TCM: Remembering 2009

The people over at Turner Classic Movies (TCM) have edited together a tribute video to memorialize those who in the movie industry who have passed away in 2009. It is always a surprise for me to watch these tribute video and see how many people that I know from the movies who have died in the last year. Have a look at the video for yourself and see how many of the faces that you are able to recognize.

The song that is playing during the montage is To Live Is To Fly which is performed by Steve Earle.

Review: Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

The amount of time it takes to raise a national flag could be an insignificant passage of time. If the moment was captured in a photograph and published throughout the country, it could evolve into a symbol of hope when the world is broken into pieces during an international crisis such as World War II. For a brief moment, it seems rather strange to consider the possibility that the story of raising the American flag as seen in the famous photograph could be told in a movie that runs for over two hours in length. Yes, the complete history surrounding the event of the famous photograph is told in the film Flags of Our Fathers (2006) which is based upon a book written by the son of one of the soldiers involved in the event. What can be quickly drawn from watching this movie is that the raising of the flag is not the primary focus of the entire film, but merely a utility that I would imagine to be a variation of Hitchcock’s MacGuffin. For those who are unfamiliar with the definition of a MacGuffin may be quickly informed with the following statement. It is merely a motivational device originally utilized by Alfred Hitchcock as a way to entice the audience into the storyline and to carry the plot line along. However, the audience may no longer care about the MacGuffin by the time they reach the conclusion of the film marking the device as merely a method to move the story along a designated path. The raising of the flag in Flags of Our Fathers is what moves the story along, but it was not my primary focus when I arrived at the conclusion of the film.

At least with my experience of watching the film I will admit that I was enraptured by the stories of the primary participants involved in the battle on Iwo Jima island. Each one of them faced a different challenge in performing their duties during the war. The three primary characters in the film are wounded emotionally and mentally from the extremely violent battle that left several of their war companions in physical disarray. Imagine how disheartening and completely jarring it would be for any one of us to battling the stress of a wartime battle only to look over and see a friend bleeding to death with his or her own internal organs splattered around. It is disturbing just to conjure up the image in our minds let alone knowing that the experiences of the primary characters in the movie are based upon real life soldiers who have actually witnessed such horrific events during World War II.

The narrative structure for the film is not definitively linear, but rather it jumps back and forth between three different moments in time. At the primary core of the film is the story of the actual battle of Iwo Jima as it unfolds for the battalion involved in the event. Stepping outside of the events of the battle there is the second layer of the narrative structure in which three of the soldiers, whom presumably appear in the famous photograph, return to the United States at the request of the government in order to promote the purchase of war bonds in order to prevent the country from going bankrupt. The last layer of the time line for the film would be the present day narrative in which the son of one of the main characters is researching the events of the battle of Iwo Jima. Predominantly the narrative of the battle is revealed using flashbacks and relapses of memory that are conjured up during the present day narrative or during the narrative for the promotional tour for war bonds. This form of storytelling may offer a large risk that the viewer will be left behind in the dust of confusion. However, the team effort of the director, the writers, and the editor have pulled together a reasonably clean attempt at keeping the audience actively involved in paying attention to the story and reducing any possible opportunity for confusion.

Moving beyond the story that is told within Flags of Our Fathers it may be surprising for some people to reflect upon the production of the movie. It was produced in tandem with its sister film Letters from Iwo Jima which presents a story of the battle through the perspective of the Japanese battalion. Both of the films were directed by Clint Eastwood at the ripe age of seventy-six years old. Simultaneously directing two epic films about the same story, however told from a different perspective, can be a daunting task for anyone half his age. I cannot imagine the amount of dedication and hard work that he must have placed in the creation and production for both of the films. The amazing part that blows my mind is the fact that he was able to complete both pictures and have them released within three months of each other without keeling over and dying on us. The value and quality of the two films showed no sign of suffering because of a director who has split his attention between the productions of the two films. Both of them have garnered Oscar nominations, including a nomination for best direction and best picture of the year (Letters from Iwo Jima).

Overall it would be the least that any one of us could do as a favor for Clint Eastwood by attempting to watch both films within close proximity of each other. Doing so would offer us a complete picture of the battle of Iwo Jima from the perspective of both sides of the battle. I applaud Mr. Eastwood for daring such a profound attempt of translating a historical battle into a cinematic story without chopping it down into a clean cut ninety minute version. I do not doubt that he may have left a large portion of the stories and facts about the battle sitting on the cutting room floor just to produce two films about the battle. I could not imagine how much more of the story would have been left behind if he were to reduce it down even further to that of a single film.

