Review: American Hustle

4/4

Review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

4/4

Review: Side Effects

3/4

Side Effects is a skillfully directed, sharply written, exquisitely acted film in the company of The Talented Mr. Ripley and Gone Girl. This is essentially the first Steven Soderbergh film I've ever seen, and I am motivated to see more. His direction implies an underlying intelligence.
This film hits on multiple levels: the STORY of the professional psychiatric world, media scrutiny, murder and motives is interesting; the ACTING is well-fitted, with Rooney Mara as a sort of schizophrenic (perfect), Jude Law as a straight man, a just professional, classy and thoughtful (I love it), Catherine Zeta-Jones as a sly and deceitful power-woman (could her eyebrows be any more perfect for this role?), and Channing Tatum as an ex-con with a good heart (very solid); the DIRECTION is artistic and powerful; the THEMATIC MATERIAL is worth wondering about. What does it mean to be insane? To what degree does this remove one from responsibility? How should we treat those who are seemingly less conscious than us; should we treat them as less human? Are they? Are we all less conscious than we think we are? Are we all insane? Free-will questions certainly surface here, and the best part is that they come up in a legal setting. How can our court of law handle this philosophical debate?
For all of its interesting content and powerful impact, Side Effects is still limited to me. It's a suspense, sort of a white-collar drama, and it doesn't make great statements about our human experience. It doesn't have to make great statements to get all four of my stars, but if it doesn't have that, it should probably have transcendental emotion or something. It's just a good movie; it's good entertainment.

Review: Dead Poets Society

3.5/4

This is a wonderful, heartbreaking, enriching film experience. It is extraordinarily inspirational to those of us who are conformists, controlled, not living our own lives. The philosophy portrayed in this film isn't groundbreaking in its novelty, but it is earth-shattering in its might. The film is humanist, romantic, transcendentalist. It tells us to fight for ourselves and what we know to be good, to be brave and do what we need to do to really truly live.
How can one put this into action? Why does it seem so easy now, and so hard when it's called for? Has this movie ever actually changed a life? Do we need a musical score playing in the background of our lives in order to muster up this kind of courage? Do we need a supporting cast to encourage us?
I wish that I could be a part of something like this in true life. I wish that I had the opportunity to fight for truth like this.
The thing that's difficult to accept is that I do have that opportunity. Every day there is some struggle for truth, and I mostly just fail. I stay in my natural state, and no matter whether my natural state is conformist or not, truth-seeking or not, it is not brave, the way I live.
Keep Dead Poets Society in your mind as long as you can. Talk to somebody about it. Watch it with someone. Let them be the support you need for a courageous life. Do what you can to make this a reality and then you'll be able to live the way you need to live.

I do believe in the humanist philosophy celebrated in this film. I am a Christian, and believe in devoting your life to God's will, but I also believe in the value of the human, the beauty and glory of the human. I believe in fulfilling potential, I believe that God gives gifts of all kinds, and that exercising those gifts is a duty unto yourself and that God blesses that. I believe that "Honor your father and mother" is entirely different from "Obey your father and mother". I believe that it is a human need to fulfill ones potential in all areas of life, not just spiritually, and this includes pursuing passions that are separate from the Church. I believe that I have not glorified God if I have not lived the life He granted me to the fullest and with joy and passion. This doesn't expel the concept of discipline, but it expands our common idea of religious freedom.

I am not sure that I believe in all that I said. I will have to think about whether or not God really blesses pursuits other than His own glorification. What were we truly made for? Was it to praise Him, or to praise the world and life He gave us? Are they one in the same?
By indulging in the great glories of life and coming to consciously appreciate the Creator behind it, I think that we are praising Him in the process. To pursue a passion instilled on ones heart is to take hold of God's gift, to glorify Him, and not to waste what He has given us.

As far as the movie goes, it is wonderfully-made. It is a bit dated, a bit corny, but finely acted and directed. The spirit behind the film is obviously what has lasted through the years. It is one of the greater spirits I have seen in all of film. At this age, Dead Poets Society won't change my life, but it may shape my philosophy some. It was nice to see, and to be reminded of what I have missed the last few years. It is something I would show my kids; in fact I would like for every person on the planet to hear this message.

Reflections on Orange is the New Black: Season 2

3.5/4

I'm realizing more and more how original the fundamental structure of this series is. It's difficult to point to one technique that separates it, because it's just an underlying unconventionality. It's willing to do things that most series won't do--I suppose it's extremely brave.
The most significant feature of the series to me is its emotional ambiguity. You don't know how to feel.

I don't want to blog about this anymore... As I watched the final episode of the second season with my watching buddy I watched never from a critic's perspective. I was fully invested. The show sucked me in so that I can't play the role of the observer. I love the series, no matter how bad or good it is, and I won't let myself examine it like it doesn't mean something to me, in the same way that I wouldn't talk about how good or bad a person I think my mom is in front of her. It doesn't matter. I care more about the show than I do its quality.

(Five days later, I am now removed enough)

Orange just feels like real life, with some extra added emotion and drama and humor. That's why it's not my kind of show, I just like it a lot. I need things such as 2001 or Apocalypse or Magnolia where I can be in a different world where greater things can happen; where reality can be defied.

Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey

5/4

This won't quite be a review. I have seen this film I estimate eight times, so all impressions are gone and all I can do now is soak into its murky depths. It is easiest to tell the quality of a movie probably after the second viewing in a year's time. After a few viewings, you concern yourself more with the world of the movie than with the movie as a movie. This is absolutely the case with 2001. I can't say how great it is... All I can attest to is its originality--it does things that no other pieces of cinema have even dreamed of--and its finesse--there are techniques used here that are the pinnacle of fine direction--and its effect--no other film in my eyes can equal the feelings of disturbance and hypnosis.
I was asked why I got into this movie after the first time--why this is among my couple favorite movies. I thought back to those first couple viewings...probably 4 years ago, age 15. I called it genius immediately, if only for its imagination. Is it genius simply to be able to think outside convention?
I also marveled at the feelings it invoked in me. Never was I bored in this film, not for a second: I was so invested and engaged in this world that I felt every second of this long and slow-paced film. I take pride in how I was able to handle this film, especially at first. I have never demonstrated greater patience or appreciation in my life, I don't think.
The feelings I experienced were transcendental. They rose above life and pushed me into the abnormal. I felt wonderful there. It felt like drugs to me, every time. But it wasn't the physical feeling, it was believing finally that there was more to life. That's what was addicting: believing that there was another level to the world and I could see into it.
I don't have a clear-cut interpretation of this film. Even this time I was thinking things I had never thought before. I'm not sure whether Kubrick knew what truly happened or not. I certainly don't, and don't think I ever will, but I'm excited about the idea of eventually finding my own 2001: a plot that nobody sees but nobody can dispute.
This was my first viewing of it in my current filmgoing era (beginning around the entrance of summer '14, a few months ago). I consider it to be sci-fi-horror. It certainly feels like a horror movie to me. The only reason one wouldn't call it that is because of its unconventional restrain. But don't all the greatest movies have that? The horror in 2001 comes from a close-up of HAL's little red bulb, or from the wailing on the black screen, or from an astronaut's terrifying face frozen in time: we don't see the evil, but by what we're shown we know it's there. That's Kubrick's brilliance. He shows us the surface and we're terrified by what's underneath.

Review: 12 Years a Slave

4/4

I am typically not "into" Best Picture winners or nominees in the recent era. They lack substance, and only have a concept behind them. A concept the Academy likes for this grandiose award. But 12 Years a Slave is great and powerful: that is undeniable.

Steve McQueen takes on slavery with the right perspective. He focuses on one man's journey into and out of loss. He makes it personal. Rather than focusing on Solomon's days of fame and success as a lecturer and familyman, we see him completely alone. As his own person. A portrait is so much stronger when it portrays a character alone, rather than with respect to those around him.

McQueen and screenwriter Ridley also utilize the strengths of anti-hollywood film to depict a hollywood-type topic. This makes all the difference. The conventions of slavery film are broken by the philosophical tilt of the dialogue, and also by the fact that the story is taken from true life. The artistic philosophy of McQueen's direction is so far beyond that of most directors, if it weren't for the grand acting and major topic it would feel like a fully independent picture.

The characters are terrific here:

Solomon is strong-willed and righteous, but put in such an existentially brutal situation, even he must occasionally question the laws of morality.

Michael Fassbender is weak and disgusting. In my belief it is just to blame him for the stupidity that doesn't allow him to see morality clearly. Hannah Arendt doesn't convict the Holocaust Nazis because they were nurtured to be what they were. I think that surely there is a factor of free will, although it is hard to reject the idea that any one of us would become a Nazi or a slaveowner if put in the right situation.

Paul Dano is like Fassbender: he is the height of despicable. That's the word that the producers must have based their writing and casting around. He is as he is in There Will Be Blood. It is a terrific character, and he plays it perfectly.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays the man who knows what's right, but says that he must consciously give way to the system anyways. Though we don't feel it, he is probably just as despicable a slaveowner as Fassbender or Dano--possibly even more.

Brad Pitt is the possibly unrealistic man who knows what's right and does something about it despite being in the perfect situation to know and do wrong. You would expect the savior to be a hurt fellow, but what would be more realistic than a true story? I still love to see this charcter because of the way he speaks, acts, and because of who the actor is.

McQueen's great fusion of hollywood and indie is what makes this Best Picture winner special from the rest. It is beautiful, poetic, and a dialogue on ethics.

Review: The Place Beyond the Pines

4/4

I'm just so amazed at how much I felt during this movie and how much thematic material it covered.
The film comes in three spiritual parts.
The first is about a man. He's a beautiful man. He's an outlaw who's fallen into a violent and unsettling life. But when his son comes up into his world, we see an unbelievable father. An honest man, from the core to the surface. All the way through. There are few characters, in all of film, that I have more affection or sympathy for. He's stuck in a world that hates him for his position, and can't understand who he is. But he stands strong against all forces denying him of his rights. Events happen that prove how utterly cruel the universe is. One main topic of the film is redemption, or karma. Do things come back around? Can the destruction of a great man be understood and redeemed?
The second part is about a new man. He's entangled in an organization of crookedness and corruption. Yet he is an honest man. He is fighting for justice, climbing his way up the dark crooked ladder so that he can provoke moral resolutions and add his touch of fairness to the world. He has made a mistake. A major one, but an understandable one. And he is fighting to make it right.
The third part is where everything will either come back around or remain in its dark and shadowy spiritual area. This will either be the turning point of the film, or will leave us dangling in moral question. The third part involves two consequences. Both are lost souls, but one is searching for redemption.
One incredible thing that this movie does is make us love the outlaw, then love the man of law that destroys him, then love the new outlaw that destroys the man of law. What an UNBELIEVABLE scheme. The characters here are so rich and thickly layered. They are brutally good and honest men. It is both beautiful to watch them and feel for them, and torturous. I connected with each of the three mains to such a level that I want to watch this movie over and over so that I might begin to live in it. Maybe I can live their stories and experience their love, loss and righteousness. I am encapsulated in a world of mildness, materialism, emptiness of soul. The realness of The Place Beyond the Pines hurts me with longing. I want not the perfection that I have, but rather the destruction and strong, solid, true-to-heart moral actions and consequences of this film. I doubt I have ever felt such things for a film.
Each part has its own mood and meaning. You must be able to look under the surface, beneath the faces of each character. You must be able to sink into the tone of the music, and feel the motivations behind each action. This is what I could not do when I watched it a year or so ago. Immerse yourself in this world and you will have an experience you have rarely had in the movies. Derek Cianfrance's sophomore work needs a deeper look. I did not catch it on the first viewing, not in the slightest. But now I appreciate this film for all that it is. Its trueness overwhelmed me.
Many critics called the road of this film long and winding. I felt that the first time. This time, not only did I not want it to end, I wanted to exist in it forever. This film made me feel what's missing in my life.

This is what I am ultimately taught: be real to yourself. Do what you need to do. Don't pay mind to what others expect from you.
I want to exit my world and enter that one. So badly.
Derek Cianfrance took me away with his first film. He does it again here.

Review: The Godfather: Part II

4/4

It doesn't feel like I just watched a movie. It feels like I just witnessed a story unfold.

There were no signs of the movies here. No obvious dramatic arc, no character cliches... It was pure realism. An interesting story that I got lost in. Once again... I found myself lost in this world.

There is nothing fancy about this filmmaking. Again, it was only Coppola's job to hold together a Puzo story. And the actors had to be perfect. The story is everything though. As long as a story like this is portrayed with realism, it's bound to be one of the greatest movies ever.

I feel less connected to this film than the first. I knew lots about the first before I saw it. I knew nothing about this one. Maybe I need to see it again--get these characters and events engrained in my consciousness as I did the predecessor. Even with a running time of three and a half hours, I would not be opposed.

It's basically just perfect. A flawless film. That's what 4/4 means.... flawless. The first Godfather was better than flawless though. In engaged me that thoroughly. This film is almost on that level. It is not quite as accessible; it is longer, slower, and has fewer Marlon Brandos. It doesn't have the legacy the first one has, so I consider it a bit worse. But still, it had no trouble keeping my interest.

Michael is such a great character to me. I respect him and feel for him. Tom Hagen is another great character. So talented and loyal.

I say this is just extensions on the original Godfather. It is a sequel and a prequel that serves to expand on the world of the first, not stand up to it.

I don't understand those who would call this better than the original. That population exists. I do understand Roger Ebert, though, who would give this a less-than-spectacular rating as a standalone movie, but instead groups it together with Part I. That is my final, lasting belief. The Godfather Parts I & II is one movie, and Part II is a valuable and terrific section of the whole story.

Listen: as I watched this movie, I didn't see Michael as the great villain he's made out to be by the media. I didn't feel as if the golden age of the Corleones was over. I felt as if Michael was a powerful and talented ruler. I felt that he was intelligent and highly capable of taking over his father's position. I only felt that he forgot a couple values that the Godfather had held tight to. I don't see him as an unforgivable or incomprehensible villain, and I don't see this film as a total devolution of character. He holds the same character we saw at the end of the first film. The devolution happened then, in stages beginning when his father was shot for the first time. He became more and more involved and passionate about the business. About protecting his family. Then there was no jump to the second film, and throughout the second film I don't see much as changing. Killing Fredo... that was in the name of the family. In the name of loyalty. It wasn't about forsaking the family, as you would think. Fredo proved by his actions that he doesn't deserve to be a part of the family, even though he's there by blood. Unless blood trumps actions. It's a tough call, but I don't see Michael as entirely out-of-line and definitely not mercilessly murdering. He has a heart. But he has passion for the strength of his family (the organization, not blood relatives) that overrules it.

Review: Boogie Nights

3/4

I don't know about this film. Some of it is genius. Some of it is signature Paul Thomas Anderson. Some of it is depressingly misdirected. Some of it is brilliantly energetic. Some of it is shocking. Little of it is predictable.
Boogie Nights came two years before Magnolia. It has many similarities. About ten ensemble actors are shared, and cinematography, tone, and the role of music have a similar style in each. The stylization is probably the best thing about this movie. Paul Thomas Anderson is the best director of the modern era, and possibly the best writer. His movies defy convention in every sort of way. In his sophomore effort, however, that's not entirely a good thing. Though the unconventionality can feel beautiful, like a rush of fresh air, at times it seems lost or confused. The last quarter of the film, save for the final few minutes, is definitely lost. There must always be a pressure on the writer to put the protagonist through loss and grief in the middle section, but here that is too long and confusing. What I say is, Anderson hadn't yet perfected his writing style. There's no depressing middle section in There Will Be Blood, and I don't think there is in Magnolia or Punch-Drunk Love or The Master. What we see here is a brilliantly talented young writer and director getting his footing in the real world, gaining confidence, learning to be himself. Not fully matured.
The first half is amazing. I have to say it--I love Marky Mark. In that first half he is an explosion of talent and energy. And what an AWESOME gimmick, to give him what he has. It's a hilarious idea. The final scene is one of the greatest gimmicks I've seen in the movies. Just the idea that it is revealed to us what we thought would never be revealed.
Another terrific gimmick is the one involving William H. Macy. Superbly original.
It's an idea-based film--the comedy lies in the concepts. If one can come to appreciate--more importantly, enjoy--that, one will love this movie. I think that I would like it more upon a second viewing for that reason.

I am sorry for the lack of a great Philip Seymour Hoffman role. I really thought there would be one... but I hardly noticed he was there. If I watched it again I would make sure to savor his every facial expression, every tonal flair--his very presence. He is a beautiful actor. Here and in Magnolia, as his young self, with Anderson directing him, he is the most beautiful he ever was.

Reflections on Orange is the New Black: Season 1

Just finished the first season. I am watching it with someone else, so the social value is what justifies my watching it. However, that is getting less so. As the season moved on, the show became more and more meaningful to me. Of course, this is expected, as I get more invested in the characters, but I think that it's more because of the shift in tone. The light-heartedness is still present, but is contrasted by, and very often heavily juxtaposed with, a creeping darkness, a creeping heartbreak, a creeping loneliness.
The series began with good characters and bad characters. As it progressed through its first season, every character clearly became a good character. Some are better than others, but it is clear to me that all are fundamentally good, and that all will probably be redeemed by the writers in the future. That seems to be the progression... redemption for bad characters.
I am glad about the transformation from good&bad to good because it gives the series depth. When we know that every character is essentially good, we treat them more like real human beings, who are also all essentially good. I am now able to speculate on a character's actions. Knowing they're good provokes me to reason through why they may have done the bad things that they did. This speculation is one of the most enjoyable parts of following this series to me.
I am relieved that the material has gotten much darker. I was certainly ready for real drama.
Now that serious drama has emerged, and characters make unpredictable moral decisions, this series has jumped up in my book. I am starting to feel reflections on humanity, and a major heart in the center.
I respect how the writers are making us almost hate Piper. In all rom-coms, the protagonist makes mistakes and we feel bad. But here, Piper is a ruthless lover. She seriously plays with the emotions of others. She does many things that are morally questionable, and I respect that she doesn't have to be our favorite character. And she's not at this point. It may be Morello, Nicki, Alex, Larry, or whoever. But many have stronger guiding compasses at this time than Piper. Although I am anxious for her to get back to her good self so that I can be on her team again. I want her to cry a lot and feel sorry and sacrifice.
Truly, the show is unpredictable. Sometimes characters make unrealistic actions--untrue to character, I mean--to advance the plot, and this is unfortunate, but it keeps the show unpredictable. And conventional rules are broken often with respect to each character's role in the show, or TV archetype.
I honestly enjoy watching it very much, I am always so excited for the next episode. And I am finally believing in the acclaim that it receives. It's honest and bold, and as more serious drama unravels, it will continue to climb the ranks.

Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox

3/4

This is a highly original and funny film. I like it a lot. It feels so odd giving it the same rating I gave Full Metal Jacket... I suppose you cannot compare movies from different eras well, or rather movies with different purposes. For its purposes, FMF (not FMJ) would earn from me a 4 out of 4. It knows what it's doing, and it does it with precision and passion and joy. That's Wes Anderson I'm talking about. This is his only film I have seen, until the hopefully-near future, but I know who he is and that this film is an expression of the wonder that goes on in his mind and heart.
There is no movie like this, and it deserves an artistic A+. All that holds me back at the 3 benchmark is that it has no lasting impact. It's great for its design, but it's not a great film. It's not a top dog. It's just a wonderful little piece of art.

Review: Goodfellas

3/4

What a colossal disappointment. If I had to rate this movie based on its value in the modern day, I would give it a 2. It's not funny, not dramatic, not a good plot... It has nothing The Departed has. It's just Memoirs of a Gangster--an average, everyday gangster. After The Godfather I thought I was interested in the mob. This was so uninteresting. I was so bored. It's light-hearted, shallow, speaks nothing about anything, and is boring.
However, if I had to rate it based on its influence upon release, it would be a 3.5. It has incredible realism, and Martin Scorsese captured the life of a wiseguy so well. It was probably one of the first realistic exposures the public had to modern-day gangsterism, so I can see why it's influential. But Roger Ebert said "best mob movie ever". No way.
My advice: watch The Departed. Be entertained.

This is unbelievable. The acclaim this film got. Ebert actually explicitly claimed it to be better than Godfather. A list called it the greatest movie ever. Am I missing something, or is it just the worst-aging movie of all time?? I'm not predisposed to boredom--I watched three-and-a-half hours of Godfather and could have kept going. I was done with Goodfellas after an hour. I'm never bored in movies. So I conclude that I am less sensitive to gangster films than people were in 1990. It is dated. And critics haven't woken up from their high. If they were to watch it for the first time today, as I did, they would realize.

Review: The Godfather

5/4

Two weeks ago I watched Apocalypse Now. Last night I watched The Conversation. And today, I viewed perhaps the greatest masterpiece of cinema I have ever seen. The Godfather is the best of the Coppola Big Three, if only for its story.
The film tells the tales of the Corleone family, one of five mob families of New York City. Don Corleone, the boss, is a man of untouchable power, presence and reputation. The same can be said of the actor who played him.
As The Don grows old amidst an inner-city war where business always gets personal, we see one of his sons rise up. It is the only Corleone who has sworn himself against the mafia life. Michael is young and doe-eyed, but he is morally tough as nails.
It seems to be after his father gets shot for the first time that Michael succumbs to the pull of vengeance associated with the world of the family. As more actions from the families attack him personally, he gets hopelessly entangled.
This film is less artistically expressive than Coppola's other two--both of which came after. Perhaps he found his footing after the wild success of The Godfather and either freed himself or advanced his vision. In any case, I must say that I feel that Coppola's job in this film was merely to hold together Mario Puzo's story. Nino Rota's score was necessary, the actors couldn't have had any flaws, and Coppola needed to understand the inner workings of the world of the novel in order to pull it off, but it was Puzo that did all the work, before Coppola even came into the picture. My, what a rewarding experience it would be to read this novel of his.....
I truly think that my newfound love for this movie lies in its world. The business is endlessly interesting to me--almost as if I would give anything to go back in time and be a part of it. It is a complex system of trust. It also has a questionable meaning; after Don gets out of the hospital and asks for peace amongst the families, I believe that he has seen the fleeting quality of life and for a moment disbelieved in the importance of his business.
I suppose that this is one of the ultimate character transformations. I would hate myself if I wrote that this was 1972's Breaking Bad, so I won't. I wish that Sonny wouldn't have died, I wish that Tom would have kept his high position, and I'm glad that Michael took over, assuming Vito had to die, but I wish that he would have kept strong, stuck to the loyalty and reason of his father, and perhaps ended the mafia war, maybe even the mafia, once and for all. I did not want Michael to go bad. I had such a great love and respect for this character. Wow... how I don't want him to stay like this. What a change.
But with this movie, not it successors, I do not want to focus on the transformation of Michael. That is where a moral disrespect starts to boil within me and bias me. The rest of the film is so great to me. I wish I had a whole film of the simple goings-on of Vito Corleone as Don, Tom Hagen as consigliere, Michael in war and at home, and Sonny as the hot-headed but loyal son. I just want this family, a hundred times over. Their world is so fascinating to me, I love to know their positions, see them address conflicts, handle business, etc. Unfortunately, a film and a novel need narrative. I just want to see the inner workings of an interesting, hierarchical, dangerous business. Maybe I really do need to watch The Wire.

A few days later, I decided that The Godfather is the greatest movie I have ever seen, and in my top few favorites.

Review: The Conversation

3.5/4

Paranoia.

This is a strange movie in mood and method. Francis Coppola went for the auteur role with this one, writing, producing and directing it, and thus The Conversation is a view into a brilliant, tortured mind. His story is great, thrilling and intriguing, but the artistic touches are what make this movie special to me, including the music and cinematography. The feeling here is just... different.
Some of what held my attention is a simple look into the world of surveillance. It is a fascinating field, and one I had never considered existed.
The score is perfect; the music is done entirely on piano, with the augmented fourth to make the sophisticated classicalism very eerie. It works wonders. The audio effects are great too; they mount the creeping feeling that something is wrong.
This movie is classic--created and ruled by an absolute master of the medium, it is an engaging story told and an artistic statement.

Review: Full Metal Jacket

3/4

Is this film all about the duality of man? Is it about something else? Or is it just a neutral observer, an emotionless picturette. With Stanley Kubrick, it could be any of the three. Or we can consider him an unreliable storyteller, perhaps slightly mad, and assume there to be no purpose here. Maybe it is a statement, maybe it is just a story, maybe it's nothing. It may be nothing.
But it holds your attention, and that's enough. The dialogue isn't anything special, the characters are uninteresting, but it's Kubrick so there are subtleties that make it enjoyable.
Perhaps it is just dated. People consider this great--sometimes the best war film or Vietnam war film. I don't see it. It is eight years after Apocalypse Now, so the great Vietnam war film was already done. What more does this possibly add? It is brutal in its morality and visuals, but so is Apocalypse. Apocalypse has more tone and purpose. FMJ isn't really linked to itself and doesn't affect you much. There's no beauty, only meaningless brutality. And maybe that's the point. The meaninglessness of the brutality of war.

I'm really not sure why drill sergeant Ermey is appreciated so much for his acting. It's not acting... He was literally this role in his own life.

Make better adaptations

Inspired by Apocalypse Now.
We need to start making movies worlds of their own. Especially in adaptations of books. I hate being able to tell that a movie is an adaptation... because then that's what I'm thinking about the whole time. Then when something is out of place, I can simply say "oh, it's a line from the book. They just put it in. Not everything from the book can be explained in the movie". This is terrible.
Think about Apocalypse Now. The two books on Kurtz's desk.... they don't mean anything with respect to the movie. They're just references relating to the book. So the viewer tries to analyze this.... fruitlessly. Same with Kurtz's final words. They're from the book, and they're quotable, and seem deep, but they have nothing to do with the movie. They're out of place. Just keep a movie within itself....
I'm not mad, but I mean what I'm saying. It is truly lame when screenwriters just defer to the book for answers when they should be writing lines of their own that make sense within the movie. That connect to the viewer who's only seen what you just showed him, not every in-between line in the book.

Novels vs. Movies

I watched Apocalypse Now and Revolutionary Road recently.
I just think that novels in general have more quality than movies. There are so fewer cliches... you don't always know what will happen to a character. That's because the plots and characters are well-constructed. They don't follow such a formula. There is more room to explore, not give the rom-com quick-fix of comedy-struggle-happy ending.
But then there are some films that I feel rise above literature. Maybe I just haven't read enough, but how could my Synecdoche ever be portrayed in a book?

Review: Revolutionary Road

3.5/4

This is very much an adaptation of a novel. Pure movies don't have characters this real or lines this good. You can tell.
And it is an impeccably executed film adaptation. The acting is incredible, of course. The script and direction do their jobs and the music is composed with talent, although at times the harmonies don't always exactly fit the tone of the moment. Overall, this film is very very well-made.
However, I will say that my 3.5 rating is generous. This is if we consider the rating a representation of uniqueness or value. I don't believe that there's anything life-changing in Revolutionary Road. It feels just like a modern novel. It has quality in it, great lines, characters, emotions, a great plot. But there's a reason I don't read----there's just nothing special about it. I can't find things like this to be worth my time, no matter that this has as much quality as any other modern novel of its kind....you know....the book club kind. Is Water for Elephants really worth anybody's time? The Help? Really?
-Hey, no disrespect to The Help, I enjoyed the film.
So, lo, my rating reflects the quality of film represented by this movie. It is very good, and intriguing, and speaks on humanity, and things like this.

Review: "Pilot", Orange is the New Black

3.5/4------ for a TV show pilot

I am so happy that people are nice to Piper in prison....
Although I know that no show can be judged by the pilot, I am writing this review believing that I will probably never watch an episode of this show again. It don't see it being worth my time; however, this is a good first episode. It's light-hearted, the workings and nature of prison are intriguing, it's restrained, I like the way it gradually reveals information... I can see this being a very enjoyable show to watch. It makes all the difference in the world that some people are kind to Piper. In the typical series, the main character would be hated on by EVERY SINGLE PERSON when they're pushed into a foreign situation, especially in a case as conventional as the high-strung middle-class white woman amongst poor black criminals. But this series is set apart for me, at least from the first episode, in the realism that not everyone is awful. Also it is distinguishing that Piper is not entirely high-strung middle-class white woman. Perhaps the writing for the pilot is slightly inconsistent, as the writers haven't gotten a great hold on the character, but we seem to see different sides of her. Sometimes she is the cliche that I mentioned, but other times she swears casually, has lesbian sex, runs drug money, is laid-back..... etc. Overall, the character is much more realistically multi-sided than the norm, which is terrific for the show and enjoyable for the viewer. Her husband... I'm not sure how to feel. It feels great how realistic and supportive he is--he's really just a great guy and he plays it well--but he's not very interesting to watch at all. The bad part of you wants her to get back with the girl, just because it's interesting.

Review: Saving Private Ryan

3/4

Two days ago I watched Apocalypse Now. Saving Private Ryan is much more of a "war film" than that; in fact, this film redefined the war genre for me. Now that I have seen this extremely high level of realism, I have realized that Apocalypse felt like a movie. FMJ as I remember felt like a movie. In fact, most other movies feel like movies compared to the intimacy of Saving Private Ryan. It is truly excellent filmmaking with respect to its vision--to place the viewer in the center of the action and connect him to the characters so as to achieve a filmgoing experience that is intimate and emotional and tense and exciting. The emotions run high in this film due to the realism.
I gained immense amounts of respect for Steven Spielberg in the last few hours. I fully expected family-friendly cinema, good feelings, drama, justice. But what I respect most about this film is its injustice. Its statement, again and again, that its characters are not invincible. What an emotion when a certain character gets a knife slowly pressed into his chest after the typical struggle that would always end in victory for the good guy. It's disbelief for anybody who has ever seen a morally typical movie (99% of movies). No director that's playing at this level of Hollywood respect and big budgets does something like that.
I am not calling Stevie a revolutionary. At least not in this sense. I suppose I have forgotten that he did not write the film... He only gave it its epic scope and dramatic touch. He gave it John Williams, and millions of dollars. So I guess we can conclude that the writer, Robert Rodat, deserves much respect for his boldness and unpredictability, and Spielberg is applauded for deeming this screenplay worthy of his direction, and then Spielberg is praised for excellent direction. I feel odd congratulating him like this, as I would never have called myself a Spielberg fan in the past and am much more interested in the anti-Hollywood of Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson and such, but perhaps it is time I give him some more respect. Even critics who recognize the conventionality in Spielberg movies recognize his talent. Schindler's List is considered an all-time great movie, isn't it? Perhaps I should watch more from him and consider his direction, independent of the screenplay, even if it was he who wrote it.
This was a very enjoyable film for me. I had emotions running through me during it: nothing earth-shattering, but I can't remember the last time I experienced that. Particularly I love the war of it. Apocalypse Now was about other things. It was a journey, and it spent no time in one place. It was psychological. Philosophical. Allegorical. With Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg obviously made it a point to portray war extensively and in a realistic fashion so as to educate viewers. And I was incredibly interested in the military tactics, behaviours, patterns, nature, operations, etc. I suppose I'm just very interested in war. Maybe this is from Call of Duty. Maybe I'm destined to become a soldier or militaryman of some sort. The idea always excites me, though it is so far off from my life. In any case, if you like war, watch this. You will be watching maybe a solid hour of pure battle footage altogether. Maybe more. I would like a film that is 100% focused on military operations. That learns me tactics. The inner workings, and the big picture.
I leave this film with only 3 out of 4 stars. But I said it felt like less of a movie and more of an experience than Coppola and Kubrick, didn't I? Yes, but there's something more to those films. They have layers and meaning. There is some very interesting moral conflict in SPR, and some terrific decisions as plot devices, but it is mostly only an experience. It pulls on emotions and some interest strings but doesn't dig quite deep enough. I could never put it in the same league as the intellectual revolution of Kubrick or the dark, strange beauty of Apocalypse Now. The dialogue is too conventional. That said, the battle scenes are terrific, maybe the best I've ever seen. Kudos, Stevie.

Oh yeah, and Tom Hanks' character is morally questionable, but not in the anti-hero understandable kind of way, just in a "is he even nice? Idk. This is just weird" kind of way. But that's only at some points, not overall. Overall he's a definite hero. It's just odd. I think I would have preferred for him to have been a better man. Just so that the ending would feel stronger.

And I could be John Williams. It's sickening how lauded his music is...

Review: Apocalypse Now

4.5/4

Coppola's Apocalypse Now must be the darkest movie of all time: visually, thematically, morally. It doesn't get this way until the end; before the last quarter it's basically just an excellent war movie. But  in those last scenes... it transcends.
This film is based around the conceptually awesome device of a physical and metaphorical journey, in this case a journey into the heart of darkness, a journey up a winding river from Vietnam into Cambodia. This was probably an inspiration for Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising.
The atmosphere set by the director is unbelievable. The beauty of the visuals is contrasted by the grotesque moral quality of everything happening. Is this an anti-war movie? It makes us think deeper about the subject than any other movie. The way Kurtz speaks at the end made me question the moral assumptions involved in war and justice.
The last quarter of this film is what gives it the extra half-star. It places this picture beyond the realm of four-point cinema. It has legacy. It has layers. It cannot be given the same rating I would give Silver Linings Playbook.

Additions:
Just in case you're not aware, Apocalypse Now is one of the greatest movies of all time. It was released in 1979 by the writer/director of things such as The Godfather and features some of the most iconic moments or characters or lines in all of cinema. I say this only to encourage you to respect it and subsequently watch it; now that I've seen it I care less about the legacy and reputation and everything that happened to the film outside the film and more about what happened onscreen. I just experienced two-and-a-half hours of beauty and horror. The horror... the horror........

See post "Make better adaptations".

Review: God's Not Dead

2/4-------understand that I AM a Christian

This movie is not the crap that I heard it was. It is much more apologetic than most Christian movies I've seen; I would say it is probably half defense and half spiritual encouragement.
The Christian arguments are fairly solid. Sometimes one can see around the dramatic moment to a missing point, but in general there are good apologetic ideas portrayed. And the other side is not entirely ignored or belittled. It does make out atheists as bad people but they have a good stand in the debate and the unrealisticness of their badness isn't as extreme as what I had heard.
One flaw is that it seems to think it has proven the existence of God by the end. Or at least, I expect most viewers to come away from it thinking that God is proven, which would be a flaw of the movie. As a Christian, I believe pretty firmly that neither side can be proven, but that the evidence is subjective. The writers seem to think that too, but brush over that idea in the path to making people Christian.
Also as a Christian, I did not feel very inspired by this film. Some ideas or phrases spoken I thought were good and solid, but the drama was very mild. Everything was a little too cheesy and cheap for me to be inspired, I was distracted by the cheapness, but still it was a better experience to put myself through than most movies.
I'm pretty sure that I believe in the importance of being aware of the goals of a film before analyzing it. I recognize the goals of this movie, and I think it does not do awful in achieving them, although these goals are sometimes judgmental (atheists are closed-minded meanheads).
I'm going to sleep, I apologize for the poorly-written review.

Additions:
Okay, so the big apologetic moment at the end (How can you hate something that doesn't exist) is bad. It does NOT prove God but proves the flaw in one statement by the philosophy professor. It's an attack on the professor, and not atheism. And further, it is a flaw in the writing that the professor said the flawed statement; it wasn't true to character. He wouldn't say that. So the major apologetic climax is lame. But it feels great! to most. Not to me though, and I'm sure many viewers will see through it too.

Review: Godzilla

I plan to view this film a second time.

Thoughts after first viewing:
3/4
I saw it in the theaters and in 3D and after hearing a few spoilers from my friend: all of this should be noted.
Wow, this movie is awesome. I enjoyed the experience of viewing it thoroughly, despite the awful 3D! I think that this is the culmination of the disaster/epic/military-movie genres, the peak to date. It has every element of these films, so in that way it is somewhat conventional and predictable, but still it does all of this SO WELL, and pushes the ceiling of these genres higher, and in fact there are a few great surprises in this film! Examples of the vein in which this movie runs include War of the Worlds, Pacific Rim, Avatar, Man of Steel.
Let me list some surprising elements of this film, things that set it apart from others in the vein, not necessarily in a good nor bad way.
The protagonist! It's extremely odd that I haven't heard of the actor that is the star of a big-budget Godzilla movie. He's very charismatic and I love him here, so I feel that he will catch on in Hollywood very soon if he hasn't already and I'm under a rock.
Surprising characters take the limelight and surprising ones lose it!
The whole nature of Godzilla's character! I'm talking beyond the physical.
This movie was ridonculously fun and felt GREAT. One moment toward the end I recognize as one of the few greatest moments I have ever felt in a movie. Although the film holds pretty true to its genre and expectations, it pleases in huge ways, and I cannot wait to view it again.

The reason I need to view it again before I write a comprehensive review is because I know that there are elements of this film that I did not catch fully. I feel that it is a flaw of the movie that this happened, that certain things were breezed over. However, these elements are interesting enough to warrant my second viewing, and they will help me criticize the movie in a deeper way.

