The Case for Films

Fast Five

The ghetto Ocean’s Eleven. 

I’m glad they grew out of the import racing scene and decided to tell a story where the cars aren’t the focal point of the movie but a vehicle to get from Point A to Point B (literally and metaphorically speaking), much like the Bond movies.

The racing in the first three films just became too hokie and unrealistic - even the drifting - which ruined any chance of a good story. But at least the tide turned on its fourth installment, Fast and Furious, which now really separated itself from the pack with Fast Five.  

The story still has been done before, and for the most part predictable. The only original element to the film was that they crafted it to the history of the franchise: fast cars, the need for cash, and a collection of past characters. And to be honest, Ocean’s Eleven wasn’t original either. They just made creative decisions to make it look so.

Fast Five is worth the suspended beliefs, while and The Rock made it worthy of an action flick.

Scream 4

The thing with a horror-whodunnit movie is that it’s hard to be unpredictable anymore. People are wiser to expect the obvious to be unlikely, and the producers’ attempt to be unpredictabile is very predictable. (i.e. Never suspect the main suspect, ‘coz he/she is more than likely there to throw you off.)

Scream 4 tried to do this, but failed (in my opinion, anyway). I automatically threw away the possibilities of the obvious and kept in mind the unsuspecting. Gayle. Dewey. Syndey. Jill.

[Spoiler Alert: I got one right.]

Which wasn’t the case with the original, because it was never done before. Now everyone and their mamas have tried. The original was simply original, and you’re guess was good as mine. But now I suppose the key to throw off the audience would to be predictable, mainly because we expect the opposite. You want the curve ball all the time. 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1

Without Hogwarts, the story of Harry Potter loses its sense of the fantastic. There aren’t many things that captivate you in child-like astonishment - no teachers to learn from, no headmaster to ensure us that, despite the dangers that lurk about, a happy ending is just minutes away. The story of Harry, Ron and Hermoine in search of Voldermort’s seven horcrux has quite certainly grown-up. The story has matured as the three have.

This segment gives us more of the feeling we felt with the Fellowship’s journey in “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King,” albeit a fellowship of three. But three’s definitely better than one, which reminds me of something King Solomon once wrote: “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” There’s more at stake and nothing is too sacred to be profaned. 

It goes to show how much of an art and rocket science it is to adapt a novel into a screenplay, and Steve Klove did so ingeniously. What took pages in the book, he managed to tell in the opening sequence… and you get it. You get it without the exposition. It was just well done. To see how he separates important and unimportant makes absolute sense to me. 

The winter, the overcast, the snow, the darkness… they all work well with the isolation of the characters. And with it, we visually feel what the best friends feel inside. But Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), on a lateral note, is the scene-stealer in my opinion.

I can’t give this movie four stars, though, ‘coz it’s not complete. It’s only part one. And honestly speaking, Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favorite in the series. But Hallows is definitely up there. Let’s just see if it gets any Oscar nods besides the usual affects and music and sound.

★★★1/2

RED

“Retired, Extremely Dangerous” was only mildly adventurous compared to the action movies of the 80’s when Bruce Willis & Co. were on top of their games. Perhaps it’s because action movies nowadays, of should be “retired” action stars, tend to be rated PG-13 and has gone too over the top - the most recent Rambo being the exception. I actually like that one.

Over-the-top and an R rating make for a better marriage in the action department.

The only extreme in this film is the contrast between great action scenes and slow story plot, which really disrupts the flow. They add a little humor here and there, which makes it bare-able, but overall I guess age is factored in when you’re making an action piece. You can’t have a lot of running, close-combat and French Connection-type of car chases. I high doubt they wanted to do their own stunts either. So the producers opt for a lot of heavy artillery fire and massive small arms shooting… from a distance.

Then again, their real demographic are the Baby-Boomers and senior citizens. When all’s said and done, they did a great job for the goal they set to accomplish: tap into the age group whose Social Security checks we, the 34 year-olds and younger, are paying but will never see ourselves. 

★ ★

The Karate Kid - Round 1

I won’t go into what I hated about the Will Smith remake. Instead, I’ll talk about what I love about the original, and perhaps touch on the things I did like about the 2010 version of the 1984 classic.

Face me. Bow. — Face each other. Bow. — aaaand FIGHT!

The keyword is “Karate,” not Kung Fu. The original movie implemented Goju Ryu Karate, and it was by way of Kata that the mentor passed on his knowledge of Okinawan martial art to the student disguised as “man work” around the house. So from the title alone it was coherent with the story. Karate. Kid. Everybody knew what they were in for.

One Point: Saringo …aaaand FIGHT!

Being a “fish out of water” is one thing; being bullied for no reason is another. The newer take on this “fish” is a racist attack on Dre Parker (Jaden Smith). Think about it. Did ‘Ol Boy resent him for any-plausable-thing else? With Daniel Laruso (Ralph Macchio), at least he was stealing the girlfriend the bad guy hadn’t ex’d out yet.

(“I thought they broke up?” “She did… He didn’t!”)

With that, it makes sense. This scrawny kid from Jersey is trying to make moves on someone off the market, or at least in Johnny’s mind she was. Then to top it off, well-meaning Daniel was getting in the middle of their argument. King Solomon, the wisest man in history next to Jesus, even warned against meddling in your neighbor’s affairs. You don’t get in the face of a guy in tight jeans, headband and his leather jacket sleeves rolled up. You just don’t do that! (Daniel had it coming. I’m just saying.) And in contrast, Dre was just a black kid in Hong Kong who had a thing for a girl who wasn’t even close friends with the local bad boy. In an age, mind you, where “things” like that aren’t things yet.

Two points: Saringo

And all I got to say is two words. Two words why I prefer the original story. 1) Elizabeth, 2) Shue.

Winner: Mr. Saringo 

…to be continued.

Teenage Paparrazo

The Paparrazi have always fascinated me, and the fascination has only escalated since Federico Fellini’s La Dolce Vita (1960) where they get their namesake by way of a character in the movie named Paparazzo who photographs celebrities. The etymology finds its root in an Italian dialect that describes the buzzing of mosquitos, and that’s not too far off from how they’re painted in the news nowadays. And perhaps rightly so. You see them bumrush celebs, and you hear about them voicing nasty things to illicit their desired celebrity reaction. They crowd their cars, wait outside their homes, and snap photos while they eat. They can get obnoxious and very frequently violate privacy. I imagine the song “I always feel like somebody’s watchin’ me” is on heavy rotation in the celebrity mind. 

So what would possess anyone to undertake this occupation?

This is a documentary that turns the camera on one in particular. And not just any paparrazo, but the youngest one of ‘em all. The question at hand now extends to “Why would a teenager choose this over the normal life?” and the subject in question would be that of then 14 years-old Austin Visschedyk (now seventeen), who has become a professional amongst professionals earning hundreds to thousands for every celebrity money shot he produces.

It tells the story of how Austin stumbled onto the scene and the road that quickly lured him further into the rush of the job, getting paid the big boy bucks in return. Adrian Grenier, the real-life celebrity (portraying a celebrity character on the popular TV series Entourage) was so intrigued by Austin when he first saw him - or rather, saw him through a spray of camera flashes - that he decided to turn the cameras on the cameraman and take an inside look at the world of the paparazzi; even more so, through the eyes of a boy.

It’s what you would expect from a documentary on the paparazzi. But it’s also not what you would expect because of Austin. It hits the hot buttons of rights-to-privacy, the so called “forfeited rights” of the famous, both the dehumanizing and the deification of celebrities, and our roles as a society to egg it on. But on the other hand, where would celebs be without the cameras? This film does a great job to tackle those topics and present a kid whose experienced too much, too soon with a Ghost of Christmas Past-like journey.

The real question is are we as much to blame for the actions of the paparazzi when it’s us who demand what they supply? Paris. Lindsey. Britney. Miley. If we’re honest with ourselves, we want the good stuff as much as the photographers, ‘coz where would we be without celebs… their music, their fashion, their haircuts, their swagger? We were created to worship, and if not God, then our hearts gravitate towards our American Idols.

★ ★ ★

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Where Oliver Stone shines is in retelling history with his story, and he gives you a convincing argument for at least two hours (which is to his credit). Whether we agree is another topic. WS:MNS is just another case in point. For instance, the market crash and its timeline depicted in this movie is accurate, though he merges Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase into one bank called “Churchill-Shwartz” and fictionalizes Bear Sterns as well into “Keller Zabel Investments,” which are obviously concoctions of his imagination. 

What it does well is dramatize the events for a guy like me, who has an intermediate knowledge about buying and trading in the stock market, to get a visual idea of what all went down in 2008. I liked seeing the emotional reactions to the corporate greed that cost us the next few generations - albeit on film. It brought the idea closer to home that it wasn’t the government that was bailing those corporations out. How could they? The government’s in debt. (Heck, they’re printing money just to say they have money.) We, the taxpayers, were bailing them out without any say in the matter. “Thank you, Big Government!”

On that end, Stone did an excellent job.

With the actual story line, though, there was just too many things going on. It was manageable enough for my brain to follow, but if a good story is about someone who wants something so bad he’s willing to go through hell to get it, then I didn’t know what the story was about ‘coz I didn’t know what Jake Moore (Shia LeBeouf) really wanted. He wanted a lot of things: to reconcile Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) with his estranged daughter; to destroy the public image of a global investment bank; to pin the death of his mentor on a billionaire hedge fund manager; to raise nine-figures and save a fusion research project; and finally to keep his relationship with Winnie Gekko from ending. Man, this should’ve been a mini-series instead. I would’ve rather have watched a movie entirely about Gordon Gekko coming back to power, but I guess it’s all about Young Hollywood.

Talent-wise, the best actor in the film was Academy Award® winner Carey Mulligan who played Gekko’s daughter, Winnie. Her emotions were felt and authentic… or as authentic as acting can make it be. While LeBeouf, on the other hand, shouldn’t take roles that depicts him crying. Tears don’t suit him. He can’t pull it off. They should’ve casted Andrew Garfield (“The Social Network”), whom I predict will be Oscar’s future “Man Friday.”

On a final note: Ron Paul for President, 2012!

★ ★ 1/2

The Social Network

If we can erase Alien 3 and perhaps Panic Room from David Fincher’s resume, I think his IMDb page would be 10x more appealing. This movie does do well to push those projects off the grid. Not that this is his best work, but it’s definitely not The Last Airbender. 

Aaron Sorkin’s choice in story approach worked well with the cross-cutting of time and place. It made for a good pace in storytelling. And to their credit, there wasn’t a boring moment of screen time. Although, there was something missing. Perhaps it was that there was no change of character in Mark Zuckerburg; he was trying too hard to be accepted as an undergrad in the beginning, and he was trying too hard to be accepted as a millionaire in the end. Or… I don’t know… I just can’t put my finger on it.

I love the unapparent message of Facebook, though. Everything starts with an idea. Everyone has ideas. It’s not who primarily had the idea; it’s who comes out with it first. It’s not the original idea; it’s the better one. It’s not a “good idea” until others buy into it. It’s only a great idea if friends refer friends refer friends the world over to what you have to offer. And the masses can’t invest what you’re not in the business of offering (“goods” or “services”). It all goes back to the foundations on entrepreneurship. 

If anyone gets an Oscar nod with this film, it should be Andrew Garfield (“Eduardo Savarin”). I saw his performance in Red Riding and am convinced he has potential to be on the level of DiCaprio, Damon and Pitt. TSN only solidified my beliefs. Please, someone give me capital to put him in a lead role with Blake Lively and watch the hurricane come through. On the other hand, it disturbed me to see “London Tipton” act un-Disney like and found it ironic that Justin Timberlake would play Sean Parker, the notorious Napster who pretty much stole the bacon J.T. was bringing home… or didn’t.

★ ★ ★