who makes any group experience less enjoyable.  He probably brought a political viewpoint to it when he saw it, but it's not that kind of film and it's perfectly content to leave things as "God bless America".  If I did go, I would have sat next to a real buddy of mine who is a marine.  Now that would have been a great experience.
 
God bless America!
 

24601

 
 
 
I had the opportunity watch Life of Pi or this.  Since I don't like watching movies based off of books that I want to read, I went with this.
 
At first glance, this looked to be a B-Movie.  It turned out to be not even that.  And no, it's not so bad it's good.  It simply falls flat and has nothing to offer.  There's some good action here, and some of these people are legitimately good actors.  However, why is Josh Peck still playing a teenager?  I really want to give him a chance at older and more mature roles, but he's being typecast as the slightly dorky brother now.  Come on, he's buffed up since then!
 
Peck was actually my main reason for seeing this film.  I thought that he was going to be hardcore, that this was his chance to be manly.  Yet, the casting director decided to not only make him the week link of the team but put him next to Thor for emphasis.  Come on, guys.  At least give him a cool haircut or something.  There was a sense after the film was over that he was as hardcore as his brother, and it kind of worked, but not that much.
 
What I can give this film is that it starts out fast.  There's maybe only a scene or two before they cut to the chase.  I'm glad that they didn't make me wait too long, but the first film started out early in its very first scene.
 
Yes, I watched the original right after this film.  Heck, I'll draw a bunch of comparisons right at the end of the review, when i really want to cut loose, but I still want to get talking about what this movie got wrong even when you take the context away.
 
It's not that the characters are unrealistic, or that there are any plot holes.  There's some nice action.  Perhaps that's the main reason why anyone went to see this movie, although I'm sure that some wanted to watch it to see if it could build off of another story and add more to it.  Watching this and knowing that it was a remake, I couldn't help but get the sense that the original was better.  I just knew it.  In my bones.  It wasn't something I could confirm until later, but the fact that I could get that impression just watching the remake all on its own speaks leaps and bounds.
 
On its own, what did it get wrong?  Why did it fail as a cinematic experience.  First, the climax had no substance.  That's always bad. Yet, I'm going to go out and talk about the band of brothers here.  First, Josh Hutcherson was a useless character.  I think there was some sort of subplot about him getting over his fears or something, but it really had no substance.  It was just thrown in there, and there was no lyrical throw to it.  I kept on wondering, "Why is this guy in the movie?"
 
Then there's Josh and his older.  After a ton of action and other nonsensical throwaway material, the Koreans get a Russian who specializes in putting down insurgencies.  During the Wolverine's (the name for the main cast, for those not in the know) most important mission, one of the characters gets tackles by two or three Koreans.  I can't remember, since it's been a while since I saw it and it was dark when it happened, while the cinematographer clearly had clearly caught a case of shakycam.  The point it, the Russian walks up to him, sticks a needle in him, and the Koreans let him go.  The guy runs off.
 
This part confounds me.  Is there nothing conspicuous about that?  You were tackled by multiple guys, stabbed, and let go.  They didn't chase after you.  Does it make a difference if I phrase this in the second person, so you can imagine that you are this guy?  Doesn't something about that situation seem a bit off?  If I remember correctly, that character might have even been informed of the purposes of that Russian guy, but I might be mistaken.  In any case, he really should have known that he had a tracking device on him.  Come on, man.
 
Now it's off to the Wolverine's celebrating their recent victory over those pesky invaders.  They got the MacGuffin, and things are looking pretty good.  Thor papa-squats next to his little bro.  Things get quiet.  Up until that point, Josh's character had a lot of trouble with rash judgement, endangering the rest of the group with emotion-based decisions.  He finally manned up with the final raid.  Thor gives him an "I love you, man" talk.  They smile.  It's a tender, quality moment.
 
And it was all just a dream.  No, wait, wrong plot twist.  That would have been a twist.  But no, the obvious thing happened, except I could tell they were trying to make it not-so-obvious.  Yeah right, like that's ever going to happen.
 
