MOVIE REVIEW: Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Amidst the clusterfwagh (sic) that has been finals week in law school, I deservedly take my evening off to watch movies. Although I'm only one down, and three to go, I feel pretty good right now (although it's probably because Criminal Procedure is depressing, and I'm just happy to be done). What you ask was on my docket this evening? None other than 2012's rom-com Oscar darling Silver Linings Playbook. A rather ordinary by-the-books story, but one that's populated with some extraordinary characters and stellar production values.

Former high-school teacher Pat Solitano is fresh out of a Baltimore mental hospital for a violent incident involving his less-than-faithful wife. As a result, he's lost his job, his home, and is estranged from his wife. Moving back in with his hapless mother and overly-superstitious, Eagles-superfan father, Pat sets out to find the "silver linings" in life's difficulties as he makes it his mission to reconcile with his wife. Although a generally optimistic guy, Pat struggles to cope with his bipolar disorder; throwing fits over trivialities like the endings of Hemingway novels, dealing anger management, and his biggest pet peeve: Stevie Wonder's "Ma Cherie Amour". A chance dinner-date at an old friend's house introduces Pat to his friend's sister-in-law, Tiffany, a young, widow suffering from clinical depression and recently-unemployed due to her chronic nymphomania with co-workers. She agrees to help Pat re-connect with his wife, in exchange for entering a dance competition as her partner. Things are further complicated though, by Pat's family obligations.

Playbook is one of those films that falls comfortably in the "quirky" category, but all the characters come off so naturally thanks to David O. Russell's stellar, and improvisation-fueled direction. The leads are irresistibly charismatic. Bradley Cooper, is finally given a chance to show some dramatic range, and allows the audience to establish strong empathy with Pat. It's a great career milestone for a trained actor who was originally known for going to Vegas, stealing Mike Tyson's tiger, and kidnapping a naked Ken Jeong.

And then there's Jennifer Lawrence. Ladies and gentleman, America has a new "sweetheart", and it's come in the form of a curvy, husky-voiced blonde from Kentucky with a hint of social-awkwardness that only makes her verisimilitude shine through her newfound Hollywood trappings. As the film's sole Oscar win, I guess it's fairly deserved for a then-21 year-old who was given a role, several years more mature than her. Still, Lawrence carries Tiffany with great deadpan comic timing and amazing vulnerability that she almost flips like a switch. Her brash, assertive attitude with moments of unanticipated intelligence evoke memories of Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny. For the record, I was originally rooting for Jessica Chastain with an upset by Emmanuelle Riva, but after watching, I can see why she became the award-season favorite.

Playbook has touches of melodrama that may potentially annoy some more hardened viewers, such as it's ending. Compared to the book, it also deviates quite a bit from the source material, as far as I can tell. Other than that, I enjoyed Playbook; it's nothing we haven't seen before in terms of the general story, but rather a rare instance of a romantic comedy that doesn't insult my intelligence by demonstrating enough realism, honesty and humor to come off as credible. Could I possibly nitpick anything else? Well...there's the Philadelphia Eagles...haha. Sorry, I'm actually a New York Giants fan. But, whatever...

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Campaign (2012)

At a brisk 85 minutes, The Campaign feels much like an afterthought written to cash in on the upcoming presidential election. The impeccable timing is certainly an asset; it's extriniscally a safe business move for the producers and keeps the audiences interested, although years from now, the political rifts or plot context may date themselves. It's not up to me to predict the future, but looking within the moment, the film touches on (or rather, spoofs) a lot of current issues in political campaigning, and is supported by some wonderfully zany performances by Will Ferrell and Zack Galfinakis alike. While not groundbreaking and rather juvenile, The Campaign is a fun romp, and those especially with a penchant for politics will find it enjoyable.

Democratic Representative Cam Brady of North Carolina is charismatic, well-groomed, and everything limousine liberal politicians are hated for (hypocrisy, adultery, etc.). Of course, he's kept a good job of hiding the skeletons in his closet, until he finds himself challenged by Republican tour guide and devout Christian, Marty Huggins. Backed by his wealthy father, a smooth campaign manager (played wonderfully by Dylan McDermott) and two corrupt businessmen who want to use his newfound clout to bring Chinese industry to NC. But as Marty plays dirty politics, and Cam's personal life spins out of control, the Huggins' begin to suffer the effects of negative media scrutiny. Just like in real life, we don't know for long until election day rolls around, and the fates decide who ultimately gets the job.

There's a lot to like about The Campaign, and I feel like it's biggest selling point is the prodding it makes at the absurd state of politics in America right now. However, a lot of it is Ferrell and Galfinakis' usual brand of sophomoric, obnoxious humor. Some may already find it getting long in the tooth. Others, especially those who are fans of Funny or Die should feel right at home. As one who also appreciates meta-fiction, it was fun to see renowned news figures make cameos to provide their two cents on the candidates antics. Overall, it's a fun film, but realize what you're getting yourself into, should you decide to see it.

7/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Dark Knight Rises (2012) + some thoughts on the shooting

This past Saturday, I walked into a packed AMC with three security guards keeping watch at the ticket booths. Perhaps relieving to some after the events of this past weekend, though it was hard sitting down and trying not to think about what happened. Ultimately, I let myself go with the film. I can attest that it fulfilled it's purpose; we go to the movies in order to escape the pressures of the day. Even though The Dark Knight Rises is a gritty, violent thriller, it's a story of good versus evil at it's core. What happened in Aurora was an unfortunate and tragic consequence, and at this stage in the game, I feel like enough has been said as far as gun control in the United States. There's still a lot of questions that need answering, but it's important that I move on.

