Black Swan (2010)

Black Swan (2010)

Well well well... here's one of this (last) years most anticipated films. Eccentrics everywhere are agog with how profound and astonishing this film is. But... sadly... I am alienating myself and possibly any secret readers out there, but this was simply not the case for me.

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed this film, but overall, as far as stellar films go, this is not mind blowing to me. And as far as Darren Aronofsky films go... this is just a good flick.

Okay okay, from the beginning right? Premise, for those who have been sheltered from the reviews (I envy you), is this: Natalie Portman plays a repressed gifted ballerina who gets the role of a lifetime in Swan Lake, and the movie captures the struggle internal/external/etc she endures for the art.

Simple enough, and trust me the less you know the better. I was familiar with the premise, and I knew somewhat the potential arc that would transpire on screen. For me this removed me from any of the profoundness of the story. I mean once you accept the premise, you can anticipate the arc, and at that point it simply becomes a show about the journey rather than being there with the character and undertaking the journey with them.

Sure there is messed up stuff, and stuff that will make you second guess elements you witnessed, but really, and I mean honestly folks, step back from the film for one second and ask yourself if you haven't seen similar stories transpire in film, television, or literature before? "But not to this degree..." you might retort, but I think that it is just the hype talking.

Much to the chagrin of my wife, I just cannot accept that this is as great a film as people are claiming it to be, and I am not doing so simply to be contrary. I wanted to like this film. I was relishing the consistently positive reviews, but instead I got too far and found myself in the awkward territory of a film that is over hyped. And it was a good film, a film I enjoyed, but ultimately I felt underwhelmed by what transpired. I left the theatre feeling that I wanted more. Not of Natalie Portman though, she was solid.

She was, I will admit, astounding in this role simply for the dedication to character and the film, and what she undertook to complete the role. She was entirely consistent with the character and kept me engaged with the story.

Vincent Cassel was enjoyable as always in what could have easily been simply a villain role, but he kept it balanced and complex. Mila Kunis, though I always enjoy her as an actress, was simply one dimensional for me. Simply to serve as a foil for Natalie Portman and her psyche. The actress playing the mother was decently complex and twisted as well and the rest of the cast was sufficient at being ballet cast members. I can't really comment on the dance technically.

Some other issues I had were the random insertions of comedic moments in the film that removed any sense of tension and gravitas. My wife disagrees with me wholeheartedly insisting that it was the POINT of the film to have them, and that I am simply missing the PARALLELS of the DICHOTOMIES of virgins and harlots or some such thing. She offered to draw me a diagram but failed to deliver before I wrote this review. I do get that there was supposed to be the elements of "reality" that when shown in juxtaposition with "mentality" are meant to be jarring, but ultimately were unintentionally or unfortunately intentionally funny.

Two last observations I will make, is that in the theatre the male to female ratio was about 90:1, which doesn't necessarily account for much, because I did WANT to see the film, and it's possible many men do not. But there could be an additional element which affects females in a greater capacity than men. Of which I simply cannot comment. Or it could be that I am a robot like my wife says.

The second observation is that my wife, as a dancer felt a much stronger kinship with the trials and tribulations shown on film (in a much lesser capacity thankfully) which could also make for why she was able to connect to it more. I would have thought that any profession in the performance arts could invoke similar threads of connection emotionally, but I simply did not commiserate to the same capacity as her.

The good: Natalie Portman by far. Great acting, and many times did hurt my heart at how fragile she was. The style (when sticking to style) was also fascinating but left me wanting more.

The bad: Darren Aronofsky for not going further. I felt he didn't do this one as much justice as he did with Requiem for a Dream or even the Wrestler. I dearly hope that fame is not going to his head. Mila Kunis, again though I enjoy her, simply didn't seem as pivotal as she should have been.

Final Thoughts: Film enthusiasts should definitely go watch this film. As should dancers, and artists of every ilk. But go in without the hype and enjoy it more than me. Then come back and tell me how I am simply wrong in my point of view. Ha ha.

Add to the vault? My wide may want it, but I will pass personally. I can enjoy this film, but it simply isn't as good as a film as the masses are making it to be. Still a solid effort. Go watch it!

Hang Em High (1968)

Hang 'Em High (1968)

Man I do loves me some Clint Eastwood. By far not as incredible as the Man With No Name trilogy, Hang Em High is another wonderful addition in Clint Eastwood's incredible resume.

The thing with this film though that sets it apart from others in the western genre is how incredibly heavy and dark some of the material is that we witness on screen. The story seems like a straight forward revenge flick, but truthfully there is a lot more going on beneath the surface than you'd expect. Conventionally westerns like to pursue the revenge angle, or the lawless bowing down to the law of the west and such. Greed, villainy and such run rampant and the tall, dark, and mysterious leading man must save the day.