See, with a scene like this, I can almost guarantee that something tragic will happen almost instantly afterword, and it did.  I called it the moment the scene began, and I was correct down to the very moment it would happen.  Thor got up, his moment of approval now over.  Josh feels good about himself.  Thor walks over to the doorway to meet with his girlfriend.
 
Bam!
 
Right in the head!  And I predicted the five-second time frame that it would occur.  The girlfriend kneels over him and starts screaming in despair, while the guys get all panicked and have to drag her along.  They start shooting out the windows, trying to escape, succeed, and so forth, until they confirm later on that they have indeed been via the homing beacon in their pal's stomach.  Thor's girlfriend gets ticked, and he's left behind.
 
And I'm telling you all of this because I don't consider these spoilers.  They were really obvious.
 
On another note, the two girlfriends.  Thor's and Josh's.  I can't remember who played which, since they seemed a bit interchangeable to me.  That's not necessarily a bad thing in a movie like this, but it's really disappointing in a reboot.  However, I think that Thor's girlfriend was played by Adrianne Palicki.  Coincidentally, she was slated to play Wonder Woman in a television show.  Good thing that never happened.  In any case, in hind sight, it is amusing that Marvel's main mythological character and DC's main mythological character collided.
 
Oh, and both actresses were in their late twenties when playing these parts.
 
Then, using my resources as a college student, I watched the original with a group of people I considered friends.  The original was a bit tackier, but there was something cool about it.  The characters were slightly more colorful.  Charlie Sheen, while kind of hated today, at least played a pretty good role, being that guy in the letterman jacket.  There was another guy who often wore a Star Wars hat.  They had some cool camouflage outfits.  Patrick Swayze was the lead character.  The deaths were a little more sudden and felt more tragic.
 
And Lea Thompson.  My goodness, Lea Thompson.  You know Marty McFly's mother?  That's her.  That right there is enough to make the original not only special compared to this one, but special in its own merit.  Was her character just a little silly?  Yeah, kind of.  She had this weird crush in that film.  Still, everything about her character is cooler than those random extras who dated Thor and Josh.
 
The original also had a better villain.  In that one, the US was invaded by Cuba, and the Cuban commander who tried hunting down the Wolverines was a little more human of a character.  That's not saying that the Korean guy in the remake was inhuman, but by comparison, where was some more depth in the Cuban, if only a little.  There was more humor, more conflict, and something else in him.  He didn't like being a bad guy.  He didn't like killing.  The Wolverines wore him out, and it didn't personally want to kill them.  He actually let Patrick Swayze's character live when he saw that he was already dying and carrying his dead brother.  He had a lover back home.  Was there an incredible performance?  No, but it was certainly more memorable that the Korean officer who I hardly cared about.  There was humor there between the villains that wasn't in the remake.  It was a nicer experience.
 
And it had Lea Thompson, who's a blessed angel in disguise.  I watched the original a second time just for Lea Thompson's character.
 
So overall, earlier last year I also watched Total Recall, another remake of a classically cheesy action movie that went horribly wrong.  However, at least that one had a memorable moment or two.  Nothing significant, but at least it had that.  As far as the action goes, there is nothing I remember from this new Red Dawn.  These negative tings that I make fun of right now are pretty much the only tidbits I can come up with.  Every once and a while I think "but this part was particularly charming and cool", but then I realize that it was from the original.
 
A tip to screenwriters Carl Ellsworth and and Jeremy Passmore: if you're going to create a remake, take everything that was in the original and flesh it out with an extra dimension added to the characters instead of merely changing the time period.
 
And seriously, I could have watched Best Director, Best Special Effects, and Best Original Soundtrack winning The Life of Pi!
 

24601

 
 
 
This controversial film is something that people seem to either love or hate.  I have encountered people who think that it's not a Bond film, while I, with my limited experience with Bond films, feel that it's a Bondier film than any ever made.  Certainly, it has a new feel, and it definitely stands out, because there's something different about this one.  There's something special and unique.
 
Since I don't know where to start, I might as well begin at the beginning.  It sets the tone with a unique cinematography which persists throughout the film, showcases a dramatic and creative action chase, and ten cuts to the chase (lame pun intended) to one of most iconic moments for any Bond film, which is the song.
 
