Provoking Opportunity

I saw Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story," and it got me thinking. This movie, like all of his movies, is one that definitely has a perspective, and some may not agree with it, but I like when a movie gets me to think, whether I agree with the movie's perspective or not.

The issues in the movie were those of the economic system in the USA, the disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and the escalation of political unrest. All big issues, and they're issues that impact us daily. When I think about them, I feel a sense of urgency coupled with frustration. It's difficult know what to do about them, that's where the frustration comes in, and so I usually leave those issues in the "thought for later" drawer of my mind. Until talking with the few friends who actually think about these things, or reading a book on the subject, or when I notice that it's getting tougher every day to make a living in this land of opportunity.
These thoughts were brought to my mind again watching Moore's movie. In some form or other, he questions the big issues of our economic system. Perhaps not fully, and perhaps in an exaggerated fashion at times, (it is after all a movie), but Moore puts forth a strong argument against capitalism in a thought provoking work. He says that what we need, what was the original intention of this country, is democracy. I vote for that.
I give it four out of five garlics.

Trek It Out

I'm not a trekkie. I remember watching the original "Star Trek" series (in reruns), and enjoying the show, but at that age I liked to watch almost anything on television. Yet "Star Trek" remained in my memory as a unique show of television. I did not like the slew of spin-off series that followed the original in later years. No Captain Kirk? No Spock? No point. And here we are with a movie that has a whole new gang, same as the old gang. But guess what? They pulled it off.

Chris Pine plays William Shatner's Captain Kirk, and he achieves the near impossible by channeling Shatner's pitched braggadocio without going over the top. Zachary Quinto's Spock was perfect. Various actors portraying Spock's Vulcan race, have been boring examples of what is presented as an almost emotionless race. Quinto is brilliant in that he hints at the highly controlled emotion just underneath the surface, especially in that his is a young Spock, having all the more difficulty in dealing with his half human self. Hats off to the director J.J. Abrams also, for keying in on that aspect of Spock. Abrams directing is superb, dynamic, but very little of the "shaky cam" effect that directors have taken to recently to try and impart the feeling of intense action. Instead he moves the storyline along quickly capturing action, but letting the details of both character and spectacular cinematography have their moments.

Directing aside, as good as it was, it was the characters that made the movie work. The casting director not only did an amazing job filling the iconic roles with young actors who could pull them off, but somehow found actors that could generate a similar chemistry to that of which I believed was impossible to recreate. That is the chemistry between the characters Kirk, Spock, and Bones (played brilliantly by Karl Urban). The core three, as I call them, are what made the old Star Trek special, and now the new one. Probably not quite the same, but eerily similar. Plot wise, there were some holes, but nothing that took away from a great movie experience. I'm looking forward to the next trek. Four out of five garlics.

Wondering About The 24 Hours Before

25th hour is a curious movie. Spike Lee directed this visually beautiful but puzzling movie, and I was left to wonder, What are you saying Spike? That is not a question I would have thought to ask of a "Spike Lee joint." Usually, he is almost overly earnest in his message, and though I have questioned this over the years, I have respected his unique, direct style. "He Got Game," is one of my favorite films, and I thought "Clockers" has been underrated in filmology.

The subtitle of the film is "Can You Change Your Life In One Day?" and if that is the concept, then the answer is no. Though the dog is a symbol of the main character's goodness, he never seems to be in a crises of moral values, just a crises of how to survive prison. A morally ambiguous character of a not entirely underprivileged background, who doesn't seem to care that he chose to deal drugs in the first place, "What are you saying Spike?" The beautiful cinematography and good acting all around pull this one through, though it is not Spike's best work. It still has it's moments and it's (maybe) concern with out-of-proportion sentencing of drug related crime (maybe). What am I saying about the film? I'll leave you as Spike left me...to wonder. I give the film three out of five garlics.

Skating On Thin Ice

What do you get when you combine a ridiculous story about competing ice skaters who join to form the first male pair skating team, with two great comedic actors? Great ridiculous comedy of course. In "Blades of Glory," Will Ferrell and Jon Heder play off each other as if they've been doing it for years, and save a film which would otherwise be a lesson in stupidity. But we all know stupidity has its place in comedy, as long as it makes us laugh. And I couldn't help laughing as these two actors brought the stupid. Yes, the line between stupid and funny can be as thin as a blade, but Ferrell and Heder skate along that line expertly (all puns intended). I give the film three and a half out of five garlics.
(and a half)

A Darker Narnia

It cost me almost seventy bucks to see this movie. No kidding. That's what you get when you got a movie for kids and your the one treating all of them. So what do I get? Well Prince Caspian wasn't boring, but, for the money I thought it should have been a little more boring for an adult.

P.C. is supposed to be PG, (a children's movie), but is plenty violent. Part one didn't have as dark a tone, and I was surprised at the film's direction. The land of Narnia seemed like a place that a kid should stay away from, no matter how many friendly lions are living there. Maybe its just a sign of the times, like movie tickets costing so much. Still, an entertaining flick of fantasy, it gets three out of five garlics.

Who's the Iron Man?

