On the surface, it seems to be a story of a man trying to keep his family together and more, while saving the world. However, if I were to re-view it, there were probably messages like that of Rob Ager's interpretation of E.T., where E.T. was Elliot's imaginary friend; in this film's case, it may be the lost mother on Mother's Day and supervillains ruining their tight knit family that are the imaginary invaders to a young Agnes built from her imagination or one of her sisters.' I do not have enough evidence for it yet, but it is definitely worth exploring.
Despicable Me 2 had the 60s themes straight on, from
the bright 2010 CGed 60s bright colors,
to the contemporarily connected family like that of Happy Days,
the Russians and their secret laboratories in James Bond,
the lucha films of the New Hollywood era,
the 60s gangsters.
Shouldn't the third film be finished off directed by Quentin Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez?
It is a film covered in homage and cinephilia.
The film has simpler ideas than Monsters University, but was able to execute it more properly. Sure, the dynamics of family and relationships are explored in more terms of Sweet Valley High rather than from Ingmar Bergman's Scenes From a Marriage. However, everybody gave their best effort. The action and pacing were fast (I felt I was watching a season of Mission Impossible mixed with the Brady Bunch), but it shows the possibility of the show as a franchise. There are parallels from when Gru gets Lily to date him and dump him when Margot is dated and dumped. At times, I was unsure where the film was going, albeit some times were unpredictable with the Mother's Day speech, the X-ray googles, and of course the supposed spy save the world plot, which is really a MacGuffin subplot (a 60s Hitchcock reference?) for the themes of contemporary 60s families, such as motherless children and parent-teenager relationship dramas. The entrance for the supervillain is a pure homage to the beginning of Return of the Jedi/The Wizard of Oz, as is the beginning of the film's homage to the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back.
The con about this simplicity however is simple minded most common denominator appeal: pop culture (Mexican and Asian) racism, awkwardness, lack of depth for the characters. (Some claimed that Star Trek had cartoon characters; I claim that this film has cartoon characters and Star Trek has no characters)
I also did not find the jokes funny. It did not pander to the Saban II Power Rangers crowd, but it did appeal to the 90s Nickelodeon kid, who watched Weinerville because it has the word weiner in it. (Seriously... FART GUNS that seem to be stolen right after the Muppets got FART FLOPS.)
P.S. that is a terrible Al Pacino impersonation and no wonder he did not want to be connected to the character.
The film had two directors and two writers and I give credit for the writers for developing such a great script, while at least one of the directors probably screwed up the seriousness of the script.
C'mon Miyazaki! Why settle when you can blow away?
Meanwhile, congrats to Universal for being #2.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Hate me. I like World War Z (film)
I am not a fan of gore.
I am a fan of action.
World War Z is almost a G rated type film, but it is very entertaining. It's sort of comical how the zombies combine into a tower in that commercial to the point where it knocks off a helicopter. At least it is not a sequel or prequel or reboot or panders to the lowest common denominator.
They could probably get another actress to play the daughter who yells "mai blank-ut!" so many times in the beginning.
It does not build characters, but Brad Pitt does what he can with the material, including his own stunts.
It sort of reminds me of an anime Contagion.
Sure, it would be nice to curse or do a crazy attack, but that is not what this film is about.
Sure, it sucks, but it is not like the commercial lied.
I am a fan of action.
World War Z is almost a G rated type film, but it is very entertaining. It's sort of comical how the zombies combine into a tower in that commercial to the point where it knocks off a helicopter. At least it is not a sequel or prequel or reboot or panders to the lowest common denominator.
They could probably get another actress to play the daughter who yells "mai blank-ut!" so many times in the beginning.
It does not build characters, but Brad Pitt does what he can with the material, including his own stunts.
It sort of reminds me of an anime Contagion.
Sure, it would be nice to curse or do a crazy attack, but that is not what this film is about.
Sure, it sucks, but it is not like the commercial lied.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Men In Black I> III> II
Really the only saving grace of Men In Black III is Josh Brolin's performance as Young Agent K (he's a 50 year old man playing a 29 year old man!) and Jemaine Clemente playing Boris "don't call him the Animal."
