(Note: This was written shortly after the death of Satoshi Kon in 2010)

The death of Satoshi Kon kind of just now hit me. The day he died, I was really sad. It sucks knowing one of my favorite directors will no long make movies anymore. Satoshi Kon was definitely an underdog in the movie and anime world. He never made much money off any of his movies and he couldn’t leave behind much for his wife. But he still has his legacy. Darren Arronofsky‘s purchasing the rights to Perfect Blue for a meager $59,000 just so he could use 2 scenes from it gives you a good idea how much he’s worth.  The funny thing is that despite making 1/100th of 1/100th of what Miyazaki makes for his movies, he’s still very well known in America among anime fans. Perhaps #2 (after Miyazaki) among anime directors whose movies are released in the U.S. So, I decided to have a little Satoshi Kon-athon and revisit all of his movies and watch the 1 1/3 ones I’ve never seen.

Memories (1995)

Memories is an omnibus of shorts, Magnetic Rose, Stink Bomb and Cannon Fodder, based on mangas done by Katsuhiro Otomo. I’m going to come right out and say I didn’t care for Stink Bomb and Cannon Fodder. Cannon Fodder was just boring. It’s interesting but boring. It’s about a town whose sole purpose is to bomb an unseen enemy. It’s commentary on war, but blah, it was boring. Stink Bomb is about a guy who accidentally turns himself into a biochemical weapon. His body expels a toxic fume that kills people within a certain radius. It sounds bleak but it’s actually a comedy. I think this would have worked well if it were serious. Maybe it’s a Japanese thing and it went over my head. Of course the one I loved the most, Magnetic Rose, was written by Satoshi Kon and directed byKoji Morimoto. Morimoto directed the segment “Beyond” on the Animatrix and Beyond just so happens to be my favorite short from the Animatrix because it shows what happens when there is a glitch in The Matrix. Magnetic Rose is awesome! After receiving an S.O.S signal from a deserted part of space, a bunch of “space trash men“ answer the S.O.S. They board this ship like contraption, and are suddenly pulled into this bizarre space. This short has Satoshi Kon written all over. It’s slightly confusing and contains someone who is effed up and has some kind of obsession that all of his writing seems to have. If I could just rate Magnetic Rose I’d give it a 9 out of 10. But since this is a compilation, I have to rate it a 6.5 out of 10. The title of this is Memories. I’m not sure why because only Magnetic Rose seemed to touch on actual memories.

Perfect Blue (1998)

Perfect Blue is the only Satoshi Kon movie I hadn’t seen in its entirety. I had a copy of it, but it disappeared with my computer last year. As I mentioned before, after the movie’s release, the rights were purchased by Darren Arronofsky so the bath tub scene (and the final rape scene) from Perfect Blue could be used in Requiem for a Dream. (Side note, now people are trying to say he ripped Black Swan from Perfect Blue which isn’t true. Even if it were true, HE OWNS THE RIGHTS!) Perfect Blue follows a singer turned actress as she slowly loses her mind. She begins to think things are there that aren’t, and thinks she’s being followed. This movie is “classic Satoshai” meaning it’s just FRIGGIN CRAZY! The main character, Mima, visits a website called Mima’s Room that appears to be written by her, but it’s not…or is it. This movie moves a mile a minute. I’m having trouble describing it. Like all of Satoshi’s movies, (excluding Tokyo Godfathers) there is this crazy element of fantasy where the character gets drawn into some other world that no one else can see but the audience (OK so maybe it is a little like Black Swan).

Perfect Blue is very reminiscent of Satoshi’s animated series (and my favorite anime) Paranoia Agent. Both focus on manifesting these evil alter egos and focus on how one’s thoughts can become deadly. The IMDB forums say that Satoshi borrows heavily from Dario Argento movies, but I’ve never seen any of them, so I can’t say, but apparently that fact is “awesome.” The ends of this movie will DEFINITELY leave you scratching your head. It’s very much left open for discussion although, in my opinion, if one thinks hard enough, I think there is only one conclusion. See this mindfuck of a movie NOW! One last note, the music for most of Satoshi Kon’s movies is done by the great Susumu Hirasaw. It’s weird and it’s electronic and that’s enough for me. 8.5 out of 10

Millennium Actress (2001)

I guess after making Perfect Blue, Satoshi wanted to tone it down and make a documentary/biopic type movie. Satoshi leaves behind the wild and crazy plot lines, for the most part, and trades it in for some good old fashion cinematography. This movie transcends many decades and eras of Japanese history. It follows a documentary filmmaker as he documents the life of a once famous, now reclusive, Japanese actress. What makes this movie very unique is as the story is being told, the documentarian and his camera man are basically inside the story following along and even assisting the actress. The “classic Satoshi” comes in when it’s hard to tell if she is playing a role in a movie, or reciting and reenacting real life. The lines blur but they blur so well. This movie borrows a lot from many Kurosawa movies. I don’t know if that’s true, but I read it somewhere because I’ve never actually SEEN a Kurosawa movie (BAD DANCY! BAD DANCY!).

