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
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
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
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
Monday, March 15, 2010
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)