Play This One, Rewind it Even and Watch it Again

The ease with which one is now able to showcase one’s creativity on the internet now allows many people to show off their talents, something which would have been fairly impossible 20 years ago. The ease with which anyone browsing the internet may happen upon subpar musicians, filmmakers, and writers plying their craft with nobody telling them that their stuff sucks is in full view with just one click to You Tube. At the same time, it is easy to see that there are many talented and creative people out there sharing their talents with the public on the webbernet. The fact that it no longer takes a great deal of effort to get your stuff out there, as they say, is one of the subjects focused upon in the 2011 documentary, “PressPause Play.”

There is no doubt that the ways in which aspiring musicians, filmmakers, and writers may thrust their goods upon society are much less arduous than in the past. Amazon, for example, will allow you to self-publish a book. Of course, it’s up to you to write something good—----well, to write something people will want to buy and download to their mobile device. Amazon allows the forum for one to profit from said creative endeavors. Musicians can create as much as they want and upload their work online in hopes of being discovered, or sometimes, just simply so they can share their music with the public. “PressPausePlay,” directed by David Dworsky and Victor Kohler, does not present one side or the another in presenting the current state of artistry and the means in which artists showcase their talents. The film does present, through interviews, a sense of frustration from artists who did not have the benefit of the internet and mass distribution of their work. The musician, Moby, though not completely bitter, does voice a bit of frustration about how he had a more difficult time getting his music heard than musicians do now. The point that because of the ease with which people can distribute their music, films, or writing allows for much, much more inferior content to be seen resonated with me. Though I am happy to be able to have my own forum on this blog you are hopefully reading on a regular basis---you are reading it on a regular basis, right…and telling your friends about it…and liking it on Facebook……and clicking right up there above where you are reading where it says “More” and you see the little drop-down arrow. Yeah…that’s right. You can share this wonderful, time-killing blog with Facebook or Twitter. Go ahead and do that, if you do not mind. I will wait. ..........................I'm still here, thanks again........................... Ok, cool. Thanks. As a means of presenting how someone can gain a certain amount of fame from distributing their work online, “PressPausePlay” follows an aspiring Icelandic musician named Olafur Arnalds from his home in Iceland where he creates his music, to being invited to play at the Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester, England. His story, which is chronicled in scenes throughout the film, was semi-interesting, however, his music did not move me one way or the other. His story, though a necessary part of the documentary, was not entirely interesting. Perhaps, this is the best the filmmakers could do as far as finding somebody who is an example of someone who found a bit of success from using the internet to market oneself. I am glad that the story of Arnalds was used in the film, despite my lack of interest in his music, as presenting an example of semi-success is crucial to the thesis of the film. What “PressPausePlay” does best is present several interesting points of discussion regarding the future of distribution of artistic content and what the future of said content will be, meaning, without boundaries to showing off one’s creativity, more and more mediocre stuff will be available for viewing, listening, and reading. As mentioned previously, this digital age in which we live also allows for those who are truly talented and, in the past, would not have had a place to show off their talent, access to a very large audience. In the end, “PressPausePlay” does not take anyone’s side, which is good. It documents what is going on in the digital world of creativity, presents some who have valid arguments, not so much against this openness, but who state that such openness breeds mediocrity at an exponential rate. I agree with this notion of a massive amount of mediocre crap is now available online. Have you heard of that goofy blog that guy has---Epistemology Tonight? What a weirdo. What the heck is epistemology anyway and why does it have such a dumb title? You can stream “PressPausePlay” on Netflix and spend a pleasant 80 minutes watching this well-made documentary which, if you have any bent towards a desire to express yourself artistically, will most likely interest you. The subject of the film is interesting so go to Netflix and click on play and pause whenever you want to for a refreshing Dr.Pepper or orange soda.

Bouncing on "Hope Springs"

“Hope Springs” may be a difficult film to watch for those who are either in a bad marriage or are headed towards the end of a marriage. Though it is a well-acted, and well-written film, the subject matter is not easy to digest for those I have described.

