Tangled (2010)

Rating: [PG]

Director: Byron Howard

Producer: John Lasseter

Writer: Dan Fogelman

Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures

"Look at the detail on the water!" "Oh my gosh, the hair looks so realistic!" "The textures are breathtaking!" "Her eyes actually look irritated when she cries!" "All the movements are so smooth and realistic!" "Think Dreamworks knows how hopeless it is to fight back at this point?"

Disney likes to show off. Welcome to "Rapun--" I mean... "Tangled".

Set in the renaissance age, "Tangled" is a re-hashed version of the well known fairy-tale "Rapunzel", heavily based off the Brothers Grimm adaptation. Within a nameless land there rests a nameless kingdom that is run by, as expected, a nameless king and queen who are about to receive their first born child. The queen becomes dangerously ill during her pregnancy though and so the king has every man at his disposal search for the legendary golden flower whose powers are said to heal all illness and wounds. Little known to the king and queen, the flower had been discovered some time ago by a wicked old hag named Gothel (Donna Murphy), who has kept the flower hidden on the outskirts of the kingdom's forest since she discovered it. One evening Gothel carelessly leaves the flower unprotected and the royal guards happen to come upon its location, quickly unearthing it and hurrying back to the castle. A potion is made for the queen, given to her and the illness disappears, leaving the queen to give birth to a beautiful baby girl with golden hair; Rapunzel (Mandy Moore).

Gothel then proceeds to to kidnap the child because plot development requires that she know about the golden flower's powers transferring to a fetus. Which hit me as a little bit more than odd considering the audience is told its required to sing to the golden flower in order for its magical properties to be unleashed and whenever you wanted to summon its powers you had to sing to it again. Yet the queen was able to have the flower dropped into a bowl of water and ingested, somehow having the same affect. Then it happens to go through her blood stream and into her unborn child who grows up to have magical hair that has to be activated by....singing. My wife explained to me that Gothel was using the flower specifically to keep herself young over the course of hundreds of years and that digesting the flower could have a different affect. That would sit well with me except for the flower's abilities being activated via digestion. Maybe the king sang to her pregnant belly after she ate it, I don't know. This wasn't originally part of the Rapunzel stories to begin with and overall its an interesting exposition but feels...silly.

Anyway, the king and queen spend several years searching for their missing child but have no luck. After the search is abandoned the kingdom makes a ritual out of releasing thousands of lanterns into the sky on Rapunzel's birthday in hopes that it will guide her home. Though why they would give up and throw lanterns into the air is beyond me. Could have done both but okay. Flash forward in time and we're introduced to seventeen, going on eighteen, Rapunzel who is becoming sick of living in her hidden tower and wishes to be taken to the source of the "floating stars" that appear annually on her birthday because she feels as though they are connected to her. Gothel, being the cliche'd surrogate mother that she is, refuses and exclaims that she will be locked in the tower forever. A little bit before this though we are introduced to the walking cliche' known as Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi). He's just gotten finished stealing a plot device tiara from the palace and now has several handfuls of guards on his tail. This leads him to discovering Rapunzel's tower and how this was possible for a lone thief and not several years of searching by trained palace guards and possibly the entire kingdom......WHO KNOWS!

It's at this point that Rapunzel confronts Flynn with a skillet, locks him in a closet whilst he's unconscious, gets Gothel to leave for three days and proceeds to blackmail Flynn into taking her to see the floating lights. I won't divulge any further because its spoilers and I've also reached my "that was in the trailers" limit. Rapunzel's character is very well played and I was surprised at how well Moore did at projecting the innocence and playful curiosity onto the screen. She's got spunk but also has restraint considering her lack of contact with the outside world. I really liked that Disney was able to make a character who actually had multiple dimensions to their personality. She was not only naturally terrified of a world she'd never been into but also very zealous in achieving her goal. A very lovable character who's easy to relate to and who actually feels like a person that changes with their surroundings.

Beyond that we have a cast of cardboard cutouts. You've got one dimensions all over the map, from: badass-always-cunning-you'll-hate-me-now-but-love-me-later-butt-of-the-jokes-expert-thief Flynn to evil-pretends-to-be-nice-has-goals-of-her-own-and-they-are-so-dastardly-straight-out-of-Cinderella Gothel to a horse and a chameleon who both serve no purpose in the film other than to make silly faces and draw the attention of the camera whenever possible in order to put ease onto the abundance of lull moments in the film. That was the most disappointing aspect of the characters, actually. Typically I like silly sidekicks in Disney films but these two were abundantly worthless. They literally served no purpose except for cheap laughs. Heck, the chameleon is literally only given acknowledgment of his existence when needed as a inaudible laugh track. The film would have been a lot less cringe worthy if the sidekicks weren't present this time around.

Flynn was the other big disappointment. He was a one liner and it never let up. Even by the end of the film where the creators pulled the very over used "you're going to love me now because I learned so much off camera" stunt, he wasn't enjoyable. Not because he's made out to be a selfish womanizer at first and not because his new and improved self comes off as extremely lazy but because he was just.so.boring. Everything that came out of his mouth was a slapstick attempt at humor that grew to be very irritating. He's like a more mellowed out, human version of Mushu who has a persistent ego trip. Very hollow development all around that left me feeling like I didn't care about anything that happened to most of the characters.

The film is a musical, for those that didn't know. The ad campaigns definitely strayed away from giving this away to audiences. Which seems odd to me because the songs were one of the only parts of the film I truly enjoyed. So I'm sitting there for an hour and forty minutes and whenever a song finishes I think "How in the world did a script with such sloppy and overplayed storytelling get such a great Disney style score?" Well the credits answered that one for me; Alan Menken. He did all of the music and boy did it feel like Alan Menken. The songs felt very "return to form" Disney and even though they weren't the catchiest or most memorable songs in existence, they had a very fitting and magical feeling to them. Sort of like what Disney did with "Enchanted"; gave us songs that weren't going to be part of most children's nostalgic childhood but they complemented the film very well and made us happy. The score is the same deal, excellent. It fit the epic fairy tale mood and blended in to the film, loved it. Might actually get myself to obtain the soundtrack because, who doesn't love Alan Menken's work?

The CG. My goodness. This movie looked breathtakingly beautiful and for a while I could hardly believe Disney was the company to conceive this film (though a look at the credits shows that Pixar had a heavy hand in the production). The textures! THE TEXTURES! The water. The hair. The eyes! The eyes, when someone would cry you could actually see the water slowly develop, the pupils change shape and the blood vessels appear. Everything had such an explicit attention to detail that I swear if you muted the film and played certain sections in loops, you might soil yourself from the sheer beauty. Granted, not everything looked excellent but the environment blew my mind. The grass, the flowers, the trees, the clothes, the buildings, the sky, the lighting, the paper on the lanters and everything, everything looked phenomenal. I swear the only reason Disney released this film was to say "Look what we can do. Look forward to it." I have to say that kids will love this film and for anybody else who doesn't, at least you'll have the visuals to entrance you. That's what I did during the boring moments, I lost myself in the film's aura. The eye thing, that really impressed me. I know that probably sounds extremely silly but you'd have to see it. Oh man were my eyes on fire.

The ending was a disappointment as well. There was a chance for the film to redeem itself in terms of emotional development but instead we get a cop out that is sort of borrowed from the original tale of Rapunzel. It's just too irritating to handle because you feel emotionally robbed when the creators tug at your heart strings and then play the "just kidding, this is a kids movie, duh!" card. To be fair though, there are some good emotional moments in the film. There's a scene in the later half of the film that shows the king and queen mourning on the day of Rapunzel's birth. Nothing is said, not a word and yet it brought me to tears while I heard the people next to my wife and I say "That is so sad.". There's a lot of good moments between Rapunzel and Gothel, including a very Disney-Menken style song between the two called "Mother Knows Best" which was a lot of fun.

