Entry#181: Toy Story

Trailer

Pixar's a giant in the film industry. Not only is the company releasing films that are both critically and financially successful, but even the artistic community is beginning to take notice of Pixar. This can be seen by the Cannes Film Festival's decision to play Up as its opening film for 2009. This is a big deal, for those unaware, as that event marked the first time that the festival had ever opened with an animated feature. it's because of the maturity and quality of Pixar films that they've been so popular with both children and adult audiences. However, like all "giants", Pixar wasn't always such a famed name. Before releasing films like Up, WALL.E, or The Incredibles, Pixar debuted in 1995 with a little film called Toy Story. Before this, the small company had only made short CGI-created shorts such as Red's Dream or Tin Toy. In other words, there was a lot on the line during the release of Toy Story - the company's entire career would either be made or broken by the success of the film. Thankfully, though, Pixar's creative team *knew* how to create a charming and interesting narrative. The rest is history. With the release of Toy Story 3 earlier this year, nearly fifteen years since the release of the original, I thought I'd stroll down memory lane and see if the original film still held up.

According to the film, toys come to life whenever humans aren't present. This particular film follows the toys of six-year-old Andy, mainly focusing on an old-fashioned cowboy pull-string toy, Woody, and a space ranger action figure, Buzz Lightyear. Woody, until now, has been the leader of the toys and the unspoken favorite of Andy's. Along with his fellow toys, Woody has managed to lead a steady life that focuses on caring for the "community"'s needs and pleasing Andy. Things change, however, when Andy gets a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday. As Buzz slowly becomes Andy's new favorite, Woody starts to become jealous of Buzz and the rest of the film follows the hijinks that occur because of this rivalry.

In terms of screenwriting and characterization, the film's got it in the bag. The cast is well-rounded, well-written, and consists of some very memorable characters. Woody and Buzz, the two leads of the film, are obviously the most developed and interesting of the cast. Though they start out as rivals, the two toys soon become great friends and their friendship, humor, and charming personalities make for a film that's just as sweet as it is character-orientated. Nothing feels plot-based or gimmicky, as the all of the toys' emotions seem to really shine despite the fact that they're...well, toys. For instance, Rex - the big green dinosaur - is a warm-hearted and neurotic worry-wart at heart. It's these memorable character traits and quirks that make the characters of Toy Story so lovable. I may be influenced by the mists of nostalgia, but I'll defend this cast of characters to the end. They're charming, sweet, and simply unforgettable.

I'm not one to usually talk about humor that much, but this film is especially witty. I caught myself laughing at moments that I never really understood during my younger years. For instance, the "a few blocks away" comment from Bo Peep was something that I found to be very clever in its execution. It's no surprise, though, as the wit-master Joss Whedon actually worked on the script. Though he wasn't known for much in 1995, he's become quite the star in recent years thanks to his ever-popular works like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and - my personal favorite of his - Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. The sheer wit and developed sense of humor is really just charming and is one of the many reasons why this film is so adored by its fanbase. I could list plenty of other witty moments during the film, but watching these jokes play out is very different from simply quoting them. Even the simpler moments, like the squeaky shark's one line, still prove to be charming.

The visuals still look pretty nice. It was created in an age when CGI was still in its infancy and wasn't overused like it is today. Still, despite how good the film looks, it hasn't exactly aged well in an age where hi-defintion has become the "norm". Don't get me wrong - the film still looks nice and the cinematography works very well (like in the shot where Buzz realizes he's a toy). It's just that I found it difficult to get into the film, at first, because of the dated graphics. Call me a broken record, but 2D animation doesn't look aged for a reason. I digress, though...

Also, if I may point out one other problem with the film, Toy Story has a pretty weak introduction. The first ten minutes of the film don't give us much room to get to know (or get to know all over again) any of these people, as we're pretty much thrown in medias res. It's not earth-shattering or anything, but it leaves something to be desired.

Overall, though, Toy Story remains a fantastic film. It's filled with an interesting and charming cast, the script's quite witty, and it's one of the most creative films to come out of the 90's. It's not perfect but, with amazing work like this, it doesn't necessarily have to be.

Entry#180: Synecdoche, New York

 Trailer

Charlie Kaufman is the creative mind behind films like Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind, Adaptation, and more. Though Kaufman didn't direct any of these films, his masterful screenplays are definitely one of the driving forces of these charming and intelligent films. He's worked with the likes of Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry, won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay with Eternal Sunshine, and is generally considered as a great and thought-provoking writer. In 2008, though, Kaufman finally made his directorial debut with Synecdoche, New York - a surrealistic film that dealt with depression and the acception of death. It's Kaufman's darkest work, by far, and it may be for that reason, among others, that the film feels so weak when compared with his other works.

The film follows theatre director Caden Cotard and his life after directing a successful adaptation of Death of a Salesman. Though he should feel happy, Cotard is extremely depressed with his life and disconnected from his family. To add to his misery, Cotard's constantly bombarded by illnesses and the desire to sleep with other women. These women, according to Cotard, are individuals that understand and comfort him on a higher level than with his family. Eventually, Cotard loses his wife and child to the artistic community of Berlin and is, by the chance of fate, awarded with the MacArthur Fellowship. This award presents Cotard with $500,000 that is meant to further his artistic career with a new and original work. After some thought, Cotard decides to create a play that will "encompass everything in life" by setting his major play within a life-sized replica of New York contained within a large warehouse. The rest of the film follows Cotard's ensuing depression and the ongoing status of his extravagant "production".

The script and the characters are defintely of a high quality. The characters are complex, emotional, and very well-written. There's nothing artifical or cheap about any of the interesting cast members; it all feels real and heart-felt. As for the script, the writing's simply fantastic. I was constantly reminded of great screenplays because of the high quality of the dialogue and character interaction. At the same time, though, something about this film felt very off-putting. Unlike Kaufman's other films, which were serious yet charming, this film feels very, very cold. It doesn't let us connect with or try to understand anything when it comes to what the characters are going through. It's like watching a group of very interesting people through a transparent wall. In fact, the film seems to state that no one can ever really connect with anyone. It's this bitterness and lack of relation that hampers the film so much. I understand and respect depressing films - some of my favorite films are depressing - but Synecdoche, New York takes it too far. The quality of the writing my be superb, but it's too rough around the edges to let anyone even try to understand.

Is it possible, though, that I don't "understand' this film? I've looked around the web to see what other critics have thought and the results are quite polarizing. Some critics, such as Roger Ebert, claim that the film's one of the past decade's best while others claim it's a self-indulgent piece of misguided avant-garde filmmaking. I'm not sure if I agree with either statements, though. Though the film's certainly captivating and creative, I definitely wouldn't say it's one of the best films to come out in the last ten years. It's ambitious, yes, but too many ideas are crammed together and film uses symbolism to a degree that's reminiscent of a wannabe surrealist film student. It's that bad. Don't even get me started on the house that's in flames yet stays together...

On the other hand, though, this certainly isn't a "bad" movie. It's got spectacular writing and the characters are all quite complex. It's not that I don't like this film because I disagree with its message, as I enjoy plenty of films with messages that I don't necessarily agree with. Harold & Maude, for example, seems to promote hedonism but I still enjoy the film's characters and witty dialogue. This film, however, seems too cold to really connect with. It's smart, that's for certain, but I can't feel anything in watching it.

Visually, though, the film's very gorgeous. The cinematography, camerawork, and use of dark lenses create a mood that's perfect for the film (regardless of how it's too cold). The hi-def quality and cinematography look sharp, dark, and as excellent as can be. There isn't too much else that I can say, as I'm no expert on cinematography, but the film still looks REALLY good.

All in all, I did like Synecdoche, New York. It wasn't great, thanks to a cold demeanor and an overuse of redundant symbolism, but it was still fascinating for what it was. It's possible that I'm wrong and that the film deserves a re-watch, but I think I'll let some time pass before trying the film again...

Entry#179: Jules et Jim

Trailer

François Truffaut was considered one of the leading directors of French New Wave. This style of film, unlike the static and melodramatic dramas of Hollywood, desired to create narratives about realistic people with a dialogue that sounded as natural as possible and seemed as close to reality as possible. Still, despite the heavy intent of realism, French New Wave was also concerned with the romantic nature of the lawless and of the bohemian. As Jules and Jim is considered one of the high points of Truffaut's career, I found it only natural to want to check out the film.

