So I Had This Idea....

Come along with me young ones. I am working on a project right now, and the recent poll question proves it. I am doing a study of different directors, their common themes, traits and worldviews. I am going to do one director at a time and take 7 films(unless they have less than 7 than I will just do them all) and try and find what ties each of them together, as well as what sets them apart. I will do a review/analysis of each film and also an overview of how they all fit into said director's canon.

My question for all of you is, does anyone have any ideas on who they would like to see me study? I am not biased. I want to learn more about foreign as well as domestic films, comedy as well as action, silent and talkies. Even if you want to see me study the deep moral complexities of a Uwe Boll film(please, don't) if enough people suggest it, I will go for it. For my first study I have put up a poll. I would like to study someone who has a great deal I can dive into, but also someone I am at least slightly familiar with.

Not much else to say on the matter I guess. I plan on doing my first study in August.

Thanks for the feedback!

"Memories, All Alone In The Moonlight..."

“The things which the child loves remain in the domain of the heart until old age. The most beautiful thing in life is that our souls remaining over the places where we once enjoyed ourselves.”

-Kahlil Gibran

There are a few films that we see in our childhood that can change our lives forever. For me as a kid I loved to laugh. I loved to have fun. So as far back as I can remember( I was born in 1987) I have had one film that has stuck with me. This film isn't on any one's top list of any type, and if pressed to give a list it wouldn't be on mine either.

The film in question is the hilarious Spaceballs(1987). I can remember being a young boy and watching it with my dad on TV and trying to laugh when he laughed, while not exactly sure what was going on. I also have the fondest memory of staying up late with a friend and building a tent in our room with chairs and blankets. This tent was elaborate with secret rooms and the best part is, the only way to fit in it was to be as small as a kid. We were around 10 or 11 at the time. Anyways, we would drape one of the blankets over the TV and play Nintendo or Sega, but for this time we decided to watch TV. What did we see? We saw a huge helmeted Rick Moranis making a fool of himself at every turn. We were in stitches!

At some point during this cinematic experience I realized, "This is Spaceballs!" I told my friend. He only replied with the logical response, a giggle at the fact that I said balls and then a perplexed look. I responded to his look of confusion with, " I watched this movie with my dad before, he loves it!" We fell asleep watching Spaceballs that night, but it's impact would forever mark my future sense of humor and everyday conversations.

Years passed and my friends and I would constantly gather together and watch/re watch comedies. I for one fell in love with comedy. I was 13 and I didn't care about John McClane or The Terminator, I wanted to watch The Jerk(1979) or Ghostbusters(1984). My other friends also loved comedy, but were still attracted to action films like most normal teenage boys are. Regardless we would always watch comedies together. At this point we didn't have a critical gauge, so most things we saw we found to be hilarious and would watch over and over again.

It was September of 2001, two friends and I were headed to the movies with one of my friends sister and her boyfriend. They were older, maybe 20, while we were 13-14 years old. We had no idea what we were going to see on the way, we were just happy to go to the movies. When we arrived the adults decided they were in a comedic mood and the only comedy on the menu was a little film called Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. As soon as the name was mentioned all three of us lit up. Was it because we were familiar with Kevin Smith and his View Askewniverse? Not at all, we had seen these hilarious TV Spots and were always game for some comedy.

Needless to say, we had no idea what was going on. The film is chocked full of elements of Smith's past films, but we still found it to be hilarious. So hilarious in fact that it inspired a friend and I to try and write a script/comic. The script/comic was titled That Man and it was more in the vein of Mel Brooks than Kevin Smith, but it was directly after seeing JASBSB that we decided we wanted to do this. That Man was a play on words with Batman, except literally no one knew him, and when he would solve crimes or save the day, people would simply say, "who is that man?" Ridiculous? Yes. Dumb? Yes. But we didn't care.

Right afterwards I went and rented Mallrats(1995), Clerks(1994), Chasing Amy(1997) and Dogma(1999). We loved them all, but didn't entirely understand some of the complexities and underlying themes that we may now understand. I think somehow, seeing such mature films at such a young age changed me in some ways. At that age, and sometimes now, I tend to try and one up people with saying the dirtiest thing(in a nice way, tehe) but now I have learned restraint. At the same time, it led me to love independent films. I would watch interviews with Kevin Smith and saw who he looked up to and would dive into other films that had an independent quality to them, that I still love today.

