Kraggh's Works ♫♪

Marry the Person You Hate

Thu, 16 May 2013 01:43:00 +0000

There was this person I knew, and I hated the guts out of her. Let's call her Elegy. When I first got to know her, when she came to my school in seventh grade, she seemed preppy and cool. Then I learned that she was actually on the swim team with me, which I thought was cool. Yet, my opinion of her took a one-eighty when she brought up how she was a faster swimmer than me, how I was behind the curve, and rubbed it all in.

"Get away from me," I said.

From then on, I hated her. And I only found more and more reasons to hate her as time went on. She was Little Miss Perfect, getting wonderful grades and teacher's praise wherever she went. Fresh from homeschool, she was ahead of everyone, and yet everyone got to know her and love her right off the bat. She was instantly popular.

Look at me: I was the scrawny, tall guy who looked suspiciously like Matt Smith before Matt Smith was even a thing. Ergo, I was awkward, and nobody liked me. I didn't have any friends. It would take a great many years before that would ever change. Yet, here she was, walking around like the owned the place, and getting love and adoration from all of her peers without having to work for it.

Despicable.

What was more, she had the most sickeningly fortunate family life. Her parents were incredibly successful. Her mother was a member of the school board. Her older brother took the ACT as a junior and got only one question wrong. As a senior, he got a perfect 36. Her younger brother was a godsend as well, and he was in the same grade as us even though he was four years our junior.

In sports, swimming wasn't the only thing she excelled at. She was good at cross country (not to mention her older brother was the coach's pet). She was good at baseball. She was good as volleyball and basketball. She had even been taking dance lesson since she was a little girl.

Sometimes, when people are successful they're total beasts and it's hard not to root for them, but not Elegy. I couldn't be happy for he, because she was a snob. She was always so snobbish. A lot of people recognized it, but she got her silver platter anyway because that's just how things work. It's hard to imagine giving the silver platter treatment to someone else.

She was, as I said, particularly rude to me. I hated her. I hated her. The sheer number of violent thoughts I had about her was pretty grim. Often times I would imagine how good it would feel to humiliate her, or to be able to say terrible things to her without retaliation. I wish I could have made her feel bad about herself.

However, when she moved to Maryland (I feel sorry for that state: it's too small a place for such a big head), I was sad. I missed her. Without her around, I felt just a little emptier.

Truth: I really enjoyed hating her. It was exhilarating. It gave me energy. Sure, it almost got me kicked out of school when I wrote a poem filled with profanity and creative insults pointed in her direction, but this grudge was one of one of my most intimate relationships for four years. It was fundamental to who I was.

It made me almost want to put a bullet in my brain to admit it, but there were times when I actually liked Elegy. This was primarily in a painting class we had together. Art, for me, is a positive, healthy way of connecting with people. I loved to work on my art, loved to be the best in the room, but it was also fascinating to look at what other people came up with. Try though I may, it was impossible to dislike Elegy's artwork. It didn't even occur to me to be satisfied that she wasn't in the same league as me, because I felt genuinely supportive of her. It's hard not to root for a novice artist and wish for them to improve when you see potential.

As it happened, this was also during an election year, and sometimes she would go on political rants. We shared the same opinions. I hated the guts out of her, but I had to admit that she was right about many things, that I concurred with them, and that it was weird sometimes to think that we disliked each other so much. It was also satisfying when she gave a piece of her mind to an emo goth girl in our class.

A year later, we both shared a World History class together, where we would often discuss philosophy. We very often agreed on things. i actually agreed with her more often than anyone else in the room, and found her views the most respectable.

I still hated the guts out of her.

Yet, if I had the chance, I would have kissed her. I still would, if I knew that the feeling was mutual. In fact, let's take that a step farther. I would have married Elegy.

Yes, you heard me right. I hated her. My world revolved around the grudge I had against her because she was such a stuck-up snob. In spite of it all, if she would have been open to marrying me, I would have gone ahead and proposed.

Why do this? Why go through with this insanity? Well, as it happens, I do not believe that marriage is necessarily about positive emotions. I tend to think of marriage like it's a business relationship, not a Notebook-style romance. I believe a relationship should be pragmatic, and I can list several reasons why such could be said of this hypothetical marriage. First, she was actually very attractive, which would have made things a bit easier. Second, even though our dislike of each other was intense, I also have to say that it created strong chemistry. Third, we agreed on everything important, and we often had the same objectives. Fourth, we were both very talented, very driven people, and the main reason I disliked her was because she constantly beat me at everything.