In the end the animation, the graphics and Rapunzel herself keep this movie from being somebody dragging you through the land of Dull by your teeth. Every single character beyond Rapunzel is a dull, overused cliche' and the animal sidekicks are silent, worthless, cheap laughs that only serve as a very obvious marketing ploy for the kids and fangirls/boys. The story itself has interesting moments but they all seem to be moments that are borrowed from the original story. Anything Disney added in on their own is lazy and that laziness leads to way too many moments of downtime or slow pacing that aren't unbearable, just no fun. As I said before, kids will love this movie and I suggest taking them. Its got the formula to appeal to so many people and I think that regardless of what I or anyone else says, to see it if you're interested. There's enough fun to get you through it even if you come out feeling the way I did. Beyond that though, I couldn't get myself to enjoy the film for what it is because what it is, -is- lackluster. I still love Disney though. I just hope they do better next time.

TRON: Legacy (2010)

Rating: [PG]

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Producer: Sean Bailey

Writer: Adam Horowitz

Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures

Something about the praise surrounding 1982's "TRON" has always bothered me; it all stems from the groundbreaking special effects. As I stated in my review of the film, a lot felt stale but it was still enjoyable. Overall though, the film was quite the bore and had an enticing plot with new age special effects but lackluster acting, directing and pacing to compliment those attributes. A major disappoint on my end because I was expecting something along the lines of "Blade Runner", "Minority Report", "The Fifth Element", or any other entertaining science fiction marvel. Regardless of my initial feelings surrounding the original, the announcement of a sequel got me really curious and once the trailers were released, quite excited. Since I watched "TRON" for the first time back in July I have been biting my nails for the sequel's release. Re-watching the trailers over and over again with child like anticipation. Bugging my wife daily about how entertaining I thought the film looked. Though a disheartening moment arose when I looked at Rotten Tomatoes a few days ago to see an extremely low rating for the film, now resting at 48%.

At the time, the fans hadn't weighed in over on IMDB and I wasn't about to spoil everything by browsing forums, so I had no other opinions to go by. Typically I don't pay attention to popular consensus but when I get this excited, I tend to read more than I should. So I did and what I found began to irritate me a little bit. All across the board were complaints of hollow acting, a terrible storyline, agonizing pacing and that the creators stuck too closely to "TRON's" original formula. This struck me as odd considering how much praise that film initially received and how its become a classic in the eyes of many people. One of those "you have to see it" films. Even the positive reviewers only seemed to give the sequel praise over its dazzling special effects but condemned everything else. It didn't make sense to me: "Why would they expect more now? If the only reason the original got so much hype was over the special effects, why did this one have such high expectations?" It's not like the last film was catered for a sequel and in retrospect, we didn't really -need- to see more of the world. On top of this I had people in my life consistently reminding of how awful the trailers looked or how the idea for a "TRON" sequel was too late and pointless or how nothing about it seemed appealing. I was literally being barraged by negativity whenever the topic arose. Regardless, I didn't back down and was still determined to watch with an open mind and that is what I did. The moment the lights in my theater went down I took everything I had heard or seen and put it as far away from my mind as possible.

"TRON: Legacy" is one of the best science fiction films I've ever seen.

"Legacy" begins in 1989 with a quick and effective exposition from the last film via Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) telling his seven year old son, Sam Flynn (older version played by Garrett Hedlund), a bedtime story. The story goes that ever since Kevin Flynn had taken charge of the technological giant Encom, he has been working with Tron (Bruce Boxleitner) and a new version of his self created digital counterpart CLU (Jeff Bridges) to rebuild The Grid into an inhabitable world for programs & users. We are then given the rest of the exposition via overlaying newscasts, reporting on the disappearance of Kevin Flynn, and how Encom was being turned over to somebody else. During this we also learn that Sam's mother had died several years prior. So obviously those lobbies for Cindy Morgan to make a return didn't work. Quickly the exposition turns over to a twenty-seven year old Sam Flynn speeding away from police officers on his product placement motorcycle. We being to learn that Sam doesn't agree with how Encom is charging outrageous amounts for a brand new operating system and how their business practices clash with his father's. At the same time his feeling of abandonment has caused him to exclude those in his life who used to be important, including his 'surrogate father' Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner). Though Sam's character is played off as a nearly cliche' disgruntled child who has been gifted with his father's genius, he's still a very likable character.

I think audiences have become too jaded when it comes to "cliches". When I look at a film, I do notice certain cliches but only if they are shoved down my throat throughout the film's entirety. In the example of Sam Flynn, we have a child whose mother is dead and who lost his father at seven years old after being promised so many extraordinary adventures. After being told he could one day visit The Grid with Kevin and witness miracles for himself. Having one parent die and the other disappear is pretty disturbing for a seven year old and I would find it hard to believe that anyone in such a situation would be mentally sound afterward. The other reason I stick up for Sam's character in the film is because he doesn't retain this badass, angry, disgruntled persona throughout the film. Once he enters The Grid after discovering his father's secret work station underneath the Flynn's Arcade, the magnitude of the situation hits him and causes a fairly quick transition from bratty adult to somebody who is trying to struggle for survival in an unknown world only mentioned in stories via his father. This isn't to say the character's writing is hold and Garrett Hedlund isn't the best actor in the world but I did find myself being interested in him. Particularly after he finally sees his father again (this happened in the trailers and in the first twenty minutes of the film, hardly spoilers). The reaction he has is so genuine and not over the top like audiences are used to. There's tears but no bawling and falling to the floor. It cause the handful of people in my theater to go completely silent and I found it surprisingly touching.

"Legacy" has a lot of these moments, in my opinion. Times where you know what's at stake and how much emotional gravity is behind the situation. Particularly in the backstory that takes place between the two films. Without going into spoilers I'll say that CLU is played off as a Hitler style dictator who has corrupted The Grid due to seeing Kevin as an imperfection, which is a very obvious reference to HAL 9000. During the film we get the entire backstory and reasoning behind CLU's betrayal and the fate of Tron, The Grid and its inhabitants. These moments are actually quite powerful and in a movie filled with women in skin tight outfits, shiny lights and nifty action sequences, it amazes me that the creators pulled them off in such a serious manner. There's a specific moment where CLU is trying to hunt down Kevin and fails to do so. After he realizes that Kevin slipped away there is a flashback of CLU's recreation. Kevin tells him that his purpose is to help him create the perfect system. It is seen that Kevin is obviously very excited and proud of his new creation by the very child like remark; "You and I, we're going to change the world forever man." as the two walk off. Its a very emotionally driven moment that serves even more powerful purpose later in the film. The actors did a very good job of keeping you on the same path as the story and making sure you were interested in what they were doing.

About a third into the film we are introduced to Quorra (Olivia Wilde), a special type of program who I can't go into much detail about due to spoilers. Her character is that of a typical protagonist; somebody who shows up in the nick of time and who is always willing to put herself in front of others. But there's a very deep sense of innocence that resonated from her mannerisms and body language that made me care for her character's development. There are a number of new characters who are introduced throughout the film, including an eccentric nightclub owner named Zeus (Martin Sheen) who does an excellent job having fun with his character. Bridges' reprisal as Kevin Flynn has also taken a bit of a new direction with the suggestion that all of Kevin's time on The Grid has turned him into somewhat of a master of zen, somebody who has pushed beyond himself to become one with the world he created and then lost. The new angle is a little more humorous than serious most of the time but its obviously not meant to be taken too seriously. Something that really stuck out in the film for me is that the characters all seemed important in one way or another. Not a lot of time was spent with characters who didn't advance the plot or have some sort of voice or purpose in the story.