Iron Man. The man of iron, not steel. Superman was never my favorite superhero when I was a kid, I was a Spiderman fan. Ironman was a hero that I knew existed, but besides his cool look, I didn't follow his story.

The movie however, was better than good. The reason? Robert Downey Jr. Yeah. What was Iron Man's real name? Tony Stark? Just a name that now means, Robert Downey Jr. His performance was what, heroic? He made the movie. He was the man, or, in this case, the Iron Man. It gets four out of five garlics

The Obvious Done Well Again

Sylvester Stallone goes back to basics with "Rocky Balboa," and taps into some of what made Rocky so great. The best thing about the movie was the dialogue, and it was both funny and emotional, keeping me involved with its charming self-depreciations. It was this quality of Stallone’s writing which allowed me to accept the over-the-top moments, even with the painful memory of his movie called “Over The Top,” still in my head. The writing won out though, even if the plot was a given.

I knew, much as I did in Rocky, that the underdog was going to prevail against impossible odds, but I was okay with that because the writing reflects a self-awareness of what it is all about. And so I went along for the ride. Stallone also did some of the best acting in his career in the film, and the scene in which he explains some of life’s truths to his son is well…a knockout (okay, now I’m doing the obvious too).

Overall I thought it was a very good film, best when it focused on the characters lives outside the ring. The fight inside the ring was not the fight I was most interested in, it was Rocky’s struggle to define himself that interested me. I think the same was true for the first Rocky. The only complaint I have though, really, is the ending. I just did not like the last shot of the film. Since Stallone wrote, directed, and starred in the movie, I guess that’s not too shabby for an old underdog trying to get us to root for him again. The amazing part is that he succeeds. I give "Rocky Balboa" three (and a half) out of five garlicks.

A Good Reason For Gore?

I am moving full steam ahead and am actually writing our second review here at GCR, before Chuy has even written his first! Man, my computer is awesome for not breaking down! Again, this is a movie review, because they're the easiest to squeeze in between other stuff right now. What other stuff? Wouldn't you like to know.

A while back me and Chuy went and saw the movie “300” in the theater. As you probably know, the movie is a take on the ancient Battle of Thermopylae, and is based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller. I went because of the look of the film, though I felt I was chancing a brainless special effects show that would try to dazzle you into enjoyment from the visuals alone. I usually avoid those kinds of movies, especially the ultra-violent kind. It takes more than some blood and guts to get me interested, if you’re going to have blood and guts, there better be a good reason for it explained in a great story. Well, I thought, it is based on a historical event (I hoped), and thus would at least contain an educational element (yeah, I knew it was going to be a gore-fest).

Boy was I wrong! There was more to the title than a historical reference, the movie was 300 times ultra-violent! I knew it was going to be bloody but it was almost unnecessarily so. Heads and body parts were all over the place and close up too. The movie basically boiled down to a visual masterpiece that might have been somewhat better if it had held itself back at some points. Also, of course, “300” did not have the most compelling plot and writing, true of most we-shall-hack-and-slash-our-way-to-glory films. But this was one of those movies that you go to see just because it doesn’t look like anything else you’ve seen before. Except, when I first saw the previews of it I thought it was directed by Robert Rodriguez who directed “Sin City,” so I guess I did see something like it before. Oh well, I should have known better.

I thought “300” was a good film if you like violent, action adventures, where the visuals are the most important feature. I give it three out of five garlics, because I simply prefer a less violent and more story driven film.

So It's Not About Wrestling!

It is time for the Garlic City Review's first review. Can you smell it? By sheer luck of timing, lack of money, and the alignment of my couch to the television, our first review will be of a movie. The film "Half Nelson," starring Ryan Gosling to be exact. Though Chuy saw the movie first, I get to post the first review as his computer is in the land of glitch and crashies. So when he has salvaged what he can from his laptop, after he has grown technologically wiser, and financially poorer, he will write his reveiw. For now, only I can share my cinematic experience with the world. Only I can...okay, to the review.

I saw the movie "Half Nelson" after Chuy recommended it. I was originally hesitant to watch it because:
a. I didn't know anyone who was in it,
b. I thought it was a movie that involved high school wrestling, and
c. Chuy said it was "just wrong," which usually is very bad.
That all goes back to his recommendation for another movie whose name I won't mention here, but let's just say that "just wrong" usually refers to historical visual trauma. Still, he kept recommending the movie, and told me that it did not involve any wrestling, so I risked the ghosts of the past.

I thought the movie was slightly odd in its resolution or non-resolution at the end, but not "just wrong," in whatever way Chuy was seeing it. Instead I thought it was a great independent film, with strong acting, and admirable for the way it avoided easy answers. I actually tend to like ambiguous endings ( a la Clint Eastwood), if done well and intelligently, and I thought this movie made a nice attempt. I always like the non-Hollywood polish of independent films, which give them a unique character lacking in most of today's movies. However, it was the strength of the acting by Ryan Gosling and the supporting actors that worked for me most of all. Gosling's portrayal of a crack? meth? smoking high school teacher was a study in the way an addict slowly loses his grip on his basic moral principles. Great job all around, I highly recommend this movie and give it four out of five garlics.