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.