Upcoming Review

I'll be sharing a review for Monster's University in the near future.

"Let There Be Zombies" Review

Thanks to the awesome people over at Bricks of the Dead, my review for Let There Be Zombies has been published on their site. Read it here.

Coming Soon

Hello readers, and I apologize for the recent lack of content. However, in the next few days, I'll be sharing a side-by-side analysis of Django Unchained and To Kill A Mockingbird, along with a review of a local indie horror/comedy film. Stay tuned for more.

"The Night Shift"

It's become clear over the past twenty years that independent film is steadily growing in popularity. Beginning with Miramax in the 1990s, there has been a veritable cornucopia of studios and films that fuel the fandom for indie movies. And, with the rise of the Internet, crowdfunding projects like Kickstarter and Indiegogo have made it easier than ever for aspiring filmmakers to make their ideas a reality. So, you can imagine my enthusiasm when I came across this gem on Indiegogo: The Night Shift. In this dystopian sci-fi tale, a man experiences his first day on the job at a futuristic orphanage where the children are euthanized after a seven-day period if they are not adopted. It has the feel of a classic dystopian work, Bradbury-esque in feel. I myself am a fan of classic dystopian literature and today's dystopian fiction is very bandwagon: people just see something popular and make their own spin on it, without investing any love or effort into it. The Night Shift seems to make an exodus back to type of fiction that was made famous by 20th Century authors, and finally bringing it justice on-screen for the first time since the 1980s. The viral pitch echoes famous evil corporations like Tyrell, Weyland-Yutani, Buy-n-Large, Cyberdyne, Omni Consumer Products, and, most of all, the Soylent Corporation. Unfortunately, I discovered the page only after the project had ended, and the filmmakers are still somewhat behind their goal, but you can still support it by liking it on Facebook and following their online presence there. Here's the pitch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njNr7uuXYe4

Review: "Olympus Has Fallen"

NOTE: I chose to suspend the prelude as I would be spoiling too much of the review. Here's the full review, enjoy!

The latest film from Shooter director Antoine Fuqua, Olympus Has Fallen chronicles a takeover of the White House by a group of North Korean terrorists. Starring Gerard Butler as an Army Ranger-turned Secret Service agent, he must retake the White House and rescue the recently widowed president, Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart), all while being guided by Speaker of the House Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). It may be one of the most patriotic films since last year's remake of Red Dawn, and director Fuqua takes a few cues from Michael Bay by adding such obvious symbolism as a torn American flag and awful character development not unlike that in Pearl Harbor, and he takes dialogue cues from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Two. Actually, a lot of it seems to be taken from Modern Warfare Two. From the White House storming (Several Missions in Act III of the game) to the fact that Gerard Butler's Secret Service is an ex-US Army Ranger (the American protagonists in Modern Warfare Two are Army Rangers), it seems hopelessly derivative. It also takes cues from Die Hard in the sense that Butler is trapped in a building with terrorists, Air Force One, and it is almost exactly like it, except Olympus Has Fallen takes place on land, and Superman due to the fact that Rick Yune's multinational terrorist villain, wanted across the world, was able to infiltrate the Prime Minister of South Korea's Security Detail by wearing a pair of glasses, not unlike Clark Kent (this was subtlety lampshaded by a minor character). The characters themselves fell flat: Gerard Butler has as much acting ability as a block of cold marble, uttering hammy lines ad nauseam and using guns in lieu of dialogue and character development: his biggest flaw is that he blames himself for the death of the First Lady (Ashley Judd), and it's resolved very poorly by the end of the film. Morgan Freeman seems to not be into the role, speaking in his normal, calming voice most of time and quietly yelling if the situation calls for it, like a calmer Al Powell, albeit in a higher position, and Eckhart suffered from a singular flaw and not being put into a very emotional role: his flaw is shared with Butler, and the character of the President seems like an objective in an arcade game. The President's son Connor fit the archetypal annoying spoiled movie child like a glove, sporting a mullet and showing surprisingly little emotion after his mother's death on an icy road from Camp David, summing it up with literally one sentence: "I hate Camp David." However, in my opinion, the worst character in the film was easily Rick Yune as Kang Yeonsak, multinational terrorist and proponent for Korean Reunification  While pleasantly timely, he also suffers from poorly-penned dialogue and derivative one-dimensionality. He essentially plays an Asian Hans Gruber who could only be more evil if he had a mustache to twirl: he roughs up Melissa Leo's Secretary of Defense and kills the Vice President on webcam, among other dastardly deeds. His master scheme is to cripple the United States by stealing the codes to disarm the nuclear weapons, as to destroy them in their silos, and you get the typical "I'm not going down without a fight" talk from the Americans, at which point we arrive at the "we'll hurt you if you don't" talk from the Korean terrorists. It's a lazy device worked in by the writers so they could minimize the amount of work they had to do. Another big issue were the special effects. I realize that the film could not be shot at Camp David or in Washington D.C., so there has to be some leeway given to them. However, the effects are simply painful. The drive on an icy road at the beginning looked hilariously fake, to the point where I thought I had seen better computer-generated graphics in a video game. The explosions were also very poorly done, looking as fake as the roads. The vehicles, such as the planes, could not even compare to the a great video game engine like Frostbite 2 or idTech 5. As far as computer screens and technology went, any depiction of it in this film can be used to conclusively prove that Hollywood doesn't get hacking. Now that I have thoroughly criticized the storyline, acting, and special effects, allow me to guide you through the absolute lunacy of this movie. There are a plethora of Greek references, mostly used as a handy way of code-naming objects, characters, and locations: the White House is Olympus, a large weapon is called Hydra, among many others. There are also questiones raised about the terrorists' tactic in invasion. We've already pointed out how ridiculous it was for a wanted terrorist to infiltrate a rival country's politics, but that is only the tip of the psychosis iceberg. They were able to infiltrate Washington airspace, already a difficult task, in a large AC-130 gunship, hijacked from a nearby air force base, judging by the markings on it. Not only does this behemoth enter the airspace, it is able to fire off shots and destroy several fighters before finally being taken down. After this, the inexplicably well-armed terrorists hold off the US Army before retreating into the White House. Keep in mind that the terrorists are armed with submachine guns and a few assault rifles, and are able to defeat trained and heavily armed soldiers in a short firefight. I can't believe they got as far as the plane. The most offensive moment is when Trumbull and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs decided to send in a Navy SEAL raid on the White House. This should work, and it would eliminate the terrorists quickly and effectively. Then the writers pull the ultimate deus ex machina: a minigun that looks like an eight-year old's math doodling appears and tears those Blackhawk helicopters to shreds, no "buts" about it. If they had this superweapon in the White House the entire movie, why only use it now and not during the initial assault? It's also never revealed why an experimental weapon was being kept in the White House, but this shows how crazy this movie is.

A friend of mine said that everyone has to take a movie for its genre: and he said that Olympus Has Fallen was to be judged as terrorist attack movie, and he thought that it was a good example of the genre. This is very true, every movie has to be judged by classics of the genre; I can't compare Dr. Strangelove to Citizen Kane, or Goodfellas to Toy Story. And as a subgenre of action, there are some great terrorist attack pieces, and it is the opinion of my friend that this movie is one of them. In the case of Olympus Has Fallen, I can't help but disagree, as the genre has so many better examples: Die Hard, Die Hard With A Vengeance, Air Force One, most James Bond films, even video games like Call of Duty that do the genre much more justice than this film.