The Grid is absolutely breathtaking to look at and like its 1982 brother, "Legacy" is a marvel of special effect technology. So many times I sat there trying to make out what was organic and what wasn't. Even more amazing is the revelation I came across prior to the showing; more of the movie is special effects than real people. Knowing this made the experience even more worthwhile because I could not believe almost everything was created with a computer. Which is ironic in itself. During the film's beginning exposition we learn that The Grid is being completely recreated by Kevin, Tron and CLU. This gave the creators a bit of an excuse to turn the world into whatever they want. I do love the world and feel like its one of the aspects "TRON" was missing. Everything felt a bit hollow and without purpose but in "Legacy" there's an entire world within this computer system that is thriving and expanding with its own rules and forms of entertainment. A lot more time is given to the games from the original and a new spin, where thousands of programs actually show up to watch, provided a very nice sense of importance. The disc battles and light cycle matches were upgraded in the best ways possible and really didn't disappoint. Wonderful choreography mixed with top notch CGI made them feel more epic and entertaining.

One of the biggest complaints I've come across is the film's pacing. I can honestly say I'm baffled by this statement, even when it came out of my wife's mouth. Not once was I bored in that theater and not once did I feel like the two hour running time was overdoing it. Maybe in a movie that gives us so much CGI there's a natural expectation for more action and less explanation through words. People want their stories explained in visuals, I understand that but the story in "Legacy" was so interesting to me. It brought in elements like evolution, abiogenesis, destruction of understanding, the human condition and the realization that perfection requires heavy sacrifice. The film may be rated PG and Disney may not have allowed the script to go into dark waters but trust me, the story is pretty heavy in some aspects and the creators did the best possible job that they could to convey this story to us without breaking the boundaries of Disney law. Something was happening at every moment, characters were providing exposition every minute and when nothing was happening story related? There was action. I felt like I was watching the next great science fiction film. The next big thing that kids would be talking about and what adults would be geeking over. It introduced me to a brand new world of characters, elements and stories. There's not much else I can say about it besides that I do not agree -at all- with the pacing being awful and I honestly cannot take anyone who says the film was ludicrously slow very seriously in that regard.

There are a few moments that make you stop and go "Wait, why?" or "How does that work". There's also a few important plot points that are quickly talked about and I feel like audiences might miss them and then wonder what is going on by the end of the film. A couple of cheesy moments are thrown in here and there. The cliches are there but what is surprising is both the cheesy moments and cliche developments aren't shoved in our faces. There's no forced romance or drawn out epic battles or "twists" and nothing over the top happens that shouldn't be over the top to begin with (such as action sequences). In a way this hurts the movie a little bit because it does make you start begging for more information and wishing to see a more expansive perspective on The Grid. This is another complaint that has been floating around: "Why did this happen?" "When did that happen?" "How does that work?". When did the meaning of science fiction turn into explaining everything and have it bound to the laws of reality? Everything needs to be explained word for word and obey all the laws of physics? Everything that takes place in the film is explained to the extent that it needs to be in order to create an engaging story. We're given a solid plot with an end goal and some interesting tidbits on the side. Exactly what any fiction movie should be. The film isn't trying to kid itself or take itself too seriously or be something it isn't.

The music is scored by Daft Punk and boy what a treat that was. I honestly don't like a lot of what they put out but this film is causing me to consider re-listening to their previous works to see if I missed anything really good. The score fit with the world and with the actions being made by the characters. Very electronic, trance and dance style, loved it. They also make a very amusing cameo appearance as .mp3 files.

As for how it holds up as a sequel, I kind of wish it wasn't a sequel. With a little added script this would have been an excellent start to a TRON trilogy or something of that nature. Making this the sequel to something that is now hailed as a classic is hurting the film in its own way. Even though I cannot fathom how people are "expecting" anything after seeing the original, I can understand why there is a want for something much greater and epic. Though I firmly believe the film delivered in this regard, a lot of people feel otherwise which has caused me to really scratch my head. Either way, the other film is pretty dead in my eyes after this. It gave way to a great idea but failed on so many other levels. "Legacy" is everything the original should of been but was incapable of pulling off due to restrictions.

One last thing; this film borrows heavily from other film such as 2001, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Blade Runner, respectively. There are certain instances where you won't be able to help but make the association between these films. It doesn't ruin the film at all, mind you. The homage is done in a way that you still feel like you're watching "TRON" and not a cheap rip off of a Lucas classic.

There's so much I like about this film that its difficult gathering all the words and expressions to convey my excitement. People may laugh at me for my claims but I do stand by them with confidence. You're thrust into worlds beyond your own imagining with complicated and beautiful creations that work in mind bending ways. A feeling of otherworld importance is put in front of you and there's a sensation of wanting to jump into the screen and immerse yourself in the adventure. "TRON: Legacy" is filled with special effects so breathtaking that for a few moments I forgot "Avatar" ever existed. But beyond the dolled up look of the film there -is- a great, emotional and heavy story there with the potential for another installment. Excellent directing, excellent cinematography, really good acting and overall, a thrilling adventure. In my top favorite science fiction films ever, hands down and I know that forever will I be in the minority on this one. Arrogantly though, I have to stand my ground in saying that the people who disliked this film so much must be being held back by nostalgia and the expectation of something more. Though I honestly cannot take the popular consensus seriously when films like "Transformers 2" and "Inception" perform as well as they did. Maybe mainstream audiences didn't get it. Glad I did and I sincerely hope you'll believe me when I say this film is worth your time.

Black Swan (2010)

Rating: [R]

(Director) Darren Aronofsky

(Writer) Mark Heyman

(Producer) Jon Avnet

(Distributor) Fox Searchlight Pictures

Darren Aronofsky is no stranger to the profound and undeniably queer aspects of the human psyche. Anybody who has seen his reincarnation themed tale of loss and redemption, "The Fountain", or the strung out "Requiem for a Dream", can easily make this claim. I seem to be personally drawn to these directors, the ones who come off as self described slaves of vague and pretentious expression. Maybe because I like to believe that their films mirror the intense, wayward outlooks they have on people and life itself. The idea fascinates me, to think that there are fellow humans out there who think so differently than the rest of us and on some level, may even be considered mentally unstable. Yet they walk amongst us and direct our Friday night movies. Kubrick, Lynch, Aronofsky, Miike, Trier...the list goes on. These people reach out their hands, take ours and ask us to plunge head first towards recognizing our own inner demons. "Black Swan" is about just that...somebody whose desire to achieve is fueled by their own self hatred. A combination that leads to personal destruction.

Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a young, timid, and emotionally withdrawn professional ballerina who lives with her mother Erica Sayers (Barbara Hershey) in New York City. From the very beginning it becomes apparent that Nina lives in an unstable environment. Due to a mother who seems to have made the lifelong attempt to live through her child, Nina has developed a ritual of self mutilation via the violent scratching of her skin during times of emotional turmoil and self doubt. Unfortunately stress rears its ugly head as the new ballet season rolls around and chief director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) visits a dancing practice to choose a replacement for prima ballerina Beth Maclntyre's (Winona Ryder) starring roll in his upcoming re imagining of "Swan Lake". Out twenty or so girls, Leroy chooses a small handful and Nina is lucky enough to be one of the chosen. Though immediately after, a bad audition where Leroy claims "you have shown me your white swan but I do not see a black swan anywhere in there", begins a never ending downward spiral of Nina's mental state.