The film follows the friendship of two bohemian writers, Jules and Jim, over the course of 25 years and one complicated love triangle. The writers met in college, with Jules being the extroverted one and Jim being the shy one, and the two immediately clicked with one another. They shared everything with each other - stories, ideas, critiques, and even women. However, things begin to change once Jules is introduced to the sexy and artistic Catherine, a woman who's just as complex and laid-back as the two friends are. Soon enough, both men find themselves in love with Catherine and we're led through a narrative of heartbreak, war, and confusion.

The characters are definitely the focus of this film. Though the cast is small, only consisting of fifteen different people, the focus and presentation of these characters is just superb. They're written and developed in a very intelligent and realistic manner, making it all the more easier to connect with and care about these people. Jules and Jim, obviously, are the most likable set of characters in the film. Catherine's presence may disturb their friendship at points, but the bond between these two friends can easily be felt through the script and the acting. The first act, by far, had to be the best in terms of characterization. The originality and freshness allows for a narrative that feels like it can be pulled in any direction it pleases.

On the down side, however, that "pulled in any direction" comment is taken a bit too far. I had no qualms with the majority of the first and second acts, but the third act of the film simply perplexed me. I understood how our characters got to this point, yet I can't understand their actions during this section of the film. It seems completely spontaneous and out-of-touch with the rest of the film. The ending especially felt doomed by this "randomness" in the third act. I won't give anything away, but it almost feels pretentious in its complete lack of logic.

Still, the characters really make up for this disappointing third act. The script is very intelligent, as I said, and it creates life-like people living in a world that seems just like our own. Films have been known to stretch the truth, in terms of human dialogue, but Jules and Jim felt quite natural. There were a few moments when it felt artificial, yes, but these moments are few and far between. The rest of the script breathes with a great sense of charm in its freshness. In fact, there are many sequences throughout the film where the main characters just sit down and talk with one another. These conversations - whether they're discussing the meaning of a play or the consequences of a divorce - are fresh and feel very, very real. It's this kind of playfulness and charm that makes the film so appealing.

The cinematography is wonderful as well. The camerawork, created with the help of fast-moving cameras and rollerblades, is very fluid and open, fitting in very well with the moods and themes of the film. The visuals are very stylish and authentic, making for a style of cinematography that's both aesthetically-pleasing and critical of the stationery camera that was popular with Hollywood dramas at the time.

Moving on, however, the film's pace can sometimes feel too fast for its own good. This is especially apparent during the film's introduction, which is so rushed that it's difficult to really understand what's going on. So much information and background is thrown into this opening that it's like trying to mash a CliffNotes version of the events into your head. The pace does get better later on, but the fast pace sometimes doesn't work out for the benefit of the film.

All in all, though, Jules and Jim is a very intelligent, charming, and graceful film. Though the fast pace and marred third act disappoint, the character-driven narrative and spectacular visual style make for a film that's easy to get whisked away by.

Entry#178: Titanic

Trailer

Titanic is a film that needs no introduction. Until the 2009 release of Avatar, which was also directed by James Cameron, Titanic stood firmly as the highest-grossing film of all-time. The film was an international hit and won 11 Oscars at the Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Director, Editing, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costume Design, and more. Whether you love, hate, or tolerate the film, you can't deny the huge impact the film has had on the film industry since its original release in 1997. I'm not a big fan of James Cameron myself, as I've found him to be emotionally manipulative in his later works, but even I'll admit there's some good to be found in Titanic.

The film follows two people from completely different social classes, Jack Dawson and Rose DeWitt Bukater, who fall in love aboard the ill-fated maiden voyage of the Titanic. There's a catch, however, as Rose is already engaged to the wealthy Caledon Hackley - the heir to a steel fortune in Pittsburgh and the only hope for Rose's family to regain its former power and status. Jack, on the other hand, is a poor wanderer and his love is the only thing he has to offer Rose. The film follows the affair, the voyage of the Titanic, the ship's eventual destruction, and the recollection of these events by a 101-year-old Rose.

Visually, this film is a masterpiece. Created during the days when CGI wasn't considered necessary for a great film, Titanic has truly superb and breathtaking cinematography. Despite some use of CGI, the film looks incredibly real and the camerawork is simply splendid with its wide shots, aerial views, and underwater recording. This is a film with truly spectacular cinematography, as evidenced by the hard work, polish, and seemingly perfect use of lenses and hi-def cameras. I may not have loved this film but the cinematography was just fantastic. The set-pieces, art design, and costumes are all great as well. I don't usually comment on these areas of a film, but the style and finesse of this film is to be highly commended. It shows that, despite the films of the era, the 1940's were just as full of color and life as today.

That said, the scripting and characters are quite poor. For a film that claims to be a throwback to the old Hollywood romances (see Casablanca or It Happened One Night), the film doesn't care much for its characters. The leading characters, Jack and Rose, are given a bit of depth but that's not saying much. We do get to know them, slightly, but not on a personal or emotional level. Jack's a typical vagabond and Rose's a typical depressed rich girl - these are archetypes and make our leading characters feel more like cartoons than actual people. For instance, I don't see how a person could completely leave their life behind for someone they met a week ago. It's the stuff of cheap romance novels. The supporting cast is even worse as nobody seems to have a complete or developed personality in this film except for Jack and Rose. Caledon, for example, only serves to play the role of an elitist and uncaring jerk. Does he have any other personality traits besides this? Well, unless you count good hair as a personality trait, not really. Everyone else in the film - from the snobs to the clergy - has the depth of a sheet of paper.

As for the scripting, all of the dialogue just feels artificial. Someone might write this down, yes, but it doesn't feel like something that people would actually say. Some of it's only meant for expositional purposes as well, serving to make useless characters feel even more useless. Character interaction just feels clunky and unrealistic, and that's probably my biggest complaint of the film. Speaking of the script, though, there are some annoying tidbits mentioned several times throughout the screenplay that are sorry excuses for honorable mentions. In other words, several famous people and events are mentioned in this film and the writer obviously thought these passing references were clever. They're not - they're cheap and make for awful foreshadowing.

However, I'll admit that the film had a very nice structure and pace. For a film that was a little over three hours, the film never seemed to drag or become boring despite its flaws. The script knows how to deal with a good plot and how to keep people interested. Somehow, the film succeeded in this aspect. despite poor characters, the plot and pacing of this film are interesting and captivating enough to keep the film from ever getting boring. It can drag in spots, especially during the last hour, but it's otherwise entertaining.

Also, despite the weak characters and script, there is some good acting present in the film. The big star of this film, however, definitely isn't Leonardo DiCaprio. I'm usually a fan of his work, but sometimes he really hammed things up and got too over-the-top for my tastes. The "I'm the king of the world!" line would be, by far, the best example of this corniness. Instead, I think Kate Winslet was the true star of this film. She's a superb actress and gave a great delivery for a script that was otherwise below average.

All in all, Titanic is a decent film. Though it's a visual masterpiece featuring a nice structure and good acting, the film feels hollow in terms of character and scripting. Like the wreckage of the actual Titanic, the film's beautiful on the outside but only fleeting glimpses of emotion can be seen in the film's heart.

Entry#177: Inception

Trailer

Christopher Nolan is living the life. In the span of ten years, he's gone from obscure indie filmmaker to big-name Hollywood director. Not only that, but Nolan's The Dark Knight remains as one of the most popular films to come out in the last decade that both critics and casual viewers could enjoy. While Inception hasn't gotten as much coverage as TDK, there are plenty of people - myself included - who having been looking forward to Nolan's follow-up to his action-thriller/superhero blockbuster. Having finished the film, I can say that Inception is an exciting and smart, yet very streamlined, film that puts on a nice twist on the heist genre.

Because the film's more enjoyable and immersing when you know as little as possible, it's going to be difficult to actually write a brief outline of the plot. In other words, you'll have to forgive any crypticness on my part as I'm only trying to preserve the secrets of the film. Anyway, Inception follows Dom Cobb, an "extractor", and his team which specializes in dream theft. With special technology and highly-trained teammates (comprised of "architects", "point men", etc), the team routinely takes on jobs that involve stealing confidential secrets from top CEOs and businessmen. After a seemingly normal job, the team takes on a special mission that will require more than just the average crew.