Consensus: Olympus Has Fallen is a hopelessly derivative action flick that is filled to the brim with clichés, poor special effects, incomprehensible logic, and hammy dialogue that director Antoine Fuqua fails to infuse with anything special.

Rating: 1/5

Update

The analysis of Goodfellas will be postponed in order to make room for an upcoming review of Olympus Has Fallen. In addition to the review, I will write up a short prelude to it before. Sorry to put it off again, but it will be worth the wait.

Analysis: "Kill Bill"

Note: this analysis will NOT be mere speculation on whether or not Kill Bill is actually a movie within the Tarantinoverse, a la From Dusk Till Dawn. You can fry your brain with fridge logic over at TV Tropes, Cracked.com, and r/FanTheories. 

In my analysis of Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, I mentioned how he tends to gravitate towards tales of revenge, and how the type of revenge varies, from film to film. With Kill Bill, the revenge is two-tined, but both are a revenge of love. We'll begin chronologically, unlike Mr. Tarantino would do himself. The first is Bill's revenge on Beatrix herself, the Massacre at Two Pines. The second film reveals that she discovered she was pregnant while on a mission abroad for the DiVAS. She knew that the life of a super-assassin was not befitting of a mother, so she chose to go off-the-grid and start a new life underneath the not-so-subtle pseudonym of "Arlene Machiavelli." She moves to El Paso becomes engaged to a record store owner, Tommy Plympton and begins to work at the store, tricking him into thinking that her baby is, in fact, his, while it is truly Bill's child. As they plan their wedding, she meets Bill outside of the chapel, and he feigns happiness and wishes Beatrix good health in her new life with Tommy. This all conceals an elaborate lie; Bill has recruited the Deadly Vipers to come to EL Paso and kill each person in the chapel. They almost succeed, and Bill executes what is supposed to be Beatrix's death, accompanied by an evil monologue, and shoots her in the head, a move normally avoided by movie villains. In spite of the odds, Beatrix goes into a four-year coma and survives, and from here she goes and attempts to accomplish her eponymous goal. However, Bill's attempt to kill Beatrix is not unfounded. When Budd attempts to bury Beatrix alive, he describes it as revenge (there's that word again) for "breaking his brother's heart." Even when Bill talks to her, he reveals his deep seated frustration over the Bride leaving him. Despite his ties with fellow Deadly Viper Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), he never truly loved her, obviously he would have been more engaged after her disappearance. He loved Beatrix, and he thought that when she didn't return, she had been killed. He searched every corner of the globe for the person he thought killed her, and when he discovered she had been alive and well in El Paso, engaged to some bumpkin record store owner, he was infuriated. He wanted to kill her, and everyone else involved with her. While this is certainly evil, morally wrong, reprehensible, and overreaction at its crux, it's not entirely unsympathetic; if anything, it makes Bill much more interesting as villain. Who wants to see a villain who is nothing but evil? No one! The best villains are sympathetic, flawed, and, above all, human. Bill is like a modern Darth Vader: wronged by the death (or in his case, supposed death) of the woman they loved, so they became heartless men, or in Bill's case, more heartless. Now to the biggest revenge in the entire film: the Bride's quest to cull the DiVAS and put them all six feet in a hole. This is also a revenge of love, but of a different sort: paternal love. The first thing she did when she woke from her coma was feel her stomach for her daughter, and presumes her dead (much like Bill did when Beatrix went missing). She was horrified and cried heavily, stopping only when a truck driver tried to rape her, only for him to become deprived of tongue and life. When she kills him, she waits for the orderly pimp, the chill-inducing Buck, to return. She suspects him of being in cahoots with Bill, and, out of motherly vengeance, slams his head into a steel doorframe multiple times, killing him via hemorrhaging. She's like a fierce Mama Grizzly, as she'll do absolutely anything to avenge the death of her daughter; throughout the film, she scalps a Yakuza overlord, slices through a small army of bodyguards, kills Gogo Yubari by sticking a piece of wood with nails in it into the back of her head; plucks out eyeballs, (accidentally) kills Vernita Green in front of her own daughter (fuel for specualtion of Kill Bill: Volume III), among other techniques to get to Bill and avenge her daughter's death. When she discovers that her daughter is, in fact, alive and well, she is overjoyed, and shows reservations about killing Bill. She eventually does (Surprise!) with a special technique taught to her by the late Kung Fu yogi Pai Mei. In many ways, it's very similar to Bill's: she traveled the globe to find him, discovers he's leading a new life off the grid, and reacts with violence, albeit much calmer than Bill's violence. Don't let me be misunderstood, the two are very similar, both committing violent and deadly acts of revenge to avenge supposed losses, after trotting the globe, and are shocked to see the news lives each other are leading. It is, for lack of a better phrase, yin and yang, fire and ice, sugar and spice, Batman and the Joker. Above all, however, it is the story of people fighting and killing out of love. Really, there is another major revenge subplot: the yarn of O-Ren Ishii. I'm tempted to make that a separate article, as O-Ren is one of the most interesting characters and villains in modern cinema. Like Bill she is sympathetic, cunning, smart, and not afraid to get her hands bloody.

NOTE: Soon, hopefully within the next week, I will have written and finished my analysis of Goodfellas. Just so you remember that I write about non-Tarantino films too.

Analysis: "Pulp Fiction"

Musical Bonus
Well, it appears that I've been doing a Tarantino smorgasbord of sorts the past few weeks, with another on the way. Regardless, I have a real treat planned for this analysis. Today I'll be breaking down the last segment of Pulp Fiction, called "The Bonnie Situation." For those of you who don't know or remember this part of the film, allow me to summarize. It begins where the prologue with Vincent and Jules left off, with the death of Brett. But, instead of doing it form our intrepid henchmen's perspective, it begins in a bathroom, with a nervous man inside, holding what appears to be a sort of hand cannon. After Brett is turned into human Swiss cheese, the man bursts out and empties his hand cannon towards Vincent and Jules, but somehow misses every time. The two hitmen make quick work of him and take their contact, Marvin (Phil LaMarr) with them to their car. As Jules and Vincent argue about whether or not the fact they were saved from the hail of bullets was divine intervention (evoking Jules's Bible Passage) or just coincidence. To settle this argument, Vincent, in his eternal wisdom, turns around to ask Marvin for his opinion, and shoots him in the face. Naturally, this angers Jules, as Vincent has been shown in the film to be somewhat incompetent. In order to make sure they aren't caught the police, they arrive at Jimmie's (Quentin Tarantino) home. You can tell who Jimmie is as he is very angry about what his house is not, and he is very angry about what is currently in his garage. Marsellus then sends Winston Wolf (Harvey Keitel) to solve the problem, as Wolf knows how to solve problems. They get the blood and guts cleaned out of their vehicle and clean the windows, and change out of their suave suits into some less-than-flattering attire.

These costumes are still better than the ones chosen for Travolta's Battlefield Earth

Meanwhile, they decide to rustle up some grub at a nearby diner. Coincidentally enough, it is the same bank that is about to be robbed by Pumpkin (Tim Roth) and Honey Bunny (Amanda Plummer). As the pair of thieves go around the diner collecting wallets, Jules decided to take Pumpkin aside and give him a stern talking-to, in a way that can only be done by Samuel L. Jackson. He speaks of his Bible passage, and even takes out the fabled briefcase when Pumpkin tries to steal it. This results in a Mexican Standoff between Vincent (he was in the facilities while all of this occurred), Honey Bunny, and Jules. No one dies, and Jules leaves Pumpkin with some resonant messages as he and Vincent leave. Now, here's where things get analytical. As Vincent and Jules ride in their car, Jules discusses how after the recent events of the day, he wishes to get out of the hitman business, considering the attempted murder in the apartment to be a sign from God himself. Post-Marvin killing, at the diner, as Pumpkin and Honey Bunny begin to mug the customers, Jules has his "heel realization." Pumpkin and Honey Bunny are the archetypal criminals, whose entire discussion in the prologue to the film is about why they should rob the diner they were in and why it was a better choice then robbing a bank or a liquor store. Only in the third act do we return, after Jules has had his realization. When Pumpkin attempts to steal his wallet, Jules forces him to sit down with the threat of shooting him. He recites his Bible passage, and he discovers that he is the tool of evil men, and he's "trying real hard to be the shepherd (through the valley of darkness)." By doing this, he hopes to save these two from a similar fate. Naturally, we can never tell if they followed his advice, but we do know Jules followed through, as he is not visible in the second act, which, chronologically, occurs after the third act. It also shows the contrast between Vincent and Jules. Vincent, despite being related to the sadistic Vic Vega (better known as Mr. Blonde [Michael Madsen] of Reservoir Dogs), sort of relies on Jules in the gangster business. He forces Jules into an awkward position when he killed Marvin by accident, and dies foolishly at the hands of Butch when he leaves his weapon outside of the bathroom, hoist by his own petard. It could even be said he uses Vic as a way to promote himself; obviously he was a respected criminal during his life, and maybe that carried over when Vincent joined Marsellus's entourage. Jules, on the other hand, has connections (Jimmie being an example) and has obviously been in "business" long enough with Marsellus that he can demand immediate help, and be granted such high caliber help as The Wolf. It's an Odd Couple-esque scenario: the fledgling fool, and the veteran. Realistically, Vince would still be much lower on the hierarchy had it not been for these two. However, he makes up for his lack of intelligence with loyalty, though to an almost rabid extent. His one-sided thinking and loyalty to his boss make him ignore the obvious miracle of their survival against the hand-cannon armed gentleman in the bathroom. However, this can alternatively be explained by the two's level on the scale of anti-heroes. Vincent is a Type V: a hero in name only. He all but exemplifies the stereotypical criminal by doing drugs, killing people for a living, and perhaps most offensively, wears his hair to his shoulders. Jules appears as a Type V at first, but is truly a Type III, a pragmatic anti-hero. He actually has some semblance of good in his soul, and this is only corroborated in the final act. In conclusion, if we use Pulp Fiction as an example of Tarantino's filmography as a whole, we can see how much time he invests in his screenplays and in making unique, multilayered characters that may appear one-dimensional, but only further their complexity, stories rife with symbolism and suspense, and of course the punchy, sharply-penned dialogue that we've grown so used to. 

News: The Death of Roger Ebert

Today famed movie critic Roger Ebert passed away at the age of 70. He was the critic for the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967 and is often considered one of the most influential in the field. I have yet to write a piece on his life and career yet, and I may or may not, but you can read more here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/movies/roger-ebert-film-critic-dies.html?_r=0

Analysis: "The Big Lebowski"

Hackneyed Internet memes aside, The Big Lebowski is one of the funniest movies made in the past 25 years, and one of the best comedies of all time, joining the esteemed ranks of Dr. Strangelove, Airplane!, National Lampoon's Animal House, Ghostbusters, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and Caddyshack. It tells the tale of slacker and bowling enthusiast Jeff Lebowski  (Jeff Bridges), herein referred to as "The Dude" and his journey across Los Angeles, meeting a great deal of, interesting, characters. After a pair of thugs ambush him at his home and urinate on his rug and demand one million dollars, "The Dude" is left stupefied. After discussing this incident with this frineds and bowling partners, the erratic Vietnam vet Walter Sobchak (John Goodman) and Donny (Steve Buscemi), he decides to visit the other Jeffrey Lebowski, the "big" Lebowski, known as such for his wealth. After arriving and demanding a new rug to compensate for the ruined one, he discovers that he must bring one million dollars to the thugs, thanks to some debts owed by Mrs. Lebowski (Tara Reid). The plan goes awry when Walter decides they should keep the cash for themselves. From here, "The Dude" must deduce what Mrs. Lebowski did, and whom she owes money to, meeting eccentric characters like Maude (Julianne Moore), the daughter of Jeffrey Lebowski, and director and loan shark Jackie Treehorn (Ben Gazzara). There are really two ways to look at the film: a satire of classic detective stories, and an exemplary piece of modern absurdism or Dadaism. When the Coen Brothers were asked why they wanted to make the film, Joel Coen responded, "We wanted to do a (Raymond) Chandler kind of story- how it moves episodically, and deals with the characters trying to unravel a mystery, as well as having a hopelessly complex plot that's ultimately unimportant." For those who do not know, Raymond Chandler was a well-known novelist and screenwriter, whose works include writing featured in the pulp magazine The Black Mask, as well as writing the stories The Big Sleep and The Long Goodbye, both of which featured the character Philip Marlowe, who would be portrayed on film by the excellent Humphrey Bogart. All of his works are very influential, and The Big Sleep was adapted into a film noir that has since been a staple of the genre.

Any readers who have played LA Noire owe a huge debt to this film.

Like most detective fiction, Bogart portrays a hard-boiled, wisecracking, hard-drinking but intelligent and philosophical PI who is unfazed by femmes fatales and is determined to crack open any case. This is the antithesis to "The Dude," who is an unemployed slacker who spends his time drinking White Russians, getting stoned, and bowling with his buds. He's something of a fish out of water when he's thrown into the case of investigating just what happend to Mrs. Lebowski. It's really quite a satirical piece, and played hilariously by the Coen Brothers. Of course, almost all satire and message in the film is overshadowed by the farce of the situation; the entire film is set into motion because two dimwitted thugs broke into his house and soiled his rug. It only gets stranger and more surreal as the film progresses, from the dream sequences to the idiosyncrasies of the characters, such as Walter, who is so crazed he destroys a sports car with a crowbar because he suspects a teenager of foul play, to the German nihilists, who break into "The Dude's" home and drop a ferret in the bathtub, while "The Dude"bathes. Then, of course, there is Maude and her deeply feminist tendencies, to Jesus, the bowler who gets a bit too intimate with his bowling ball. It exemplifies a modern example of a 20th century European philosophy called Dadaism. Dadaism was an avant-garde philosophy that produced works that were marked with nonsense, absurdity, and incongruity, as showcased by this installment of xkcd. Sound familiar? It perfectly sums up the film: an absurd man and his equally bizarre friends traverse a Los Angeles filled with characters who flaunt absolute nonsense. The scene where Maude and "The Dude" meet is marked by Maude sharing details of her artwork, which are complete nonsense. Of course, the biggest example are the dream sequences. They are utterly nonsensical: depicting "The Dude" as a bowling pin, having him fly and hit the group, the ridiculously bizarre choreography. Everything that makes this film hilarious is what makes it a work of absurdism, and one that needs to be shown to all university students majoring in philosophy.

Coming Soon

Hello readers,

Apologies for the lengthy hiatus. I assure you this was only temporary. Coming soon I will have four analyses published, hopefully sometime later this week. The analyses will be in this order: Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, Kill Bill, and The Big Lebowski. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience, but you should see new content very soon.

Analysis: "Inglourious Basterds"

In my analysis of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, I touched on the fact that war, while an unfortunate fact of the human existence, is indeed hell, and how it will force either side to brutality and grey morality, no matter how honorable they are perceived to be. This has been a persistent topic in literature, such as in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, and films like Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket, along with countless others, many based around the Vietnam War. However, such films focus almost entirely on the epigram "war is hell," but I feel that not enough cinema focuses on another, less glorified statement about war: "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it," a line attributed to Union Army General William T. Sherman. 2009's Inglourious Basterds, though, does analyze this quote, and does it quite well. Set against the backdrop of a very fictionalized World War II, it shows the story of two separate plots to assassinate the Nazi high command, including Adolf Hitler, by two Jewish entities: the American Special forces known as the "Basterds," led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), and including Sgt. Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (Eli Roth) and German rogue Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz, well-known for assassinating thirteen Gestapo officers and being freed from prison by the Basterds, and another plot formulated by French cinema proprietor Emmanuelle Mimieux, really Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), a Jew whose family was massacred by the SS, under the orders of Colonel Hans Landa, "the Jew Hunter" (Christoph Waltz in his first Oscar-winning role). Shosanna's theater was chosen as the premiere for a German propaganda film, Stolz der Nation (Nation's Pride in German), starring sniper Frederick Zoller (Daniel Brühl). She plans to burn her cinema to the ground, whereas the Basterds plan to rendezvous with their mole, German film starlet Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), and kill the High Command with dynamite. Things become even tenser for Shosanna when she realizes Col. Landa will be managing security for the premiere, making her absolutely furious. In a sense, it is also a story of revenge, one of Tarantino's favorite subjects, which he has explored many times, most notably in Kill Bill and Django Unchained. However, this movie involves the revenge of a woman who is angry about the death of her family, avenging loved ones, much like Django, where the main character enacts revenge on his wife's captors by killing them in one of the most stylized ways possible. The stylization cake, however, is taken by Kill Bill, which focuses on the Bride avenging the supposed death of her daughter, who was revealed to be alive at the end of Volume I, and Bill's revenge on the Bride for breaking his heart, both tragedies of love. Really, I could go on about this, but I'll save this material for future articles; I have to keep you readers entertained somehow. Back to the main subject: the cruelty of war, on both sides. The Germans have been ruthlessly massacring Jews simply out of prejudice and xenophobia, forcing millions to die by execution or other horrific methods in the death camps. In the opening, Landa himself interrogates a French dairy farmer and threatens his life and livelihood, forcing him to give up the location of the Dreyfus family, resulting in their death. However, in the context of the film and the film only, could it be said that the Allies are fighting fire with fire to an excessive extent? Watch the above videos again, and notice the cruel pleasure the Basterds take in murdering the Germans. Also, Lt. Raine states in the beginning of the film that each of his eight soldiers owe him 100 Nazi Scalps, and he wants his scalps. He carves swastikas into the heads of captured Germans to brand them forever as Nazis (possibly a reference to a moment in the Robert Rodriguez short film, Bedhead), and sends one survivor back each time to tell the tale. Also, towards the end of the film, Donowitz and fellow Basterd Omar (Omar Doom) go inside Shosanna's theater, as it burns to the ground, and into an opera box. They procede to pump Hitler full of lead with submachine guns, the film's crowning moment of awesome and the catalyst for Tarantino's alternate universe he sets all of his movies in. It, awesome and justifiable as it was for a group of Jewish soldiers (Roth's parents cried tears of joy when they fist saw it), was still cruel and brutal, no matter what. It is not a comment on World War II itself as much as war in general. Each side, regardless of their alignment, fights for a cause, oftentimes passionately. They are willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of their country, and that is their duty as soldiers; it is patriotism in the most literal sense. However, occasionally, when a side fights dirty, like the Germans or Japanese did during World War II, the opponents must occasionally do the same. Does it go to far at times? Yes, certainly. It  is a mistake that happens to many countries, ranging from US waterboarding of detainees to the sickening massacre of innocent Vietnamese at the My Lai Massacre. In works of fiction, we see it in The Dirty Dozen and Inglourious Basterds. They fight cruelty with cruelty, out of their own rage. No fighter in war is immune to this; it's called bloodlust, and while some escape it, it cannot be completely escaped. Sometimes we don't hear these stories of poor men losing their sanity because of their situation; in the case of the Basterds, they fought out of defense for their Jewish heritage, and the Germans oftentimes deserved such retribution, even though in real life, not every German was a Nazi (for a cinematic example, watch a German film about "die Weisse Rose," or the White Rose, released in 2005. It's called Sophie Scholl: Die Ietzten Tage). In the case of other, real-life examples, men killed and committed other despicable acts, such as in My Lai, without reason or logic, only out of irrational thinking. Yes, war is truly cruelty, and you cannot refine it.

NOTE: After I wrote this article, I perused the TV Tropes page on Inglourious Basterds and found some interesting tropes relevant to this article. Read here for more.

Analysis: "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"

Musical Bonus
As you may have noticed in my series of Oscar Reaction articles, in each of the entry's titles I referenced Italian director Sergio Leone's famed Dollars trilogy, which includes A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More (spoofed by NBC's Community in the episodes "A Fistful of Paintballs" and "For a Few Paintballs More"), and the final "prequel" film, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The movie's title has entered the public lexicon, and has given birth to some truly awful offspring sayings, predating the internet meme by at least twenty-seven years. Despite the fact it is such a well-known saying, I have found in my own experience that not a great deal of people know the plot of this excellent film, and it's pretty straightforward. Three men, "Blondie" or "The Man with No Name" (Clint Eastwood)- the good, "Angel Eyes" (Lee Van Cleef)- the bad, and "Tuco" (Eli Wallach)- the ugly. Set during the American Civil War, it follows each man as they attempt to find a fortune in Confederate gold. The film is also known for being incredibly long, clocking in at nearly three hours, and influencing a variety of future directors, including Eastwood as he became a director and one of my personal favorites, Quentin Tarantino, who hails the film as being "one of cinema's greatest achievements." Even though it looks like some sort of dime-store exploitation flick, it actually goes significantly deeper than it appears. Leone was an avid history buff and a perfectionist- all important qualities to a filmmaker. It even goes deeper than some modern day films, by analyzing basic human tendencies. Most so-called Spaghetti Westerns are actually revenge flicks, such as Leone's earlier work, specifically For A Few Dollars More, The Outlaw Josey Wales, and homages like Kill Bill, Vol II, Django Unchained, and Unforgiven all deal in revenge of some sort. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, however, focuses on human greed and deceit. Each one of these men are not particularly "good" men; the closest is Blondie, and he just shoots bad guys, when you get right down to it. Each of them is willing to result to trickery, torture, murder, and backstabbing just so they can get their hands on some gold. Angel Eyes kills a poor farmer just so he can gather some intel on the location of the gold, and Tuco tortures Blondie in the desert by starving him and drinking water in front of Blondie, tantalizing him. Angel Eyes even disguises himself as a Union officer during a battle, all so he can, yet again, get intel on the gold's location. The three participate in Civil War battles, switching sides at their convenience, and engage in gunfights, so they can get closer to the gold. And who can forget the final Mexican standoff in the graveyard where the gold is located, leading to the death of Angel Eyes and Blondie's escape with a share of the loot, leaving Tuco restrained and tantalized by the gold. I believe Leone had two goals in mind here: he wanted to satirize the popular, American view of the Old West, and to show the lengths man will go to for material possession, culminating in crime and greed. The Old West has been romanticized in American culture to the point where the actual plight of the settler has been so diluted that we seem to care only for the widespread tales of heroic gunslingers and cattlemen that we ignore the disease that afflicted travelers and the widespread crime in the region, primarily robbery, gambling, and other unsavory deeds. We also tend to forget that the Union side during the American Civil War was not the perfect defender of liberty we picture it as. They also ran horrific prison camps and committed just as many atrocities as the Confederated States of America, it's just that the winner writes the history books. War fosters brutality on both sides (Inglourious Basterds deconstructs this trope surprisingly well), and we tend to ignore that. But I'm getting off-track, back to the film at hand. Leone decides to take the common American Western, take out the false heroic elements, and show what conniving rats these assorted bounty hunters and criminals were. They were greedy, like the California settlers who were looking for gold, who sparked the era of the West in America (perhaps an unintentional allegory), and took advantage of others and their situation so they could get rich and live out the rest of their lives without a care. Here is where Community becomes important. In the episode "A Fistful of Paintballs," the students are competing for $100,000 dollars in a paintball tournament sponsored by Pistol Patty's Cowboy Creamery, tapping into their innate greed. Of course, it turns out to be a plot by City College to destroy Greendale Community College, the show's main setting. Though it transitions from a Western to Star Wars scenario, it still shows a human's innate desire for material possessions and success at all costs, be it through a real or paintball shootout. Of course, I might be overanalyzing this. Either way, be sure to check out next week's column on why Smokey and the Bandit is secretly about chauvinism and the male ego.

All movies have themes, even bad movies like Plan Nine from Outer Space, and while they may not necessarily be good themes, they, the themes, are there. While my tastes are very eclectic, most of my favorite films dig into the darker side of the human mind, be it The Dark Knight, Death Proof, or Vertigo. The best ones out of this bunch are the ones that actually appear shallow but dig deep regardless. This is what makes The Good, The Bad and The Ugly so fantastic. It appears to be nothing but a shoot 'em up, but really analyzes deeper issues regarding man's own basic desires and satirizes the cultural foolishness of the West.

Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions, Vol. III: Best Picture- The Good, The Bad and the "Gigli"

Finally, we have arrived at the biggest award of the night of the Awards: yes folks, I'm talking about costume design! I kid, of course, the main attraction is obviously the Academy Award for Best Picture. The nominees were Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, my personal favorite Zero Dark Thirty, and the winner, Ben Affleck's Argo. This year has a wonderful selection of films, but it is actually very obvious why Argo won, underneath all the fluff. Both Django Unchained and Les Mis are, as I have mentioned before, niche films. Despite their acclaim, each has a target audience that loves the movie through thick and thin; I consider myself to be a member of the Tarantino fanbase myself. However, niche and cult films are often losers, despite all acclaim, such as with Looper. Amour also lost in a similar fashion to the two aforementioned films. It was a foreign film that, while it was acclaimed, failed to achieve widespread exposure due to the fact it did not boast anything special enough, as a foreign film, to interest the filmgoing masses in the United States. Beasts of the Southern Wild is something of a curious case. It was Benh Zeitlen's directorial debut and an unexpected hit, but the director (and cast's) youth prevented its success at the awards. Life of Pi, despite featuring a moving story and masterful direction by Ang Lee (who earned the Oscar for Best Director this year), I personally feel the film relied too much on cinematography and computer generated imagery than its story, detracting it like a PowerPoint with one too many effects. Lincoln's biggest attraction was Day-Lewis's excellent acting and the star power of Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in attracting audiences. However, it does't do it in a corny or callous fashion; it, like Les Mis, uses it star power in good measure and excellent choice by the casters and directors, unlike the cornucopia of films who abuse star power into being their main and only attraction.  Otherwise, it's a roughly strait-forward film that presents its topic excellently, but not Oscar-worthy. Now to the final films: Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. Why I thought the latter would win was multifaceted: it was visceral, thought-provoking, allegorical, brilliant, and, overall, relevant. More relevant than Argo. Both films possessed a thrilling story, superb acting choice, and excellent direction. But that's what differentiates Argo from Zero Dark Thirty: Ben Affleck is an absolutely incredible director. He's long since abandoned flops like Jersey Girl, Daredevil, and his barely forgivable Gigli, and broken into the upper echelon of filmmaking with Gone Baby Gone, The Town, and his period piece opus, Argo. It's even more impressive than Kathryn Bigelow's career, and it is his historic comeback that earned him this award. 

Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions, Vol. II: Best Actor- For a Few Analyses More

For the second entry in the Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions, I'll be dissecting the choices in the Best Actor category. The nominees were Denzel Washington (Flight), Joaquin Phoenix (The Master), Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables), Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook), and the winner, Daniel Day-Lewis, for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. Phoenix, whose most famous role was Johnny Cash in 2005's Walk the Line, failed to generate enough publicity for Paul Thomas Anderson's superb film The Master, which admittedly was a more intellectual film, something not commonly enjoyed by the average American filmgoer (summed up here beautifully by Peter Travers). Jackman, on the other hand, was magnificent as Jean Valjean in Les Mis, and also managed to achieve a high degree of publicity for the direction, ensemble cast, and singing, but also acted in something of a niche film, reserved almost entirely for musical lovers. That said, it was wonderful, but unfortunately not "mainstream" enough for the voters of the Academy. Bradley Cooper had excellent chemistry with his costar Ms. Lawrence, and also portrayed a character with a never-failing sense of optimism despite his condition, simply failed to compare to his fellow nominees, though I am thankful he has expanded from raunchy comedies like The Hangover and is making his migration to more sensitive films. Day-Lewis's closest competitor in the race was undoubtedly Denzel Washington in Flight. He also portrayed a deeply flawed character (something of a theme this year, no?) who is inherently good in is heart, but struggles with addiction to the point where it cripples his career but follows him during his trial for drinking while flying, but saving the passengers from dying a fiery death in a crash, all while his fate hangs in the balance. However, Washington's excellent acting ability pales in comparison to Day-Lewis's Lincoln. A well-known method actor, he takes his own reputation and expands it beyond his wildest beliefs. He nailed the voice and character of Lincoln, who worked hard to unite a divided Congress and cabinet through the power of persuasion and his unparalleled gift of gab. In short, Daniel Day-Lewis deserved that award more than he deserved it for his role as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood.

Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions Vol. I: Best Actress- A Fistfull of Analyses

The Academy Awards were last night, and I will be the first to admit that a good amount of my predictions were actually incorrect, ranging from not so incorrect (Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz versus Phillip Seymour Hoffman) to terribly incorrect (Best Cinematography: Life of Pi won, contrary to my prediction of Django Unchained). However, this will not be an article focusing on the lesser Academy Awards, such as sound mixing, but rather the core group of three, Best Actor, Best Actress, and the ubiquitous Best Picture (I am eschewing other prestigious awards, such as Best Director and Best Screenplay, due to length concerns, despite the fact that I hold the recipients in the highest regard). Of course, they will not be presented in a series of rants that describe my pleasure or displeasure with the Academy's choices, but rather a series of in-depth critical analyses describing why the actors and films won the award, regardless of my position. I'll be sharing each volume in three days, beginning with Best Actress and concluding with Best Picture. First, here were the winners: Jennifer Lawrence won Best Actress for Silver Linings Playbook, Daniel Day-Lewis won Best Actor for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln, and the winner for Best Picture was Argo. We'll begin with Best Actress. The nominees were Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty), Emmanuelle Riva (Amour), Quvenzhané Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild), Naomi Watts (The Impossible), and of course the winner, Ms. Lawrence. Perhaps one of the most-hyped nominees was Ms. Wallis, who, at nine years old, is the youngest nominee for Best Actress in the history of the Academy Awards. While it is a proud moment for film historians, critics, and bloggers alike, it should be remembered that she is still but a child; a talented child, but a child nonetheless. She is not yet ready to compete with such high-caliber actresses like Jessica Chastain, Jennifer Lawrence, and Naomi Watts. Then there was Ms. Riva, who was nominated for the French film Amour, which surprised critics and audiences alike by scoring a high amount of nominations for a foreign film, much like The Artist, last year's winner for Best Picture. However, Riva and Amour in general did not receive as much publicity as their American counterparts, which some might say is unfair. Of course, it should be expected, as the average filmgoer in the states doesn't care much for foreign films, unless the boast something incredible, such as the German Das Boot (one of the most expensive films ever made), or The Artist, which was a silent film, something oft unheard of in today's day and age (The Artist also boasted an adorable dog actor named Uggie. Everyone loves puppies). Jessica Chastain, despite starring in one of the most acclaimed films of the year, failed to secure the award, perhaps due to the character she portrayed. Yes, she was a shoo-in, but her character was a type of allegory for the United States post 9/11, which is a touchy subject within itself. While I applaud this trait, the award deserves to go to someone who plays a riveting character, not a symbol. That said, I really did expect Naomi Watts to be taken a little more seriously. In The Impossible, she plays the exact type of riveting, tragic woman that is so often Oscar-bait, but there is one small problem. She was playing a woman who is still alive, and this may have been a contributor. By playing a living human, you have a high standard to uphold, and so much as a single side-by-side interview may disrupt this delicate balance. It's not believable to have a blonde bombshell like Watts play a humble Spaniard woman who was scarred by a tsunami. Should Watts have taken an approach similar to a character actor, like Daniel Day-Lewis or Robert de Nero, she may have won the award. Now, Jennifer Lawrence was the riveting, tragic woman that the Academy was looking for. She played a recovering sex addict with deeper issues that truly committed herself to the performance. Her character, in some ways, reminded me of April Ludgate (Aubrey Plaza) of Parks and Recreation: facetious and deadpan, though Lawrence adds the emotional side masterfully. She even possessed incredible chemistry with costar Bradley Cooper. She is an incredible actress who should perform excellently in the future. 

Review: "Identity Thief"

Identity Thief is the latest film from director Seth Gordon (whose filmography includes 2011's Horrible Bosses, which also featured Jason Bateman) and stars Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy. The story is fairly straightforward; Bateman plays a Denver native and accounts executive Sandy Bigelow Patterson, who was named after baseball legend Sandy Koufax by his late father. He is working at a firm run by cinema's 2,789th horrible boss, Harold Cornish (Jon Favreau), and leaves the firm at the beginning of the film to work as a VP at a new firm set up by coworker Daniel Casey. His identity is stolen by Diana (McCarthy), an identity thief living in Winter Park, Florida. She uses his credit cards to make outrageous purchases, including massive amounts of alcohol at local bars, a Fiat 500 with a custom paint job, and numerous appointments at a local salon. When a Denver detective tells him he missed a court date in Florida, he realizes his identity has been stolen. His credit score has been ruined, and Daniel mentions that it will deter possible clients. Patterson realizes who the thief is, and travels to Florida to apprehend Diana and bring her to justice in Denver, because apparently the Denver police force is incredibly inept and cannot afford to expend a single detective to catch an identity thief. Patterson arrives in FLorida and promptly finds Diana, and he takes her on a road trip to Denver, as his plane ticket sare rendered invalid by the identity crisis and Diana secretly owes debts to a drug dealer who is now in prison, and the duo is pursued by his enforcers Marisol (Genesis Rodríguez) and Julian (T.I.). From that point on, "hilarity" ensues on their road trip throughout the country. I use the term "hilarity" loosely here because it really doesn't apply. When watching the film, I couldn't help but notice the numerous corners director Gordon had cut when making his film, and it shows in the final product. The movie felt so... cliché, to say the least. Favreau's character seems as if he was made from the same cookiecutter as Kevin Spacey's character in Horrible Bosses, who also happened to play the role of Bateman's boss. The police force is so inept that it makes them look like they come out of a superhero film, as they cannot even expend a single officer to apprehend a criminal, preferring to send the victim and risk his life. There is also massive amounts of typecasting in the roles of the lead characters. Bateman has, unfortunately, often been thrust into the role of the imperiled everyman, when in fact he has more talents as an actor. We appreciated this in Arrested Development, but from there it goes downhill. There's The Switch, Horrible Bosses (which is the most forgivable of these films), and, worst of all, The Change-Up. He almost always plays an upper-middle class office worker who is being screwed over at work and has to go to extreme measures to solve his unusual problems. As for McCarthy, her character feels like a criminal variation of Megan, her character from Bridesmaids, one of her first major successes as an actress. It is from here on out that her films have been loaded with crude humor that has started to become unappealing. Yes, it can be funny in small doses, but only when coupled with decent jokes of another nature. Unfortunately, this film had a high density of shock humor and nothing to back it up, resulting in a failure of a film. That said, Bateman and McCarthy has excellent onscreen chemistry; their scenes that show their evolution as friends is good, aside from the obvious fact that jokes have been crammed into their dialogue, much as a squirrel would cram nuts into its cheeks. John Cho's role actually avoided being typecast, with his Harold & Kumar past, and he has evolved into a fine actor who can play a comedic strait man.

Consensus: Identity Thief is a below-average comedy film that takes road/buddy film clichés and amplifies the typecasting of its actors to create this monstrosity, only redeemed by the lead actors' chemistry.

Rating: 2/5

Coming Up This Week

This week I'll be sharing a review for Identity Thief, and I may share an analysis regarding early German cinema. Keep an eye out for these new posts.

Analysis: "The Departed" versus "Reservoir Dogs"

The Departed, Martin Scorcese's 2006 Irish Mafia opus, is the story of two moles planted in the Massachusetts State Police, Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon), and Frank Costello's (Jack Nicholson) crime ring, informant Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio). As they existence of the moles becomes clear, each man must discover each other's identity before their own cover is blown. Also featuring Mark Wahlberg, Alec Baldwin, and Martin Sheen, the movie won the Academy Award for Best Picture and best director for Scorcese, along with the award for Best Adapted Screenplay (it was adapted from the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, which was also acclaimed) and Wahlberg was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Reservoir Dogs, on the other hand, tells the story of eight gangsters, Mr. White (Harvey Keitel), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), Mr. Blue (Eddie Bunker), Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino in one of his famous creator cameos), Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi), and mob boss Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney) and his son "Nice Guy" Eddie (Chris Penn). The eight of them have planned a jewelry store heist, headed by Eddie. When the heist goes haywire, when the police show up, killing Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue and injuring Mr. Orange, Mr. Pink suggests that there is a rat in the group. It's up to the survivors to figure out who the rat is before the police show up.  The film marks Tarantino's directorial debut, and marks the first appearance of some of his trademarks: profanity, violence, pop culture references, and a nonlinear narrative. It was actually renowned for its brutality; there is a scene in which Mr. Blonde, an ax-crazy psychopath, disfigures a captured police officer and cuts his ear off with a strait razor, all set to the least-appropriate music for such a scene. It was a classic of 1990s independent cinema and achieved higher popularity after the success of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. Each film is a classic in their own rights; each was highly acclaimed, though The Departed received more awards while Reservoir Dogs received none. However, the similarities go beyond the superficial. Each has a theme having to do with a police officer, or criminal, in the case of The Departed, going undercover and the effect it has on them. The Departed takes a much more thriller-type stance, as both Sullivan and Costigan try to discover each other's identities. The movie has a theme of identity and association, and what it does to the individual. In the case of police mole Sullivan, it works out nicely. He gets a nice apartment in Boston, is a respected "cop," and begins dating a psychologist, despite being a wicked criminal. He reveals his true colors as such when he shoots down Costello after discovering he was an FBI informant, and receives commendation, and when he withholds details about his true career from his girlfriend. Costigan, on the other hand, draws the short straw as an undercover cop. He is forced to live in a filthy South Boston neighborhood, cut off all familial contact, and lives in constant fear of being discovered by Costello's crime ring and being brutally reprimanded. It is at this point where he realizes he is in too deep and begs his superiors, Cpt. Queenan (Sheen) and Sgt. Dignam (Wahlberg) to be let out. It is in this vein I would compare him to the rat of Reservoir Dogs, Mr. Orange. Both are police officers, highly trained and prepared for their no doubt dangerous missions. As both films progress, the begin to realize the desperation of their situations and realize where they went wrong. Reservoir Dogs differs in the details, however. Since Orange was only inserted for this one job, he was in a different situation than Costigan. He also was accidentally shot in the chest, one of many accidents in the film's plot, such as the actual police ambush. He formed a bond with Mr. White that stuck throughout the entire film, even to the point where White killed lifelong friend Cabot and Eddie in a Mexican Standoff (not the last Mexican Standoff Tim Roth would appear in). Orange clearly feels retribution for causing Mr. White to turn on his friends for his own sake, acknowledging the fact that he is a rat. This is the theme in a modern-day heist caper gone wrong that is, to an extent, the cautionary tale of a rat who got too deep into his own cover.

Review: "Zero Dark Thirty"

This weekend I saw Zero Dark Thirty as part of my campaign to see all Oscar-nominated movies before the Awards ceremony. You may remember myself mentioning that Zero Dark Thirty will most certainly win the Academy Award for Best Picture because of both its timeliness and the fact Kathryn Bigelow won the award for Best Picture in 2009 for The Hurt Locker. I can now say, after seeing the film, that it lived up to my expectations and will most definitely be the Best Picture of the Year. The film follows CIA rookie Maya (Jessica Chastain) as she goes to Pakistan to work at the US Embassy is Islamabad, with the goal of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. The film follows her as she attempts to find "Abu Ahmed," a well-known terrorist with links to bin Laden, to her following leads with the help of CIA surveillance, the discovery of the bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and the final raid on the compound by SEAL Team Six (sidenote: one of the SEALs is played by Chris Pratt, better known to viewers of NBC's Parks and Recreation as dimwit Andy Dwyer). This is one of several movies of the year where we know the ending; it joins Argo and Lincoln are two others. However, what makes Zero Dark Thirty so compelling is how Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal make the film and show the process of hunting down bin Laden. The movie is very tense, especially in the scenes of waterboarding and other forms of torture, are executed on captured terrorists. Interestingly enough, there are exactly zero "Yeah, America!" moments, even during the final raid scene. This is okay; if you want a propaganda Navy SEAL film, go watch Act of Valor and stop reading this review right now. In terms of themes, the movie explores several, notably obsession in desperation, in terms of the manhunt. We spent ten years and billions of dollars to catch a single man, who committed an atrocious act. Yes, September 11th, 2001 hit home with us Americans; it was an act of war, no question. What Zero Dark Thirty does is provoke the audience to think, separating it from the mass of mindless military films. I also commend the acting of Jessica Chastain as fictional character Maya. While not real, she is developed seamlessly as the film progresses, from a soft rookie to a focused "single-tasker" fixed on catching bin Laden. I think in this way she symbolizes America post 9/11, as we became increasing fixated on capturing or killing bin Laden. Even the little things, like the bureaucracy of the Department of Defense and the CIA, make the film worth seeing. Some other interesting tidbits throughout the movie are its use of advanced technology. From the bizarre night-vision goggles, to the aerial drones and stealth helicopters, the phone tracking software, I was amazed by the types of technology utilized by the military in their search.
Now, the film has attracted partisan criticism, as well as audience criticism for its accuracy as to how well the film corresponds to what really happened in the manhunt for bin Laden. More often than not, the film is being compared to the firsthand SEAL account No Easy Day by Mark Owen. While I do not wish to become overly immersed in such arguments, I will say this: Zero Dark Thirty, much like Argo, is a dramatization, not a documentary. It's been fictionalized and beefed up by Boal and Bigelow to make it entertaining for an audience. Anyone who judges this movie entirely based on its historical accuracy is ignoring the finer dramatic and storytelling points made in the film.

Consensus: Zero Dark Thirty is a lean, visceral thriller rife with symbolism, character development, and perfectly captions the anger-ridden desperation of the American hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Rating: 5/5

Coming Up This Week

Sorry for the recent delay in posts. However, this week you can expect my review of Zero Dark Thirty and at least one analysis article: a compare/contrast of The Departed versus Reservoir Dogs. No specific dates, just expect to see some fresh content.

Popcorn Talk Oscar Picks

It's that time of year again: the Academy Award nominations are out! Ergo, I must make my predictions for who will take home Oscar gold and who will return empty-handed. Let us begin with the Visual Effects: I suspect Marvel's The Avengers will win, for this reason: only a few years ago, we couldn't even dream of an Avengers movie, so they fact we can make one now and have it actually be good is a feat worth celebrating. For Best Writing for an Adapted Screenplay, Argo is a clear contender. Yes, it's up against critical heavyweights like Lincoln (which had the most nominations, with twelve nominations) and Silver Linings Playbook, but the thrill and true-story basis of Argo should score it points with the Academy. For Best Original Screenplay, Django Unchained is a clear choice, given its win at the Golden Globes recently. Best Original Song will most likely go to another Golden Globe winner, Adele's "Skyfall" song for the latest installment in the 007 franchise, Skyfall. Production Design is a real difficult choice; Anna Karenina, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, and Lincoln are all up for this award. I choose The Hobbit, mainly because Peter Jackson is an experienced director with set design and has shown in the past his skill in bringing Tolkien's fictional Middle-Earth to life with vigor and originality. For Best Cinematography, Django Unchained could win yet again, because of its use of unique perspectives and the ubiquitous Tarantino "trunk-shot."For best costume design, I expect a tight race between Anna Karenina and Les Miserables, due to their period-piece settings, but Les Miserables should come out on top. Now, I am quite conflicted on Best Director. I am very upset that Ben Affleck was not nominated for Argo (see below), and the dark horse Beasts of the Southern Wild was known as a contender. Lincoln is the best choice by far, being directed by Hollywood god Steven Spielberg. For Actor in a Supporting Role, previous winners Christoph Waltz (for Inglourious Basterds) and Alan Arkin (for Little Miss Sunshine) are in the mix, but Phillip Seymour Hoffman deserves the award for his riveting performance in Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master. For Best Supporting Actress there is no contest that Anne Hathaway should win. As a perfect Fantine in Les Miserables, she deserves the award for not only her acting but raw singing power. For Best Animated Film, I personally feel ParaNorman should win, despite my love for Disney/Pixar. ParaNorman both innovated filmmaking and even managed a decent story in the process, and deserves commendation. Now for the big guns: Best Actress, Best Actor, and Best Picture. For starters, it's very impressive that Quvenzhané Wallis was nominated as a seven year old for her performance as Hushpuppy in Beasts of the Southern Wild. Nonetheless, I expect Naomi Watt to win the award for her performance in The Impossible, but I wouldn't discount Jennifer Lawrence for her work in Silver Linings Playbook. For Best Actor, Daniel Day-Lewis should win for his transcendent portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln. If he doesn't, I would be exceedingly surprised. Now for the big award: best picture. This year is a difficult choice. There is Argo, Django Unchained, Silver Linings Playbook, Les Miserables, and Lincoln, among others up for grabs. Four of those movies, Argo, Silver Linings, Lincoln, and Django were among my favorites for the year. I consider Argo, Zero Dark Thirty and Lincoln to be the main competitors. Les Mis had a somewhat target audience of musical-lovers, which limits its appeal. Conversely, Django, one of Tarantino's finest films, also has a bit of a target audience, which I am a part of. Now, Zero Dark Thirty is a contender especially for its timeliness, and is already a catalyst for debate, discussion, and, to an extent, how far we went to kill a single man. Argo has already won big at the Golden Globes and received rave reviews from audiences, critics, and vaguely-known bloggers alike. Lincoln's greatest strength is Daniel Day-Lewis as leading man and Spielberg's unparalleled directing prowess. Despite the fact I have yet to see it (read below), I am choosing Zero Dark Thirty for Best Picture, out of a superb selection of choices.

Now I have to talk about a couple of so-called "snubs" that were, in my opinion, completely unwarranted. Richard Gere had an Oscar-caliber performance for Arbitrage, for which didn't score a single nomination. I am very surprised by this, considering the warm reception he received from critics, particularly Roger Ebert. Leonardo DiCaprio, whom I mentioned a contender for Best Supporting Actor in my review for Django Unchained, also did not receive a nomination. This shocks me in particular, as he did a wonderful job as affluent psychopath Calvin Candie in Django Unchained. DiCaprio is known for his skill as an actor, such as in movies like The Aviator and The Departed. Ben Affleck's lack of a Best Director nomination is utterly shocking. Argo, only his third directorial effort, was a hit and Affleck is a talented director, even in earlier films like The Town and Gone Baby Gone. You must also take into account the fact that only a few years ago, Affleck was a b-list actor starring in films like Gigli, Jersey Girl, and The Sum of All Fears, and now he's crushing it, earning a Golden Globe. Looper's lack of a nomination I expected, but it still manages to disappoint me. Films like it are unfortunately disregarded by the Academy, mainly because of the genre. Looper is no doubt a genre film; it's a science-fiction pulp story that still manages to have some cerebral horsepower. It really is a shame that we don't see excellent films like Looper excel at the award shows, but hopefully we'll see the academy warm up to them as time goes on.

Director Analysis: Christopher Nolan

Here begins a special analysis series, where I take apart an actor or director's career, examine their style, and see how they've improved over the years, or if they haven't improved. For my first type of article in this style, I will be examining director Christopher Nolan, and his unique directing style. Nolan began his career with 2000's Memento, a psychological thriller starring Guy Pearce, Carrie Anne-Moss, and Joe Pantoliano. It follows Leonard Shelby (Pearce), a man without the ability to store new explicit memories. The film then shows the Leonard killed Teddy (Pantoliano), in an act of vengeance. It was critically acclaimed, and it was praised for its unique narrative structure and themes, which include those of memory, perception, grief, and revenge. It was nominated for Academy Awards, including those in screenwriting and film editing. Next was Insomnia in 2002, starring Al Pacino, Robin Williams  and Hilary Swank. Telling the story of a LAPD detective, Will Dormer (Pacino) brought in to  investigate the murder of a girl in a small Alaskan village, while Internal Affairs launches its own investigation on Dormer. It was the Hollywood adaptation of the 1997 Norwegian film of the same name, and was well-received by crtitics. Another film of his was The Prestige (2006), starring Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, and Scarlett Johansson. It tells the story of two magicians, Bale and Jackman, who compete for the best illusion, ending with tragic results. It features two actors who have since become Nolan mainstays, Christian Bale and Michael Caine. It was also positively received, and was nominated for two Academy Awards. In 2010, Nolan made Inception, as science-fiction heist film. In it, the main character, Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are thieves who are hired by corporations for espionage to break into people's minds. When they are hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) to plant an idea in Robert Fisher's (Cillian Murphy) mind, they agree and hire a new team, including Eames (Tom Hardy) and Ariadne (Ellen Page), but Cobb has flashbacks to his dead wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard). It was inspired by Nolan's lucid dreaming (self-aware dreaming, for the uninitiated.), and was originally an 80 page treatment for a horror story about lucid dreaming. It was critically acclaimed and commercially successful, and was nominated for eight Oscars and won four, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, and Best Cinematography. Of course, his only series is also a classic take on an American icon. His Batman movie trilogy, starting with Batman Begins in 2005, then 2008's The Dark Knight, and ending in 2012 with The Dark Knight Rises. Starring Christian Bale as Batman, Michael Caine as Alfred, Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, each movie has been commercially successful, with The Dark Knight one of the highest grossing films of all time, and each movie has been positively received, with acclaim for the performances of the actors, particularly for Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight, earning him a posthumous Oscar award. As a director, Nolan has had a rather eclectic palette of genres, ranging from superhero (the Dark Knight trilogy) to historical fiction (The Prestige). Nolan also has maintained many collaborators over the years: all of his films have featured Wally Pfister as cinematographer, and he has produced every film with his wife Emma Thomas starting with The Prestige, and has written every film with the help of his brother Jonathan. He also has used Hans Zimmer many times as the composer for his films, and typically uses the same actors, especially with Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, and Marion Cotillard. No matter the film, Nolan manages to cut to the bone with many of his themes, even with his remake of Insomnia. His themes are typically dealing with human emotion and human nature, in contrast to metaphysics, as seen in movies like The Matrix. Memento is a movie that deals with not emotion or metaphysics, but memory and self perception, though Nolan does analyze one emotional theme: guilt. Guilt is a powerful concept in Christopher Nolan's movies, and are tentpoles in Inception, where Cobb reveals he has performed inception once before, on his wife Mal, at which point she killed herself and leads Cobb to blame himself, which leads to the climax. In The Dark Knight trilogy, Bruce Wayne, led by guilt over his parents' death, manifests itself into anger, which helps him become the Batman is the overarching theme of the trilogy. The Prestige is an analyzation of the human tendency to compete, and, if one competes too much or with the wrong intent, the tendency of competition to destroy a person and revert them to a primal shell of their former self. Nolan also does not shy away from making his films cerebral, offering an escape to audiences weary of the typical action-overdosed or shallow rom-com backwash of Hollywood. Nonetheless, his cinematography, often done without the assistance of computers, is visceral and defies reason. It is for this reason I say Nolan, as a filmaker, as yet to peak, and I look forward to his next films and especially his work as a producer for Zack Snyder's Man of Steel this summer.