The Wrestler - Review

          

                       "The Wrestler" is one of the most painful, sad, and brutally honest films of the past decade. It is a wonderful film not only for Darren Aronofsky's punchy direction; but also for Mickey Roarke's return to form. This is where it's at; and this is a beautiful movie. Seldom do I come across such a sad and emotionally resonant film. While many sports films are formulaic and quite tame; "The Wrestler" is not tame, and it doesn't succumb to formula either. It's a great film all-and-all. Not for everyone, and not what Aronofsky is used to doing, but perhaps that's a part of what makes it a true knock-out.

        Oh, goodness. Where do I begin with this one? The story is this; an aging wrestler is experiecing the pain of age and fame. For recreation, he meets and converses with a stripper who he finds affection in. He has no family; not anymore, since his daughter despises him. He's worth feeling bad for. He suffers from a Heart Attack one day, and it told that he may never be able to wrestle again. This tears him up inside. So as with a lot of stories similar to this one, he tries to make up for lost time with his daughter and re-create relationships with those who are distant.
        But "The Wrestler" is not the sports movie that it perhaps should be. What we get out of the experience is the typically powerful stuff that Aronofsky is so well as delivering. The film is emotionally shattering, the fight scenes are brutal, and the pain that the character goes through is as hard to watch as Aronofsky intends it to be. The film does what it wants to do and more. That is precisely why it's the film that it is.

       Mickey Roarke is the real show-stealer here, however. Aronofsky is a great director, but he intended this film to be about Roarke's performance. And about that....well frankly, his performance is just plain spellbinding. It's probably what makes the film work, after all.

         I don't only recommend this film. I'm nigh telling you to see it. It's a film that absolutely needs to be seen; even if the content may not appeal to everyone. But it's a great film for any cinephile, and frankly, you should be one if you're reading this review.
     The final verdict: awesome film. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, although perhaps "entertaining" is not how I would describe it; at least not properly. I do admire the film for its emotional craft as well as Roarke's effort, although what really counts here is how often it shifts from "I want to watch this" to "this is emotionally disturbing". And yet, I admire that as well. I admire everything about "The Wrestlter". It's great.

Requiem for a Dream - Review

                  Purple in the morning, blue in the afternoon, and orange in the evening.

   Darren Aronofsky is an original genius; a master of skill. Here he has taken a novel and made the story his own; and in its own way, Aronofky's "Requiem for a Dream" is better known as a movie than it ever was a book. Most people know this film by it's theme song, which is "Lux Aeterna", composed by the legendary Clint Mansell. There is a lot to look at here; artistically and intellectually. This film is ingenious.

    ...But it's no easy ride. "Requiem for a Dream" is what most would classify as a drug film; since drugs do indeed act as plot elements. And the film also shows people DOING drugs; but you must keep in mind that this ain't exactly "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". "Requiem for a Dream" is a brutal, honest film that depicts drugs as a gateway to horror and self-destruction. This film is a better lecture than any teacher could give (on why not to do drugs). The film shows the intense and painful consequinces of drug use through the eyes of four victims. Everyone wants to be happy. But happiness is temporary.

    "Requiem for a Dream" is perhaps memorable not only for its music, its bleak imagery, and its tone; but also for its ending montage, which is one of the most intense and well-made ones in cinematic history. This film is disturbing, and should be seen with caution. But Aronofsky's direction is powerful; and out of his talents he has made a great film, but it's not for everyone. Do I care? No, "Requiem for a Dream" is a near-perfect film, and is one of the most unforgettable films of the past decade. I enjoyed it; I enjoyed it very much.

     Drugs can be horrific, and this film aknowledges that fact. "Requiem" is a great film; a memorable one. Just know that you have been warned, since the film is often times hard to watch; just never unwatchable. It grabs you and never lets go. It has a hell of a grip. And I like that. And I like "Requiem for a Dream". You could even say that I love it.

Irreversible - Review

                                   "Time Destroys Everything."

I am not going to add pictures to this post since most of the imagery found in "Irreversible" will offend people. If you want to see the images contained in this film, then I advise you to watch the film for yourself. But you have to know what "Irreversible" is all about before you ponder watching it, since the majority of the film is what most people would consider "unwatchable".

     This film tells the story of a woman who, after having a fight with her boyfriend at a part, wanders home in an underpass and runs into a man who brutally beats and rapes her. The film is told in reverse-chronological order; thus everything graphic is shown first. The rape is realistic and lenghty; and it's almost as if it INVITES the viewer to look away. The other scenes to caution include the revenge scene in the begining (where one of the victim's friends beats a man's head to a bloody pulp with a fire extinguisher) and the stuff before that (graphic nudity and sexuality is shown in the scene since it's set in a Gay S&M Club). Does it sound like pornography to you? Does it sound depraved? Well, people seem to think "Irreversible" is exploitive; just another film trying to be art through graphic imagery and themes. I think it's one of the best imagery-driven films ever made.

  "Irreversible" is certainly no masterpiece; since it's not for the faint of heart. The only flaw is its appeal, as well as the little moments when it felt less artistic. But director Gaspar Noe wants to shake up his audience, and he does so not only through the rape, the beating, and every other thing in this film worth cautioning. He adds shaky cinematography to the mix; and it's almost as if he wants us to barf. It's a film of unease, and the controversy surrounding is it huge but, perpostrous.

      Some people don't want to watch a lengthy rape on-screen. I get that; neither do I. Nobody should "want" to watch that kind of thing, but yet again I can totally understand someone wanting to watch this film. There's a certain artistic flare to Noe's film that paints a pretty, if not grotesque, picture. "Irreversible" is indeed art; a cinematic acid trip that you most certainly will not forget. And that could go either way. Now, most people will detest this film. They will find it nigh impossible to watch. But I survived "Irreversible" and as with all graphic films, I felt good that I had watched it. This film is magnificent in its craft, and I conclude that while it is graphic, it is also realistic. Pornography knows no morality and exists for pleasure. "Irreversible" is not pornography, and it's hard to imagine a sane human being gaining any pleasure from the film. It's a smart, taut French thriller. It really makes me anticipate watching anything else Noe has got out on the (black) market.

Do not watch this film if you are squeamish; it will without a doubt shake you up real good. For me, it worked as art. I found it very emotionally powerful; as a film studying the horror of rape should be. Rape happens in the dark corners of the earth, and this film simply wants to explore that. I don't see the point of complaining about this film, since art is art, and nobody should have the right to try and ruin one man's genius. Noe is a sensualist; and he will always have trouble. But when people call "Irreversible" pornography, I get really upset. Everything in the film is meant for artistic purposes; whether they be out of imagery or out of emotion. The film has morals, and it deserves to exist. See it if you can stomach it. Just go in knowing that it's no easy ride, but then again, some of the best films aren't.

1408 - Review

                                    Haunted Hotel Suite -A- Go.

Is there even such thing as "scary" anymore? I mean, really; what are the boys at Hollywood thinking; acting as if we're going to be fooled by CGI ghostys. That's just not right.

    However, there is a man in Hollywood who apparently knows how to make a damn good horror film, and his name is Mikael Hafstrom. Somehow, I ended up loving this film. It is one of the absolute best horror films of the past decade; scary, surrealistic, well-acted, and intelligent.

    I love John Cusack and I love Stephen King. So...yeah, I loved "1408". The film is about a writer (played by Cusack) who is writing a horror novel but must travel to a supposedly haunted hotel suite to finnish the thing. The Dolphin Hotel (where we set our scene) is rumored to have a haunted suite known as "Suite 1408". Everyone who has checked in to the room has been killed or has taken their own lives. Cusack's character does not believe in ghosts; that is until he learns the full truth of the room.

    The film, based upon a Stephen King story, is ingenious in how it portrays horror. While I don't mind a little red sauce on my horror pasta, there are some seriously good PG-13 horror films, and this is one of them. The film has scares which never aim to sicken; they exist to truly, honestly "scare" us. And they do succeed; this is a surprisingly great horror movie.

Hafstrom's direction and the efforts of the cast make this already great film better. Cusack is delightful as the psychologically uneven horror writer, and his co-star is Samuel L. Jackson as a spectacularly spooky hotel manager. The film creates characters who we care about; and for all its visual whimsy, the film is also frightening and smart. I loved this film; it reminded me of the days of horror films such as "The Exorcist" and "Halloween". That is how awesome it is. It won't work for everyone, but if you know good horror, then you should know how good this is. One of 2007's best.

The Number 23 - Review

            Eternal Madness of Schumacher's Mind

     It's not good for one to succumb to paranoia, but I suppose I can't blame one for doing so. There are so many kinds of paranoia; the kinds that we know of, and then the kinds that are lessor known. One such example would be the 23 Enigma; the topic for Joel Schumacher's "The Number 23".

       Critics have said that "The Number 23" is one of the worst films of 2007. Don't be fooled by your friends and the folks of the interwebs; the critics DO NOT LIE. This is a horrible film; made unwatchable by its big ambitions which it can never live up to. As much as I wanted to be entertained, the film was too pretentious and dry.

      The film tells the story of a guy who goes crazy-insane after reading a book which he feels was written for him. We all have a similar experience, but in this case, the character of the story seems to live a life almost identical to our character. And the book doesn't have a happy ending. So the character plunges very deep into psychological paranoia; always being obsessed with the number 23; which he now believes has a relation to all disasters and whathaveyou. Sound like a good set-up? It is. But the movie sucks.

      ...And there's way too many reasons to WHY it sucks. "The Number 23" not only features horrid directing and horrible writing; but also a silly performance from Jim Carrey. That's right, Jim Carrey; and in a film like this. Gee, this movie seems to make me appreciate more than half of the guy's mediocre/bad library of films, while the actual good ones still remains somewhat (or in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's" case, VERY) special. I've never seen the guy so uncomfortable on-screen, and his performance is more disturbing than his character's madness.

      This film is unwatchable, over-heated, and self-absorbed. Joel Schumacher has made good films, but THIS is not one of them. Not even close (to being one). All I could say after watching the thing was, "What the hell?" There's too many questions unanswered; and too many plot holes yet to be filled. If this film wants to be scary and interesting; then I think Schumacher should be the first to know that he has instead made a movie that is stupid and unwathable in its awfulness. I seriously can't imagine a single intelligent being enjoying this film; since it all feels faux. And believe me; faux is not good. Thus, "The Number 23" is, coincidentally, not good either.

House of 1,000 Corpses - Review

                                          Exploitation.....ah, exploitation. Yeah, exploitation sucks.

One must know how to distinguish pornography from art. Rob Zombie's "House of 1,000 Corpses" is pornography, and that's what it wants to be; a gory exploitation film all about violence and without any moral standards. It also comes without characters, story elements, or for the most part, entertainment. There are little moments of inspiration hidden within, and the film isn't really unwatchable, but it's a mess. And not a beautiful one.

       As I said, "House of 1,000 Corpses" is all exploitation tactics and little story-telling. Here, Zombie has good characters; all of who he never characterizes. He also has a story which he tells; as well as in-jokes that he never renderes laughable. There is a lot that went to waste here.

  

    So the story is a typical horror set-up; you've got your kids who go on a roadtrip, stop at a flamboyantly weird gas-station run by a clown, and somehow end up in the house of hell itself. There's a family within the house; and they're all, quite literally, "bonkers". They'll kill without remorce; and they're nigh sadists in the way they carry out their unholy acts. So the rest of the plot is all torture and meaningless violence; all done without a point and without regard for whether we care or not.


   Zombie obviously wants us to like this film, but it's never entertaining or inspired enough to work. Somehow I think it would have been enjoyable if it had a genuine sense of humor, but no, this Grindhouse-hororr film is just to messy for that. If only for Captain Spaulding (the awesomely quirky killer clown), "Corpses" isn't as bad as some horror movies. But that does not excuse it from being forgettable and unworthy of a viewing. I'm sure that Zombie thinks of his audience as the kind of people that will cheer when his film explodes in an angry combustion. But me, I'll just be scowling.

Rushmore - Review

 "I saved Latin. What did you ever do?" 

Wes Anderson is an auteur; a man who enjoys taking full control over his productions. This has worked for him, well, for as long as he's been working at least. And to tell you the truth, this hasn't been too long. I quite enjoyed Anderson's first film "Bottle Rocket"; the funny and often times touching tale of three misfits who pretentiously plan the heist of the century. That film was entertaining because there was craft involved, and while it wasn't perfect; it was definitely amusing to watch unfold. And it gave birth to Anderson's career; which essentially gave birth to a little film known as "Rushmore".

        There is little to complain about with "Rushmore", just as to many, there is little to like about it either. Some find Anderson's second feature depressing, stupid, and nigh pointless. These are people who can't see the wit and effort put into the film. I have loved the film from the minute I first watched it; but only now to I cherish it as much as it deserves to be.
     I may be one of the only ones who feels as I do about the film. I found it to be superbly unique, amusing, and often times hilarious. It blends moments of humor with moments of emotion; and certain scenarios called for quiet and patience. You need to feel this film to love it; just as you need to experience it to know how it feels to have seen it. I know; it's not for everyone. But "Rushmore" is not, as some have said, pointless. And there's little reason to despise it.

        The film is about a flamboyantly ambitious young man by the name of Max Fischer. Max enjoys starting up and participating in clubs associated with Rushmore Academy; the school which he also treats as his one and only love. Upon being introduced to the endearing young lad, we also meet a potential new friend, Herman Blume. Herman is a middle-aged man who seems bored on just about every occasion in which we see him; while Max seems occupied with one thing or another each time we happen upon one of his little scenarios. The two unlikely friends have a good relationship going for a while, that is until they are both introduced to Mrs. Cross; a beautiful new teacher at the Academy who manages to win the hearts of both men. The problem is that Mrs. Cross does not show romantic interest towards Max; although towards Herman, a married man, she shows at least some affection. This causes Max to feel hurt and betrayed; thus he decides to get back at Blume for his unfaithfulness to their friendship. The film can be funny; but it's also a sad and touching story of friendship. The characters are ones which we always care about, and each one is played by a talented actor. 

          Jason Schwartzman is currently my favorite actor, and I also admire his co-star, Bill Murray. This is Schwartzman's best performance; an elegant portrayal of a blossoming young man with ambitions and aims; yet little interest in "book smarts". What makes this performance so spectacular is the fact that Max Fischer is the most relatable character, to me, that I have encountered for some time. There's a little bit of Max Fischer in all of us; but his genuine life-style has been similar to mine long before I first saw this film.

        There are sequences which I treasured; moments which I loved. And I conclude that this film is wonderful, and while it's a cult movie; it's a great one. At the least, most will agree that the performances are quirky and there are indeed some heartfelt moments. But I don't just like this film; I love it. It's an intoxicating piece of filmmaking, and I don't suppose you can ponder the Anderson community without hearing about it. This is indeed the auteur's most famous work to date. It's also his best. There's a darkly comedic gem to be found here, as well as a particularly endearing new character. It's a film that shall be admired, if only by a select group of people. I am one of those people.

                                      
   

The Fountain

    "Death is the Road to Awe".

  It's not everyday that I come across a film that completely drains me, but Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" is a rare gem indeed. This is a film about metaphysics, timeless love, Religious Symbolism, and non-linear story-telling. It takes place between three dimensions which all share a character of the same name. There's Tomas the Warrior, Tommy the Scientist, and Tom the Space Traveler. Each story connects to create the film, although it feels somewhat incomplete once it's all over.

     Aronofsky's film is visually rich but often suffers from the stuff that was left out of the current cut. Someday, I hope there will be a Director's Cut. That's the version that I expect to adore. As it was, I enjoyed "The Fountain", as it was an artistic, albeit confusing film. It will not appeal to everyone, but the film has several moments of the same kind of raw fascination that I'd expect out of Aronofsky after seeing "Pi" (a film about the importance of math in the universe's flow) and "Requiem for a Dream" (a film about drugs, what they do to you, and the crazy things that people will do for them). All in all, Aronofsky is who I believe to be an original genius. That's why I love him. And that's why I liked "The Fountain".

       

Lars von Trier

          The Dark Artist

 If you were a film buff back in 2009, then you probably happened upon such a name as Lars von Trier. At the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, I do not think that anyone expected what would go down when von Trier premiered his newest film. I'm sure that a few of his loyal followers knew of "Antichrist" when it was in production, but I don't think that anyone was quite ready for the horrors that von Trier would release on the day that he screened the film.
     

    So what happened when Von Trier's "Antichrist" was screened? Criticism. Corruption. Applause. Confusion. Many of the American members of the audience hated it. Some enjoyed it. One of those people was the popular critic Roger Ebert. But why did some hate it? Because it was, to many, disgusting and perverted. "Antichrist" not only had an exceedingly dark central theme, but it also contained explicit sexuality, graphic violence, and it was to many, a very uncomfortable experience. Yes, I have seen this film. And you know what: I loved it.

 
      I like to see Von Trier as the Vincent van Gogh of filmmaking. Like the legendary artist, Von Trier is able to turn his personal troubles in to dark, intoxicatingly beautiful art. Von Trier, however, is a severe risk taker. But before you happen upon criticizing "Antichrist" or any of his films, allow me to tell you a bit more on Von Trier.

    
                    The Depressed Danish Man
     Von Trier suffers from one fatal flaw; depression. In 2007, von Trier was in a Hospital for his depression, and said that he might never make another film again, and if he did, "Antichrist" would probably be his last. Von Trier claimed to have cried whenever an actor called him up for auditions, and this was because he felt so helpless. In an interview I saw on the "Antichrist" Criterion Collection DVD, von Trier says that he has lived with such a "curse" since he was six. Maybe this is why he is so fascinated by darkness, as well as why his films are often times emotionally resonant. "Antichrist", like the rest of von Trier's features, was daring and complex. "Antichrist" was indeed fairly depressing, but there was a reason for why it was. I find it amazing that Von Trier was able to write and conceive part of the film while suffering from his depression. And I think that von Trier is a born filmmaker; a man who can summon just about any element of film if he gives it effort. "Antichrist" is one of his best films; beautiful, artistic, explicit, but ultimately rewarding. I love von Trier and I love his latest effort.
      Von Trier also suffers from phobias. He claims to be afraid of everything except for filmmaking. One of his major fears is flying, and he drives everywhere to meet stars or shoot his films. He usually stays in Denmark for both. Another thing that somewhat troubled von Trier was when his mother admitted to him on her death bed that Lars von Trier's real father was not who he thought he was. Von Trier's real father was a man who was a skilled painter, since his mother said she wanted her child to inherit the artistic gene. She said that the man who she married was a loving man, but didn't have enough ambitions to father a fantastic child. Von Trier does indeed have the artistic gene that she speeks of, and he puts it to use through graphic but powerful imagery.
    

      Lars von Trier is influential because "Antichrist" has reached me like no other film has. It is one of the most beautifully made films I have ever seen, and while it was shocking, everything in it was done for art. The film seems to draw the fine line between exploitation and art. I, personally, would choose art. While von Trier may be pretentious to some and triumphant to others, I think he is one of the few geniuses of our generation. With "Antichrist", I did not feel disturbed. I felt somewhat uneasy and the imagery was intense, but the film itself was beautiful enough to draw me in. I wouldn't recommend von Trier to just anyone, but I'll know when somebody is ready to appreciate such a man. Sometimes there's a man. Sometimes...there's a man.

Movie Reviews

       I have been writing movie reviews for a year, and writing ones of decent quality for about half that time. I submit them to both Rotten Tomatoes.com and Lunch.com, where I have tried to gain popularity (and have been a mild success). I may post short reviews for films on this blog, although I typically write very long ones (so long that I've had complaints). Here is the link to my Rotten Tomatoes page.

      http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/721884/reviews/

        Enjoy reading, fellow movie-goers.