The film's visually-mindblowing, that's for sure. The imagery and the creative use of cinematography are richly-detailed and create a world that's interested in meshing together the elements of the real world with the elements of a dream world. Don't expect anything dreamlike or surreal in this film, as the ambiguity between what's real and what's not real is part of the focal point of the entire film. That said, the slick style of the film looks extremely well and blends together a variety of backgrounds. If you're a noir fan, for instance, you'll really like the dreams of the Asian crime boss, which slightly resemble Orson Welles' famous noir films. Perhaps you like James Bond-esque films? If so, then you'll probably like the style of the forger's dreams. With an eye for detail and some creative cinematography, the film's visuals just look great.

The cast of Inception is interesting as well. The group of "dream thieves" all have distinct and likable personalities which makes for a good set of characters. At the same time, however, we only get to know a few of these people on a deeper level. Those individuals we do get to know - Cobb, Ariadne, and Arthur (slightly) - are well-written characters and we can establish connections with them because of their emotional backgrounds. They're not fantastic or anything, but they provide a backbone for the film. The rest of the cast may have a few charming faces but, to me, the others seemed much more forgettable and bland. This isn't to say they weren't interesting, but the fact that I can't recall any of their names isn't a good sign. Though it has some deeper characters, I found that the film seems more focused on story than on character.

The concept's very fascinating and highly original - there's no argument there. At first, I wasn't too thrilled with the fact that the film kept establishing and explaining the rules of the mythos. "I got it", I thought, "A 'kick' is a means to wake someone up. You don't need to repeat this over and over again". As the film progressed, however, I found that these rules probably needed to be looked over. Without the explanations, most audience members would probably be lost in a narrative that's as layered as this. In other words, I'm a bit iffy on the matter. The concept is intriguing but I'm not sure if I needed a constant narration to help explain events to me.

Now, I know it looks like I didn't like this movie that much from this review. Don't get me wrong, though, I thought that the film was great. It wasn't fantastic and it was far from flawless, but the film was highly entertaining and captivated both my sense of imagination and my taste of visual art. The characters, while not the most memorable, are still interesting and hold their own within this creative narrative. That said, though, I felt that the film wasn't on the same intellectual level of Nolan's previous films. I'm not saying The Dark Knight or Memento were philosophical films, but they felt much smarter than this. This is probably because the film seems geared toward mainstream audiences, as the "narration aid" and flashy third-act prove. The first 2/3rd of the film may have felt streamlined but they were still thought-provoking nonetheless. The third act, on the other hand, seemed to drag and was filled to the brim with an action scene that was 20 minutes too long.

As a whole, Inception is a great film that mixes together elements of sci-fi, noir, and spy fiction. It may have some big flaws but, for a year that's been so poor for cinema, the film is a breath of fresh air.

Entry#176: Patton

Trailer

Patton is, in one word, epic. With a nearly three-hour runtime and an extravagant budget, the biographical film follows the life of a man who was legendary for both his eccentricity and his cruelty. Shortly after his death, the New York Times called General Patton "a legend...deeply religiously and violently profane". This film isn't so much about a pro-war or anti-war message, but it's a film about the enormous personality of man whose life was defined by war. Whether or not his actions are justifiable, however, is left to the contemplations of the viewer.

The film is a biography of General George S. Patton, the infamous and profane general, and specifically recounts his service years during World War II. The film's beginning, though chronologically last, is immediate in its showcasing of the general's wild and pro-war sentiments. He doesn't care for those suffering from "battle fatigue", he shows the utmost of respect to injured soldiers, and he fights simply because it gives him pleasure to do so. Patton was a man of "fire and ice", as he often blended various world views together to create a personality that had just as many strengths as it had weaknesses. In the film, we follow this man of "fire and ice" as he goes through his most famous campaigns in North Africa, Italy, and Germany.

The script is fantastic and gives life to every character on-screen. This is both because Patton was a complex man and because Francis Ford Coppola - the man who'd later direct The Godfather - was one of the co-writers of the screenplay. The script's very detail-orientated and these details translate into film marvelously. The fleeting images of brutal violence, the cold calculation and dialogue of Patton, the worries and confusion spread into Patton's rivals and adversaries by his abrupt plan changes - the film captures the essence of a man whose image was certainly polarizing. Patton alone makes for a complex narrative, as his beliefs, hypocrisy, and power made him into something that seemed larger than life. He was both a romantic and a murderer, often writing poems after slaughtering countless amounts of enemy soldiers. He could be both kind and downright cruel to his soldiers, to the point where he oftentimes deliberately confuse them in order to gain respect. "I'm the only one who needs to know", Patton says at one point regarding his behavior. In terms of spiritual beliefs, Patton was both a self-proclaimed Christian and a believer in reincarnation. He believed that God created him to kill and that he's been around for centuries in various forms, doing exactly what it is that he loves - fighting. The man was something else, that's for sure, and I could probably discuss the nuances of his personality for the rest of this article. The film exists for a reason, however, and presents Patton in a way far grander than anything I could ever hope to write.

The visuals look fantastic in this film. Combining methods and new (at the time), the film creates a dramatic film with enough widescreen shots and character-focus to make someone like Sergio Leone blush. The camerawork is amazing - I don't know how many times I can say it. It's moving, it aids in the story-telling, and even helps the audience into seeing why Patton was heralded as such a "legend". There's one point in the film, for instance, when German airplanes attack a small building that Patton and several other officers are occupying. While the officers run for shelter, Patton takes out his ivory-handled pistol and begins to shoot the planes with a mad glee in his eyes. To me, this sequence is almost a silent companion to Patton's heavily-worded monologue at the beginning of the film - both establish Patton as a man of violence and as a man who's willing to do *whatever* it takes to win.

The pacing is great, but the beginning was too slow for my tastes. In fact, that may be the only major fault I had with the film. It's fascinating from start to finish, don't get me wrong, but the North African campaign seemed to drag in various spots of the film. It slows the momentum of the film down, but the pacing gets much better once the major battle of the campaign starts. From that point on, the film's slow-moving yet elegant in its portrayal of the eccentric General Patton.

Patton the film truly captures the image of Patton the man. The film drags at first, but the rest of the film is a very detail-orientated examination of this complex man. He was both poetic yet merciless, musing yet spiteful, religious yet profane, and cold yet respectful. He was a man that many hated, many adored, but few understood.

Entry#175: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Trailer

I hadn't heard of Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy until, one day, I happened upon the poster for the film adaption of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (or Men Who Hate Women in its original Swedish). I'm not one to usually judge or make a decision about a movie based on something as trivial as a poster, but the poster for this film really interested me into looking up more information about the films and their respective novels. Apparently, the series revolved around a controversial journalist and a goth hacker investigating into mysterious matters in a way that resembled the old detective-fiction films. I'm a fan of such works, so I waited in anticipation of the first film's release on DVD. Now that's it out, I can say that the film was really good...but short of great.

The film follows two main characters in their respective narratives - Mikael Blomkvist, a controversial and radical journalist who cares more about truth than publicity, and Lisbeth Salander, a gothic and troubled hacker who's been abused for most of her life. Blomkvist's story starts after it's announced that he lost the libel case against corrupt Swedish industrialist Hans-Erk Wennerstorm. Sentenced to three months in jail, Blomkvist knows that he can't appeal the case as all of his sources have either disappeared or turned out to be faulty. Meanwhile, Salander is secretly tracking Blomkvist for a client, Dirch Frode, at her firm. After much research, though, Salander believes that Blomkvist may have been set up. Before anything in this matter can be settled, however, Blomkvist is hired by an elderly man to help find out whatever happened to a young girl, Harriet, who vanished without a trace over 40 years ago. While Blomkvist is investigating this matter, Salander must deal with a new guardian - as she's considered unstable - that begins to sexually abuse her.

The characters are interesting, that's for sure, but the film is more focused on plot and intrigue than on character interaction. It's not too bad of a flaw as the mystery's very fascinating, but a character-orientated film would've proven for a far greater cinematic experience. I digress, though, and will admit that the character of Lisbeth Salander is very intriguing and her dark background only makes her that much more interesting. Maybe it's because I have an affinity for the gothic, but I actually really did enjoy the character of Lisbeth. She was reserved, skillful, and incredibly lethal when she needed to be - a very well-written character indeed. Blomkvist, on the other hand, felt very bland to me. He was still interesting and worthy of remaining in the film, but he felt like a generic thriller protagonist for the majority of the time. His personality was thin and heavily lacking when compared with Lisbeth, who had a much more interesting and complex background.