The thing is, in all her success, she often collaborated with other people, though I was never included in that number. As always, I was the guy who was excluded. As talented as I was, it was very difficult to do anything visionary when I worked alone. Imagine is our powers were combined. Together, we could rule the galaxy.

The best part is that we wouldn't have any illusions upon entering the marriage, or any fantasies of something great. We'd take in all of those negative emotions, and we could truly take them out for once. It would be so cathartic. I could say whatever I wanted to her face, and I would have to worry because she would be my wife. It would feel so good. Then I could bug her spousal responsibilities. She'd complain, but I'd say "Too bad. You married me." She took her wedding vows, so she would have to suffer the torture of helping me organize my sock drawer in the most OCD way possible. She would have to put up with everything else annoying about me, such as my insistence on walking instead of driving anywhere within town, and my giant collection of LEGOs. She would have to come to my noisy family reunions half the time. She would be married to the most annoying person ever, and there would be nothing she could do about it, barring a divorce, because she took those stinking wedding vows. Of course, I would have to put up with her annoying habits every day, too, but that would be nothing new. Before, it was a one-way street, whereas in a marriage I'd chuckle as every once and a while she would be forced to compromise.

Eventually, we would learn to love each other, because all of that negative emotion can only go on for so long. Since we're both so ambitious and so competitive, we would have to work together and we could accomplish wonders. Ours would be a great marriage. Terrible, but great.

Also, working together competitively - that's living. If we were essentially the same in all the areas that mattered and we only hated each other "just because", then after enough collaboration the relationship could only get better. It would also be some wonderful serendipity, because that beautiful love wouldn't be something I was necessarily looking for. It would have a certain energy, but it would also be rather grounded, which I believe love should be. A relationship like this would work out surprisingly good, if only the two bickering souls had the wits to realize that it would be the best way to solve their disputes.

Wait, wasn't she also a Twilight fan? Forget everything I just said.

Tune in next time to hear my next unorthodox ideas about how I would have totally married another girl I didn't quite like just for the father-in-law who would have come with the package.

24601

Oblivion Review

Sat, 11 May 2013 21:48:00 +0000

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

Iron Man 3 Review

Thu, 09 May 2013 17:00:00 +0000

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

Silver Linings Playbook Review

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:33:00 +0000

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

Jurassic Park Review

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 06:47:00 +0000

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

The Sequel Trilogy Sucked

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 07:02:00 +0000

I truly can't believe that Lucus made those awful sequels to the first three Star Wars films. The first three were masterpieces, filled with political drama, fantastic special effects, and a great cast. The next three films really don't count. I'm so upset, I'm going to list why they sucked:

1. Luke's Actor

Here I was at the end of Episode III thinking that Anakin's son was going to be as epic as ever. Yet, it turns out that he's actually as whiny as ever. "I was going to go to Toshi station for power converters!" Who ever acts like that when they're being held back by their uncle and believe that they're never going to leave home? That's terrible acting!

Then there's his reaction to when he finds out that (spoiler alert) Darth Vader is his father. He just got his hand cut off, and then he found out that his arch nemesis, the man indirectly responsible for the death of his family and directly responsible for the death of his mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi. He should have brought a ton of gravitas to his reaction in that moment, but instead he suffered a breakdown. How lame is that?

They should have brought a real actor to that role, like Jack Nicholson. Jack Nicholson is a three-time academy award winner, twelve-tie nominee, and clearly the best actor out there. He's clearly incapable of ever slipping into a silly role. Mark Hamill's portrayal of Luke Skywalker reminds me of the type of performance that would go into romantic comedy. You know who else starred in a romantic comedy? Heath Ledger, in 10 Things I Hate About You. I'd put these two actors in the same category. Clearly, neither of them can act and they should not have moved on to other things after their respective "breakout" films.

2. Darth Vader

Here I was at the end of Episode III thinking that Anakin's new persona as Darth Vader was going to be as epic as ever. Yet, you look at him. Just look at him. Even worse, listen to him. Did you hear him in Episode IV? He had that awesome new look going for him, and apparently nineteen years later he's still a hot-tempered, whiny brat. "I want them alive!"

Then he constantly deals with his fellow officers by choking them whenever they annoy him. How juvenile. It takes until he learns that Luke is his son that he finally sobers up and grows back those nineteen years in just a few seconds.

3. The Death Star

All that dramatic build-up to the Death Star in the first several films, and it was blown up just like that. Also, its weakness was lame. It seriously had a vent like that, and of all the ships it had, Grand Moff Tarkin seriously didn't consider sending out more of them to wipe out the small, last-ditch attempt from the rebels to exploit this weakness.

What's more, after it was destroyed it turned out that the emperor conveniently had another one of these ultimate weapons. Why didn't they find something else to drive the plot of the fourth movie and wait until the end to bring up the Death Star?

4. "Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."

These are clones of Jango Fett. They're human perfection. They are the perfect supersoldiers. So, naturally, they never hit anyone in the entire trilogy. Come on guys, you're chasing down a Wookie in a narrow hallway. How hard can that be?

Alright, alright, so they're not all clones anymore and the majority are human recruits. In the Expanded Universe, the clones hate the recruits and consider them all lame and mute. They're still considered the empire's elite force. These are space marines we're talking about. There's still no excuse for them to be so incompetent.

On another note, they wear all that armor and apparently a single shot kills them. They can't even survive a small group of Ewoks.

5. Obi-Wan's Death

It was so anti-climactic for such an endearing character. The advantages of joining the Force were never really explained. If he was more powerful than Darth Vader could possibly imagine (and something tells me that, like Han Solo, Darth Vader can imagine quite a bit), then what exactly did he do that proved he was so powerful? Literally nothing that he couldn't already do while he was alive, except less. Why did he have to allow Darth Vader to kill him in order to distract him? Wasn't he distracting him already? How could Lucas have possibly thought this was a good idea?

Also, the way Darth Vader held the lightsaber when he confronted his old master was really shakey. He might want to check for arthritis in those mechanical hands. Those guys aged real fast for just nineteen years.

6. Cheap Characters

They had a five-man band. How unoriginal is that?

7. The Bikini

In the same movie, Princess Leia is not only revealed to be Luke's twin sister and Vader's daughter, but shortly beforehand she was a slave girl wearing a demeaning bikini. How in the world is that good taste? Not only does it devalue the later revelation that she's Luke's sister, but it's demeaning to the sweeping hordes of women fans in the Star Wars fanbase. It psychologically puts that expectation on women: "You'd better get used to it, because this is how you ought to be seen." It was cheap, it was wrong, and it was a completely shallow way of bringing in money. The first three movies never stooped so low!

8. Bad Romance

I simply couldn't watch the second film in the sequel trilogy because of that romance between Han and Leia. He was kind of a bully to her and a bit coercive. That's not romantic at all. Worst yet is when she says "I love you", and his supposedly romantic response is "I know". Who could possibly have thought that was a good idea? I simply could not watch those scenes with them in it. it was completely arbitrary, had nothing to do with the plot, and didn't truly conclude. By contrast, the original romance between Leia's parents was fundamental to the larger story and Anakin's character development.

I should also add that Harrison Ford is a terrible actor, and Han Solo is just a grumpy guy. George Lucas apparently thought that it was charming, though. How could he have possibly thought that was a good idea?

Carrie Fisher was also a terrible actress. Her mother was played by Natalie Portman, who not only proved herself as a child actor, but also went on to win Best Actress after her Star Wars tenure was over. Where do you see Carrie Fisher now, huh?

Also, whenever it wasn't the forced, bullied romance between Han and Leia, the latter was apparently interested in incest. It might not have been such a big deal if they were both ignorant, but in Episode VI they apparently "always knew". Gross!

9. Bad Dialogue

From "Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise" to "I know," the series is full of cheesy one-liners. Lucas, for the life of him, cannot write good dialogue. Let's just be grateful that we can't understand what Chewbacca was saying that entire time, because I doubt it would have sounded good at all.

Among other things, almost all of Vader's lines are stock dialogue. Then there's Darth Sideous. He had a major downgrade since his original appearance. Sure, he's emperor, but he lost all his dignity, and he's just some toad who croaks incredibly lame lines and has a penchant for the phrase "fully operational."

Even the good guys are infected. "Almost there...almost there..." And then Mon Motha says "Many Bothans died to get us this information." That sounds so lame the way she says it.

10. They lost the "used world" aesthetic

If you look at the first three films, you see penty examples of a rusty, dirty world underneath all of the nice hover-cars. Yet in the future, everything's so squeeky clean. Look at Cloud City! Loot at the inside of both the Death Stars! They ruined and trashed the aesthetic of the original films. How could Lucas have possibly that that was a good idea?

