Cinematic Addiction: Thoughts on Darren Aronofsky's REQUIEM FOR A DREAM

For those of you who don't know (I imagine most of you do), I have struggled with weight issues my entire life. In fact, it was not until my senior year of high school that I began legitimately attempting to lose weight. I was addicted to food. And as as result of my addiction, I had high blood pressure, no energy and was on the verge of developing diabetes among other horrible things. Now, almost four year after the fact,  I am nearly 100 pounds lighter and in a much better state of body and mind.

Addiction is not simply when someone gets hooked on drugs or alcohol. Granted, those are the most well known and the quickest trains to devastation, but they are not the only forms. I was addicted to food and soda, some people are addicted to sex, others to gambling and some people are addicted to the internet. The point is, addiction covers a much broader area than most people like to think and can be just as devastating in every case. So, what does this have to do with a film blog? Well, it just so happens that the film I'm here to talk about tackles these very themes. 

Darren Aronofsky's 2000 film REQUIEM FOR A DREAM tells the story of four individuals, Harry (Jared Leto), his mother Sara (Ellen Burstyn), his girlfriend Marion and his best friend Tyrone (Jennifer Connelly and Marlon Wayans) as their lives spiral out of control in the wake of the horrors of addiction. Harry, Marion and Tyrone are all heroin addicts, living hand-to-mouth, sending all the money they attain (one way or another) quickly rushing into their veins. Sara is not the innocent voice of reason, however. She's as addicted to food and television as the others are to heroin, wasting her days away in her recliner watching infomercials hosted by Tappy Tibbons (Christopher McDonald) and his chanting chorus. 

Though many critics have called REQUIEM a "drug film," I would disagree. While the story of Harry, Marion and Tyrone is the standard heroin story reminiscent of Danny Boyle's TRAINSPOTTING, the inclusion of Ellen Burstyn's performance as Sara shows that this film is more than a tale about the evils of heroin. Instead, it becomes an almost clinical (and certainly brutal) representation of how addiction of any kind infiltrates a person's life, becomes the only thing that matters and, in this case, completely destroys the hopes and dreams of all four of the main characters. And these are not dreams that seem impossible from the start. 

In the grand scheme of things, they are modest at most. Harry wants to pick himself up and start a real, legitimate life with Marion. Marion likewise wants to be with Harry and start a clothing business. Tyrone wants to get himself off the streets and make his mother proud. Sara wants to be a guest on her favorite TV show and tell the world about her husband Seymour and her son Harry, wear the red dress that she wore for Harry's graduation (her husband's favorite) and she wants to be proud of her son. The true sadness that results from the film is the knowing that all of these dreams could have been accomplished if not for the vice grip that addiction took on the quartet's life. 

The way Aronofsky shoots the film does nothing but add to the themes of his work. The early use of split screen allows for the viewer to see the actions of both characters but also works to show how although they are in the same immediate area, these characters are unequivocally alone. Would these four even have interactions with one another if not for the ever present addiction? While there seems to be genuine affection between Harry and Marion, it could easily be argued that they would have never met, let alone formed a relationship if not for their mutual heroin addiction. The same could be said for Harry and Tyrone, whose only shared interest, other than their addiction, appears to be an apparent love of music mixing. As for Harry and Sara, their only interactions in the film (thinking back, I only remember two real ones in the entire hour and forty minutes) are drug related. In the opening scene Harry is only at his mother's apartment to steal her TV (a regular occurrence we find out later) and pawn it for drug money. The second and final interaction between the two (apart from one final dream sequence) is the recompense for the former event as we see Harry apologizing for the theft by buying Sara a brand new television using the money that he and Tyrone had made during their brief stint in the illegal drug trade. 

In addition to these split screens, the cuts in the film are astounding. Early on in the film (during the Summer) the scenes are longer as the characters are still relatively stable and lucid. As the film progresses through the Fall and Winter however, the characters sink deeper and deeper into the filth of their addictions and the cuts become more and more rapid, adeptly presenting their minds as they become more and more erratic and delusional. The quick cuts that take place during the actual ingestion of the drugs is also rapid and very closely shot. I would argue that while the closeness represents the importance of the drugs themselves, the quick nature of the cuts is representative of how quickly the drugs take effect on the respective user and, consequently, how quickly the effects depart, leaving the user wondering from where the money for the next hit will come.

Overall, and I can see that my thoughts are not as well described or organized as I'd hoped (perhaps a product of the film itself), I want to say that the film as a film is as great as the film as an experience (if that makes any sense at all). The nature in which Aronofsky shoots the picture combined with the score that has been praised exorbitantly make you feel like you're experiencing the effects of addiction along with the characters. It's an incredibly sobering (no pun attending) look into the perils of addiction for anyone, whether you've experienced the disease or not. 

That being said, the film as a film is also impeccable. The way the film tells the story of these four characters in a way that is extremely compelling while not allowing you true empathy with any of them is magnificent. In that same vein (again, no pun intended), way the film contrasts the close, distorted and uncomfortable character point of views with the distant, separated view of the outside world is immensely effective. This contrast continues with the dream sequences that display a world of beauty and joy, two elements that the film is devoid of otherwise. As a scene with Tyrone touches on, the drugs create a type of window through which the characters can view their dreams, a better world and a better life. But like windows, the drugs only show you this. You are still separate from it and, as we see time and again, a glimpse is all it is. Eventually the drapes will be drawn and you will be back in reality. 