Eight years after the death of Harvey Dent and Joker's reign of terror, a new villain surfaces in the form of Bane, and Commissioner Gordon struggles to keep crime under control. After the previous film's events, Bruce Wayne is reduced to a near-recluse with a limp, until he encounters a new adversary in the form of "cat burglar," Selina Kyle. Eventually, while pursuing Kyle, Wayne crosses paths with Bane and learns that he has an even grander scheme to destroy Gotham than ever before. However, conflicts both personal and formidable prove daunting to Wayne, even for this installment.

This is perhaps the darkest of the Dark Knight Trilogy, second sequels usually are. And with strong film sagas, this film had a tough act to follow with it's predecessor's first-class production. The story had some strong twists and continued Christopher Nolan's excellent tradition of bringing great character development to the series. Action sequences are not as plentiful as in the previous film, but come in short, exciting bursts. Production values were absolutely strong across the board.

Acting was solid; the reprising characters continued their roles in fine form. Bane is one of the more interesting villains I've seen in a film; he's a dangerous combination of brains and brawn, looks like Darth Vader crossed with Steve Austin, and sounds like Patrick Stewart doing a bad, garbled impersonation of Albert Einstein. Anne Hathaway stole the show for me as Catwoman, sure, I probably have a thing for her, but it's the restrained sexiness and cunning wit that won me over. She's one of the best things about the show.

Ultimately, I can't say if Rises is going to be a standalone classic, but it's a fitting conclusion to arguably the best comic-book superhero trilogy in film history. And in case you were wondering, I personally think it may be slightly better than this year's box-office behemoth The Avengers, because of the more dramatic tone of the story.

9/10

Peace, and God bless the families in Aurora, Colorado.
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Ted (2012)

Some of my friends have grown weary of Seth MacFarlane, saying "Family Guy" is no longer funny and several of his other TV exploits are equally perfunctory. Thankfully, the man had the good sense to transition into film this year; with a concept I was instantly sold on - a foul-mouthed teddy bear who gets stoned, drinks, and picks up women. What could a guy not possibly love? It's a unique twist on the "bromance vs. romance"-type of story that doesn't quite escape the cliche'd trappings, but is fresh and enjoyable take on what happens when the characters of an innocent, childhood fable grow up. This, ladies and gentleman, is Ted.

On Christmas Day, 1985, a young, lonely Boston boy named John is given a teddy bear by his parents. Having no friends to call his own, he names the bear "Ted" and makes a wish that his bear could talk. His wish is granted and the now-inexplicably anthropomorphic Ted becomes an overnight celebrity, making rounds on the talk-show circuit but remaining a consistent source of companionship to John, and the two become best friends. Flash forward to 27 years later, John works as a clerk for a rental car company, is in a four-year relationship with an advertising exec named Lori, and still lives with Ted. Over the years, Ted has picked up a penchant for partying, smoking a bong, watching bad movies, and bringing hookers back to the apartment, much to Lori's chagrin. She gives John an ultimatum: Kick Ted out, or she'll kick herself out; something the two best buds have difficulty dealing with.

As earlier stated, Ted is a typical story of "bromance vs. romance" wrapped in a fluffy, fuzzy package (...that sounded odd...). This gives the film an unfortunate sense of predictability that it doesn't shake throughout the entire run, but that doesn't stop it from being entertaining. Seth MacFarlane's crude, oddball humor thankfully outweighs the cliches. Some jokes fall flat, but most of them work. It's the concept that I'm really enamored with, and the performances from the cast are strong enough to carry the story through the bumps. There's an interesting twist/subplot towards the end that involves Ted getting himself into serious danger. It made me kind of wish the film based it's story more around that sort of structure, but for the most part, I was happy with the result (and the fact I only spent $5 for a ticket).

I had a difficult time rating Ted, because the more I dwelled upon the film, the more I felt better about it. I think it's just that I'm so enamored by the concept, that I'm allowing it to let me forgive some of it's more glaring flaws. Could Ted have been better? Sure. Is it enjoyable and entertaining? Absolutely!

...And how can I forget the Thunder Song:

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Artist (2011)

Vintage cinema rarely resurfaces and becomes an outright hit, and that's perhaps one of the reasons why some people (or film snobs, if you will) who I know saw The Artist were scratching their heads when the film won Best Picture at this year's Academy Awards. I'm happy to report that the honors the film has received over the past year are undisputably deserved. The film is much more than a revisionist gimmick that employs a now-obsolete silent-filmmaking technique; it is a comment on the changing social structure of the time, amidst the advent of modern technology. In this case, the catalyst is sound in film, or "talking pictures." And while the film is unsurprisingly thin on plot, I find it simply amazing that the director made a choice to aesthetically revive the old techniques of the silent era.

In 1927, George Valentin is the top actor in silent film, in Hollywood. Soon he meets Peppy Miller, a budding starlet who is about to transition into "talking pictures" at the advent of the sound era. Like many others of the time, George dismisses "talkies" as a mere novelty with little artistic merit, but the innovation takes Hollywood by storm and while Peppy's career skyrockets, George's stagnates in light of the changing times. It's a simple story about tradition, and ultimately redemption.

And aside from the story, this is a meticulously shot picture that duplicates so many elements of silent film to a tee, right down to opening credits, that it has a great "like-you-were-there"-kind of quality. The music also plays an important role, being one of the only "sounds" the audience can actually depend upon. The composer does a wonderful job by utilizing the score to heighten moods and emphasize some of the physical comedy. Being a silent film, the creators have the added challenge of stretching the actors beyond words and depending on physicality and subtle imagery in order to get a point across. It pays off, mostly because while it's not Chaplin or Keaton, the slapstick is very restrained and sensible. Most especially enjoyable are the moments between George and his precocious dog.

As much as everything in The Artist is brilliant, the plot itself is nothing new. It's simply a revisiting of the typical "rise-and-fall" story in the context of a revisited film technique, augmented thematically by the film's intentional technical limitations. That doesn't mean the film is any less enjoyable, just don't go in expecting a completely original story. Although, overall, it was a treat to see The Artist as a new entry in revisionist cinema. I definitely plan on watching it again.

9/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Dictator (2012)

Ali G? Check. Borat? Check. Bruno? Check. It took only about a decade, but Sasha Baron Cohen managed to give his three main characters from "Da Ali G Show" defining feature films. While the media exposure forced these comedic gems into retirement, Cohen managed to rake in a lot of cash, fame, and lawsuits in the process. Yet, being the comedic genius that he is, he still manages a few tricks up his sleeve, and brings us his first narrative comedy feature with The Dictator. While the results aren't quite as memorable or fresh as his earlier work, it's still an enjoyable, and very funny film.

Admiral General Aladeen (a parody by Cohen of the late, Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddaffi) is the Supreme Dictator of the North African Republic of Wadiya (which happens to be in the same place as Eritrea). As presumably the last totalitarian nation in the world, the UN calls upon Aladeen to appear before the council and sign a treaty promising democratic reform, in light of his human rights abuses and harboring nuclear weapons. Upon arrival in New York City, and with plans to sabotage the signing, Aladeen escapes an abduction attempt (losing his signature beard in the process), and discovers the abduction was staged by his brother; the Defense Minister, who is puppeteering Aladeen's double to sign the treaty. Stripped of his identity, Aladeen wanders into an edgy organic food market, run by a hyper-sensitive young woman named Zoey (who, along with her store, is a parody of everything leftist, politically correct, and hipster). While the two are complete opposites, she ironically becomes Aladeen's only hope on the journey to reclaiming his sovereignty.

For anyone who's familiar with Cohen's brand of humor, The Dictator has many of the same elements of his earlier films, although, not as badly rehashed: The foreigner coming to America with the resulting culture clash, losing everything and hitting rock-bottom, sudden epiphany over cultural differences, and above all; a smattering of offensive-yet-hysterically-un-PC humor. Most of the humor works, but a lot of it does not feel as edgy or spontaneous as it did in his earlier works. I mainly presume this is the case, primarily because Cohen has some great opportunities throughout the film to really jab at current politics and social mores, but he doesn't attack them as strongly as he does with the situational comedy. Take these words as a caveat for anyone who is expecting a more political slant towards the humor, based on the film's subject matter.

Otherwise, while not his best film since Borat, The Dictator still offers enough laughs and general entertainment value to stand on it's own as a summer event comedy. Even it's featherweight political humor was enough to sustain my interest, despite my desire for that aspect to be much stronger. As a vaguely-relevant endnote, out of all the trailers that preceded it, I am most looking forward to The Campaign, with Will Ferrell and Zack Galfinakis. Perhaps this is due to it's timing towards the Presidential Election, but the political backstabbing seems like a fresh enough concept for me to enjoy.

7/10

And for anyone who missed this year's Oscars, here's Cohen's hysterical Red Carpet appearance as Aladeen:

And Aladeen's hysterical rendition of "The Next Episode," because I can (NSFW!)

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Dark Shadows (2012)

Surprisingly, the opportunity for me to see films this summer is unusually optimistic, I missed practically everything in the 2011-2012 academic year, but I’m hoping to make up for that with what’s turning out to be a strong summer movie season. Last week’s offering for me was Dark Shadows, a Tim Burton-directed adaptation of a cult, gothic soap opera from the 60s. Up until the release of the film, this show was unbeknownst to me. It’s popularity amongst baby boomers apparent from how my mother (who I consider to be very “hip”) spoke very enthusiastically of it. Sure enough, Burton, and stars Johnny Depp (who is also a producer) and Michelle Pfeiffer (who’s always a pleasure to watch) were also huge fans of the show and the chemistry of the three is quite wonderful. While it’s not one of Burton’s strongest creative offerings, the love put into the project is apparent, and is overall, an enjoyable film to watch.

In the 1760s, young Englishman, Barnabas Collins immigrates to Maine with his wealthy family, and they begin a successful fishing business. The business helps develop the town, eventually adopting the Collins’s namesake and respect. However, a spurned witch, jealous over Barnabas’ newfound love, curses the family, kills the girlfriend, and turns Barnabas into a vampire; condemning him to a coffin until 1972, when he is finally unearthed by an unsuspecting construction crew. Barnabas relocates his former estate, now in the decrepit care of his ancestors. His newfound cousin, Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, informs him that the family assets dried up, and the family business is all but gone. Barnabas reveals to her a hidden treasure vault, which helps fund restoration of the estate and the fishing business (now re-established as a cannery). However, Barnabas’s old flame is also alive and well, and still out to get the unsuspecting vampire.

There’s a lot going on in Dark Shadows, which makes for a bit more of a complex narrative than expected for a comedy. I didn’t really mind the meandering script, because I felt like the creative and aesthetic aspects of the show made up for it. The costumes and art design are excellent, and acting is terrific. Depp brings another fun characterization as Barnabas, bringing great highbrow humor to the “fish-out-of-water” aspect to the story. Pfeiffer is fantastic as always; her grace and restraint evokes that of classic film stars of the golden age of Hollywood. Chloe Moretz plays her rebellious daughter, and while it’s obvious she’s being typecast as an edgy teenager, she services the role just fine. Helena Bonham Carter plays the family psychiatrist, and is amusingly aloof. There are a couple interesting twists that occur, and the ending leaves less closure for some of the characters than I’d hoped for (as well as an obvious sequel-setup), but I still left feeling pleased.

