Primer

In 2004, a movie called Primer was released, written and directed by Shane Carruth, and no notable stars (except for one of the lead characters being Shane). This is an absolutely fascinating movie that you must see if you are in the mood to escape and think a little. This is not a simple movie to watch, yet it's very short - 77 minutes. I think this is a truly amazing movie.

The movie deals with the issue of time travel, but in the glorified sense that Back to the Future does. This deals with the nitty gritty of traveling backwards in time less than a day. It starts out with four friends who are working on projects in a garage in their free time. Two of the friends (Aaron and Abe)discover a way to interrupt the flow of time inside their machine, and even cause the contents to go backwards. It starts out simple enough: they have their vehicle outside, they set the machine at the point where they want to arrive, then they go about their day, at first, holed up in a hotel room avoiding the world but soon checking out which stocks had grown. At some point in the day, they would go back to the machine and enter it, and after about six hours in the machine, they were back at 8:30 am. Having the knowledge of that day, they would buy stocks, bet on sports games, and in some fashion profit off the knowledge.

Where this movie will lose people is that at some point, we learn that they have been experimenting with the machine individually, without the other's knowledge. Because of this, there are unforeseen consequences. At the end, you finally realize that you've been not seeing a straightforward plot, but you've actually seen doubles and triples of each of the characters. Aaron's character in particular becomes an unstoppable monster, going back in time and hiding his past counterpart in closets and attics, causing there to be multiple Aarons at the same time. The moment of truth in the movie is when Abe realizes the full of what Aaron has been doing and he finally separates himself. This is important because you can count on one hand the number of times you see Aaron or Abe in a scene by himself.

All in all, I think it's a fantastic movie that should be seen. It is hard to understand the first time, and maybe the second and third, but it's a wonderful film. The only real bad thing is the acting. It isn't exactly great, but it gives the movie more of an independent feel (and since it is an indie, it fits) and it gives realness to the characters. This isn't exactly a movie that fits in one genre. One can call it scifi if they want, or they can call it mystery, but either way, it's very good.

Here is a link to the trailer (which does the movie no justice):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CC60HJvZRE&feature=related

Chain Reaction

In 1996, a movie called Chain Reaction was released, directed by Andrew Davis, written by at least 5 people, principle stars are Keanu Reeves, Rachel Weisz, Morgan Freeman, Fred Ward, Brian Cox, and some minor characters that would be recognized. This is a movie that for a long time was a feel good movie for me, but having revisited it, I still like it.I'm not a big fan of action movies, mostly because of the cliches. There's always going to be explosions, chase scenes, murder, low character development, and a kiss at the end. Well, Chain Reaction is an action movie that has some of these cliches, but not all. There are two big explosions (one that takes up half of Chicago) and the whole movie is a chase. There is murder, there is low character development, but there is no kiss at the end. For once, something is broken!

This movie is the story of a group of scientists and students who are creating a cheap clean energy fuel source from hydrogen. They get it to work, and the party begins, but danger is soon afoot when Keanu's character Eddie returns to the site to get his motorcycle. He discovers someone has killed his mentor and set the hydrogen furnace to meltdown. He escapes just in time for it to blow up half of Chicago. What follows is a non-stop chase from Chicago to rural Wisconsin, to Washington DC, to rural Virginia. Rachel Weisz plays as Keanu's associate on the project; Fred Ward plays as the FBI agent tracking Keanu; Brian Cox plays as the leader of C Systems and the head antagonist of the movie; and then there's Morgan Freeman, who is part of the research team, but he's also with C Systems, and he's kind of good, and kind of bad. The main idea behind this story is ecology. In trying to find a cheap source of renewable energy, the research team is trying to help the world become cleaner. Of course, capitalism won't let something go free, so a corporation tries to suppress the technology by killing off it's members and abducting the rest to show them how it works. The idea was that since America is so dependent on fossil fuels, such a technology would put a lot of people out of business and create a national recession. They would instead introduce the technology slowly, and get rich off it.

I find this movie very interesting for it's message hidden in an action movie. There is a lot more to this movie than just a silly action flick. I believe that if this movie was released today, it would have been more popular than it was in the mid-90's. In fact, this movie bombed upon release. I think it's not a bad flick that's worth checking out. The dialogue alone I think it worth checking out, especially Morgan Freeman's. In fact, the best thing about this movie is Morgan Freeman. I think this movie was a little ahead of it's time for its message not only about ecology, but about the suppression of free energy and hidden government installations that even the lawmakers don't know about. It all adds up to a rather good action movie with an actual meaning.

