Sunday, October 18, 2009

Movie Review: Where the Wild Things Are.

This is not a kids film. This is not a film about a kid. This is a film about childhood. A film, made supremely well, and a film that captures the nostalgic wonder, freedom, growth, and emotions associated with childhood.

Needless to say, I loved Spike Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are:

Spike Jonze's body of work is mostly music videos and skater videos. Besides this, he has directed two other feature films, both for the brilliant writer Charlie Kaufman. Those films being: Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. Two films which are on my top favorites of all time. So yeah, I love Mr. Jonze. What he has done here, is take Maurice Sendak's beloved book, and turn it into an intense, fantastic, melancholic, wild, and nostalgic look at the intense emotions of a child and what it means to be immersed in the childhood experience.

Let's kiss Spike's ass a little more and talk about everything involved in his creative direction.
1. The detail in this film is such a treat for the eye. There's always something little to pick up in every shot, and he clearly has such a distinct vision that he does not want to be messed with.
2.On the other side, the scope and cinematography is just awe-inspiring. This land of where the wild things are is beautiful, dark, vast, and a great imaginative surrounding.
3. His ideas are so precise and creative that you can tell that he loves making films and putting all of his creative juice into them, something, I highly look up to.
4.Watching "makings of" on the film shows me the effort he puts into getting things right. The little things he did for Max Records, who plays Max, are so touching and inspiring and to such a point that they built a strong relationship which, if they hadn't, I don't think the movie would've succeeded.

One of the things that Jonze talked about when starting this piece, is that he wanted to have the wild things to be mock ups of wild human emotions. We see these in the different characters who embody emotions Max and the people around him have. Before the film kicks off with Max going to where the wild things are, we're given only about twenty minutes of exposition seeing what Max's life is like in reality, at home. And in these short minutes we see just glimpses of what his life is like, however these glimpses show everything we need to see in order to draw parallels between the wild world Max imagines and the real one. We see his relationship with his mother, with his older sister, with school, with the older kids on the block, and the way he sees the "boring" world, and all of this in under twenty minutes. Looking at the way the real world is shot is also beautiful, but beautiful in it's own way, and not fantastical as is the wild world is. And this is all due to, once again, Jonze's directing.

Most complaints I've heard about this film are that when we get to the land of where the wild things are, it looses it's story, and looses it's narrative. I think that, that was the point. When Max get's to this land, it's a full escapism into childhood. It's incoherent, crazy, wild, sad, confusing, strange, new, and exciting. And that's what childhood is to many of us, and that's what I think Spike Jonze recognized with this. That's why the movie is mostly the wild things interacting with each other and dealing with emotions new and old, and that's why it ends up being a great mediation on childhood feeling and life.

I can't say enough good about this film. Some of the things I haven't touched on, but are to be recognized are:
-the great voice work by the wild things
-the superb work by Max Records playing Max
-the effects and how they worked with their amount of money and made it fantastic
-the amazing soundtrack by The Yeah Yeah Yeah's lead singer Karen O
-the amazing costume department for creating the wild thing suits and making them work

See this film and think about when you were younger and what a simple, confusing, and fantastic time that was.

Martin.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Life: Kirk Cameron (ass from growing pains) and religious propagation NOW WITH %100 MORE CONTRADICTIONS!!

This post is not me spouting hate or ranting about religion. The fact of the matter is, is that I do not care what you believe in. Do what you believe to be right and true and whichever god or whichever faith or whichever inevitability you believe in will judge you in that way. This is simply to show the BULLSHIT that is Kirk Cameron and people like him. Not people who believe in his beliefs, people who share the same "theories" and their way of going about preaching them to the world.

I am not religious. I was not raised religious, and have never felt a divine prescence or calling in my life. I was raised in a much spiritual back round however, that being said, I do feel there is maybe some spiritual connection between beings and the world. However I believe that this connection is the powerful human interactions and connections we share, and that is what gives us this spiritual connection throughout us all. Now that that's out of the way, let me talk about freedom of religion.
In this country, it is a right to practice and believe in any religion you see fit. Now unfortunately, this right does not stop prejudice and hate towards different religious and ethnic groups. Even slight differences under the branch of Catholicism. Hate is most evidently shown towards various Muslim beliefs and peoples. I don't see why people can't accept the way others think and choose to act, but this is not what this post is about. This post is about the preaching propagation and contradictions of Kirk Cameron.
This guy:


Okay, well, he's grown up now but I'm sure you recognize him from the sitcom Growing Pains. I loved that show when I was a kid. Do I love Kirk Cameron? Not so much.

