Holiday Movies

Enough Said - "2.5 stars out of 4"

This movie could have been a 4 star movie. Had the potential...the story, a rather well-built witty script, the amazing actors, and most importantly the chemistry between the two main characters...basically the whole shebang of a good recipe for an ideal rom-com. But midway it went wrong...very wrong. It hit a brick-wall of cliches. Lost tempo...oh, tempo...how it gets on my nerves...maybe the most important part of a movie for me is this and it is one of the points that you would find in most my reviews.

James Gandolfini in his last role that he played in his life, brought to life a very average man that anyone -even me- could relate to. He is probably the only reason why I would recommend to friends to see this movie at least once. Well, maybe it's not worth spending that much in a theater and you could wait until it comes out on Netflix or something. But you would have the experience of enjoying a heart-warming holiday-ish movie...well, half a movie at least!

Julia Louis-Dreyfous was the delightful self that she is...very reminiscent of her "Alayne" and she essentially melted into Gandolfini's character.

Since this post is a series of mini-review I wouldn't get any further into the details but my general recommendations would be: don't keep your expectations high and just enjoy the acting.

Frozen - "2.75 stars out of 4"

I had waited for a really really really long time for this new Disney animation to come out, mostly because of this trailer. But I was kinda let down. I mean it is beautiful and all but still doesn't match the level of the Disney movies that we used to have when we were kids. Even the music of cartoons these days don't match that of the ones in the 90's. And Frozen didn't really have anything special to offer until the snowman character "Olaf" showed up. Oh, was he a "character"! As I recommended you watching enough said because of the chemistry, I would recommend you to watch this animation just because of this character. He makes it totally worth the time...and maybe money (sorry, I am a student on a tight budget who needs to take this variable into account every time!). One of the other exceptional things that I found about this animation was how they had avoided the whole "true love" cliche and had given it a new meaning. I really enjoyed the idea of not filling the minds of kids with finding a hunky-prince love when you're 16 (yes, Ariel, I'm talking to you!). 

A footnote: I found some parts of this cartoon and especially the trailers before it started showing not so very appropriate for kids (Maleficent...really? You're showing that to 10 year-old kids...and younger?). So, you might want to consider this before taking your 6-year-old to see the very innocent Frozen.

Hunger Games: Catching Fire "4 stars out of 4"

I was going to give this movie 3.75 stars just because I felt like it wasn't fair to give 4 stars to this and the same rating to a movie like Forrest Gump but then I thought why not?! We compare movies in different genres and I remember Roger Ebert giving Spider-Man2 4 stars back in the day. And this movie not only fulfilled its mission in delivering a good action-filled movie, but also very much so exceeded my expectations!

I should confess that I have not read the Hunger Games books and neither have I watched the first movie! And until a week before going seeing it, I really had no idea about the storyline. My perception of this movie was that it was a blockbuster-type, Twilight-ish movie made for adolescents. But after talking to my brother, he encouraged me to go see it and on the back of my mind remember how the story had first come to life. And that is apparently when the author was flipping through TV channels and he went from a channel showing a war-related story or news to the other TV channel showing a stupid reality show. So, he decided to write a book and criticize how we are played and manipulated by puppets on shows. And I think this movie did that purpose justice by portraying "behind the scenes" on reality shows. But I also think if anyone who has not heard about the main purpose of the Hunger Games and only had come to the theater to enjoy an action-packed movie, definitely got what they had come for.

And boy do I love this girl! Jennifer Lawrence is good in ANY movie she appears in. I would root for her for every award, for every role. Watch her in this cute, honest conversation with Letterman.

I really didn't realize how the almost 2.5 hours passed by! Go see this movie and you'll enjoy it. Guaranteed.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - "3 stars out of 4"

I just checked to see what rating I have given to the first hobbit movie and apparently my love had overcome my logic and I had given it 3 stars. I mean since this movie was better than the first and the first wasn't that horrible either, I would have given the first one a 2.75-star rating but I didn't want to change it. So, I think I'll go with 3 for both and we'll see what happens in a year!

This movie was no Lord of the Rings but was much better than the first. I mean, still it felt like they had stretched out the story waaaaay too much. But of course we could have seen this coming when they announced that they were turning one tiny book into a trilogy. But I'll tell you this, give a visionary like Peter Jackson a Tolkien book and can you see where I am going with this?! Of course, it is worth watching it. Could he go wrong in any possible way?! No, not really. At least for a nerd like me, his movies are still an exciting 2:40 minute rides.

If you're a LOTR fan, I can't see how you won't enjoy it. If you're not a LOTR fan or have never had any exposure to any Tolkien-related book or movie, I would give it a second thought and I'll leave the judgement to the magnitude of the nerd inside you.

Just because!

A picture, can't get any more epic than this.

