What was supposed to be a summer of leisure has become an endless amount of tasks pre film school.  One thing I have not done is stop watching movies.  Though the state of the blog might argue with me, I’ve been out and about.  My friend Dave and I went to see Mongol on night when neither of us had much to do.  It turned out to be a great idea.   With his keyboard in the full upright position Dave brings us to the land of Mongolia, to meet the greatest conqueror of all time.

In the heat of the summer, popcorn movies seem to dominate the box-office and movie consciousness. Don’t get me wrong, as we’ve discussed previously in this blog, popcorn movies have their place in the movie cycle, and serve as the revenue generators for the smaller prestige pictures. Howeve it’s sometimes difficult during these summer months to find a film worth spending 10 bucks on when your choices are between Meet Dave and Mamma Mia. Yet, as summer movies go, Mongol bucks the trend in a highly inventive and refreshing way.

Seasoned Russian director Sergei Bodrov helmed and co-wrote this historical epic about the rise of the man would become Genghis Khan. Beginning as a 10-year-old dealing with the realities of his father’s murder, the plot follows Tenmudjin through his abusive childhood, imprisonment, and surprisingly his love and family life. The story itself is a bit laborious at points, clocking in at just over 2 hours, but to expect less from a historical epic is to leave too much out. While the historical epic has been around since the founding of motion pictures, Bodrov creates a new sub-genre, adding a post-modern humanity to the epic. Replacing much the typical two hours of battles and planning, which still exist in all their sword-swinging blood-spurting glory, is the story of a man and his daily trials. As much as I love action, this new take was a far superior story yet still delivered enough gore to play well even in the summer months.

As much as has been made of the story, the real gem in this film was its breathtaking cinematography. It has been a long time since I’ve openly gasped in the movie theater, but I lost count of how many times Bodrov and his cinematographer left me stunned by the immense beauty of the steppe in Mongolia and Kazakhstan (ditto - Jesse). This is just a movie that could not have been shot anywhere else and the landscape was as much a character as any one of the actors. The wide plains of the steppe accurately reveal a part of the mongol psyche in a way that no sound stage or stand-in location ever could. Bodrov’s innovative first-person camera angles help to keep the focus on the individual, but it cannot be understated the experience you will have going to this movie. After doing a little research online afterwards it turns out that Mongol is only part one of three in the life of Genghis Kahn that Bodrov plans to direct, and I eagerly look forward to the next two.

On an unrelated note: In a theater with two other groups of people (at a late night showing no less), this movie was almost ruined by two obtrusive individuals. Their loud constant talking interrupted almost every scene and I just could not get into this movie at times. It took not one, but TWO less than cheerful interactions (orchestrated by me - Jesse) with these folks to have any semblance of quiet in the film (not that they stopped afterwards, they still kept chattering along though at least at a level below normal voices). I have absolutely no patience for this lack of respect to your fellow movie-goers! Its just common sense that you don’t talk in movies, but the proliferation of home theaters and DVDs has caused people to think the movie theaters are their own homes. Teenie boppers text message and talk on their cell phones, others talk and question each plot point. Even my family members are guilty of this at times and I won’t put up with it from them either. Please, as a favor to the rest of us, don’t ruin the movie for everyone else, the rest of us just don’t want to hear it!

- Dave

Additional notes of my (Jesse) own would include the amazing fight sequences we seem to have lost in between Braveheart and Gladiator.  You can keep the flashy CGI of 300.  Give us the blood splattering on the camera, well choreographed swordsmanship, and real gut wrenching tension.  The score is not as memorable as either Braveheart or Gladiator, but rest assured, we won’t be forgetting Mongol anytime soon.

***Broke into the top 10 of 2008***

A good scary movie is becoming harder and harder to find.  The Strangers lived up to my expectations and surpassed them.  A challenging feat considering how hard it is to pull off a really scary flick.  The Orphanage is presented to us by Guillermo Del Toro, Mr. Pan’s Labyrinth himself.  Since his new project Hellboy II is around the corner, I thought I’d highlight some of the other things he’s associated himself with.  But first, my love for scary movies is intense.  Much like a craving for hot wings, I’ll see anything that looks remotely scary (or eat anything that resembles a hot wing).  I like to push my limits, and The Orphanage certainly did that.