I will end this post with the ending the film, which is perhaps the most impressive part. Apart from being a major accomplishment in editing and directing, it is the culmination of the themes presented throughout the film. It is here that we see the end result of addiction: Harry in a prison hospital, his heroin ravaged arm amputated due to massive infection, Marion devolved into an employee of a pimp who forces her to perform in lesbian orgies for her fix, Tyrone in the same prison as Harry, though instead of being in the hospital he is forced to combat intense labor and intense emotional abuse from racist prison guards, and Sara, involuntarily committed to a psychological hospital having lost complete touch with reality and now subject to regular electro-convulsive treatments after her diet pill addiction had left her immune to the classic forms of treatment. And though separated physically, they are all connected: found at the end in some form of the fetal position, utterly destroyed. 

In the final moments of the film, we are taken into one of Sara's hallucinations. And it is this hallucination that acts as the message of the entire film personified. It is the collective dream for which the film is a requiem. Sara, vivacious in the red dress, is finally a guest on Tappy's show. She gets to tell the world about her husband Seymour and is ultimately joined by her successful and married son Harry. The two embrace and we as viewers are left with a beautiful image. The thing is, that's all it is. An image. It's an illusion of what could've been. This is what they could have had, the film says. But addiction has made this nothing but a crushing view of the joy that could have been had they all had the one thing that all addicts desperately need, but only few have: the ability to say no. 

The Quirky Myth: Review of RUBY SPARKS

Coming to him in a dream, this mysterious red-haired young woman, Ruby Sparks (Zoe Kazan), who is funny, cute, and intelligent (but not in a grating way) seems to be exactly what Calvin, the struggling writer needs. He falls instantly in love with her and when he wakes up, he starts to write. He has finally found the inspiration for his long awaited second novel. At night he dreams about Ruby, and in the day he writes to spend more time with her. And then one morning there she is; in his kitchen making him breakfast.

During the early parts of the film, written by Kazan and directed by LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE's Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, RUBY SPARKS seems like it's just going to be another quirky romantic comedy. Calvin isn't seeing things. Ruby cooks him breakfast, loves zombie movie marathons, plays video games and likes his dog Scotty, even though it pees like a girl. She's the perfect balance between friend and lover. And the best part is that Ruby is really there, and other people can see her, including Calvin's older brother Harry (Chris Messina) who had begun to believe that his brother was losing his mind with all this talk of his imaginary girlfriend. But then something happens. 

"Quirky, messy women whose problems make them endearing aren't real," says Harry in response to Calvin's ravings. And this is where the film's truly interesting themes seem to lie. Instead of the standard quirky romantic comedy, RUBY SPARKS is almost a satire of the genre. Sure, in the beginning things are wonderful and Calvin vows to Harry that he'll never write about Ruby again. He even goes so far as to lock the manuscript in his desk. However, as their routine continues, Ruby starts to become bored with Calvin. "You don't have any friends," she says coldly one night. And, fearful he is going to lose her, Calvin is pushed to unlock his desk. First he makes Ruby miserable without him. Then, when she is the epitome of the super attached girlfriend meme, he decides to write that she needs her own space. When that doesn't work he tries to make her extremely effervescent. But no matter what he does she just isn't that quirky, messy woman whose problems make her endearing. And why is that? That's right, Harry! Because women like that aren't real. 

None of the women in those quirky romantic comedies actually exist. They're made up. In fact, they're so made up, even when you have the power to basically create a real-life version of one, you can't. And it's at this point that the film actually breaks out of its original rom-com shell, and embraces it's new dark reality. Even the relationships that appear to be perfect pairings have their issues because people can't control each other. And, as the film suggests, even if we could, things still wouldn't be just as we would like them to be. Just like Calvin and Ruby, Harry talks about how his wife Susan left once and now he fears that she could leave at any second, and Calvin and Harry's mom and step-dad's relationship seemingly only stays in such a harmonious balance because of the drugs they use and their hippie lifestyle. Really, what it comes down to is that we can only accept who we are and who the other people in our lives are and try to make the best of it. 

Relationships aren't perfect. Not with people and not with your work. And on this level, Calvin's emotional struggles with his relationship with Ruby can be tied back to his struggles with his own creative process. It is only when he quits trying to be perfect ("I want it to be bad," his therapist says while giving him a writing assignment) that he actually creates Ruby. And when he tries to be perfect again, what happens? He loses her. 

What starts off as a mild mannered romantic comedy about a guy whose character manifests herself into life, quickly turns into a very intriguing satire/meta-analysis of the rom-com genre and an interesting commentary on relationships and the creative process. Unfortunately the ending of the film nearly ruined it for me, wrapping things up in an almost too perfect package. Typically in movies, the ending provides the opportunity to not only wrap things up in a satisfying way, but to also act as representation of the entire film's conceit. In RUBY SPARKS, however, it almost feels as if the film completely goes against it's message with the standard, romantic happy ending. And while I guess it's left a little more vague and open than most other films of its ilk, it felt like the film deserved a more gratifying ending. 

That being said, I still found the film to be not only fun, but thought-provoking and a suitable sophomore effort from Dayton and Faris. The acting and writing were both crisp and well done, and Scotty the dog is adorable. Definitely check it out if you haven't, and don't forget to leave a comment and let me know what you thought of this movie if you saw it or your thoughts on any movie you've seen recently and want to share. Thanks for reading! 

(Not So) Quick Hits: Volume 1

Feel free to imagine me in a sweater vest when reading this... No, really. Imagine that. 

So, I'm currently writing a longer review of my most recent theater experience, RUBY SPARKS. But in the mean time,  I figured I would give a few quick hits on just a couple of the movies I've seen (or reseen) in the past couple of months. I know reading my lengthy posts can get tiresome (probably, but I hope not), so these might be a little easier to digest. Feel free to read one, two, or all of them! Hopefully you'll get a little out of them and please, by all means, share your thoughts (in the comments) on any of these or any films you've seen in the past little while and liked (or disliked) a lot! Hope you enjoy! Now, BRING ON THE QUICK HITS!

DIE HARD (1988): Directed by John McTiernan and starring a much younger (and much less bald) Bruce Willis as a New York City cop who just wanted to go to LA and see his family for Christmas, DIE HARD is pretty much the quintessential action film. It's the action film you should look at before making your action film. It's the action film you should watch before you watch any other action film just so you can get a reminder of just what things the new action film you're going to watch doesn't do as well. When I wrote that big post about what makes a good action movie I should've made a separate category just for this movie (if it's not clear, I like it a lot). The story is pretty simple, there's a German terrorist plot and a normal guy rising to the occasion, taking business into his own hands and single handedly (well, nearly single handedly) handing the terrorists their asses (insert everyone's favorite DIE HARD line here). I for one am a huge fan of simplicity in any story, as long as that doesn't impede the film itself. And with DIE HARD, it certainly doesn't. The action is still crisp and exciting and the special effects look great on blu-ray, but it's the two main characters (and Karl from FAMILY MATTERS) that are the film's true high point. John McClain is the complete package when it comes to the normal, good guy. He's the everyman that every man wants to be. I completely rooted for him every step of the way and, by creating such as investment in McClain, that makes Gruber the pefect villain. And the way Rickman plays him makes you hate everything about him and leaves you in a state of constant, seething malice. Sure, it might be a little racist with the way it portrays the few black characters in the film, but this is the ultimate action film and I love it. 

IN THE LOOP (2009): Okay, that was a long one. Let's try to keep the other ones a little quicker. IN THE LOOP is amazing. I loved it. It is an excellent satire on the relationships between the British and Americans as they try to work together and against one another to either promote or prevent the war in Iraq. A lot of people complain about the fact that there's actually no war in the film, but that's the point. It's not about the war, it's about the people behind it and their constant drive to further their careers, save face, ruin others, as well as their complete ineptitude every step of the way. It's a biting portrayal of those behind the scenes of one of the most important events of most of our lives while being a masterclass in the art of cursing. Amazing.

FIGHT CLUB (1999): There, that was a little better. The next one I have thought a lot about and I'm still not exactly sure how I feel about it, so I'm going to save it for a larger post. But just quickly, FIGHT CLUB is something special and is clearly an important film. Supposedly a satire on nihilism, anarchy, and the want to defeat capitalism with good, old-fashioned neanderthalism. While I can't decide yet whether or not it succeeds in this, I think it did. I know some people are completely with Tyler Durden and feel that Ed Norton's turn at the end of the film is unearned, I think I disagree. Throughout the film, though enjoying what Tyler's world brings him, to me it always appears that there is that apprehension brewing just under the surface. And at the end of the film when we are supposed to snap out of Tyler's world like Norton, I did, for the most part. It's just the minority left with Tyler that troubles me. To be continued.

ANIMAL HOUSE (1978): Though I can appreciate what ANIMAL HOUSE did for comedy during it's time, I'm not sure it still works to full effect now (or maybe for my generation?). While I did laugh quite a bit (it's truly sad that the world had to lose John Belushi, he's fantastic), I'm not sure the jokes packed as much punch as they did in the years previous. That being said, there's still an interesting theme of racism (complete with some unbelievably idiotic and offensive jokes!) and seeing how pertinent it still was during the time this was shot is incredibly interesting and I feel that Otis Day and the Knights really bring an interesting dimension to an otherwise college/gross out humor film. There's also a very interesting dynamic on college life vs. the real world you're heading into that, me being in college, had a significant impact. Seeing characters struggling with trying to fit in and figure out who they are is very a very important aspect in my the stage of life I (and many of you reading this) am in. It also helped enforce the notion that I shouldn't worry so much and enjoy the time I have because things are going to work out the way they're meant to in the long run (this one's for you, Senator).

LEON: THE PROFESSIONAL (1994): Attack of the colon (ewwww, that sounded a lot better in my head)! Jokes aside, this is another interesting film (whatta' ya think I watch drab?!). Jean-luc Besson has an impeccably beautiful style that makes New York feel very unique (which in turn makes me sad that we don't get to see much more of it). The relationship between Leon and Matilda (played brilliantly by Jean Reno and Natalie Portman, who looks just like a mini version of today's Natalie) is a strange and intriguing one. On one hand father/daughter, on the other hand Humbert Humbert/Lolita, it's the main dynamic in the film and I really felt a true connection between the two and felt myself wanting them to be together forever (no, not in that way). I've seen some complaints that Natalie doesn't actually show off the fruits of her training and that it's Leon that does most of the dirty work (this is remedied a little bit in the extended cut). While I do feel like Matilda's revenge arc is kind of left hanging because she isn't the one to blow the hell out of Norman Stansfield, I feel like her character (actually both her and Leon) goes through a pretty satisfying arc. She turns her life around, gets it together and goes back to school. Leon's bankroll provides her a steady income and it's presumed in the final scene that she is going to make the most of the new lease on life Leon has given her. Leon himself learns to care for a real human being instead of a plant and finds meaning in an otherwise day-in-day-out, same ol', same ol' kind of existence. Gary Oldman also plays one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen on film and it's terrifying and wonderful and I love it. Over the top in all the right ways.

