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.