Up In The Air

PASSING THOUGHTS
This is not a love story. This is a life story about relationships, in which love plays a role.

In romance flicks, the movie is about the destination: two people finding love. In order to reach that destination, characters have to be simplified; they are essentially broken down into beating hearts with peripheral interests. Some of the characters initially seem to have an aversion to love, but any internal obstacles are disingenuous—they have to be, or else said character will never arrive at the destination.

Life stories, on the other hand, like life itself, are about the journey. The destination isn’t important, because in life there are countless “destinations”…or, depending on how you look at it, there never really is a destination at all. Nothing is predictable because that’s the way life works for the most part; you take what you get and keep moving.

Though I can certainly enjoy and immerse myself in romances, I find life stories have a much more epic feel to them. They also seem to have more character and substance because everything doesn’t have to line up as a straight shot to get to an expected ending. You can have a love interest turn out to be a deceitful married harlot and not have to spend precious screen time setting up a replacement. More time can be spent observing genuine beats in a character’s overall progression, and a satisfactory ending can be achieved without love because life goes on afterwards.

That bit of philosophy aside, “Up in the Air” does a great job of giving two completely different takes on relationships without really favoring one over the other. I don’t know too many people who prefer living out of hotels and traveling over a stable lifestyle, but twenty-three minutes into this film, I completely bought Clooney’s mortified reaction to the news that he would be grounded. There was a whole-hearted attempt to legitimize his philosophy about baggage and keeping life light, and never getting bogged down in a “stable” relationship. Various events transpire throughout the story that give credence or wisdom to his choice; a girl who gets dumped by her boyfriend after she essentially compromised her professional life just to be with him, and a woman who appears genuinely amazing, but ends up being a witch with a capital “b” who is so mentally ill that she actually sees real life as a fantasy whenever she’s not at home.

Even so, the movie as a whole seems to speak to the merit of relationships, particularly romantic ones. In a clever twist of plot, Clooney’s character has to talk his sister’s fiancé out of cold feet, which requires him to confront his opposition to marriage and his essential commitment to a life of solitude. Ultimately his character has an honest and complete change of heart, evidenced by his inability to give a speech in which he would have promoted his isolated way of thinking.

The great thing about this life story is that it will catch different people in different times in their own lives. Some people may watch it with a significant other, nodding with agreement when Clooney talks about the importance of having someone to share your life with. Others, perhaps recently separated or otherwise discarded from their amorous relationships, will see the wisdom of keeping life simple and not getting caught in the vicious tendrils of love.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you’re interested in something heavy enough to be thought-provoking, yet light enough where you don’t feel cynical or depressed at the end of it. If you want a genuine story that isn’t predictable and has no specific plot points, this should fit the bill.

Steer Clear:
If you’re looking for a romantic comedy or a romance of any kind. There is comedy of sorts within the story, but it’s not designed to be romp rife with engineered comedic relief. Also, if you want a happy ending or a love-triumphs-over-all experience, this definitely isn’t the way to go. This isn’t what you’d think of as a date movie or a chick-flick.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
It has the epic life-story feel of “Forrest Gump”, with the narrative romance style of “Jerry MaGuire”, the sensibility and snappy dialogue of “Juno”, and the two-sides-of-every-coin integrity of “Family Man”. (And I would classify all three movies as life-stories, albeit with varying degrees of romantic focus and content.)

Buy or Rent:
RENT. While you may find the journey interesting or deep enough to revisit, the entertainment value primarily lies in that first viewing. The special features are decent for the type of film that it is, but you’ll get through those quickly enough. It’s kinda like “Braveheart”—it’s a classy flick to own, but you’ll probably only watch it once a year, if that.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Language Selection

-Feature Commentary with Jason Reitman, Director of Photography Eric Steelberg and First Assistant Director Jason Blumenfeld

-Shadowplay: Beofre the Story
Approx 2.5 minutes. This is a little blurb from the company that brought you the title sequence for the film. They’re the same folks who did some of Reitman’s other films (“Thank You For Smoking”, “Juno”)…and they really don’t have much to say about any of it.
DUH! FACTOR: 9.5 out of 10

-Deleted Scenes (With or without Commentary by Writer/Director Jason Reitman)
Approx 16.5 minutes. Five total. For the most part these are just more of what we already saw in the movie. There are some more tirades from the fired folks, and a monologue from Clooney’s character about his “friends”. There are two interesting montages though; the first primarily shows Clooney adjusting to his new life without travel, and the second is a slightly bizarre visual of Clooney functioning in a spacesuit. The former montage (Omaha Montage) is somewhat comical and worth a gander; the other four scenes won’t be missed. All footage is in final form and looks like it made it through post-production.