Intense. That would be the easiest way to describe the 108 minute journey through the tortured mind of Nina Sayers. Aronofsky made damn sure that the audience would be experiencing every little unstable thought or complex emotion our self loathing main character was going through. An excellent job was done at capturing that intense feeling of needing to succeed even if it meant destroying yourself in the process. Somehow this came across so well that within the first twenty minutes I felt the sudden hiccuping of tears because I felt so pressured. Just this sensation of pressure, anxiety and the feeling that you're completely alone in the ordeal. Natalie Portman has never been one of my favorite actors and after her role in the Star Wars prequels I tried to avoid her atrocity as often as I could. In "Black Swan", her emotions looked so raw that its simply baffling to witness. You know how there's often times where an actor will cry in a film and you can't help but give a little smirk because it comes off as entirely forced? Well I swear Aronofsky was standing behind the camera, threatening to shoot her, because every emotionally weary moment seemed genuine. Every tear, every cry, every reaction to her delusions felt real. It was a lot to take in and sometimes really hard to endure.

The main focus of the film from the very beginning is Nina's internal development into the "black swan". Leroy consistently tries to push her into a darker direction via sexual temptation but nothing seems to be able to crack Nina's hard shell. This problem becomes easily worked around because very early into the movie we are introduced to Lily (Mila Kunis), a replacement dancer that has been flown in from San Fransisco. From the get go its fairly obvious that Lily is Nina's metaphorical "black swan". Nina is fragile, innocent, sheltered, anxious and extremely timid. Lily is vicious, spunky, rough and well....she's from San Fransisco. Aronofsky throws this extremely "subtle" hint at us by having Lily wear black throughout the entirety of the film and Nina wear.....well, what's the opposite of black? The two girls end up developing a sort of "let me take you on a trip to the wild side" relationship. Lily uses her carefree and live-life-however charm to lure Nina into some pretty wild and very new "situations". If you feel uncomfortable watching lesbian sex scenes, lots of crotch groping, and a persistent theme of orgasmic female lust...might want to pass on this film (or be less of a Nina).

About a third into the story, things take a turn for the losing-itself and the film seems to get lost for a little bit. Which is too bad because its during this time that Nina is making the haunting dive into black swan territory. So its kind of disheartening to see things get pretty silly. Luckily the climax is heart wrenching, depressing and robs you of all positive emotions. So enjoy those "bad acting/writing" laughs while they're available.

There's some pretty shoddy CGI every now and then that will either have you feeling squeamish due to the subject matter or slightly rolling your eyes because you saw how beautifully done the CGI was in "The Fountain" so you're going "The hell Darren?!" Honestly though, the bad effects only become an after thought because during the actual viewing you are far too busy getting emotionally beaten down with sorrow to even notice. There is one CGI'd scene at the end that left me breathless. Not because the effects were good but because it builds up to this giant explosion of emotion. Like heavily exasperating after finding out you aced the test that was getting you into a top notch university.

"Black Swan" is just excellent. The directing is actually pretty groundbreaking, in my opinion and I'm not trying to over-exaggerate. The entire feeling of the film portrays Nina's emotions. The whole thing. Not once do you ever get to breathe and that's because she never gets to breathe either. The cinematography is stunning. The soundtrack is gold to fans of classical ballet scores. The acting makes me want to slam my head into a wall because now I'll be curious as to the future career of both Portman and Kunis, actresses whom I've never liked in the past (that means the acting was superb). Everything was good except for those thirty minutes or so in the later half of the film but its easily excusable because the emotional ride was mind blowing.

Tron (1982)

(Director) Steven Lisberger

(Writer) Steven Lisberger

(Producer) Donald Kushner

(Distributor) Buena Vista

Six-hundred and two. This is how many registered votes I have accumulated on the Internet Movie Database. If you take away several handfuls of television shows while giving back roughly a hundred or more forgotten films, that number would likely rise to around seven-hundred. Some might consider the number to be astronomical, while others may not care or shrug it off as mediocre. Regardless of the amount of films I've seen there are inevitably a few which have passed me by and I've never gotten around to viewing. These are the films that, when brought up in conversation, invoke an astonished look upon the faces of my peers. The films that I never have a good enough reason for not seeing. "You haven't seen The Godfather?!" "How in the hell have you not seen Psycho?" ".....you've never seen Being John Malkovich....what's wrong with you?". "Casablanca", "Fight Club", "Citizen Kane" and "Schindler's List" fall into this category as well. Even though I have every desire to watch these films, they have managed to stay pretty low on my priority list over the years. Amongst these films is another nostalgic gem I've been avoiding for many years, simply due to lack of interest. An issue arose though when a few months ago I saw the trailer for the film's sequel. I gained immediate interest and became overwhelmed with giddiness but was brought back down to Earth when my wife asked a very important question: "How have you never seen Tron?!?!?!"

"Tron" takes place in a reality where computer programs have personalities of their own; each with a visual persona representing their creator or "User". Encom, a rapidly evolving computer security corporation, has developed a high-tech software named "Master Control Program" which has recently developed a mind of its own and has been dictating the computer world in hopes of dispelling the need for humans. In the real world a rivalry has been rekindled as Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), an ex-employee of Encom, tries to hack his way into the company's mainframe in order to steal priceless information; infuriating Flynn's once partner, now Encom Exec. CEO, Ed Dillinger (David Warner). After his malicious attempt is foiled by the MCP, Flynn teams up his ex-flame Lora (Cindy Morgan) and her new boyfriend Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner), both Encom employees, to make another attempt at his information retrieval by sneaking directly into Encom and hacking one of their computers. Flynn gets a little more than he bargained for though once the MCP sucks him into the computer world. Now he must fight his way through a sub-space landscape in order to survive.

In the beginning "Tron" is plagued with near awful direction, some empty character development and really shoddy pacing issues. Not that there isn't problems in the latter of the film, it's just that the beginning feels really awkward. The first twenty minutes play out like a vintage auctioneer; moving at what feels like a hundred miles per hour and only slowing down for important "Tron" universe lore before speeding back up again. It's this problem throughout the film that causes the emotional aspects to be laughable; due to the viewer not getting enough validity from the character's motives or feelings. Beyond Flynn, the rest of the cast feels rushed through the motions and aren't given enough time on screen to make any sense; causing them to feel like empty cliches. Regardless, the acting is a surprising saving grace and really helps fill in the gaping hole between the characters as real, breathing beings and ideas on paper. Once the film catches up with itself and is able to identify what's going on in the story, the pacing picks up and becomes a major improvement.

Once the segway to the rest of the film is out of the way things begin to pick up. The visuals are immerse, surreal and refreshingly unique. They give the film a face of its own and help to create a unique tone. If you were a fan of video games in the eighties and always wondered what it'd be like to step into a virtual world at the time, this film would probably be the closest you could get. A wonderful job was done at making the landscape complex, vivid and foreign, not resembling much of anything on Earth. The costumes made for the actors become a science fiction nerd's wet dream and I'm now damn well tempted to buy myself a "Tron" suit hoodie. Even in 2010 these computer generated affects are genuinely breath taking and a feast for your eyes. The entire world emits an enticing, glowing light that easily keeps the viewer sucked in.

From beginning to end there are some cliche' gags such as a cheesy side-kick, an over-the-top death, tourettes style verbal reactions and confusing decisions made by some of the characters. What's charming about this film is that even with the problems, its carried along by a very rich story that doesn't lie to itself or its audience. The plot is developed really well and there's always an end goal in sight, giving every moment some sort of purpose and validation. This setup creates a constant craving for more information, more progress in plot, more curiosity about the environment and the viewer becomes attached to the film regardless of its flaws. "Tron" is one of those movies that almost warrants a re-make because you get the sense that if it was produced in this day and age with more competent writers and more room for development, maybe it wouldn't have these blemishes at all. It's a film where you WANT everything to progress, you want it to be better and bigger and full of life and to only improve. A constant thirst for a unique world where humans can never embark and a never-ending sense of life risking adventure.

"Tron" is fun, strange, unique and a visual treat. It provokes you to think about how our world has become so dependent on computers, what would happen if computers no longer needed us? There's some deep religious and historical undertones that give the film a very adult feel. Once you're able to work around the awkward delivery, there's a fascinating world waiting for you on the other side. You might find yourself wishing it had been more but its very easy to really enjoy the story for what it is. Now pardon me while I go impatiently wait for "Tron: Legacy".