Fight Club(1999). What can I say about Fight Club. Although it came out before Jay and Silent Bob, I saw it afterwards. This was my first real favorite film that wasn't a comedy. I am 15 now and a friend has heard that Fight Club is a must see film. We go to the local video store and search it out in the action section, to no avail. We are confused, so we ask the employees and they point us to the drama section. I wasn't really sure how a film called Fight Club could be a drama, so I was worried to say the least.

We get back to my place and head to my room and put the DVD into my Playstation 2. I had bunk beds and they took up a lot of space in my tiny room, so we pushed the beds out ate pizza and sat behind the beds, using the mattress as a table.

I was totally and completely riveted by this film. Somehow, for once, I was able to feel some kind of an emotion towards these talking pictures that didn't involve happy feelings. I didn't really understand all that was going on, but I knew it was deeper than a group of guys beating each other up. I took the words to heart and really began trying to think for myself. Not that I hadn't tried before, I have always been a little weird. I listened to punk rock and loved dirty comedies while attending a Baptist school. I wasn't aware of the characters deep spiritual longing, at least not knowingly aware of it, but I think deep down I felt the same way. I needed something to feel anything. I was in a state of mediocrity. This film made me want to become a creator. A creator of anything, stories, songs, reviews of other stories or songs. Through this yearning, I realized how much I loved to write. So I wrote songs, stories, etc.

I didn't pick the first 3 movies that affected me. I didn't know I would love Fight Club or a movie about stoners or a film about mogs and druidians. They seemed to have sought me out. It seems the movies I am most excited for and search my hardest for, while generally I am not disappointed, they are rarely ever life changing. Through these young years of film watching I wasn't very critical, but still to this day, even with a critical eye I can enjoy these films. Maybe because of their nostalgic value, or maybe just because they are good. Either they have helped shape who I am, which is more than I can say for most things in my life.

What are some rare, or odd things that may have helped shape who you are?

"You Either Die a Hero or You Live Long Enough to See Yourself Become The Villain."

Hype is a curious thing. The fan boys fall for it and are guilty of it every time a new comic book movie comes out. But there are only a few films that generate a certain type of hype. This type of hype can never be lived up to. Whatever it is that is being hyped without the hype could become the most surprising thing of the year, but with the hype it will often hurt it's credibility and be looked at far more critically. In the past, this wasn't always true; Star Wars: A New Hope(1977) was extremely hyped, but was also nominated for Best Picture. Considering that it is odd to think of how hype has changed. Yes, both are generally made by fan boys but the films of 2007 to get major hype were Spiderman 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End which came with mixed to awful reviews. This didn't stop them from making record breaking amounts of money, but there will be no legacy behind these films. To get to the point, The Dark Knight is the most hyped and buzzed about film to come out all year. It has been called a masterpiece in film making by many and has been compared to such classics as Citizen Kane(1941), Godfather 2(1974) and The Empire Strikes Back(1980). Is Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight truly the first comic book film to transcend its source material and become something that will have a lasting legacy?

It is easy to sit back and either fall for the hype or totally reject it. It would be easy as a critic for me to sit back and say, "But there are flaw's so this film IS bad." And the thought did cross my mind, but the film isn't bad, in fact it is nothing short of outstanding!

Would the plot details make a difference? Anyone and everyone knows it has The Joker(the late Heath Ledger), Batman(Christian Bale), and Two-Face/Harvey Dent(Aaron Eckhart). Anymore description would simply be mind numbing as there is so much plot here. It is impossible to really know where to start or where to end.

Here in lies one of the major problems with the film; too much plot. Nolan did a wonderful job directing but this is a problem that he could have easily fixed. I am not going to lie, I was completely compelled the entire time, but sometimes it felt like parts were repeating themselves. Although I love Ledger in this and his performance is remarkable, we didn't need every Joker scene. It's hard to realize this while watching the film because Ledger is so watchable, the audience does not want to take their eyes off of him. I simply think Nolan knew what he had with Ledger and did not know which part's to cut because individually they are all amazing scenes.

Speaking of Ledger, with all the buzz surrounding his part in The Dark Knight another actor who was surprising and excellent, Aaron Eckhart, seemed to be overlooked. This isn't to say that Ledger's hype is not earned. It is totally earned and with all the Internet hype surrounding his performance and certain awards, while I don't think it'll happen I wouldn't be upset if it did. He has an interesting Anton Chigurh or Hannibal Lector quality in his performance that is impossible to ignore. To get back to Eckhart though, he is magnificent as Harvey Dent. It was easy to imagine him as the charismatic, justice loving DA because he is a charismatic guy and all he had to do was play himself, but when things start changing he changes his performance so perfectly that I simply am appalled at how underrated he is in this film. You really can get a grasp on his character and all that surrounds him because he is the center of the film. As his character changes the other's do. His character arc seems to be the basis of all the rest of the characters and it really ties everything together.

