Fight Smack in the Orphanage NOW!

Mostly for this blog I do some reviews or maybe throw in a few words for the games or movie industries but this time I wanted to bring attention to a little non-profit organization that has a pretty ingenious idea for getting attention to a movie. It'll be pretty hard for Greenpeace to compete with a name like Fight Smack in the Orphanage.



At first I thought it was a real cause, it's actually a pretty clever way to market the new blaxploitation spoof film Black Dynamite coming out later this month. It also makes a pretty clever statement of how easily it is to manipulate. The film is essentially a parody of the Blaxploitation genre's pretentiousness as being a sometimes over-analyzed, anti-hollywood school of filmmaking; the site is doing a lot of the same things with the pretentiousness of "fighting the power."

It even makes reference to a book published in the 70's called We Are A Gentle Angry People: The Rise of Orphan Smack Addiction in the Latter Half of the Twentieth Century with all sorts of misinformation and plagiarism. Part of what it's saying is not everyone's perfect, we just try the best we can in power or otherwise.

Review: Twilight

Staring Kristen Stewart & Robert Pattinson
Directed by Catherine Handwicke

What does a film critic do? What is our job and our faithful duty? Why should we be able to have a career or in most cases aspirations of a career in today's society? A good film critic should give every movie a fair chance in spite of word of mouth, other reviews, and at times our gut instinct. EVERY movie deserves a fair chance. The bad publicity the latest teen sensation Twilight is getting with the feeling it's single-handedly "destroying cinema" needs no introduction. I admit I hadn't seen it until recently and I thought it unfair to simply dismiss this movie without seeing it; being in film school I know how it feels to have someone ignorantly dismiss your work. As a professional film critic; I decided to take a plunge into what is being called the worst movie of 2008 and give it a fair chance.


Thanks MTV for the photo

The film is about Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), a high school student who has moved into the cloudiest small town in America to live with her father while her mother goes on a trip with her new step-father. While getting aquatinted with everyone in town, she meets Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a student with very strange mood swings and mannerisms. As she gets to try and know him, they she starts to realize that Ed's a vampire living in the town with her family. So the rest of the movie is about this romance and the forces trying to stop them.

Sigh...

Only one thing is good about this movie: Kristen Stewart. She isn't brilliant but she shows a lot of great promise in the years to come. While delivering her...dialogue...I did really buy her. She somehow added some good context to her character that made me almost fall for her. Don't believe me? I'd look up both Adventureland and Into the Wild. She miraculously carries this film and she's someone to keep an eye out for.

Well, I think I've delayed this long enough. That's the only praise I can give this movie and I've given it a fair shot. I can now safely say this: Twilight is awful. Really REALLY awful. Where do I begin?

First off: why can't people stop using voice-overs irresponsibly? In the beginning of the film, we're introduced to the Bella character wandering around Phoenix just trying to find something to do as her mother packs away to leave all while the voice-over explains what she's doing and where she's going. The visuals are doing a good job at showing what's going on, why do we need a voice-over to spoon-feed us this information? Part of cinema is showing us without telling us, that's what film can do and books cant do. Stop holding my hand Twilight, I can cross myself.

Second: These are indeed some of the stupidest townspeople in the history of cinema. How can no one guess about this vampires that don't eat, drink, hang-out in sunlight, and one can save a girl from a car accident by running across a parking lot in a split second? Not to mention, a lot of people in this town are just either melodramatically nice to everyone or horribly mean with no middle-ground: it's like the town has a moral choice system from Fallout 3 they have to abide by.

Third: Why does every vampire movie need a climactic battle? We're introduced to these three vampires who are after Bella and Edward in a pointless game of vampire baseball (or let's do cool stuff with budget CGI). We don't know who this guy is and why he's after Bella other than he just has the munchies bad. Thus we get an unmemorable showdown and a test of the two leads inconsistent love. Was a battle really necessary? We can't even see what happens to the other guy in the end, how did they kill him? Should we even care?

Forth: Robert Pattinson cannot act to save his life. I don't know whether to condemn him or give him funniest performance of the year. He's introduced by covering his mouth for an entire scene for...um...no reason I guess. His chemistry is painful to watch at times and laughable at others. Also, I know these guys are vampires but would it have killed the make-up team to give him a little color? It's like the vampires swim in bleach for five hours a day.

In all honesty, I really could go on and on about his movie with it's bad dialogue, cliched camera work, and really sloppy rules but I think I can sum it all up with one part. Edward takes Bella to a mountain area where, for whatever reason only has sunlight, and reveals what he looks like in the sun. The suspense was there as I waited to see what could possibly be bad for this vampire to let the sun shine in. I almost fell out of my chair in disbelief. For what they decided to do to the vampire genre with the sunlight rule is officially the most retarded thing I think anyone could ever conceive possible. When Edward stepped into the sun and revealed his face against the sunlight to show what horrors it is to be a vampire in the real world, his skin is covered in glitter. I'm dead serious, the movie is about shining, glittery vampires. I think it was about when Bella said "It's beautiful" to this image when the movie officially ended. I can understand they're going for prejudice for the scene but...sparkling vampires?


I don't know who did this, but it certainly does justice

I would almost make a case of the movie being aimed at a mostly female audience which is rare these days in the realms of Sci-Fi. It is refreshing to know that a new market has opened up for this genre of sci-fi chick flicks is opening up giving some much needed originality to Hollywood's endless line of sequels every summer but this movie just isn't the right start. Edward has both stalker, manipulating, and overall a jerk written all over him. Great message for the middle school girls; Yeesh.

I really can't talk about it anymore. This thing is terrible; a laughably bad waste of time. I still don't think it's unsalvageable, it's making a star of Kristen Stewart and she defiantly deserves it. It's certainly not the worst movie of 2008, I still think that covenant award goes to both The Happening and Resident Evil: Degeneration but it certainly makes a Bronze. Now that my obligation to giving Twilight a fair chance is done, I'm off to watch Army of Darkness before I decide to just get an office job to leave cinema to it's Count Twinkles.

Pearls before Swine...

Apparently I'm not the master writer I thought I was on good ol' ScrewAttack. The two reviews below you may not be Pulitzer prize worthy journalism but the only response I got from either of them was: what are those movies which I thought I wrote about and explained competently.

Why exactly is the gaming fan base of ScrewAttack so alienated by these movies? I can see Rachel Getting Married being slow and having some issues with it's pacing but I thought there would be some Bourne Identity backers for Matt Damon. Is it perhaps a metaphor for the nerd culture's feelings of alienation toward the rest of the world; a sense of loyalty to all sci-fi and action that keeps them away, or a long line of betrayal by smaller, independent work?

Or maybe it's just everyone's busy with school or ODST. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Review: Rachel Getting Married

Starring Anne Hathaway and Rosemarie DeWitt
Directed by Jonathan Demme

Speaking as a young, mid-twenty something male who still needs a camera and a solid editing job, I really can't give my experience to wedding videos. What I can imagine from these videos is a chronicle of two families becoming one in a day of complete bliss where all the troubles and headaches of the family seem to disappear. Unfortunately, this is the real world we live in and the daily stresses of life and family don't magically disappear the moment we cut the cake. When a wedding comes it, it's a time where a family is confronted with each others place and where they fit in it, if sadly sometimes at all. I know this can be a cynical point to take but in family, we have to deal with that every day. In last year's 2008 Oscar contender Rachel Getting Married, the film asks if a family can find forgiveness and communication over a horrible past and find a way for everyone to be happy. I'm not sure if the film ever gives us an answer to that question but it did give us one a pretty great film.



Rachel Getting Married is about Kym (Anne Hathaway), a woman just out of 10 years of rehab, who goes to her sister Rachel's (Rosemarie DeWitt) marriage. While the wedding is being planned for the weekend, Kym cant drive a car to her weekly drug addict meetings, has to stay at home with the family, and tries to reconnect with everyone in the house. Not to give too much away, she has a history that lead to a horrifying tragedy for the family and is lead to be the scapegoat. Now she has to come to terms with the family while battling for attention with her sister Rachel for the weekend.

I think the first thing that struck me about the film is the method of which it was shot. It's all done in what appears to be a documentary style with lots of handheld shots taken inside cars for the conversations and going around on the sidelines for the major scenes going on. There were a few awkward moments throughout the film in terms of camera angles and perspective until later on the movie breaks the forth wall and we see another cameraman with professional film equipment. I then realized what we're watching is a wedding video with everyone in the family part of it; Kym coming and gong from rehab, the tension they share, and the entire family dancing and celebrating serve the purpose of how it tries to hold the family together while still having all this tension and angst. While the characters in the film don't realize it, they are part of it. It's pretty effective cinematography that adds a really interesting context to the story.

The film is all about a lack of communication in a family I think everyone can relate to. I know people like Kym and Rachel who seem to fight for the families love and place. I know the parents who are trying to be the peace keepers of the family. Every family has a member who has made some mistakes in their life and the film is an examination of how a family deals with it, or at least tries to deal with it.

Part of the reason the film works as well as it does is that the direction Jonathan Demme took is to let all the actors approach each scene in a different way and allow a lot of improvisation for the different situations. Demme and his casting director Bernard Telsey obviously have a great eye for talent, everyone is fantastic in this movie. The smaller roles really fit in with the mode and add to the scenes but of course the real praise should be given to both Anne Hathaway and Rosemarie DeWitt for their just devastating performances. I've enjoyed Hathaway before with The Devil Wears Prada but this really is a career making role and DeWitt is a wonderful discovery for the years to come.



The only issue I have with the film is that it seems to have too much of an investment in the dancing scenes. I can see that music plays a character itself in the film; a constant reminder of Rachel's day competing with Kym, but it could have been cut down by a few minutes. I kept wanting to go back to the tension with Hathaway, DeWitt, and the family but we get so much partying throughout the film. I should also warn you that this can be a slow moving film at times and can alienate the audience but those scenes with the family really are very much worth it.

Other then that, this film is a great examination of mature sibling rivalry and a family dealing with the past. In the end, it does give hope that the family has a deeper understanding with one another but like the characters, we're never really certain of the fate these characters have. It leaves it to you to decide if the new family will find peace.

Review: The Informant!

Starring Matt Damon
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Now that the summer season is done with sequels, shoot-em-ups, and sequels to shoot-em-ups, it's finally time for the independent, edgier directors to step up to the plate with some new, original content (thank God). And who better to start the year with the man who does things as different as the overlooked Bubble and Che to the moneymakers like Out of Sight and Ocean's Eleven. Yes, Steven Soderbergh is keeping up his busy year with his latest comedy The Informant!



The film is inspired by the book with the same name minus the exclamation point and is about Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), a vice-president working for a Fortune 500 Corn manufacturing company. While examining the numbers for the companies farms, Mark discovers a virus contaminating the corn and tries to tell about it but the corporate heads wont listen. Upon discovering the corn is being contaminated by a Japanese company, the company decides to call the FBI to investigate. This is one of those movies that's hard to discuss because it would give away a lot so not to spoil anything, the story goes into conspiracies left and right.

Soderbergh is ultimately going for a stylized dark comedy in this film: it's all done with this perky, 60's score complete with woodstock style titles. The whole film looks like it's set in the time period but is actually set during the mid-90's. Part of the reason for it, not to give too much away, is that Whitacre seems to be someone who loves revolves all his philosophies off movies, magazines, and television. It works well to put is in the world of Whitacre who seems to glamorize his world as a spy movie with him being the hero of the moment; just like the title proclaims, he's excited to be here. The cinematography overall is really memorable without throwing it in our faces while having a purpose to the character.

The Informant! is a movie that reminds me of Fargo; its about a group of liars who exploit their customers who we're supposed to make fun of. It's a commentary of corruption that's funny but ultimately a sad look at our society; after you see it, you say to yourself "that was actually quite depressing."



I think my biggest issue I have with the movie is how it's told. The story and plot are both well executed and makes it's points about the examinations of the businesses and of the main character Whitacre; but it just feels like Whitacre himself isn't as engaging. I unfortunately think the problem is one thing: Matt Damon. He's certainly a great actor in other films and can be a fun character to watch but he just feels wrong for this material. Whitacre is a kind of arrogant doofus who thinks he's doing the right thing and basking in his own glory in his small little world, it could have made for great character study. There seems to be a lot to dig up with the character but Damon just doesn't seem to flesh out this character well enough; I really didn't buy him playing this kind of arrogant person.

It's really quite a shame too, The Informant! in it's core is a pretty great film but because Damon is so miscast, he cant really carry it all the way through. It's got some great craftsmanship and has an original, fun take on the corporate corruption genre but unfortunately collapses under it's own weight. It's certainly not a bad film, it's just a miscast film. Soderbergh so far has come out with three movies this year alone with The Girlfriend Experience and Che, one of my favorites of the year so far. Perhaps after all this work, he should take a vacation himself.