Scorsese posted this today on his Facebook page and I just wanted to pass on the thrill. Enjoy! My Halloween gift to you.

Lolita vs. Lolita

"2.75 stars out of 4"

So I got to see Kubrick's Lolita a few weeks back. I had seen Adrian Lyne's version several years ago. I just looked up to see his past career and noticed that without realizing it, I had seen many of his movies before. He is the man behind "Fatal Attraction", "Indecent Proposal" and more recently "Unfaithful" (hmmm...I can see a theme here).

When I saw Lyne's version, I remember at the beginning of movie he had a commentary where he was asking the audience to disregard the negative criticism on his "Lolita" and watch it with an open mind. I think the negative feedback he had gotten were from diehard fans of Kubrick and also because of pedophiliac imagery in his movie. I am so glad I did listen to him and had the privilege of not having seen Kubrick's at the time.

A few differences caught my attention that I thought I could share.

The first thing that catches your attention is the acting. I mean what movie would be boring with the mere presence of Peter Sellers in it?! He was a blast and I think Kubrick had him in his movies just for the sake of his own fun. Not that I want to dis his talent, because needless to say he was talented indeed. And the other notable acting in this movie was that of Shelley Winters'. Compared to Melanie Griffith, she did a better job of depicting a desperate widow. I can't believe that she wasn't even nominated for an Oscar. Probably because the Academy didn't approve of the movie's storyline back in the day. However, one advantage that the new Lolita had, in my opinion, was having Jeremy Irons as the main character. Maybe not many people would see the difference, but I don't know...I would add him and his deep melancholic voice to any movie!

The second difference is the theme. Kubrick's had a much more comic tone to it than Lyne's. Actually, I don't think Lyne's had any comic tone at all and I consider it a good thing because in Kubrick's you would get distracted from the main point and what was going on, to the point when the comedy stopped, you would get bored. I liked the gloomy theme that Lyne had added to his film and I think Nabokov would've approved as well.

And lastly, I found the main problem through a comment that my friend made after we left the theater. She turned to me and said, "was this movie made by the same guy who made 2001?! What was the point? They hadn't done a good job of covering who the school psychiatrist was (who was Sellers)." I said, "well, they wanted you to know who he was from the starts".  -"So what was the point?!"

You see, in Lyne's version, the identity of the guy who Lolita is seeing is kept a secret until the very end but in Kubrick's version, from the very start we know who he is and in fact, that's where the story begins!

I don't know why Kubrick decided to do it this way. It deprived his movie from the suspense. Actually, after Shelley Winters' character got killed off, not only the tempo of the movie fell dramatically, but you also had nothing to look forward to (which was the wit!). Whereas in Lyne's, you are hooked until the very end.

So I leave you with this: watch both. You will enjoy the storytelling and the sincerity of the newer version BUT you will definitely enjoy the acting you will find in the original version. I would recommend seeing the new version first, if you haven't already done so. Because although I spoiled it, but like I said earlier, I have the feeling that that's how Nabokov had intended it to be received and also the storytelling is much better. After you have found out about the story, then you can take a peek at what inserting Sellers in there (forcibly) would make it look like.

P.S.: The rating looks a bit weird. I first gave it 2.5 stars but then I remembered the laughs I had in the theater and I thought that deserves another 0.25 points! But to be fair to all the movies that I have rated 3, I wanted to keep it under 3. And to be fair to Kubrick, compared to the movies I have given 2 stars to, I had to keep it above 2.5 the least!

Gravity

"3 stars out of 4"

I think 2.5 stars of the 3 that I just gave this movie, go to the visual effects of this movie and the rest to acting, directing, and story line. Actually, storyline gets the least bit since it wasn't a unique or an original one.

This movie was a visual marvel. Of course most of it is owed to the progress in technology but not everyone could have put it into good use, right? And who better to do it other than Alfonso Cuaron? I wouldn't list him as one of my favorite directors (because it is such a high privilege that not everyone deserves it!) but now that I think about it, maybe I should. Every other movie that he directs, makes it way up to being one of the best. From "Y Tu Mama Tambien" to the magnificent "Children of Men" to one of the best adaptations of the best book from the Harry Potter series (in my humble opinion and of course in Spielberg's), the Prisoner of Azkaban. But I think this time he has stepped out of his usual work into a new spectrum and has masterfully created one of the best thrillers in recent years.

The story starts with an amazing view above the earth in space where 3 astronauts are working to repair their spaceship. But soon it is reported that while the Russians (well, of course!) were trying to dismantle one of their old satellites, things have gotten out of hand and it has created a debris storm that is coming their way. But before they get a chance of moving they are hit and their space shuttle is beyond repair now and they have to seek help from other space stations, while they are down in oxygen and their connection to base is lost.

