On why comic book movies are so terrible

"Tell everyone waiting for Superman that they should try to hold on the best they can. He hasn't dropped them, forgot them or anything, it's just too heavy for Superman to lift."

--The Flaming Lips

We all know that video game movies suck. There is no questioning that. The fact that Prince of Persia was the highest grossing video game movies does not impress me in the least, considering it was following on the heels of the Uwe Boll epidemic (Far Cry, BloodRayne), Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within, Doom, and the granddaddy of them all...Super Mario Bros. High-paid, popular actors cannot save video game movies. Really, nothing can. The same goes for comic book movies. High-paid, popular actors and directors sign on to turn comic book heroes into film heroes. Most of them fail.

"But what about Christopher Reeves as Superman, the Spiderman series and the Batman series?"

Well hypothetical critic, I can give you part of the Batman, but if you are talking about quality cinema, I will only accept the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton and Christian Bale/Christopher Nolan versions of Batman. Besides, Joel Schumacher nearly destroyed the franchise. As for Superman, while one of the original Superhero movies, and having Christopher Reeves, Marlon Brando etc., the films were campy jokes. Spiderman was just awful and sacrificed accuracy for showy graphics. People started to realize how bad the series was when they made Spiderman 3. Not to mention for every halfway decent comicbook/graphic novel movie there are at least three terrible ones made. Need I remind you about Ang Lee's Hulk disaster? How about Tom Jane as Punisher? Or, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner as Daredevil and Elektra.

I know this is may be an unpopular view especially with the upcoming superhero films that will eventually lead to the Avengers film(s). Aside from Iron Man and possibly Thor, the rest of those films will suck. Yes they will put a lot of pimply, bored or otherwise fat/bloated asses into seats this summer, but they will not be worth your 6-18 dollars depending on where you see it and if it will be in Imax or 3d. Hollywood is well aware that these movies make money but are terrible, because there are a number of actors who have doubled up superhero roles (Chris Evans: The Human Torch, Captain America; Ryan Reynolds: Deadpool, The Green Lantern). There is also the quick replacement-of-popular-actors-with no-names-to-put-out-a-probably-straight-to-DVD-sequel-move (Tom Jane replaced by Ray Stevenson to play Punisher).

But, dear readers (if I call you true believers I will probably get a nice cease and desist order from Stan Lee--Excelsior motherfucker*), I like to believe there is hope. I have hope not because the movie industry has some genius chained and flogged until he churns out a good idea, but because of a certain Pulitzer Prize winning author. Michael Chabon gives a good explanation of the fledgling comic book industry and its rise to prominence. It's a long quote so bear with me.

The drop-off in quality that followed the original-content revolution was immediate and precipitous. Lines grew tentative, poses awkward, composition static, background nonexistent. Feet, notoriously difficult to draw in realistic depth, all but disappeared from the panels, and noses were reduced to the simplest variations on the twenty-second letter of the alphabet. Horses resembled barrel-chested, spindly dogs, and automobiles were carefully effaced with sideed lines to disguise the fact that they lacked doors, were never drawn to scale and all looked the same. Pretty women, as a requisite arrow in every boy cartoonist's quiver, fared somewhat better, but the men tended to stand aroun in wrinkeless suits that looked stamped from stovepipe tin and in hats that appeared to weigh more than the automobiles, ill at ease, big-chinned, punching one another in their checl-marked noses. Curcus strong men, giant Hindu manservants, and breechclouted jungle lords invariably sported fanciful musculature, eyeceps and octocepts and beltoids, and abdomens like fifteen racked pool balls. Knees and elbows bent at painful, double-jointed angles. The color was murky at best, and at worst there was hardly any color at all. Sometimes everything was just two tones of red, or two tones of blue. But most of all, comic books suffered not from insufficient artwork--for there was considerable vitality here, too, and a collective Depression-born urge toward self-improvement, and even the occasional talented hard-luck compentent pencilman--but from a bad case of the carbon copies. Everything was a version, sometimes hardly alteredd at all, of a newspaper strip or a pulp-radio hero. Radio's Green Hornet spawned various colors of wasp, beetle, and bee; the Shadow was himself shadowed by a legion of suit-wearing, felt-hatted, lama-trained vigilantes; every villainess was a thinly disguised Dragon Lady. Consequently, the comic book, almost lacking purpose or distinction. There was nothing here one could not find done better, or cheaper, somewhere else (and on the radio one could have it for free). [Chabon, 76-77]

Does this sound familiar at all? Comic book movies have a ton of amazing visual affects, but deep down they lack depth, content, and in many cases, a plot. The comic book era was looking for someone to save them, to bring them into prominence. They had success with "The Shadow," but the industry needed someting to put them in the lime light and they got it in the summer of 1938 when "Superman" hit stands for Detective Comics (now known as DC). Right now the comic book movie industry is looking for that Superman. Spiderman 2, no matter how awful it actually is would be "The Shadow"** in this analogy, especially since it is one of the highest grossing films of all time somehow. In fact we already have our Superman, and it was The Dark Knight. Not because of Christian Bale's portrayal, but because of the late Heath Ledger. Ledger created a villain worth watching, a villain that you wanted to root for. Ironically, for the film industry and the comic book genre film, Heath Ledger/The Joker was that Superman.

