Worst Book Adaptation

Forget "Jurassic Park", this IS the worst adaptation of a book to a movie.
I know a lot of Stephen King fans are disappointed with most of his books-to-movies.

Let me assure you: THIS IS WORSE!

Now, I am going to get picky. IF the credits said "Inspired by the Book..." I would be more okay with the film. But, NO - it says "Based on the Book..." WHICH IS A LIE!!! There's almost nothing based on the book in the film. Wait, that's a lie. There's college kids from MIT and there is Card Counting and Blackjack. I guess that's enough to qualify as "Based". PLEASE note the sarcasm.

I'm annoyed.

Honestly, the film AS A FILM is not bad. However, it is a horrible adaptation of one of the best books I've ever read. It removed so many interesting and tense moments of the real events. Instead, the film replaces them with lots of character development of ONE character (yep, just the main character gets any attention and/or motivation). Side characters are just their for story purposes, and we never really learn much. They did make Lawrence Fishbourne's character pretty mean and ruthless, but the Poker Chip Incident was left out. The changed a lot of the hand signals. BUT, they left in the Code Words, which was something I assumed they were going to neglect. So, I enjoyed that.

It's a fluff film. Someone (I believe Kevin Spacey) was smart enough to realize that the MIT Blackjack Team (one of the many...) was a good story, and worthy of a film being made about them. Then, someone else (one of numerous people, probably) were so STUPID that they allowed this hollow story of a script to be transformed into a film. So much potential, so little return on the investment (your time in the theatre).

Okay, all "drama" aside: If you don't know anything about the MIT Blackjack team, you'll probably somewhat enjoy the film, but you'll still probably have a hollow sense in your mind once the film is over. If you have read the book, or even seen the documentary: YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED.

Bummer.

Passport Approved!

Best News this week!
I came home today, and had my new passport waiting for me in the mail.
So, now its official, I have nothing to worry about, I will be traveling to Europe with no problems in September. After my initial denial, I was starting to get worried - spending so much money on my plane ticket before I knew for sure that the government was going to allow me permission to leave the country.

But, it's all resolved. And, I must say that these new Passports are A LOT more advanced than the one I had when I was younger. It's pretty cool. Kind of like our ever-evolving money. (Seen the new Fives, yet? They're pretty wicked!)

So, this weekend I'll probably buy my London Pass and my Chunnel Ticket!!! Everything is coming together, ROCK ON!!!

"Southland Tales" Review

Since before October of 2006, I have wanted to see "Southland Tales".
It received a horrible One Star Review at Cannes, and it only gets Two Stars (out of five) from Shane.

I constantly blogged about how upset I was with the studios for wanting to cut down Richard Kelly's film into a 100 minute film. Well, via Netflix, I got the 144 minute version of the film. IMDB lists that the Cannes version of the film was 160 minutes long - so it seems I got the in-between version of the film. Not as short as the producers wanted it, but not as long as Kelly intended it.

First, the film is nowhere near as good as "Donnie Darko". Not even close.

It's pointless to even attempt to explain - in any intelligent manner - the storylines present in the film. It's such a mish-mash hodge-podge of uninteresting activities. It attempts to incorporate a mystery into the storyline, while never directly addressing the mystery. It also constantly references a character's amnesia, while that character never appears confused about his whereabouts or his actions.

In an attempt to explain: Boxer Santaros (played by Dwayne Johnson - aka The Rock) returns to Los Angeles with amnesia. But, somehow he hooks up with Krysta Now, a porn star played by Sarah Michelle Gellar. They write a script about a man who discovers how the world is going to end. Throw in a sub-plot about a group of Marxists who are attempting to over-throw the government using a police officer and his twin brother as pawns, and add in the Senator who becomes their target, and the crazy scientist who developing alternative fuel sources (since we can't import oil anymore) and you've got a multi-layered insane mass of stories to be told, which all gets narrated by Justin Timberlake (who actually was pretty good in this film).

The film opens with a scene that is supposed to explain how World World 3 starts, and how the government basically shuts down the country, including the Internet. "Big Brother" pretty much takes over any and all forms of communication. The majority of the film comes off more as a Political Statement than anything else. It's sort of an anti-war and anti-government piece. It seems to pull fears that Kelly has about how the future will be, if we continue giving so much power to politicians and the government. Perhaps this is similar to some of the thoughts and feelings felt by Terry Gilliam as he worked on "Brazil"???