This movie is literally concise and to the point. No wonder that it has a rather short running time and let this be a lesson to all the directors out there...it is fine. As a spectator, I would rather go to the theater and be entertained for 90 minutes than get stuck in the dark theater half amused, half frustrated and keep looking at my watch (yes, I am talking to you Baz Luhrman. Moulin Rouge! was fine though). 

Another thing that I liked about this movie was the fact that instead of dragging the intro part forever, the action part started sooner than you would have expected. And it kept on surprising you. It wouldn't let you get comfy in your seat but more likely to keep you on the edge of it.

As for acting, Goerge Clooney was the charming self that he is as always. Bringing the wit to the table when you needed it the most while you were gasping. I wasn't very fond of Sandra Bullock though. She has had her ups and downs in her career but this one was...well, definitely not up but not as down either. And while I found myself as breathless as her character at times, I would attribute that to the director rather than the actor's art.

And what is it with the Russian reference? Shouldn't we be over the whole feud by now, or is it too soon?! When I first thought of this in the theater, I tried to justify it with the fact that well...maybe it is only them who could match the technology of the US (and unlike US, they screw things up by blowing their satellites and oops! It's on its way to hit the US space stations by [air-quote] "accident"). But then the Chinese station made its way into the story. Couldn't it be them who made the mistake since they are new to the whole space arena and well...their products are "Made in China"? But no, I think we owe them too many trillion dollars as for now and can't bring any jokes on them just yet. Chinese to the rescue!

If we disregard the cartoon side of the story (fire-extinguisher...Wall-e...hello?), this movie captures a good vision of rebirth and the survival instinct.

While I was on a trip in San Francisco this past summer, we met a French lady who owned a store in Sausalito. She was telling us how she had moved here because of a guy 20 years back and how her daughters were still in Paris and she tries to keep in touch with them. Apparently, things hadn't worked out that well for her but what she said in the end was that "...the survival instinct is strong in humans" and I couldn't agree more. Even if it is not for ourselves at times (which actually is most of the time), it is for the sake of our loved ones. Or maybe that also is a part of the whole survival instinct thing...trying to find motivations to survive. Like for myself, the other day an a**-hole driving a car, missed me by an inch because he was driving on the wrong side of the road (or maybe passed by me so closely on purpose since it was dark and I was walking close to the road where no car was passing by and was more lit than the pavement). Why I was grateful at that moment for not being hit by that car was the fact that it would have devastated my parents who live far away. But then again...things aren't that bad in my life to be wishing for being hit by a car.

I'll leave you with this note, sure it had many thriller/SciFi cliches (the happy one getting killed off first), sure at times Sandra Bullock would get on your nerves, but this movie is a must see. For at least once. Just so you can experience an eye-caressing imagery.

[Maybe the gloomy people don't get killed off so they can get a second chance in life and appreciate its beauty.]

2001: a space odyssey

"4.5 starts out of 4!"

Well, it's been a while hasn't it? It's my own fault. Made myself and my schedule pretty busy this semester. And although I am enjoying it immensely (since I have been unemployed/unanything in the past), I really do miss this place. I feel like I am straying away from my goal of becoming a journalist. The proof for that is the fact that I applied for the PhD program in our own department, though I never had it in my future plans. But I had a couple of reasons for that. One might have been the fact that I am a coward...in taking risks. The other being that I don't feel like I am ready to be a "grown-up" and take responsibility. The third is the fact that the chance of getting an assistantship or an scholarship for the journalism program is really slim and neither do I have the money myself or want to put the load on my parents. The last and the most important one is that since my parents spent a lot of money to send me here and put themselves through trouble and many emotional strains (since they were sending their little kid to a far away land) so that I can have a better future, I felt like I owed them and that would make them happy. And I believe I was right. Because although they kept telling me do whatever makes you happy but when I told them that I had decided to continue my studies, I could see their faces light up!

Anyway...I wanted to give a little update on myself and where I am standing right now in life. But the fact is that I was too busy to even watch a movie for the past month or so. The lovely Amherst cinema had a Kubrick festival for September and their Lynch festival has started since last week. So I got to see Kubrick's Space Odyssey and Lolita a couple of weeks back and I took notes for the first one but as you can see hadn't gotten a chance to write it here. I hope my memory serves me well in transcribing my emotions and thoughts from those movies.

Let me start with this, me and my friend went to see this movie and our jaws were literally dropped! And the main reason for that (other than the fact that it was an amazing, thought-provoking movie), was when you brought into consideration the time of the making of the film. How could anyone come up with such an idea 45 years ago?! When you compare this movie to the movies that were made in Iran back then, or even in Hollywood...I think I can rest my case now! Of course, it's a shame that it is more than 10 years past the year 2001 and we still don't have the technology to send people to Jupiter (or maybe we do but don't have the reason yet! I'm not sure).

I loved how Kubrick played with the sound to play with your mind. The shots he got from the very beginning...oh man! The scenery itself seemed to be an important character in the movie.

Let me tell you right off the bat what my take on this movie was, because my view was completely different from my friend's and it might save you some time on not reading the rest of this post. What she thought was that it was something like "War of the Worlds" where aliens had planted something on earth way before there was life on earth and all of a sudden it had unraveled. And that was what gave them the power to overcome their enemies and to drive them out. While my take was that it was a sign of how we are connected to after life and what there is and where we go when we die. And what happened with the competition was I thought just the evolution. Since I hadn't looked it up to see what others have had to say about this, so I put it up to debate. And since I don't have any comment-ors yet, I think it will continue to be an inner-debate with myself!

Speaking of War of the Worlds,  I realized where the idea of how machines and computer can take over us has come from, which is pretty amazing. How it has influenced many movies and books to come...the after life, the computer/human conflicts,...from Star Wars to Contact...he had (and still has) opened a new chapter into the life in cinema.

My friend thought that the ape part at the beginning was irrelevant and could've been cut out of the movie. But I thought that it was actually quite important for the flow of it. It was a mental cue for us to see how even among the same species the survival instinct could lead to horrendous things, let alone when a computer wants to take over human kind! And how disturbingly true it was.

This movie would shake you to the very core. Stimulate every living cell that there is left in your brain! (Of course, in my case, the beer that I had while watching it at the theater might have helped! I mean in stimulating, not killing the cells!) The end was predictable (probably due to many adaptations from this movie that I have seen since this one was released) but you will gasp and be engaged in the story from the very beginning. It also involves some issues that are pertinent to that era, like the cold war. But it doesn't defy the fact that you will find it interesting.

Here's a summary: the movie starts by showing images of the earth, back when there was almost no life and there were apes living in colonies and trying to survive and who had competition with other groups of apes. Then a group comes across a giant black thing that's stuck out of the ground. It radiates a noise.
Then the movie cuts into the future. It's the year 2001. There are stations in the moon and people can travel as if they were traveling on earth. But there is a top secret mission. They have found a new thing on the moon. The same giant black thing. But this time they have the technology to detect where the radiation comes from. It is from somewhere near Jupiter. So they start a plan to send a few scientists over there to check what is going on. And they have this computer, an intelligent machine, built into the spaceship who is in charge of the technical support of the scientists. But he is not in on the secret. He tries to find out and take over since he thinks humans are stupid and might mess it up. But things go wrong...

September/October in Amherst Cinema

Again, Amherst cinema has a great two months scheduled, this time for movies by Kubrick (for September) and David Lynch (for October). I am going to try to catch as many as I can. I suggest you do the same. Here is the list of the movies and the date of their showtimes:

Dr Strangelove 9/8
2001: A Space Odyssey 9/15
Lolita 9/22
A clockwork orange 9/29

Wild at heart 10/13
Twin peaks: fire walk with me 10/20
Lost highway 10/27
Eraserhead 11/10
Blue velvet 10/6

Jobs

'

"1 star out of 4"

I am not sure if this movie even deserves the one star that I am giving to it. It sure as hell doesn't deserve it. The 0 star represents the whole line of movies that are unbearable and fall below this one. Jobs won't get you hooked to the story, while it had the best subject any director or producer could've dreamed of. And what a waste of time and money it was for me and for the people who put effort to make this. The 1 star also merely goes to the few scenes where it could put a fleeting smile on your face and that was it.

I was wondering why nobody was making a movie on Michael Jackson's life, but to the person who is working on it, please, for the love of God...take your time! There is no rush. The world doesn't need another Jobs. And if you screw that one up, you would find at your hands more pissed off people than you could imagine. Don't turn movies that are supposed to be a tribute to money-making excuses.

This movie looked like one of those lame-ass movie-like clips that talk shows make. You know...the ones where for example Oprah wants to talk about a person's life and they want to show a clip of what they have been through. So, they make them pretend they are reading something or are deep in their thought and just narrate them. This movie didn't have narration but I think maybe Morgan Freeman's could've saved it from becoming a sleeping pill. (No offense to Oprah by the way. Her work was amazing.)

It was almost like they had searched "Steve Jobs" on Wikipedia and tried to film the trivia with long shots and zoom ins and outs, as if this was an action movie. And tried to touch on "sensitive" parts of his life...the fact that he had been given up as a kid. Or had taken the part where (as we all know) he had taken calligraphy classes in college and used that experience to program different fonts into computer systems and tried to show it as a dramatic sequence in the film, down the road.

There are times where you don't have high expectations of a movie and then you see them and they get on your nerves but you can get over it soon. Since, you were not let down. You just watched something that could have been entertaining and wasn't. But in this case, we are talking about a biographical sketch of one of the people who had an immense role in changing the face of the world we are living in now and had an incomparable contribution to the progress of technology. The least you expect is a decent movie, deserving of its name but... UGH! I am just in awe of how one could screw something like this up. It takes a lot more to ruin a gem for a subject like this, than make a good movie.

