Miles Teller and Kenny Wormald from "Footloose." Photo Credit: K.C. Bailey.

The slick sugarcoated remake of Footloose (2011) has trouble standing on its own without a love of the original, and can barely be compared to a classic like West Side Story (1961).

For one thing, it’s hard to say that Footloose is even a musical.  Much of the music in this remake is used as a soundtrack, especially in one very melodramatic scene in which the protagonist, Ren MacCormack, dances out his anger as he talks to himself.   This scene is an example of the many holes in the script—it is bland and negates its own best qualities with overly emotional scenes like this one.

The best part of Footloose’s plot is that there is no easy-to-blame villain—the parents of Bomont’s impulse to ban dancing is understandable, considering the accident that killed many of their children; Ren and his gang’s desires to dance are also reasonable.  This complicated conflict without a right or wrong is similar to that of West Side Story, where neither the Jets nor the Shark are innocent and both are victims throughout the movie.

However, the problems in Bomont seem pretty easily solved once Shaw Moore, the town’s reverend and main supporter of the dance ban comes around when his daughter Ariel wants to attend a dance.  The problems in West Side Story are rooted much deeper in the Jets’ racial prejudice against the Puerto Rican Sharks and the danger of gang activities.  Yes, in the final scene of the movie the gangs come together to help carry Tony, but it is clear that Maria and Anita, along with the Sharks and the Jets, still have a long way to go.

Both movies are fun to watch—the music, cinematography, and dancing is constantly great in West Side Story and Footloose is reliably entertaining.  Yet when the credits roll, West Side Story left me thinking, while Footloose left me with an empty feeling that everything was resolved just a little too easily.

Share This Post!

Leonardo DiCaprio in Clint Eastwood's J Edgar. Photo Credit: Keith Bernstein.

Clint Eastwood directs J. Edgar, a biopic revolving around the character J. Edgar Hoover, a very controversial historical figure. Renowned Leonardo DiCaprio stars in the titular role, playing young and old Hoover. Dustin Lance Black, another big name in the Hollywood world, was the screenwriter of this film.

The film starts out with the rise of Hoover’s career as he campaigns against the “communist revolutionaries” and is named head of the Bureau of Investigation. As the movie moves from Hoover becoming the head of the Bureau to fully establishing the bureau’s power, DiCaprio accurately portrays the ambition and single-mindedness of Hoover. The mysterious relationship between Hoover and several other characters were also interestingly illustrated throughout this film. In my opinion, the most interesting of these relationships depicted in the film was between Hoover and his “wingman”, Clyde Tolson.

Although there were several evident problems with the film, but the problem did not lie with script for the movie. Dustin Lance Black, an openly gay screenwriter, did not hesitate to include the gay undertones throughout the film, Hoover’s and Tolson’s tragic love story, and the poignant cross-dressing scene. Eastwood struggles to condense Hoover’s life into two hours of entertainment. Hoover’s numerous lifetime achievements and the mysteries and rumors that shrouded him cannot be compressed into one film. DiCaprio’s depiction of the older Hoover was very awkward because he tried too hard to sound like an old man but failed in his attempt. Other actors, such as Jeffrey Donovan, added unnecessary humor to the film. There were also several other inappropriate times throughout the film where my giggles had to be suppressed.

J. Edgar is a compelling look at the life of an extremely complicated and conflicted man. This film resembles another renowned cinematic masterpiece, Citizen Kane. Charles Foster Kane’s mother sent her son away so Kane could grow to be very successful. J. Edgar Hoover’s mother was very similar, in that she pushed Hoover to “regain the family name.” This burden imposed upon them caused the two characters to be very narrow-minded. Hoover and Kane were both respected by the people in their respective societies but no one truly knew the two people personally.

The two characters died alone with only their caretakers as their last companions. Although the scenes were similar, Hoover’s death, in contrast to Kane’s death seemed to be more significant. No one cried over Kane when he passed away but when Hoover died, he at least had Tolson’s tears. The shots of the rooms of the two characters were also very similar. The audience is guided through Hoover’s house filled with his collection of statues. Similarly, the audience is guided through Kane’s huge mansion to take a glimpse at the accumulation of random collectibles.

I would overall rate the film, J. Edgar a 6/10.

Share This Post!

Leonardo DiCaprio, left, and Armie Hammer in "J. Edgar". Photo Credit: Keith Bernstein/Warner Brothers Pictures.

In J. Edgar, a few guns are pointed at people, some interesting American history is told, and a couple of gay-jokes are made. Never does this movie have much more depth than those examples, and no one is really saying that it needs to, as a Citizen Kane-esque biography of the enigmatic J. Edgar Hoover is something that has not yet been made into a major motion picture. All I was looking for was some interesting facts, and a balanced perspective on who J. Edgar was, and that’s pretty much what I got.  Hoover’s reputation as a cross-dresser is mentioned, but is not a big part of the story. It also touches on his racism, but not in a way that really highlights it as a defining trait of his personality. I watched without-emotion as Hoover angrily turned off a TV showing Martin Luther King, Jr. accept a Nobel Peace Prize, and it took a person in the audience yelling out “Piece of shit!” to realize the full racism of that action.

The story is told through many flashbacks, switching from the perspective of a young, DiCaprio-looking Hoover (played by Leonardo DiCaprio), to an older, well-costumed Hoover (also played by Leonardo DiCaprio). Most of the time, his attractive assistant and alleged gay-lover is beside him,  whose face is sometimes covered with a very gross, sticky-looking coat of makeup meant to make him look old, and perhaps being too effective at this task.  When the movie starts hinting at Hoover’s sexuality, it is relayed somewhat subtly, perhaps in the way that the public saw his relationship at the time. However, about half-way through, it becomes a very core part of the story, with a few romance scenes, a few fights, and a dramatic combination of the two.

Another large part of the story is a tragic mystery of a missing Lindbergh baby, a crime that was very badly handled by the police at the time. In what is perhaps the most interesting part of the movie, Hoover argues with the cops, as he enforces quirky requirements that would end up being hugely important to law enforcement, such as collecting fingerprints. His persistence and quirks as a businessman also brings Citizen Kane to mind, as he uses his power to innovate his profession, despite the confusion and outcry of his peers. The ending is somewhat tedious, as every scene seems to bring a perfect time for the film to end, and turns what could be a very emotional moment into nothing but irritating fluff. However, the last twenty minutes does include very interesting perspective-twist, and one of the movies biggest laughs.

So, is J. Edgar one of the best examples of Clint Eastwood’s directing? No, but it’s definitely interesting, and looks at an important historical figure that we don’t hear much about, maybe because of his job.

Share This Post!

If you’re the kind of movie-goer who prefers a simple, linear plot, The Tree of Life probably isn’t for you. But if you’re open to a dynamic film, filled with breathtaking imagery, meticulously planned shots – one that’s laced with below-the-surface meaning and symbolism – then The Tree of Life has plenty to offer.

At its core, the film, written and directed by Terrence Malick, is a coming-of-age story about the loss of innocence. The movie follows Jack O’Brien (played by Hunter McCracken and Sean Penn) from the time he’s just beginning to grow, to when he raids a neighbor’s panty-drawer, to when he sees someone die for the first time and when he wants to kill his father. Malick successfully shows the world from the eyes of a curious child during each distinct point of Jack’s childhood. For example, when Jack is a baby, the camera is low angled, showing the world from the eyes of an infant. As Jack matures, the camera angle rises.

The film juxtaposes an extended montage of the creation of Earth, along with the strife of Jack’s coming-of-age and [SPOLIER ALERT!] the death of the family’s second son. [SPOILER ALERT OVER]  The montage hints at the feebleness of existence and how we try tirelessly to matter in the universe. But, ultimately, it says we are minute beings that do not matter in the grand-scheme of things. Malick’s shots of boundless cosmos and the creation of Earth contrasts with the conflicts and dram’s of Jack’s life. For him, and the rest of the O’Briens, their problems seem mountainous. But when Malick uses visuals to compare us to the endless galaxies, it makes viewers step back, and reflect on the comparitive magnitude of our problems.

An attentive viewer will realize Malick’s world views by picking up on his subtle associations between each image. The scenes of nature seem to be what have caused some reviewers to yawn at The Tree of Life. But with close scrutiny, the scenes correlate greatly to Malick’s message. For example, there are a few shots of a fish that swims through the ocean by contorting itself – seemingly writhing in pain to swim meter after meter in the expanse of the sea. It connects to Malick’s message of the futility of life and relates to the central story of Jack and his family.

Jack’s father, Mr. O’Brien (Brad Pitt) , is so hard on his children because he believes they need to be tough to succeed in the real world. In Mr. O’Brien’s mind, being an executive at a high ranking company is the epitome of success. Ironically, when Jack grows older, he becomes a prominent CEO. But Jack’s not satisfied, or happy (discernible by his aimless wandering in the unknown terrains, and by the lack of warmth and the over-sanitized feel of his home) – the fact highlights the frivolity of Mr. O’Brien’s actions, and holistically, life.

The movie is not your typical Hollywood film. It’s not a film that just “washes over you.” It’s a masterpiece that requires active thought. To get the most of the film, one needs to consciously search for meaning in every detail Malick has woven into the movie. There are points in the film where seemingly irrelevant shots arise from nowhere. But with inquiry, I found myself realizing the significance of nearly every seemingly-impertinent shot.

The subtle, fine touches are what made the film truly beautiful.

Besides the ubiquitous symbolism, the cinematography was my favorite part. I could sense the tireless thought that went into every stunning shot. The sometimes rich, and other times muted color, the expansive shots of nature, the quaint shots of suburban neighborhood – they all captivated me in unique ways. Malick and his cinematographer, the Oscar nominated Emmanuel Lubezki, shot the film in a way I had not seen before. The inverted shots, the use of the “swinging” camera (when the boys are on the swing), and the novel aspect ratio; everything seemed innovative. Even if the plot somehow manages to fly over your head, the movie is still a two hour treat for your eyes.

Malick also implements music creatively throughout the film. For example, he shows Brad Pitt playing an organ, performing a religious tune. His song plays over a montage of the O’Brien daily life. It emphasizes the religious, structured nature by which Mr. O’Brien goes about his days.

The movie, set for wide-release in America on July 8th, has already received several accolades. The Tree of Life was the winner of the Palme D’Or (French for “Golden Palm”), the Cannes Film Festival’s highest honor. It’s no wonder. Malick put his blood, sweat and tears into ensuring that his film is amazing for every viewer.  For each theatre he sent his movie to, he included a list of requirements that he expects fulfilled by every projectionist. He writes, “ Project the film in its proper 1.85:1 aspect ratio. The correct fader setting on Dolby and DTS systems is 7. I ask that faders be kept at 7.5 or even 7.7, system permitting…” This shows how much Malick cares that his film is seen as he meant it to be.

In essence, the film is a beautifully-crafted bildungsroman that expresses a director’s personal perceptions of the world, and provokes thought between every carefully-engineered shot. Every image, even during anti-climactic scenes, is captivating. The acting is superb. The fastidious efforts that went into the movie shine. The Tree of Life truly is a cinematic gem, a must-see for all lovers of film.

Share This Post!

"Moving Image: An Art Fair of Contemporary Video Art" was on view in March of 2011.

I never knew there was such a thing as video art, so the art exhibit “Moving Image:  An Art Fair of Contemporary Video Art” was like walking through a doorway and suddenly finding oneself in a foreign country. Located inconspicuously at the Waterfront Tunnel event space on 269 11th Avenue, between 27th and 28th Street, the interior was of crimson brick walls and a high arched ceiling. Upon entering the doors, attendees were greeted by an information table and a heap of blue bags—the first piece of video art in the exhibit.

The piece that captured my eye, though, was a brilliant work of art called “War Mop” (1983) made by American artist Carolee Schneemann. At first glance, it looked like a haphazard mess of two staple household items: a mop and a television set. The mop, after hitting the top of the TV, was slowly reeled back up by an intriguing contraption after gravity had taken affect.

"War Mop" by Carolee Schneeman. Plexiglass construction, mop, motor, video monitor, Sculpture 24 x 62 x 20 inches, TV: 12 x 18 x 10 inches - 5:50 minutes, color, sound. 1983. Photo courtesy of PPOW Gallery.

I was awed by the smoothness of the construction that lifted the mop back up, which I later found out to be plexglass. I was breathless for a second as I had never seen glass used in that way before. It was shaped to perfection, the sides reminding me of the meanders of a trickling river. The usage of an outdated, “fat” television that showed desolate scenes of destroyed towns gave the piece a rather antique feel. It was as if these events had taken long ago or happened in a place that was behind modern technology. The television set gave the “War Mop” a rather glum aura.

And then there’s the mop. The ominous “thank!” it made as it hit the top of the television at precise intervals, over and over. The mop seemed tired, with its hairs falling limply as the motor lifted the mop back up, only to have it come crashing down. The mop seemed to represent the state of a war over time. In the beginning, the people and soldiers are generally hyped up as they want their side to win and put a lot of effort into preparing for the war/battle (such as the American Revolution, World War II, etc.) However, as time passes and the war continues on, the number of casualties increase and the idea of war becomes bleak (usually for the losing side, this is quicker.) The mop, which would have been pristine when first used, becomes abused by falling onto the television set. After getting hit repeatedly, the mop becomes limp—the result of exploiting the fervor of the masses. And as the images of destruction flicker past the television screen, the dull thump! of the mop continues on almost like a funeral march.

Share This Post!

Hanna needs a hug.

This past Tuesday I went out on a date…with me,myself, and I.  It was nothing too fancy, just an outing to the movies. I went with no clear intent on what I wanted to see, except I knew that I wasn’t going to waste my hard-earned cash on another Tyler Perry “Madea” film (you can only tell the same joke for so long).

On a whim I decided to go the action route and check out Hanna. This film is definitely a must see (in my book of course). Hanna takes the played out coming-0f-age storyline and refreshes it with a fresh global appeal. With a cast that includes Cate Blanchett, Eric Bana, and new-comer Saoirse Ronan (you may be remember her from the Lovely Bones), great choreographed fight scenes, and an equally good soundtrack, the film is well played from every angle.

If you find that you have a lil extra cash this weekend and nothing to do, go spend some time with you, yourself, and Hanna…

Share This Post!

Yves Coussement, "Wheel." 2011, video, color, 05′27″, stereo.

Moving Image was an art fair of contemporary video art that was open to the public from March 3 – 6, 2011 at the Waterfront Tunnel event space in Chelsea.  It was a show that I will not likely forget for a long time.  From the moment I walked in, I was surprised at the many forms of modern art that were on display.  I have never been to an actual art fair before, so I was completely amazed by my experience at Moving Image.  The most eye-catching exhibit was undoubtedly “Exploded View” by Jim Campbell (video of the LED sculpture is here).  It is very hard to describe: dozens of tiny miniscule lights blinked on and off to create the impression of a street with people walking by.  The people’s silhouettes could be seen clearly passing through the lights.  It was very beautiful, and a spectacular demonstration of the wondrous work that can be done with LED lights.

The first work of art I saw when I walked in, however, was of a mechanized broom thumping the top of a TV in an effort to smash it.  I saw at once that the art on display at this fair was very symbolic, and could get downright weird.  I definitely noticed this as I ventured deeper into the room – where a variety videos were playing on TV’s in two columns. 

There were two videos that particularly interested me.  One was titled “Wheel” by Yves Coussement.  It depicted a golden necklace with miniscule decorations being dragged along the murky streets at nighttime.  What was particularly attractive about this video was that it was very easy to see the necklace – even though it was filmed in the late evening.  Everything was lighted in such a way as to let the viewer see exactly what was going on.  Even though I could tell that it was nighttime in the video, I could still see the necklace, the streets, and the red buildings with surprising clarity.  In addition to this, when I watched the video (which was filmed so that the cameraman following the necklace at the moved along the street), I felt immersed into the urban landscape featured in the film.  By watching it, I felt like I was right there in the video.

Amparo Sard, "Spacing the Impasse." Still from the video.

The other video that interested me was was titled “Spacing the Impasse” by Amparo Sard.  In it, a woman in a flowing, white dress was filmed carrying various pieces of space age-like furniture into a green pasture.  The film took place in either the morning or afternoon, and it was very brightly and naturally lit by the sun.  The two pieces of furniture that the woman worked with was a multi-faceted mirror and a white, net-like piece of plastic that had hundreds of holes in it.  One thing that drew me to this video was its lighting.  The cheerful landscape – including the sun, the bright green grass, and the trees – reminded me of the cartoonish scenery in children’s books.  Another thing that attracted me to continue watching this video all the way to the end was that I was never quite sure what the woman was doing.  She plays with the over-sized mirror, unfolding its pieces and such, drags the next piece out, and even connects the two to form an enclosure at one point.  The whole spectacle is very mysterious and leaves the viewer wondering “What is she doing?”  Since the woman also moved very slowly, I remember thinking a few times, “Hurry up!”  Afterwards, I realized that perhaps the artist is trying to make a statement about modern culture with this piece: instead of rushing from one thing to the next in life, people should instead stop and take the time to try to enjoy nature.

Share This Post!

A few weeks ago, my best friend and I stopped by the AMC theatre to check out the new indie flick Mooz-lum. The story takes place in the weeks leading up to 9/11, and shows how a college freshman struggles with his identity as a Muslim. Although, the plot may seem a bit blah and predictable, I have to admit that that I have never seen anything like this. The emotions conveyed in the film are raw, unfiltered, and every character exudes a trait that we all can relate to. Told with a series of flashbacks, we see how the main figure Tariq (Evan Ross) loses and eventually finds himself in world that can be intolerable of “the others”

If you want a break from the countless 3D and unnecessary Hollywood remakes, then this is the film for you. The movie has a limited engagement in AMC theatres ( meaning, it will be on DVD and Blu-Ray by the time I publish this post), so hustle off to go see it asap.

P.S. Ladies, Evan Ross and his co-star, Kunal Sharmal, are reason enough to go see this movie. You can thank me later…

Share This Post!

On Sunday, I went to go see Scott Pilgrim vs. the World at the movies and it was awesome!  Putting a video game format inside a movie that has romance, fighting and comedy, that is amazing!

The story is about a twenty-two year old living in Toronto, Canada who has many things: a rock band, his friends, his 17 year old girlfriend, Knives Chau — who everyone is criticizing him for having including his roommate, Wallace and his sister Stacy.  He sees a vision of a girl he has never seen before and realizes that she is the one he likes.  The girl’s name is Ramona Flowers, your average American delivery girl.  When Scott sees her, sparks began to fly.  There’s just one little problem: Ramona has seven evil ex-boyfriends who want to keep her from dating and Scott must battle them for Ramona’s.

Along the way he understands Ramona’s grief and why the past can’t be kept behind.  Their love is really taken to the test in this movie and the comedy keeps getting funnier every minute.  With every battle, Scott tends to understand something about why he’s doing this and the paths he is taking.  The hardships he is fighting and the upcoming challenges that he will have to face.  So, when all comes down to the final battle, Scott has to choose whether he is fighting for Ramona or fighting for himself.  This movie also explains the hardship and comedy that love come with, and what happens when a guy meets the love of his dreams.

This is a movie that you will want to see again and again.  It’s truly the epic of epic epicness.

Share This Post!

What does one do with nearly 300,000 tons of deadly radioactive waste?  Finland thinks it has the answer.  In Michael Madsen’s documentary, “Into Eternity,” the Danish filmmaker examines the Finnish government’s efforts to bury its share of the world’s nuclear waste in a tunnel three miles into the earth.  After its completion in 2100, the tunnel must remain untouched for at least 100,000 years.  This intriguing and bold plan leads Madsen to raise many philosophical and technical questions throughout his film, providing a haunting take that is more poetic than scientific on a dire environmental issue.  But the answers are too profound and nuanced for this ambitious indie film.

Madsen laces interviews and stunningly shot footage with personal interludes in his self-proclaimed “A Film for the Future.”  As the screen fades to black, the filmmaker strikes a match, faces the camera and asks as the flame dies, “Our people are dependent on nuclear energy. Are you dependent on nuclear energy?  What resources do you use?”  The questions Madsen poses are directed towards future generations, but their implications are very relevant to the present.

At its start, the film has all the makings of a NOVA special.  It delves into the current problem of nuclear waste storage, providing insight from scientists working in the facilities as well as from top Scandinavian experts and politicians.

Hello? Anyone?

As the film progresses, Madsen begins to look at human aspects of the problem and the issue becomes more poignant.  How will future generations know not to unearth the hazardous waste?  Should they even know about it?  What can we do now to save both ourselves and our posterity?

The footage is hauntingly beautiful.  Madsen’s cameras go straight into the tunnel, into the dark abyss of what is now a barren wasteland and into the eerily mechanical nuclear facilities.  The camera paints an ominous picture of what humans have done to their world now and what is to come in the future.  At times, the film seems to be larger than it needs to be because the issues Madsen is examining are too monumental to be resolved in 75 minutes.  Towards the end, his philosophizing starts to become repetitive, as he asks the same questions over and over, both to the audience and to the people he interviews.  There is talk of science and political discourse, though down to its core, the film is about human sustainability.  Although a “A Film for the Future,” it is really a warning for the present.

Share This Post!