The song really sets the tone.  "Skyfall" sounds really straightforward  right?  I guess so.  After all, it shares the same title as the film.  Yet, it's haunting, mesmerizing, and sad.  There's a hint of dread there.  The surreal title sequence is, likewise, equally haunting.  The moment the music starts, something stirs (now that intentional pun wasn't lame), and the familiar images of Bond shooting enemy spies and of pretty women flashes by.  Those things are mandatory.  What interested me, however, were the other things, these strange, unconnected mirages that had something to do with the film kept on popping up.  One of them was obvious from the get-go: depictions of bond getting shot.  Yet, there were also pictures of target practice boards, graveyards, old shacks, skulls composed of these elements, and - most curiously - deer silhouettes.  What did all this mean?
 
Whatever it was, everything had a ghostly feel to it, and it was one of the few Bond songs that I actually found memorable.  A part of that was Adele's piercingly sullen voice.  Another part of it was that it was a good song, and I could listen to it on the radio (as I indeed did).  It also won an Oscar, which might not say much to some people, but it certainly provides evidence for the quality of the song if it was voted song of the year among fellow film artists.
 
With that tone set, this turned out to be a very dramatic Bond movie.  To take the side against those who say that it wasn't a Bond film, I bring up the counterpoint that it still struck many of the same chords, just in different ways.  It still had that sense of glam that no other espionage film will ever rightfully have, except this time around the glam went to a moody drama and a tale of loss and being lost.  James Bond finds himself in a dark place throughout the film.  His soul is troubled.  There's actually some substance to his character.
 
In spite of this, there's still some heart and some humor.  This isn't a Christopher Nolan film we're talking about here.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is a better take at a "realistic" adaptation of a popular franchise than The Dark Knight was four years before, because it doesn't entirely get caught up in that.  However, it seems that for the authors, this time around they want the emotions of the main character to be real.  They wanted to inject some humanity into him, while still being loyal to the pillars of what makes James the man he is.
 
Therefore, they clear off some of their ditzy smiles and admit that, realistically, James Bond would not make an ideal agent.  The only reason why he's in his line of service is due to the unyielding faith of Judy Dench's M.  After returning from getting shot at the beginning of the film, he's scarred, both physically and emotionally.  He has to go through training again.  It's really plain from the audience's point of view that he's not really up to the job.  He can't aim.  He can't meet the athletic standards.  He has his limits, and in many ways he in incompetent.
 
Here's the kicker.  His chauvinistic personality is acknowledged in-film as a weakness.  This was never truly acknowledged before.  The storytellers still glamorize these things, since Bond films need glam, but there's a hint of irony in it all.  They acknowledge that these things don't make him cool because they're ideal, but because they're personality flaws that make him an iconic anti-hero.  So while the glorification is still there, it is at least a glorification under the right light.  The storytellers understand what kind of hero he is.  The same can't really be said for other icons such as Batman, who is still hailed as a relatable character who represents ideal heroism, which is really far from the truth.  As such, because of the soul-searching that Bond must g through with this film, I relate to this guy more, as far as semi-dark anti-heroes go.
 
The cool thing is that he has his limits, but he doesn't overcome them with Mary Sue talent.  His gadgets only get so fancy, and his plans are only so intricate.  He's constantly in a corner, and it really does feel like he's in trouble.  Once, when chasing a particular bad guy, it's evident just how hard he has to work in order to pull off some of his stunts.  Many of his attempts to get information are also foiled.  The writers had to try hard to justify Bond's existence in this film, and it was a sub-theme that characters such as M had to deal with.
 
Skip ahead a little, and the film takes a twist.  It seemed to be about one thing, but it was really about another.  We finally get to see the villain for this film, and to my surprise, it was not the ultimate villain implied in the previous two films.  So go figure: this isn't really a continuation of the story establishes thus far and more of a side adventure, although I have to say that there was a really good reason for that.  I'll explain that at the end of this review.
 
Anyway, the villain.  I have to say, Bond villains rarely make an impression on me.  They are almost always boring, stock characters with little personality, and they're kind of cheesy.  However, this particular character, Silva, is played by the glorious Javier Bardem.  I predicted a possibility of him getting nominated for Best Supporting Actor but not winning when I first saw the movie.  Turns out that the prediction was wrong, but then, I can understand why it wouldn't get nominated for anything particularly exclusive   It's not the ultimate acting achievement to bring gravitas to a role, and a lot of actors can do that.  Christopher Lee will never get nominated for playing Saruman, and Javier will never get nominated for playing this legitimately cool bad guy, because in terms of sheer acting prowess it's nothing to sneeze at, but in terms of how entertaining and cool the character was...that's another deal.
 
Without giving away much about the villain, I will say that he does use some illogical Gambit Roulette   Fortunately, it's not too out-there, and the whole time he does seem menacing and difficult to compete with, given his form of terrorism and his level of competency.  His reasons for being villainous are intensely personal, and he relates strongly with James Bond.  There's a slight invisible connection between them, a sense where they truly get each other.  It's a little creepy.  The villain certainly causes James, if only slightly, to take a small look inward.  The business between Bond and the villain is actually onto semi-personal.  The personal issue the villain has is actually with another character, and darn, it's really fascinating.  There's something scary about a man with such a grimly serious agenda and a firm reason for having it.  I can believe that this man wanted what he was working for, and the chemistry between him and the character he was personally involved with really felt real and intense.  Throw James Bond into the mix, and it's much more harrowing to see him actually involving himself in the affairs of real humans.
 
With all this explosive character chemistry going on, Bond really has to take things up a notch.  In so many ways, he's no match for the villain, who's too smart, too powerful, and too determined for him.  How do you make a character like Bond seem remotely relevant in a film like this, when for once he just might get outshown by the villain?  Bond's childhood is brought up.  We get to delve into his past.  The title of the story turns out to have a very personal meaning.
 
As we know, James is an orphan.  This film plays with that.  It doesn't mess with what's been established, as far as I can tell.  It doesn't have flashbacks.  Still, the idea of Bond having to deal with that, to some extent, brings so much about this film together and really ups the ante as far as the scope goes.  When he's pushed to his limits, he has to fight on his home turf, all alone.  He doesn't have the aid of fellow field agents - only his closest friends.  When he and the villain have almost nothing to lose, save for the things that they live for, both turn out to be incredibly resourceful and daring.  Bond makes use of some incredible ingenuity and is willing to sacrifice a lot.
 
During the climax, there's some dramatic lighting, and some really cool shots that made this a rather pleasing film to see in the theatre and that really set it apart from any other spy film I have ever seen.  It was indisputably Bond in its execution, and very much a good drama.  So much about this felt big and larger than life, which is what big-screen movies need to be.  I also love that the film often times took advantage of the big screen and had several great wide shots, especially when it needed it the most, when Bond was dealing with the Bardem's villain and it was necessary to see them on the set for the full impact of their standoffs to take effect.    When they both finally give it their all, they come to a reckoning - something that I always invite in a Bond film and something that is impossible to do with any regularity.
 
So let's get to the fact as to why this is still a Bond film.  The main theme is still used - thank God.  Sometimes humorously, sometimes lovingly.  There's a moment were there are strong references to the old Bond films.  There are nods to retro aspects of the franchise, while ushering in the new.  I'm reminded of the remarkable phenomenon known as "James Bond casting", where a remake or continuity reboot doesn't necessarily mean that all of the characters have to be replaced with different actors, or that the music and other iconic elements have to change.  This film knows its tropes and knows its place in culture (I really wish that Zack Snyder felt the same, as well as other American directors,but apparently not).  There's still the Bond girl, as well as "Bond and a babe in a boat", though this time it's treated with slightly more tragic air, as a result of his instability.  There's still the classic "shaken, not stirred" Martini, but it's delivered with a surprisingly indirect ease.  It takes many cliches and plays them straight, except with as much drama and Bond-glam as possible, since a Bond is the one place where cliches can work.
 