Review: Invictus (2009)

Should it be noted that Clint Eastwood refuses to retire at the ripe old age of 79? He will be turning 80 years old at the end of May this year and it does not appear that he will be quitting his daytime job anytime soon. With the new release of the rugby based film Invictus (2009) he will continue working on several different topics that he could possible grapple. His latest film is a slight bit removed from the usual American heroism that I can remember from his previous films. It is to my surprise that I find myself watching a movie about a rugby team from South Africa during the early political era of Nelson Mandela’s tenure as the country’s president. Why would Eastwood consider covering such an intriguing topic? I will admit that I would not be able to form into an honest and coherent answer to that question. However, it is an interesting topic for him to approach for the story of his new film. The entire story is set during the early 1990s when President Mandela had been released from jail and worked his way into political office of South Africa where racial bias is widely prevalent throughout the country. For a black man to be voted into the highest government position in this country there is a guarantee that there will be quite a bit of difficulty for adjustment for everyone. For those who were confused by the film’s title and its connection to the story, as I was at first, I will shed a bit of light upon it. The title is a Latin word meaning “invincible” and is the title of a poem mentioned in the film that was published by British poet William Ernest Henley in 1875. Just for the fun of it here is the poem in its entirety...

Invictus (1875).
by William Ernest Henley

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

The core of the story in the movie revolves around a group of rugby players who must learn to be strong and diligent in their effort to win the championship in order to serve as a patriotic motivation for their country. It seems like a tongue in cheek attempt at patriotism, but the film was produced by a group of Americans who I do not believe have any immediate ties to South Africa to show any sign of national patriotism to their country. Regardless of any political ties, the producers of the film may have with any other country I would think that they want to tell the story of personal achievement in order to encourage their comrades and fellow compatriots to come together in unison rather than bicker over menial differences.

Personally, it was a little bit strange for me to be watching a movie about the leader of a country considering the gamble of asking an athletic team to win the world championship in order to gain the opportunity for national unity. The situation seems rather strange, because I was wondering what the odds of an American team winning an international athletic championship as a way to unify the citizens of the United States together on a tough social issue. There seems to be a bit of a difficulty in my mind in wanting to piece together the two elements. An athletic championship spurs social unity over a hot topic in the country. Can I take this seriously? I cannot remember the United States arriving at an agreement over the issue of public health care when the Red Sox won the World Series a couple of years ago, so it seems rather difficult for me to digest the plausibility of a country temporarily forgetting about racial issues after their national rugby team wins the World Cup.

Despite the dilemma that I have with processing the situation in which the movie is set within, I will move on to the dynamics of actually works in its favor. The movie is based upon a true story. Regardless of how much of it is factual and which part of it has been fictionalized for the sake of being a Hollywood production is beside the point for the time being. I am a skeptic viewer for the moment. The formula of storytelling is clear from the beginning to the very end. A minority figure is given the opportunity to make a drastic and very positive change for the future of his country. He wants to end racial discrimination and bipartisanship. After a bit of brainstorming he stumbles across the idea of uniting the country through the common ground of patriotism. While serving as president of South Africa it appears to be a strange request that Nelson Mandela would ask the team coach of the rugby team to earn the top spot on behalf of the entire country. He hopes that everyone will be rooting for the team during the championship games offering the opportunity that they will notice a common bond with their fellow compatriots. It seems rather reasonable of a plan, I guess. The goal would be for the unification of the country so that it may become invincible.

By the end of the movie, it is apparent that the story is emotionally compelling. These athletes may not be the first in line to join the army and defend the country during a war, but they are still fighting for the honor of their country. The people from all over South Africa are cheering for them to win the championship. At the bare necessity of the film, there is a fundamental story about a sports team facing the odds to overcome a tremendous difficulty in order to win the whole ordeal. As I was watching the film, I was wrapped up in the final battle the team had to face against New Zealand even though I knew they would win. Most of these Hollywood films have a happy conclusion as I have been led to believe.

Happy Intergalactic Holidays!

To offer an interesting twist to the usual holiday cheer I would like to take my holiday greetings to outer space with a few funny holiday quotes!

Dave Barry: In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it 'Christmas' and went to church; the Jews called it 'Hanukkah' and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say 'Merry Christmas!' or 'Happy Hanukkah!' or (to the atheists) 'Look out for the wall!'

George Carlin: Marry an orphan: you'll never have to spend boring holidays with the in-laws.

George Bernard Shaw: A perpetual holiday is a good working definition of hell.

Dave Barry: Once again, we come to the Holiday Season, a deeply religious time that each of us observes, in his own way, by going to the mall of his choice.

Phyllis Diller: Christmas is a time when everybody wants his past forgotten and his present remembered. What I don't like about office Christmas parties is looking for a job the next day.

Jay Leno: The Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot have a nativity scene in Washington, D.C. This wasn't for any religious reasons. They couldn't find three wise men and a virgin.

Bernard Manning: I once bought my kids a set of batteries for Christmas with a note on it saying, toys not included.

Holiday Video Reminders
* College Students: Do not drink at holiday parties.
* Joseph, you are not the father!
* Teenager sticks tongue upon a frozen pole.

More funny Star Wars pictures
* The Storm Trooper Army.
* Darth Vader volunteers to charity.

James Cameron talks about Avatar (2009)

Film director James Cameron recently sat down with film critic and interviewer David Poland to discuss about how the recently released fantasy action film Avatar has crossed several different story genres to reach everyone of all ages and backgrounds.

Why I Am Addicted To Movies (2009 edition)

Terry Gilliam talks about giving answers

For those who have done enough background research may know that Terry Gilliam has a case of the dripping mouth faucet disease. His opinions tend to just flow out of his mouth like a constantly dripping faucet and it shows that he really does not care about the ramifications of what he would say about other filmmakers. It can be a bad thing when he starts burning professional bridges unintentionally. However, there are a few times when he can hit the nail on the head and I find myself in complete agreement with what he has to say. The case in point of where I would agree with him is when he was in an interview with TCM and began talking about the comparison between Stanley Kubrick's directorial style versus that of Steven Spielberg's style. It boils down to how both directors have a tendency to either neatly wrap up the ending of their film with closure (Spielberg) or to offer a catalyst for discussion by not offering a clear cut answer by the end of the film (Kubrick).

Review: Gran Torino (2008)

Here is an award-winning story that I would like to pitch to you, Mr. Producer. How about a story about a crotchety old war veteran who is stubborn and prejudicial? For the climatic twist to the story he will evolve into a kind and loving neighbor who gladly accepts his ethnic neighbors who would like to graciously thank him for protecting the community from a bunch of bad people who hold an evil intent toward others. It will be an Oscar award winner of a story regardless of how cliché the lead character will be and the over used story has been played to death.

All this can be said with a heavy tongue in cheek attitude, because it marks an overplayed character arch of using a crotchety old man who miraculously evolves into a loving person. Why the sudden change of heart for a leading character? It is because the audience would not want to watch the film if he remains the crotchety old man forever. However, since it is Clint Eastwood that we are utilizing to tell the story we can guaranteed to have the crap scared right out of us, but still love the character despite his flaws. After all, he is one of those people who can believably portray a cranky old man who would not think twice about shooting any one of us right between the eyes with a shotgun. However, despite the despise of his neighborhood that he clearly wears upon his sleeve it is with a small amount of hope that the audience can observe a bit of sentimentality that he has for his dog and for his Gran Torino vehicle.

To be honest with you it should be mentioned that I am not a big fan of the story line and not of the lead character. Eastwood has spent several decades perfecting the art of the cranky snarl that has appeared in all of the Dirty Harry films and a couple of his western films as well. It would be merely understated to say that his performance is truly convincing to me and I would not want to cross his path whenever he is having a bad day. However, it is a performance that is over done and should be removed from the cooking oven before it burns down the kitchen.

I would have to say that the glaring annoyance that appears in the film would be the relationship between Eastwood’s character, Walt Kowalski, and the local man of faith, Father Janovich. They are supposed to hold a relationship that resembles the pairing of Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket where the primary character is the unrestrained persona who must listen to the supporting role who serves as his moral and objective conscience. The purpose of using an Episcopalian pastor to serve as a physical manifestation of the moral consciousness of the leading character is a bland decision for my tastes, but it serves its purpose just fine for the movie. Walt throws verbal insults at Father Janovich with equal passion as he hurls insults at his Hmong neighbors. He despises just about everyone around him for the sake of intentionally keeping himself socially distant.

Even though there has been a large amount of positive reviews offered for Gran Torino (2008) it is nothing more than a mediocre practice of character development. I do not think the film would ever make the list of my own personal favorite films of the decade. Surely the production values are worth noting as top notch with the excellent use of cinematography and the neatly packaged use of film editing. Despite my positive impression of the competent skills held by the production crew I was left unimpressed by the story they were attempting to tell the audience.

David Lynch talks about Return of the Jedi

David Lynch, George Lucas, wookies, Return of the Jedi (1983) and a migraine with a side salad?

Review: Knowing (2009)

Who is to say that anyone could accurately predict the future with multiple prophetic announcements and be right every single time? I am unaware of the existence of any person who is able to offer extremely specific prophecies of future events and do so correctly with every single prediction. If you happen to know such a person, could you introduce me? I would like to put him or her to a test. In the film Knowing (2009) there is such a paper of mathematical patterns that predict epic disasters with such accuracy that it emotionally and intellectually rattles MIT professor John Koestler (played by Nicolas Cage). For those who may know about my lack of willingness to see any film starring Nicolas Cage other than Bringing Out the Dead (1999) may be surprised to hear that I actually enjoyed watching this movie. I begrudgingly walk into watching any of Cage's films because I am not thrilled with his unenthusiastic performances. In just about every role that I have seen him perform in he always appears to be half-awake. Was there anyone who bothered to give him a cup of coffee during the production of his films? Moving aside from my distaste in the performance skills of the lead actor I would like to point out that the film was directed by Alex Proyas. If you are unfamiliar with his name as a film director, you might want to rent the dark cult classic film The Crow (1994), my personal favorite neo-noir film Dark City (1998), or his ultra-mega mainstream film I, Robot (2004). In my own opinion, I think it is the dark style of social commentary within the previous films by Proyas, which has proven to be something worthwhile for me to watch.

If you do not believe in the patterns of numerology, I am certain you might be shaking your head with skepticism just as much I was initially skeptical about enjoying the story when I was watching the movie. The intention of playing against our personal skepticism may be a part of the interest in why any of us could relate with an intellectual MIT professor who believes “stuff” happens at random with no pure pattern that could be measured. At least that is what he wants to believe while he is emotionally dealing with the death of his wife. She passed away some time before the start of the film and he must continue raising their son while holding down his full time job as a college professor.

The movie does play with the over used plot device of placing an intellectually minded person in a situation that involves illogical circumstances. Conflict will surely arise when he first denies the existence of anything that could come to fruition without an immediately logical explanation. However, as the case holds for John Koestler in this film, he must approach the conflict with determination to find a logical explanation before he is able to accept the possibility that an elementary school student can predict the future.

To be straightforward and honest with you it is challenging for me to state a specific element or group of elements within the film that I think worked in its favor. After the film was finished I was surprised to discover that I actually enjoyed the film for what it is worth. The special effects were completely amazing to watch. Specifically, there is the scene involving the plane crash that was filmed in a single, uncut tracking shot that pulled me into the intense moment of the situation and I was not thinking so much about the reality of practical set pieces and CGI animation that would have been used during the filming of the scene. Overall, the film is entertaining as it stands and really I could not complain about any flaws that may appear within it.

Rick Baker: The Man Behind the Makeup

Star Wars? Check.
An American Werewolf in London? Double check.
Thriller? Ya, he's done that one as well.

I am referring to the makeup artist extraordinaire by the name of Rick Baker. He is at the top of the list of leading makeup experts in the film industry today. Here it is December 8th of 2009 and he is celebrating his 59th birthday. Mister Baker has been a powerhouse for creating insane special effects makeup designs that scare the crap out of everybody. As seen in the photograph to the right he is being strangled by actor Benicio Del Toro for their latest film The Wolfman which is expected to be released during the first quarter of 2010 and I am looking forward to watching that film. In fact it was announced earlier today that the film has received an "R" rating from the MPAA for the intense violence, gore, and blood that appears in the film's final cut. Is it a slasher flick? Possibly it is a "slasher" of sorts because of the predatory violence that would be expected from a hungry wolf. Is it a down to Earth horror film? Well, of course, it would be nothing else other than a scare the crap out of the audience horror film! If you have not yet seen the first promotional trailer for the film you might want to head over to view it here. I am definitely intrigued to see the film when it is released! The only question that I have about this movie would be Anthony Hopkins's participation in the film. Did he not act in another classic horror film remake back in the early 1990s? Psst, the answer is yes.

Moving on to the other films that Rick Baker has worked on during his career it must be said that he is not limited to creating horrific creatures. Well that could not be a completely factual statement since Eddie Murphy in a fat suit may be as horrific as anyone could imagine. Mister Baker was the man behind the scenes for The Nutty Professor remake (which I prefer the original with Jerry Lewis) as well as the sequel film Nutty Professor II: The Klumps. Who can tell me why Eddie Murphy is has been thrilled about making movies where he can play several different characters that would require him to wear a body suit and several layers of special effects makeup? The films may be pretty lame, in my opinion, but it is amazing to see how far the techniques of special effects makeup has evolved to create body suits and fat man makeup that can turn an average build of a man into a believably obese person. It is freakishly believable! After all if anyone would stare at the photo insert of Rick touching up the makeup on Eddie Murphy you may start convincing yourself that he is merely readjusting the necktie for Uncle Phil from the television sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.

It would be a disappointment if I were to skip over some of the notable contributions that he had made to the industry of special effects makeup design when he was working in full force back in the 1980s. With classic material such as the iconic music video for Michael Jackson's Thriller, which can be viewed in full length online, he had worked with director John Landis for the second time of the decade. The pair had previously worked together on An American Werewolf in London (1981), which is an iconic horror movie among a league of extraordinary horror films from the '80s. Rick had worked hard on mixing the makeup effects with special mechanical gear that would produce a transformation effect that has knocked the socks off every audience member who witnessed the transformation. The scene is crazy and intense to say the least. If you have not seen the metamorphosis video before then you need to visit this link to watch the scene in its entirety.

With all of that being said I would like to mark a congratulatory note of birthday wishes to the man who has contributed so much to the professional industry of true movie magic. Lon Chaney would be extremely proud of him.

Review: Amelia (2009)

Would it be a safe bet to vote in favor of the Hollywood industry for garnering a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in Economics? It would be only fair to explain why I would ask this question to just about anyone. The industry of American film production is blindly driven by the rock solid “formula” of polished storytelling built upon the foundation of the perfect formula of filmmaking. The bigwig Hollywood studios have striven to perfect this formula of storytelling over the last one hundred years. The executives of the companies have found away to spend a large amount of money to produce a cinematic story that will appeal to the most amount of viewers who are willing to spend a large amount of money to waste a couple of hours of their own personal time watching a mind numbing film. Sometimes their polished products leak through as “artistic gold” to the masses who freely hand over the creative awards like the Golden Globes and the Oscars to the producers of the films. It is the very same shortsighted recognition that rears its ugly head when the truly creative films are accidentally overlooked during awards season.

Honestly, those creative and fun films are a rare gem among the major players in the Hollywood industry these days. With true shortsighted behavior, the nomination committee may not discover those true gems of cinematic art in time to offer any award winning recognition to the cast and crew who worked so hard on producing them for the audience to enjoy. With a strong case in point, I offer the ultra lame polished film of the year: Amelia (2009). The film holds the appearance that it can be an award winning production when the audience is viewing a promotional trailer for it, but the film quickly falls flat like an open can of a soda on a hot summer day in Kentucky.

It is way to clean and neat of a film with its polished corners and over baked love triangle. I did not experience watching a true story on screen about a woman who risked her life to be the first woman to fly around the world. For me it was an experience on par with walking into an expensively built mansion and being afraid to touch anything because I might place a smudge on a multi-million dollar antique. There is no true amount of personal connection between the film and the audience. The love story lacks any emotional drawing power for the teary eyed movie attendees and the historical value of the story is thrown right out the back door in favor of the love triangle. My apologies go out to those who are avid fans of The History Channel who should definitely consider passing by this movie as fast as possible. It is not a history lesson any more than the experience of reading a Cliff Notes book about the professional flying career of Amelia Earhart.

At the core of what I am trying to say is that Amelia is an absolutely flop in my movie book for the year of 2009. Skip it, pass on it, and do not even bother renting it.

Review: The Girlfriend Experience (2009)

Not very many people would consider the possibility of hiring of porn star to act in a serious film. However, not very many people are like film director Steven Soderbergh. Supposedly, he discovered porn star Sasha Grey while reading a magazine article about her, but what are the odds of that being believable? My immediate reaction is not to believe that he discovered her existence through any means plausible other than watching her in a pornographic video. However, it must be taken as truth since Soderbergh has been quoted as saying as much about the article as Grey has confirmed the existence of the printed material. Regardless of how he was able to pull her name out of thin air to star in a film about a female escort in a metropolitan city of America is merely beyond the point of her contribution to the film's storyline. However, I would not doubt that it is an intentional decision from Soderbergh to have selected her to star in the film due to the nature of her working background. Her appearance as the hot girl next door with a hint of sexuality would mark a perfect combination to portray a luxurious prostitute who practices the specialty of the girlfriend experience for her clients. To question Grey’s ability to act in a big budget Hollywood film would be understandable, but she is nowhere near being placed in the same skillful caliber as any other award-winning actor. Now with the single purpose of derailing my review as quickly as possible I would like to present a five minute video about her experience with working on the film.