11. It was a cheap effects film that was only out for the money

George Lucas clearly wasn't interested in telling a good story and was more interested in milking off the success of his original films. So much about these films clearly were contrived for the purpose of bringing in eye candy. I found out after some research that he meant to bring in the Death Star only at the very end, but the producers made him bring it in earlier because the fourth one needed more action. Clearly, special effects and making money comes before making objectively good material.

These movies didn't need to be made. The third movie ended just fine, concluding with the story of Anakin Skywalker descending into the age-old class of the tragic hero. There was a tint of hope left, but that didn't really need to be exploited. It was thrown in there only as a sequel hook, but there was really no need for a sequel. What could have made George Lucas to think that this could possibly have been a good idea?

12. The plot was shallow

On the same note as the last observation, the plot was cheap and shallow. A farm boy meets a wise mentor and goes off to save the princess. The mentor dies once the hero discovers his group of same-age friends with whom he will share the rest of his adventures with, and he goes off and blows up the villains using his Mary Sue powers.

Alright, maybe it isn't so bad, because that's a classic formula, but sides were black and white. It was literally the "Light Side" and the "Dark Side". While Anakin had been expertly persuaded to enter the dark side due to incredible amount of moral ambiguity, everything was to crisp-cut in this film. Luke was a Big Blue Boyscout, and apparently his whininess was supposed to be a virtue. The good guys were good and the bad guys were bad, and it was as simple as that. Even Darth Vader, who had wonderfully complex reasons for joining the Dark Side, seemed one-dimensional in his reasons to be bad. All he had to say to his son was "Join the dark side because hatred feels good and it's clearly the most important thing in life. Clearly."

Apparently these movies were made for children. That's stupid. Star Wars shouldn't be for children! The first three movies explored mature themes, but apparently kids couldn't handle that, and all these films were PG. Since they have been kiddied down into family entertainment, they are objectively inferior.

13. A lack of interesting locations

The first three films had some fantastic locations. The next three had nothing but generic places that required no creativity: ice planet, swamp planets, cloud planet, forest planet...

We get the idea. Of course, it also had the Death Star and the carbon freezing chamber on Cloud City, which were the most innovative ideas, but otherwise, in terms of location, there was almost nothing there that we had never seen before. The first three films had some genuine fantasy. What's up, Lucas?

14. The scale of the war

With the Clone Wars, Lucas was willing to show just how big the Clone Wars were and demonstrated something on a galaxy-wide scale with huge, sweeping battles. The size of the galactic fleet powered down considerably since then. The size of the battles would have made sense if the rebels were everywhere and the empire had to disperse their troops, but the final battle at Endor showed just how few ships the empire truly had. Maybe there was a plot reason, but Lucas really needed to extrapolate on that. And this was for the climactic final battle? Come on!

15. The Lightsabers

Let's face it. Really, there's no way around this. One of the best things about Star Wars is the lightsaber. It is one of the single most iconic elements, and perhaps the coolest thing of the entire series. You take it away, and Star Wars isn't Star Wars anymore.

That's exactly what happened in the sequel trilogy. Sure, the lightsabers were still around, but the fights were boring. They didn't live up to the fights of the original three movies, which were pumped up with gravitas and great music. The fight with Darth Maul religious in its presence and ritualistic in its balletic style. It was a clash of pure good and evil. There were other classic fights. Anakin Skywalker fought Christopher Lee. The prowess of General Grievous was amazing. But almost nothing beats the simultaneous fights between Yoda and Sidious on the Senate floor and Kenobi and Skywalker on a lava planet. There was a certain gravitas to seeing two old sages of good and evil beat it out (and knowing that Yoda had actually let the Jedi order down) and two brothers who had parted ways for good.

The sequel trilogy finished off one of those fights, but it was anticlimactic. The only other thing it had was a fight between father and son, which it beat to death by doing twice. It literally had nothing more than that. It was just those three fights.

So there you have it, a list of why the sequel trilogy was a travesty to the first three and disgraced their continuity. This is why I hate the sequel films. How could George Lucas have possibly thought that was a good idea?

24601

Olympus Has Fallen Review

Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:10:00 +0000

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

Belated Reaction to the Oscars

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:47:00 +0000

The Oscars have come and gone, and though it's been over a month, I thought I'd come back and make this entry to share my thoughts in the ceremony's highlights and moments that I personally found interesting.

