Always Next Year David Fincher (A Pep Talk)

the winner of this year's Academy Award for Best Director goes to Tom Hooper. Yay! No offense to Mr. Hooper. The King's Speech is a nice and well made film but my best director for 2010 was David Fincher.

Don't take it too hard Mr. Fincher. Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar and Kubrick only won one for special effects, not directing. Now, I am not saying that you are on par with Hitchcock or Kubrick but you have been making, forward, challenging and good films for over 10 years with little recognition from the Academy. You might say, who cares about the Oscars? The Oscars are, in my eyes a self gratifying well dressed fuck fest that doesn't promote good movies but promotes fashion and celebrity. Maybe we need that too or maybe not.

All I am saying is, don't be down on yourself Mr. Fincher. You should have been nominated for Seven but you weren't. You lost for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and maybe that was accurate. You lost again this year for The Social Network and that happens. In my eyes the best direction I saw in a film this year was by far your film.

All I am saying is... don't feel bad. Your time will come, you will be recognized. You are one of the premier directors of your time. Though I may not always enjoy your films, I cannot argue against your vision and your ability to consistently make better than average films. Remember, the Oscars aren't always about talent or skill, sometimes it's about popularity and money. That is sad but if you have ever examined the Oscars you'll realize it to be true.

Remember Mr. Fincher, there is always next year. Continue to do what you do. Keep working and keep making solid films for everyone, movie friends and movie lovers alike. Good form sir.

The Two Sentence Movie Review

So I am a little behind and I thought I would share some simple thoughts about some movies out there and being discussed.

Black Swan - A well acted film but unfortunately, the script and direction is unclear and unfocussed. I agree with a critic that said that said the best thing about the film might be the casting.

Social Network - I will choose my words carefully. The Social Network is a very well made movie.

Little Fockers - Bad. Another attempt to make money and squeeze unclever jokes about Focker this and Focker that.

Tron - Great visuals and decent action but the film had less plot that a cup of soup. Even a cameo from Daft Punk could not save this movie for me.

True Grit - Well acted but the film doesn't build upon or reconstruct the classic western. In the end, the movie says little and does less.

The Tourist - I never saw it but while discussing the film with a friend who had seen the picture, I was able to predict major plot points and the ending. Sometimes the best movies are the ones you don't waste your time on.

The King's Speech - The film is more funny than I thought it would be. A well made movie that showcases great acting, a simple study on the crippling effect of fear and the satisfaction of overcoming that fear.

Movie Reviews and Movie Ratings

Many times during this part of the year I read reviews that overrate pretty much every movie. "the best movie of the year," "you've never laughed harder," "the most explosive action sequences your eyes can handle." blah blah blah, something something, dumb diddly do. This movie is 5 stars, that movie is 5 stars! That movie is a perfect 10. or two thumbs up.

Let me fill you in on something. Ratings systems suck. I am not bashing top 10s, top 5 movies of the year, or best of the year lists. I have a problem with the overly simple ratings system that many critics use to review their films. This movie is so many points out of 10, five, four, three, two, one or nil stars, or thumbs up or thumbs down is just simply a bad way to rate movies.

Thumbs up or down doesn't mean anything. How many times have you seen Roger Ebert give thumbs up to a film that he found not bad. The "oh, if you are in the mood or into that sort of thing, go see it," kind of attitude. It is like saying, if you are hungry, sure, eat something you may not like but at least you won't be hungry anymore.

the problem with the star rating system or a score based out of 10 is that you have no reference for how the film is being rated. For example lets say some new movie is given a 10 out of 10 rating and the critic had given films like The Seven Samurai, or The Godfather, or any other classic a 10... does that mean that this new film is an equivalent to classic films that inspired a 10 rating? Maybe I am over exaggerating. Maybe it's perfectly fine to rate a film 10/10 and give it the same rating as a classic that has stood the test of time. Maybe I just feel that if you give a film or anything your highest rating it not only has to be good, great, amazing but something more, something special that passes the test of time.