TRUE ROMANCE (1993): In memory of the late, great Tony Scott, I watched probably what is considered his best work (TOP GUN notwithstanding). Written by the one and only pop-culture samurai himself, Quentin Tarantino, TRUE ROMANCE is just pure, exhilarating fun. It's a visceral roller coaster (at some points literally!) and creates such a unique and extraordinarily cool film world that you just want to live there forever. The relationship between Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette also lives up to the title in every aspect and then some. It's truly one of the oddly sweetest and weirdly organic relationships in film history. Along with amazing performances by an ensemble cast including Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper (who steal the movie with their incredibly intense conversation about sons, Sicilians, and fruit), Brad Pitt, and the amazingly scary and hilariously funny Gary Oldman, the film's unapologetic, bloody, pulpy and transcendent bizarreness is truly a joy to experience and makes it one fantastic movie. RIP Tony Scott. Your legacy is more than secure. 

BRICK (2005): This has already run a lot longer than I'd hope, so I'll keep this short. Directed by the mind behind the upcoming time travel film LOOPER, Rian Johnson, this neo-noir set in a high school atmosphere just feels so different and so fresh. I love pretty much everything about it. The fast-talking, slang infused jive being spouted at a machine gun speed is amazing to listen to and the mystery, though not the best, is still pretty interesting. What else I find fascinating is how easy the Dashiell Hammett hard-boiled character types fit into the high school setting. Every character in the film is multi-layered, intense and often very funny. The character Tugger also made me more physically uncomfortable than most of characters I've seen recently and it was awesome! Every time he was on screen I was cringing and just waiting for something amazing to release my muscles from their tension. I want to think more about this one and how the themes of love, loss and jealousy all play into it, but for now I'll just say I really enjoyed it. It had me from the very beginning and I think that the complete freshness, what it has to say about high school cliques and how they compare to the hardest of criminal organizations, and the overall muted emotion tucked just underneath the surface (very much like another one of my favorites, DRIVE) are simply beautiful (in a very messed up kind of way). It's on Netflix Instant. Watch it. 

That's all for now, guys. I hope you enjoyed these quick little takes on some varied cinema. I hope these will compel you all to search some (or all!) of them out and watch them. They really deserve your attention and I would love to hear your guys' opinions on any of these in particular or your thoughts on anything you've seen recently. So, please don't hesitate to post some comments and look for my review of RUBY SPARKS in the next few days! 

It's not THE CANDIDATE: Review of THE CAMPAIGN

When my friend Curtis sent me a text asking me if I wanted to see THE CANDIDATE with him and a few of our mutual friends, I thought something was a little off but didn't think much of it. I knew he was talking about Jay Roach's (AUSTIN POWERS, GAME CHANGE) latest film THE CAMPAIGN, a hybrid between the comedies he's more widely known for and his most recent genre of choice, political drama. 

As we were in line to buy the tickets, I finally realized what I found off about what he had said. "What are we watching again?" "THE CANDIDATE? No! THE CAMPAIGN," he said. That was it. We were not seeing the 1972 Michael Ritchie political satire starring Robert Redford. This was definitely not THE CANDIDATE. And as I exited the theater afterward, that was the thought that kept ringing in my ears. This was definitely not THE CANDIDATE.

Set in the fictional 14th district of North Carolina, the film begins with Democratic Congressman Cam Brady (Will Ferrell) running for his fifth term unopposed. However, his campaign is damaged when his image as a law-abiding Christian, husband, and father is destroyed by a misplaced erotic phone call to his mistress that winds up instead on the answering machine of a local family. 

Subsequently, Brady's misplaced booty call leaves corrupt businessmen Glen and Wade Motch (John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd as a wonderfully subtle parody of the Koch Brothers) unable to further their plan to essentially "sell" the 14th district to China as a way of bringing sweat shops into the district and double their already doubled profits. Enter Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis), the effeminate, pug-loving son of one of their associates (Brian Cox) and tour director of the city of Hammond. Using what appears to be the Terminator of campaign management, Tim Wattley (Dylan McDermott), the Motch brothers decide to back Huggins on the republican ticket to run against Brady. Needless to say, hijinks and outrageous acts on both sides of the tickets ensue as Marty and Cam duke it out to see who will become District 14's next congressman. 

If it wasn't already apparent from the plot summary or simply from seeing that it's a Jay Roach film, there's no real point of expecting a decent to above-average political satire out of THE CAMPAIGN. While the film seems to have wanted to say something deeper about our political climate, it continuously airs on the side of safety. Neither side of the political spectrum is really challenged one way or another. Sure, there are a few moments where there is a glimpse of something substantial including a scene in which a young political science major working on Brady's campaign mentions the horrors of big business, but instead of actually addressing these ideas in funny and clever ways, they are swept under the rug in favor of getting back to the crude humor. 

In fact, the only thing that the film really commits to satirizing is its audience. Countless times throughout the film Marty and Cam do horrendously stupid and juvenile things that one would immediately assume would knock any normal person completely out of the race. But nope! Instead of outrage, these acts are consistently met with a bump up in the polls. Was that the point of the film? To show how Roach believes that we as voters are complete morons and/or masochists because of our continued nursing  of a political culture where the more stupid and outrageous the candidate the better? While I don't believe this is the case, the movie again and again brings up the fact that the acts the two politicians commit should cause us to rise up against them and do everything in our power to make sure they never get anywhere near political office (and especially not near any dogs or babies). But hey, at least it's funny, right? 