If this movie were shot in live action, it’d truly bean EPIC movie. From costumes to set design, to composition and how things are put together. And the transitions. Satoshi Kon does love his transitions. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the transitions in this movie (stop laughing Kyle, Dave and Josh). I love it when scenes blend together or move from one scene to the next without cutting. The character will be in a shop one second and when she turns around, she’s on a battlefield. And those match cuts. He loves him some match cuts. All of Satoshi Kon’s movies seem to be filled with them. Chiyoko, the actress, is given a key as a teenager by a stranger as she hides from the police. He promises to come back for her. She gets into the movie biz so she can find this stranger and this is what her story is about, finding this stranger. She spends most of her life doing it. It’s a REALLY nice story. I always told myself that if I was going to do a live action version of an animation, this one would be it, except it’d be centered on American history rather than Japanese history. Did I mention it looks Amazing? Those damn transitions. 9.5 out of 10

Tokyo Godfathers (2003)

On Christmas day, 3 homeless people find a baby abandoned in a pile of trash. These homeless people, Hana, Miyuki and Gin, make it their goal to find the woman who abandoned her based on the clues she left. The story isn’t as mundane as it sounds. Satoshi Kon steps outside the “Japanese box” and creates characters that wouldn’t normally be seen in an anime. Having these 3 very different characters is one huge thing that makes this movie very enjoyable. Satoshi Kon made this movie with his American audience in mind. He even had the world premiere in America. Culturally, this movie does not go over the average American’s head. Tokyo Godfathers is a very “feel good” movie. Satoshi set out to make a happy and normal movie with this one. No major mystery, no confusing plots, no fantasy, just a pretty simple story. (Although, he couldn’t help but add his signature crazy obsessed/character.) Satoshi Kon isn’t often well received in Japan. I like to call him the Michele Gondry of Japan. His movies are abstract and surreal and the stories are very original and relatable. This movie isn’t done in typical Japanese fashion. Although, while many of the jokes and sight gags are stereotypically anime, much of the animation and character design is very different than traditional anime. Maybe this is why his movies don’t do well in Japan. Who knows? I love that EVERYTHING seems to work out for the homeless characters and I hate that EVERYTHING seems to work out for them. But hey, it’s Christmas. 8 out of 10

Paprika (2006)

Aw snap! He done did it again! I’m glad this is my second time watching Paprika because the first time I was just like WTF? After watching all of Satoshi Kon’s movies, I’ve realized if I’m not scratching my head after seeing a movie like this, then Satoshi Kon hasn’t done his job. But since I am, he obviously has. Let me start off by saying, without going off on a tangent, I can see why people keep comparing Inception to Paprika. Both movies are about dreams and some sort of dream machine. Both movies are about figuring something out within a dream, and in both movies the characters don’t know if they are dreaming or are in reality. Even in this Inception/Paprika mashup trailer when Ellen Paige’s character screams “wake me up, wake me up,” Paprika is screaming “wake her [real self] up, wake her up.” I think when your dealing with movies involving entering other people’s dreams, the themes are going to blend together. It’s weird, I never thought one borrowed from the other until I Googled it. There is a chance that Nolan may have borrowed a bit from Paprika, but Paprika is an adaptation of a novel so it wasn’t 100% original. Anyway, Paprika is trippy. I mean it’s Perfect Blue trippy. When their dream machine is stolen by an employee, another employee attempts to go into his dream. But he gets stuck and Paprika must go into both of their dreams. But then dreams start mixing, and they end up in a dream within a dream. There is an Xzibit joke in here somewhere. Ok, yea, that sounds a bit Inception-y I guess.

Satoshi Kon combines lots of classic Japanese themes and elements with some beautiful artwork. The parade will always be one of my favorite animated things. It’s colorful, it’s loud and the music that goes along with it is catchy as all hell. Again, Susumu Hirasawa is an amazing man with his musical accompaniment. I’m finding it hard to describe this movie. It’s the same reason why I never bothered writing a review for Inception. For me, trying to describe why a bizarre movie is good is like someone trying to describe a David Lynch movie to me. Sometimes explaining doesn’t help. You just have to see it for yourself. This movie is getting a live-action remake by Wolfgang Pertersen. I’ve never seen The Never Ending Story, but from what I hear, it’s pretty cool, so I think the remake may be in good hands. 8.5 out of 10

The Dreaming Machine (2011)

So what now? Satoshi Kon died while making his next movie The Dreaming Machine, a movie about robots in a world where humans have all died out. When Wall-E was announced, Kon was very afraid his movie would be very similar to it, but it wasn’t. The production was put on hold while animation company Madhouse scrambled to find a new director. Now that a director has been put into place, as far as I know, production has continued, but no word has come out from Madhouse quite yet. At this point, we can only hope that Madhouse doesn’t decide to shelve the movie at the last minute.

Satoshi Kon may have only been a blip on the cinematic radar, but he’s a blip that has changed the way anime and movies are made. He was definitely a very unique character, and it saddens me to know he’s gone. The great thing is he’s left behind some amazing movies that will keep him alive. I’m also glad he died peacefully and ready in his home. Despite not having much in life, he was always a cheerful guy (despite the darkness of his movies). He will be missed by many. Satoshiさん, ありがとうございます！

I know it might be a little late for this, but I feel like there was almost no coverage of the death of screenwriter Kevin Jarre on April 3^rd, the news of which didn’t really seem to come out until about a week ago. Not terribly well known, Jarre worked on several big scripts from the mid-80s until the late 90s, but seemingly dropped out of the entertainment industry, going into a self-imposed retirement for the last ten years.  However, looking back at the films he had worked on, it’s apparent that he was a talented man who never quite got the opportunity to have his vision conveyed on screen.

Son of famed film composer Maurice Jarre, Kevin is credited for writing the screenplays for Ed Zwick’s civil war epic Glory, the Brad Pitt/Harrison Ford IRA drama The Devil’s Own, and the historical western Tombstone, as well as having written the initial drafts of Rambo: First Blood – Part 2 and the 1999 remake of The Mummy. Now, while I am a huge fan of both First Blood – Part 2 and The Mummy, it feels wrong to salute Kevin for having a hand in creating these two movies as, for what seems like his entire career, Jarre’s work was constantly being ripped away from him. Especially with movies like The Devil’s Own, which notoriously threw his entire script out before production, keeping only basic plot elements and characters but shifting them to keep both leads equally in the spotlight, and Tombstone, which was meant to be his directorial debut before he was fired after only a couple days of shooting, his script massively trimmed down and rewritten, Jarre’s scripts seemed to always be given to other people to be warped and mutated into their final products. And while those finished products seemed to be successful for the most part, the idea that this one guy always had the horrible luck of never seeing one of his scripts followed through to the very end as he had originally envisioned them makes his exile from Hollywood all the more tragic.

It seems that many people, especially screenwriters, find themselves in these situations once they make it big in Hollywood, finding their little script about a doctor in the midst of a love triangle turned into an adaptation of the board-game “Operation”. But while others move past this stage of their career, finding enough clout to finally get their movies made, Jarre never got to that point where he was able to look back and laugh at his troubles, at least, not while he was still in the business.

Having recently seen Tombstone for the first time, after years of wanting to see it, it’s understandable what Jarre was going for, attempting to tell the full story of Wyatt Earp and all his friends and partners in his final front against the cowboys of the old west. While many of those involved with production called his script “one of the greatest they’d ever read”, it was too dense and fleshed out for the studio to be able to put their faith behind it, leading to Jarre’s aforementioned firing as director when he refused to cut out many of the characters and sub-plots that expanded on historical figures depicted in the movie. While the story of Tombstone may have become more generic from this decision, it’s still a long and detailed movie, full of great lines, great characters, and an epic tone that kept even a non-fan of westerns like myself paying attention for the whole running time. Inspired by the use of a biblical verse spouted by one of the film’s villains, Michael Biehn’s Johnny Ringo, along with the beautiful cinematography, I started working on a video that matched up some of the more epic shots of the movie with the Johnny Cash song “The Man Comes Around”, which features that same biblical verse that’s in the movie. Having learned of Jarre’s struggle, and then of his death, as well as having finished this video, I felt like it could serve as a tribute to a man who was constantly pushed around, never getting to see his vision come to life.

Plus, Tombstone’s just a pretty cool movie for what it is.

Kevin Jarre: 1954-2011

Isn’t it ironic?

I’ll tell you what’s REALLY ironic!!!  In 1964, two great films , by two great filmmakers, with similar subject matter, were released only 2 weeks apart! THAT is ironic!
The subject matter?…Global thermo-nuclear war and the subsequent total annihilation of the entire human species. The filmmakers?…Sidney Lumet, may he RIP,  and Stanley Kubrick, may he rest with Sidney.  The films?…Kubrick’s DR. STRANGELOVE and Lumet’s FAIL SAFE.

It is crazy to me that these oh-so-similar stories could be told in such oh-so-different styles. It’s double crazy that they are each based on separate source material and still so similar. And triple crazy that despite the then sixty-or-so years of film history, these two, similar stories, were released in theatres within 14 days of each other.

FAIL SAFE  roolz.
In Lumet’s version of this parable, every character is quite serious and the tension is pulled as tight as a prostitutes leggings. Sidney does, as always, an incredible job of getting frighteningly realistic emotions from his actors. Closeups and dolly-ins dominate the screen. FAIL SAFE is about four different groups of people from four different time zones in the U.S that are forced together by the threat of a nuclear attack on the United States by Russian forces. Shit happens I NEVER saw coming. That’s all I have to say. It was awesome. Props to Sidney for using disturbingly loud electronic feedback as a central audio  motif. Bangin.

DR. STRANGELOVE: OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB roolz.
Same kinda deal except not. Again, the story is similar, but much more satirically addressed. Stanley tries to point out how ridiculous the idea of destroying everything ever is by making clowns of everyone. If anything, I think DSOHILTSWALTB drives home a stronger message only because of its very effective use of humor. It stresses the ridiculousness and utter insanity of the situation and pounds into your head that this cannot be right, this could NEVER happen; whereas FAILSAFE’s realism makes it seem all too realistic and, by some means, inevitable and unavoidable.

IN CONCLUSION:
They are both amazing. I’ll need to watch FAIL SAFE at least once more time before I make a final decision, but at this point, after just having seen FAIL SAFE, I think I still may like DR. STRANGELOVE more. We’ll see.

SEE THESE MOVIES IF YOU LIKE THE THREAT OF WAR, INCREDIBLE ACTING AND BLACK AND WHITE FILMS DIRECTED BY GENIUSES.

EYE<3EWE ,
Joshy

The first part of this long-in-the-making adaptation of Ayn Rand’s monster of a novel, Atlas Shrugged, may look like a TV movie. It may employ a wide array of actors who mostly work in television. And one could probably start a drinking game based on absurd amount of times the phrases “backdoor deal”, “friends in Washington”, and “Who is John Galt?” are used. But, for all of its flaws and contrivances, Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 tells a story that is not only compelling, but puts a finger on just what is wrong with the way our country works today, despite the fact that its source material was published over fifty years ago.