And about Ashton Kutcher's Jobs. From the first scene where he walks in, there is no Jobs to be found in him. His only effort to mimic Jobs was his walk which I found really ridiculous. I think even Kutcher had been aware of how dumb his Jobs-like-walk looked mid-filming the movie but couldn't change it because they had already filmed a huge chunk of it. Of course, this is just a guess. And if he doesn't know this himself, then I have no comments! I found myself laughing at him slouching and this is wrong...to laugh at the scenes where you shouldn't. Throughout the movie all you could see was Ashton Kutcher (not Jobs) constantly changing facial hair. That's as far as he went in bringing this character into life.

You don't need to change your appearance to give an award worthy performance. Of course, in this case a believable one would've sufficed but when you remember Joaquin Phoenix's Johnny Cash, and remind yourself that he looked nothing like Cash and still gave an amazing performance...just keeps you wondering. (Looks like I've left the theater awe-stricken with all the wonder-ments I have in this review!).

I just looked up the director and found out that unfortunately (or maybe fortunately!) haven't seen any of his previous works. So, I can't give my verdict on his work. But I am wondering who trusted him with this project, as it seems like he is not an experienced one.

The fact that I slept in the theater can give you a hint on how disastrous and boring this experience was for me and can be for anyone who has got a slight sense of detection of a good movie.

This one is trailing way waaay behind Social Network, which I think I can allow myself to compare with, since it is a recent movie on a tech pioneer. And the fact that the subject in that movie has still got much of his life ahead of him, makes it the more "interesting" on how much material the Jobs guys must've wasted. David Fincher had turned a simple story to look like a rock concert! This shows the power of the writer, as I have always said. Writers are the underdogs of movies. They should be given more credit for their work. It's the power of the writer that can make a narcissistic, contemptuous character turn into a loveable one, where you root for, though he acts completely like an asshole. Speaking of assholes, what's up with the tech guys and acting the way day do?! But as I had mentioned in my previous post, these people's work should be considered regardless of their personality. And only be kept in mind not to make them idols...at least character-wise, for we owe them more than enough to make up for the way they have behaved in the past. We all have flaws. Some can be overlooked.

My suggestion to you is stay away from this and hope that somebody makes a tolerable remake. Or just (movie-makers) leave him alone! I know what you are thinking. As the name is big, you get tempted to watch it regardless of what anyone says. That's how I felt. Believe me when I say I hoped I had believe the reviews before checking it out for myself. There is 2 hours and $12 of my life I am never getting back and I wouldn't want that for any of my friends.

Hugo

"3.5 stars out of 4"

Well, this is embarrassing...to have seen Hugo well after it has been released…even after seeing the likes of Raging Bull and King of Comedy! At least, I could’ve justified seeing those with the fact that I wasn’t even born when they were released…but this…there is just no excuses!

This film is beautifully made…just like a poem. What caught my eye while watching it was its editing, which I believe is the work of Thelma Schoonmaker, who Marty have trusted since the making of Raging Bull (of course their first collaboration goes back to the making of Who's That Knocking at My Door), for which she has the Oscar for outstanding editing…let me check just to make sure...yup, she's the one! I was watching one of the interviews on Scorsese, where they interviewed the people who have collaborated with him and she was saying how the credit for she winning the Oscar for Raging Bull should go to Marty, as he was present in the editing room every step of the way (and even sleeping there at nights, as far as I can remember!). The reason why he has given the responsibility of the editing of his films to her probably lies in she being able to envision his vision (in his head) into the screen. Of course, he's admitted to the fact that he never watches his own films once they're done, but he doesn't need to as everyone else praises his work and he can rest assured that he has done what he had needed to.

Sacha Barron Cohen has turned into one of the delightful additions to different movies…the salt of every movie if you may, the way Sharifinia was in Iranian movies! Of course, he (Sharifinia) has turned into a despicable figure in Iran with his political stance and views. I am one of the critics of combining the personality of celebrities with their work...what I mean is, I believe that the work of an artist should be considered independent of his/her personality. But at the same time, I believe celebrities should feel responsible towards their power in manipulating the minds of the public, especially that of the youth. Also, there is no harm in respecting the request of the majority of people. So, I am obliged to blame him as well in acting the way he has.

What I find interesting in the movies coming out of Hollywood where the story is taking place in a foreign land, is how they use British accents as opposed to American, like British English is a whole other language. This goes back as far as the Sound of Music (of the ones that I can recall right now). But at the same time I think I understand how the person who first came up with this idea is thinking. Take me for example. Sometimes when I want to speak English, I would use Persian words subconsciously and vice versa! Just because both are foreign to me.
Of course, this way (using British accents) is at least better than the ones with the accent country, where the movie is based, speaking French for example!

There is no point in me writing an actual review on the movie as everyone knows by now how good it was and how it was a tribute to Mieles. This movie is as much a tribute to Scorsese, as it is to Mieles, for he is the one respecting the history as much as believing in building its future, to have involved himself in restoration. Time hasn’t been kind to old movies but he has. We are forever in debt for his contributions to this wondrous industry.

No other film maker has respected the history of movies and kept them holy as Scorsese. Film is his passion. In the same interview they talk about how he remembers the details of the movies, especially the name of the director, for he is the "god" in a movie (as Hitchcock had once said).

He has played small roles in his own movies (probably taken that after Hitchcock!), but in this one he played the part of the photographer in the theater as if he wanted to be a part of Mieles’s life.
Catch the complete interview here.

The movie began for me mid-way, when delightfully Scorsese began to go over the first movies ever made…a rush of joy and warmth ran through my body. No other scene could’ve made me feel like that, seeing where the journey began…where things close to my heart came from. The amount of emotion that it builds up…is unimaginable. This is how you make a MOVIE. “It’s like having dreams in the middle of the day”.
I had recently written about Under the Tuscan sun and said how probably the director had gone to Italy and wanted to write about her adventure there (and what a disaster it had turned out to be!). But only a visionary like Scorsese could pick up a movie history book and direct “poetry”. It was...it was a live action-animation!

I first read about melies in a TOEFL reading, back when I was preparing myself for the exam, but it wasn’t until Hugo that I was able to appreciate his work. It also at least answered one of my childhood questions, that how without visual effects they were able to move magically from one scene to another!

The King of Comedy

"4 out of 4 stars"

I don't know if it was the fact that I had low expectations from this movie before seeing it (although one of Scorsese's best but it is not as celebrated as say Raging Bull or Last Temptation of Christ) or if it was just brilliant, but I really enjoyed this movie.

Last week I watched Raging Bull (which I still consider to be his masterpiece) and Hugo (which is embarrassing to admitting to have seen it only recently!) and now I can't get enough of Scorsese! I think Goodfellas (which I'm planning on seeing soon) would be a nice complement for all the Marty-indulgence I've been treating myself to. Every time I see a new movie from him (new to me, not new per se!), I ask myself is this the best one I have seen so far? (Of course, by the end of this one, I came to the conclusion that still the best one, at least technical wise, must be Raging Bull. I am still yet to write about that one, just a reminder to myself. I need to write about his view towards techniques of movie making. So, kindly remind me if I miss it on that post!)

The witty story, written masterfully by Paul D. Zimmerman, revolves around the efforts of Rupert Pupkin (played by the man himself, DeNiro, in one of his exceptional collaborations with Scorsese) who is an aspiring comedian and tries to create himself "the shot" of shooting to stardom by bringing a famous TV talk-show host, Jerry Langford (played by Jerry Lewis), to agree on his appearance on the show.

They say that the staircase to success at what you want is to picture yourself in that position, when you've become successful, and I am not sure how it exactly works (probably by keeping you motivated and pushing you forward) and this is exactly what Pupkin was trying to do which reminded me (painfully) of myself. I must get an award for my daydreams! I keep picturing myself as the next Roger Ebert! Though harmless and even encouraging, it might drive you to the point where you can fall off the other edge of the ladder into depression if you can't get it. Actually I have had, quite a healthy relationship with my mind up until this morning which made me scared a bit over the fact that I might have set my mind loose for so long that it has started to develop a new character for itself! I'm serious! This morning it was referring to itself as a separate person than me, which was scary! I was thinking to myself that I had 2 beers last night, when my mind interrupted me and said "no, you only had one. I had the other one"! It made me jump right up! Of course, I think it had my interest at heart (?!), trying to justify the fact that I hadn't drunk that much!

Anywho, as I was saying, I really enjoyed this movie and especially DeNiro's performance. I had never been a DeNiro fan, and still don't count myself as a "fan" but I have come to admire his work over the course of watching Scorsese's movies. What a blast Scorsese must have been having while filming DeNiro! The fact that Scorsese enjoyed watching him act, is probably the reason why he cast him so often, aside from his obvious brilliance. He would just lose himself in the character, is what made him so amazing to watch.

I enjoyed this movie to the point where at times I would find myself with an open mouth, mesmerized at what I was seeing, or experiencing actually! This is movie making at its best. I now get why Ebert had such respect for Scorsese and even praised his work by writing a whole book titled "Scorsese"! I keep repeating it but it would never be enough...you have to indulge yourself in his work the way I have had over the past month and then you would catch yourself far off the coast of specializing in movies! It is unbelievable the spectrum of genres he's covered. And knowing that back at the time of making this movie, what he really wanted to make was The Last Temptation and movies like this one and Color of Money, were only the ones to keep himself busy while getting producers giving him the green light for Last Temptation, shows how dedicated he was to his work...how he put (and still does) his heart and soul into every production. And reminding yourself that this movie is 30 years old, makes you appreciate it even more when comparing it to its counterparts of the same era. (One thing that I noticed was the quality of the movie, which made me wonder if Scorsese, who is a very well-know pioneer of movie-restoration, has ever thought of doing the same thing for this movie. Or if the Amherst Cinema has simply gotten the suck-y version!)