The film for the most part misses with its "jokes." Why bring up the race issues of the 60s unless you plan on making it a dark film? Instead of being in touch with society, it comes off as being out of touch and into stereotypes. It's barely mentioned after the dark time of the 60s and after Agent J stole a car to try and find Boris. The Chinese restaurant being a location where a Men In Black fight just does not seem to go anywhere. Agent J goes to drink chocolate milk for time displacement headaches. Ha. Ha.
The ending of the film just seems to be a parody of the first one rather than a bad knock on it like the second film was.
Why does Will Smith have a job when he is obviously not funny? Maybe he has never been funny and caters to the Bad Boys Michael Bay vision of film audiences. Especially when the film revolves around him and Tommy Lee Jones is not in the film!
There could have been a moment where J feels bad K is gone. However, instead they insert this random scene about J's watch that was never mentioned before.
Why did everything revert back to normal after
Also, there is a certain aspect of Agent morality when it comes to killing Boris instead of capturing him that is never explored.
Also, time devices seem to be under explored. Why doesn't everybody go to this guy to go back in time?
There are two main elements that make Men In Black work.
1) The interactions between Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. Will Smith sucks in this film.
2) The witty comical observations of culture. Even the Andy Warhol joke makes it seem that Men In Black is just out of touch with art, because it is trying to be entertainment.
Oh well. As I said before. I hate summer blockbusters, especially in 2013. I wish neuralizers were real so I could forget this franchise. Oh well. Hopefully, they can bring back that darker toned cartoon.
The film for the most part misses with its "jokes." Why bring up the race issues of the 60s unless you plan on making it a dark film? Instead of being in touch with society, it comes off as being out of touch and into stereotypes. It's barely mentioned after the dark time of the 60s and after Agent J stole a car to try and find Boris. The Chinese restaurant being a location where a Men In Black fight just does not seem to go anywhere. Agent J goes to drink chocolate milk for time displacement headaches. Ha. Ha.
The ending of the film just seems to be a parody of the first one rather than a bad knock on it like the second film was.
Why does Will Smith have a job when he is obviously not funny? Maybe he has never been funny and caters to the Bad Boys Michael Bay vision of film audiences. Especially when the film revolves around him and Tommy Lee Jones is not in the film!
There could have been a moment where J feels bad K is gone. However, instead they insert this random scene about J's watch that was never mentioned before.
Why did everything revert back to normal after
Also, there is a certain aspect of Agent morality when it comes to killing Boris instead of capturing him that is never explored.
Also, time devices seem to be under explored. Why doesn't everybody go to this guy to go back in time?
There are two main elements that make Men In Black work.
1) The interactions between Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. Will Smith sucks in this film.
2) The witty comical observations of culture. Even the Andy Warhol joke makes it seem that Men In Black is just out of touch with art, because it is trying to be entertainment.
Oh well. As I said before. I hate summer blockbusters, especially in 2013. I wish neuralizers were real so I could forget this franchise. Oh well. Hopefully, they can bring back that darker toned cartoon.
Monster University's lack of cohesion, disappoints when there are good ideas present
I really hate the Academy for not giving Toy Story 3 the Academy Award for Best Picture. WALL-E, Up, Toy Story 3 were sort of like this epic trilogy of Disney-Pixar films distributed in consecutive years that made them pretty much undisputed winners of the Pixar award, (outside of Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox.) Toy Story 3 was a good end to both trilogies. The end or a decade.
First, the good ideas:
The film immerses us in the world of Monsters University: In Monsters Inc, we were immersed into a small town idealized perception of the Corporation. Sure, their boss whose name is unpronounciable is a bit of a stereotypical Lex Luthorish corporate boss who just becomes evil for no reason
There is a universe of monster scaring explored better than in a Harry Potter film
(Possibly because of Disneyfication of animation science)
It got us into being a child looking for a dream job through education and college, being in between.
