Enter The Void: 2010

Release date: September 24, 2010 (USA)

Director: Gaspar Noé

Cinematography: Benoît Debie

I admire point of view films because they are so easy to mess up. Most of the complaints that I have with films like this have mostly to do with the camera and at times I'll be saying to myself, "There is no way they could have gotten that shot!" However, you have found something incredibly special when you come across a P.O.V film that is creative with its cinematography, subject matter, and narrative. Director Gaspar Noé has managed to edit together a film, the likes of which I have never experienced. And I will never want to experience it ever again. 

Enter The Void is about Oscar, an in-denial drug dealer who is killed and witnesses the effect his death has on his friends and sister from his wandering/omniscient soul. I have to say that the strong impression this film gave me came entirely from the story and execution. Both are incredible and incredibly new at that. Enter The Void is told and filmed in the first person, but it would be an injustice to leave it at just that.  It doesn't just feel like you're looking at what the main character is looking at, it feels like you're inside Oscar's head and the reason why the film is able to distinguish between being someone and being...inside...someone is because of the sound design of muffling whatever Oscar says, and it's really great to see that people would actually think about that.

The movie centers around two unpleasant subjects: drugs and death.Both are presented and shown in interesting ways. In fact I don't think that Iv'e seen anything like this movie so far. The idea of death is discussed a little between the characters but the real substance comes from the depictions and representations of what actually happens when you die.  The way the film handles drugs is just as interesting, and again, although the subject of drugs is deeply, deeply seeded into the plot, more is explained through the visual representation of each high. In a way both of these interpretations mirror each other in presentation. I'm not quite sure what that means, but it's something to think about. 

At the core Enter The Void is driven singlehandedly by the visuals...which can be a good thing and a bad thing. On one hand it's a unique way to present the audience with a story. On the other hand IT'S CRAZY. THIS MOVIE IS INSANE. THE CAMERA CONSTANTLY SWITCHES BETWEEN CHARACTERS WITHOUT "CUTTING" AND THAT MEANS THAT OSCARS STUPID P.O.V SPIRIT HAS TO FLY FROM ONE CHARACTER TO THE OTHER IN REAL TIME! AND THAT'S PRETTY COOL FOR THE FIRST COUPLE OF TIMES BUT AFTER AWHILE I START TO WONDER, "HEY! HOW'S ANYONE SUPPOSED TO WATCH THIS MOVIE WHEN THE CAMERA WON'T STOP FLYING AROUND JAPAN THROUGH. EACH. WALL. AND. DOOR. JUST TO GET TO THE NEXT CHARACTER TO HEAR ABOUT HOW HORRIBLE HIS OR HER LIFE IS NOW THAT POOR MAIN CHARACTER OSCAR THE JUNKIE GOT SHOT IN A BAR STALL BY A COUPLE OF COPS WHO THOUGHT HE HAD A GUN. IT'S UPSETTING BECAUSE I WANT TO LIKE THIS MOVIE MORE BUT "ARTSY" CHOICES LIKE THIS MAKE THE FILM THAT I WANTED TO WATCH ALMOST UN-WATCHABLE! ...And so that's the problem.

It's difficult to tell if the negatives outweigh the positives because I actually really like Enter The Void. But the main problem stems from the inability to actually watch the film. This becomes apparent by the opening credits, which if you're at all intrigued by the film and are interested in watching it, I won't spoil what happens. But I will say that there should be a seizure warning somewhere before the movie starts. To my dismay there wasn't, and I was unfortunate enough to simply stumble upon this film without really knowing what it was about so when the opening credits assaulted me...it was surprising to say the least.    

Despite this I still recommend the movie because I think that it would be very easy for someone to hate and I would like to get an idea of the ratio between people who do like the film and people who don't. As for myself in formulating an actual opinion I would like to say that I didn't enjoy watching the movie, but I like it overall as a film. There are several very interesting concepts that are presented originally and executed in enough of a coherent way. I'm torn between the visuals because it's probably one of the biggest reasons why I both like the film and loathe it. When rating Enter The Void I'm going to take into account not only the aspects that make the film un-watchable but the effort the filmmakers made to create the movie. Go watch it. Don't die. You've been warned. 

7/10

Blue Ruin: 2014

   I had only heard one thing about Blue Ruin before watching it. That it would only appeal to independent film junkies. Hearing that news sort of rubbed me the wrong way. Yes, Blue Ruin is an independent film, but I can't stand this whole idea of filing everything that isn't a Hollywood blockbuster into the "artsy, film festival, misunderstood bin of one-hit-wonders". "Ohh, It's an independent film, so it's privileged." Like, that name is some kind of handicap that can excuse it from being compared to other films. I mean, I get that a movie from Christopher Nolan shouldn't be compared to a movie like Be Kind, Rewind, but that isn't the point that I'm trying to make. It shouldn't matter about whether or not it's an independent film. As long as you have a camera, you are at equal playing fields when trying to convey an emotion, or prove a point, or tell a story. Oh yeah, and I'm reviewing Jeremy Saulnier's  Blue Ruin. It caught audiences by surprise by attempting to deliver a ultra realistic thriller blah blah blah let's do this.

   I think that I should address before I begin that I did some research on Jeremy Saulnier and found that he hasn't necessarily made quite a big footprint in the film industry. His last and only other film dating back to 2007 entitled Murder Party was, surprisingly, not very popular among audiences. His new film that I will talk about today will try to tell a revenge story, and hopefully succeed in the process.

   Blue Ruin is about Dwight, a homeless man who returns to his family to settle an old score with the Cleland family, their long time adversary. Throughout the film it doesn't become incredibly clear as to why the two families are at war with each other. Very little is explained, and whether or not what is said is even the truth stays vague, even during the climax.  And in my opinion that takes a toll on the overall film. There aren't a lot of opportunities for character development, and Dwight hardly has any lines at all. However, I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing because on one hand less lines means less exposition, and on the other hand there's an added sense of intrigue and mystery to the origin of our characters. 