The film stars Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones as Omaha, Nebraska married couple, Kay and Arnold. They have been married for a very long time. I do not remember if an exact number of years is given, however, it is safe to guess that they have been married for, at least, 30 years. Through time, as will happen to some married couples, the flame of intimacy has burned out. Kay plans a trip to Maine for her and her husband to see renowned marriage counselor, Dr. Feld (Steve Carrell). Arnold is very reluctant to go all the way to Maine just to see a marriage counselor. Arnold thinks his marriage is just fine, however, Kay knows that it is failing badly. Throughout the film, it is clear that the emphasis, as far as who is feeling more distraught about the marriage failing, is focused on Kay. The script, in showing the angst from mostly Kay’s point of view misses a fantastic opportunity to show that sometimes the man in a marriage may also be suffering from depression or anxiety about his marriage failing or a lack of passion existing anymore. This is the major fault of the film. Although the script, as written, is good and the performances are wonderful, I felt the film missed a great opportunity to show the pain of the disintegration of the marriage from both sides. Arnold is written as a curmudgeon who is unaware of his wife’s emotional pain. In emoting this pain, Streep is, not surprisingly, very good. While watching the film, I felt satisfied by the it. I felt that the subject matter was handled very well and with a commendable amount of tact. I still feel this way, however, I wish that screenwriter, Vanessa Taylor, would have fleshed out Jones’ character, rather than simply making him a stereotypical old man who thinks all is well and there is no need for change. Jones does play the character well as far as giving the audience reason to see him as the one to blame for their marriage failing. Arnold is not a likable person and his curmudgeonly personality is quite grating. He constantly complains about irrelevant things and it is easy to see why any woman would fall out of love with him. This fact about the script and how Arnold is written instantly puts his character at a disadvantage as far as with whom the audience will sympathize. Preferable would have been to make both characters equally to blame for the marriage failing. To do this, more unlikable qualities could have been given to Kay, or conversely, make both characters likable and without any glaring issues. I understand that Arnold’s curmudgeonliness exists to provide comedic moments in the film, and, admittedly, because of Jones’ screen presence, some of these moments do work, however the character of Arnold, as written, does begin to grate on one’s nerves quickly. Steve Carrell as Dr. Feld, the marriage counselor, gives my favorite performance in the film. He plays the character with the perfect amount of concern for both Kay and Arnold. His performance is more of a dramatic one. His performance, I suppose, could be described as “down the middle.” He does not play Dr. Feld for laughs or for high drama. He is quite good and Dr. Feld, as written, is a great character. His advice for Kay and Arnold makes sense and seem to be good steps to give to a struggling couple. Up until the final ten minutes of the film, I thought I would be very satisfied with how the film ends. Not this time. This is a Hollywood studio film, so only one kind of ending to a film with such heavy subject matter will do, even if that ending does not fit. That is all I will say about the end of the film. Ok, one more thing: The end of the film defies everything that has been established about Kay and Arnold throughout the rest of the film. The resolution of the film is not entirely unbelievable, however, as presented and as set up for the first 90 minutes, the end of the film rings false. Did I say I liked this movie? Despite it’s flaws, “Hope Springs” is an entertaining film, due entirely to it’s cast. Streep, Jones, and Carrell are all very good even with the flaws in the script. This happens sometimes in films. A great cast can sometimes make an average film better than it should be. “Hope Springs” handles extremely weighty subject matter with care and deftness for most of the running time, however, it fails to challenge the audience with a satisfying conclusion. My hope springs that Hollywood can, at some point, find a way to not placate it’s audience and challenge it. My hope will be springing eternally, I fear.

Discover the Salton Sea

A good documentary introduces the viewer to a subject he or she knew little about or expands upon a commonly-known subject and adds more valuable information. The former is true about the 2004 documentary, “Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea,” directed by Chris Metzler and Jeff Springer.

Around 1901, a series of man-made accidents created what is known as the Salton Sea, a large body of water in the desert in California. It is about 120 miles northeast of San Diego and just a little bit south of Palm Springs. I wish I had known about this place when I was taking trips to San Diego a few years ago. I know it sounds simplistic to say that a series of accidents created a giant body of water in the middle of the desert. The opening of the film does a fantastic job of explaining how the Salton Sea was created. Film director, John Waters (“Pink Flamingos,” “Cry Baby,” “Serial Mom”), provides the narration for the film.

