Two Family Friendly Movies, and two not as much Family Friendly

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs - This movie lived up to the review hype. It was funny, kind of original and yet like most new animation, slightly childish. At times it felt like a Youtube sketch comedy team had written parts of it, or at least had made a pass at the script. Those parts were funny, and that's where some of the originality of it comes from, but still the thought passes through, "Did an 16 year old group of guys write this?" Not that it was immature, it was just kind of...something that a grown up wouldn't write. Even though, grown ups did write it. But that's kind of the tell, the film follows a lonely young guy who is a science genius and his only friend is a monkey. The guy has a huge science lab, built like a tree house in his backyard. He pretends to have fancy security and makes a lot of sounds while imagining it. This is the type of character, like Napolean Dynamite, that is totally funny and cool on screen, but in real life would be creepy and a complete loser that no one in the audience would go near.
And that's really the only problem I had, was the creepiness of the main guy (not the fact that there is an island in the middle of the ocean with a city that's somehow normal, or that there is constructed food falling from the sky), who somehow can manage his social skills to get the girl and become the town savior. I think we have another movie about a guy with Asperger's. It really did seem like he had mental issues, and he pretty much could have given the same speech to the girl that Adam gives about his disorder and how other scientists like Einstein had it. It would have fit right in, and helped children understand the disorder. I propose a new title for this movie, one that's a little more educational: Cloudy with a chance of Asperger's.

Marley & Me - I've never walked out of a film in the theater before. I'm reserving that right for a really bad film. Worse than Superman Returns. Worse than The Mummy. (Those are the two closest I ever came to walking out.) I did, however, go to the bathroom during The Spirit. After coming out of the bathroom I decided "not to go back in" to The Spirit. I like to say, "I didn't walk out of The Spirit, I just didn't walk back in." With the time I had in the theater waiting for The Spirit to be over, I walked into Marley & Me. I only saw the middle hour until I got a text from my brother that The Spirit was over. But in that middle hour, Marley & Me captured my cold, loveless heart. I laughed, I smiled, I almost cried. (In the middle hour there wasn't much in the way of sad.) But this time, I did all those things, especially cry. That crazy, big dog stole my heart.
Betsy almost wanted to walk away, though, because the dog was "too naughty!" It's true, Marley did a lot of naughty stuff through the movie, but it wasn't his fault, he was a big, crazy dog trapped in a human's world. He was just livin' life. And boy was it an amazing life. Best dog movie ever. (It's not hard to achieve that honor.) And by the way, Betsy cried way more than I did, which shows you that even a naughty dog can win her heart, too.

Before the Devil Know You're Dead - For as decent as this way, it's pretty forgettable. It follows the aftermath of a heist of a suburban jewelry store by the two brothers robbing the place. And the jewelry store is owned by their parents. Things go horribly awry and the mother is killed by their accomplice, who also dies. The movie is really good about focusing on the emotional aspects of what the family is going through, rather than specifically on the details. Every character has something different that they're going through, and they all have unique problems, somehow related to the tragedy.
The unique theme in the movie that I really liked, and is related to the title, is how they're trying to put things back together and keep things normal before it blows up. Or in other words, trying to fix their sins before it becomes irreversible. I like the idea that the title places on the events, it's like a hidden ticking clock. Ultimately, though, I think the film shows that everything has consequences. No matter how quickly you try to put things back, the Devil is going to catch up with you.
The film had remarkable pacing. It was edited together great, and even in the slower moments it was never boring and there was still a tenseness to it. However, when it's all said and done, the film easily slips away from memory. The chopped up timeline, the interesting twist on a normal heist and the remarkable acting; none of it helps the film move past just being alright. It's slightly sad that in this day and age, such a well done film can slip through the cracks because it's not about saving the world or from a huge adapted property, even slipping from the audience's memory a short time after seeing it. Maybe it just means that heist films have been done too much, or maybe this movie actually was just completely mediocre.

Adventureland - This is just barely not for kids. From the previews and reviews, I thought for sure it would be like a National Lampoons type movie, with crazy hijinks and boobies running in the background. I don't think there were any boobies, and there were only a few hijinks. In fact, this movie was more dramatic than anything. It follows a bunch of young adults in the 80's working a summer at Adventureland. The main guy, played by the awkward Jesse Eisenberg, opposite Kristen Stewart. There wasn't much acting in this film...Eisenberg was being as awkward as ever, and Kristen Stewart was being petrified wood as usual. The biggest amount of acting comes from Martin Starr, even though he's playing a weird outsider...as usual. There are a lot of as usuals here, everyone is playing their type, from Ryan Reynolds hot guy to Kristen Wiig's loopy girl sidekick. The film felt well cast, but you have to wonder what it would have been like with different actors. Eisenberg's character was written awkward, so it seems like with him cast it's double awkward. Perhaps they should have gotten a normal kid to play the part, to keep the awkwardness at a normal level. Because as is, it was so far fetched that Kristen Stewart would go for him, which was my one problem with the film.
The film is also set in the 1980's but it did not have that feel at all. It was like the film had hipster goggles on, that could look back on the 80's with pure nostalgia. That was the whole film, though, about some kids with the worst job ever, but it's supposed to be the best time of their lives. It works, but it could very well have been set anytime, because there was nothing 80's about it, other than that they didn't have cell phones and girls had big hair. Bottom line, 1. this wasn't nostalgic enough to be about the 80's, 2. it wasn't fun enough to be a really awesome comedy, and 3. the dramatic parts were flat. Despite that, it was pretty good, but if there was a number system based on those parts, this film would have gotten 68, 74, 65: an average score of 69. Fail. But with the magic category of "Intangibles" I just made up, and a score there of 85, that puts the average at 73. You get a passing grade, Adventureland. Hoorah!