Of course, it's not all good. The character development is very poor, but that's what action is about. And there are murders, yes, but no more than necessary. There are explosions, but hardly any. And best of all, there is no kiss at the end. Sometimes with action movies, there is this kiss at the end, which is the cliche of cliches. After such a crazy adventure, they have to end it on a kiss, which presumably starts a post-movie romance. But notice in the sequels, the woman is rarely still around. Well, this movie had no sequels, but at the end, there was no kiss, and in my opinion, logically, there couldn't have been one. They were friends, and just associates, so there was no romance there; just a friendship. A kiss at the end would have made this whole movie for me seem unbelievable.

Overall, I recommend this movie. An action movie, but an action movie that's believable (take note Michael Bay!) One thing to check out is the music score by Jerry Goldsmith; at times, it's reminiscent of Thunderball (James Bond movie from 1965). This is a movie with a message, and a movie that one can sit back and be entertained by. A hidden movie from the mid-90's.

(One last note: it's been said that Keanu Reeves elected not to make Speed 2: Cruise Control, and instead chose to make Chain Reaction. It's also been said that he chose not to make Speed 2 because of his band. Either way, I think it was a good choice not to make Speed 2.. cliche heaven!)

Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abl-kJfDI58

11:14

In 2003, a movie simply called 11:14 was released, written and directed by Greg Marcks. Most notable stars are Hilary Swank and Patrick Swayze. This is a wannabe interesting film, but it only has one exception to all others like it, and I'm not saying that it's an improvement.

In the last twenty years, a small niche of films have decided to take the rigid structure of a typical movie and turn it on its head. These movies take several story lines that seem to have nothing in common and connect them by the slimmest of margins to complete the film. The most popular of these include Magnolia and Crash. 11:14 is the same style of movie. Everybody in the movie is connected, even if some of the main characters never see most of the others. This particular type of movie can be very effective in some cases, but at its worst can just be repetitive. I for one love noir movies if they are done well, and this is a type of style that has a small following tracing it too. Noir lasted just shy of twenty years before it became completely cliche and out of vogue with audiences. This style, I believe, is already out of vogue, even though very few have been made.

There is no reason for me to try to explain the plot. I'd just end up retelling the movie. Instead, all I'll say is like all other movies of this type, there involves dead bodies (usually the same one or two that keep popping up, which makes it seem like more), all the events happen around 11:14 pm, and there are moments that make the viewer go "Oh!! I've seen that before! I think I know what's about to happen!" And I find that sad. Once you get into the rhythm of the movie, then it starts to get predictable. Another element which could be positive or negative is the dark humor. I love dark humor as much as the next person (well, maybe more), but I find the dark humor in this movie forced and not natural. It seems to me that this movie isn't sure if it's trying to be a serious movie with all the coincidental factors coming into play or if it's trying to be a satire of that type of movie style.

On the whole, I wasn't a big fan of this one, even though I was really excited about it. I just couldn't like it as much as I wanted to. But that's just me. Unlike Magnolia, or even Memento, this movie doesn't mess with your mind. It's rather straight-forward. In fact, just when I thought "I wonder what happened to the guy from the beginning?".... he showed back up, which neatly wraps it all together with a little bow on it. It may be worth a viewing, but I don't recommend putting too much effort in finding it.

Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-g6uIyFvow

Cold Souls

WARNING!! SPOILERS!!

Recently, a movie called Cold Souls was released, written and directed by Sophie Barnes. The most notable actor is Paul Giamatti. This is above all else, an interesting movie which in my opinion is a true hidden gem.

This movie firstly has one of the most unusual traits for a major movie: the main character is the same name as the actor playing him. The lead character is named Paul Giamatti, who is played by Paul Giamatti. Very unusual. Especially in a movie like this. Even though Sophie Barnes hates the comparison, it is quite similar to something Charlie Kaufman would write.

Cold Souls is about the business of souls. This movie has a lot of information that it has to get across for the viewer to follow what is going on, and it manages to go at a slow enough pace to make that happen. Souls are objects within us that can be extracted and stored, and a company does this for a fee. When Paul is feeling weighed down by his soul, he is recommended by his agent (and a New Yorker article) to go through this process. He is at the time taking part in a stage production of Chekhov's Uncle Vanya, and he just can't quite do it. So, when he goes in to have the soul-extracting procedure done, he has to get used to the absence of a soul... the emptiness and the feeling of nothing, which is nice for awhile, but he compares it to death. We then learn that it is possible to have someone else's soul in our bodies. He gets a Russian poet's soul, which aids him in his performance of Uncle Vanya. But it is a tortured soul, and he wants to meet its original host.