The stars system has the same problems as the 10/10 system. Are five star hits equally comparable to the five star classic of yesterday? I think not. The problem I have with the star rating system is that provides no depth but perfect accompaniment for movie posters, commercials and nothing else. What is deserving of a star? Maybe it's me being a glass half full of kind of guy but 3 stars out of 5 still seems like a good rating. If 3 stars is good, 4 stars is excellent and 5 stars is classic, why does 2 stars mean decent and 1 star is just bad? That system of rating seems to be off balance to me. The problem becomes worse when there are only 4 stars. I do not know if the half star is an improvement either.

Another note on the star systems. If you are like me and occasionally do the absent minded thing of trying to read Peter Travers for Rolling Stone and find it confusing how he completely rips a movie a new one and what I mean by "new one" is a new asshole and still gives the film 2 or 3 stars. I don't understand this. not at all.

In the end it is just another short cut. It's a lot like picking up the daily horoscope and realizing that every day you read the horoscope it's never anything worse than a 3 star day. How often do you see those 2 star, 1 star days? Maybe if you did you'd stop reading that horoscope? Maybe if reviewers gave worse reviews knowing that people only look at the stars then people will see less movies. I am not talking conspiracy.

a good critic is a path towards enlightenment. You don't always have to agree with the critic but a good critic can educate and create a path to a world of cinema you may have never imagined. There is a single critic I trust that employs any single type of rating system. Shame on you critics.

Faster - Review

Faster is the new film starring Dwayne Johnson also known to many as the Rock. It is a philosophical analysis of murder dressed up as an action drama. The verdict is - It's actually half way decent.

Dwayne Johnson is a recently released felon who goes on a killing spree to avenge those who murdered his brother and almost killed him. With little planning and a lot of action Johnson goes after and kills the men responsible for his brother's death. Billy Bob Thornton and Carla Gugino are the cops trying to stop him and Oliver Jackson Cohen is the hired gun paid to stop Johnson. The man who hires Cohen is the one who set up the the original murder that started it all.

The film plot flows like your general run of the mill revenge saga. Man wants revenge for the murder of his brother, cops try to solve the crime and in doing so fill in the blanks for the plot, while the "bad guys" try to stop our "hero" before they get there comeuppance. It's also nice (at least to my recollection) that word or notion of "justice" is never used to describe Johnson's attempt at revenge.

There is action, some fighting, some gun play and a car chase or two but the film uses all of this to explore the philosophy of murder. Johnson is not a violent man but was driven to crime by circumstance and driven to murder by the consequences of such violence. He only takes out his violence on those who had done him wrong. Even Cohen who is sent to kill Johnson is not considered a threat or worthy of the violence inflicted upon his (Johnson) brother's murders. An interesting twist to the film is Cohen's killer. He is a self made millionaire who through hard work and surgery overcame polio or some other medical illness. He is an assassin for hire at the cost of $1. He does it for the thrill. Cohen character is an interesting one as Johnson's foil. His motives are not as passionate as revenge but are as selfish as thrill seeking.

The action is a bit slow at times. The murders come quick and the build up of whether or not Johnson's Driver character will kill his enemies or those who get in his way creates a fair amount of tension. The growth of the character occurs as he meets his victims. The man who sliced his brother's throat has been waiting for the time he would come face to face with past. During his attack he asks Johnson to call his son and ask for forgiveness. Johnson calls his victim's son and passes along the message. Eventually the two will talk again with the son declaring to Johnson that he will face a similar fate he inflicted upon his father. As Johnson confesses his crime to the son he warns him of the dark road he will travel if he pursues his own course of vengeance. Driver (Johnson) also chooses not to kill one of his targets because of how after the crime he changed the course of his life.