When the film was first released to the general public there was a buzz going around the Internet about Sasha Grey’s performance being worthy of taking note. After personally watching the film it must be said that her performance is not to be noteworthy, but the method in which Soderbergh used to make her feel like a natural performer in a dramatic role that does not involve hardcore pornography. There was one particular scene in the film in which her character, Chelsea, is fighting with her live-in boyfriend about their relationship. Chris is completely frustrated by the fact that he is attempting to squeeze every opportunity that he can work on to earn more money. Living in a major metropolitan city can be economically challenging for a personal trainer at a gym. For him there is a greater amount of pressure knowing that his girlfriend and roommate is a prostitute for a living and earns a lot more money that he could ever imagine.

The scene in which they are fighting about their relationship has been building up with a heavy amount of tension and it can be a moment that will make or break the film if the cards are not played correctly. My primary duty for this film was with the intent to watch all the little things that could possibly serve as a hand up (or a hand out) for an untrained actor. The moment of "help" was discovered in this climactic scene. During a single take that offers nothing more than a very slow zoom in to loosely framed medium shot of the couple talking it can be noted that the camera has been placed at a safe distance away from the actors.

Since it was all done in a single take there is the opportunity for the actors to avoid any distractions from numerous camera setups so that there may be a utility of a cut away shot. It must be observed that any scene involving an uncut single shot for its entire duration proposes the risk that the actors will be performing an entire scene without a safety net. They are not at liberty to flub their lines without the consequence of having to start all over again. However, since the film does contain several improvisational lines of dialogue there would not be any opportunity for the actors to forget a line or two.

In summary of her performance I would like to say that Sasha has done a mediocre performance as an actress given the situation in which she was performing. The character is not too far removed from what I could presume would reflect similarities in her past career choices. Emotional and professional transference would not be a problem. The improvisational dialogue would help remove any possibility of a monotonous reading of scripted lines by an untrained and unskillful actor. Placing the camera at a safe distance away from the actors will reduce the amount of distraction from anyone who is expected to portray an emotionally involving scene. I applaud Steven Soderbergh for attempting to create a film about a dirty business without attempting to sugar coat the storyline too much. Behind the camera I think he has done a really great job at piecing together the film without the glitz and glamour of attempting to control every last technical detail of the shooting process.

Remembering Walter Elias Disney

It was on December 5, 2009 in Chicago's community of Hermosa, Illinois that Walt Disney was born. It was noted at a young age that he was dyslexic. This could have been ironic enough as it was though to be a possible connection to being fired from a newspaper job for not being "creative enough" with his writing skills. If this bit of information is true then I am pretty sure that management of the newspaper would be regretting the decision if they ever followed Disney's career path for the next forty-five years. Here is an excerpt of his accomplishments as stated on the company's website:

A pioneer and innovator and the possessor of one of the most fertile imaginations the world has ever known, Walt Disney, along with members of his staff, received more than 950 honors and citations from every nation in the world, including 48 Academy Awards and seven Emmys in his lifetime. Walt Disney's personal awards included honorary degrees from Harvard, Yale, the University of Southern California, and UCLA; the Presidential Medal of Freedom; France's Legion of Honor and Officer d'Academie decorations; Thailand's Order of the Crown; Brazil's Order of the Southern Cross; Mexico's Order of the Aztec Eagle; and the Showman of the World Award from the National Association of Theatre Owners.

He was a notable producer, cartoonist, and filmmaker who was an innovative perfectionist. He spurred his company's staff members to push the limits in finding new ways to capture the cartoon stories on to film. With the hard work and dedication that he instilled upon himself it was a way he could set the bar of expectation as high as he could possibly place it as a way to set an example for his company to be as successful as he could make it.

There are a lot of people who treasure the films that his company has produced over the last 75 or so odd years. For me there are fond memories that go along with watching those movies and seeing them come to life when my family would visit Disneyland. I must admit that my all time favorite animated film that the Disney company has ever produced is Beauty and the Beast (1991). It was produced with such high caliber that it was the first feature length animated film to be nominated for an Oscar award in the category of Best Picture of the Year.

Walt Disney is an icon in animated filmmaking, but his legacy will continue to live on with his company that he has left behind.

The Despair and Irony of Steven Soderbergh

Today over at the Large Association of Movie Blogs website they are marking the third and final day of installment number four of The LAMBs in the Director's Chair series. Click here if you are interested in reading all of the entries for the latest installment which was a concentration upon the directorial career of Hollywood's resident pessimist Steven Soderbergh. To make things ironically sad for the cinematic Eeyore there has been a bit of a discovery by David Poland of The Hot Blog when he screen captured a web page from Variety's website that describes the news of the prospective new sports film Moneyball (2011) being handed over to a new director. The film was originally expected to be helmed by Mr. Soderbergh, but it was the fish that got away and he has attempted to move on from the tremendous loss. So, here is the screen capture of an article about the film's directorial hand off and observe closely the advertisement that has been embedded in the sidebar.

One last nugget of thought to chew upon before you leave for the day. Who is Brad Bitt? Is he related to Brad Pitt in any way, shape, or form?

Review: Brothers (2009)

To say that least I must admit that I actually enjoyed watching the film Brothers (2009) despite that I usually do not enjoy Tobey Maguire’s lack of an emotional range within the majority of the acting roles that he portrays. Of course, the film does contain two other twenty-something year old actors who are in the prime of their acting career. Natalie Portman and Jake Gyllenhaal are in high demand right now, because they are talented actors who draw huge crowds of people to see their films. I have been a fan of the films that Natalie Portman has starred in for the vast duration of her entire career. Must it be so apparent that her film debut in Leon: The Professional (1994) is on my list of all time favorite films? Although I wanted to hold out from watching Brothers for as long as I could possibly withstand, because the film is also a remake of a Swedish film and I wanted to see the original before watching the remake. With no such desire for immediately tracking down a copy of the 2004 original film, I must say that I eventually went out to the local movie theater to see Tobey Maguire do his monotonous performance in the remake and was highly surprised by my reaction to the film. The premise for the entire film is a single possible answer among several possibilities for how a military widow would respond to the announcement of her husband’s death while he was away at war.

She is left behind with their two daughters, his parents, and his brother. The two brothers are relatively close in age, so it would be natural for the widow to be able to relate to her brother-in-law if she is also close to him in age. Upon hearing about the death of her husband, she is immediately consoled by her extended family. There is a sudden increase in time that her brother-in-law has been spending her and her two daughters. The intense amount of time bonding together has created a certain mixture of intimate emotions between the widow and the brother. The evolving relationship has sparked an intense situation when the husband returns from the war much to the surprise of the entire family. He believes that his wife and brother have gone far enough into a romantic relationship to become sexual partners despite his wife denying any such possibility. I must admit to you that toward the end of the film I was completely impressed by Tobey Maguire’s performance as the war torn husband. When the husband goes off the deep end in to a full-blown mental breakdown, most likely evoked by post-traumatic stress disorder, it is shocking to see Maguire move around with such ferocity like a ballistic mad man.

The film is emotionally powerful as it stands. However, I would like to see the original Swedish film to mark and compare any differences between the two versions of the same story. After all, I would like to see how the Swedish filmmakers would have told the story in their own original way.

Review: The Boat That Rocked (2009)

What is my personal definition of music? Any person can manifest personal emotions through the creative language of rhythmic sounds with the artistic medium known as music. The music serves as a language that will be directed toward a listener who will be able to interpret the thoughts and feelings of the author through the personal interpretation. Is this sounding a bit over the top and far out there? It probably is rather philosophical or intellectually bizarre, but I do believe that music can be a creative language that acts as an emotional gateway between two people. The style of rock and roll music was created out of the need for a young generation of people to connect with other people of similar age and life experiences. These young people were able to emotionally associate with their parents, and vice versa, but the creation of rock and roll music spread like wildfire among the teenagers because it served as a common language of emotion for them. What makes the metaphor of music as a language most fitting to conceive would be connections there are between verbal communication and the transmission of music. The musician is the speaker who has a message to say to someone else. The message may be an opinion or an emotional description of the person’s life experiences. The audience in which is listening to the music would be the person or group of persons in which the speaker is directing the message toward. Once in awhile there is a necessity to have a translator who can carry the message from the speaker to the receiver. The translator will come in the form of the radio and a disc jockey or a portable media player if the performance is not a live broadcast. The use of the radio and the radio personality as a form of musical translation is where I want to turn to my review of a recently released movie.

In the British comedy film The Boat That Rocked (2009) there is a group of radio disc jockeys floating around in the Atlantic Ocean in a fishing boat that has been jury-rigged to be a high voltage radio station. Are you not familiar with the movie? It was released in America under the title of Pirate Radio. The essence of the movie is about the group of radio broadcasters who joined together to play rock and roll music to the mass amount of listeners who wanted to escape from the humdrum boredom of music they were unable to relate to at all. The government of England referred to rock and roll as boorishly sinful, which could only imply to me that the government officials did not either care for the music or just did not understand it. Maybe it was a culmination of both. The radio men are obviously enjoying the freedom of floating upon the surface of the open ocean while listening to the music. It serves as a liberating experience for them, which offered an emotional and physical high that they were not finding anywhere else.

The center point for the film is not upon the ensemble cast of characters who make up the staff and crew of the radio station, but through the teenage godson of the station’s general manager. James is sent by his mother to live his godfather, Quentin, with the hope that it will be a positive learning experience in a misfired attempt at keeping him out of trouble. Quite honestly, James’s mother was unaware that the boat is nothing more than a luxury cruise ship of adult men who merely want to lounge around all day listening to music and sleep with a bunch of women who are periodically towed in for conjugal visits.

My overall impression of the film was that I absolutely loved it! The soundtrack was filled with classic rock and roll songs. The story of freedom on the ocean and listening to the music did nothing less than manifest the liberty that was transcribed in to the lyrics and guitar licks of the songs. It was pure entertainment for me to become enraptured in the humor of the film and the enlivening playlist of classic hit songs. There is no way that I could avoid the opportunity of buying the movie on DVD when it was released for home entertainment.

Review: An Education (2009)

What could be said about a British romantic dramatic film that has not been said already? There could already be a load of opinions thrown into the melting pot of movie reviews for the film. My thoughts, however, will be added to the mixture, regardless. Ha! It has been noted as a hot topic film of the fourth quarter of the year and it would be a shame if I did not swing by the local theater to catch a showing of An Education (2009). My mistake before going in for a viewing would the interpretation of the film’s title to be completely enclosed within the romantic relationship of the two lead characters. Boy was I wrong with that assessment!

The focal point of the film is an English teenager by the name of Jenny. She is an attractive young woman who attends a boarding school and plays the cello in an orchestra. Jenny proclaims her desire for experiences of grandeur outside the four walls of her over protective home. She wants to visit other countries, attend art galleries, and evolve into an experienced cellist instead of being suppressed as a mere “fiddler” at the recommendation of her father. It is apparent from the beginning that her father, played wonderfully by Alfred Molina, is the physical manifestation of everything that can restrict her from becoming all that she wants to experience in her lifetime. He instills upon her the ideals of hard work and good grades in order to earn an acceptance letter into Oxford so that she could continue her education to become someone of contributory value to society. The hopes that he proclaims of her being an intellectual educator completely dismisses her desire for experimenting with her creative endeavors. They are in a constant struggle over ideals of her future, as he would see no profitable or financial gain if she were to become a full-time cello player.

Of course, it is with perfect timing that David arrives on the scene and flirts his way into Jenny’s heart. He is a free spirit who lacks any resemblance to her father. She is swept up by his charm and of his knowledge of artistic endeavors. Since he appears on the surface as being the polar opposite of her father’s ethical behavior as a working stiff Jenny is immediately drawn to David. The only element that stands out like a sore thumb about David would be that he is twice Jenny’s age. The pair is quickly drawn into a romantic relationship as they pursue artistic experiences together that lead them as far as a vacation to Paris. Jenny is completely enamored for David because of the appeal that he has closely resembles her internal desire to be a free and creative spirit that is not bogged down by rules and regulations that have been imposed upon her by her father and the figureheads of the educational system. It might be scary for anyone to imagine that An Education would be nothing more than another coming-of-age story based in England during the 1960s.

Initially there was the thought I had about the romantic experience between Jenny and David to serve as a real world education for Jenny. In a manner of a real life experience that would be educational for her. Instead, the relationship does not have a happy conclusion, but it leaves Jenny romantically alone. The experience she has gained from the termination of the relationship would serve as a wakeup call for her. This would prompt her to return to school and work her way through a real education. She realizes that the world has bit her on the butt rather harshly and she has come to terms with the idea that her father had attempt to teach her from the beginning. She needs to become independently self-sufficient even if it means having to be subjected through the rigid structure of the system in order to do so. It could sound like a lame story for any anarchist out there, but the film may support the age-old phrase “if you cannot beat them, join them.”

Overall, it must be said that the film is quite enjoyable as it stands with Carey Mulligan’s believable performance as Jenny. During those moments between Jenny and her father, there was a certain bit of chemistry between the two of them that would jump off the screen and right at the audience. However, it was surprising to me that neither of the parents bothered to question the relationship between their teenage daughter and a man in his thirties. Does this age difference not serve as a possible alarm to a father who has repeatedly drilled into the mind of his daughter about the importance of a proper education? Suddenly he is able to shut off his parental concern when a thirty-something year old man shows up on his front doorstep to woo his daughter out for a dinner date. That was a red flag for me and I am not even a parent. This was the only true flaw for the vast majority of the film and it was sorely standing out.

The acting performances were fun, exciting, and definitely believable. Behind the scenes, the film was beautifully shot among several gloomy scenes in the rain or during dull cloudy days. Surprisingly, at the end of the film, I was entertained by its story and I will certainly admit that I enjoyed what I had watched. This film is something that I would definitely recommend to other movie watchers who are in the mood for a good dramatic story.