Inactivity and my Resurgence

Hello again everyone! For those of you who have been disgruntled by my absence, I apologize. Many things have kept me away and I am hoping I will be able to make the time to return. Recently most of my spare time has been spent on anime series and analyzing those. I plan on writing about some that I feel have qualitative elements worthy of pairing with many films that I plan to write on. Most of my work regarding film will be more focused on older movies as I feel there is a decrease in art house films, which is my main area of expertise.

Since my last posting going back a couple years now, few films have caught my attention and those that did rarely left lasting effects. Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) by Alejandro G. Iñárritu is one of the few films that I think could be posted on this blog due to its magical realism and interesting story line. It is fueled by a variety of psychological elements and uses magnificent cinematography to convey a discontinuous look of a single tracking shot. Unfortunately, I don’t feel as strongly about Iñárritu’s more recent film, The Revenant. Despite the cinematography living up to its predecessor, it falls short practically everywhere else. Perhaps this could be a topic to write about in the future. My point being, only one film since my last posting has been enough to satisfy my craving for a possible masterpiece in cinema.

I haven’t looked at my about page in a while, but I can say with certainty that my new goal will be:

To analyze and critique works of significant value and attempt to convey the absence of such elements in modern cinema – specifically commercial films.

This may be obvious, but it is still something that can be continued and elaborated on. Critiquing is also a discussion. My analysis can only amount to a stance on the meaning invoked by a work, but that is the intention of true art. I’ve heard others say film isn’t an art form but it is. It is THE art form, everyone watches film and TV more than viewing paintings or reading poetry. The digital age meant an evolution in art, in more ways than one. If people can understand the values a film should convey, then maybe less people will advocate for more poorly orchestrated superhero films.

I would really like to see if anyone has requests for things to write. I’d like for this, as I stated before about critiquing, to be a discussion – a collaborative piece to hash out the values of film.

The bird has risen again!

Here is a list of potential topics I am considering:

-Deceptive elements in works by Akira Kurosawa

-Depictions of power and supporting symbolism in Paul Thomas Anderson films

-How Karl Marx’s Estranged Labor influenced film

–Evangelion 3.33 – I Can (Not) Understand

-Psychological elements in entertainment – Birdman and Black Swan

-How black and white films are still effective – a look at Guy Maddin, The Artist, and late 20th century horror

-A summary of why anime can’t be done live-action

Apocalypse Now – The Colonel and the Captain

Apocalypse Now is one of the most renowned films int he history of cinema. The Vietnam War and the horror soldiers delved into. The story is narrated by the main character Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) who is on a misson to assassinate a colonel who went rogue (Marlon Brando). He journies through the jungle on a boat manned by some rookie marines while facing countless challenges before even arriving at the colonel’s grounds. This story is not an average war film since it has to do with one mission that begins to question the ideals of war and man itself. Colonel Kurtz is not a macabre or seemingly violent man. He seems humble with his own ideals in mind. The world he has been raised into was of high authority being that he had some of the highest credentials someone in the military could ever have including even a degree from Harvard.

When Willard meets Kurtz, he is imprisoned briefly but is allowed to walk the grounds as he pleases soon after. Kurtz question him about his mission and even though he releases minimal information, the colonel lets him do as he pleases. The only statement that restricted Willard of anything his accusing him of being a murderer.

I’ve seen horrors… horrors that you’ve seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that… but you have no right to judge me.

-Colonel Kurtz

Not only does Kurtz show no hate toward Willard for wanted to kill him, he actually wishes it. Kurtz wants to die and for Willard to tell everyone about his lies and deception. The idea that humanity must be moral yet vicious strikes Willard as the idea of true warfare cannot be achieved by brutality but through human instincts. Everyone has a right to do what must be done for survival of themselves and their families. Now his methodology was clearly unique and obscure, but can be understood in a modern and enlightened sense. War is rarely a sensible option and Kurtz understands the “horror” of war and recollects on the monstrous acts performed in his time. So this is more of a question to all of you than a blatant analysis. Do you think Kurtz truly saw an opportunity to lead in a true and pure way? Or do you think he was a monster who just wished the downfall of the United States. Comment down below!

Love and Hate – The Constant War in Film

“Would you like me to tell you the little story of right-hand/left-hand? The story of good and evil? H-A-T-E! It was with this left hand that old brother Cain struck the blow that laid his brother low. L-O-V-E! You see these fingers, dear hearts? These fingers has veins that run straight to the soul of man. The right hand, friends, the hand of love. Now watch, and I’ll show you the story of life. Those fingers, dear hearts, is always a-warring and a-tugging, one agin t’other. Now watch ’em! Old brother left hand, left hand he’s a fighting, and it looks like love’s a goner. But wait a minute! Hot dog, love’s a winning! Yessirree! It’s love that’s won, and old left hand hate is down for the count!”

-Robert Mitchum in Night of the Hunter

As of last night, I chose to finally sit down and watch Night of the Hunter. Although for its time it was not generally accepted as a good film, it has gained increasing popularity over the years. The only film ever directed by Charles Laughton (Spartacus) tells the story of a travelling preacher named Rev. Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum) who is corrupted and during his travels meets a man on death row who explains how he stole $10,000 and gave it to his children. When he gets out of prison himself, he travels to the man’s home and marries the widow to try and find the money and then murder her. The film is from the perspective of the children who know where the money really is and tries with all their might to keep it out of Powell’s hands. Now the most iconic scene has to be the scene where he explains to everyone the story of love and hate.

Before watching this film, I saw Do the Right Thing directed by Spike Lee where one scene has Radio Raheem (one of the iconic characters) talking to Mookie who was played by Spike Lee. During this meeting, he explains the story of his new gold knuckles. The right hand says HATE and the left hand says LOVE. He describes them in almost an exact word-for-word definition given by Robert Mitchum in Night of the Hunter. Now obviously this paid homage to the film considering Do the Right Thing came out about 40 years later. The name of the film even relates to love and hate since doing the right thing means ignoring your anger and hatred and learn to respect one another.

In Francis Ford Coppola’s film Apocalypse Now, a captain played by Martin Sheen is sent to assasinate a renegade colonel who was the best of the best played by Marlon Brando. When Captain Willard finally meets Colonel Kurtz, Kurtz explains how all that truly exists is love and hate. It raises the question of whether or not Kurtz really needed to be assasinated since he was merely confused by the horrors of the military and only wished to free himself and others from the restrictions of hatred.

Although these are clear indications of the conflict within all of us, it is experienced in many films. The idea of doing the right thing versus the wrong thing whether is is easier or could potentially have favored outcomes can be seen in modern cinema all the time. Another recent film I watched that could also relate to this is Kung Fu Hustle. The main character originally wants to join the gangsers who ravage the nation even though in the end, his kindness overcomes his darker quest. Even something as simple as lust vs love could be construed to similar outcomes. A more modern and generationally-accepted film that shows this is Sex Drive. A high school student and some of his friends travel across the country to spend time with a girl he met online. Throughout this, he soon realizes that the whole time he truly wanted the girl he’s been best friends with and not some sexy girl he had yet to meet.

Now you could be saying that hate and lust are not the same emotion. And you are surely correct in that assumption but hate embodies all negative emotions in this context. It can include lust, rage, anger, deceipt and many others as love embodies all that is good and right.

The film Night of the Hunter presents this conflict in an odd way. The villain or antagonist of the film is the one who states that love triumphs over hate even though he has no love for people yet instead hatred toward all who oppose him during his conquest for wealth and crime. These two emotions which are polar opposites continue to elude the viewers in a open yet shut manner. What this means is that it is something not fully recognized in a film but normally is present in some way.

The Film Industry and It’s Excessive Mainstream Failure

Knowing what we know now, film directors and writers continue in what seems like a downward spiral of creativity and performace. As of today, few directors do I truly herald as some of the great artists of our time. Directors such as Stanley Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut) and Ingmar Bergman (Wild Strawberries) I feel stand at the pedestal of entertainment and meaning. When people speak highly of directors such as Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver) and Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather), in no way am I speaking as if they are not able in their fields but they seem to care more about the general excitement of today’s youth than the true meaning of an art style. As far as a mainstream cinema goes, directors such as these two and many others including Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight), Clint Eastwood (Mystic River), Quentin Tarantino (Django Unchained) and J.J. Abrams (Super 8) all make films with a feeling of exacerbated scenery. Too much is thrown in to “wow” the viewers through action, violence, mediocre/decent story and actors with an image but little context, art style in the imagery/language and nothing meaningful to the film world as a whole. Of the few surviving great directors in history, many have fallen under this mainstream success and are ignored by the general populus. It makes me feel sick that I can start a conversation with someone in my film class about one several directors and just get the response “I don’t know who that is or what they’ve done.” Some of these directors include:

– Terrence Malick – Director of films such as The Tree of Life and Days in Heaven.

– Charlie Kaufman – Director of films such as Synecdoche, New York and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

– Lars Von Trier – Director of films such as Antichrist and Melancholia

– Hayao Miyazaki – Although he is a writer/director for an animation company known as Studio Ghibli (works with Disney), his animated films such as Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke are some of the best films I’ve ever seen

– Wes Anderson – Director of films such as Moonrise Kingdom and Fantastic Mr. Fox.

These are just 5 of the directors who I think are heavily influential to our time. But many people diregard their many accomplishments and only pay attention to the mainstream directors who have little contextual meaning in their films. Even directors like Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan) has only wowed me on several occasionions like with films such as Schindler’s List and A.I. Artificial Intelligence but overall seems to be missing something in a lot of his films or are just a historical retelling of a story which is relevant putting history into a more enjoyable medium than a class in school or a historical reading, it overall is not used as an art style or as a meaningful story that gives you new insight on life of other inspiration.

So what can be done to turn this industry back into its former glory? I feel the directors I have listed above need more recognition in the cinema world since their films will be remembered years from now in film classes while other box office hits will fall off the watch lists.

An Underrated Film – Ink

Jamin Winans is a director with only a select few films under his belt. I can’t say I’ve heard of any of them until looking at his site where I saw stuff like 11:59, Flip and his in-production movie called Frame. But one stuck out to me as a strong example of a fantasy film that could have significant meaning throughout the context: Ink. Ink came out in 2009 that follows the struggle between two forces that act while we are asleep. There are the Storytellers who grant us dreams and the supernatural beings known as the Incubus which deliver nightmares to our minds. One night, a mysterious being appears who is considered a Drifter which is a lost being that is neither Storyteller nor Incubus who kidnaps a young girl named Emma to be a sacrifice for initiation into the Incubus forces. During this time, her father John is a successful businessman who has made his way up to the top but has neglected his family and is in the middle of a big deal when his stepfather tells him the sad news. He has to make a choice to damage his company’s reputation or to see the daughter who was taken away from him for being unfit to care for her after his wife’s death.

The film stars Christoper Soren Kelly as John and Quinn Hunchar as Emma. None of the actors are popular and the film seemed strong for such a large cast on a low budget. The special effects were decent overall but there was room for improvement. The way the Storytellers appeared at night seemed simple and mediocre. But that isn’t supposed to take away from the successes of the other effect. The Incubus members look well done and constructed marvelously. The plot was simple yet explored in depth. The quest to stop Ink before he sacrifices the child while at the same time trying to get the father to see his daughter while in a comatose state. Both of these correspond throughout the story and delves deeper into the subconscious idea of neglectful parenting and how our dreams/nightmares are able to define things we may not recognize due to pride or shame.

The biggest weaknesses that stood out to me was some character development. They did a good job on John and Emma, but most of the characters and groups are not detailed thoroughly. How did the Storytellers/Incubus come into being? When did it become apparent that people needed to have dreams? What do nightmares supply for the Incubus? They do let us know that they were all once living who have moved onto a new level of living, but some of the more prominent Storytellers have unknown backgrounds. Also, why does the Pathfinder where tape on his eyes? I understand he’s blind and it kind of added to the interesting character design, but was there some significance to it? How did the doors appear to the domain of the Incubus? So many unanswered questions, even more but those would be spoilers.

Besides these unanswered questions, I think this movie was done very well and is heavily underrated. Character design and plot progression grabbed my attention and I was at the edge of my seat during certain scenes. So what would I rate this? IMDB gave it a 6.7 and RottenTomatoes gave it a 100%, I’d give it an 8.5/10. The film was strong for the most part but a couple small mistakes do catch the eyes of avid film watchers. I would recommend watching this movie if you like movies such as Pan’s Labrynth and The Tree of Life since it is a fantasy with interesting scenery and imagery that are moving and captivating.

————–SPOILERS————————————-

Another issue with the film was how it ended, right when Emma wakes up and John is reunited with his daughter, the film ends with the Storytellers and the Pathfinder standing nearby glad to see everything back to normal.

MORE QUESTIONS UNANSWERED: What happened to the Incubus when they were defeated? They didn’t seem like they were killed but just beaten in a fist fight. Did Liev die when she was stabbed by the Incubus? If so, what happens when a Storyteller dies?

I do think it was effective how Ink was actually the deceased family life of John, how all that existed inside of him was his work where the love he had for his child and wife had died. The Incubus keeping watch and making sure he kept feeling this way was also an interesting touch.

The Critic of the Ages – In Honor of Roger Ebert

Throughout the past few years in which I’ve begun to admire, one individual’s entries on film reviews have stuck out to me and has helped me respect and understand the most significant of cinema: Roger Ebert. A couple hours ago, I heard the dreadful news that his cancer returned and took his life today at the age of 70. Roger Ebert has made numerous entries at the Chicago Sun-Times of film reviews that have been also seen in books, interviews and hundreds of blogs. His opinion alone could convince people to see a movie even if it did not look appealing at first. This post is short because I have a busy day, but I send my respects to his wife, family and friends who are now experiencing the loss of a great individual who truly respected cinema. RIP Roger Ebert, you will not be forgotten and your reviews will go down as the greatest of all time! If not for you, I would have never truly appreciated movies like The Tree of Life.

Comment below if Roger’s words have in the past convinced you to see a movie you loved and if so, which one?

Texas Chainsaw 3D – Just Another Slasher Flick?

Hello everyone and glad to be writing here again! I started another blog for random topics in the world and some of my local opinions. Over the past few weeks I have seen Django Unchained, Lincoln and Texas Chainsaw 3D. Now I could obviously tell you the same thoughts as everyone else that the first two movies I stated were really good with a good plot and execution, but Texas Chainsaw? The horror genre has become quite weakened and few exceptions remain strong including Halloween, Jaws and the obvious Psycho. But these long running series of slasher movies are poorly qualified and remain a lower example of modern media. Today’s generation enjoys seeing someone slaughtered with blood splattering and gut spewing treachery.

The film starts the day after the first movie (Tobe Hooper’s) on August 19th, 1974. A raid of police officers and local rioters surrounded the Sawyer home and unleashed a hail of bullet and flame reducing the home and its inhabitants to rubble. Heather Sawyer was only a baby and was taken by a local family who could not have a child of their own. Unable to really identify the bodies, they assumed the family was dead. The family also was composed of some Carson relatives. The movie then moves forward to today where Heather discovers she was adopted and that her real grandmother had just passed away leaving her all of her possessions. This leads her friends and herself on a trip to Newt, Texas to obtain hew house and assets. Little did she know that her cousin Jedidiah Sawyer had survived the raid on the house so many years ago and has been living in the catacombs beneath the mansion she had just acquired.

Most slasher films are followed with one-two people in the end surviving the onslaught of their pursuer leaving him to be believed dead, normally leading to their corpse disappearing or some sign of a follow-up movie. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is unique that the main antagonist Jedidah “Leatherface” Sawyer (Thomas Hewitt in some of the other films) is human. When we think of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, they are indestructible; where they never die or continuously return to the living to continue wreaking havoc on local citizens. Leatherface and his deceased family murdered and attacked civilians until they were killed themselves or injured beyond further action. Some people will say the franchise is unique since it was inspired by the murderer/gravedigger Edward Gein who also wore the faces of his victims, but that was a very minor comparison between Leatherface and Gein.

The first half of the movie basically went the same as what you’d expect. All of Heather’s friends are killed while she barely escapes the attack similar to the first movie. But then another odd characteristic of the film arose. The theme of ‘justice’ came up throughout the film, comparing murder and fair trial toward the Sawyer/Carson families. The mayor of Newt named Burt Hartman was the individual that, against orders, attacked the household that began the shootout. With the return of Heather, the town’s secret that was justified as ‘an eye for an eye’ had made its way back up and had to be taken care of. Heather had to make a choice against the corrupted community of Newt and her crazed cousin. The film portrayed the opposing factions as both evil and good, taking justice in different ways. Leatherface only wished to protect his family but has severe mental disabilities crippling his decisions.

Other similarities such as this have been intertwined in other slasher films like the Halloween franchise. Halloween followed the family of Michael Myers who in the sixth film was found to be an agent of a lost cult who must sacrifice his kin to maintain the power of his society. The Friday the 13th movie franchise also relates to Jason’s continuation of his mother’s massacre of camp counselors and locals. His half-sister and niece also appear in one of the film’s, playing a key role in his resurrection. Family has become an ever-growing trait in slasher flicks, but Texas Chainsaw series has maintained it and emphasized it from the very beginning.

The definition of justice and family values are key roles to this film’s success in modern media, and the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a cult classic with magnificent ratings such as a 91% fresh from Rotten Tomatoes and 7.5/10 on IMDB. Although Texas Chainsaw 3D has 19% rotten rating and a 5.1/10 on IMDB, there are some deeper meaning within the context of the slasher film, differentiating it from all competing slasher franchises. If I personally rated this, I would give it a 6.5/10 (65% fresh)since it is for the most part just the blood and gore of any other slasher movie but with some new plot twists and ideas that definitely makes this stand out in all of Leatherface’s adventures!

The First Rule of Fight Club is…

Hello once again my loving readers, and welcome back to Critical Films! Today I will be talking about a cult classic, and is another film that will remain near the top of my list. This movie is: Fight Club. Directed by David Fincher (Se7en), this film stars Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helena Bonham-Carter. It is an outstanding film that is known throughout the world. It begins with the insomniac Narrator (Edward Norton) who befriends a soap salesman, Tyler Durdan (Brad Pitt). Eventually, a series of unfortunate events leads them into the world of underground boxing clubs and the eventual terrorism its escalates to.

This has been a cult classic since its release back in 1999. Currently ranked as #10 on IMDB’s Top 250 films of all time, this film is full of philosophical quotes and excess of violence, being a perfect choice for anyone!

It is notable for the Fight Club rules. Many people know what you mean when they hear, “The first rule of Fight Club is…” It is followed by the secrecy of Fight Club, “you do not speak of Fight Club.” Although this is repeated throughout the film, it is used as reverse psychology in a way, and the club expands from people breaking the rule repeatedly. “The second rule of Fight Club is…you do NOT speak about Fight Club.” This is  significant quote from the film, and is one of the easiest ways of recognizing what film people are talking about.

I would personally rate this film with a 8.5/10. Being a piece of cinematic art, there is a lot of controversy with Fincher’s vision, since some critics look at it as “the squall of a whiny and essentially white-male generation that feels ruined by the privileges of women and a booming economy.” Although it seems to have deeper meaning than this, it is not completely absurd. Either way, the film is fantastic, and I definitely recommend seeing it!

It delves into the modern male psyche, and unleashes the rage against economic control and progression. Revolution of the people through unity, and Fight Club was a way to make that happen. This film incorporates strong cinematography, strong acting and a thought-out plot. To close, let’s think about the fundamentals of Durden’s reign:

Mischief. Mayhem. Soap.

Brilliance in the Classics: Seven Samurai

Hello to all of my fellow movie-enthusiasts! Welcome to another review from Critical Films, and today I will be discussing possibly my favorite film of all time. Sichinin no Samurai (Seven Samurai)! This brilliant film was released in Japan in 1954, and is an acclaimed classic directed by the amazing Akira Kurosawa. This action/drama is very well known in Eastern culture, but not as much in its homeland. Due to its age it is a colorless film, but it adds to authenticity of the acting in my opinion. Back then, it was more difficult to create fighting scenes without the special effects we have today. This film includes fantastic acting by Takashi Shimura, Toshiro Mifune, and many others!

Based in the 16th century, this story tells the tale of a farming village that is constantly raided by bandits. Eventually, they cannot survive if they are attacked again, and must resort to finding some samurai to defend them. After finding a Samurai by the name of Kanbei (Takashi Shimura), he tells them that the most effective way of defending the village with little to pay the samurai is at least seven. Together, the seven prepare the village for the upcoming battle to fend off the vicious thieves.

This film is an estimated 207 minutes long, and was nominated for 2 Oscars, 4 wins, and 5 other nominations. With a current MetaScore of 99/100, ranked 17th best film on IMDB, and 24th on Rotten Tomatoes shows that this film is a definite must-see film. The film contains a simple, yet fully developed plot that expands into an array of suspense and action.

Akira Kurosawa has been considered by many as possibly the best director of all time, and this film it at the top of his successes.

 

There have been many films and television series influenced by this masterpiece such as The Magnificent Seven and the anime series Samurai 7.

Overall, I would rate this film a 9.5/10. Although I love this movie very much, it is difficult to give a perfect score on any film. This film may not be enjoyable to some viewers, but is renowned throughout the world as one of the best films ever. I see very little flaws in the film besides the occasional goof, but no film is perfect.

In the near future, I plan on reviewing other Kurosawa films, the Godfather trilogy, and many other films that have been ranked by the most prestigious critics.

Top of the List: The Shawshank Redemption

Greetings to all of my avid movie watchers out there! Today I will be discussing a matter that is known throughout film history. This movie is currently considered the best of all time by IMDB and is ranked on numerous other sites. This movie is of course The Shawshank Redemption.

Released in 1994, this stunning tale follows a banker named Andrew Dufresne (Tim Robbins), who is falsely accused of murdering his wife and her lover, and is sentenced to life in Shawshank Prison in 1947. There, he meets a convict named Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding (Morgan Freeman) who serves as a salesman withing the walls of their world. Through the worst of challenges, Andy is able to overcome the corrupted prisoners, use his skills to do good for his fellow man and to befriend the monstrous foundation of guards under the warden, and break through with his boundless courage. Serving as a fantastic prison drama, it also is used as a metaphor for the prisons we ourselves are trapped in. A true tribute to the human spirit.

The film is ranked first on IMDB’s Top 250 films of all time, but surprisingly, is not on the Top 100 list of RottenTomatoes. The film has a fresh 98%, while hundreds of films maintain a solid 100% freshness. Although many people consider these reviews meaningless in discovering enjoyable film, it is a good skeleton of what to look for. Shawshank Redemption was a stunning film, and was enjoyable. Although I feel IMDB is giving this film a little too much credit. The film maintains a strong plot with a beloved cast while contrasting cruelty and hope, but the film manages to leave out some loose moments in time, and can be boring at moments. There are not many complexities within the film, making it simple with little thought of full understanding. Personally, I like a film where you have to think about the scenarios presented. Overall, the film is a cult classic, and should be seen at least once.

Critical Films Rating: 8/10

***SPOILER ALERT***

QUESTION: Is Andy’s escape realistic?

Another problem I had with the film was the scene where Andy escapes. Although it took much time and effort to plan the perfect getaway from Shawshank, it seemed difficult to believe that he was able to dig through the walls unnoticed, break into the septic pipes, then being able to fit within the pipes and crawl several miles through feces to safety. Digging through excrement could cause a large array of diseases with the amount in those pipes, and being surrounded by it in a closed area for such a long time could be noxious, possibly causing you to faint. It may be me being to literal with the movie (since it is just a movie after all), but it is a question that arose in my head when that scene occurred, and there is no real sense of fantasy or fiction within the context of the film (it is fiction though).