Christopher Nolan didn't cease to really pack the film with a punch. There are some truly devastating scenes here. This is one of the most heartbreaking blockbusters I have ever seen and that is to the films advantage. The story lends itself to that kind of feeling, but most directors would have opted out and glossed over many of the details.

The Dark Knight is transcendent in many ways. If you took out the bat suit and batman mythos and made him a regular vigilante then this could easily be a gritty hard hitting crime drama in the vein of Heat(1995). Every character that is established seems to serve some purpose that isn't explicitly shown but ultimately realized. Batman films work best when he isn't the main character, because the villains in Gotham City are always more fully realized and imaginative than our hero. The same goes for this one, but I would have to say that Nolan really made Batman more empathetic than ever before and his vulnerability really brings a new dimension to the character that hasn't really been developed on screen before.

The films other flaws are few and far between. Harvey Dent's transformation is a bit rushed, and probably would have worked better to cut out 20-30 minutes throughout and set his character up for the next film. Although some really fun things Nolan did was as the film went on and Two-Face's time grew closer and closer, Eckhart's face is shown half in shadow and half in light, kind of showing or predicting the future for us.

Social commentary isn't a stranger to comic book films. It seems to show up a lot in The Dark Knight as well. It is often asked how they should deal with the Joker because he is a terrorist with nothing to lose. Much like the situation faced with our country today. Batman is outcast because while trying to do good for the city good people die on his watch. The parallels can be easily seen there as well, but it isn't sure if Nolan wanted that in there to be a comment on our current times or if he thought it fit the story. I find that it is to Nolan's credit that it isn't apparent that he is making any type of commentary, but it simply comes out of the characters and they don't focus on it.

The Dark Knight delivers on so many levels that it really is hard to focus on any flaws it does have. Setting the hype aside though and viewing it unbiased I feel that the film stands on its own and surpass' the usual summer fare. There will be those who over-hype and there will be those who want to be different, ignore both sides and just enjoy the film for being superb.

"You Can Suck My Ectoplasmic Schwanzstucker!"

In 2006 the Oscars were buzzing for one of the hottest young directors in the business. Someone who had proven himself time and time again to make truly imaginative, creative and masterful films. The movie being buzzed about was Best Foreign Film Oscar Nominee Pans Labyrinth and the director in question is the wonderful, Guillermo Del Toro. Of course Del Toro was known before this Oscar win with Hellboy, Blade 2, Mimic and a few others, but after his victory at the awards he was given free reign to pretty much do as he please. His first choice, Hellboy II: The Golden Army.

With all that Del Toro is known for already established, the main question anyone would be asking is; Where does Hellboy II stack up against his other films? Not only this, but in a summer filled with blockbusters, where does such a unique voice land with the American public?

Our story follows Hellboy (Ron Perlman), who is having trouble with his significant other Liz (Selma Blair) who can force herself to become entrenched in flames. In the midst of this lovers tryst we have a Prince Nuada of the mythical world, for which Hellboy truly belongs too. Nuada starts a rebellion against the humans on earth to get back that which he believes is rightfully his. In between all of this Abe Sapien (the magnificent Doug Jones) falls in love with Nuada's twin sister Nuala and gets heartbroken because he isn't sure how to express this love.

If the story sounds a little convoluted to you that's because it kind of is. But this isn't exactly a problem. Del Toro balances the love stories, the fantastical elements and the action perfectly to really make this a wonderful and entertaining film.

The main thing the film does right that so many films this summer have done terribly wrong, the villain seems capable of actually winning. Hellboy actually has to struggle to get ahead at all. Not only that but the reasons for Nuada having a rebellion seem to make perfect sense to me. If I were in his shoes I don't believe it would be any stretch for me to at least be angry. This is wonderful because Del Toro is able to get us to altogether disagree with and despise the villain while at the same time empathize with his plight.

If compared to the first film I would say this one is unequivocally funnier. The inclusion of Johann Krauss is absolutely wonderful and Seth McFarlane is perfect as the voice of the German, Gaseous blob that is sent to lead them.

Another wonderful thing about Hellboy II if compared to some other bloated blockbusters of the summer, it seems light and fun, while still able to add some depth to it. It does go a little into X-Men territory at some points with Hellboy being cast out by the humans and thought of as a freak. I liked the idea of adding this layer to the Hellboy vulnerable yet tough persona, but I don't think it is given enough weight to be a truly integral part of the film. It seems almost to be a distraction because the sub-plot almost goes no where. It does plenty to offer up food for thought though, and we get a wonderful shot of Hellboy yelling while standing by a television playing The Bride Of Frankenstein's climactic ending.