Prior to watching Dark Shadows, I had heard mixed things like “uneven”, “sloppy”, and not scary enough. All these criticisms are valid, depending on your perspective on Burton. Sure, the man’s made a lot of dark films, but there’s no denying he has a lighter side, too (Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, Ed Wood). The tone of Dark Shadows is akin to that of his earlier efforts, in fact, it comfortingly reminded me of something he would have made in the early 90s. The silliness and dark fantasy vibe are comparable to say, The Addams Family. I can easily recommend it for anyone that enjoyed the former film, and fans of the show should get a nice nostalgia kick.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Avengers (2012)

Finally! After what seemed like ages, Marvel finally released the superhero film I was actually waiting for. As much as I enjoy the genre for it's special effects romps and cheesily-written one-liners, the glut of sequels, reboots and introductory films were becoming far too routine (and irritating towards my finances). The Avengers actually steps up to the plate and offers the audience much more of a cohesive film; one that stands up to the likes of Spider-Man, and maybe even The Dark Knight. At least it was one of the better superhero films I'd seen, in recent memory.

After Loki, Thor's nemesis, accidentally falls from Asgard to Earth, he corrupts Hawkeye and steals a powerful energy source from S.H.I.E.L.D. commander Nick Fury. Col. Fury assembles his close circle of superheroes: Iron Man, Black Widow, Captain America, The Hulk; and later on, Thor. The new team: The Avengers set out in search of Loki and try to stop him from from unleashing the forces of his world upon Earth through the use of this new energy.

Although the plot sounds typical of superhero movies with it's predictable good-versus-evil dynamic, The Avengers is different in that rarely does one see a film with a group of well-known superheroes matching wits with one another. Marvel may have started this trend with X-Men, but it's so infrequently used, from what I presume to be because of economic reasons. After all, the film is expected to make over a billion in it's third week; I presume from the excellent marketing and hype brought on by the preceding films. Director and writer Joss Wheadon takes great advantage of this setup, and finds great opportunities for humor and character development. These end up translating into some stellar performances from the cast. What I did feel like the film was lacking that would've truly made it a standout, was pathos. Sure, there was a sense of urgency to the film's events, but at the heart of the story's goofy, comic-book trappings, I didn't think the dramatic moments resonated with me as much as they did with Christopher Nolan's Batman series.

Things also get off to somewhat of a slow start in the begining, but after the film's first hour, it becomes relentless and pure action, with some of the amazing team dynamics being masterfully portrayed in the climactic, New York City, battle royale. Also, I didn't find Loki to be that engaging or threatening enough of a villain. But for those of you who've seen the film, it was satisfying to see one particular scene, which ends with Hulk refering to him as "puny god", because it basically summed up my feelings about his character.

Despite my few criticisms, I thought The Avengers was a lot of fun, and definitely has my pick as one of the better films of 2012. I didn't see it in IMAX, but with the exception of the two showcase battle scenes, I eventually confrimed from other sources that IMAX-viewing is only necessary for the diehard fans, as it is nothing groundbreaking. Summer movie season has gotten off to a fantastic start.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Hugo (2011)

Hugo is one of those rare films that comes along, because it's so unique in it's artistry. It's a children's film, but it deals with some uncharacteristic mature subject matter. It's directed by Martin Scorsese, and yet, instead of a gritty potboiler, he gives us a vibrant, storybook rendition of Paris, 1932. It's a tribute to silent films, to the advent of modern technology, to the escapist in all of us. While I unfortunately missed the film in theaters, due to school (and subsequently, a lack of interest from family and friends - I refused to go see it alone), I had the rare fortune of winning a Blu-Ray copy in an online sweepstakes. I kid you not. I usually write those things off as trite, but I guess fortune favors the bold. And boy, what good fortune it was!

Young orphan Hugo Cabret, wanders the streets of Paris, searching for parts to complete an automoton (a type of primative robot; a mechanical puppet, if you will) inherited from his late father. When he's caught by an elderly toymaker, who then takes his notebook, which contains building instructions for the automoton, he embarks on a quest to understand the toymaker's strange interest with the notebook. Fortunately aided by the toymaker's young goddaughter, Hugo discovers the unlikely working relationship his father had with the man, and how the automoton may be the key to reviving his once prestigious past.

While Hugo is on it's face, a slow film, due to the dominant use of dreamlike, visual storytelling that Scorsese handles so well, I was never once bored, because it meant I was getting a chance to immerse myself in such a lush and vibrant world. The director, being the genius that he is, captures each tangible and intellectual element of the story so masterfully, I felt like I was in the presence of greatness even once the opening title hit the screen. Even though I was only watching in 2D,  I didn't need 3D to be impressed by the sheer magnitude of the visuals (although, it must've been, undoubtedly more impressive). The acting, as anticipated, was also impressive. I expected nothing less from Asa Butterfield after seeing his outstanding performance in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Chloe Moretz is equally good as his precocious confidante; something the actress has characterstically embodied in most of the work I've seen her in.

Although only time will tell if Hugo stands to become a classic, it certainly is qualified by the strong critical acclaim and numerous honors (among them, 11 Academy Award nominations, with 5 wins) it garnered last year. I certainly hope so, as it was one of the more visually arresting and innovative films that 2011 had to offer.

And for anyone who may be interested, here is a complete copy of Georges Méliès A Trip to the Moon:

9/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Game Change (2012)

Hi everyone! Sorry for having been away for so long. Law school has consumed a better part of my life, and I'm finally on Spring Break for the next week or so. I plan on doing a re-cap of how my first year went, as soon as the time is right, because I feel like some bright-eyed, future student out there could use the advice. But more on that, later...

On my second night home, I watched Game Change, the HBO movie, based on the book about the 2008 US Presidential Election. Focused on the Republican Party's  John McCain campaign, the audience gets an inside, albeit dramatized look at the pressured campaign managers as they try to combat bad PR and tackle two "maverick" candidates.

Most of us lived through this little piece of history, but few are aware and perhaps uninterested as to what actually happened behind-the-scenes. Faced with deciding on a running mate for the presidential ticket, John McCain selects the hockey-mom Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, igniting a media firestorm from Palin's formidible celebrity presence to that of Democratic candidate Barack Obama. With her strong moral values, down-to-earth disposition, and close family ties, Palin becomes an overnight poster-child for the conservative movement. The rest of political America, however, is less than pleased, when it soon becomes apparent that her political acumen, and personal life are not up to snuff. We know how this ends, but what we didn't know, then, for Palin, it was just beginning.

While not my favorite story in the canon of political campaigns, there's a lot to like about Game Change. Even if you look at everyone who was involved in the production and understand most of them have strong liberal backgrounds, it's a better experience if that notion is dropped in favor of the enjoyment of good storytelling, which is exactly what the film features. This is a story best described as good intentions that didn't quite pan out as expected; a tragedy of errors. Not just because McCain's campain managers didn't realize the proverbial pandora's box they unleashed with Palin, but because her strong personality (or ego, if you will) was more than anything the McCain campaign was ready to deal with.

Amongst the star-studded cast, Julianne Moore's portrayal of Sarah Palin arguably outshines the rest. She really transforms into the role, but her portrayal is a much more subtle, realistic rendition of Palin then the Emmy-winning masterpiece Tina Fey offered in '08 (she makes two cameo appearances in SNL archive footage). Moore offers the audience to look into the mind of a fiercely independent woman, who refused to sacrifice her beliefs for the political game. Perhaps Palin is more misunderstood than we thought. In the end, one starts to think she was meant for something less obstrusive and more rewarding than politics, after we see the effects it has on her family and personal life.

Game Change, at times, is painfully like what I observed one reviewer say: "watching the A student trying to help the D student pass the final exam."  It is clear from the narrative that the McCain campaign managers feel the campaign is doomed once Palin enters the picture. I presume most of what I'm watching is taken from reliable sources within the campaign, although I did feel at times that Palin's "nervous breakdowns" and moments of morose catatonia reeked of melodrama, especially when the advisors begin to question her mental health. It certainly works in the field of drama, but something about it didn't sit right with me. Lastly, with the majority of the perspecitve fixated on Palin (who is, arguably, the more fascinating figure in this yarn), it would have been nice to see more of McCain's perspective too.

Despite my mild criticisms, Game Change is absolutely worth your time, even if for just the performances alone.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

The Mission: Impossible series is interesting, in that in my opinion, it took the producers three tries to finally get the formula right. While the first film was decent, it was way too gadget-heavy for my taste, and the action somewhat underwhelming (heck, there were barely even any guns or martial arts to compensate); the best moment being Tom Cruise's rappeling down a ceiling to a high-security terminal. The second film I can't even remember well, other than the fact it dragged on with an overwhelming amount of car chases and a thin plot. The third film is my favorite because it successfully blends the action, plot, gadget use, and even a little drama, effectively making Ethan Hunt the American James Bond that he should be. So five years later, we get this: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

A botched data retrieval at the Kremlin in Moscow leads to a terrorist attack, and the dissolution of Ethan Hunt's IMF espionage group as the attack is framed on them. He regroups his team, taking along the chief analyst (played by Jeremy Renner) to track down the perpetrator. Their travels take them to Dubai and India in pursuit of a strategist in possession of launch codes for a nuclear missile, while the man's assassins keep the team at bay.

I can't really say if Ghost Protocol is the best of the series like many critics have been raving. If anything, it's second-best in my opinion, because the third set such a high standard for the new J.J. Abrams-helmed direction the series has been careening in. Ghost Protocol is pretty much business as usual; sure, there are plot twists, but the storyline with agents going rogue is nothing we haven't seen before in James Bond. Still, that doesn't stop the movie from being a fun trip. Tom Cruise is still Tom Cruise, but now that he's getting older (yeah, it's actually happening), his acting has taken a much more Clint Eastwood-esque approach. Should he step down as Ethan Hunt, Jeremy Renner has enough charisma and energy to helm the series as much as Cruise has, even if Cruise's days as Ethan Hunt are numbered. Although I didn't see this in IMAX, I can imagine the scene with Cruise scaling a high-rise Dubai hotel is exceptionally more vivid. It was hair-raising enough for the audience in plain-old 2D. Overall, it was a stellar action film; nothing groundbreaking, or remotely trailblazing for the series (aside from introducing Renner) but enjoyable enough and with enough action and plot to spare.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Muppets (2011)

I'm not ashamed to admit I've been a Muppets fan as long as I can remember. Something about their endearingly warm, wackiy and (literally) fuzzy personalities brings out the inner-child in me, but doesn't condescend my intelligence. I actually remember a time when the Muppets were a presence on Sesame Street (before Disney bought them out). I also remember seeing The Muppet Christmas Carol in the movie theater nearly 20 years ago; it actually taught me a rudimentary understanding about death that was frank but safe enough for a child to understand (it was also the first Muppet project after Jim Henson passed on). So it was with great excitement and baited anticipation I embarked on seeing The Muppets.

The story opens with a puppet named Walter, all he wants to do with his life is fit in the human-dominated world he lives in with his human brother Gary. One day, Walter catches the premiere of The Muppet Show and becomes the troupe's #1 fan. Flash-forward 20-30 odd-some years later, and Walter and Gary are on their way to L.A. to visit the now-dilapidated Muppet Studios, taking Gary's earnest but oft-neglected girlfriend, Mary. After discovering a billionaire oil-magnate plans to tear down Muppet Studios and build an oil drill. Alarmed, Walter tracks down Kermit the Frog and convinces him to round up the rest of the gang for a reunion telethon in order to save Muppet Studios, musical-numbers, self-discovery, and hilarity ensue.

