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.