Upcoming Reviews

Here's a list of things I care enough to write about:

The Informant!
Starring Matt Damon
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Twilight
Starring Kristen Stewart & Robert Pattinson
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke

Other Possible Movie Reviews:

Rachael Getting Married
Army of Darkness
Tron

Review: Ponyo (Gake no ue no Ponyo)

Hayao Miyazaki. The man who has been called the Walt Disney of our time is back with another adventure of youth, fantasy, and jaw-dropping imagination. In an era that forgot the wonders of what a pen and pencil can do over a computer program, Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki have crafted a glorious reminder of not just a forgotten art, but a forgotten time in our lives when we were five years old and where there was a friendly monster waiting to soar you into your fondest childhood daydreams. The undisputed king of 2D animation is back to trade in his usual wings of flight for fins under the sea with his latest film Ponyo.



The movie tells the story of two very young children; Sosuke, (Frankie Jonas) a boy living on a cliff with his mother while his father sails a freighter around an ocean based town, and Ponyo, (Noah Lindsey Cyrus) a sort of twist of a goldfish with a human face and Goddess-like powers. She's the daughter both Gran Mamare (Cate Blanchett), a Goddess of the water, and of Fujimoto (Liam Neeson), a sort of Underwater Alchemist mixing potions to try and restore the ocean from, you guessed it, us foolish humans. When Ponyo manages to escape from Fujimoto's submarine and swims to shore, she grows a fondness for Sosuke and manages to get some human blood and turns human herself. Unfortunately being the daughter of a goddess and having a crush on Sosuke, the world's balance has been damaged to the point of Tsunamis and moon being out of balance. So it's up to the two to decide if our fishy friend should turn human for Sosuke or go back to the ocean to restore the world's balance.

Miyazaki has always been known for having a very high amount of imagination and it's certainly on display here. There really are dozens of images I took from the film such as Ponyo's school of fish, Fujimoto's submarine, the ocean goddess, and even the land itself. Any picture from the movie would make a wonderful screen-saver or portrait with the town, Ponyo and Sosuke, and a particularly spectacular scene involving the moon, the ocean, and the goddess. Trust me, it is certainly a sight to behold.

There were, however, a few distracting moments particularly with the audio. The score of the film draws a bit too much attention to itself. Some of the great scores are those that flow with the images giving a feeling that is invisible and helps create the mood but here, there were a few parts I felt it was competing with the images.

If there is also a common criticism I can give about Miyazaki's films, it's the Disney dubbing. Yes, I am an otaku and speaking as one along with a film geek, the subtitles are usually the better of the bunch. The criticism I have, however, is it tries to hold our hands to stuff us stupid americans wouldn't get. One example is when Fujimoto is gliding along a sea of dirt, we hear him give a comment about us filthy humans. All the trash and dirt around is more than enough to get your point across about it. It's Hayao Miyazaki, Disney; he knows how to get his visuals across.

I certainly didn't have a problem with the acting though, the timing for everyone is spot and and everyone is a strong fit for their roles. Liam Neeson's panicy authoritative tone was perfect for Fujimoto and I found young Noah Lindsey Cyrus as Ponyo increadibly charming in this version. I wouldn't mind giving Noah a young actor's award.


Who'da thought Ponyo could run like Sonic?

It's certainly no secret that Studo Ghibli is known for it's children-aimed entertainment but this movie is undoubtedly it's most child friendly movie they've made. It has the youngest heroes of the bunch, both 5 years old, the movie is rated G, and the song the end song is certainly something you'd hear in a Daycare center. In comparison to Miyazaki's other works while going through a fairy tale and having an enormous amount of depth and surreal imagination, this movie seems the least deep and much more fairy tale. It's much more simple having this world literally revolving around a princess and young boy's true love for one another.

It wasn't until I thought about it when I realize it's simple nature is by design for what the movie is trying to do. Ponyo is ultimately going to be compared to The Little Mermaid which I didn't realize until later is a pretty steryotypical flick. Why would Ariel give up being a princess for a human with blue eyes? I can imagine the adventure of it all, but it's just saying how this woman loses her independence for a dude. How this film compares to Ponyo is, well, Arial's a young woman while Ponyo's learning her first words. The movie's best quality is it's childish charm of seeing two five year olds playing marriage. It's the same warm feeling you would get if you saw your son give a flower to a girl in kindergarden. The simple design of the movie is a kind of celebration of childhood innocence and friendship through a wondrous fantasy inspired by sea-bearing myth.

To give you, faithful readers a final word, this is probably the least deep story of the Studio Ghibli library (kind of ironic being under the sea) but it's truly another that shines like a pearl; and no matter how old you are entering this movie, you leave with the joy of a five year old.