The film also takes a fun if not loose exploration of American vs. European violence. Johnson's Driver character wears a t-shirt and jeans, drives a classic American muscle car, uses a no muss no fuss 6 shooter and is tattooed and scarred. Cohen's Killer is sleek, wealthy, could easily be confused for a Banana Republic model. A witness at a shooting one word to describe the second shooter is, "beautiful." Killer drives a fancy European sports car which is also made to look feminine.

It is also interesting to see the role women play in the film. There are only a few woman that have any relevance to the plot. Driver's girlfriend who not only lost her man when he went to jail but aborted their child after his incarceration. Driver's mother who could not protect a young Driver from his adopted father's beatings. A snitch who cleans up her act only to deny a junkie cop his high to satisfy her own urges. A by the book female cop that breaks one rule to let a crooked cop get benefits for his family after his death. And finally, Killer's girlfriend who is just as bad ass as Killer but becomes soft and homely after their marriage. It might be nothing that all of these female characters are not overly positive characters because the film lacks positive characters in general. The one positive character is one of Driver's targets. A former criminal and junkie who never wanted to kill Driver or his brother but during his stint in prison found religion, became a pastor and adopted lost boys in an attempt to shield them from the mistakes he had made in life.

Faster is more than meets the eye. It really isn't an action film but an examination on murder; the effects of those who not only are the victim of the crime but those who commit and witness such an egregious offense. Dwayne Johnson is solid as Driver. His size and athleticism do much of the work but he is, at times surprisingly convincing during certain tender moments in the film. Billy Bob Thornton and the rest of the supporting cast is reliable. The film doesn't rely on flash or special effects which is a refreshing thing this day and age in Hollywood cinema. The script might spread itself too thin and the ending is very predictable. In the end, Faster is a film with tremendous upside and the harshest criticism for it might be that it came up short on depth and the actual amount of action. Not bad at all.

the Virginity Hit - Review

The Virginity Hit is a movie about four friend who vow to take a hit out of a bong after losing their virginity. Three of the four lose their virginity and those three friends try to help out the fourth with not funny moments to ensue. Worst fucking movie I've seen in a long time.

Review complete.

Eat Love Pray is the new film with Julia Roberts that focuses on the plight of an upper class woman struggling with her identity, lack of spirituality and her failed romantic existence. The film itself is a grade below mediocre with pretty scenery, good acting and a shallow exploration of spiritually in food, meditation and love.

Eat Pray Love is based off the popular memoir by writer Elizabeth Gilbert. In the film though she is known as Liz. Now books are different than films. I have not read the book but strongly believe that the two should not be compared because they are different mediums. That is a different discussion all together.

In the film, Liz (Julia Roberts) is in an unhappy marriage. She also feels that her life has lost it's passion and meaning. Her search for greater meaning in life is ignited by a conversation with a medicine man on a trip investigating meditation and yoga in Bali. The medicine man spoke to Liz concerning her unhappiness with her marriage and how she will lose all that she has only to regain it again. She returns home to New York City and decides to divorce her husband (Billy Crudup) which her husband contests, move out of her home, date and then end things with a young actor (James Franco).

After the divorce and new romance, Liz is still unhappy. She says that she has lost her passion for life which leads her to go on a one year journey to Italy, India and Bali. In Italy she will eat and enjoy life. In India she will meet her guru and pray. In Bali she will reconnect with the medicine man and learn all that the medicine man knows.

It can be difficult to show a character's passion for food, growth in spirituality and enlightenment through knowledge and meditation without the character overtly expressing it. Eat Pray Love tries to do this and fails. We see Liz eat lots of pasta, little pastries and drink wine in Italy. Julia Roberts still has a wonderfully unique smile but her smile after devouring tasty food does nothing to show the growth of her character and her embracing "life." While in India there are several scenes in which Roberts is seen praying or trying to pray. Watching her pray over and over again is meant to imply spiritual growth but the film also fails to capturing that. She goes to Bali to learn from the medicine man but she spends more time sleeping and hanging out with Bardem rather than learning from the medicine man. She is not even willing to hand copy his lessons intended for her. She takes them and photo copies them which is meant to be cute but in many ways displays how shallow her exploration towards harmony and balance really is.

The film itself is very shallow. We don't explore living life, prayer, meditation, yoga or love in any profound way or with any depth. Watching Julia Roberts eat a couple bowls of pasta, pray here and there and meet guys doesn't explore the themes of the film but casually presents them in a manner that makes finding balance in life all too simple. It's a middle class yuppie notion of spirituality and love. Little is truly known about Liz's character as her exploration only reveals how her marriage failed and nothing about what brought her to such unhappiness.

The film might be best served as a travelogue for Italy, India and Bali. Throughout the film, Liz goes to these places and enjoys the classic beauty of these places with little to none of the flaws. She travels for a year with one bag, yet her outfits are different every time but she always looks fabulous. She is always clean, never sweats and fails to experience any of the hardships of the people that reside in her vacations hot spots. Because of this, the film superficially suggest that you can find balance in your life by going on a long vacation, drinking, eating, praying and meeting a nice man.

The film does have some decent qualities. Julia Roberts is very strong in the lead, in what could be defined as a transitional role. As someone over the age of 40, Roberts may struggle to find roles that don't make her look silly by trying too hard to show how young she might be. Tom Cruise has yet to discover this, as the almost 50 year old Cruise still believes he can play a 30 year old. Roberts is quite good. She doesn't rely on her laugh or smile to propel her through the role. She is subtle and very charming. She is able to bring a a certain child like discovery to her journey but a certain sadness of youthful exuberance lost during down periods. In her 40's Roberts could not have played the early 30's Liz while in her 30's. It seems like a role Roberts was meant to play during this stage of her career. Javier Bardem is also excellent as Liz's love interest in Bali. Bardem does a lot with his screen time. We see him cry, laugh, be charming and argue with Roberts in a way that is both alarming and agreeable.

The dialogue is also very resourceful. Eat Pray Love is written by director Ryan Murphy and Jennifer Salt. It uses the dialogue very well in understanding the minor characters we see for only 1/3 of the film. Unfortunately in many ways we learn small details about the minor characters that we never learn about Liz. This could also be a problem. We learn so much about the other characters and hardly anything about Liz. It is because of that the film tends to drag. It drags because there are so many characters, so many places and the pattern of the film becomes far to apparent early in the film.

Love Eat Pray is probably a very good book but as a movie it seems like a self indulgent travel guide. Is it beautiful to look at? At times, yes? Does it make you hungry? Yes. Would you want to travel to these places afterwards? Probably. Is it funny or profound? Maybe as funny or profound as a fortune cookie can be. In the end, Eat Love Pray seems to reach only a small audience of upper class, superficially lost women that don't need spirituality but a man in their lives. Maybe Eat Pray Love will be the Starbucks drinking, Banana Republic wearing, Oprah book club reading version of Sex and the City.... oh boy.

Inception - Review

Inception is the new Christopher Nolan film that focuses on dreams as well as memories to understand the harsh consequences of guilt. Unfortunately the movie is not very good because it lacks structure and identity. Inception has unlikable characters, a complicated plot that has a lot of rough edges, a shocking ending that is not shocking and a lot of notions about memories and dreams that are underdeveloped.

First, Christopher Nolan is a film maker focused on memories and guilt. Memento is a film about a man who has no long term memory and with the aid of clues searches for the man that killed his wife. His remake of Insomnia is about a detective who accidentally shoots his partner and is haunted by those memories. In the first Batman, Nolan explores Bruce Wayne's inability to cope with his parents murder and how his memories of his parents influence his decision to become Batman.

Inception is about a top notch group of thieves that enter your dreams while you sleep and steal secrets. Their job is basically super sophisticated corporate espionage. The leader of this team is Leonardo DiCaprio as Mr. Cobb. Mr. Cobb is a wanted criminal in the US and struggles to efficiently perform his job without memories of his dead wife interrupting his dream state. Mr. Cobb and their team typically do extraction jobs until a new employer, Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers Mr. Cobb a proposition to plant an idea into the mind of one of his business competitors. Placing an idea in another person's mind is called inception.

Upon being approached with this idea of inception Cobb and his business partner Arthur (Joseph Gorden-Levitt) immediately reject the idea and tell Saito that inception is impossible. The reasons why inception cannot be done are not very convincing. Immediately after the proposal is dismissed Saito offers Mr. Cobb a chance to see his children again. Cobb takes the job explaining without reason that inception can be done. While everyone doubts whether or not inception can be done, Cobb is holding something back from his team. His secret is that he has done inception to his dead wife. This plot twist is meant to be a surprise but it isn't as Cobb keeps it a secret from his team.

So the chase is on. Cobb and Arthur assemble their crack team of mind thieves which include Ariadne (Ellen Page), Eames (Tom Hardy) and Yusuf (Dileep Rao). It's seem hard to believe that all of these characters are needed and it does not help that their job description and training are roughly explained. Ariadne as the architect of the dreams, Eames as the forager, Yusuf as the chemist, Arthur as the team lead and Cobb as the principle thief that really doesn't do anything, not even come up with the plan. By the way, the plan to insert an idea in the target Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy) seems really easy.

So the plan goes like this... the team plus Saito plan to invade Mr. Fischer's dreams while on a 10 hour flight from Sydney to LA. The 10 hour flight is important because an hour of dreaming translates to a week in the dream and the plan needs months of dreaming to develop, hence the 10 hours needed. It seems reasonable but the film follows this principle very, very loosely. On the plane the team will take some heavy sedatives so nothing will disturb their sleep because they will be exploring multiple levels of dreams, a dream within a dream to plant the idea. Before entering this set of dreams, the viewer has already seen a dream or two and is somewhat familiar with the rules of what should be done and can be done in dreams. Somethings go wrong in the first layer of dreams and the rules change. Things going wrong in all the levels of dreams and frequently so the team improvises with a new plan seemingly contradictory of what was thought capable, but it all works out anyway.

One of the major obstacles is the target Robert Fisher Jr. has been trained to handle mind espionage and his mind sets out traps to capture those attacking it. Fisher's mind defense is something not shocking since the idea had been introduced early in the film. Each dream encounters a problem that seemingly comes from nowhere but is resolved with ease because after all the characters are in a dream and in a dream you can do whatever the fuck you want. Yes, in a dream you can do whatever you want. No need for rules or previous notions of what can, cannot, should or should not be done in the dream because Nolan was going to throw them out the window.

The team gets the job done and Cobb again get his man. By completing the job, Cobb is freed of his criminal charges and gets to see his children again. He also deals with the memory of his dead wife who has been plaguing his dreams and making the jobs much more difficult. The memories of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) continue to interrupt each mission Cobb goes on, at the point that it puts his team in significant danger. In the end, all is resolved or is it?

The drama of what happens within the dreams seems very over blown. Earlier in the film, if you died in your dream you woke up but in this new set of dreams with the many levels of dreams and the heavy dose of sedatives, if you die you might be in a coma or some type of mental limbo when you wake up. Such threats of a coma or mental limbo at some point seem weak since the rules of the dreams continue to change. For example Saito is shot in the first level of dreams but must complete the mission and awake as according to plan or else mental limbo. Later on Fisher is shot but is somehow found in Cobb's dream and comes back to life. What? There is an explanation given on why this works and with this explanation you easily just want to toss your hands up in the air and wonder why they don't use super powers to fend off their attackers, fly or call upon giant mythological monsters to play a game of dodge ball.

There is a moment in the first layer of Fisher's dream sharing in which Arthur is in the middle of a shoot out, using a large rifle and having little success. Eames comes to help by simply saying, "you must not be afraid to dream a bit bigger" or something of that sort and in his hands magically (seemingly so) a hand cannon appears which quickly relieves them of their pursuers. Why isn't this method of dreaming bigger explored more often? I do not know. Maybe because it would easily squash any of the drama in the film. In some aspects one has to admire Nolan for wanting to keep the violence so grounded, making it concrete and realistic but in the end the drama rises and falls without any reason. Something bad happens, a plan to resolve quickly arises and then resolution. Is it because they are in a dream and within a dream anything can be done? If that is true then doesn't that kill any of the drama? I think so.

Their are several twists in the plot that might require debate or a second viewing. I am not opposed to see anything twice but it seems that much of the film requires a second viewing for cheap purposes. The end is a twist that anyone should see coming. The plot twists seem intentionally confusing rather than profound in which the sole purpose is to mask a lame duck plot with self absorbed characters.

Mr. Cobb is an incredibly selfish hero. He is hard to like as he continually puts the plan and his team in danger. Ariadne is meant to be our moral center but consistently forgives Cobb and allows him to continue his selfish ways. DiCaprio as Cobb plays the role in a straight manner and is solid but not exceptional. He doesn't play Cobb as an obsessive or a guilt stricken man which are both reasonable and might have made the character more interesting. There is no humor or sadness which leaves the performance kind of flat. You have to wonder if the choice to play this role in that particular fashion was his or Nolan's. DiCaprio does deserve some kudos for his recent string of playing characters struggling with identity. Page as Ariadne is mediocre as she seems type cast to play a snotty youth who consistently gives her characters an attitude that embodies a self righteous teen. Joseph Gorden-Levitt is an interesting cast as the team manager Arthur. He doesn't really have the persona or body type for the role nor does he use those distinctions to build upon the role in a new way. His rigid portrayal just comes off as flat. Ken Watanabe as Saito, Tom Hardy as Eames and Cotillard as Mal are probably the most efficient and entertaining performances. It is nice to see Nolan having a group of actors that routinely appear in his films such as Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and Michael Caine (as Cobb's step father?)

Inception is not an inventive film. It is a charade. It doesn't really explain how dreams work, how time works within the dreams, what can be done and what cannot be done. It's very confusing for the sake of being confusing. It doesn't try to explore the philosophy of dreams. The film slogan, "your mind is the scene of the crime" is misleading and odd since we follow the criminals. Plot twist after plot twist don't reveal anything new about the characters or the plot. Everything in the film seems underdeveloped. The cast seems all wrong despite my admiration for much of the players. The sub plots are weak while the issues about mothers and parenting within the film are unclear. It is also a shame that Nolan, his cinematographer and editor must rely on flashbacks in a film about memory. They are either unable to recreate film shots and use montage editing to build upon the themes of the film or they don't think the average audience is able to understand those techniques. After all Inception is not Hiroshima Mon Amour.

Much is made about this film and it's approach on dreams. Nolan is not a surrealist and that doesn't hurt this film but at times the film seems to be lacking imagination. If he were a surrealist would that make Nolan more creative? I doubt it. Nolan is very grounded. His action sequences are classic in many ways with chase sequences, subtle gun play, a timely explosions and clever fist on fist fights. He doesn't rely on special effects and films in a grand epic scale that David Lean would admire. He shoots on location and there is much about this film that seems like it could have been done with old school movie tricks according to new school rules. When cities fold it almost looks like two overlapping rolls of film but better. When the zero gravity sequence occurs in a fun over overdrawn action sequence, it is nothing more than a room that twirls like on a rotisserie causing the appearance of walking on walls. All of these old school tricks might be done with new school technology but if anything Nolan should be saluted for doing what has been done before in better ways. Nolan should also be given props for making challenging large scale films, even if, at least according to this review are not fully developed.

In the end, Inception is a great idea crudely done, questionably performed with a lack luster script and an ending encouraging debate over good film making.