-Teaser/Theatrical Trailer

-Woulda Been Nice: If I gotta put anything, I guess I’d have to fall back on the ol’ gag reel. A little behind-the-scenes action with a comedic spice would have been a nice chaser.

The Hurt Locker

PASSING THOUGHTS
Ironically enough, I’ve found that when you put the word “super” in front of the word “hero”, it actually drains the character of all its power and impact.

When I see movies like “Iron Man”, “Spiderman” or “Superman”, I am entertained and dazzled by the spectacle. I’ve always enjoyed comic books and cartoons that revolve around superheroes, and the recent outpouring of comic-based films has been (for the most part) a welcome trend. However, after watching “Hurt Locker”, I realize just how empty those heroes now seem to me.

The essence of a hero boils down to courage, selflessness, and sacrifice. Superheroes have those qualities, but they are lost behind the glamour, wealth, gadgets or powers that make them “super”. As a child I was inspired by superheroes because of the fantastical elements involved, but now that I see the world through the eyes of experience and disillusionment, I crave heroes I can relate to. Aside from the occasional daydreams of having superpowers to punish the jerk who cuts me off on the freeway, or to dazzle the gal that just isn’t impressed with DVD reviews, I don’t want to emulate a superhero anymore. Superheroes exist to excite the mind and trigger the imagination. They perform truly heroic acts, but when placed in the context of reality, those acts ring hollow and create a cynicism about the existence of real heroes.

“Hurt Locker” restored my faith in true heroism.

The film is not a documentary, but it was shot in a style that replicates the authentic feel of raw genuine footage. The effect is an illusion that you are watching real people do real things in real danger, and so acts of courage and selflessness have the ability to strike a chord. The characters aren’t flawless, they aren’t saints, but they are people putting their lives on the line to save the lives of others. I felt admiration for the work they did, for their toughness and ability to cope with fear. They weren’t without fear—they just didn’t let it stop them from doing what needed to be done. They were very human, very relatable, and the fact that there are actually men and women doing exactly what the characters were doing made their actions resonate in a powerful way.

The film shows the soldier’s vulnerabilities and mistakes, and it does nothing to glorify their jobs or their fight. But in doing nothing more than trying to capture reality, the film is able to reveal the heart of heroism that exists in the real world as we know it, and there are no superpowers, special effects, or motley costumes to obscure the view.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you’re a fan of more documentary-type filmmaking, you enjoy character-driven plots, you’re looking for realistic portrayals of war or you’d rather be immersed than entertained.

Steer Clear:
If you want a fast-paced thrill-ride or a typical war film. There is violence but it’s few and far between, no shoot-out scenes or even palpable villains. This isn’t good versus evil with an underlying plot and resolution at the end. It’s episodic, and there is a lot of downtime.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
This is going to fit in more with a war documentary than with any other Hollywood-type film out there. It’s rather unique, since it has the feel of realism without having any footage of authentic scenarios or battles. It has the pacing of a sniper film, like “Enemy at the Gates” without the love triangle and definitive villain, but it’s hard to find another flick out there that has done what this film has done.

Buy or Rent:
Rent. You can get through the special features in less than forty minutes, and this is definitely an experiential piece. You watch it, you appreciate it, but most likely there won’t be anything to draw you back. It’s worth a viewing, but you most likely won’t find it entertaining in a way that would make you want to see it again.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Language Selection

-Feature Commentary with director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal

-The Hurt Locker: Behind the Scenes
Approx 12 minutes. A very typical behind-the-scenes feature that does little more than tell you what you’ve seen in the film. Almost a third of the running time is occupied by clips from the movie with very little “behind-the-scenes” footage mixed in. If you want a summary of the movie without watching it, this section is useful. But if you’ve seen the film, this is going to be little more than redundant.
DUH! Factor (On a scale of 1 to 10—10 being “very obvious” and 1 being “interesting”): 10

-Image Gallery (with or without Q&A Recorded at the Institute of Contemporary Art, London)
Approx 23 minutes. This is a collection of feature and production stills from the film. They are pretty small and low-res, so they don’t really garner that much interest. You can view them as a slideshow with a director/writer Q&A session providing the soundtrack, which redeems this feature to a degree. Bigelow and Boal talk about everything from the musical score to casting, to distribution, and elaborate on their movie-making philosophy and strategy. Again, it’s a lot of telling you what you’ve already seen, but there are some nuggets of interest if you care about the filmmaking process. Content is discussed, but not to any great depth.
DUH! Factor: 7

Woulda Been Nice: To have a day-in-the-life-of-an-actor-on-set segment. There’s a wee bit of footage and some stills showing the actors on set that piqued my interest as to what it was like to film in Jordan. And it would have been fascinating to see interviews with the native extras to see what they thought of the filming and their take on the experience of working with American filmmakers.

Walk Hard

PASSING THOUGHTS
I think this is the first time that a movie has been upstaged by a penis. With two brief cameos, the male genitalia created the only lasting impression I have of this film. Granted, there was plenty of nudity from both sexes during the scene, but for some reason the phallic shots were particularly obtrusive. It wasn’t like I was in a locker room with a bunch of naked guys milling about on their way to and from the shower. It was like I was kneeling down to tie my shoe and a naked man turned around and just stood in front of me for no reason.

What’s worse is that I had the distinct feeling that for some reason this man thought himself terribly funny for doing so.

Apparently the filmmakers weren’t content with their ceaseless exploitation of the word “Cox” and decided we needed a visual as well. To each his own, I suppose.

That bit of tomfoolery aside, “Walk Hard” proved to be an interesting exploration of parody. I have never seen “Walk the Line”, but after watching this spoof I think I can piece most of the plot together. Usually parodies will simply tap into familiar imagery from other movies and pick on nuances of the genre. The stories are a series of disjointed scenes that exist only to provide the set-up for a joke. The “Scary Movie” series is a good example of this. While the films are able to mock many different titles, they do so at the cost of a coherent plot. “Walk Hard” adheres to its source material all the way through the film, allowing it to accurately borrow the plot and use it to drive the action forward.

It’s the difference between merely speaking the lyrics of a song parody and actually singing them with the original music. Speaking the lyrics can be humorous in much the same way a stand-up routine can be humorous. If the lines are funny by themselves, they’ll get laughs regardless of whether they are placed in the context of a song. The benefit to this is that the audience doesn’t need to know the source material the song is mocking because the humor stands alone. The downside is that the true essence of parody is missed and there’s nothing to carry the material towards a conclusion.

Singing the spoof lyrics with the original music puts the jokes in context and highlights the genius and insight of the writers; the production value and familiarity of the original song helps to sustain interest and underscore the punch-lines. It’s an added bonus if the satirical lyrics actually mock the subject of the original song instead of going off on their own tangent. The only drawback to this is that the audience needs to know the source material to really appreciate what is being done to it.

“Walk Hard” is definitely a parody that sings the lyrics with the original music, so after the first few minutes I figured I wouldn’t get the humor because I’d never seen “Walk the Line”. However, most of the jokes are so overt and specific that I began to see the original story (and its apparent flaws) beneath them. This created a three-step process in which I recognized the joke, inferred what the original movie must have been like based on that joke, and then examined the joke again in light of my inference.

On the whole, this movie didn’t come off as terribly humorous. I don’t know whether to blame the rigors of my extensive examination or the quality of the jokes, but somehow the mark was missed. There were crass moments aplenty and no shortage of sexual innuendos, but there was very little in the way of brilliant comedy. The songs and scenes were performed with the utmost integrity, which is crucial in pulling off a spoof, but they still came up lacking the necessary punch.

To be on the safe side, make sure you’ve seen “Walk the Line” before taking a gander at this film, and have your finger poised over the FF button at the 29 minute mark. (Or just skip Chapter 9 altogether.)

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you gravitate towards physical and sex-related comedy that has a tendency to go over-the-top, or if you enjoy movies that straddle the line between “edgy” and “poor taste”.

Steer Clear:
If you prefer understated or relatively clean humor, you’re looking for a family comedy, or you haven’t seen “Walk the Line” yet.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
As a parody of “Walk the Line”, the plot and events are very similar. John C. Reilly running around in his abbreviated wardrobe is reminiscent of almost every Will Ferrell movie, and the humorous quality is very much akin to “Talladega Nights”, “Half Baked”, and “Good Luck Chuck”. The parody style is closer to something like “Spaceballs” than it is to “Scary Movie”.

Buy or Rent:
BUY. If this sort of thing is your cup o’ tea, you’ll enjoy revisiting it from time to time. The production values are rather good, which means the moments are well-done—and there are many of them. If you aren’t a big fan of movies like this, you’d probably be advised to skip a rental.

FEATURES

-Languages

-Scene Selection

-Previews (12 total)

-Commentary with Jake Kasdan, Judd Apatow, John C. Reilly and Lew Morton

-Full Song Performances
8 total. These are the songs from the movie performed in their entirety as extended scenes. (Walk Hard, A Life Without You, Guilty as Charged, Dear Mr. President, Royal Jelly, Starman, You Make Me So (Hard), Walk Hard—All Star Band.)

-Deleted and Extended Scenes
4 scenes, approx 11 minutes. The first scene adds a minute to the beginning of the drug deal scene, the second scene is another version of Dewey’s rehab, the third scene is an extension to the Beatles interaction, and the final scene is an alternate acid trip done with live action and FX instead of animation.

-Line-O-Rama
Approx 6 minutes. A series of ad-libs that weren’t used in the film. These are not outtakes or goofs, but rather improv lines from the actors during the course of shooting.

-The Music of “Walk Hard”
Approx 16.5 minutes. A featurette that explores how each song in the movie was conceived, developed and performed. It features a lot of behind-the-scenes footage as well as interviews with the songwriters, composers and the director. John C. Reilly is in most of the shots as he did the actual singing and guitar playing for most of the songs.
DUH! FACTOR: 3 out of 10

-The Real Dewey Cox
Approx 14 minutes. This is a spoof of the featurettes done about real people. Just as the film itself faithfully mimics the source material, this faux biography imitates the mood and material found in a documentary. It is, for all intents and purposes, a mocumentary. Features interviews with John C. Reilly, Jackson Browne, Lyle Lovett, John Meyer, Sheryl Crow, Sarah Evans, and Jewel, among others.

Would Been Nice: If the filmmakers would have chosen to take the higher route regarding their brand of comedy. Obviously you can’t please everyone, but there were brief moments of potential mixed with the innuendos and lewdness.

What Happens In Vegas

PASSING THOUGHTS
This movie reminded me of an Improv game where players are given random sentences that they have to work into a dictated situation. The end result tends to be amusing, but it’s also understandably contrived and usually somewhat awkward.

Every plot has certain points that need to be hit to move the story along and allow the characters to show some kind of growth. Ideally these points are submerged inside the story, disguised as dialogue and events that happen naturally based on circumstances. For the most part, “Vegas” doesn’t achieve any kind of subtlety when it comes to said plot points. The reasons for certain lines and situations become all-too-apparent the instant they develop, which makes this love story seem more forced than most. Instead of the movie being like a real person with muscles and sinews working together to create fluid movement, “Vegas” was more like a skeleton that had the necessary pieces in place but had nothing to animate them.

The main reason for the overt contrivances seems to be a noble attempt to give the movie a depth and a heart that it shouldn’t have had. When a movie premise is a gimmick or a bizarre circumstance, the film can go two ways: it can either take the uniqueness seriously and use it as a creative way to expose something equally unique about life, or it can use the gimmick to set the stage for a series of increasingly ridiculous and implausible events that, if done well, allow hilarity to ensue before injecting a touch of sentimentality at the end. Films like “Bruce Almighty”, “Notting Hill” and “Stranger than Fiction” take the former approach, allowing what comedy there is come about as a natural byproduct of the situation, whereas films like “Liar Liar” and “Rat Race” are essentially designed to be a string of laughs.

“Vegas” was designed to be a laughter platform but tried to take itself seriously at certain points; naturally those points stuck out like sore thumbs and robbed the film of its comedic flow.

On the plus side, the film was far less crass than it might have been. For the most part it avoided truly low-brow antics and didn’t turn to rampant nudity, graphic sex, or gratuitous substance abuse to illicit laughs. There were some good lines and reactions throughout, and while the characters were mostly caricatures, they weren’t obnoxious or annoying.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you want a casual romp that revolves around pranks and one-upmanship and doesn’t require any emotional attachment, or if you enjoy Ashton Kutcher movies in general.

Steer Clear:
If you’re looking for traditional romance, you enjoy the gradual progression of love into a relationship, or you’re seeking smart comedy.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
While no particular movie comes to mind as a precedent for this one, it does focus on a typical antagonistic relationship—albeit one that’s more exaggerated than most. If you’re familiar with the sitcom “Frasier”, think of Ross and Bulldog. In some ways it feels like a less mature, less intelligent version of “27 Dresses”, where both parties are constantly at odds with each other.

Buy or Rent:
RENT. No special features, no draw for a repeat viewing. Obviously if you found the shenanigans funny you’ll enjoy watching it again and again, but for the most part you can glean all there is to glean from one pass.

FEATURES

-Languages

-Scenes

-Trailers
“Deal”, “Charlie Bartlett”, “Marley and Me”—Teaser

Woulda Been Nice: Once again I’ll revert to the gag reel—outtakes for comedies are always nice. Not much else to look for in terms of bonus features; it’s pretty cut and dry.

The Ugly Truth

PASSING THOUGHTS
Romantic comedies typically require a measure of suspended disbelief. Even the most believable premises involve coincidences, out-of-the-ordinary circumstances, and internal changes that occur at the speed of montage. Trouble can arise when the level of suspension begins to rival that of a sci-fi or horror flick, and unfortunately it requires the same imagination for me to buy into the characters and theme of this movie as it does for me to accept the existence of Ewoks, elves, and zombies.

First of all, the leads are caricatures who represent opposite extremes of the relational spectrum. This isn’t a problem in itself, but when the world begins to morph and twist around them, essentially adjusting to their extremities, the effect is jarring. Instead of placing the hypothesis of the theme in front of a realistic backdrop for speculation and comparison, the film applies the hypothesis to the world which takes it out of reality. Instead of lust and love being two different things, they are merged into one. Lust and its effects are typically frowned on by society, but here it is given the same respect and approval that love is. Whatever planet this film is set in, it isn’t Earth.

If the film had been able to successfully blur the difference between love and lust, this premise might still have worked. But there are numerous plot holes and character contradictions that make the fantasy all the more unbelievable. First, Mike says that he doesn’t believe in a healthy relationship, to his “very core”, citing a list of bad experiences as proof. Then, naught but one dance later, his core has undergone a complete transformation, and he believes in love and is willing to pursue what he must consider to be a healthy relationship. Next, after having fled from what we are to believe is love, Mike tells his new producer, “You know what I like best about you? I don’t want to have sex with you”. He didn’t say, “I’m not in love with you”, he made an overt reference to lust.

A third gaping discrepancy in the plot is the falling out between Abby and Colin. The entire movie we are led to believe that Abby has fallen in love with Colin; he has everything she wants, and he’s a great guy to boot (except of course for the horrendous fact that he orders bottled water instead of tap water). Yet in the end when Abby confesses that she is nothing like the woman she has presented to him, it somehow drives away her love for him. If she loved him before, revealing herself to be a liar shouldn’t change that. In fact, Colin should be the one rejecting her. But in this strange new world, Colin ends up getting the shaft because the girl he fell in love with stopped loving him when she exposed herself as a fake. I believe that’s a first in cinema history.

This perversion of reality is made most evident by one of Heigl’s comments in the special features. In reference to the two leads, she says, “It works because they bring out the best in one another…” But by her character’s own admission, Mike didn’t bring out the best in her. He brought out a false her that could tune into a man’s lust and manipulate him into developing feelings for her.

This film tried to be a modern day When Harry Met Sally—it even had an orgasm-in-the-restaurant scene (though this one was real). But while WHMS shows the evolution of friendship to love and presents a somewhat coherent presentation about the differences between men and women, TUT tries to mix lust and love and proclaim it to be a universal truth. But thanks to the fabrication of a fantasy world filled with unbelievable characters, the “truth” is revealed to be what it really is. A lie.

But to be fair, it is an ugly lie.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you aren’t looking for a lovey-dovey romance, and want more physical and bizarre comedy, this is up your alley; think Something About Mary. Even comedies tend to have a serious streak, but this film doesn’t tap into that. This is an antagonistic love story where the leads know each other from the get-go but don’t get along at all. There’s plenty of clashing and jousting, and it won’t require a lot of thought to follow. If you want a chic flick that minimizes the “chic”, this is your pick.

Steer Clear:
If you’re looking for a family-oriented comedy. This is rated R for a very good reason: lots of overt sexual language, references and profanity. There’s very little nudity (male backside, censored female front), but this is definitely an adult film. This is almost what American Pie would be like if it got older; the romance and relational development are minimized in exchange for physical comedy.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
This has the social commentary feel of a crass "When Harry Met Sally", and the protagonist angle of a raunchy "Hitch". And with very few deviations, the characters and interactions are very much reminiscent of Someone Like You, and, to a degree, "27Dresses".

Buy or Rent:
RENT. Unless you found the physical comedy to be funny enough for multiple viewings, there won’t be much to justify making this a purchase. You can tackle most of the bonus features in less than an hour, and the story is pretty straight-forward. The dialogue is more of a commentary and doesn’t necessarily make for an entertaining exchange. The performances are good enough, so if you’re a fan of Heigl or Butler this may be something you’d add to your collection. Other than that, one viewing should be enough. Of course, if you want a healthy collection of previews (this baby has a baker’s dozen of ‘em) this is a must-buy.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Language Selection

-Select Scenes Commentary with Director Robert Luketic and Producer Gary Lucchesi:
10 scenes total.

-Deleted Scenes:
Approx 10 minutes of new footage. There are six scenes total, most of which are continuations of existing scenes. There are two scenes which deal with the introduction and creation of Mike’s agent, but the rest seem to extend the through-lines of the scenes they were cut from. The final scene is interesting in that it shows you what montage footage looks like without the music behind it. …Which in turn shows you how important music is to making a montage work! (The footage in these scenes is cut and polished for the most part, so the quality is the same as the feature footage.)

-Alternate Endings:
Approx 5 minutes. There are two alternate endings. The first is simply a role reversal of the very last scene in the theatrical version. The second is an extended Return of the King-esq ending where we get lots of reactions shots from the other characters, and we see what appears to be the outdoor reception of a wedding between our two lovebirds. Most of this segment consists of a dance sequence without the music.

-Gag Reel:
Approx 10 minutes. There is a lot of footage here, but only about 5% of it is what you would consider bloopers or outtakes. Most of what you’ll see are ad-libs and alternate or extended lines. Nothing that really makes you think, “I wish that was in the movie”, just a display of some of the creativity on set. Not much to laugh at, but definitely one of the longest “gag reels” I’ve seen.

-The Truth Is Ugly: Capturing the Male and Female Point of View:
Approx 12.5 minutes. This is pretty much a segment where the producer, director, screenwriters and major cast members explain the theology behind the movie in their own words. This isn’t about the movie per se, but it sheds further light on the perspectives and overall theme of the story. It’s not redundant, but if you’ve watched the film, you pretty much get the idea.
DUH! FACTOR: 8 out of 10

-The Art of Laughter: A Making of Hilarious Proportions:
Approx 16 minutes. This is the part where the actors talk about how great the director was to work with, the director talks about the cast, and the producers and screenwriters chime in with their praise for the project in general. There is some time taken to discuss Georgia and Larry’s (played by Cheryl Hines and John Michael Higgins) exchange and contribution to the film, but other than that, this segment is pretty much praise over behind-the-scenes footage. No real eye-openers here, but if you want to hear how the muscle-bound hero of 300 came to be a romantic lead, you might find this interesting.
DUH! FACTOR: 7 out of 10

-Previews:
Did You Hear About the Morgans?, Angels and Demons, Julie and Julia, Blu-Ray Disc Ad, 2012, The Accidental Husband, It Might Get Loud, St. Trinian’s, The Maiden Heist, Assassination of a High School President, Coco Before Chanel, Whatever Works, Fireflies in the Garden, The Nora Roberts Collection.

Woulda Been Nice: To have more “truth” and less “ugly”.

There Will Be Blood

PASSING THOUGHTS
Time is precious. Time is a fixed commodity for all of us; once it’s gone there is no way to earn, borrow, barter, steal, or in any other earthly way obtain more of it. It is for this reason that I find myself remorsefully bitter when two hours and thirty-five minutes of my time is utterly wasted by a piece of nonsensical tripe so far removed from the human experience that it is not merely irrelevant, it is perverse.

This story—no. I cannot even call this a story. It is a nightmare. It is a nightmare because there is enough imagery to mimic reality, but nothing that happens makes any sense within the context of reality. There are human forms, but they do not act human. There is speech, but it makes no sense. The whole film is a vague shadow that uses familiar elements to create a completely foreign world that cannot be understood or reasoned with. Violence without explanation and unhinged dialogue are accentuated by music that seems to be composed for the sole purpose of adding to the cacophony.

The nightmare is comprised of pure lunacy. Not greed, not faith, not hate, but utter madness. A few of the peripheral characters are not infected with this madness, but the rest are relentlessly driven forward by it. The first indication of trouble starts with Paul Sunday’s question game with Daniel. Every question is answered in kind by another question, sometimes one that has no relationship to the train of thought. Paul seems very unnatural, very strange—traits that apparently run in the family. His twin brother, Eli, also likes to play the question game and shares his brother’s propensity for playing hardball. Eli comes across as abnormal from the moment he is introduced. He speaks and reacts with an eerie detachment that makes him seem psychotic. I was waiting for his head to spin around or for him to start levitating. His authority over his family is unsettling, as is the fact that he is supposed to be the pastor of a church. His behavior is erratic and frankly unbelievable once it becomes clear there is no catch. He’s not possessed, he’s not an alien and he’s not a manifest spirit. He acts like he could be any of those things, yet we are to believe he’s just a man of faith trying to get his church up and running. The scene where he jumps on the table and starts beating his father clinched it for me. I thought for sure he was an imposter pretending to be part of the family; some kind of psycho swindler who’s plan was foiled by Daniel. What son attacks his father like that? What mother allows it? What father just sits there and takes verbal abuse? Was the film simply trying to display the hypocrisy of religion? If so, it shouldn’t have used an overtly deranged boy as a representative of faith, particularly when faith never makes so much as a cameo. There’s a twisted version of salvation involved, but it is treated with even less integrity than the man who presents it.

Daniel seems somewhat normal at the outset, but it soon becomes clear that he is not in his right mind either. Apart from a brief monologue about his desire to compete and prevail, there is absolutely no indication that greed drives him. His actions are incomprehensible because there is no motivation for them. He publicly beats Eli in a random act of violence, and he fondles his future daughter-in-law. After stating that he just wants to make enough money so that he can get away from the people he hates so much, he turns down a huge sum of money saying he wouldn’t know what to do with his time. When a man suggests that Daniel could spend the free time with H.W., Daniel flies off into another tantrum that culminates with him threatening to cut the man’s throat while he sleeps. It’s clear by every man’s reaction at the table that they think Daniel has lost his mind, and at that point I completely agree with them.

When Daniel finds out that Henry lied to him about being his brother, he kills him. Henry was not a competitor, he wasn’t a threat. He was a liar, but nothing more. Then Eli, in desperate need of money, visits Daniel in his house where Daniel bludgeons him to death with a bowling pin. Eli posed no threat to Daniel in any shape or form. He also was not a competitor, but Daniel saw fit to take his life anyway. These are definitive moments for Daniel’s character, and somehow they are chalked up to greed.

Greed? How can any of these bizarre actions be in any way associated with greed? The only possible murder Daniel could have committed out of greed would have been to kill H.W. because his faux son could have possibly become a viable competitor. But Daniel doesn’t kill him. Instead, he opts to reveal the truth about their relationship with inexplicable venom and animosity. I expected to see him start foaming at the mouth during this speech, as he comes across as little more than a rabid dog.

After an hour and a half, I was done with this movie. It seemed to be nothing more than a series of on-the-job accidents and slap fights held together by two complete loons doing strange things that could not be explained by any normal human condition. I watched it until the end, hoping for a revelation or some kind of twist that would justify the perpetual disconnect these characters have with reality.

I hoped in vain.

I eventually caved and went online to see if I could glean something from a synopsis, and I was horrified to discover that this cinematic debacle was actually praised by critics. Apparently it even won two Oscars. I cannot fathom what state of delirium the advocates of this movie must have been in to see it as anything more than a tragic waste of silver, but then I cannot understand how a human mind could spawn such nonsense in the first place.

As for the nuts and bolts of the film, it had some great acting, great cinematography, a fantastic wardrobe and some believable sets. Very high production values. The score, however, sounded like a musical version of Tourette’s. It never fit the mood or tempo of the scenes, and oftentimes it proved to be a distraction. Sometimes it was downright repetitive and annoying. I would say that it didn’t relate to the film at all, but its complete lack of cohesion fit very well with the “plot”.

The so-called themes of this movie never show up. Greed may have a presence, but it doesn’t come through in the action. Family exists, but it has no form or effect. Faith is never seen as a viable virtue. The only theme this movie presents is one of oppressive insanity. No reason, no logic, no rationale…just a series of actions and reactions that comes to a merciful and abrupt end.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you like the feeling that you’re watching a nightmare, you enjoy long bouts of insubstantial silence, or if you can appreciate stellar acting as the only redeeming virtue of a film.

Steer Clear:
If you want multi-dimensional characters, an involving plot, and a story that makes any kind of sense.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
Fortunately I can think of no other film that bears any semblance to this atrocity.

Buy or Rent:
RENT.

FEATURES

-Language Selection

-Scene Selection

Woulda Been Nice: If the filmmakers would have offered some kind of feature that could possibly explain how they justified making this movie.

Star Trek

PASSING THOUGHTS
As a prequel, Star Trek manages to do in one film what the three latest Star Wars movies could not: create a solid connection between the past and future, and flesh out its main characters in a way that makes you want to find out what happens to them later on.

To be fair, Star Wars did have some disadvantages from the get-go. The lead characters first meet in Episode IV, so there’s no way to show them interacting before then, and the action is scattered across a galaxy. In Star Trek, the adventures pretty much focus on the crew of a single starship, so it’s easier to bring more familiar faces together in a recognizable setting. There is also the fact that Star Wars is more linear in its storytelling while Star Trek is more episodic; it’s easier to make a prequel when there are fewer plot parameters to work with.

Those setbacks aside, Star Trek just goes to greater lengths to be a story in its own right, while also being a believable prelude to the stories that follow. Some of the elements are subtle production-oriented details, such as choosing to forsake the digital craze and shoot the movie on film. The Star Wars prequels were shot digital in HD and then transferred to film, whereas Star Trek was shot in the classical way. Also, the original Star Trek used tangible models and locations, and Abrams tried his best to use real props and settings as often as he could when making the prequel. The Star Wars prequels were made when CGI was all the rage (and overused), and so digitizing as many things as possible was the way to go. There is a difference between using a green screen and having the real thing, and Star Trek does a better job of melding the technological differences from a production standpoint.

The bulk of the improvements aren’t as subtle. First, Star Trek introduces its main characters at the right time; Kirk is in his twenties and on the brink of becoming who and what we all know him to be. In Star Wars, the main character, Anakin, is a child, and doesn’t become remotely interesting until the third film. Because of this awkward starting point, the audience has to be introduced to a slew of new characters so that the story can be moved along with any kind of effect.

Another difference between the prequels is the fact that Kirk and the crew also grow noticeably as people through the story, changing because of the actions they choose. Whereas in Star Wars, Anakin and the Jedi are stagnant; time passes and action moves the story along, but the characters don’t seem to be affected by it. Anakin is rebellious and whiny, the Jedi council is aloof and removed, and Obi-Wan seems to be the only one trying to get anything done.

Star Trek also seems to handle the technological gap better than Star Wars. The Enterprise is modified inside and out, as are the uniforms, but the changes don’t jar you from the story. In Star Wars, the ships and equipment look far newer and more advanced in the prequels than in the films that are supposed to follow. There is a hazy point where the technology of the real world has to parallel the technology of the film, and Star Trek just seems to find that balance better.

Ironically enough, Abrams mentioned how he wanted his film to mimic the original Star Wars movies in terms of the plot and pacing; he knew that the classic Star Trek style might fail to reach a new audience if he didn’t modify its presentation.

Apparently Abrams also learned what not to mimic by watching the Star Wars prequels, and so was able to create a fitting preamble to a successful franchise.


BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you enjoyed Star Trek the series, you’ll probably find this an enjoyable romp. It’s relatively clean in terms of language and sexual content; it doesn’t boldly go where no other Trek film has gone before in terms of an escalation in violence, gore, nudity or vulgarity. Not a bad pick for youngsters; if they could handle the new Star Wars films, they could handle this. It’s not terribly complex in terms of plot, and the story is relatively straight-forward. It’s an easy watch with a suitable amount of action to keep you engaged.

Steer Clear:
If you didn’t enjoy Star Trek in any of its earlier forms (tv shows and movies), or if you like more of the horror-ish flicks in the Sci-Fi genre like Alien, Predator, Event Horizon, etc..,

Nothing New Under the Sun:
It’s very much akin to it’s Star Trek ancestors, and it has time-travel elements similar to Back to the Future, Time Machine, etc.., The movie doesn’t revolve around time-travel, but its premise is based around it. Think of an amalgam of all the Star Trek shows but with higher production values and faster pacing.

Buy or Rent:
RENT. There just aren’t enough bonus features to necessitate a purchase; you can enjoy all the material (commentary included) in under three hours. The Blu-ray version would be worth buying, but for those interested in the standard definition version, you can get everything you want in a rental. The features are good, but there’s not nearly enough volume. Unless you want to own the movie because of the film itself, save some money and visit a RedBox.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Language Selection

-Commentary with JJ Abrams, Bryan Burk, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, and Robert Orci (Director, Producer, Writers, Executive Producers)

-A New Vision
Approx 19.5 minutes. This feature examines the overall vision and filmmaking philosophy of the film rather than getting into detail about casting, plot, etc.., The characters and story aren’t touched on at all, but there is a lot of discussion about the project itself and what elements were important in bringing a new Trek film to the screen. Abrams’ approach to special effects seems to be similar to that of Peter Jackson’s (Lord of the Rings), and there is some sleight of hand that went into creating some of the shots that hails back to the pre-computerized days of cinema. While this feature seems to graze the surface of what was clearly a well-thought-out piece of work, it is a solid piece of behind-the-scenes exploration with very little time spent on the obligatory praise of the personnel involved.
DUH! FACTOR: 1 out of 10

-Gag Reel
Approx 6 minutes. It’s rare to find a serious Sci-Fi movie that’s willing to show a comical side, but Trek actually makes a production out of it. The feature starts off with full-blown picture credits (complete with the original Star Trek theme), and maintains a level of quality that almost seems wasted on a gag reel. Different segments are accompanied by different musical backdrops that enhance the humor, and the types of bloopers are the classic missed lines and physical screw-ups reminiscent of “TV’s Bloopers and Practical Jokes”. There’s even a short cut of a scene where Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Spock) run their lines with a Scottish brogue.

-Previews
Transformers 2, GI Joe, Fringe (TV series), Star Trek D-A-C (video game)

Woulda Been Nice: If the copious amount of features on the Blu-ray release were available on the standard DVD. The two-disc version has no extra bonus features—it only adds a digital-copy-disc. It’s always nice to have more of a good thing.