Review: Pi

3/4

The first thing I should write about regarding this movie is its interestingness level. Surely the filmmakers expected it to be high... and surely the average viewer places it high. For me, the movie was just "interesting" on the interesting scale, no more. The subject matter scores an "intensely fascinating", but the level to which the film explores the subject matter is minimal.
Basically, the subject matter is number theory, and where mathematics can explain nature, and whether it can entirely. Perhaps the reason I was slightly underwhelmed with the film is because it felt shallow for its subject matter. It talked only about Archimedes, Pythagoras and Fibonacci--stories and concepts I'd heard about before. It makes a big deal of telling the story of Archimedes and his "Eureka!" moment, as if the viewer had never heard of that story. What's more, in the film the story is told to a number theorist. A genius, who surely knew all about Archimedes. It is explained to us through the medium of being explained to a genius. As if it is realistic that one would explain this to a genius in the same way one would explain it to us. I hate it when movies do this.....
I just wish the filmmakers knew a bit more about number theory, or explored it a bit more. By the end, I was satisfied with how they tied in religion, a concept I thought lame and uninformed at first, but I do wish that they would have explored things like this, relations to number theory, deeper.
Okay, I suppose the first thing I should have talked about is the atmosphere. The film is entirely black-and-white, very grainy at times, very shaky at times... very paranoiac. This is intentional, the viewer is supposed to feel nauseous and psychologically disturbed. Perhaps I am slightly tolerant. Nonetheless, it is disturbing or shocking at times, and unsettling in general. Aronofsky could have played on the shock value a little more to increase this effect... I'm thinking about more unexpected violence or sex.
The great revelation is that I've seen too many movies, particularly psychological movies, and know a little too much about math for this film to have a terrific effect on me. For the lamer, less educated viewer, I can see how this could be an unforgettable experience, frightening and fascinating.

Additions:
It's a movie about number theory, which is terrific, but is done by non-(number theorists). And you can tell.
Also, I could have a more disturbing main character. This guy was actually kind of okay... although he was brusque with people, he knew how to act normally, just didn't want to. His only problems were his (obsessive-compulsive)ness and that terrible disorder of the physical brain. I can imagine a more psychologically impaired main character to make the film much darker.
Yes, the film was not quite as dark as it could have been. Is this bad? I'm not sure. I can easily see changes that could be made to make it intensely dark and disturbing. First order of business is the main character's personality.
It seems that Aronofsky wanted to go as dark as possible. But me, perhaps I don't want to be so emotionally tormented. Perhaps I was happy when Max acted normally and ended up smiling in the end. My emotions want something different from my film-critic self.

Review: The Talented Mr. Ripley

3.5/4

This movie is haunting, seductive, disturbing, extravagant.... sort of like a more modern Great Gatsby. Matt Damon is a charming, likable, boyish Tom Ripley, someone who can mold himself into whatever social situation is brought upon him. A true talent. His character is extremely reminiscent of Paul from Six Degrees of Separation: quick-witted and charismatic but manipulative.
Jude Law is a fascinating character to watch: his acting is perfect for the snoody yet enticing and magnetic Dickie Greenleaf. The two female sides, Gwyneth Paltrow and Cate Blanchett, are nothing too special, but are both fun to watch in some little way. It is the males that give the film its major punch: Damon, Law, and Philip Seymour Hoffman.
The twists are shocking, and disturbed me to watch.
The setting is much of what makes this movie so enjoyable: it is mostly played out in Italy, a beautiful countryside, quaint architecture... a dreamy fantastical setting that sets the stage for the brutal events that cut abruptly into this beauty. Tom Ripley shatters a beautiful country, a beautiful set of lives.
It is written widely that the character of Ripley is a monster, a sociopath, a villain. I disagree completely, judging by this adaptation of the literary character alone. In my view, he simply makes mistakes. His first murder seems to disturb him. So does his last. The scene with Gwyneth and the blood-soaking robe seems out-of-character... a little too psychopathic for what had already been established.
Matt Damon puts on a terrific performance in a shocking and intense movie with a beautiful setting. Excellent!

Review: A Late Quartet

3.5/4

Wow, what an impeccably-made movie. The direction is not lacking in any way, as far as I can tell, the writing is intriguing and dramatic, and the acting is pure perfection. Let's talk more about the acting: three of the four stars of this film are either Catherine Keener, Philip Seymour Hoffman, or Christopher Walken. The remaining is an excellent international guy named Mark Ivanir. Keener is, as always, extremely warm and down-to-earth, the sad but inevitable love you could never do without. PSH plays with the same kind of love, as he has done before. It's entirely intentional that Keener and Hoffman were reunited as husband and wife after their previous pairings in Capote, and much more significantly, Synecdoche, NY. Both represent in the latter film a mediocre love, not attractive, not passionate, but sad and needy. However, in Quartet both deliver with intensity and passion beyond what was expected of them in that film. Christopher Walken plays the godfather of the quartet, the moral conscience that owns the respect needed to kick the other, more immature players back into gear. He is a wonderful character, a widower, a brilliant cellist, disease-stricken. I love watching him play this part. All in all, the script is nothing revolutionary; it acts as a stage to showcase some beautiful and complex performances by a few of today's greatest actors. The one non-legendary actor is Mark Ivanir. His character is not the most lovable of the four, but is possibly the most intense and polarizing. He is the lead violinist. This means that he is a better player than Hoffman's character, a very bold idea. Extremely bold. Hoffman tries to claim equality with him, but the audience knows that Ivanir is better. Or are they truly just different.......
The musical background in the film is very interesting. We are allowed to see a world-renowned classical string quartet behind-the-scenes, practicing, playing, conversing, jogging, having sex.... We get to see a set of geniuses who are no different than us. The amount of time and effort they have put into becoming geniuses have not made them better people; this is a message that stuck out to me. Hoffman could work on the line in a factory, and have exactly the same inner life as he does as a violin virtuoso. It seems that all the music does for him is inflate his ego. Unless there is a deeper, unseen need in these humans that is being fulfilled by the music, by the practice, by the greatness and respect earned.
I also really enjoyed the abundance of classical music in the film...others will obviously find it less appealing, but it adds a tone of beauty and decadence and sophistication to the film, which I appreciate.
A fascinating movie, one I was able to invest myself in emotionally because of my love for the characters and actors. This isn't a life-changing film, but it is a nice little piece of art and emotion to be seen every once in a while.