The failures of the film would mainly lie in Del Toro's tendency to be a bit indulgent with his fantastical, other-worldly stuff that it detracts a bit from the story. For example, we get a wonderful scene in the Troll Market that echoes some other famous scenes filled with imaginative creatures and wonderful choreography and Del Toro sets it up to be a little more important than it really is to the overall plot.

Another thing that became a slight detraction was how after spending a perfect amount of time setting up certain things, the characters were given a pass and some magic creature could fix everything easily without letting a little set back really create tension and suspense. If there is anything that hurts Hellboy II it is it's lack of suspense. The suspense is there, but only in small portions.

The main thing that can be said for Hellboy II is that it is definitely worth seeing. It's flaws are minor and really don't take away from anyone having a wonderful, entertaining experience with the film. Check your reservations at the door and just look forward to having a good time with a comic book film in the vein of Tim Burton's Batman.

"Call Me An Asshole One More Time."

If the summer of 2008 has been anything for movies, it is the summer of the superhero. Beginning with Iron Man and running all the way to The Dark Knight, this summer has been chocked full of them. In the midst of all of these fan boy wet dreams with pre-established characters and retold stories comes an original superhero, something we haven't seen before. Will Smith stars in the only superhero film to not be made after a comic book this summer, Hancock.

Hancock (Will Smith) follows John Hancock (don't worry there is actually a reason for the name), a down on his luck superhero with a devil-may-care attitude. He is constantly helping the city, but all the while destroying it at the same time. We see Hancock fly through highway exit signs, throw beached whales, and total many cars throughout all 92 minutes. Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is a PR exec who is one day saved by Hancock and decides to return the favor by getting the city to love him since he does rescue them on a regular basis.

What follows this interesting and entertaining premise is a film that doesn't know what it wants to be. We get hints of a comedy, but they never come to fruition. It seems that they wanted to make a dramatic action film but threw in some comedy at the last minute to put in the previews to get the families in the seats for The Fresh Prince.

The films first fifteen minutes hit the regular beats that a comedy would attempt to hit, but after the entry of Bateman's character and a convoluted subplot involving Charlize Theron, who plays Bateman's wife, we get thrown into a character drama with bits of comic like action.

Peter Berg's direction wouldn't even be considered competent. This film is so sophomoric in it's pacing and timing that it honestly feels like it was thrown together at the last minute. This is not a slight against Peter Berg, in general I think he is a competent if not good director who has potential to be something special. With Hancock, we get the look of a gritty, R-rated action film, along with terrible special effects and terrible acting from everyone but the three leads.

With that being said, the film isn't all terrible. It has it's moments and in the moments we see a film that could have been. If they would have chosen a direction to go in and used that style as a reference to what kind of film they are making, then maybe Hancock would have come out at least coherent.

The shining bits of this film mainly lie in Jason Bateman's performance. He does the best with what he's given and can be pretty on the ball when he needs to be.

There is one scene in this film that I thought was particularly effective in every aspect. The direction, the music, cinematography, the pacing, it all worked together near the end when we reach a climax of sorts. This climax was good, but definitely did not belong in this film. Not because it was good, but because it just didn't fit with the world that Berg creates throughout the rest of the film.

With Will Smith as a selling point, most people will see this no matter what the story is, but if there is an ounce of doubt in your body about this film, I assure you that it needs to be there and it needs to be much larger. This is probably the worst blockbuster to be released this summer, and on a lesser summer it might have actually gotten a better rating, but when films are being released weekly at the caliber that they have been this summer the weaker films weakness' show more often. This is the film that proves it.

"I'm Bill Murray, You're Everybody Else."

A junkyard worker named Jerry(Jack Black) attempts to sabotage a power plant he suspects of causing his headaches, but in the process inadvertently causes his brain to become magnetized. This leads to the unintentional destruction of all the movies in the store his friend Mike(Mos Def) is looking after for his boss Mr. Fletcher(Danny Glover). In order to keep the store's one loyal customer(Mia Farrow) happy the pair re-create a long line of films including The Lion King, Rush Hour 2, Ghostbusters, When We Were Kings, Driving Miss Daisy, and Robocop, putting themselves and their townspeople into it. They become the biggest stars in their neighborhood.

Does this not sound like a very creative promising premise to you? To me it seemed like a dream come true. Not too mention it's director, Michel Gondry(Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Science Of Sleep), is one of the most innovative directors working today. Even with a great premise and director plus a great cast the film, with all it's wonder, doesn't seem to work, at least not all the way.

When the film begins we are introduced to Mike and Jerry, they are the type of lovable losers that we can identify with. We see them doing various hijinks throughout the town, but really it's hard to grasp onto anything during this first half of the film. They are setting up the story and letting you in on some important plot details, but they are not doing so in an engaging way. It seems like when Michel Gondry is forced to sit back and let the characters just talk to each other that the film really grows stale. That isn't to say that the performances are lacking, Jack Black plays himself, as usual and Mos Def does just fine. It seems to me that they are building to something, but the film isn't even sure what it wants to build towards.

Once we get to the midpoint of the film though, it really picks up. The tapes are all erased and Mike and Jerry have decided they are going to make their own movies out of the blank tapes. They start with Ghostbusters(1984). Once we see them in action the film's magic really seems to shine. This movie really is for lovers of cinema. When you know the references they are making with certain shots and costumes and such then it is all the more hilarious.

Gondry, really lets the whimsy take control and that is the point when this film really becomes something special. Their remakes really bring the community together and they become huge stars in their town, but then they are threatened that if the tapes aren't destroyed they will get sued for copyright infringement, among other things.

It seems that Gondry not only takes a nod to the films they recreate but there is an obvious Frank Capra influence on this film, especially with the ending. With Mr. Fletcher in danger of losing his building due to city regulations the whole town comes together and creates something truly wonderful.

To be honest, the second half of this film is one of the most wonderful pieces of cinema I have seen all year. It is truly a shame that Gondry couldn't let the whimsy be carried a little further into the beginning, but this isn't to say that the film shouldn't be seen.

If you are going in expecting a Jack Black comedy, don't see it. If you are going in expecting some indie masterpiece from Mr. Gondry, skip it. But if you are a fan of movies and just want to sit back and have some fun then I say this is the film for you.

"I Don't Want To Survive. I Want To Live!"

Post-Apocolyptic science fiction isn't generally what we think of when it comes to children's entertainment. But Pixar has managed to make a film that works as Sci-Fi while at the same time is easily accessible and highly entertaining to kids as well as adults. While reading that last sentence one might think, "so they have dumbed down Sci-Fi for kids?" But the truth of the matter is, that is exactly what they did not do.

Wall-E is a beautiful, epic fairytale of a film that works in every conceivable way that it can. It is able to suck you in like Spielberg during his E.T.(1982, Spielberg) years.

We are hundreds of years in the future. Earth is no longer inhabited with human life. The only "living" thing that we are aware of on earth is a tiny machine named Wall-E(Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) and a little bug that keeps him company. We follow Wall-E while he goes about his daily routine cleaning up trash, watching Hello Dolly(1969, Kelly) and wishing for something to ease his loneliness.

Where are the humans? They can be found on a pleasuredome of sorts in outerspace. They left to join the pleasuredome for 5 years while the earth was being cleaned up but seemed to have forgotten and have now become overweight, lazy slobs.

The beautiful thing about Wall-E begins with the first 40 or so minutes. Virtually dialogue free the film carries it's audience with a sense of wonder and enthusiasm for what may happen next. Wall-E isn't just entertainment, it is art of the highest quality.

It digs deep into the american public with messages of consumerism, ecology and apathy. What really struck me was the films complete ability to work in terms with the Sci-fi genre. While showing us a glimpse of what is possible in the future it is a mirror to what we are today. Which is exactly what great Sci-fi films do. I would put it among the likes of 2001 (1968, Kubrick), Brazil (1985, Gilliam) and THX 1138 (1973, Lucas). While at the same time I would put it among the very best animated films of all time. This is all without even mentioning the beautiful love story that is portrayed with perfection through mostly visuals.

While watching Wall-E I received the sensation of what I think people felt when watching films that we think of as classics today for the first time. I thought to myself, "So this is how people felt while watching the Godfather in 1972."

If there was ever a movie that could be recommended to anyone this is it. It isn't to childish or to mature for any person to digest and really gain something profound from it.

Andrew Stanton, who also directed Finding Nemo back in 2004, does an outstanding job of making a truly magnificent achievement. It seems it has been far too long since lasting art has been in the mainstream public.

I could go on forever, but the point is; see it, see it now and tell others. You don't want to be talking to your kids/grandkids in 30 years telling them you missed out on a true classic of your time.