'Paul' Review

'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz' are two of the premier satire films of the past decade, both hilarious, heartfelt and spawned from the collective minds of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. These clever Brits are at it again in 2011 with the extra-terrestrial comedy, 'Paul,' however this outta-this-world comedy falls flat on its premise and brings those with high hopes back down to Earth. Ultimately it is a charming movie that doesn't offer enough laughs.

What did the alien say to the garden gnome?
Take me to your weeder.

Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost) are two sci-fi nerds who have travelled to San Diego, CA for the annual Comic Con convention, ogling at almost everything. Clive writes graphic novels and hopes that meeting his idol, Adam Shadowchild (Jeffrey Tambor) will help him on his path to success, but this doesn't work out the way Clive would have hoped. On their way back across the country they discover Paul (Seth Rogen), an alien who disputes every perceived stereotype of himself. Paul is being hunted by the government, most notably the hardcore Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman) and the incompetent Haggard (Bill Hader) and O'Reilly (Joe Lo Truglio). This central conflict sets the scene for a race across the dessert in order for Paul to return to his mother ship and take him back home.

The film is sweet and sentimental but it lacks in gags- and clearly that is the most important aspect to any comedy film. Most of the films attempted jokes are spawned from the misunderstanding people have for Paul, and aliens in general; a joke that is dragged endlessly through the entirety of the film, and, while it may have been funny the first time, by the end it was terribly hard to bear witness. The major problem here is that there is just not enough going on: there is the central conflict and chase, a love angle between Graeme and Kristen Wiig's character, and thats about it. The film is a very lightly pack hour and a half, not going to the lengths that would be expected from a Pegg- Frost film.

Whereas in many comedies the films supporting cast steal the show and often offer many of the films most memorable lines, it was not the case with 'Paul.' Bateman's character was remarkably uninspired and Hader/ Truglio's characters were so much less than their incompetent ways demanded.

Chalk this films failure up to one thing- the poor writing. Lack of gags, references to TV shows that aired in 1992, zero interesting characters, this film is a veritable failure no matter which way it is sliced. If taken seriously this film is 'E.T.' if taken as a comedy this film is a waste of time. And while not terrible, 'Paul' has to be the most disappointing film of the year so far.

4/10 - Spend your money elsewhere.

'Battle: Los Angeles' Review

Here is a film that flashes moments of competence and several relatively exciting battle sequences, just not any other substance. The film fails in almost every aspect of the construction process: story, characters, dialogue, directing and the acting, resulting in a shell of a film. While naming all of these might be a bit excessive, I assure you it is not, this film is really not a cinematic achievement on any level and is not a movie I would recommend to anyone.

So sick? You bet.

Battle: LA stars Aaron Eckhart as a Staff Sergeant in the US Marine Corps, a miscast if there ever was one.  Eckhart is known more for being a smooth talking, good looking guy, not a foul mouthed, intimidating authority figure, and to me it is in the foremost as to why this film fails. His character is flat and uninteresting, with absolutely zero character development, leaving me to wonder what a script like this (besides the aliens invading) drew him into this role. Besides Eckhart, there were several other recognizable faces. Michelle Rodriguez, Bridget Moynahan and Ne-Yo play various other parts in the film- cementing my dislike for Rodriguez as an actress but showing me what kind of talent Ne-Yo has as an actor (seriously).

After sitting through a 2 hour headache of a film I had trouble identifying a main plot line- or story. Yes, the planet is overrun by aliens and obviously the humans want to get rid of them but all the main characters seem to do is run around and shoot at 'em with no real plan. It is not until the beginning of act 3 that any of the characters make a decision as to what they are going to do to stop the aliens, and by that point I really didn't care. Built out of the same mold as story, is the unrealistic situations these characters find themselves facing. There are several instances when the marines stand around and watch CNN or other news networks and learn the news that way instead of being briefed by the commanding officers; and other times it seems as though the world stops for minutes at a time while these characters talk or interact with others.

In this film there is evidence of an inordinate amount of cliche, stealing pages out of the scripts of films like Black Hawk Down and District 9. I tried to keep track but after the Lieutenant yelled, "Marines, wooooh-haaaaah!" I mentally checked out.

This film also featured an abundance of 'shaky cam,' a style of directing that is in no way becoming to a film. It is usually this style of camera work that give films a gritty, realistic feel- helping the audience to see themselves as an extension of the actors. In this case it does not fit with the rest of the film. The film is an event film ( as evidenced by the thousands of commercials promoting it) and not as artsy as it tries to be. This is not The Hurt Locker, this is supposed to be a popcorn flick that doesn't have to take itself seriously, and while parts of the film do this successfully, others do not, making a very up and down film going experience.

2/10 - Wait for the DVD

'Ghosts of Girlfriends Past' Review

A decently constructed, tragically overlooked film, The Ghost of Girlfriends Past lacks originality but is charming and spurred on by a strong central lead and wonderful supporting characters. A reworking of Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol, this film is hardly original, in fact by all accounts it is terribly cliched, but the overall film does not suffer from its weak storytelling.

What's not for your own good
is for my entertainment.

Matthew McConaughey plays Conor Mead, a self absorbed ladies man who has trouble cultivating relationships with anyone other than himself. When he returns to the house where he grew up for his brothers wedding he must confront his old life, and his old girlfriend (Jennifer Garner), while still clowning around as his still crazed, Charlie Sheen-self. After having one too many drinks at the rehearsal dinner, Conner starts seeing dead people- notably his uncle, played by Michael Douglass, and his first high school lay, played by Emma Stone. In addition to these two, two more ghosts visit Conner throughout his night and try to help him see what an ass he is and that he is ment to be with Jennifer Garner's character.

First of all, McConaughey has absolutely no chemistry with Garner, a fact due more toward Garner's futility as an actress, making the mushy love scenes almost unbearable to watch and not nearly as sentimental as the writers probably thought they would be. For a love story it is remarkably uninspired and lacks any sort of sentimental value, resulting in a main story line that bores and does not create any sort of feeling.

However, as in most comedies, the redeeming quality of this film lies in the supporting cast that features the likes of  Michael Douglas, Emma Stone and Breckin Meyer. Douglas, who plays Conner Mead's playboy uncle, steals the show with what little screen time he is given, delivering the films best pieces of dialogue. Emma Stone plays The Ghost of Girlfriends Past and is a zany, bracefaced teen who really excels in her role.

Overall the film is flat and not as romantic as its Rom-Com premise would have one believe, but it offers mild entertainment value and some funny moments. A great date movie and a film that definitely deserves to be seen, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past may be run of the mill- but, then again, even that is better than half the shit Hollywood produces?

Final Grade: 5/10 -- Seen better, seen worse.

My Top Ten of 2010

With the Oscars only hours away I have done my best to compile this, however hastily done, top 10 list of 2010. As the weather starts changing again and the world warms a few degrees it can only mean two things in the movie world: we are in for a inordinate amount of sequels/ rushed comic book adaptations but we are also coming together to celebrate the best of the previous year in film- exciting stuff.

Obviously I didn't see every movie released this year, no matter how hard I may or may not have tried, so my list is confined by the films I actually did see. Feel free to disagree with me, as my top ten is probably different from yours... but without any further ado I present to you, My Top Ten of 2010:


Snubs: Not much can be said about these films other than they were not quite good enough to make my list. Great films, but just not the best of the best.

• Scott Pilgrim 
• Unstoppable
• Get Low 
• How to Train Your Dragon
• The Ghost Writer 
• The Kids are Alright

Top Ten:

• # 10. True Grit- The latest Cohen brothers piece of work. 'True Grit' suffers from poor pacing, writing that is not up to par with former Cohen projects and an ending (however similar to the novel) that does not adequately finish the story. What saves the film is its star power: Bridges, Steinfield, Brolin, Barry Pepper and even Damon give tremendous performances. This film has no 'wow' factor and offers little besides the name 'Cohen' on the movie poster. The picturesque locals, decent direction and wonderful acting are no match for the swiss cheese of a script and overall lack of polarity.

• # 9. Winter's Bone- The sleeper hit of the award season, 'Winter's Bone' is one of the more mesmerizing character studies of the year. Jennifer Lawrence give a really underrated performance as Ree, the absolutely facinating protagonist who struggles to keep her family together. What makes this particular film great is the script (winner of best script at Sundance) and how poetic and allegorical it was. A chilling and emotional tale that I would best describe as western, 'Winter's Bone' is a film, not packed with action sequences but tense enough to grip its audience and keep them interested until the very end.    

• # 8. Inception- One of the most significant films of the last 20 years if it can usher in an era of intelligent, yet entertaining popcorn films. This spectacle, spawned from the 17 year-old mind of Christopher Nolan, is not only beautiful to watch, it is a creative exposition the likes of which Hollywood has never seen nor comprehend. However its brilliance lies more in the direction of Nolan and the strong story than the actual execution of the script and the acting of the films premier players. What was an interesting idea was ultimately overshadowed by its own ambiguousness and inability to answer many of the bigger questions it poses. A great film by any measurable means, 'Inception' is an exciting mystery that doesn't satisfy.

• # 7. The Fighter- A tense, emotional, and realistic portrayal of life in the slums of Boston. 'The Fighter' benefits from excellent acting, understated direction and a realism that could only come from an intense understanding of the characters and their environment. What pushes this film out of my top ten is the overall level of cliche this film exhibits. Not unlike any other boxing film before it, 'The Fighter' provides the audience with cinema's ultimate underdog and the film's ending, just like Ewan McGreggor's junk, has been on screen too many times before.

• # 6. The King's Speech- My favorite to win Best Picture this coming Sunday (although not totally deserving), 'The King's Speech is a virtual duplicate of 'The Fighter' albeit featuring worse direction and less cliche. Which apparently adds up to a higher ranking on my prestigious list. The script and the acting are both excellent and result in one of the better films of the season. Quite honestly Roland Emmerich probably could have directed this film and it still would have been OK, but what Tom Hooper does is admirable- though I'm not sure he was more deserving than Christopher Nolan for an Oscar nod. The film's cliche is more subdued than 'The Fighter' (although those of you who point out that the films tagline is "Find Your Voice" have a valid opposition). This is one of those film's that I enjoy after the first viewing but would probably never want to watch again- which is why its at 6 and not 3, 2, or 1.

• # 5. 127 Hours- When I first had the pleasure of seeing this film I was blown away by the performance of James Franco. 2 month's ago I did not want to wake up after the Oscars on Monday knowing that Franco didn't have an Oscar. After seeing King's Speech my mind has changed, but it doesn't change the fact that this performance is Oscar winning material. Danny Boyle does a fantastic job with a very unusual film and creates an atmosphere of powerful emotion and empathy for Franco's character Aron Ralston, despite the fact that we all know how it was going to end for him. Clearly one of the best films of the year, but ultimately too indie to be in real consideration for Best Picture.

• # 4. The Town- Wait, a Ben Affleck film in the top ten? Let alone even in the top five? Yes. Yes it is. 'The Town' is probably the most unexpected sleeper hit of the year (Social Network right there for number 2) that practically shocked life back into Affleck's fluctuating career. Much like 'Inception,' this film combines action with substance and great directing- Ben Affleck will win a directing Oscar at some point in his career. What separates this film from others this year is the dramatic, suspenseful scenes that offer the best white knuckle moments of 2010. Jeremy Renner is great, Ben Affleck is underrated, the story is kept fresh despite its cliched genre, this film has unfortunately been dismissed by much of the cinema world but it is easily the best heist film of the year, an one of the better all around films. Plus it has THE BEST trailer ever:  

• # 3. Twilight Saga: Eclipse- JUST KIDDING.

• # 3. The Social Network- The rightful winner of 2010's Best Picture, 'The Social Network' is a movie that defines this year, if not the current generation of teens and young adults. Combining the best direction of the year with the best screenplay of the year (even if it is not original), the film features one of the most interesting, if not despicable, characters in all of cinema. Years later we will all be looking back at this film seeing how it launched the careers of Jesse Eisenberg (even though he was already known), Justin Timberlake (a future perennial EGOT threat), Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer and Rooney Mara. I do not want to live in an America where this film doesn't win Best Picture, but I would be okay if any of the below films pulled a 'Crash' and came out of nowhere and stole the show.

• # 2. Black Swan- Ok, I wrote the screenplay for 'Black Swan' (not really) and someone needs to produce it. How good does this pitch sound to a production company?-- "Here's the deal, it is a reworking of the famous ballet of the same name. It is a psychological thriller that blends fact and fiction, reality and fantasy, and follows main character Nina Sayers as she transforms from white swan to black swan, slowly loosing grip on her life and drifting dangerously into a projection of her fantasy. Oh, and there is a super hot lesbian scene. If you're into that sort of thing..."-- Ok so maybe it didn't go like that, but would that not be a great conversation? 'Black Swan' is fantastic, it is tense, well acted, well directed and ambiguous- blurring the lines of reality. What seperates this blurred reality from 'Inception' is the closure that 'Black Swan' offers. We learn what is real and what is not, and knowledge is power.

• # 1. Toy Story 3- What other film this year made audiences laugh, cry, recall childhood memories, cry, entertain, cry and get us thinking? Joaquin Phoenix's documentary, which could have easily been here (sarcasm...) and 'Toy Story 3.' Besides being the end to one of the greatest 'trilogies' ever, TS3 asks and answers the big questions in life. Despite what will, and can, be said about 'Inception,' TS3 was THE EVENT FILM of 2010, racking in about a billion dollars foreign and domestic. Featuring impressive animation, the same great voice acting, nice direction and tear-jerking  storytelling, this film succeeds on all levels and, based on formula, is the best film of the year. Because the Academy cannot create a precedent for animated films winning Best Picture Oscar gold, otherwise the acting profession would suffer, TS3 will not be rewarded as highly as it deserves. However, that is what's great about the Oscar's and lists like this, there is never a definitive answer.

'Pan's Labyrinth' Review

A blend of Alice in Wonderland and Little Red Riding Hood, 'Pan's Labyrinth' is a fairy tale story for adults. Written and directed by Guillermo del Toro, this film is more of a visual and allegorical spectacle than a memorable piece of fiction.

'Pan's Labyrinth' is a fantastic artistic achievement, to say the absolute least, but the world that is created by the direction of del Toro is so much deeper and symbolic than a casual viewing would yield. The film sends a message that is somewhere in between 'the only reality is the one in which we chose to believe' and  'truth only exists for people who know where to look.' This strong moral meaning only strengthens the films' motivations, symbols and themes, and gives 'PL' an emotional and rewarding ending.

Ofelia in Wonderland

Guillermo del Toro creates a world so fantastically beautiful and yet so hauntingly surreal that it becomes a pleasure to watch the main character, Ofelia, navigate it and attach herself to this parallel reality. What is great about this other world is how violently it clashes with 'reality.' The film colors 'reality' in blue's, and grey's, while Ofelia's world is in red's and gold's. However, even with this clear seperation, as the plot progresses the two worlds become more and more interconnected until finally something has to give.

Because the film is Spanish, and I do not speak the language, I was better able to pick up on the film's terrific acting rather than focusing on dialogue (which, it should be noted, is the correct way to view a film- in visuals not sounds) and I was blown away by the performances. Before there was Hailee Steinfield and another 'True Grit,' there was Ivana Baquero, the misunderstood, disobedient, loner who finds a world where she truly belongs. If she was great, very emotional and vulnerable, than (who I think is) the films main antagonist is even better. Captain Vidal, played by Sergi Lopez, is evil personified. He hurts and kills people with no just cause, he has major daddy issues and yet, on the outside, is so gentlemanly and perfect- otherwise known as character depth.

For all of its greatness I found the film to have 1 main flaw. For all the pomp and circumstance that surrounds it, the film is only a slight re-imagining of the classic Alice in Wonderland. To me the film would have had a bigger impact had it constructed its own identity and not borrowed one from a classic story that virtually everyone knows. It is certainly not plagiarized but there are far too many allusions between the two for me to consider this an 'original screenplay.'

This film is not as good as advertised, but it is exciting, it is disturbing and it will blend the lines between fantasy and reality (much like 'Inception' did for audiences this past year). A highly worthwhile viewing experience although it is possible one might feel as if they have been there before.

'The Eagle' Review

Written by Jeremy Brock, scribe of 2006's 'Last King of Scotland' and directed by Kevin Macdonald, director of the same; 'The Eagle' is an ill-conceived, mess of a film that fails to capture the grandeur and excitement of a 2nd century adventure epic. This film has flashes of brilliance, however the script is rather inconsistent and the film fails to capture any sort of climatic buzz, making its viewing a non-worthwhile experience.

Featuring a career effort from Channing Tatum (which really doesn't mean much), and an above average performance from co-star Jamie Bell, 'The Eagle' focuses principally on the relationship these share as they venture together in search of a lost golden emblem- the Eagle of the Ninth Legion. This relationship starts off fractured as Bell's Esca is saved from death by Tatum's Marcus and is purchased to be Marcus' slave; but the two eventually reconcile and, literally, walk off into the sunset.

The films basic premise, or the 'story' is actually an interesting one, but the film itself is just not that compelling- and there are several reasons for this:

• Lack of character dimension
• Static lead performance
• Cliched moral premise 

What became immediately evident through the films first few plot turns is just how one dimensional Marcus and Esca are as characters- dimensions of course being inner character conflicts that drive action forward. For the entire film Marcus (Tatum) is obsessed with finding the missing eagle and bringing honor back to his family's shamed name. Great character motivation, but not a dimension. He is stubborn in his pursuit of redemption but has no character traits that conflict or get in the way of his desires. This results in a bland film where the stakes are never raised nor does anything adversarial occur. Who knew Channing Tatum could be so boring?

Be nice to me, I'm sensitive. 

Piggybacking on the last part, Channing Tatum was, again, the weakest part of a Channing Tatum film. He doesn't understand how to convey emotions, and no spaced-out, talentless, over-hyped movie star doesn't count. But because a film is generally the story of a character, it is hard for the audience to connect with the film if the protagonist is lifeless. (Let's aside for a moment- Tatum is a terrible actor, obviously, but from his first on screen role in the Amanda Bynes comedy 'She's the Man,' he has improved by leaps and bounds. He has improved so much that I think there will be a time when he is in a movie that isn't terrible, or maybe that is just wishful thinking.

Cliched moral premise? Who even cares? The audience cares, though they might not realize it while watching. All films have moral meanings- it is the entire point of film, to send a message through an entertaining, not outwardly critical visual medium. Therefore every film starts with a message but it is only the great films that effectively incorporate the message into the story. I will not go into to specifics because this could easily be another post altogether. In 'The Eagle' the moral message is somewhere along the lines of following one's dreams, which has to be the most cliched phrase in the history of the world- utilized at every high school and college graduation speech since the beginning of time. Yes, cliches carry some inherent truth but they also make for static films that cause us, the audience, to see into the future of the film and know how it ends. Something that is bad for obvious reasons.

'The Eagle' is a frayed, historical bore, leaving me somewhat disappointed (its what I get for expecting big things from a Channing Tatum movie). One of my favorite genres of film, great historical epics have become few and far between these days, possibly spawned from the American public's lacking desire for films with educational substance. On the flip side, if these films are going to be this poorly made, I say bring on the comic book films. I just hope this doesn't come back to haunt me.

Grade: 32/100 (F)

'Green Hornet' Review

Seeing the news that a Green Hornet film was in the works did not surprise me. Hollywood has a fascination with comic book films at the moment, and rightfully so because they are in 3D and make a ton of money. However, as evidenced by this film and the upcoming Thor and Green Lantern, not to mention Dark Night Rises and the new Superman, Hollywood is taking this cash cow of a genre to the well until the well runs dry. Honestly, when I heard that Seth Rogen was going to write and star in this film I vowed not to see it. Its not that I dislike Seth Rogen, I do like watching him on talk shows and etc. I just don't like watching him on a movie screen. He is known as an 'every man,' making us non-hollywood stars feel better about ourselves because he isn't all that attractive but he still gets hot women and has millions of dollars. No, that doesn't make me feel any better about myself, sorry. I would say that his only future in the industry is as a writer, not an actor, but after having to sit through 2 hours of Green Hornet I would have to retract that statement.

O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D-?

Filled with such gems as "oh my god you just punched that guy in the face," "wow, that was cool" and "this is so awesome," its a wonder why this film was even put into production. From the very beginning the scene is set for an unrealistic, cliched action film, substituting one-liners for character exposition and never justifying any decisions made by any of the characters.

The two Michel Gondry films I have seen before The Green Hornet, Be Kind Rewind and Eternal Sunshine, I really liked. They both had a unique style that separated them from other films accomplished by angling camera shots in certain ways. In Green Hornet, he sells out; conforming to Hollywood mainstream and thereby losing his identity, and the thing that made his films entertaining to watch.

In addition to the mediocre directing and woefully constructed script was the shoddy performance of the films actors. Forgetting for a moment my dislike of Seth Rogen, his poor performance was largely due to his characters writing. There was no character exposition, meaning that (unlike good writers) Rogen crafted the character around the story instead of crafting the story around the character. Dramatic films are meant to chronicle the life of the protagonist through the most important moments in his life; comedic films are meant to expose parts of society that do not make a great deal of sense. Because this film is both (or neither) and doesn't feature a likeable, humanized central character, the audience is not drawn into the film and we as an audience feel no empathy for Bert Reid when his life starts to crash down on him.

The best part of the film is the small cameo appearance made by James Franco, about 5 minutes in. It marked the first and last time I laughed, and was easily the most memorable moment of the film. Jay Chou's Kato was a dim bright spot, his spotty English ruined what could have been a funny side kick cliche. Cameron Diaz is terrible, she walks through the whole film with a shit-eating grin on her face proving again that she is one of the industries most overrated talents. Coming of his Oscar winning campaign as Col. Hans Landa is Christopher Waltz, the films main antagonist. It is clear that he played his role admirably, sticking to the script and trying hard to give his character human qualities that the writing didn't, but after watching him in this movie you begin to wonder why this man has an Oscar.

The Green Hornet is about as fun as a bee sting and as boring as living in the 1700's. If you are a screenwriting student, this is exactly how not to write a film script. A below average effort overall, The Green Hornet is the personification of what is wrong with the film industry these days: Comic book adaptation, converted from 2D to 3D to inflate revenue, hastily created by people who have no business working in this genre (Gondry directing action, Rogen writing superhero, Diaz acting) and leaving me wishing I had my money back- but happy that I didn't shell an extra 5 bucks to see it in 3D.

Grade: F (28/100)

The Kings Speech VS. The Social Network: Which is the Best Picture

In a little less than a month, Hollywood's annual gathering to announce the biggest achievements in film will take place. The Oscars are a chance for our Countries best actors and actresses to come together and celebrate their work, while the rest of the country dreams about being that good looking, having that many friends or being that talented.

Because the Oscars are the last of the major award ceremonies and the ones preceding it award the same categories, there is really no surprise when it comes to who will win and lose on Oscar night. Christian Bale and Natalie Portman are examples of this for this award season. Christian Bale has won Best Supporting Actor honor at every award show that has happened so far (except for the Central Ohio Film Critics Circle Association Awards- but I'm not sure he wanted to win that one anyway), and the same goes for Portman although she won the COFCAA's award. --On a quick side note, the brains behind these COFCAA's picked Inception as the winner of every major category save for acting, leading me to believe that this 'club' is run by a bunch of fanboys and not individuals who have knowledge of what is actually cinematic achievement.--

Are you not entertained?

Let me get back on track. The Oscars, in many ways, are fake. A good number of the nominees knew they were going to win their respective category several weeks ago; of course Bale and Portman are going to win, Aaron Sorkin has been golden since October. Firth has best actor locked up, and best supporting actress doesn't really matter (they announce it first, come on). David Fincher is putting together his thank you list, just as the rest of his technical cast are putting together their's.

'So if we already know all the winners, what is the point of even watching?' Valid question, and in fact unless you know someone there, are into cinema or subscribe to People, Star and the other starlet magazines, you probably won't watch. The Oscars move too slowly. 4 hours of coverage, musical acts, boring speeches- I would rather listen to my Ipod at the DMV.

People watch the Oscars to be entertained, and surprised. The same reason they go to see all these performers in the movie theatre. In fact, the reason I am going to watch the Oscars this year is to see which great film will be forever labelled, the best of 2010. I have seen all the contenders, all great films in their own right, but I believe it has become a two horse rase between The Social Nework and The King's Speech, and with the possible addition of True Grit, these are the best films that I have seen this year.

A few weeks ago I would have said that The Social Network would win Best Picture with no hesitation, however after re-watching both films my opinion is different. I have decided to briefly review each one here, however, before coming to my final decision. Social Network will be written in blue, King's Speech in red:

"You're an asshole, but you'll be rich so its justified."

The suspenseful telling of how Facebook came into existence, The Social Network proves that not all great films are built from the same mold. Aaron Sorkin creates a romantic, stylised version of the life of Mark Zuckerburg, reigning Time Man of the Year. His characterization is peculiar, as our protagonist is, at least on the exterior, not a likeable guy. However he takes this mathematically inclined dickhead, and humanizes him by showing (however incorrect) that he creates Facebook to cope with his girlfriend dumping him. This Zuckerberg character was by far the most interesting character on screen in 2010 and much credit must be given to Jesse Eisenberg for that. The film in many ways is a showcase for director, David Fincher, and he proves that he is not just a one trick pony- but that he can actually direct a romantic drama. Despite all the positives, the film does have weaknesses. It seems overdone, as if they took a story about a historic occasion and glossed it up to make it more interesting that it was, or ever could have been-- Am I supposed to believe that busses full of attractive girls roll up to Harvard parties just so they can get with some dudes who may make it big, but just as easily fall on their face? The overzealous attempt to dramitize and stylize the life of a man painted in such a negative way doesn't impress me, in fact it makes me wonder if enough time was spent working on the script as went into making the film. Being a college student, it made me wonder if Aaron Sorkin did any work studying to write a script like this, or if he liberally copied and pasted from the book the film was based off. The Social Network was definitely one of the best films of the year, and one I would recommend to anybody, but I don't think this is a film I would ever see again.


Period pieces are always the hardest to assemble, authenticate and execute in TV or film, therefore when an attempt is done right much is made over the success. The King's Speech succeeds where The Social Network fails, with its authentic feel and realistic points of dialogue and setting. Speech is a prototypical feel good Christmas time family film, but it goes so much further than that, delving into the personal relationships that the characters shared. It is a film that does nothing special, in fact it is cliched (just another word for eternal truth), and predictable, but there is something about it that makes you emotional at the end. The reason for this is quite simple, the performance of the films 3 lead actors. Colin Firth gives the best performance of the year as Prince Albert/ George VI, spending every moment on screen struggling to overcome his stutter and unable to form flowing/ coherent sentences. Featuring a dedication to his role that all young actors can learn a thing from. The other notable performance was from Geoffery Rush playing Firth's speech therapist, and the antagonist. He is wonderful and has some of the film's best pieces of dialogue, but his character becomes less inspired by the end of the film leaving him as a cookie cutter character- utilized only to half heartedly push the film towards climax. Including the first two, this film is almost like a 'whose who' of British actors. Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, and Dumbledore, and this collective talent helps bring this script to life- catapulting a run of the mill story into Oscar contention (and probable winner). 


There it is, my quick and dirty spiels about the films that have a chance to win Best Picture. What I look at to be the determing factor in which will win, is the lasting impact of each of the films. I think that the Academy made a mistake last year with its winner (The Hurt Locker) because this was a film with very little social impact, that next to no one had seen until several weeks before the ceremony. It was a contemporary war story that could have been told much better had it been a documentary rather than a movie, and for Katherine Bigalow to throw around a pro-military stance in her acceptance speech was complete horseshit. She obviously did not realize what she was doing was a work of fiction, not a realistic, gritty portrayal of bomb techs in Iraq. If anything this film takes advantage of America's growing dissatisfaction with war and the average cinema goers idiocy, making no statement in the film for, or against war- instead using explosions and the usage of the word 'fuck' to catch the publics attention. If the Academy is supposed to pick a film that "represents the best directing, acting and writing efforts put forth for a film," last years winner was clearly Inglourious Basterds. And therefore going by those standards I believe that, this year, the film that most deserves to win Best Picture is The King's Speech, because it champions all three. And even though The Social Network is the most influential film of the year, rarely, if ever, does the Academy reward those films. Look at: Avatar (2009), Brokeback Mountain (2005), The Sixth Sense (1999), Saving Private Ryan (1998), Apollo 13 (1995), The Shawshank Redemption & Pulp Fiction (1994)... and these are just the films that have been slighted since I have been alive. Also a big factor in determing the winner will be the timeframe in which each of these movies were released; Network in October, and Speech in December and continuing to make money at the box office- potentially up until Oscar night. In what I think will be one of the closest Oscar decisions in recent years, the Academy will get it right and award The Best Picture of 2010 to The King's Speech.

'Buried' Review

A claustrophobic thriller staring Ryan Reynolds, 'Buried' takes an extreme approach in depicting a contemporary story. Its innovativeness leaves us as an audience with the entire film taking place in a coffin, with the camera only leaving Ryan Reynolds face for seconds at a time. 