To start off, let's give a hand to James T. Kirk. He had never been nominated for anything and probably never will, since he's not that kind of actor. However, it seems that the Academy still has a sense of how to represent every aspect of the cinematic culture (outside of the vulgar, of course), and they put him in a prominent role for the ceremonies. For those of you who haven't seen it, I won't give it away, but for those of you who have, I'm sure you will agree that his appearance was at once both hilarious and awesome, amounting to one of the most memorable moments to this year's Oscars.

On that note, there was also a clip of McFarlane flirting with Sally Field in an alternate future (Seth, you dirty, dirty dog). She's getting ready, and he says (and of course, I'm paraphrasing) "But you know Anne Hathaway is going to win the Oscar anyway, so why don't we hang?" Some back and forth, as Sally at first pretends that she's too good for that idea, but then she breaks and admits, "It's going to Anne!"

According to Captain Kirk, Sally would have won for Best Supporting Actress if she hadn't run off with MacFarlane. I like that note, because while Hathaway put out the performance of the year, I remember being struck when I saw Sally Field in Lincoln and she was so good that not only did I not recognize her, I was completely convinced that I was seeing Mary Todd Lincoln onscreen (even more impressive is that Sally is ten years older than Daniel, and Mary Todd was ten years younger than Abraham). When I was done with that movie, I knew that she was going to at least get nominated and for sure be a condender for the win. While I agreed when Hathaway did indeed win (it was simply the biggest Supporting Actress role of the year), from the standpoint of sheer acting talent, Field trumped everyone else, and I'm glad that it was at least slightly ambiguous leading up to the anouncement for Best Supporting Actress.

Coincidentally, both Sally Field and Anne Hathaway played prominent roles in superhero films before playing their Oscar nominated roles in historical dramas later that year. I found that interesting.

Now, here's something I found interesting about the ceremonies. You ended up hearing a lot of John Williams music. Near the beginning, I distinctly recalled there being "Flight" from E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Later, I was also amused when the theme from Jaws was played to signal whenever someone's time onstage was coming to a close (which is a good idea, while also being highly entertaining). John Williams, you rock.

Animated Short Film and best Animated Feature

On to animated stuff...I had expected La Luna to be nominated, and I was surprised that it wasn't. However, when they showed clips from their nominees and I was introduced to Paperman for the first time, I instantly thought "I hope that one wins." Hand-drawn (sort of), strong visual style, black-and-white, tasteful character design, a good title, lovable character depiction right off the bat, and really, really smooth animation all basically pointed to that as the winner. And it won. Congratulations, and congratulations to Wreck-It-Ralph for being associated with such a masterpiece. I truly hope to see Disney create feature-length films to this, because if they do, that would be the second biggest boom in pop-culture this decade since the announcement of Star Wars Episode VII (incidentally, these would both be booms in movie culture on the behalf of Disney).

By the way, using the technology for Paperman, studios could legitimately make hand-drawn films at 48 frames per second. While I would be reluctant to see a special FX movie of that nature for how it would trespass over the uncanny valley and make everything look fake, it would be perfect for handdrawn animation. The smoothness would look right, since everything about animation is over-the-top and a caricature of real life anyway.

At the time, I hadn't seen Wreck-It-Ralph, but I heard a lot of good stuff from it. Unfortunately, most people classified Brave as their least favorite Pixar movie, so I wouldn't have been surprised if Wreck-It-Ralph won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature. However, in spite of popularity issues, Brave still had a certain storytelling aura about it, and so I called it in favor of Brave. Then again, Happy Feet won against Cars back in 2006, and Shrek won against Monsters Inc. in 2001. It seems as if animated films are judged completely different as if they're supposed to be of lower quality, and I think that's ridiculous. There's a certain amount of prejudice there. Also, it's a pity that it doesn't take much to get nominated for best Animated Feature. Basically, all you have to do is make an animated movie that people actually hear about, and you're on the list (presuming that your film doesn't use motion-capture technology). There really needs to be more animated films. Especially smooth, hand-drawn ones. Disney, I'm looking at you.

And Toy Story 3 should have won Best Picture in 2010. I still believe that. And I mean in sincerely, not as a joke. It would have been an excellent moment for Hollywood to break precedent and allow itself to critically reevaluate itself, hopefully to rediscover what it's all about. Were they afraid of being embarrassed I don't know, but they nominated Walt Disney 59 times and allowed him to win 22 or those, so I personally think that Walt Disney embodies the best of what Hollywood should be. It would be an honor and a privilege to have bestowed the first ever Best Picture for an animated film on a movie connected to his legacy.

More Music Stuff

There was a celebration for 5 years of James Bond, and Halle Berry called Bond music a genre of its own. That's pretty prestigeous of a complement. Normally, I would only use such elevated language for John Williams. Perhaps I overrate him, although that's kind of difficult to believe.

Oh, and Halle Berry's dress was actually cool.

Also, another bit from Forrest Gump was playing when Innocente won for Best Documentary, Short Subject. "Rocky" played during Best Documentary. These are two cool pieces of music that definitely merit playing during the ceremonies. If I won an award for a documentary, I would want these to play when I came on stage, too.

Liam Neeson then appeared to announce the next batch of Best Picture nominees. Interestingly, they were all related to political/military dramas, and one of them was by Stephen Spielberg, with whom he bears a strong association due to his starring role in Schindler's List. And of course, the theme from that movie played in the background when he was introduced. It will always be his best role, and Schindler's List will always be my favorite movie.

I can remember when it happened, but there was also the part where Hugh Jackman sang "Suddenly" and the rest of the cast came on to sing "One Day More" which was what I would assume many people would consider a highlight. For my sister, it certainly was. Les Miserables is getting a lot of attention at the Oscars in these last few years, and I'm not complaining.

Acknowledging the funniest joke of the night

Well, maybe it wasn't the funniest, but it was the one I remembered the most. "I would argue that the actor who really got into Lincoln's head was John Wilkes Booth...Really? A hundred and fifty years and it's still too soon!"

And an Advertisement

There were some interesting advertisements between breaks. One of them had something to do with a "Zombie Western Musical", which is an interesting idea. Along the same vein, there was one with a bunch of video game designers coming up with "Unicorn Apocalypse", and Tim Burton came in all interested in movie rights. The nerds are like "and then there's a giant battle in the end, and planets are crushing into each other, and - "

"Woah, wait!" says Tim Burton. "This is getting too weird for me."

Yeah right. Too weird for Tim Burton? Never going to happen. But it's not too weird for me. I can see myself taking an idea as extreme as that and having a lot of fun creating a visual symphony of superlatives.

The advertisement I found really entertaining, though, was a brief one near the end for Hyundi where the narrator was saying "and I'd like to thank all the engineers who worked on this, and my CEO, and my mother, and - I wish I had enough time to fit everyone in! - but this is such a great honor..." and it was essentially mimicking an acceptance speech at the Oscars.

Sound Awards

What's the difference between sound mixing and sound editing? I'm not entirely sure, either. In any case, I understood the movies that won these awards. Les Miserables won for best mixing, and though I disagreed with the cinematography, the sound of the film was certainly immersive and helped make it a 3D experience without actually being 3D - take that all you 3D movies out there!

Zero Dark Thirty and Skyfall, interestingly, tied for Best Sound Editing. I wonder how that happens. Eh. Well, I'm just glad that Zero Dark Thirty only got that particular award, since the entire movie, for me, was just cheap Oscar bait.

The Family von Trapp

There were a ton of references to classic musicals, which I really dug. I realize now that musicals was actually the theme of the ceremonies this year, so this doesn't happen every year, but it's still cool. This is a true classic. It was pretty awesome to accept Christopher Plumber onstage and for him to invite the family to sing...only they were missing!

Anne Hathaway

Remember that controversial discussion that started in my blog purely because I thought that Selina Kyle, played by Anne Hathaway, was incredibly attractive? I also said at the beginning of that list that I would have to complete that list before the Les Miserables movie came out, because it would cause me to have to rearrange that list and I didn't want to delete all the pseudo-essays that I wrote ahead of time. Because Fantine is beautiful, and Hathaway truly sold that character as a real and extraordinarily precious person. It was, with little doubt, the supporting actress performance of the year.

She had a good speech. She looks beautiful. Too bad she's married, but I guess that doesn't matter when you have a celebrity crush.

Oh, and Sing Softly Love, the theme from The Godfather, played in the background when she finished. Cool stuff.

Production Design

It went to Lincoln. I have to say that Lincoln was the type of movie that was really strong in multiple areas and thus could gather 12 academy awards, but it was also the type of film that was only going to win certain ones. For example, production design. i saw that coming, since it was something that stood out about the film. It's all the more apparent to me now that I have seen a DVD documentary about creating the film, where they went really overboard with the authenticity of it all. You don't really notice it, because you take many of these places for granted, but they had to essentially reconstruct the White House from scratch, and they studied every room, including his cabinet, with utmost detail, and it's surprising how much effort went into that. A huge part of that was research, and another chunk of it was the dedication of construction workers and artists. I personally love films with great production designs, and the authenticity to this one is one of the reasons why I enjoyed it, so I definitely wasn't surprised when this one won.

Adele

So "Skyfall" won for Best Original Song. I couldn't quite tell which would win, actually. They all sounded pretty good, and none of them stood out. That's interesting, because I was rooting for "Suddenly", but once I heard some of the others, I felt a little selfish for that. They were all pretty good. Two of them were sang live during the ceremonies, which might have revealed bias toward those two, but it would have been difficult to tell. For all I knew, some of the runner-ups were merely being given a chance to shine to make up for losing.

Anyway, Adele had a bit of grace on the stage, and I enjoyed her live performance. What actually stood out to me, though, was the choir in the background. There was just something...interesting about them. I can't quite say what it was. They were dressed up nice, but inconspicuously places in the background. It all really helped deliver the song. A lot of great songs have subtle but surprisingly organized background singers like that.

As it turns out, Adele won for "Best Song", for which I give her my full-hearted congratulations. It was something that really made its blockbuster movie what it was.

And afterword "Singin' In the Rain" started playing, which made me chuckle. That is probably one of the greatest songs of Hollywood. Like, if Hollywood needed a theme, it would be in the top five contenders. Seriously.

Acually, let's take a moment to look at previous winners and nominees. I'm sitting here, looking at that list in Wikipedia, and here's what stands out to me:

Over the Rainbow (the other song that would be a theme for all of Hollywood)
When You Wish Upon a Star (The definitive theme for Disney. And Disney wins a lot of Oscars for songs, as you'll see going down this list.)
Who Am I? (which was nominated in the same year as the above song, and it wasn't from Les Miserables, but it just goes to show that titles sometimes repeat over time)
Baby Mine (From Dumbo, nominated without a win. It stands out to me because my mother used to sing it to me as a baby.)
White Christmas (Everybody knows that one!)
Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah (too bad you can't see this movie)
Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo (didn't win, but it's interesting, because like the above Disney song, it's also composed of nonsense words)
Unchained Melody (which later got a better-known cover version by the Righteous Brothers, which later still was used in my pet favorite movie, Ghost, and I love it)
Moon River (I went to a concert where I heard a most beautiful operatic voice render this song. Heck, I'd probably like it anyway purely because it's from a classic Audrey Hepburn movie.)
Chim Chim Cher-ee (Winner! And by all means, Mary Poppins truly is practically perfect in every way. Just look at its rare 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.)
The Bare Necessities (Nominated, and this was the last movie Walt Disney ever worked on. It was "Hakuna Matata" before there was "Hakuna Matata".)
The Windmills of Your Mind (this is a personal favorite of mine, and I'm really glad it won, because I think way too much)
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (Nostalgia blast! Who here has seen this movie growing up? No? Then you have no life. Watch this movie in order to get a full refund on whatever else you've been wasting your time doing all these years. And again, this is another song with nonsense lyrics. Believe it or not, this is not a Disney song, but rather from a movie based on an Ian Flemming novel.)
Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head (Ooo! This particular winner is another serious contender as a theme song for all of Hollywood. I'm sure everyone remembers it being used in Spiderman 2, which is one reason why that movie was awesome.)
The Age of Not Believing (nominee from Bedknobs and Broomsticks, which I seriously need to watch because it's been forever. I'll put it right next to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.)
Live and Let Die (Nominee from -you guesses it - Live and Let Die, another Bond film to get nominated. Except that one didn't win like this one did. It's still perhaps the most iconic Bond song.)
The Rainbow Connection (nominated, and deserving of so much more of that. Not only the theme for everything relating to The Muppets, but a classic ode to dreams in the vein of Over the Rainbow and When You Wish Upon A Star. I love you, Kermit!)
On the Road Again (which I find so endearing because it's perfect for playing in the car, and I love songs about travel. It's also about friends, life, and the long journey of living. Make everything of it, folks! Sadly, this lost to "Fame", of all things.)
Ghostbusters (obligatory "Who you gonna call?" moment)
The Power of Love (This is why the 80's were so glorious. You don't get rock like this anymore, or movies like Back to the Future. To think, that movie had this song and the main orchestral music to represent it!)
Somewhere Out There (the "My Heart Will Go On" for animated movies - before there was a "My Heart Will Go On", and just thinking about this threw another nostalgia supernova in my face)
Under the Sea (when Disney started putting out great movies again)
Kiss the Girl (and even got two songs nominated from one movie, because it was that good)
Somewhere in My Memory (Nomination for John Williams, which has to be mentioned purely by virtue that he's John Williams. And Home Alone is an awesome movie, in spite of what the critics said.)
Beauty and the Beast (Let's face it, I'm entering the 90's here and of course a ton of these are going to be Disney songs. Heck, Disney practically swept the Oscars with its songs during this era. I was one lucky kid. Also, kudos to Beauty and the Beast for being the first animated movie to ever be nominated for Best Picture)
Be Our Guest
Belle
A Whole New World (the other theme song for Disney)
Friend Like Me (since I had no friends when I was a kid, I loved this song, and I had an imaginary friend who took major inspiration from Genie)
Can You Feel the Love Tonight? (it must have been really tough for Academy voters to pick this one over the other great songs from The Lion King)
The Circle of Life (makes my list for the top three movie openings EVER)
Hakuna Matata
Colors of the Wind (Winner, but regrettably, because the song that should have one that year was...)
You've Got a Friend In Me (I still cry when I hear this one, because I remember when I was a kid, and I had no friends, and the reason why I had so many toys was because they were the only friends I thought I would ever have, and for about seventeen years I was right. Sorry, didn't mean to confess so much. It's not really something I don't want to go into detail on.)
Moonlight (which was by John Williams)
My Heart Will Go On (Which got overplayed and it became pretty easy to hate. I'm sure the Academy just didn't want another Disney song to win.)
Go the Distance (In particular, this one, which is a great song that has helped me so much in life, and bore so much meaning for the people of my generation. It speaks to the struggles I had in life, and that I still have now, and I can't imagine living without it. You're a true winner, Hecules.)
You'll Be In My Heart (Thank you, Disney, for giving me these great songs. A child's life can get pretty messed up sometimes, but I'm glad that you left a legacy that changed the values of Hollywood, so that just because a movie was for kids, that didn't mean that it was inferior. Even though you couldn't be there for me personally, I'm so glad that you cared for people like me.)
When She Loved Me (I cried for you, Jesse. Unfortunately, I've had that exact same thing happen for me, and I'm sort of reluctant to ever have a friend again.)
If I Didn't Have You
Falling Slowly (I remember when this one, and it was something I sang often that year, because it speaks to me)
Almost There (a personal favorite of my mother's from The Princess and the Frog)
Down in New Orleans
We Belong Together (from Toy Story 3, because it deserved it)
I See The Light (from a particularly magical moment that Disney is really good at creating)

Surprisingly, "Singin' In the Rain" was never nominated. However, since it comes from a classic movie depicting the most crucial moments in the development of Hollywood and all of the spectacle that came with it, I truly would consider the theme for movies in general, and cetainly one of the Greats that represents the progress of the twentieth century. As much as I must praise many a sad song for speaking to me where it matters, the sheer optimism of some songs is what I live for.

The Other Big Stuff

Best Actress and Best Picture wins this year were slightly less dramatic, though I kind of called them both. I really want to see Argo and Silver Linings Playbook now, though.

So yeah, to wrap this up, Daniel Day-Lewis won for best Actor, as everyone knew he would. It was like "well, duh". Sure, it was breaking precedent and nobody wants to elevate anyone too high, but when he walked in, the camera kept on looking at him. It was pretty much his night. He was the King. Although I daresay, the Pope of all actors at this point is Jack Nicholson, who of course co-presented the award for Best Picture with the First Lady (which I understand was controversial for some). And no matter what, for being my main inspiration from Hollywood, James Stewart will be the patron saint of actors.

Best Actress and Best Picture wins this year were slightly less dramatic, though I kind of called them both. I really want to see Argo and Silver Linings Playbook now, though.

24601

Red Dawn Review

Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:30:00 +0000

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

Skyfall Review

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:50:00 +0000

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