Birdman (2014)

Birdman: Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (2014)

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu

Cast: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton

I enjoy Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu films because of the level of realism they have, they have immediacy to them that attracts me to them, they feel like real life and not like many of today's color filtered, fake looking films. If you don’t believe me go rent Amores Perros (2000), a film that tells five stories that are all connected by one catastrophic car accident, an idea that Paul Haggis borrowed heavily from for his film Crash (2004). Amores Perros is shot in this hyper realistic documentary style that just blows me away every time I see it, actually all of Iñarritu’s films are shot this way which is what I like about them. So anyways, I always look forward to Iñarritu’s films, because he is one of those few directors with a pitch perfect record, he hardly ever makes a disappointing film. The only time I wasn’t blown away by one of his films was with Babel (2006), and even that film has its merits. Iñarritu’s the kind of director that even when he makes a “bad” film, it’s still good. When I heard about Birdman I was immediately attracted to it because of its premise, I thought it was a novel idea, but I have to admit I was more than a bit curious as to what Iñarritu was going to say with this film. What would it be about? 

Birdman is all about Riggan, an aging actor trying to gain the respect of an audience that has forgotten all about him. You see, at one point in his life Riggan was the biggest star on the planet when he starred in a series of comic book films called Birdman; a series of films about a super hero with wings, which by the way is a pretty cool looking character. Point is Riggan stopped making Birdman movies and is now fading away from the spotlight. His plan to regain the audiences approval and attention is putting on a play called ‘What we talk about when we talk about love’.  When the movie begins, the play is days away from premiering in a theater in New York City and he is all kinds of nervous looking for a new actor to take the lead role. Will he get to premiere his play successfully? Does he still have what it takes? Will the audience accept him once again?

Various elements make Birdman one of the best films of 2014, but let’s start with its obvious technical prowess. Here’s a film shot in a way that makes it look like its one long continuous shot, and though this might fly undetected by the common moviegoer, those with a more keen sense of observation will realize just how difficult it is to make a film this way. The big problem is that when an actor messes up a line, you have to start filming the shot all over again. Also, shooting a film with long continuous shots proves difficult in the editing room, because through editing you can establish certain beats in the rhyme of the visuals and the storytelling, you can even add comedy through editing, but if it’s all one continuous shot, things become just a little more demanding. Performances and shots have to be incredibly well choreographed and timed in order for this technique to work well, so this is why I applaud Iñarritu for achieving this technique so well.  Alfonso Cuaron also used this technique effectively in Gravity (2013). And it’s not that they don’t ever cut, they do, but the cuts are placed in a way that you hardly notice them, and they are very few. Entire sequences will go on and on and on without cutting, it’s quite amusing for those interested in filmmaking. It certainly makes things more demanding for everyone involved. Some shots are amazing, keep your eyes peeled for them, there’s quite a few of them.

Iñarritu directs a scene

Another area in which this film excels is in its themes, you see this is one of those films that’s about film. It’s not unlike Hugo (2011), The Big Picture (1989) or Shadow of the Vampire (2000), which are films that explore the nature of filmmaking both from the filmmakers view point and from the actors view point. On Birdman filmmaking is explored from the point of view of the actors, it’s all about the never changing fact that “Hollywood takes you in, chews you up and then spits you out”. There’s a reason why that saying hasn’t faded away and it’s because it still remains true. Hollywood caters to the young, the beautiful, the ‘now’, what’s in and what’s hot is what matters. You get old, suddenly you’re not getting as many roles as you used to. The movie addresses this idea that in Hollywood, unless you become a raging icon to the masses, you are more than likely going to fade away, quietly into the night. And sometimes that “fading away” ain’t a pretty sight because it’s hard for actors to let go of the fame and the spotlight. The film focuses on that frustrating moment when the actor simply doesn’t like the fact that he or she is no longer “popular”. What makes things even more interesting is the fact that Michael Keaton used to play a comic book character himself, same as the character in Birdman. It’s no wonder Keaton’s performance rings so true, I’m sure a lot of his own frustrations were channeled into his performance, because while Keaton has never stopped working, he isn’t as popular as he was when he made Batman (1989) or Bettlejuice (1988). There’s this amazing moment when Riggan is locked out of the theater by mistake and he’s in his underwear, the scene comments on how acting is a very vulnerable profession, you expose your soul to others through your performance, so I loved the metaphor there, an actor desperately baring his naked soul to his audience, humanity, the masses. You can expect a real heartfelt performance from Keaton. Could the critical success of Birdman spell a comeback for Keaton? It certainly feels like it, from what I hear, he’s gonna be reuniting with Tim Burton for Beetlejuice 2 next! It will be interesting to see how they make that one work after so many years have passed.   

The film also speaks about how aging actors have to adjust to the changing of the times, and the way things are marketed nowadays. For example, there’s a moment when a video of Riggan becomes popular on You Tube and is ‘trending’ and his daughter shows him how many people have viewed it and tells him “this is power”, a fact that Riggan is completely clueless about. The film also talks about how a lot of Hollywood films are aimed at a young audience and that what the masses love is action, blood, explosions and special effects. Which is true, just ask Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. The masses don’t want “philosophical bullshit” and the filmmakers behind Birdman are obviously frustrated by this.  I agree with them to a certain extent, because while I enjoy big fx spectacles, I also love brainy, artistic films. In my book there’s space for both types of films; the escapist summer movies as well as the more philosophical, story driven films. But of course, what the masses like, which is to say what the grand majority likes is brainless action and effects like the next Transformers movie, this in turn speaks volumes about the kind of people that make up the majority, which in turns is a sad state of affairs. When we get down to it, I think what the filmmakers behind Birdman are really frustrated with is the level of education of the majority, in other words, if we’re to read between the lines, there’s a genuine frustration with how many brainless zombies exist in the world. So yes my friends, we have an amazing film here, certainly deserving of being called one f the best of the year and one that I’m sure will garner Michael Keaton an Oscar nod, and quite possibly an Oscar win, here’s hoping.