In short, this film burns everything that we knew about James Bond to the ground only to build it all back up again.  At the end, it reminded me of J.J. Abram's Star Trek, where it fell on the note of a content love for everything that it has been and everything that it will be.  Ben Whishaw became the new Q, who until recently I could have sworn he was Benedict Cumberbatch.  So much of the recurring cast associated with Bond films that has been absent in this remake finally came on screen, and the full ensemble got together to have their moment to shine.  This was not meant to be a continuation of Bond's conflict in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, but it certainly set the stage for Bond to be Bondier in the upcoming films, so I certainly look forward to the future of the Bond franchise.  Skyfall did more to reboot James Bond than Casino Royale did.
 

24601

 
From the way fans describe this movie, you could almost swear the director was a Wal*Mart greeter.  Fans of Star Trek love to rant about which movies they hate, and this is usually near the top of the list.  I don't know: from what I remember of The Journey Home, I actually prefer this.  It has its charm, and something to fall in love with, although it's definitely not one of the best ones out there.
 
It's primary fault is that it feels more like an extended episode with a high budget.  Chief among these problems is that the majority of the film is spend inside the bridge of the Enterprise, which means that the movie doesnt' have as much flexibility and sense of journey as it ought to have.  Of course, not every camera angle is frmo within the main set.  There are plenty of scenes that remind me of 2001: A Space Odyssey as it takes forever for Kirk and Scotty to dock the Enterprise, among other drawn-out moments.  The movie actually has great special effects for the day, and clearly a higher budget than its legendary sequel.  V-GER's design was spectacular and had a distinct, wondrous feel that reminded me of science fiction movies when I was just a kid, something modern films can't really recapture.  It just might make people nostalgic.
 
Of course, once you find out what V-GER is, it isn't too hard to find out newcomer Captain Decker's plot purpose is.  He's a red shirt, just without the red shirt.  So was Ilea.  They weren't any different than the typical guest character for an episode.  The ending likewise felt like a normal episode once their personal journeys were complete.  Kirk, Spock, and Bones remain unchanged, frustrating fans who might have wanted to see just a little more from them.
 
Overall, however, between the spectacular attempt to clean and polish up the world of Star Trek, thus keeping up with its optimistic philosophy, through new costumes, sets, special effects, and - most importantly - music, and that this still would have made a brilliant final episode for the series, I think it adequately bridges the television show with the solemn movies that came afterword, and it was a worthy experience.  While it didn't achieve greatness, it was good first movie for this franchise.
 

24601

 
I was really excited for the movie and it made for a wonderful way of celebrating Christmas.  When I walked into the theatre, it was packed, and that was saying something considering that it was a big theatre.  It was a good thing I claimed my seats early.
 
Regardless of this film's quality, I formed some opinions beforehand.  First, any Les Miserables film is better than no Les Miserables at all.  It's a story that needs to constantly be retold, and I can live without seeing my dream version realized onscreen so long as good versions come out to refresh this story's place in our super-paced international culture.
 
That being said, this is a version of Les Miserables, not the version.  It lacks a full, comprehensive sense of grace and elegance as it takes on the monumental task of translating the musical's nonstop singing from on stage to on screen.  I wasn't a fan of how the camera was constantly on the faces of the actors with extreme close-ups, nor how the only time it wasn't handheld was when it was making sweeping, creative shots similar to the artistic style of Baz Luhrmann, which didn't make for the quintessential Les Miserables experience.  There were far too  many times when I was conspicuously aware of how creative the director was getting with the camera, particularly during character songs.  The place where it fit the most was with the Thernandiers, with which is became delightful fun and the style came to some fruition.
 
The characters also took times to speak, as seen in the trailer, but contrary to what the trailer suggests, the movie is actually incredibly faithful to the play.  Essentially all the songs remain, and some are even added.  I was honestly expecting the director to cut several of them in order to create for a smoother film.  It looks like he couldn't bear to part with them, which is just as well, because I doubt 99% of the audience could, either.  The consequence of this is the afformentioned problems with trying to make it all fit into a graceful screenplay, hence the comparisons to Baz Luhrmann instead Tom Hooper's previous film, The King's Speech, with which I would have preferred more stylistic similarities.
 
There were times when this style realy worked, though.  Whenever there was a character with heavy makeup on, such as the Thenardiers and the prostitutes, it worked wonderfully and it felt like an appropriate translation of a stage production into a cinematic piece.
 
Then there were any and all scenes involving Fantine.  I was, of course, aware of Anne Hathaway's presence, but she brought a lot to the role, and she could sell to me that Fantine looked like her.  I realy like her as Fantine, especialy after she cut her hair in realtime.  As a side note, it was also really cool that they kept her hair cut for when she appears to Valjean as an angel instead of depicting her Hayen-Christianson-as-Anakin-Skywalker-style.  In general, she was a brilliant highlight for the film and my favorite version of Fantine.
 
The Thenardiers were also very fun.  Sacha Baron-Cohen was perfect for the Mr. of the couple and fit into the role in the way I had always seen it in my mind's eye.  He's another favorite to come out of this film.  Helena Bonham-Carter, meanwhile, fit into her role and might be someone's favorite, although I've seen enough renditions that I can think of an actress whos performance I have liked better.
 
However, if we are to nitpick, the beginning of the film has its problems.  The singing at first didn't initially seem to fit.  Far too much of it was directed in such a style that it seemed Tom Hooper didn't want it to sound like singing, but...Come on, it's a musical.  Far too often, Valjean sounded a bit more hoarse than he needed to be.  It made sense, but at the same time, it was done in such a way that it robbed the character of some of his power.  Javert, meanwhile, was a stark surprise when he first started singing, but his voice was something I got used to fast by the time his next song came up.
 
The style of the film continued to suffer with trouble finding a visual grace that matched that of the music until sometime after Valjean received his pardon from the Bishop of Digne and broke his parole, somewhere in the second act.  Before I move on to that, though, let me take this time to praise Colm Wilkinson as the dearly beloved Monseigneur Myriel.  Not only is he my favorite Valjean, but he's also my favorite Bishop of Digne.  He brings a lot to the role, an amazing sense of grace, and there's a little bit more to the role by the end of the movie where he's played up just a little more than past renditions of the character.  It fits, considering the profound impact he had on Valjean.  I can't tell anyone exactly what little extra bit they did with the character; it would ruin the surprise.  But I loved it, and it helped complete the experience for me.
 
Anyway, the filming style was still awkward at that point.  Then Valjean sings into the camera, which follows him around while simultaneously employing creative angles and extreme close-ups.  Then it performs a dramatic zoom to Javert as the movie flashes forward.
 
And then it finds its way with Fantine.  Yes, I believe that's where the film comes to some maturity.  It got better as it got along and the style found itself.
 
Meanwhile, some of Javert's explanation on the supposed discovery of Jean Valjean isn't explained in song, or at least not fully.  The song after the real Valjean lifts the cart isn't fully explained.  This isn't a widely popular song, though, so having that cut just a little short doesn't hurt anybody.  The scene where Valjean confessed his identity before the court lacked a bit of grace.  The story was good, but the director was really straining himself.
 
Then Fantine sang about Cosette and I cried.  The last time this happened to me during a movie was six or seven years ago when I watched Schindler's List.  Hathaway's chemistry with Jackman really brought out something in his performance, although Jackman had yet to fully grow into the role.  That much didn't happen until he picked up Cosette, refused to be fooled by the Thernandiers, and sang the original song "Suddenly".  Then the movie skips ahead several years, and he's definitely Jean Valjean.
 
Don't get me wrong.  I really wanted to be convinced by Hugh Jackman, and I had confidence in his acting.  However, due to the directing where the camera tried to tell the story and other factors, it turned out that it took a little longer to accept him in the role than I would have liked, and Jean Valjean doesn't really, truly come to life until the third act.  Other people might interpret the acting in a different way, although, and perhaps others will find it more powerful than I did.  There's a buzz, after all, of this performance being Oscar worthy.
 
Now, at to the third act, I congratulate Samantha Barks on her breakout role.  I also commend the lesser-known actor who played Marius Pontmercy.  Amanda Seyfried, however, doesn't have much to bring to the role of Cosette as an actress.  It was a lovely role, and I found myself liking her, although it had nothing to do with Seyfried's acting.  She just didn't screw it up with bad acting.  Her singing, however, was quite good and had a certain quality about it that really sounded right for the character, and I can see why she was cast.  Between her, Marius, and Eponine, this love triangle forms some of the greatest singing in the movie.  Enjolras was also a great singer, another with a classic voice that adds some of the play's elegance to this screen epiction.
 
The third act also fully immerses the film in the world of musicals.  That world opens up, broadens, and brings together its full cast, from the central characters of Jean Valjean and Javert to the next generation of characters who fight in the student uprising.  The sets get more use, and the characters are given more freedom to act during scenes of revolution.
 
From here, I really have no qualms with the style that haven't already been said, but at least at this point they've all settled in so that they fit as naturally into the story as they can.  Valjean dies, and boy is it a death.  I really have to give this a lot of credit for being a great movie ending.
 
So at the end of the day, what is my analysis of the film?  Those faults in directing style don't upset me much.  I personally really liked the new faces of Hathaway and Baron-Cohen in their respective roles.  Others might find favorites in Bonham-Carter and Crowe in theirs, who each did their parts justice.  Jackman, meanwhile, is presumably a better singer than the style of this movie lets on and should have been given the opportunity to really let loose and give Valjean's voice the operatic grace it was meant to have in order to give the role its true power.  He was good during songs such as "Who Am I?" where he let his voice go free, but was more restrained during the beloved "Bring Him Home" prayer.  Still, he managed to play Jean Valjean and channel the role.  The same goes for Crowe, and both of them definitely deliver good acting performances that will be remembered more than their singing.  I don't realistically see a ton of Oscars around the corner for this movie, although it will certainly get nominations, with a Anne Hathaway having the greatest chance of winning one.
 
This is a film version.  It's frozen in time.  It can be used as an official standard, should people use its unchanging nature to those ends.  However, it won't.  People who see this as a stage production will discover that it's the medium where it's the most powerful.  This is just another version of Les Miserables, and I was expecting something new, so to heck with the timeles standards.  I have to appreciate Tom Hooper for taking huge risks with this movie, and though in places I don't think the style lived up to hopes, the story was solid.  This is Les Miserables we're talking about (I would have put those words in italics for emphasis, but seeing as they're for a title, I already have), and in whatever form it comes in, it makes a perfect Christmas present with a great story about redemption, compassion, and the special worth of all human life.
 
Speaking of which, before the clock strikes midnight, Merry Christmas!
 

24601

 
One does not simply walk in the shoes of Lincoln.  He is not a role like Luke Skywalker, who was an original creation that one could cast anyone before because we had no idea what a Luke Skywalker was.  No, this is the man whose face we literally see every day on the faces of five doller bills and pennies.  Many actors have come and gone playing him, but the part of Lincoln has, as far as I can recall, always been a supporting character in civil war movies, someone whose presence was limited because of the impossibility of sustaining the illusion that he was real.
 
That is why Daniel Day-Lewis is an actor's actor.  That's an amazing stovepipe hat to fill, and goodness, in spite of the task previously pinned by me to be impossible, he does it.  Yes, I am vaguely aware of how he doesn't look exactly like Lincoln, since after all the real man's face is on money, but he was Lincoln.  This is not something where an actor just shows up to an audition and does his thing and allows his presence to do the work for him.  No, this took genuine work.  Many actors have come to the role, such as Gregory Peck in The Blue and the Grey, and have added presence to the role.  They have given Lincoln a sense of drama, an air of nobility.  Daniel Day-Lewis manages to go beyond that, however, beyond the marble carving other actors and directors have turned him into and delivers a soulful performance, and while watching this movie there was no doubt in my mind that this was Lincoln.  This isn't just a good performance; this is one of the great performances for the ages.
 