Instead of Boo, being Mike and Sully's Andy, Mike is the Andy, the child of the film growing up, especially inI really hate the Academy for not giving Toy Story 3 the Academy Award for Best Picture. WALL-E, Up, Toy Story 3 were sort of like this epic trilogy of Disney-Pixar films distributed in consecutive years that made them pretty much undisputed winners of the Pixar award, (outside of Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox.) Toy Story 3 was a good end to both trilogies. The end or a decade.
First, the good ideas:
The film immerses us in the world of Monsters University: In Monsters Inc, we were immersed into a small town idealized perception of the Corporation. Sure, their boss whose name is unpronounciable is a bit of a stereotypical Lex Luthorish corporate boss who just becomes evil for no reason
There is a universe of monster scarying explored better than in a Harry Potter film
(Possibly because of Disneyfication of animation science)
It got us into being a child looking for a dream job through education and college, being in between.
Instead of Boo, being Mike and Sully's Andy, Mike is the Andy, the child of the film growing up, especially in Toy Story 3.
Randall is given a very interesting background, not always being an antagonist.
Mike not being scary is a bit of a dark reality that could have been explored better.
That was a great ending, when Mike showed how he is able to scare adults opposed to children. Way better than the Oren Peli crap that we've been seeing forever.
The bad:
Some of the world is just outdated and not fun and still comes off as appeasing to bullies. Disney is not supposed to be a controversial type of film company. It lacked originality. It lacked intelligence. It lacked the dreams of the Disney world. Although it was not as terrible as my brother and I thought it was going to be, (my brother and I thought the film was about how Sully and Mike were going to get laid,) It seemed to be more like a Cars film than a Monsters Inc film at those points.
I understand you want to make it a little darker, but this is not a Disney film, where you can deal with political and religious misunderstandings. Maybe Sully does not want to listen in lectures, because the professors are underpaid and do not want to teach well or are teachers assistants doing it for free tuition.
What is wrong with being a salesperson? Some may a ton of money. Not everybody wants to or can be a sports star, but salesmanship is good old blue collar work.
Mike can obviously become a professors of Monsters University with his talent in book learning. He is obvious ph.D material.
The face-heel turn: Why did Sullivan turn good? Was it because he saw life through Mike's eyes? Why did Randall turn bad?
In other words, although this film does recognize that college is not everything for the coming of age child-adult, this film fails both as a Disney film and as a Palm'e D'orish film about the human condition.
Overall, this film explores very interesting ideas, but due to bad execution can only be recommended for a one time rental for hardcore Monsters Inc/Pixar fans.
Randall is given a very interesting background, not always being an antagonist.
Mike not being scary is a bit of a dark reality that could have been explored better.
That was a great ending, when Mike showed how he is able to scare adults opposed to children. Way better than the Oren Peli crap that we've been seeing forever.
The bad execution:
Some of the world is just outdated and not fun and still comes off as appeasing to bullies. Disney is not supposed to be a controversial type of film company. It lacked originality. It lacked intelligence. It lacked the dreams of the Disney world. Although it was not as terrible as my brother and I thought it was going to be, (my brother and I thought the film was about how Sully and Mike were going to get laid,) It seemed to be more like a Cars film than a Monsters Inc film at those points.
I understand you want to make it a little darker, but this is not a Disney film, where you can deal with political and religious misunderstandings. Maybe Sully does not want to listen in lectures, because the professors are underpaid and do not want to teach well or are teachers assistants doing it for free tuition.
What is wrong with being a salesperson? Some may a ton of money. Not everybody wants to or can be a sports star, but salesmanship is good old blue collar work.
Mike can obviously become a professor of Monsters University with his talent in book learning. He is obvious ph.D material.
The face-heel turn: Why did Sullivan turn good? Was it because he saw life through Mike's eyes? Why did Randall turn bad?
In other words, although this film does recognize that college is not everything for the coming of age child-adult, this film fails both as a Disney film and as a Palm'e D'orish film about the human condition.
Overall, this film explores very interesting ideas, but due to bad execution can only be recommended for a one time rental for hardcore Monsters Inc/Pixar fans.
First, the good ideas:
The film immerses us in the world of Monsters University: In Monsters Inc, we were immersed into a small town idealized perception of the Corporation. Sure, their boss whose name is unpronounciable is a bit of a stereotypical Lex Luthorish corporate boss who just becomes evil for no reason
There is a universe of monster scaring explored better than in a Harry Potter film
(Possibly because of Disneyfication of animation science)
- The fang sizes.
- The types of scares that Sully did not coach in Monsters Inc.
Scaring being a competition. Scaring being a sport, even more so than an employee of the month record.
It got us into being a child looking for a dream job through education and college, being in between.
Instead of Boo, being Mike and Sully's Andy, Mike is the Andy, the child of the film growing up, especially inI really hate the Academy for not giving Toy Story 3 the Academy Award for Best Picture. WALL-E, Up, Toy Story 3 were sort of like this epic trilogy of Disney-Pixar films distributed in consecutive years that made them pretty much undisputed winners of the Pixar award, (outside of Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox.) Toy Story 3 was a good end to both trilogies. The end or a decade.
First, the good ideas:
The film immerses us in the world of Monsters University: In Monsters Inc, we were immersed into a small town idealized perception of the Corporation. Sure, their boss whose name is unpronounciable is a bit of a stereotypical Lex Luthorish corporate boss who just becomes evil for no reason
There is a universe of monster scarying explored better than in a Harry Potter film
(Possibly because of Disneyfication of animation science)
- The fang sizes.
- The types of scares that Sully did not coach in Monsters Inc.
Scarying being a competition. Scarying being a sport, even more so than an employee of the month record.
It got us into being a child looking for a dream job through education and college, being in between.
Instead of Boo, being Mike and Sully's Andy, Mike is the Andy, the child of the film growing up, especially in Toy Story 3.
Randall is given a very interesting background, not always being an antagonist.
Mike not being scary is a bit of a dark reality that could have been explored better.
That was a great ending, when Mike showed how he is able to scare adults opposed to children. Way better than the Oren Peli crap that we've been seeing forever.
The bad:
Some of the world is just outdated and not fun and still comes off as appeasing to bullies. Disney is not supposed to be a controversial type of film company. It lacked originality. It lacked intelligence. It lacked the dreams of the Disney world. Although it was not as terrible as my brother and I thought it was going to be, (my brother and I thought the film was about how Sully and Mike were going to get laid,) It seemed to be more like a Cars film than a Monsters Inc film at those points.
I understand you want to make it a little darker, but this is not a Disney film, where you can deal with political and religious misunderstandings. Maybe Sully does not want to listen in lectures, because the professors are underpaid and do not want to teach well or are teachers assistants doing it for free tuition.
What is wrong with being a salesperson? Some may a ton of money. Not everybody wants to or can be a sports star, but salesmanship is good old blue collar work.
Mike can obviously become a professors of Monsters University with his talent in book learning. He is obvious ph.D material.
The face-heel turn: Why did Sullivan turn good? Was it because he saw life through Mike's eyes? Why did Randall turn bad?
In other words, although this film does recognize that college is not everything for the coming of age child-adult, this film fails both as a Disney film and as a Palm'e D'orish film about the human condition.
Overall, this film explores very interesting ideas, but due to bad execution can only be recommended for a one time rental for hardcore Monsters Inc/Pixar fans.
Randall is given a very interesting background, not always being an antagonist.
Mike not being scary is a bit of a dark reality that could have been explored better.
That was a great ending, when Mike showed how he is able to scare adults opposed to children. Way better than the Oren Peli crap that we've been seeing forever.
The bad execution:
Some of the world is just outdated and not fun and still comes off as appeasing to bullies. Disney is not supposed to be a controversial type of film company. It lacked originality. It lacked intelligence. It lacked the dreams of the Disney world. Although it was not as terrible as my brother and I thought it was going to be, (my brother and I thought the film was about how Sully and Mike were going to get laid,) It seemed to be more like a Cars film than a Monsters Inc film at those points.