Cameron was once an atheist, converting to become a Christian evangelist in his late teens. He now spends his days trying (and failing) to disprove the theory of evolution, Darwin's origin of species, and atheist/agnostic beliefs. It is not his beliefs that bother me, it is the way he goes about preaching them and the lazy, contradictory information he blurts out.

Bill O'Reilly had Cameron on his show, O'Reilly probably inviting him because they share the same beliefs and well that's just easy. Cameron and O'Reilly both agree that us "scientists", us "atheists" say we have no idea of how we got here, how it all started, we have no idea.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BIG BANG THEORY IS. It is a THEORY but it is still an IDEA of how THIS all started. First there were chemicals and compounds and elements, WE KNOW THIS STUFF, GET YOUR SHIT RIGHT! IT'S YOUR SHIT!

Cameron says, and I quote, "nothing becoming something, blowing up and becoming an organized everything just doesn't fit logic with me." THAT'S NOT WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE. YOU'RE GOING ALONG WITH CREATIONISTS THEORY, SOMETHING COMING FROM NOTHING. YOU CAN'T TRY TO DISPROVE SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SOMETHING IS!!!! Evolution is the natural progression of adapting species coming from other species. He goes onto say that to prove evolution you have to be able to see transitional forms and we just don't have that......
...
..
.
YES WE DO!!!! WE CAN SEE PLAIN BEFORE OUR EYES THE TEMPORARY TRANSITIONAL ANIMAL FORMS IN THE FOSSIL RECORDS. WE HAVE MOCKED UP WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE SKIN AND MAKE UP OF THESE FORMS TO GIVE THEM SHAPE AND APPEARANCE BUT WE STILL HAVE THE FOSSILS TO PROVE TRANSITIONAL PROGRESSION.
You can literally see the bone transformation and adaptation in fossil records. You can literally see the crossover "in-betweens" of certain species.

When we celebrated the Origin of Species anniversery Cameron and a friend published a 50 page long introduction to the book, added it on, and gave it out at universities. Apparently, this introduction includes such facts as: the similarities and cross overs from Darwin to Hitler, Darwin's racism and discrimination towards woman, and various other "facts" about Darwin hating God. Darwin, did not hate God. He did not believe in the theory that there is an omniscient being controlling everything. Just like Cameron and O'Reilly do not believe in the big bang THEORY. Also, he says that we shouldn't agree with Darwin because of his racist antics and discrimination towards woman. Oh, but the thousands of years of discrimination of woman in the church and christian philosophy is okay. Oh, and the discrimination and hate towards homosexuals is okay. Oh, and starting a fucking war based on religious convictions and an ethnicity is okay (see the Crusades). Good job guys, you really know your facts.

Cameron's propaganda and contradictions run as thick as the dramatic story lines in Growing Pains (possibly thicker?). I'm only scratching the tip of the iceberg and only dealing with Cameron's O'Reilly appearance but there is evidence of his BULLSHIT in his daily life.

Proof read your fucking ideologies.


Martin.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Movie Review: The Invention of Lying.

Lying is a funny thing, and so is truth. I could say The Invention of Lying is the funniest film of the year. But alas, that would a lie. The new film by British comedian Ricky Gervais deals with a parallel universe in which no one has ever told a lie. Not only that, but humans are incapable of lying. So, everyone tells the truth all the time. Then one day, a pudgy loser with a snub nose (as he's described in pretty much ever scene in the movie...we get it) discovers the invention of lying. So now that everyone excepts everything as the truth, they will believe anything this pudgy loser with a snub nose says.

That sounds like an awesome, original premise. Unfortunately, the film is bland, dull, not very funny, and pretty depressing. That being said, the film does have some funny moments. However they are mere chuckles, and most of which are found in the trailer. Also, the premise has plot holes: why are people honest about only uncomfertable, mean, and awkward things? If everyone tells the truth, shouldn't everyone be used to it? Because Gervais's character seems to be put down by anything anyone says to him.

Ricky Gervais is known for his UK sitcoms The Office and Extras, both, which I highly enjoy. However the film is more like Extras and less like The Office which isn't really a good thing. Extras is great, don't get me wrong, and even though it is funny, it can be insanely depressing as well (see the Christmas special). It seems like Mr. Gervais has taken the: this-guy's-life-sucks and look-at-these-crappy-situations-good-grief scenarios out of Extras and has left out the hilarity.

