Rantastic… (Film #002)

     Okay.  First off, I want to defend my case by saying that the only reason why I watched Letters to Juliet was for Amanda Seyfried.  Not only because I think she's ridiculously gorgeous, which she is, but I think she's an amazing actress.  Many might know her from Mean Girls, but she caught my eye in Jennifer's Body (which was a piece of shit movie too, I only watched it because I got a free screening for it).  Anyways, every want-to-be director has their list of top 3, 5, and/or 10 actors/actresses that they would love to work with one day, and Amanda is in my top 5 list of actresses whom I would love to work with.  She has potential to become one of the greats for sure.  I'll list some reasons on why I think she's great later in this rant - but first let's talk about the movie.

     Where do I start?  oh, I know.  Let's start off by saying that this movie sucks balls.  One of the most cliche romance films of the century.  Sticks to the romance genre formula down to the tee, and it still felt like it was done wrong - It gives love a bad name.  Bon Jovi, anyone?  There were a lot of things that could have been executed better… like the opening scene.  Was it necessary to open with various photo renditions of "Romeo and Juliet"?  I mean, really?  and the text..... being old english.  There's a reason why some people get paid good money to just choose the stinkin' text!  USE THEM.  And of course, when someone says that a romance movie was cliche, they are most likely referring to the dialogue, and yes, the script was elementary.  This was the epitome of a no-brainer movie.  If any girl says that they loved this movie, they better have a god damn amazing, out-of-this-world, oh-my-god-an-alien-popped-out-of-that-man's-stomach-at-a-diner, reason(s) or I'm going to want to punch her left boob while I let out a barbaric yawp.

     Okay.  With that frustrating rant out of the way, here are some good things I saw. Even in the midst of cheesiness, Vanessa Redgrave's performance was simply stunning.  I don't think Vanessa had an amazing performance because everyone else sucked.  I think it's easier to sink with the ship than to rise above it; therefore, her performance was even more elegant because she was able to deliver such depth in a character with the crappy script that was given to her.  Another person who surprised me was Gael.  The way he played the over-ambitious type of character was really well done.  I would have to say that Chris Egan was the bane of the group, but the blame is more on the director and writers because there was no room for him to dig deeper into the character.  Technically speaking, his character didn't need much depth, but it would have been nice to see more.

     Now moving onto Amanda Seyfried.  I think Amanda is an amazing actress who needs to stop being casted into these one dimensional characters.  She has a very charismatic aura in all of her performances, and those eyes of hers - goodness gracious great balls of fire.  At times it looks like she could look straight into your soul.  Not to mention that million dollar smile (I'm a sucker for beautiful smiles).  One of the biggest reasons why I like watching her performance is because you can see her efforts on screen.  She really makes the best of what she's been given and tries her best to push a one dimensional character into a three-dimensional world.  One of these days she's going to shock everyone with her talents and my only wish is that I would be the one to reveal that to the world.

     The most irksome aspect of all of this is realizing that a film like this will and has influenced the culture we live in.  It’s no Shakespeare, but it does have a cause and effect.  The film had a budget of $30 million, and it grossed $80 million worldwide and $53 million domestically…  That’s not even counting the DVD sales.  I’m not worried that this movie is going to change (or brainwash) society’s perception of what love is, but if movies like this continues to strive in theaters and becomes a fad within Hollywood stories, it definitely has the potential to cause a dent (i.e. the Titanic craze in ’97).

     Overall, this movie was horrible and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.  The only good things about this movie was Vanessa's performance, and how awesomely cute/hot Amanda Seyfried comes out in it.

Film #001.

     Here's to my first film critique.  I decided in the beginning of 2011, that once I started summer vacation, I would watch a film a day (maybe two), and write a quick little critique about it.  Mind you, I'm no professional film critic, and I'm no writer.  I'm merely a film-buff; but aren't we all?  (Especially in this "hipster age" that we live in).  Some films may be ones that I've watched multiple times (such as this one), and some are ones I haven't seen at all and I'm eager to watch and write about them.  But what ended up happening was... so... I decided to hand write everything in a journal right, and then this dog came out of nowhere and ate it.  Just ate everything... the lead pencil, the .05 lead case, my eraser...  Now it's 2012...

     Anyways, let's roll right along.

     Why did I start with this film? I actually have no idea.  I wasn't even looking to watch a rom-com (romantic comedy).  This film is pretty old.  It came out in 2001.  There was a horrible American remake in 2008.  But when I was thinking of what to watch, the first film that came to mind was this one.  And I'm glad that I started off my "2011-summer" movie list with My Sassy Girl.  If there's anyone that hasn't watched this yet, please do.  It'll lighten your soul for about 90% of the film and the ladder 10% it'll make you feel.... what's the word - apathetic?  That might be the wrong word, but that was the first word that came to mind.  The best way to describe this movie is that it's basically, the korean version of 500 Days of Summer before 500 Days of Summer was even written.  It's directed and written by Kwak Jae-Yong (곽재용), he also wrote and directed The Classic (클래식) and Windstruck (내 여자친구를 소개합니다).  Apparently this movie was "based on a series of true stories posted by Ho-sik Kim on the Internet describing his relationship with his girlfriend. These were later transformed into a best-selling book and the movie follows the book closely."  

     Judging from his film resume, it seems like he loves exploring the subject of Love.  Most of his films, if not all, have been romantic comedy/drama genres all relating to love expressed by characters that have very similar qualities of innocence and purity - platonic feelings of love turning into eros.  Similar to 500 Days of Summer, it is narrated in favor of the guy (in My Sassy Girl the narrator IS the main guy), and the whole movie unfolds in the guy's perspective.  However, unlike 500 Days of Summer, My Sassy Girl stays true to the formula of a rom-com.  Boy meets girl; boy falls in love with girl; they can't/won't be together for some reason (mainly due to issues of past relationship troubles); years pass and the girl realizes she loves the boy; then by fate they meet once again; then everything is happy go lucky.  Anddd scene.

     This was probably my fourth time watching this movie and it still makes me laugh out loud.  What I realized this time around was how immature the script was and how ridiculously simple the editing was done.  It honestly seems like the work of a first time writer/director.  The writing is very cheesy and almost unrealistic to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if the first draft was written as an undergraduate's thesis project.  And the editing.... it looks like it was done by a high school student learning final cut for the first time (I'm sure they used Avid or Adobe Premiere Pro.... or maybe some korean editing program that I've never heard of).  There were no fancy camera movements or any interesting camera angles, yet the film is still amazing.  I want to believe that all this was intentionally done by the director.  Reasons: 1. As a writer, he probably wanted to portray the child-like innocent, lovey-dovey side of falling for someone. 2. To portray that visually, the best way IS to keep it as simple as much as possible - almost like it was shot in DV by a student filmmaker. 3.  Keep the editing as "traditional" as much as possible - meaning, exhibiting what you need to see and nothing else; no extra B-roll was needed; keeping the images very "flat" and "2D", so the audience will only feel the surface of their relationship.  Seeing that the director does a great job sticking to this style, he was able to create a very light-hearted tone from beginning to end.  Also, the acting is very over exaggerated to match the humor in the writing.  Not to mention, the main male actor breaks the fourth wall several times to compensate for how two dimensional the images are in hopes to bring the audience in a little "closer" into the relationship between him and the girl.  If you didn't notice yet, everything falls into place - the writing, the editing, the acting, the directing.  In my opinion, it was perfectly executed.

     What I loved most about this movie was that it was purely a telling of a story.  In this dot com generation we live in, story-telling has been tainted with special effects.  I'm not saying special effects is bad or anything, it's just that "movie magic" was always the magic of telling a story, not the voodoo of using a green screen and computer animation.  The ability to transport the viewer into a state of wanting to be IN the story was the magic.  It seems like film makers nowadays have forgotten how to tell a simple story.

Checkmate, Soulmate

Thank you Diigo for helping me find my social bookmarking soulmate.  You are like the E-harmony of speed dating.

A few letters here and a few clicks there and bada bing bada boom, I found my person.  Since it’s Valentine’s day, I was hoping it would be a girl… but from the looks of the user name, it seems to be a dude.  Well, I don’t know, it could be a girl.   The user name is “tho mas” as two words.  I mean, maybe, she’s a Mexican-American chick who forgot to put the accent over the “a” and wanted her user name to mean “there’s more”?  That could pass as a clever user name, right?  Do I sound too desperate to want this person to be a female?  I should stop.

