No Country For Old Men Review

The world is a fickle thing. Constantly swayed and changed by its societies, always in flux, never settling for a single moment. It is in flux because of people and furthermore its people are always in flux. Some stick with “traditional values” others label themselves as “progressives,” most of them go forward with the best intentions. This ever-changing fabric is of coursed held loosely together with the sanity of time. After all, all things take time to build and all things take time to erode away. One generation follows the other, each one carrying on pieces of their predecessors while at the same time deconstructing the older status quos and building their own unique society. Because of time’s patience, most of us have the time to adapt to our world through reason but what about when we can’t? What about when things just seem to be zooming by us, leaving us in the dust. Leaving us helpless with our own devices to analyze and rationalize a world we never new existed, let alone understood. “No Country for Old Men” begs such questions. Desperately.

I fear to relay the mere premise of “No Country for Old Men” because it sounds like too much a conventional thriller: a man in West Texas stumbles upon the aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong and discovers a satchel filled with millions of dollars. Drug dealers being the fiscal types that they are, send their most powerful weapon to retrieve their money from him: a cold blooded killer named Anton Chigurh. Meanwhile, the county sheriff also discovers the blood-bath and from that point trouble ensues. Oh! But “No Country for Old Men” is so much more than that. It’s about relationships, and greed and miscalculation and West Texas. Above all it’s about West Texas. From its characters, to cinematography to its tragic subtext it seeks to embody the culture it catalogues.

As I mentioned earlier, “No Country for Old Men” has the fixing of conventional thrillers. However, its premise and plot are merely a canvas for its artists to create. Take for example its characters. The closest thing to a protagonist the film has is Llewelyn Moss, a retired welder Vietnam War veteran. Now, the thing we must understand about Moss, about all the character in “No Country for Old Men” in fact, is that he isn’t stupid. He’s lived in that part of the country for years, he knows, or at least has a good idea about, how drug dealers would react if he took their money. If there is one thing he possess it is hubris. It’s not of the intellect of course; he just thinks he’s in shallower shit than he actually is.

Even if Moss isn’t the protagonist, Anton Chigurh is still the antagonist. Some may try to label Chigurh as psychotic or pure evil. Such a categorization is close but not quite true. Chigurh believes he is a prophet of destiny. He flips coins to determine people’s fate (though other times he doesn’t, which makes the process seem like a formality. Then again he is the prophet). One important thing to remember, though, is that he is still an evil psychotic person. So while he believes himself a mediator of pure destiny he is tinged with a bias, which is appropriate when we consider him in the context of the sheriff. The actor who plays Chigurh, Javier Bardem, deserved the Oscar he received for this role. With the little dialogue he is given, he is forced to flesh out the character with body language and subtle facial control. He squeezes every once of potential out of this character.

Last of the most central characters is the sheriff, Tom Bell. He is an old, desperate man played brilliantly by Tommy Lee Jones. Jones seems to know this sort of character too well. His face is always solemn but never melodramatic. He speaks frankly, in his own none frank sort of way, constantly enforcing into viewers’ minds the ludicrous bloodbath unfolding before him. He also always seems to be step behind Chigurh’s and Moss’ violent game of cat mouse: a protector marred by the fact that he can no longer protect. There is a quintessential line at the beginning of the film as we listen to Bell narrate as the camera pans over West Texas countryside: “I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job … A man would have to put his soul at hazard [now though.] He'd have to say, ‘O.K., I'll be part of this world.’” This line, perhaps more than any other, encapsulates Bell. He’s afraid of this world not because it might kill him. He’s afraid because he’s not sure that if he died trying to change it that it would actually make a difference. He wants to fight this world, not be digested by it.

The Coen Brothers were nominated for cinematography and editing for this film, in addition to Best Picture and directing of course. Their diligent craft can be seen throughout the film. They never waste a second of time, nor make a scene pass by too fast, they keep the pieces flowing naturally and powerfully. They end on a powerful, even if anticlimactic and subtle, note that truly brings all pieces of the film, in terms of subtext, together.

You may have noticed that I have spent much time going on about characters, directing, editing, and other such things much more than any actual events in the film. That’s because ultimately “No Country for Old Men” isn’t about its story. It’s about its characters in its world. Its violent, dark, and seemingly unintelligible world.

*edit: Roger Deakins was nominated for the cinematography Oscar, not the Coens.

The Road Warrior Review

(above, the leader of the gang attacking the refinery)

Pseudo futuristic films can have a haunting effect on us. Why? It is quite simple. More often than not, they give us haunting glances into the future of our societies. Whether its the grim chaos of “Children of Men,” the decrepit and over populated Los Angeles (suffocated by ever present clouds of smog) of “Bladerunner,” or the filthy, poverty stricken shanties of Neil Blomkamp's “District 9;” they all grant us a rather pessimistic, however not too unlikely, vision of our futures. They allow us to examine a more barbaric and darker side of our human condition. “The Road Warrior” seems like it's trying to do the things these films do. However, I think it got a little too caught up in its aesthetic and forgot about almost everything else.

In the beginning of “The Road Warrior,” we watch haunting imagery and listen to an old man that tells us of a great war that threw the world into a an oblivion, wiping out almost the entire population, leaving few alive. He then tells us of how gangs and other such people began to rise to power, repressing and taking advantage of the weak, finally then, he tells us of the legendary Road Warrior and how his wife and child were murdered by these viscous gangs. Of course, this leads to his becoming the road warrior but I think that's obvious here: it is Mel Gibson after all. Anyhow, years later he is now a driving about the Australian outback, presumably because he has some unsettled business with the major gang of that area, looking for some gas. A man he has captured tells him of a small refinery fighting off hoards of automobile loving gang members. Max is intrigued so he scouts out the refinery, looking at all the many, many gang members laying siege to the refinery he can already tell it will be no easy task retrieving gas from them.

The premise of “The Road Warrior” seems to be brimming with potential: limited resources under contention between two desperate groups of people and a morally lost man getting caught up in the chaos of it all. “The Road Warrior” could have taken itself in any number of haunting and pessimistic directions. Alas, though, as I mentioned earlier it gets caught up in its aesthetic. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, right? Just take a look at “Bladerunner,” the film practically sold itself on its environment and aesthetic alone though. Here's the key difference though: “Bladerunner's” aesthetic made sense. “The Road Warrior's doesn't. In Bladerunner, the people of Los Angeles wore mismatched, oddly colored, and old clothing because that was all they had. In addition, they lived in or sought out refuge in the decaying lower buildings of Los Angeles, further emphasizing their poverty. Also we as an audience can see that they live in claustrophobic conditions, walking shoulder to shoulder in crowded public streets. All these elements, the art direction, costume design, and extras, worked in tandem to create an unforgettable world that became all the more haunting by its adherence to realism. “The Road Warrior” on the other hand: its antagonist all dressed like they were hardcore patrons attending a heavy-metal concert or weirdos that randomly selected costumes and trinkets out of a strange sex-shop. The leader of the gang wears a Jason-esque hockey mask, has an incredibly toned body, and wears nothing more than leather underwear resembling the spartan loin cloth from “300.” The main antagonist has a pink Mohawk, draws eyebrows onto his forehead with makeup, and has a loose pants flap over his butt. However, the gang does reflect its absurdness of style in their actions; though at this point I don't think its necessarily a good things. See, gas is a valuable commodity in the region, the gangs need it so they can properly rule over their wasteland, and the people in the refinery need it so they can make a break for the coast. The gang however, doesn't seem to manifest their need of gas besides attacking the refinery. They seem to be searching for reasons to just jump on their vehicles (which also reflect their absurdness in style) and chase things, do tricks, or just kick some dust up into the air. Though, I don't think I would have minded all of its absurdness if it wasn't for a few scenes and characters that made the film seem as if it was trying to be realistic.

There is a scene near the beginning where the people of the refinery send out a few vehicles to try and make it to the coast. They are all stopped and ransacked by the gang of course, but for one vehicle it takes and especially nasty turn: the car it overturned, its passengers are taken out, one is then discovered to be a woman, the other a man. The gang members pin the man to the car with crossbow bolts, then rape and kill the woman. It is without a doubt the most horrifying scene of the film, and it sets a serious tone that all the art direction, costume design, and extras defy. In addition, the man that Max finds and holds captive is dressed up like a true apocalypse survivor, he wears mismatched clothing (tight yellow pants, a big heavy trench coach, and I if I remember correctly pink converse), has ugly, rotting teeth, and looks like he hasn't bathed since running water stopped working, which in this world was a long, long, time ago. These two early, principle elements set a tone for the film that ultimately it cannot live up to.

I can bet there are some people out there that will say things like “give the movie a break, its just tryin' to have a some fun.” To such people, I say this: I am in no opposition to fun. I rejoice in my cinematic junk food. But watching “The Road Warrior” is like biting into a carrot that is secretly disguised as a snickers. It yields little in benefiting your health and only gets in the way of the snickers.

"Pi" Review

They say there is a fine line between brilliance and madness. Which, when you think about it, makes a lot of sense. See, as a society we possess standards of thought, actions and social interactions. It is when something goes against these societal norms that we become defensive and start insulting it and attacking it because, whatever it is, it makes us feel inferior or uncomfortable. But once we label it as madness, it no longer is relevant. It devolves into the illogical thought of a lunatic and we feel secure once again in our routine of our lives. “Pi” is a film that is merely about madness and paranoia. It doesn't deal with the concept of an idea changing a person or society, but merely a man who can no longer find a logical answer in the place where beforehand could find only logical answers.

The film follows the story of a brilliant mathematician named Maximilian Cohen. Max believes in three things: (1) that mathematics is a universal language, (2) that nature can be expressed and explained in numbers, and (3) that if you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge and you can therefore predict anything. Including something like, say, the stock market? Yes, yes, indeed.

The “code” to predicting this pattern Max discovers, is a 216 digit code. However, Max isn't the only one searching for this elusive code. A group of Jewish scholars believe that the Torah is a complex text in which all the letters represent certain numbers. They also believe somewhere within the text is a 216 letter word which spells the true name of God. He is also be vigorously pursued by a powerful Wall Street firm that wants more than anything else that code he is trying to discover. This, coupled with an ever-advancing madness, drives Max to the brink.

What's interesting in Max as a character is that he doesn't desire the code for any material purposes. Throughout the film he narrates segments and in almost every segment in which he is narrating he restates his beliefs, as if he is trying to remind himself why he is doing what he's doing in the first place. So then, why is he doing this? To simply know. So that he can finally be at ease with the otherwise unpredictable world surrounding him. Max takes solace in the sanity of numbers because he himself cannot seem to find any.

What's so wonderful about most of “Pi” is that Max seems to be caught in a loop: He is afraid of the world because it is unpredictable, so he tries to find a code to make the world predictable, however, he cannot seem to find the code, so then the world is once again unpredictable. If the film would have kept on with the cyclic elusiveness of the code, Max's madness would have made sense. However, Max discovers the code, and at this point he seems to be furthest from reality. Why? If this code is supposed to ground him, why is his mind most scattered once he uncovers it? Perhaps “Pi” thought it would make itself a smarter or more artistic film by letting Max go off the deep end, all it really does though is confound the story. There seems to be some insinuation that Max is mentally sick and that he cures himself somehow. However, the film does not allow itself to develop this idea enough.

On the level of a film, “Pi” ultimately fails due to not allowing itself the room it required to develop its ideas to their best potential and randomly inserting madness where solace should have been found. However, it succeeds in the realm of an experience. Sure, the ending doesn't make sense when you start to think about it, but it terms of a process I sincerely doubt you'll find many other films like "Pi"

The White Ribbon Review

I remember clearly the beginning teachings of my government class last semester. Our professor spoke of the age long issue of “order vs. freedom.” We explored various philosophies and political parties, ranging from libertarianism to totalitarianism. Our teacher never sided with a single one, though he did greatly advise against the extremist philosophies and parties. “The White Ribbon” seems to be doing something similar. It gives no direct answer to the argument its making other than saying what it thinks shouldn’t be done.

“The White Ribbon” opens as a whodunit and closes in ambiguity. Such an approach may seem oxymoronic. However, it works to a certain extent. First presenting us with an accident with the local doctor (that seems more like a well planned and executed attempt at injuring him) and then working its way into more sinister events like the beating and blinding of a mentally retarded child “The White Ribbon” certainly has all the feel of a whodunit. It’s also urgently narrated by its central character, a school teacher. He is recalling events of his past as he is now an old man. He gives us dates and descriptions and recounting of facts and not much else. He narrates with detail and speaks of as many people and events as he can. The effect of this no doubt is a lateral spread of storylines. Things happen, people get hurt, some people get scared, some people feel guilty about some things, and we as an audience get closer to all the characters.

The film has several storylines that do intersect, however, they don’t all feel necessary to the point it’s attempting to convey. Take the perversion of the local doctor. He is secretive, cold, and utterly licentious old man. He takes advantage of a neighbor’s wife and then insults her and calls her “revolting” then terminating their affair and doesn’t even seem beyond sexually abusing his own daughter. However, all of this seems slightly irrelevant. It doesn’t eventually connect to the tragedies throughout the village and only establishes him as an independent monster with no real connection to the events at hand. Granted, most stories do in way convene because the tragedies are nucleus for the events surrounding them. However, there are ones like these that seem outright pointless.

The town in the film is yes, a very strict and very religious German town in the pre-WWI countryside. Its children all live under strict parents (most noticeable is the reverend who beats his children with the hope of instilling discipline) who create within them a fear of God and in turn force them into secrecy. Towards the end the children become one of the primary suspects and this is no doubt where the film could have drawn the most power; however it instead chooses to stop at this point. I find the best way to describe its end is anti-climactic. By the time we reach the conclusion, we as an audience are so eager for answers and motivations that when the film chooses to release us with its ambiguity we feel cheated and confused. Some may argue that “bad things just happen.” And yes, bad things do just happen, but a person doing bad things to other people doesn’t “just happen.” People have reasons for harming each other. Another answer that gets labeled onto this film is “an example of nascent fascism.” This is in a way true. However, by leaving us with no real answer at the end as to who committed the crimes the film in turn never shows the true result of the sort of lifestyle the town leads.

Immediately, what most viewers will notice about the film it that it’s filmed in black-and-white. This was a wise, wise choice by its director. The starkness of color further emphasizes the oppressive nature of the town and in scenes of suspense adds a certain quality that color can’t deliver. If ever it should be seen in color it would be wrong, this town seems too strict to allow for colors.

Inception Review

There are many types of “great films” in this world. Now, one thing all people must know is that no single film HAS to excel in all aspect of film-making in order to achieve greatness. Take for an example, Neil Blomkamp's “District 9” (a film that I seem to come to time and time again to point out what movies do right or wrong): its greatness stems from its utter originality, surprisingly relevant political allegory, and its central character's arch. However, “District 9” can hardly be considered “perfect”. Its subtext isn't rammed up your butt through every single second of screen-time and its shaky-cam cinematography doesn't always create the effect it was looking for. But then, there also films that can be classified as “perfect” and therefore achieve greatness. Case and point, “No Country for Old Men.” Its editing, acting, and cinematography are all used in tandem to create what is known as a “perfect film.” A film so meticulously crafted that every second feels (and is) relevant to its story and subtext. So then, where does “Inception” come into play here? “Inception” is the former film. A film that isn't flawless (however, whatever flaws it may have are not very major) but nevertheless achieves greatness through audacity and originality.

Explaining the premise of “Inception” is about all one can do when introducing a stranger to its plot and story. I say this because already with the beginning of the film there so many pieces of knowledge must be imparted so that it may be understood that trying to explain would be exhaustive and mostly futile effort. Suffice it to say, Leonardo DiCaprio plays a convict with the resources and ability to enter people's dreams and withdraw secrets and valuable information. Having fled from the U.S. Authorities he now does small jobs utilizing his illegal talents until a big-shot CEO named Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers him the chance of a lifetime: a cleared record and a flight back home to his children. However, getting will not be any simple task, as Saito is asking of DiCaprio's character something that never has been done before: he wants him to commence “inception” upon a business competitor of his. The implanting of an idea in one's mind through one's dreams and subconscious.

From the standpoint of understanding the film entirely, there are two ways to view “Inception's” mind-bending nature. The first is say that it blindsides us by not making sure we understand all the concept's involved in the process of inception. The other is to appreciate the fact that it is a thinking-man's piece of cinema. Now when I say this, I do not mean it in the sense of feeling smug and exclusive once we figure out how all the parts work, merely that it is a more thoughtful and though-provoking film than most. After-all, all one needs to do to understand the film is pay close attention to the second act (where they pretty much give the audience a crash-course on how to navigate a person's mind.) So then, what makes “Inception” so thoughtful? “Inception” deals with difficult concepts very well. Using DiCaprio's tragic character as the centerpiece, the film exhibits how emotions can often hinder calm logical thinking and in the worst cases, obscure our perception of reality.

Where many may find the film to fail most, is in engaging us emotionally with each character. Now it's not as if we do not care about the supporting cast, it's just that this causes DiCaprio to have to be the emotional conduit and anchor for the audience. There is a scene where one of the characters is at the brink of losing their grasp on reality, but Nolan does not acknowledge this enough to make us feel the risk. However, every second DiCaprio is on screen we feel some sort of emotion, whether is be suspense, stress, sadness, or whatever else DiCaprio is getting us to feel. He is a master manipulator of human emotion.

In addition to being a complex, mind-bending and emotionally satisfying story, “Inception” is also blockbuster and therefore must have action. However, its not standard so it doesn't need a “District 9” surprise to keep us watching. Cleverly using the world of a dream and the tenuous grasp on reality it is therefore allowed to have as well as correlating what happens to ones body in the dream world to what happens to one in reality during a dream “Inception” manages the make a one on one fight-scene in a hallway the second coolest thing I've seen in movie this year. And even when the action becomes standard, we're already so engaged that its riveting to observe.

A deft blend of emotion, action, and mind-bending complexity “Inception” manages to make itself the best film of summer 10' and quite possibly the best film all year. A truly original and important piece of cinema that must be seen. (and thumbs up on not buying into the 3-D trend)

Splice Review

The genre of “science-fiction/horror” was never one I really cared for let alone approved of. Why? Because, next to romantic comedies, it is probably the most cliched addled genre in terms of cinema. Take for an example, the “Doom” film (based upon the computer game Doom). Right from the start one can see its plot devices and where it's going to end up: in the beginning scene we watch as a scientist runs through an arbitrarily dark hall-way from a monster we only get glimpses of. Now, though this scene should instill a sense of mystery and fear as to what the monster is or where it came from. Instead, it just gives away the fact that the scientists were conducting top-secret (and most likely inhumane) experiments and it all went to hell and now Commando Joe must shoot his way to safety as all his comrades are one by one devoured by aforementioned failed-science experiment. “Splice” breaths new life into the genre with a cracker-jack story, nerve racking suspense and fully developed three dimensional characters: ladies and gentlemen, prepared to have the “horror” and “science” put back into the “science-fiction/horror” genre.

The premise of “Splice” is intriguing at the very least: Clive Nicoli (Adrien Brody) and Elsa Kast (Sarah Polley) are married scientists that are currently working on a substitute for conventional meats. After succeeding in creating the animal to provide the substitute, they are then ordered to isolate a the protein responsible for muscle tissue of the organism. However, they want to move on and begin experimenting with human DNA in order to begin research of diseases. The company, they work for however, wishes that they carry out their ordered task because the project's funds are quickly be drained, as well as the fear of the moral outrage that may be incurred if they mix human DNA with that of an animals. Knowing that they cannot continue research under the company's label, the couple secretly mixes human DNA with that of a few different animals. The result is Dren, a sort of all too human super-modelesque thing with dear-like legs and a tail with retractable spike.

Now, with a premise like this a film can easily devolve into a retarded flick filled with blood and guts and two dimensional, annoying as hell characters that don't have the mildest sense of survival. However, “Splice” chooses to be intelligent, instead rushing us to the monster it eases us in with characters. Another new idea it experiments with is making the monster a real character with emotions and motives. See, as opposed to a monster like “The Thing” from John Carpenter's “The Thing,” Dren doesn't run around killing people for no other reason than to excite the audience. She is a shy emotional, childish creature and like a child she doesn't quite understand her feelings but she definitely has them and will act on them. The scientists as well don't subject themselves to the idiocy of sci-fi/horror conventions. No doubt, the decisions they make are bad, but not stupid. Hiding Dren from the world in barn may seem like the wrong thing to do, but they have their reasons, they can't just give up their experiment because their boss may find it: it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for scientific study.

Now, a film like this will eventually need something to maintain momentum story, after all watching scientists take notes on an animal's behavior wouldn't wouldn't be entertaining at all. So, how does it implement its propellant? With Elsa. As the film goes one Elsa begins to treat Dren with more of a mother's demeanor than a scientist's, she dresses Dren up, teaches her how to spell and gives Dren her childhood memorabilia. This is undoubtedly where the film draws most its power, watching Dren long for a Barby's beauty as she looks at herself in a mirror is at the very least, heart-wrenching.

With a powerful mid sequence “Splice” sadly goes downhill at the end. I will not tell why but Dren begins to kill people for no real reason than to add a conclusion to the story. However, the end isn't all loss, there is a short and very disturbing sequence where the film adds to the “strangely human” aspect of Dren. Besides that however, the ending is one of contrivances.

In spite of all it's flaws however, “Splice” still manages grade-A science-fiction and is more than worth the eight to ten dollars you'll be spending on it. A brilliantly disturbing piece that if not for an uneven ending, is great and refreshing. Not too mention the best movie I've seen all year. 4.5/5

Iron Man II Review

I remember when saw the first “Iron Man” in theaters. It was before the advent of “The Dark Knight” so I was skeptical with “Spider Man II” being the only good super-hero movie I seen beforehand. Needless to say, back then I was under the impression that super hero movies did nothing but suck, and on rare occasions were utterly awesome. That, coupled with the flash and glam of “Iron Man’s” aesthetic really didn’t entertain my anticipatory-movie senses. I couldn’t have been more wrong. What I found beneath its glamorous exterior was a real human story about a sly, charming, weapons corporation CEO that has came to the haunting realization of how immoral his trade really is. So then, the question that we’re all begging for the answer to now is “does Iron Man II measure up to the emotional weight of its predecessor? Or does it take the safe-root with big explosions and hot women?” Okay, so maybe I was the only one asking that specific of a question, but you get the point.

“Iron Man II’s” story takes off not too far from where we left off in the previous “Iron Man,” in the first scenes we watch as a U.S. Senator harangues Tony Stark into trading over the Iron Man weapon in the name of “national security.” Needless to say, Tony is as reluctantly and charming as ever in refusing the senator’s offer. However, the senator is the least of Stark’s worries. It appears that the device that had made him into a superhero and kept him alive since the beginning of the first film is starting to infect his blood. Tony, being the impulsive fellow that he is, starts to act up and creates quite a bit of public outcry. Oh yeah, did I mention a vengeful Russian physicists (played by Mickey Rourke) is trying to kill him while at the same time a fellow arms CEO (Sam Rockwell) is attempting to ruin his business by making a better Iron Man suite. Yeah, there’s a lot going on in this sequel, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You see, where “Iron Man II” fails isn’t in creating an emotionally rich story with multiple three dimensional characters, where does stumble however, is in its presentation of aforementioned story; allow me to explain.

You remember how in the first “Iron Man” you could see as the relationship between Tony and Pepper slowly grew more and more intimate with little, funny sequences like when she has to replace his arch reactor? Well, “Iron Man II” has one too many sequences like that, and gets pretty boring after we expect them to be together already. However, the biggest flaw of “Iron Man II” is its central villain. The sort of mad, vengeful antagonist Rourke creates out of Whiplash is incredible, however that most likely has less to do with Rourke as much as it has to do with the character Whiplash. See, Whiplash is the perfect villain: he questions the use of the hero. Take Heather Ledger’s Joker from “The Dark Knight,” the primary reason he worked as such a great nemesis for Batman was because he found Batman’s weakness and exploited it. He took the very people Batman was trying to save, and began killing them in order to force Batman to reveal his identity. Whiplash questions the morality of the Stark family and their legacy, calling them “thieves and butchers.” Alas, Rourke is not given nearly enough screen-time to flesh out the character to his best potential, making the appearance of the character more disappointing than exciting. Now, mistakes such as this one can be forgiven if there is hope for the reappearance of the character. However, the film seems to want to get rid of him in order to make room “The Avenger’s” storyline. Now, I am in no opposition to catering to the fans of franchises; that is unless the product placement interferes with the quality of the film; which in this case it does.

Now, when you put its other flaws aside “Iron Ma II” still has cool, story driven action right? Well, yes and no. The part when we watch as Whiplash slices and dices Tony’s race car in order to kill him was probably the highlight of the films action sequences; and that’s mostly due to the incredibly badass briefcase suit. Now, if “Iron Man II” were a lesser film, I would have forgiven for its drawn-out third act of pure action but I know it knew better than to do that to us. Looking at “District 9” one could make the same argument about its third act, but you see, its action pertained DIRECTLY to the story, whereas “Iron Man II’s” felt a bit contrived. The climax of the film is an action finale where Tony and Rhodey face off against a bunch of robots (a sequence which is by the way addled with one liner’s) created by Whiplash. Sounds like it pertains directly to story, right? Well no, you see Whiplash created the robots for Hammer corp. (Stark Industries business nemesis) so that they may be unveiled at an important technology convention. Tony finds out the robots were created by Whiplash and goes to …. save the people at the convention from the robots? Why would Whiplash want to harm the people at the convention? Didn’t he accuse the Stark family of being “thieves and butchers?” In addition to this, his robots harming innocent civilians would only help Stark industries. It just didn't make any sense to me.

“Iron Man II” is less than flawless; however it still manages to be a delightful cinematic treat. While at times the action is contrived, it still possesses a strong enough story to keep the audience engaged, not to mention the infamous charm of Robert Downey Jr. If only it had a bit more disciplined direction and a less sprawling storyline it really could have been the breath of fresh air its predecessor was. Let’s just hope all this “Avenger’s” product placement pays off. 4/5

Kick-Ass Review

They ought to have some formula by now for dictating the chances of someone making a genre satire. Just think about it, after “28 Days Later” we had Shaun of the Dead, a few zombie movies and years after that we got the delightful “Zombieland.” Looking at the track record of satirical parodies we are long overdue for one in regards to super-heroes films, which apparently have become the “bullet time” of cinema. So then, how does “Kick-Ass” hold up as our first parody? I walked in the theater really wanting to love “Kick-Ass” for it's clever, dark humored satyr; instead I left a bit confused trying to figure out if I really liked it or not; and whether thinking Hit-Girl is cool makes me a morally questionable person.

“Kick-Ass” follows the tale of an average teenage loser named Dave Lizewski. Needless to say, Lizewski is a comic book geek who seeing all the comics throughout the world has wondered why no one has ever tried to be a super-hero. “Probably because it's impossible” his friend sarcastically replies, “What, putting on suit and helping people? That's not impossible.” Looking up from his comic his friend gives him a look: “Dude, if anyone every tried that they'd get their ass kicked.” And how right he is.

“Kick-Ass” certainly gets off on the right foot. The opening scene we watch as a mental patient dressed up in super-hero attire falls gloriously to his death in a vain attempt to fly. When we get the traditional quickie on how how our central character came to super-heroism the film gleefully takes the opportunity to expose the formula by having Lizewski go through some sort of twisted concept of the super-hero right of passage: “My mom died of an aneurism at the breakfast table …. the only epiphany I've since [she] died is that life goes on.” Not to mention the first time he tries to stop a few criminals he gets stabbed in the stomach and has to spend two weeks in the hospital. At first glance it appears to be a full blown satire at the genre, however, as wears on it seems to run out of ideas.

A definite reason “Kick-Ass” was able to hold itself together was because of its strong performances. Chloe Grace Moretz gives an outrageous portrayal of the infamous Hit-Girl, which has generated quite a bit of controversy. The first time we see her plow through a group of bad-guys with her spear like weapon is unsettling to say the least. However, the film doesn't try to lighten the mood by displaying her as caricature, which is even more unsettling. However, later in the film, once dramatic events which I will not reveal have occurred, she is set up against a large group of bad guys that she just as easily conquers in a gory, but for some reason this time not unsettling, manner. I'd like to think of her as a caricaturisation of women super-heroes superimposed onto a young girl to exemplify how they are objectified. However, I know I would be bullshitting myself to say so. I have to admit, I thought she was cool but I also felt morally compromised for thinking so. Another noteworthy performance is by Cage of all people. Leaving the action-hero persona behind Cage steps into a bat-maneque mold and creates an incredible character out of the infamous “Big Daddy/Damon Macready,” so incredible was his portrayal that I'd like for someone to make a film solely about his story. Lead actor Aaron Johnson does a noteworthy job in portraying Lizewski: he balances fervent frustration and pathetic reality perfectly to give us a protagonist we can really care about. Mark Strong's character felt out of place in the generally lighthearted story of “Kick-Ass.” His character is bad enough so that at times I hated him instead of laughing, but when he was funny, the tone had already been set dramatic by another character.

However, when we put the controversial Hit-Girl and out of place antagonist aside, what we find at the warm, chewy, center of this story is narrative of human struggle. A story of framed cops and frustrated teenagers, both fed up with the inaction of society to stop criminals. And because of this, much of the humor in “Kick-Ass” feels out of place. For an example, there is a scene where we watch from a security camera as Big Daddy slaughters Frank D'Amico's men, the music playing in the background sets a heavy and dramatic tone, inadvertently making it the most bad-ass thing I've seen in years. However, quickly after this the film cuts to Strong, with a surprised and comical look on his face that was supposed to make me laugh, but instead just raised my eyebrows making me think “What the hell?” There are many, many more scenes that seem to contradict themselves such as this one did. However, the overall product did not feel muddled (i.e. “Alice in Wonderland”) simply because of the power of the dramatic sequences. If it really tried “Kick-Ass” could have been a meticulous and fully dramatic deconstruction of the super-hero myth, but it's doesn't, so it isn't. Despite all of “Kick-Ass's” imperfections it still amounts to fun, compelling adventure; if only it had more coherent direction it really could have been something good. 3.5/5

How To Train Your Dragon Review

It is a meticulous and hard high-wire balancing act making a film that attempts to appeal to both adult and young audiences. Sometimes the film will fail because of too much childish quirk and slapstick antics, like “Treasure Planet.” However, some manage find the perfect temperature between quirky and adult, such as Disney Pixar’s “Up” or Dreamwork’s “Shrek.” While no where near the league of “Up” or “Shrek” “How to Train Your Dragon” is still one of those films that can and will be appreciated by children and adults alike; a genuine crowd pleaser that will hoot more than a few critics horns.

The storyline of “How to Train Your Dragon” is a somewhat formulaic one, however, it still manages to compel. Like your typical mythical hero tale it follows the story of an unsuspecting protagonist. Slipping into the archetypal mold this time around is Hickup: a skinny, nasally, and all around screw-up of a Viking. Only to make matters worse for his physical insubstantiality is that he’s the son of a very proud and very large Viking King who of course wants his son to follow in his footsteps. So then, what exactly are his footsteps? This time around writers have taken the big-boned, axe-wielding super warriors that are the Vikings and turned them into hard-bitten soldiers fighting viscously against dragon raids in order to sustain their very existence. Needless to say, Hiccup is a little too squeamish for the whole slaying business. In fact, when his father leaves him alone with a restrained dragon and a short sword to murder the beast with Hiccup becomes so repelled by the thought of murder that he sets the beast free. Immediately pouncing Hiccup after setting him free the dragon Hiccup half expects the gargantuan reptile to tear him to shreds; but instead the beast seems to recognize Hiccup’s peril and spares his life as Hiccup did his. From here on Hiccup becomes deeply interested in the behavior of the dragons; and thus begins the bond between man and beast.

The first half “How to Train Your Dragon” centers itself not on Hiccup’s and the mysterious dragon’s relationship, but rather focuses on the Viking’s Dragon Slayer Training, leaving their ever-approximal relationship in foreground, saving it for the third and final act. The training sessions serve as a catalysts to introduce characters, such as his love interest Astrid, two very annoying twins, a tubby and nerdy Viking and of course the idiotic jock (an motif that seems inescapable in coming-of-age stories such as this one). The variety of contrasting and clashing characters make for good deal of quirky, funny, and cute humor. For an example, the first time we see them in training the tubby Viking begins reciting all the “stats” of the dragons that their teacher says they will learn to fight. However, at other moments the humor becomes annoying and childish; like whenever either of the dreaded twins open their groan-inducing mouths to start the millionth, unneeded and unfunny feud with the other. One could say the characters are clichéd; however in a tale with a world as fascinating as “How to Train Your Dragon’s” I think the writers made a conscious choice to have easily accessible characters.

The entire film opens and closes as expected. It pushes no real envelopes in the area of storytelling or world creation but rather does a familiar thing really damn well: At the dramatic parts we feel compelled, at the humorous parts we laugh and at the end we feel like we just watched a damn good movie and go home thinking what a well spent eight bucks that was. 4/5

Repo Men Review

I was very apprehensive about going to see “Repo Men.” After all, a 20% on the tomato meter pretty much guarantees its going to be a piece of shit on wheels. However, despite my resources I found myself encapsulated by its premise. So then, what premise could be so good as to sway me away from my best intuitions? This one: in the future recent feats in the field of medicine has allowed corporations to be able to create prosthetic organs at the low, low price of $600,000+. Needless to say the average Jo could never afford such pricey necessities, so what’s the solution? Why give them a payment plan of course! But what if you can’t pay that off? Well, when you can’t pay off your house the bank takes it away, when you can’t pay off that fancy new car the bank takes it away, but what about when you can’t pay off your liver, or your heart, or your new left lung? That’s where the Repo Men come in. Sounds like a pretty fucking awesome premise right? It may come to a surprise to you then that film itself is not nearly as bad as the tomato meter makes it out to be, however not nearly as good as it could have been. In other words: a hell of a lot better than “Alice in Wonderland” but no where near as good as “Shutter Island,” genuine mediocrity that if in the hands of a better director and writer could have been something truly great.

As the title implies, Repo Men follows the story of two of these infamous repossession agents. The first is Remy, played by Jude Law, and some other guy played by Forest Whitaker (who lost a ton of weight by the way). They’re job is to stroll around the city with a high-tech scanning gun and check people for overdue organs, then, whether in a crowded city block or in the comfort of their own home they tranquilize the client with a dart and cut out their unpaid for property. The beginning scene gives us a sense of how disconnected from human mortality these men truly are. While getting it on with some pretty lady in his sky-high pent-house one unlucky fellow finds himself tracked down by Remy. The man begs for his life, Remy tranquillizes him and his lover, after which he puts on some soothing music to ease his job of removing the man’s prosthetic organ, a process in which no details are spared. “Wow, this is pretty gruesome and gritty” I thought to myself, only to realize just how two-dimensional Remy really is as a character, even after he has to get a prosthetic heart.

My mind couldn't help but think about Wikus from last year’s magnificent “District 9.” I think one of the reasons that film worked so well was because of Wikus. See, Wikus wasn’t an incredibly smart or physically substantial person in fact he was a somewhat stupid and very skinny, and that’s what I liked about him. He wasn’t your average, gun toting badass; he was a scared little man on the run from an inhumane weapons corporation. The point that I’m trying make is that he was an original, likeable (in the sense that he was hate-able) character: Remy is not. Jude Law’s portrayal of the stalwart action hero is as bland as any, even though he has a British accent. But who can blame the guy, the only person I’ve ever seen be able to make such characters appear three-dimensional is Bruce Willis and Jude Law is no Bruce Willis. Oh yeah, in case you were wondering Whitaker did his job well.

However, the crap doesn’t just end Law; in fact I think the primary problem with this film is its script and ham-handed direction. See, “Repo Men” had a TON of good ideas; however it didn’t flesh them out to their best potential. For instance, there are actually communities of homeless people with prosthetic organs living in decaying urban areas. Sounds pretty intense right? No, not really. “Repo Men” apparently had thought centering the second half of the film on a boring, contrived, and nonsensical romance instead of a story about a hunted and impoverished portion of humanity was a good idea, or perhaps it thought the liberal use of blood and guts would distract us from its idiocy. Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that Remy was married and infatuated with this woman at the same time? And to top that off that he DOESN’T want his wife to divorce him. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention he had a wife that left him because of his job. I guess it must have slipped my mind because the film couldn’t really make me give two shits.

The final kicker in this cluster-fuck of mistakes is the ending fight scene and metaphorical sex scene. Remy and Mrs. Love Interest whom, I forgot the real name of because I didn’t really care about her, in a final attempt to outsmart the system break into the corporation building and begin registering their prosthetics into the repossession machine. However, before they can do this they must fight an angry mob of -- knife-wielding business men? Anyhow, onto the metaphorical sex scene: wanting to trick the computer registration system of repossessed organs Remy and Mrs. Love Interest have to cut each other open and stick a high-tech Wal-Mart item scanner into each other to key in the items -- apparently they found this an appropriate time to start making out.

There is one thing that keeps this film from falling apart and that is the very end, which I will not tell you because – Well, because despite all the gaping flaws of this film its still commendable due to its intriguing premise and the fact that it still manages to entertain, even if we do have to switch from thoughtful, philosophical mode to blockbuster-popcorn flick in the first and last fifteen minutes.

Alice In Wonderland Review

It puzzles me that it took Tim Burton so long to finally create his stylized rendition of “Alice in Wonderland.” Ever since I could recognize his hand in direction I always thought to myself “Man, it would be so cool if he made 'Alice in Wonderland.'” Honestly, one could go as far to say that Lewis Carrol's novel and Burton were born for each other, destine to have their lives intertwine. It may surprise you then that Burton's vision for Carrol's novel is, well it's pretty crappy. It has awkward pacing, gives us little time to identify with the characters but most of all it manages to make the experience boring. I know, I found it hard to believe as well. Hearing this one may be inclined to ask “So what went wrong?” Many things. First off was Burton's vision for the film. Previous silver screen adaptations of Carrol's novel were more or less none narrative, estranged adventures that had little or no purpose beyond giving lots of strange stuff to look at and go “Well that's weird.” Quite surprisingly, Burton was never impressed by these creative oddities, saying that they were just strange, narrative-less , emotionally empty joy-rides. So what did he do to correct this? He attempted the arguably impossible, to give “Alice in Wonderland” a narrative. Now, I am all for narratives, in fact I believe every great film needs at least a good narrative, however I don't think that was the best trajectory for Wonderland. See, on its own as a strange, fun-filled adventure Wonderland excelled, but when we constrain it to narrative it means removing much of the unnecessary strangeness that made it so lovable. Needless to say, that is exactly what Burton did. The final result is an unprecedentedly boring, fast paced, story with a lazy narrative.

Burton's recreation of “Alice in Wonderland” follows the story not of the young girl Alice, but rather twenty year old Alice. Being a young woman, as well as part of aristocracy, she is expected to marry a lord. Needless to say, when she is confronted by her suitor she flees, all these decisions she is expected to make is just much for her. Noticing a rabbit in a dinner-jacket hopping scuttling along side her in the bushes she chases after it till it leads to its rabbit hole. She falls in and thus begins her-not-so-fantastical adventure.

Burton's “Alice In Wonderland” isn't a completely worthless venture, just that it does no play to its strong suits. Like previous adaptations it has a variety of strange, interesting characters, places, and events that all add up into something of value. However, Burton mutilates any and all cool portions of the story either making them to parallel with people in Alice's life or simply keeping their strangeness to a minimum. I suppose if the film gave us more time with people in Alice's actual life the whole narrative idea could have played out a bit better, but it doesn't. Rather, it tries to get to Wonderland as fast as possible, perhaps it was confused as to what it wanted to be. Either way, it does not attempt to push itself in any single direction a very thoroughly, making it feel very muddled and cheap.

However, while it may lack continuity and consistency in the arrangement of its parts, the pieces nevertheless add up to give us a beautiful aesthetic gem. From cinematography, to its color pallet this is a drop dead gorgeous film. If you are simply looking for something to star at and go “Well that's pretty” for two hours then this will be well worth your ten dollars. Like JamesCameron's “Avatar” its 3-D doesn't try to pop out at you and hurt your optical senses, rather it is subtle and complimenting to the beautiful world that is Wonderland.

Depp is yet another one of the few positive aspects of this film. Making great use of his character creation ability he gives us a truly mad, “Mad Hatter.” Depending on his mood his accent will change from lispy, whimsical British to angry Scottish making him a very enjoyable whenever he is on screen. Due to Depp's trademark style of acting it is hard for one to decide whether his performances are nomination worthy or simply over-the-top, for this one I really can't tell, though I would like to believe the first. A subtle blend of CGI and contact lenses make up his great bulbous, uneven eyes, further complimenting the character's insanity.

Burton certainly had an interesting idea for “Alice In Wonderland” sadly it didn't pay off. Due to hapless direction and lazy story and plot-devices the film comes out a bland, CGI filled Tim Burton mishap.

A Serious Man Review

Sometimes I find myself envying atheists and agnostics and their ability to toss the reasons for certain events to mere chance and coincidence. Not to criticize them, just that I envy their convenience, and I think Lawrence Gopnik does as well. See, as a religious, at least to some extent, person “A Serious Man” spoke very deeply to me personally, and for the record: no I'm not Jewish. However, one does not have to share another's faith to be able to understand struggle, and while that struggle may come in all different shapes and sizes there is always a question griping at us, whether its right in our face or nudging us in the back of the head, it always seems to be the same question: why does this happen me, aren't I supposed to be the blessed one? As most of you already know, in almost all religions people are taught that “everything happens for a reason.” That the higher power, whether you call him/her/it “God” or “Billy Bob The Great,” has everything happen in order to compliment a higher purpose. Sounds like a convenient philosophy in order to cope with a world as contorted as ours, to a certain extent one would be right. However, that philosophy seems to lose its power once we get caught up in all that contortion, and boy oh boy if Lawrence Gopnik isn't caught up in it I don't know where is.

If one was to examine it for its most elemental constituents one would find the plot of “A Serious Man” to be a modernized and greatly expounded upon story of Job. I am sure everyone at some point in their life has heard the story, or at least a variation, of Job: Job is a good and faithful servant of God or appears to be greatly blessed. But then, in order to prove that Job's faith in Him ran deeper than the extent of which he benefited God turned Job's life into a living hell. With “A Serious Man” The Coens have brought never-before-scene dimension to this ancient tale. So then, how did they do it? With the fictitious Jewish physicist Lawrence Gopnik.

From the very beginning we can tell Gopnik's life is falling apart. His wife wants a divorce, his son is slacking off in school, his daughter seems to have some strange obsession with washing her hair, his brother is a lazy, mooching failure that he has to take care of, and there is a Korean student in his physics class that is planning to blackmail him if he does not give him a “pessing guradue” on his midterm; and why is all of this happening? He doesn't know – and neither do we.

After watching “A Serious Man” I began to think deeply about the Coens' previous master-piece: “No Country For Old Men.” In terms of its overall purpose and narrative “No Country For Old Men” was punctual – no, let me rephrase that – it was perfect in its use of mechanics. Through the framing of the shots, the use of editing, and the delivery of the lines “No Country For Old Men” always got the reaction it wanted out of you; “A Serious Man” is no different. Through seemingly inexplicable actions of the world surrounding Gopnik “A Serous Man” always makes sure we are as frustrated and confused as Gopnik (and yes, that is a good thing.) However, the Coens are too smart to go over-board on the inexplicableness, they very wisely keep the characters believable however, have them allude our full understanding.

One could say that “A Serious Man” is very much so a performance driven film, mostly because it is. Michael Stuhlbarg's portrayal of a man desperately trying to understand why his life is going to hell in hand basket is at times funny, and at other moments heartbreaking. See, Gopnik is man who believes that beyond a shadow of a doubt everything has consequences, whether moral or metaphysical. However, not even his long, perplexing physics equations can help him understand what's happening to him, and his local Rabbis don't seem to be any help either.

If one was to summarize “A Serious Man” as a modern day Job story they would not be entirely correct. See, “A Serious Man” is about more than just a man struggling with his faith, it's also about the world that's destroying it. Both through symbolism (like how Gopnik's neighbors are slowly moving their property line to encroach upon his) and overt events (his son's descent into laziness and drugs) “A Serious Man” tells a tale of how American culture can ebb away at one's faith.

In all that it does “A Serious Man” does it perfectly. It is yet another cinematic gem from the Coen Brothers that only further proves their ability to refine their subject to its best form. A compelling, pertinent, and brilliant piece that rivals their “No Country For Old Men.”

Little Miss Sunshine Review

There is something about humor and road movies that seems to come hand in hand. Just think about, wherever we find a vehicle, a mismatched group of civilians, and an end goal we always in turn find quirky, hilarious humor. However, there is something else that seems to hitch a ride with road movies, and that's drama. It seems so strange, that a single genre can act as the perfect catalyst to bring two polar opposite emotions together in perfect balance. Which begs the question: why? How is it that a single genre can work so perfectly in doing one of the arguably hardest things to do in all of cinema? I the answer is quite simple. You see, there is always an element that is touching or sentimental about road movies that if not balanced with humor would become sappy and melodramatic. So in a way, one could say that it is by necessity that road movies excel at the balancing-act that is a drama-comedy. "Little Miss Sunshine" is the art of this balancing act seen thoroughly refined to perfection, a carefully crafted and heart warming story about the logistics of what makes a loser but moreover what makes a winner.

Like many great films, "Little Miss Sunshine" is quick to establish its narrative. In the beginning scene we see a young girl (Abigail Breslin) wearing thick glasses staring intently at a television screen. What is she doing? Studying. She's studying as to what should be her proper reaction when she is crowned Miss America. Next we see a person which we can safely assume is her father (Greg Kinnear.) A man who is giving a motivational pep-talk on how to be successful to a whopping crowd of about half dozen people, maybe less. At last we see a sunken eyed man who seems to be sulking in his own pain and misery (Steve Carrel, yes that's right, Steve Carrel.) From this we quickly know what "Little Miss Sunshine" is about: determination, dreams, and harsh reality.

The young girl we see gazing into the T.V. screen is miss Olive Hoover, beauty pageant enthusiast. She has apparently been wooing the audiences throughout New Mexico with her routine and now it seems as though she'll be able to compete at the nationally renowned Little Miss Sunshine Pageant. Though we never get to see her routine until the very end, she seems an unlikely contestant. She has no noteworthy facial or body features, a set of values that is sadly enforced onto young girls her age if they wish to compete in such competition, and wears thick lensed glasses. However, she is going nonetheless.

Her father is Richard Hoover, a somewhat narrow minded (perhaps only to shield himself from reality) man that believes through his "Nine Step Program" anyone can achieve their dreams. Despite the fact that he has been going at it for years now and has come to no avail.

The sunken-eyed sulk we saw earlier is her uncle. A man who was once the number one Proust Scholar in the united states. However due to a series of very, very unfortunate events, such as the loss of his homosexual love interest to his arch rival, he lost everything and attempted to kill himself. However he failed at that as well. Carrel's frank portrayal of this man that lives enamored in his pain is nothing short of noteworthy. There is a scene when Olive asks him what happened to his arms and he simply replies "Well, I tried to kill myself." However, even in all his character's gloom Carrel still manages to be funny, a sign of a truly talented and wise comic.

One could go on about the characters in this film for pages, however that would be redundant. The long and short of it is: all the characters have and/or had goals which they are/were trying to achieve.

As I stated earlier, "Little Miss Sunshine" lends itself to a tightly constructed narrative, featuring definitive lines, scenes, and themes and pitch perfect performances. The most important theme of the film is the push. From beginning to end there seems to be one to many obstacles in the way of Olive reaching her final goal. Starting off with a simple dilemma of the most economic way to get to the beauty pageant all the way to having to literally push the car until it is going fast enough to start off in fourth gear. Another motif is the family's protection of Olive. There is a scene in which her grandfather is telling her older brother to "fuck a lot of women" while she sits just a few feet away listening to her CD-player. When she takes off her headphones to ask them what they're talking about the grandfather simply replies, "Politics." There are scenes like this throughout the film that depict the entire family's, including the seemingly indefatigable father, concern for Olive's innocence and determination. Her childlike naivety (after all, she is a child) is something they all seem to admire and desire, however, cannot attain simply due to their cynicism. Not to say that they're cynics, just that there is something about adolescence and adulthood that gives way to that aspect of human nature.

Near the middle of the film Olive begins to notice a lot of what her family is doing for her and subsequently becomes worried about the pageant. She professes her fear to her grandfather saying that her father hates and losers, and if she loses her father will in turn hate her. Comforting her her grandfather kneels down beside her bed and says "You know what a loser is? A real loser is somebody that's so afraid of not winning they don't even try. Now, you're trying, right?" to which she replies "Yeah" "Well, then you're not a loser." If someone wanted to find the moral of this film they need look no further than this scene. There are very few times in cinema where a narrative can be brought together by something so simple and yet be so profound.

For all its intents, purposes, and use of mechanics "Little Miss Sunshine" is perfect film. It will tug your heart strings, hit your funny bone and leave you feeling profoundly moved and thoroughly entertained.

American History X Review

Since watching it last Friday I have taken my time in weighing the merits of “American History X.” It is without a doubt a good movie but is it really a great one? It is certainly a strong, visceral, and powerful film but does it got what it takes to go one step further? The answer is saddening, yet simple; no it doesn't. While it is now one of my personal favorites I can't deny the fact that it has its downfalls, all of which lie in its narrative and argument. Nevertheless, it is still a pertinent, eye opening and all around compelling film.

“American History X” centers itself on the stories of two brothers, Derek and Daniel vineyard. The film opens with a shocking beginning. While asleep in bed Danny overhears some African American gangsters trying to break into his brother's truck. Danny then wakes up Derek to tell him what's happening. Derek promptly and violently retaliates by shooting one to death and cracking the other's skull on the curb. After the gunshots are heard police officers and quick to arrive and arrest Derek, he is then charged and conviction with intentional man-slaughter and given four years of prison.

Hearing that some may think that Derek Vineyard is a thoughtless white supremacist. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Derek has reason behind his racism, whether that makes it justifiable or not is the purpose of the film. See, Derek wasn't always a gun totting, barbel pumping, angry, vengeful skinhead. There was a time in his life where he believed what the news stations told him and those times were before his firefighting father was shot to death by a black drug dealer while trying to put out a fire. Ever since then Derek had been serving under white supremacist over-lord Cameron Alexander. Through Alexander Derek became a prominent figure in the local skin-head gang. Recruiting other young, angry tweenaged men and boys Derek would lead acts of vandalism in order to intimidate local minorities. I can recall a pep-rally he gave before one act of vandalizing a local Korean man's store “On the Statue of Liberty it says "give me your tired your hungry, your poor..." well it's Americans who are tired and hungry and poor, and I say until you take care of that, close the fucking book!” This is just one of the many examples of Derek's thought-out sense of racism.

Danny seems to be the same way. He gets all A's in school, also like Derek, and is tired of the local gangs. Ever since Derek was locked up he has been slipping further into the grips of the local white supremacists. However, once Derek returned from prison he seemed to be trying to keep Danny away from them.

I have found that the main reason for “American History X's” quality stems from its character's performances. Edward Norton (Derek), who deservingly was nominated for an Oscar for the performance, plays a racist that despite how much we may disagree with his beliefs we can't help to feel his anger. Edward Furlong (Danny) plays a genuinely conflicted and surprisingly thoughtful young man. In addition to this, all members of the supporting cast thoroughly embody their characters.

Where “American History X” fails most is its narrative. It opens with a damn good thesis and possess many well done supporting paragraphs in regard to justifying Derek's and Danny's racism. However, when it comes to arguing the other side it stumbles. For an example, it gives much camera time (whether through interviews or breakfast table discussion) to Derek in developing his racism. But when it deconstructs through his prison sentence the film becomes lazy, as if it couldn't combat its own argument. However, seeing its conclusion I doubt if the film was ever even about racism. But rather uses it as a catalyst to discuss a far different subject: suppressed male-rage.

None of this however, can detract from the film's undeniable power. I found myself for the whole two hours staring at the screen, barely letting out a single blink. I guess it just bit off more than it could chew. Final Rating

Shutter Island Review

At times it truly seems as though Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio were made for each other. Note when I am saying that I'm not implying any homosexual undercurrents. Now, the reason for my conclusion about their fate came from the many interviews I watched and read before ever watching “Shutter Island.” See, Scorsese needs an actor that can harbor extreme emotions, such as male-inadequacy, guilt and anger. Leonardo DiCaprio's facial features are so strong that even though his expressions appear similar throughout films we cannot help but be compelled simply do to their power. In addition to this, Scorsese needs an actor that will shut the hell up and do what they're told, and when it comes to that DiCaprio excels. Quite to the contrary of what many people may believe, DiCaprio isn't a stuck-up hunk actor, in fact he despises that persona. Rather, he's an actor who can conjure up a wide range of emotions at his very whim, however he only does what his director tells him, making him prime material for someone as meticulous and brilliant as Scorsese. Now I bet you're wondering “Well that's nice, but what the fuck does this have to do with 'Shutter Island?'” Well, I say this because “Shutter Island” is a prime example of a strong actor with perfect emotional direction. Granted, it is in no way a good follow up to “The Departed” but is still an enthralling and emotionally compelling psychological thriller/detective movie with some refreshing retro-style noir.

“Shutter Island” follows the story of U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels, a WWII veteran who's family died in a fire. His most recent assignment has been to investigate a case of a missing murderess on an infamous the infamous Shutter Island, home of the Ashecliffe Hospital for the Criminally Insane. Danny, like many others, has heard of the mysterious Shutter Island but luckily has never had to go there, or so it seems. Danny quickly realizes that there's something strange going on at Ashecliffe, something that somehow ties into his past, such as his WWII experiences and the night his family burned to death in a fire. Like classic noir detectives Danny becomes enraptured and over-involved in his case, leading to him discovering things that he arguably may have been better of never knowing at all.