This is where the movie really takes off. We have been seeing these Russians working with souls in some manor in Russia, but we aren't sure what's entirely going on. Until we find out that there is an unregulated trade going on. The Russians get people to give up their souls, which are then transported to America (in a person, because the souls in the jars can't handle the pressures of an airplane). The person is called a mule, just like in drug movies. The problem with this is that every soul that is taken in a body leaves a little bit of itself behind, so there is only so much stress a body can take from this because of the residual soul parts that get left behind. The movie gets quite interesting as Paul figures he doesn't want the Russian soul; he just wants his own. But his soul has been stolen by a mule and taken to Russia for a woman who wants to be a good actress. Paul goes on a search to retrieve his own soul.

This movie, as entertaining as it is, raises several philosophical questions about what it means to be alive. Descartes and Schopenhauer and many other famous philosophers would have a field day with this movie. This movie is definitely an interesting idea and is filled with many deep ideas, but it manages to keep them straight for the audience. There are moments though when its obvious that something is missing. There are some plot holes. Such as how Nina gets a hold of the Russian wife, or what happened to the Russian soul that Paul has inside of himself. There are some really great moments, mostly by the doctor, played by David Strathairn.

Overall, I think this is a very good movie, mostly because it makes the audience think about what it means to be alive and what it means to be an individual. There are moments that are out of sync with the logic of the movie, mostly because it's a slow-paced movie that near the end goes a little too quickly for the facts not to mesh up entirely. But looking past that, I think this movie is well worth a viewing. It isn't a feel good movie, but it will make you think about your life probably more than you had before.

Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ2t2vDfM1M

Renegade...err, umm.. Blueberry

In 2004, a movie called Renegade (or known as Blueberry) was released, directed by Jan Kounan, written by a whole mess of people, loosely adapted from the Blueberry comic series. The principle stars are Vincent Cassel, Michael Madsen, and Juliette Lewis, with cameos from Eddie Izzard, Colm Meaney, and Ernest Borgnine. This is an interesting movie, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a good movie.

The story is about a man who at a young age witnesses the murder of a prostitute that he has fallen for at the hands of an outlaw. The young man is taken in by some Indians and is healed by them and accepted by them. Years later, he is a marshal. When the outlaw returns, he goes on a quest for revenge against the man who killed his love interest in the beginning. However, the outlaw is not after traditional gold, but instead the “gold” of the treasure of the Indians, which is a little hard to explain.

I haven’t mentioned yet that this is a western because I’m not sure if it can really be called a western. It takes place in the 1870’s in the West, but the last 20 minutes of the movie can’t be called traditional western material. It is more like an acid trip. Or more specifically, an Ayahuasca trip. This hallucinogen has DMT in it, which is a natural compound produced in our bodies that enables us to dream. Ayahuasca on the other hand allows people to be conscious when these dreams occur. Some think the substance in the movie is peyote, but since the substance is drunk, and much more powerful, all my research concludes it’s an Ayahuasca trip the outlaw is after, which leads people to “the other side” which I assume means another part of existence. In a western, one would expect a huge shootout at the end, or even a small shootout, or shooting at all, but not in this movie. The last 20 minutes is the “climax” if one can call it that. The outlaw takes a drink and begins his trip, followed soon by the marshal who starts his trip. The trip itself is hinted at throughout the movie before it, with plant creatures and hydras and snake things, but when the full-blown trip begins near the end, nothing can prepare the viewer. It is both beautiful and confusing. It’s something you should mute and put on some Pink Floyd (Echoes, Saucerful of Secrets, Shine on You Crazy Diamond, etc.) or some early Porcupine Tree to really get some effect out of it. As amazing as it is to watch this trip, it really takes the viewer out of the story.

Overall, as standard of a story as it begins with, try not to latch on too tightly to the narrative. The ending will throw you off so quickly. As far as the western parts, it has a great buildup, then falls on its face. As far as the trippy parts, they are second to none. But I’m not sure how well they sync up together. It is for sure an unusual film, that at best is a wonderful piece of CGI for the creatures seen in the trippy parts and such, and at worst it is a pretentious piece of cinematography. Viewer be warned: this is a non-standard movie, but certainly interesting. I’m still not sure of my opinions. I’m very mixed. To understand the trip, one has to watch it for themselves.

Here is a link to a video of part of the trip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FINU71FyMto&feature=related

Chaos Theory

CAUTION!!! THERE ARE SPOILERS ENCLOSED!!!!

In 2007, there was a movie released called Chaos Theory. It was directed by Marcos Siega, and written by Daniel Taplitz, and most noticeable actor is Ryan Reynolds. It isn't exactly a movie that most have heard of, nor many would probably like. It tells the story of a man who is an efficiency expert who himself is extremely organized to the point of obsession. The story is supposed to be about how he is set off schedule and slowly has his life unravel. At least that's what the taglines say. Really, it's the story about a man who recounts his trouble with his married life to a man marrying his daughter... a man he doesn't really like. That's what bookends the main story. Makes me think that the story was too short, so they had to come up with something else to get it up to feature length (it's runtime is 87 minutes total).

My biggest gripe is the use of Chaos Theory to explain the story moving along. For those of you who don't know what that is, I'll explain. Chaos Theory is basically the idea that an act can have any number of possible effects that continue to snowball; however, if the act was repeated, a different series of effects could happen. The usual explanation is the Butterfly Effect, where a butterfly flaps its wings in Japan, and the wind it generates grows as it travels, and by the time is reaches California, it is a storm. The random element is that if the same butterfly was able to go back in time and flap its wings at the same moment at the same time in the same place, its possible that a different effect might happen: the storm his Mexico instead, or there is no storm at all. This movie uses the idea of Chaos Theory as its backdrop when really every movie could. It's just cause/effect. Because A happens, then B happens. Because B happens, C happens, and so on. That's just how movies work. It's called plot development. This movie adds nothing new to the history of movies.

The one good thing about this movie is Ryan Reynolds. I really do not like Ryan Reynolds, but he really stands out in this movie. His slow decent into madness and back takes an aching amount of time (this is seriously the longest hour and 27 minute movie I've ever seen!) but it is worth watching just for his non-standard Ryan Reynolds acting. In my opinion, there are two great scenes. The first is where Ryan Reynolds' character Frank finds out that he is not the father of a child and his ecstatic joy, which immediately becomes pain because he finds out he's been sterile from birth... so where did his daughter come from? And the second is when he takes his friend out on the boat to kill him because his friend is his child's father, but the friend thinks Frank is going to kill himself. Very funny writing.

The other problem is that his movie suffers from an identity crisis. Is this movie a drama? Is it a comedy? Dark comedy maybe? It's all these things, which loses me. There are some deeply dramatic parts, and some really funny dark humor moments. The thing that really turned me off were the scenes where people are arguing about different things, but the other thinks they are talking about the same thing. Such as Frank and his wife are arguing about a child: he helps the mother get to the hospital, and she thinks he is the father. It just does nothing for me. The only time is on the boat in the lake.

Overall, I found this movie to be really boring. I had some excitement for it, and I was very much let down. The best thing is Ryan Reynolds' acting, but that alone isn't a strong enough reason to watch.

Here is a link to the trailer. Looks really funny... not so much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV19vnNUaAI

Movies in a Nutshell - 1

SO, with all the movies i own and all the movies I've seen, it's been recommended to me that I should start sharing some of my knowledge, especially about the movies that most people haven't seen. There is so much that goes into the movie industry and its history that it's hard to really grasp some of the numbers. The first movies came out in the 1880's and the first sound movies came out in the 1920's (even though the first documented sound film was made around 1900). Most would assume that the first all color movie would have been the Wizard of Oz or some other movie from 1939, but really it was a movie called "The World, The Flesh And The Devil" from 1914. Color was very expensive, so they didn't really get much attention until the late 1930's. Before that, there were movies with color parts or different forms of black and white (some had colored tints added to make them more blue, purple, red, pink, etc.) The film industry has a long and illustrious career that now is a multi-billion dollar and multi-national conglomeration. There are thousands of scripts written and submitted each year to any number of major and minor companies, and just a handful that have an interest from the companies, and just a handful of them that actually get made. Even then, there are more companies that make movies now than before (with thanks to the overseas markets and the independent companies). According to the MPAA (the Motion Picture Association of America) there were 610 films released in the US in 2008, which was up from 2007. Considering that's just a handful of a handful that were submitted, you can see how big this industry is and how it has to pull back in some cases. If they make another Cleopatra or Heaven's Gate movie, they could bankrupt the whole company. But on the other hand, they could have another Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind. Some movies make it, and some just don't. Usually, there isn't a reason why a movie fails. Some great movies are lost and forgotten, and some survive and do well.

My ultimate goal in these posts are to show you the movies that usually fall between the cracks, as well as explain information about the history that most don't know or choose to ignore. I'm not going to say that all the movies I talk about are movies that are for everyone, because they aren't. Some are obscure for a reason, but on the other hand, sometimes they are just as good as the best too. When it comes down to it, either we like movies or we don't. Either way, it's what the public wants that makes a movie a hit or not. Movies usually end up in three categories: peak early and fade away, peak late and take years to peak, or they peak and never drop down. Of course, that's assuming the movie peaks at all. Some just don't. The flops. The dread of the movie establishment. But it happens. It happens little and it happens big. But such is the industry. Making a movie is like a roll of the dice in craps. One never knows.