Travis: The Switch (2010)

There comes a point in a young man’s life in his teen years, where things begin to…change. By this of course, I am referring to how they take in movies. In my elementary years, a movie as iconic as Star Wars: A New Hope would have had little merit for me considering I had very little life experience to throw my mind into the conflict. So after hearing that, one might think that I would dare to compare “The Switch” to “Star Wars” and thusly, make a complete assjohn of myself. Nay, I only wish to describe a general trend and, in turn, illustrate to you, the reader, what seeing this movie may mentally satiate. As people age, however, I have found that they tend to truly immerse themselves less and less in what they watch. This is the opposite of a kindergartener who in ritual preparation for their favorite program may begin wildly slapping their buttocks and has conversations with the characters. But with more experienced moviegoers, it seems that they begin to play the movie parallel to their inner thoughts and discuss the presentation over the events. In the same manner that audiences watching a Greek tragedy know what will happen, moviegoers of today can usually predict major plot archetypes. Because of that trend, “The Switch” is an underrated and poignant film.

So what is “The Switch”? Why the hell did I choose to see something with Jennifer Aniston over “The Other Guys”, a movie ripe with stereotypical young male adult humor? To put it plainly, even without seeing the latter, I can be certain “The Switch” was more worth my money.

The premise of the movie is summarized in a humorous quote used by Wally Mars (Jason Bateman): “I high-jacked her pregnancy”. However, like hair on a Portuguese, the plot grows in many different directions and often in places you wouldn’t expect.

Fatherhood plays an integral role and in that way, the movie is by no means a “chick flick”. Furthermore, the humor is not centered in giggly, embarrassing Hugh Grant moments, eliminating it from being considered a romantic comedy. What I really enjoyed were the real elements that the movie had. To name a few: there is no obvious bad guy who you can point your finger at, the main character has his flaws even to the audience, and the end of the climactic argument is not “You had me at hello” nor is it an equally predictable indie twist of today where the guy doesn’t get together with the girl. This kept my interest and if I had to explain every event of the movie, I would be very hard pressed because it is not just a matter of saying “She realizes _____” or “He changes his ways and then _____”.

Now I could just bash the bad points of the movie as a part two in my thoughts, but instead I’ll just end with this: “The Switch” is a solid option as a movie if you simply enjoy watching good movies like a reader enjoys reading good books (as opposed to the teen who read a few pages into that book they trendily heard about and then bought from Urban Outfitters).

Marcus: [Rec] (2007)

            For me, “[Rec]” symbolizes an apex of filmmaking in both the horror and cinéma vérité genres. Not only is it one of my favorite zombie movies, it may be my favorite “handheld camera” style film too, far surpassing “The Blair Witch Project” and even “Cloverfield.” It works well for so many reasons that I’ll cover in detail, and these different elements mesh together seamlessly into an absolutely terrifying film that makes me realize that there are two things in this world I will never do: outgrow my fear held in this movie, and live in a Spanish apartment complex.

            Our two main protagonists are Ángela Vidal and her cameraman Pablo, who are spending the night in a fire station to film an episode for their documentary style television show, and tag a ride along with the firemen to an apartment where a mysterious rabies-like infection is beginning to spread and the whole team is forcibly quarantined inside the building.

The first thing that stands out to me is how great the acting is. As far as I could tell, for the first 10 minutes or so, I could have been watching a real documentary featuring real people. The dialogue is very human, with people occasionally stumbling over their words and talking over or interrupting each other as people are wont to do every so often. And when things get freaky and out of control, the dialogue doesn’t become punchy and dramatic, it becomes frantic. People scream over each other, making everything garbled and panicked. Ángela screams incoherently and stutters with fear, not once does she, as the main protagonist, rouse the survivors together with an inspiring speech, because you know what? Not every female lead needs to be a goddamned Ellen Ripley. In fact, it’s refreshing to see a horror movie heroine so completely defenseless to the environment around her, that just to see her survive another full minute is a triumph. Her character adds, as I said before, a realism to the film, which is extremely necessary in a case like this to draw the audience into it’s world.

            I also applaud the fact that Pablo, the cameraman, while not as developed as his counterpart, is fully immersed in the movie as a character, with as much risk of getting killed as anyone else in the film (I can confidently say this because he does get killed, so there). The fact that even the source of what you’re seeing is vulnerable to physical harm makes you as the viewer feel the danger. It’s like if I told you that at this very moment, as you’re reading this, I’m in the next room fending off a rabid wolf. Once it’s killed me, what’s to say it won’t come after you next? The whole method of shooting gives you a sense of extreme intimacy with all the other characters around the camera, including the bitey, growly ones.

            The setting itself is optimal for this type of movie. Almost the entire film is confined at gunpoint to an impossibly tall and narrow set of staircases, hallways and rooms. It’s like being trapped in a grain silo. Once we enter this building, we are not allowed to exit. This serves to make the viewer feel isolated, as they are not allowed to know what is going on outside the building, making it easy to relate to the mounting frustration of the characters trapped inside. Not only are we unaware of what’s going on outside, because we only see the events through one camera, we are not even sure of what else is going on in other parts of the same building, and the movie brilliantly reminds us of that with certain scenes like when one of the firemen mysteriously does a cordless bungie jump from some unknown place a few floors up and splatters in fried egg fashion across the foyer tile. The characters shortly debate what caused this to happen, but the matter is dropped as others arise and the question is left unanswered. Even in the small confines of the setting there are still things happening within that it’s very clear we won’t know about, and you know what? That’s alright, because the need to survive presents itself more boldly than any other topic.

            There is an ever-increasing sense of paranoia throughout the film. You as the viewer get to watch as what was initially a very small problem blossoms into something beyond anyone’s control. At the beginning you find yourself saying, “Look out, you idiot! Stay focused on what you’re doing and there won’t be a probl-NO WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!” and by the end you’re just like, “Fuck it, y’all are gonna die anyways.” It starts with mistakes the characters choose to make, but as things get worse and worse and the infection spreads, it forces the survivors to make decisions that are still stupid, but now necessary. It gives the film a sense of tragedy, of hopelessness, and considering how well “[Rec]” does all this, I couldn’t ask for anything more.

            P.S. “[Rec]” is a Spanish movie and is therefore in Spanish. You could watch the American remake, “Quarantine” but you’d be an idiot because “Quarantine” is fucking terrible by comparison and should be ignored completely like a child laborer who hasn’t been pulling his weight recently and yet still has the gall to ask for a second serving of gruel.

Alex: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

The things that leave an impact on a life may not affect someone else. Think back to your first oyster, after living a life of an unadventurous eater. The first time you flew on a plane all by yourself, after living a life hiding behind mom and dad. Your first videogame, your first beer, your first kiss. Each of us can draw a line from that “one” event to the person we are today.

“Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” was the movie that got me into movies. I don’t remember where exactly I watched it; it wasn’t in theaters I don’t even remember it ever coming out. It was probably on a Sunday afternoon, in my room with the shades drawn and a channel like Starz or HBO on. I probably put it on because nothing else was happening, or because I was still waking up. But I watched it. And I loved it.

The movie tells the story of Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.), a thief from New York who stumbles his way into an acting gig and blows the socks off of the people there. They cast him in a detective movie and send him to Los Angeles where he shadows actual detective Perry Van Shrike. (Val Kilmer) The two witness an actual murder while on a routine recon job, that quickly becomes more then just murder. Meanwhile Perry tries to reconnect with his high school sweetheart Harmony, (Michelle Monaghan) and the movie, from this point on, operates as a who-done-it with the three main characters unraveling the deception of some very high-ranking people in the world.

You could plug in different words into that paragraph and it could do a good job describing about a hundred different films. But the thing that separates “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” from all the other movies out there was the thing that blew my little kid head. The film was aware of itself. Robert Downey Jr. was the narrator in addition to the main character, and would make self deprecating remarks when the movie was too obvious, or he would point out all the foreshadowing elements and say, “GEE I WONDER WHY WE ARE SHOWING THIS, MIGHT BE IMPORTANT FOR LATER ON. WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE.”

While that implied just a little bit of cheese, the movie, and director Shane Black, were able to pull it off by having the pacing be quick, and having Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer be totally fucking rad. They had chemistry in this movie. Their dialogue was great and it was just a fucking blast to watch them perform it. Downey Jr. especially was excellent and won my young heart and mind with this performance. I didn’t even know about any of his other movies or his drug and legal problems before this movie, that’s how much of a shut in I was, but I became a fan of his on the spot.

I became a fan because he was funny. The entire movie was funny. I remember laughing and giggling along not because it was loud and crass like a studio comedy, but because it was clever and sharp. It was totally different from films I had watched, or liked in the past. Plus, it wasn’t very popular so I got to, for the first time, extol the virtues of an unknown commodity, and feel like I was just a little more special then everyone else.

This is not the best movie in the world. It is not artsy and doesn’t have a lot of depth. (comparatively) But I feel like this movie, and Downey Jr. and Shane Black did me a favor. They opened up film for me. They showed me that movies can be fun and fast and just really fucking cool. I feel like if “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” asked me to help it move, I would be obliged to. After all it did for me, it would be the least I could to.

Sam: Boardwalk Empire - Pilot (2010)

The premier episode of Boardwalk Empire was like going into the bathroom, lifting the toilet seat, and beginning to pee after several drinks. But, as the urine commences to flow, and you feel that pleasant rush of endorphins, you start to hear the shallow breath of someone lurking behind the drawn shower curtain next to you. Just as the episode was ending, you begin to see the faint silhouette of this dark passenger who is about to collide with your life.

So, first some background. The first episode of HBO’s triumphant new series details the week just after prohibition was passed. Enoch “Nucky” Thompson, treasurer of Atlantic City, quickly sets in motion wheels and deals with the local and Chicago mafia to make sure his town doesn’t go dry. This kingpin, who practically runs the Atlantic City boardwalk on which he resides, has his finger metaphorically dipped in every business in town. Thus, he is constantly re-elected and uses his in’s with the mayor to elect who he wants to town council. For example, his brother, the sheriff. Enter Margaret Schroeder. She is a thick-accented Irishwoman who comes to Nucky for help. She hopes to gain employment for her husband, but instead receives enough money to last her and her family through winter. After, a deal “goes bad” when a shipment of booze going to Chicago is hijacked by one of Nucky’s own men, Nucky has the blame pinned on Margaret’s abusive husband (who hours earlier killed his unborn child in a drunken rage) who is found in a fishing net the next day. The episode then ends with Nucky visiting the recovering Margaret in the hospital.

What immediately struck me was how cinematic this show was. Cleverly executed by one of my favorite directors, Martin Scorsese, this episode plays out in a complicated and intriguing way. It is staged as elegantly as Scorsese’s The Aviator, but is told in such a mature way that it rivals any pattern of storytelling out there. Scorsese hardly gives anything away until you want it the most. And when you finally get what you want out of the story, it feels so good.

As for the acting, there is not a weak member of the ensemble. Steve Buscemi, who plays Thompson, is the best leader of any ensemble television has seen in years. Schroeder handles her practically silent role elegantly but with a very beautiful hidden judgment behind each line. However, the actor who stands out the most is Michael Stuhlbarg (A Serious Man). He plays Arnold Rothstein, a ruthless swindler from Chicago. He is so immersed in his role especially considering how little screen time he actually has. He truly embodies his role better than any other member of the cast. This is not to disregard the almost as amazing acting job of Michael Shannon, who really gets to shine in the second episode. Shannon works the role of a federal agent who is on to Nucky’s business. He mixes a disgustingly real performance as a pious, unlikeable character with a very subtle dark side that emerges only ever so slightly to the viewers.

The production quality is amazing. $30 million put into the first three episodes alone. What this means is massive cinematography, even greater and wider sweeping sets, and a wardrobe that would make any British period piece shit its corset. They constructed an entire boardwalk for Christ sake.

Now, the second episode is like a mentally handicap holding a Faberge egg after being told there is chocolate inside. It sets the tension even closer to the edge but right as the egg is about to shatter, it once again ends rather abruptly. Pssh, as if they needed a hook to keep us watching. Without Scorsese’s direction, the shots get a bit more clumsy and a little less grand, but they still do the job. The writing suffers not in the least, and it really seemed up to par with the first episode. As for the plot…in the style of the show itself…you’ll just have to wait till next time.

Marcus: Inception (2010)

            After seeing “Inception” I left the theatre with a sharp headache directly behind the eyes. It wasn’t until a little later that I noticed that the pain was due to Christopher Nolan ramming his penis down my ear canal and having his way with my brain, and Christopher Nolan was not a tender lover. He is not a tender lover for two reasons: one is that he never holds back, he always hits you as hard as he can with whatever he’s got, and two, he’s a little bit sloppy.

            Now before you all go and change your Facebook statuses from your favorite song lyrics to “I can’t believe this guy!” let me stop you because A) that statement has no context and people won’t have any idea of what the fuck you’re talking about, and B) I didn’t say the movie was poorly made, I just thought there were a few parts that were too ambiguous. Clearly the purpose of the movie is to have the audience decide for themselves what is truly reality and what is just dreamed up by the characters, but at times, rather than being presented with a simple fork in the road with one theory leading one way and a second theory leading the other, we’re dropped into an orgy of intersections branching this way and that demanding we choose one to follow. And God forbid you realize the one you thought was true actually wasn’t, because you can’t go back. You may think you can retrace your steps but by then you’re already lost and have no chance of catching back up with what’s going on.

            Wait, we’re still talking about Inception, right? Right. Or maybe we’re all just dreaming about it! But seriously, I love a movie that gives the brain an old jogging, but some guidance is always required to keep some of the stragglers at least in the same ballpark, give them free total boundless initiative to say what’s going on, and you’ll get a few nuts saying the movie’s tied to the JFK assassination somehow, or, even nuttier, the Robert Kennedy assassination.

            But returning to the concept of Inception, Christopher Nolan needs to get a better understanding of his target audience. The film works very similarly as “Memento,” Nolan’s beautifully crafted story of an amnesic protagonist told in reverse. That movie was first shown at the Venice Film Festival in September of 2000 and put on wide release the following March. If a movie is said to be thought provoking, then it will draw a thinking audience, people who want the mental stimulation. When a movie is released as a summer blockbuster, as Inception was, it will draw a different sort of crowd. A large part of summer blockbuster audiences are illiterates and Twilight fans, and in some horrifying cases, people who are both. The blockbuster will still rake in the cash, as “Inception” did, but the question nagging me is, was the true artistry of the film fully appreciated? Did everyone really get it, or was it a movie that only got multiple viewings just so people could watch it again while high? Judging from all the moronic online responses immediately following the film’s release, Facebook posts like, “Whoa, ‘Inception’ blew my mind,” or “Whoa, ‘Inception’ was trippy as balls,” or, “WOOOOAAAAAINCEPTIONOOOOOAAAAHHH!” I’d have to say it was the latter.

            All in all, Inception is great. It has gripping visuals an engaging plot and it’s well paced. The casting is wonderful too, although I will admit I don’t understand the appeal of putting Marion Cotillard in an American blockbuster. I get that she’s a beautiful woman and a talented actress, but she gives off the vibe that she belongs in foreign art house productions. I always feel she’s out of place in American blockbusters even if she’s not playing an American. I don’t know, that’s just my bias. The cast is great and the end of the movie will have you questioning and rethinking all of what transpired, at least, it should do that. Otherwise I don’t know what to tell you except, I hope you enjoy “Breaking Dawn.”

Marcus: Legion (2010)

            I can’t presume to know anything about writer/director Scott Charles Stewart’s childhood, but I have to assume it was a pretty harsh time in his life. If I had to guess, I’d say he lived with a little brother whom he often feuded with and who even more often tried to cut him. He also either had an overbearing religious mother or a nanny that beat him about the throat and face with a bible. Something scarred him as a child, something horrible and religious, and that is the only reason I can fathom for him creating the completely fucked up story of Legion.

            So God is pissed off at humans and all their hate and greed and whatnot so he entrusts his two main men, namely the angels Gabriel and Michael to go down and kill a baby that’s supposed to be the savior of mankind and it’s protector is a man named Jeep. The baby belongs to a woman living in a truck stop called Paradise Falls (Get it? Because it’s a horrible play on words!) in the middle of the desert and ol’ Mike the angel has a change of heart and decides to help protect the baby. There’s more to it than that, and by more I mean gunfights, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that the fate of the world is in the hands of a man named after a shitty off-road vehicle.

            Here are a few things I don’t get, and FYI, they constitute the remainder of the movie. First we’re told that the child will be the savior of mankind, which I thought would be encouraged by all the angels. But apparently we mortals are stupid to assume that because Michael stands alone with this point of view. Apparently God is so incredibly pissed at each and every human on the planet, that he would send a horde of zombie angels to kill the only hope of salvation. I knew the Lord could be vengeful, but wow. Then Michael says how he hopes the child will grow up in a better world. Well I should better fucking hope so, Paul Bettany, because you just said that baby was going to be the cause of a better world! Then Mikey and the people who’ve been trapped in the truck stop do battle with the demon angels who have possessed hundreds of these “sinful” humans including a small girl with a balloon, who’s mind I’m just sure was rife with imaginings of wrongdoing and the intent to commit war crimes.

            Then who should grace Paradise Falls (it never gets old!) with his presence but Gabriel himself. He then reveals how the baby was never even supposed to exist and that it's birth was against God’s plan to wipe out mankind. So it’s at this point I ask myself: did an angel just imply that God is so vengeful, that he would not be above a coat hangar abortion to prevent all of mankind getting a chance at salvation? But then why did the baby have a destiny at all other than dying? If God wanted it dead then I’d expect He should have been able to take care of the baby using more devine methods than sending a hit man. If this all isn’t confusing enough, consider the aftermath of the battle between Michael and Gabriel, during which Mikey boy gets his angelic ass served to him only to return almost immediately and completely refreshed to soundly defeat Gabriel in what can be politely described as an unfair rematch and rudely described as the equivalent of a 15 minute detour through Central Park at the end of which you get urethra raped by a rose stem. He then tells Jeep the following migraine inducing information: “You’re the true protector, you always have been… have faith,” before flying off like a biblical neglecting dad.

            Is Jeep the true protector? Is he really? Is that the reason why throughout the whole movie he showed not one iota of proof that he was capable of protecting a baby from even a bloodthirsty octogenarian?

One final detail that puzzles me. Michael says that the last time God lost faith in man, he sent a flood, referring to the tale of Noah’s Ark, and that this time he sent the legion. Well why the hell didn’t he send a flood again? Just flood the whole world like last time. It worked pretty effectively then. You can’t shoot a flood. Just sayin’, God.

            Anyways, those are all my major complaints about the plotline. Other than that I thought the acting was poor, the action was sparse and separated by huge chunks of contrived dialogue and a hugely disappointing climax. I really have nothing good to say about this movie except the scene with the possessed old lady was funny as hell.

Alex: Up in the Air (2009)

George Clooney never really disappears into a role. When watching his movies, I am never able to completely suspend belief and allow myself to be convinced that Clooney is pretending to be someone else. I can’t imagine Clooney taking on some of the roles that Sean Penn or Sam Rockwell take on. And he has become the box-office draw that he is precisely because of it. Clooney is so popular that the paying audience doesn’t want to see Clooney pretend to be someone he isn’t. Even if that is the job of other actors. George Clooney is a movie star. A public figure that audiences want to be, or be with. People will pay money to see him, and be happy for it. That’s how fucking cool this guy is.

Clooney stars in the best film of last year, Jason Reitman’s “Up in the Air”. We get the suave Clooney this go round (as opposed to funny Clooney or angry Clooney). He plays Ryan Bingham who works for a company that has him travel around the country firing people who work for companies that don’t have the stomach to do the job in house. He is on the road for 270 days out of the year, eating dinner at the Hilton and getting drunk at the hotel bar. Bingham relishes his lifestyle, enjoying the isolation that comes with having neither home nor a family of his own. He even advocates this lifestyle to others, giving motivational speeches on the benefits of no connections at the various hotels he stays at.

At a bar one night, Bingham meets Alex (Vera Farmiga) a traveling businesswoman cut from the same cloth as him. They fool around and agree to meet up in the future. Bingham is then called back to company headquarters to hear a presentation from Natalie (Anna Kendrick), which introduces the possibility of firing someone through a video chat, allowing all the downsizers out on the road to come back home. Bingham complains to his boss who assigns the newbie Natalie to him to learn the ropes. Natalie doesn’t understand Ryan’s devotion to an isolated way of life and has the balls to question him on it despite his seniority and his handsomeness, and wants desperately to find the right guy and settle down. While at a tech conference party one night, Alex and Ryan find themselves alone on a boat with their feet in the water, staring back at the Miami skyline. Ryan has never before met a woman like Alex, and has never wanted what he wants from their relationship.

Reitman sets all of this up in the first act of the film, allowing the ideas and temptations of the two actresses to corrupt and change Bingham’s outlook in the rest of the film. Ryan throughout the second act of the movie, begins to fall for Alex as he begins to admire everything that Natalie wants. The turning moment comes at Ryan’s sisters wedding, where he invites Alex as his date. When the groom gets cold feet Bingham must convince him that a life with companionship is actually best, is something worth having. It’s a moving scene not only because of what Bingham is saying, but because he finally believes in the lifestyle he once scorned. He has abandoned his old and long standing belief that a life lived by oneself trumps one lived with the connections that slow people down. He abandons everything he has or believed in for Alex the smart, funny, beautiful woman he has fallen in love with. After leaving a speaking engagement at the podium, Bingham flys to Chicago to surprise Alex at her home. Ryan does this only to discover that Alex has a husband and children, and he realizes that she does not want from Ryan what he wants from her.

Ryan has been abandoned by the only person he’s had feelings for in a long, long time, but also by his belief that his way of life is what he wants. He has nothing. He wants to change but does not have the know-how to do so. Ryan Bingham is a man destroyed by the situation he put himself in, crippled by the loneliness he once cherished. It is the lowest I could imagine anyone. The character of Ryan Bingham has completed a clear and gripping arc, something that one doesn’t find in movies that are beginning to be valued by their complexities. In a world filled with big budget, scene driven films, a good character driven film is something to be valued.

But Clooney is not entirely successful in depicting Bingham’s arc. Or maybe it’s hard to imagine Clooney, the man who has seemingly everything, trying to pretend he has nothing. Either way, when watching the end of the movie something just didn’t seem to fit. But Clooney still gives good depth to the character, as do the fantastic Farmiga and Kendrick. They both give very strong performances as the main corruptors in Bingham’s life. Kendrick, the one who challenges Clooney on the life he lives, and Farmiga as the perfect partner for someone used to living life isolated (Although Kendrick could come off as wooden at times).

Even the minor roles are filled with great talent. Jason Bateman plays Bingham’s boss as a sleeze but still a likeable guy. Melanie Lynskey and Danny McBride play the couple whose wedding Ryan attends with the friendly demeanor one expects from residents of northern Wisconsin. J.K. Simmons and Zach Galifinakis portray people recently fired with all the heartbreak and anger as those who have actually been let go. And that anger is something that Reitman taps into for “Up in the Air”. When Ryan and Natalie actually go out and fire people, Reitman uses interviews that he has had with people who were fired during the recession. Expectedly there is a lot of pain and anger in these people’s interviews that not only help the movie but also give a face and story to the millions of people unemployed right now. The actions taken by Reitman in this regard could take up another 1,000 words, but this is not the place.

All of these factors, plus an excellent sound track and great cinematography make “Up in the Air” the best movie to come out in 2009. The story is a simple one, but the depth that all of the players bring to this film really separate it from the other Oscar nominations of the year. All of the characters are polished and relatable. Every personal incentive the characters have are challenged or manipulated. “Up in the Air” is not just a great movie, but a great story, something that the American film industry needs.

Sam: Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

          Slumdog Millionaire...more like Lame Odd Failure...I won't even dignify this film with a clever mocking name
          Imagine you’re a small Indian boy in a school in the slums of Mumbai. In class, you sit with your brother as your teacher asks you a question about the Three Musketeers. This one element will be the defining factor of whether you will win millions of dollars on an Indian game show. I suppose it also has some significance to the plot but neither the connection or the plot are ever made clear enough to get invested. So, imagine you’re still this Indian boy. You are in your teens now. You get on “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire” and you must remember events from your past to answer each question. What a clever PLOT DEVICE you have come up with to tell the story of how you lost your one true love. Finally, you are down to your last question. One question away from the money and WOAH, surprise surprise it’s the question about the Three Musketeers. But you don’t care if you answer correctly, you just want the love of your life back. Well guess what, you get both. You also win best original song for a motion picture at the Oscars. Well, I have one thing to say to you, “Jai-ho, really?”

One thing I must first get off my chest is that I did not enjoy Slumdog Millionaire and thought it exploited a story with massive potential by over emphasizing how cultural it was and using grab-bag cinematographic techniques to come off as stylized and meaningful.  In fact, a number of people who I discussed the movie with just after seeing it thought it was an indie film. Such trickery cannot be perpetuated in Hollywood. Essentially, Danny Boyle wished to make a movie that American’s would see in an attempt to become more cultured. Profits, Profits, and more profits ensued; as did recognition. However, I asked a friend of mine who was born in Mumbai and he noted no similarities between the conditions he saw in the slums and the conditions shown in the film. Also, the Bollywood-esque ending they try to stuff in for good measure only seemed desperate and based of British stereotypes of a former annex of their empire.

In reality, Dev Patel is highly lacking in the acting department. He maintains one face the entire film. The face of a man who has just seen blood in his urine. It makes you question how he was championed for such a powerful performance when 45% of it involved desperately shouting “LATIKA!” The other 55% of “Slumdog’s”, was performed by another actor. A child actor who was, in fact, promised a trust fund as payment for the film but received a total of $118 and was ostracized from the film’s party before post-production even began. But, lets get back to Patel. Patel was seen as a break out actor; however, he was already a main character in a popular British show for teenagers called “Skins”. This show is the British equivalent to Degrassi but with more nudity. As for the brother character in the film, his acting was the high point of the movie at some points. The same goes for the acting of the host of “Who wants to be a Millionaire?” However, these were the two most unlovable characters in the film and I had this constant urge to hit both in the face with a shovel after every line they said.

Danny Boyle made a thoroughly non-triumphant film, which is rare for this seasoned British director. He’s most known for his film’s Trainspotting and 28 Day’s Later, films that if you asked most people, most people would respond that they quite enjoyed those movies. The same is true for Slumdog. Most people you would ask would say they thought it was an excellent movie which is where I simply get confused. The story is somewhat new however, the acting is lacking, the dialogue wanes the whole movie through, and the cinematography is more based on stylish trickery than anything else. So why did it when an Oscar for everything. Danny Boyle has produced the penultimate film to have so little but win so much. As for the writing, it felt like everyone involved in drafting the script had only worked on either The Sands of Time or Fear Factor; their sole purpose was to saturate the film with cheap emotion wrenching dialogue (every line spoken between Jamal and Latika) or vomit inducing scenarios (the toilet scene or eye dissolving scene). Well I'll I can say is good job Danny Boyle! You had me vomiting the whole movie through!

Marcus: Hostel (2006)

           I want to take this opportunity to make a statement not only about “Hostel,” but also on cinema as a whole and the general rule of filmmaking that usually constitutes a “good” horror film. A horror movie is allowed to be gory, that’s fine, it provides a visceral feel and is unsettling to the viewer, so it works, in moderation. But scary does not equal gory, and when a self-proclaimed “horror” movie showcases nothing but intestines and screechy music it runs into a bit of a conundrum, that being it has just called itself a horror movie with fuck all to show for it. Sure the gore will make us uncomfortable, so would seeing a butcher remove a pig’s head with a table saw, but the latter wouldn’t scare me, it takes more than that, although maybe I’m just desensitized.

            That being said, let’s move on to “Hostel” which, for some reason, is Eli Roth’s crowning directorial achievement and was hugely popular upon its initial release in 2006. It’s widely renowned by critics to be one of the scariest movies of the decade, that’s right, critics, as in more than one critic thought this was true.

            Three guys looking for European ass wind up in Slovakia, getting tortured by rich psychos who pay a company to organize their kidnappings. I really wish there was more to it than that. Of course everyone they meet seem to be in on this secret group, which just makes all of Bratislava seem evil. And that’s another thing, Bratislava? What does Eli Roth have against Slovakia? Sure, you hear the occasional horror story about things happening to tourists in various parts of the world, but the world is inherently a more stupid place than it is evil. The whole film would have been more realistic if the protagonists had simply been given wrong directions and accidentally waded into the Danube River and drowned. I’ve been to Bratislava, it’s a delightfully charming place, the people were hospitable. And the city itself was beautiful, nothing like the Chernobyl-esque setting that is portrayed in the film.

            Everyone they meet in the movie is a freak. It’s as if all Europeans have some sort of physical disability or a horrendous speech impediment. That or they want to murder someone. I suppose you can’t blame the movie for trying, it attempts to get something going story-wise in the first half, but once the main characters get kidnapped, the plot goes out the window and the focus zeros in on the torture and nothing but the torture. I’m not usually put off by gore in movies but “Hostel” just heaps on the violence and nudity ad nauseum until you just want to garrote a prostitute with barbed wire, I mean puke. I just feel that after watching it that there is nothing good left in the world, or at least in Eastern Europe. It’s nothing but roving gangs of deformed kids, companies that kidnap and murder, oh and sluts… lots and lots of sluts.

            There are a couple shining moments in the movie, one when the protagonist dons a disguise and has a haunting conversation with a paying customer who is about to go torture his victim, and another that comes right at the end when the hero avenges his friend’s death and brings the film to a satisfying, although still disgusting conclusion. Despite the closure achieved at the end of the film, the movie still seems mostly empty, and that’s because rather than present the audience with a scary story, Eli Roth merely presents the idea of a scary story while simultaneously asking us how much red corn syrup we bet he can use in an hour and a half of film.

Marcus & Alex: The Blind Side (2009)

Marcus:
            I had no idea of what to expect from “The Blind Side” before watching it. I had heard it was based on a true story, which it is, and I was able to make an educated guess that the title refers to some kind of football term, which it does, but I’m not a huge sports buff so there was just as much chance that the movie was about an obese kid who has a stroke and goes blind in one eye.

            The obese boy in question is Michael Oher, played by 25-year-old Quinton Aaron who plays the male equivalent of Precious, but instead of being pregnant, he’s been knocked up with a permanent case of the Mondays. You know, the kind of Mondays where your dad commits suicide and your smack head mom abandons you in the street.

Michael spends his nights wandering the streets in search of somewhere to sleep, and his days attending the ridiculously posh Wingate Christian School, where the students are whiter than an albino shooting a toothpaste commercial in Scarface’s coke den. It’s blindingly obvious that he doesn’t fit in and yet the teachers can’t understand why he’s so uncomfortable. It’s as if they don’t really care, although the school did originally only admit him to have him play sports, maybe they just have different priorities, first of which is to insult him behind his back at every staff meeting. Having not read the book, I can only assume there is more to the real story than just what is depicted in the film. But if there isn’t anything else to the story then damn, those are some cold-hearted teachers they got down there in Tennessee.

A big problem with this film is that it takes its source material for granted. Here it sits upon this incredibly moving story and yet it seems to present everything in such simple terms. There are no subtle nuances or shades of gray that merit deep thought, it’s just boom, pow; clean, easily digestible chunks of story with no fat or gristle. Then again, what else would you expect from John Lee Hancock, the man who directs films for the American heartland, uncomplicatedly looking at the nations favorite pastimes such as Baseball in “The Rookie” or in the case of his 2004 film, “The Alamo,” war.

The story just punches you square in the face with its simplified, dumbed-down fists and you have to take it because it’s still so damn emotional. The story alone is so moving that the acting doesn’t need to be particularly good and John Lee Hancock seems to know it. After all, he did cast Tim McGraw as Sean Tuohy, a former college basketball star. Nice call, casting the equivalent of Garth Brooks as Tyler Hansbrough. Other cast members include the aforementioned Quinton Aaron as Big Mike Oher, Kathy Bates in the most arbitrary and seemingly unimportant movie role ever as Michael’s tutor, Miss Sue, who shows up for about ten minutes to scare him shitless and not teach him geometry, then disappears again to probably go stand in an empty field as boring as her character. We also have to put up with Jae Head as Sean “SJ” Jr., a spastic, cocky little shiteater who needs a shot of morphine in the arm and a shot of fist in his mouth just so he’ll shut the fuck up.

And yet, amidst all this we get one shining beacon of hope in this fogbank of mediocrity. Sandra Bullock as Leigh Anne Tuohy is as strong a female protagonist as one will see this decade. A sharply witty mother who does not suffer fools and yet shows hospitality and favor to good Christian people in need. She is fantastic. Cutting to the point of near bitchiness, and yet always likeable enough so that you never lose sympathy for her, Bullock portrays this strong, caring mother to a “t”. She alone makes this movie worth watching and I recommend it solely for her performance.

Overall the movie has a flat, insipid story that tries to spread itself too thin and just ends up oversimplifying everything. It’s a passable effort, but all it’s work is overshadowed by Sandra Bullock, who shines in her best role ever and one that definitely earned her the Oscar for Best Leading Actress.


Alex:
           The book the “Blind Side” begins with the Redskins and Giants Monday Night Football game in 1985. The author Michael Lewis (he of “Moneyball” and “The Big Short” fame) describes the events of the most shocking moment in NFL history in a series of seconds. Joe Theismann, the quarterback for the Washington Redskins snaps the ball and hands it of to Running Back John Riggins. One second. Lawrence Taylor, a linebacker for the New York Giants rushes Theismann’s left using his superhuman speed to pass by Giants blockers untouched. Two seconds. Riggins pitches back to Theismann for the called “flea-flicker” play. Three seconds. Taylor, at full bore, bears down on the quarterback. Four seconds. Taylor connects with Theismann sending him to the grass. But Theismann’s leg buckles awkwardly, and is snapped in two. His fibula and tibia break and puncture his skin. Blood squirts out like a geyser. Lawrence Taylor, one of the most intimidating men to have played the game, leaps away from the scene like a man possessed, a man scared. Taylor was able to destroy Theismann’s career because the Redskin’s starting left tackle, increasingly one of the most important positions in football, was on the sideline for that play.

I read the “Blind Side” a little over a year ago, and I have seen the movie at least twice after that. But I can remember Lewis’ descriptions more vividly then I can any scene from the film. Sandra Bullock was a very good Concerned White Christian Lady, and her winning of the Oscar that year wasn’t the biggest travesty in the Academy’s history. But the rest of the movie, as Marcus described, was overly simplistic, poorly written, and directed. But my biggest problem with the film is that IT MISSED THE POINT ENTRILEY, missed it wider then Michael Oher’s massive girth.

Lewis’ book has two narratives. One follows the remarkable story of Michael Oher, a homeless youth who, because of his size is allowed to attend a private school in Memphis, and because of his homelessness is taken in by the loving Tuohy family. Because of their good hearts they provide young Oher a life, and introduce him to football. (Oher as a child wanted to become a professional basketball player, even as he started develop the physical characteristics of a football player)

The other part of the book describes the emergence of the left tackle. During the 70’s and 80’s, principally under Bill Walsh of the San Francisco 49ers, the passing game surpassed the running game in terms of importance, meaning the quarterback became the most important position on the team, and needed to be protected. Pass rushers like Taylor had become more and more prevalent during this time, to disrupt the quarterbacks’ rhythm or, to kill him. All of this meant that football teams needed a player that was able to stop them. The left tackle protected the quarterback from pass rushers he was not able to see, and often would not be aware of until after the 300 pound man was on top of him. The left tackle was the quarterback’s sentinel, the only thing keeping him upright, or in Theismann’s case, the only thing keeping his leg in one piece.

The second narrative explains why college football coaches in the South begin to salivate at the opportunity to sign Oher. (He eventually winds up at Ole Miss, the Tuohy’s alma mater) It explains why, despite the fact that Oher was only playing football for a few years, he becomes the Baltimore Ravens first round draft pick in 2009. But all of that is ignored in the movie. The story of an emerging position in an evolving game is cut out, replaced by an incomplete story much simpler to follow. Despite its best efforts, and a good job by Ms. Bullock, that’s what the “Blind Side” feels like, incomplete.