   I don't know which one I prefer, and I've found myself thinking about the similarly about films like Drive and Only God Forgives, where not much attention is put onto the main characters. But it's very frustrating in Blue Ruin specifically because the film isn't really stylized around the visuals (unlike in said films where visuals are much more important). It more has to do with the obsticals that add new story, and challenge to the film. But I think that the way Dwight deals with the problems he is faced with gives an interesting alternative to developing a character. This is a great strength that the film holds, and it's very refreshing to watch a film that is so pro "show, don't tell". A lot of the quite moments in Blue Ruin end up forming a very realistic atmosphere. 

   Blue Ruin is incredibly realistic. It conveys the idea of "real life danger"  really well. When I say "real life danger" (for lack of a better phrase) I'm talking about the difference between Die Hard and Die Hard 4. Blue Ruin stays grounded to reality, and the best parts are during the thinking and executions of how the main character is going to overcome a certain obstacle. A certain, realistic obstacle. The plot represents a sort of domino affect that puts each consecutive event into motion. The fun of the film is watching how Dwight will get out of the next issue! And, thankfully, every action scene falls within the boundaries of realism, preventing the film from making Dwight invisible. The realism in the film keeps the tension high and makes up for a lack of character development or any substantial exposition. Even though I don't know all too much about Dwight's predicament or past life, the violence is shot in such a way that I ended up caring about him regardless. 

   I have to admit that after viewing Blue Ruin, I decided that I didn't like it very much. And I'm going to sound like such a snooty, pretentious critic, but I felt like I was on the outside looking in on the film, as opposed to there, in the moment, and invested. This really only had to do with the characters, and the plot. A lot was shrouded in mystery, and I felt like being at school, and coming into a conversation too late, not knowing what anyone is talking about. The film lets you in on a few things, but the rest is unseen and unheard. It was kind of frustrating, because at a certain point I became interested in the story, but due to the way exposition was handled, I never became fully interested. The violence was very unforgiving, but sparing and realistic. Blue Ruin fell a little short, but at least it fared better than Murder Party. At the end of the day, at least I can say that. 

6/10

Godzilla: 2014

   When I say monster, what sort of thing comes to mind?  Maybe you think of the Universal monsters like The Wolf Man, or The Creature From The Black Lagoon. Or maybe you think of the creations of special effects pioneer Ray Harryhausen. But if you're like me, then the first thing you think of when you hear "monster" is Godzilla. A name that implies ultimate power and destruction...and dinosaurs. Godzilla began his reign of destruction in 1954 with the release of his first feature film entitled, "Gojira". The monster was supposed to symbolize the power of nuclear weapons, and the destruction the monster caused mirrored (more or less) the devastation of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is  who Godzilla originally was, but as he began to appear in more films the giant thunder lizard would become both friend and foe to the human race through one way or another.  And once again an American director has decided to wipe the slate clean and retell the first appearance of a scary, green, scaly, atomic breathing, giant monster. Let's take a look at Gareth Edwards' Godzilla!

   Now before I begin I would like to clarify something. I am a huge Godzilla fan. I love the monsters and robots that he fights. I love Monster Island. I love everything from Mecha-Godzilla to Jet Jaguar and I was really excited when I heard tell of a new Godzilla movie! Like, oh my god. For once in my adult life I would have a modern release to call my own! I was hyped, and I hoped that this revamp of a franchise would succeed in reminding audiences who the king of monsters was. However, I understand that writing a review of a film with this big a fan base is a heavy burden to carry, and in doing so I need to remind those who have an opinion to also respect mine for what it is. To you I might be wrong. To you I might not have fully understood the kind of Godzilla movie that was meant to be made. Maybe, to you, Gareth Edwards exceeded your vision of Godzilla to the nth degree. I'm trying to break to you that I didn't like this movie. Let me tell you why. Who knows, you might be really disappointed. 

   The plot follows Joe Brody (Cranston), his son Ford (Taylor-Johnson) and their efforts to uncover a conspiracy hidden by the government. As you may have guessed that conspiracy is Godzilla, and it later escalates as more monsters reach more populated areas. And the first thing that I want to talk about is Godzilla which was, after all, the main selling point for the film. There is a ton to consider when you take the helm for a job like this, and I think that Edwards did the most that he could do. And it looks beautiful. The pacing, every movement, his face, the moves! It's all there! And it looks so cool!!!!! As far as I'm concerned Godzilla looks perfectly fine. I heard that some people thought that Godzilla's legs and feet looked fat, and I can see where they're coming from, but it never really bothered me because he's a giant monster and I was prepared for him to be lumbering around a metropolitan area. In other words, his size matched his speed. 

For a movie called, "Godzilla" there really isn't all that much Godzilla in the film. The full screen time that Godzilla has might clock out to a half an hour at the most, and only half the time he's fighting other monsters. When I watch a Godzilla movie I expect it to revolve around him for the most part, but instead Edwards decided it would be better to star two actors to carry our story from beginning to end.

   I want to explain why a main character is important in a story for a frame of reference to this movie. The main character is who the audience vicariously lives through. It is important to have a character in a story that doesn't understand the driving action at hand so that when he is learning about the situation, so are we as an audience. The way that Jo works with Ford is similar to a movie like Back to The Future however only in the sense that there is an experienced man trying to explain a discovery to an inexperienced apprentice. But in a movie like Back to the Future we care a lot more about Marty than Doc Brown because we like his character, we want to see him overcome obsticals, and we know he's not perfect (when he loses his temper after being called "chicken"). Marty McFly is a well rounded character. Ford is not. I have no disrespect towards Aron Taylor Jonson's performance, but his character has nothing interesting set up during the entirety of his screen time. I don't care about him as a character at all. I don't care about his wife, or his job, or his well furnished house. The only reason I think he needed to be in the movie was to give us perspective of a human in comparison to Godzilla...which was incredible. 

   Bryan Cranston's performance was incredible as well and while I don't believe that he was picked simply to grab more of an audience, I don't think it hurt the film during box office weekend. His performance was so good, I can honestly say that I cared infinitely more about Jo and his wife with the ten minuets they were interacting together, than the entire rest of the film that had Ford and his wife interacting together. The very moment that Bryan Cranston died I had no one to follow in the movie that I remotely cared about. It relieved all the tension because I didn't care about Ford or his wife. He was the only interesting character and when he left I had nothing to invest in for the rest of the film. 

   Many people had gone into this movie with different expectations because while there is generally a formula to a Godzilla movie, there are also different aspects of the franchise that fans like to focus on. My ideal Godzilla movie would be a bunch of never-before seen actors playing scientists with no names that try to kill Godzilla with a science thing...but that will never happen. I didn't expect it to happen, but I hoped it would. This is not that movie.

   There were a few minor problems I had with Godzilla, like how everything seemed a little too convenient for our main characters when they were everywhere Godzilla was, and when Ford makes it his mission to save one child out of the fifty people that are on a train literally speeding towards one of the monsters. But I can look past those flaws. All in all Godzilla takes itself a little too seriously for me. There are several dry spells in the film where nothing happens, the actual story that doesn't involve Bryan Cranston is terrible, and I didn't care about the main character. But if you're willing to put up with that to get to the best ten minuet monster fight you've ever seen, I recommend it.

6/10

Trailer

The Great Gatsby: 2013

   I love F Scott Fitzgerald. I love his diction and eloquent ability to string together a time and place. The Great Gatsby, arguably his most famous novel is certainly a true testament to the literary footprint he imposes on American Literature to this day. It’s a good book, so naturally a considerable amount of time and effort would need to go into the film adaptation. …And so, in 2013 Baz Lurmahnn would take the place of so many directors before him and attempt to tell the story of a man named Jay Gatsby.

   I do not like Baz Lurmahnn or his movies. In my opinion they are far too loud, fast, and obnoxious for me to get any enjoyment out of watching. And, sadly, I can’t say anything too differently in terms of The Great Gatsby, his latest film. The frustrating part about it being this adaptation specifically is that both Lurmahnn and Fitzgerald have definitive styles to their writing, and when they are chosen to “work together” so to speak, the final product is…not entirely thought through. Sometimes it felt like certain scenes were directed by different people. Every so often an entire scene from the film would be pulled from the book verbatim, and that can be confusing when the very next scene is written like a Baz Lurmahnn film.

   Lurmahnn’s adaptation also suffers from the constant explanation of symbols in the story. Fitzgerald doesn’t need to completely explain his writing because he gives just enough insight into the possible explanation of symbols. At one point in the book a man is explaining to Nick Caraway, the main character, that all the books in Gatsby’s house were real books. Fitzgerald doesn’t fully explain it, but leaves the symbol of the scene open for understanding. However, Lurmahnn does not take as much time to stew in the proverbial pot of character or plot development. Ironically so, being that the film clocks in at two and a half hours.

   The Great Gatsby, when being compared to Fitzgerald’s work, falls short of engaging. The writing is all over the place, the style gives no time to admire the fleshed out and rather accurate backdrops of the locations, and when the end credits have finally appeared on the centerfold you are left wondering if Lurmahnn thinks you are too smart or too stupid to understand the film. And at the bottom line, that is the main problem. Even though the audience is waited on hand and foot by Lurmahnn, he is unable to present the main theme of Fitzgerald’s writing; that a man can reinvent himself. 

6.5/10

Enemy: 2013

I'm not sure what to think of Enemy, and while that's not the best line to begin a review with, I'll try my best to talk about it and form some kind of an opinion before this is over. Enemy is about Adam, an introverted college professor who spots his doppelganger acting in a film, and decides to track him down. That's as much of the movie I can spoil because I'm not really sure what happens after that. I mean, there's a loose plot revolving around Adams doppelganger, Anthony, pursuing Adam's girlfriend but besides that the film is pretty devoid of anything else. Well, mostly.

The overall film produces a very melancholy tone, mostly due to the muted color scheme and soundtrack. The soundtrack in particular stood out from the rest of the film, and while I'm not really in a place to judge music, I thought it fit very well with the escalation of tension throughout the film. The cinematography provides the audience with incredibly unsettling moments coupled with the violent sliding of the violin every now and then. There are some shots I can note that take advantage of the strange atmosphere and this works to the film's advantage.

However, I will say that I was at first hesitant to review Enemy, but only for one reason. Nothing, and I mean nothing out of the ordinary is explained or developed. I'm talking about the spiders. Now if you've seen the film you know what I mean by this, but if you have not had the time to view Enemy I'm not going to spoil anything else. I couldn't even if I wanted to. 

Enemy's major flaw is not the style, but rather the handling of the substance. When I walk out of a theater I don't want to leave empty handed. I want to leave with a sense of clarity, and this film has nothing resolved or clarified. However, I also want to leave with an open end. And Enemy is deliciously open-ended from beginning to the wonderfully stylized end credits that only add more mystery to its design. 

Enemy is very puzzling. Very, very puzzling. And I think that it is because of this that I am unable to properly analyze or confidently critique it as a film. But I suppose that part of a review is to capture ones experience, and I think I've done that. At least I hope that I have done that. Don't misinterpret me. This review is not a cautionary tale.  If anything, it is the complete opposite. I want everyone to watch this movie, because I haven't an absolute clue as to what it means. I don't know, what did you think about it?

???/10
   

Joe: 2013

I am very glad that David Gordon Green has found a film formula that he can proudly call his own. I think this particular style began with Prince Avalanche released earlier this year. At first glance it looks to be very independent, however, the simplicity of the story and atmosphere merely act as an outer wall for deeper, more emotional film making. And this works to Joe's advantage; taking a simple idea and a small-town sort of an atmosphere, and expanding it to reveal it's fantastic (albeit deep-seeded) secrets. 
   
Joe is about the arguable main character, Joe (Nicholas Cage) an ex-con, attempting to start his life over by running  his own "tree poisoning" business. However, the plot gives way to another story about a boy named Gary (played by Tye Sheridan) a child of abuse, who despite the odds, tries to make a living working for Joe. These two stories compliment each other with their own share of development and attention, and it's not too clear as to which of the main stories we should be focusing on. But that's not a bad thing. Each character feels just as interesting as the other, regardless of their situations, and this segways gracefully into a greater connection between Joe and Gary. 

Joe takes it's time with development, and it really seems as though the sub-plot of Joe's shadowy criminality is passed over for a more heart-ached father/son story. I did like the development of Joe the most, and even though this had something to do with the writing and direction, I could clearly see that the genius behind Cage's character, was Cage himself. All I can say is that I have almost never seen this side of Nick Cage before. He is simply wonderful, in execution, in delivery, and he almost wins me over (and I can see that he's trying) but the scenes where he gets angry could use a little work. Or maybe they don't and I just can't take him seriously when he gets angry anymore. However, Cage has come a loooonnnnnggg way in terms of flipping out on film. Trust me. 

David Gordon Green's characterizations are best parts of Joe and while the kind of film that it is at the center is good in its own right, it's the character's that shine through. Everyone is very real and this may not fair well against the parts of the film that play like an action flick, the final product holds up well. Joe fall in between emotionally realistic, and so close to camp enjoyment (even though it lies closer to the former). Every actor is wonderful, and Nick Cage has certainly turned a new leaf in terms of his acting career. For Joe's sake, I hope it works out. 

7.3/10

Inside Llewyn Davis: 2013

Enter the year 1961, Greenwich Village. Hole in the wall clubs and bars house an open mic for starving folk artists. The streets and sidewalks are woven together with the wealthy and the less successful. And here, slid in between the record sleeves of his past and present, stands Llewyn Davis, a folk singer struggling to make a living in New York. Being homeless, his trek to find shelter at the mercy of his friends mimics his trek to become recognized by the public of the Chicago and New York night life. The film is complimented by its own soundtrack composed by Oscar Isaac as Llewyn, Carey Mulligan as Jean Berkley, and Justin Timberlake as Jim Berkley. Jean and Jim, who appear as a saving grace to Llewyn, are only characterized by their ability to keep him out of the gutter for a couple of days. Not much attention is put on them as respectable characters, and this might have to do with Davis’ callous and sarcastic attitude which has keep him distant from his close friends and even his father. 

Oscar Isaac is wonderfully cold in his role as Llewyn, however, there is overwhelming beauty among the awkward and inconvenient tone. This in a way provides a sort of contrast between the main character's journey and the main character himself. This works in the same way that the music does. It sets a very sad but relaxing and calming tone. It feels to me like the blissful thought of losing all hope; terribly bitter, but terribly content. I've been playing around with this theory that llewyn's music has lost all meaning to him. He needs to sing to make a living, but he doesn't care about what he's singing (at least anymore). And there's sort of an irony to that because he needs to care in order to sell what he's singing in order to sell his new album, entitled, "Inside Llyewn Davis". But I don't think there's anything inside him. Or at least that's what I think. I haven't seen any admiration or thanks or anything good come from him, besides his music. I don't think there's anything inside him worth selling, or worth buying. But that's just my theory. 

The film is directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, in my opinion one of the most versatile film makers to date, and “Inside Llewyn Davis” is no exception to their unwavering talent. The film is a tragedy, but it isn’t sad. That is to say that nothing good ever happens to Davis or anyone ever. He isn’t a kind or caring person in the least, and one could make the argument that he deserves every slab of misfortune served to him. However, nearing the third quarter of the film we begin to understand the basis for Llewyn’s constantly contemptuous disposition, and you start to feel bad for him. You don’t want him to overcome these obstacles because he is deserves to, but because you are the only person that understands the cause for his unhappiness.  “Inside Llewyn Davis” is an honorable mention for one of the Coen brothers’ best films.  

7.9/10

Her: 2013

Release date: December 18, 2013 (USA)

Director: Spike Jonze

Running time: 126 minutes

MPAA rating: R

Music composed by: Arcade Fire

Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Joaquin Phoenix

Spike Jonze is a...different kind of director. In my opinion he's part of the good kind of different kind of director. And that's a good thing. But he is also in my opinion a very strange person. And that could be a good thing. It was for this reason that I didn't really know what to expect going into "Her". Wait...no, that's not..."going into the theaters to see "Her"...no, that doesn't sound right either...going into the theaters to watch her...no." I watched "Her: A Spike Jonze Love Story, okay? That's what I'm trying to say. Jeez. Okay, let's do this.
  

A guy named Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) falls in love with an operating system named Samantha (Scarllet Johannson). Many strange and awkward Hi-Jinx ensue.

   So this movie's set in the very near future where there's a lot of hiked up pants and button down shirts and self aware, self evolving operating systems...I don't see any problem with that. No! No really! It's good! It's good to have a program that can replicate and broaden their perspectives of the world, becoming smarter and smarter. A program who can learn and react to anything...in seconds! A program that can emote and understand the human mind better than humans themselves! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

   But fine! It's Spike Jonze, and he's this really weird guy. I guess from this particular perspective there could be no logical reason for an OS to rise against the human race. I mean no one explains how it works from a technical standpoint (for the most part). So, is Samantha (the OS) a plot device? An unexplained idea used in order to further the story? Well, I don't think so. I mean, Samantha plays a huge part in the story. She is the love interest after all. Although I can see how people might assume that since she, from a technological standpoint, is not developed very much might seem like one. But, I don't think that that's a bad thing so to speak. The only thing I can say in order to justify the vagueness of this evolutionary technological advancement is that Jonze didn't want the audience to have a reason not to side with Samantha's "robot" traits more than her "human" traits. If you explain the science behind her being able to do the things she can do, you lose some credibility for the believable "not-so-far-away" future you have constructed as a setting because using some scientific techno-babble for explanation is not so...professional. Just because it would work in Star Trek does not mean it will work for "Her". This is dating advice I have followed for a very long time. 

   You also alienate the audience from condoning with the socially confusing act of hooking up with a computer. If you were to explain in more detail how Samantha "ticks" you are less likely to be able to wrap the idea of this being a love story around your head...y'know...if you weren't already. But regardless, "Her" is actually very good. It wastes no time in using Joaquin Phoenix's character as a...well...character study of human beings in general. Jonze uses Scarllet Johannson's character as a new perspective on things we find to be normal or acceptable in society. Both actors give excellent performances not just as themselves, but as a unit. And for a film like this, that sort of thing is very important. The illusion of compatibility, challenge, and conflict in a relationship are all executed very well. Like most relationship films (or "Love Stories") the narrative flies between moments in Theodore's and Samantha's life. Although not as heavy handed as say, "Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind" or personal as "Annie Hall" which both work fine to each movie's credit, it certainly is unique enough to stand out among the other, lesser, tearjerker's of the ages.

   The writing is very good as well, playing with Amy Adams' strengths more than any other film I have seen her in. Truly she is in her prime. I really don't have anything negative to say about "Her" other than there being a few missed opportunities (one of which being the lack of incredibly loud controversies on man/robot relations). And maybe I'm not getting the big picture, and "Her" was never really about the future of societal culture, or what defines a human being, or "the human condition" or whatever you want to call it. I liked "Her". She's funny, unique, smart, in a philosophical sort of way, very strange, but very beautiful. So, if you're into that sort of thing you should check "Her" out!

    ...Jesus, you know I couldn't let an opportunity like that pass, right? Of course I have to write something. It's who I am. I interject a lot of my mannerisms into my writing. That way it's like I'm talking to you, as opposed to me writing to someone I don't know. So, you'll have to forgive me. But if you've read up to here, at least you took the time. Thanks.

7.3/10

Gravity: 2013

Release date: October 4, 2013 (USA)

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

Running time: 91 minutes

MPAA rating: PG-13

Budget: 100 million USD

Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Hello, my name is Colin, and I guess you could call me a reviewer. I barely qualify as a human being so any title given to me should be taken with a grain of salt. Today I’ll be reviewing “Gravity”. I read a lot of reviews, and they often start off with a paragraph description of the movie, followed by the views of the author. I hate to give descriptions. I never am able to accurately sum up the events of the movie in a logical, cohesive, or understandable fashion. Instead of trying to sum up what happened in the hour and a half movie I watched, allow me to give you two sentences of description. Sandra Bullock is in Space. She tries to get back to Earth. At any rate, the story takes a back seat to the acting and the visual feast that is “Gravity”. With that, allow me to continue.

The first thing anyone should notice about the movie is how well executed the cinematography is, and how amazing the visuals are. There is such a strong sense of place that, often, I had to remind myself I was just watching a movie. The first shot looking up at Earth is one of the most dizzying, disorienting, and amazing feelings I have had in Cinema. Dizzying is a word that accurately describes “Gravity”. The scale is most likely the most dizzying aspect of the whole film. While it is impressive to watch, I often had a strong sense of vertigo. If you like, or at least are used to the feeling of having an inner ear infection, then you’ll have no problems with “Gravity”. Otherwise, heed my advice. Every once in a while look down at your feet to remind yourself that you aren't floating, and gravity still applies to you. Drop a pencil or some @#!*% . Just remind yourself that you aren't going to fly the @#!*% off of earth.

I very much enjoy in movies not explicitly spelling out a character’s back story. Cuaron gives you just enough to each of his characters, so that you are satisfied with what you have, but can draw upon that information. Some of my favorite works of fiction have all done this from “Only God Forgives” to “Of Mice and Men” and I can appreciate when it is done well. As for the acting...  Sandra Bullock, or Sad Grandma Bullock, is absolutely amazing in this movie. She gives arguably the best performance in her whole career. It will be a shame if she is not at least nominated for an Academy Award, but I highly doubt she won’t be. The whole movie falls on her shoulders, as George Clooney has all of… maybe thirty lines. This means that Bullock is the only catalyst for the complex emotions and revelations the audience is supposed to feel, and subsequently experience as the character does. She does an amazing job of this, and the one scene that I keep coming back to is one particular one in which Bullock is in a pod floating through space, as she is sung to sleep. In an attempt to not spoil anything else, I’ll leave it at that. It was one of the most emotionally draining parts of the movie, and has haunted me since I left the theater.

Though I did like a majority of the movie there was one thing, other than the dizziness, that I did not. Some of the symbols were so apparently obvious, which to me is distracting, and @#!*% annoying. This is not the case with everyone, but to me it really takes me out of the whole experience if I can automatically tell what the writer was going for (I’m looking at you too “Evil Dead” remake). There was one scene in particular that I felt as if the cinematographer was standing over my shoulder, looking at me intently, asking if I understood. Forty minutes after the movie ended, I understood what the writer was going for, and I haven’t really needed to dissect the story since then. Usually I have to toy with meaning of movies for a while so it’s just unfortunate that the meaning didn't make me think much. Otherwise the movie was great. Every movie has its faults though. They’re made by imperfect creatures, so to expect perfection is ridiculous.

This is a movie for people who love the journey cinema can take you on, both emotionally and physically. It has one of the best performances I have seen from a leading female actress, and fantastic cinematography. It’s just a shame that at points it stumbles with a theme Cuaron couldn't figure out how to fit into the plot. I recommend seeing this movie, especially while it is still in theaters. Flying around the @#!*% earth is going to feel different in your living room with your forty inch plasma, than it would in Imax.

8.6/10

Watch The Trailer Here

Next Analysis: Only God Forgives 2013

50/50: 2011

Release Date: September 30, 2011 (USA)
Director: Jonathan Levine
DVD Release Date: January 18, 2012
Cinematography: Terry Stacey
Music: Michael Giacchino


   Most people would hear about a film about cancer and think to themselves "Wow, how could anyone possibly make a comedy about cancer?" Well, I'll tell you. 50/50 uses only realistic situations that can be found in everyday life. If you know anyone with cancer, you know by now that it is a tragic thing and is no laughing matter; however, you may also know that there are funny moments that come along with it. 50/50 is a great example of this and displays the perfect comedy to drama ratio. It keeps you happy and laughing, but not enough to distract you from the tragedy that is cancer.


   When I watched this film for the first time I thought to myself "Hmmm, I really don't know about this. Who names their movie 50/50?" I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong. The film has everything a good film needs: great camera work, great story, hilarious and dramatic writing, and of course a great director.  The movie was written by Will Reiser, who actually had cancer himself. When he wrote the screenplay he didn't want this to be a story about himself but about someone that hopefully most people could relate to instead. I personally think he did an amazing job with this. Almost everyone I know that has seen the movie will agree that the writing was superb.


8.5/10

Watch the Trailer

Next Review: Moonrise Kingdom 2012

54e752aeaede91d30bbdfd611383adc5ccfb0b0109d1cfe008

Carrie: 2013

   We all know the story about "Carrie" right? Girl get's bullied, girl gets endowed with telekinetic powers, girl gets revenge. It's a horror film classic by Brian De Palma, adapted from the lengthy horror novel by Steven King with the same name. Recently, a shot for shot remake of the same film was released, directed by Kimberly Pierce. This is that movie. I do not know why "Carrie" was remade. When audiences think, "horror film" nowadays, they think "constant, bloody, body count", but with this movie, they've sort of only got the nonstop violence saved up until the last half hour. It did appear that the director was trying to market a horror film from what can only be described as a "teen drama supernatural...movie?" But the film is certainly no horror flick, as the drawn out, comedic-ly forced soft core gore suggests in the climax. And I'm not saying that a horror film has to be exactly that, but if you're trying to warp a film's structure in order to comply with the consensus then you're doing something wrong.

   I also found it hard to believe that Chloe Grace Moretz  was the right person to cast as Carrie White herself, not because of anything wrong with her acting but because she...wouldn't...be...unpopular. Sissy Spacek in the Brian De Palma film looks like this abused, misunderstood, teenage girl, whereas Chloe Grace Moretz looks like someone who might be the one picking on Carrie! However, she does do a good job as Carrie, and Julianne Moore does an even better job as Margret White, Carrie's mother. The only reason that people should watch this version of "Carrie" is when they watch it back to back with the incredibly superior original film. I would not even go as far to say that "Carrie" is a good movie on its own. Truth be told I had very high hopes for this film. I only forgot to stop and ask myself, "Why does there need to be a remake of a timeless film?" 

If your thinking about watching "Carrie", do yourself a favor and stick to the classic.

6.0/10

Watch the Trailer Here

Next Review: Predator 1987

Captain Phillips: 2013

Screenplay: Billy Ray
Director: Paul Greengrass                                   Cinematography: Barry Ackroyd 

 So I lied to all of you guys... I said I'd review "Rush" next, but I changed my mind. Instead I'll be reviewing the new movie "Captain Phillips" which is directed by Paul Greengrass. (kind of a sketchy name if you ask me)

   "Captain Phillips" tells the semi-true story of Captain Richard Phillips and his Maersk Alabama cargo ship, the first American cargo ship to be hijacked in over two hundred years. The real Captain Phillips is supposedly not the brightest or nicest guy in the world, and apparently the movie's storyline doesn't quite match up with the real story. I'm sure that the reason for this was so that Captain Phillips' character  could be molded into something more courageous. All of this aside, "Captain Phillips" had a pretty decent storyline. There were no obvious flaws in the story because it's really quite simple, there isn't a whole lot going on at once.  The story starts to slow down towards the middle of the film because like a real hostage scenario, there isn't much happening when the hostage is being held in captivity. Just A LOT of waiting.

   With "Forrest Gump" as one of my favorite movies as a kid, I can't exactly agree with the people that think "Captain Phillips" is "Tom Hanks's best work yet." I do think that he was quite good in this film, and there was one point in the film where Phillips is supposed to be in shock, and Tom Hanks looks exactly like what I picture someone in shock to look like. That scene made me like the movie a lot more and really displayed Tom Hanks's acting ability.

   Okay, lets get technical. The film was shot mainly with very closeup, shaky-cam shots of scenes and characters. The shaky-cam is a cool effect to have for some portions of the movie, but I started to get really tired of seeing the same shaky, tight, and uncomfortable shot over and over again. Many of the interior shots of the lifeboat almost made me feel claustrophobic, although I'm sure that was their purpose.  I'm sure the handheld look won't bother most people, but I felt that it was overused and kind of distracting from what was happening. If "Captain Phillips" were re-shot minus the shaky stuff, I think I would have really enjoyed the movie. "Captain Phillips" was by no means "a bad movie" but I really wished that it was shot differently.

7.8/10

Watch The Trailer Here

The Conjuring: 2013

Release date: July 19, 2013 (USA)

Director: James Wan

Running time: 112 minutes

MPAA rating: R

Cast: Mackenzie Foy

   James Wan, director of the acclaimed "Saw" series, has attempted to give the haunted house/possession genre of horror a new paint job with his latest (and not to mention greatest) film yet. This director had audiences saying, "ehhh, it was okay" with his previous film entitled, "Insidious." It dealt with a small child who fall into a comatose state of sorts, and becomes trapped in a place known as the further. His father is apparently the only one who can save him. I was really happy to find that I didn't hate "Insidious". In my experience, modern day horror films are more focused on torture porn than the situation or story. And it's quite ironic that the man behind the most beloved torture porn series of films is the very same man to direct one of the most impressive horror films to date. Yes, I said it. This is, "The Conjuring." 

   Our story follows a couple who specialize in ridding places and objects of those that possess them. They come across a very interesting case in the Warren household, where the mother of the family is has fallen prey to demonic possession, and the rest of the family is haunted by similar supernatural occurrences that plague their home. And...that's it. I'm surprised that such a recent release from a seemingly renowned horror film director is so simple. Granted this sort of thing has been done before, and the genre of horror that is demonic possession has recently become popular with general audiences. However, it's "The Conjuring" that takes this idea (or actually "Insidious") and does everything mostly well. The key word here is mostly.   

  James Wan is very good at making very effective horror films (for the most part). However, it's the third and final act that falls short. Throughout "The Conjuring" there are many subtly moments that are very effective and VERY scary. He's very good at making a house seem claustrophobic, and inescapable (even though the character probably could have left the house at any time...) However, the main problem that arises during the film is...well...let me explain something first. In a horror movie...or at least in any GOOD horror movie you have the horror aspect of the film which can be implemented at virtually any point as long as it is done well, and the characters that interact with the situation at hand. Sometimes the characters in the story can be the cause or BE the horror aspect and we not only learn more from each character but also the horror related plot device. Long story short the characters in the movie need to bounce off of the plot in a clear, and concise way. That is how it works. And to be perfectly frank, the dialogue in "The Conjuring" is abysmal. I just. I can't! Why in almost every single James Wan movie is the dialogue so...JUST OH MY GOD! I just can't! It's so hard to focus on the good aspects in his movies when I'm constantly being taken away by realllllyyyy badddd writing! But I'm just a stupid critic. What do I know?

   Despite the film's lack of engaging dialogue, I did actually find this film very scary. There were many moments where I saw great use in set design and ambiance. "The Conjuring" is in no way a perfect movie. I thought that James Wan had missed an opportunity when casting so many Warren children, but not really using that number to make an excessive body count. But I suppose that isn't necessarily what the movie wanted to have accomplished at the end. "The Conjuring" is no body count film, like "Friday The 13th" or "Halloween" and I'm thankful for that. I encourage a deviation from trendiness from time to time, and I know that soon every genre and type of horror film will be done to death and I'll have to find something new to waste my time with. It's just nice to see that, for the most part, someone did something right.

7.0/10

Watch the Trailer

Next Review: Carrie 1976

   

Man of Steel: 2013

 Release date: June 14, 2013 (USA)

Director: Zack Snyder

Screenplay: David S. Goyer

Music composed by: Hans Zimmer

Producers: Deborah Snyder, Emma Thomas, Charles Roven,Christopher Nolan

   "The Man of Steel" is the brand spanking new super hero title to cash in on our famed red and blue marvel from beyond, Superman. At the get go, I figured the film would have been taken over by Christopher Nolan, director of the highly grossing Dark Knight trilogy. However, this time Zack Snyder would be bringing the superhero blockbuster back...or would he? 

   Our film follows the last son on Krypton, Kal-El, and his struggle to find his place on the planet Earth. There are some movie trilogies out there, where I kept thinking to myself, "They could have just made these into one really long movie." "The Man of Steel" is the opposite of that. There are many parts in the film where they could have just stopped and enhanced everything through description and plot. Instead it felt more like Snyder was going through the motions of making a dark superhero film.  When you have almost every line of dialog specifically made to be in a trailer, I'm not really listening to whats being said. I could tell you that the dialog sounded nice, because trailer exposition sounds really nice, but I'm not really listening to what's being said because we've all heard this same thing a bazillion times! "You were meant for great things, Kal-El." "You can help the humans, Kal-El. But they're not ready for you yet." "You will give the human's an idea to strive toward. They will look to you as a god." I didn't even have to think about those to write them, because they're already there! Snyder knows it! We all know it!

   I mentioned earlier that I believed that "The Man of Steel" was filmed to be dark and edgy mostly due to Christopher Nolan's insight. Therein lies the problem for me. Or at least the main problem. If you really thing about it, there were two ways that Superman spoke to people. As a comic book every-man  and as an idea for the American way. These are the two main ways that Superman could be geared both to children and to adults. He's a guy who can do anything, and wears red and blue spandex while doing it! He saves the girl, and gets the girl. These are very primitive ideas, and when you try to build more on a primitive foundation, and take the most super of all superhero's and try to make him normal, he falls apart (as well as the movie). There's nothing there anymore. The one thing that made Superman work and seem plausible, was the simplicity of his story. You could wrap your head around the idea that there's a guy who can fly and shoot lasers and everything was okay. If you take a movie like Batman Begins, you have a guy who dresses up like a bat and solves crime...and that's it. They translated it to an adult audience well, and that's why it works. 