The first thing I wrote based on my impression of the theme was that the length that Pupkin goes for his dreams is to show what it takes to survive or actually to start up in showbiz. You can only find a few who would be Bieber-like! The rest go through the hassle of finally finding their shot and proving their talent. Though it is still the case in many instances, but as we drew near the end of the movie I changed my mind about what its message was. I think it was about the same time this movie was released that people had started getting attention for things other than their talent. Although many begin their search for jobs like this with the best of intentions and to prove they are talented, but history has shown us that scandals can be as effective as being talented in this business!

The lowest point for this movie was the part where Pupkin goes on stage and performs. I really didn't find it that funny. My American friend, who I saw this movie with, told me that it must've been pretty funny back in its time and told me that unlike the stand-up comics of these days, whose jokes are mostly vulgar, back in those days the likes of Edie Murphy would have jokes like this. What I said was although I enjoy the works of the likes of Louis CK (mostly when he had only begun and wasn't that deep in the "inappropriate" zone), I agree that today they mostly try to make vulgar jokes which to a point surpasses the tolerable line and makes me uncomfortable and at times I don't even find them funny. But the work of the person I admire the most is that of Jerry Seinfeld's. He was the real comedian. And since he rose to fame around the same time that this movie was released, I give myself the permission to compare the jokes in the movie to his jokes back in the day. But what I came to realize soon after was that probably they made it that way on purpose. To show us that he actually was NOT that funny and they had every right to reject him and make us go back to the point that I made earlier, that a scandalous approach can be as effective in making you "successful".

But hey, "Better to be a king for a night, than a schmuck for a lifetime", right?

Propaganda

Propaganda

Watch this documentary when you get the chance. Although, as a friend puts it, it's a bit ironic coming from North Korea! But this doesn't defy the fact that it is informative and based on truth.

A Clockwork Orange

"4 stars out of 4"

Yes, I know I had said in my previous post that my next post was going to be about Mean Streets, but since I just watched the one at hand and took comprehensive notes of it, it is more doable to write about it than Mean Streets, which needs more tweaks...or better yet to say "actually writing something" rather than edits!

I also watched Raging Bull last week at Amherst Cinema, which made it to the top of my list of favorite Scorsese movies...but I'll leave that to another post as well.

I had never watched a Kubrick movie, for the sake of it being a "Kubrick" movie before or hadn't paid attention to the director as a matter of fact. I had seen Full Metal Jacket when I was a kid and my brother was watching it and as you would agree it's not a kids movie! I just have images of soldiers training and singing while running (vividly remember a trivia I learned that day by my brother or dad explaining it has a motivational or kind of a regulatory effect in their training!) and some violent scenes here and there, namely...well...the one you probably know if you have seen the movie!

And then there was Shining...well, it was SHINING! And it had Jack Nicholson in it which is just another reason for watching it. I believe that there is a "Zidane" in every category in art, and in life for that matter. Let me elaborate. There is a Gold Standard if you will. No one can dispute the fact that they were great or they didn't enjoy them. For example, in this case, I am almost 100% positive that you wouldn't find one person in this world who hasn't enjoyed watching Zidane play. Then there are other players who you can discuss on being a fan of. Or take Azerbaijani singers for instance. There is Reshid Behbudov, then there are others! So is the case with Nicholson.

Anyway! Me and my digression, right?! I am fighting the urge of rambling on about things dancing in my mind, making their way into my fingers.

So, as I was saying I had yet to discover the works of Kubrick, namely A Clockwork Orange and 2001 (which is in my to-watch list...how shameful!).

The movie starts by showing the face that went on to be one of the iconic images of the movie world. The leader of a neo-Nazi-like, justice-making, not-so-law-abiding, outlaws (whose costumes reminded me of Stormtroopers!). As I wrote down these descriptions while watching the movie, kept wondering whether I was right or was suffering of ignorance. But mid-movie found out that me calling them to neo-Nazis shouldn't be out of place as they were wearing armbands, resembling that of Nazis.

This is an unconventional film of a very familiar issue that has persisted over time and has become more and more intolerable and has taken over the world, accelerating in the second half of the 20^th century and getting more and more powerful, well into the 21^st. But probably started by the time this movie was made (when I compare it with the Iranian revolution back then and how people react now).