Rating: 5 out of 5 

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, Benedict Cumberbach

This is the big conclusion to The Hobbit trilogy and they obviously wanted to end the trilogy with a big bang, so of course, The Battle of the Five Armies ended up being like the ‘Return of the Jedi’ of the Hobbit movies, which is to say, the biggest and baddest of them all. It’s as if all the action that was missing from the previous entries was taken out of those and put into this one, one film to rule them all. The good news is you probably won’t doze off during this one! The action is never ending, right from the get go the film starts off with Smaug the Dragon destroying Lake town, and that’s a real spectacle to watch. Now, I’m a huge fan of Dragons in films, and I have to say that this is one of the best depictions of a dragon, ever. I say one of the best because my favorite dragon is still and apparently will always be ‘Vermithrax Pejorative’, the dragon from Mathew Robbins’ Dragonslayer (1981). Still to this day, I haven’t seen a better movie about dragons than that one, but the dragon in The Battle of Five Armies? Pretty freaking impressive.

In this the final chapter of The Hobbit saga we find the people of Lake Town picking up their remains after in a fit of anger, Smaug the dragon destroys their town. Good news is that after Smaug is slayed, the Lonely Mountain is up for grabs, and if you remember correctly, there’s a huge treasure of gold inside of that mountain! Since this legendary treasure is common knowledge to everyone around, and  there isn’t a fire breathing dragon to protect it anymore, now everybody wants it! The elves, the dwarves, the humans and the orcs! Everybody wants a piece of that treasure! But the dwarves are not willing to give it up! This all leads up to an amazing battle that takes up practically half of the film, which is why I say, this film is none stop action so strap yourselves on tight for this one. It’s not a bore fest! 

The only thing I criticize about these Hobbit movies is that I feel they stretched them out for too long. Yes, I have read the book, and I feel that the whole story could have been told in one, maybe two movies tops. But of course, we can blame Hollywood for wanting to stretch franchises for a few movies more, it’s the new trend in Hollywood. They’ll stretch “the final chapter” into various films. They did it with the Twilight films; they divided the last film into two, Breaking Dawn Part I and II…which creates a small confusion because how can it be part I if this is the fourth film? Oh cause its part one of the “finale” which they’ve now stretched into two films, simply to make a few extra millions. You see Hollywood knows the fans can’t miss a single chapter, because they know audiences are hooked on a feeling, like a junkie looking for the next fix. They also did this with The Hunger Games, “Mocking Jay Part I and II”. The thing is that you feel it, you feel that some of it is just filler, padding to fill running time. They did it with this Hobbit trilogy as well, which if you ask me went on for one movie too long, but whatever, this final film is like all kinds of awesome because it’s monsters and wizards and dragons fighting for almost the entire duration of the film! It’s a fantasy film fans wet dream!

Imagine how much action this film has that it feels like it doesn't have much substance to it. Good thing is that it still manages to pack a wallop emotionally; it has one or two moments which “got to me” because you've known these characters for three movies know, so you kind of grow fond of some of them. I like that in spite of being a huge onslaught of action and special effects, The Battle of Five Armies still manages to tweak your emotion chip, which is something that Peter Jackson has always infused these Lord of the Rings movies with: emotion; sometimes a little too much, but on this one? Just the right amount of schmaltz.

Final words: if you are a fan of fantasy films and love to see Wizards and Witches engaging in magic battles, fire breathing dragons destroying entire towns, and monsters going to war, then The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies won’t disappoint. I still wonder what these movies would have been like had Guillermo del Toro directed them, at least he still gets some credit in the writing department. I’m willing to bet that it was the studios who gave Guillermo del Toro de shaft because they wanted that weight of saying that these three films were directed by the same Peter Jackson who made the previous Lord of the Rings films. That’s a huge selling point right there and I’m sure they didn’t want to let that go, so they axed del Toro, even after he’d given various years of his life in pre-production for these three Hobbit films. Del Toro’s take on it was that he left because he couldn’t commit to these films for six years of his life, especially when he has so many projects going on with many different studios, which is of course entirely true. Still, Peter Jackson pulled it off nicely and who better to these then the director who made the previous three Lord of the Rings films right? I can’t help but wonder what he’ll do next now that he’s leaving Middle Earth behind, I hope it’s something every bit as spectacular. And to think Jackson’s career started with the low budget indie flick Bad Taste (1987), a movie about aliens looking for human flesh to sell in their own fast food chain! It’s funny, but even in his earlier films; Jackson  always displayed a tendency to go over the top with his ideas, a tendency to shock as much as he possibly could. If he was going to do a puppet movie then it would be the grossest puppet movie you’ll ever see (Meet the Feebles (1989)) If he was going to make a zombie, the it was going to be the bloodiest zombie movie ever (Dead Alive (1989)) and if he does a fantasy film, then he’ll make you jizz your pants with an overdose of monsters and wizardry. Can’t wait to see what he’ll go over the top with next.

Rating: 5 out of 5      

The Interview (2014)

Title:  The Interview (2014)

Director: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg

Cast: Seth Rogen, James Franco, Randall Park, Diana Bang

Thanks to the whole Sony Pictures Hack fiasco, suddenly The Interview is the movie to see. What’s the Sony Pictures Hack Fiasco you ask? Well, if we’re to believe the story, the North Korean government hacked into Sony’s data base and read a bunch of confidential e-mails where producers spoke crap about actors. I mean, I’m talking primo garbage like calling Angelina Jolie a “talentless brat”, admitting that Adam Sandler movies have a certain “blahness” to them and calling Leonardo DiCaprio “absolutely despicable”, amongst other things. Whoa! Earth shattering stuff, I know! Sarcasm aside, the reality of this situation is that all producers talk crap about actors, it kind of goes with the territory, it’s just that on this particular occasion, their comments were revealed for all to see, and my, what a parade. Big whoop; so anyhow, apparently, the hackers (a group calling themselves Guardians of Peace) also sent an e-mail threatening to perform terrorist acts on theaters that showed The Interview. Sony execs, fearing terrorist attacks upon movie goers, cancelled the films premiere, which of course made everyone want to watch it even more. Then Obama is like “Sony made a mistake in pulling the movie from theaters” so suddenly, Sony decides to do a 180 and releases The Interview anyway, on the day that it was meant to be released: December 25. A Christmas present to all those who believe in ‘freedom of speech’ and the ‘American way’. To be honest, at the end of the day I am left wondering if the whole thing was just an elaborate hoax to enhance audience awareness and then bam! Suddenly you want to, no, scratch that, you NEED to see The Interview. So what we got here is the most hyped movie on the planet, the question remains: was it all worth it?

The premise behind the film is that Dave Skylark, a television personality who runs a gossip show called Skylark Tonight, is suddenly given the opportunity to interview Kim Jong-Un, the big dictator of the moment. Why? Well, apparently the dictator is a huge fan of the show, mirroring in this sense Kim Jong-Un’s real life obsession with American culture, including being a huge fan of basketball, Michael Jordan and Dennis Rodman. So anyhow, Skylark is going to travel to North Korea to interview the political leader. At the same time, the FBI wants Skylark to assassinate Kim Jong-Un . Will Dave perform the assassination?

What we got here is what some might consider “silly film” that actually addresses important issues. Seth Rogen, who wrote, directed and stars in the film, has always been about freedom of speech and using the media for truth instead of lies. For example, he was responsible for The Green Hornet (2011), a film about how the media should be used for telling the truth to the masses, not for manipulating, not for political agendas, not for lies. The Interview, among the many issues it touches upon, is also about using the media for truth, not the masquerade of bull crap we get on a constant basis, not for the stupification of the masses. I mean, even Dave Skylarks show is a criticism on the kind of dumb ass television shows that pass for television these days. The stupification of the masses in deed. In the film, Dave Skylark wants redemption from all that; he wants to make a show that will matter, something with some true depth. There’s this awesome moment in the film where truth is finally being told through television, and the good guys have to protect the broadcast with machine guns blazing! I thought the scene was so symbolic of the raging desire to protect the truth.  

The film also does its best to demystify the god like status that some politicians give themselves. I mean, what are we, Egyptians believing in God like Pharaohs? That time is long gone, there are no godlike men, we’re all equals and we all know it. So if you’re a wannabe politician looking to rise to power, don’t give me this crap that you’re a god cause I aint buying it. I mean, how do some of these politicians get away with making their followers believe these whoppers? For example: Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela says he constantly sees and talks with the spirit of Hugo Chavez, the politician who was in power before him, but died of cancer. This guy even said that Hugo Chavez’s ghost has come to him in the form of a bird! What the hell, worst part is that a huge chunk of the population actually buys into these lies. That’s nothing when compared to Kim Jon-Un’s claims that he doesn’t need to go to the bathroom, cause you know, that’s not a godlike thing to do! Sadly, many North Koreans take this to be true! The Interview bashes all that nonsense to the ground, which is probably why Kim Jong-Un would be angry at a film like this one, it not only makes fun of him, it destroys the god like persona he’s worked so hard at creating! Still, I’m of the mind that if Kim Jong-Un was in fact enraged by this film, then he’s overreacting. He wouldn’t be the first dictator to be made fun of, I mean, we can go as far back as Charlie Chaplin’s brilliant political satire The Great Dictator (1940), in which Chaplin made fun of and openly criticized the biggest dictator of all time: Adolf Hitler. Even  Kim Jong-Il, (Kin Jong-Un’s dad) didn’t mind being made fun of in Team America: World Police (2004), so why the overreaction? I guess The Interview does attack him in a more direct fashion.  

Kim Jong-Il as portrayed in Team America: World Police (2004)

It wouldn’t be the first time that a politically charged film creates controversy. The Great Dictator got Chaplin in trouble (he was considered a communist by the American government) and it was banned in a great deal of other countries (including Spain and Germany), this due to how truthful a film it was. The Great Dictator is a film that tells the people not to go to war, not to become puppets of powerful men, that greed and tyranny shall pass. And this is why I applaud films like these, because they dare to speak up. I’m not saying that The Interview is in anyway a masterpiece (far too many dick and fart jokes for that) but it does have the brass balls to knock a false god from his false godhood and it does attack the media and put a focus on the importance of using it correctly. Here’s a movie that reminds us that dictators are not gods, they are simply men, and mad at that. I highly recommend The Interview because it was enjoyable and didn't disappoint with the laughs and the “controversy”.  Would it have become a box office success without the ‘Sony Hack Fiasco’or without the threatening e-mails? Was it all a hoax for Sony to make more money with the film? I don’t know the answers to these questions, all I can say is the film was fun, recommend it for a good time.

Rating:  4 out of 5

The Film Connoisseur’s Favorite Christmas Movies

A scene from Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)

Well, it’s that time of the year again to spend all our hard earned cash in the name of capitalism. Just kidding folks, I’m no sour puss, I actually love this time of year, not so much because of the gifts or even the Jesus (which most don’t even care about anyways) but more because of the happiness, the parties and the general good vibes everyone emanates. Made up holiday or not, Christmas makes everyone a little bit nicer don’t it? So anyhow, here’s my list of Christmas movies. Now this isn't a list of movies that take place during Christmas but aren't really about Christmas, like sayDie Hard (1988), Batman Returns (1992) or Gremlins (1984). Nope, this is a list about straight forward movies that are about Christmas itself. I’ll apologize in advance, I haven’t seen A Christmas Story (1983), Miracle on 34^thStreet (1947), Arthur Christmas (2011), It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) or A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965) yet, so forgive me for not including them. I've included a group of films that I like to revisit during this special time of year; maybe you guys will enjoy them too.

A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas (2011)

Comments: Now here’s an extremely funny Christmas movie, first off, it’s about two pot heads, which immediately makes everything funnier, but it’s also a film that puts Harold and Kumar’s friendship to the test. We've seen them become inseparable best buds (no pun…oh whatever, it was intended) through the past two movies, but on this one they've drifted apart. Harold has become something of a professional and Kumar well, he’s a complete looser who dropped out of college, to make matters worse, he’s just discovered he’s going to be a dad. Can Kumar live up to the responsibility of being a father? Do Harold and Kumar still have anything in common? Will they still be best buds for life? Or will Santa try to bring these two knuckle heads together again? Not gonna lie to ya, this movie aint sweet and pretty or politically correct, in fact it’s the complete opposite of that, so if you can’t take a movie where Santa gets a shotgun blast to the head, don’t even bother. But if on the other hand, you want to laugh your ass off during Christmas, this is the ticket for you.

Quote: “No can do man, I gotta stay here and smoke this weed, or else, I won’t get high.”

Elf (2003)

Comments: So this movie is just nuts, mostly due to the fact that Will Farrell is the star. It’s all a game of contrasts: Farrell is so big and loud and elves are usually the complete opposite of that, small and quiet and well, the contrast is just hilarious. It’s also a fish out of water story in more ways than one. First, Farrell is a human living among elves, which presents its own set of problems because he is just so damn big! Then he ends up going to the real world, to find his human family, so now he is out of place as well because while he is a human, he was brought up by Santa’s elves and so he is always unusually happy and jolly all the time. Funniest part is how all things Christmas make him extremely excited; he gets this crazy rush whenever anything related to Christmas is mentioned, but of course, this all works because it’s Farrell playing the elf. 

Quote: Upon seeing a fake Santa at the mall Buddy the elf gets close to the guy and tells him:  “You sit on a throne of lies!”

Scrooged (1988)

Comments: Directed by the one and only Richard Donner (The Goonies and Lethal Weapon) this modern take on Charles Dickens classic stars Bill Murray as Frank Cross, a Scrooge-like character who is the greediest, most selfish bastard you will ever know. He runs a television station and wants to do a version of Scrooge that has scrooge shooting machine guns and spewing hatred, just so the ratings can go up. Too bad for him he gets visited by the Christmas ghosts and you know how that goes. It’s a modern version of The Christmas Carol, with some of the ghosts looking all scary and frightening. The special effects are pretty nifty on this one, you’ll dig the ghosts! One of them is played by New York Dolls front man David Johansen! On top of this, the film also has this really acid, black comedy to it, the real miracle is that somehow the film manages to have real heart to it; some scenes really get to me. Trust me, by the time the film finishes, you’ll be singing Christmas carols at the top of your longs, with Bill Murray no less.

Quote: “For a couple of hours out of the whole year, we are the people we always hoped we would be!”

Jingle All the Way (1996)

Comments:  Consumerism at its ugliest is not a pretty sight; just ask all those folks who have died while trying to buy their 51 inch flat screen television on the infamous ‘Black Friday’! If you ask me, it’s one of the things I hate the most about Christmas. What Jingle All the Way does is make fun of all that, if you've been out on last minute Christmas shopping, you'll love this one, it will no doubt make you laugh out loud. It’s the story of a father trying to buy that special toy that his son wants for Christmas; problem is that it’s sold out everywhere! And he promised his son this toy for Christmas!  Everything is made more hilarious because the father is played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who by the way had a way with comedies. He made me laugh in Twins (1988), The Last Action Hero(1993) and Kindergarten Cop (1990) and yes,  he made me laugh with this Christmas movie as well, especially in that scene where he has to fight a bunch of fake Santa’s,  a funny scene made even better because one of the fake Santas is played by James Belushi! Recommend it because it shows that Christmas shouldn’t be so much about the gifts; it should be more about the quality time we spend with each other. 

 

Quote: “We get one day a year to show we’re not screw ups, and what do we do? We screw it up!”

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966) and (2000)

Comments: Of course the real Christmas classic is the animated version of this movie which I also highly recommend, it was directed by animation legend Chuck Jones and has the Grinch voiced by none other than Boris Karloff, this short film is both magical and weird at the same time, but very Christmassy none the less. Then there’s the Ron Howard directed film, which also has its merits. I like it because of how effectively it brings to life Dr. Seuss’s unique looking characters and the world of Whoville. Visually, it’s amazing and Jim Carrey as The Grinch is perfect.  

Quote: “Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t thought before. Maybe Christmas he thought, doesn’t come from a store. Maybe Christmas, perhaps means a little more!” 

Scrooge (1970)

Comments: This is another Christmas Carol version I love because of its catchy tunes, yes my friends, this is a musical, and it’s a damn good one! This one is my favorite because I have fond memories of watching it on Christmas Eve on a cold winter night in New York City. Me and my brothers, we loved singing the catchy tunes on this film, our favorite always was “Thank You Very Much!” We also get a wonderfully grouchy performance from the great Albert Finney as Scrooge, one of the best Scrooges ever, highly recommend this one! 

Quote: “The thing is to try and do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you’re not here anymore.” 

Rare Exports (2010)

Comments: So here’s an interesting film, it originated with a series of short films directed by Jalmari Helander, which made fun of those Santa’s we see in the mall. He later expanded these shorts into a film called Rare Exports, which kept the same spirit of the short films: criticizing the hell out of Christmas. This unorthodox Christmas film falls in that pantheon of films that show Christmas as one big fat lie. In many ways it’s a huge critique on Santa Claus and what the character symbolizes, a monster of consumerism. In this films case, Santa Claus is an infernal beast hell bent on eating children. See the symbolism here? You teach your children about a jolly fat man coming down a chimney and your basically feeding to the monster of consumerism. But symbolisms aside, this is a cool Christmas horror film that actually shows a part of Christmas that is very true. Of course we can make of Christmas what we will, the idea behind many of the films I’ve mentioned on this post is that Christmas shouldn't be centered around material things alone.

Quote: “The real Santa was totally different; the Coca-Cola Santa was just a hoax.”  

Rankin Bass Christmas Classics: The Little Drummer Boy (1968), Santa Claus is Coming to Town (1970), Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer (1964)

Comments: These Rankin Bass Christmas classics are special for me because I grew up watching these on television when I was a kid, they were required viewing during Christmas time, a pity they don’t show them that often anymore. I love them for various reasons, but mainly because they are stop motion animated. I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have A Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) if it wasn't for these Christmas specials. There’s a couple more of these out there in case you guys are interested in seeing them all. They are: The Year Without Santa Claus (1974), Jack Frost (1979), The Leprechauns Christmas Gold (1981), Pinocchio’s Christmas (1980), Rudolph and Frosty’s Christmas in July (1979), Rudolph’s Shinny New Year (1976), The First Christmas(1976) and that’s without counting their holiday specials which were done in traditional animation! Rankin and Bass really milked that Christmas cow for all it’s worth! If you want an old school Christmassy feel for your Christmas watching, then you can’t go wrong with any of these classics.

Quote: “But what would happen if we all tried to be like Santa, and learned to live as only he can give: of ourselves, our talents, our love and our hearts?”

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)

Comments:  Here’s a Christmas movie from the guys who brought you all those Superman movies from the 80’s (the Salkinds) so you can expect the same kind of cheesy effects you’d find in say Superman III (1983). This movie comes to us from the same director who brought us Jaws (1978) and Supergirl (1984), so take that for what it’s worth. Actually, this is an excellent Christmas movie, it’s an origin tale for Santa Claus, we get to see how he actually became Santa Claus and all that. Then we go into a story about how one of Santa’s elves, the one named Patch (played by the ever entertaining Dudley Moore) goes to the dark side of the force and teams up with an evil toy maker who wants to eliminate Santa Claus so he can corner the toy making market. Production wise this movie is pretty impressive, and dare I say magical, this one has Christmas spirit levels on HIGH! Trust me! You’ll believe in Santa again. I like how they depicted the North Pole and Santa’s toy factory. It’s a fun part of the movie. Bonus: the great John Lithgow plays the evil toy maker.

Quote: “He had a broad face and a little round belly that shook when he laughed like a bowl full of jelly!”

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

Comments: I know there are tons of adaptations of Dickens ‘A Christmas Carol’, but this one is one of my favorites probably because it feels like a real, true blue Muppet movie. I know Jim Henson had nothing to do with this one; save for having created the Muppets themselves, but somehow, to me this was one of the last Muppet movies to really feel like a Muppet movie. Well, this one and Muppet Treasure Island (1996). These movies still retained that certain magic, that certain I don’t know what that makes up that genuine Muppet feel. That’s probably because these films were directed by Brian Henson, Jim Henson’s kid. So anyhow, that aside, this movie has a real Christmas feel to it as well, it retells A Christmas Carol, but with that Muppet flavor, that muppet sense of humor. From what I hear, it’s actually one of the most faithful adaptations of the book.  

Quote: “And my name is Rizzo the Rat, wait a second! You’re not Charles Dickens!”

National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1988)

Comments: This is the one that I always watch on Christmas Eve, no matter what! What I like about a lot of these Christmas movies is how they make fun of the holiday, and this is the one that does it the most. For example, this one makes fun of the craziness that happens in the maelstrom of a household during Christmas Eve, with lots of family coming over to visit. Holy Moly, I always laugh like crazy during the Thanksgiving dinner scene…oh my god! Clark Griswold tries to make everything jolly and proper, trying to follow traditions, trying to achieve perfection in family traditions, yet things always end up in disaster, with hilarious results! The cast has remained the same for years, Chevy Chase as Clark Griswold is beyond funny, I mean we're talking about The Chase here! Beverly D’Angelo is still the sweet, sexy momma; only the kids change from film to film and on this sequel one of the kids is played by Juliette Lewis! So anyhow, this is an all around great Christmas film, actually, this one is my top favorite. 