Much like my favorite scary movie to date, The Ring, The Orphanage has both a past and a present.  Smoking hot Belén Rueda plays Laura, a one time occupant of the now  defunct  orphanage that she and her husband decided to buy.  Roger Príncep plays Simón, a cute kid with both a malady, and a gift.  He has many imaginary friends that he likes to play games with, and his parents believe this is quite normal until strange things begin to happen…

The movie picks up into a scary sort of mystery (very Ring-esque).  Laura is forced to make increasingly hard decisions that involve her family and her own life.  Director Juan Antonio Bayona has really done his homework on what is creepy.  He uses a few camera techniques to surprise the viewer into fright.  He’s also great and prolonging what he knows is his bread and butter, creepy little orphans.  There are countless scenes where I contemplated shutting off the TV and going to sleep for fear of bad dreams.

Why are kids so creepy?  I’ve given this a bit of thought, and I think it’s because they hold on to a lot of the fantasy world.  A child is prone to believing and making up things that adults pass off as ludicrous.  Also, one child can easily be taken out with a baseball bat.  But imagine if there were many, swarming around you and pulling you to the ground.  Step Brothers makes fun of this in it’s preview, but children have been used for frights for a long time (Children of the Corn!).

What I really like about The Orphanage is the way in which the story unfolds.  It’s not rushed through, ending in a gruesome murder like every “Slasher” film.  Saw is not a scary movie.  It is a GORY movie pretending to scare people by dismemberment.  This is more of an art for Bayona and he makes the orphanage a character.  Behind the scary jolts that are sure to make your heart beat faster, is actually an amazing plot.  It’s not easy to tie together a bunch of otherworldly ideas, so Sergio G Sanchez like many other screenwriters I admire will have his name immortalized in the blogosphere.

Creaking floor boards and encounters from beyond might seem kitchy, but turn your surround sound up and sit back for a twisted ride, it’s worth the price of a rental for sure.

“Pure Unadulterated  Badassery” is how I was warned Wanted would be.  To tell the truth, I wasn’t ready.  This movie is definitely more of a ride than any I’ve seen this summer.  Indiana Jones wishes he was still as cool as Fox (Jolie).  If you come to the theater expecting nothing more than a thrill, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised, this is actually well written.

OK, so the plot is basically the Matrix part 4.  Hot woman brings man into a world different than his own, where he will sink or swim.  Then add the cool special effects, and you’ve got yourself a movie right?  Director Timur Bekmambetov has a bunch of tricks up his sleeve that may or may not have been taken from the graphic novel.  I have purist friends who don’t even approve of V for Vendetta, a movie I thought no one could dislike.  This sparks an interesting debate to those who are fans of the novels.  Can a movie capture what the pages of a glorified comic can?  Or is it even simpler.  Are we witnessing the great heists of intellectual property, merely signed over to studios for profit?  Whatever the case, Wanted is still pretty fun to watch…

McAvoy’s voice over is one of the few elements of the movie I disliked.  Just like the movie Choke, the Chuck Palahniuk I ceremoniously fell asleep during at Sundance, I found it funny at first, and intrusive later.  McAvoy’s American accent is hilarious, but the voice over becomes unnecessary as the guns do most of the talking.  Indeed, while Angelina receives the male gaze, she doesn’t talk much.  Timur probably thought her eyes were seductive enough (he’s right) and words would fall short.  No matter how commercial Jolie has become, let’s all remember she has an Oscar, and should be treated with respect.

Morgan Freeman can’t seem to get enough of this type of story.  He serves as Batman’s loyal techie, and here he plays an under boss.  The parallels to the Matrix are apparent, but there is a little Gotham in Wanted too.  Last summer they filmed The Dark Knight in Chicago (setting of Wanted), The Fraternity has a lair, and McAvoy does a little training stint reminiscent of Liam Neeson and Christian Bale.  Freeman is also attached to one of the best voice overs of all time, The Shawshank Redemption.

The voice over is a small hang up I have with a really entertaining movie.  I wasn’t thinking about it until after, when I realized it was completely abandoned for a better plot than I expected.  Writers Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, and Chris Morgan made a great screenplay. I do wonder however  how much is theirs, and how much is Mark Millar’s the creator of the comic miniseries.

If you want to see the nude rump of Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a good movie, check out Wanted, a solid time at the movies.

