True Grit - Rob Culpepper

A Review; Or, Why You Should Stop What You're Doing Now and Go Watch This Film

I heard it said that No Country For Old Men was the Coen Brother's take on a modern western. If that's so, then True Grit is the Coen's take on the classic western. And it is TIGHT. Like most movies the Coen Brothers put their hands on, True Grit is, plain and simple, really good. Story telling, humor, pacing, memorable characters...the Coen's do it all.

Don't get me wrong. They aren't flawless. But I think they've been able to capture Today what it must have been like to see a western at the pictures back in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. I think we're so used to the western as a genre thanks to TBS marathons that we aren't as carried away by the mythology of the west. Even Clint Eastwood's late attempts at creating the definitive western (Unforgiven) or any of Kevin Costner's tries (Dances With Wolves, Open Range) fail to create the magic of the West in a movie the way the old ones do. But True Grit does it for me. It's got a great story, good archetypal characters with enough personality to make them distinctive, and one event after another to keep things moving.

As you probably know, the film is a remake of the 1969 film starring John Wayne (for which he won his only Oscar, though arguably as a tip of the hat to his 40+ years of dominating). But the film is it's own piece. The dialog is Coen Brothers, as is the blood splatters, as is the way it's shot. There are very few sweeping vistas; the film is not about the land--The West--but about these characters who have found themselves bound together by a story thread in The West. Those are: Jeff Bridges, who is solid, and paired with the Coen Bros again is great. Matt Damon, who manages to make you forget you're looking at Good Will Hunting (though he reminded me a bit of his role inThe Informant). He's solid as well. In important but less screen-time roles are Barry Pepper and Josh Brolin and some others who are all at top form. (I think the Coens mask people well, so you see a face you recognize, but not so much that you only remember the other characters they played.) The real star of the show, though, is Hailee Steinfeld. Her IMDb has no info (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2794962/). Who knows where the Coens found her. But she is phenomenal. Not only does she hold her own among some very good Oscar Winners, but she shines in her toughness and in the few moments where she breaks open a bit. I don't know what else to say about it other than that the characters are superb.

This movie was so good that instead of waiting in the lobby of the cinema for my sister and brother-in-law, who had gone to see Little Fockers, my dad and I headed right out to the car as soon as the movie was over, still talking about how cool it was, and drove all the way home. You Must See This Film, especially the scene in which Rooster (Jeff Bridges) makes this famous (John Wayne) charge, with guns blazing in both hands, the reins of his horse in his teeth, one man against four....

127 Hours - KDJ

The awaited return of the emotive director of Slumdog Millionaire is just that, a return. The actors are different, the setting is different but the themes are as similar as the camera angles, music, and split screens are.

Those hopeful enough to assume that James Franco (still holding to, in my perspective, his characterization of The Fonz on Freaks and Geeks) would convincingly depict Aron Ralston, the infamous self-amputee-ing, adventurer, will be satisfied. Franco's performance was enjoyable and believable, though I imagine that Ralston runs with a less goofy gait than the predictably less-athletic Franco. After all, Franco publishes short stories he wrote at Columbia and currently studies queer theory at Yale. We can't expect him to compete in triathlons with McConaughey and make out with Sean Penn - that would be too much mixing of art and masculinity.

Franco, though really good in this movie, is held back and over-shadowed by the cluttered split screen flashbacks and sigur ros-esque mash-ups that Boyle is known for. Those hopeful for a true Samuel Beckett experience will be let down. Danny Boyle and Samuel Beaufoy know to well that the Academy needs a good trailer in order to garner any support. Don't get me wrong, I am a sucker for Coldplay genre mash-ups but for this film they come across as reaching and ill-timed. Ralston would make no money in the endeavor yet I think a cooler movie would have been made by Lars Von Trier or another up-and-coming Scandinavian director.

Beaufoy, when he heard that Boyle wanted to make this movie, thought Boyle was crazy - how does one fill up 90 minutes with one guy trapped under a rock? I don't think it too crazy but I'm not sure this movie reached its full potential. Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are showing high enough ratings and it will probably be nominated for some stuff. The disjointed story telling just made engaging Ralston's predicament difficult. In the end, 127 Hours is definitely worth seeing. I just needed a choreographed dance scene to bring me full tilt.

The Tourist - KDJ

I have absolutely no idea as to why Johnny Depp agreed to do this movie. The experience of watching it is confusing. I spent the entire movie waiting for Depp to vindicate himself - not his character either, like, himself, really. As the movie awkwardly transitioned from one cheesy scene to another, I wondered, is this why Depp never watches his own movies? for fear that one may actually, accidentally end up like this one? Towards the end of the movie, after having watched Angelina Jolie smugly strut for hundreds of yards at a time, for what seemed like an hour total, I wanted to grab Depp by the shoulders and give him a talking to; "Dude, Depp, you are Edward Scissor Hands, and Gilbert Grape, and the dude that was brave enough to make a Sweeney Todd movie, you are Sands, Mort Rainey, you are George Jung, you are Roux, and Ichabod Crane, Raoul Duke, and Donnie Brasco, you are the freakin Libertine. You are not the freaking Tourist!" Maybe it was Jolie bringing him down. Maybe she is so good looking that she is destined to fail in every movie she ever makes. Maybe she will always be more good looking than the movie is good. Maybe, since Tim Burton didn't make it, there was too much light on Depp. Maybe if they would have dimmed the lights in every scene and given him a weird quirk to do the movie would have convinced. But they didn't. And Jolie, as mentioned, strutted as a Samford Seductress might, and there were entirely too many lights turned on. In the end, I'm afraid Depp needed a down payment on his new Vineyard, which probably isn't cheap. So, he made a movie that paid well, spent a fortune, and achieved only awkward, cheap thrills. If you must see Depp, as some must, wait a few weeks and Blockbuster will have about 400,000 returned copies in the post-Christmas buy back stacks.

The Social Network - T.J.

Directed by David Fincher, 2010

Apart from Julian Assenge, who currently finds himself at the receiving end of uncountable lawsuits, hackers' worship and a fatwa by Sarah Palin, Mark Zuckerberg is the person most likely to be named TIME person of the year 2010. The Social Network, a biopic (spanning only around four years) directed by one of today's most respected thrill-directors, is not the reason Zuckerberg is likely to be picked - it is rather a symptom of the influence he has had on 2010, if not the bulk of this past decade. Based on the 2009 bookThe Accidental Billionaires, which recounts the making of facebook from the point of view of Zuckerberg's once best friend, Eduardo Saverin (played in the film by Andrew Garfield). The Social Network will be among the films to look out for at the upcoming Academy Awards.

After being dumped by his girlfriend ("not cause you're a nerd - it's cause you're an asshole"), Zuckerberg gets drunk and starts blogging about her while creating facemash.com, where users can rate female Harvard students according to attractiveness. The site is so popular that the system crashes - and Zuckerberg realises the power a keyboard can bring. The predicament that this night gets him into establishes the basis for the rest of the picture, a long and grueling lawsuit. Fincher and screenwriter Sorking must be given a great deal of credit for telling this story in a thrilling way while sticking to the, admittedly somewhat subjective, story. There are very few moments in which you think there's no way this happened while Eisenberg's performance is gripping from start to finish. Fincher, whose most characteristic films are gloomy thrillers like Se7en, Fight Club or Alien³, puts his mark on the projekt by portraying Harvard as a rainy, clique-hell, where your only goal can be to get into one of the societies. Zuckerberg himself is no exception. The final scene , which I obviously will not disclose, shows how despite how far he has come since that fateful night in 2003, that initial humiliation still haunts and drives him. Good or bad, hero or villain? The TIME jury will have to ask itself the same question when they choose which nerd is the most influential: the one who, to get to 500 million friends, made a few enemies; or the one who made at least half a billion enemies and few friends.

The Social Network is likely to be nominated for the following Academy Awards:

Best Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin

Best Picture: Fincher, Rudin et al

Best Director: David Fincher

Best Actor: Jesse Eisenberg

Best Editing: Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall

Nomi vs Nina - JAK

Deciding between renting a flick at the local video/tan shop or packing into the station wagon for the late show of an independent art-house movie can be a difficult holiday decision. Consider the Showgirls/Black Swan debate that will occupy millions of American families this year. Ever since Elizabeth Berkley gyrated onto the scene with her 1995 morality tale, families have suffered schisms about whether to flick over to TBS for Christmas Vacation or to pop in dad’s well-worn, intentionally mislabeled VHS of Nomi . How much simpler the season would have been if Berkley hadn’t traded in her Jesse Spano pocket protector for a pair of Nomi Malone stilettos.

In the tradition of Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, Nomi’s story of a small-town girl who just wants to dance, but is violated by the big city, but becomes a big star anyway, but gives it all up to go home, has inspired a generation. But now we get a different take on this holiday story with Natalie Portman’s Nina, a ballerina who finally gets her big break, but has to embrace her dark side, but loses her mind in the process, but dances great anyway, despite—or maybe even because of !—her violent delusions. Obviously hoping to draw from theShowgirls holiday demographic, Black Swan pays homage in more ways than the same heart-warming premise. Take for instance howBlack Swan’s repeated refrain of “you dance without passion” is only a thinly veiled inversion of Nomi’s “dancing like your f*!*1-1=0!g”. Or consider the Showgirlsesque sub-story of Nina usurping stardom from an established rival. Like with Nomi, this involves a leg injury, hospital visits, and titillating lesbian (or in Black Swan’s case, graphically homicidal) encounters. Lastly, the final act of both productions gives the audience the satisfaction of Nina and Nomi reaching the apotheosis of their art. For Nomi this is the result of indefatigable sexual gyration filthily coupling itself with old-fashioned gumption; for Nina, however, this is the inevitable conclusion of an artist who allows herself to be physically and psychologically consumed by her art.

Sooo which will you pick? Portman giving the performance of the year in a poignant, visually-stunning piece of art, which leaves you feeling tense and kind of down; OR Berkley jerkily thrusting her body into Vegas super stardom in a movie that defies logic, reason and taste—but never the ability to leave you, and anyone else who “gets” Nomi, feeling like a Christmas miracle.

Super racy trailer mashing up Black Swan and Showgirls:http://www.ology.com/screen/watch-showgirlsblack-swan-mash

The Fighter - KDJ

Wahlberg, in the role he was made for, and Bale, with the performance of the year, and an appropriately trashy-pudgy, Amy Adams, complete a 'made for the movies' story and deliver on Wahlberg's promise - 'It's the best movie of the year'.

Four years ago I heard that Wahlberg began training for this movie. I checked up on it probably bi-weekly for two years. Last year, Aronofsky was in, then out, then in again, and finally this year, out again. I was pretty devastated. I can't say I was jacked when David O. Russel signed on. Kind of how I'm not jacked about Sam Mendes doing the next Bond. At any rate, I love Three Kings. I really like Flirting with Disaster (check out the cast on that movie) and still enjoy watching Huckabees. Nonetheless, I was really unsure about him taking the reigns on a movie that I had already invested so much time in.

I was wrong to question. I was resolutely put-in-my-place towards the end of the movie. It happened when Bale, in some of the most convincing acting I have seen since Cassel in Mesrine, walked onto Amy Adam's porch and pleads for understanding, not forgiveness. The moments on the porch were almost like stop-motion; each movement and line seemed crafted and deliberate yet remindful of moments in our own lives where we know how it feels to be in their place. In other words, it was worked over, but just natural, and therefore powerful. The scene was crafted with enough nonchalance to balance the sheer discomfort Bale exerted. And just when it seemed that David Russel was getting ready to fall back on his, mostly unneeded go-to, comedic relief, Bale saves the day - "It's icing from the cake" - just as the scene was the icing on the cake, for me at least.

The Fighter is a full on movie-going experience. As my good genius friend Morris once said, in all his lighthearted and genuine humility, "Give me a good come from behind story, some movie-going friends, and a movie theater, and I'm cool." I agree, Morris. I'm cool with this movie. I'm cool enough with it to give it my nod as the movie of the year (with Bale earning performance of the year).

JCVD - Rob

If you, like me, didn't realize Jean-Claude Van Damme was back, well...he's back. Or at least he was in 2008 when he came out with the eponymous JCVD. If you're wondering: yes, those are his badass Belgian initials.

What you probably remember about Van Damme is Street Fighter, Lionheart, and best of all: Bloodsport. He had a respectable mullet for the time and he beat the crap out of a lot bad guys. He also hooked it with some hot 80s chicks and did other cool stuff. And then, as far as I can tell, he disappeared. IMDb tells me that he has actually made a bunch of movies in this decade, but for all intents and purposes I think it's safe to say he's no longer a Hollywood star.

And that's where this film begins: JCVD, playing himself--a washed-up, has-been Hollywood actor--has lost a custody battle for his daughter, is doing lame movies, and doesn't have any money. Stopping in at a post office to transfer some funds, he happens upon a robbery in progress, and then things go crazy. Not kick-out crazy. Just unlucky crazy. Because he was seen going into the building, the police assume he's the assailant...ergo, we have a movie on our hands.

The film is mostly in French, so I can't honestly tell if JCVD is a good actor, though certainly his role is that of a proper actor and not simply an action star. The film is very European and, while the bad guy is uber creepy, I think it makes a point to avoid the gratuitous marks of a Hollywood flick. In fact, JCVD does very, very little fighting. And there's this really impressive soliloquy by JCVD that mirrors the opening scene a bit...he speaks candidly about his career and Hollywood and what it is like being JCVD. In that super-meta way, the film works. Whether JCVD is playing Jean-Claude Van Damme, or the character JCVD, is another question. But the scene itself is though-provoking and feels very honest. You certainly see what a tired, beaten man looks like even when he used to be one of the greatest action stars in the world.

The end is not a JCVD ending either, but I think it works. It definitely raises questions of justice and equity, real life vs. the movies. This flick is interesting. Not a must see by any stretch, but interesting if only for the ideas it raises.

If that's not your style, if you'd rather just see JCVD crush some people, go watch Bloodsport.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps - The Capitious Critic

"Jump! You fuckers!" - Even though the photo of a piece of cardboard bearing this invitation - held up by a demonstrator on Wall Street in the height of the financial crunch - came to worldwide fame, only few bankers obliged. Oliver Stone, avowing leftist and Chavez/Castro/Morales sympathiser, turns this fantasy into reality in his sequel to the 1987 Wall Street. After the crisis-related suicide of his mentor Louis (Frank Langella), investment banker Jacob Moore (played uninspiringly by Shia LaBeouf) vows vengeance against those responsible - ruthless capitalists who accept thousands of redundancies to make a quick buck. He sabotages an important oil extraction deal, earning him the attention of the most important bank's CEO (Josh Brolin), who promptly offers him a job. At the same time, his girlfriend (Carey Mulligan) must cope with her father's release from jail - the legendary Gordon Gekko (still Michael Douglas), who seems to have made a U-turn and publically warns against financial cataclysm, all the while promoting his new book.

Given the films topicality and Stone's political views you would expect a feature film version of Michael Moore's outstanding Capitalism: A Love Story. Instead, in an attempt to portray the meaninglessness of Ducatis, Bvlgari rings, tailor-made suits and Manhattan lofts, the director gets carried away and involuntarily expresses a fascination for such earthly pleasures. To compensate for this consumerist porn, Stone repeatedly shows us children playing with soap bubbles - to convince even non-attentive viewers of the film's profundity and symbolism. A supporting act by Susan Sarandon and cameo by Charlie Sheen (no doubt a favour to his old friend Oliver) add little substance. Money Never Sleeps continues Stone's spell of mediocre films that has lasted for more than a decade. The fact that Stone's last award nomination dates back to 1995 and Nixon pretty much sums up the situation.

Blow Up (Must See) - Rob Culpepper

I like a good meta film. Film about film. Looking to learn how to look. Blow Up, Antonioni's materpiece, is about just that: looking, the implications of looking, the exploitation of looking. Don't let that scare you off, because the film tells a great story apart from the interpretations of what it means. But like all great art, Blow Up works on so many levels simultaneously that every time you watch it, you'll pick up something else, learn something new.

Blow Up is about the sexy life of a young fashion photographer in 1960s London. He's rich and surrounded by beautiful women who will do anything to have him take their picture, but he's bored with his life. Then, by happenstance, he makes some photographs that reveal a mystery. As he continues to study the pictures (he's interrupted a couple times by beautiful women who, um, end up playfully naked), he realizes he's caught up in something much bigger than just making pictures. Antonioni's visual storytelling is flawless here. There is about stretch of about 15 minutes where he tells the story without dialog. Just camera angles. It's intense and amazing. Think about telling a story silently, with the only sounds being running water in the darkroom and shoes scuffing on the floor as Thomas (the photographer) moves around his studio. He does this a couple times through out the film and he pulls it off masterfully each time.

Music by Herbie Hancock, a live scene with the Yardbirds (Jeff Beck smashes a guitar, The Who-style), sharp dialog, lots of really interesting camera angles, a band of mimes, Vanessa Redgrave+Veruschka+Jane Birkin, etc.

Blow Up is a masterpiece. Watch it.

Inception - Tim J.

Great expectations are a cinephile's curse. Which of you can't recall at least a handful of instances when you'd been looking forward to a film like a child to Christmas only to be left wondering how things could go so terribly wrong? Being let down by a sequel or an actor is to be expected but when you choose a film on the basis of its director you are treading on thin ice, always prepared to be disillusioned by his next film. The Mist, Eyes Wide Shut and Tetro are a few of the films that should never have seen the light of day, at least not bearing the names Darabont, Kubrick and Coppola.

What better time for Chris Nolan to finally let us down. After grossing tens of millions with low-budget film Memento and hundreds of millions with his latest big budget film even less pessimist moviegoers must have prepared to come down to earth in the face of a sweeping $160 million summer blockbuster. But as in the case of The Dark Knight, Nolan has managed to produced an epic that does not take its audience for stupid.

When it comes to extracting secrets from you while you're dreaming, Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the best there is. If this sounds like an improbable job description to you think about the possibilities this line of work offers. Torturing someone for information may work as well but you don't know whether the info is correct and since the victims knows you know if will probably change its plans. In dream espionage however the subject never knows what hit it or even that something did. Cobb is ready to quit for good when a wealthy businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers him a final gig that would allow Cobb to return to the USA and see his children, which he has been unable to do since becoming the prime suspect in the death of his wife (Marion Cotillard). This job however is a lot more difficult than his previous ones since instead of stealing an idea he is to plant one in the victim's subconscious, so deep that he believes it is his own - a process called Inception. To this end, spoiled energy syndicate heir Robert Fischer (played brilliantly by Cillian Murphy) is preyed upon by Cobb and his team so they can plant in him the idea to split up his syndicate, which would make Saito world market leader.
So far, so complicated? That's just the beginning of a two and a half hour-movie that flies by like an episode of 24 without the shaky camera. When you see the team hook themselves up to a machine to enter the dream world you are inevitably reminded of the Matrix but Inception makes that film, once my favourite, look like a video game for 12-year-olds.

Although most of the action takes place in dreams Nolan does not resort to CGI landscapes a la Lovely Bones. Instead almost all scenes were shot on set, with widget spinning entire corridors and lounges and dolls posing for sleeping protagonists. And his efforts are not in vain. The viewer is not only bedazzled by the cinematography but also constantly wondering 'how the heck did he do that?' Which makes it one of a few films of which I can't wait to see the making of. In times where stuntmen have been replaced by the more expensive but less demanding bits and bytes it is refreshing to see images with natural texture and weight.

Unless the Academy gets it completely wrong (which as we know never happens, nudge nudge) Inception will be nominated for at least a couple of the following: Best Picture (which would be fun as the producers are Nolan and his wife), Director, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Original Score, Original Screenplay and Cinematography. You will have noticed that none of these concern acting skills. Don't get me wrong, the cast is all but perfect. From experience however I must acknowledge that it is hard to score an Oscar or even a nomination without doing a funny voice (Bullock, Winslet, Whitaker), a handicap (Hanks, DiCaprio, Day-Lewis) or singing (Foxx, Bridges, Phoenix). But don't give up hope, Leo. Pesci, Clooney, Hanks, Brody, Penn, Washington and Spacey all managed to contradict this theory and so can you. It is also likely that Marion Cotillard will be nominated for Best Supporting Actress or even Lead Actress, depending on what mood the jury is in. Anyone of these would be well-deserved. As an Englishman, Chris Nolan might receive even more acclaim at the BAFTAs.

As a captious critic I have of course been pondering what flaws Inception has. Believe me, there aren't many. Pointing out what's wrong with Inception is like pointing out what's wrong with President Obama. In theory you could do it but, hey, they're by far the best we've seen in a long time. So why ruin the moment? I doubt that 2010 will see another film as good as this and am planning to see Inception again this week, expecting it to be even better than the first time. Because yes I can.

Wall Street - KDJ

Oliver Stone movies are kind of all over the place. From Natural Born Killers to The Doors to Larry Flynt to the original Wall Street and now to this one -- covering lots of ground and lots of issues later, I think this is one of the best. I think everyone that reads the news, especially during the beginning phases of the recession, wondered about the moment when the dudes that decided everything acutally had to decide something. I heard Oliver interviewed and he wanted to stay away from this sort of scene as much as possible. He didn't want to directly portray subprime, crappy loans on a huge scale. He wanted to the fall-out to be more character driven, individual, able-to-relate-to, or whatever. But gosh, when I hear the number 700 billion I am always in complete amazement thinking about the dudes that first uttered the words, we need 700 billion dollars - we these millionaire investment bankers - need 700 billion dollars. Cause, man, and I think this is why the plot of this movie moves so well, is that there is some serious Greek drama going on. There is so much under the table, so much behind the curtain of both a bailout and a movie about a bailout of this magnitude. We, the viewer are forced to piece it together for ourselves and just as this can be difficult in real life, so to has Stone captured the difficultly of seeing how things play out when there isn't one to blame or one to save us or one to explain it all for us. I thought this movie was great. The first one was monumental and has become seasoned, the second comes along in stride with the help of some slicker technology and flashy directing - much like market shares; the value is hard to pinpoint without a rumor or a vilifying story, only this time, Sheen appears un-wizened.

The Town - Rob Culpepper

I'm not sure if Ben Affleck is a good actor or not. I think we can all agree that he's a decent director. I'm not saying he's ever going to win an Academy Award for either. However, I think he plays a decent character when he basically plays himself: a likable guy with street smarts but also an overarching sense of what's right. In other words, he can see the specific but not lose sight of the universal. I don't actually know if that's how he is in real life, but let's just say his character in The Town is much more Good Will Hunting than Pearl Harbor.

So Affleck starred in and also directed this movie, which is no small feat. And the movie is pretty good. There's tons of shooting, some really intense and heart-pounding moments, some decent dialogue, and a good story that develops between Affleck's character (Doug McCrae) and Rebecca Hall's (Claire Keesy). Speaking of Rebecca Hall, you will recognize her from The Prestige and Vicky Christina Barcelona (she was the other girl). She is introduced in the first heist, and then becomes the tug at McCrae's heart that leads him to question his questionable line of work.

Other notable people in the film: Blake Lively (she's in my top 5), Jon Hamm (who plays a total douche of an FBI agent), Jeremy Renner (plays a rough dude you always associate with Boston/Irish/gang stories), and Chris Cooper (he's always a home run, in my opinion).

So now to sell you on the film: It's worth watching, no more no less. It's a heist flick, so you know you're going to get to watch people steal money in cool ways. It has a little romance in it. It certainly has some complexity that a straight Shoot 'em Up film doesn't have. Although, the issue of loyalty to brother/friend/neighborhood is quite common in movies about local crime. Now that I think about it, The Town doesn't really do anything new in the realm of cinema. But it's an interesting story and it's told well. So if you've got $10 and a couple of hours to burn, check it out.

*I was recently in Boston visiting Buck Snodgrass among others, and I can say that having a grasp of the geography of Boston is helpful. So maybe look at a map before you head into the theater.

The Social Network - A. Shipp

Virtual or Physical - Commentary on The Social Network

I was fortunate enough to get sneak peak passes to Facebook's unofficial story, The Social Network. I want to preface I will do my best not to spoil the movie; but then again even if you read this a lot of people went and saw Titanic, and thoroughly enjoyed it.


The movie is good, I would definitely recommend it. The movie has a healthy dose of the depositions of the two legal battles Zuckerberg battled in the early years of Facebook. They portray Zuckerberg, as a young arrogant jerk, who doesn't care much about anyone else. (I don't think this is an accurate portrayal, but it does allow for some hilarious one-liners.)

When not in depositions the movie shows how Facebook was created at Harvard, the beginning of the formal company on the east coast, and their eventual move out west to Palo Alto. Through everything there was a very consistent theme ~ Hold onto your ideas

I went into the movie, not knowing what to think. As a PR professional I praise Facebook for allowing companies to interact with interested publics, however as an everyday person I have had an underlying feeling since the rise of Facebook and other social networking sites, many people get comfortable and stagnant in the virtual world.

Whether this is 100% true or not, I feel Zuckerberg created Facebook in reaction to being shunned from Harvard (mainstream) society. Essentially, he created a virtual world that allows a high level of connectivity, without the hassle of the awkwardness that can accompany human communication.



This frightens me. Is Facebook an incredible way for people to make connections and sustain relationships ~ OR ~ Is Facebook a tool people use to guard themselves from rejection? Human connection can be awkward, weird, and even boring, but it can also be all those amazing things that make life incredible.

So I pose this question to you ~ Do you feel more comfortable connecting to people virtually or physically?

Look forward to interacting (Virtually AND Physically)

Until next time, whether it's B2B or B2C it's all Business to Person

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - Robert Culpepper

I can't believe no one has written about Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. I am behind the curve as I'm sure it's not even in theaters anymore (I saw it at a dollar theater over the weekend). However, this movie kicks ass and I rate it as a Must See.

For one, it's an unbelievable work of the imagination. This movie does what a bunch of other comic book-based movies try to do. All the elements are there: sound effects written onto the screen, quick scene changes, graphic camera angles, and multiple camera shots at the same time. It pulls this off without being cliché. The use of CGI is good and you can't tell what's real and what's not. So things that are impossible in real life (flying, crazy action sequences, stuff getting smashed, etc) look totally normal in the movie...just like they do in comics. And they fit the whole vibe of the film, so that even the most outlandish elements look right at home.

That's probably what makes this movie so fun. It puts the elements of comics (and video games too) in the real world in a way that you don't notice them as odd or out of place. Speaking of being out of place, I thought it would be hard to see Michael Cera in this film. He's no action star, if you know his body type. But he actually pulls it off really well, in a very Everyman kind of way. Maybe in a kind of Peter Parker way. It helps that the film is full of small, hilarious details. The dialogue is quick and witty, and no opportunity to throw in a look, or early 90s reference, or quip, is missed. As a whole, the movie was really well cast. And Jason Schwartman is brilliant. I think we all know that.

Good comic books always spoke to the human condition in profound ways. While Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a funny movie, it has moral underpinnings. But like a good movies (and in good comic books and good literature) the 'lesson' isn't so overt as to be annoying or off-putting. Or at least when it comes out, it doesn't feel preachy.

Just go watch it. It's one of the most fun movies I've ever seen.

Birmingham Film Festival - R. Culpepper & SCJ. Simmons

A podcast by my good friends Rob Culpepper and Jacob Sim-City Jesse Simmons. Check it here.

The Eclipse - JAK

Full Disclosure: this review exists solely to make you watch this movie. Anything else you get from this (diversion, chuckles, etc.) is incidental. Kyle told me that I’ve failed if The Eclipse isn’t on your Netflix queue by review’s end. Firstly and secondly: this movie will not ‘change your life’ and it is, from what I know (but what do I know?), not groundbreaking cinema. It is, however, a good movie. And those are rare. It also encourages thought and discussion—rarer still.

Like Martin McDonough’s In Bruges, The Eclipse is the work of a young, talented Irish playwright, Conor McPherson. McPherson has earned a reputation for crafting top-notch stage dramas featuring the supernatural acting within everyday situations. Think Ghostbusters in drama form with a greater emphasis on the inner Slimers and Zules. But maybe that’s a stretch because while McPherson’s plays create a space for devils and ghosts, they are never about devils and ghosts. Rather they focus on the regular people who must confront literal manifestations of the same ghosts who haunt us all.

The everyman in The Eclipse is Michael Farr: good father, recent widower, former boxer, and present volunteer at the Cobh literary festival. Ciaran Hinds plays Farr as a kindly, vulnerable man who is set in opposition to the type of supernatural troubler that Hinds himself devilishly embodied in McPherson’s most successful stage production, The Seafarer. Farr’s first haunting comes in the form of a late-night sound from downstairs. Farr awakens to investigate and sees what appears to be the darkened form of his father-in-law move quickly, eerily, and downright scarily across the room. What makes the scene effective is its simplicity; without the special effects, it looks like an unsettlingly plausible kind of haunting. His father-in-law is neither in the house nor in the grave, but rather in a local nursing home—sad and embittered at the loss of his daughter and the perceived neglect by his son-in-law. His living ghost will visit Farr several more times in increasingly violent confrontations.

The following day the festival begins and Farr meets the visiting novelist that he’ll be chauffeuring around the city. The novelist, played with loveliness and depth by the Norwegian Iben Hjejle of High Fidelity fame, writes about the ghosts that haunt her own life. Farr turns to her for help and a mostly platonic romantic interest develops. Farr’s rival for her attention is another visiting novelist played by Aiden Quinn. Whiny, pretentious, insecure, and allergic to shellfish, Quinn’s Nicholas Holden provides some nice moments of levity. When he, for instance, challenges Farr to a boxing match, we get a breather from the earlier emotional intensity by witnessing the yippy Pekingese (http://tiny.cc/9j9ac) of an author get his comeuppance. If Farr’s relationship with Holden helps alleviate the building tension, then his role as a father ratchets that intensity up to the breaking point. The trauma of Farr’s ordeal shows most poignantly on his daughter’s face; which, frowning with a distress and heartbreak beyond her years, reaffirms that the film’s focus is on human loss, not supernatural warfare. After all, as Hjejle’s character tells us, it’s often us who keep the ghosts present; we can’t let them go.

So, don’t expect a young priest and an old priest for any exorcisms here. Instead of being typical horror movie props, the ubiquitous crosses and Mary statues instead suggest the hope of a much more subtle form of deliverance. Rather than a flashy, final confrontation, the exorcism of Farr’s ghosts requires a process as natural, and indescribably difficult, as grief itself.

Che -KDJ

It takes some energy to make it through parts one and two. However, the energy output matches the goodness intake. Mainly, because of Benicio Del Toro. But also because of the straightforward movie making going on. Soderbergh is more known for coolness yet this movie is not about coolness as much as it is telling the story of a mythic character, as understood by the actors, directors and producers. Che ‘stuff’ is always interesting because its appeal is understood so differently. Soderbergh makes sense of these bunches of ways of seeing and talking about Che. And Del Toro has an arrogance about him that matches how I think of Che, an absolutist mother effer, but still able to meet folks on a human first level.

Che’s appeal and life is super interesting. I’ve read a bunch of crap about Che and by Che. I’m not a Che scholar but I’m really interested in the dude. There are a few things that pique my skull. A.) Che was able to justify killing people. B.) The dude wrote while crazy, exhausting crap was going on around him. C.) He was an incredibly intense dude but he still seemed to, in my way of reading him, relate to people.

A.) Che killing people in order to ‘make things right’ moves Che into another category. Often, Presidents and dictators or politicians or decision makers or whomever, don’t actually, themselves, take someone out. Che took people out. He believed in revolution and he believed in ‘a political system’ enough to substantiate one way of doing stuff over another. His way of doing stuff had the same end goals that Ghandi and MLK had, yet he wanted change quicker than they did. He was an extremist like Paul was an extremist. If every human on earth was not a Christian by the time Paul died then he was going to consider himself a failure. Che wanted every human soul to experience absolute freedom in his lifetime or else he was going to be a failure. The fastest way to gaining converts was to pull up those that needed pulling up and to take down those that needed taking down. In this way, Che killing people separates him and makes everything he writes about truth, virtue, goodness, and freedom really unique and interesting.

B.) On this idea of writing, Che freaking wrote while he was stompin through jungles, while he was cruising around south America, while he was chilling before speaking to the U.N. and while he was surrounded by enemy troops. They make a big deal about this in the movie and I am glad they did. Because it is pretty incredible that he did this. What is more is that what he wrote was really good stuff. He wrote crap that was not so much revolutionary but it was always pertinent and it was always written to make a clear point. It wasn’t as much rambling as it was him trying to make sense of himself and what he was doing and thinking. What comes through in his writings and journals and speeches is an intense love for other people. In the movie, they have him talking to a reporter about how the most important quality for a revolutionary fighter to have is an intense love. He wrote a lot about and to his mother. There is an epic picture of Che hugging his mother in Havannah after they had overthrown the capital. As the voyeurs that we are once a mythic idealogue dies and his/her journals are published after death, we can imagine how much that hug meant to the dude because we know how honestly he encountered his mom in his letters. Che just really connected with people.

C.) The movie makes the point to show Che being about people first and revolution and medicine and whatever else second. He wanted the best for people. Whatever best was, he often questioned the idea of best, he wanted it. He did so much crap but he always did it with people as the end goal. The movie shows him always introducing himself to new people. It also shows him embracing all the guerillas like they were brothers and sisters. I think this is interesting and I think the movie was good for showing this because often super intense people are unable to come back down and just kick it with folks around them. I don’t know for sure if Che truly kicked it with people but it seems that he at least tried to. There is a big difference between trying and actually doing it but the movie made it seem that he did and I liked this about the movie. At least it recognized how necessary this was for the characterization of ‘Che’ and all the possible versions of ‘Che’.

The characterization of Che and Fidel and their fight was seen through a really simple picture, motion picture that is. The simple results as seen by the viewer had to come from a lot of work and doing crap right. The production of this movie really surprised me. It surpised me because it had this appearance of old school movies but it did it well and it did it for a reason. There are a lot of logistics to telling the story of Che from the build-up to leaving the mainland and sailing for Cuba, to battle scenes to the development of Che’s idealogy and mythic figure-ness to his death scene and whatever else. Soderbergh did really well with all this. What he did even better was the orchestration of scenes where Che was meeting new recruits and locals and peasants and then dignitaries in New York. There are a thousand ways to invoke ‘Che’. I think Soderbergh didn’t pick just one way of doing so. I think he used all the ways that it has been done and meshed them all together. In this way you get one way of seeing Che, but I think it is a more informed one way of seeing Che. I don’t think he was trying to prove all the Che lovers and Che haters wrong. I think he just wanted to make a movie about the coolnes of Che’s story.

Benicio is the best actor alive, in my opinion. I think he is in that category where you forget that you are watching a character. He dominated this movie. He even looked like Che. I spoke with my Cuban roommate and my friend from Buenos Aires and both said that he did an Agentinian accent and a Cuban accent perfectly. My Mexican friend told me that his accent in 21 grams was also perfect. What is more, is how cool his accent was in the Usual Suspects. I am all for any movie with this dude in it.

Che parts 1 and 2 are both really great movies. I think it will not ever be noticed as a game changer or anything like that. But it is just a really good movie that was shot well and had some great actors and has a great story.

"El secreto de sus ojos" (or "The Secret in Their Eyes") - E. Stephens

When Kyle asked me in December if I'd like to write a couple reviews, particularly of Spanish-language films, I thought it was an awesome idea. Fast forward two months to see me newly settled in Argentina, watching the Oscars (subtitled) as "El secreto de sus ojos" won the foreign film category. Schoolwork, travels, and work have kept me occupied, but I finally watched "The Secret in Their Eyes." And within a day, had seen it again.

If I had any doubts as to whether this film was meant to be taken lightly or not, the first five minutes quickly dispelled them. In a very graphic manner, "El secreto" tells the story of a rape and murder that happened in 1974 and the drama that follows. And follows. The frame of the film shows Benjamín Espósito, the investigating detective, two and a half decades later, still seeking closure. Irene Hastings, his new (new in '74) serves as the foil to his need to remember. Pablo Sandoval, Espósito's assistant, provides comic relief and the writers' thesis of human nature.

The scenes depicting the investigation and the justice system appealed to the crime show addict in me, but the truly great part of this film comes from its blunt depiction of human nature, the good and the bad. The plot, though well written, comes across as nothing more than the season finale of Law and Order: SVU. The investigators get personally drawn into the case, and the denoument serves to appease the audience, not the justice system. I have't seen any of the other movies that were nominated, but in my opinion, "El secreto" won because of one particular conversation between Espósito and Sandoval in the bar. Sandoval manages to define individuality in a way that's still got me thinking.

Something else to take away from this film, however, is its particular depiction of Argentine history. While very few political specifics are actually mentioned, the importance of memory to the narrative speaks to the writers' opinions. One debate, in particular, between Espósito and Hastings reflects the current dialouge about how the past dictatorship should affect the present. Even their names and backgrounds communicates a political leaning.

Somehow, the popularity of the film, and the excitement it prompted in Argentina manage to use the film's own thesis to define the nation. Argentina's passion is its pride. What's your passion?

Thoughts on Renting Movies - Robbie C

The other night, exhausted after a long day of work, I stopped by my local Blockbuster to rent a movie. It's probably sacrilege to admit it on this blog, but I don't watch a ton of movies. When I do, I either borrow or stop by a Redbox kiosk. So it had been a while since I was in a Blockbuster. Going in was like stepping back in time. If there's magic lost in watching movies on a laptop or iphone, there's also magic lost when renting a movie online or from a machine at the front of walmart.

Do you remember what it was like to go to a movie store when you were a kid? My sister used to keep a list of movies she wanted to rent and she'd take it with her. I was more freeform, and I wasn't afraid to rent the same movie half a dozen times. Even if I knew what I wanted, I was going to walk all the way down the long wall of the store that held new releases before I ever decided on some old favorite. I could spend an hour just looking at the covers. It was a treat to get to rent a movie for the weekend, even though we did it almost every Friday.

I think stores are better than the internet and redboxes because they're immediate and the selection is immense. And I'm just talking about your chain kind of stores here. I had a friend in high school who moved to Austin, TX and ended up working at an independent movie store there. Not only did they have films you couldn't get anywhere else, but the people who worked there were also knowledgeable and could make great recommendations. They were movie lovers, and just like going into any store with experts, they could get you pumped about something as bad as Rosemary's Baby (which was on the shelf at Blockbuster, btw).

It occurs to me: maybe this blog, paired with netflix, is kind of like that independent movie store. But you do lose the immediacy, and you don't get that movie-store smell...

Anyhow, I grabbed a movie I'd seen before (but not in a while) and went to pay, only to find that it now costs $5 to rent a movie. FIVE DOLLARS.

WTF Blockbuster?

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans - KDJ

Manic, disjointed, pulpy, a noir-throw-back (or a noir-re-awakening), rhythmic, looped, fantastic, naive, reaching, revolutionary, original, freaking crazy, ungainly, unpredictable, uncoined, undefinable, altogether un-boring, and therefore: great. Melanie, I could not disagree with you more. Nicolas Cage and Werner Herzog have combined their greatness and achieved greatness.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans, is not about plot or character development. Nicolas Cage, Xzibit, Val Kilmer, Eva Mendes, Jennifer Coolidge, and Tom Bower are characters undevelop-able. Confining a drug addict, rapist, hallucinator, over-the-top, corrupt cop (Cage) to a plot within the confines of NYPD Blue or CSI is not only impossible but just impossible.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, is not about New Orleans or Hurricane Katrina. A weakened NOLA, formerly invincible 'city of legends', formerly more sinful than 'sin city' city is only a backdrop for a drug addict, rapist, hallucinating, over-the-top, corrupt cop to be a drug addict, rapist, hallucinating, over-the-top, corrupt cop. Thus, it is not about New Orleans.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans, is about everything else in the day-to-day life of a drug addict, rapist, hallucinating, over-the-top, corrupt cop. "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans, is about seasoning. Like New Orleans cuisine, it finds that you can put anything in a pot if you add the right spices and peppers and simmer it long enough." As I have mentioned before, only Nicolas Cage is capable of going far enough to simmer in a pot with a whole bunch of spicy crap, it takes balls; and for it to come out tasty, it takes a good pot.

Herzog matches Cage's discomfort with normal and raises him sustained, jazz-backed, shaky foreground shots of iguanas, souls break-dancing, and alligators. I am pretty sure that only Nicolas Cage could stare at an iguana for several moments in a movie in such a way that I like it. The thing is, there is only one director I can think of that has the guts to have his lead actor stare at an iguana for several minutes--Werner.

BL:POC,NO has leapt out of the darkness that sadistic plots were ushering all things 'film-nwar' into. William Finkelstein did not write a remake of Harvey Keitel's epic, Bad Lieutenant. He wrote a movie that is so sensationally dark, yet not depressing--not sure how this is done. I think it occurs when the viewer is lucky enough to see everything that a character does not in a sensational way. It is kind of really amazing literature in this way. I mean, 'pulp' movies were all about this and Tarantino and Godard and other writers attempt this and do really cool stuff with it. But this movie hid even less from the ridiculousness of making a movie in the first place. How can a movie begin with the devastation of an inmate trapped in the natural, rising waters that should have been held back by a man-made levy, and end with said inmate slouched even more helplessly on the ground in-front of natural water creatures, being successfully held back by a see-through man made levy? The only way is if every character is integrally dedicated to their naive existence as a character in a Herzog movie. This makes no sense. I loved this movie.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans - Melanie

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe this filmed was not universally panned. I've found undue comfort in reading blogs by other readers who agree this is the worst movie of 2009, or of their lives.

The adjectives thrown at this film: manic! disjointed! should be taken literally, not as irreverent faint praise. Herzog shows himself incapable of any restraint or cohesiveness. His quirky flourishes are so strained and obvious. The shaky iguana shots? please. Did anyone else notice that Cage acquired some strange accent about halfway through the movie and then lost it again? And why are people praising his performance? It's as though he reviewed all of his best subversive roles from the 80s and rehashed them here, without real heart, and without the benefit of a good director, script or supporting actors. The acting is uniformly terrible, did I say that? Did I say that it is clearly the fault of Herzog?

Did I state plainly enough that this was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever, ever seen in my life?

Robin Hood, Ghost, Polanski, Commercial vs. Independent

Click Here for link to download of new podcast on Robin Hood, Ghost (Ghost Writer), Polanski, and commercial vs. independent films. This podcast is not random rambling.

And here is a link to a trailer for a recent film to come out of the National Film School in Łódź.

Nollywood Babylon - Tim J.

A few weeks ago I attempted to order a copy of Nollywood Babylon, a documentary on the Nigerian film industry by a group of Canadian filmmakers. 'No problem, Mr Johnston, just transfer us €34.95 and the DVD will be with you within ten working days', came the swift reply. Those who know of my Judeo-Scottish background can imagine that that transaction never took place. All the more thrilled was I when my dissertation supervisor called my attention to a screening of the documentary at the British Museum ('Re: Nollywood - You MUST go'). With only three days to go before my trip experience Nollywood first-hand, I interpreted timing of the screening as nothing less than a sign from above.

Nollywood Babylon begins with a history tour of Nigerian cinema, from colonialist so-called documentaries that brought home news of 'savages' and their quirky customs to the late 1980s and the artistic pinnacle of filmmaking in West Africa. Film only became an industry in 1992, after the financial success of Living in Bondage, a subliminally political feature film. When got about that you could make a living with a camera and aVW van full of aspiring actors, the number of films produced exploded: from a handful of films before 1992 to now 900-2,500 per year.

Lancelot Oduwa Imasuen is the Michael Bay of Nigeria. With 158 films under his belt (a figure, which will have risen considerably by the time of writing) the man in his thirties is the most prolific director in Lagos. His statement that 'the business of filmmaking is about making money' makes inevitable comparisons to the man who has been involved in at least one of the ten highest-grossing films every year for the past decade. But Lancelot personifies the comic relief in a film that offers more belly-laughs than most comedies I can recall. The poor special effects and overacting that are ubiquitous in Nollywood had the auditorium in tears time and time again. I noted that about half the viewers were Nigerian and therefore acquainted with these charming shortcomings that offer a quick fix to homesickness. Lancelot's insistence on praying before, after and during every film ('god willing, this camera will work to its full capability and beyond) and a cameraman's claim that his camera had stopped working due to witchcraft were met with hysterical laughter, no matter what the viewers' religious affiliation.

During the second half of the film, it switches from lighthearted report on the industry to critique of faith-basedfilmmaking as done by Helen Ukpabio, head of a 50,000 strong gospel church. Criticism of religion? Fine by me - and yet the producers' decision to make a political point during what hitherto had been a mere unbiased account to me seemed somewhat incongruous. That aside, the documentary is highly entertaining and, due to the amount of laughs, recommendable even to those who have never heard of Nollywood - who despite its recent rise still constitute the majority.

Cemetery Junction - Cage

Ricky Gervais and Steven Merchant are just two dudes that usher 'funny stuff' into short moments of reality in a way that has been super successful, save 'The Invention of Lying' (see review by Buck). For me, 'Extras' and 'The Office' are two of the best television shows ever made. The way that Gervais writes every single character as a witty, quick talking, perfect personification of the person you want that person to be is why he is making so many dough stacks right now. This movie is a manifestation of Gervais and Merchant's ability to do that. I think of it as them recounting a story for some of their friends. Something really funny happened to them and they are telling their friends about the time their buddy did this or that and had this boss that was this way or that and he said this or that and no one could believe he did it. And this is how they write their shows and movies. This way, each character's line or action is focused on the thing that was most funny or meaningful. And the meaningful is where I think Gervais is moving towards more often. The slapstick, awkward humor of The Office was followed up by still awkward humor in 'Extras' but a bit more real. Ghost Town was similar to Extras in this sense. And now, just as Judd Apotow with 'Funny People' has dipped into the darker side of comedy, Gervais is becoming a bit more real with his stuff. I would like to make a generalization and say that most actors and writers that make so much money off of being funny are actually really serious and emotional and smart people. I think of Conan crying every time he talks about how much the Late Night show meant to him and Dave Chapelle getting so serious with James Lipton on Inside the Actor's studio or John Stewart making earnest political appeals. I think these people really 'get' their audience and are good at making their timing and humorous moments perfect because they know what it feels like to live on that line of funny and real or funny and sad. In this way, they are really talented because it is hard to write real and funny in a way that is not lame.

Cemetery Junction takes a classic theme and interjects super witty, sensationalized characters

into seemingly real situations. You want to hang out with the main characters, you want to

punch the butthead of a boss, and you want to marry the girl. The three main characters are each stuck in the suburban boringness of 1970s England which could very

well be an American suburb. They feel they missed out on the 60s and dream of hitch-hiking to National Geographic destinations to take pictures, cause taking pictures of their feet aren't getting them much. So this is the classic story of kids wanting to get out and 'experience the world'. In the way are drunk parents, abusive parents, the law and the prospect of getting or keeping real jobs and raising a family and living a civilized life. They finally plan their break, go to get the girl, she doesn't come, then she comes and they catch the last train out of town. It's definitely a feel good movie and as I said, you love all the characters. Gervais and Merchant are starting to reach out a bit but I feel they are repeating some jokes and sticking to some staples that people expect them to stick to. I expect in the near future that Gervais is going to get a bit darker and a bit more real. If he gets bored with his characterizations and patters of story telling I would imagine that people, especially in Britain, aren't going to like what he comes up with. Thus is the paradox that chubby comedians who tell piss, fart and dick jokes have to face up to. I suspect though that we haven't seen just how dark Gervais can get. I liked this movie and I'm looking forward to his post-rehab films.