In Hang Em High, we are thrown immediately into the fray as we witness Clint Eastwood's Jed Cooper trying to start his new life as a rancher, but due to an unfortunate series of events came into possession of illegally obtained cattle. None the wiser, a lynch mob finds him and without listening to how he is innocent, they treat him to "good ol' fashioned frontier justice". Strung up and at the end of his rope, he is narrowly saved by a lawman who is nearby and cuts him down to be tried properly by a judge. The judge though is known as the hanging judge and it's a well deserved reputation but thankfully Cooper is spared the gallows again and in turn recruited to be a marshal and hunt down the men who did him wrong. The catch... he can't kill any of them, as they are all due for proper judicial proceedings.

Things go askew, more plots develop and Cooper finds a few snags in his quest for revenge. I love this story because it is complex. It isn't straight forward (as much as I love other westerns) and there are real conflicts in the pursuit of justice, which turns out to be varying shades of grey rather than the black and white some see it in. Bad folks aren't bad because they are evil, they are bad because of the decisions they make, and the resolution to follow those decisions through to completion. Multi-dimensional characters in a western. What will they think of next?

The other thing that surprised the hell out of me was the dark themes touched upon. Themes such as juvenile punishment, rape, lynching, the absolution of the law, cowardice, sympathetic villains, the spectacle of public execution and so much more. This is a great film and definitely one you should endeavour to watch if you haven't taken the time to appreciate Clint Eastwood's repertoire of films.

The good: Clint, the judge, the plot. Special mention goes to Inger Stevens, a tragic beauty who graced the screen and played Clint's love interest. In reviewing this film I looked up her resume and unfortunately saw that she had a short life, battling many personal conflicts before dying from an overdose of barbiturates. Sad.

The bad: The pacing was off a couple of times, and dragged a bit. It ran a very fine line for having one too many plots introduced, and the lack of any serious resolution which can be arguably a plus and a minus.

Final Thoughts: Clint Eastwood is a god amongst men. I cherish the fact I developed an interest in his films, having ignorantly for many a year dismissed them as old fashioned lame films. I had my epiphany with the Man with No Name trilogy a long time ago and have revered Eastwood since. The greatest shame is that we are subject to age and Clint is now too old to be the one role destined for him since the beginning... namely Roland the Gunslinger in the Dark Tower series. How I would have loved to see Clint in his prime, with today's technology tackle that series.

Add to the vault? Anything Clint does can be added to the vault. Just putting that out there.

Enjoy the trailer for Hang 'Em High!

Back to the Future Trilogy (1985, 1989, and 1990)

Back to the Future Trilogy (1985,1989 and 1990)

The joys of being ill allow for more movie viewing opportunities. These 3 films were sitting on the PVR waiting for me when I got back from the holidays. Now having watched them, I am happy to finally review them. The first is iconic and by far the most remembered of the three. Nearly everyone born prior to 1985 has seen it. The other two, well memories get fuzzy and the people who have sat down to watch them drops off significantly. Which is a shame, because I really think Robert Zemeckis intended to tell the story as a trilogy.

The first film follows Marty Mcfly as he is thrust back in time to 1955. A wonderfully simplistic version of the world he is used to. Doomed to disappearing into nothingness if he doesn't set out to make things right like getting his parents together, working with his good friend Doc Brown, thwarting the bad guy, and getting back.... TO THE FUTURE.

It's a fun, simple film despite the laws of time travel they set out to establish. Easy to follow and the pacing is decent, it's no wonder why this film became a classic what with an original story and some decent effort put into it's execution.

The first film ends where the second one begins (albeit some minor casting differences) and we find our same hapless heros thrust in to the crazy futuristic future of 2015. That's right folks, in a mere 4 years we will all be using hover cars, using archaic computer systems, and watching tv in standard definition again. I'm looking most forward to the hoverboards personally.

Story-wise and film-wise, this is the weakest film of the 3. It feels discombobulated and the pacing is off. The story is rushed and all the "future" scenes feel off. It's like when they finished the first film, the premise of travelling to the future was cool, but then with the success warranting a second film, they thought, "Oh crap, we actually have to follow through with this...". So we have a jarring story about a book, that only serves to get us out of the future as soon as possible.

The one upside is that film serves to establish the premise of the 3rd film in the wild west. And like that we too segue into the third film, where once the story settles again, the audience can get their bearings, and appreciate story again. The 3rd film follows Marty as he endeavours to rescue Doc Brown from 1885, and we are treated to some quality film work again. Mary Steenburgen joins the cast as a romantic interest for Doc Brown and the "Biff" of this time period is "Mad Dog" and definitely the most inspired of the bullies of each era.

All in all they are good films. The first and 3rd are much better than the second, but such is the case with most middle films in trilogies. They were great original stories and created iconic characters we all know and love today. The may not have aged well (especially the second one) but they are still fun.

The good: Michael J Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, and Thomas F. Wilson. All were great in their multitude of roles.

The bad: 2015. If it looks anything like it did in the second film, yikes....