Focusing on the near future, in which America’s economy has gotten to the point where the word depression doesn’t even cover it, and trains have once again become the dominant force in transportation and shipping, Atlas Shrugged follows the efforts of a floundering train companies last hope, co-heir Dagny Taggart, as she attempts to team up with an independent metal manufacturer, Henry Reardon, to rebuild one of her family’s oldest rail lines, saving both of their companies. However, as they attempt to innovate and complete the line in time to prove their opposition wrong, they find trouble in the form of big government and big business agents, who attempt to use political and public relations attacks on their companies in order to gain more money and power for themselves, and ensure that the independent trendsetters never get to prove them wrong. It’s a busy, dense and complex story, full of dozens of characters, all with their own motivations and influences, but one place where the movie doesn’t fail is in its surprisingly fast and easy to understand script. While some of the dialogue and performances may fall flat, the intricacies of the story are fleshed out enough that they never lose the audience, creating a pretty complete story for the first part of a proposed trilogy, leaving off at the perfect place for Part 2 to come in and continue with several hanging plotlines.

However, while the stories and the ideas behind it may be interesting, there is not much to be impressed about on the production side of Atlas Shrugged. While it seems more appropriate to attribute the cohesiveness of the story to the script, Paul Johannson (who also plays the mysterious John Galt in silhouette form) directs the movie adequately, if not unimaginatively, never giving it anything that would suggest the epic nature of the book, or anything more substantial than an episode of Cold Case. And, fittingly, considering the movie’s underwhelming production value, most of the movie’s actors do just as good a job delivering their lines. While several of the smaller roles are played with some conviction by standout actors, including the great Michael Lerner and Jon Polito as Washington fat cats looking to take down the movie’s protagonists, and Graham Beckel as an oil man dependant on the success of the new rail to help maintain and expand on the success of his Colorado wells, it’s leads aren’t nearly as effective. As Dagny and Reardon, respectively, Taylor Shilling and Grant Bowler do very little in the way of being convincing as powerful or crafty masters of industry. Shilling especially carries little weight as she walks around, giving orders to her subordinates, taking a line like, “I will destroy you”, and making it sound like a she’s letting everyone know she’s going out for a walk.

Aside from the lacking production values, the ideas behind the story, and the source material’s assessment of how the political and business worlds hold back and lament progress, make it a very frustrating experience to sit through. Seeing families and visionary’s progressive and revolutionary work be tossed around and pulled through the mud for no other reason than the selfishness of a few people who want to keep the status quo makes many of the problems our world faces seem that much more understandable. It’s funny how many politicians and political pundits take Rand’s book and message and apply it to themselves and their parties, using their opponents as examples of this behavior, blaming them and using the release of this movie as a call to arms against them, when, really, it seems like this isn’t a message that applies to just one form of governmental power at all.

Moving away from the movie specifically, and breaking away from an objective standpoint, I, personally, never like to talk about politics, mainly for the same reason this movie, and those who claim to support it’s ideas without understanding it, is so frustrating. With the very limited release of Atlas Shrugged, political figures and their supporters have been coming out of the woodwork, especially on the internet, to call out their opposition, pointing to them and saying, “See, this is what you do!” It is never explicitly stated whether those working against the story’s protagonists are conservatives or liberals, or how either of those political mindsets apply to the behaviors of the villains of the movie. Sure, one could look at the claims of the antagonist’s “all for one, and one for all” attitude as being mostly a Democratic agenda, and the hero’s “every man for himself” attitude as being more of a Republican state of mind, and determine that this is “the movie Obama doesn’t want you to see” or “nothing but conservative hogwash and propaganda”. But, from where I stand, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, the bad guy here is big government as a whole. There are no good politicians or right side, liberal or conservative, and, for at least the last century or so, the entire system’s become so warped and unaccounted for that our country is run pretty much entirely by the greed and need for power of every person who has a little financial or political stake in it. My interpretation of the book’s (and film’s) message is simply this: as long as things keep going the way they’re going, only self serving and short sighted people who don’t consider the permission of the people they are supposed to be working for will continue to keep progress to a minimum as long as it allows them to stay wealthy and in power, no matter how beneficial might be to the health and well-being of their constituents and despite this behavior’s long term effects on our country, it’s people, and the world.

Anyways, political rant aside, Atlas Shrugged, as a movie, isn’t likely turn many heads, as those who would find this kind of thing interested will either look away due to their unflinching political beliefs, or be unimpressed by the lackluster production values. While it’s always nice to see something that attempts to go against the mold a little, it’s disheartening to realize that a project that goes so far in one direction ideologically couldn’t possibly get enough financing or publicity to actually get any attention or cause any change. But, hey, at least somebody’s trying.

5 out of 10.

It’s always hard to criticize a documentary, mostly due to the fact that any twists, turns or plot developments usually can’t be held against anyone, including the characters or director, since it’s just the way life goes. It seems all the director can do, especially if the subject and story took place over 30 years ago, is find as much documentation and footage as possible, and do their best to create a coherent and compelling narrative out of the raw pieces. And, as far as Project Nim is concerned, its director, James Marsh, has done a pretty good job following through with an incredible true story that somehow fell into the background over the last few decades.

Almost like a more scientifically sound version of Congo, Project Nim focuses on the efforts of a few scientists in the late 1970s as they attempt to take a chimpanzee from birth and teach it to communicate like a human being, primarily using sign language. Cleverly naming him Nim Chimpsky (after famous linguist Noam Chomsky), the movie follows Nim’s development and his constant movement from home to home due to his effect on those responsible for raising and teaching him, and changes in the direction of the experiment. Aside from the incredibly interesting story being told in Project Nim, the one factor that makes it succeed is the way it makes the audience come to accept Nim as being almost human, like those being interviewed came to look at him as something more than a chimpanzee. Those viewing the film become just as frustrated as those who experienced the story first hand, as the struggle between treating Nim like a child who needs to be nurtured and treating him like a test subject, which is his technical purpose, becomes a constant conflict throughout the duration of his life, finding proponents on both sides. With each interview, those fighting over Nim keep pulling the audience back and forth to different sides of the argument, making the documentary more thought provoking than biased or straightforward.

However, as in his other documentary, Man On Wire, James Marsh uses recreations and dramatically shot flashbacks to cover events that were either undocumented or felt like they deserved more emphasis than the existing footage conveyed. While in his previous film, these recreations felt more necessary, since much of the action described by its participants hadn’t been documented at all, in Project Nim, it feels  unnecessary. As Nim’s initial removal from his mother after his birth is the most noticeably recreated event, it feels like the recollections of those who witnessed the events, and their emotional testimonies, should’ve been enough to convey their feelings about the ethical dilemma they faced. Instead, the audience is treated to slow-motion actors portraying the subjects as they recollect the event in a manner that feels like a horror movie. While this may have been the effect Marsh was going for, in this and other recreations it all feels too manipulative, and leaves the audience thinking that the story would’ve been more effective by simply just using the stories and the people, with no bells or whistles to bump up the drama.

Aside from this, and a few small moments where the story gets a little sidetracked and political, Project Nim is an extremely entertaining and moving documentary. You can tell that, to the people he interacted with, Nim was more than just a chimpanzee, and after collecting all of their stories and footage of him, its not hard to see why he became almost human to these people, and why it was so hard for them to see him treated like just another animal. It’s funny to see clips of news footage and magazine covers from thirty years ago that all hail Nim and the scientists who care for him as scientific revolutionaries, knowing that, in the end, they had become all but forgotten until Marsh and his producers decided to revisit their story for the purposes of this documentary. It’s interesting to think that something that can gain so much attention and acclaim at one point in history, could one day seem like some amazing, undiscovered story, despite the fact that it wasn’t ignored or a failure back then, just forgotten over time.

8 out of 10.

It’s usually quite hard for me to be serious, especially in writing, but in this case there are no jokes to make.

Sidney Lumet was an incredible filmmaker of the highest artistic caliber. IMHO he was on the level of Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorcese, Bergman and whoever else is considered an all-time great. As usual, I don’t have much to say, just that he is absolutely one of my favorite directors and I’ve only seen a tenth of what he’s made. NETWORK, SERPICO, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, THE VERDICT, 12 ANGRY MEN and BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU’RE DEAD are all in my top movies of all time.
One thing I truly love about his directing style is that I can’t really pinpoint what his style is. He doesn’t have many “tricks” or “gimmicks” he uses very often or any particular shots he uses consistently. The one thing Lumet does do frequently is what has been dubbed “verismo gloss”, or a tendency to make his films as realistic as possible without seeming to mock a documentary style.
I honestly can’t think of much more to say. I love him. He was a magnificent director/filmmaker and I plan to watch many more of his films.

It seems that for every movie that gets made, there’s a different motivation behind the making of it. Some people want to make some grand statement about life and the universe, and some people just want to make money off of a recognizable brand name. Then there are those that just want to have fun with it, and create something that makes the audience get up from their seats with a smile on their face while the credits start to roll. Hanna would probably fall into the latter category.

Joe Wright, director of several notable period pieces and prestige pictures, including The Soloist, Atonement and Pride & Prejudice, goes out of his comfort zone with Hanna, which follows a 16 year old genetically abnormal girl (Saoirse Ronan) who has been trained by her father (Eric Bana) to be an assassin. Filmed with a steadier hand than the Bourne trilogy, and featuring the same kind of craziness/danger set within real world limits as many Luc Besson and Richard Donner movies, Hanna doesn’t necessarily do anything revolutionary, but it’s entertaining enough that you never seem to notice when the story falls into conventional territory. It’s greatest diversions appear in the form of some incredibly staged action scenes, especially a couple of single-take tracking shots following characters through several labyrinthine locations, which eventually end with some terrifically choreographed fight sequences.

However, Hanna’s greatest strength and most interesting element is the titular character, and her portrayal by Saoirse Ronan. The combination of “vulnerable teenager with no connection to the modern world” and “trained killing machine” makes not only for an inventive kind of hero for a pretty average story, but allows for Ronan to do more with her character than just make clever quips and beat people up. Seeing Hanna experience technology and companionship with people other than her father, as well as situations that don’t require intense paranoia at all times, make for a story and hero that feels a lot more interesting than it probably should. In addition to Ronan, the use of a somewhat underutilized Eric Bana, who spends most of his time taking out bad guys, and a monstrous Tom Hollander as a hired tracker who, along with his two goons, follows Hanna and terrorizes everyone she comes across, make for some very memorable performances.

Surprisingly, the movie’s main antagonist, a professionally soulless CIA agent played by Cate Blanchett, feels like the only weak link in an otherwise strong cast. While Blanchett does a fine job in her role, depicting her as a combination of Agent Scully and The Closer, the character feels too much like any other nameless, blindly aggressive government force that has appeared in a million other similar “man on the run” movies to impress anyone. While most other elements in the movie seem like they’ve been tweaked to make this a special occasion, its villain feels just as predictable and ineffective as one you’d find in a second rate Steven Seagal movie.

In addition to a weak villain, Hanna sometimes takes turns and goes in directions that, instead of feeling surprising, seem almost expected, and sometimes don’t really make all that much sense. A main plot point of the movie concerns Hanna making the decision to let her whereabouts and location be known to Blanchett’s government agent, setting the story in motion. However, when this decision is made, she and her father split up, agreeing to meet in Berlin as soon as they both can make it. While it makes sense for him to want her to finally put their years of training to use in this situation, it doesn’t explain why she would wait and allow herself to be captured by the government, only so she can immediately escape with a folder full of expositional information. The whole situation feels very forced, and seems to only serve as a way to give the audience an abundance of explanations that doesn’t feel very necessary given some later scenes that feel just as illogical and explanatory, and to have a cool escape scene featuring Hanna sliding through a ventilation system to The Chemical Brothers soundtrack.

If nothing else, Hanna will probably go down as one of the better action movies to come out of 2011, but that might be too soon to call. Aside from some memorable performances and a great soundtrack, there’s not much here that’s actually all that new and original, but it’s all presented in a way that feels very exciting and entertaining. Hanna is a great character, and the filmmakers at work here have done a good job at setting up a mythology and world that could definitely continue into other films, a possibility suggested by the movie’s finale, which seems pretty deliberate on the part of those invested in this becoming a franchise. While it may not please everyone, or make those uninterested in espionage or action movies turn their heads, Hanna is sure to please anyone looking for a good movie with great action that succeeds at being a solid piece of entertainment, if nothing else.

8 out of 10.

Release Date: July 2011
Plot: Set in the world of New York City’s elite private kindergartens, THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST is about a fresh-faced young couple from Delaware, Jeff (Neil Patrick Harris) and Samantha (Bonnie Somerville), who have only recently moved into town. The comedy centers on the extreme lengths they must go to in order to get their five-year-old daughter into school.

Review: Hey Internet! Sorry, our school is all booked. Who doesn’t want the best for their kid? The best clothes, the best foods, and definitely the education. It’s ridiculous the lengths parents will go to make sure their kids are the best and the brightest. Just recently, a mother sued her child’s preschool because the school spent time teaching her colors and shapes instead of preparing her for Harvard. Those bastards! The Best and the Brightestpokes fun and mocks the lives of privileged Americans who fight so hard to get their little germ into the top schools.

Taking place in New York’s upper east side, The Best and the Brightest follows Jeff (Neil Patrick Harris) and Samantha (Bonnie Somerville) as they move from little ol’ Delaware to the big city and try to get their daughter into a one of New York’s many top private preschools. From afar (and from watching the trailer), this movie would probably be labeled as a cutesy chick flick or a pretty mild fluff comedy. But nooooo this movie is far from that. With it’s many mentions of bodily fluids, full frontal sex clubs and the constant dropping of f-bombs, Best and the Brightest is an adult comedy on the same level as The Hangover (in lewd factor, not comedy). This is the movie’s downfall.

The movie is very funny in parts and delivers some hilarious lines but it did NOT need to be this raunchy crazy sex driven movie. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good dick joke as much as the next heathen but a movie about getting your kid into a swanky school would have done just fine with a PG-13 rating. For example, Jeff must take one of the board members out to woo him so his daughter can get into his school. He accidentally takes him to a swingers club. But Jeff is a dork (Amy Sederis’ character gives him the nickname Bookish) so it’s kinda wEiRd and wAcKy for him to be in a place over run with tits and flaccid noodles. Moments like this were not needed for this movie to be funny. The fact that everyone thinks he’s a poet because one of the school’s administrators accidentally reads his friends VERY sexual instant message log is enough. They take funny moments like this and stretch it and stretch it just for the sake of being gross and out there.

Despite it’s over the top adult humor, this movie has a few redeeming points. Comedies often have the straight edge, clean cut main characters and then the wild and crazy sub-characters. This movie is no exception. I personally HATE when comedies rely on the sub-characters to bring all the funny to a movie. All the people Jeff and Samantha have to schmooze are great.Christopher McDonald, Kate Mulgrew, Peter Serafinowicz and Amy Sedaris are all great but their characters shouldn’t be the ones keeping the movie afloat. Somerville and Harris aren’t bad but they really don’t add to the direction the movie is trying to go. Again, had this been some PG-13 comedy with a fuck thrown in here and there, they’d be great.

This movie has been floating for a while now after making it’s debut at the Philadelphia Film Festival in October of 2010. It’s had many released dates since then, but they keep getting pushed back further and further. As a Philadelphian, I love that this movie was filmed in the city of brotherly love. I understand having a movie take place in New York makes for a better connection with the audience considering the fact that people are, more or less, familiar with the bougieness of New York. In my opinion, Philly and New York look completely different and this is even more evident when you see a SEPTA bus rolling past our actors down Broad street.

The Best and the Brightest is neither the best or the brightest movie to almost not come out this year but it’s worth giving a once over for it’s it’s one-liners and sex obsessed characters.

5 out of 10

With the release of The 40 Year Old Virgin in 2005, in conjunction with the success of both Knocked Up and Superbad two years after that, it’s become apparent that Judd Apatow’s brand of gross out humor mixed with genuine and realistic characters (and heavy improvisation) has become the reigning form of comedy over the last five or six years. Unfortunately, whereas most of these movies have their moments, their out-of-control situations and endless barrage of cameos have stopped becoming sources of comedy, and have instead become puzzle pieces necessary to complete the Apatow formula. And, while Bridesmaids may stray from this formula at points, in the end, it comes off feeling more like just another romantic comedy than anything worth getting excited about.

Making her debut as both a screenwriter and lead actress, Kristin Wiig plays Annie, a down on her luck ex-baker with as many troubles as can be named, spanning money, work, romance, housing, and just a lack of general direction in her life. Naturally, just as all of these troubles come hurtling towards a head, her successful best friend, Lillian (Maya Rudolph) gets engaged to her dream man, and picks Annie to be her maid of honor. Aside from the stress involved in performing the various functions of her title, Annie also has to deal with Helen (Rose Byrne), the entitled wife of Lillians’s fiancées boss, who she feels is trying to use her influence and privilege to steal Lillian away from her. What follows are some pretty standard awkward moments and bitchy banter as Annie gets to know all of her fellow bridesmaids, who each seem to fill a typical slot as far as the characters in this type of movie go. Ellie Kemper (Erin from The Office) plays the naïve newlywed, Wendy McLendon-Covey (Reno 911) plays the jaded mother-of-three, and Melissa McCarthy (Mike & Molly) plays the uncouth, overweight one. It’s not that all of these women (including Wiig, Rudolph and Byrne) aren’t funny, but many of the jokes they deliver or are at their expense simply play off of the two word descriptions provided above, leaving them to remain more caricatures than fully developed characters. In addition, there are a few too many strange sub-plots that feel like they exist only to pad an already overstuffed movie, and either don’t really make any sense, like the awkward inclusion of British accented Chris O’Dowd as a Wisconsin state trooper (and Wiig’s love interest), or are so small that the participant’s don’t even get a chance to say a line.

Look! It's fat, ditz, bitch, mom, understanding, and exasperated!

However, while many of the characters might feel one-note, and Annie’s life may seem a little too depressing at times, there’s still a lot of good in Bridesmaids. Kristin Wiig has attempted to write herself a role that will allow her to finally show that she has the range to carry a movie, and she rarely fails at proving that she can be funny enough to do the job. While any problems with the story and structuring may make the movie somewhat predictable overall, she and co-writer Annie Mumolo do a good job at creating individual situations that allow their actors, who are seemingly all pretty skilled improvisers, to create a lot of really funny moments. Perhaps if the movie focused on the relationships between the bridesmaids themselves, instead of the rivalry between Annie and Helen, which allowed for the others to get pushed into the background, Bridesmaids could’ve created more memorable, fleshed out characters and a story that felt a little more original.

It seems apparent while watching it, what Bridesmaids was going for: an “R” rated comedy, focused on women, that both men and women of all ages over 17 could enjoy based on the aforementioned “R” rated humor. Almost like, “See, we’re not just another chick-flick, because we fart and curse, just like the guys! It’s like The Hangover for girls!” Unfortunately, the movie never seems to go far enough to shock, or create characters that feel different enough to keep it feeling like an average romantic comedy. And while the women are very funny, they never become as endearing or iconic as they would need to be in order to live up to the promise their behavior and hip nature suggest. While it’s nice to see such funny people finally get some time at the forefront, it’s just frustrating to see them in something so painfully average.

6 out of 10.

Note: I wrote this in July of 2010 so the the whole brouhaha over the Boondocks episode titled “Pause” is outdated and has subsided a bit. But, it still helps prove my points.

Tyler Perry has won the hearts of millions all over America with his stage plays, books and movies. His movies shaped a new era in black cinema. On a recent episode of The Boondocks, Granddad is cast in a new play being put on by Winston Jerome, a black overly-religious stage producer who is known for dressing in drag as “Ma Dukes.” Winston Jerome and Ma Dukes are obviously meant to parallel Tyler Perry and his character Madea. Tyler Perry is a little up in arms with McGruder for poking fun at his movies, his sexuality, and his character Madea.  After scouring the blogosphere, I’ve learned that many are huge Perry supporters while others bash his movies as modern day minstrels. I, on the other hand, see both sides.

Why I Love Tyler Perry:

Tyler Perry has undoubtedly made his mark in the theater and movie world over the past 10 years. His movies and plays have touched the hearts of both black and non-black viewers.  Perry isn’t some Ivy League scholar with a writing degree or a film degree. He’s just a guy who decided to write as a way to cope with the harsh times in his life. Perry was at one point homeless and didn’t even have a high school diploma. So if anyone can say at least one positive thing, it’s that Perry is a true success story. His plays and movies send out many positive messages to the black community. Heck Perry’s life sends out a positive message. His messages let many black people who are living in poverty or some kind of abusive relationship or any other hard life know that they can overcome and achieve their dreams.

Tyler Perry could just preach and lecture people, but he conveys his message in a way that many blacks can connect with. His use of the character Madea keeps people coming back for more. Many black folk have some wild aunt or grandma or someone that’s loud, outspoken, and sometimes all around crazy but at the same time will deliver you some nuggets of wisdom and advice.  Madea is silly and very likable despite wanting to shoot everyone with her concealed glock.  Perry has a very good way of creating these very relatable characters. And moreover, he has a great way of bringing out the raw emotion in these characters making them that much more believable.

He has also helped further the careers and show case the talent of many black actors such as Tamela Mann, Cicely Tyson and Keke Palmer. There is no doubt that Perry knows how to really pick his actors. His movies, stage plays and now T.V shows give black families a reason to gather together on a Friday night and watch something positive and family oriented that teaches good values and empowers black people. Perry’s T.V shows Meet the Browns and House of Payne reintroduced the positive black family to prime time.

Despite low ratings and horrible reviews, Perry’s movies have all grossed significantly. With sales from these movies plus his stage plays, Perry is one the most well paid, well respected black directors of today. So why should the content of his movies or his sexuality be such a bother to people. If people enjoy going to the movies and seeing the same story line over and over, so be it. Why criticize Perry on the overly religious content in his movies and stage plays. The truth is, if it bothers anyone, then those people should avoid it and just not give their money to Tyler Perry. He’s an outspoken Christian who, like many Christians, just wants to spread Christian values. If people don’t like it, then maybe they shouldn’t watch his movies. Many have been speculating over Perry’s sexual orientation for years and Perrys has either denied or avoided the subject. What I say is let the man be who he is. If he’s gay and doesn’t want to come out then fine, it’s his business anyway. It’s his job to make entertaining content for viewers and not to talk about what he does in his bedroom.

Why I Hate Tyler Perry:

Tyler Perry did come from hard times with being homeless and being molested as a child, but so did do many other (better) black celebrities that people could be looking up to. Perry often throws around his sob story of being homeless and broke and spending his life savings to finance his first play. So much so that it caught the attention of Oprah early on thus prompting an endorsement from the richest black woman in the world. This virtually makes Perry untouchable and gives him the power to put his name on a movie next to Oprah.

Yes, Perry’s movies have some inspirational and empowering messages to the black community but really, how many times do we have to see the powerful black woman who is being abused by her husband or being super bitchy to her less successful sister. Or the kids abandoned by their drug addicted mother or incarcerated father.  To an outsider, this makes the black community look like these are the only problems we deal with. There are SO many more things to worry about in the black community. A more diverse line of stories would prevent people from giving Perry such bad reviews. One can only rehash the same script so many times.

Although he’s good at pulling our heart strings and getting us to feel a wealth of emotions, he’s not very good at creating characters.

I don't speak to gud!

Yes, we can relate to the few he has but again, where is the diversity. I’m tired of seeing the same type of white women in his movies and I’m tired of seeing that one crazy ‘ol coot. Perry has done a great job at reinventing the minstrel show. One of his recurring characters is Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown is the country clown who can’t speak too good sometimes, wears loud, colorful and tight clothing, and is always there for a great one liner. There is so much more to black people than these church talking, dancing and singing fools that Perry puts in EVERY movie and EVERY play. All one has to do is sit and watch just one episode of Meet the Browns and the tomfoolery is evident.

Tyler Perry seems to think that his audience is stupid and can’t really think very deeply. And why wouldn’t he? People like my 47 year-old mom continue to eat his material up. Perry believes that if he continues to write for this niche audience, he’ll continue to have a job. And this will hold true until studios decide to stop giving him money.

My favorite Perry movie is the Family That Preys for many reasons but one thing I love the most about it is that, out of all his movies and stage plays, it seems to shove Jesus down your throat less than his other works. I’m all for people having their religious views and beliefs but dammit Perry, why does every movie and stage play have to be based on good ol’ fashion Christian moral values.  It’s as if to be an upstanding citizen with great moral character, one has to follow the bible and Christian values or face the wrath of hell. For once I’d like to watch one of his movies without being told that I’m going to hell. But I must again address the fact that these movies are made for a niche audience.

And Mr. Perry, the gays know their gays. Ricky Martin, called back in the 90s. David Hyde Pierce, the gays called it. Lance Bass, I called it in the 6^th grade. Andy Cooper, the gays are calling it. I’m not saying that it’s imperative that Tyler Perry come out, I’m saying that if he truly is a homo, that he shouldn’t try to cover his homoness by putting a pedophile homosexual in his T.V show. I’m glad that episode of House of Payne addressed sexual predators, but why leave it so open and vague. The family says they hate “those types of people” and think “those kinds of people” shouldn’t exist.  This can be interpreted as gays or pedos. They should have said sexual predators. Considering the episode is about the kid talking to and inviting a stranger over, I think it’s safe to say sexual predator. Also when it comes to gays, Christians don’t exactly have a good track record. My theory is that if Perry came out, there would be many people saying “Well, he’s gay because he was molested” or “He’s gay because his father was absent.” I’m sure Perry knows this and is avoiding backlash for this purpose or plans on using this as fuel for why he is the way he is.

Conclusions:

Tyler Perry has made some good stuff and some bad stuff. He’s propelling the positive black image as well as hindering it. He better come up with a new original idea quickly before people start getting smart and realize they’ve been fed the same dribble for the past 10 years.