When you combing the divine acting skills of Daniel Day-Lewis and the masterful storytelling finesse of Stephen Spielberg, this is a soulful, powerful Lincoln that is destined to become a legend of cinematic history, and is all but guaranteed the Oscar for Best Actor unless academy voters decide to be prejudiced against an actor who has already won the award.  However, as otherwise stated, this is an actor's actor.  The other possible contender for the prize is Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean, but that's a stage role where people are used to the usual carousel of faces with different interpretations of the character.  Jean Valjean is my favorite fictional character, but Abraham Lincoln was a real person whose personality has becomed carved into the stone tablets of American history, and it's far harder to deliver a convincing, definitive performance that brings him back to life.  That is by far one of the greatest challenges an actor can be dealt, one that not even most professional actors can pull off, and as such it only makes sense in my mind that Daniel Day-Lewis was the best actor this year by every sense of the term.
 
Sally Field, meanwhile, was also equally as convincing as Mary Todd Lincoln.  I was vaguely aware that there was an actress behind the role, but that was only when my mind tried to disect the movie and something about her eyes seemed familiar, but Sally Field was perfect for the role and I was only aware it was her after I stayed behind to see her name in the credits.  She was amazing, and I can't recall any other movie where Mrs. Lincoln played such a prominent role.
 
The guy who played Secretary of State Seward, meanwhile, was also perfect for this prominent role and was 100% convincing.  I might add that every single one of these actors mentioned thus far were also visually perfect for their roles, and I don't know how Spielberg managed to come across such convenient combinations.
 
Slightly less convincing was Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens, who no metter what brings that Tommy Lee presence to his roles.  However, while his performance isn't ultra-convincing, he brings charm and charisma to the role, and the moment he first enters on screen there's no doubt just who this person is and where he fits in with everything.  Along with Lincoln, he's the other rominent character who must be challenged in order to pass the Thirteenth Amendment.  One may or may not like his performance, and I don't think it depends on whether or not you're a Tommy Lee fan, but it's something more complicated than that.
 
The least convincing actor is Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Lincoln's oldest son.  I guess he loks the role, but thanks to a plethora of big movies starring him that came out this year, he really breaks the illusion created by this movie, which was otherwise a perfect window into the past.  Sorry, Joseph.  Fortunately, he's not too prominent in this film.
 
Based off of acting performances alone, and the amazing souls brought to the roles, I encourage people to see this in theatres before it's too late.  If you're still reading this, stop, make a grab for your wallet, and go see this movie.  Meanwhile, I always, always encourage Americans to view movies about significant events in American history, so even if this wasn't an absolute recommendation for the big screen due to acting, I would still tell people to watch is sooner or later due to the content.
 
With regards to the plot, it's important to establish that this is not a war film.  I suspected that it would be, but I was wrong, and there is only one scene with any fighting in it whatsoever.  That one clip in the trailer where you see bombardment by canon fire for one second is actually about two seconds of footage thrown into the film.  So in other words, don't expect a war movie, but a courtroom drama of sorts, as this film could very well have been given the alternative title of The Thirteenth Amendment, which it completely focuses on.  The politics and lobbying that all went behind nabbing all of the necessary votes made for a very interesting drama.  They don't simplify it, either, as this is an adapted screenplay of Team of Rivals, which is a thoroughly researched book on the complications of the politics within the Lincoln administration.  That Spielberg didn't hold back is noble, and it was a very pleasant surprise that almost every vote for the Thirteenth Amendment was filmed, which was incredibly dramatic and certainly the climax of the film.  Then it ended with Lincoln getting shot and the familiar scene of his time of death being recorded with the words "Now he belongs to the age" said over his body.  It's where it should have ended, but the big moment that this film that stands out is definitely the vote and the drama that built up to it.
 
This is my favorite movie thus far this year, to put things into perspective.  That means I liked this more than any of the superhero movies, Brave, Prometheus, and The Hobbit.  This is, of course, isn't to say that it's going to be anybody's favorite, but it says something of my own interests.  I have gone through the frustration of not having it shown in my area for over a month, but it finally came to my local theatre and a good friend of mine came back from the Coast Guard Academy on vacation and told me about it when we got back together, heavily recommending it to me because he knew it was exactly my kind of film.
 

24601