Here's to looking at you, Ryan

Paul Conroy (Reynolds) wakes up in a coffin underground with no memory of how exactly he came to be there. After assessing the situation and calming down he locates a cell phone, a lighter, and a pencil- not exactly part of Bear Grylls survival guide, but beggars can't be choosers. He calls everyone he can think of to help him out but no one answers leading him into deeper despair. Eventually he gets a call from an Iraqi insurgent who wants money in exchange for his safety, 5 million dollars- a sum he does not possess nor have the capability to obtain. He is able to contact the State Department and media outlets and his presence is known throughout many government circles, exposure that will hopefully lead to his freedom. 
But as his air starts to run out he becomes more desperate, putting his trust in the hands of some questionable people. Paul's conflict is resolved at the end, but as we see what happens to him the film cuts to black and the film ends. 


I don't know why, predisposition maybe, but I have always been claustrophobic. Putting myself in Conroy's shoes here was a horrifying proposition for me but after a while I assured myself that it was just a movie and I was okay.

This movie should not have worked, how could an audience with the attention span of a goldfish be expected to watch 90 minutes of Ryan Reynolds? How could a movie set inside a box be exciting and have me on the edge of my seat? Well, it has to do with the direction of Rodrigo Cortes. He creates an atmosphere that mixes suspense with anticipation that results in a Grade A thriller and one hell of a nightmare. Cortes is a relative newcomer to the profession but has earned wide acclaim for his previous work and is definitely a director worth watching in the years to come.

From what I know of Ryan Reynolds, 'Waiting,' 'Van Wilder' I can't stand him. His disposition just annoys me and I just consider him such a goofy, unserious person unfit for roles such as this. He was tolerable in this film, certainly showing me an acting prowess that I didn't see in him before. Were there other actors I would have liked to see in this role other than Reynolds? Yes, absolutely. Preferably someone with a temper, like Mel Gibson in his prime, not a bona fide comedian known for being a slacker like Reynolds. I think about how much better this movie could have been with a humorless actor who I could take seriously. 

His milkshake brings all the boys to the yard...

A thriller comparable to the films of yesteryear, 'Buried' succeeds where most films fail. It is exciting and enthralling but it just isn't as believable as I would have liked. 'Buried' is an above-average flick that loses much of its air as it moves along due to an over indulgence in Ryan Reynolds. It's clearly not a studio movie, but it does the best it can with B movie budget and B movie acting.


Grade: B

'The Fighter' Review

Mark Wahlberg's passion project that he carried through the development process and physically prepared for for 4 years has finally arrived. And while it certainly is not the new age 'Rocky,' or on par with the likes of 'Raging Bull' it is a likeable underdog film characterised by strong central performances, masterful direction and an emotional, albeit predictable, story line.

The story begins with Micky Ward (Wahlberg) and Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) sitting together on a couch being interviewed by HBO films about Dicky's improbable comeback to the sport of boxing. Dicky used to be the pride of Lowell, Massachusetts (where the film is set) because, in his heyday, he managed to knock down Sugar Ray Leonard in a fight- a fact heavily contested throughout the film. But despite his successes Dicky's career ended after his crack addiction got the best of him, leaving him to spend most of his free time in a crack house while his mother (Mellisa Leo) turns a blind eye to it.

Micky gets the number of an attractive bartender (Amy Adams) but is too embarrassed to call her after his family mismanages his next fight, resulting in him taking a beating from an opponent 20 pounds heavier than him. The bartender, Charlene, takes offence to his actions and confronts him at his house and it is only after Micky spills his guts to her that she forgives him and allows him to take her out, kindling their relationship. As the two grow closer Micky begins to see things more clear, right now his family is dysfunctional and is pushing his career in the wrong direction and the best thing he can do for himself is to sever his working relationship with them and take on a new manager and trainer.

The initial shock from his family ultimately turns toward distress when Micky begins winning his fights. His new 'team' makes him swear to avoid his family, but he breaks his promise when he asks Dicky, who is now in prison after being arrested for impersonating a police officer and resisting arrest, for advice on an upcoming fight. Using the advice he is able to win thereby clinching an opportunity to fight for the welterweight belt. He reconciles with his family, after they apologise for their actions, and with the full support of all those who love him is able to win the welterweight championship of the world.

The story is inevitably cliched but the film sets itself apart from others by the performances of its leads. Christian Bale deserves every award he is illegible for, I don't care if it is the orange blimp at the Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Awards or the golden statue at the Oscars, the man deserves it. He puts himself through Hell for this role and absolutely owns every minute of his screen time. His character is also the funniest in the film, adding a dimension of humor to the film that I had not expected coming in.  Initially I saw him portraying a character who was way over the top, seemingly unrealistic but after the movie ended there was a video clip of the real Micky and Dickey and it was eerie how similar Christian Bale played this guy, almost pitch perfect.

Melissa Leo was the only other outstanding performance in the film as her character, a mother of 9, struggles to cope with her world falling apart and desperately trying to mend it. Mark Wahlberg and Amy Adams show off their acting chops in their respect roles as well but neither will be as memorable as Leo or Bale's character's.

Occupying the directors chair here is 3 time Wahlberg collaborator David O. Russell. He succeeds in getting the best out of his actors by demanding so much out of them and constantly expecting them to be perfect. If you recall the incident on the set of Three Kings with George Clooney where the two got in a fist fight over Russell's badgering of the crew( if you can get Clooney to take a swing at you, you must be a real dick..); or this little confrontation with Lily Tomlin on the set of I Heart Huckabees:

(The clip features some offensive language, be forewarned)

However despite how much of an ass he might be he certainly can shoot a movie, and in The Fighter he shows off his skills giving us an enjoyable film, he had my palms sweating in the middle and (although I knew the ending going in) had me rooting hard for Mickey at the end. My favorite part of the film is the way the boxing matches were shot; HBO style- giving the film more of an authentic feeling than if David O. Russell shot it his own way. The authenticity of the film doesn't stop with the camera work either, it goes all the way to the fights themselves where Mark Wahlberg did all of his own 'stunts,' essentially becoming a boxer for this role. He takes punches, he throws punches, he risks damaging his multimillion dollar physique all for the sake of realism. And although I can't speak for how closely this story matches with the truth, I would bet money that not much was sugar coated or omitted.

A gritty, raw, emotional and fun film, The Fighter is a feel good film that is enjoyable through all the ups and downs.

Score: A-

'Good Will Hunting' Review

Matt Damon and Ben Affleck both won an Oscar for their work on this screenplay, but everyone knows that. What is great about the film is the fact that it is written from the point of view of Bostonians, guys who grew up in the shit they wrote about, drawing influences from past people and events. But at the same time it is so powerfully written that it is hard to remember that epople live this way, live this struggle, and for every Will Hunting that makes it out, there are others who can't.

The story follows a gifted young adult, Will (Matt Damon), who works as a janitor at MIT and constantly solves, to the annoyance of the professor, extremely difficult math questions left undone. And as luck would have it one of the professors spots him working and attempts to change his attitude from ambivalent to scholarly by personally tutoring him in all things math- A proposition Will is not extremely excited about.

Before the tutoring gets very far, one afternoon while hanging out with his 'boys,' Will ends up beating the hell out of some seemingly random kids at a neighborhood basketball court, arrested, and forced to complete counselling or else be throw in jail. His counselor, played by Robin Williams, really affects a formerly stubborn Will at a personal level and gets him to see the world differently- essentially helping him to mature and 'grow up.' After completing his counselling sessions and receiving some tutoring (the two introducing Will to contrasting societal ideals) he is left to find a job, of which he as the pick of the litter. However what he ultimately decides to do lets the audience into Will's head for the first time and helps to fully develop his character and also acts to bring the story full circle.

About halfway into watching this movie I became worried- there was no conflict set up, no adversity for Will to overcome, and although it was clever and funny it didn't really have any dynamic quality to it leaving me wondering why this film had been so highly regarded. But then it became clear the main conflict wasn't between two people, as is most often the case, but within Will. His life has extraordinary potential and he is talented enough to succeed in society, but he has become so complacent and accustomed to his below-average lifestyle and blue collar work ethic that he does not want to give it up. He would be happier living how he wants as opposed to what is best for him. Will ultimately has a very shapable personality and tends to follow his friends lead, so if he is going to change his friends are going to be the ones to convince him.

"In 20 years, if you're still livin' here, comin' over to my house
to watch the Patriots games, still working construction, I'll
fuckin' kill you. That's not a threat; now, that's a fact.
I'll fuckin' kill you."

Matt Damon was terrific as the lead, showing flashes of his future brilliance although there were times where he seemed a bit raw as an actor. His mix of superiority and vulnerability meshed seamlessly creating one of the most diverse and unique character studies in recent memory. However for as well as Damon played his character, Robin Williams was better. Able to play off Will's insecurities, Robin Williams is the only character in the film who can see the real Will Hunting and therefore has the best opportunity to impress ideas and advice upon him. Williams played his character with the bravado he is known for, scaled down to a degree, but also embodying reason and wisdom, explaining the brief and fragile nature of life. Williams also received an Oscar for his work in the film, very deserving even if he was overshadowed a bit by the boys from Boston.

The other notable performers in the film were the Affleck brothers, Casey and Ben. And despite his string of less than stellar big budget flops and the negative connotations associated with his career, Ben Affleck is actually a very talented individual and it is clearly evident in this movie, despite what Family Guy thinks:

The director of this film, Gus Van Sant, is probably known more for his turn playing himself on HBO's Entourage than for his small budget films but this guy has serious talent and his filmography is no joke- Drugstore Cowboy, Finding Forrester and Milk. A very non-mainstream director known more for touching on difficult subjects, he does an excellent job making the script come alive and stamping his own personal touch on this movie. It is evident in this film that he was successfully able to get the best out of his actors, certainly helping Robin Williams exceed his acting potential as well as making bona-fide stars out of Ben Affleck and Matt Damon.

Good Will Hunting is one of the best movies that I have had the pleasure to see and one that I will always have a spot for in my Top 5 lists. With a cast and crew of competent actors and filmmakers combined with a charming, witty, well-developed script, there is little doubt that this film ranks up there with the best of them. A pop-culture lovers dream, Good Will Hunting is a film that will certainly stick around with you.

Score: A+