In the last 20 minutes of the film, Kelly attempts to throw in a Science-Fiction twist, that is supposed to attempt to partial explain certain elements of the film, and it just comes off as a poorly conceived idea that was thrown in, due to a lack of intelligent story composition.

So, I was honestly a lot more disappointed with the film last night when I just got done watching it - than I am now. Thinking back, it really was a very though-out piece of "art". But, there's so much exposition that isn't required, so many layers of story-telling that it makes it difficult to follow, and still the overall sense that Kelly didn't really know where he was going, or what he was doing. Granted, it's not as ill-conceived as Lynch's attempt at "Inland Empire" - but it's still a film that feels like it tried to do too much, while over-stimulated the viewer to the point of un-interest in the characters.

More than likely, I'm going to have to find time to watch the film again. Now that I now what to expect, perhaps I will be better equipped to enjoy certain aspects of the film - or pick on pieces that I originally missed. All I know, is that after almost two years of waiting - I was greatly disappointed with the product given to me.

"The Lookout" Review

I'm a little behind in some of my Netflix reviews, so I'm going to catch up on the last two.

"The Lookout" was a film I had wanted to see for a while, but I think it was pretty limited in Indy, and I never made the time to go out of my way to see it. I often saw the DVD, but never got around to buying it.

Like "Brick", the film stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and he does another wonderful performance. The film spends a good amount of time on character development. Developing the mundane and sorrowful life that Chris Pratt (Gordon-Levitt) is forced to live, 4 years after a car accident in which he killed two of his friends, and suffered some life-threatening injuries. The film builds up his personal relationship with Lewis (played by Jeff Daniels) and their co-existing friendship as roommates, placed together by the rehabilitation center.

Matthew Goode ("Match Point") does an amazing job, playing Gary, a bad guy who befriends Chris and uses his powers of manipulation to convince Chris to help them rob the bank the Chris works at, as an overnight janitor.

Then, there is the vixen used to tempt Chris, played by Isla Fisher - who I am falling in love with!

All of the actors are amazing. And I loved seeing Bruce McGill get some more work (Jack Dalton from "MacGyver") playing Chris' Father. The interaction between Chris and Gary and the other members of Gary's group are well played. They make Chris feel like he is a part of their group, before they let him know what their plan is. I'd say the first 50 minutes of the film are dedicated to developing all of the characters and their relationships - before the bank heist actually gets in motion.

Sadly, the worst part of the movie is this: There comes a point when Chris could do something - something that I believe any normal, sane person would consider the right thing to do. And if Chris would make this choice - the film would be over. Instead, Chris makes decisions that I consider irrational and idiotic. This drags out the film for the final 25 minutes, and simply drags out the story more. I suppose it's required for the redemption of Chris' character, after getting involved with the robbers - but I don't believe it's the most intelligent decision for a person.

Overall, I give the flick 3 Stars out of 5. It's worth renting, but I don't believe its worth buying. There is some nice cinematography in the film, and with the snow-covered terrain, it makes for some nice contrasting shots. Like I said, the acting is GREAT and I would watch the flick again just for that.

"Once" Review

Once is probably the best way to describe how many times I'll ever watch this film.
The film is not bad. I actually enjoyed it. I don't regret watching it.
The only thing I regret is starting the film at 12:45am, and having to drink two Mt. Dews and do jumping jacks in the living to to keep myself awake long enough to finish the 85 minute film.

It's an art film. Plain and simple.
Here's the best thing about the film: In contrast to typical films, this one reminds us that sometimes a film is just a slice of life. It's a glimpse of characters, during a specific period of their lives, for a specific reason. And sometimes, it shows us that things don't always work out like we want them to, and eventually we have to go back to what originally worked for us. It shows us how people can impact our lives, in big ways in a short period of time.

The film is a musical. And not a musical like "Rent" where people are talking about their lives and their problems. No, in this film, the musical part of the film is the songs that the characters are writing and rehearsing. They don't just randomly break out into song in the middle of the street, while people walk by without paying attention. Instead, if they are sitting on the bus, and he's strumming his guitar and then starts singing - it makes sense. And when The Man raises his voice at a specific part, and the old lady looks at him - you realize that their actions are not limited to themselves, they are still interacting with the real world. I can only imagine that some people I know, who are true musicians, would probably find this film extremely enjoyable.