Mulholland Dr. (2001)

(Director) David Lynch

(Writer) David Lynch

(Producer) Pierre Edelman

(Distributor) Universal Pictures

Everybody has wallowed in the dreams of what they hope to be and in turn feared the nightmarish reminders of what they could become. We've all had conversations with ourselves and have sometimes wondered if who we're talking to is another side of our personality. The psychology of a human being is baffling to say the least. Like the seemingly limitless possibilities revolving around outer space, our minds are boundless and hold no total understanding. I personally feel like filmmakers don't take enough chances to explore the more personal oddities in life. David Lynch never seems to shy away from being the black sheep in Hollywood and following his own agenda, regardless of what the median says. For this he deserves enormous amounts of praise and for "Mulholland Dr." the title of genius.

A devastating car wreck leaves a young woman who later calls herself Rita (Laura Harring) amnesic. With the help of Betty Elms (Naomi Watts), an eccentric fresh face to Hollywood, CA, Rita hopes to learn about who she was. But as the mystery surrounding her identity leads them down a terrifying venture, amnesia becomes a far more comforting reality. On the side we have a story about Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux), a young director who just ran into some surreal complications involving the hiring of a lead actress to his upcoming film.

Walking away from a film like "Mulholland Dr." invokes a similar feeling to that of psychological trauma and leaves the viewer in a hypnagogic state. Every emotional sensation that could possibly exist in your sub conscious is suddenly thrust forward, deep into your psyche and alarmingly controlled like puppetry. From the very beginning of the film there's an intricate set up that lures the viewer into a feeling of hopeful affirmation and by the end credits we're left with so many open doors that only self interpretation can be a mental saving grace. It's this aspect alone that becomes the paramount turn off to a great majority of "Mulholland Dr." viewers and to others, its redemption. Multiple viewings of this film will most likely fail at providing the answers which will inevitably be sought but a great lesson to be affirmed here is that the effects of the journey far outweigh the outcome. It's very difficult trying to muster up words that could describe the success of the story because the only way to truly enjoy it is by being open to wild interpretation. Chances are you won't, I say this bluntly, know what in the hell just happened after an initial viewing. Depending on the type of person you are there might be some uncomfortable outcries involving foul language and frustration. With any luck you'll see the movie in the same light as myself and unexpectedly not give a damn about the final piece of the puzzle because you're so entranced by everything prior.

Regardless of the film's complicated nature, the story is intelligent and heavily touches down on an emotionally deep subject matter in a not so common fashion. Everyone can take something different from the experience in terms of relating to the character's dilemmas and heartbreak. There's always a different theme during each scene of the movie and it does an excellent job at sticking to that formula. Every character is involved, unique and brings different elements of surprise to the table.

The acting in "Mulholland Dr," leaves no room for negative remarks and should be registered into the list of films that stand as prime examples of sublime personifying. What's given to the viewer is a deep and realistic insight into characters that may very well be real, for all we know. Emotional embodiments who are based off strangers to us but acquaintances to David Lynch. Naomi Watts and Laura Harring create a whirlwind of perfect chemistry that it's near saddening when they aren't on screen. Deep down at the core of human understanding, these characters throw you onto a roller coaster of terror, lust, adventure, mystery and love. Every interaction is genuine and every reaction so jolting in the foreground that as a viewer you're constantly becoming involved. When the characters interact, your emotions interact and that sense of connection never stops. There's a scene in particular, a very down to earth and erotic sexual encounter, that redeemed all faith I had ever lost in Hollywood portraying intercourse in a realistic fashion. The pounding of my heart could be heard in my ears and there was a unique feeling engulfing me, like I had just walked in on two people in the middle of something real and private. You almost feel like an intruder in their world; the fly on the wall. This scene alone embodies everything beautiful and enticing within perfect film making.

The queer feeling of the film is carried forth by a supernatural orchestra of sound. As to be expected from Lynch's obsession with tapping into as many sense as possible, the music in "Mulholland Dr." is a recurrent reminder that the audience isn't experiencing something commonplace. Appreciation for the unusual ambiance comes gradually and before the end there's a sensation of your soul being seduced by a haunting symphony.

David Lynch directs and edits like no other filmmaker in history. As with "Twin Peaks" & "Eraserhead", "Mulholland Dr." looks and feels like a dream brought to life. There's always a slight haze amongst the film's physical appearance that leaves lingering sensation of surrealism, as if you're about to fall through the floor and into another dimension. A unique style of suspense and foreshadowing that literally creeps under your skin. It'd be rude to not commend Lynch on his use of lighting, angles, camera speeds, visual effects and colors. Everything from props to lighting to effects are used in "Mulholland Dr." to signify specific meanings and emotions. Red lamp shades, smoke machines and blue lights have never before been made so eerie. Not being made aware of the two and a half hour running time, I was shocked at how the film's pacing never slowed down. Even when the story seemed like it was taking a breather, the feeling of calmness was non-existent. It's the mixture of these two key elements in directing that threaded a film of arguable perfection.

"Mulholland Dr." is a spectacle to be watched with wide open eyes but a relaxed frame of mind. There's a lot to discover here and plenty to feel, the most important aspects of a film. It's a very rare treat gifted with the possibility of discovering emotions seldom used by your psyche. From my point of view, everything is solid and the perfect example of a masterpiece. Having been used as a topic of discussion within psychology courses due to the film's profound character study and considered one of the greatest achievements in cinematic history, you can't go wrong. So turn off the lights, close the curtains and partake in this dark world filled with betrayal, murder, passion, realization, guilt and loss. Even if the journey drives you a bit mad, it's well worth the ride.

Memento (2000)

(Director) Christopher Nolan

(Writer) Christopher Nolan

(Producer) Suzanne Todd

(Distributor) Summit Entertainment

"Memento" tells the story of Leonard (Guy Pearce), a middle aged man who became stricken with short-term memory loss after a violent encounter with a burglar who raped and murdered his wife. Using only photographs, notes and tattoos as reminders to what he's learned, Leonard hopes to find the burglar and attain revenge. With the help his bizarre friend Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) and beautiful new acquaintance Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss), Leonard feels as though he's on the last leg toward finding the culprit...or so he thinks.

"Memento"'s plot folds out like a complicated puzzle. Placing its pieces out on the table one at a time and working backwards, without a reference photo. A unique style of storytelling seldom seen in cinema today but one to be appreciated for its mind-bending sophistication. Nolan shows the audience that if you don't have all the answers and are forced to work backwards, the experience becomes an entertaining thrill ride. Something devilishly clever about this film is it lures the viewer into believing they've got everything figure out, right before pulling the rug out from underneath their feet. Nothing is what it seems in the fast paced development of the story. This endearing fact keeps you heavily attached to the film because with every new piece that's laid out, you're on the edge of your seat with curiosity, hoping to discover the answer. One interesting thing about "Memento", to me, is the script itself isn't anything to hold in high regard. The dialogue and even the story itself are pretty standard, both of which if told in any other fashion probably wouldn't reach this level of creativity. What makes this film so unique and interesting is completely at the mercy of how the story is told, directed and acted. Something about that appeals to me because I feel like it takes a lot more talent to have a standard story be more worthwhile than you expect.

One aspect I had a blast relishing in is the outstanding performance by Guy Pearce and how he brilliantly carried Leonard's character. Throughout the entire film you actually get to see the instances where Leonard loses his memory and you become completely convinced that Guy Pearce has the disease because he flawlessly interprets the character's expressions and confusion. The rest of the cast does an excellent job with what they're given and I found Joe Pantoliano to be really amusing as Teddy. His character comes off as a bit of a creep and you're never sure if he's lying or being honest; a constant surprise. A disappointing aspect is that I wasn't particularly fond of Carrie-Anne Moss' performance. It felt like she was playing the same role that's been handed to her from day one; edgy, jaded and always on the verge of whispering. The actual character of Natalie is essential to the story and truthfully, one of the best parts of the film. In fact, Natalie ends up being one of the biggest twists of the film. I feel as though a different actress would have made the performance feel more alive, instead of the same old routine.