Quote: “Worse? How could things get worse? Take a look around honey; we’re at the threshold of HELL!”

HAPPY HOLIDAYS FROM ME, THE FILM CONNOISSEUR! THANKS FOR READING!

Interstellar (2014)

Interstellar (2014)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Cain, Jessica Chastain, Wes Bentley, John Lithgow, Ellen Burstyn 

I’ve always been interested in the far reaches of space, because to me, it’s out there where the greatest mysteries lie. Where does the universe end and what is out there in the vastness of space? And of course, the big one is: are we alone in the universe? I can go on and on formulating questions about space, because that’s all it is, one big question, one gigantic mystery. Which is why I love movies like Interstellar; they play with the idea that the universe begs to be explored. Why the hell isn’t an effort being made to truly explore the universe? Why isn’t a huge spaceship being built for humans to travel through space for long periods of time like in Star Trek or The Black Hole (1979)? I mean, I don’t think that idea is that farfetched. Instead, as of 2014, funding has been cut for NASA, so there’s less of an interest in space exploration, at least from the government’s point of view. Their logic is being that we have more pressing problems to deal with down here on earth; space exploration isn’t really a priority for the United States right now. Sigh. But anyways, at least we can toy with the idea through films like Interstellar.

On this film earth is being ravaged by dust, huge dust storms are engulfing the earth and its becoming mighty hard for humans to live here, everyone is getting sick, coughing, dying. But worry not! The scientists at NASA have discovered a black hole near Saturn. They've sent astronauts through it and discovered that said black hole can lead us to another part of the universe with 12 possibly habitable planets.  But all connection with these astronauts has been lost, and so NASA has decided to send a second mission to see if they can reconnect with these lost astronauts and at the same time explore the planets, to see if it is at all possible to start life in them. Their ultimate goal is to save the human race from extinction. Is this mission a one way ticket to hell? Or will the astronauts get to come back home to their families? Is humanity destined to disappear?

I’m a huge science fiction buff, and while watching Interstellar, I couldn’t help and notice how much the filmmakers borrowed from Arthur C. Clarke’s novels. You see, it just so happens that I’m a devout Arthur C. Clarke reader, I’ve read a lot of his work and well, I just couldn’t help seeing how the guys responsible for Interstellar borrowed heavily from Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: Odyssey Two, 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: The Final Odyssey. They even borrowed a bit from the ‘Rendezvous with Rama’ novels, especially when it comes to a cylindrical spaceship that has an artificial sun and an entire community living in it. Landing on a planet made up of a gigantic ocean was seen in 2061: A Space Odyssey, the idea of a man from another era waking up years later to encounter an evolved humanity was swiped from 3001: The Final Odyssey. The robots in the film, which look like walking, talking monoliths are a big wink to fans of 2001; but this was all done purposely, it is quite obvious that Nolan has a hard on for Arthur C. Clarke and his works, so when you watch Interstellar, expect a film with Arthur C. Clarke’s DNA engraved deeply into it.

And it’s not just from Arthur C. Clarke’s books that Nolan borrowed heavily from, he also took a bit from  Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969), both films are similar in structure. We have super intelligent computers able to think for themselves, we have astronauts going up into space to explore a mystery, we have that whole idea that we are going to be entering and exploring a place never before seen by humanity, “boldly going where no man has gone before”. We even get a scene like the scene in 2001 in which David Bowman goes inside The Monolith and the film turns into this visual trip. So yeah, both of these films share many similarities, there’s even some visual references to Kubrick’s film, but I’ll let you guys spot those.

The biggest mystery in Interstellar is of course, the black hole which the astronauts must traverse. Black holes have always been a mystery to me as well; at one point I started to ask myself, are these things real? I mean, sure we've all heard about black holes, and most of us believe they exist, but has anyone actually ever seen an actual black hole? No, we haven’t. We simply have an idea of what it could be. Much like in 2001: A Space Odyssey, where we have this strange and mysterious monolith floating up in space, we also have a strange space anomaly in Interstellar: the Black Hole. From what I hear, Nolan enlisted on the help of a physicist in order to get the whole concept of black holes and worm holes as accurate and scientifically correct as possible. From a visual angle, the whole black hole/worm hole thing looks fantastic, it is obviously a highlight of the film. On the other hand, when the film starts talking about fourth and fifth dimensions, relativity theory and multiverses, things might get a bit convoluted for some, but you won’t be able to deny that visually, it’s stunning. I did manage to hear an “I don’t get it” from the audience.

As far as entertainment value goes, well, there’s lots of spectacle here, but let me tell it to you straight, this films emphasis is on teasing your brain, it’s more of a cerebral picture, it likes to explore ideas hardly explored, it likes to go places we haven’t been before. I mean, sure we’ve seen movies that depict black holes before, for example The Black Hole (1979) andEvent Horizon (1997), but none of these movies have shown us a scientifically accurate portrayal of one, and here we got Interstellar to do that. The movie is a love letter to Arthur C. Clarke, and really there’s no better sci-fi author that Nolan could be ripping off from. What I would like for Christopher Nolan to do, because it seems to me after seeing Interstellar that he’s one of the most qualified to do it, is direct a film based on Clarke’s Rama novels. Now those movies really do tackle the mysteries of the universe! A movie based on ‘Rendezvous with Rama’ has been planned for years now, but as I type this, it’s still in development hell. So anyhow, what we got here my friends is one of the best films of the year, if you enjoy films that dabble in philosophy and the mysteries of the universe. Me? I’m a sucker for the mysteries of the universe because if you ask me, it’s those big mysteries we should always aim to know more about. 

Rating: 5 out of 5

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Torturro, Ben Kingsley, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul

Every time Ridley Scott makes a movie I consider it a gift from a cinematic god, so of course I was pumped when I heard that Scott would be directing this biblical ‘Magnus opus’, it seems right up his alley for various reasons. Number one is the fact that he is a master at making the fantastic believable, no matter how complex or how out there, he can make it real. This is something a lot of directors’ continually try to attempt yet fail horribly at; just take one look at Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C. (2008) and you’ll see what I mean. Secondly, Egyptian civilization, pyramids and huge columns have always formed a huge part of Ridley Scott’s film aesthetic. Actually, while watching certain scenes in Exodus, I got a few Blade Runner (1982) flashbacks. Take a look at Blade Runner again and you’ll see just how influenced by the Egyptian civilization Blade Runners art design was, you’ll see pyramids all over the place. So anyhow, with Exodus, Ridley Scott went from the futuristic pyramids seen in Blade Runner, to depicting the actual first pyramids ever made, which in a way brings Ridley Scott's cinematic career full circle.

From the pyramids in Blade Runner (1982) (above) to the pyramids in Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) (below)

Currently we’re going through a religious revival in Hollywood, I guess this is an attempt to infuse society with ‘belief’ as a way to reinforce religious ideals in society, something I’m completely against because I imagine, like John Lennon, a world without religion, where we can be the rulers of our own destiny. But  alas, we live in a world where the grand majority of people are under mind control, and religion plays a huge part of that. Yet, oddly enough I find these biblical movies fascinating anyways because I seem them for what they are, stories, fantasies meant to enlighten us entertain us and maybe show us a thing or two along the way; nothing more. So, this review comes from a non believer who still finds movies like this entertaining. I mean, I loved the heck out of Cecil B. Demille’s The Ten Commandments (1956)! That film is so entertaining, so theatrical and so freaking epic! Of course, Ridley Scott had a lot on his plate, he not only had the responsibility of pleasing all those millions of Christians out there by keeping things somewhat faithful to biblical cannon, he also had to turn in an entertaining film that surpasses anything we’d seen before in terms of spectacle. Question is, did he achieve it?

A lot of things went right with this movie, for example, its scope brought to mind those old biblical movies like Ben-Hur (1959) and Cleopatra (1963), these are films filled with thousands of extras and incredible sets, wardrobe an art direction. I’m happy to say that that’s the kind of film you get withExodus: Gods and Kings. You certainly won’t feel like you are being short changed with this movie, you’ll see the millions up on the screen. The detail paid to minutiae, is amazing. The carvings on the swords, the thrones, the walls, is just stunning, you’ll believe this is the Egypt of the bible, the film is very convincing in my book.  

One of the things that matters the most for a film of this kind to be successful is that it has to be faithful to the bible, or else the core audience will boycott the movie. In this sense I predict that theaters will be packed with religious folks, as opposed to say a film like Noah (2014), which got everything wrong by changing the story around so much that it alienated its target audience. Religious people didn't get the Noah that they wanted, so they didn't exactly back the movie up, if anything some Christians went to see Noah simply to see how wrong Aronofsky got their beloved biblical tales. This does not happen with Exodus: Gods and Kings which sticks pretty closely to the bible. Sure Ridley Scott takes a few artistic liberties here and there, but overall the story you get is the story that’s in the bible. Moses becomes the leader of the Hebrews, becomes their savior and with gods help, he frees them from the oppressive choke of the Egyptians.

My only problem with the film is that the story is way too epic for one film. This story could have easily been divided into two or three films and it could have been told better. As it is, at times I felt like the story was going in fast forward, skipping important moments that you'd expect to see. We go through the ten plagues, suddenly boom, we’re traveling through the desert, suddenly boom, we’re at the red sea, and boom it’s Ten Commandments time. Biblical events feel rushed, and a lot of important moments where left out. For example, the moment in which Moses turns his staff into a snake, or the moment when the Israelites get tired of waiting for Moses to come down from Mount Sinai so they build their own god and start worshiping a golden calf, then god opens the ground and swallows them up for being unfaithful to him. Why leave stuff like that out? I guess the movie would have been  four hours long if they did, which is why I say this film could have easily been turned into two films.  This is the reason why DeMille’s The Ten Commandments (1956) was divided into two segments, with an interlude for you to go tinkle. In his version, DeMille didn’t cut corners, he told the full thing and took his sweet time to do it. He’s cut of the film is ten minutes short of four hours! The problem is that Scott decided to tell the tale in one film, and my opinion, the story suffered because of this. Ridley Scott either chose to tell an incomplete tale, or a lot of footage was left in the cutting room floor and we might get to see it eventually in a directors’ cut. Still, the film remains amazing, remains epic, it’s just missing certain key moments that only true Christian fanatics will notice were left out.

This film has gotten some heat because supposedly it’s emotionless, but I disagree; I actually think it had a lot of emotion. There are some truly tender moments between Moses and his wife where we see a kinder, gentler side to the great leader. I guess what people are referring to is that Ridley Scott decided to go with a more believable way of telling this story, he avoided augmenting the supernatural elements whenever he could. I mean, sure we see lots of miracles happen (the ten plagues are simply amazing) but Scott found a way to explain most of them scientifically, they aren't just magical events. Even the parting of the Red Sea seems like the tide simply goes down in intensity till the people can simply walk through, Moses doesn't use his staff like it was a magic wand on this one. I guess we could say the film isn’t overly dramatic or theatrical and whenever it can it simply avoids the supernatural. This might take some as a surprise, especially for those who are expecting a huge special effects driven film or operatic performances. Here the effects are used with subtlety, yet when they appear they are a true wonder. Performances are also toned down when compared to Charlton Heston’s old time theatrics.

I enjoyed the amazing cast here, the only downside is that we have a lot of good actors in minor roles. John Torturro plays the pharaoh which took me by surprise. Ben Kingsley plays a Hebrew elder, but again, so underused. I mean, here we got Sigourney Weaver doing next to nothing on this film, same goes for Aaron Paul, but whatever, I hear the original cut of this film was reportedly four hours long, so we might be seeing more of these actors on a directors’ cut of the film, who knows. Final words is, Ridley Scott had a huge tale to tell here and even with these compromises I've mentioned, we still got an amazing film that can be appreciated by both the Christians who want to see their fantasies brought to life on the silver screen and by those film lovers who just want to see a good film. This is without a doubt a strong film and if you ask me, one of the best of the year.

Rating:  5 out of 5

  

I Come In Peace (1990)

Title: I Come In Peace (1990)

Director: Craig R. Baxley

Cast: Dolp Lundgren, Brian Benben, Betsy Brantley, Matthias Hues, Jay Bilas

I Come In Peace is a film that is known as ‘Dark Angel’ in some parts of the world because that’s the name under which it was marketed worldwide, that was the films original title, but when it was released in the United States, its title was changed to I Come In Peace because two other films had that title already, so to avoid confusion they went with ‘I Come In Peace’, which to be honest is a far better title for the film if you ask me. The title alludes to the films biggest one liner, just before the alien is about to kill someone he says, “I Come In Peace”, which he repeats all throughout the film. But only Lundgren’s character has the bravado to reply “and you go in pieces asshole!”; which is of course spewed in a traditional 80’s one liner tone. So anyhow to me this film will always be I Come In Peace. But alternate titles aside, this movie is so underrated!

The films premise is fairly simple; an alien crashes down on earth looking for one thing: drugs! You see, this alien is an intergalactic drug dealer, and the drug he sells is something he sucks out of the human brain. It’s up to Detective Jack Caine (Dolph Lundgren) and his obnoxious F.B. I. agent partner (Brian Benben) to find and stop the alien who keeps killing random people by sucking brain juice out of them.

I Come In Peace was directed by Craig R. Baxley; now before you go “who the hell is Craig R. Baxley?” let me inform you that even though this director isn’t a household name, you’ve probably seen some of his films, and if you haven’t then you should. That is if you like 80’s style explosive action.  The films Baxley is responsible for are ActionJackson (1988) which is this explosively violent cop movie starring Carl Weathers as this kick ass cop trying to stop a corrupt politician wannabe, then there’s Stone Cold (1991) starring Brian Bosworth as an undercover cop who infiltrates a terrorist motorcycle gang in order to stop them from committing a political assassination and finally, I Come In Peace (1990) the film I’m reviewing today. What do all these three films have in common? Massive amounts of action, car chases, shoot outs and explosions!

When I say explosions, I mean copious amounts of them. I mean, every five seconds something is literally blowing up on this film! Mr. Baxley understands the effectiveness of a good explosion; he’s something of a kindred spirit to Michael Bay in that way. Let’s see, first off we start with the fact that the alien in this movie shoots a big ass machine gun, now this isn’t just any old machine gun. Whatever this machine gun hits, it explodes into a huge ball of flame! One of the things this film is praised a lot for is the fact that none of the explosions are computer generated, these actors were practically getting their butts burned by the hot flames, in some instances you can tell they were pretty damn close! So kudos to the effects team on this show, this was the time when practical on camera effects were the norm, it’s such a breath of fresh air from all the CGI seen in today’s films. What the director did was fill the film with as many explosions as he could to give to the producers (and the audience) more bang for their buck. For a 7 million dollar film, you get your money’s worth of action, trust me! Because of its ‘small budget’ the story is kept small in scale, for example, we never see an alien spaceship or anything. The film is scope is small, not epic in the least, but it’s entertaining because it’s got aliens with big ass guns! Director Craig R. Baxley was a stunt coordinator on a lot of television and films, so he knows his way around an action scene, and it shows in all his movies, that’s why I recommend them.

Yes, there are cheesy elements to this movie, mainly the avalanche of one liners, like the aforementioned “you go in pieces asshole!” and “Fuck You Spaceman!” The two cops are always fighting and bickering, in traditional buddy cop movie fashion. Lundgren plays the loose cannon tough guy, while Brian Benben plays the dorky and much more vulnerable F.B.I. agent. It’s an unlikely team up, Lundgren is a freaking tower next to Benben’s impish looks, but I guess it works in the end. This movie reminded me a bit of The Hidden (1987), because of the whole angle of having an evil alien wrecking havoc while a good one is trying to stop him, plus, same as in The Hidden, I Come in Peace plays out like a buddy cop movie. Final words is that as you might have figured out by now, this movie isn’t Shakespeare, but it’s explosive cheesy fun, sure it was released in 1990, but it was shot during 89 and therefore still retains that 80’s style action film vibe. Plus it has an alien that shoots deadly flying cd’s! It’s a prime example of 80’s action; we could say that it was one of the last 80’s style action films to be released.

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5