I understand you want to make it a little darker, but this is not a Disney film, where you can deal with political and religious misunderstandings. Maybe Sully does not want to listen in lectures, because the professors are underpaid and do not want to teach well or are teachers assistants doing it for free tuition.
What is wrong with being a salesperson? Some may a ton of money. Not everybody wants to or can be a sports star, but salesmanship is good old blue collar work.
Mike can obviously become a professor of Monsters University with his talent in book learning. He is obvious ph.D material.
The face-heel turn: Why did Sullivan turn good? Was it because he saw life through Mike's eyes? Why did Randall turn bad?
In other words, although this film does recognize that college is not everything for the coming of age child-adult, this film fails both as a Disney film and as a Palm'e D'orish film about the human condition.
Overall, this film explores very interesting ideas, but due to bad execution can only be recommended for a one time rental for hardcore Monsters Inc/Pixar fans.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
There are good reasons why Affleck is Ben-atman
Recently, it has been announced that Academy Award winner Argo director Ben Affleck will be playing Batman in the Batman vs Superman: Man of Steel sequel. There has been such an uproar over this decision that we have like five articles per day on the subject as to what the fans think about this casting decision. I will be here to give you reasons why Ben Affleck as Batman is a good choice.
- Ben Affleck is a big movie star.
His films always get buzz, good or bad publicity outside of films named Gigli.
His relationships are always high profile. Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Lopez, Jennifer Garner. He has won Academy Awards for screenplay and producing. He has worked with Terrence Malick, Kevin Smith, Gus Van Sant in critically acclaimed films. In To The Wonder, he showed he can be a lover in an arthouse medium. In Jersey Girl, he showed, he can be a father. He has a Tom Hanks-ish everyman quality to him. He may not be seen as the best actor in the world, but he is definitely not the worst, and can attract good attention to the role.
- Ben Affleck has played a superhero before:
As mentioned before, he can play an everyman, before playing a Batman. He has played the so-so dark and campy side with DareDevil and the dark side with Hollywoodland. He showed he can play the characters of Frank Miller (who has spoken with Man of Steel director Zack Snyder) Frank Miller's antiheroes with traumatic pasts.
He has fought Colin Farrell as Bullseye, Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin, Jennifer Garner as Electra (in addition to dating her.) He knows stunts. From bank to airplane scenes, he has directed stunts, perfect for an airborne Batman and Superman combination during an air scene.
Not to mention his real life humanitarian efforts.
- I did not like Argo
There were certain aspects of the cinematography I enjoyed, such as the diorama scenes of the movie displayed on screen. I do not believe it should win the Academy Award as acting was not so interesting. It did not even generate the most box office that year, which for a blockbuster-like film being chosen for the Academy Award should have been chosen. (Seriously: every little hesitation trick, the keys not starting, the military shooting at the planes' wheels, etc..)
However, in a superhero film, all of that over-the-topness would be embraced as seen in the box offices of Man of Steel and the Avengers.
Finally, who cares who plays Batman? Are people actually expecting Robert De Niro, Al Pacino or Daniel Day-Lewis to portray Bruce Wayne? No. They probably do not even know who they are or even thought up them as a choice.
Since the Tim Burton era, everybody has been caring about who should play the villains in Batman films:
- The widespread never confirmed rumor of Johnny Depp as the Riddler during the pre-production of the Dark Knight Rises.
- Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman
- Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face
- Jack Nicholson, Mark Hamill, John Dimaggio and of course, Heath Ledger as the Joker.
Seriously, who actually knows outside of the staff when Ben Affleck will actually be wearing the suit compared to his stunt doubles? This is coming from a guy who enjoys Batman actors, but realizes the fickleness of crowds, such as Christian Bale voice "critics."
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Hayao Miyazaki is retiring after his next film, The Wind Rises
Hayao Miyazaki, a major force in modern anime is retiring following his new film, the Wind Rises.
I am honestly not the biggest fan of his work, but am a fan of what he inspired. Although his works are kid friendly, they also sure the dark side of human nature a la a Terrence Malick film:
The Wind Rises can be seen at the New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center.