If the film industry can learn to create characters--both heroes and villains--as compelling and memorable as Ledger's Joker, then this genre will endure, and even win awards. Instead of throwing gobs of money and names at these movies, Hollywood needs to make an actual effort to treat this genre as more than just a bunch of seat-filling, summer block buster, action films.

I don't recommend holding your breath though.

*Yep Stan Lee has trademarked the word Excelsior. ** The Shadow (film) can be filed under super-shitty comic book film, that not even Frank Miller could save.

HappyThankYouMorePlease...seriously more please

“I belong to the blank generation and I could take it or leave it each time.”
--Richard Hell and the Voidoids

Congratulations Josh Radnor, you have achieved Zach Braff status. Now don’t let it get to your head. I like How I Met Your Mother too much for you to ruin it by letting success go to your head. Besides, we already lost Two and Half Men to Tiger-blooded winning.

At any rate Radnor’s new film HappyThankYouMorePlease was pretty much what I expected it to be. There were a couple of surprises here and there and some memorably clever lines, but overall it felt incomplete. I did have a very distinct “I want more” feeling as I left the theater. Radnor wrote, starred and directed in a film following three different but connected storylines.

Sam Wexler (Radnor) finds a kid (played by Michael Algieri) separated from his mother on the subway and ends up looking after him, though by New York state law he actually kidnapped him. Sam has to balance illegally looking after his kid, his struggling writing career and a new love, [?] which mostly looks like a damaged version of lust on screen. Radnor and Kate Mara (127 Hours, Iron Man 2, The Shooter) really did not have the sort of on screen chemistry you would expect for a love story. But there was this sense of detachment throughout the movie.

The other plotlines are spearheaded by Malin Ackerman (Watchmen, The Proposal, Couples Retreat) and Zoe Kazan (Fracture, Me and Orson Welles, Revolutionary Road). Ackerman had what could have been a very challenging role had the writing chosen to steer it in that direction. Instead of running with the more predictable Alopecia sufferer struggling with concept of the beauty within, she plays more of a semi-drunk idealist who struggles with self-esteem issues based solely on the outward look of other people. Unfortunately her character was not very well developed and she just sort of came off as an image obsessed, neurotic complainer dressed like Erykah Badu. Kazan’s plotline was your standard twenty-something coming of age story which forced her and her boyfriend—played by Pablo Schreiber (Lords of Dogtown, Vicky Christina Barcelona, The Wire)—to make those big life decisions that all come upon people in their 20s. I did find it funny that they made a reference to Woody Allen films being of poor quality since he comes out with so many. One of those really bad Allen films: Vicky Christina Barcelona. I had a good laugh about that.

Even though the acting was not top notch there was still a big theme that was able to peak through and really caused me to draw more comparisons to Garden State than were probably healthy. Radnor did a good job of alluding to and showing how our generation is one that often seems like a group of children walking around in our parent’s shoes. It really seemed to me that he clearly did not think we as a generation were ready to be what our parent’s are, nor are very excited to assume that role thrust upon us by age. And so Radnor makes jokes about playing house with a one night stand and a child he stole off a subway. That alone made the movie tolerable. I never thought I would find myself saying that a film’s appeal to hipsters would be its saving grace. The music was a big part of that hipster appeal and was used to further that detached feeling that came with the film. However, at times even the music seemed to be detached from the film.

PleaseThankYouMorePlease did not make many deep statements and the social commentary that was addressed by the film seemed forced and pedantic. It is not a terrible date movie and if you are a fan of Radnor’s brand of dry wit it is worth a watch and a bag of popcorn.

