Dear Hollywood #1

An open letter to Hollywood,

                This is an angry letter. So for those interested in a review for an interesting foreign film coming to a Redbox near you, please heed this warning! I am angry because as I grow older. Quality films are few and far between. Hollywood, that once divine land of cinematic milk and honey, has for the last few decades (I repeat, decades!) dumbed down our mass culture with sequels, prequels, remakes, and 3D orgies. That’s not to say that the 3D orgies are a bad thing, but let’s be real! How can one possibly excuse the latest Chipmunk sequel?? How many times can we possibly remake a movie before we forget what the original was ever about?! That’s why I’ve decided to take it upon myself to use this forum as a meditative tool to release my anger at the system that has taken and given me ever so much…

1.       NO MORE HOBBITS! Earlier this week, Peter Jackson announced that he was interested in turning the film adaptation of “The Hobbit” into a trilogy. Originally, the film was slated to be just one coherent unit. Once Harry Potter decided to split its last chapter into two films (a decision that makes reasonable sense considering the intimidating girth of the book), movie studios followed suit turning simple films and dividing them in half (e.g., Twilight, Hunger Games). I read “The Hobbit” when I was in middle school, I even saw the disturbing animated version (nightmares of the grotesque looking characters still haunt my dreams alongside the velociraptors from “Jurassic Park”). I always felt that the movie would serve its purpose well as one solitary movie. By splitting it into three parts, Peter Jackson and the money-hungry accountants he’s working with are making it plain that they are sacrificing their own artistic integrity into a cash-cow. Let’s be honest! Peter Jackson hasn’t made a good movie since “Lord of the Rings” (“King Kong” was all right but “The Lovely Bones”? “Tintin”? You’re kidding!). I can only hope that this gamble pays off. I wouldn’t be upset at an attempt to make lots of money if the product they were selling was good enough, I feel that dividing the films into three parts is just spreading the story too thin.

2.       UMMM THEY ALREADY FOUND ‘NEMO’!? Pixar announced that they were going ahead and developing a sequel to “Finding Nemo”. You hear that noise? It’s your childhood getting washed down the drain! Pixar, you’ve been scaring me lately. First you went sequel and made that horrible film “Cars 2”, then you went lifeless when you made “Brave” (It was a good movie, it just wasn’t a good “Pixar” movie). Now you got another sequel for “Monsters Inc.” coming next year and then another “Toy Story” film (You don’t know how many nights I stayed up worried that you would jump the shark on Woody and Buzz). Pixar!?! You used to be the mecca for animated films! “The Incredibles”, “Wall-E”, and “Up” are classic! What happened? Oh…right…you went corporate and now your adopted mother company, Disney, looks like it’s making more interesting films (see “Wreck-It-Ralph”). I know why this is! Andrew Stanton flopped with his film “John Carter” (slightly underrated, this is not your fault, Andrew!) and now he’s being pushed against a brick wall to save his career. Don’t do it! Really! You’re better than this! I just need to stop crying and relax…Just Keep Swimming, Just Keep Swimming, Just Keep…uh…aaaaaaargh!

3.       I’M DIZZY! PLEASE NO MORE SPIN-OFFS! Dreamwork Films is interested in creating a spin-off to the film “Despicable Me”. Remember the lovable minions? The ones that speak complete and utter gibberish?! Yeah, those morons are getting a movie. Ok, you know why certain characters work? It’s because we’re not drowning in their stories. Captain Jack Sparrow was a great character because he was not in every scene of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies but when he was the main character of the last film “On Stranger Tides”, he seemed absolutely boring! That’s because sidekicks, comic reliefs, and other interesting minor characters work well in small doses (that’s why the main character of movies are usually the least interesting thing in the movie!). Remember, “Puss in Boots”? Horribly done. How about “The Scorpion King”? Ugh! Ok, “Get Him to the Greek”, “Evan Almighty”, “Elektra”, “Wolverine”, the list goes on and on! I also hear rumors that Anne Hathaway’s character in “The Dark Knight Rises” might get her on spin-off! Umm, do you not remember? We did that already with Halle Berry, it was called “Catwoman”! That movie was also horrible!

Ok, Hollywood! Now you hear what I have to say, you can either take it or leave it. It’s really up to you. I hope you remember my words when your movie bombs at the box-office and you wonder why!

Sincerely,

A Fan of Movies

"The Dark Knight Rises" and the Aurora Theater

                As with most Christopher Nolan films, “The Dark Knight Rises” begins with an intricate and well-executed action sequence that rivals anything we’ve seen prior in films. This may seem like an overstatement but I can assure you it’s not. I can also assure you that “TDKR” is a riveting critique on mortality, social upheaval, and the demands of being a Hero. In the film, Bruce Wayne, Gotham’s answer to Howard Hughes, is slowly drawn out of retirement to help defeat a villain brilliantly played by a wholly-unrecognizable Tom Hardy. As Bruce Wayne prepares for battle, he quickly dawns upon new realizations that the game has changed and that he needs to quickly answer a question that he has dogged for some time: Why am I the one to carry Gotham’s burden? The film answers some very heavy questions and at a breezy three hour running time, Nolan has managed to conclude his Magnum Opus with aplomb. Batman die-hards will want to know whether this film rivals the previous Batman effort “The Dark Knight” and to this I answer “No but it’s still a great film”. The difference between “The Dark Knight” and “The Dark Knight Rises” is too many. For one thing, “The Dark Knight” deals with society in the face of anarchy and unrelenting terrorism as well as testing Bruce Wayne’s dedication to the limits, whereas “The Dark Knight Rises” deals more with Bruce Wayne proving his worth and re-establishing himself as the hero we wants to be for others and for himself. Christian Bale provides a simmering tone that plays to Batman’s mysterious nature. Kudos must be given to Anne Hathaway who manages to create a three-dimensional character with pathos and enough tenacity to make a pussy purr. Tom Hardy excels as one of the most sinister and eloquent villains since Hannibal Lector. The film is a satisfying book-end to one of the most popular trilogies of all time and it leaves you wanting more (that ending!) but you have to respect Nolan for wrapping it up in the way he did, before Hollywood goes and ruins it.

                During a midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises”, a small movie theater in Aurora, Colorado was attacked by a lone madman and several people were shot and killed. News crews rushed to the scene and the attacker was quickly imprisoned (as of this time, the attacker has yet to make any specific statements as to why he did what he did). Only one or two days later, Lobbyists for both Gun and Anti-Gun Control raised their voices and a swarm of opinions inundated every radio, newspaper, and website. Critics blamed the filmmakers of the “The Dark Knight Rises” for creating such realistic and violent material. If all this sounds familiar, the city of Aurora is located a few miles from another small town you may have heard of…Columbine. Only a few days after the massacre, The Westboro Baptist Church, that of picketing the funerals of soldiers fame, declared a “mega”-picket around the prayer vigil for the fallen who passed away that awful night (the church also praised the attacker for killing those “unworthy of God’s love”). Now with all this said and done, I have only to say that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. No matter how many theorists believe that the attacker was “brainwashed” by the violence of the Batman films, the fact remains that the attacker was alone in his doing. He knew that he would be the only to carry out this task and that’s only because the fabric of our society is so strong to not allow what happened to happen. This boy was not part of our society, he was someone who didn’t have the fortitude and knowledge to realize that he had a problem. Instead, he watched a movie that resonated with him because he identified with a character that was also not part of society. To those critics who say that the movie’s violence influenced the killer, I can only point to the Bible and even other cases of massacre that can, in theory, influence someone else to murder if they so wanted. To those who say that there is no need for more Gun control, I can only say that guns come in all shapes and sizes, some for hunt and some to not only kill a person but to wreck every other working part of that body. In America, you are not allowed to kill anyone but instead you are allowed a large array of weapons that can determine how horribly you could kill an individual. In essence, everyone has a valid point but not the answer. This attacker did what he did because he was not included, he did not feel responsible to other individuals. Whether we like it or not, We are responsible for the lives of our neighbors. When we drive, when we wait in line, when we go shopping, we are always responsible for the lives of others. That is why when the attack happened, three boyfriends saved their respecting girlfriends. The Batman films deal with becoming Heroes and perhaps the saddest irony of all was that the greatest hero wasn’t in the movie but in the theater.

"Catfish"

There are very films that talk about the issues that the "Millenial" Generation (Those who are born or grew up after the year 200) have had to deal with. The only film that truly comes to mind is "The Social Network", a film about the origins of Facebook. In that film, and this one, our protagonist is consumed by social networking and the way they deal with how their online profile should reflect their actual lifestyles. In "The Social Network", Mark Zuckerberg wanted to be portrayed as the Citizen Kane of Social Networking, when in fact he was just a young, nebbish college drop-out. In the pseudo-documentary "Catfish", Yaniv Schulman is a twenty-something living in New York who develops an online relationship with a woman living in Michigan. As the romance blossoms, questions begin to arise. Where does she live? Why does she lie about pawn off other people's music and takes the credit for it? Who is this girl really? As you watch this film, you will undoubtedly pose many hypothesis' and come to your own judgement. The true charm of the film lies in the amount of surrealist suspense developed by first-time directors, Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, who make you question reality as much as cyber-reality. The film's surprising and fascinating final act will leave you reeling but, in a way, also a bit disappointed as the pacing of the film changes like the drop of a hat into a saccharine expose on repressed American existance. This film is an interesing critique on how the new generation of facebook-junkies are developing another reality far from their own to horrifying effect but I could only wonder (SPOILER ALERT) if the relationship developed between the two main characters could have been at some level true? Even though the characters were a victim of false reality, they must've shared some intimate moments. Even though the follies of social networking brought them apart, It was the only way to bring these two people together.