   I suppose I had better talk about what I liked about "The Man of Steel". I thought that Henry Cavel as Superman and Michael Shannon as General Zod, were wonderful choices for casting their characters. They both played their parts the way they were supposed to. Michael Shannon was extraordinarily campy during some scenes, and I found myself enjoying those moments more than the entire movie. Maybe I'm just the wrong person for this movie, but with that said is there really anyone I can market this film to? I don't think anyone would like this movie. Well, maybe if you've never seen or heard about Superman, but what are the chances of that? The action was sort of WAYYYYY too much. Where is the film going to go from this? They blew the entire budget on the final scene containing 50,000 7-11 and IHOP product placements (so I guess I'm contradicting myself). I actually would have liked it if they made up a superhero, and used him for the film instead of Superman. It still would have been BAD, but at least kids could keep the man of steel as a children's superhero. Batman and Superman no longer exist in the eyes of a child...and that kind of makes me sad. 

   Can directors and audiences never have that connection again? Where you would go to see a superhero movie or an action/adventure movie, where everything's whimsical and campy? Special effects nowadays are only used to enhance the intensity of everything (unless it's for a kids film, where everything is a special effect). And if we've all left that behind us, then alright. Fine. I'll take it. But you have to stay away from making movies like this! People have to realize that you can't take a character from one side of popular culture, and adapt it to the complete opposite side of the spectrum. You don't make a modern romantic comedy starring Wilma and Fred Flinstone. You can't get away with making a drug/crime film starring Jim Carrey as Ace Ventura. It just won't work. But hey, in twenty years, who knows?

6.9/10

Trailer

Star Trek: Into Darkness: 2013

   
   I haven’t written a review in several months because my blogger account is acting up once more, more violently this time around. And I am very frustrated because it’s summer time here in the beautifully muggy and buggy Los Angeles, and I haven’t been able to write for a very long time...so I haven’t had anything to do in a very long time amidst the last minute grade boosters the teachers have thrown at us in preparation for our long awaited but meager restitution. So, in the meantime I plan to write as much as I can throughout the remainder of my vacation, and in doing so I hope to meet my previous quota of thirty reviews by August 13^th. And with SUMMER VACATION in mind, I plan on going to the movies much more frequently and reviewing all the movies I go to see (with my family). 


Three films I have in mind to review are, “Monsters University,” “Star Trek: Into Darkness,” and “Man of Steel.” When I started writing for CCT I regularly avoided “current” films because…the blog is called Cult Classic Theater. But since then my film preferences have deviated so drastically from what kind of film the title of my blog suggests I review, that I have decided to keep the title…but throw its meaning “out the window and soaring clumsily into the night. So let’s see how that goes and hope that, whilst reviewing more current films, I won’t be hated so much in the comment’s (like last time.)

“Star Trek: Into Reboot” is the highly anticipated sequel to “Star Trek: The Exposition.” This new film in the Star Trek franchise attempts to explore Captain Kirk’s struggles as a captain, once again, and Spock’s struggle to control his emotions, once again, and Ahoora’s struggle to maintain a relationship with Spock, once again. The story is generally the same as the first film, just written differently. Some people could argue that the last sentence just described how most sequels work, and they would be right, if the way to write a sequel was to do it with minimal effort. This isn't really a good sign, especially if you want people to come to the third installment of the franchise. And “Star Trek: Into Darkness” couldn't hide the amount of recycling it had done with the first film no matter how hard Benedict Cumberbatch frowned. However, there was no other film that “Star Trek: The Lost World” had stolen from than “Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn.” I don’t know what J.J Abrams was thinking when he chose to place so many parallels to these two films. And if you’re one of those fans who likes to chronologically organize every single Star Trek film, than please explain how this film AND Wrath of Kahn can both exist at the same time! One speculation of mine as to why Abrams had this happen was for the massive fan service! Why else would the second film have Kahn as the villain? But hold on a second. Let’s talk about Kahn.

 Now, it may not seem like it, but I don’t watch Star Trek all too often. However, I have seen the first episode that Kahn first appears in, and when Abrams tries to create it, he leaves one (among other things) astray. In the show Kahn and the rest of his people are classified as “augmented humans,” which means that they are much stronger and faster and smarter; essentially better in every way. However, the superior race that Kahn shows off in the show and movie, are insulted by the more current film’s interpretation of the character. In “Star Trek: Into Darkness” the only advantage to human beings that Kahn exploits is being PHYSICALLY better than Kirk and the rest of his crew. The only threatening aspect about Cumberbatch’s character was the fact that he could crush Spock’s skull if he wanted to. If you want to pay homage to a popular character in a franchise, don’t dumb down his character so that it’s better recognized by others otherwise unfamiliar to it. You give that character new challenges to face, and if it’s a villain we’re talking about (which we are) you need to have the hero’s learn new complex strategies to “dupe” the antagonist in the end.

   “Star Trek: Into Reference” was a poor attempt at creating a sequel to follow an otherwise well made first film. I will say that J.J Abrams can make things look pretty, and I will also say that he knows how to make a movie. And with that said, it has become very clear at this point that he did not care as much as he did. There are numerous plot holes, and the Enterprise’s concept of “cold fusion” leaves something to be desired…seriously, did anyone catch that? Cold fusion doesn't reduce temperature; it actually increases it…but whatever. I liked the acting, and I think that every actor had a somewhat solid performance, with the exception of Kirk, who was all over the place with this one. Cumberbatch’s performance was actually really good, and I think because of that he should be in more upcoming movies besides this one. The movie looked really good, like the first one, and I would have liked to see much more planetary exploration from a Star Trek movie instead of for just one scene, although, it is my sad prediction that we will not be seeing anything Star Trek related for a very long time.

7.0/10

Next Review: Moonrise Kingdom 2012