I watched the movie for the first time last night, so I haven't let the movie work it's way through my brain's endless analysis. But it has consumed me enough to where I felt I should expound on it here.
I love movies that entail spiritual journeys. Not necessarily those with very general, very hit-you-over-the-head agendas, but those films that send their characters on journey's of spiritual enlightenment. With that said, I think you could constitute a very large number of films that could fit that definition. You just have to stop and think about them.
I love how the characters in Darjeeling Limited set off on a spiritual journey and just seem to get it wrong. They feel as if all they need to do is travel to a perceived holy land to obtain it. I would think real spiritual enlightenment comes from within, wherever you are at the moment.
And the characters have little patience in such matters of importance. They feel as if they just follow a few instructions or kneel for a short time, they will obtain spiritual enlightenment almost instantly. I would imagine this comes from how they were raised. You never see the father, but I surmise he was well off and that his kids are set for life. Several clues lead to this hypothesis. First, none of them seem to work. And they seem to take matters of money very lightly, spending money like crazy on snakes and personal assistants. Schwartzmen's character is able to afford a large hotel bill and the father drove an expensive sports car.
I think it's safe to say that money and their parents have spoiled the main characters to the point where material possessions may be the key to their spiritual struggle. In fact, by the end of the movie, when they're racing to catch the train, they cast off their luggage they've been humorously carrying the whole film as if they are freeing themselves from that bondage.
And speaking of parents, in a freudian analysis, I really enjoyed how through the whole movie, you were led to believe that the father may have been the root cause of all their problems. They mysteriously only refer to him vaguely and always in such a positive light, as if they haven't quite gotten over his death. By the end, when we finally meet the mother they've been searching for, you realize the similarities between the mother and her children are uncanny and she displays the same behaviors the kids have been displaying throughout the whole movie. I.E. Running away from spouses and kids, Controlling people by setting an itinerary. And the fact that she's on her own spiritual quest is what the entire movie is about.
I'm sure there's a deeper level of philosophical meaning behind the movie that could be explored. But in a nutshell, what rises to the surface after a night's sleep is just as compelling as the movie itself.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
And The Winner Is...
I went six for eight in the major categories at this years Oscars. And I've predicted the Best Picture correctly for the third consecutive year. Last year I was six for eight also, and the year before that I was five for seven (for some reason I didn't vote for adapted screenplay). That brings my three year total to 17 out of 23 predictions. I think that's a pretty good score. But for some reason, I have a really tough time choosing the winners in the actress awards. I just can't seem to figure out the female. Wait a minute. That is so true, no matter how you look at it.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Good Intentions...
I haven't posted in this blog for quite some time. And there is a very good reason. I've been off trying to start a Rock 'N' Roll band. This means my career as a screenwriter must suffer. At least for the time being. But while I'm off trying to be Johnny Ramone, that doesn't mean I haven't seen any good movies. And It's my favorite time of the year. Oscar season!
Just got back from seeing Juno. Great movie! Probably this years Little Miss Sunshine breakaway hit. I expect to see at least a few awards come this movie's way. I'm looking forward to Atonement (when my Hell-forsaken city decides to show it!) and There Will Be Blood (Ditto!).
I saw No Country For Old Men. Great movie up until the ending. I felt it was anti-climactic and vague. It could have been that I was just tired and exhausted that I zoned out during long patches of dialogue, but it was intriguing enough to warrant a second viewing to understand what I missed the first time. Best picture of the year? That's a tough one. But here are my pics for my top 5 movies of 2007
1) Smokin' Aces - One of the few movies that blew me away.
2) Death Proof - I'm a Tarantino fan. I was going to like it anyways.
3) Shoot 'Em Up - Cheesy and Predictable in all the right ways.
4) Alpha Dog - Early favorite that stuck in my head all year.
5) The Lookout - Joseph Gordon Levitt is the new indie poster boy.
Honorable Mention: Bourne Ultimatum, Shooter, Once, Into The Wild, Breach, 1408, Disturbia, Across The Universe, Number 23, Mr. Brooks, Ocean's 13.
All in all, it was good year for Neo-Noir and Crime movies.