I feel nick-picky but I have to mention this: at times the drama of the film's music seems too overbearing. Granted, there are only a few scenes in which it transcends the moment and becomes melodramatic but for the most part the the music works perfectly with the situations. I guess the primary reason my stating that fact is that for a director as refined and calculated as Scorsese I expected more. Now, others may find those moments stylized and enjoyable but I see them as immature and at times laughable. Overall, the good outweighs the bad though.

Seeing as I air on the side of cowardice when it comes to movies I'm not quite sure if I can objectively state how frightening this movie can be. Like any good psychological thriller there are a lot of surprising, surrealistic, pop-out-and-scare-you moments intermittent between Danny's slow discovery of the secrets of Ashecliffe. However, when it comes to you viewer discovering along with Danny it ultimately fails. The twist at the end was as I predicted it to be, only the process to finally discovering that twist was rather disappointing. With a good beginning and freaky psychological hallucination/dream sequences the film makes a strong start. The questions quite appropriately pile on one after another until we're brimming with anticipation. But then the story becomes lazy and spills out everything at the very end through a single conversation. I'm not sure if this is Scorsese's (the director) , Kalogridis and Knight's (the ones who adapted the screenplay), or Lehane's (the one who wrote the novel) fault, but the ending is just so damn lazy. Now, if I were to say I didn't enjoy it that would be a lie, just that there was so much potential for the ending and so much done right in the earlier portions of the film that it just felt stale. Nevertheless, it is still and thoroughly enjoyable, strongly acted, and even emotionally compelling film. I just expected more from the dynamic duo that is Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio.

28 Days Later Review

It indeed seems at times we live in the most cynical of ages. We often look upon the human race as a walking, talking, autonomous, machine that is without mercy, compassion, or proactive though. A machine that marches through this world, hurting itself, killing itself, and committing crimes against itself and the entirety of the planet. It is often remarked upon that we are one of the only, if not the only, species on our planet that kills out of pure emotional impulse. "28 Days Later" gives us an unrelenting, and somewhat cynical look at the most dangerous of human emotions; rage.

"28 Days Later" opens to a experimental chimp laboratory in Cambridge. We then see angry animal rights activists sneakily break their way into the laboratory. They then find hysterical chimps running back and forth in confined, Plexiglas cages. As they set to freeing the animals an unknowing scientist walks in and catches them in the act. "No! Please stop." he pleads "The chimps are infected!" "With what?" the activists demand "Pure, rage." he answers. Dismissing the scientist's warning they set a chimp free, immediately it attacks and infects both the activists and the scientist. The film then cuts to a man laying in a hospital bed, twenty eight days after the initial infection.

Jim is the name of the man in the hospital bed. Twenty eight days earlier he had been in a bicycle accident that ironically saved his life. Unwittingly he wonders the streets of a now deserted London shouting hello. There is a very despairing and intense scene in which he enters an abandoned church, it is here that he has his first encounter with what the survivors call "the infected." Quickly realizing that these are no normal human beings, Jim runs for his life. It is by shear luck that he comes across some properly prepared survivors. Taking him to their small refuge in the London underground they explain to him the current state of England.

"28 Days Later" makes many a wise choice when it comes to presenting its story. As I stated in my review of "Zombieland" it's extremely hard to make even a mildly compelling zombie movie. This is due simply to the fact this genre has been tread over more times than the Hollywood walk of fame. There is barely an original bone in the genre's body but somehow "28 Days Later" makes it seem like something completely fresh. For an example, most zombie movies the infection, curse, ect. Takes anywhere between a few days to a few weeks to take full effect. The disease in "28 Days Later" however, takes a maximum of twenty seconds to take full effect. This makes for a harsh, brutal, killing of any infected character and no stereotyped hiding that one is infected.

The second wise choice it makes is the design of its characters. Instead of having an array of characters pick off as it slowly advances it gives us a small group of four, making each death unwanted, and emotionally wrenching, and I mean that in a good way. In addition to this, some of the characters are very cynical of their situation. Take the female side-protagonist Selena for an example. She is, smart, hard headed, and a realist. She gives no chances for anyone lagging behind and often remarks that "living is as good as it gets." However, there is optimistic contrast to her bleak personality.

With a hard hitting beginning we expect to film to run downhill as soon as it gets far enough to have a contrived romance between Jim and Selena, and thank goodness "28 Days Later" isn't that stupid. Throughout the entire film Selena's relationship with Jim remains positively platonic, less can be said about Jim though. However, he rarely ever manifests his feelings, which is a good thing.

If there is a single major criticism I have for Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" it would be this. The very ending felt contrived. There is a archetype of optimism being shattered by harsh reality, but the end seems to contradict to whole narrative the film had been so carefully crafting. Disappointed with the natural ending I watched the alternate and found myself a world more satisfied. However, I was still able to remind myself that in the other ending, everyone was happy and fine and therefor it just felt like a bleak "what if" instead of a harsh reality.

Moon Review

There is a fine line between pure brilliance and exceedingly interesting. Moon flirts with this boundary so much that even now as write I'm not quite sure if it has crossed the line, or stopped short on the side of brilliance. Nevertheless, it is still once of the most under appreciated films of the year and a golden addition to this rich and fruitful year for science fiction. Not to mention, a breakthrough performance by Sam Rockwell and an incredible directorial debut by the son of David Bowie. I guess not all celebrity children are talentless hacks after all?

Like many great science fiction films, "Moon" opens to the infinitely expansive and seemingly silent vacuum of space. It then slowly makes it's way into the cramped and claustrophobic confines of a space station. Perhaps it was because I was watching this on a Saturday morning, a time in which I am never fully alert, that I found this somewhat cliched beginning to be so damn interesting. Or maybe it there is something about space that time and time again can hold our undivided interest. Maybe it's the mystery surrounding it. Like the ocean it seems to go on forever, only in this case it actually does. And as we all know, where there is infinite, shrouded room, there in turn lays infinite possibility. But again like many a good sci-fi psychological thrillers Moon does not try to fill outer space's mystery with it's ideas, rather it plays off the vacuum's noir. Starting us off with questions, and answering them to only a certain extent where we're satisfied enough to not ask any further, but still sit in wonderment and awe of the furtive ambiguity.

However, if we are so awed by the infinite possibility of space, why then are we always satisfied looking at through such a tiny and truly confined area like a space station? It is without a doubt the foil factor. Normally foils come in the form of a character contrasting another, like Toby did with Sweeney in Burton's stylize interpretation of "Sweeney Todd" or like Dustin Hoffman's character did with Steve Mcqueen's in the prison-break classic "Papillon." However, they can also be found in the case of environments. As for the case of "Moon," the tiny space station extenuates the infinite expanse surrounding it. Hearing all of this you may be quite surprised to learn that moon isn't about space exploration, but rather is a character study.

One may think the tone the film so furtively sets is too greatly contrasting to something as personal and detailed as a character study, but in this case it works. You see, there is a great deal a mystery regarding the central character Sam Bell (yes, that's Rockwell.) We first see him as a man teetering on the brink of sanity, equipped properly with the ugly Hawaiian T-shirt and the bushy beard that cries "I've been stranded on a tropical island with no human contact for over six months." He is however elated because he only has two weeks left of the solitary lifestyle of a lunar mine supervisor. But then, the scene cuts and we see him looking quite sane, with short hair and no facial to be found. Is it retrospective? Is it day before he's leaving? Doesn't seem like either, then what's happening? You don't know, and neither does he, but Sam Bell seems quite determined to get the answers.

If I had to choose between calling "Moon" an interesting sci-fi indie or an brilliant directorial debut, I would have to side with the latter. Ducan Jones had apparently written the part specifically for Sam Rockwell, which is why I presume it was acted out so well. Like this year's mega-blockbuster "Avatar" it's slight unoriginality withholds it from greatness. However, I couldn't imagine this film being made any better than it was.