Making the Grade

Acting: The acting was a bit hollow and shallow at times and there was a serious lack of on screen chemistry from actors who are known to have far more talent and ability. They did provide a few laughs but no real heartfelt, warm and fuzzy moments. Malin Ackerman did take a risk playing someone with Alopecia but it was a small one and didn’t have as much conflict as it could have. If she was supposed to play a character that draws attention away from her condition, why give her Alopecia in the first place? C+

Special Affects/Visuals: There was a visual homage or two, but not very inventive camera work. It was pretty much what you would expect from a directorial debut by someone who stands in front of the camera for a career. But it wasn’t a film that was too difficult to look at. C
Music/Sound: Trendy indie music that will go out of fashion in a few years when the hipsters find the next undiscovered act. The music did not really add anything to the movie, except justify all of the actor’s unwashed hair. The kid's art was kind of cool though. D+

Rewatchability: This movie will go out of style when the soundtrack does. Not a bad date/cuddle movie and not a waste of a spare hour and a half. But I am willing to bet the second time you see this film will be when it’s playing on the CW as their “Saturday matinee” 10-15 years from now. C

Overall Grade: C

Movies that will make you read

“A film is—or should be—more like music than fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what’s behind the emotion, the meaning, all of that comes later.”
--Stanley Kubrick

So I have been doing a lot more reading lately and it has slowed how many movies I have watched some. I think it is high time that I stop melting my brain and exercise it a little bit more. I do a fair bit of mind melting (not to be confused with mind melding) at work and on the weekends. However, when I have been watching movies, I find myself watching movies based off of books. Most recently I watched The Baader Meinhoff Complex and while the movie is great, after the movie was ended I wanted desperately to read the book.

People, including myself, always say that the book is better than the movie. But, sometimes I feel like some movies are not given the credit they are due. Yes, the book is probably better, but not every movie is as bad as Where the Wild Things Are or About a Boy. That being said here is a list of movies that made me want to read the book on which the movie is based. Do not expect to see Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings on here, because those movies were awful representations of the books.

The Baader Meinhoff Complex
Director: Uli Edel
Author: Stefan Aust

Did you not think this would make this movie/book would make the list? It was the inspiration for this entire blog post. Duh… Anyway, I absolutely loved this movie. The subject matter is interesting and the characters are very well crafted and portrayed. No sooner had the credits finished rolling, I was on the interwebs trying to find as much information about the Red Army Faction as possible. The movie left me with a couple of questions and I figured that it would have been impossible to include all of the information and stories about a militant organization that was in existence for nearly 30 years. But, I also wanted to learn more about each of the original members of the group, and not just because they and the time period in which they existed is so interesting, but also because the people who played them, did so with such style and ability that I just couldn’t get them out of my head until I knew as much as possible about them. Plus, I guess I am a sucker for tragedy.

High Fidelity
Director: Stephen Frears
Author: Nick Hornby

This was the movie that made me fall in love with Nick Hornby. It blended many of my favorite things: Dysfunctional characters, music, snobbery, an original love story and angst that goes far beyond the teenage years. When I actually read the book I realized how perfectly cast this movie was. John Cusack pretty much played himself, or every other role he has ever done. But Cusack and Jack Black were not even the most intriguing bits of this movie, it was the character Dick (Todd Louiso) who I found stole every scene he was in and acted every bit of Hornby’s original character. High Fidelity is not only my go-to feel-good movie, but it has been something that has been a part of my life since the first time I saw the film. I am constantly making top five lists, I have similar sorts of elitist music debates with friends and I find myself asking the same questions from the film/book on a monthly basis. Any movie that I find myself watching at least two or three times a year is noteworthy in my opinion, but a novel that I tend to read almost every year and recommend to pretty much anyone who is looking for something to read makes it a deadly combination that needs shouting from every rooftop. Not to mention this has been the only Hornby novel to date that has done true justice to the book. About a Boy was an absolute failure that fucked up the ending and now sits on my personal “movie shelf of disgust.”

Trainspotting
Director: Danny Boyle
Author: Irvine Welsh

I hear a lot of people debating if Trainspotting or Pulp Fiction is the greatest idie film ever created. Even though Pulp Fiction is a great film my allegiances lie firmly with Danny Boyle and Trainspotting. I will admit that Boyle is one of my top five favorite directors (see, I told you High Fidelity had a major impact on my life). This was Boyle’s second film and it put him and Ewan McGregor on the map. I defy you to walk along any floor of any college dorm in the country and not find a poster dedicated to this movie. It’s just a gritty, funny, dark, film and it has an amazing soundtrack. The cast is amazing, the directing is amazing and the writing is amazing. So naturally, I wanted to read the book as soon as the movie was over. As it turns out my life has not afforded me the opportunity to read this book just yet. But I will by the end of this year I guarantee it. This, like all the other movies on this list, makes me want to read the book because the characters are just so damn interesting. It is their stories and the way they are carried out on screen that just makes me drool. I want to know more about Tommy and his life before and after he is introduced to heroine. I want to know why Sick Boy is so callus. I want to know everything about Mother Superior’s muddled past. I want to know pretty much everything about Renton. And I really want to know why the novel is called, “Trainspotting” and not just how Boyle believed it was meant to be called, but why Irvine Welsh gave it said title.

There Will Be Blood
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Author: Upton Sinclair (Novel title: Oil)

There is one reason and one reason alone that I want to read this book. Daniel Day-Lewis. I have not read “Oil” yet and that is mostly because I read “The Jungle,” by Upton Sinclair and absolutely hated it. I was bored to tears. But the acting by Day-Lewis was just so phenomenal that it convinced me to give Sinclair another chance, especially when knowing how important Sinclair was to the progressive movement in US history did not. Milkshakes aside, Day-Lewis, owned, pwnd and everything in between while developing one of the most memorable characters of the past decade. Not much else to say about that.

Jurassic Park
Director: Steven Spielberg
Author: Michael Crichton

In this not-so-humble blogger’s opinion, Jurassic Park is the most quotable movie in the history of movies. Ever. I will not be moved from this opinion. Those quotes had to come from somewhere right? So, why not go to the source. Plus the Crichton-Spielberg duo is an absolute powerhouse. Crichton is was the science-fiction giant of his era, one that Orson Scott Card could only dream of being (and I love me some Card). Spielberg is the king of the sci-fi, action, thriller film genre. Yeah, I said it James Cameron, just because you can make pretty movies or sequels to other awesome sci-films does not make you as BAMFy as you think you are. Point Break was awesome though. But, I digress; the movie made the book a necessary read for me, because I love Dinosaurs and because it was so much fun picturing the character in the book as they were depicted by Samuel L. Jackson, Jeff Goldblum, Wayne Knight, Bob “shoooooooot ‘errrrrrrr” Peck*, Richard Attenborough etc…Yes, Sam Neill and Laura Dern were very important characters, but the previously mentioned characters had me holding onto my butt from laughter and awesomeness. Additionally, on a totally nerdy level I wanted the chaos theory explained to me in a way that only Crichton could. It was pretty obvious that Spielberg chose to ignore this very important aspect of the novel, because he knew the better part of his audience was stupid, when it came to theoretical physics. Plus, did I mention that dinosaurs are fucking awesome?

*It was not until doing the research for this article that I realized that Bob Peck had died in 1999 after a long battle with cancer. He was only 53; sad not only because he was so young, but also because he was a brilliant actor. May Peck and Crichton both rest in peace while fighting dinosaurs wherever they may be.

Fight Club
Director: David Fincher
Author: Chuck Palahniuk

Much like High Fidelity did for Nick Hornby, Fight Club, introduced me (and I am sure many others) to Chuck Palahniuk. Fight Club was just so different from anything I had really seen before, because it put both sides of a schizophrenic mind on screen and let them—quite literally—duke it out. It was a perfectly cast movie, and again to this date is the only Palahniuk movie to be totally faithful to the humor, grit and overall plot of the original story. This could change if Hollywood listen’s to my pleas and actually casts Jessica Biel as the lead in “Invisible Monsters.” Either way, this movie makes the list on its sheer mass appeal alone. But that does not mean it still wasn’t an amazing movie, until TNT decided to play it three times a month.

A Scanner Darkly
Director: Richard Linklater
Author: Phillip K. Dick

There were a number of P.K. Dick novels turned movies I could have picked, but this one was the most original. It also helped me shrug off my dislike for “Radiohead” by contextualizing their music in a way that separated it as far away from “Creep” and the mid-90s Mtv affinity that caused them to be overhyped and overplayed as much as humanly possible. I really wanted to read this book after seeing the movie mostly because of the content matter. The rotoscoped dystopia was great, and Richard Linklater, Keanu Reeves, Woody Harrelson, Robert Downy Jr., Winona Ryder, and Rory Cochrane (he used to be on CSI: Miami) did a great job of bringing it to life, but I was most intrigued with the idea of getting behind the eyes and into the mind of a drug addict and I knew instantly that the novel would provide so much more than the movie ever possibly could. The movie was still awesome and very under-appreciated especially since everyone stains their jeans over Waking Life.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Director: Garth Jennings
Author: Douglas Adams (movie is based off of the series)

This really wasn’t that great of a movie. But it allowed just enough of Douglas Adam’s unique brand of British humor to shine through that I immediately went out and got the entire series on book, listened to as many of the BBC radio broadcasts and watched the very poorly made television series within a few months of seeing the film. The acting was good enough, though not the best that the cast could have offered. However, I pretty much blame Garth Jennings the mastermind [?] who brought us Son of Rambo for poor direction. Nevertheless, I laughed, and then once I read the books I laughed so hard I fell and forgot I was going to hit the floor. Yep, Adams made me laugh so hard I was able to fly for a little while. Even though the movie was not great, it opened a very important literary door in my life.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Director: Edgar Wright
Author: Bryan Lee O’Malley (graphic novel series)

This was a graphic novel series that I had always wanted to read, but never really cared enough to read until I saw the trailer and then the movie and fell in love with the story. The movie and all of the influences it drew upon, both from the novel and from O’Malley’s own inspirations made for a sorts of intrigue that had me on the edge of my seat. Sadly, nobody wanted to see the movie with me because they thought it would suck. BUT THEY WERE SO FUCKING WRONG!!! If you read this blog you know how much I loved this movie. Though I must sheepishly say, I still haven’t read the graphic novels yet. I will get around to it eventually.