Just got back from seeing Juno. Great movie! Probably this years Little Miss Sunshine breakaway hit. I expect to see at least a few awards come this movie's way. I'm looking forward to Atonement (when my Hell-forsaken city decides to show it!) and There Will Be Blood (Ditto!).
I saw No Country For Old Men. Great movie up until the ending. I felt it was anti-climactic and vague. It could have been that I was just tired and exhausted that I zoned out during long patches of dialogue, but it was intriguing enough to warrant a second viewing to understand what I missed the first time. Best picture of the year? That's a tough one. But here are my pics for my top 5 movies of 2007
1) Smokin' Aces - One of the few movies that blew me away.
2) Death Proof - I'm a Tarantino fan. I was going to like it anyways.
3) Shoot 'Em Up - Cheesy and Predictable in all the right ways.
4) Alpha Dog - Early favorite that stuck in my head all year.
5) The Lookout - Joseph Gordon Levitt is the new indie poster boy.
Honorable Mention: Bourne Ultimatum, Shooter, Once, Into The Wild, Breach, 1408, Disturbia, Across The Universe, Number 23, Mr. Brooks, Ocean's 13.
All in all, it was good year for Neo-Noir and Crime movies.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
All Hail The Film Critic!
I often have long conversations with one of my co-workers about movies, even while on the clock when I should be doing something more efficient - out motto at work is "with a sense of urgency." He has good taste in movies. He judges every movie on how much of an emotional connection he gets to the film. For example, one of his favorites is Pieces Of April. He connected on an emotional level with Katie Holmes trying to cook a turkey dinner for her parents. I told him he needed to see Little Miss Sunshine, about a dysfunctional family that must pull through together on a road trip to a beauty pageant. He didn't understand it. The emotional connection for him wasn't there. To each his own, I guess.
Now I can respect his taste in movies because emotional impact is what every movie should strive for. What I don't agree with about my friend is how he comes to determine which movies he will see. He swears by his favorite film critic. he loves going on to metacritic.com and see what movies get the highest ratings. And his favorite film critic is Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal. If Mr. Morgenstern likes a movie, then my friend will probably consider seeing it.
Now I haven't really paid much attention to film critics in the past. You never really remember the movies you agree with them on. You just remember them tearing apart your favorite movies. It's just the way our minds work. We tend to remember the negativity more often than not. All I really know about film critics are Siskel & Ebert's TV show when I was a kid and the movie reviews I would occasionally read in Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone. But actually paying attention what they really had to say, well that was new to me.
So I decided to apply science to this predicament. I would figure out which critic is most suited to my taste so that I can have someone to turn to and determine what I should see (wink, wink). First, I would take 10 of my favorite movies and see how their scores stood up to mine. All 10 of my movies are what I would consider 100's (the scoring system on metacritic). I would take a handful of critics and add up their scores of my 10 and see who had the greatest total. I determined my top 10 by selecting 5 of my all-time favorites and 5 of my favorite movies in the last 5 years.
I started with Pulp Fiction, the movie I would consider to be my all-time favorite. If the critic didn't at least give that movie a decent score, then I probably wouldn't agree with them on most movies. Then, I found out that most critics hadn't reviewed all 10 of my movies, so I improvised my scientific experiment. I would take the highest 5 ratings of any of my 10 and compare the scores that way. So, essentially they might not have given Almost Famous(one of my top 10) a good score, but that wouldn't hurt them as long as they scored another movie of mine high.
After I added up all the score of my test critics, taking just the top 5 scores, I came to an interesting conclusion. The critic that had the highest score in my experiment is...drum roll, please!
Roger Ebert!
This was both exciting and a let down. exciting because Roger Ebert is the man! It was a let down because, it's Roger Ebert. I was hoping to find some obscure film critic from some newspaper in Bumfuck, Oregon to be my messiah. Roger is cool, but everybody knows Roger. But upon further introspection, I realized that Roger Ebert is the perfect film critic for me. After all, he loved Pulp Fiction, gave it a thumbs up. And any fan of Tarantino knows that film doesn't have to be perfect and grand. It can be small low budget b-film that entertains, even with it's many flaws. And Ebert wrote what I consider to be one of the worst movies ever made and he still went on to become a successful film critic. He can appreciate movies that most others wouldn't see.
My runner-up critic ended up being James Barardinelli of reelviews.net. From what I gather, he's an average person like you and me who became accredited (whatever that means) and now posts his movie reviews on his website. So there's hope for me after all.
and, for your information, my friends film critic, Joe Morgenstern scored the worst. Go figure!
Now I can respect his taste in movies because emotional impact is what every movie should strive for. What I don't agree with about my friend is how he comes to determine which movies he will see. He swears by his favorite film critic. he loves going on to metacritic.com and see what movies get the highest ratings. And his favorite film critic is Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal. If Mr. Morgenstern likes a movie, then my friend will probably consider seeing it.
Now I haven't really paid much attention to film critics in the past. You never really remember the movies you agree with them on. You just remember them tearing apart your favorite movies. It's just the way our minds work. We tend to remember the negativity more often than not. All I really know about film critics are Siskel & Ebert's TV show when I was a kid and the movie reviews I would occasionally read in Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone. But actually paying attention what they really had to say, well that was new to me.
So I decided to apply science to this predicament. I would figure out which critic is most suited to my taste so that I can have someone to turn to and determine what I should see (wink, wink). First, I would take 10 of my favorite movies and see how their scores stood up to mine. All 10 of my movies are what I would consider 100's (the scoring system on metacritic). I would take a handful of critics and add up their scores of my 10 and see who had the greatest total. I determined my top 10 by selecting 5 of my all-time favorites and 5 of my favorite movies in the last 5 years.
I started with Pulp Fiction, the movie I would consider to be my all-time favorite. If the critic didn't at least give that movie a decent score, then I probably wouldn't agree with them on most movies. Then, I found out that most critics hadn't reviewed all 10 of my movies, so I improvised my scientific experiment. I would take the highest 5 ratings of any of my 10 and compare the scores that way. So, essentially they might not have given Almost Famous(one of my top 10) a good score, but that wouldn't hurt them as long as they scored another movie of mine high.
After I added up all the score of my test critics, taking just the top 5 scores, I came to an interesting conclusion. The critic that had the highest score in my experiment is...drum roll, please!
Roger Ebert!
This was both exciting and a let down. exciting because Roger Ebert is the man! It was a let down because, it's Roger Ebert. I was hoping to find some obscure film critic from some newspaper in Bumfuck, Oregon to be my messiah. Roger is cool, but everybody knows Roger. But upon further introspection, I realized that Roger Ebert is the perfect film critic for me. After all, he loved Pulp Fiction, gave it a thumbs up. And any fan of Tarantino knows that film doesn't have to be perfect and grand. It can be small low budget b-film that entertains, even with it's many flaws. And Ebert wrote what I consider to be one of the worst movies ever made and he still went on to become a successful film critic. He can appreciate movies that most others wouldn't see.
My runner-up critic ended up being James Barardinelli of reelviews.net. From what I gather, he's an average person like you and me who became accredited (whatever that means) and now posts his movie reviews on his website. So there's hope for me after all.
and, for your information, my friends film critic, Joe Morgenstern scored the worst. Go figure!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
What is Cinema?
Book Review:
Syd Field - Going To The Movies
I was going to sum up this book with one sentence that appears on page 222:
"...Good structure does not create a good story, but rather that a good story is what creates structure."
I have a habit of posting 3x5 cards on my wall with these bits of wisdom on them. This is surely going up there.
For those of you who have read Syd Field's Screenplay, This book just elaborates what Mr. Field had explained already in his previous books. He just goes more in depth with how he came about with his brilliant bits of revelations. At the end of every chapter, I felt that Paul Harvey's voice should play like a greeting card message proclaiming, "...And now you know, the rest of the story."
Syd Field should give himself more credit for the hard work he's done and all that he's given us lowly screenwriters. He views himself stumbling upon these bits of information regarding structure much like the apple hitting Newton on the head and in the process discovering gravity. But as Ol' Syd pointed out in this book, Gravity wasn't sitting there waiting to be discovered - it was already there.
But alas, the book is about Syd Field's movie going experience. One that was brought home, personally to me, by the last chapter. When Syd recalled his own experiences seeing Pulp Fiction, Run Lola Run, Magnolia. These are the movies I also can recall very vividly. These are the movies that have inspired me to become a screenwriter. In a sense, I can see Syd Field coming to the end of his run. He is holding his baton out, beckoning me to take it and continue on. For it's in these moments where He and I overlap.
It's encouraging to know there's a connectedness in all cinema as it grows greater and greater with every passing year. It's just waiting out there for me to discover their truths as they fall from the sky like frogs. And like frogs falling from the sky, they can only be understood in their proper context.
The other bit of wisdom I found in this book are the words, "So what?"
When Syd was facing his inner critic he would take out a sheet of paper and call it the Critic's Page. Then he would write words like "These pages are no good", "I've read this before", and "You suck". I added that last one because that's what my inner critic tells me quite often. At the end he would write "So what?" And he was able to continue writing. The whole process was quite cathartic for him.
Then talked about the movie Magnolia and how people trashed it. But somehow, Syd liked it, as I did to. He would answer the critics. "It's too long." So what? "It doesn't make sense." So what? Frogs falling from the sky?" So what? If it works, it works.
So come on everybody out there in MovieLand. Let's all say it together. SO WHAT?
Syd Field - Going To The Movies
I was going to sum up this book with one sentence that appears on page 222:
"...Good structure does not create a good story, but rather that a good story is what creates structure."
I have a habit of posting 3x5 cards on my wall with these bits of wisdom on them. This is surely going up there.
For those of you who have read Syd Field's Screenplay, This book just elaborates what Mr. Field had explained already in his previous books. He just goes more in depth with how he came about with his brilliant bits of revelations. At the end of every chapter, I felt that Paul Harvey's voice should play like a greeting card message proclaiming, "...And now you know, the rest of the story."
Syd Field should give himself more credit for the hard work he's done and all that he's given us lowly screenwriters. He views himself stumbling upon these bits of information regarding structure much like the apple hitting Newton on the head and in the process discovering gravity. But as Ol' Syd pointed out in this book, Gravity wasn't sitting there waiting to be discovered - it was already there.
But alas, the book is about Syd Field's movie going experience. One that was brought home, personally to me, by the last chapter. When Syd recalled his own experiences seeing Pulp Fiction, Run Lola Run, Magnolia. These are the movies I also can recall very vividly. These are the movies that have inspired me to become a screenwriter. In a sense, I can see Syd Field coming to the end of his run. He is holding his baton out, beckoning me to take it and continue on. For it's in these moments where He and I overlap.
It's encouraging to know there's a connectedness in all cinema as it grows greater and greater with every passing year. It's just waiting out there for me to discover their truths as they fall from the sky like frogs. And like frogs falling from the sky, they can only be understood in their proper context.
The other bit of wisdom I found in this book are the words, "So what?"
When Syd was facing his inner critic he would take out a sheet of paper and call it the Critic's Page. Then he would write words like "These pages are no good", "I've read this before", and "You suck". I added that last one because that's what my inner critic tells me quite often. At the end he would write "So what?" And he was able to continue writing. The whole process was quite cathartic for him.
Then talked about the movie Magnolia and how people trashed it. But somehow, Syd liked it, as I did to. He would answer the critics. "It's too long." So what? "It doesn't make sense." So what? Frogs falling from the sky?" So what? If it works, it works.
So come on everybody out there in MovieLand. Let's all say it together. SO WHAT?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Death To Creatures Of The Night
I just got back from watching Skinwalkers. It's not as bad as the critics pan it out to be. Which leads me to one conclussion. Critics don't want to see another vampire or werewolf movie. To them, they hit there peak with American Werewolf in London or Interview With A Vampire. This is tough news for me because I'm writing a screenplay about a vampire. And it doesn't matter how original or invigorating my idea is (one critic described Skinwalkers as having a few clever twists to add to the genre), it's still not good enough. Critics don't want to see it. At least I still got fans of vampires and werewolves movies. They'll come out to see the movie. Maybe not on opening weekend (Skinwalkers - .75 million. Good enough for 17th place), But they will still see the movie. When it comes out on DVD, that is. It's ashamed how the movie business works. But that's the ultra-independent DIY in me speaking.
Friday, August 10, 2007
The Bourne Romance
To celebrate the opening of The Bourne Ultimatum this week, I went out and bought the previous two movies. That was only because my friend was supposed to let me borrow them and didn't come through. But, hey, they're worth the 10 bucks a piece.
I've only seen both movies once. The first one, Identity, was barely recognizable. There was a lot I had forgotten. It even makes me wonder why they felt a sequel was justified. But I think the franchise didn't really take off until the second movie, Supremacy. That's when I truly realized we had a James Bond in the making. Each movie was able to develop the character further, quite successfully.
So I was eagerly awaiting the third installment. And it didn't fail to entertain me. Although I was a bit let down on where it ended, the movie delivered on everything I expected. Great action. Great character development. A great movie.
Where I was let down was partly my own doing. They say every great movie is a great love story. I was wondering who Jason Bourne's love interest could be in this movie. His last girlfriend Marie was killed off and she was the catalyst for the last two movies. I wondered who it would be this movie. I had a brief thought that it could possibly be Nicky Parsons. She's been in the other two movies. She's a very minor character who has ties to Jason. I thought that would be a good idea.
Then when you watch the movie (This has nothing to do with the main plot line so there's no spoilers here) there is a brief scene in a diner where Nicky sits across from Jason and looks at him like a long lost lover. Then she asks him, "You really don't remember anything, do you?"
I knew I called that one right. So the rest of the movie I'm anticipating the Jason Bourne/Nicky Parsons story line that never comes. There's even a scene where Nicky has to dye her hair, like Marie had to do in the first one. But Jason doesn't help her do it like he helped Marie. And Jason just looks at her completely unattached. You can tell the thought running through his head is, "Not now. I can't deal with another relationship at this moment." Or maybe he was protecting her; not wanting her to end up dead like Marie. Either way, the storyline was dropped.
But The very end leads you to believe the powers that be know there is going to be another movie so we should set it up as such. When they end on Nicky Parsons watching television announcing Jason was still alive, she smiles. The ending I wanted was Jason appears out of nowhere to take Nicky in his arms and kiss her. But they already did that in the first movie and such an ending wasn't properly set up.
The Bourne Romance - The Jason and Nicky Story. That's the story I was anticipating and that's the movie I want to see.
I've only seen both movies once. The first one, Identity, was barely recognizable. There was a lot I had forgotten. It even makes me wonder why they felt a sequel was justified. But I think the franchise didn't really take off until the second movie, Supremacy. That's when I truly realized we had a James Bond in the making. Each movie was able to develop the character further, quite successfully.
So I was eagerly awaiting the third installment. And it didn't fail to entertain me. Although I was a bit let down on where it ended, the movie delivered on everything I expected. Great action. Great character development. A great movie.
Where I was let down was partly my own doing. They say every great movie is a great love story. I was wondering who Jason Bourne's love interest could be in this movie. His last girlfriend Marie was killed off and she was the catalyst for the last two movies. I wondered who it would be this movie. I had a brief thought that it could possibly be Nicky Parsons. She's been in the other two movies. She's a very minor character who has ties to Jason. I thought that would be a good idea.
Then when you watch the movie (This has nothing to do with the main plot line so there's no spoilers here) there is a brief scene in a diner where Nicky sits across from Jason and looks at him like a long lost lover. Then she asks him, "You really don't remember anything, do you?"
I knew I called that one right. So the rest of the movie I'm anticipating the Jason Bourne/Nicky Parsons story line that never comes. There's even a scene where Nicky has to dye her hair, like Marie had to do in the first one. But Jason doesn't help her do it like he helped Marie. And Jason just looks at her completely unattached. You can tell the thought running through his head is, "Not now. I can't deal with another relationship at this moment." Or maybe he was protecting her; not wanting her to end up dead like Marie. Either way, the storyline was dropped.
But The very end leads you to believe the powers that be know there is going to be another movie so we should set it up as such. When they end on Nicky Parsons watching television announcing Jason was still alive, she smiles. The ending I wanted was Jason appears out of nowhere to take Nicky in his arms and kiss her. But they already did that in the first movie and such an ending wasn't properly set up.
The Bourne Romance - The Jason and Nicky Story. That's the story I was anticipating and that's the movie I want to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