AFI Top 100 Movies: 68 to 65

68. An American in Paris - Oh boy! Sarcasm? Maybe. This film is just a big ball of joy. Nothing shows that more than the climax of the film: an 18 minute ballet style dance number through stylized sets of Paris. Oh boy!
That's pretty much the whole film. The plot is just kind of in the background, the songs don't really have to do with a whole lot and they dance around. Like a lot of musicals? Not entirely. The best musicals actually have a story. An American in Paris is about an American painter in Paris who starts stalking his friend's fiance. Somehow she ends up with him in the end. The end being the 20 seconds after the 18 minute dance number.
What's interesting to note about this musical is that the people in the world of the film not singing stop and smile and notice the people singing as if it were a show. Shouldn't they be going about their normal business, while the singing people emote how they feel? (Just like in other musicals.) Isn't that what the song in the musical is for, just a way to emote how you feel in an artistic way? So this film doesn't make much sense, it's just a chance for Gene Kelley to dance and sing and 1951 America to feel good about itself.

 67. The Manchurian Candidate - This is a near perfect film. Every shot is planned perfectly and artistic. Some of the cinematography is years ahead of its time, but watching it now you don't notice it because it's been copied so much since. There is a documentary look at times, then it gets closer and it's intimate. And all that flows together so well that you never notice, you're just swept into the story and characters.
The film is so interesting because it's almost satire, but it's not a comedy. They take it all so serious, with the political implications, Iselin is definitely patterned after McCarthy, but he never plays it overboard. The film plays with the notion of communist infiltration, and the joke is that the people supposedly blowing the whistle on secret commies in the government, are the actual communists. Pretty scary, and pretty close to things that have happened. Looking at the details of the Kennedy assassination, there is a haunting prophetic tone in the film. People in this film are patriotic, but yet they are doing things that are harming the country, whether they are forced to or not. (Several theories propose that Oswald was a loyal CIA operative, who spent time in Russia as part of one of their secret operations. If that's true, that's scary to think that a loyal CIA op would be told to kill the President.) It's unclear how much of a true communist the mother is, if she believes it or is just using it as a chance to get into the highest position of power. It hints at that at the end when she talks about when Iselin will be swept into power making Marshall Law seem like anarchy. There is so much depth to the film, from the technical aspects to the metaphors and social commentary, honestly, it's one the greatest American films. A+. Good Job.

66. Network - Ding dong, this movie was exhausting. I'm exhausted as hell and I'm glad this movie is over! Everyone was yelling in this movie. The 70's were the worst decade of all time, and people were awfully pissed about it. I would be too. Sky high oil prices, terrorists, commie black nigga's robbing banks, (Betsy was super pissed that I repeated the N-word. I think it's in the public domain by now.), and tons of other crap going on. The world was going to crap, and the only people that could possibly help people out and get through it are the people running TV. The problem is that people running TV networks are the worst people on the planet. Faye Dunaway, as usual, plays a crazy chick, who runs the programming on the network, and looking at her face in the movie poster, she's got a little bit of the Crazy Eyes.
The social commentary is pretty thick, and poignant even today. But still we've seen so much of this kind of satire that it wasn't shocking. What I took away from the film was this trend in America toward catching and cashing in on fads. Fads are like lightning and can only rarely be caught in a bottle. This is so true for TV, where one show gets high ratings and works, then is copied repeatedly. But what worked with the original doesn't carry over to the copies and they fail. In the movie they try to capitalize on Beale's live breakdown, re-tooling the news around his craziness. Then, Dunaway is trying to capitalize on the public fascination with revolutionary groups, despite the fact that they're collaborating with terrorists. Also, in the side plot, Harry leaves his wife of 40 years to have an extended affair with Dunaway. He gives up a lifetime of love and commitment for a fling with the craziest chick on the planet. A super fun idea at first, but not something you should ruin your life for.
That's what I get from the film, that destroying consistency for trends, ends up destroying everything; from decent television to our morals and values. Basically, that's the history of television. Thankfully, though, full-time news organizations and shows have maintained an acceptable level of standards. Reality TV today has provided that vent for the public's need for trashy, trendy and low brow entertainment. But this film definitely foresees some troubling times ahead, as we as a nation struggle between getting our fix of disaster and trends and maintaining a level of consistency in our actions, passions and morals.

65. The Silence of the Lambs - Ne'er was there a better example of a perfect script than this film. It's basically the Screenwriting book, with what to do, what not to do, and how to side step cliches while still using the best story format man has ever come up with. As the credits roll there is hardly any dialogue, but yet through the first few scenes you learn so much, not only about setting and the tone, but about Starling. Even the name is great, she's a lil star about to explode.
The film isn't stuck in film structure, it uses it as a tool. The twists and revelations are needed to build the story and drive, but they're never expected or contrived. I think that's the case because the script has just enough differences from usual stories to make it completely new and unique. For instance, Starling never meets the villain until the end. He isn't a classic nemesis that she knows and either was friends with. In fact, he isn't even trying to attack or elude her directly until the final battle. He has no clue about her, and she barely even knows who he is, only his persona.
The other obvious twist is the character of Hannibal Lecter. It's a rare treat to see such a unique and deep supporting character as him, especially since he's so bad. Lecter really provides the heart of this film, because Starling has to face him first before she ever gets close to Buffalo Bill. Lecter is THE twist of the film, it's what distances this film from any other average cop drama that preceded it. Story format and structure can be learned, but writing and using a character like Lecter is what makes screenplays into movies that excel above everything else.
As well, his character is used so perfectly, because he draws out Starling's past. She could have had flashbacks or dreams that she wakes up in a sweat, but instead we have the world's greatest psychologist pulling it out. It just so happens that he's a cannibal. Again, without him, and without him being written so perfectly, we have a B movie cop drama. Or worse yet, a Law and Order episode. It seems apt to point out as well that police procedurials probably wouldn't be the same without The Silence of the Lambs. Every L&O or CSI or even Dexter, pulls a little from this landmark film. In every Law and Order, the killer is interesting and deep, and even many of the side characters are. This film took a seriel killer and brought him out and made him intelligent, witty and sometimes human. Every show now wants to paint the same picture of their villains. The painting of Hannibal Lecter may be gruesome, but it takes a looking at every now and again to remember how well made it is, even if it's hard to look at.

A Warren McCrickard Special Review: Adam

To celebrate the great man Warren McCrickard, I decided to review his favorite film of 2009. Initially, I didn't care to see this. Who wants another film about a mentally challenged guy? But this film was different, and perhaps the best film about somebody with mental problems. Thanks for recommending it, Warren, Betsy and I really enjoyed it and I admire the film for what it's done and for the insight it's brought to the world about people with Asperger Syndrome. I love you, Warren.

Adam - Another film about a mentally challenged guy? How much more can we learn about people with mental disorders? With the uniqueness and the stellar performances and writing of this film it leads me to believe there still is a lot. The film follows a guy named Adam, who has Asperger Syndrome, which is like a "high functioning autism," and who is now struggling on his own after his father died. His major trouble is that he has major social interaction problems and an inability to empathize.
The high functioning part is probably why the film was enjoyable and Adam a watchable guy, who is relatable. Forrest Gump is a character that's right on the borderline between relatable and too dumb to stand behind. The problem with Forrest Gump as the hero you're watching is that first off, he's too darn nice even from the beginning, and second, he never really grows or learns, the film's plot has him bumbling along without skill or wit, only good nature and luck govern his life. With Adam, it's entirely different. The fact that he can overcome obstacles, learn and grow make you route for him.
The plot revolves around his relationship with Beth a girl that just moved into his building. She's just been burned by her ex-boyfriend and the relationship with her father she's so close becomes strained when he's on trial and other lies come to surface. So we have here a guy who can't empathize, has trouble knowing what other people are feeling/thinking, has problems socializing and is generally totally awkward. And a girl who has major trust issues, is kind of awkward herself, and just wants to be loved. A total match! Except the one thing she really wants and needs, he can never give her no matter how hard he tries. It's really sad, because he tries really, really hard.
The film is really symbolic of our modern day awkwardness. It's become harder and harder to interact with each other in a world where most of our interactions are electronically. Is it hard for us to love these days? Sometimes it feels like it, because we live in an untrustworthy world. My one criticism of the film is the ambigous ending. What actually ends up happening is fine and makes sense, but I didn't think the last 10 minutes were handled as well as they could have been. I don't want to spoil the ending, because I think everyone should see this, and I also don't have much feedback as to how to make it more understandable. It is basically understandable, but yet unfulfilling. Nevertheless, the film was supurb, and my pick for Best Movie about a Guy with Mental Problems.

Noah Baumbach is officially On Blast

Who is letting Noah Baumbach direct films still? Who is putting up the money or acting in them or avidly going to see his films. Somebody must, because he's still writing and directing films. Kicking and Screaming came out in 1995, 15 years ago! After seeing it, I came to the conclusion that talent isn't always involved in the making of a film. I was curious to see how far he's come and we watched Margot at the Wedding.

Kicking and Screaming - I knew this film would be bad when the opening title apeared, telling us that it was just after graduation. Then the scene proceeding to show us...just after graduation. Through the film there are segment titles that tell you what time period it is, which follows the structure of the school year. Through the film it makes sense, but seeing that opening title card just rubbed me the wrong way, like an unnecessary narrator. There's no plot to the film, so the title cards end up being needed as place markers in an otherwise meaningless and wandering story.
The film revolves around 4 guys who just graduated college and don't want to move on. They still live around campus in a house, go to the same bar they went to while in school and occasionally go back to campus. It's kind of a charming and funny idea, but there's nothing charming or funny in the movie.
This films just screams that it's a director's first film. It was like I was back in freshman screenwriting, listening to dialogue written by an 21 year old trying to be ironic, writing characters that talk about nothing while doing nothing. I've said it before, but nowhere does it apply more; Pulp Fiction has taught us that if you're characters are going to talk about nothing...they have to either be interesting, out of place or actually doing something while talking about nothing. Here, the characters are doing nothing and talking about nothing. That leaves us with nothing. Movies where nothing happens and where nothing interesting is happening are STUPID. (Jarhead is a war movie about not actually fighting. It's boring.)
Baumbach must think his dialogue is so clever that he can get away with having no plot. The scenes go no where, there's hardly any room for real emotional acting, and there's no building drama or plot. There's just 4 guys talking about pop culture and using big words they learned in their literature classes. But not only is the writing horrible, the directing is atrocious. There's just a bunch of awkward standing around and talking. The only reason I finished this was to be able to give it a bad review. I hope Noah Baumbach eventually reads this. This was a bad, bad movie. The person that made this should not have been able to make a second film, let alone still be making films 15 years later.

Margot at the Wedding - But yet here we are. This film was overall an improvement, and I came close to liking it. Still with this film, nothing really happens. There's barely any plot. (Though compared with Kicking and Screaming this is Moby Dick.) No likable characters. Hardly any interesting scenes. Lots of elitist moments. In fact, I started making an Indie Film Checklist which I believe Baumbach had on set to make sure he hit all the points.
Indie Film Checklist
- a train ride
- masturbation
- a face licking/awkward sexual advance
- lots of psycho babble
- lots of talking to kids like they're adults
- No conclusions to things
- Constant state of leaving the audience in a "what's going on?/where are they?" state/no sense of time
- Comedic actor in a drama (Jack Black)
- ending....?
It opened with a train ride, then a ferry ride. Holy crap, a double whammy. Nicole Kidman goes to town on herself. A female masturbation scene, another double whammy! Kidman gets her face licked by some dude, super weird and as we all know super weird means super Indie! There was so much psycho babble, that should have been the title of the film. It's kind of funny that Kidman thinks every kid is retarded. Everyone in the film has some major emotional problems, so I guess it makes sense that there would be plenty of that going on. And mix that with the way they talk to the kids. That's a big part of the film, Kidman and her smothering of her son while criticizing him and hating when he criticizes her.
A big problem of the film is that it's unclear what exactly is going on at times. It jumps a lot, which can be fine, but there was no conclusion to anything. Like when the son gets bitten by the weird kid. Nothing ended up happening, and we never saw those people ever again. This is bad, horrible writing. It's just another example that Noah Baumbach is a bad writer. Anyone can write characters like his, but it takes good writing to give them arcs and growth and making sure that everything ends up tieing in together in some way. It's not that it has to be tied into a perfect bow, but at least have two scenes where there's some conclusion to something. The only conclusion was that the tree got cut down.
Then the movie ended. Nicole Kidman drops her purse and runs after the bus she just put her son on, and gets on herself. Then fade to black. I guess it's showing that problems continue or something. I saw it coming. As soon as the bus kept moving after she was on it, I thought, "Ah crap, that's the end of the film, it's going to end like this."
And that's how it will end for me and Noah Baumbach's film career. Greenburg looked promising, but oh well. I gave him all the chance to convince me that he can direct a film. In my opinion all he's capable of is assisting Wes Anderson in some of the writing of his films. Goodbye, Noah. Your directing career is permanently ON BLAST.

Red Box Special: Inglourious Basterds and 17 Again

Inglourious Basterds Wait Times
Netflix: 4 months and counting
Red Box: 2 Days

This review was a long time coming. While in San Diego, we decided to take in a movie and went to the local Red Box. The first night Inglourious Basterds was not available. I wasn't surprised. Betsy wanted to see the only other thing we hadn't seen that was available and not a cartoon for 4 year olds; 17 Again. I said no and we went to the movies instead to see Kick Ass. We went back again the next night, after Betsy pleaded that since it was her birthday, she had a right to pick the movie. Before checking on 17 Again, I flipped over the screen and lo and behold....Inglourious Basterds!!! We rented both.

Inglourious Basterds - Tarantino films are about 2 things: paying homage and wish fulfillment. This film was the capstone of that career of filmmaking. All of his films are infused with so much homage that it's hard to see anything original at all, but somehow they completely are. That was the case here, he's paying homage to old Westerns and war films, that it kind of takes away at times. I guess from what I read, he was making a spaghetti Western but in World War II days, which is cool and stuff, but in the middle of the film when the film slows down and the music turns to old western style music (which sounded eerily similar to tracks from Kill Bill) I was taken out of the film. It didn't fit. In fact, my only real criticism of the film was the music. It was mostly fine, but there were these "Tarantino moments," like the one I mentioned, where I thought, "Why can't he just make a great film, why does it have to be smothered in Tarantino sauce?" It's like a great taco, and then you put great salsa on the taco, but you accidentally put too much. All the ingredients are good, but there's just a little too much sauce. Later in the film, there's a David Bowie song, at least I think it's Bowie. (When the French lady is getting ready before the show.) I guess it worked, but again it just takes you out of the film.
Actually, I'll correct myself, I have another criticism of the film. Tarantino is great with suspense, he can build suspense out of an Eskimo selling ice. And that's the whole film! It's just section after section of super tense scenes where someone is either about to be killed or is danger of being revealed to a Nazi. It was both great and bad at the same time. Great because it kept your interest, but bad because there's just a string of these barely held together segments where people are in these tense situations again and again hardly accomplishing anything. I would compare it to North by Northwest, a great thriller, but it's nothing more than a bunch of chase scenes strung together. Inglourious Basterds was almost nothing more than a bunch of tense scenes strung together. That being said, I do think it's Tarantino's best film. It's funny, though, because by the end of the film the tenseness comes from the thought, "How is Hitler going to get out of this? They have to fail."
And like all his films, it's a fantasy wish fulfillment. His films play on a wish fulfillment sort of like a kid playing with his brother coming up with the most badass story possible, whether it's super heroes, ninjas or cops and robbers. Kids put things all out there; shooting a million bad guys or being the most powerful super hero. With Tarantino, he's playing with genre. Since he's a cinephile, he knows and loves movies so well, he wants to take the old films he's in love with and put them to the max in the most badass way possible. (I'm just speaking from perspective, I really don't know his intentions.) With Reservoir Dogs, it was an undercover cop with some gangsters, a plot that's been done a ton of times, but he does a take on it where the stakes are super high; cops are getting ears cut off and it has the Mexican Stand-Off to end all Mexican Stand-Offs. Then with Pulp Fiction, it's a wish fulfillment on gangsters. We get to be right in with them while they're driving and doing dirty stuff. And these guys are badasses. With Kill Bill, we have Tarantino's most obvious wish fulfillment film, a Kung Fu revenge story. Again, a plot that's been done. Here we have the most extreme and badass trails of vengeance, where she kills literally 88 guys in one fight. And the whole film is just a string of fights. Then in the second one we have the training taken to the extreme, with the most awesome instructor. Then, of course, is his Grindhouse semi-epic Death Proof, it is nothing but homage and death and destruction wish fulfillment. Of course, most films are wish fulfillment in some ways, but Tarantino's style puts that first before anything else, just like the exploitation films he models his own films after. Exploitation and Kung Fu films thrived on fantasy wish fulfillment. Their stories are built around the fantasy of watching kung fu or rampant violence and sex. Tarantino takes that style and applies his own idiosyncrasies to it; long conversations, sadistic villains, quick bursts of violence.
With Inglourious Basterds, he's paying homage to the old World War II mission films like Guns of Navarone, mixed with a Western style. The wish fulfillment comes from the fact that the group is literally slaughtering Nazi's. The squad does nothing but find Nazi's to kill. And who doesn't have some fantasy wish to kill Hitler and his douche bag sidekick Goebbels? It's wish fulfillment to the max.

17 Again - Yes, I was reluctant to spend a Saturday night watching this film. And yes, I have to admit...I actually kind of liked it. However, the first 10 minutes almost ruined it for me. One of my biggest vexations is poor staging. Comedies are the worst at it, especially those set in high school. The film opens before a basketball game that Zac Efron is playing in. His girlfriend walks out and he stops what he's doing to go over to her. Actually before that, some cheerleaders perform a pre-game dance routine on the court, which Efron jumps in on; I guess to show that's he a douche when he was a teenager...or a showboat? It makes no sense why he does it, it's makes the film seem like a horrible Disney Channel movie. (High School Musical reference not intended.)
So anyway, he goes over to his girlfriend, we can't hear what she's saying, but it isn't good, then she walks away and the game starts. He stops playing in the middle of the game and leaves to go say he loves her and wants to be with her and their unborn kid. Apparently she was either trying to break up with him because he knocked her up or she just said she was preggers then that was it? I dunno. Either way, it all just didn't make sense. Why did she awkwardly go up to the court, then break up or whatever, literally seconds before the game was to start? She couldn't wait? Then he just leaves, without finishing the game. Oh, the game that college scouts are at the see him. A game that he could have impressed them with to get a full ride to college. College where you get Bachelor's Degrees that potentially earn you more money. With a huge bundle of responsibility on the way, he decides that's not important, working now at a drug company was? The whole film is built around his eventual regret, so I guess it's about the mistakes he made; these mistakes, but it all just seems so clumsy and poorly thought out.
After that opening, it gets a whole lot better. It's really funny at parts, especially the friend, played by Thomas Lennon, from Reno 911 short shorts fame. I laughed at least twice during every one of his scenes. He's just a pure comic genius, because even in this film he's great. The other great thing is that Matthew Perry is hardly in the film, despite the film being about his character. Once again, Matthew Perry is the worst part of every film he's in. Zac Efron, on the other hand, is just the type of guy that it's so hard to say anything bad about. He's charming and witty and such a great basketball player, you just want to eat him up. I see great things ahead for this little guy. Great things.

Trapped in a Graphic Novel: Ghost World

The Rotten Tomatoes show recently did a list of the 5 Best Comic Book Movies, putting Ghost World at #1. I was rather shocked and slightly appalled, even though I hadn't seen the film yet. It's been an indie darling since it came out, and everyone who has seen it has praised it, including my wife. People have tried explaining it and this was my conclusion before seeing it: It's a dark movie about two high school girls who pretend to like Steve Buschemi, but then trick him in the end as part of a practical joke. None of that is correct in anyway. The movie is bleak, but it's far from dark and they aren't really tricking Buschemi through the film.

The film is sort of an anti-Hollywood film, and every rule that the film business has learned over the past 100 years, and is usually there for good reason, this film breaks.
1. The heroes have no plan, goal or drive. 2. This was directed by a documentary filmmaker. 3. The original author not only wrote the screenplay, but was on set to consult. 4. There is no real ending.
I don't find any problems with numbers 1 and 4. The problem is the directing and writing in this film.
First off, the cinematography was gosh awful. And that's coming from me, a guy who majored in Screenwriting. The framing was a total mess. Sometimes heads were too close to the edge of the screen for entire shots sometimes. The angle was akward at other times. And then the mise en scene was atrocious. Apparently they never bothered to look into the camera before shooting, because so many shots are ugly and misplaced, even easy shots where people are just talking. Next up is the directing. The directors main two jobs as far as what's on screen are: What's on screen! And making sure the actors are acting. Something that involves both is blocking; where the actors move...while on the screen. At times the blocking was totally absent, as if a freshman director was at the helm. For instance, after the graduation scene when the two girls are walking away from the gym; they're talking about something stupid, flip the school off, turn around and stand there for 3 seconds. They stand there, then as if on cue or trying to remember what to do, they slowly realize the scene is still going. After that realization, they remember that they're supposed to go sit down on the bench. That's bush league. And that wasn't the only time where the blocking was totally amateur.
Thora Birch was fine, she can hold her own. But Scarlett Johansson is just a pretty face, she needs to be coached at all times, otherwise you get an untrained poodle pissing on the judge. And who should be coaching her? The director, someone with acting experience, not someone who is best known for the documentary Crumb. (Which I hear is fantastic.)
The second rule I speak of: the writer. This film is why you don't get the original writer to write the film. Let alone pair him with a documentary filmmaker to write it together. The first 10 minutes made me feel like I was back in my Freshman screenwriting class. Screenplay after screenplay was about two young people talking about nothing at a diner, or on the phone, or on the phone then at the diner. But it wasn't just the first 10 minutes, that lasted at least to the 25 minute mark before anything real actually happened, besides graduating. That's another thing I feel a need to gripe about. After they leave their grad ceremony, they walk out by themselves and just sit. Where are their families? And why at that time did Thora Birch get a report saying she needed to take another class? Instead of passing her a diploma, they pass her that paper?
So back to the script...there were whole scenes where nothing new, exciting or important happened. The whole scene where they're standing in their new apartment, they say "hey, when are you moving in?" "Tomorrow." "Oh what time..." That goes on for 2 minutes. They wrote that useless scene, then filmed it, then edited it into the film, then kept it after viewing it. All so we know Thora is supposed to show up at 12?
Before you think I'm being unreasonable, know this, I know how indie comics work. I've read tons of them, I've been to comic shows, trying to sell my own indie book (which was about a medieval warrior and his fairy sidekick in case you're wondering), and read plenty of indie books that have just normal people talking about their lives, or why they hate things, or them making fun of customers. It works in the indie comic world. The dialogue is specific to that medium because comic books don't have a lot of space and sometimes you write things that are funny to that world, but....it doesn't always work in film. If the characters are talking about nothing, they have to actually be doing something or be people who wouldn't normally say it in order to be funny. Pulp Fiction: it's interesting because they're hitmen talking about nothing, it's interesting because one guy has a gun pointed at another guy while talking about nothing. The "this is how my life is" type of comic just barely works, and is only interesting when the author has an interesting take on an everyday event or subject. But just like everyday life, it doesn't always translate to the screen. Like Hitchcock said, film is life with the boring parts cut out. Which is why this film needed a screenwriter to write it. There was way too much "I hate this" or "Screw you" dialogue for it's own good. Even though it was easy to relate to the characters, it was also easy to feel a disconnect from them, especially Thora Birch.
I really don't know how faithful to the comic the movie was, but since it's the same author, I'd imagine that even if it wasn't it's still what the author wanted to see on screen. But it doesn't matter if it's faithful or not, the movie should stand alone. I think it could have. I thought the relationship between Thora and Buschemi was interesting, but it could have been better. This film barely scratched the surface of "dark." From what people had said, I thought they were really going to hurt Buschemi bad. They only proceeded to mildly prank him. If this film was actually produced well, I could talk about the themes and depth, but I make it a rule never to talk about poorly executed themes.
I'm sorry, Betsy, I know you love this film. And sorry to the indie sheep who came calling to the bell of an indie film and decided not to notice the painful mistakes. High on my list is a movie called Election. (Which coincidentally Thora Birch was fired from.) I'm sure it's on some of the same lists of people who loved Ghost World, but I need to mention it. Election is funnier, darker, smarter and totally awesome in comparison to Ghost World.

My Name is Judge: The Films of Mike Judge

So Betsy had heard something about Extract, Mike Judge's latest film and moved it up to the top of the queue. She hadn't seen Idiocracy, so I moved that up and decided since we watched Office Space a while ago we could go ahead and watch all of his films. Then Netflix put Beavis and Butt-Head Do America on Watch Instant, ta da, we have all of Mike Judge's films.
Office Space as everyone knows, is pure comic genius. Somehow, someway this mush pot of a movie is a work of art, becoming more than just a cult classic. Everyone in America can relate to the comedy in someway, and it is so accessible that everyone can get into it. Honestly, the film by itself isn't that great, but throughout the jokes are so well placed and well told that you go along. Judge's other films aren't as well crafted and the jokes are less relatable. But still they are accessible and it's easy to laugh, even though you know the movie is dumb.

Beavis and Butt-Head Do America - I can't believe I'm reviewing this film. It's just a long dumb road trip, following two idiots that have no clue what's going on. The jokes aren't that great, the plot is worse than Rush Hour 2, and Beavis and Butt-Head keep doing the same schtick over and over again. But through all that, the film is still enjoyable. When it came out it was fun because they were stupid, and the late 90's were stupid. It all fit, and everyone under 25 could laugh and admit they liked Beavis and Butt-Head. (Except for snooty types who were closeted Beavis and Butt-Head fans.) I thought they were funny. I watched the show sometimes, except I didn't like the music video watching as much.
Watching now, it's just sort of nostalgic. It brought back so many memories from 9th grade, repeating the lines from the show and acting like them around school. But the film holds up, even beyond that, it's fun to see them out in the real world, messing things up and it's all fun. Unless you've grown up or never liked them to begin with.

Idiocracy - Another Mike Judge film that depends wholly on the joke. But instead of ripping apart office life, Judge is ripping apart American life in general. Even though it's set well into the future, the movie could have very well taken place somewhere in the mid-west. Or Florida. I'm sure many of the things people say in the movie, Mike Judge overheard in his hometown of Austin. An example, some people really do think Gatorade is a healthy drink.
The film runs just at about an hour and a half, any longer and the film would have worn out it's welcome. When everyone on screen is retarded, it gets old after a while, and it suffers from the same problem as B&B Do America, if you don't like laughing at idiots, you aren't going to like the film.
Case in point: Betsy. I had seen this once before with my brothers, who love laughing at idiots. It's a family tradition. So when I sat down with Betsy I expected more of the same amount of laughing and genuine love for the movie's idiocy. But Betsy doesn't like laughing at idiots for a whole hour and a half. In fact, she probably only likes it 45 minutes worth. After that, she was bored, and I have to admit, on second viewing it's a little less funny. And that' sort of how I feel about King of the Hill, the re-runs aren't that entertaining.

Extract - Speaking of not that funny. Imagine Office Space with less jokes, characters you didn't care about, a plot that made no sense, sub-plots that had no point, a main character that didn't need to be in the film, a useless Ben Affleck playing a druggie that there was no reason Jason Bateman should be friends with. Did I mention the lack of jokes?
This wasn't a drama. Or a thriller. It was supposed to be a comedy. Are we supposed to be laughing at Jason Bateman's demise? Except, he never really has one. The saddest thing is that his wife won't have sex with him. I'd be pretty sad if I was married to Kristen Wiig and she didn't want to have sex. Maybe she should have been telling jokes at least, because she's the funniest women on the planet. Why put the funniest woman on the planet in a jokeless role?
This is Mike Judge's worst film. After the culmination of Office Space, Idiocracy, and two hit TV shows, this is where he's at?
He must be drinking too much Brawndo, because he's not the king of the hill anymore.

A Sci-Fi, two Musicals and an awesome Dramedy

The Ghost in the Shell - This was science fiction at it's best, even though it's through the dialogue of the Japanese. The story and world are really interesting, but the dialogue is so funny. But that's the culture, every country's dialogue is going to be unique. I'm sure American films are funny to the Japanese. But what's unique about theirs is the tone that goes in different directions, as if they're kind of talking about something important, but you don't know, it could just be incidental.
But besides that, what they do with the science is pretty unique. It has elements of androids, and AI, as well as elements of body modification technology, where people can enhance their brains or hands to get more function or new functions out of them. I don't know how original it all is compared to other films or stories, but the basics have been around for decades, they're just adding a different spin on them. But this definitely pre-dated The Matrix and some other AI films. However, it almost borrows too much from Blade Runner, in it's philosophy and tone. There is a cyborg cop chasing after what they think is a hacker, but it turns out it is also a cyborg. The tone is dark and the world is slightly askew, but still totally functions. And there are the deep questions they ask about being real and yadda yadda. This film isn't quite a noir, but it's close enough, that at times you feel like it could just be the Japanese Blade Runner. Except in this film, she is definitely a droid.

Doctor Dolittle -  I didn't know what to think of this film. It's kind of a classic, but then also partially forgotten, and yet partially ignored. And that follows it's history all the way back to when it was released, being a bomb and almost bankrupting Fox. And the movie shows why it could bankrupt a major company. It's just so...it's not bad, mostly, but then it's not great. I hate when movies get reviewed like that, but this film bounced around from good to bad. It definetly wasn't horrible. Rex Harrison is up to his douchey ways, acting better than everyone like in My Fair Lady, except this time he's defending the animals. So the whole time he's showing the absurdity of human nature and the crudeness of men towards themselves and animals.
The film was almost a kind of social commentary, but it never has the wit or smarts to pull that off. Instead, it's a step above a kids movie, but nothing any adults are going to want to see.
Rex Harrison: Fail.

Nine - The musical based on the play based on the film 8 1/2. I am not a big fan of the original film, so that didn't help when seeing this. The original film is about a pretentious Italian director going through a mid-life crisis while trying to make his next film, all while every woman in his life is causing drama. That's basically this film, except with music and also the director is way more pretentious. All the problems he's facing are either ones he's created or could be solved by taking a vacation and putting the film on hold. Why does he need to do this film now? He has no script, yet people are building sets and making costumes, and the actress is being flown in...just come clean douche face and put the film on hiatus. It happens all the time. But no, he has to whine and ask questions about his life that no one cares about, except him and his dead mother.
The original film at least used the women effectively. They were real Italian women dragging him down and were actually involved in his life. Here the women are: a Prostitute from memories of his childhood, an American Reporter that wants to jump on his spaghetti, and that he almost has an affair with, the Actress of his film who has no real story or plot or character, the Costume Lady who again has no story or plot but is just there for him to talk to, his Dead Mother who keeps showing up in his mind, his Wife who should leave him, and his Crazy Face Mistress who tries to kill herself. So all in all, this guy has only two problems: Don't get entangled in crazy face's suicide, and start loving your wife!
Besides the absence of likable characters (except the wife, played by the cutey Marion Cotillard), a plot that you didn't care about and songs about nothing...that basically leaves nothing. The film was nothing. It was like a cloud of smoke, and in it you kind of thought things were going on because there was big time stars and Daniel Day Lewis was acting up a storm. It didn't feel like a film at all. It was like a huge spectacle, or like an old TV special where they would gather a bunch of stars and do a big one time show with numbers and stuff and there was no story, it was just a grab-bag of excitement to see. This definitely was a grab-bag, and just like a grab-bag, it's filled with stuff you think is kind of cool, until you get home and take it all out and realize you don't want any of it after all.

Broadcast News - And now onto something you will enjoy. This is my pick of the week. I stumbled upon this gem and loved it. It's one of James Brooks best, maybe his very best, and like all his usual films, it mixes comedy and drama in a tight mesh. It follows the lives of TV news reporters, who live a hectic, crazy life, which leads to them having no life outside of the newsroom. And naturally, since they have no outside lives, their lives get intertwined with each other.
The film was a little clunky at first, as James Brooks' films can be. Spanglish was pretty clunky, though it was well meaning. But after the first half hour, it's near perfect. The characters each have an arc, and it works remarkably, because it's not to on the nose and but they've all grown and changed by the end of the film. This movie is Film 101 material.

Lost and Found: Where the Wild Things Are & Citizen Kane

When I was 11 my Dad rented Citizen Kane for me. I can't remember if I asked for it or he just gave it to me, but I do remember him saying that he thought it was important I see it. At the time I had no clue that it was the greatest American film. The AFI Top 100 was 7 years away. So that afternoon, all by myself in our living room I watched Citizen Kane. And when it was done, I looked around, to see who else had experienced it with me. No one was there. I experienced it all by myself. It was as if Citizen Kane was all mine. I had no idea every film critic and scholar regarded it as the #1 film. Citizen Kane was my #1 film. And for 7 years I had it all to myself.
Life had sort of changed a little for me afterward. I got the film, it's meaning sunk deep into me. I knew what Rosebud meant, I knew what the tragedy of Charles Foster Kane meant. Citizen Kane was like every other tragedy, it sinks in like a drug that relieves our souls of guilt and haunted taste of wanting self-disaster to make our own tragedy. We watch Romeo and Juliet or Oedipus because we want to feel the tragedy in our heart and in a small way we want failure in our own life so we can be a tragic hero and people would say what could have been.

Fast forward 10 years to when I was in college. When I say college I mean it, I went to Orange Coast College in beautiful Costa Mesa for about 5 years. My first year back after taking 2 years off, I took a Mythology class, which I ended up loving. I really liked the teacher and took her in other classes, but this first day I had my doubts. She read aloud "Where the Wild Things Are." It was a lovely start to the class, which covered folk tales and fairy tales. After the read, I raised my hand to make a comment, as others were doing, and brilliantly (hindsight is 20/20) related Citizen Kane to the book. I felt so good about the connection and thought since she was the teacher and had already started lecturing about..scholarly things, that she would respond in a scholarly way back. But instead she just smiled and jokingly said, "Rosebud." And then moved on. Double damnit, I thought, I just laid out some scholarly gold and that's how you respond? Oh well, that's junior college.
By this point I had discovered that every other film scholar, critic and film fan knew that Citizen Kane was the #1 American film. It was no longer my film. And besides that, essays and DVD commentaries had been released by smarter and more eloquent people than me. But I was still the only person, I think, to make the connection between Citizen Kane and "Where the Wild Things Are." Until now!

Following Kane's life, we realize he never had a childhood. But yet his childhood creeps up into his life over and over again, all the way till the end. He's arrogant. Childish in speech at times. Judging by his women troubles, he's probably trying to find his mother. Even when he's older, he's extremely angered, throwing a temper tantrum, destroying his wife's bedroom. He can't connect with people, which is something he should have learned as a child. And then he dies alone, thinking about the one thing he could never have: his childhood.
These are all the same things that Max in "Where the Wild Things Are" goes through, except he gets to experience them as a boy. He's able to work through them, and at the end of his story he feels lonely and he misses his mother, just like Kane. He gets to the top of the chain, where he's the king, sending the Things to bed without supper, becoming the very thing that he hated. Except "Wild Things" isn't a tragedy. Max becomes lonely just like Kane, except Max can go home, where his supper is waiting for him. Kane can never get home, and he spends his life hoarding things, building a never ending house, controlling women (because he doesn't know how to treat people), and trying to win the love of everyone around him. The tragedy is that Kane wasn't a bad man. He generally wanted people to be happy. The tragedy is that Kane could have really been great. If only he had had a loving mother and proper childhood.

Let's hope that Max learned from his time in the Wild Place with the Wild Things. In the movie Where the Wild Things Are, they explore the story more in-depth, both in Max's backstory and the Things he encounters. They've updated Max's problems a little. He comes from a broken home, where his father is absent and his mother's time is split between him and her trying to have a life. The other life (in the form of Mark Ruffalo) makes Max extremely jealous, causing his big outburst that sends him away. What Max really suffers from is a lack of attention, from his parents and also everyone else around him. It's as if he needs to act like a wild beast to get noticed, a typical problem facing single parents of young boys. Max has all these pent up emotions that have nowhere to go. So instead, Max goes. He finds a place where all his emotions have come out and he can let them loose. The film explores the personalities of the different things, each being some part of Max himself. He's angry, aggressive, timid, a loner. The Things also partially possess qualities of those around him in his life, as well as qualities that perhaps lay dormant.
The film comes off as a slow, dreary mess on the surface, with no guided plot or development. But underneath it, we see all this. It's so internal, which is funny because the whole Wild Thing world is internal. The development is all there. At first Max is the King of the Things, but it's only a facade, he can't control them forever. He stands with Carol, the angry and impulsive Thing, going along with him, almost forgetting the others. But slowly he looses control of Carol and eventually completely sides with KW, even being swallowed by her, symbolizing their unity.
But in the end, he can't control the Things, just like a child can't totally control his emotions. All he can do is live with them and accept them. And by the end, when he's leaving even Carol is under control and reconciled with KW.
I think the film clumsily handled the ending. His leaving the Wild Place is slightly un-settled and it's unclear of what his internal motivations are. I assumed it would be that the place was too wild and he would be clearly homesick, like the book, but instead he just kind of leaves just 'cuz. I guess he was leaving because he was homesick, but it's ambiguous. Nevertheless, he does return home. He gets back to his childhood after dealing with his emotions in a wild place. A wild place that every kid needs, otherwise they'll grow up to be like Charles Foster Kane.

Surrogates: What a waste of time

I didn't much care to see this, but I just started listening to the /FilmCast and they do movie reviews as part of the podcast and this film came up in one of the old episodes. So...I moved up Surrogates so I could listen to the podcast and follow along. (I may be doing this in the future for other movies they review as I go through all the old podcasts.)
Something rubbed me the wrong way about this sci-fi movie, ever since seeing the movie billboards.

Which looked like these...
First  off, I thought for sure that was Angelina Jolie. (It isn't.) And I never saw a trailer or TV ad for the film. So based entirely on the movie posters I didn't want to see it. Mainly because the idea seemed pointless; if they're building these robots to be so human that you can't tell...why is there a section of them exposed? What point would that be? I guess there could be one, but since even the very base premise seemed flawed, the whole film must be flawed. And it was.
Science fiction has a big mountain to climb when it comes to believability. All films on some level have to deal with that; the acting has to believable, the actions the actors take have to be believable, etc. But with science fiction, you have to add the on top of that a whole world that the film has to create. They have to build a totally believable world from basically scratch. Surrogates was building a world in the future where a company makes surrogate robots that people use instead of actually going out into the real world. So these things go out in place of them to work, school, wherever. Really interesting premise. But that's where the ingenuity ends. It becomes a murder plot mystery conspiracy thing with Bruce Willis unable to use his surrogate because it's damaged or something. The film plot itself falls on tired cliches and never really takes chances to tell an original story. But that would have been okay, if the film had made a completely believable and awesome world. Throughout the film there are just details that aren't thought out. For instance, they say that 98% of the world's population uses a surrogate.
That much? What? Like 98% of the world now has never seen a computer, so in thirty years everyone, including the poorest countries in Africa will not only have a computer, but one that can walk around and do your chores? That's a big turnaround. No more going to the town well to get water, your robot body can do it. The film also states that crime is down 90% and health is up some huge %. These things have saved the world. Peace has been declared!!! Except it hasn't...Bruce Willis, an FBI agent, so wisely goes to the "military" and apparently they use them for war, which is probably the most useful way to use the surrogates.
Military was in quotes because it emphasizes my next problem...what I am now referring to as the Flash Gordon Syndrome. The Flash Gordon Syndrome, or FGS, is when locations or worlds are simplified down to basically one location for ease of story telling. (i.e. Flash Gordon lands on an alien planet, in the capital city, he's able to hear secret plans, see a factory and sneak into the king's throne room, all in basically one location.)
FGS happens not only once but twice in Surrogates. He goes to the "military" to find out about these murders and he's able to see some high ranking officer in some dark building where they're fighting (through surrogates) a peace keeping mission.
So....Bruce Willis is able to get an interview with a high ranking officer. Why is the officer meeting him in probably a very classified room? And even if it isn't classified, why would the officer meet him there? And why isn't the officer actually focusing on the mission he's giving orders to? He just walks away with Bruce Willis!!! Then later in the film, Bruce goes back and the officer spills the beans on the secret weapon. In the future the military is really talkative and nice and the same guy doing missions knows about secret weapons.
The second FGS part is when Bruce is at the surrogate company headquarters. He meets with some beautiful surrogates who seem like idiots, yet are high ranking employees, who tell him nothing, but then let him wander the building. This company is responsible for world peace, low crime, high health, and makes trillions of dollars because they cornered the market on surrogates, wouldn't they be a little apprehensive about Bruce Willis wandering around. And why does this trillion dollar company not have security buttons to get into important areas like "Engineering," which is labeled on the elevator buttons for anyone to see. I guess with no crime, they don't have anything to worry about?
But the real FGS point here, is that in this building is the HQ, with all the executives, and then there is the Engineering department which develops new stuff and also handles returns on defective models, and then......on another floor or the same one, I couldn't tell, has the FACTORY building the surrogates.

All in the same building. 98% of the world is using a surrogate, and the factory is right there? And why is the same guy dealing with returns, also designing new surrogates!!!!! Even Wal-mart has two departments for those things. This is pretty much the largest company and yet all this is done right in the same place. And somehow Bruce Willis is able to see it all. Flash Gordon would be so proud of him.
One last detail that just gets my goat. The FBI has a link to every surrogate and tracks them so they can stop crimes or something. Alright, that's kind of a big deal by itself. But then at the end of the film as the bad guy is trying to kill everyone, the FBI has links to every surrogate around the world. I don't know if the makers of Surrogates are aware....the FBI is a law enforcement agency for just the USA. So how would they have links to Chinese or Portugese or hey even poorer than dirt Africans have them, so even Somalian surrogates.
I don't know. This just proves my point, if a film can't even get the basic details and facts right, how do they expect to get the film right.