While the film puts more attention on plot than on character, the plot's still really good. The mystery element was very engrossing, leading down through various twists and turns as mysteries often do. Not only that, but the mystery felt very believable from start to finish. Nowhere during the film's 2 1/2 runtime did I think that the events were too outrageous, far-fetched, or anything of that sort. The film aims for realism, though exaggerated events are always going to exist in fiction, and I think the film did pretty well with what it had. It was fascinating, involving, and was always two steps ahead of its audience.

The visuals looked slick and very stylish in the film. It's crisp, clean, and the cinematography is simply fantastic. The film's looks reiterate the mood of the film as the film often uses darker tones and lenses for its visual flair. One scene I particularly liked, in terms of visuals, actually doesn't have anything to do with the plot of the film. It's at the very beginning of the film and it's our introduction to Lisbeth Salander. Her face is veiled by a hoodie and we watch as she walks down a lone subway station with the lights clashing with the darkness outside. That scene only lasts for a minute or two and means absolutely nothing to the plot, but it really captured my attention for some reason.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a very interesting thriller and makes for some good film-watching. It's not great, as the weaker of the main characters and the constant plot focus showcase, but it's still very good. I can only hope that the next two films will be just as good as this.

Entry#174: Session 9

Trailer

I had never heard of this film until Fangoria listed it as the "second best horror film of the past decade". Considering that Let The Right One In, one of my favorite films of all-time, was listed in the number one slot, I thought that - perhaps - the site actually had a decent sense of taste. The concept looked interesting as well, so that helped in getting me to sit down and watch the film as well. The film is meant to be a psychological horror film that disturbs with its creepy atmosphere and foreboding background. Unfortunately, though, Session 9 only lives up to few of its promises.

The film follows Gordon Fleming and his small asbestos removal company, The Hazmat Elimination Company, as the group takes a new job for the owners of the abandoned Danvers State Hospital. As Gordon's in desperate need of money, he tells the owners of the former asylum that he can complete the asbestos removal in just one week in order to get the contract. Gordon's financial problems, though, aren't his only ones. He's having a difficult time with his new fatherhood as well, which is turn causing problems with his spouse. Nonetheless dedicated, the groups begins to work on the abandoned insane asylum for the next week. During that period, however, the group will find that more than just asbestos has been left inside the walls of the asylum.

Does this sound interesting at all? If so, then you should understand my bitter disappointment of this film. It starts out slightly interested in the characters, at the very least, but it gets completely dull after awhile. There's no development or reflection and intellect only seems to come from the character of Mike, so there's no reason to look into the characters for entertainment or contemplation. Maybe the film would be better, in a pulpier sort of way, if it had a good plot, but even the story seems to be absent of excitement or "thrills". The film has a decent atmosphere but all of the scares are obvious and very few in number. There's one creepy scene, I'll admit that much, but it's fleeting and the film goes back into its naturally boring state.

I hated the ending as well. The film has very little, if any, buildup so it's not as if I'm really looking forward to this film's ending. Then again, maybe I was looking forward to the ending just so the film would finally be over. Moving on from my snarky comments, the film's ending feels contrived and too "out there" to actually take seriously. It's as if the screenwriter couldn't come up with an ending and decided to throw in a gimmicky twist just for the heck of it. I won't give anything away, but I'd also like to mention that the "crazy one" of the group is completely obvious. Seriously - I could point out the psycho in this group from the first ten minutes of the film. That's just sad. What's even worse is the fact that the screenwriter seemed to realize this near the end and decided to throw a false-baddie in to keep the audience guessing. If you can see a brick wall, though, you can recognize who'll be the one to go absolutely nuts.

In terms of visuals, the film's decent. The hid-def looks pretty nice and the film looks as if it could've been shot on location. Also, a film aficionado should recognize that the film's trying to be reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. The scenes that are shot on the inside of the hospital, for instance, are cut together in a way that looks heavily similar to the way that the camera would follow Jack Torrance in the Overlook Hotel. It's a nice homage, if anything else, and I don't really have nay major complaints in this department.

The film started out nicely enough, as I said. It seemed like it'd be a great character-orientated horror film as the atmosphere and dialogue suggested. Sadly, though, things didn't work out that way. Mike's character, however, remained intellectual and likable form start to finish though. He was curious in the paranormal, educated in law and medicine, and he had some great one-liners to boot. Then again, maybe I'm just looking for any good things about the film.

Session 9 is just a poor horror film. It's boring, the ending's just terrible, and there's little of the atmosphere that makes for a truly haunting experience. It starts out well enough and the visuals look decent, but there's not much else to like about this indie horror.

Entry#173: Black Dynamite

Trailer

Whether you hate or enjoy the cornball blaxploitation films of the 1970's, you can't deny their place within film history as one of the most infamous genres of cinema. The films, for those unaware, were made specifically for an audience of urban black people and usually featured an all-black cast, a soundtrack filled with soul and funk music, and contained a gratuitous amount of violence and nudity. It was an interesting genre, to say the least, and many films since the death of blaxploitation have attempted to parody the genre. This film, Black Dynamite, would have to be one of the few that succeeds with flying colors.

The film follows Black Dynamite, a Vietnam veteran and total badass that does what he pleases when he pleases. He "don't take nuttin'" from the local authorities, the CIA, the FBI, etc. and so forth. Black Dynamite (or BD for short) only seems interested in two things - women and over-the-top violence. When BD's brother is killed, though, the former solider/cop is pulled into action and must find his brother's killer while simultaneously uncovering a secret government conspiracy.

The concept in and of itself may not sound that funny, but I can assure my readers that the script is absolutely hilarious. Michael J. White, who plays Black Dynamite, is just hysterical; in a perfect blend of nostalgia and over-the-topness, the performance is simply brilliant. It's hard not to laugh at a performance that's this great and has such a fantastic sense of comedic timing. The scriptwriting is just as fantastic, as the film has a plethora of memorable quotes that emphasize the parodic nature of the film. For instance, there's a very funny sequence that lampoons the contrived and convoluted logic of blaxploitation films. If you're more into snappy dialogue, the film's got plenty of that as well. "Sucka, I threw that thing before I even WALKED IN THE ROOM" would have to be one of my personal favorites. The humor's hilarious and to the point. Even when the humor doesn't work, though, the rest of the film's still gut-busting in its hilarity.

Even the visuals do their best to homage the old blaxploitation movies. Literally shot on a Super-16 camera, the visuals heavily resemble films such as Shaft and Foxy Brown. At the same time, though, the film still manages to look pretty good. The resolution's hi-def and the camerawork manages to be pretty creative as well.

A problem I did have, however, was the fact of how weak the supporting cast was. They were nowhere near on the same level of White's performance as Black Dynamite. There were some talented actors present, yes, but their material was either bland or forgettable. I understand the need to focus on a main character, but the rest of the cast felt snubbed. Also, I would've preferred a more character-orientated comedy. Parody's nice and all, but the lack of some sort of connection with the characters leaves us, as an audience, feeling out of the loop.

For what it's worth, I really enjoyed Black Dynamite. The weak supporting cast, among other things, keeps the film from being great but it's still quite hilarious. Plenty of laughs and a solid leading performance are just a few of the things to expect from this comedy.

Entry#172: Silent Movie

Trailer

There are two schools of thought concerning Mel Brooks. The first thinks he's a hilarious satirist that pokes fun at both filmmakers and genres with his corny, yet lovable, sense of humor. The second absolutely detests his humor and claims that he's actually just a dirty joker that hides behind the facade of "film parody". I don't really care either way, personally, as I've never been a huge fan of Mel Brooks to begin with. This film, however, really irked me for some reason. Perhaps it's because I'm a fan of real silent comedians such as Buster Keaton, Harpo Marx, and Charlie Chaplin that I didn't like this film; it's like a mediocre version of everything that made those people so great.

The film follows Mel Funn, an alcoholic director who's looking to get back into the filmmaking business with his two troublemaking friends. Because he wants to get back into the movie business so badly, Funn comes up with a "huge" idea that'll be sure to rake in the crowds - the first silent movie in 40 years. However, Funn is surprised when the Chief executive absolutely refuses to do it. Funn goads him on, though, saying that he'll bring plenty of A-list stars and starlets to the movie and that these appearances would be sure to save the studio. The rest of the film follows Funn and his friends as they go around collecting as many stars as they can for their new movie.

The film has an interesting concept, that's true enough, but the execution is just trashy and terrible. The slapstick jokes either don't work or heavily borrow from works by professional silent comedians. It's just unbearable to watch because of how blatantly unfunny it is. Oh, what's that? The executive is hearing cash register noises when he hears about money? O, what hilarity and originality! What's even worse is the fact that it feels like everyone in the film is trying *really* hard to be funny. It tries so hard and the results are so bad that I can't help but feel some pity for this terrible movie.

The film doesn't seem to understand character either. Silent Movie tries to create charming and lovable characters, but completely fails in virtually every aspect. That's because these people feel incredibly forced and lackluster in comparison to characters like Chaplin's Tramp or Keaton's "Stone Face". That's because the latter characters took *years* to develop and perfect, while the ones that show up in this film feel more like an afterthought than anything else.

The film's well-crafted in terms of camerawork and editing, but that's nothing to brag about. The editing, camerawork, and concept are literally the only positive things I can say about this cheap parody.

It's unfunny, forced, and completely corny. Silent Movie proves to be more of a disservice to silent films than anything else.

Entry#171: Up in the Air

Trailer

Up in the Air has been hailed by many critics as one of the best movies of 2009. Directed by Jason Reitman, the man who brought us Thank You For Smoking and Juno, this film is like his others in that it follows an individual with a background that openly challenges society's unwritten rules on happiness and morality. With an interesting concept and great characters, the film is indeed great and very promising - but one of the best films of 2009? I wouldn't go *that* far, but Up in the Air is still a great film nonetheless.

The film follows Ryan Bingham, a man who makes his living by traveling to workplaces around the United States and conducting layoffs for bosses that are too cowardly to do it themselves. Because of Ryan's cold calculation and efficiency, he often delivers motivational speeches as well, all of which deal with the analogy of "What's In Your Backpack?". This analogy states Ryan's personal philosophy and his explanation to the source of his success - a life without relationships is a life filled with peace and tranquility. Along with his business goals, Ryan has a personal goal of reaching ten million frequent flyer miles which, according to Ryan, has only been accomplished by six people in the world. During one of his travels, Ryan meets the like-minded Alex, a woman who also travels the U.S. on a regular basis, and soon develops a casual (and sexual) relationship with her. Just as life is seeming to be perfect to Ryan, a hitch comes along to deter his goal - an aspiring worked named Natalie. Natalie's new idea for the company is to use hi-def webcams in order to fire people rather than sending individuals to go and perform the dirty work. Ryan objects, of course ,and is placed with Natalie to "show her the ropes". The rest of the film follows these three leading characters in a drama that contains wit, style, and fantastic scripting.

The characters and performances are, by far, the best aspect of this film. Ryan, Natalie, and Alex are all intelligent people with an air of likability about them. Their interactions and dialogue is smart and witty, which is common for a Jason Reitman film, which allows its audience to 'befriend' these characters even if only for their intellect. Ryan, for instance, is your common fast-talking and world-wise businessman and, while this archetype has been seen many times, the film is able to give a huge of breath of life and vigor to this character. He dares to be different by rejecting all forms of relationships. "Hey", he says, "I don't need the house, the wife, and the 2.3 children to be happy in life". That's completely fine and I applaud the character's boldness. Natalie, who can be both reserved and eccentric, is also an interesting character. Though she at first appears as a business socialite, she actually turns out to be a very sweet and emotional girl. Alex, though the least likable of the three, is interesting as well and her advice is brutal yet very honest. There's plenty to love in this department.

The visuals look pretty good as well. There aren't too many "great moments", but there are some sequences that were very visually impressive. The opening, for instance, looks really nice and is supplemented by a fitting song. Other than that, there isn't too much else to say about the visuals. They look slick and get the job done - 'nuff said.

Now, you may be asking "Why?" to yourself at this point. "Zach", you say, "if you supposedly love this film, how is it not one of the best films of 2009?" Well, reader, I said that because the film, frankly, felt cold for the majority of the film. I completely understand the "alternative lifestyle choice" and respect that much, but the film felt very bitter for some reason. As if humanity and relationships were meaningless and anyone who had them were obviously conformists that stuck to the status quo. See, that's where I draw the line. Say what you will about a great script and great characters, but a film that tries to evoke emotion while simultaneously being cold doesn't work very well.

The ending was very iffy for me as well. I'm not sure how I felt about it. The whole message of the film was, in my opinion, that "alternative lifestyles are alright and that romance/kids/suburban life isn't for everyone". Yet, around the last thirty minutes of the film, that ideology takes a 180-degree spin and decides that you *do* need those things in order to be happy. It left me feeling confused - is the message pro-alternative or anti-alternative? Or maybe it's just neutral? Who knows...?

Up in the Air is, without a doubt, a great film. It's got smart writing and great characters, making for an involving and dramatic film about the philosophy of isolation. It can be quite cold, though, and ending seemed very confused in a narrative sense. Regardless, it's an enjoyable and witty romp.

Entry#170: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Trailer

According to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a feature-length film has to be a minimum of 40 minutes in order to considered a feature film. Since Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is just a tiny bit over that marker, it's considered a feature-length by the Academy and worthy of a written review. In other words, I should be able to gush about how much I love this movie without getting too much slack. Directed by Joss Whedon, the creator of Firefly and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and created during the 2007 WGA writers' strike, the film is a low-budget and minimalist musical/comedy/tragedy that's emotionally gripping and completely lovable.

The film follows the titular Dr. Horrible, an aspiring supervillain, who keeps a web-blog during the times he's not trying to impress the Evil League of Evil. Constantly bullied and ridiculed by the not-so-heroic and narcissistic Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible - known as Billy in real life - struggles to get membership to the Evil League of Evil due to his utter failures and lack of coordination. During all of this, though, Dr. Horrible finds comfort in the company of his close friend, Moist, and his secret-crush, Penny, who wishes to start a homeless shelter.

The characters, as always for Joss Whedon production, are incredibly witty and lovable. Even Captain Hammer, who's a bit of a prick, is interesting and captivating to an extent. These characters all have their charms and each has a clear sense of purpose that resonates strongly throughout the film. The characters are, above all, relateable and interesting, and it's those qualities that make the film so marvelous. Whether it's a comedic or an emotional moment, the film is pitch-perfect with its entirely memorable characters and fantastic scripting.

The soundtrack is just perfect. I loved every song in this film, no doubt, and it definitely wouldn't have been the same without the music. From hopeful songs like "My Freeze Ray" to bleaker ones like "Brand New Day", each song has its own sound and rhythm with the characters and mood that results in a perfect synchronization of sound and film. Just as with the script, the songs are well-written and can be quite witty at points. Not only that, but it's a pleasure to simply listen to these charming songs over and over again; they never seem to get old. Fast-paced, charming, and thrilling are all words that perfectly match the description of this soundtrack.

The visuals are, surprisingly, very impressive for an indie film. Perhaps that's because of how simple and pure the film is - it doesn't need big visual overhauls or lightning-fast CGI. The visuals are simple and on-the-go, just as life is, and it's that simplicity and connection that makes this visual style work in a way that most Hollywood blockbusters can never achieve. It's inspiration for wannabe filmmakers such as myself.

The pacing and mood are just as fantastic. Because of how engrossing the material is and how quick-to-the-point the film is, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog seems to go by in a flash (in a very good way). The underdog story, of course, is always pleasing to audiences as well, as we usually view ourselves, at some point or another, as underdogs in a world that looks cold and cruel.

The main message behind the film is incredibly effective as well. Though it's a theme that's been covered in many films and novels, it's still just as effective here as it is virtually everywhere else. I won't say much, for fear of spoilers, but this message provides one of the most satisfying endings that I've seen in a long time.

In short, I love Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. I love everything about it. I love the characters, the theme, the script, the pacing - everything. It's emotional, witty, smart, and I loved every minute of it.

Entry#169: Jacob's Ladder

Trailer

I wasn't expecting too much from Jacob's Ladder. Directed by a man who's mostly made cheap thrillers and crass remakes, the film looked more like a interesting concept that would crumble under poor direction and misguided production. Having finished the film, I'm surprised to say that Jacob's Ladder was better than I expected it to be. It's got a great atmosphere and is surprisingly very character-orientated. At the same time, however, part of my prediction came true - the film slowly falls apart thanks to poor direction.

We follow the titular Jacob Singer in the film, a former Vietnam veteran who's only now slowly becoming re-integrated into society. Though he's well-educated and has a doctoral degree, Jacob settles for a job as a letter carrier and has become romantically involved with one of his co-workers, Jezzie. Things aren't too great for Jacob, however, as his anxieties about the death of his late son and Vietnam might be getting to him. For, as it turns out, Jacob has recently been seeing demons and apparitions of the darkest kind in the world around him. What's worse is that these demons seem to be after him, as well as several of his old war buddies, leading to a narrative filled with paranoia and supernatural activity.

The film is, as I said, surprisingly character-orientated. Jacob serves as an interesting and thoughtful protagonist, as get to see the many aspects of his life before and after Vietnam. He's a quiet and reserved man and is the type to stand in the corner during a huge party. He's smart, likable, and very relateable (especially if you're quiet), making him a great protagonist. The script is very well-written, I found, making the rest of the cast and their interactions that much more interesting. The mood can switch from being cold to warm to downright creepy with an ease that showcases the scriptwriter's talent.

The atmosphere is great as well. In fact, this atmosphere was so striking that it inspired the creation of the Silent Hill series - a series of horror video games that revolve around fleshy monsters. The film rarely shows the demons or other horrors at first, making for an uneasy and creepy drama film with a decent amount of pure psychological horror. However, a bit after the halfway mark, we're allowed too many scenes with the demons, to the point where they're not that scary or intimidating anymore. They're just...creepy.

Where the film falls apart, for me, is after the sequence with Jacob being awakened from the cold-water bath. From there, the psychological horror becomes more visual-based and the film becomes far more conventional as well. It starts out really interesting as well, which just makes it that much sadder to admit how far it stumbles along the way. The first half was haunting and thought-provoking, but the second half is filled to the brim with convoluted explanations, plot twists, and poor flashbacks that seem redundant after the first series of flashbacks from the beginning.

That said, I'll admit that the visuals of the film look pretty good. The dark alleyways and abandoned subway stations add to that chilling atmosphere and the use of color only furthers that atmosphere. A particularly effective scene, if I recall correctly, would be the strobe-light sequence at the dance party. We Jacob standing around, as he's too shy and reserved to dance, while watching Jezzie dance with a few other men. Then, all of a sudden, large black bats fly overhead and the dance party begins to look far darker. The strobe-light beats as Jacob stares in horror as Jezzie dances, supposedly, with the devil itself. I say "itself" because this may be the most horrifying and gruesome depiction of the devil that I've ever seen. Instead of looking an animal, or something along those lines, the devil is depicted as a fleshy creature with wings that resemble bloody shoulderblades, a tail that looks like a penis, and disgusting hooves that resemble piles of rotten flesh-bags. Little is shown and it's probably the most effective scene in the entire film.

Jacob's Ladder is a pretty good film. Though it ends in a very convoluted and manipulative way, the start of the film and the atmosphere is just great. Its characters are interesting, its creatures are disgusting, and it's worth watching once.

Entry#168: Zombieland

Trailer

Man, it was a pleasure to re-watch this film. I hadn't watched Zombieland since its original theatrical release, so I had all but completely forgotten about the many interesting, humorous, and charming elements of the film. It's a horror-comedy, for those unaware, so there's a fair balance between gruesome sights and hilarious gags/one-liners. The film follows in the footsteps of films like Evil Dead II and Shaun of The Dead, with its balance between two genres that are usually complete opposites. Though it's not as fantastic as aforementioned films, Zombieland is still a hilarious and enjoyable romp through a zombie apocalypse.

The film follows a group of survivors, all of which are titled after the names of the locations they're headed to, in a world that's become overrun by the undead horde. Because of the constant threat of danger, many of these survivors - particularly "Columbus" - have come up with a set of 'rules' to follow in this zombified wasteland. "Cardio", "limber up", "check the back seat", and "avoid bathrooms" are only a few of the many rules set up by this likable and quirky cast. We follow the film's survivors - Columbus, Tallahassee, Wichita, and Little Rock - as they set out to survive "Zombieland" with these rules.

The characters are fantastic, well-written, and extraordinarily lovable. Without a doubt, the characters are the best part of Zombieland and for good reason. Each has his/her own style and brand of humor, creating a diverse cast with plenty of memorable moments between the group. Tallahassee, for instance, is badass zombie killer who, as it turns out, has a heart of gold and is pretty emotional sometimes. The depth of these characters goes beyond stereotypes by creating a dysfunctional family in a world that seems to offer little in terms of hope. Lovable and with a charming sense of depth, the characters should serve as both a comedy trope and a heartwarming family.

This wouldn't be a zombie film without the work of effective visuals. The cinematography looks great and the high definition of the camera shows off really nicely. The world perfectly captures the essence of the post-apocalyptic and feels like a description pulled out of Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide (with the exception of the running zombies). The image looks crisp and everything from effects to costumes look terrific and completely authentic.

I love the pacing of this film as well. Because of how enrapturing the characters are and how interesting the concept is, it never feels like the film drags itself out or leaves too much on the cutting board. It feels just right and seems to end quite quickly because of how easily the film sucks its viewers into the material. A film that leaves you wanting more is truly a success on the creative team's part.

If I have any major complaints, it's about certain things regarding the film's opening and ending. The opening, I felt, provided a great opening montage and introduction, but felt weak compared to the rest of the film. I couldn't figure out exactly why, at first, but soon came to the conclusion that the film didn't know how to start off. It gets off on the wrong foot, but the film makes up for it by having a brilliant cast. As for the ending, it sort of bugged me that these "zombie experts" would be making trivial mistakes by the end of the film. Shooting guns in someone's honor, while polite, isn't something to do in a zombie apocalypse. The sound of bullets being fired is *very* loud and would allow every zombie within the next five miles, give or take, to know of your presence. Not a very good idea. I don't want to spoil anything either, but the amusement park idea...well, that speaks for itself.

Zombieland is a fast-paced and fun film with plenty of great characters. It gets off on the wrong step and some of the story elements can feel rushed, but the film's otherwise great. It's truly a film that can be enjoyed by both horror aficionados and mainstream audiences.

Entry#167: The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Trailer

People aren't kidding when they say that The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a strange film. Filled with bisexual mad scientists, creepy servants, rock n' roll musical numbers, and plenty of sexual innuendo, the film's definitely not for everybody. The film's certainly a trip, but I can't help but feel that this story doesn't work nearly as well on-film as it does on-stage. It feels empty without audience participation and that lack of interaction makes for something that feels far less memorable.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show tells the tale of a newly engaged couple, Brad and Janet, who find themselves lost and with a flat tire on a cold and rainy, late November evening. Seeking a phone for help, the couple stumbles upon a nearby castle that's filled with outlandish scientists, tap-dancers, servants, and Transylvanians. Before the night's up, the couple find themselves involved in a narrative filled with adultery, homosexual lusts, and enough B-horror movie references to make Ed Wood, Jr. blush.

You can't talk about this film without mentioning its fantastic musical numbers. As the film is both a horror parody *and* a musical, many of the songs have a bit of a campy feel to them that make them just as entertaining as they are catchy. With the exception of one or two songs, the entire soundtrack is sheer fun and whimsy. From songs like "Dammit, Janet" to "Time Warp Dance" to "Don't Dream It (Be It)" to the infamous "Sweet Transvestite", all of the songs are well-written, incredibly catchy, and completely fit the mood of the film. A great soundtrack, to be sure.

The rest of the film, sadly, isn't anywhere near as great as the soundtrack. The characters have interesting backgrounds, that's for sure, but we never get to really experience these characters. With the exception of Frank N. Furter's sentimental ballad near the end, these characters are simply meant for pure shock value and rampant silliness. I suppose that's the point, but the atrocious dialogue didn't really help with getting me to really like any of the characters. The castle-dwellers, especially, are hard to really like since the majority, if not all, of them are S&M hedonists. I digress...