***This was the first movie I saw in LA.  I visited the Arc Light theater on Sunset Boulevard.  I visited with only a recommendation, so I walked in the wrong entrance (naturally) and stood around looking for a ticket vendor.  The place is MASSIVE.  When you walk in the proper entrance, us country folk that are used to multiplexes will notice the difference immediately.  A cafe greats anyone with time to kill or the need for a drink.  Their help desk is called “Guest Services” rather than “Information Desk”.  The lines form beneath the massive movie board, rotating and actually showing which movies are playing in which theater.  This makes all the difference you see because Arc Light has one very famous theater called “The Dome”.  Check specs out here.  So I buy my ticket, and they actually ask me where I want to sit.  This is an assigned seating theater, and I pick out a nice center of the theater seat.  The tickets are printed (custom, like a trip to broadway) and I walk down to my theater.

I’m greeted by no less than 3 ushers, pleasantly smiling and asking if I need assistance (I’m basically looking around in awe) until I arrive at Theater 6.  An usher directs me to my seat and I notice something strange….my feet are on carpet!  The chairs are actually comfortable!  There is an arm rest that has a padded cushion!  And the first row where you usually break your neck looking up?  Has been moved back!  There is not one bad seat in this theater.  In addition my ears hear the soft classical music I’d be accustomed to at the Kennedy Center.  Am I still in a movie theater?  No, this is an art house, committed to preserving the art of film.  An usher makes an announcement before the movie begins (no “20″ or gaudy commercials leading up to the preview) to shut off cell phones, and tries to get us riled up for the movie.  Oh, and once the previews begin?  NO ONE is allowed into the theater.  That’s right, no one is allowed to walk into the theater after the previews begin.  If you have to go to the bathroom you can get back in, but this is a little detail ArcLight has going for it.

If you are ever in LA call me, I’ll take you to the Arc Light.  It’s an amazing place.  My previous favorite theater was E Street Cinema, in Washington D.C.  It’s intimate, and they show the kind of movies I would some day like to make.  Arc Light is much in the same vein as far as commitment, but has a much bigger budget to wow audiences.  I’m going to be very happy at the movies in LA

Seriously, do you?  I’m in LA looking for a roommate/apartment for rent.  Currently pirating a computer from the university I don’t yet attend.  The review for tonight will be a little late since I’m running around like an idiot.  I saw Flawless with Demi Moore and Michael Caine last night and have some pleasent things to report.  For now wish me luck, I hear In-and-Out Burger calling me.

So let’s go.  You Don’t Mess With the Zohan could be this summer’s most successful comedy.  Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda are family flicks, and we haven’t seen  Pineapple Express or Step Brothers so for now, Zohan is proving his weirdly phrased title true, don’t mess with him.

75 Million dollars is a lot of money.  It’s a gamble on behalf of Sony to put a movie about a hairdresser from Israel as it’s leading summer comedy.  But 100 million dollars later, Zohan has done something very few movies do, it made back it’s budget in theatrical release.  Big studios rely on summer “popcorn movies” to finance their more independent and award seeking ventures that take place from Thanksgiving until the Oscars.  Zohan might not be the most artistic film you can see this summer (for that I would recommend Young @ Heart or American Teen) but I do believe it’s got the laughs.

Zohan is an Israeli hero.  He’s able to cook a fish naked, and kill as many terrorists you can throw at him.  He also wears a codpiece.  For those of you who didn’t take costuming class, that’s that large bulge inside of his speedo.  It was originally warn by kings and princes to intimidate/enhance their appearence.  Check out Henry the VIII’s suit of armor if you don’t believe me.  Zohan abandons his anti-terrorist life for sex with elder women and hair.  Leave it to the minds of Judd Apatow, Adam Sandler, and Robert Smigel to cook up such a strange concoction of silliness.

I loved “the Zohan” because it didn’t try to be anything other than a silly movie.  We’ve just encountered a serious slump from Adam Sandler (Mr. Deeds, Reign Over Me, Click, and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry) but this is much closer to the glory days of HappyMadison Productions.  Rotten Tomatoes, and my friends have mixed opinions about “The Zohan” and I offer them this:  What did you expect?

There are many cameos, and they are all rewarding in their own way. Emannuelle Chriqui (Sloan from Entourage) provides the eye candy, Sandler provides the laughs, let’s face it we’re not looking for an award winning performance, but if he makes me chuckle while punting a kitty, I’m pretty happy.  Dave Matthews also lightens up the mood with a terrific redneck interested in killing puppies.  I can tell Apatow wrote that part.

