The Social Network

While working for Pepperdine University as a Resident Director, I was first introduced to facebook by an administrator. Though brand new (and frankly silly sounding to me), he spoke of it in common terms. He told me that students were flocking to it, but the catch is that only those with e-mail addresses ending in “.edu” could be on it. I set up a profile due to my “.edu” password, and it felt kind of cool to be portraying some of my college self again – music, films, friends, etc. It soon became fascinating as I heard students ad lib about status updates, pictures, and gossipy pronouncements. Students didn’t censor themselves. They didn’t have to worry about their profiles being observed by curious parents, University employees, or others – just their friends (which of course rapidly changed and again redefined the term “internet privacy”). What at first was silly and fascinating soon became frightening – talking about it with students was like walking on eggshells filled with rusty nails.

“The Social Network” aims to document one author’s perspective on the events and development of facebook. It begins with an anxiety bathed Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) having a conversation of sorts with his girlfriend. The set-up perfectly introduces us to nuances of the character – excluded from clubs, insecure, and brilliant – who goes on to became the world’s youngest billionaire.

First, don’t forget that the movie is a fictional movie. How much of it is true, dramatized, and outright false is not entirely known. In a film like this, truth affects the viewer because we want to know how much of the story can be believed. And just how good is the story? In a word – engrossing. Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay hooked me and ended in what felt like an abrupt manner. It is fantastic – the filmmakers made 120 minutes feel short. Major praise goes to David Fincher (Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) as he handles the acting so well, that my major concerns (especially regarding Jesse Eisenberg) were put to rest. It’s not that I think Eisenberg is a bad actor, it’s just that he seems to play off the same personality type: insecure, anxious, and nerdy (“Zombieland” uses it for laughs, “The Squid and the Whale” to make us cringe). It’s sort of like Michael Cera, who never seems to be anyone but George Michael. However, in the film Eisenberg has a level of depth to him that utilizes these strengths and makes them blend in beautifully with the character, creating a certain kind of depth. A worthy nod during awards season is entirely appropriate.

Big nods as well to Justin Timberlake, who looks about 10 years younger, playing Sean Parker – the founder of Napster/former President of facebook. All other players, especially Andrew Garfield as Zuckerberg’s best friend and facebook co-developer Eduardo Saverin are perfectly cast and played. Everything feels tight, clean, and focused. Much of this is due to rapid fire cuts that highlight Sorkin’s words and Fincher’s trademark browns and natural colors. The movie is a clean, slick, no nonsense production.

So, the filmmaking elements are all in place which leaves the big question – is it a good movie? Yes it is, but its long term relevance is worthy of questioning. It documents something very “2000’s” by displaying a familiar character – the fractured genius who wants to be accepted. But 10 years from now, will we care? While facebook has changed the way we communicate, will it matter in 5 or 10 years? While the question may seem silly, ask the creators of other major internet sites like myspace or Napster – it’s very much a fair question.

Perhaps this is the bottom line – if it were the “myspace movie,” would we care? Probably less so, but assuming the characters and storyline are the same I’d still be interested. Zuckerberg is still the underdog, and I couldn’t help but grin when he snidely remarks that he is happy to be sticking it to people who have gotten whatever they have wanted their whole lives. These kinds of characters are compelling because they are the archetypes of a certain brand of hero. It’s just that in this case, the hero is an insecure brat.

Waiting For Superman

I am surrounded by people in the helping vocations. My Father and brother are pastor’s, my Mother is a nurse, my wife and my brothers wife are teachers (one in inner city LA at a school featured in the film, both a part of Los Angeles Unified School District), and I worked as a school based therapist in inner city Los Angeles (essentially a Clinical Social Worker). My experience and family environment have informed me and colored my biases about the problems of education - especially in areas where poverty and immigration create challenges for teachers. I have been and am presently surrounded by people in the trenches of the education war.

I was cautious going into “Waiting For Superman” due to its director – Davis Guggenheim. He is responsible for “An Inconvenient Truth,” a film that has polarized while igniting a political fire. On the other hand, his most recent film “It Might Get Loud” inspired me to play music again, and as a result I started a band for the first time in 9 years. To say that Guggenheim’s films leave an impact is an understatement. He gets people to talk.

“Waiting For Superman” chronicles the failure of the public education system. He cites several sources for blame, among these issues are Teacher’s Union’s, lack of accountability, and bureaucracy. The film tells the stories of several children from various neighborhoods in the United States, all but one of whom are from what appear to be low income areas. The film chronicles these children and their family’s journey’s to get kids into Charter, boarding, and other advancement level schools. Meanwhile, several administrators, teachers, and parent’s are given the opportunity to speak up on the issue.

As a film, it looks slick and moves at a good pace in spite of a long running time (the version I saw was 120 minutes long). The students themselves are the highlights – their candid comments and truthful expressions leave an immediate impression. However, for the genre of documentary, this feels less like a documentation of a problem and more like a message movie. My main problem is that Guggenheim plays mostly on his side of the fence and doesn’t present both sides of the arguments.

The main example is with regards to the argument made about tenure and the Union’s power. In the film, we see student captured video of teacher’s getting paid by the state to do little more than babysit as kids play craps and socialize during what is supposed to be classroom instruction. We learn that these teachers got fired as a result of the video. However, we also learn that not only did these teachers get their jobs back a year later, they were back paid for a year’s worth of not teaching. It’s maddening. In addition, Guggenheim alleges that Teacher’s Unions are the most powerful in DC, and have given more money than any other group to Democratic candidates for office. The film appears to allege that a dollar to the Union is a dollar to a Democrat.

But, Guggenhiem never interviews Union members, nor does he spend much time interviewing the teacher’s themselves. What do Union leaders think of his arguments about tenure? What about the pressures teacher’s face to appease unreasonable parent’s (something I have witnessed first hand), peer pressure from card carrying Union members (“side with us, or we won’t be helping you out anymore”), or the natural problems of many “failure factories?” Like, how do you address the fact that students are bringing English written homework home to parents who are monolingual Spanish speaking? What about the devastating effects of poverty – that some elementary and middle school aged children are forced to work because they would rather have food to eat as opposed to doing their homework?

My last social criticism of the film is in Guggenheim’s conclusions. He doesn’t look at the parent’s and make them take responsibility for their children’s performance. True – he does chronicle and we do see parent’s helping their children do homework and fight for the lottery system, but he sees the problem strictly through the lens of the school system itself. Agreed – the school system is a giant mess. However, parent’s have to follow up on their children’s homework, provide accountability at home, and support teachers who at times don’t give their children “good” grades. The school can’t do the parenting part, and Guggenheim’s neglect to confront this is curious, if not frustrating.

That’s a lot of criticisms, but what about the positive? Well, there’s a huge amount to give – this film will provoke you. You will feel sad, you will laugh, and you will be left asking the question “what can I do to help?” On these merits, the film is successful. The film also knows how to balance entertainment with information. His bottom line is glaring – shouldn’t every child be at a school where there are quality teachers who care about the students and do a good job? Why is it that some children get to by chance enter lottery schools, while the rest get the crummy ones? Shouldn’t each child have an equal share of the same slice of educational opportunity? Additionally, Guggenheim’s statistics hurt. The United States is producing 120+ million skilled labor jobs, but due to the poor academic performance of our schools, but we are only producing 50 million qualified students. The labor is being filled elsewhere, because across the globe, we are being beat.

I could continue writing, which I suppose is high praise to the film. See it with your family and think about it. Discuss it – education is the vital component of our nation. But think critically about it – how do you hold your child accountable? How do you support your child’s teachers? My wife saw the film with me and she was engaged wholeheartedly. She later commented that she felt the film could have been even longer. She is right – there is so much ground to cover in a conversation about education. But then again, if I have learned anything over the years, it’s that she is always right.

The Town

On my facebook page, I am part of a group called “Ben Affleck sucks as an actor.” My friend Ezra made the page around the time Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez were media magnets, and the backlash was massive. But then a curious thing happened – Affleck made the outstanding noir thriller “Gone Baby Gone.” It worked because “Gone Baby Gone” was anchored by what Affleck appears to know well – Boston. In addition, the performance onscreen by his brother Casey is among my favorites in the genre.

For the unfortunately named “The Town,” Affleck returns to a different neighborhood in Boston to tell a story that is less about mystery, and more about heist. Affleck stars as Doug, a hockey flunkey who makes a living robbing banks with longtime friend James (played wonderfully by Jeremy Renner) and 2 newcomers to their crew – Albert and Desmond. Things get all tricky when Rebecca, a bank manager, gets taken hostage by James during one of the heists. Soon after she is let go, Doug begins to “bump” into her around town. During this, the FBI starts to close in on Doug’s crew, all of which tests relationships and decisions within the bunch.

Heist films are a favorite of mine, especially older ones. Heist characters often having me on their team hoping they get their score, which is hard to do seeing as these characters aren’t usually “good” guys. The best parts of these types of films are the planning and casing of the scene of the future crime, the character tensions as the planning happens, and the tension existing in the heist itself. Each heist film I see will always be filtered through Rififi and Le Samourai – two masterpieces of the genre. They both feature nail biting heist sequences with no music, jump cuts, or fast pacing. They are beautifully tense, wonderfully shot, and feature rich characters.

Where “The Town” succeeds is in the characters, most of whom are interesting, with the one let down being FBI Agent Adam Frawley, played by Jon Hamm of “Mad Men” fame. I am not sure where to point the finger, but Hamm appears to be either poorly directed or underutilized. We never sympathize with his character because his role is played in a flash, and with limited emotional range. However, Affleck is great, and he disappears into his role and character. Better yet, Jeremy Renner adds another notch in his belt after his turn in “The Hurt Locker.” I have to give Ebert credit for mentioning this in his review, but there is one scene where Renner has to play restrained and playful. The scene is so tense and uneasy, it is a testament to the ingredients of the film – writing, story, direction, and acting.

However, for all its positive qualities (and there are many) “The Town” disappoints in other key areas. I have a fairly critical reaction to how the film concludes, because it does not seem true to the events on screen. I wish I could say more, but to do so would be to spoil (comment below to discuss). Additionally, some of the plot points become a tad muddy. Why does James sister show up at convenient plot points, and what is she there for? Same with Fergus (the head of…the local mafia?) who appears briefly, but always appears threatening. Lastly – it’s okay to slow it down in these types of films. Let the tension build more, no need to rush through.

Nonetheless, “The Town” is a solid, recommendable heist flick that both enjoys and rejects cliché’s of the genre (thankfully there are no major plot twists in the end). The film certainly earns its R rating due to sexual content, strong violence and language, but it feels true to these characters and their world. Overall, “Gone Baby Gone” is a stronger film in terms of its coherence and depth (especially the fantastic moral dilemma). Still, “The Town” is great at times, and certainly worth seeing in the theaters. So – Melville, Dassin, Affleck? No, not yet. But I do think I need to unsubscribe from my Ben Affleck sucks group on Facebook.

Christian Movies!

It had been at least 10 years since I walked into the Family Christian bookstore around the corner from where I went to high school in Costa Mesa. I used to go there on weekdays in the lull between the end of the school day and the start of theater practice. I went there for music, and Tooth and Nail records was all the rage. With the exception of Wish For Eden and Everdown, I bought nearly everything that had the labels name on it, and Family was my Christian music dispensary of choice. Half the store was CD’s, and the rest of it could have been stocked with groceries for all I cared. It was my music place.

Revisiting Family Christian bookstore 10 years later was sort of disheartening. What used to be rows of CD’s was a sparse collection of music comprised of worship leaders and things they play on KFSH. Taking its place was the hot new Christian media – the DVD. Several aisles of colorful DVD’s, sitting right next to a DVD player that would censor out the naughty bits of whatever you were watching, which was certainly nothing carried on the shelves. In fact, they even have 30 dollar versions of your favorite secular movies, without any of the aforementioned corruptible content.

Recently, I spoke with filmmaker David DiSabatino for conversantlife.com (he made “Frisbee: Life and Death of A Hippie Preacher”) and our conversation reminded me of this visit. We were talking about the Jesus People movement. In his mind, the downfall to this remarkable movement of God came when the church stepped in and softened things, effectively changing the wine back to water. This soon led into a conversation about Christian music and Christian movies. Christian movies have an identity crisis on their hands, and all we need to do is go back a few years and learn again from what Christian music has been through. What started out great has with few exceptions continued to be a joke, with CD’s that I can’t help but think say the Lord’s name in vain more than Eminem’s latest album.

Now, taking the place of CD’s are colorful DVD’s. They are separated by genre such as comedy, drama, and other forms of Christian DVD’s that want to hang out with your wallet. Like music 10 years ago, the tools were there for independent artists to make music, but they were just out of reach. The tools to make Christian movies are so close, but still a bit far off in terms of what is needed in any form of accessibility. There’s no Guitar Center for filmmaking gear. By contrast, radio friendly tunes can be made in the living room or the studio by anyone with a half decent computer.

Movies are close, but the problem is money. We need money to make the media, and we need someone to hand it over. Said person wants to give you the money if they know that they will make more back. Problem is, once we start making movies for the faithful, we lose. Do you know anyone who isn’t a believer that was jonesing for the Left Behind trilogy on DVD? Haven’t we learned yet from Christian music?

The genre of “Christian film” is saturated with overly dramatic faith crisis’s that hinge on life and death decisions, the rapture, funeral services, and generally unrealistic depictions of humanity. These unrealistic depictions are most plain in the end of the film’s, which always promise a conversion sequence and canned “hope.” It’s as subtle as Lady Gaga. More so, it’s embarrassing. But the people with the money to finance these projects turned giddy when Mel Gibson opened up the heavens, and they want in. For them, if your movie can’t be shown at church and accompanied with a study guide for a few dollars more, it won’t see the light of day. And just what kind of a film will get shown in church on movie night? Check the racks at your local Christian retailer.

The opposite is certainly true – movies in general don’t get made unless they can make money back. I recognize the common sense aspect of this; we all have to make a living. And yes, content is often vulgar in movies and not suitable for families. I am not equivalating Forgetting Sarah Marshall with Toy Story. The difference is that we have a voice about the unseen, and in this time of uncertainty we should feel a Jeremiah like burn to open up our mouths and make art that means something. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t care about how much more money it could make back if we tweaked things to white bread absurdity. We should piss people off, rattle cages, and make people talk. It doesn’t have to have special effects, or labels on the cover like “Hollywood production values!” to make it worthwhile. It should simply mean something. Instead, we are so contented to sit next to what is safe and easy. Again, I reference the growing Christian movie genre as evidence.

Artsandfaith.com recently listed their top 100 films that combine…art and faith. Alongside Bresson, Tarkovsky, and Bergman sit one of a handful of modern day films that fits their perplexing choices (Punch Drunk Love is my favorite film of all time, but how it ended up as #85 is head scratching). The film is “Frisbee: Life and Death of A Hippie Preacher.” So, instead of picking up the next colorful DVD box with smiling white families or people who dress like white people, try something different. We don’t need Christian media – music, film, or otherwise. We need truth and beauty. If we can express that honestly, perhaps we will avoid repeating the past. Perhaps we will be taken seriously.

Flipped

Coming of age films are a favorite of mine. There is a certain quality to this genre that reaches me unlike any other. Children know blunt emotion at its simplest and most raw – happy, sad, angry, nervous – while adults attach more convoluted subcategories to these feelings. Seeing kids experience these feelings on screen takes us back to our own childhoods to when we first felt them. A good coming age film will remind us and make us feel those feelings again.

In Rob Reiner’s latest film “Flipped” (adapted from the book of the same name), Juli Baker and Bryce Loski describe their journey to and from first love with one another. The uniqueness of the film is that each section of is replayed so that each character narrates their male and female point of view of the same scenario. The effect provides an original take on the traditional romantic film. What one character saw as love, the other was narrating as annoyance. When one character describes passion, the other sees crazy.

My expectations ran high for “Flipped.” Reiner is a proven director whose films span multiple genres, with numerous classics that solidify his body of work in cinema history – “The Princess Bride,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “Spinal Tap," and “A Few Good Men” are all to his name. Each film sits at the front end of their respective genres. Additionally, "Stand By Me" is among the greatest coming of age stories ever made.

And while "Flipped" should be outstanding, it is merely decent. It appears to be simple and warm, but something gets lost along the way. I don’t think it’s much fault of the actors – the cast is mostly great, with extra nods to Aidan Quinn as Richard, and Madeline Carroll as Juli (Richard’s daughter). Carroll’s full of charm and appeal, easily the most likeable part of the film and the one with whom the audience will eventually side, if not right away. Quinn’s character reaches some genuinely intense highs and reserved lows – all played with believability. The Father/Daughter bond with its joys and conflicts feels great.

One of the elements that keeps the film in average territory is its familiarity. The memory of Reiner’s classic “Stand By Me” is present in the setting and tone, perhaps to a fault (The film is even liberally graced with 50’s and early 60’s doo-wop standards, including the song “Stand By Me”). Additionally, while the film is ripe territory for clever, the cross sexes observations don’t seem as charming as they could be. Appealing and grin worthy, yes, but hardly laugh out loud hilarious.

The film also struggles to find its balance. On the one hand, we have cliché’s of family movies that play things really safe – a kind Grandfather who is clearly the most wise, or the buttoned up Mom who seem to be wide eyed and gasped at their children’s outlandish acts (such as a child’s funny faux pas at dinner), etc. Yet, there are scenes where we see some oddly placed foul language and a particularly intense Father/Daughter confrontation.

To its credit, there appears to be earnest warmth in the film and I sense Reiner’s love of simple feelings is present. The territory is deep and can potentially inspire great conversations - love, loss, disability, Father/Daughter and Father/Son dynamics, etc. That it’s set in its early 60’s time period is Reiner’s choice, and I think the film benefits as a result. Reiner knows this era – it’s the one he experienced childhood in. It’s a very cute story, and the double perspective style is fun (if slightly tiresome by the end of the film’s 90 minutes). The cinematography appears beautiful in some scenes with warm autumn tones, even if the landscapes appear digitally manipulated.

Perhaps it’s because Pixar has spoiled me with what I expect in a family film – hilarious for kids and adults, but genuinely heartfelt. Perhaps my expectations from Reiner were unrealistic to begin with, but I can’t help but feel that this film was waiting to be placed in the front of the line of great coming of age kids movies like “The Sandlot,” “Simon Birch,” or the excellent “Millions.”

As I've thought about it more, I've appreciated it more, but it just seems too safe, and strangely not safe enough. While Juli’s character is especially endearing, there are too few laughs, and the emotional depth is fairly limited in spite of the ripe territory. I recommend “Flipped” for families who are tired of explosions as mindless summer blockbusters come to a close. It will certainly recall memories of first love for parents and inspire some great conversations with the kids.

Inception

Summer movies have been a huge disappointment so far. Not merely in quality, but also in selection. I haven’t been eager to see any films outside of the annual Pixar voyage demanded every summer. Not so with “Inception” – a thrilling, psychological, science fiction, heist flick blend that had me glued from the first frame.

The story is this – a team of mental ninja’s (led by Leonardo DiCaprio) are commissioned to go into the minds of others and extract information. In addition to extraction is inception, a nigh impossible technique where said team of ninja’s go in and implant ideas into the mind’s of others. I don’t want to say more – the less known the better.

Let’s talk the good, firstly being the structure of the story. If you are going to introduce new rules of reality, make sure the audience gets it, and we get it. I have never seen a film like this before, but Nolan and company do an excellent job of setting up the parameters, the rules, and show us how they work in the first hour or so. The second half or more of the film is the team of mental con artists playing by the rules. In terms of genre I have a positive bias towards heist flicks, especially the “one last job” noir style tragi-drama. “Inception” is a great heist flick.

The effects and the means by which they are employed are perfect. Nolan blends the best of naturalistic effects with CGI. There are things on screen that happen that I have never imagined, and yet I was thoroughly immersed - I believed it all. Especially memorable is a hallway fight that involves a spinning room and drunken laws of gravity. Acting is uniformly convincing, but I have to give a big nod to Joseph Gordon Levitt whose athleticism, wit, and acting chops have appealed to me beyond nearly all other big screen actors.

Now the critical – the movie is so densely packed with information, that the emotional intentions get obscured. Nolan goes for big emotional buy in – marriage, death, grief, Father/Son relationships, and love all make weighty appearances. Yet, the viewer has been on alert since the first act that it might all be a dream. My attention to all of the details made me work at the film, so much so that I had a headache at the end of its 2 ½ hour running time. I praise that it made me work to be in the film, but it was hard to let myself get emotionally invested.

Psychologically speaking, the film is one big, intensive therapy session for one of the characters. We are introduced to the power of the mind, dreams, and memory interacting like a volatile chemical with feelings waiting to explode. The film almost espouses Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy (CBT), a popular brand of therapy which posits that when the thoughts are changed, the feelings will change as well. This brand of emotional confrontation seems to be at the center of the mind game. The characters experience a confrontation of painful truths, changed ideas, and big feelings to mix it all together.

There is much to be theorized about the film, and it certainly demands multiple viewings. However, I want to point out that it’s nice to see Nolan sit comfortably as an auteur – something of a lost brand in modern filmmaking. It would seem that he, Scorsese, Spielberg, and few others share a common creative control, touch, and feel in their films. In other words, Nolan’s films – cold and detached, yet slick and innovative – have a look and feel that are distinctly his. His creative touch is all over “Inception” with what appears to be almost no interference. With “Inception,” Nolan has managed to live up to the hype he created for himself after making “The Dark Knight,” creating even more hype and expectation for what he will make next. I can’t wait to see.

When in Rome

Mary – “Christopher, is this a good movie?”
Me – “No Mary it’s not”

Mary is my Mother in law, and she and I have vastly different tastes in entertainment in general. It’s not that I’m a snob, or that I have to watch movies in foreign languages that reference other movies in foreign languages. It’s not that the only English language films I watch have a low budget and a shaky handheld camera. It’s a bad movie because it’s what’s wrong with movies in general.

“When In Rome” is a 90 minute cringe fest. It aggressively wastes nearly all of its considerable talent with ease. With exception to Dax Shepard, who elicited the only laughs as a narcissistic male model, the movie fails on every level. Let’s start with the story, which is the same formula of every romantic comedy: Overworked girl meets someone (on vacation), starts to get into him, faces a dilemma, only to be swept off of her feet and be overjoyed by romance that ends in a wedding, which of course has an interruption before rapture sweeps the couple off of their feet.

Where “When In Rome” should have been really fun is in its real comedic talent. Will Arnett is amazing in Arrested Development, Jon Heder should have been great as a “street magician,” Danny Devito is blessed as a dark comedian, and Bobby Moynihan is great on SNL. Beyond the comedy, Anjelica Huston does her best Meryl Streep impression from “The Devil Wears Prada” and even Lee Pace from “The Fall” and “Pushing Daisies” briefly makes an appearance. Yet, they are all wasted on an awful script and poor direction. The filmmakers manage to make someone as likeable as Kristen Bell an eye rolling mess.

But it is the story and the moral ineptitude that is perhaps most bothersome. Kristen Bell is told by her newly-dating-younger-sexy-woman-Father that she just needs to “believe” in love. When Bell’s character points out the twice divorced Father’s track record doesn’t appear to support this ideal, he says something to the effect of “I just love too much.” While most of us would find it stupid, the movie seems to esteem the character and his philosophy. Isn’t that offensive to anyone besides me?

The sad truth is that this mentality is what motivates the central character. Later in the film she repeats out loud to herself the advice of her Father – to “just believe” in love. Another thing she could have said is “just believe in warm feelings that tingle your tummy.” I may be making more of a deal about this than is necessary, but this is the point: all films inevitably espouse a worldview. Whether it is preachy or subtle, it is literally impossible to make anything (especially films) that doesn’t have some kind of meaning or point.

A recent episode of “South Park” attempted to make the point that some things aren’t intended to be interpreted beyond face value. In the episode, the boys attempt to make the most offensively graphic novel in the history of mankind only to have it be interpreted as a metaphor, hailed as a work of genius. But even then, the episode makes a point that some things don’t have a point. Isn’t that a belief of some kind, or an extension of ones worldview – that not all things have a point?

So, “When In Rome” is a giant waste of time that tries to sneak in a message underneath it’s unpretentious looks. It wastes loads of comedic talent and in an attempt to make us feel any feelings of puppy love ends up grating the nerves. Don’t fall for this kind of garbage. Don’t waste your time with it. Watch Arrested Development for some Will Arnet goodness instead.

Thinking about "Shutter Island"

I’ve been catching up on movies lately, so unfortunately the bulk of my recent viewings have occurred at home, not in theaters. But hey, if you are wondering whether or not to rent, here’s my take!

In “Shutter Island,” man couple Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio team up again to tell the humorous story of finding love where you least expect it in a foreign country.
Or not. DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo are federal agents investigating the disappearance of a patient at Shutter Island, an intensive inpatient mental hospital that houses only the most dangerous and violent of criminals. Through the film, the two dig and dig to find the truth of what happened to their missing subject.

There are 2 things inherent in any Martin Scorsese movie, especially if it was made in the last 10 years or so – everyone on screen is going to act their best, and it’s going to look first rate. Editing, cinematography, and Scorsese’s specialty – character – are all trademark excellent. Not one frame is wasted on anything dull in spite of a running time of just over 2 hours. While Scorsese aficionados have most likened the film to his remake of “Cape Fear,” I see little similarity apart from the thriller genre aspect. This is still Scorsese, so it is first and foremost about what people feel, who they are, and why they do the things they do. It is about great characters.

Read on, but important spoilers will be revealed:

The task of creating the film had to present some difficult challenges, because once the main reality of the film is exposed, we realize that we are watching 2-3 movies at the same time. We think it’s a mystery, but there is no mystery. Ultimately, the film is grounded in two psychiatric schools of thought – to love or not to love? While one school saw lobotomy (a barbaric process in which a portion of the brain is likened to a scrambled egg) as the logical progress forward, the other school found medication in combination with genuine care and talk therapy to be the answer to treatment and care.

The film then, is the story of patient care. Consider what is actually happening – a man, so traumatized and detached by horrors in his life that he has experienced and taken part in, constructs an alternate reality where he is only a victim or observer of the trauma. This is his defense mechanism against his experiences. His alternative reality is not so far fetched. It is how many psychotic disorders develop. Consider sexual trauma, violent trauma, or other types of trauma. Rather than live in the real world – one which is too painful to actually experience – we create an experience that we can control and cope with. This is a fantastically intricate yet automatic method of protecting ourselves from pain.

The star of the film is ultimately an elaborate treatment plan that involves role play on a huge scale. Every character is role playing in order to aid in this particular clients treatment. What we watch is how one doctor conceives of treatment – that if one lives in and is enabled by their “detachment” role, they may break into reality, the process of which takes time. This is why the flashbacks happen in the film – it is the protagonist’s memories being permitted to come to life by the protagonist himself. As the real memories come through, he has to allow himself to be exposed to who he truly is, and what truly happened.

The fault of the film is in the reality of it. No matter how loving and caring one might be, no one is going to put a patient at such risk as to let him wander off near a cliff by himself, or otherwise. While the protagonist is logical and thoughtful in weaving his web regarding the mystery in the film, at any point the memories coming back may have been too much that his detached reality could have caved in. That he lives in it for several days in such consistency and logic is also intriguing. And yet, like “Lars and the Real Girl,” the fact that everyone plays along with the main character shows what might happen if we accept an alternate reality as real for someone, even if it is false in our reality. Perhaps when we realize this serves a purpose for someone else, that acceptance can lead to breakthrough.

END Spoiler

Like “The Road,” I knew I was going to love “Shutter Island” within 5 minutes of viewing it. The opening shot of the ship moving through thickened fog and the faces of all the guards on the protagonist sets the tone early. Like the ship itself, the film has a lot of fog and texture before we really see what’s coming towards us. Big thumbs up.

Oh hello, its been awhile...

I wanted to briefly post to let you know I am still here, but my schedule has swallowed me whole. After gasping for some air, here are some brief takes:

I was hoping to give a full fledged review to Tim Burton's vision of "Alice in Wonderland," but I fell asleep during the film. That may be review enough. You want more? Um, it had pretty colors.

"Date Night" was really funny and even deeper than one might expect. Its a great ride, but the strength of the film squarely depends on your feeling about its leads. The story and comedic territory will feel mostly familiar. I happen to be a big fan of the leads.

"In The Loop" is probably really funny - but seeing as I don't know the in's and out's of politics, I didn't appreciate it or get it like I probably should have. Also, I normally can stomach verbal vulgarities, but some of it was pointlessly strong in this one. A rental for the curious is recommended.

"Gentleman Broncos" had one of my favorite trailers of the year (surveillance doe's!), but was an unfathomably bad movie. Jemaine Clement was great, but the rest of this movie was as terrible as anything I've seen in a long time. Reliance on vomit and genital humor seem to further diminish the fun that could have been had.

Speaking of awesome movie trailers, "Black Dynamite" was another favorite trailer. Though I am not a blaxploitation cinema devotee, the film still delivers big laughs, kung fu, and a 100 dollar suit. See the trailer on youtube and give it a rent. It's like what "Undercover Brother" tried to be, but instead of mimicking "Austin Powers," "Black Dynamite" aims to recreate the period - complete with music, film grain, and costumes. A scene about Little Richard had me in stitches.

I think I am one of only several who appreciated "Couples Retreat." 'll agree that the humor is very "meh" and Vince Vaughn's schtick is hardly fresh anymore. However, it was great to see a film where the couples represented a stage nearly all people in committed relationships can identify with. Worth discussing, but an overall missed opportunity.

I have now seen "A Serious Man" 3 times. Like the Coens previous work "No Country For Old Men," this is a movie that just keeps on giving. Repeated viewings have illuminated various themes and meanings, while leaving all of the wit and irony in its place. A most recommended film, but be prepared to talk about it afterwards.

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a great rental, but had it been directed by anyone else I doubt I would have cared. Wes Andersons stop motion world is indeed fun to take part in, and his OCD camerawork is given that much more control. However, the humor felt misguided. Putting The Rolling Stones in this type of a movie feels like it's trying. It's possibly my least favorite film of his, but hardly bad. Speaking of Wes Anderson, here's my Wes ratings from favorite to least - Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, The Darjeeling Limited, The Life Aquatic, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

On the TV end of things, "Mad Men" is the television show that just keeps on giving. If you haven't seen it, give it a go. Great writing, great characters, and great visual detail create a world I can't help but be curious with.

Also, "Modern Family" is growing on me immensely, but the comparisons to "Arrested Development" are not even close. You see, "Arrested Development" is the greatest show in the history of mankind. There is no show in memory (and I'm thinking of Seinfeld too) that has tighter writing, consistent energy, and brilliant characters (I stress that I rarely use the word "brilliant" to describe something).

Speaking of funny, Am I the only one who is thankful that "Flight of the Conchords" stopped? Season 2 was hardly the amazingness that was season 1. I am glad they knew when to say no.

Then there's the fun if (incredibly) formulaic "30 Rock." It's enjoyable enough this season with plenty of laughs, but something about the proceedings feels too easy. Maybe its the fact that most of the jokes rely on a 3 step system, where one of the 3 stated things is going to obviously be ridiculous. And, for someone like Tina Fey who appears to have a disdain for Family Guy, it seems odd to continue the stream of cutaways that "Family Guy" practically invented...

Speaking of the Griffin family, I have come to realize that "Family Guy" is the equivalent of junk food - a guilty pleasure that is hardly satisfying, usually indulged in as a result of cravings, and is often gross. Yet...I still consume.

I hear that the Criterion Collection is going to be releasing "The Darjeeling Limited" and "The Thin Red Line" on bluray, which gets me excited. Any chance we could pursuade them to take it further and give us Malick's first film "Badlands" and Swedish filmmaker Lukas Moodyson's "Lilja 4-Ever"?

What have you seen lately?

"Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire"

Fantasy is a powerful tool that brings us out of our reality and into a place of maximum control, typically to ultimate gratification. Our fantasies are the controllable wishes that directly contrast the out of control aspects of our lives. Fantasy often happens in places of pain or boredom. Fantasy serves as a coping mechanism to pain, whereas in boredom it often reveals our hearts by illuminating our desires and wishes. Fantasy is unplanned, which is why it typically happens in the moment of the stressors themselves.

When do you find yourself fantasizing most often? What do you fantasize about? For those of us struggling to make ends meet, perhaps it is fantasizing about what we imagine as an affluent lifestyle. For the timid, fantasy may be about walking into a bosses office, parent’s home, or other authority figures presence and displaying boldness. For Clarice “Precious” Jones, she fantasizes about being adored.

“Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire” is the story of an African American woman in New York named Precious (played perfectly by newcomer Gabourey Sidibe) who is the victim and survivor of countless abuses. The film begins with a set up of Precious environment – her home, dominated by a monster of a Mother (played by Oscar winner MoNique, who more than deserved her awards), her school, and her neighborhood. We then see in painful detail all manner of abuses including emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse – including incest and rape. However, an opportunity comes into Precious life that she bravely follows through on, carrying the rest of the story forward.

The direction and style of the film really took me by surprise. I was not expecting the editing, direction, and music to be so effective. Jump cuts, exits from reality to fantasy back to reality again, and music all richly texture the film. Acting is uniformly great – Real life experience with some form of abuse on the part of the filmmakers impact what we see. The performances truly authenticate the story. If the actors were directed poorly and overacted, played too flat, or were otherwise unbelievable, it would have sunk the film. The movie was obviously created with passion.

But why sit through a film where abuse of any kind is portrayed in any manner? That’s a question only you can decide for yourself (and be warned, this is a tough film to sit through), but the film attempts to give a hopeful climax in the midst of utter hopelessness. Precious is not merely likable, so much as she is so lovable. Perhaps it is the message that in spite of any experience you have been through, you have the choice to rise above it. Is healing possible after experiencing such monumental pain? If so, where is this healing?

It would be a mistake to assume that this film is about poor minorities (especially African Americans) or is a “black” movie. It would be a mistake to assume that “those people” portrayed in the film are the ones who have this sort of universal life for themselves – the poor, the ethnic group you only spend time with through television, or the teenage Mothers. It is a movie I believe that anyone can relate to because abuse is not defined by ethnicity or socio-economic status. Most of all, we can relate to this film because at its core, it is about love. Precious wants, needs, and deserves love. Love of, from and for herself.

“Precious…” came out around the same time as “The Blind Side” and they share two powerful themes – that love and education are forces of healing that are not equaled. Education is enablement, love is empowerment. In addition, each film challenges viewers about the personal human story. When we encounter people, we don’t know where they have been or what role we will play in their story. Just as importantly, we don’t know what role others will play in our story. I am grateful to be moved and reminded of such truthful things after seeing “Precious.”

Green Zone

Someone just tried to make Call of Duty: The Movie

In “Green Zone,” Matt Damon plays a soldier in a specialized unit trying to uncover the whereabouts of WMD’s in Iraq. However, all of his intel is coming up fruitless, much to his frustration. Before you can say Sarah Palin, Damon goes rogue. He then spends the rest of the film hunting down the whereabouts of WMD’s, being confronted by nosy reporters, encountering the locals, fighting soldiers, and dealing with opposing political forces within the American and Iraqi camps.

Yawn.

On paper, “Green Zone” does have ingredients to make something good. Paul Greengrass directed two Bourne films and made a legitimate masterpiece with “United 93.” Matt Damon can show his talent, and Amy Ryan was Oscar nominated for “Gone Baby Gone.” Brendan Gleeson was honest and balanced in the offensively fun “In Bruges.” Greg Kinnear is also capable of delivering good performances as well. Yet, everyone seems to be going through the motions, making a film without much passion.

For a modern warfare movie, “Green Zone” feels awfully boring due to just how familiar and stale the proceedings feel. While there are a couple of legitimate action sequences, they rarely rouse or maintain tension. Problematically, the reuniting of Greengrass and Damon swiftly recalls images of Jason Bourne, while the shaky cam cinematography plus grainy appearance make it look and feel like a half baked Bourne sequel. There is even a close quarter’s combat scene much like the book-fu fight in the Bourne films. It takes away from much of the uniqueness that the film may have tried for and undercuts any message about the conflict that may have been intended.

What “Green Zone” did do was narrate much of the cultures current view of the conflict in Iraq. We were sent for good reason, got betrayed, feel misled and lied to, and now are endlessly cynical about what Government tells us. We question why we are there, what the purpose is, and while attempting to unite a divided Iraq have become divided ourselves. When the end of the film finally rolls up, the “message” is hardly revolutionary. What you expect to happen probably will happen.

This is not to say that “Green Zone” is a bad film, so much as it is a tired film. It’s competent, but merely so. The acting, cinematography, and action feel recycled and borrowed from better movies. If you’re itching for some war or action, check the Netflix selection instead.

The Hurt Locker

Addiction is a powerful force that drives those caught in its grasp to do illogical, selfish, and moronic things. In search of the next high, addicts stop at nothing. The drive and compulsion consumes and manipulates the physical body, the critical mind, and the sensitive heart. What once was too potent is not enough. Addiction can take the form of sex, drugs, alcohol, and as “The Hurt Locker” points out – adrenaline.

“The Hurt Locker” is about a group of soldiers in Iraq whose daily job is to dismantle roadside bombs. In the film, we watch them deal with their last 38 days of active duty. The three men each have unique characterizations. Sgt. Sanborn is a solid, level headed thinker who appears to be a fearless soldier with his wits about him. Spc. Eldridge is more timid, appearing to be aware of the possibility of death at every corner. Then there is Sgt. James. Sgt. James is an adrenaline addict.

After an incredible opening sequence, director Katheryn Bigelow sets the tone and makes some ground rules. First – no one is safe. Second – everything is game. As a result of the first sequence, it is anyone’s guess as to what will happen next. Since the stars of the film are not typical A-listers (which is smart casting for this film), I developed a different attachment to the events on screen.

Bigelow uses every object on screen to create tension. I found myself looking at objects and movements on screen guessing what role they might play in the film’s events. Is the phone just a phone? What about the videocamera, or the seemingly desperate man and his claims in the city square? As a result of the tools at Bigelow’s hands, everything has the possibility to create tension. She mostly succeeds in creating the tension in nearly every frame.

However, the film began to fall a little bit flat to me due to its logic. I began questioning how Sgt. James got away with so much broken protocol. Surely, in a film about soldiers and war, this man – who is supposedly a brother with his fellow soldiers – wouldn’t act so recklessly putting them in harms way, right? And wouldn’t his commanding officer reprimand him instead of praise him for some of his decisions? Or what about the stupidity of staying in place when the person occupying it before you was killed there by gunfire? It just doesn’t make sense.

But after thinking more about the film, it became clear that “The Hurt Locker” is as much about the psychology of an addict as it is about the psychology of the US armed forces. Dismantling bombs plays out like getting more and more intense hits off of a drug – each man is playing with something that could destroy them in a heartbeat. Too much exposure or too many risky decisions, and death is certain. The parallels to substance abuse are everywhere.

But simply dismantling bombs is not enough of an adrenaline high and things get riskier as the film moves on. It becomes clear that Sgt. James is not dismantling bombs in service of his country. He is doing it in service of himself. Each successive bomb situation is approached with greater degrees of intensity, increasing the amount of adrenaline pulsing through Sgt. James veins. To say much more would be spoiling a lot, but the things Sgt. James does becomes increasingly riskier. He goes to get his high at the risk of not only his life, but the lives of his fellow soldiers. He is out of control. It is not about following protocol, it is about getting fueled and high on adrenaline. With this view, my thoughts about the “The Hurt Locker” grew more appreciative. The film is more concerned about the characters than it is about right or wrong.

On the imdb.com message boards for the film, people who allege to be soldiers or familiar with the world of the armed forces point to how unrealistic much of the film is. Should this be true, I find it disappointing that Bigelow didn’t take better care of some of the details in the film. More authenticity would have made the film stronger. However, what we are left with is a really good movie with lots of tension and energy that shows patterns and parallels of addiction.

Avatar

I just don’t understand cross species love.

I wanted to love the King Kong remake, but I couldn’t buy a romantic plot between a human female and an oversized gorilla. When Family Guy episodes focus on Brian the dog hooking up with human females, I don't laugh. It’s like asking me to believe that I could fall in love with a horse. In fact, what if someone made a full length movie of Mr. Ed where the plot hinged on Ed’s burning desire for his keeper’s wife?

Talk about forbidden love…

In “Avatar,” James Cameron’s sci-fi special effects opus, a marine who is lacking the use of his legs gets hooked up through sci-fi machinery to become a Na-Vi (as in “native” – a blue alien creature that is an obvious reference to Native Americans). He becomes them to learn about and ultimately exploit them. That’s because their home sits amongst a highly valuable energy source on their planet called Pandora. Things get all twisty though when our hero falls in love with the people, ways, and an individual of the Na-Vi.

No mention of “Avatar” is complete without talking about the amazing technology the movie employs. “Avatar” is visually dazzling and it makes a good case for 3D films. It looks (mostly) stunning with bizarre winged creatures, insects, and horses. The rainforest type setting with light up flooring a la Billie Jean is lush and imaginative – we believe it could actually exist but recognize it as alien all the same. In addition, the human’s technology and aircraft all look inspired but somehow familiar. Cameron’s Pandoran world is grounded in enough reality that it never feels so far away.

But as good as “Avatar” looks, we’ve seen it before. If “Avatar” were a book, you probably would be bored. This is a tired story, filled with obvious allegories and unintentionally humorous stereotypes. The American’s (though I don’t recall nationality ever being mentioned – it’s an organization run by a corrupt company) march in to get a much needed but costly energy supply. The company has no qualms marching in and destroying a civilization with their own customs and ideals to get this energy source. The company tries to reason with the Na-Vi but they can’t do it and get exactly what they want. So, when one tribe/culture/person won’t work with your country, what else to do but use lots of firepower and brand them terrorists! (The line “we’ll fight terrorism with terrorism” even makes an appearance from a crazy white guy drunk on the mission). It felt too obvious and silly.

While the story is ultimately uninteresting, it is obvious that James Cameron is a gifted director when it comes to action. The climactic ending sequence is riveting, even though it is fairly obvious about how the movie will end. The scenes are shot coherently and cleanly, and we never have to wonder just what is going on (there are even multiple “300” type slow-mo sequences that probably made Zac Snyder blush). I also feel the need to mention that James Cameron likes blowing up large objects. Cameron goes titanic on a massive tree delivering similarly spectacular results and devastation.

Spirituality is also a big component of the film. Like the believability of Cameron’s visual world where things look like ours but aren’t the same, the spiritual connection he strives for is Pandoran but it borrows from a lot of animism. The trees, animals and flowers all seem to have souls and spirits. It is perplexing to me that people find a spirit inside nature but somehow are closed off to the idea that nature points to its actual Creator. Granted, the people and world of “Avatar” are made up, but we are kidding ourselves if we don’t recognize that all creative endeavors inherently express some type of worldview.

It would be unfair to say that “Avatar” is like a beautiful woman with no brains, because “Avatar is not a garbage film. “Avatar” is just an average film. No amount of visual pop and creative 3D can overcome how tired the story felt. How could I be held in suspense if the ending was in plain sight before it happened? How am I supposed to care about the characters if they feel like stereotypes that have little depth? And seriously, do you really expect me to buy into a love story between an alien and a human (complete with a brief sex scene)? Sci-fi and fantasy enthusiasts may get more out of the experience than I did, but once was enough for me.

Christopher's top 11 Favorite Films of the Decade

Any perusal of the internet will reveal a fascination in top 10 lists. As many others have, here are my top 11 films of the decade. There are some honorable mentions that didn’t make the cut like About A Boy, No Country for Old Men, Amelie, Children of Men, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and There Will Be Blood. There are also films I have yet to discover – like The Hurt Locker, Moon, and so many foreign and independent films I didn’t make the time to see.

For the last decade, movies grew from being an engaging curiosity, to hobby, to full blown love which I have attempted to integrate in my professional life. In the past 10 years I learned about people like Federico Fellini, Martin Scorsese, Sergio Leone, Terrence Malick, and Jean Pierre Melville. I found the Criterion Collection, which gave me an excellent entry point into the world of movies that demand thought, introspection, and conversation. Movies have flowed from entertainment vehicles, to pretentious art house snob lingo, to simple joys I love sharing with others.

This list will be called “Christopher’s 11 Favorite Films of the Past Decade.” The key word is “favorite.” These are all films that left a mark on me and ones I have in the past, and currently do recommend anyone to see.

Punch Drunk Love (2002)

“I have a love in my life. It makes me stronger than anything you can imagine.” – Barry Egan

While the films are in no particular order in terms of favorites, “Punch Drunk Love” is undoubtedly my favorite of the decade, perhaps even of all time. “Punch Drunk Love” is the film I associate most with my wife. It hit me in ways no other film has – I found Adam Sandler to be relatable in a curious way with his awkwardness, yet tunnel vision determination. The feelings communicated in the movie – protection, aggravation, romance, anger/violence, and confusion – are all feelings I experienced to various intensities when I fell in love with my wife.

I am also one of the 7 people in the world who owns the soundtrack. I mean, how many of us would go out and buy such an ethereal, bizarre set of sound and play it on a regular basis? Well, I did – and Jon Brion’s remix of “He Needs Me” hooks into my skin like few other songs. The whole experience of “Punch Drunk Love” is uncomfortable, surreal, bizarre, unsettling, and yet completely aware. When I first fell in love with Colleen, I knew very shortly that she would always be the love of my life. I can’t explain that kind of love. No other film communicates falling in love in quite the same way, and it will take a filmmaker with acute awareness to pull it off again.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

“Have you ever fired 2 guns whilst flying through the air?” - Danny Butterman.

I have seen no movie which has entertained me more in the past decade than “Hot Fuzz.” The actors look as though they are having fun, the story is fun (if surprisingly suspenseful and gory), and the pay off at the end is among my favorites ever. If you get bored at all during the film’s excessive running time, hang in there for the (literally) explosive ending.

I tried “Shaun of the Dead” before “Hot Fuzz” but hadn’t seen the zombie movies it lovingly points to. I hadn’t seen the movies “Hot Fuzz” points to either, but the film does it for you. There are scenes from Bad Boys 2, Point Break, and other absurd action flicks interjected throughout the film to humorous effect. It’s the perfect homage that manages to also make light of its referenced materials. It is also the most entertaining movie I have seen over the last 10 years.

American Splendor (2003)

“You might as well know right off the bat, I had a vasectomy.” – Harvey Pekar

No film wowed me with originality in the way “American Splendor” did. “American Splendor” is the true life story of a man who uses comic books as a means of coping with his bizarre life. This includes a world filled with illness, love, attachment, and above all – a bitter soul. Or perhaps brittle soul is more like it. The main character is played in perfect pitch and tone by Paul Giammatti, an incredibly gifted actor when he wants to be.

But the originality in of the film is in its blending of mediums. “American Splendor” combines documentary, animation, and drama to drive the narrative. The story couldn’t be told nearly as well with a traditional structure, as each of the typically alienated storytelling mediums intertwine just where they need to. The movie is emotionally affecting, especially the final scenes and even though we are in Harvey’s bitterness, there is something loveable about Harvey and his world. Ordinary life is indeed pretty complex stuff.

The Station Agent (2003)

“Would you do me a favor and not look at me right now?” Olivia Harris

Community is a topic I am endlessly fascinated with. How do we connect with others? What does it take to be vulnerable about pain and suffering? Who do we laugh and play with? “The Station Agent” is a lovely movie with great humor to go with its more painful moments. A dwarf wants to get away from the attention he is getting from the world and so he moves into an old train station his former boss left for him. He ends up being swallowed up in relationship by a talkative Cuban man and a grieving white woman.

What follows is simple and affecting as the three talk about their lives and spend time with one another. It’s the soul of the film that works. It’s a perfect mixture of genuine acting, great writing, and meaningful story. It’s the stereotypical “gem” of a film that is simple, yet difficult to pinpoint. It also happens to be a must see.

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

Sally: “We came over to sit.”
Hazel: “That's what people do when tragedy strikes.”
Sally: “They come over, and sit.”

The first time I saw “Lars and the Real Girl” I was disappointed. I was expecting a “quirky” comedy. But future viewings revealed that “Lars” is no ordinary film. It is honest, and it perhaps the most perceptive film I have ever seen about attachment and relationships. To add praise, the therapy scenes are written better than any I have ever seen in a film. Not to mention just how sweet and loving this film is.

“Lars” gives a mythical, unreal picture of community and love, alluded to in its first lines spoken in a scene at church. People all over the film show how they project much like Lars into their own dolls, stuffed animals, and action figures. It equates Lars as a person with everyone else, rather than making him some kind of outcast. It poses a question I hope I am always asking myself – what would it take to love someone right where they are at without agenda?

Brick (2005)

“Throw one at me if you want, hash head. I've got all five senses and I slept last night, that puts me six up on the lot of you.” – Brendan Frye

Watching “Brick” in the theater was a rediscovering of why I love movies. It was original, intense, and strangely believable in spite of its otherworldliness. If Stanwyck and MacMurray were teens, they may have been cast. But here we get the kid from “3^rd Rock From the Sun.” However, Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the few actors whom I have gone out to see other films as a result of his performance here.

The real story is first time feature director Rian Johnson whose screenplay is a rewatchable masterpiece that takes several viewings for people like me to appreciate. For the uninitiated, imagine if the classic 50’s film noir was updated in Orange County with only the dialogue intact, but the scenery is modern day. It’s kind of how I might describe “Brick,” a brilliant mystery that keeps on giving over and over again.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

“Nobody tosses a dwarf.” - Gimli

“Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” took me somewhere I had never been before. It is possibly the only film I could endure at 3 hours for midnight showings in the theater. It is amazing. The characters are dealing with life and death, love and fate, and they are doing this on an epic adventure. I was so taken in by the story and scenery that it was impossible for the 2^nd and 3^rd installments to top the first dip into the Middle Earth.

So much has already been written about these films, so I’ll just say this: If you haven’t seen “The Lord of the Rings” yet, you are a fool.

Waltz With Bashir (2008)

“Pray and shoot!” – Ari Folman

“Waltz With Bashir” is a devastating reframe of war, soldiers, and healing. Ari Folman created an artistic masterpiece – an animated documentary which details his experience in an Israeli conflict, that I admittedly don’t understand. And that’s okay, because while the history of the conflict is not something I am intimately aware of, Folman’s story is about how he experienced, forgot, and remembered war. It is his story, not a chronicle of the war itself.

How does one animate a documentary? Folman did it by interviewing subjects from his past, trimming their statements into a screenplay, and then he had each person (with exception of a couple who refused) re-speak their lines into a microphone. Once they recorded their lines, the animation told the story. The movie works as a surreal journey into war by confused soldiers who aren’t the machismo brotherhood so often emphasized in American war films. Yet, it is the films jaw dropping finale that left me crying and so struck with emotion. It is a sequence that will forever be in my memory. It will affect you too.

Lilja 4-Ever (2002)

“I'm not your property. Think you can buy me? You can't buy me. You can't buy my heart and soul.” – Lilja

Didn’t see “Lilja 4-Ever” in the theaters? That’s because you can only rent it through Netflix. Unlike “Trade,” another attempt at making a film about the horrors of human trafficking, “Lilja 4-Ever” has a certain X factor. It will scar you. It is like a horror film where the main character is trapped or being chased, except Lilja’s horror – being smuggled into human trafficking against her will due to poverty and desperation – is very much real for thousands of people.

I saw the film in a Pepperdine University auditorium for a school event. Students later told me they were scarred for life. I am too. But human trafficking should scar us. We need to be frightened, reminded, and scarred by these stories because they are true and real. Of course, this wouldn’t be effective if the story wasn’t told so damned well. We are trapped with Lilja, and the eye covering point of view shots from Lilja are among the most disturbingly effective any film has ever created.

Monsters Inc. (2001)

“Mike Waszowski!” – Boo

It’s hard to know which Pixar film to select because all of them are amazing movies (“Cars” being the exception). They aren’t amazing animated movies, so much as they are simply amazing movies. “Animated movie” has a certain negative connotation to it perhaps due to the association of “kid’s movie” and “animation.” But Pixar is different – each of their films has something so uniquely special – “The Incredibles” as metaphor for family system, “Up” and its out of nowhere opening, or “Ratatouille” and its metaphor for Disney and quality storytelling.

Yet of all their films, “Monsters Inc” is perhaps my favorite story. The reason is because of “Boo.” She is adorable, and animated so convincingly in her mannerisms (not to mention the utterly perfect voice acting). It may not be the most beloved in Pixar’s suite of films, but it is certainly my favorite.

The Fall (2006)

“Are you trying to save my soul?” – Roy Walker

No film wowed me in recent memory as much as “The Fall” did. Every scene is a freezable piece of art that is filled with overwhelming visual power and beauty. The film was filmed in many countries over several years by its director and it makes no use of CGI. When I saw the film and what its director Tarsem Singh created, I couldn’t help but be sucked in visually and aurally.

It’s a pretty amazing story as well. Think of it as a clever “The Princess Bride” with a Getty Museum flair. If you have a bluray player, don’t see it any other way…unless of course that way is in the theater. An absolute must see.