New Suit (2002) – Dir: François Velle (The Narrows, Kings for a Day)

I recognise three things, that I personally enjoy this film. And the second is that it’s pure rubbish. Third, I appreciate the topic. With a very cool concept and the topic of a creative struggle through filmmaking politics.

The soundtrack is gorgeous, supporting a vast array of silly characters. The story is kind of sweet, as is the progression of the hero – Kevin (Jordan Bridges) from naive screenwriter hopeful to disillusioned glorified secretary for the ignorant, yet powerful Hollywood executives.

It’s funny in a restrained and cheeky cringe-worthy way. Mostly it’s just a bit of silly fun to watch. All of the characters (which could have been artful portraits, but were instead jokes,) you would ordinarily hate – there is something likeable about each one of them.

The ignorant boy scout is also a genuine, decent guy. Passionate about movies and maybe even an artist. And we like him more as he grows as a character. And this is the story’s hero, even the hero is both likeable and horrible.

The old agent lady is a bitter cynic and totally useless as a source of advancement. But she has a good heart. She’s also a liar.

The girl, Marianne (Marisa Coughlan), a producer wannabe and a man-user but she goes out of her way to try to help the boy scout, which in a small way redeems her.

Probably the truest line in the film, ‘You’d do more for your career in Hollywood by going out and schmoosing than staying home and working on your script.’

The chauffer is slick, and underneath all the bravado a truly noble character and a voice of reason. Creative and possibly the only non-plastic person in Hollywood. He considers himself a karmic Robin Hood. He is also one of the most manipulating forces in the system and still he can’t break through.

The bullying executive boss is a horrible little man, but we see him in a different light when he himself is bullied by his nemesis. The bullying just rolls downhill and seems to be the very foundation of the system.

Marianne and Kevin are a perfect match it seems. Both struggling to get noticed and negotiate the politics of working in the industry.

The two producers hate each other officially, they are both fairly despicable characters – but easy to sympathise with at the same time, because of the amount of shit they have to eat every day.

Trey (James Marsh – Brainscan) is excellent as one of the group of ‘elite’ assistants whom Kevin hangs out with to discuss scripts which they pretend they’ve read and talk about buzz – which they almost unwittingly create (with totally unqualified judgement.)

When a brilliant idea occurs to Kevin to invent a script and a screenwriter merely to fool his friends – the plan snowballs and the buzz gets out of control – in a similar situation to And She Was (with Kirstie Ally.)

Marianne is not entirely unlikable despite the fact that she consistently uses Kevin. I enjoy the consistent satire of the formulaic, or if you like manufacturing approach that Hollywood seems to have taken for the filmmaking process: Writers are cattle, producers are whores, nobody knows anything and films are chocolate bars and Burger King. Rather than gourmet pasta and handmade sorbet.

The producers are bullies – but they are also neurotic, anxious, helpless and suffering. In a way we feel for them as much as we despise them.

Marianne and Kevin make a great team once the buzz becomes real. Some of the scenes are emotionally tragic and jazzy – which is cool. The performances seem polished at times, quirky but melodramatic. However, this isn’t as effective as it could be and the film isn’t artful.

It’s a nice parody of a grasp for success as moments of a life, in film.

2 stars

The Core (2003) – Dir: Jon Amiel (Copycat, Entrapment)

I love this movie, but I have a fetish for disaster/end of the world movies. It’s actually a pretty terrible film. The film has a cool first half and it’s a movie about the end of the world which is a fear that I fixate on – the reason I like this type of movie. However, The Core is a spin on Journey to the Centre of the Earth. It’s a fairly ridiculous concept and a piece of crap story. It’s just a bad film. Even if you liked Armageddon, you’ve got to accept that this movie is not even good trash, it’s weak.

I was hoping to get an autograph from DJ Qualls on my DVD copy of The Core at Armageddon Expo (the New Zealand pop culture expo/convention.) Unfortunately, I didn’t end up going this year. I ordinarily don’t like Hilary Swank (I hated Million Dollar Baby.) However, she was amazing in Boys Don’t Cry, so she has my respect as an actress.

Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) was awesome in the half decent film, Thankyou for Smoking. So he’s cool as Dr Josh Keyes in The Core. Stanley Tucci (Conspiracy, Big Night) as Dr Zimsky and Tcheky Karyo (Kiss of the Dragon, The Patriot) as Serge are veteran artists of the highest calibre.

Characters are introduced elegantly – such as our businessman who invites us into the film. And the teacher, super-smart Keyes, who is charming and well-liked by his students, yet a very ordinary person. His ordinariness in a spectacular situation is a nice feature that could have been played with more to interesting effect, if more attention had been paid to the writing. Rather than focusing on making a (bad quality) product for a market – the disaster movie fetishists.

There is no doubt that the production value is top notch. Even some of the cinematography is nice. Because you get what you pay for.

The mystery in the beginning is intriguing and Keyes is a nice, cool, everyman character. He’s clever, like a charming version of Sherlock Holmes. I would suggest if it was still in screenplay form to ditch the end of the world concept and do the whole film about Keyes and the other scientists, they’re far more interesting.

The symptoms to the planet’s illness are cool, but nothing we haven’t seen before. And not shocking, specific enough, or violent – as to really affect the viewer.

Tucci really commits to the up-himself famous scientist role in Zimski. He’s great.

The storyline where Rebecca (Hilary Swank) saves the day but is blamed for crashing a space shuttle is a clever device to introduce her character and line her up with the series of natural phenomena that foretell the end of the planet.

This is why I say the first half of the film shows great potential in characters, writing, action, and performances. Unfortunately, instead of taking this as the core of the film and seeing where it leads, being Hollywood, they had to tack on a second half that was tired, tried and expected.

The problem with this film is that it could have been really interesting, but the second half (from the point where they shoot the ship into the ocean for the start of their voyage) when they actually try to stop the end of the world, it is wrapped up far too neatly, easily, unrealistically and predictably.

Delroy Lindo as Braz is another fun character. Noble enough to let Tucci’s prior betrayal slide off his back. Perhaps enough time has gone by that he’s no longer furious, especially when he’s being offered a job. He is a bit bitter, but probably the quirkiest character Lindo has played recently. The technological inventions are cool, but they look pretty ordinary. They lack style, but they do the job. The FX are nothing to write home about.

The Core is a very bad movie, with a half decent first half. Watch it only if you like crap movies about the end of the world.

1 star

Oldboy (2013: USA, remake) – Dir: Spike Lee (Jungle Fever, Do the Right Thing)

It’s pretty much a case of either/or, having watched this version – I see it now. And if you can’t handle subtitles then you might watch this version. I think Spike Lee has respected the source material. I agree with every one of his translation choices except for the ending.

I’ll try not to spoil it, but Joe (Josh Brolin) feels that he deserves to be punished for what he’s done. Which is fine but he’s already been punished. Yes, he’s a changed man, but he was wrongly imprisoned, so he deserves a pass. He has served his punishment – he should just accept it. Yes it was a good idea to disappear, but more punishment was silly.

Josh Brolin is a badass – his process of change isn’t as effective, and he isn’t as easy to relate to as the original actor, Min-sik Choi. Brolin looks ripped even as a slobby alcoholic compared to the dopey, fat and clumsy Oh Dae Su actor. However, the result – Old Joe is a very cool character. Personally I like this love interest more than Mido in the first movie. But that’s probably my Caucasian bias.

This is not a direct translation of the original – which would be both impossible and pointless – this is something we quickly discover. Nice tip of the hat to Dumas. 2013 Oldboy still respects the spirit of the first film. There are a lot of crossovers, but it’s the new stuff that is the most exciting. The equally pretty violence, which really starts when Joe kills a bunch of jocks on a football field. Pure Joe is a cool cat. Callous, purposeful, but merciful.

The crossovers mainly deal with our main character’s progression and cerebral journey, with the situation of imprisonment, and the disappointing villain – who was so amazing and important in the first film. A lot of the villain’s dialogue is reused.

The approach is very different. The villain (Sharlto Copley) is weak and has a grating fake British accent. Samuel L. Jackson is such a big personality that he is wasted in this role – it didn’t require that and I don’t feel that he really commits to the role – though I don’t fault him for it, he was miscast.

Good things about this movie – I can see how some people could hate Joe the obnoxious drunk in the beginning and love him after 20 years of change. The character that I feel is missing is the seafood.

Brolin’s Joe is possibly a better fighter than Oh Dae Su was, even though he still manages to get stabbed in the back. Which is a cool bit.

Or to put it a different way. Oh Dae Su fights and it feels real. Joe fights and it feels like you’re in an action (Segal) film.

The poetic cinematography and beautiful villain are absent. Joe’s friend, this time played by Michael Imperioli, is actually more of a natural feeling character in 2013.

Joe reacts to tragedy this time, and society seems to more easily recognise a murderer on the street in 2013 America. Or perhaps Brolin is playing a more paranoid and caring Oldboy.

Oh Dae Su was callous, his stone heart made him invincible. He wasn’t superpowered, he just never gave up until everyone was dead or brutally wounded.

Joe is a badass, but he feels something when he hurts people. He feels pain and has a big heart. But he’s got skills. And is not against murder to win a fight. Which makes him dangerous.

The villain is a major slack sail on this boat. Which is unusual because in Elysium, Sharlto Copley’s creation was a wonderful character. So vital to the story is the villain, that the character’s weakness pulls the whole story down. He isn’t mysterious, or beautiful. He’s still a perv, but not scary. His political and financial power should have given him an edge that could have been better illustrated through more writing to really strike fear in the viewer. Missed opportunity.

It would be fun to imagine a world where instead of being punished for our actions, we are punished randomly. And then allowed to commit atrocities equal to the punishments that we endured, without further consequences.

2.5 stars

Oldboy (2003: South Korea) – Dir: Chan-wook Park (Thirst, Stoker)

Oldboy is one of my favourite films of all time. This is a beautiful film, not simply violent, although it is.

This is the far superior film to Spike Lee’s remake – however, if you can’t handle subtitles, the remake is quite watchable.

The original seems to have everything. It is intellectually interesting. Poetic cinematography, pacing and choices of details; ways of revealing the story. We don’t meet the villain, at first. We are with Oh Dae Su (Min-sik Choi.) He is a drunken bufoon, seeking a payphone to call his family.

Some of us have been in this situation before. Get drunk and self-pitying. Start trouble and the cops step in to sit on you, until you settle down. Though they usually don’t let you go until you’ve sobered up a bit – in case you relapse.

Kidnapped without reason, without a word. And held prisoner in a hotel room for fifteen years.

What is particularly interesting is that Dae Su reacts to this extraordinary situation, just as man on the street would react. He panics, he begs, he freaks out, he tries to negotiate, he surrenders, and he sets about to change into the man he wants to be. A man who can deal with this situation. All he has is time. So he works hard and gradually, he changes.

One of the key points about this movie that makes it so special, is that not only could it happen to you, but that also you could rise to the occasion if all you had was time. Or that’s the theory.

Dae Su in the beginning is a pathetic waste, a loud-mouthed nobody. If you can’t see something of yourself or better in him, you ain’t looking properly.

The other interesting thing about this film is how Dae Su tries to deal with the lack of explanation for what he sees as his punishment. He begins to write penance – a novel of his sins. In an effort to deduce the motive behind his situation – but also as part of his chosen process of change.

This may be worse than prison – in prison they tell you how long you’ve got, it may change – but an idea of duration keeps one from having to imagine forever.

It’s not enough to hold him, he must be trained to fit our design (with gas and visions) and his life must be taken from him.

Tragedy will force the hero from his heart to materialise (our villain may want this – he is after all a fan of Dae Su, after studying him for all this time.) But that may not be the point, taking from him is further cold-blooded penalty for his crimes.

The narration is relevant to the tone – Old Dae Su – old, calm, morbid. Stone Heart Dae Su is telling the story of his imprisonment as we watch Early Dae Su – silly, weak, surrendered.

Early Dae Su, after only a year inside. Old Dae Su is telling the man who found him, after Dae Su got out.

I love the form that this story has taken – almost a fable.

Spectacularly shot, melodic and it has a feeling of piercing originality. At the same time you can really get into it and hope for the hero – Hope he changes, hope he gets free, hope he wins vengeance and the truth which he seeks.

The story is one mystery after another but it will all make sense in the end – such a fantastic design. A flourishing genius of images and relationships. Of this one man, Dae Su and his quest to avenge the death of his heart.

Dae Su is crazy – authentic psycho, as a result of his journey.
The people he meets are fascinated by him, just as we the viewer are impressed and intrigued. What will he do now?

And then the violence begins and it is pretty. Old Dae Su continues to narrate himself, because he rarely talks (a big change.) The changed man impresses us and is fun to watch unleashed on the world. But he mustn’t get too comfortable. He must not forget his reason – he must take it all back, not by living but by fighting.

The villain – Lee Woo-jin (Ji-tae Yu) is decadent, callous, pure and beautiful like blood.

Oh Dae Su is the ultimate action hero. But this isn’t really an action movie. It is a unique, sad, violent, love story.

The fight feels real – he takes on so many bodies, he is such a badass. He even impresses himself. But it’s not easy for him. He feels the pain, he fights awkwardly against so many and for someone who isn’t experienced against real opponents. He just never gives up and he’s had fifteen years training himself for this.

Stoning his heart so that he can really dish out the pain. This is the hard part. He no longer shies away from hurting the other guy worse than a normal person might consider reasonable. Once you understand that about him, the violence makes sense.

It’s something any one of us could do after fifteen years of stoning heart and training body – that is the theory that this film presents us with.

The ending is perfect. Who will win? Who will die? Whose heart will crack? Why was this done to Oh Dae Su?

5 stars

Redbelt (2008) – Dir: David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross, The Untouchables)

A wonderfully original con movie about traditional martial arts. Not Mamet’s best script, but still quite excellent. The viewer is a naïve child, totally unexpecting the hit from tragic event after event, to build the spiral downward. Totally unaware that this negative thrust is designed.

A warrior, purist sensei, Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiofor – 12 Years A Slave) teaches in a small martial arts school. Mike struggles with the day to day running of the business. Leans on his wife – who can’t take the pressure.

Joe (Max Martini – Lie to Me/Pacific Rim) is a cop, a noble passenger of faith in Mike’s school. He wishes only to honour Mike and progress up through his ranks.

Mike, as someone so sensible, seasoned and wise, he should be more cautious when accepting gestures of thanks from strangers. Especially when he has assets that he is emotionally invested in – if they were taken, how much would it hurt?

So be more careful. And if these were taken from him, how would he fight back? A dramatic expression of the intellectual concept, how does one fight when he is partially paralysed?

I try to avoid spoilers, but you need to understand that this story is an intricate conspiracy – the treasure at its core is an idea, a subject close to a writer’s heart.

The fight is something many of us feel. And it often feels hopeless. The weakness of the wives is a fear and perception that many men feel.

The cinematography is ordinary, yet the performances are excellent – especially our hero, Mike and Joe the cop, reserved but purposeful. Beautiful fight scenes.

This is a perfectly simple drama on the surface – just a great story, directly and carefully told. Mike is a calm person, an honourable man, a noble warrior who chooses peace when he can. Even when the world falls down around him, and he sees the evil in his enemy’s eyes.

When fight is the right choice, nothing can stand in his way. He will take it all back. Nothing left to lose. The girl, Laura (Emily Mortimer) is so believable you may forget it’s a film for a moment. She is sweet, damaged, strong in her own way, struggling but loyal and genuine. Another amazing performance.

However, the performances are nothing without great writing – which Mamet has achieved here. Joe Mantegna is a cool, slick bastard. But everyone in this film is a villain, pretty much.

It’s all about money. And who do you trust, when everybody needs money?

Redbelt is a beautifully sad film, because despite the attempt to achieve victory, even if the good guys win, a man still died. With a lovely, spirited, silent ending.

This film leaves one feeling affected, it makes you think about fighting. About the place of violence in life and the need for fight, the need for struggle, the best way to trust. Some of these questions aren’t as explored as the struggle to do the right thing. But sure, it’s a thinking person’s movie, plus there are some really great fight sequences. If you appreciate martial arts and theatrical performance, it’s doubtful you’ll be disappointed.

4 stars

Summer of Sam (1999) – Dir: Spike Lee (Do the Right Thing, Jungle Fever)

This is a story of innocence and betrayal, a lovely little story by Spike Lee. Very nearly Shakespearean. It’s the Summer of a famous American serial killer, Son of Sam.

The real Adrian Brody – a fresh, engaging character. Before they turned him into a pretentious, arrogant, passionless leading man.

Disco is disgusting, however as merely setting it is sweet, and this girl loves to dance.

Leguizamo is great as Vinny, the full of himself, disco king who fucks anything that moves.

Son of Sam steps into this world, unnoticed.

Dionna (Mira Sorvino) is cute, the wronged girlfriend, the dancing princess. Richie (Adrian Brody) is a naïve soul, wannabe punk.

This is a great little story about lost fools and their circles of relationships, in a hot, sweaty and shitty little section of New York, amidst the search for a murderer.

A serial killer – a fat, moronic creep (the kind who would get bullied a lot as a kid.)

It is funnier and more sentimental than a thriller. A dark, indie romance juxtaposed with Leguizamo’s anti-romantic personality and religious guilt. A drama surrounded by sexual complications.

The beautiful Ruby (Jennifer Esposito) is sweet, as the romantic harlot with a heart of gold, who is fully accepting of Richie’s perverted alternative income.

Dionna is a sensual dancer. Disco still sucks, but there’s so many other antagonistic forces in this film, it’s worth the watch. There are plenty of punk outcasts to love, despite the disco.

Next minute we have Leguizamo freaking out and snorting coke in his tidy whities. Sorvino trying with all her heart to meet her husband’s needs. But he’s a pervert who believes that God hates perverts, he also fears God neurotically.

Betrayal (to foreshadow the final betrayal,) due to misguided conservatism. And the romance of the anti-establishment deviants – who connect intellectually as well as spiritually. They’re fair prey for the mob that hunts the killer.

Anyone different, strange, is challenged by the laughable Italian slobs, the wise guys who think they’re rebels, but are just another mob of suits.

Being too big of heart, unique and full of passion gets you noticed in the jungle by the weasels and wild pigs.

The saddest victim at first is Sorvino, the quiet, loving wife, who knows she’s being betrayed but stays silent and loyal. She does all she can to serve her man – she even humiliates herself by asking an ex-girlfriend of his, how to fuck her husband.

He doesn’t deserve her. That’s what is felt. But she loves him. A swinger’s orgy which Vinny isn’t emotionally prepared for leads to a breakup of the heavenly couple. The recurring theme of sexual complication.

The final tragedy is gay Bobby (Bruce Springsteen lookalike Brian Tarantina) overreacts to Richie’s threats, because of a previous severe beating. He narcs on Richie to the fat bastard and his mob, this leads to the lynching of Richie.

And a friend against friend betrayal.

3 stars

Crumb (1994) – Dir: Terry Zwigoff (Ghost World, Art School Confidential)

Robert Crumb is a fascinating genius. A weird, dorky and lanky man. This story develops gradually with tension and atmosphere – the topic of comic books, cartoons. Crumb is funny and engaging, his work is amazing. If this film is your introduction to Robert Crumb, you could do worse.

Crumb is a hero to sexual deviancy. He is not only a really interesting talent, he is also a really good illustrator – I mean he can draw. His fixations are familiar and funny. He has a great attitude about his deviancy. Positive and rebellious, his work is filthy and sick, hilarious and unique.

Crumb, the man, is poetic in his descriptions and choices of details – a natural storyteller. The picture of his brother, Charles is sweet, intelligent and tortured. It’s a sad, sad story. It’s a sick, sick story.

It grabs you and toys with you and it’s just fun to watch. The discussion of sex is strange and devious, shocking but in a way – there are parts of it that are common. We all have an inner sickness. These guys celebrate that geek inside and parade it around for our entertainment.

The people we meet in this film are real nerds. They are cool, funny, vintage-loving freaks. Crumb’s family are beautiful people who’ve been tortured the way of most middle American outcasts in their young years.

The end result is tragic for Charles, but the up-side is Robert’s amazing success, and well deserved. He pushed forward a generation of sex, brave exploration and political reaction to conformity, through art.

We even get to see the development and the inside of Crumb’s creative process, the progression of his career and how he feels about his work. With actual footage from when he was working on some of his early work.

Crumb is attacked as self-indulgent, but all artists are self-indulgent. His work is messy and when he gets dark, he is criticised for being a porn peddler. His art is sexually charged at its core, and celebrated as such. This is a process of affecting the reader – by shock, by horror, by disgust. Sometimes there is meaning. Other times the artist seeks purity, and avoids all trappings, and is attacked for having no meaning. Accused of literary masturbation. Sometimes it is masturbation – but that doesn’t mean it stops being art.

The female critics in this film are humorously ignorant of their own irrelevance.

Crumb seems to be displeased with the modern world. Charles looks laid back and intellectual, but that could be the tranquilisers and other medication. Harmony Korine for an instant comes to mind – a film that started off as a documentary about a great cartoonist, but the story of his life is mundane, grotesque, tragic and almost shameful – like a Korine drama fiction. If it weren’t that in this house there are no boundaries. This is the greatest freedom of the Crumbs.

Women love to hate him. He hates to love them. Crumb is a true romantic, but without all the bullshit. A sentimental deviant. The Crumb point of view is bleak, neurotic, sadistic humour, in an effort to deal with a fascist, deceptive, decrepit society.

Eventually there are even more intriguing tales of molestation, homicidal tendencies and Robert’s brother, Maxon is quite a talented, yet unknown surrealist painter.

Terry Zwigoff should stick to non-fiction – this film is by far his best work – and a beautiful description of a very cool guy, who makes stuff that matters. His work is important. Making his mark. Inspiring us all.

The strongest quality of this film is that it is a sentimental story, but it’s also an artist’s portrait of a visionary maker flirting with the underground, fighting the people who might expect him to sell out and making cartoons to rebel as a political and illustrative expression against conformity. Against the women who are guarded, insecure, sexually neurotic, tragically asexual. Against the quiet, reserved, militaristic, puritan need to crush the deviant geek inside all of our heads.

No, we celebrate the geek. We praise him. We thank him!

4 stars

Pirates of Silicon Valley (1999) – Dir: Martyn Burke (Animal Farm)

Bill Gates, played by Anthony Michael Hall (the nerd from The Breakfast Club,) is an inspired choice and a near perfect performance. Steve Jobs is also beautifully cast. Jobs is intense and totally unaware and uncaring of his over the top energy.

Steve Wozniak (Joey Slotnick) is likeable and a voice of reason in a chaotic age – where crazy ideas set forth opportunities for the revolution that will change the future. For nerds to create things amidst 60’s hippie political activism. Practical jokes and the creative process.

The writing about romantic relationships is a bit thin, and drugs are skimmed past. The keys to this story are two iconic characters and their creative rise to prominence and corporate dominance.

The non-believers scurry around with their useless habits and ignorant suits. Bill Gates, as nerd one, writing code with Paul Allen (Josh Hopkins) and stealing the world. Their other friend, (John DiMaggio) turns bald by the end of the film and is a big guy, but a funny bloke and a true barbarian (versus the pirates.)

Jobs and Woz are after different things, but both essentially trying to build something new to get past a state of failure, hunger and a hole in their existence – empty of control or power over their lives.

As this state changes, the power increases, their relationship also changes, and neither of them really know how to deal with the change. It becomes difficult for Steve to see who the enemy is as he gets closer to the tipping point of power.

Fun, passion and creativity fuel this story. It is a story of struggle, of lying to the lawyers and tight old suits, and of rebelling against the ordinary, respectable, blind old men who think they rule the world. And think they know what a good product is, and yet they are blissfully ignorant.

The young Bill Gates is crazy fun, loves getting into trouble and talks like a manipulative, hilarious, carefree lunatic. Getting drunk and joyriding dozers, while Jobs and Woz go to indie conventions and sell ideas to the people on the ground floor.

The revolution is exciting. And the scene where Jobs snubs Bill is great – perhaps signifying the moment when Bill decides to become bigger than Jobs in order to crush him, steal his work, his passion.

Jobs is a jerk, though. Making technology to revolutionise the industry stops being fun when you treat your friends like they’re expendable and you stop liking your work. Woz and Jobs are the stars of this movie. Bill Gates is a wonderful villain.

This is a trashy film, not an art film. It has a different set of values to achieve. It’s not a well-crafted or polished piece of cinema. It’s just a great story and a lot of fun to watch. To see how Bill Gates and his crew will rip off the world.

As Woz and Jobs take over the industry – Woz is overwhelmed and Jobs, the revolutionary, is a bit of an asshole. Sure, he’s a design innovator and tech guru – which isn’t a major part of this film, but a lot of the time, he’s a bit of a flake and not fun to be around.

Essentially this movie gets to the heart of the central conflict between Apple and Microsoft. Bill stole Windows from Jobs. But Jobs stole first, he stole the graphical interface and the mouse from Xerox.

This film puts all of this evildoing in a dramatic context, coloured by dynamic, quirky characters – flawed yes, but not precisely evil. We understand their motivations.

The craziness of Jobs explodes when he plays teams of people against each other, apparently for entertainment. Woz can’t take it anymore. Perhaps, an acid-induced frenzy – where Jobs takes his company and rips it apart to see what happens. His reason seems to have something to do with distancing himself from caring about his people, from caring about anything. Because emotion clouds the mind, caring is impure. It feels like this idea is behind his actions, but is never explicitly explored.

He seeks the perfect purity, but the cost he doesn’t see or feel. The cost is integrity, heart and passion. Even if creativity is the goal, this journey is cursed to destroy itself. The revolution is built on many foundations – not unique, forward-thinking creativity alone.

3.5 stars

Twilight (2008) – Dir: Catherine Hardwicke (Lords of Dogtown, Thirteen)

For ranking these movies so highly, a few people may hate me, lose respect for me, or call me an idiot. I don’t care. In the interest of fairness and consistency, I will rank as I see fit. These movies are trash, I accept that, but something I knew when I first saw Twilight, it’s fun to watch.

It’s like chocolate bars. They are far from gourmet food and they’re bad for you, especially if you’ve got diabetes. But I still like them. Taken purely as tasty trash, like pulp paperbacks, Twilight contains an interesting teenaged love story and an attractive heroine to lust for.

If you’ve never seen Twilight, because it’s teen romance and only girls and ‘effeminate’ guys watch that shit, then you are in for a treat. I’m about to discuss it, at length – the story, subject, themes, as well as strengths and weaknesses of the film.

When Bella (Kristen Stewart) first speaks, the initial thought is cheese, please (despite her undulating voice.) Death at the beginning is a tired technique, King did it best. However, her words are more complicated than simply revealing that she will die – as we soon discover.

Death and love introduced in the first minute – and the tone is set. This is a romance, folks. A romance from a child’s point of view. Trash by any other name, would smell as sweet. I say again, chocolate.

The hunt ends as the flash-forward ends – leaving us with a beautifully handwritten narration from a school-girl’s private journal and the margins of her Science textbook. She’s telling the story of her life.

Believe for a second that this is a current stream of her conscious thought – revealing her private feelings, a contrast to the fact that Edward will experience frustration because he can’t read her mind. But you would be wrong.

It’s not her current conscious thoughts, the notes and narrative of the girl Bella will become – we are witnessing the past, a story from her journal about the girl she was. The lonely pre-Edward self-conscious snow Queen. A beauty Queen without the cruelty, false nobility and pompous facade.

Anti-plastic, ignorant of punk, white white white American lost girl in happy land. And she’s still miserable. One of the nice things about this film is the fantasy of an American high school which isn’t run by fake, plastic, corporate greed in small skirts and chunky football jerseys.

One of the universal truths about high school is that teenagers, when threatened, will band together. The threat is fear, because high school is a scary place. So you find familiar hearts and cliques form – you hope that your crew are loyal and real and deeper than merely liking the same bands. And violently detesting the same enemies – pop music or sports, for example. You hope that your clique is more of a family, though the bond is one of circumstance and necessity.

Bella finds a clique-free school where nerds, punks, goths and pretty people all want to be her friend. Her instinct is to hide, because high school is scary. Because people are never that nice.

Maybe she is suspicious. Eventually she accepts their friendship, as long as it doesn’t impinge on her space to devote to longing for Edward and biting her lip, holding her breath, awaiting her sexual awakening. Or maybe she’s just shy.

What about the vampires and werewolves? Dude, it’s a teen romance, it’s not about the supernatural – that’s just window dressing. It’s about high school and sex. And the fear of both.

The town of Forks is a character all of its own. Mutual respect among students is sadly lacking in our schools, which often builds consecutive situations of bullying, hazing, judging, cruelty, and nightmare hierarchies.

Somehow Forks High School does without all that, and fills the vacuum with Bella. Did the vampires eat all the assholes at that school?

Her poor father, Charlie (Billy Burke) is the guy I like in the movie. He’s in a tough situation. Never learned how to deal with her, he’s got a daughter and he doesn’t know how to talk to her. Not much of a talker. Not much to say.

Jessica (Anna Kendrick) is sweet to Bella. Jessica is a cute but dim little pigeon who seems unaware of her sex appeal. Her neurotic temperament, innocent ignorance and amped up concern for other people and for the high school version of doom scenarios, make her somehow even cuter.

Eddie (Robert Pattinson) the ‘so obviously a vampire’, his reaction to a flesh meeting with Bella provides the appearance of common teenaged fears – body odour, humiliation, cooties, etc. It’s funny.

Creates the perfect conflict to set up their romance journey. Bella struggles with Edward’s unusual resistance to her charms. And mood swings.

That being said, the story would not be complete without some slick supernatural hunting. There is humour to alleviate some of the sexual tension. Atmospheric music as she discovers what loverboy is. Fear and sex together mingle under her tongue, as she gasps between syllables.

It’s like a long drawn out summer vacation romance – but in Forks, a small bush town where it always rains and they still have to go to school.

“This is why we don’t show ourselves in the sunlight!”

Because we sparkle!

“I’m designed to kill.”

I don’t care… I trust you.

Isn’t that what we all look for in a woman, unconditional acceptance? (That and a laundry list of attractive qualities.)

And as if in a horror film, it all builds towards the climactic fight with the monster.

Twilight is a polished bar of chocolate with tobacco. You can’t get enough. It’s somewhat bitter, sweet little rubbish. But it’s not Cadbury’s.

3 stars

American Splendor (2003) – Dir: Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini (The Nanny Diaries)

Harvey Pekar (Paul Giamatti) is a loser, the downtrodden, but there is nothing lovable about him. He’s interested in a different kind of comic book – more realistic, more neurotic, autobiographical, miserable. His work is unique and he is unique, but most people can’t see on the surface what is so special about him.

It’s fun the way the film flips between different styles of telling the story and the way the film is aware of itself. Harvey’s life is shit from his perspective, but it’s always been shit. He’s a bit crazy and fixated on collecting and the lifestyle, the people that collecting involves.

Robert Crumb (genius cartoonist) is a character Harvey meets, while scavenging for jazz records. Crumb is played by the almost retarded, always brilliant James Urbaniak.

Considering that this film is about comic books and collecting, and crazy neurotic, anti-social, anti-cool, anti-poser losers and with a miserable, rebellious plot, I’m somewhat surprised that I didn’t like it more.

I totally dig the point of view of Harvey the character – his stubborn anti-plastic, anti-bullshit way of making art and telling stories. He’s so anti-establishment as a creative – but the kind of person he is makes me uncomfortable. Harvey seems like the kind of guy who very few people could bear to be around.

His inspiration to start making his own comic book is a cool sequence. The annoying old Jewish lady at the supermarket – and old Jewish ladies in general, and how much they piss him off.

Harvey Pekar – catalyst for the comic book’s answer to the beat generation. Unfortunately, this is a story that doesn’t really go anywhere. And we don’t get to see the inside of his creative process or how the maker-process works.

This is a miserable movie about a miserable man, who for some reason can’t make ends meet, but is a successful comic book creator. In a word – depressing. Harvey misses a vital lesson with Alice Quinn (Maggie Moore). “Just keep on working and something’s bound to turn up.”

That mentality is mistaken. It is possible that life will throw you a bone eventually, however unlikely. The key to fighting loneliness seems to be to not give up on a potential friendship just because it provides no sex, money or food.

The more people you know, the more chances you have to find people that you can get genuine connection with, even if that still doesn’t provide you with sex, money or food – though it usually will.

This is key – You should especially not turn down a potential relationship with someone you truly connect with, just because they’re married or otherwise neutral to your seductions.

The social game is hard work but it pays off quicker than merely hoping. And it’s even more difficult if you’re a fucked up loser, but not impossible. Maybe you don’t have to lower your standards, or maybe you should be more realistic. Or perhaps, that married woman who likes you, she knows a bunch of nice people who can help you forget for a while that you’re lonely.

Maybe there are people out there who are a perfect social match for you – can give you as much as you have to offer a relationship, but because you’re a lazy bastard, you’ll never connect to them. Sometimes you need to make a proactive material and emotional investment in your social life. Or get used to being alone.

Or maybe Harvey Pekar is right – keep on working and maybe something will turn up.

The movie is about an artist, but the movie itself is not a work of art. It feels artificial, perhaps even silently pretentious. Joyce (Hope Davis) is a bit cute and as a gift from fate might be a sincere hookup for Harvey. Despite the inevitable constant wave of explosive arguments, attacks and sulking fits – more material for his next comic book.

Most people would consider this kind of relationship to be negative baggage. Not Harvey, to him it’s an asset. The film is funny, but not satisfying. It leaves one wishing there was more of it, not a longer story, just more meat.

I would have liked it to explore more truthfully the mind of the neurotic – through writing or acting, rather than superficially as a character’s flaw.

The jazz soundtrack is a little mundane and sleepy.

Harvey attacks movies the way I do – I love that about him.

Harvey is a hero for the man against a home-life dominated by women. He is a hero because he speaks his mind, no bullshit. And when he makes a stand he is stubborn like an ass. He won’t take bullshit from anybody.

A fascinating, yet terrible film.

Possibly Paul Giamatti’s most interesting role. Though he doesn’t quite nail the absolute ordinary of Harvey Pekar.

2 stars

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started