There is not a great deal of narration in the film because a bulk of the information about the topic of the film is provided through interviews with residents of the towns around the sea. The Salton Sea was quite a popular tourist destination in the 1950’s and 1960’s, however, natural disasters crippled the area and laid waste to any and all remaining future tourism. The residents of the area consider the Salton Sea area to be a pleasant, peaceful place to live, even though summer temperatures there reach 100-110. I know another place that gets like that in the summer. It would be cliché to refer to the people who still live there as eccentric, however, these people do have their own reasons for continuing to live there. These reasons are given in the documentary. “Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea” is a salient look at how the sea was formed, the prosperity that the area enjoyed for two decades, and the result of a series of natural disasters that eliminated said prosperity. In the mid-90’s Congressman, Sonny Bono, did lead efforts to improve the conditions in that area, however, his early death and the lack of anyone to further lead these efforts stalled and, in time, ended these plans of reclamation.

Netflix has this film available to rent in the old-fashioned dvd format. I recommended, especially to documentary lovers, this film. The film covers an interesting subject and is structured very well.

It's OK to Forget About This Movie

I expected much more from Tobe Hooper’s 1986 film, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.” It starts out well with the always cool Cannon Films logo of the 1980's. Things pretty much go downhill from there.
Many of the horror film sequels released in the early 1980’s have the reputation of being very bad films, however, my opinion of most that I have seen is quite different. I remember Siskel and Ebert telling me that “Amityville 3-D” is horrible, in fact one of the worst films of 1983. I purchased the wonderful British import dvd of “Amityville 3-D” which features a very good commentary track by British horror film expert, Kim Newman. The film is not bad at all and watching the 3-D effects in 2-D is kind of fun. I also enjoyed “Halloween 2” and especially “Halloween 3: Season of the Witch.”
My dislike of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” lies in the decision to abandon any and all character development after the first 30 minutes of the film. We meet a very likable radio dj named Stretch Brock. Stretch is played by Caroline Williams. Williams’ performance is very good and she gives her character a very cool personality. She also has a very sexy Texas accent.  Her board operator is a fairly likable guy named L.G. (Lou Perryman). He has a crush on Stretch and who can blame him?

The opening scene of the film features two very annoying college guys driving from Austin to Dallas for Texas/OU weekend. As they are driving along, they are apprehended by a vehicle from which Leatherface emerges and proceeds to kill the two annoying college guys. After this mayhem is over, we meet Lieutenant Lefty Enright (Dennis Hopper). Lefty appears to be a no-nonsense lawman who has a keen interest in the chainsaw murders that have continued to occur for the last ten years. The character of Lefty is an interesting one for the first 30 minutes of the film as well. I thought the film would explore the background of the family of chainsaw-wielding killers and we might learn some new things about them and Lefty’s connection to them…………no. After the first 30 minutes, the film makes no effort to continue to be interesting or entertaining, even in a silly 1980’s low-budget horror film kind of way. The largest problem is the introduction of the chainsaw family, characters which, as written in this film, are beyond bad and are completely uninspired by any kind of desire to be entertaining. We first meet the father, Drayton Sawyer (Jim Siedow), the father of the chainsaw family as he is winning a chili cook-off. This is one of the very few gags in the film that work. More silly or sick jokes like that would have been nice. A few scenes later, Stretch is chased around the radio station by Chop Top Sawyer, one of Drayton’s sons, and Leather face. This scene is endless as Caroline Williams’ role is diminished to one of simply screaming and running around. It gets much worse. After this scene, we do not get to see any of her charm as the script just places her in a new location in which to scream endlessly and be chased around by idiot characters. What was Tobe Hooper thinking? Did he care about making an interesting movie? Ok, so none of the early 80’s horror/slasher movies I mentioned earlier are ever going to be confused with works of Henrik Ibsen or Tennessee Williams, however, some of them do have enough interesting elements to make them worth watching. “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” has very few interesting elements, and what interesting elements it does possess, it throws in the garbage after the first two reels. It was a true struggle to finish watching this movie. The last 45 minutes are quite painful and repetitive. Even Dennis Hopper’s character turns into an automaton, not literally—that would have been a welcome addition, quite honestly. The film devolves into people chasing people chasing people in an underground chainsaw family lair of stupidity.
“Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” attempts to add itself to the list of comedy-horror films of the mid-80’s, a genre that includes the far superior films, “Return of the Living Dead (1985) and House (1986). The poster of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” is funny as it mimics the poster for “The Breakfast Club.” This is where any progression of the making of this film should have ended. “It’s a good poster. Let’s just stop there while we are ahead.” So, I guess I did not really care for this film. Let me think about it a bit longer.  (1 second passes)  Yep, it was awful.