This is Mr. Gervais's directorial debut and that fact is very evident when looking at the film. There's hardly any color, the camera shots are bland, and everyone seems to be wearing these gray/brown colors that just depress your movie experience. Sure, some of these faults are due to the cinematography and costume design (or lack there of) but as a director, Gervais should be able to control the look of his movie. This would work...if it wasn't a comedy...Unless, this was the look he wanted and in that case, he's probably not the best director.

I hate ragging on the guy, I love his comedy, and I love him, but this is just a weak movie. They had so much going for it: a great concept, great comedic thinkers behind it, and an AMAZING cast, yet none of it is used to its potential. When I saw AMAZING cast, it's no exaggeration. Besides Ricky, we have the great comedian Louis C.K (check out his standup and specials), Tina Fey, Jeffery Tambour, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe, Jonah Hill, and cameos from comedic actors and serious actors like Jason Batmen, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Edward Norton. WE HAVE A MOVIE WITH CAPOTE AND THE HULK and yet they're all under played.

Overall, I DID get chuckles out of the film. It's not horrible. But they just use depressing situations and try to make them funny...but they're just not...Maybe rent it, maybe you'll enjoy it. Maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe I'm too cynical...but probably not.

Martin.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Movie Reveiw: Titanic

In several posts I have stated my hate for the 2000 film Titanic. I have never really backed my points up so now, I'll take the time to do that.

James Cameron, in my eyes, is a fantastic director. Terminator, T-2, Aliens, and True Lies are some of the best action pictures I have ever seen. And then he did this: This bland, predictable, shit storm that is Titanic.

Titanic is the highest grossing movie...ever...IT BEAT THE DARK KNIGHT. FUCK. I saw that it was on TV the other night, and because I'm a masochist and I wanted to procrastinate, I decided to watch a little. And it amazed me when I was finished and saw SEVERAL Facebook status's from girls 15-17 saying things like, "Omg Titanic is my fav movie everrrr!" Or, "Leo Decaprio is so sexy! Lolz." Or, "Is watching my fav movie Titanic with my loverrr Leonardo!"

...

IT'S NOT A GOOD FILM. IT'S JUST NOT! This film is weak sauce. It had potential, but fell flat on many levels.

First off, the film is called Titanic. Nothing more, nothing less than Titanic. So, shouldn't it be about the terrible disaster that was the sinking Titanic? Oh we're gonna focus on two people who we don't care about and watch them run around the ship and giggle? Then, oh no! The ship sinks threatening their love?! Fuck that shit. If a movie is called TITANIC it should be about the TITANIC. Not about too bland characters we DO NOT care about. She's rich, he's poor blah blah blah they over come their financial differences blah blah he's artsy he draws her blah blah they prance around the boat blah blah her parents don't approve blah blah Celine Dion. The script SHOULD HAVE focused on some real stories of the Titanic: maybe about the mail men who drowned while trying to fulfill their duties of hauling heavy mail bags or the workers in the engine room who drowned trying to keep the ship going. Now we do get non-fictional characters but they're there mostly to fill the scenery and for Cameron to say, "Look, Look! Non-fiction that's interesting but were not going to focus on let's cut to Jack doing a jigg and Rose laughing! That's romantic, right?"
So Instead of interesting plot we focus on these pretty douchebags:


Now, I like both Kate Winslet and Leo Decaprio but they both do such a mediocre job in this.
There's a scene involving the contrivance of some guy we don't spend much time on, chaining Jack up to a pole for some reason we don't really care about. He leaves, and Rose enters to see her lover in peril.
This is their conversation.
-Jack!
-Rose!
-Jack!!
-Rose!
-You're chained Jack!
-Get me out of these chains Rose!
-Jack oh no!
-Get the axe Rose!
-Jack Jack Jack!
-Rose! Rose!
-Jack!
-Hit the chain with the axe Rose!
-Okay Jack! (she hits the chain with the axe, freeing Jack thus making this scene entirely pointless).

The film was hailed for its effects upon it's release. Uh, why? The effects do not hold up a bit to today's standards and that would be fine if it wasn't made in the 2000's. Jurassic Park came out in the 90s and it's effects kicks Titanic's ass.

This film has been kind of the poster child for romanticism but I can't see why. The lead's romance never feels real, never organic. The dialogue is pushed and the characters are forced.
When Jack is freezing in the water and says, "Never let go." and Rose says, "I won't!" And she let's go isn't romantic. It's stupid. Maybe if he told her to let go And she said, "Never." Talking about their love...or some shit...uh...football....And she let him drift away MAYBE that would work. But probably not.

Anyway, this was a spontaneous post and I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate from it but, it really did not deserve the attention, Oscars, nor the acclaim it got.

Weak Sauce.

Martin.