Anyways, I digress.   So this person, “tho más”, had a lot of labels and tags that matched with my blog research and posts.  Since this blog is geared toward a general theme of film, cinema, and the critiques of certain critics on the topic of film, finding a social bookmarking soulmate was pretty hectic.  It wasn’t the trouble of not finding anyone, it was the complete opposite – there were just too many to choose from.  And to add to the confusion, most of the tags used by users weren’t really matching with what I had in mind.  For example, most people would mainly tag gif’s and photos, but I’m looking for articles and blogs with analytical opinions.  I would rather have someone paint apicture for me with their words rather than to describe what I’m seeing.

Fromdelicious, Film, Cannes, Pulp, Popculture, STARWARS, Music, and Philosophy were some of the top tags…  I really hope this person is a girl.

TRIFECTA.

Awkward Beginnings (Hello, World)

      Is it just me or is it difficult in general to start writing?  Every word feels out of place and a bit awkward.  And the more you write, it actually doesn’t feel better… you just learn to force yourself to roll with the punches.  Similar to when you’re going for a handshake and the other guy gives you the fist bump and both of you know that it’s too late to switch it and try to get it right, so you both just continue to connect with the open hand and the closed fist.  Or when you convince a friend to watch a movie they weren’t really interested in, only to find out during the movie that the movie actually sucks.

       Bottom line.  Always go for the handshake, and don’t make crappy movies.   You may be asking, “Why is it important to have good films/movies?”  “What is considered a “good film” as supposed to a bad one?” “Who are rating these films and why?” “Why does it matter to me? To society? To anyone?” And if you weren’t, well it doesn’t matter, these will be some of the questions I’ll be attempting to answer regardless.   Media has always been a powerful tool of influence throughout history.  Newspapers, books, television, posters, art, music, films, etc. and especially, in regard to the dot com generation that we live in now, films have definitely the most power of influence crossing the boundaries of age, gender, and race.

       Films have always been fighting the good fight.  It is an art form that is an outlet for artists to voice their opinions and attempt to portray and justify “the truth” – whatever that may be.   And it is the work and the words of the critics that, at times, convolute the positives into a negative and choke the public with such chicanery. Oscar Wilde once said, “The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.” 

       My job through this blog will be attempting to successfully transform myself from viewing things (films), as an artist, into perceiving and explaining works of art (films) by other artists as a critic.  Hoping to Bear Grylls myself out of this alive with as much vigor and excitement toward every post and in hopes to not lose artist-self in the process.  Not to say that critics are not artistic, but it is definitely a different type of art form, similar to that of a biologist, mathematician, or a politician.

At the end of every awkward moment I feel like this...

Any Inspiration For Sale? (Profile Blog)

     Reigning all the way from Toronto, Canada, in the northeast corner, height: unknown, weight: doesn’t matter, self-proclaimed film buff and founder of Daily Film Dose – Alannnn Bacchusssss (disclaimer: extra n’s and s’s used for dramatic effect only).

     I’ve only recently found out about this blog, and it’s kind of amazing.  It’s no Pajiba, but it’s an amazing feat that this blogger(s) achieves.  Although he does have four other contributors, majority of the writing is done by himself.  Like the title oh-so-subtly implies, the blogger not only attempts, but succeeds in writing a new review/blog about a film (classics, new theatre releases, and/or new DVD releases) every day.  EVERY. DAY. What is he doing right in life?  What kind of deal did he make with the devil to not have laziness hover over his body?  Is it just the Canadian air?  I need to move.

     Each post is laid out with a simple rating system in the beginning followed by a quick synopsis and a brief closing remark of opinions buttered with slight wit.  Again, it’s no Pajiba, so if you’re looking for witty tales from quirky people who probably took drama 3-4 in high school, this really isn’t the blog for you.  But if you consider yourself as being even the slightest film connoisseur, or peers consider you a film buff, or if you just want to sound a bit douchey about how many obscure film names you know at an entertainment schmoozing event, you have got to check this blog out.

     He’s even allowed a little poll at the end of each post for the reader to agree or disagree.  That definitely gives room for a conversation starter – hopefully the comments posted will pertain to the blog post, but it gives leeway to just create a space for other readers/bloggers to converse.

     His style of blogging doesn’t exactly relate to my blog, but the fact that he blogs every day inspires… I mean guilt trips me to write more.  I hope to achieve the same kind of motivation to blog continuously and with interesting topics.  Okay, time to go make an appointment for some vodou devil writing magic.  Or book a flight to Seattle to get a draft of some Canadian air.

Wait... Who? (Voice Critique)

Yeah, I heard you loud and clear.  (That’s… what… she said?  Wait… what.)

      Dustin Rowles.  That name probably won’t ring a bell, unless you’re an avid follower and reader of Pajiba.  And even if you were, you still might be confused as to who that is, because truthfully, who looks at the author of an article nowadays?  I sure do, I’m not THAT lazy.  Correction: I’ll read the post first, and if it’s good then I’ll bother looking at who might have written it.

      So who’s Dustin and what’s so great about him?  All I know is that I am a fan of his writing.  It’s formally opinionative, impressively dense, and clearly clever.  If he wasn’t a writer, he would probably be a professional stand up comic… or a pedophile.  His intro hooks are phenomenally colorful, completely baits your attention and makes you want to listen to what he might have to say just to judge for yourself if this person is blowing smoke or not.  One of my favorite posts by Rowles is his review on 500 Days of Summer.  His opening line is "You're going to hate 500 Days of Summer." Hooo! Aggressive, I like that.  Then he continues on writing, "Wait.  Let me back up and restate that.  In 456 days from now, yore going to hate 500 Days of Summer." OH WHAT!  Did you notice what he just did?  That second line just snatched your wit, threw it to the ground, drop kicked it with his own humor, and threw it back in your face.  In about three sentences he just captured the essence of whole film, foreshadowed the topic of his own writing, and set a concrete tone as to how he's going to go about it.  “Did you see what I just did?!  I Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-the-shit out of you, you just don’t know it yet.”

     He’s no Charlie Kaufman – nor is he close – but he sure knows how to take the audience on a journey with his writing.  Each line is very rhythmic and melodic exhibiting his playfulness and ease with matching up words romantically.  It starts off very formal with a stern critical scale, still a uniform opinion, but in a staccato manner.  Then after the intermission between the paragraphs, he begins act two – in-my-(humble)-opinion mode.  Basically it’s a guide of critical analysis for dummies.  Pure entertainment, passionate, and energetic.

       Like a musical, you get caught up in his whimsical, quirky, offbeat tone of writing.  His writing is so buttered with solid opinion that you want to regurgitate his own damn words and pass it off as your own to anyone who asks your thoughts on that particular movie.  I’m pretty sure I’ve done that a couple of times… I’m not too sure.  Maybe I deleted that from my memory.  For all I know, Dustin Rowles could be a pen name, like Mark Twain, or he could actually be a she.  Like when you meet a male Ashley… that’s always weird.  Ashley is definitely not a unisex name.

Wait... Who?

Yeah, I heard you loud and clear.  (That’s… what… she said?  Wait… what.)

Dustin Rowles.  That name probably won’t ring a bell, unless you’re an avid follower and reader of Pajiba.  And even if you were, you still might be confused as to who that is, because truthfully, who looks at the author of an article nowadays?  I sure do, I’m not THAT lazy.  Correction: I’ll read the post first, and if it’s good then I’ll bother looking at who might have written it.

So who’s Dustin and what’s so great about him?  All I know is that I am a fan of his writing.  It’s formally opinionative, impressively dense, and clearly clever.  If he wasn’t a writer, he would probably be a professional stand up comic… or a pedophile.  His intro hooks are phenomenally colorful, completely baits your attention and makes you want to listen to what he might have to say just to judge for yourself if this person is blowing smoke or not.  Then the second line snatches your wit, throws it to the ground, drop kicks it with his own humor, and throws it back in your face.  “Did you see what I just did?!  I Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-the-shit out of you, you just don’t know it yet.”

He’s no Charlie Kaufman – nor is he close – but he sure knows how to take the audience on a journey with his writing.  Each line is very rhythmic and melodic exhibiting his playfulness and ease with matching up words romantically.  It starts off very formal with a stern critical scale, still a uniform opinion, but in a staccato manner.  Then after the intermission between the paragraphs, he begins act two – in-my-(humble)-opinion mode.  Basically it’s a guide of critical analysis for dummies.  Pure entertainment, passionate, and energetic.

Like a musical, you get caught up in his whimsical, quirky, offbeat tone of writing.  His writing is so buttered with solid opinion that you want to regurgitate his own damn words and pass it off as your own to anyone who asks your thoughts on that particular movie.  I’m pretty sure I’ve done that a couple of times… I’m not too sure.  Maybe I deleted that from my memory.  For all I know, Dustin Rowles could be a pen name, like Mark Twain, or he could actually be a she.  Like when you meet a male Ashley… that’s always weird.  Ashley is definitely not a unisex name.