Baseball, Barbara Hershey, Apple Pie, and David Carradine

David Carradine’s 1973-1981 film, “Americana” takes it’s time to tell it’s story. What? 1973-1981 film? What does that mean, sir? According to information on the webbernet, David Carradine (“Kung Fu,” “Kill Bill”) worked on this film for eight years, beginning in 1973 and completing it in 1981. The copyright year given at the end of the film is 1981.

Carradine stars in this film which he directed. He plays a character with no name, known simply as “The American Soldier” in the closing credits. He arrives in a small town in Kansas dressed in his military uniform. The year in which the action takes place is 1973. We assume he was in the Air Force, serving in Vietnam, as his uniform has a patch on it that says “Airborne.” We do not know anything else about this character. Here lies the wonderful simplicity of the film. The soldier asks the residents of the town if they have any odd jobs for him so he can earn some money. He is given a job cutting weeds in a field in which an old, dilapidated merry-go-round sits. The soldier decides to fix the merry-go-round. Why does he want to fix the old merry-go-round? In a film like this, such reasons are never stated. It is up to the audience to try to figure out the motivations of such a character. Perhaps he wants a challenge or perhaps he wants something to occupy his mind so he does not think about the horrible war from which he has returned. Whatever the case may be, and it may indeed be more profound than I am implying, the film tells it’s story very well and avoids all the tropes of a “long-haired guy returning home and trying to find work in a small town” story. Every time you think an older character is going to start hassling the soldier, he or she does not. The people in the town are helpful, though, the performances do portray an amount of suspicion and underlying distrust of the soldier. Their distrust is not evident in the forefront of their minds,however. A scene involving a policeman and the soldier seems to be moving towards an uncomfortable confrontation in which the policeman becomes a complete asshole, however, this scene successfully avoids such conventions as well. A scene in which a young Barbara Hershey seems to be a likely target for two young attackers does not proceed the way one might think. Hershey plays a character known as “Jess’s daughter.” Her character is a young woman who watches with interest as the soldier fixes up the merry-go-round. She brings him lunch and tools. The American soldier is given a job at the local station. The station is run by Mike (Michael Greene). The soldier and Mike get along very well until the soldier learns something about the town that disturbs him greatly. The soldier’s outward disdain for this fact angers Mike and turns the soldier into a target for the local hooligans and this precipitates the dramatic tension of the film, which occurs at about the 60 minute mark. I am being purposefully nebulous in my description so that, should anyone seek out this film, they will not be the victim of a spoiler attack.

“Americana” is about the soldier’s determination to complete a project he started. He wants to fix something that is broken regardless of the ugliness he sees around him. Every moment of this film is fantastic. I wish it was a more famous film and that it would be mentioned amongst other great films of the 1970’s, especially those films which reflect young filmmakers’ disdain for war and the effects of war on the psyche of society. “Americana” is a profound film in a simple film’s body.

Molto Bene!

How can a movie starring Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page, Woody Allen, and Roberto Benigni, written and directed by Woody Allen, a film that features a lively soundtrack and set in and filmed in Rome be so horrible? That is an easy question to answer. It does not come anywhere close to being horrible. Nowhere close. Allen’s new film, “To Rome, With Love,” is fantastic and it is a lot of fun.

“To Rome, With Love” is not deep and profound, nor does it try to be so. I believe that Allen’s intention with this film was to make a light, breezy comedy set in another wonderful European city that he likes. So, what is wrong with all that? It is very well-written and well-constructed as one might expect from a Woody Allen film. I don’t think Allen is capable of making a complete train wreck of a film. In “To Rome, With Love,” we meet four different sets of people who all find themselves in Rome at the same time. The film moves from story to story quite deftly. As it goes with films such as this, one or two stories usually are more interesting than the others. In the case of this film, I preferred the stories involving Roberto Benigni as a man who becomes instantly famous and the story of Giancarlo (Fabio Armiliato—the actor is a professional opera star) who sings opera at a professional level, but only with some assistance. I am leaving out details of these stories intentionally so I will not be the giver away of spoilers. I do not believe that details of the plot that give things away need to be in a review of a film. Why ruin the movie for someone who has not seen it yet but plans to do so? Pardon my vagueness. Another story in the film involves Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, Alec Baldwin, and Ellen Page, in a tale of romance involving an actress and a student and his girlfriend. The fourth story in the film involves a married couple, each of whom becomes involved with another person through a series of misunderstandings. Hold on. Yes, I know. None of the stories in “To Rome, With Love,” are original, however, it is the telling of these stories, and especially the expert writing of these stories that make this film special. I laughed out loud several times while watching this film. The best performances in the film belong to Roberto Begnini as the man who finds sudden fame, Woody Allen, who always gives himself great lines, Fabio Armiliato as the singer, and the quartet of actors in the Eisenberg/Gerwig/Page/Baldwin story. There are not any bad performances in this film. The ones I highlighted were simply the ones that I fancied the most. The only statement that Woody Allen seems to make in the film is a commentary about fame in today’s world of popular culture. You will know what I mean after you see the film. Other than that, I did not find that Woody Allen, with this film, is making any social commentary or is trying to make us think. Allen's script made me laugh often throughout the film. Some of the humor in this film stems from the absurdity of the situations in which the characters find themselves. The Benigni and Armiliato stories, in particular, reminded me of situations you may find in a Luis Bunuel film. I am thinking especially of Bunuel's 1972 film, "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" and his 1974 film, "The Phantom of Liberty." Check out these movies, as well. They contain alot of humor that is created from absurd situations. I enjoyed the song that is used throughout the first thirty minutes of "To Rome, With Love." It is called, “Amada Mia, Amore Mio,” by The Starlite Orchestra. As I suspected while watching the film and hearing the song, it was recorded in the 1970’s, 1977 to be exact. It is a very lively song and sets a perfect mood for the stories we are about to watch. Because of my interest in strange European exploitation films of the 70’s and early 80’s, this song was even more appealing to me as it has the sound of a song one might hear in one of those films. That may sound strange, however, many of those crazy European exploitation films would feature at least one song in them that was out of place and not fitting with the tone of the film, thus, part of the appeal for me of some of those films. The funky song, “Bargain With the Devil,” from the 1974 Italian horror film, “Beyond the Door,” is just one example of this.

“Amada Mia, Amore Mio” fits very well with the setting of the film. I felt as if I was there in Rome. My mind was taken back to the fun times I spent in Italy twenty years ago as a student of the University of Dallas where one may take a class in epistemology should one be so inclined to do so. Perhaps you may say that I was seduced by this film because I had spent such a wonderful time of my life in Italy. This did not hurt, however, as I outlined earlier, there are several reasons why I enjoyed “To Rome, With Love.” If the film would have been set in Tokyo or Stockholm, I would have enjoyed it just as much. While it is still in theaters, I encourage you to see this film, however, it would make a very nice dvd selection as well should you decide to Netflix it at some point. “To Rome, With Love” is like a pleasant walk through the city of Rome. Having seen it once, I want to go back.

The New Spider Man Has No Bite

“The Amazing Spider Man” is as fresh as a week-old donut. I admit to not knowing the difference between the different Spider Man comic book series, however, though it has been 10 years since I saw Sam Raimi’s “Spider Man,” this new film did not feel much different. The new “Amazing Spider Man” feels, most of the time, lifeless , as if it is following a scriptwriting template. My understanding is that the Spider Man stories in these two films are different which is why it is against the law to say that this new film is a remake of Raimi’s film and it’s two sequels. It did not seem that much different. I do remember that in Raimi’s film, Peter Parker is bitten or stung by a spider which is the catalyst for giving him his powers. The same thing happens in this new film. Parker is bitten, he discovers that he has become much stronger and that he can now climb walls and has cat-like, or I guess, spider-like reflexes.

All of this would be much cooler if I had not seen it done better before. The actor who plays Parker/Spider Man, Andrew Garfield, does not have a very interesting screen presence. His Peter Parker is annoyingly meek and frail. I did not believe for a second that his rendition of Peter Parker would have the stomach for or the guts to become Spider Man. He seems meek and without confidence. Remember how we knew Clark Kent, as played by Christopher Reeve, did not lack confidence? Even though Kent had to act wimpish to conceal his identity, the audience still knew that he was confident and that he knew he was a badass. There are brief hints of this in Garfield’s performance, however, the Spider Man that he becomes seems to be a completely different character, completely removed from Peter Parker. Peter Parker has an internal strife that is boiling within him as his Uncle Ben was killed by a petty thief as said thief was running away from a convenience store he had just robbed. In this film, internal strife does not appear to be realized in Garfield’s portrayal of Peter Parker. I understand that he is a young actor, and he was ok in “The Social Network” as Mark Zuckerberg’s friend and Facebook founding partner, Eduardo, however, even in that film, he did not knock me out. For sure, “The Social Network” was Jesse Eisenburg’s film.
“The Amazing Spider Man” is presumably supposed to be Andrew Garfield’s film, however, his performance is dull. As such, coupled with a tiresome narrative, this new version of the Spider Man story is only as entertaining as the Spidey story, which is still enough to save this new film from being completely uninteresting. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are good as Mae and Ben Parker, Peter’s aunt and uncle with whom he lives. Denis Leary is good as the father of Peter’s love interest, Gwen (Emma Stone). It is always nice to see Denis Leary as he usually instills some bite into any film in which he appears. This is true in this film, in fact, this film could have used more of him as he does not overdo his role as Gwen’s protective father who also happens to be the chief of police of New York City. Big shock! Emma Stone is ok and is more interesting than Andrew Garfield, but not much more interesting.
The fact is that not much about “The Amazing Spider Man” is interesting or fresh. Like the previously mentioned ten-day old donut, I may eat it even though it would be hard and chewy, however, I would not eat two of them. I am in no hurry to see this film again. Do not spend the extra money to see this in 3-D. I counted 3 times in which the 3-D effects were used to any interesting effect. I may write quite a rant about the new 3-D trend at some point and the main point of this rant will be that I want crap thrown at me in a 3-D movie! I don’t just want depth. That is cool, but I want characters to throw mice, knives, footballs, donuts, boobs, turnips, and heads of lettuce at me for the price of seeing a movie in 3-D! None of these or anything similar is thrown at the audience in “The Amazing Spider Man.” The 3-D usage philosophy in this film seems as hesitant as Garfield’s performance. Just throw stuff! It’s flippin’ 3-D!!
Bye the way, how does Dr. Curt Connors, aka The Lizard (Rhys Ifans), get all that lab equipment down into his secret lab in the sewer? What happened to the guy that killed Uncle Ben? I liked the appearance of one of those old 4-in-1 pens in the film. Remember those thick blue pens that had four different colored inks in them? You would snap down the little doohicky for the color you wanted, blue, black, red or green. The green ink was never any good for some reason, but the whole idea was way cool.
The dialogue in “The Amazing Spider Man” is not very fresh or interesting either, which, in this day and age of Joss Whedon and the discovery of his talents by the masses, is quite a detriment. Some may ask how I can expect every action/sci-fi/superhero movie now to be as witty and sharp as a Whedon film. Why not expect this? “Thor” did a fine job of infusing humor into that film, especially into the main character of that film.

I am hoping for three things to happen as a result of the release of this new “Amazing Spider Man” film. I hope that we see the return of the outstanding strawberry flavored Spider Man cereal to grocery stores and I am hoping that we finally see the release of the 1977-79 CBS Spider Man tv series on dvd, or at least, maybe some obscure cable network will broadcast the 13 or so episodes that were made. The likelihood of seeing the 1977-79 series released seems slim, so I would also take an American release of the Japanese Spider Man series from 1978, the intro of which is featured at the beginning of this review. If at least one of these things happen, then I will ultimately consider “The Amazing Spider Man” a success.