Final Thoughts: If you haven't watched these films lately go out and rent em. Enjoy the time it takes you back to. Enjoy the ride.

Add to the vault? I would definitely add this trilogy to the vault. The Blue Ray special edition would be a fantastic trip through time every now and again. It may be a few years in between each viewing, but these films are like wonderful little time capsules and I would definitely re-watch them again and again.


So bear with me but here are the trailers for each installment of the series:

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:

Black Dynamite (2009)

Black Dynamite (2009)

What in hell was I thinking with this crap. I know, I know. I am probably not the target audience. But I can enjoy 70's exploitation flicks as much as anyone else. This film is obviously riding the coattails of other grindhouse flicks that started making a resurgence thanks (for nothing) to Quentin Tarantino.

This flick follows the adventures of Black Dynamite, a protagonist who refers to himself in 3rd person, as he goes the ridiculous motions of avenging his brother's death, getting smack off the streets and fighting "the man". It's filled with sexism, racism, cornball antics and jokes. It's trying so hard to be funny, tongue-in-cheek, and such that it's more irritating than anything else.

My problem with grindhouse flicks are not that they are a guilty pleasure for some, but that they are made at all. I actually do love the ridiculous trailers that are made for these films but that doesn't mean I want to actually want to see a film of the same caliber.

It's tough to review. Unless I was back in university and drinking with a bunch of friends, I can't see why anyone would actually make time to watch this drek.

The good: Michael Jai White, was obviously inspired in wanting to do this flick. He's never been a terribly good actor but he does badass well. Even though he's wasted in this drivel.

The bad: The rest.

Final Thoughts: There are undoubtedly blaxploitation or grindhouse enthusiasts out there that may not agree with my sentiments, and by all means, I applaud you. Shine on you crazy diamonds. But this film, in my humble opinion.... sucked.

Add to the Vault:  Maybe if I grew up in the 70's I would feel differently, but no. Not ever.


Here is the trailer for Black Dynamite, which I assure is 100 times better than the actual film... which still isn't saying much.

Home Alone (1990)

Home Alone (1990)

This is a belated holiday flick I meant to review before my holiday hiatus but didn't have a chance to. So here's the quick recap of Home Alone.

What can I say? I'm a sucker for films that quite often are the source of ridicule to others. I know many adults around my age that would have been the target audience when this film came out, who swear they dislike the film. For that I have to call BS, as for me, every year around Christmas this is one of the magical films that immediately transport me back to being a 9 year old kid again.

It hearkens back to a time when directors still put in effort for what is admittedly a tough genre to tackle. You've seen me gripe about uninspired holiday flicks looking to make a quick buck and serve little more than to induce sleep, but once upon a time directors actually cared. Chris Columbus is thankfully one of those directors. I often wonder how films like this get pitched or become a labour of love based on the premise alone. I always imagine the conversations that must have taken place, "So I have this great idea. An 8 year old kid is forgotten at home by his family at Christmas, a couple of burglars try and rob the place and shenanigans ensue." "SOLD!" *throws money at the director* Truthfully though, I imagine John Hughes attachment to the project may have had something to do with that.

Still, I am glad they did sell the premise. The film isn't perfect, nor should it be. You know the plot, it's geared towards kids, and yet thankfully I don't care. I unabashedly love this flick. Definitely a must watch every season.

The good: The cast. Everyone has their place and have become as familiar as the movie itself. Catherine O'Hara is especially good and Macaulay Culkin is enjoyable as well. I was talking with my wife about how it really was a testament to his charisma as a child to hold the film essentially by himself and not become irritating beyond merely precocious. John Candy always breaks my heart a little bit to know he's gone. Seeing him in this with Catherine O'Hara always makes me remember their SCTV days. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern are also enjoyable as well, playing the bumbling crooks with enough heart and maliciousness to be great villians (unlike that previous flick I reviewed with Chris Kattan and some obese man-child).

The bad: Once again the portrayal of law enforcement. EGADS. I shouldn't care but seriously they are the epitome of every bad stereotype in this film. Fat, lazy, donut eating fools. And we are supposed to believe that a phone call from a frantic mother wouldn't have elicited a bigger response other than the presumption that it was a hoax. Sheesh people.

Final Thoughts: Don't let naysayers and cynical holiday grinchs keep you from enjoying this holiday classic. Up there with Scrooged, Muppet Christmas Carol, National Lampoons Christmas Vacation, and others, this is one film that should be enjoyed every year.

Add to the Vault: If it wasn't pretty much guaranteed to be on TV every year, I would probably own it already. I will definitely mark it as "To be added to the vault" but so long as they keep playing it I will likely hold tight. Next year I will endeavour to review the second installment, which I remember to be decent but honestly I haven't watched in probably over 10 years.

This concludes the holiday stretch of movies, and I apologize in advance for the next review.

Before that though, enjoy the trailer for Home Alone: