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!

Nothing Like the Holidays (2008)

Nothing Like the Holidays (2008)

Finally, a previously unseen holiday flick that was actually somewhat enjoyable unlike the drivel that was the last film. Kristin Chenoweth, I am disappoint!

Carrying on then, Nothing Like the Holidays enjoys a large ensemble cast of latino actors among whom audiences would recognize Alfred Molina, Luiz Guzman, Debra Messing, and an actor I personally feel is very underrated, John Leguizamo, though I am sure film lovers would recognize more of the cast.

The story revolves around a Puerto Rican family getting together for the holidays in Chicago at their childhood home. You have by all accounts the appearances of what could be a predictable family drama with the "prodigal son" who just arrived back from Iraq scarred and possibly traumatized, the successful son who harbors latent resent, the liberal actress daughter looking to make her break in Hollywood, the possibly cheating father, the frustrated and exhausted mother, and the rest of the ensemble.

I feel I must admit that I was in a bid of a mood before setting in to watch this flick, and really wasn't up for giving my attention to another holiday flick that could have been as stupid as the last one. But I feel I need to be diligent to keep this blog alive and for good or for bad I must endure. It didn't really help that I wasn't really sold on the synopsis which kind of sounded like the set up to another Lifetime movie. Boy was I pleasantly surprised. I was cynical thinking I knew how everything was going to play out, and lo and behold, I was wrong. It is the mark of a clever director that sets up the premise to make it feel like old and comfortable territory, only to throw it away at the last second while still staying in the realm of plausible and truthfully logical conclusions. It was a welcome change. No I am not Puerto Rican but being part of this family for 90 some odd minutes, felt familiar. The nuances and idiosyncrasies of each family member immediately makes it feel like they are a real family. Even Debra Messing's character who is the outsider of sorts being a caucasian wife to John Leguizamo, has her familiar habits that suggest a long history with this family and is not really an outsider at all.


Of course there is the necessary drama and latent frustrations that boil to the surface as the story transpires, but it is only further testament to the cast, in that they make you care for this family. As each secret is revealed, you shudder at the possibility of it tearing this family apart and yet they all bounce back, almost stronger. That kind of attention, that kind of devotion is rarely seen on screen anymore (unless overly sappy ala Lifetime) and instead the drama that typically unfolds destroys families, all in the name of being shocking and unique. 


The good: The entire cast. Very much an ensemble piece, I always credit the writing team and director when they are able to showcase all the talent equally and not feel like one person's story is overriding the others. Debra Messing gets special mention as she wasn't an annoying brat (e.g. every other acting role she's had). Here she was a complex character who at first glance definitely could have been a stereotype, but she played it real and made me believe she was as much a part of the family as the actual children. Luis Guzman was also tolerable here which is appreciated because when he's good he is good, and when he is just playing Luis Guzman, he can be bad. Does that make sense?


The Bad: Being such a large ensemble piece, some characters do drift to the background. Not a huge detriment but again it may have been a choice playing against expectations. 


Final Thoughts: I very much appreciated this film. It took me out of my slump somewhat by playing against my expectations. It was a comfortable film that I feel is what holiday films (at least contemporary ones) fail to encapsulate anymore. And given that the family was so unabashedly Puerto Rican and yet it could make some pasty white guy from Canada feel welcome like I have known this family all along is another testament to the writing, acting and directing. Kudos.


Add to the Vault? You are probably expecting me to say yes, but I am not going to. It was a good film, comfortable, but I don't feel it has the necessary repeat value to be added to the vault. I am definitely appreciative that I got to watch it and experience it, but I doubt I will need to re-visit it anytime soon. It was simply a good show and I recommend you give it a go if you are looking for a nice family holiday tale.




Enough of my yammering, here's the trailer for 2008's Nothing Like the Holidays!

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

So here we have the sequel to the Swedish (original) version of the The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (TGWTDT), not the Daniel Craig remake one that for some reason folks are supposed to be excited about. Much like the American version of "Let The Right One In" I am generally uninspired by Americanized versions of films made solely to pander the masses that are either ignorantly unwilling or threatened by watching something with subtitles. I mean I get it, the books are successful, which is great. But the people that are buying the books are obviously literate types who should be able to appreciate the Swedish version of the story right? I mean it takes place IN SWEDEN. Or is there really a multitude of people out there that are all sitting around thinking, "Damn that cover of that book looks mighty intriguing. I can't wait till they make it into a movie despite not knowing anything about it because I stopped reading when it was no longer necessary for school." As per usual, I digress.

The sequel continues where the TGWTDT leaves off with Lisbeth off on a much needed vacation and Mikael continuing to be the "celebrity" author for Millenium magazine. The party is short lived as Lisbeth catches wind that her rapist guardian (of sorts) is neglecting certain respects of their arrangement so she returns to set him straight. Unbeknowst to her, events are set into motion that bring her past into the present and before long we are witnessing a cat-and-mouse game to find out who is responsible for the deaths of a man and woman with ties to Mikael's magazine.

I won't go into much more detail as either you've seen the first flick and you are familiar with certain characters, or you haven't seen the first film, in which case I would be wondering why you'd be starting with the second film of a trilogy. I will say however that TGWPWF shares a lot in common with films like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Namely in the the first film worked as a decent standalone film, and it had a clear-beginning-middle end. You were introduced to the characters and the mystery was the primary story, and despite Lisbeth being an intriguing character nothing (save for the very end of the film) really suggests that the story NEEDS to continue into a trilogy. Much like the first Pirates film. Then you have the second film, with essentially only the characters tied back to the first film, you introduce a new story, new characters, but having dived full on into trilogy mode now, the story lacks punch and quite noticeably an ending. Much like the second Pirates film. Ah the curse of middle films in trilogies.

The good: Lisbeth is interesting enough to warrant a trilogy of films and because of Noomi Rapace's commitment to the character, I guess I just feel that an Americanized version is kind of insulting to her. But good to hear she's getting enough props to be the female lead in the next Sherlock Holmes flick with Robert Downey Jr. The giant borderline albino in the film is also intriguing enough despite the little material the actor has to play with, and the obvious correlations people will make to the DaVinci Code.

The bad: I don't really care for Mikael both as a character and the actor portraying him. We're supposed to believe the guy is a hot celebrity in Sweden but I think they may have different standards of what makes people attractive. Especially since several times we are told how ugly Lisbeth is supposed to be. Um pardon? The story is also hurting from the sequel curse. People are introduced and just as promptly forgotten about, and story threads are left dangling as well. I also didn't find myself very intrigued by the whole premise like I did the first film, which was much more of a traditional mystery whodunit. In this one the only real tension was at the very end, too little too late and only serves to leave on a cliffhanger for the final film.

Final Thoughts: I can't help but wonder the thought process behind wanting to make trilogies. Why not just make two films to tell the story, as inevitably (with very few exceptions) the middle story is usually lacking and subpar to the first and third tales to be told. In literature it's different and you can explore more themes and plots than film allows for, and usually doesn't suffer to the same degree. Also, as far as titles go, this title is wasted on such a mediocre film. With the conclusion being called "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest" it fails on the WOW spectrum as far as titles go.

Add to the Vault? No. Maybe if the 3rd film is insanely good and they are sold as a box set, but as of right now the second film feels like it could have been largely a montage intro to the 3rd film at best. I don't have too much interest in owning the first film either, but I do regard it to be the more superior film of the two so far.


Without further adieu, the trailer for The Girl Who Played With Fire:

The Good Guy (2009)

The Good Guy (2009)

Well here we have a different take on the "romance" genre. It's actually tauted as a romantic comedy, which is really misleading to unsuspecting film goers. Perhaps that's part of the schtick as we are also treated to the filmic equivalent oft seen in novels, which is the unreliable narrator.

The premise is simple enough, a well-to-do wall street guy is obviously at some pivotal point at his life, as he's ringing the buzzer or his girlfriends apartment. It is pathetic fallacy at its finest as it is also pouring rain, he has lost his wallet and locked out of his own apartment. But alas, we see his girlfriend in the arms of another man, and she is reluctant to let him in.

So what has transpired to make us arrive at this point? Cue the rest of the movie. I will potentially have already spoiled the movie for the more astute readers out there, but in the event you don't want me to go further into detail, I will simply say I didn't ultimately care for this story.

Now onward to the spoilers, consider yourself warned.


So basically we have Thomas (Scott Porter, currently seen on The Good Wife), Beth (Alexis Bledel, who I guess was on Gilmore Girls), and Daniel (Bryan Greenberg, who I have never heard of before, but some may recognize from One Tree Hill I suppose). These are the main characters, two of which may or may not be the titular character in question. Rounding out the supporting cast is a plethora of bit characters, including most notably Anna Chlumsky.

...In the great words of an old drama prof I once had who hated my guts, SIDE BAR! I have to include this note because I would be ashamed not to admit that I was surprised to see Anna Chlumsky again after all these years. I had very nearly forgotten all about her, but seeing her again I was whisked back to time when I was a doe-eyed eleven year old boy, and having watched My Girl for the first time I developed a big crush on Anna Chlumksy. Since then she kind of disappeared from film except for bit parts here and there, but I definitely felt nostalgic after seeing her again. Okay, back to our regular scheduled programming...

Okay so we have a story revolving around three characters and we are supposedly meant to relate to at least one of them and hope for the desired outcome. The only props I will give is that this movie plays against convention only in terms of narrative. In actual plot development it plays EXACTLY to convention so much as to go out of its way to force you to hate certain characters if only to make you "like" the other characters by default because they aren't as despicable as others. One guy is so despicable that despite starting out as a facade of a complex character he grows increasingly more one dimensional as the film transpires. One girl is so tired looking and so obviously disinterested in the world around her, that I could honestly care less about who she winds up with. Another guy starts off so one dimensional that we are meant to see growth as the narrative plays out, but truthfully if you think about it, he's still a waste of time and effort in regards to character. Then unfortunately we have pretty much every other girl in the film who is a man-hating-but-ultimately-shallow-and-needy female who are little more than caricatures then real people.

That's a very vague and wordy spoiler if there ever was one, but I think you can figure out who's who. I mean we run the gamut for extremes in this film. The unabashedly confident cheating bastard, the heroine who we are told basically outright is as virtuous as Elizabeth Bennet, the socially awkward loser who is essentially Dudley Do-right with Asperger's. I mean seriously, the guy was more awkward in social situations than the guy PORTRAYING a man with Aspergers in the movie ADAM, and yet we are supposed to believe he is the Mr. Darcy of this film? Ridonkulous. Oh and the Pride and Prejudice references aren't subtle for fear of alienating the viewers who have never picked up a book before, so they inundate us with literary references abound. See that makes the movie SMRT. Only learn-ed folk can catch the nuance of the brilliant performances on screen.

But is it any good? No, I can see why some people would like it, but I think these people probably try and fit the world into tidy little categories where people are not multi-faceted human beings but rather paper cut-outs with arbitrary singular motivations.

The good: Anna Chlumsky. Why? Well it's great to see her on film again. Good for her. I also liked Aaron Yoo, an asian actor people probably wouldn't know unless to see him. I didn't care for the leads. Although I suppose given that my wife enjoys watching "The Good Wife" it's a testament to Scott Porter to say that he plays douchebag well.

The bad: The attempts the film makes to make it different, for all its efforts you can adequately predict the movie every bit of the way and you actually HOPE that there will be a twist that makes it redeemable. This is the filmic equivalent to a Stephanie Meyer novel that deludes people into thinking it is a great narrative. Oh whoops... disregard to all Stephanie Meyer fans out there.

Final Thoughts: I won't hold it against this film for being deceptive at the beginning. I thought I was going to get a romantic comedy (like it was listed) and then given some of the serious angles I thought we'd be treated to decent intellectual romantic drama. Then a quarter of the way into the film, once it hits it's stride, you see the film for what it really is and you wish you weren't under any obligation to watch crap shows because you started a movie blog. I think it would have been a far more interesting choice to start the film in the same fashion, but keep the protagonist somewhat likable. Make it conflicting to see the woman he adores end up being with the man who is the Great guy, because he is simply the Good Guy, because sometimes that's just how life is. Don't make him into a right bastard that you lose any and all empathy with, just for the sake of throwing the other two unrealistic characters at each other. Anyways...

Add to the vault? No. Sorry, just no. I don't have anything witty to add here.


In case you were curious, here's the trailer for 2009's, The Good Guy.

The Reflecting Skin (1990)

The Reflecting Skin (1990)

Well folks, you asked for it. I have to start off with an apology though, words do not describe how gloriously f***ed up this movie is. I remember catching this flick originally on some late night channel, probably only 11 or 12 years old, and truly I have never been the same since. This is the one movie, that no matter how many times I watch it, it is pure and simply messed up.

In contemporary film where once brilliant auteurs like Lynch have become veritable hacks of their former selves, I can only imagine that Philip Ridley (who wrote and directed this film) is of the same cloth as Sartre. Lynch could only dream of being as screwed up as this film is.

Well what is so messed up about this film you say? Alright, I will give it the good ol college try here.

The film takes place in rural Idaho (as per wikipedia though I don't recall it ever being mentioned in the film) in the 1950s. We follow our young (10-11 year old) protagonist Seth Dove. Seth is the epitome of a serial killer waiting to happen as the screwed up stuff he experiences and does is definitely there to scar him for life.

But is Seth entirely innocent prior to what he witnesses? Nope, he's already well on his way to being screwed up. We first see him and his two friends inflating a bullfrog they find to the point of rupture. Instead of killing the frog immediately they set it on it's back on a hot rural road where a woman is approaching from the distance. When the woman nears and inspects the frog, our young protagonist Seth takes out his slingshot and shoots the frog, exploding it all over the woman and the road.

And that is pretty much the end of all semblance of reality in this film. Seth becomes obsessed with vampires after hearing his dad speak about a novel he's reading. More importantly, Seth becomes convinced that the woman from before, Dolphin Blue is her name, is a vampire herself.

In a nutshell, Seth experiences religious zealotry, self-immolation, murder, possible remnants of infanticide or a still-born baby, dead angels, possible pedophilia peripherally, homophobia and radiation sickness. Jury's still out on the whole vampire angle and I am sure entire papers can be written on the murmuring chirping twin ladies.

That's not a synopsis, you say? Fine. Seth is the central figure to a mysterious set of murders that begin with the children of his small rural community. Seth's brother Cameron returns about half way through the film (played by Viggo Mortensen) and is definitely affected by his time in the war, hinting at being in or near Japan after Nagasaki or Hiroshima.  This is not the 1950's of "Greece" or "Happy Days" this is more like the 1950's of the apocalypse meets the twilight zone.

Some readers on IMDB boards seem to suggest that the imagery in the film is an allegory for Seth's innocence slowly becoming lost, which is an admirable take on the whole thing, but I don't think that explains enough. I think Seth is already a lost soul, there is nothing absolutely nothing redeemable about any of the characters. Each are bitter, twisted shadows of human beings, but life has been a long time gone from these folks.

If you want purgatory, this is my definition of it. These is bleaker than The Road in many respects.


The good: Well, I've mentioned that the film is bleak and messed up, but is it any good? Yes, it still is. This is a film I could never fully de-construct. I would challenge both many of my former University peers, and established film critics alike to try and make sense of this film. I would love to have lengthy discussions about what transpires in the 95 minutes on screen. Standouts though? Seth. Creepy creepy Seth. Viggo is always good (*coughRolandtheGunslingercough*) and just for sheer absurdity the Sheriff is great too. Oh and creepy dead angel babies. Yep you read that right.

The bad: Sanity as we know it, has no place in this film. That can make for a paradoxical viewing experience in which you simultaneously are revolted, apalled and intrigued by what happens next.

Final thoughts: Not one for mom and dad or your kids. Know that if you put this into your dvd player or watch it on your computer (Authors Note: I don't condone that!) you will bear witness to one of the greatest wtf moments in film that I have ever known. Forget Eraserhead, forget Gummo, forget Blue Velvet. You'd have to go as far back as Un Chien Andalou (1929) for a film on par with The Reflecting Skin.

Add to the Vault? You know what? Yes. For the mere fact that this film is like a drug. How I imagine heroin would feel, getting under your skin and forcing you to want more despite the horrors you experience from it. Perhaps too strong of an allusion but I don't care, I have never done heroin and never will, so I will invoke creative license here. This film definitely should not disappear, but rather serve as the proverbial bar for films aspiring to be messed up pieces of art.

Dance Me Outside (1994)

Dance Me Outside (1994)

Not to inundate the U.S. readers with Canadiana films, but I go in order of what I watched. So forgive me. This film, an older film now, is based on the characters of several W.P. Kinsella novelettes. That's right, the same W.P. Kinsella who wrote Shoeless Joe Jackson Comes to Iowa which became "Field of Dreams" starring Kevin Costner.

Now given that I had great parents who encouraged me to be as much of a bibliophile as a cinephile, I read a few W.P. Kinsella stories predominantly The Fencepost Chronicles and The Moccasin Telegraph. The characters Kinsella revisits are also the stars of this film being Silas Crow (changed from Silas Ermineskin in the stories) and Frank Fencepost. Not knowing how politically correct such subject matter would be considered in this hypersenstive world of today, I do remember fondly enjoying the exploits of Silas and Frank in rural Alberta (which is changed to near Toronto in the film).

The story is simple enough (spoilers ahead though!!), Silas and Frank welcome a friend, Gooch, who is recently released from prison after serving a three year stint. The film initially plays out as a simple "day in the life" of Silas and Frank on the reserve (introducing other memorable characters from the books as well like Sadie, Silas' on and off again girlfriend). One night at the bar, while Frank and Silas are up to their shenanigans, one of their female friends leave with a white guy. Cut to the next morning while Frank and Silas are nursing their hangovers on boat ride, they find their friend dead under a bridge. So begins the real story of vengeance on the reserve and the journey's each of the characters take.

The film has a lot of humour in it, and I guarantee you've probably all seen some of the actors in some capacity or another, notably Frank Fencepost who is played wonderfully by Adam Beach. Adam Beech is next to appear in Jan Favreau's Cowboys and Aliens, but he has also appeared in films such as Windtalkers and Flags of Our Fathers. The film's real charm lies in the quiet dramatic moments. Subtlety taking precedence over the bluntness of contemporary drama, and how even with humour there lies a dynamic level of depth and gravity to some scenes that can be very nearly painful.

I found myself enjoying these characters immensely, and though I never watched the resultant TV series, The Rez, I can see how the show led to the series. The lives of these characters don't end at the credits. Some films you feel content that the story has been told and that is suffice, whereas others, like Dance Me Outside, the characters are rich enough that they continue on.

The good: The nuances of life on the reserve. The delicate balance of celebrating cliché and avoiding exploitation. The richness of the characters. And the music! Great music!

The bad: One little thing irked me, and it was a plot detail concerning Silas' sister and her meeting with Gooch while her white husband was trying desperately to gain the approval of Silas and others from the reserve. Her actions, while I get the intention behind them, don't really make them acceptable in my eyes, and immediately made her an unsympathetic character.

Final Thoughts: A very decent film. A very Canadian film, but that shouldn't scare of any Yanks that may find this on television sometime in the future. Give it a try.

Add to the vault: I don't feel it needs to be added to the vault. It does make me want to find the old stories and give them a re-read though. Which is more than of a credit to how good the show is then one might think.

Oh right, seeing as I dropped the ball on the last few reviews... here is the trailer for Dance Me Outside. Enjoy.

Adam (2009)

Adam (2009)

Now that we are firmly into November, I will presumably up the rotation of non-horror films. I am still open to recommendations if anyone out there in cyberspace actually reads this blog, but in the meantime you will get the random shows that pique my interest on the movie channels I get. Films I have never seen before and for good or for bad, for your reading enjoyment and to serve as a guide to know which films deserve to stand the test of time or be destined for the scrap heap.

Today's film was a film that easily could have been exploitative and insulting. Many films that deal with the topic of mental illnesses and such, run the risk of being so overly dramatic so as to be insulting or ham-fisted. Others are so far removed from our world that they exist solely in the realm of Hollywood and earn Academy Awards.

This film deals with Asperger's Syndrome, which, and forgive me for being blunt, feels like such a convenient disorder these days. Almost a flavour of the week condition, where hypochondriacs everywhere suddenly felt that they must have Asperger's Syndrome merely because they were socially awkward. Disorders are not something you should aspire to, folks, just to be different. I am not saying that it isn't a real and valid disorder, just that it seems awfully convenient in how quickly it is brought up as a plot device, or explanation.

But I digress, the protagonist of this film is titular character, and we meet him at his father's funeral. Immediately, we are thrust into his world and accept it. We are, in the span of minutes, able to understand his routine and in turn we can anticipate the disruptions easily, while simultaneously being surprised at what he is able to deal with rationally.

Enter Beth, a woman who moves into the same building as Adam and finds him... intriguing. So begins what starts as a gradual, hesitant friendship blossom into something more, reiterating that the misconceptions about are not in fact a reality. The film, much like (500) Days of Summer, shows us stages of what would would be a normal relationship with the sole exception of an added obstacle that both parties in the relationship try to work around.

If anything, this film shows that Asperger's could be synonymous with any other issue. It could be alcoholism, it could be a handicap of some sort, it could be PTSD or who knows what. And really it isn't important. Well it is in terms of providing enlightening information about the condition, and how to live with it and understand it. The truth is that it is just as important that at the heart of a story we get to know two people in a relationship and they work at it like any other couple. We end up caring for both these people respectively and appreciate them.

It is a refreshing tale. It has its ups and downs and it isn't listed as a romantic-comedy for a reason. Is it flawless? No course not. But it is a decent story that was as far away from a horror movie as one could get.

The good: New information on Asperger's, a nice story about love and life, and real honest portrayals of people as opposed to caricatures that we are so used to.

The bad: Some bad pacing issues. As for Asperger's I have no idea how accurate the movie is or isn't. Welcome feedback in that area.

Final thoughts: Definitely go watch it. Those of you interested in dramas, or those of you who can appreciate a decent story. Don't watch it as the definitive Asperger's information guide, or if you are a socially awkward hypochondriac looking to find something to emulate.

Add to the vault? I am still mulling it over. I did really like the story and for a couple of relatively unknown actors I feel I want to support the cause and show that the film is appreciated, but at the same time I am okay not watching it for awhile too. We'll see. I'm also partial to the fact it has such an awesome title.

Red (2008)

Red (2008)

No this isn't the Bruce Willis/Helen Mirren flick about retired assassins. Instead this is a hidden gem that probably never made it to a movie theatre near you. A story about a man and his dog, a dog that gets killed after a robbery that goes awry.

In any other Hollywood movie, such a plot would result in the old man (here played by Brian Cox) building up an arms cache before going all Rambo on those who wronged him. Instead we have a fairly realistic telling of a wronged man, trying to go through all the normal channels of trying to get justice for those who killed his dog. I liked the small town portrayal. It wasn't unrealistic of today's society and how even small towns can have bad apples. The youth portrayed in the film came across as types I knew as I am sure everyone knew in some capacity. You have the bad seed that is a crap-disturber because life is too good. He's never really been disciplined, knows no boundaries and is overly praised so basically sees no wrong to his ways. You have the younger brother who plays the the proverbial good kid mixed in with a bad lot because of direct association and knows that what they do is wrong but doesn't know how to change it. And you have the fringe kid that is really only a punk because of life's cards that were dealt to him.

Nothing new or groundbreaking, but played subtly enough to feel real here. Brian Cox, enjoyable in nearly everything he has ever done, is the old man who has plenty to be angry about but plays it with the patience of a monk.

The climax of the film can seem a little far fetched, but is kept reasonably plausible. The one thing that felt a bit off was Tom Sizemore's character as the father to the errant youth. At first he seems reasonable, sitting down and listening to Brian Cox's story of woe, and you can see that the father does not disbelieve the story and that his kids could be capable of such atrocity. But taking the word of his kids alone, he suddenly turns into a legal action threatening, gun toting a-hole. The turn from a complex character to a one dimensional one is a little abrupt and never really explored further to justify the turn.

The good: Brian Cox was great as the patient, subdued elderly man to whom you would totally expect and rationalize with if he suddenly went postal, but instead demonstrates the quiet rage that is unnerving to witness as you wish him to enact swift and well deserved justice.

The bad: Not much. Again it is a simple story, nothing ground breaking. Interesting as a one off. No performance was bad, and the pacing was decent enough.

Final thoughts: I appreciate having recorded this flick on the PVR. I read the synopsis and expected something much more contrived, but was actually happy with the realistic portrayals of the people in this small community.

Add to the vault: No. It may be a hidden gem, but I don't believe it warrants repeat viewing. I am honoured to have had the chance to appreciate it once and I would encourage you all to do the same, but one viewing is enough.

The Road (2009)

The Road (2009)

Wow. Feel good movie of the year! In all seriousness though, wow. Great movie and for a book-to-movie conversion, this is a movie that knocks it out of the park. Like most people, I find that book to movie conversions are often severely lacking even a fraction of the atmosphere, character or story of the titular novel the films are meant to epitomize. In this situation though, the movie does the book justice creating a labour of love that encapsulates the Cormac McCarthy story and in turn presents a film that is more horrific than any recent contemporary attempt at horror in some time.

Those unfamiliar with the story, can have it summarized up as such, boy and father travel a road in the bleakest most depressing post-apocalyptic world you could probably ever imagine without the addition of zombies. Don't get me wrong though, there are definitely different kinds of monsters that exist in this world and we the reader/audience travel with them through their trials and tribulations to reach some semblance of sanctuary.

I am familiar with the source material, having read the novel some time ago... en route to Belize for my honeymoon I think... and while the movie has some creative liberties (ala the role of the mother and a conspicuously absentee baby) such liberties in the film either do not detract from the overall essence of the story or in some facets, add to it. Now Cormac McCarthy also wrote No Country for Old Men, a Coen brothers adaptation that truthfully I didn't care for that much, nor did I think it was an Oscar contender let alone worthy of being a winner, hence why I have had little to no interest in the Academy Awards for some time, but I digress. The Road, unlike No Country for Old Men, is captivating from beginning to end, and everything from cinematography, powerhouse performances, quality actors in the smaller roles, and the devotion of the director all add to what is a spellbinding film.


The good: Everyone. Viggo Mortenson and Kodi Smit-McPhee hold the film. A testament to the kid's chops in holding his own against Viggo for 2 hours. If Stephen King's Dark Tower series ever actually sees the light of day, and I am speaking to you Ron Howard, do everything in your power to get these two for Roland and Jake. Oh and don't screw it up. No pressure though. What else is good? The other actors, Charlize Theron who is often hit-and-miss with me, nails an unforgiving role as the mother. Seeing Robert Duvall, Guy Pierce and Molly Parker, round out a small cast with quality over quantity. It would be a disservice to not acknowledge the incredible cinematography, the visual ability is the very essence of using a picture to tell a thousand words, which allows us to see page by page on screen in all it's wonderfully depressing splendour.

The bad: Not much. This film is definitely not for everyone. This film had my wife weeping (because of how good it is) but this may not be the film for kids or parents alike. You have to have a strong heart and a strong will to endure this film, as you are right there every moment with the characters on screen.

Final Verdict: Go see it. Expect to hurt watching it, but know that you are seeing a work of art. Then go read the book if you haven't already done so.

Add to the vault? Well this is a tough one. Obviously this isn't a film that you're gonna pull out for guilty rainy day fare, but I would be honoured to have this film in my collection if only for the sake of dusting it off in ten years and sharing in the experience again. So yes.


And to try something different, I am going to try linking to the trailers for the films I review from here on out.


Enjoy folks!

500 Days of Summer

And now for something completely different...

I know I promised I was going to try and just do horror movies for October, but I caved and watched a different genre.

(500) Days of Summer - 2009


This movie was one I have had on my radar for awhile, I am a definite Joseph Gordon-Levitt fan and I am glad to see he has survived the trappings of child stardom and become a very decent actor in his own right.

I am however not a fan of Zooey Deschanel. I keep hearing how fanboys love her but I don't see it. She just seems so wooden and ... I don't know.... difficult. Like she'd be one of the most annoying people to just be around just by her mere presence.

It isn't like I haven't tried to like her. I have watched a lot of movies with her in them, but she's exactly the same in each of them. Oh well, onto the movie.

So this movie is the ANTI-romantic comedy. It sort of plays like it could be a romantic comedy but instead you have what is quite possibly one of the most real depictions of a real life romance and breakup. This isn't spoiling anything. They tell you that in the first 5 minutes of the film.

Despite my misgivings about about Zooey, Joseph carries this film entirely. He takes us on his emotional roller coaster of each stage of a relationship, and the gradual, painful realization that love is not always like it is in the movies, or sung about on the radio. His character Tom, is a character after my own heart, he is a hapless romantic who has sometimes unrealistic expectations of love and relationships. His inability to fathom that he has given himself over so completely to someone and it may not be completely mutual. It's a real, raw and honest film that tricks you into thinking it's a paint by numbers rom-com.

Some people will find this a pretentious hipster movie, and it definitely can feel that way, but it shouldn't be avoided because of it. I never considered myself a hipster, I don't wear tight jeans with white belts, but I did find it amusing that nearly all of the songs in the movie are on my own personal playlists for one reason or another.

As an aside, the movie is rife with other bit character actors including That Nerdy Guy from Criminal Minds (who does basically the same character but stupid in this film), and That Guy Who Looks Weird But is Married To Christina Hendricks (look him up, you'll recognize him from something), including other bit parts from people from Bones (which has Zooey's much more talented sister Emily) and Community (WAYYYY better than Modern Family.)

The good: The story, every character but Summer, and the self-awareness of the film that keeps it real despite the movie elements.

The bad: Don't act like you didn't expect me to say it. Zooey Deschanel. Upside to this, is you aren't terribly upset if he doesn't wind up with her. Ha ha.

Final Verdict: A definite must watch for any fan of the rom-com (how stupid a term is that anyway?) provided that you are strong enough to appreciate the reality of the situations depicted.


Add to the Vault? Mayhaps. I will have to mull it over some more before I decide for certain. Still a great show.