As I stated before, the concept simply doesn't work on-film the same way it would on-stage. The many theater aspects of the film - such as the narrator, elaborate dance and song numbers, and set-pieces - aren't as convincing as they would be on a stage. That's fine as well, as not all stories are fit for every kind of storytelling format. For instance, To Kill A Mockingbird makes for a terrific novel but the film adaptation is only "pretty good". La jetee, as a further example, could never possibly work as anything but a radio adaptation or film. The film feels empty without a live audience, and I believe that's what it needs to be a greater success.

This film and the 1980's remake, or rather re-envisioning, of Little Shop of Horrors are often compared to each other. Both satire 1950's B-movies, both feature an element of camp, both are musicals, both feature a young couple, etc. and so forth. Personally, I find Little Shop of Horrors to be the vastly superior film. While Rocky Horror features a fantastic soundtrack, Little Shop of Horrors is an overall more satisfying film. It features a more likable and memorable cast, better visuals, a smoother sense of pacing, and is able to balance an interesting narrative and parody. Rocky Horror, while successful in its parody, is unable to create any emotional connection with its characters or material.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is vastly overrated, that's for sure. Still, the film's decent for what it does right and the soundtrack's certifiably creative and catchy. The film works, but it's nowhere near as effective as it would be on-stage.

Entry#166: A Tale of Two Sisters

Trailer

As far as the horror genre goes, the 2000's will most likely be remembered for foreign horror - particularly Asian horror films. Unlike the American horror films of the past decade, which have mostly been comprised of awful remakes and "torture porn", Asian horror has been coming up with some interesting concepts and films. They may not be the best, let alone great, but they're certainly better than watching something like the sixth sequel to Saw.

The film, based on an old Korean folktale, follows two sisters, Su-mi and Su-Yeong, as they arrive back home to their father and new stepmother. Having been away with an "illness", the sisters find that some drastic changes have been made around the house and that their stepmother, who appears to be quite nice, is actually a very wicked woman. As if dealing with this cruel woman weren't enough, a sinister and ghostly presence has made itself welcome into the house, leaving the sisters to speculate on what's occurred since their departure.

The concept to the film's certainly fascinating. It's a modern-day ghost story, no doubt, and it's leagues above most of what's come out of American horror. The slow lingering and dramatic build-up are excellently executed and it's both fascinating and creepy to watch. The film never delves into cheap territory or "easy scares", instead relying on old-fashioned creepiness to unnerve its viewers. It's the equivalent of listening to someone tell a ghost story by the campfire - it's slow-moving, enrapturing, and the atmosphere is a huge part of the storytelling.

While the atmosphere and concept are truly effective, the characters feel like stereotypes or feel completely useless. The father, for instance, serves no purpose other than to worry, doubt, and be melancholy. Never once does he do anything remotely useful or purposeful, nor does his character ever develop or become altered during the course of the film. He's simply there to fret - and that's that. The sisters provide some form of character, but I wouldn't exactly call either entirely memorable. They were certainly interesting, but they were also archetypes of standard horror tales. I never became too attached with these people as the film kept me at an emotionally cold distance.

That said, though, the cinematography for this film is simply stunning. The environments look beautiful and the camerawork's terrific in its slow-moving and fluid movement. For some reason, the cinematography in this film heavily reminded me of Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love, despite the fact that the two films have absolutely nothing in common. Nonetheless, the film is complete eye-candy.

The ending, however, completely infuriated me. It's hard to talk about because if I indicate "spoilers" in a film like this, it's pretty much giving away the fact that there will be a shocking or "surprise" ending. Not only does it insult the viewers' intelligence by explaining every minute detail away, it feels like a cop-out similar to the twists found in M. Night Shyamalan's films.

A Tale of Two Sisters is only a decent horror film. It's got a great atmosphere and visuals, but the characters feel slightly shallow and the plot becomes incredibly convoluted during the second half of the film.

Entry#165: Scream

Trailer

I'm not a big fan of Wes Craven, but even I'll admit that the man has got a talent for interesting concepts. A Nightmare On Elm Street, for example, isn't exactly a very good movie but it's certainly very creative and original. Scream pretty much follows the same formula - it's an interesting concept but the execution is really iffy. The film's meant to be a tongue-in-cheek satire on the slasher films that became so popular in the 1970's and 80's, in which psychopathic killers stalk and murder a numerous amount of people (usually teenagers). The premise of Scream is to appear as a straight-forward slasher while simultaneously criticizing horror cliches and desensitized horror fanatics.

The film follows Sidney Prescott, a young high school student, after a close friend is brutally murdered. As the murder occurred close to the anniversary of Sidney's mother's death, Sidney can't help but wonder if these deaths are possibly connected. Before long, however, Sidney soon finds that the killer - codenamed "Ghostface" - is after her, and that he's indeed related to the murder of her mother.

Where to start? I enjoyed the fact that the film was so self-aware of itself. Its criticism of "the rules", such as never saying "be right back" or you're dead, was pretty amusing. It goes deeper than that by picking on slightly more obscure rules, but it's certainly a treat to recognize the hidden humor in it all. Randy, the horror movie aficionado, was a character that I especially liked and connected with. Being a bit of a movie buff myself, it's cool to see these types of characters present in films - they're really interesting people. In fact, I might've preferred if Randy was actually the main character in Scream. It certainly would've picked the film up a bit.

Where the film goes wrong, however, is in its execution. It may pick on standard cliches but, at the same time, the film steeps into other horror movie cliches. For instance, because slasher films were so popular with teenagers, '80's slashers would oftentimes include songs and music that were popular at the time to help sell the film. For the '80's, it was New Wave and the synthesizer. For the '90's? Post-hardcore grunge and electric guitars. It's a bit hypocritical for the film and it makes the movie feel more and more like an actual slasher rather than some clever satire.

The characters are, as typical for slashers, one-dimensional and predictable as well. With the exception of the interesting Randy, the film's filled with your everyday stereotypes - the big-breasted blonde, the pothead, the moral cop, the unsuspecting boyfriend, etc. They're derivative, far too familiar, and quite bland.

I'm somewhat mixed on the ending. Without giving anything away, the film ends with both a cliche and a message. The cliche was mindnumbingly convoluted and felt incredibly cheap and gimmicky. On the other hand, though, the message behind the cliche was probably the smartest thing about the movie. Who else but ourselves are to blame for the downfall of man? It's smart, but I'm unsure if the good outweighs the bad...

That said, I enjoyed the wittiness of the dialogue. For the first time, I was able to appreciate and laugh with the characters of this film - despite however derivative they may be. The dialogue was witty, smart, and had a sense of life and sensibility to it that made it all the more realistic.

Scream is a so-so horror film. While it brings some interesting concepts and witty dialogue to the table, the hypocrisy and major flaws heavily mar the film. In other words, the ratio of good-to-bad is about equal.

Entry#164: The Virgin Spring

Ingmar Bergman certainly has a way with morbid filmmaking. Oftentimes, his films are depressing, faith-questioning, and tragic in a variety of ways. The Seventh Seal, for instance, was a slow-moving and deeply philosophical film about the existence of God and the meaning of human life. That's some pretty heavy subject matter. This film, The Virgin Spring, is definitely no exception to Bergman's darker storytelling. Inquisitive on themes like religion, occultism, sexual purity, and the corruption of youth, The Virgin Spring is able to ask these difficult questions while providing a tightly-wound narrative set within medieval Sweden.

The film follows a prosperous Christian, Tore, whose daughter, Karin, has been appointed to bring candles to their small church. It should be an average ride for Karin, who's accompanied by her pregnant foster sister, as she's taken candles to the church on a numerous amount of occasions. Ingeri, Karin's foster sister, only begrudgingly accompanies Karin, however, as she heavily detests her sister and secretly worships the Norse deity Odin. Along the way, the sisters discuss life, meet strange men at a small mill, and more. Before the day ends, though, a horrific tragedy will occur that will change the lives of the entire family.

From the get-go, the film's very character-orientated. We get to know Karin and her entire family - aunts, sisters, and all - in the span of 20 - 30 minutes. This may not seem like much time, but the character interaction and script is so amazing that Ingmar Bergman doesn't need too much time for a brilliant introduction. In this short amount of time, I was able to identify with, adore, and really enjoy the company of these interesting people. Karin, for instance, is a charming and imaginative young woman whose sweetness and love for life cannot be matched. The characters are so enthralling and interesting that the film left me on the edge of my seat from beginning to end.

The visuals, as always for an Ingmar Bergman film, look fantastic. The brightness of the outdoors and the solemn darkness of the indoors sets a fascinating mood that's all the more fascinating due to Bergman's use of black-and-white. The camerawork's brilliant and fluid, never missing a beat in this emotional and thought-provoking film.

The themes consist of some heavy material as well. What I adore about Bergman's work is that he can interweave these themes very subtly into his films. They don't bludgeon you in the head or directly speak of any of the film's core themes. Instead, the film's mellowness and intellectual dialogue allows for independent thought, which in turn allows for independent interpretations. The Virgin Spring explores religion, paganism, ritualism, purity vs tainted, the value of human life, vengeance, and many other important concepts. What's even better is the fact that the film's narrative can be just as great without these elements. Even if you ignore the hard questions and religious discussions, the film can still be enjoyed in a story-based way. This is a thinker's film, though, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

The Virgin Spring is, in the simplest of terms, a perfect film. It's got fantastic characters, lovely visuals, a brilliant narrative, and a catalog of philosophical concepts. What more could you want?

Entry#163: The Fountain

Trailer

What did I expect from The Fountain? I expected it to be a pretty good sci-fi/fantasy film with some interesting questions thrown into the mix for kicks. What I got, however, absolutely blew me away. In an age where 'mainstream' and 'intellect' don't exactly mix, The Fountain is a thought-provoking, philosophical, original, and stunningly beautiful film. It's perfect in every way. To add or alter anything would simply detract from the main experience. Up until now, I hadn't been very interested in Darren Aronofsky's work. After The Fountain, however, I've very much looking forward to watching the rest of his filmography.

The film is hard to describe in typical detail, but I'll give it my best shot. We follow three parallel stories in The Fountain - one that follows a 14th century conquistador in search of the tree of life, one that follows a modern man seeking to cure his dying wife, and one that follows a spiritual 'astronaut' attempting to bring a dying tree to the Orion Nebula or "Xibalba" in Mayan mythology. All three of the stories are connected in some way, but it's up to the viewer to solve how these stories are connected (or if they're factual at all) in this mind-bending and beautiful film.

This is a film is like a Rubik's Cube. It's complicated, asks many difficult questions, and provides nothing in the form of answers. While most audiences should be familiar with the previous two attributes, it's the last one that perhaps explains the critical polarity of this film. Some people, such as myself, consider the film to be a beautifully religious masterpiece that brings together virtually all forms of religion with man's great struggle - the acceptance of his own mortality. Other people, for some reason beyond me, compare The Fountain to various other pseudo-intellectual films and state that the film is messy and "too transitional". I can see why someone might be upset about the transitional elements, but to complain of these aspects is to show a lack of knowledge and understanding of the film. Seeing as how it deals with death and religion, I can't see how it's "pseudo-intellectual" - these themes are present even in the greatest novels of all-time. As for the transitioning between timelines, I'll admit that it's hard to follow at first. However, The Fountain is a film that couldn't possibly be understood or fully appreciated with simply one viewing. With each new viewing comes a plethora of things: recognizing philosophical or religious markings/themes you hadn't noticed before, new tangents and ideas to contemplate regarding the film's timelines, and even perhaps a totally new look on certain sequences. Though it had a wide release, it takes a special bunch to truly appreciate and understand the film.

The characters, from those present in the 1500's to those in the 2500's, are all well-written and developed characters. They're believable, passionate, decisive, and intriguing. The film may focus more on the key themes than on the characters, but these people certainly provide a large chunk of the film's value. What's also interesting is how to decipher the timelines in which these characters live. For instance, does Tomas and the 1500's timeline actually exist? Or is it just the framing of Izzy's book from the 2000's? Does the future timeline exist? If it does, is it a follow-up to Tom's story from the 2000's or Tomas' from the 1500's? Or is it both? Is it possible that this scientific timeline is Tom's ending to Izzy's story? That both the writer and the character are portrayed through this 'astronaut's' life? There are so many different ways to interpret the film, all of which have some basis, and finding and molding your own theories is just as intriguing as the film is. Darren Aronofsky could've helped by explaining some of the film's mysteries, but his choice to keep it all in shadow was truly the better decision. It lets people discuss the film in different ways while allowing the film's core themes to stay fresh in the minds of those who re-watch it.

Moving on, though, the film's visuals are just gorgeous. From the Mayan jungles to the deep voids of space and the stars, the cinematography looks breathtaking in its sheer beauty. Even here, the echoes of the film's core themes resonant with the use of light and darkness. In most sequences, transitions occur with a fade to white, rather than black, as the film states the beauty and immortality of death. "Death is the road to awe", as Izzy says during the last hours or so of the film. She couldn't be more right. That's not the only use of symbolism for the film's visuals, though. Notice, for example, the sequences in the 1500's timeline. The paths from place to place are all straight-forward, never diverging into turns or corners. This possibly references the romanticism of adventure novels, and possibly confirms the 1500's timeline as fiction, as adventure novels are oftentimes straight-forward thrillers. Also, if you will, notice the Tree of Life's hair during the 2500's timeline and compare it with Izzy's haircut from the 2000's. I could go on and on with this symbolism, including how Izzy's full name sounds like "And yes, I do believe" in Spanish, but experiencing the film for yourself is the more pleasurable way of dissecting the film.

How could someone not mention the soundtrack either? Scored by Clint Marshall, the man who scored the (in)famous "Lux Atrena" that was used in Requiem For A Dream and The Two Towers' trailer, the film's music is just as beautiful as the rest of the film. It's carefully-crafted and lovely. 'Nuff said.

The Fountain isn't just one of the best films out of the past decade, but one of the best that I've ever seen. It easily has room in my "Top 10" list and its place is rightly deserved. With rich and symbolic themes, the film is a remarkable and valuable puzzle that's definitely worth solving. Like a Rubik's Cube, the film can be deciphered in a numerous amount of ways and there's a great sense of joy in solving its riddles.

Entry#162: Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary

Trailer

Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary is, simply put, pure avant-garde film. In other words, it's very experimental and completely abandons traditional forms of storytelling for more expressionistic and mind-boggling imagery. Whether you admire or dislike the film, you can't deny the impressive visuals and recreation of elements from silent and German Expressionist films. Guy Maddin's certainly created a stylish film, but the lack of structure sadly leads to a film that's filled with jumbled images and incoherency.

The film follows the traditional tale of Dracula - a man named Harker goes to Transylvania to seal a financial deal, finds out his client is darker than he appears, and ultimately ends up injured as his wife, Mina, is tempted by the seductive vampire. The difference this time around, however, is that the majority of the film is told through ballet and interpretative dance. Coupled with elements from silent film and ballet, the film aspires to be a brand new take on Dracula and the horror genre.

I won't deny the film's visual charm. I very much appreciated Maddin's creation of "neo-silent film", as I'm a huge fan of the gothic vibes that comes from silent film. To see these elements present in a more modern film isn't just interesting, but a breath of fresh air when compared to most modern horrors. I especially liked the outdoor sequences involving the snow, as the white and black contrast so perfectly in those moments and it creates a terrific atmosphere.

What I don't like about this film, however, is its lack of structure. I understand that its avant-garde and meant to be formless, but perhaps I just don't like avant-garde. Instead of following any sort of narrative, the film feels like a series of collage images and dances. It may be nice to look at, but there isn't any substance behind these images or creative dances. Dracula may look dark, Lucy may feel uneasy, and Van Helsing may act disciplined, but there isn't any emotion behind what's going on. It looks nice, but ultimately fails to deliver any sort of substance.

To further my dislike for the film, the pacing for Dracula is insanely hectic and way too fast. Actions and characters seem to bounce off the walls, transitioning from event to event as quickly as possible. The basic formula is this: introduction, dance number, snappy score, move on to the next plot point, and then repeat the whole process. It's sped-up and difficult to enjoy a "dream-like" film that's as spastic as this.

In the end, the film is an artsy yet unorganized mess of a film. It's got a great sense of style and the visuals look great, but the spastic pacing and incoherent structure of the film leave something to be desired from Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary.