Two Brief Re-Reviews: Thoughts on Away We Go and Inglourious Basterds - By Robert Culpepper

Part I:

In a sentence, I would describe Away We Go as a study of American kids sans ambition who want to be responsible with their living, specifically in their family. The film lacks the cinene-scape of beautiful cross-country travel set to Aaron Copland, opting instead for episodic slices of cities across the land paired with Murdoch's mellow droning (Canada gets the strongest nod, strangely enough, though I bet if they'd visited in Winter it would have been a different story).

I think it gets the point across without indulging in that whole conversation of how the land is America and how America is the land and once we lose the wilderness we lose America and that's why we need to keep exploring outer space, etc (not bashing the environment, but the use of land as a character, a la westerns, On The Road, so forth). Instead of creating a visually beautiful film (think: Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, the Pacific Coast HWY), the story is just about the people that inhabit that land. Which I think is nice. They have really common issues that are simple and complex at the same time. So many movies try to plug into mythic/primal themes and become pretentious. This film does the opposite and somehow manages to tap into an authentic human element.

Krasinski and Rudolph are both believable, which I didn't expect. And the cameos are brilliant-! Also, I cackled a lot during this movie, which was really fun. Most movies where I want to be the main character involve violence, good chase sequences, sex with girls who probably would carry disease in real life, some intrigue, and a twist. This movie has none of that, and I still want to be Bert.

Part II:

Inglourious Basterds is a beautiful film. As you probably know, QT- as I shall call him for the sake of laziness- makes cool films with interesting and novel storielines. His dialog is always amazing and he tempts that part of us that wishes we were all as smooth in real life as we imagine ourselves. However, I wouldn't say that any of his movies are 'beautiful,' until this one. I have never seen a movie shot with such a gorgeous palette. You should go back and watch it again just for the purpose of noticing how pretty the skin tones are. Then, watch it another time and pay attention to all the other colors and how freaking amazing they look, how rich and saturated but not too poppy or electric. Then, go watch any other movie ever made and compare. This movie should win an Oscar for cinematography because it is so pleasing to look at but doesn't include any gratuitous shots of the Alps, or the Pyrenees, or the Riviera. Even Paris is tame/blowing up!

Also, as Jones said, Christopher Wentz should win an Oscar for rocking so hard. Brad Pitt is good as comic relief, and I'm sure he helped sell tickets, but there was some really fantastic acting in this movie and it didn't come from this side of the Atlantic. I should also mention, for the sake of talking about more than the film stock and the lighting, that this is a film about film. It wouldn't surprise me if every shot is a reference to another movie (QT has an unbelievable knowledge of film history). Also, he panders to the French who have always loved him; he indulges in auteur-ism; he has the film critic die in a basement after making a stupid mistake (unlike Jones I appreciated the explanation of why the whole scene went down the way it did. To leave that up to obsessive QT fans to discover is to alienate the average viewer at an important crux of the story. And I think this movie, like all great movies, must be accessible to the 'everyman'). Basically, as you well know if you've seen it, this movie is awesome and should be studied in film classes at least as much as Annie Hall. Actually, I think a comparison of Woody Allen as writer-director of Annie Hall with QT as writer-director of Inglourious Basterds would be a hell of a paper to read. Think about how similarly they both end, protagonist stepping back from the action-as-theater and speaking directly to the camera....

Part III:

Both these movies are beautiful, but for very different reasons. As I see it, since that's true, it's also true that the human experience is wide-ranging and diverse. Which is cool. And that's why movies are great.

The Invention of Lying - James A. King (Poofterliscious)

Don’t buy a ticket for Invention of Lying. If you sneak in, then stay only for the first ½ hour. This is the amount of time it takes to know the premise—nobody has ever lied until loser Ricky Gervais figures it out—and enjoy scenes like the Coke ad, where the only pitch they can come up with in a truth-only society is “we’re famous” (or even better, Pepsi’s add, “When you can’t get Coke”) Genuine chuckles for scenes like that. But by the half-hour mark, the premise has staled and you’re looking for the nearest exit as a biblically-bearded Gervais gives his ten commandments on pizza boxes. Get out of there.

For those of you too proud to admit the $10 mistake of purchasing a ticket for this film, or are in a situation like those teenage vandals that were under court order to watch Saving Private Ryan, fantasize about yourself in other, cooler movies. Here are some suggestions:

#1 You are a sea captain—grizzled and knowing. Your ship has just capsized off of Maricaibo and you are gasping for air as your head emerges above the frothy tide.

#2 You are a detective—bottle in hand, gun in pocket. Long legs and a mouth full of trouble have just walked in your door. You know you should say, “Get lost,” but you don’t.

#3 You are Forrest Gump—the sequel. Bubba Gump Shrimp has busted and you’ve taken to the bottle. You think you see Lt. Dan on the rain soaked streets of New Orleans as you stumble home to your bungalow. Adventures ensue.

Of course, as Invention of Lying shows, an interesting storyline is only a small piece of a quality flick. Gervais has an engaging idea and asks interesting questions about the necessity of dishonesty, but his reach exceeds his grasp. Big questions in a small movie spread the content too thin, precluding both entertainment and thought. We’ve seen this failing before in Robin William’s well intentioned “laugh/cry” movies like Jakob the Liar, Patch Adams, etc. Of course we’ve also seen comedy movies tackle serious issues/questions with great reult, as in Benigni’s Life is Beautiful. So what Gervais tries to do is not impossible, but rather inadvisable when you have to sacrifice entertainment, fun, and overall coherency to do so. My sea captain—grizzled and knowing— won’t be slipping on any banana peals.

The Men Who Stare at Goats - By Timothy Johnston

Sometimes I wonder,

What if...

...the trailer had not already given away every single punchline?

...the scenes still had edges and were not as perfectly rehearsed and edited as they are?

...we were given a plausible explanation why Ewan McGregor ended up in the Middle East?

...this Allstar-cast had lived up to its name and wasn't put to shame by Stfephen Lang?

...the film was less full of itself?

...I had never seen Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove?

...this was not the film everybody is talking about?

...the director didn't try so hard to be a Coen Brother?

...it had at least one aspect you hadn't already heard beforehand?

...the joke about them being Jedi-soldiers had been made less frequently?

...a less prominent cast had been chosen, thus lowering expectations?

... the people around me hadn't laughed so hysterically, neutralising my risible muscles even more?

...I had smoked pot before seeing it?

Well, I think then I might have liked this movie.

An Education - Worth Seeing

Peter Sarsgaard is engaged to Maggie Gyllenhaal (degrees from a bunch of big-time schools, FHM's 58th hottest woman alive) who is the brother of Jake Gyllenhaal (friend of Lance Armstrong and Matthew Mcconaughey and star of a bunch of cult movies). Maggie and Jake are the children of Naomi Foner (couple of Oscars) and Steve Gyllenhaal (he has written an episode of Felicity). Their god-parents are Paul Newmann and Jamie Lee Curtis. In this movie, Sarsgaard plays the role of a dude that lives in a fantasy world. I would imagine that hanging around these aforementioned people would make it easy to play his role in this movie. Nonetheless, he was really freaking good.

Equally as tight as Sarsgaard, was Carey Mulligan. I'm debating on dating her or Princess Beatrice while I'm living in England. To belabor my boring interest with good actors, Alfred Molina and Emma Thompson were also great. I think Emma Thompson is one epic role short of being one of the greatest. I think she is as good as Meryl Streep and she doesn't carry the Hollywood obnoxiousness that Meryl Streep does. Which leads to thinking about British and American film. Which then leads to thinking about 'a country's' film.

It annoyed me how much people in the theatre were loving this movie towards the beginning. I felt like telling them that going to Oxford, appreciating art and music, Paris, and british puns are all really freaking annoying things and debatably racist, oppressive, and colonial. I think the reason I was annoyed is because I was being called out and I knew what was coming. I don't think the wealthy, indie-theatre supporters around me saw it coming. Had they seen it coming they might not have been chuckling and admiring the articulate, well versed, very London-british main characters. This script did a good job of making you think Paris is cool.

Turns out, in the end, we are all a bunch of frauds. People in Kensington still take shits. The British Museum is full of loot. Paris might be one of the most racially volatile cities in the world. Western Europe is not the center of the world. Going to Jazz concerts does not make you a philosopher. In contrast, learning, hanging out with your family, having some good friends, self-effacing, listening to people that know more than you, working hard at your job, being 'normal; is universal and therefore might be categorized as 'good'. The romanticism of engaging societal constructions with full blown desire to be 'better', in some way, is just that, romantic. Whereas, listening to your parents is not romantic but very real. This is not to say that by embracing humanity first we become less fraudulent. It just means that we recognize that the Eifel Tower does not define Paris--the people do. I think this would be the best thing to take from this movie.

Dune - Epic

If you have not read this book then you need to. The movie will seem really 'out-there' and just kind of unattainable, otherwise.

I am not a huge science fiction fan so I don't really have much to compare this to. I trust some of the science fiction-lover reviewers that I have read, though. I trust myself too to say that the book-movie combo of all that is Frank Herbert's and David Lynch's 'Dune' is nothing less than epic.

In my reviews I talk a good deal about interpretation. I am not a uniform reviewer in the sense that I don't 'understand' each movie in the same way, universally. My interpretation of the 'meaning' in a movie moves around. What is cool is that I think I don't really control this process. I believe that the movie pushes me into one mode of understanding as opposed to another (i.e. critic, artisan, ethnographer, iconographer, conversationalist, therapist, or deconstructionist). So maybe one of my subconscious determinants of how much I like or dislike a movie, is how well or how shitty the movie does of altering my means by which to watch it. I say this because I am very conscious of my claiming a movie as 'epic'. An epic movie, by my definition, meets two criteria: 1) the film is worth watching over and over again because the interpretations are inexhaustable, 2) The cinematography, soundtrack, acting, directing, producing, etc. is well done. 'Dune' (when combined with the book) is an epic movie.

(Ethnography, Iconography, Critic)

I don't know why I wasn't required to watch/read this when I was a freshman in high school. Actually, having just written that sentence I think it is because my freshman year was pre 9/11. Nonetheless, this story is an eerie allegorical narrative of terrorism and the war upon it. The similarities include: a desert people who live upon the most valuable natural resource in the universe, desert people that have been economically and socially oppressed, a desert people that are deeply religious and fundamentalist in their interpretation of texts and the mystical, a distant tyrant that purchases power with the militaristic aquisition of the natural resource, an uprising of the oppressed desert people, a jihad upon the distant tyrant, a mis-under-estimation (haha) of the prowess and eptitude of the desert people by the tyrant, and many other smaller, not less significant similarities. I truly would vote for a president in the United States during the next election that quoted 'Dune' and 'Seven Pillars'. In this sense, this movie-book combo is necessary for anyone preparing to aquiesce a bunch of oil with disregard for the well-being, infrastructure needs, religious and cultural histories of the people that live on top of the oil. Maybe, who it should really be read/watched by, are those that sit on top of the most bountiful fresh water supplies. This movie/book could be a manual for "how to defeat those that want your water." I think this is the future, at least.

(Conversationalist)

Dear Frank Herbert and David Lynch,

This past week, while living and going to school in London, I read your book and watched your movie. I wonder if you wrote/filmed with me in mind. The world has changed a lot since you worked on these projects. Did you know that jihad was going to be such a reality in the coming years? What was going on in the 60s, 70s, and 80s that I don't really know about? I hope no one tries to re-make this movie; however, I do wish it was about an hour longer. Thanks for making this movie and writing this book. I feel that by writing this review I may have an affect on your book and movie just as you have had an affect on me. Indeed, your work lives on.

Sincerely,

Kyle Douglas Jones

(Therapist)

I understand why it is that Lynch chose Kyle MacLaughlin to play Paul Muad'ib Usul Atreides. I suppose that he understands why I understand his choice for Lynch chose him with my world perspective in his mind. It makes sense, to me, that the fremen followed a white, intelligent, articulate, athletic male to the promised land. Had Herbert/Lynch chosen a black male, or even a black female for that matter, then we would probably have to work on the efficacy of our mutual transferences. After all, we all know that Jesus was white, spoke English, walked around with his arms out and palms up, and had a mullet.

(Deconstructionist)

This film seems to have been writen and filmed as if religion, culture, politics actually mean anything. Surely the prescribed, inherited trends of all the characters work within our socially constructed attempts at meaning. I mean, why even care about a narrative that chronicles the choices of men based upon a spice? All this movie and book really show is that we place emphasis and beliefs on things other than chance, which basically means that we base decisions on that which is not real. I think the Princess Irulan understood this. I wish she was more of a main character in the film as her narration in the book kept me interested and thinking.

I think you should check out this movie if you get the chance. Any high school english teacher that is reading this blog, you should make this movie part of your curriculum. Any western world leader that is reading this blog, you should watch out for the fremen under your iron fist and if you quote this book in your campaign speech I will vote for you. Any oppressed peoples that live upon oil or fresh water, you should watch this movie and read this book if you need a 'go-by' for how to wipe out your enemy (disclaimer: you will need a messiah prophecy to come true and I don't support jihad).

Oh, and Sting is in the movie.