I think Jason Segal hit the nail right on the head in an interview I read where he expressed that the magic of the Muppets involves avoiding cynicism in humor by making people laugh without the humor occuring at someone else's expense. This was a welcome change from what I expected out of the usual Muppets fare, in that there is a slight dramatic element with the Muppet characters often expressing feelings of abandonment, and willingness to be accepted. The audience is virtually channeled through Walter; the Muppets' main cheerleader who wants nothing more than them to succede, and in the process, discovers his purpose in life. The message is timeless: follow your dreams and never give up in what you believe in. It's the sentimentality the film exuded that basically made it so enjoyable for me. On the other hand, the musical numbers are Oscar-worthy, and the slapstick, sight-gag-based humor is relatively fresh. Often times the plot became a little predictable, maybe even a little derivative of past Muppet-efforts, but that didn't stop me from enjoying what was a welcome face in the fall film scene.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Super 8 (2011)

Hi everyone, I know this is long overdue, but understand: I was quite busy in between the time I saw this and am currently sitting down to write this review. But in a nutshell - I finished moving into my new apartment and passed my Contracts final for law school! It only took half the week for my professor to disclose the results whilst I waited as a nervous wreck. But enough about me...

Super 8, as evident by it's name, is a love-letter from the production/direction team of Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams to amateur filmmaking. In the late 70s, young Joe Lamb is doing makeup and special effects for his friend, Charles' zombie film, when a mysterious UFO crashes into an adjacent trainyard. Narrowly avoiding death, Joe and his pals investigate the wreck and discover the trappings of a government conspiracy, and a strange object with an unexplained purpose. When the mysterious alien begins rampaging around the neighborhood, Joe and friends must band together in order to figure out why the creature came to Earth and what they can do to stop it.

Super 8 is pretty much The Goonies meets War of the Worlds (or maybe even E.T.), but that is to say the film takes the best elements of those films, and perhaps even other works of Spielberg and melds them into a charming pastiche of science fiction, filmmaking and retro appreciation, and family drama. The latter is what the film initially appears to set itself up as. Once the "invasion" occurs though, it's a completely different ball game that may seem a little jarring to some, but makes sense once you factor in a lot of the exposition that was elaborated upon earlier. I don't really have much else to say about the actual film itself without spoiling what would be crucial plot details that manifest in many parts of the film throughout, but I will say it's an incredibly enjoyable romp that takes drama and action and weaves them both in the ways that only Spielberg is experienced in doing. A solid addition to the summer movie lineup.

8/10

Peace,

- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

Hello friends! Sorry for my prolonged absence. I intended to write this long reflection about growing up and going off to law school, but much to my dismay, life beat me to it. Nevertheless, since I'm obviously going to be posting a lot less frequently nowadays, I'll try and write a proper reflection piece to officially put my blog on hiatus. In the meantime; last night, I got to see my first theatrical film in over a month. It is with baited anticipation, I give you: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.

Picking up off the shores where Harry, Ron, and Hermione mourn the loss of Dobby the house elf, the trio work their way back to Hogwarts in an effort to find the last of the Horcruxes; artifacts which upon destruction, weaken the power of the sinister Lord Voldemort. While reuniting with his fellow classmates; now ready for battle against the Dark Wizards, Harry discovers more insight into his own prophecy, and the ties that bind him towards it.

Part 2 is a fitting conclusion to a series that, for the better part of my adolescence, has dominated my pop culture psyche. The pace is brisk and appropriate, and the performances are adequate. It is perhaps the most action packed out of the entire series. Many viewers may get some vibes of the battle scenes from Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, or at least I did. My biggest complement I can give to the last two films of the series is how the production team finally managed to wise up and treat the stories with the maturity and grittiness they deserve. The final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort is exceptionally well-done, you get a tangible sense of relief after the tension of the fight, knowing that justice for the wizards has finally been served.

Now, here's the tricky part. In spite of my complements of the film as a strong series-ender; as a standalone film, well, it's not anything extraordinary. Unlike Part 1, which totally took me by surprise with it's appropriately executed twists and pathos (I consider it The Empire Strikes Back of the series, not the maudlin travesty that was Half-Blood Prince). Part 2 is entirely based off of continuity and minimal exposition; with the plot simply going from Point A to Point B. And as interesting as the expositional scenes were, too frequently did they interupt the kinetic and exciting frenzy of the action. A little frustrating for me, since the book was so much more fluid and epic with it's treatment of the plot.

(SPOILER ALERT)

Lastly, Part 2 suffers from one nearly-fatal blow: The epilogue. The story advances to 19 years after the events of the main plot, as we see the pre-adolescent progeny of Harry Potter and pals board Platform 9 3/4 on their way to Hogwarts. However, the production team has made the peculiar descision to have the original actors (who are in their early 20s) portray middle-aged versions of their roles, with embarrasingly negligible make-up work that failed to give the illusion that they've matured. Sorry make-up artists, but the actors still looked 20! Pairing them up with other actors who were probably no more or less than 8 or 9 years younger than them in real life just looked awkward and unrealistic. After such excellent attention to detail in the rest of the film, how could they drop the ball on something so noticeable?

What irks me even more is the fact that the Harry Potter series is a moneymaking juggernaut. There's no excuse, especially in this economy, why the rich, fat-cat producers couldn't settle for an Academy Award-winning make-up artist, or CGI maestro. Hell, they could've even cast some age-appropriate, well-established Anglo actors like Daniel-Day Lewis (as Harry), Simon Pegg (as Ron), Nicole Kidman (as Hermione), et al. to do cameos, paid them each £600,000 and called it quits. It would've been a much more refreshing and realistic choice, but in the end, it is what it is, and unfortunately left a bad tase in my mouth.