I am honestly not the biggest fan of his work, but am a fan of what he inspired. Although his works are kid friendly, they also sure the dark side of human nature a la a Terrence Malick film:
- War: like in Nausicaa: Valley of the Wind, Princess Mononoke and a Thin Red Line
- Nature, depicting war, and acts of violence as well as thing such as consuming things. This is especially important in post modern times, when media is constantly telling us to eat, buy and drink, with reckless effects on nature. Japanese artists are so great at this type of storytelling, as seen in the similar more quiet black and white bleakness depicted in Kaneto Shindo's Naked Island.
The Wind Rises can be seen at the New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center.
Top 20 films having to do with computers
In homage to the international success of Pacific Rim and the release of Steve jobs Apple founder biography jobs you're the top 20 films dealing with computers
- 2001: A Space Odyssey
- Blade Runner
- World on a Wire
- The Matrix
- eXistenZ
- Ghost in the Shell
- Robocop
- AI
- The Terminator
- The Social Network
- Dr. Strangelove
- The Animatrix
- Tron
- Ironman
- Apollo 13
- You've Got Mail
- Superman III
- Transformers the Movie: 1986
- Star Trek First Contact
- The 13th Floor
Thursday, August 29, 2013
List of films I am looking forward to at the 51st New York Film Festival
New York Film Festival has always been exhausting. Even more so than Cannes, probably. Its selection of films is always vast. And the choices for the judges just to nominate have to be very tough.
This year's selection will be regretably even more tough
In alphabetical order:
About Time directed by Richard Curtis time travel comedy
Abuse of Weakness directed by Catherine Breillat
Alan Partridge starring Steve Coogan
All is Lost directed by JC Chandor: a wordless performance by the great Robert Redford
Bastards (Les Salauds) directed by Claire Denis
Blue is the Warmest Color (La Vie d'Adele) directed by Abdellatif Kechiche
Burning Bush (Honci Kei) directed by Agnieszka Holland
Child of God directed by James Franco, adapted from Cormac McCarthy's 1973 novel
Her directed by Spike Jonze
The Immigrant, a period tragedy in sepia toned 1920s with a Polish immigrant played by Marion Cotillard being controlled by Joaquin Phoenix
Inside Llewyn Davis directed by the Coen Brothers
The Invisible Woman directed by Ralph Fiennes about Charles Dickens
Jealousy (La Jalousie) directed by Phillippe Garrel an autobiographical tale about his son Louis and his fellow actress and co-star and lover Anna Mouglalis
The Last of the Unjust (Le Dernier de injustes) directed by Claude Lanzmann, the director of Shoah
Nebraska directed by Alexander Payne
Nobody's Daughter Haewon (Nugu-ui ttal-do anin Haewon) directed by Hong Sang-soo
Norte, the End of History (Norte, Hangganan ng Kasaysayan) directed by Lav Diaz, a careful rethinking of Crime and Punishment.
Only Lovers Left Alive directed by Jim Jarmusch
The Square (Tahrir) directed by Jehane Noujaim
Stray Dogs (Jiao You) directed by Tsai Ming-liang
A Touch of Sin (Tian Zhu Ding) directed b Jia Zhangke About oppressed citizens
When evening falls on Bucharest or Metabolism directed by Corneliu Proumboiu
The Wind Rises (Kaze Tachinu) directed by Hayao Miyazaki, about poetic humanity
This year's selection will be regretably even more tough
In alphabetical order:
About Time directed by Richard Curtis time travel comedy
Abuse of Weakness directed by Catherine Breillat
Alan Partridge starring Steve Coogan
All is Lost directed by JC Chandor: a wordless performance by the great Robert Redford
Bastards (Les Salauds) directed by Claire Denis
Blue is the Warmest Color (La Vie d'Adele) directed by Abdellatif Kechiche
Burning Bush (Honci Kei) directed by Agnieszka Holland
Child of God directed by James Franco, adapted from Cormac McCarthy's 1973 novel
Her directed by Spike Jonze
The Immigrant, a period tragedy in sepia toned 1920s with a Polish immigrant played by Marion Cotillard being controlled by Joaquin Phoenix
Inside Llewyn Davis directed by the Coen Brothers
The Invisible Woman directed by Ralph Fiennes about Charles Dickens
Jealousy (La Jalousie) directed by Phillippe Garrel an autobiographical tale about his son Louis and his fellow actress and co-star and lover Anna Mouglalis
The Last of the Unjust (Le Dernier de injustes) directed by Claude Lanzmann, the director of Shoah
Nebraska directed by Alexander Payne
Nobody's Daughter Haewon (Nugu-ui ttal-do anin Haewon) directed by Hong Sang-soo
Norte, the End of History (Norte, Hangganan ng Kasaysayan) directed by Lav Diaz, a careful rethinking of Crime and Punishment.
Only Lovers Left Alive directed by Jim Jarmusch
The Square (Tahrir) directed by Jehane Noujaim
Stray Dogs (Jiao You) directed by Tsai Ming-liang
A Touch of Sin (Tian Zhu Ding) directed b Jia Zhangke About oppressed citizens
When evening falls on Bucharest or Metabolism directed by Corneliu Proumboiu
The Wind Rises (Kaze Tachinu) directed by Hayao Miyazaki, about poetic humanity
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Spring Breakers: Misconceptions of character writing with philosophical realizations
My initial impression of Spring Breakers was that it did not have as much urban depth as Harmony Korine's scribed Kids. Then again, I do not know much of the concerns of suburban life like when critics connected with Perks of a Wallflower.
Like one of the anti-"heroine" protagonists of the film stated, "just pretend it’s a video game." Does that make it a film about the concerns of the video game violence debate? Or is it really subtly about the mental illness and guns debate? Something about that makes you think about the film a la Elephant and an art film depicting this kind of violence and negative side of society with guns can definitely spark the same amount of talk and controversy.
Emma Seligman of the Huffington Post described it as “Scarface meets Britney Spears.” Probably because they saw Scarface and heard Britney Spears music in the film. The film is not as much of a character fascination like with Scarface as it is a philosophical film.
A lot of times you get that white trashy MTV feeling watching the film. Stereotypes are to the exponent in this film. Obnoxious naked rude teenagers dismissing critical plot points that audiences can observe about "the Second Reconstruction and Caucasians inability to care" and World War II. It’s against type for Hudgens and Gomez, but it’s also a bit monotonous and uninteresting. However, that is the point. The monotony is supposed to mask the real personality of the characters a la Alex’s droogs or propaganda and brainwashing people into doing things. Heck, they even wear ski masks to show how monotonous they are in the final scene in converse to the first robbery scene where they actually hid their identity.
With the Selena Gomez character, unsubtly named Faith, as mentioned by Alien, her character is an example of the characters being misunderstood as stereotypes. She is the only brunette non-blonde. She goes to classes discussing religion and characters in the film do discuss the nihilistic aspect of the human spirit. Later on in the film, Alien describes and as his soulmates. Faith did not like being pushed around? Is that a literal sense concerning the concept opposed to the person?
James Franco's character does not have much depth, but he does his job right and is a leading candidate for Best Supporting Actor in my book. You cannot tell he is a movie star. You can barely recognize him and his stoner look during Pineapple Express and the Academy Awards oozing Scarface-ish charisma in his role. He deserves a nomination again. They probably could try for a female (ensemble) acting award as well.
The script does seem a little thin at times. And again, it is supposed to be. Not for entertainment reasons, but for art reasons since the characters do such horrible things, yet only care about stopping what they are doing because of their own selfishness- worrying about their own lives instead of the crime the criminals commit against other human beings, or again the issues of US crime since the Second Reconstruction as mentioned before. Faith not wanting to do things because of her attendance at evangelical church services is another example of a flawed reasoning that the characters use to justify their actions, about "freezing life" and "the human spirit."The quote, “I can’t believe how beautiful it is here" also shows a flaw, indicating how materialistic the characters are.
Overall, my initial impression of the film, maybe more so than Kids was flawed, but probably due to my own misunderstandings of the film. As I sit back and ponder the film again, I realize it is sort of like Scarface as it is about characters in current situations with college girls discussing overhyped and misguided premises for Spring Break to the point of robbing a store more crazed than a My Little Pony fanatic. The parallels between that and how Tony Montana wanted to make it rich in America after surviving Fidel Castro's rebellion are indirect, and inference is what made powerful films such as the filmography of Andrei Tarkovsky legendary. I still await how viral the film gets, but the film does look like it will become a cult classic.
Like one of the anti-"heroine" protagonists of the film stated, "just pretend it’s a video game." Does that make it a film about the concerns of the video game violence debate? Or is it really subtly about the mental illness and guns debate? Something about that makes you think about the film a la Elephant and an art film depicting this kind of violence and negative side of society with guns can definitely spark the same amount of talk and controversy.
Emma Seligman of the Huffington Post described it as “Scarface meets Britney Spears.” Probably because they saw Scarface and heard Britney Spears music in the film. The film is not as much of a character fascination like with Scarface as it is a philosophical film.
A lot of times you get that white trashy MTV feeling watching the film. Stereotypes are to the exponent in this film. Obnoxious naked rude teenagers dismissing critical plot points that audiences can observe about "the Second Reconstruction and Caucasians inability to care" and World War II. It’s against type for Hudgens and Gomez, but it’s also a bit monotonous and uninteresting. However, that is the point. The monotony is supposed to mask the real personality of the characters a la Alex’s droogs or propaganda and brainwashing people into doing things. Heck, they even wear ski masks to show how monotonous they are in the final scene in converse to the first robbery scene where they actually hid their identity.
With the Selena Gomez character, unsubtly named Faith, as mentioned by Alien, her character is an example of the characters being misunderstood as stereotypes. She is the only brunette non-blonde. She goes to classes discussing religion and characters in the film do discuss the nihilistic aspect of the human spirit. Later on in the film, Alien describes and as his soulmates. Faith did not like being pushed around? Is that a literal sense concerning the concept opposed to the person?
James Franco's character does not have much depth, but he does his job right and is a leading candidate for Best Supporting Actor in my book. You cannot tell he is a movie star. You can barely recognize him and his stoner look during Pineapple Express and the Academy Awards oozing Scarface-ish charisma in his role. He deserves a nomination again. They probably could try for a female (ensemble) acting award as well.
The script does seem a little thin at times. And again, it is supposed to be. Not for entertainment reasons, but for art reasons since the characters do such horrible things, yet only care about stopping what they are doing because of their own selfishness- worrying about their own lives instead of the crime the criminals commit against other human beings, or again the issues of US crime since the Second Reconstruction as mentioned before. Faith not wanting to do things because of her attendance at evangelical church services is another example of a flawed reasoning that the characters use to justify their actions, about "freezing life" and "the human spirit."The quote, “I can’t believe how beautiful it is here" also shows a flaw, indicating how materialistic the characters are.
Overall, my initial impression of the film, maybe more so than Kids was flawed, but probably due to my own misunderstandings of the film. As I sit back and ponder the film again, I realize it is sort of like Scarface as it is about characters in current situations with college girls discussing overhyped and misguided premises for Spring Break to the point of robbing a store more crazed than a My Little Pony fanatic. The parallels between that and how Tony Montana wanted to make it rich in America after surviving Fidel Castro's rebellion are indirect, and inference is what made powerful films such as the filmography of Andrei Tarkovsky legendary. I still await how viral the film gets, but the film does look like it will become a cult classic.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Best Jodie Foster roles
In homage to the release of Elysium, here are my top 9 favorite Jodie Foster roles.
- The Accused: her most crucial Oscar
- Silence of the Lambs: her most infamous Oscar
- Taxi Driver: her debuting Oscar
- Panic Room: a protective mother and avenger
- Anna and the King: a grand human in backwards circumstances
- Nell: An award role
- Bugsy Malone: An award role
- Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore: With Martin Scorsese
- Shadows and Fog: I liked the film more than other people did
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)