Perhaps the reason most are upset is with Sandler’s attempt to make a bridge between Palestinians and Jews alike.  Well…is that so bad?  Couldn’t we use a little more laughter and try to talk to each other?  It’s a great point, and Sandler even takes a dig at McCain’s wife (she’s got a great ass, and you know she isn’t getting any LOL).  Overall, I’m down with Zohan and his “silky smooth” antics, it’s lighthearted fun.

P.S. Bring extra pita, you’ll need it

A few months ago I recieved an email offering me tickets to see Revolver at my favorite movie theater. Unfortunately I had to work that night so I passed, a good thing apparently. Today as I unpack my stuff from DC I’m posting (yet another) review from my friends. I’d also like to thank all of the viewers today. Over 100 views! We haven’t done that for a while so I’ll let the reviews speak since that’s what you probably came here for.

Guy Ritchie’s latest crime thriller, Revolver, is finally out on DVD and needless to say I was excited to finally get a chance to see what the writer/director of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch could throw at me. Despite being dogged by poor reviews on both sides of the Atlantic, I had faith in Ritchie’s incredible ability to give the audience a multi-faceted story. Starring Ritchie’s own diamond in the rough discovery Jason Statham, as ex-con Mr. Green bent on revenge after being imprisoned seven years, and Ray Liotta, as the powerful target of this revenge, the premise sounded entirely promising. Yet all the promise in the world couldn’t save this movie, nothing could.

Ritchie’s stylistic, complex, yet entertaining tales that became his calling card in Lock, Stock are gone and replaced with what can only be described as an air of pretentious arrogance. Statham not only acts, but also provides his inner narrative, the personification of his ego, in almost every scene. What used to be expressed through subtleties in the actor’s expressions, Ritchie has replaced with endless amounts of lazy voiceover. Honestly Statham deserves two paychecks for this movie, one for him and one for his inner narrative. No matter what Mr. Green does, we have to know every single thought that passes through his head. It’s really quite annoying after the first five minutes. Ritchie couldn’t really think the audience needs everything explained to us, could he? Yup, and he talks down to the audience the entire time.

Filling the rest of this movie are metaphors of cons, and chess, and of life. Honestly, its just such a grab bag that the movie loses any sort of coherence. Any time Ritchie tries to flesh out one metaphor, lets go with, ‘life is one big con’, he immediately follows it with three more. Honestly I couldn’t even keep track of all the different ideas that The process of making this movie most likely went something like this:

Guy Ritchie sat on his couch, smoking marijuana, and watched Donnie Darko 50 times, then watched Goodfellas 50 times. While rolling another joint he most likely thought to himself,
“Man, that Donnie Darko is such a deep movie, its like complex and made me think about the universe and Oreos! Goodfellas was great too, I love Ray Liotta, he is so cool! If only there was a way to combine Donnie Darko with Goodfellas! Wait a second…HAND ME THE OREO CAKESTERS AND A PEN! I’VE GOT A MOVIE TO WRITE! OH AND I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY COOL IF I CUT TO A CARTOON, FOR NO APPARENT REASON, THAT WOULDN’T BE ANNOYING AT ALL! I, Guy Ritchie, am the man…now to write this and smoke more pot!”
Six months later, and millions of dollars of the production budget gone up in “smoke”, they realize they’re months behind schedule and shoot the entire movie in three hours. (Hey I had to account for the bonus features)

Please, if you’re not high and/or married to Madonna, don’t see this movie. It’s just not worth your time, that is unless you liked to be confused and talked down to for two hours. However, guessing from the whopping $85,000 in box office takings, you didn’t. Consider yourself lucky and save the rental for something worthwhile.
- Dave

*** Today I am moving out of my D.C. apartment. I sit here schvitzing profusely (TMI?) but I’ve got a review. Loyal readers will note that I’ve got a particular affinity for Nick Cage. I had a “Com-ugh-yay-hah” moment when I first saw the Bangkok Dangerous preview. Some could say my thing for Nick Cage is as crazy as the man himself. I’m one of the few who thought National Treasure 2 was worth seeing (and reviewed it right here on FAD) I suspect my friend Seth knew my obsession and has done an analysis accordingly. Without further ado…

Today I would like to review a film that I have never seen. Actually, that’s not entirely true. I plan to critique a film that I’ve never seen. Is that even possible? Obviously: existence is the strongest form of evidence. The well-known theorist and cerebral film critic Slavoj Zizek claims that he often writes about movies before seeing them—and, in fact, never sees them—since he worries that the movie will fail to fit his critical interpretation, which, of course, is much more important than any single film. Going to the cinema might be necessary for having a good laugh during the Bush presidency, keeping up with the artistic development of a favorite director, or wooing a date, but it is often excessive—and therefore potentially restrictive—to the philosopher. Realistically, the film industry and society at-large already understands and promotes this concept. Promotions, interviews, advertisements, posters, and product tie-ins are all used to pique the public’s interest and to get the audience to form (positive) opinions about a feature months before the film even hits theatres. This perception—even among professional reviewers—is often based as much upon circumstantial factors—interesting celebrity relationships, recent addictions, or the quality and accessibility of press junkets—than actual scenes or aspects of a movie.

Thus, I would like to analyze National Treasure and, what the hell, its sequel too. What do we know about it? Well, it’s a Disney film, which can’t be ignored, not just because of the bubblegumminess that tends to stick in their films, but also because, as a major entertainment conglomerate they have a vested interest in preserving the status quo, the illusions which enable it, and the cultural awareness (or lack their of) which is necessary to receive such ridiculous lies and fantasies as a plausible truth and hyperreality . The basic plot of the film (as I understand it from posters, commercials, and things) is that hidden within notable American landmarks, documents, and historical artifacts one can find clues and codes which, when properly deciphered and deconstructed—through action and wit!— lead to treasure and manifold rewards. This plot is an extremely perceptive and revealing, although, I cannot agree with the specifics. Hollywood’s cliché of treasure—gold and jewels, the girl, the excitement and thrill of the chase or journey, the opulence of the spectacle—rings hollow when compared to the more intangible, yet paradoxically much more satisfying, objectives of knowledge, truth, and understanding. It is possible to search for these treasures with the same tools and objects used in National Treasure, but the result is much more subversive and troubling. Consider the major monuments and memorials of our country: Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln memorial, the Washington monument, the Jefferson memorial, the Statue of Liberty. Of these, only one represents a woman. She is fictional, allegorical, and has no real place in American history besides showing up in the occasional metaphorical image. The others—the real people, the authorities, leaders, and icons—are all old, white men. They are homogeneous, or nearly so, in terms of religion, ethnicity, class, gender identification and—despite partisan differences—their political beliefs. Yet we know that America is not, and has never been, comparably uniform or placid. These “treasures” allow a tragic, realization: to date, the country has never been a true democracy. Our hallowed documents demonstrate similar realities, both in how they were written and how they are now interpreted. The Declaration of Independence famously states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The current gloss—a bowdlerization really—is that “all men” means all humans. Historically, that is simply not a feasible interpretation. Only rich property owners had the most valuable rights, like voting. These were, of course, the people who wrote, signed, and gave credence to the document. Women—all alienated—had virtually none of the “unalienable Rights” that men did. African-Americans were slaves, and had absolutely no rights. When the Constitution apportioned representatives—a quintessentially democratic act—Indians were excluded and “all other [non-free] persons” were counted as 3/5 a person. Slaves have four limbs and a head, they had five senses—so what are the 2/5 that were missing? Rational thought and a soul? The repetitive nature of American history is proof not only that these themes and tendencies are endemic but also that they have never been exorcised or overcome. They have never been found. The drive for independence turns into the Monroe doctrine which grows into Manifest Destiny which evolves into Imperialism that then reappears as globalization, which is still with us. It is perhaps only the great magnitude and mythical quality of the Civil War which is able to obscure and trivialize the relatively less violent events of social upheaval—civil rights movements, the great awakenings, the sexual revolution, witch hunts of all kinds, urbanization.