The Quiet American (2002 not 1958)
Director: Phillip Noyce
Author: Graham Greene

This is a novel I have not read yet either. But I feel like both the book and the movie do not get the credit they are due. Both overlooked because of the success of Apocalypse Now/”Heart of Darkness.” But the movie showed the range of both Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser (who knew right?). The pacing was slow the drama intense and it was centered in a very real but often unspoken period of time in Indo-Chinese history. When people think Vietnam they think American quagmire, but rarely do people think French colony and that was probably the biggest draw for me. It was not your stereotypical war movie. Plus, I had read “The Destructors,” which is one of those semi-controversial short stories that all English classes read at some point. But, as you all know that debate was covered in Donnie Darko. I really enjoyed “The Destructors” and I really enjoyed the film adaptation of “The Quiet American,” so it made me want to read more of Greene’s work. End of story.

Honorable Mentions

Never Let Me Go
Director: Mark Romanek
Author: Kazuo Ishiguro
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but the trailer looked good. I also really liked Ishiguro’s “Remains of the Day.”

American Psycho
Director:
Author: Bret Easton Ellis
I enjoyed the movie, but when I need to choose between Ellis and Palahniuk, Palahniuk wins every time. I hope they never remake “Less Than Zero.” That book is sacred cow in my eyes.

Blade Runner
Director: Ridley Scott
Author: Philip K. Dick (novel title: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep)
Great story, very overrated movie. Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and Sean Young are all still BAMFs though. And Ridley Scott is still a better sci-fi director than you James Cameron.

Minority Report
Director: Steven Spielberg
Author: Philip K. Dick
A great short story and a very underrated but excellent film. I just liked A Scanner Darkly more. Suck it James Cameron.

Sleepy Hollow
Director: Tim Burton
Author: Washington Irving (novel title: The Legend of Sleepy Hollow)
This movie sucked big time. But it made me really want to know how much creative (if you can call it that) license Burton took when making this crap factory of a film.


**A Note** You are not all bad James Cameron.

Poetry: A film review

“The Unsaid, for me, exerts great power…”
--Louise Gluck

Alright, I want to preface this film review by saying that I hate going to movies with old people. They always choose to sit in the outermost seats at the theater even if the row is empty, forcing people to do the “kiss my ass-stare at my crotch” shuffle past them, because they are far too old and slow to actually stand up in a timely manner. Plus, each and every one of them has already formed an opinion of how good or bad the movie is going to be, before they even take their seats. Then they proceed to remind everyone around them how right they were from the beginning. Do not get me started on the constant standing up to use the bathroom 20 times during the film either. But, I guess I have to stomach all of this to see an excellent film whose lead is a 66 year old woman.

The simplicity of this poster belies the theme for the film. Lot's of subtext there. Pun intended.

Now that I have the old people tirade out of my system, I can now review the film.
As I waited for the movie to start, I noticed I was one of three people in the audience that were under the age of 30. The rest of the small audience were no younger than 55 at best, and all of the old men were very crotchety, clearly having been dragged by their wives for a Saturday at the movies. Suffice it to say, there were not many happy people in the audience for Poetry, but it didn’t stop me from enjoying the film and hating old people at the same time.

First and foremost, the trailer for Poetry was easily one of the most deceptive trailers I have ever seen. They make it look like it will be a heartwarming tale of a Korean woman who was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and uses poetry as a way to come to terms with the affliction that will eventually kill her. To borrow a phrase from a radio engineer I once knew, “WRONG.”

The fact is the Alzheimer’s is referred to only twice and is really only a device that get’s the main character, Yang Mija (Jeong-hie Yun), to the hospital and involved in the actual plot of the movie, though it is not really necessary, because the plot of the film, in reality, comes to her. Without giving anything away, the movie is actually about an elderly Korean woman struggling to find a voice in society where she has none and has become comfortable with that role. But, she is forced into a position where she needs to have a voice. A girl in her grandson’s class kills herself by jumping off a bridge. Her grandson, whom she looks after, and his friends are implicated in causing this girl to commit suicide. Yang Mija is forced into a position where she must choose to either protect what is left of her small family and dealing with the empathy she feels for this girl and her mother.