Known for its disturbing twist ending, I have to say that for me the finale came off as lackluster. The answers are presented to you solidly but I think the story went a little too far and became unbelievable. It had an outlandish feel and I couldn't help but wonder if the characters in the end were the same characters I had just been walking with for the past hour. With the entire journey relying on sophistication and originality to keep the audience hooked, it felt like a cop out; an alternate ending or a tired afterthought.

Wonderful acting, top notch directing, great pacing and an inviting story formula easily makes "Memento" one of Nolan's best films in terms of storytelling. Nobody is who you think they are and everything you learn completely contradicts any previous conceptions you may have made moments before. It's a film that has worked its way into becoming a cinematic classic in the eyes of movie goers. So if you haven't gotten around to seeing it, you really should because I guarantee that even if you don't put it in your own personal list of classics, you'll still immensely enjoy it.

"Following" (1998)

(Director) Christopher Nolan

(Writer) Christopher Nolan

(Producer) Emma Thomas

(Distributor) Momentum Pictures

I've always been a sucker for stories involving heart pounding heists and life risking robberies. From "Bonnie & Clyde" to "Reservoir Dogs" and "Ocean's Eleven" they've been, what I consider, an important part to the evolution of stimulating cinematic experiences. Like a fine culinary dish, films involving complicated thievery tend to either be delicacies or failures. Something essential to their success is to provoke stimulation in the audience to the point of grinding teeth and sweaty palms. To make you feel like what's happening on your screen is not only plausible but pulled from personal experience. Not only do Christopher Nolan's films promote such illimitable thought and irresistible candy for the senses, they also set a standard for the rest of Hollywood; be innovative. Even before realizing the kind of acclaim that would be awaiting him, at the dawning of Nolan's career, a personal bar was set with a limited budget art film called "Following".

"Following" takes place in the gloomy city of London, England. Centering around the perspective of Danny (Jeremy Theobald), a young man who is in between jobs and looking for some excitement in his life by engaging in what he calls "shadowing people"; following strangers around the city to see where they go and what sort of lives they lead. By a stroke of luck Danny begins to follow around master thief Cobb (Alex Haw) and after an awkward encounter due to Danny's clumsy sneaking abilities, the two team up and engage in a fistful of heists. During these daring adventures, Danny encounters a beautiful young woman (Lucy Russell) who remains nameless but is referred to in the credits as "The Blonde".

Without any hesitation I can safely say this film's screenplay teeters on sheer brilliance. The entire story isn't told in chronological order but does a fantastic job at making sure you don't get lost. Every character is put into the story with a purpose and there's no useless introductions that leave you wondering. There are a few instances where you feel like Nolan was getting somewhat of a Tarantino complex. Causing a bit of character drivel to linger on for a little longer than needed. The amazing part about this is even during what some might deem the "slow parts" I still felt completely engaged in the storyline and what was happening with the characters. Their interactions feel human, familiar and natural but are creatively drizzled with robust, over-the-top dialogue. The plot is near flawless and so solid that you'd be hard pressed to be find ANY inconsistencies. There's a few pacing issues that can be chucked up to experimental editing though. This causes some of the scenes to feel short lived and slightly sporadic. Luckily there's enough time devoted to character development, twists, turns and surprises that I was too busy biting my nails to be very concerned.

You'd never guess that the cast and crew in this film weren't professionals or dispensed from Hollywood vending machines. Everybody was fresh and new to the scene but played their parts so proficiently that I would have never guessed as much. To my surprise, during some reading through the forums for "Following" I noticed several people complaining about the acting. I couldn't disagree more and felt like the actors brought each character's persona to life quite vividly. You're able to understand their personality traits, where they could be coming from and what sort of character creation Nolan was aiming for. Something I really enjoyed about the characters was even though they fit noir cliches there was still originality to their motives and behavior. I especially enjoyed the whimsical and arrogant dialogue given to Alex Haw's character. While you're instantly aware of his smug attitude, you can't help wondering what he's going to do or say next. At one point in the film his character dares you to question your preconceptions about the morality behind a burglar's motives.

The technical aspects might be lackluster to some individuals (including the use of black & white) but I insist that everybody remember that the film was created by a, at the time, unseasoned director. With a budget of only $6,000, "Following" is surprisingly beautiful and fits with the theme of the characters. When the story focuses entirely on Cobb and Danny, everything seems dismal, dirty and uninviting; the life of a thief. When we're around Lucy Russell's character there's a sense of elegance and majestic sexiness. Not everyone will feel this way, I think but my experience led me to believe that every scene was shot to enhance the characters and what was going on in the story.

"Following" is definitely worth watching and if you have Netflix or anything similar, consider moving this to the top of your queue. With a running time of only an hour and nine minutes, you find yourself surprised at how well the story progresses and how immersed you become. The film ends on a delightful twist that might leave you a bit shocked because I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly "see it coming". Even in the beginning Christopher Nolan showed audiences that he had the intelligence, ambition and prolific mindset to tell a tale worth remembering and passing on to future generations.

The Last Airbender (2010)

(Director) M. Night Shyamalan

(Writer) M. Night Shyamalan

(Producer) M. Night Shyamalan

(Distributor) Paramount Pictures

At this point in time, what could possibly be addressed about Mr. Shyamalan's filmography that hasn't already? This is a man who at one time had audiences uttering words such as "genius", "visionary" and "the next so-and-so". The same man who, in 1999, wrote one of the most memorable horror movies of all time, "The Sixth Sense"; spawning countless parodies, gaining mass critical acclaim and brisking its way into classic cinema history. He went on to create "Unbreakable" a movie that most people consider (including myself) to be one of the most underrated films in, not only Shyamalan's career, but in the history of film. After that came "Signs" and it was at this point that the fan base of Night's split into two; people who believed he could return to his creative roots and those who were too disappointed to keep hope. I can honestly say that every single movie created by this man since has been a breathing disaster. With "The Village", "Lady In The Water" and "The Happening" being the atrocities that they were, I found myself bewildered by my surprise at how insultingly awful "The Last Airbender" was.

Based on the critically acclaimed Nickelodeon cartoon "Avatar: The Last Airbender", "The Last Airbender" takes place in a war-torn world where people, with training, are capable of controlling the key elements of nature: Earth, Wind, Water and Fire. The story is centered around a young girl named Katara (Nicola Peltz) and her elder brother Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) who are both clan members of the Southern Water Tribe. While out hunting on the icy tundra their nation is built upon, they stumble upon a giant sphere of solid ice. After some tampering with the mysterious object it explodes and inside lays a young boy who calls himself Aang (Noah Ringer). It turns out that Aang is an important figure role in history known as the Avatar and has been asleep for over one-hundred years.

An average person would probably read one of the many premises for this film and safely assume that it's really interesting, unique and could be something intriguing. They couldn't be more right; nothing is wrong with the story that was cooked up for "The Last Airbender". The idea is full of thrilling adventure, whimsical humor and mature fantasy elements that all together mesh into a really good story. The problem? Every. Single. Other. Aspect.

Everything the characters in this film do, and I mean everything; every little action, interaction, choice and emotion serves no purpose and has no clarified justification. Throughout the one and a half hour running time I lost track of how many times I had to ask the questions: "Why is he doing that?" "When did they get there?" "Why are they here?" "Who is that?" "Are they important?" "Is this person supposed to be key to the story?" "How did they arrive so quickly?" "Why would he say that?" "Why would she do that?" "Who in the world would say that?" "How does that make sense?" "But didn't (insert name here) just say something completely different?" "I thought it was supposed to be like this?" "What happened to that character?" The inconsistencies with these character's actions are simply unfathomable. When they interact with one another it feels so forced that ,at times, you catch yourself noticing the actors making strange faces because not even they know how to convey what the script gave to them. When they conjure up an emotion there's no natural depth to it and you're left laughing inside or completely confused. Whenever they speak you're questioning what is being said and pointing out the contradictions in their personalities because even though there is literally NO character development in this film, the lack of consistency in what's given to you is atrociously obvious.

Usually it can be rightfully said that such terrible furthering in a character's persona is at the mercy of the screenplay. "The Last Airbender" seeks to defy such by giving the audience some of the most dull acting to be put forward in the past decade. From beginning to end, the actors cannot act and it's a struggle trying to find words that can emphasize my point. From facial expressions, to body movements, to delivery of dialogue, to messily choreographed action sequences, to what are supposed to be emotional moments, the acting leaves the viewer with nothing more than a migraine. For me, this immense flaw in the film became overwhelmingly infuriating to watch because I kept hoping the acting would improve so I could properly immerse myself in the experience. It never happened and I was left nearly tearing my hair out.

As time goes on I become more attached to the idea of there being a small group of elite film editors and that a law is put in place where it's mandatory to have this small group edit your film for you. Why? So that jumbled up garbage like "The Last Airbender" never sees the light of day. This entire movie feels like deleted scenes and something that would be on the "The Last Airbender: Director's Cut" edition of the DVD release. Certainly not on a finished product because I've seen far too many low budget art films with better editing to believe it was actually this bad by choice. The entire pace of the film is all over the map and results in what feels like a story that took place over a week that has three to four hour time skips every three to seven minutes. Not only does the storyline feel rushed but there's a sense of emptiness. You begin to feel as though nothing is being accomplished in the plot and there's no point in caring. Everything works like a robot in the sense that it's being done because it was told to be. No heart, no soul.

If there's anything positive to gain from this three month belated April Fools joke it's that the cinematography is at times, something to behold. I found myself spending more time wanting to look over the scenery of the movie and not have to literally watch it anymore. Something I found scratching my head over was that, at first, the CGI brings a lot of life to the magical elements of the film. Then halfway in it was like somebody murdered the production value and everything magical or beautiful looked fake, plastic and hollow. I'm not sure what happened there but mixed in with everything else this movie had to offer I felt like the second half lasted an eternity.

One final issue I had was the film took itself too seriously. Without giving the audience a single breath or moment to try and piece together this puzzle with no picture, the film tries far too hard to attain that feeling of an epic adventure. Everything feels overdone, overacted, over scored, over hyped and over dramatized to the point of emptiness.

In the end there's nothing redeeming enough to justify subjecting yourself to this kind of cinematic torture. The plot is incomprehensible, the dialogue is trash and the emotions are empty. Imagine, if you will, an hour and a half of a very tall, intimidating person standing over you. You're strapped to an extremely uncomfortable wooden chair that won't stop squeaking when you wiggle around. This very tall, intimidating person is poking you non-stop on the forehead with enough force to knock your head back but not give you whiplash. As he continues, two people stand next to you and, with megaphones to their mouths, scream in both your ears as loud as they can. Then, when their voices are worn out, they switch to two new people, with higher pitched voices, who proceed to finish the job. Throughout all of this your feet are sitting in a bucket of ice cold water, your eyebrows are being plucked out by a blind person and there's bamboo shoots under your fingernails. Again, imagine enduring this for an hour and a half. Congratulations, you just sat through "The Last Airbender".

Lars and The Real Girl (2007)

(Director) Craig Gillespie

(Writer) Nancy Oliver

(Producer) Sarah Aubrey

(Distributor) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

More often than not, whenever Hollywood dips into the realm of psychological illnesses, there tends to be two genres that hog the spotlight; thriller and comedy. In thriller films a mental illness or form of anxiety disorder is used as a motive for the lead antagonist's murders or evil deeds. While in the spectrum of comedy a mental deficiency is a comedic relief or a light-hearted joke; innocent humor to light the mood. Given we are treated to films such as "Rain Man" and "Forrest Gump" over the decades but even their handicapped protagonists push the limits of cliches and over the top drama. It's not often that we're given the chance to experience a main character who comes off as genuinely challenged and whose internal struggles come off as so depressingly real to the point that you actually feel like you're one of the surrounding people in their life being affected. "Lars and The Real Girl", while not perfect, is one of those films.

The story centers around Lars Lindstrom (Ryan Gosling), our troubled lead character who lives in a garage belonging to his brother Gus (Paul Shcneider) and pregnant sister-in-law Karin (Emily Mortimer). As the story progresses we learn that Lars and Gus' mother passed away in the middle of Lars' birth. Thus leaving his father alone to mourn and fall into a depression that frightened Gus to the point of selfishly leaving the house at an early age and never looking back. We come to piece together that this series of events involving guilty and abandonment are the cause of Lars' current mental state; a pool of self-esteem, extreme social anxiety, issues with attachment and extreme fear of reliance. Eventually (apparently) reaching a breaking point, Lars orders a Real Doll (link NSFW) and falls madly in love.

An absolutely thrilling risk this film takes is deviating from the expected and not losing credibility. It doesn't try too hard or use recycled gags to get you involved with the plot. Reading about the premise and seeing photographs from the film's production led me to believe that what I was going to watch would be humorous. Nothing made me think there would be any serious tones or heart wrenching moments. It comes off as something Michael Cera would star in; artistic comedy that might take itself too seriously but still raise some laughs. Even in the first ten minutes of the film you get this feeling that you're about to sit through an awkward comedy and nothing more. It surprised me when, after the first act, the entire film took on a completely different tone. You suddenly went from chuckles every minute to thought provoking, tear inducing moments with some light giggles here and there. The entire movie has a refreshing feel to it.

Throughout the film I noticed there were times where the plot felt a bit empty, rushed and unrealistic. There's a point in the storyline where we learn that Lars is extremely uncomfortable with physical human contact to the point that a simple grabbing of his arm causes an intense burning sensation throughout his body. This issue is emphasized greatly during a scene where Lars removes his coat and allows someone else to touch his arm for a few moments before getting extremely panicky. After that the subject is touched down on one more time before being forgotten entirely. Something that bothered me quite a bit is the film never provides a good transition into Lars' decision to buying the Real Doll. In the beginning of the film the character seems completely uninterested and slightly disgusted with the idea of owning one. Yet he suddenly buys one and the scene immediately beforehand provides no basis for this decision what-so-ever. And as for unrealism: throughout the entire film the residents of the town never truly object to the idea of someone dating a doll. I bought that the community accepted the idea and even tried to help but there were no struggles along the way. No road blocks, no confrontation, nothing. It felt way too catered to the main character and that sucked away a decent amount of emotional involvement.

Beyond those three factors the film is very enjoyable to watch and there are plenty of moments where your eyes will turn on some waterworks. The laughs are there and clever but for me, only in the form of giggles or chuckles, nothing laugh out loud worthy. To accompany the storyline is a great script and some fantastic acting. Ryan Gosling and Emily Mortimer put on a terrific performance in this film. You couldn't have asked for more convincing emotions, even amongst some of the wishy-washy plot development.

One last thing I want to touch down on is that this film supplies you with a great journey. The end isn't completely satisfying and the beginning goes by a little too fast but the middle is crisp, clean and extremely engaging. It's one of those films where you have to actually think about what you're watching in order to receive the best of the emotions. I don't know if it was the really good directing, wonderful screenplay or the acting but you feel as though you're watching the progression of a challenged individual's healing. Almost as though you're sitting there, in Lars' mind and feeling what he feels as he learns important lessons in the harsh reality of life.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

(Director) David Slade
(Writer) Melissa Rosenberg
(Producer) Wyck Godfrey
(Distributor) Summit Entertainment

When "Twilight" came out back in 2008 I became immensely curious in the franchise (even though I'd never read the books) due to the overwhelming hype from the fans. After the viewing I felt that the film was left very hollow and weighed down by the sub-standard acting, iffy directing, sloppy editing and overall adolescent melodrama. It felt incomplete but as though it wanted its creators to try harder and become a developed rendition of the books. Regardless, I saw the possibility of potential and found myself interested in seeing where the series would go in the future. "New Moon" was released last year and I had actually bubbled up a sense of excitement from watching the trailers. It came off as a new and improved version of the original with a much more interesting story; I couldn't have hit further from the mark if I tried. Completely immersed underneath terrible acting, absolutely sloppy editing, gut-wrenching writing, mediocre directing, god awful story development, empty CGI and a go-nowhere-at-all story only meant to tug at the heart strings of pre-teens, "New Moon" was instantly put on the list of worst films I had ever seen in my life. I had become completely turned off by the idea of seeing this franchise grow any further. Alas, my OCD personality refuses to let me start a film series and walk away from it so it was inevitable that I hesitantly saw "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse".

Almost immediately I realized that this film's atmosphere is a barricaded roundabout of re-hashed dialogue and one-track character directory. Nothing intellectual or invitingly new is dropped into this pot of love triangles, cardboard characters, and afterthought plot development. It's one of the largest problems with the film; nothing is unique. The seemingly "main story" is introduced slowly over the course of almost two hours through five to ten minute segments that feel like nothing more than meaningless bursts to keep people on their toes. These sporadic bursts of story come at you in between the same drivel we've heard in "New Moon". Bella (Kirsten Stewart) to Edward (Robert Pattinson) to Jacob (Taylor Lautner) back to Bella and Edward and Edward to Jacob and Jacob to Bella and Edward and Jacob and Bella to Edward. Continuously talking about fighting for their love and no sex before marriage and preparing for battle but really doing nothing and "She loves me but she's too afraid to admit it" and "She loves me more but I'm not sure about myself." It's this childlike, empty conversation between characters with similarly empty, childlike personalities that makes the entire movie feel like a giant fantasy advertisement; an enormous, over dramatic, pre-teen wet dream.

The characters are the second biggest issue with this film and even though in second place, it's by far the most irritating problem. I cannot recall the last time I cared for characters so little in a series of any sort. This movie has a running time of an hour and fifty-five minutes, minus the credits and not once do any of the characters deviate from the one-tone personalities that are painted for them. The same over the top emotions that cause the same loop-de-loop interactions that actually get so bad that you feel as though you're watching the same scene over and over and over and over again. It's cursed by a formula that should have been dropped after the first film because there was potential to create characters an audience would be interested in but that ship sailed and crashed; no survivors.

Alongside cookie cutter personalities and what tries to pass off as an in-depth story of revenge, love and redemption, is a near beautiful but one dimensional environment. I was really confused by this film's physical appearance and the tone it was attempting to create. The scenery is something to behold but is masked by too much use of blue tones, bloom lights and green washing. The werewolves have got some excellent CGI going for them and at first glance you wouldn't be able to guess that they aren't real. As the film progresses though, you begin to lose the feeling of reality with these creatures. It's almost as if they aren't there and there's no physical depth or strength to them. This weightlessness become very apparent during the overwhelmingly dull, cliche and emotionless fight scenes. Everything about the atmosphere contradicts itself and this became very frustrating to watch. I do have to give credit to the film makers for putting enough effort into making the environment look much more attractive than the previous installments.

Overall most of what made "New Moon" a total catastrophe has been worked on in "Eclipse" and it is indeed a better film than its predecessors. The problem with this analysis is you're comparing one personal experience with a train wreck to another; in the end it's still covered in smoke, fire, dismay and you're hoping to get out alive. The acting has improved but the delivery of almost the entirety of the film's dialogue is rubbish or cringe worthy. The editing has gotten better and the pacing feels more cinematic but the story itself completely veils this upgrade, making it nearly unnoticeable. Changing the directors was possibly the best choice made here because the film feels much more professional and mature; again though, we're talking train wrecks here. If you're a fan of the series thus far, I'm sure you'll enjoy this installment. If you're a fan of the books, maybe you will too. If you're anybody else I would highly suggest, at this point, steering clear of this series entirely and maybe picking up the books.

Eraserhead (1977)

(Director) David Lynch

(Writer) David Lynch

(Producer) David Lynch

(Distributor) Libra Films

Every so often I come across movies whose stories and pasts are shrouded in haunting mystique. Cinematic works of art that drag you into a world of terrifying surrealism; full of nightmares, twisted landscapes and damaged psychological structuring. They are films that some people conclude to be pretentious or "trying too hard" while others let such films creep into their subconscious and roll around in the mud for a while. Out of these disfigured gems, none has deeply terrified me, impressed me or blown my mind as much as David Lynch's cult masterpiece, "Eraserhead".

Not much can be said in the aspect of the film's storyline because in the end it's completely left up to each individuals interpretation. There are theories out there that make more sense than others but none are more true or more false than the next. If you want to, interpretations aside, put the story in a nutshell you could say it's about a deeply troubled man named Henry Spencer (Jack Nance) who unexpectedly has a premature child with his mentally unbalanced girlfriend, Mary X (Charlotte Stewart). But even then, you can't quite get it. It's hard to describe the film's story, while giving it any sort of justice, without mentioning spoilers; so I won't. Every step further into the destructive psychosis of the film seemingly leads us closer to answering the question, "Could this get any more bizarre?". So just know that what you're getting is, without a doubt, the strangest series of events in any movie ever to see the light of day; and it's worth divulging into every psychotic minute.

From beginning to end the film is hauntingly stunning when it comes to cinematography, lightning, direction, editing, sound, sets and backdrops. Playing out like a demented Dr. Seuss book or an adult-rated Tim Burton film, you're hard-pressed to look away for a single moment. Everything reeks of a student art film but with a sense of something deeper, something more elegant and disturbing. The camera angles, the isolated & nightmareish atmosphere, the seldom dialogue; all combined create a unique experience for your brain and your eyes. David Lynch did a great job of making you feel like you're there with the characters and you're living through every horrifying experience. Some interesting points I noticed are, for one, whenever a scene takes place indoors, you cannot see the outside world. Nothing but pitch black voids or walls of brick can be seen through the windows. Another point being that whenever characters interact with one another there is a very heavy sense of discomfort. Like all the love, security and care had been completely sucked out of the room only leaving space for terror. It was details like this throughout the entire film that showed me creative thought was put into this movie's appearance and presentation, I cannot help but adore that.

Something else that struck me as eerie was the use of sound and music. Apparently Lynch collaborated with a friend of his from the (A)merican (F)ilm (I)nstitute and worked for sixty-three non-stop days to create the film's score. The end result was an entire soundtrack that sounds like a carnival from hell. An excellent job was done at using these sounds to replicate that outlandish feeling that people get in their nightmares. Where voices feel like mere background static compared to the uneasy, hellish "bump in the night" noises. At times there are set sounds that can become a tad annoying but I only felt this once or twice throughout the film's entirety.

In the end this film is only defined by the experience of the individual and nobody can rightfully say otherwise. The direction, editing, and settings may be outstanding but the story allows you to gain personal interpretations and emotions, something that is rare in most film today. I highly suggest turning the lights off, closing the curtains and having a single sit down experience with this movie if only to feel what it has to offer. Rather you love it, like it, think it's pretentious, find it boring, are confused by it, or hate it, it's completely worth it.