And despite all the weird messages and missed opportunities in the film, THE CAMPAIGN is still pretty funny. Though continuing to play the same roles they always do (ones that are really getting tiring at this point), Ferrell and Galifianakis have great chemistry together and play up the interesting dynamic of having the exact opposite types of characters that you'd expect represent the two respective parties to a tee. Brian Cox, Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow also bring extremely well done and hilarious performances to the table and my only complaint with them is that we don't get to see enough of those characters and instead are stuck with the two leads' families who fell really flat for me and produced some of the least funny jokes in the film (apart from a certain dinner scene involving a DJ Assault song that is a personal favorite of mine). 

That being said, I thought even though the film didn't work for me as a political satire and continually ignored the elephant (and donkey) in the room, it did work as a Jay Roach brand goofball comedy. Most of the performances are solid, and although the film's plot felt stretched even for 85 minutes, it worked well enough. And while I could talk longer about it, I'm going to leave you with a quote from my friend, Curtis, who invited me that I think really sums up THE CAMPAIGN:

"All throughout that movie I was thinking about how much I couldn't wait to get back to the car and drink my pop... It was funny though." 

And there you have it. It might not make you think that much, but it'll probably make you laugh... And maybe a little thirsty. Just remember: It's not THE CANDIDATE. 

What did everyone else think?

What Makes a Good Action Film?

Suddenly there's an explosion! 

Brought to you by Michael Bay.

Wow! Then out of nowhere someone throws a knife at your neck! Luckily you dodge it, but then a train carrying a bomb and a thousand ninjas comes barreling out of nowhere! Thankfully you remembered to pack your trusty bazooka and you blow half of the train up before using some of the shrapnel to eviscerate the rest of the ninja clan single-handedly. Man, WAS THAT AWESOME OR WHAT?!

Recently I finally got around to seeing Sylvester Stallone's film THE EXPENDABLES. I also happened to see the recently released (on Blu-ray and DVD) Indonesian film THE RAID: REDEMPTION by welsh director Gareth Evans. Besides realizing that I must have been short on manliness and in serious need of a shot of adrenaline to cure it, seeing these two films also got me wondering: What is it that makes a good action film? 

My guess would be this if there were also some really big boobs somewhere close. And also if the car was simultaneously knifing a terrorist.

Much like the clips of countless M16's, that question may seem pretty loaded. And while I'm sure there are countless reasons that instantly come to mind for many of you, I'm going to briefly give my thoughts using the two films listed above and attempt to show why I believe one is a truly remarkable film while the other is little more than a flaccid fireworks display.

To begin with, both have pretty simple plots. In THE RAID, a SWAT team is sent to infiltrate a building in the Jakarta slums that has become a safe house for the area's most dangerous gangsters and murderers in order to remove it's owner, a notorious crime lord named Tama, by any means necessary. The SWAT team quickly and quietly makes its way through the first few floors until eventually they are spotted by a young boy who, before being shot to death, sets off the building's alarm and alerts all of the building's inhabitants as to what exactly is going on. Obviously not wanting to be arrested, or more likely killed, Tama declares through the building's PA system that if the residents kill all of the members of the SWAT team, their rent will be considered covered for the rest of their lives. And then all hell breaks loose. 

"SARGE! Your Kevlar is covered in hell! No Tide To-Go in the world can get that out!"

THE EXPENDABLES on the other hand, is about a group of "elite" (and by that, the people who wrote the plot summary probably meant old) mercenaries lead by Barney Ross (Stallone) who are tasked by John McClain to overthrow Batista from DEXTER (otherwise known as a  Latin American dictator) who they soon find out is simply the puppet of a ruthless ex-CIA officer (Eric Roberts). Subsequently fists fly, tons of bullets and knives find their way into chests and necks, stuff blows up, actiony quips are made, and all hell breaks loose.

"Hey, Shadowface, look. I'm totally crushing this fool's head."

So, as should be pretty evident by now, both of these plots are pretty generic. The difference is, THE RAID: REDEMPTION doesn't pretend like its plot is actually the most important part of the film. In fact, that's its strong point. THE RAID knows that the action is why people want to watch it. And does it ever deliver. Now, that's not to say the story and acting aren't okay, they're fine. But because that's all they are, they don't get in the way of the amazing action sequences. While THE EXPENDABLES spends much of its time trying to convince us to care about its lack luster plot, leaving much of the running time to Stallone making lame jokes and googly eyes at his man-crush Jason Statham, nearly 90% of THE RAID's hour and forty minutes is spent in the heat of jaw-dropping action scenes.

Using actors actually trained in different forms of martial arts, Gareth Evans is able to let the entirety of his action scenes play out. With brisk and artistic, yet heart-pounding cinematography (including some really well done long takes), Evans is able to keep you in the action at all times. This alternative to the standard shaky-cam, darkly lit, random quick cuts that THE EXPENDABLES abuses to cover up its copious use of stunt doubles not only makes THE RAID feel very fresh and believable (in that you believe these guys could actually have fights like this), but it also keeps you invested. Instead of constantly struggling to figure out who is who while Stallone fights some random baddie in a darkly lit Latin American compound at night, THE RAID takes place almost completely within a fluorescent-lit apartment building with the action front and center. And it's action that never becomes boring.

Utilizing such a variety of complex and unique fighting styles, Evans is able to keep every action scene engaging and new. Never once do you really feel tired of seeing these guys completely destroy each other, because no two guys ever fight in the same way. And just as they don't fight in the same way, each character also uses their environment in unique (though equally lethal ways). Unfortunately, Stallone's film doesn't master this principle of "keeping it fresh."

"Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!"

THE EXPENDABLES instead chooses to, as stated above, stick with the more cookie-cutter technique of showing the action in quick, disorienting cuts that completely kill any sense of thrill or suspense that could be had from actually letting us see what's going on and making us believe there are actual stakes (something which THE RAID does very well). And while THE EXPENDABLES does try to make up for this with large explosions and a pretty decent final action set piece in which all the stars finally get their moment to shine, it's really too little, too late.

Speaking of stars, one last thing that I'll say is that while casting huge names in your movie may bring in the viewers, it doesn't necessarily make for a good film. In fact, in the case of Stallone's film, it really hinders it. Sure, it's cool to see all these action film icons together on screen, but the film never really pays it off. Apart from the fact that it's mostly only Stallone and Statham throughout most of the film, having so many big names in the film not only makes us expect to see actual development of these characters into something worthwhile, it also takes away any suspense and tension because we all know that every one of them is going to make it to the end (they didn't even have the balls to kill off Dolph Lundgren, not that they could). In THE RAID however, though the actors aren't going to be winning any Oscars anytime soon, they're convincing enough for an action movie. And because we've never heard of them, it allows the audience to really get invested and allows them to see these actors as the characters they're portraying and allows the viewers to feel actual emotion towards them, fearing that any of them could die at any moment.

Mission: Accomplished

So, this might just all be nonsense and you may heartily disagree. But that's fine. For my money, however, to have a good action film you need to have some of these things I've mentioned. For one, you have to know the action is the point of the film. Sure, having a good story is always a plus, but if you can showcase beautifully shot and choreographed  action sequences (as opposed to what looks like poorly performed WWE maneuvers)  with competent and willing actors, you can make something truly amazing to behold. We all know that action films have a certain cheese factor to them. The dialogue isn't the greatest and the actors usually aren't Gary Grant or Humphrey Bogart. But it's not about that. It's about the action. If you can keep an audience invested in what you're showing them and get them to care about the characters just enough so that there's that constant tension when the action really escalates, and all while being a truly entertaining film, then in my opinion, you've probably just made one hell of an action film. 

Retro Review: EL CRIMEN DEL PADRE AMARO

While I work on a larger piece about modern day action movies, I thought it might be worthwhile to post a review that some of you might not have seen on my Facebook. So, without further ado, here’s my review of EL CRIMEN DEL PADRE AMARO.

When I first heard of (and saw) this film, it was being presented as part of Georgetown College’s yearly foreign film series. To begin with, EL CRIMEN DEL PADRE AMARO is (as far as I know) the highest grossing film in Mexico’s history. Directed by Carlos Carrera, the film is loosely based on the 19^th century novel “O Crime do Padre Amaro” by José Maria de Eça de Queirós (the longer the names attached to the film, the more money it’ll gross). The film, which tells the story of Father Amaro (Gael Garcia Bernal), a young priest who is thrown into a world of corrupt politics and sexual passion and finds himself enthralled with a 16 year old girl, sparked controversy for its harshly negative criticism of the Catholic Church as well as for its blatant portrayal of sexuality (lighten up Popey, amiright?).

Before the film started, the professor that was presenting the film gave a brief preview of the film. She gave a warning that in the film there are graphic depictions of sex and nudity (Alright, keep talkin’) and that if you felt the need to leave, no one would judge you (I might have judged you). She also explained that the message the film was trying to communicate was that we are all corruptible.  Adding to this, she said something that afterward I felt was very appropriate. “You’ll see some good and bad in all of them.” Now, to what she was referring was that during the film none of the characters can be seen as solely “good” or “evil”; that they all have something about them, something they’ll do, that you’ll find off-putting.  And although this was true, it also applies on a different level—the acting.

Throughout the film, I found myself repeatedly flip-flopping on the acting. For a great amount of the time I felt like I was watching a special, two-hour long episode of a generic telenovela. Not that I watch telenovelas…What? (I can feel your judging eyes). As I was saying, throughout most of the film the dialogue and acting feels very forced or simply not realistic, and I often found myself enjoying the supporting characters more than the main cast simply because they were more believable (a certain tone-deaf, wafer-pilfering crone notwithstanding). However, as the professor foretold, you see some bad, but you also see some good. And while a lot of the acting and dialogue is unrealistic, what makes up for it is what the characters do when they aren’t talking—when they’re just reacting.

Some of the best moments in the film happen when no one is saying anything. The eye movement and overall mannerisms of the entire cast, especially Bernal as Father Amaro, are really what bring the story home for me. When Father Amaro and the young girl Amelia (Ana Talia Talancón) interact I found myself tuning out what they were saying to focus in on what they were doing. The nervous eyes, the small twitches and flinches—it’s the subtleties that make the film what it is. When Amaro’s words put up a wall against Amelia’s advances, his mannerisms are what show you how weak the wall actually is. Many critics have panned the film for becoming too much like a soap opera, saying that it tends to bury its reformist message within a campy heap of sweaty clerics clothes (sorry for that image). And for the last half of the film I’d probably tend to agree. However, if this is the only way you see the film then you’re not watching carefully enough.

While the film is shot with very straightforward cinematography, uses music only to help you get through the driving scenes, and has dialogue that is often stagnant, it still gets its message across. And for a film, that’s the most important thing. You have to pay attention. I believe the film works on two levels. Sure, you can just watch it solely for entertainment (but who watches a movie for entertainment? Not this guy), but you’ll be missing the bigger picture. On one level you can view it as a conspicuous bashing of the church, where every priest in the diocese (apart from one) is corrupt in one form or another and see it as a soap opera that fails at what it’s trying to do. Or, you can really watch and pay attention to all the subtleties the film has to offer and really grasp what corruption does to the people intimately involved with it and the Mexican population as a whole.

 I believe this film, aside from its many flaws, gives a wonderful glimpse into Mexican culture and how deep the connection with the church (and, subsequently, its alleged corruption) lies. As such, I find that it is definitely worth a watch and would recommend that you try to see this film (if only for the glimpses it offers into a different culture). Just don’t see it in a corrupt way (see what I did there?). 

MARGARET: Un(Red)boxing a Masterpiece

So, as much as I love movies, one thing I've never done is rented from Redbox. Well, seeing as I was at Wal*Mart today and had just started this new blog, I thought why not try it out. And while there were tons of movies to choose from (NOTE: this is not a review of Redbox though it was pretty cool), there were only a couple I had been really wanting to see. One was THE RAID: REDEMPTION (which is my reward for actually finishing this post) and Kenneth Lonergan's MARGARET.

I don't know how many of you know all the shit surrounding MARGARET, but it was originally scheduled to be released in 2007. However, Fox Searchlight had told Kenneth Lonergan that his cut of the film could not exceed 150 minutes. Unfortunately, he had immense trouble cutting down the film to anything close to that and where it sat was around three hours. So, that's what it did. Sit. It sat and sat and was the catalyst for many lawsuits. Eventually, Fox brought in Martin Scorsese to do a cut of the film, Lonergan finally acquiesced and the film got an extremely (and I mean to the XTREME) limited release. Eventually (recently) it was released on DVD and Blu-ray with a longer, near three hour cut (the one I saw) and everyone was kind of done with it. Well, almost everyone.

So, here I am. After watching MARGARET I have to say that I'm not sure exactly what to say. That being said (or not), I think it might be one of the best films I've ever seen. I usually don't like that kind of hyperbolic  statement, but it seems deserving. A film that's been basically discarded as trash for the greater part of 5 years seems to deserve a little hyperbole (OR THE GREATEST PRAISE IN THE WORLD!). The problem is, I don't know exactly how to do it. Trying to write about this movie seems like such a task that I don't know if I can even do it justice. The film left me feeling kind of like the main character, Lisa; so filled with emotion and completely unable to express it. But after thinking about it for most of the day, I still want to try. And I think the best way to do that is to come at it at a few different ways (this could end up being a long one).

But before any of that, I guess I need to try and explain the plot (which, in and of itself, is a challenge). IMDb's plot summary goes, "A young woman witnesses a bus accident, and is caught up in the aftermath" and I guess that's fine. Granted, that does happen. But it doesn't really get at what's going on with the film or how it works. It doesn't give any explanation as to why the movie resonated so deeply with me. So, I'm going to try my best.

In MARGARET, Anna Paquin plays Lisa Cohen. She didn't ask to thrown into the middle of this tragic event. She just wanted to find an authentic cowboy hat on the Upper West Side. She wasn't trying to flirt with the bus driver (Mark Ruffalo) when he ran that red light and completely smashed that poor woman crossing the street; she just wanted to know where the driver got his cowboy hat. Well, maybe she was flirting some. Maybe he was too. But Lisa didn't intend to give a false statement to the police. She was just distraught over just having that poor woman die in her arms. She didn't want any of this to happen. And she is going to make damn sure it doesn't happen again. Ever.

You see, MARGARET is an epic (in the real sense of the word) about a young girl's reckless search for justice. She knows that bus driver is at fault and she resents that he was flirting with her before he ran down that woman (regardless of the fact that she, Lisa, initiated the flirting). She is also very affected by the fact that the woman speaks her daughter's (also named Lisa) name before passing away. Lisa's parents also happen to be deeply involved in drama (her mother a stage actress and her father a screenwriter in California) and, given this background, it's easy to see how she can take this, in relation, small scale tragedy and turn it into an opera. She's a young, 17 year old girl. She's also self-absorbed as they come and isn't going to stop until she feels better about this whole thing.

Even reading that it seems kind of messy, but I think it (sort of) gets at what the film is trying to do in my opinion. And that is to express the inexpressible. The value of the film is in its ability to articulate something that's never quite been articulated in that way before. It's the recognition and expression of that something; something deep within ourselves that makes truly great films, like MARGARET, great.

So, now that I've babbled on and on and probably made no sense, let me briefly (ha ha ha, right?) talk about what the movie does for a second.

Two ideas (of many, these are not the only two) that have been instilled in our society for generations are that women are insane and teenagers are idiots. And both of these share one thing in common: they're completely moronic. But they've been with us forever. And why? Because to get past these ideas you have to change the way you look at them. Just a little nuance is all we need, but society tends to not be so swift at that. But it seems like this is really something that should be done, doesn't it? Looking past these common misconceptions is a very important step in societal growth but we don't really seem to care. And then there's MARGARET. You see, MARGARET does try to engage these ideas, wrestle with them, move past them and express something inexpressible. It wants to find the truth about the psychology of teenage women and I think it does a pretty good job at it.

You see, as much as adults would like to believe otherwise, teenagers are pretty complicated, multifaceted beings. It's not that they're stupid. They totally know things. Probably more than most adults, technically, because they're actually still in school and learning all the time. It has more to do with the fact that they don't have any real life experiences with the putting important feelings they have about the things they learn into practice. They also don't really have much experience at keeping their emotions checked and they don't have much skill at judging which kinds of events and injustices really matter in the big picture. For my money, that's pretty much the difference between teenagers and adults. And MARGARET portrays this brilliantly.

That being said, as much as the film does show how teenagers behave differently (most of the time worse), it makes sure to show many ways in which adults can be and act just the same. From Lisa's dad backing out of a promised vacation because it's just easier that way, to Lisa's mother using awful names when she gets frustrated with Lisa, to a conversation between two adults that gets terribly racist, the film is very even handed. We all do it, the films says, adults just do it less.

And I could go on and on. How the film handles women, how it handles teenagers, how it handles just about every emotion there is, through it all there's one main thing that makes it all work. It feels real. New York feels real, the characters feel real, their relationships and how the characters behave feels real. Every single character feels fully realized, down to their psychologies, looks, desires, and how they dress and sound, it's all textured so beautifully and fully that by the end of the film, I understood everyone. Not just the main characters either. Every. Single. One.

And that's just it. The difference between real life and make-believe is that make-believe has to make sense (I know, I just blew my mind too). You see, when you write something dramatic, there's always a reason why things happen. Simple cause and effect. This happened which caused this, but this happened which caused this and so on and so on. But with real life it's not that simple. And that's something that MARGARET just gets. At first it may not seem like half the things Lisa does make sense, but if you really think about, there's a reason why behind everything you see (and every shot) and it all makes perfect sense. It's not that simple to work out because it's not operating like we're used to. It's operating along with how Lisa thinks. Her mind makes leaps, so does the film. She responds with anger to someone she shouldn't, gives a pass to another person who deserves the anger and it makes sense in the film because it makes sense to her and her psyche. She has her reasons, whether they be good or not, for everything she does. And you know what that makes her? Human. It just happens to be a teenage human who can't really process what the hell is happening to them.

One last thing I'll say about the film is that despite it being an epic journey through the twists and turns of a teenage girl's psyche as she's trying to deal with all this stuff, the film still has a framing device that works pretty darn well. Near the beginning of the film, Lisa's mom asks her if she wants to go to the opera and Lisa replies that she dislikes the opera because "It's like their entire reason for existing is to prove how loud they can be. I really don't find it all that interesting." And then they have an EPIC argument (I'm just enjoying using that word at this point). You see, that's just it. The two of them are opera (Say whaaaaaaaat?!). That's right, and we spend the next couple of hours watching them prove it to us. And then the end comes, and where are we? Yep. At the opera (AND THERE ARE SOME SUPER SERIOUS SPOILERS COMING UP). Sure, the events leading to them both going have been extremely harrowing and depressing. They have both been on the emotional roller coaster from hell and here they are. Listening to gorgeous people trying to prove how loud they can be. And Lisa starts to weep. Then she begins to sob. And then she has a breakdown. And then her mother sees this. And she begins to weep. Then sob. Then break down. And they both just sit there, hugging and crying into each other: a combination of grief, hysteria, "I'm sorry"'s, and raw human emotion. And there you have it. The culmination of the entire movie in one compact, beautiful ending.

Oh, and the "Margaret" in MARGARET? Well, there's no real character named Margaret in the movie. The name comes from the poem "Spring and Fall" by Gerard Manley. I won't go into the poem or recite it here. But it's performed by Matthew Broderick's character to Lisa's class. And where is Lisa? Not paying attention, with much more important (in her mind) things to think about. But if only she had listened. Because as the poem concludes, it's clear that it was herself for which Lisa was mourning. This is a young woman's first real glimpse of adulthood and the horrors it can force us into.

And it might just be a masterpiece.

Why Howling at the Internet is Better Than Howling to Yourself

Hi, this is me. Okay, so this isn't me. This is a wolf in Alaska, howling on video in something the internet calls "wolf shows." Now, while I don't know what the hell wolf shows are (they sound like something sexually disturbed Alaskans pay money to watch in abandoned Chuck E Cheese's) I can relate to this wolf. 

Many of you may now be taking this time to call BS on my whole "don't know what a wolf show is," that's not how I can relate. As you can see, this particular wolf is howling. Not only is he howling, the poor bastard is howling alone. So, how does this relate to me? Well, this is what I do when it comes to movies, TV, and all things popular culture. You see, film and television are my passions. I love watching film and TV, I love reading about film and TV, I love talking about film and TV. And it's easy (more or less, being from Eastern KY) to do the first two. It's the last one that gives me trouble. 

You see, while a lot of my friends love movies and television, it's sometimes (a lot of times) hard to get much more out of them than the standard "it sucked" or "it was totally awesome man!" Now, don't get me wrong, these statements are often extremely true and every bit as valid as what I have to say, I just want more. Sadly, when I do try to express my feelings about narrative, certain shot techniques, actors, directors or whatever, I usually get the old head nod and move on (probably like Mr. Wolfy when he tries to tell his friends about the times he ends up in an abandoned Chuck E Cheese's without prior knowledge of how he got there). So, what is there to do? Well, that's where the blog comes in.

While it can be very difficult to get my thoughts out about films and TV shows I see, as well as to get real conversations going about said film and TV, I find that when people, including myself, actually type the stuff out, it really can get fun things going. And that's my hope for this blog.

So, here is the idea: Using a clever play on my name (ha ha, Howell sounds like Howl! I'm so clever), I am going to use this blog as a platform to express my thoughts on things popular culture and all types of media that passes through my eyeballs and up into my brain. Hopefully not only will this allow me to better grasp and appreciate what I am watching, it will also allow for conversation between me and my friends, as well as any other awesome stranger that wonders in (not unlike at a wolf show... I hear). 

And with that, let's see how this thing goes. The time of howling alone is over. No more one man wolf pack for this gentleman! So, wherever and whenever and however this finds you, I hope you enjoy it and I hope it acts a way of bring us all together and howling as one about all things pop culture. And maybe if  it really takes off, I can afford to rent an actual, in business Chuck E Cheese! 

I am truly living the dream.