There is a lot of subtext to this film, and the allusion of poetry is used to flesh some of this subtext out, but it is done in an incredibly culturally specific manner. Yang Mija is what Koreans would call Ajuma; an elderly woman, with no job, and a very unique sense of fashion. Ajuma are very strong-willed women that rule those around them with an iron fist and rapier tongue. They are respected as elders but at the same time they are still cast off, because they are old (serving no purpose in a modernized computer age) and women, who are supposed to be submissive to their male counterparts. It is a bit more complicated than that, but this is the best way I can explain the Ajuma in a simplified way based on what I have been told by people who live in Korea. I am sure they will correct me if I am wrong (and I hope they do).

The director Chang-dong Lee (Secret Sunshine, Oasis, Peppermint Candy) directs in a very deliberate style that screams of influence, whether it is intentional or not, of Akira Kurosawa (Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Ikiru). Sound plays a very specific role in the film and just like Kurosawa, anything you hear in the movie was there for a reason. It also deals with quite a few taboo topics, and at many times you sense the strain of showing such taboo subject matter that was originally meant for a culture that does not discuss, matters of poverty, infirmity, death, crime or self-expression publicly. Korean society seems very orderly and when something throws off that order it is to be hushed up, but I guess that is universal because we certainly do this in the United States. But Chang-dong Lee and especially Jeong-hie Yun approach all of these subjects in a calculated, provocative, but tasteful manner.

On the surface the film is very simple in its development and production, but there is so much more below the surface, which is why I thought it was so fitting that the film began and ended with a river—calm and orderly on the surface, but with so much more below. But, again, the river, the poetry is all allusions to far greater aspects and plot twists that we just don’t get in American cinema anymore. The slow pacing of the film had me on edge at all times because, you constantly wanted to see where things would end, and when the end of the film does eventually come…you are still left guessing. And you are left guessing so much more than Inception could ever offer, because all of the plot holes that Inception attempts to cover up with mind numbingly fun action scenes, Poetry insists on making you guess and draw your own conclusions while covering all of its bases. This is a film that you can certainly watch a dozen times and come to a different conclusion each time.

One final and somewhat unrelated thought, after watching a number of Korean films, I have noticed and find it very interesting that depending on the film’s setting and proximity to Seoul, Seoul becomes more or less mythical. Seoul is the capital of South Korea and it has this manner of becoming its own character in the film, because the characters react to it as if it is a place to fear, a place where your dreams come true, or just a place that is simply better than anywhere else in Korea. Seoul almost appears to be a real life, Korean Emerald City. It is impersonal, powerful, and a place of awe when viewed from the outside. Or it is a place of business, corruption, and power when viewed internally. It is a very interesting dynamic, one well worth studying.

Making the Grade

Acting: The acting is very much based off of one character, as she is forced to appear isolated from her surroundings. Jeong-hie Yun does an excellent job of showing a woman who struggles to find the best parts of life, while maintaining a dignified public persona expected of her by culture. The beauty of the acting is that it is not overly powerful. Instead, it just looked like you were watching a woman go through the day. It was real and that is what made it so good. This is the sort of acting that would be completely ignored by the Academy. A-

Special Effects/Visuals: There were no special effect in this film; it was artistic and beautiful, without the need of bells and whistles, which was very refreshing. If Hemingway directed a movie it would probably look like this. The Kurosawa influences were prevalent, though I do not think they were intentional. A-

Music/Sound: There was really very little music and when there was it was almost meant to be out of place and draw your attention to it. The sound of this film was impeccable and especially since it was a foreign film where reading can sometimes take over other stimuli, the sound of the movie kept you very focused on the film as you read subtitles; a great compliment to the cinematography. A

Rewatchability: I would watch this movie over and over and still see something different each time. However, this film definitely seems to focus its attention on captivating the elderly audience and I am sure they would have a different opinion of the film, so age could be a limiting factor. B

Overall Grade: A-

Quick movie based thoughts

"The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of all sense and meaning."

--Winston Churchill

• Even though this year's list of Oscar nominees was easily the best group since 1994 and I was very excited for the hosts they chose. The Oscars ended but being a total snore. It was pretty obvious who the winners were going to be and I cannot say that I disagreed with any of them. It was nice to see the internal nepotism that has plagued the Oscars the past five years was done away with this year, giving the awards to the most deserving people, especially Colin Firth who was totally screwed over last year by the Academy feeling sorry for Jeff Bridges. I don't care what anyone says, Crazyheart sucked major donkey balls of a Texas sized proportion.

• My one complaint about the Oscars: why wasn't Daft Punk nominated for best original score? They were the only good thing about Tron. Perhaps my dear friend over at This Song Starts a Craze can shed some light on this one.

• I have been watching a lot of Science Fiction type things recently. Go figure right? In doing so, I have come to the conclusion that Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics absolutely fail when programmed machines somehow evolve and gain sentience. For those of you who are not nearly nerdy enough to know Asmiov's Three Laws of Robotics they are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.


2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.


3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

It all boils down to not destroying the creator and so a lot of these robotic evolutionary movies are breaking Asimov's laws because they hate Asimov and he has no idea what translates into good cinema *cough, cough* I, Robot. Or Asimov is simply wrong and narrow minded about robotic evolution (I cannot believe I just said that). Perhaps he did not realize how religiously based his laws were. I don't know there is a lot to ramble on here. The one thing I do know for sure is that I have been watching far too much Battlestar Galactica.

• Finally, Korean cinema is probably the most underrated foreign film genre that I have seen so far. In the most hipster of terms, Korean cinema is the new Bollywood, since Bollywood has sold out and gone the way of Hong Kong cinema, or is on the verge of doing so anyway. Nothing against Bollywood or Hong Kong Cinema there are some great movies that have come out of both regions, but Korea seems to be the next untapped film region, and I really hope it doesn't get spoiled by Hollywood like Japan and Sweden have. I will never forgive the fact that someone green lighted American remakes of Let the Right One In (AND decided to call it LET ME IN?!?!?!?!?) or Ringu.

I think I might be back for real this time. Maybe...

Get on the Oscar hype bus

I don't often do this. But I am very excited for this years Oscars already for the mere fact that there are two astonishingly great looking movies coming out that will most certainly garner a lot of "best picture," "best actor/actress," and "best supporting actor/actress" attention. But also show that despite all the hype that has come out for Social Network, the so-called modern Citizen Kane, it will fall by the wayside in favor of two very interesting and artistic films.

The first being The King's Speech, starring Colin Firth as King George VI, Helena Bonham Carter as Queen Elizabeth II, and Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue. It follows the story of George VI as he battles with his stammer and his public image during the advent of WWII. From the trailer it looks to be one of the most put together casts and the trailer really shows how well they fed off each other I cannot wait for this film to come out! It will be interesting to see how they show the interactions between George VI and Winston Churchill, one man considered to be one of the best orators in history and another who suffered from speech impediment. The juxtaposition in the film I think is what really excites me most about this film. But I also hope that this will make up for the disgrace of the Academy choosing Jeff Bridges over Colin Firth for best actor last year.

Secondly, is a movie of a much different pace and style. A film from a director who is really beginning to show that he is a Hollywood force and not just an Indie darling...finally. This film is Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan. A film which made me jump the second I saw the first pictures. A film that I waited at my computer like so many did for Lady Gaga's Alessandro music video. Yes, I am nerd. Yes, I am okay with it. This also sports a wonderful cast, of people that I feel are often overlooked for their ability--excluding of course Natalie Portman. But the supporting cast looks dynamite and behind the expert eye of Aronofsky this film should be one that does not disappoint. It looks like Aronofsky will achieve something the Coen brothers could not do a few years back getting all the attention in the world from No Country for Old Men then quickly delivering the disturbingly bad Burn After Reading. Aronofsky's return to the screen following the incredibly successful The Wrestler, should not disappoint and I encourage all to see both films.

My hat is in the ring for both of these films, even though I expect the Academy to disappoint me yet again.

Also as a side note I would like to mention that I will not be surprised to see Winnebago Man get an Oscar nod for best documentary and though it was a very basic film, it did justice to and for a cult following and truly deserves a nomination, if only for the fact that it will pioneer a new type of independent documentary style in the coming years. At least I certainly hope it does.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps but the audience does

“Did you hear? We are a don’t buy!”
--George Michael Bluth

I have been disappointed by Oliver Stone more times than I care to share. Yet somehow I just cannot stop watching his films, most of which are terrible attempts at historical drama. So if you take Oliver Stone’s directorial career and put his movies on a rating line with Alexander at one end representing the worst of his movies and JFK and Nixon on the other end for the best of his career and everything else falling in between. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps can sit safely in the middle. To put it simply this film was two hours and seven minutes of meh. But this movie really had so much potential and just couldn’t quite live up to it.

The movie takes place roughly two years ago (that’s 2008 for those of you who are numerically challenged). Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas: Traffic, Wall street, The Game) has been released from prison and is picking up the pieces of his life. His estranged daughter Winnie Gekko (Carey Mulligan: An Education, Pride and Prejudice, Public Enemies) is getting engaged to Jake (or Jacob, because it changed every other time they said his name) Moore a young, hungry, stockbroker played by Shia LaBeouf (Transformers, Eagle Eye, Constantine). This awkward love triangle and its generally poor acting is supported by a cast of greats including Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon, Good Night and Good Luck, Junior); Josh Brolin (W., No Country for Old Men, The Goonies, Milk); Susan Sarandon (Bull Durham, Elizabethtown, The Lovely Bones); and Eli Wallach (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The Holiday, Keeping the Faith). Even Charlie Sheen makes a cameo as his character Bud Fox from the original Wall Street.

Douglas jumped right back into his role as Gekko and did a wonderful job, especially considering that he expected people to not trust him throughout the movie (both the characters and the audience) and he does a tremendous job of really trying to pull you back into his corner, even if you want to hold him at arms length. Mulligan and LaBeouf really struggled to have any on-screen chemistry, which can easily be attributed to LaBeouf’s terrible acting. He really has not improved since he left Even Stevens; clearly it was not all Meagan Fox’s fault that both Transformers movies were awful. Okay Michael Bay played a huge hand in those multi-million dollar travesties too. Sorry, got off track, those films still anger me.

Anywho, Gekko was one small bright spot in the film. The supporting cast another, because the completely jumped into their roles head first and really took the care to make their characters their own, which as I mentioned earlier was in stark contrast to the main characters’ short comings. But, I think one of my favorite parts about the movie was the entire motif in which the film was designed. Despite being a modern criticism of US and global economic practices and using actual events as the setting of the film, Stone was constantly making homage to the excess of the 1980s and made it clear that he wanted Wall Street and all of the executives who profited from the deception of others, to look as if they were living their lives trapped in a time of financial boon and that on a social level they were oblivious to the actual financial crisis while they were out of the office. Even the soundtrack, which consisted entirely of David Byrne/Talking Heads and Brian Eno songs served to set a very 1980s mood. Stone also utilized the fear mongering and rumors that the media and Wall Street used to create a greater scare as a primary plot device and motivator for the film. But sadly he didn’t take it far enough.

He still fell back on wrapping everything up nicely where everyone lives happily ever after with the exception of the one bad guy who made sure he profited at everyone’s expense including his own. However, even the old executives still made it out clean and their lives were turning around, which can be social commentary on its own, but it was too clean and polished by the end. This Wall Street really lacked that strong “dust settling moment” at the end of the film where people try and pick themselves up from the rubble. You find yourself waiting and waiting and it never comes. However, Stone’s biggest failure was his attempt at artistic metaphor. He constantly kept referring to Goya’s “Saturn Devouring His Son” from Goya’s late Black period. I have seen the painting at the Prado in Madrid and it is a very haunting painting, but Stone only uses it at face value to demonstrate the darkness of the times and Wall Street’s tendency to destroy anything to maintain power. Stone did not fully extend this to Gekko other than him taking money away from his daughter and his future son-in-law. He did not cripple them and he was not eventually taken down the way Saturn was taken down by Jupiter in the end. Nope, by the end of the movie nothing happens to Gekko, he profits and remains out of trouble and the story ends. Very disappointing.

Overall, a valiant effort to pick up where Wall Street left off and make it a film that holds some salient value in today’s world. I find that the movie as a form of social criticism could have gone farther instead of eventually falling in line with everything the media and Washington D.C. have already told us. Moreover, the financial crisis issues increasingly became a mere backdrop for a poor excuse of a love story, which hindered it overall quality as a film. Other films have done it so much better. If you really liked the original film I would see this one for novelty’s sake but if your looking for a biting social critique and a great fictional tale, Instead go rent the original Wall street and pick up a copy of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal.

Making the Grade

Acting: While Shia LaBarf and Carey Mulligan struggled through the entire film, Michael Douglas and the rest of the supporting cast were all around excellent, demonstrating greed, false hope and everything that Wall Street has truly become. B-

Special Effects/Visuals: Stone needs to stop trying to get overly artistic with his camera work, for a straightforward historical-fiction based film, the drama should already be built in and the camera work should not have to be the driving force of the tension. Or at least trying to be that driving force. There were one or two scenes that did wow me though. D+

Music: The soundtrack was great Byrne and Eno are two of the greater voices of their generation and their art-rock, glam-rock genre. The music suited the film nicely, though there are points taken off for the use of “This Must be the Place (Naïve Melody)” by the Talking Heads. It has become the most cliché, feel-good-at-the-end-of-a-film song and is not the last thing I want to hear at the end of any movie. B+

Re-Watchability: As I said before. Meh. I really only see this movie being re-watched if you were watching the original Wall Street and this one back to back for novelty sake. It doesn’t provide and explanation or possible answer to the current financial crisis so it probably won’t be too socially or culturally relevant in a few years time. While enjoyable once, it is also entirely forgettable too. D

Overall Grade: C-