However, There is no dramatic story arch.
Honestly, I would consider this to be "This is Spinal Tap" WITHOUT the comedy and satire.
It would be like "Almost Famous" without the storyline, or maybe better "Music and Lyrics" without a storyline. There's no dramatic tension, there's no issues, there's no real problems.

The film follows a street musician, who one day talks to a woman in the street. They get to know each other, and she learns he fixes Hoovers. Ironically, she has one that is in need of repair. They go back and forth flirting with each other, however they each also seem to keep their distance from one another. As they get to know each other, The Man puts some of his music onto CDs for The Woman. Shortly after watching her play the piano, he asks her to write some lyrics for some of his music.

The rest of the film follows them as they write music, acquire additional musician's help, and get studio time to record his songs, before he plans to leave to go to London. Throughout this time, we learn a lot about each of their personal lives, and some of the mental struggles they are currently going through. As they are developing their music, they inadvertently help each figure out where they need to go with their lives.

One of the best scenes in the film comes when The Man sits in the dining room with his father, and plays him a tape of one of his songs. His father's reaction, and what he says, is so awesome. It's probably my favorite scene in the film.

It's not the best film I've seen, but for what it was it was enjoyable. I would advise people to be prepared for what they are getting into. Those you loathe Hollywood Cinema, and long for more artistic films, I believe they will enjoy this film. Anyone who is seriously interested in being a musician, and enjoys the process one goes through to record some songs - they should really enjoy this film too. It's a nice look at a week, in the lives of two people who love creating music.

"Funny Games" Review

Okay, if you read Michael Maier's Blog, you already know how much he hated "Funny Games".
And he's allowed to have his opinion. He didn't like it, and that's too bad.
You're going to find a completely different review here.
***Michael, you don't need to post a comment telling me I'm an idiot for liking the film, I already read it on your blog. And if anyone wants to know how you feel about the film, they can GO HERE. You don't need to repeat yourself on here, cool?***


Shane's Review:
I give "Funny Games" 3 1/2 Stars our of 5.

In case you're not familiar with the film, here's the short of the story: Two harmless looking young men make their way into a rich family's home. Throughout the night the play numerous mental games with them, terrorizing them.

It's a psychological film. It's a slow film. It's not an action movie, and it's not a gore-fest film. It's a psychological film, done in a minor Hitchcockian way.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said, "Where there is no imagination there is no horror". I believe this is a perfect way to explain the film. Like I previously said, this is not a gore-fest like the typical horror films on the 21st Century, where they try to gross-out the audience by showing heads exploding, and objects being inserted into the skin, causing massive amount of blood and amazing pain. EVERY violent moment in this film (and there are only three, that I remember) are all seen off-screen. This forces your imagination to think about what it looked like, and let's be honest - your imagination can run wild. You probably make it a lot worse than it really is.

I believe the director, Michael Haneke, has created a somewhat anti-American film. It's a satire of the society of America. Those people who HATE this movie, hate it because it's not the spoon-feed garbage of gore that American Audiences have come to beg for (Michael, I don't mean this at you, I know you're not a typical movie-goer - this was a general statement). "Give us more gore!" Why are there so many CRAPPY horror films coming out? The multiple amounts of "Saw" films, that keep trying to raise the bar. The UNWATCHABLE film "Hostel" and I've heard its sequel goes even farther than the original - I refused to watch it. In America, everyone has become so obsessed with seeing every little bit of violence on screen, that they lust for it. This film denies them that. It refuses to show it to them, and instead forces intelligent people to put together in their own minds what happened. I respect that. I respect his (probable) intention of creating an anti-gore film. In another anti-horror/slasher/gore film move, the "bad guys" aren't rude and evil terrorists. They are two overly kind and polite young men, who are freakishly polite, even while they are demanding things from you. And if you don't do as you ask, you get a glimpse of what they might become, but they are very quick to apologize for their outbursts, and go back to being overly friendly. It's hard to hate a character who always says "please" and "thank you", even when they are threatening the lives of people.

I'm not going to lie, at one point in the film I really felt CHEATED. REALLY CHEATED. I felt like the director was doing something horribly wrong with the film. However, in retrospect - I think I understand it more. I think it goes back to "giving the audience what they want". The audience WANTS to see the bad guys win, they want to see the bad guys torturing people. So, when this event happens - due to the graphic nature of the event, what happens makes sense: in the attempts to keep this as anti-gore as possible. Despite it's implausibility in reality, in context of a film knowing its a film - by breaking the fourth wall - it was doing what "...it thought the audience wanted..." by preserving something the audience was invested in.

The fourth wall is broken a number of time in this film, and I believe that goes to further my assumption of Haneke's intentions. The "bad guys" are often making references to "the audience" and "we have to give the audience what they want..." And when they actually turn to the camera and completely BREAK the Fourth Wall, it's eerily creepy. I got chills the first time it happened. While there is not a lot of constant tension, during the middle of the film there is a sequence that literally had my heart beating faster and faster. I was nervous and scared at the same time. This sequence seriously invoked the emotion of fear in me - and that makes it successful to me.

Now, as you are watching the film you should consider asking yourself this question: "Who are the real protagonists of this film?" You might be foolish to consider The Family the true protagonists of the film, and not The Boys. However, since the storyline always follows the family, and doesn't follow the boys - I could be foolish for considering them the protagonists.

During our conversation post-film, Phil pointed out a specific sequence of dialogue, which I had forgotten, that really seems to kind of set the mood for the actual context of the film. When/If you watch the flick, make sure you pay attention to the conversation Tim Roth's character has with his son on the boat near the beginning of the film. It really kinda of sets up the reality of the world this film takes place. Then, take into consideration my arguments for the purpose of the film, and you might actually enjoy it more than Michael did.

It's a thinking movie. It's not just mindless entertainment, so don't expect that. I also thought the acting was top-notch. Very good emotional performances by Roth and Watts, and even the kid who plays their son. Pitt and Corbet are freakishly impressive in their roles. While many moments of the film seemed slow and drug on, it was still for the previously mentioned purpose of forcing the audience to use their minds, and not be force-feed everything. The film is purposely ambiguous in that fashion, and it makes an interesting piece of art.

"Unknown" Review

"August Rush" was on backorder yesterday, so I got "Once" and "Unknown" in the mail today. Although, I did get an email today telling me that I would get "August Rush" tomorrow.

So, after I got done watching "Lost" and basketball tonight - I decided I wasn't tired, and I wanted to pop in a movie. "Unknown" was the shorter of the two, so I decided to put it in.

It's a move that I've been wanting to see for a while, and I've actually picked it up and carried it around at Best Buy, only to put it down and claim I'm going to buy it another time. I'm really glad I never paid full price for the film on DVD, because I doubt its something I'll ever be in the mood to watch again.

It's a pretty good film. I did enjoy watching it, and trying to figure everything out. But, now that I know everything, I just don't think I'll ever have the desire to watch it again. Unless I'm going to be watching it with someone who hasn't seen it. That's about it. The film is in the same vein as "Reservoir Dogs", in the fact that its a group of men in one central location, who all don't trust each other. Granted, the dialogue and events of this film pale in comparison to those of "Reservoir Dogs".

It opens with Jim Caviezel waking up in the middle of a storage room, he looks around and sees other men, all passed out. There's lots of blood and weapons lying around. Over time, all of the men wake up, and everyone has amnesia, due to a container of some gas which has busted open. The film follows the men, as they all begin to regain their memories and piece together what happened to bring them all together. Some are good, some are bad, and we (as the audience) go along with the characters as they remember things.

Honestly, I believe the storyline would have been better served as a one hour television script for some crime drama. Because, while we watch the men in the warehouse - we also follow the cops who are working with the wife of one of the men, who pays the ransom for her husband. We see from their angle, as they pursue the criminals and attempt to track them down. But, there's a lot of things in the film that probably could have been scaled back or removed to make the pace a lot quicker. The film takes a while to get you involved. Probably ten minutes, or so - it's basically the polar opposite of "Brick". Once the film gets going, it is pretty well paced, despite the things that I feel could be cut.

I'd probably rank it a 6/10.

I'm taking "Once" to work with me tomorrow. And tomorrow night, after I get home from the Big Ten Tourney, I will probably put in "August Rush". Netflix is really turning out to be the most amazing thing ever. I love the ability to get any of these films that I've been wanting to see, but too lazy to purchase - and then, after I watch them, I realize that there's no reason to waste my money on the DVD. I think this is going to save me a lot of money in the long run. And, I'm just about ready to start selling off my DVD collection. Aside from the TV Shows I really care about, and maybe 50 films - the rest are going to be taken to a place that buys Used DVDs. Time to get rid of this massive collection of films that I never watch.

"Brick" Review

I bought the film back in August of 2006.

And I took it to work with me tonight, and after I watched it, I asked myself one question:

WHY did it take me SO long to watch this film?

The film is enjoyable because people talk in ways that "real" people don't talk. The dialogue is written very differently from how normal people talk, and that just adds to the appeal. When Humphrey Bogart talks in "The Maltese Falcon" - it's not typical, he's got this vibe about him, and his vernacular reflects it. Jack Nicholson in "Chinatown" is another perfect example. It's the way they carry themselves, that adds so much tot he character, and the way they talk is just anther reflection of their attitude and demeanor. Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is another one of those characters, he just happens to live in the modern day. And his "film noir" style dialogue is converted into hip modern dialogue, that is spoken with pure and true film noir diaglogue. It's very well done.

Wow, wow, wow. What a good film. I was hooked after the first ten minutes. It's not a typical indie film, that requires 30 minutes of set-up and explanation of characters and situations you don't care about. After the first minute, you're involved in the story and you're following the journey that Brendan is going on. You learn as he learns, you evaluate people as he does. You try to connect the dots, and when you think you know what's going on, you've got no real idea.

The cinematography is amazing, the shots are so well put together and composed. I loved the look of the film. It had a really grainy feel to it, and I loved how it felt to watch. I also enjoyed the use of color in this film. One group is specifically defined by the color white, while another group of people is specificaly designated to the black color. Then, we have Brendan, who is commonly wears grey throughout the film. A perfect metaphorical representation of how Brendan constantly walks the thin line between good and bad in the film, all in the name of love. Brendan is trying to solve the murder of a the girl he loves, and not only does he learn a lot about her, and the people she fell involved with - he also learns his own personal limits.

And just like typical drama-detective films, it's not over when you think its over, and Brendan has an amazing final scene - with the "true" killer - where you get the sense that he's smarter than we have ever thought. Which, thinking back, I shouldn't have underestimated him. He figures out a good amount of things throughout the film, and I should have seen him putting everything together.

Like I said, the most appealing part of the film is the fact that people talk in ways that are so atypical that it draws you into the film, from the first sequence. I highly recommend it, and I hope you don't wait as long as I did to watch it. Like "The Maltese Falcon" and "Chinatown", "Brick" is not a film I could watch regularly, but I imagine that every year, or two, I will break it out and want to watch it. It's definitely a film that I would watch with anyone who hasn't seen it, just to watch them and see their reactions.

"2 Days in Paris" Review

"It always fascinated me how people go from loving you madly to nothing at all, nothing. It hurts so much. When I feel someone is going to leave me, I have a tendency to break up first before I get to hear the whole thing."

The films is definitely an art film. There's really not a plot to follow, it's more an observation of two characters. It was a little slower than I was hoping for, but it really does make a lot of good observations on romance and relationships, and our past.

For me, the easiest part to relate to was Jack (Adam Goldberg). Throughout the film, as they spend two days in Paris - after some time in Venice, before going back to New York - they come into contact with a number of Marion's Ex-Boyfriends. Jack doesn't do well with meeting her exes, specifically since he doesn't speak French, and doesn't understand exactly how they are hitting on Marion. Jealousy and Insecurities mount up throughout the film, and causes Jack and Marion to realize that after two years, they really don't know each other.

I didn't really care for Marion's parents. I didn't really think they were that important to the overall story. And Marion's Sister goes from being rude and demeaning towards Jack, only to later be extremely nice and friendly to him. It seemed like an odd contradiction, with no explanation - unless I missed something...?

It wasn't the best film I'd ever seen, but it invoked thoughts and memories in my mind - which I suppose is one of the true tests of good cinema. If you're looking for something different, and not typical - this is good film to fulfill that requirement. I can't say its a good "date movie", but something that can be watched by the single, those with a serious significant other, and those who just want to observe "art cinema".

"Music and Lyrics" Review

So, last night at work I popped "Music and Lyrics" into my laptop and watched it.

It was exactly what I expected it to be. I wasn't let down, and I didn't get anything that I didn't expect. It followed the very common Romantic Comedy Storyline, and it worked just fine. It wasn't anything new, but it didn't feel like the same old "crap" either.

I actually liked Drew Barrymore. So often she plays the ditzy hot-girl with no self-esteem who doesn't think she deserves the guy she wants, then somehow gets him. That's NOT how she plays this character, and it was a wonderful surprise to see her in the flick. She actually plays a woman who has some serious mental instability issues, and she portrayed them well. She's not psycho, or anything, she's just got some stuff that she doesn't like to mentally deal with, and it effects her. I thought she did a really good job with the character and her mannerisms.

Hugh Grant was Hugh. It wasn't my favorite flick of his. He's done so many more interesting characters, and I honestly was never sold on this character. It almost seemed bi-polar to me. In one scene, he's be lamenting about how he was just doing these things for the money, and how he needed to try to get famous again. Then in the next scene, he was acting as if he was fine with being a washed-up ex-pop star. There never seemed to be a consistency to his character. I would blame it more on the script and the director than Hugh. He does have some good moments with Barrymore, and their interactions are a lot of fun to watch.

As I previously said, the story follows a typical formula. It's nothing new, it's nothing different, but its still enjoyable to watch. While the film begins with Alex's (Hugh Grant) need to write a duet for him and a current pop teen idol, where it focus on his inability to write the song, until along comes Sophie (Barrymore) - who is supposed to water his plants. It's not long before they are writing the song. After they finish it, the film shifts to Sophie and her personal problems, where Alex now feels invested enough to attempt to help her through some personal drama. Eventually they fight. And eventually it all works out.

FORMULA. But, worth an hour and half. Especially if you've got someone special to watch it with.

So tonight, I brought "2 Days in Paris" with me to work, and once the Pacers game is over (I'm listening to it on the radio), then I'll put it in and watch it tonight.

I stopped by the post office today, to return "The Nines" and "Music and Lyrics". So, hopefully in the next few days I'll get "Once" and "August Rush" in the next few days.

Currently, I'm watching the IUPUI/Oral Roberts game on Game Cast. At 9:00pm, I'll have the Butler game on Game Cast. It's a BIG night for small Indiana Colleges hoping to guarantee an NCAA Tourney Bid...

"Vantage Point" Talk

I had a really fun afternoon/evening over at Troy and Emily's place. We played a bunch of Wii, and we watched the end of the NASCAR race. We also watched my DOMINATING performance today CRASH and BURN when Jeff Gordon wrecked with FOUR laps to go!!! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyways, it was a lot of fun and I appreciate them inviting me over. I also got to hang out with Zach and Jenny, which is always a fun time. Despite Mario Party 8 CHEATING in Zach's favor, it was still a great time and the banter was fun.

Later tonight, I ended up at Phil's theatre to watch "Vantage Point". The flick was alright. I enjoyed the story-telling aspect of it. I honestly think it must have been stolen from indie-art-house flick, but it worked well. The multiple points of view seemed to work well, and they honestly constructed it in somewhat of a "Lost" type manner. At the end of each POV, it's going one of those "Holy Cow!" moments, but only the character sees it, we (the audience) do not, not until later. So, there's lots of times when you're like, "WHAT did they see???" But, you have to wait to get your answers.

I can understand why most people in the general public won't like this film. It's not traditional, and you do watch the same assassination seven different times from different aspects. Anyone who enjoys the "art" of film and film-making should enjoy this film more than most, for its artistic accomplishments.

I can't say that I was completely surprised by the twists they threw in. Some of them were interesting, but others you could sense coming.

I also took my friend Amanda to see "Juno" last night, and it was still good the second time around. However, we saw it at the new AMC theatre, which is all in digital. And honestly, there are some films - and "Juno" is one of them for me - that I don't think I want (or need) to see in digital. "Juno" is an art-house film. I kind of feel that I should watch a gritty/grainy print to put me in the right mood to view the film. Maybe I'm just weird...