I think we can safely assume that all this is absent from Disney’s films—but it must be conspicuously concealed. If the fantasy, the unreal, the Hollywood reading of such monuments and documents is that they might lead to tangible riches, the real reading could not be. It might then be expected—even if just unconsciously—that the opposite, non-theatrical reading would reveal an abstract poverty. Similarly, the film’s methodology of examining these national treasures closely is all that is necessarily. Instead of examining every forth capitalized letter when read backwards translated in Latin—or some similarly bizarre, conspiratorial pattern—one merely has to look at the actual relics, in their original state, with fresh, discerning eyes. In this sense, National Treasure and all films like it are portals as much as they are obstacles, so long as they are understood as both. The fantasy, the Hollywood analysis becomes a fundamental, internal part of reality both because of the pervasive influence of the illusion and the degree to which it is a path back to reality (to the extent that it exists) through opposition and a hope disentanglement. As central forces in the current cultural structure, such films are an important part of the code that must be decoded in order to lead to the treasure, even when they masquerade as the treasure themselves.

Footnote!: Indeed, Umberto Eco and Jean Baudrillard both see Disneyland as a prime example of hyperreality. Baudrillard’s idea being that the fantasy of Dinseyland is what allows everything outside of Disney to be seen as a legitimate reality. Without an unreal, surreal place like Disneyworld, there could be no real world. Eco sees Disney as creating a fake reality which allows consumers to compartmentalize, tame, project, and then “experience” a greater reality than exists in nature, and one which is more socially acceptable than unregulated, non-commercialized fantasies.

- S. W. Esquire (soon to be anyway)

Right? When someone great dies you feel what “gloom” means. I happened to hear it from a friend in the wee hours of the night, and I’ve not yet expressed my grief. George Carlin was…the man. He put politics into their place (ridiculousness) and with a wit unequaled. This is FilmADay but I had to give a nod to one of the best there ever was. Whether he made you laugh or think, he was a creator.

I’ve just submitted the last piece of my undergraduate career at GW, and I’ve seen quite a bit. My freshmen year probably produced the most social memories as I was thrown into a building that houses nearly 1100 people (The infamous Thurston Hall). My roommates (3) and I battled for John Kerry and against the Bush machine with fire, every night a new development. Lots of memories in that tiny square of a room. It was there that I called in a frenzy when my hero Hunter S. Thompson committed suicide. It was another night that stretched into silence.

My nocturnal nature has come to a head in college. I don’t think I will be able to repeat this in graduate school and I accept that. Most of why I am up so late is that I’m a pretty active person. I get excited about things, and this blog has been the fruition. I like to put the day in it’s place, review what I’ve seen, and express my crazy opinions. But the peace of the night is something I will miss. For the last year I usually pop in a movie, go for a walk, write or talk to friends about hopes and dreams (and occasionally girls).

Sorry to get all mushy on you, just a big moment is all.

My friend Jason and I were talking about the blog being back in business and he expressed his dismay over two things:

1. Sex and the City - He doesn’t agree with the grade, assessment and has challenged me to a dual of the wits over a long drive to Boston. This may sound like a small task, but he’s a debate genius…seriously.

2. Iron Man receiving a B - While I remain steadfast with my grade of Sex and the City, Iron Man was a slip up. It should be a B+, and I’m sure I’ll catch flak for it being that low but I’ve conceded the point. My main man Dave put it the finest, “B+ for the movie, A+ for Robert Downey Jr.” Agreed.

Iron Man does bring up another issue however. Something that my friend Hillary brought to my attention long ago. Is my grading completely arbitrary? Jason and Hillary have inspired me to create a new section. A section that will lay out my grading system in detail and will be open for critiques, suggestions, or maybe a little praise by you the reader. I will start this project sometime in the next week or two seeing as I’m visiting LA to find a place to live.  Oh yeah, HAPPY WALL-E DAY!

Ever get the feeling you’ve seen the movie you’re watching before? It shouldn’t be that uncommon of an occurrence. Movies recycle plot elements like old people collect bags. It happens a lot. Seemingly problematic, my mind operates like this: Movie A usually is deemed more artistically “true” than Movie B because they had the idea first. In this critique, I’m of the opinion that The King is Movie A, and Down in the Valley starring Evan Rachel Wood and Edward Norton is Movie B. Both films were distributed by ThinkFilm, a company that is near and dear to my heart for their insistence on giving independent filmmaking a real shot.

The King is about a young man named Elvis (Bernal) who completes his Navy duties and goes to Corpus Christi, Texas to visit his estranged father (William Hurt). The Sandows are quite an acting ensemble. Hurt is the father/preacher figure, Pell James the 16 year old daughter/love interest for Elvis, Paul Dano plays her brother, (There Will Be Blood, Little Miss Sunshine) and my favorite actress in all of Hollywood who needs more love Countess Laura Harring (Mulholland Drive). The family is your typical nuclear, religious, stereotyped family of Texas until Elvis meets his father. I admire the writing of director James Marsh and Milo Addica for subtly introducing the characters as well as the drama. The music plays over most of the “unsaid” and the audience is left to figure out the story as the words come up just short (in a good way).

Sound designer Tom Paul put together a nice array of thinking music. This is a story to be sure, and a daring one at that, but it’s also what I would call a “pretty” movie. Like Sofia Coppola, I see more time in the movie committed to mood, picture, and sound than just plot. The characters also deserve their due. While I’m not a fan of Paul Dano, (doesn’t he just scream, “wimp”?) William Hurt plays his classic father figure and Laura Harring makes a fitting mother. She’s hot in anything she does. So hot in fact I’m going to deem her “Mrs. Robinson” (she’s 44, I’m 22, it could happen…) for future reviews.

This is a thinker. It’s a little slow and might not move as quickly as we’re used to, but the themes of forgiveness, family, and sin are all presented as complex webs we have to navigate. It’s not as easy as right and wrong, but it does get a little twisted.

If you have seen Down in the Valley read on, otherwise, see both and then read on…

The problem with The King is that I was distracted nearly the whole movie. Ed Norton’s Harlan, and Bernal’s Elvis are the same character. They both live in a motel, have anger issues, and ultimately commit the same crime. The love life of Bernal and Pell James is just as delusional as that of Norton and Wood. Indeed, Bernal and James are technically half siblings (doesn’t stop them from shagging) and Norton believes he’s a cowboy.

While I admire the oddly Shakespearean familial relationship in The King, I dislike the delusional cowboy of Norton. The King was released before Down in the Valley and eventually yanked from screens. Do we believe this is because ThinkFilm had the same plot out twice? Or, as they would probably argue, that the star power of Ed Norton macking it with young Evan Rachel Wood trumped Bernal and Co? The economics of these types of decisions boggles my mind, and I truly feel bad for James Marsh who’s made a stand up film in Texas, NOT “the valley” (San Fernando Valley…most original setting in America)

“Top Gun?! God help us”. Man I love movies. I took a hiatus recently unwittingly. I watched plenty of movies don’t get me wrong but I had a bit of personable trouble. My parents have hit a rough patch and I just needed some time to process what’s going down. I’m still moving to LA to attend film school in the fall. Life is crazy per usual but I’m back with ya. I’ve also got something cooking with two of my close friends, we’re trying to launch a website in the next month or so that will bring us closer together as friends (and increase our readers

So what have I seen? To be honest? Not much that I’m impressed with. Iron Man (B+) was good, but it wasn’t as tight as The Dark Knight will be. I hated the Hulk ( D-) . Same plot as Iron Man and way, way worse. Dialogue anyone? Liv Tyler did come through for me in The Strangers (B+). Certainly one of the scariest movies I’ve seen in a long time. My Blueberry Nights turned out to be a show about pretty people. No discernible plot from Kar Wai Wong. Speed Racer (C-) was an unfortunate expenditure for my brother and I. Son of Rambo (B) was enjoyable but not as good since Be Kind Rewind stole it’s gimmick. The Happening (F) is definitely the worst movie out (though I haven’t seen The Love Guru (F-?)) M. Night was a very talented story teller, but I think he’s lost his muse. Netflix has treated me pretty well in the absence of good summer flicks. I’d like to also mention, though I’ve had an extended absence, my Top 10 has stayed the same. I really enjoyed a movie called The Nines (B+) with Ryan Reynolds. I would put this in the category of “Thriller” but also in the more artsy category of film. Reynolds is actually a good actor, not that sarcastic dude you see him play in every other movie. Also got around to seeing the Coen’s Raising Arizona. There is a contingent of people I know who worship anything these brothers produce and I bet they will cringe when I say, “I didn’t like it”. Really, I didn’t. I think it’s smart in a lot of ways, but I’m sticking with a C+ here because I think their best work was ahead of them.

What to look for: This Friday is a biggie, we got Wall-E and Wanted. I’ll try to get those up as soon as humanly possible. I’m looking to see Mongol before I (tear) leave DC for good. Stay tuned, I’m not falling off this time.