Although the movie has been made over 40 years ago but I could relate to it. It has become a part of our culture hasn’t it? It is a global culture but I witness it more in Iranians…sitting in our couches (now with the digital age), slouched behind our computers, having criticizing everyone and everything out there as our indisputable right, and yet not doing one positive thing about it. And that’s not the main issue…our biggest problem is that these people think they are right…which is a horrifying fact!

I think there is probably no other director who has broken the taboos and stomped upon the conventions of the society, and in a bigger picture that of life’s, as much as Kubrick.

As for acting, a neurotic, unrestrained performance was exactly what this movie needed and the lead actor was able to deliver it to perfection. So I praise Kubrick in wisely choosing him to play this role.

My favorite part of this movie was the scene where he was arrested and now that I think about it, all the scenes where he spent time in prison.

He tells the officer his crime with a smirk on his face and another horrifying reality is how the officer reacts to it, the same as all the officers of the world...acknowledging it without any reaction…it has become a ritual! And yet giving attention to the details that don’t really matter compared with other things, like how he puts his belongings in front of the official. Or where the thing that catches the patrol's eyes is not the row of pictures of naked women on the wall but the picture of Beethoven where he gives it a curious look. Or they decide to punish the not-so-guilty and reward the guilty to save face.

I just watched a documentary called Propaganda, made in North Korea apparently, showing how imperialism and capitalism try to distract us from the issues that our societies face (of course as one of my friends mentioned, is ironic coming from North Koreans!).

One of the other prison scenes that I found interesting was where he talked about his interest in the old book and while he tells this you think to yourself that he must be repenting, but then we find out that a soul is not that easy to change, not with a rather short time in prison listening to preaches, as we find out that he had been picturing himself as a Roman soldier torturing Jesus, rather than being Jesus himself.

Or where he tells him "sign it, don't read it!", when they are having him sign a consent form...nothing has changed, has it?! I was reading an article a few days back about how no one reads the "I agree to terms and conditions" part of anything nowadays (who would, with the long list of liability consents!), and they can sneak in terms that would benefit them without anyone knowing. Again...propaganda-like situation hear...they want dumb, deaf, blind, obedient citizens who they can control. Having a Matrix-like society where they feed you but are unaware of what is REALLY happening.

This movie mocks the judiciary system. The way they try to discipline inmates through ineffective ways mainly because they are inanimate, apathetic, so called humans, calling them by numbers instead of using their names...they have turned to machines, trying every inhuman means to discipline and bring justice, that is doomed to fail, unless they find the "human" within themselves first.

Again, changing the mindset and soul is not easy. Where they show him the movies and they assume that it would make him reflect on the crimes he's committed, he was paying attention to the technical aspects of the movie rather than the morals. Because, say beating, was what normal in his eyes...what needed to be changed.

Where the priest (angel) was on his right shoulder and the doctor (evil) on his left, the long debated matter of "moral choice" is discussed. Is conditioning the way to do it? How effective would it be? What difference would it make when you take out the ability to sin out of the picture? Yes, you would probably lower the rate of crime but what value is there in not sinning then? Resisting the temptation is what's rewarding.

There is no black and white in this movie. It's not like Alex (the main character) is the ultimate "bad" guy and the society is good and he is doing them wrong. Everyone in this movie is guilty to the same extent, as we can all be wrong-doers, given the "right" circumstances. In a way it keeps bringing And Justice for All and Seven to mind! But does he know he's done anything wrong...how he keeps referring to himself as "humble" narrator?

By the way, the scene where the priest was preaching brought the memory of The Prince in Waiting (by John Christopher) to my mind, for some reason! In that book the world had suffered a massive apocalypse-like incidence, caused by machines and they had church-like organizations where they would demonstrate a connection with the dead and after life by...get this...machines! Without people knowing (sounded more interesting when I first wanted to right about it, now seems more confusing! So I left it for those of you who have read the books before, in case you find it interesting too!).

This was an unconventional review which I think suits the movie best. As this movie wasn't released recently and I am sure many of you, my dear followers, have seen it before, it didn't make sense to write one of my usual ones...you know, give a summary of the story, give a yea/nay to directing or acting or say how well it was made...so I decided to write the thoughts that it provoked in me and how it made sense to me.

Can't wait to read its screenplay! The movie had really funny moments which makes it ever more interesting.

P.S.: If you have been my Facebook friend for the past year, you might remember one of the "Culture Shock" statuses I had where I talked about how I had told my American roommate about us getting butt-shots in Iran which she had found really odd, as they get arm shots over here! So, it was good to know that they used to give butt-shots in the first world too! Wouldn't have been much of a culture shock, had I come to the US back in the 70's! Of course, my culture shock back then might have been "what the hell is a shot"?!

[I hope I have written everything that I needed to say in the right order...this is no good excuse but I am really sleepy and am in no mood to go over the post and edit it! I am sure you'll find it in your hearts to have me excused.]