In the end though, while an unsurprisingly flawed film adaptation. Part 2 is a solid ending to a rollercoaster-ride of a notable fantasy series.

7/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Fair Game (2010)

Being a relatively carefree freshman in high school, the Valerie Plame exposure scandal was something that understandably flew under my radar. Years later, I first became interested in the circumstances surrounding her illegal outing as a CIA agent after reading Scott McClellan stellar exposé What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, which dealt in detail the discovery of "Plamegate" from the perspective of President Bush's White House Press Secretary. Fair Game is a film based on a book by the same name by Plame, which re-tells the events leading up to and culminating in the scandal that cost Plame her job, privacy, and dignity. It's an incredible story for sure, and the film does adequate justice in outlining an interesting milestone in government corruption.

For those of you not immediately familiar with the story, Valerie Plame is (technically, was) a CIA operative who was frequently called upon for covert operations, in part, due to her background in international relations. After uncovering contradictory data relating to "yellowcake" and the lack of existing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to which her husband, former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson, writes an incriminating New York Times op-ed piece. The Bush Administration gets wind of this story, and under the supervision of advisors Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, expose Plame as a CIA operative, in an effort to discredit her husband's story. Seeking retribution, Wilson takes the battle to the mainstream media, but conflicts with his wife's interests, whose moral sense of duty restrains her from vocalizing her inner torment.

Fair Game is an interesting political drama, that as a drama in the most intrinsic sense, brings a very palpable mood to the story, thanks to the tight script and excellent performances by Naomi Watts and Sean Penn. Penn is actually a standout as Wilson, given Penn's own political leanings, he's practically born to play this role, as he channels his trademark rage against the Bush Administration in the form of his character. The beginning first act, consisting of Plame's investigation and day-in-day-out life as a spy is very expository; interesting, but not as gripping as the film's later acts when the scandal occurs and comes to a head. Director Doug Liman does inject some moments of melodrama towards the end, but they're not maudlin, and remind us that these real-life characters are human, and do have moments of weakness and fear that we may otherwise not realize. Otherwise, this is solid political storytelling, all around.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Thor (2011)

I'm going to be honest, I'm getting tired of comic book/superhero films. While the vast majority that I've seen have been very good, I haven't felt truly riveted by any since Spider-Man or The Dark Knight. The problem is, most of the comic book films of the past decade struck me as too similar to one another. The battle of good-versus-evil has become an exercise in predictability. So why do I keep seeing them? I'd rather wait and see the coveted Avengers film once it actually gets made (and becomes too expensive for any studio to handle!). Nonetheless, I keep seeing them out of pure hedonism, in hopes that the action will draw me in more than the story. Such is the case with Thor.

In a separate dimension called Asgard, Thor is the son of the god, Odin. He banishes Thor from Asgard after what he sees as an act of abuse of power. Thor defends his acts as a reason of protecting Asgard from a race of creatures called the Frost Giants. Nonetheless, the now-mortal Thor finds himself in a small desert town in New Mexico. Discovered by a pretty young astrophysicist named Jane, along with her advisor and assistant, cultures clash as Thor learns about the new world around him. Meanwhile the government begins to get suspicious, when they get wind of Thor's ostentatious arrival. Thor not only has to deal with legions of suits to get back his power, but his turncoat brother, Loki, back in Asgard, as well.

As predictable as the story was for me, Thor nevertheless proceeded to keep me entertained, thanks to the action and stellar cast. I didn't know much about Chris Hemsworth before going into this, but he brings the right amount of physicality with some surprising touches of humor. Natalie Portman, one of my favorite actresses, is great to watch, as usual. The rest of the cast does fine, with enough distinctly written characterizations to justify their roles. Even though the action is your typical CGI-explosions-and-mashups fare, there's a lot of vividness to the choreography. Even the locales where some of it occurs, like Asgard, in spite of the obvious artificiality, are beautiful to look at. These two elements combined together, make for a nice change from the usual city-in-ruins deal that we see in superhero/comic book films. Even if you may be a little sick of the superhero-film glut like I am, Thor may surprise you. What may have been more surprising to me at the end was when I realized it was directed by none other than Mr. Shakespeare himself, Kenneth Branagh!

7/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Midnight in Paris (2011)

I'm still reeling from having seen Midnight in Paris, not because it blew me away as a masterpiece, but because of how much I appreciated it's relative originality. While I'm not a huge Woody Allen fan, I'll admit, he's the most entertaining and artistically-gifted misanthrope in Hollywood. He'd probably balk at that comment, 'cause Allen is as notoriously anti-Hollywood as any director can get. He shuns the Academy Awards, his films survive more than one week only in New York and L.A., and Europe is the one place where he has mainstream popularity (I can attest from personal experience, Allen is to Spain what Jerry Lewis is to France). But enough about the man, let's see what he has to offer us...

Midnight in Paris is about Gil, a socially-awkward screenwriter who's working on a novel in order to break the mundane routine of his career. While on vacation with his materialistic fiancee and equally snooty future in-laws, he is lured into a 1920s Ford Roadster that appears on the stroke of midnight on a deserted street. Gil is swept into a smoky bar where Cole Porter is playing piano, and he finds himself mingling with the likes of Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemmingway, Stein, et al. of the important artistic and literary figures of his ideal golden age. In spite of discovering an escape from being born in the wrong decade, things get complicated when Gil begins to fall for a young flapper, who seems to be the muse of his byegone idols.

Witty and fun, Midnight in Paris really spoke to me, based on the themes of nostalgia and what it feels like to wish that you belonged in a different time, where things were simpler and you felt you shared the same desires and ambitions as those in the time. I, personally am a fan of the 20s, so seeing these figures brought to life by some terrific actors is really a treat! Owen Wilson also does a good job of channeling Woody Allen's insecurities and idiosyncracies, since you can really tell the role is a mirroring of Allen, but Wilson makes it his own, charisma and all. The Paris locations were shot beautifully, and the audience is treated to wonderful images of Versailles, the Seine docks, and even some great period set designs that had me yearning to see the excellent Bullets Over Broadway again. Not entirely groundbreaking as a romantic comedy, but definitely one of Allen's recent best.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: 127 Hours (2010)

With 127 Hours, ladies and gentleman, I've officially seen all the Best Picture Nominees of 2010, and have seen all the Best Picture nominees for the...sixth year in a row. Sad? Or impressive? You be the judge (not that I really care all that much, haha). But in regards to the film, as simplistic (or repulsive) of a story from what you may already know, it packs an incredible dramatic punch. I never thought a film about a guy trapped in a canyon would be as thrilling as director Danny Boyle had made it out to be. While fascinating as it is, I doubt anyone who is faint of heart will find interest in it (especially the climax!). The more "disturbing" aspects of the film shouldn't really deter anyone, since it really is a one-of-a-kind work.

Based on a true story, young adventurer Aron Ralston is trekking the canyons of Utah, when a boulder sends him crashing down a deep trench, trapping his arm in the process. With no people in sight, one-half thermos of water, one camcorder, and one plier/knife. Aron realizes the gravity of his predicament. As he documents his state of mind on camera and begins to hallucinate under the stresses of pain and dehydration, the audience is treated to flashbacks of his life and vivid dream sequences that illustrate his frame of mind during the ordeal. Until eventually, he is forced to resort to drastic measures to survive, and escape...

This kind of film has "visceral" written all over it. I especially give Danny Boyle huge props for making such apt use of editing, sound, cinematography and music to express the myriad of thoughts going through Ralston's mind during the suffering. James Franco, as Ralston is excellent. I never really gave him much credit as an actor before, but the whole film is pretty much all about him, and he does an amazing job of conveying the inexplicable torture and despair that his character experiences. I wouldn't say that this is the kind of film anyone would really watch over and over again, but I admire the stellar work that has been done on this production. In the hands of someone else, it could easily have come off as too manufactured. The audience practically feels the same sense of desperation and ultimately relief after what Ralston goes through. Overall, Boyle has taken great pains to craft a story that stays with you, long after the credits roll.

9/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Inside Job (2010)

Inside Job is the 2010 Academy Award winner for Best Documentary, and takes a relatively objective apporach to analyzing the origin and consequences of the current global recession. Narrated by Matt Damon, the director uses pointed visual guides and graphs to explain the concepts of deregulation, systemic risk, etc. Augmented by interviews from economic insiders/pundits Paul Volcker and Eliot Spitzer, among other outsiders, Inside Job is and outstanding piece of work for bringing the drama of the recession to the limelight, and sparing no blame for the Wall-Streeters and corporate honchos alike, who allowed the excessive spending to spiral out of control into the mess our country is currently in, today.

Granted there's a lot of different people to blame for the recession, and more than just one factor, alone. Inside Job presents these factors as a slick outline, while sticking to the basic core factors of the housing bubble, credit bubble, and executive corruption. For some people who are not well-economically versed, a few things may go over their heads, I certainly had to work hard in order to keep my focus on the facts. Luckily, it's a topic that has strong relevance in today's political climate, and people should find that as incentive to watch (as long as they don't find the topic too depressing to stomach anymore). It is miles more comprehensive than Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, which I felt leeched more off of victims unemployment misery, making it a treatise of remorse, rather than diagnosis. Complex? Yes. Engaging? Definitely. Inside Job should satisfy anyone seeking answers to the cause of the crisis.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Hangover Part II (2011)

Most of the time by watching the trailer, I can sense what kind of a sequel a sequel is going to be from a mile away. After seeing the trailer for The Hangover Part II, I was very afraid. "This is the exact same movie!", was the thought swimming through my head, as I stared slack-jawed at my screen. The only way I knew this film could be good was if it still managed to be almost as funny, but even more outrageous than the first. So now that I've seen it, I can oddly enough say that Hangover II is this decade's Home Alone 2 - An obvious re-hash that managed to surprise me by how funny and ridiculous it still managed to be.

Somewhere between the first and the second movie, Stu fell out with his hooker Vegas-bride and is now engaged to a gourgeous Thai beauty named Lauren. Two nights before the wedding, Alan embarrasses Stu before his fiancee's rigid father, then Stu, and his "three-best-friends-that-anyone-can-have" take Lauren's teenage, med-student prodigy brother, Teddy down to the beach for a bonfire, complete with beer and marshmallows. They wake up the next morning in a dingy Bangkok hotel, without a clue how they got there. Doug and Teddy are both missing, and in their place is a mischievous monkey. All hell breaks loose as the three take to the streets as culture-shock and insanity ensue.

You don't need to have seen the first one to enjoy the second, and contrary to the general consensus, most people who I know loved the first one will enjoy this one. I guess I happen to fall into the camp of the latter, since I loved the first one so much. The more-of-the-same gags were fun, in a revisionist sense; like Stu's tattoo and Mr. Chow's full-frontal nudity, but they're either mildly predictable, or mostly spoiled in the trailer. Yet, where the film excelled was by taking some of the gags (especially those for shock value) above and beyond the pale. In some instances, Hangover II does manage to out-gross it's predecessor with the shock-gags. Even if the plot was predictable itself, because everything was playing out almost exactly the same as before, the air of mystery was still present, as I still wondered "How the heck are they really going to get out of this one?". I guess I'll still hold the first Hangover, near-and-dear to me, because of it's freshness, and for the fact that said quality actually allowed the humor to be more effective. But make no mistake, it's re-hashed sequel is still enjoyable, and took me by surprise with it's humor quite a few times.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon