The Dig

What Jesse said:

Yeah and I also want you to watch The Dig.

Go

Mike’s verdict:

The Dig is not exciting. It’s not suspenseful or mysterious; there are no larger than life personalities and the plot is very straightforward. But it is quietly, unexpectedly, dramatic. The film leans into the understated performances of Carey Mulligan and Ralph Fiennes, allowing it to firmly capture and hold attention – without actually needing to demand anything.

The story is told with a plain, but delicate, simplicity that carries the audience gently along with characters who – despite being set nearly a century ago in what might as well be a another universe – are entirely relatable today. There is a tender grip that you don’t notice until then end when it gracefully lets you go.  Indeed, it was only during the epilogue that I realized I had spent nearly two hours with a shallow anxiety, waiting for the disaster that was surely going to disrupt the story I was enjoying.

But there is no disaster.

There is just life, seen from the perspective of two people who have been brought together by a shared passion for how the past reaches into their present.

There are, of course, trials and frustrations – but they are reasonable. Problems are only as big as they need to be – nothing is embellished for the sake of entertainment. Aside from a strangely tangential love triangle that briefly distracts somewhat from the real narrative, the film does very well to avoid introducing tensions where they are unnecessary.

Mulligan and Fiennes have a solid chemistry that is allowed to fill the scenes they share but it is never exploited. Their connection exists, it’s overwhelming, and it’s unacknowledged.

And in the end you find out that the story is a dramatic telling of actual history – the past reaching into our present.

Jesse really under-sold this one.

9.5/10

The Truman Show

What Sarah said:

I don’t like this movie but I think there are themes revolving around determinism that would spark an interesting discussion that we could spend many hours on the balcony with several beers discussing.

Mike’s verdict:

Sarah was right, in so far as this film was able to spark discussion. Unfortunately, the steady decline into winter greatly hampered the hours available for sitting on the balcony – though thankfully not the availability of beer.

She was also right that the discussion, at least initially, revolved around determinism. I went into The Truman Show knowing the basic premise – a man, living in a completely isolated world, is unaware that his entire existence is controlled for the sake of others’ entertainment – so it was not a far leap to the question of free will. However, I quickly found myself drawn away from my favourite (and, quite frankly, the correct) way of explaining the universe. Determinism isn’t the concern here. Truman has no less of a free will than you do.

Superficially, it appears as if Truman’s life is being inordinately controlled; everything he does is guided by the unseen force of the program producers solely for the benefit of others. As observers from the outside we are aware of the cameras, and the actors, and the container. We recognize that Truman is being manipulated; that everyone involved in his tiny universe wants, first and foremost, to keep the illusion alive, and secondly, to provide an entertaining program for the viewers. And of course his life is entirely devoid of privacy – everything he does is known, to everyone.

Yet Truman still has as much free will as you or I. His innate ability to make decisions, to choose his responses to life situations, is no different than that of the audience. Without question, the options available to him in most situations are severely limited and, worse, he is completely unaware of those limitations. But in terms of his actual ability to make decisions, he is no more suppressed than anyone else on Earth.  In fact, within the cinematic universe The Truman Show only works as entertainment because he has free will. His personal agency is a necessary condition for the audience to enjoy watching him.

If we take a step back (okay, maybe take two or three steps back) to look at ‘real’ life side-by-side with Truman’s mini-world, the differences are really only a matter of scale: Truman was raised to believe that there was no need to leave the town he’d always lived in; that his life would be comfortable and fulfilling there; that ‘other’ places would be unnecessarily dangerous or just generally not as nice to live in.  Millions of people around the world have lived, and will continue to live, with exactly this belief. 

Truman’s world had strangers going about their own lives, briefly interacting with him in seemingly arbitrary but not inconsequential ways. It also included people with whom he developed relationships, directly affecting the decisions he made.  In real life, we have these same influences – the woman who cuts you off in the store parking lot, the man your mother insists you go on a date with. 

Truman had his decision-making ability limited by outside forces, guiding him to move about his world in ways that were not necessarily of benefit to himself, but of benefit to the larger system in which he existed.  We all stop at stop signs, we all wait patiently in queues, and we all exchange our labour for easily accountable and pocketable credits. 

We have all had our decision-making ability suppressed for the benefit of a larger system. Most of us call that system “society” and we like to think our participation is voluntary; that it comes from a conscious decision to enter into the “social contract”.  But this is a convenient lie.  In truth, individuals do not choose to enter the contract; there is no “opt out” clause for society.  Vast systems of progress that have been developing for thousands of years narrowly focus the effective influence we have over our own lives, while paradoxically ensuring that we have a certain amount of influence over the lives of others.

To be fair, individuals in a society derive some benefits in return – usually in the form of security for the necessities of life.  But Truman also receives these benefits; it is crucial for the show producers to ensure that he remains healthy.  And just like Truman the amount of effective influence we retain as part of the social contract is minimal, especially compared to what we are required to give up. (Whether or not the control we relinquish is truly worth the security we receive in exchange is a question for another time.)

The point of this film is not to make the viewer imagine how they would feel if it turned out that their whole life were controlled for the benefit of others.  It is, in fact, to highlight that all our lives are controlled for the benefit of others.  For Truman, the control is very focused – he has everyone’s attention.  In our ‘real’ world, control is instead spread across a boundless system of individuals who are mostly unable or unwilling to work together. We’re manipulated just like Truman, the difference is that there is no single puppet master – for us, it is the death of agency by a thousand influencers. 

But the most important aspect of our situation is that the manipulations we suffer are universal. The conditions of the social contract are meant to affect everyone more or less equally. We can blissfully ignore our society of micro-manipulations because they don’t single anyone out.  That is not the case for Truman.  What really, truly upsets us about The Truman Show is not the question of free will, nor even the question of privacy – it is the terrifying notion of being the only one who isn’t in on the joke. Truman’s life is just as mundane as yours; it wouldn’t be worth watching if he consented to being watched. The audience is entertained because he doesn’t know that he is entertainment.  He is being treated differently. 

We all want to be recognized as special. We do not want to be treated as different. 

There’s an interesting sub-theme that I found to be fairly subtle and is never directly address by the film itself, but could make for a whole other line of discussion: the audience… do they have free will?  Do the individuals who are drawn obsessively to spend every minute watching Truman go about his mundane tasks actually have any of their own personal agency?  Truman lived in an idyllic ocean-side town with friends and neighbours. He lived decades of this life with relative contentment; only questioning his existence when the mechanisms of the illusion began to fail.  On the other hand, his audience is comprised of individuals who are clearly so engrossed in Truman’s life that they neglect their own. They are so enveloped by obsession that they cannot bear to be away from their view screens. Whose agency is really being suppress by The Truman Show?  Is it the man who has been given an overwhelmingly ideal life, or the mindless hordes who cannot bear to miss any of it?

8/10

The Runaways

What Sarah said:

You should watch The Runaways for the feel, look and sound of punk in the ’70s. It’s a biopic with a bit of a coming of age feel, and focuses on the relationship between singer Cherie Currie and guitarist/vocalist Joan Jett during the creation of the all girl punk band The Runaways.

Mike’s verdict:

I wasn’t very familiar with The Runaways before watching this film.  I was definitely aware of Cherry Bomb in the same half-remembered way that I know a lot of songs from the 1900s.  For those who don’t remember, back in the day exposure to music was primarily through radio – a medium that made identifying artists and song titles a bit of a crap-shoot. You had to be lucky, or really interested, to hear the song and the DJ announce it’s details. It probably doesn’t help that I also would have been paying attention about 25 years after the band was actually in rotation. Either way, as it turns out I am familiar with a few of the their songs – I just didn’t realize they were connected.

Of course, I’m a lot more familiar with Joan Jett’s music. I’m sure that has a lot to do with the fact that her career continued long after The Runaways‘, and it doesn’t hurt that she stamped her name on her next band…

In any case, I have no real emotional attachment to the music that might skew how I feel about the film.  Still, I did have some expectations about how it would go.  Dirty clubs, unseemly characters, angry girls, drugs, tour bus foolishness, at least one slimy band manager, and obviously punk rock music.  And in a lot of ways, that does sum-up the basic plot of the film.

But as much as the film is superficially about the band’s development, it actually does have a lot more to say about the relationship between Jett and Currie.  At least it implies there is a lot to say about their relationship. In fact, it sort of implies a lot about a lot. Somehow I get the feeling that a true director’s cut would be a Scorsese-length epic.  Time passes almost too quickly, even for the whirlwind pace of the music industry, and a number of scenes felt like there was supposed to be more.  Hannah Marks‘s Tammy, for instance, is left as an awkward side character but could very easily have been used as a proper dramatic device.  I also believe that some issues that were skipped over entirely would have been addressed directly if this film had been made in 2020 rather than 2010.

Even so, I did enjoy the feel of the film. I don’t have any memories to rely on, but the depiction of 1975-76 feels faithful.  The locations, the clothes, the sounds; all work very well. And say what you want about Bella Swan, but Kristen Stewart was an entirely believable Joan Jett. Dakota Fanning was also quite believable – almost too believable considering she would have been roughly the same age as the character she was depicting.

All of that to say, The Runaways is a good film and I enjoyed watching it.  However, there is another aspect that should not be overlooked: namely, the fact that it has provided an excuse to get (re)acquainted with the band members and where there lives have gone since the band disintegrated.

There isn’t too much surprising to say about Jett. She’s in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Currie continued her music career (despite what the film suggests) with a certain amount of success, particularly once she started performing with her sister.  She also stared in a number of films, including Foxes with Jodie Foster.  But most interestingly, she is now a chainsaw carving artist – she even has a very GeoCities-esque website that showcases her art! Yup, chainsaw art.

Sandy West, the drummer and only member other than Jett to remain with the band for their entire run, died in 2006 at the young age of 47… from lung cancer brought on by a lifetime of very punk-rock smoking.

Micki Steele, one of only three original members (with Jett and West), left the band before they were even picked up by Mercury Records. But in the ’80s she changed directions entirely, joining The Bangles!

Lita Ford had a fairly unremarkable solo career, but she did record a duet with Ozzy Osbourne.

Finally, Jackie Fox, who at 15 turned down early acceptance to study math at UCLA in order the join the band, went on to study linguistics and get a law degree from Harvard after she left the band. In addition to working as an attorney now, she also spends her time on game shows like Jeopardy!.  And most interestingly, she is the only member of the band who refused to give her permission to be depicted in the film. The producers had to invent the fictitious bass player Robin, played by Alia Shawkat.

Sometimes it’s really worth looking passed the film.

8/10

The Discovery

Note: Today we have another special guest recommendation!  I have a backlog of recommendations from Jesse but they’re all too hard to find right now and this one is readily available.

What Sam said:

Mike, you should watch The Discovery and let me know what you think. I value your opinion and think that you would thoroughly enjoy it. Kidding, I don’t really value your opinion but I really want to talk about it with someone and you are the only person I know with a movie blog. GFY!

Mike’s verdict:

At the heart of The Discovery is a fascinating thought experiment.  How would you react to knowing that there is an afterlife? Would it change how you live this life?  Now imagine you were told that a soul / spirit / consciousness / whatever left the body immediately after death, but with no indication of where it went.  Would not knowing the destination change how you felt?  How about if you were told that one scientist had evidence of something empirically measurable leaving the body immediately after death, but with no idea what that something is (maybe it’s not a consciousness at all) and with no idea where that something might go?

The latter scenario is where this film begins – science has reported something measurable leaving the body and society has, as it does, filled in all the unknowns with assumptions.  The most immediate result of this is that a not insignificant number of people across the world kill themselves under the assumption, or at least expectation, that there is another plane of existence and – crucially – that it is better.

There is a lot to consider in this thought experiment.  To start with, there is the obvious problem of determining what biological or physical occurrences would be convincing as evidence of a consciousness that can exist separate from the body.  Then of course there is the problem of figuring out where that consciousness actually goes. Interesting questions for sure, but these are in fact not the point of the film.  While the science considerations are distracting (they definitely distracted me at first), the real point of this film is to explore how science fits into society at the crossroads of the empirical colliding with the spiritual.

It’s typically accepted that religion won’t give concrete evidence for its assertions – indeed many would argue that faith without evidence is the point of faith.  This of course is almost anathema to science, which has at its core tenant that assertions must be verifiable and reproducible.  And yet, a case could be made (as I think it is being made in this film) that society doesn’t necessarily hold science to its own standard. The exploitation of scientific reporting by news media looking for anything sensational to sell advertisements is undoubtedly a concerning trend, but this is only possible because society is just as inclined to accept the word of science as it is the word of spiritual leaders – and just as likely to get these words very confused.

The Discovery isn’t about the idea of an afterlife, it’s an indictment of a society that is willing to take on faith (whether spiritually or scientifically) the notion of something beyond. The implication is that people want so badly to find something better, that they are willing to accept anything that will help substantiate their hope. Belief in an afterlife is a potent example to make that point, but it can just as easily be applied to any issue that science and religion makes claims about – so, everything really.  And in making this case, the film highlights the hypocrisy of expecting science to take responsibility for not having all the answers, while allowing religion to actually rely on not having all the answers.

Unfortunately, the narrative gets a little off track nearing the end as it attempts to actually make some sense of the science that it invents.  I would have preferred a more ambiguous ending so that the main questions could stick with the audience rather than allowing everything to be confused by complicated alternate realities.

Beyond the main focus, I liked most other aspects of the film. Robert Redford was fairly convincing as the (initially) socially clueless scientist and Jason Segel was equally believable as the reluctant skeptic; though at times I felt like I was watching the same character he played in Jeff Who Lives at Home. Rooney Mara was an interesting choice for a role that is almost-but-not-quite the manic pixie dream girl.  Her character has substance, but in the end she exists (rather literally) to explain Segel’s protagonist, and that’s a bit disappointing.

On the concept alone I would rate this film a full 10/10. But taking into consideration the odd direction of the plot in the end, it gets knocked down to 8/10.

 

The Big Short

What Jesse said:

You need to watch The Big Short. Fantastic movie about the 2008 economic meltdown that manages to infuse just enough humour to balance the insanity of the world being on the brink of economic disaster. Christian Bale is amazing in it. Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell… awesome. My favourite scene involves an odd discussion between Carell’s character and a ‘dancer’ about real estate. So much cringe.

Mike’s verdict:

At first I couldn’t understand why Jesse cared to watch a film about banking. Sure, it’s got some notable people but it’s still about banking!  Then it all became clear – his favourite dreamy Brad is in this.  Funny how Jesse mentioned all those other notables but left out Brad Pitt again.  At least in this one Pitt’s role is fairly subdued; and he’s actually believable as the jaded banker turned rich hippy who hates the game but will play it again anyway if you just ask him. Classic Pitt.

This film is an odd format.  It starts out almost feeling like a documentary, but only partially. It flips back and forth between wanting to be a history lesson, indicting the banking industry for its lack of humanity, and a funny story about tangentially connected funny characters who have no respect for the forth wall. And it kind of works.

With such a complicated subject as the basis of the plot, there would inevitably need to be some means of clarifying exposition – and the writers decided to take the easy road: pause the movie and give the explanation.  It works, because as jarring as these moments are, they are handled brilliantly by the characters who not only break the fourth wall but also introduce unrelated cameos from celebrities being themselves.

Jesse is right about Christian Bale; his character is so believable that by the end I felt like I knew him – his awkwardness is completely authentic without being over the top. Steve Carrel’s angry jerk who just cares too much has a rocky start, but eventually becomes a highlight as well.

It’s not all good though: the narrative is choppy at times, making it hard to follow the connections as they as developed.  A number of scenes feel like they happen in the wrong order, but not in an intentional way.  And then there are the magical Jenga blocks that go from tower to pile to tower again without any help.

The discussion with the ‘dancer’ isn’t nearly as interesting as Jesse suggests.  The only cringing on my part was at how forced the scene felt – it doesn’t fit into this film at all and I suspect Jesse has other reasons for enjoying it…

About the halfway point I realized the biggest issue with this film:  I was much less interested in the story or characters than I was in trying to understand the mechanics of the financial crisis. How come all these people saw the problem, independently, years ahead of time, but nobody did anything to stop it?  How does debt become an investment? How do banks even keep their multi-level fraud schemes straight?  The social math is just fascinating.  But this movie won’t answer those questions – it feels like it will, but it won’t because it’s not a documentary. It’s entertainment.

And it is entertaining, but nonetheless disappointing because of everything that it won’t explain.

At the end, I still don’t understand the housing crisis at all; however I am now also very concerned about water.

6/10 – because it failed to live up to my unreasonable expectations.

Rudderless

What Jesse said:

I just watched a movie that literally left me speechless. It’s called Rudderless and it stars Billy Cruddup and Anton Yelchin, and was directed by William H. Macy (whom I’ve actually met while waiting for a flight in Vancouver!) I really had no idea what to expect from a movie about the fairly difficult topic of how to deal with unbearable grief following a tragic family event. But then there’s the music (I know that sounds like a non sequitur, but stay with me). Cruddup plays Sam, a man whose life takes a nosedive after losing his college-aged son Josh in a mass shooting. A while after this event, Sam starts to play music in an apparent attempt to learn more about his dead son. Overall, I thought the performances were top-notch, and the movie had some funny as well as some very powerful moments. Awesome. Watch it.

Mike’s verdict:

Finally, a decent recommendation!  It’s been ages since Jesse has recommended any movie at all, let alone one that I thought would interest me. I will admit that based on Jesse’s description I was only vaguely sold on this though.  Human strife is tedious so it takes a good deal of talent to make me think it worth spending my evening. That said, Jesse did get this one right.

On the surface, Rudderless is an engaging and clever look at a side of violence that is rarely considered in film, as the plot follows characters that are normally tangential in stories about mass shootings. This film doesn’t look at the classic victims of violence, nor the classic perpetrators of violence. Instead, it circles those who are affected indirectly. But in a way, even the over-arching plot is itself actually tangential to the real focus of the film/ This is more a story about a man trying to escape his life, and his rediscovery of music as a means to propel himself to fulfillment, than it is a story about a mass shooting.

To be clear, the actual plot itself is pretty light. There’s a nice twist (that you’ll almost certainly foresee if you’re paying attention) but not a whole lot really happens. The pace is good, and the characters are interesting, and that’s enough to satisfy the basics without overdoing it or taking away from the real point – which is to follow a man who reconnects with himself as he tries to reconnect with the son he never really knew.

And along the way you become immersed in a fantastic soundtrack that in some ways over-shadows the rest of the film, but is just so much fun.  You likely won’t ever hear a better rendition of The Wheels on the Bus and Kate Micucci (remember Lucy from The Big Bang Theory?) has an angry/sad open-mic ukulele performance that is perfect. Even William H. Macy (whom Jesse thinks he met in an airport but it was really a 52 year old woman wearing a big hat) is superb as the nondescript open-mic bar owner.

I like this movie – it’ll be going in the ‘keep’ pile, and I’m going to hunt down the soundtrack too.

9/10

 

These Final Hours

What Jesse said:

Got another Aussie gem fee ya. I want you to check out These Final Hours. I’ve never heard of any of these actors so I had no idea what to expect from this low-budget flick. Familiar premise but I found it a lot of fun and thought-provoking. Check it out.

Mike’s verdict:

This is the first movie in a long time that I’ve had trouble starting a review for. I’ve been thinking it over for a few days, trying to come up with something to say but I keep drawing a blank. The trouble is that this film is really quite generic. It’s not bad exactly, and it’s not totally uninteresting; but there’s nothing specifically novel about it. It’s kind of the Australian movie equivalent of Nickelback – all the right elements are technically there, but there’s no spark of life.

I’m generally a fan of the apocalypse genre when it’s done right and I don’t care much about why the world is ending, as long as there’s a good story surrounding the characters. There has to be a thin layer of anxious suspense, or consistent hilarity, that keeps me interested in the people. And of course it helps if the people have an interesting goal that takes them through increasingly unlikely settings before they arrive at the oasis they’re invariably running to.

This films lacks all of those criteria.  The main characters are mostly sympathetic (technically) but I never really felt invested in them, and the plot lacks any significant depth. I do wonder if this might be different for viewers in Australia who, presumably, would be more familiar with the actors. To me, they’re just generic dramatic action movie stand-ins who haven’t had a chance to develop a unique style of their own yet, but at least a few of them are apparently recognizable in the southern hemisphere.

I must admit that I strongly disagree with Jesse’s assessment of it being a low-budget film – at a reported $2.5 million (Australian) it’s definitely not Hollywood, but it’s not an art school project either.  The cinematography is actually quite well done; I was never distracted by it. Of course that doesn’t fix the overly familiar story line and forgettable characters.

If there is one saving grace, it’s that Jesse was mostly right about the though-provoking nature of the film.  About halfway through I came to the realization that there is a subtle undercurrent present in most apocalypse films which is brought to the forefront in this one; namely, the insinuation that, given the knowledge of certain death and sufficient time to react to it, humanity will destroy itself before the apocalypse actually happens.

For some reason, suicide, rioting and general mayhem are regularly assumed to be the most immediate reaction to news that the world will be destroyed tomorrow. While I generally take a dim view of human nature, I’m not sure that I agree with this assessment. Certainly there will be pockets of individuals who decide to kill the boss that passed them up for a promotion, and a significant spike in drunk driving accidents. I’m even willing to accept the odd suicide as well. But I don’t think that average people will be anywhere near as quick to kill their families or themselves as we’ve portrayed them to be. I think people will be so focused on finding ways to ignore the inevitable and in such a state of denial that when the end does come they will miss it.

In considering the spectrum of reactions presented in this film, I realize that film in general has done a poor job of predicting pre-apocalypse behaviour and this is one more example of that. It’s too bad too; the intention of These Final Hours is obviously to provoke discussion on this behaviour and it would have been nice if the film hadn’t presented such melodramatic examples.

Overall, this movie gets a 5/10. The film is thought-provoking in its misunderstanding of people, but not particularly interesting as a movie.

Transcendent Man

What Jesse said:

Back in my electronic music days I used some gear by a company called Kurzweil. Turns out that the guy who started that company is a fascinating (and rather sad) human being named Ray Kurzweil and there’s a documentary about him called Transcendent Man. The topics covered are quite profound and reminded me of Her starring Joaquin Phoenix. Go watch Transcendent Man. It’s one of those rare movies that manages to be uplifting and depressing all at once. I liked it a lot.

Mike’s verdict:

I’ll agree with Jesse on one point for sure: Raymond Kurzweil is a rather sad human being. Transcendent Man isn’t so much a documentary as it is a biography. It presents the story of a man who, after bearing witness to the slow and all too foreseeable death of his father, becomes terrified by his own mortality. As if that isn’t bad enough, Kurzweil is an engineer – he’s used to thinking about ways to solve problems – and (because he’s an engineer) he doesn’t realize that death is not a problem he can just engineer a solution for.

Kurzweil has spent the better part of his life looking for ways to ensure that the he lives forever. He takes somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 pills each day – basic supplements and vitamins as well as his own brand of ‘anti-aging’ chemicals. He also has his blood tested every few months to check on his progress. To be fair, at one point Kurzweil was diagnosed with Type-2 Diabetes – definitely a condition to take seriously – and he managed to reverse it. Whether or not he beat diabetes because of his daily drug routine is very much open to debate though.

Of course, Kurzweil doesn’t limit himself to the traditional remedies of medical science. He is, after all, an engineer – and he has been looking at technological advances as the next step to defying death. He’s spent decades inventing and researching in a broad range of fields and he’s witnessed first-hand the way that technology has exploded over the last 50 years. He thinks of the world he was born into, compares it with the world he lives in today and imagines the world he’ll experience in another 50 years. Kurzweil has convinced himself that, within his lifetime, technology will advance to the point that death will no longer be a concern – he just needs to live long enough to make use of the technology.

As a response to his fears, Kurzweil has prophesied a pseudo-religious utopian future where humanity and machines intertwine such that there is no way to distinguish between the two. First science will advance nano-technology to fix everything, then it will advance convergence technology to bridge the gap between mind and machine. Then we will travel the stars.

Eventually, we will be sentient machines and as we spread the universe will ‘awaken’ as a single entity.  He calls it The Singularity but there are corollaries found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Bahá’í, Buddhism, and nearly all other religions.

As it happens, Kurzweil isn’t just another crack-pot with a vision – he is actually a brilliant engineer who is responsible for, among other things, the CCD flatbed scanner and text-to-speech synthesizers. He is a director of engineering at Google.

And that’s why his story is so sad. Technology is moving at blistering speed, but it’s not going to continue fast enough to save Kurzweil. You know it, I know it, his doctors know it. And on a certain level Kurzweil knows it too. But he lives in a world that wants his delusions to be true – and is constantly recognizing him for his very real accomplishments. Everyone knows he’s crazy, yet despite his delusions he is helping people. His delusions are riding the coat-tails of his otherwise brilliant career.

I would have like to see more dissenting opinions in this film – particularly from technology experts who could speak to the validity of Kurzweil’s beliefs. The producers chose to include interviews with two people who questioned Kurzweil’s prophecy but they were clearly straw-men – one’s argument was lost in his own completing religion while the other came across as the caricatured cold, unsympathetic scientist.

Overall, the film was interesting – I hadn’t ever heard of Kurzweil before and now I know a great deal about his life. But it was slow in parts, and it became clear that the producers didn’t have a lot to work with in terms of presenting Kurzweil’s imagined future. Just as with any other religion, it’s impossible to provide real evidence to justify his utopian predictions so the producers had to rely on clips of his impassioned speeches – entertaining, but ultimately empty. What I would have liked is a documentary discussing the (im)possibilities of the technology he imagines rather than a biography of the man. I’d like to know more from biologists, chemists and other engineers.

I guess that’s a different film though.

6/10

Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship & Videotape

What Jesse said:

Another cool documentary for you. This time it’s about how in the early 80’s the powers-that-be in the UK thought that a list of about 80 mostly crappy movies referred to as The Video Nasties, was going to corrupt an entire generation of British kids. Complete with hilarious stories of UK Parliamentarians sitting around one day to watch these low-budget horror movies (some became physically ill and most couldn’t take more than a few minutes…), or how because of the confusion of not knowing which exact movies were on “the list” police officers were confiscating titles such as Apocalypse Now or other definitely non-nasty or even critically acclaimed films from the shelves of corner store video shops in England. There were video “burnings”, and some shop owners even did jail time for stocking some of these titles! Nothing like a good moral panic to get the old juices flowing…Crazy doc. Enjoy.

Mike’s verdict:

Let’s get one thing out of the way up front – I am totally, utterly and completely against censorship. I don’t believe that the state should attempt to block the expression of ideas whether they are in print, video, audio, stone tablet or the voice of the crazy guy yelling on the corner. Governments should be free to pay experts to publish information, but they should not block non-experts from publishing as well. That’s not to say that I think most people have valid opinions. They don’t. And I certainly don’t care to actually listen to most people’s opinions. I’m also not under the delusion that everyone has some inherent ‘right’ to be heard, and I don’t think that spilling blue paint on a sidewalk constitutes ‘art’.  What I do believe is that everyone has a responsibility to ignore the opinions they find disagreeable. Don’t like that TV show? – change the channel. Don’t like what’s on the radio? – learn to play the guitar. Don’t want to see naked people killed by chainsaw-wielding maniacs? – don’t rent the video. Don’t want your children to see naked people killed by chainsaw-wielding maniacs? – don’t let them rent the video either. I’d like to live in a world where people think of their interactions with others as governed by personal responsibility – not personal rights.  What’s that? You think you have a right to be heard? Great. The best part of my worldview is that I don’t need to argue with you. You can stand on your soapbox all day – I’m going to get a sandwich.

That being said, I thought this movie was mostly a waste of time. It’s terrible that a group of almost-parliamentarians were allowed to create a panic that allowed corrupt police to put video store owners in jail. Seriously, that is terrible. But I didn’t need to watch endless interviews cut with unpleasant video clips to reach that conclusion. Granted, before watching the documentary I had no idea that this particular moral panic had occurred. But there’s really no difference between this panic and any other that has led to censorship. The film-makers here could have made a 60 second public service announcement and got most of their point across.  This is particularly true now that we have the internet to show us all the unpleasant video we can stand, and nobody able to censor it.

Two and a half decades ago, someone should have stepped in to stop what was obviously unfair treatment of video store owners. And this should definitely go into the history books as one more example (in an extremely long list) of why state censorship is a terrible idea. But there was no need for this lesson in 2010 – nobody was then or is now in any danger of having their ‘right to watch gross movies’ taken away.

I’m pretty sure the film-makers just wanted an excuse to watch all the movies their parents warned them about.

3/10 – But only because I learned a bit of history.

One Week

What Jesse said:

You need to watch One Week. I really enjoyed this Canadian flick. It’s loaded with amazing cinematography and a decent soundtrack. I think I really connected with what the main character went through as he tried to make sense of life after getting a shocking diagnosis. There’s plenty of conflicting opinion on this one but I really enjoyed. As road movies go, this one is a real gem.

Mike’s verdict:

I enjoyed this one, but I’m not sure it was really for the right reasons. There’s quite a bit to like in this movie, but the main components – story, writing, acting – are fairly unremarkable. They’re not bad exactly, but not particularly engaging either. The story itself has been done – many, many times – and I don’t think this version brought anything new. Joshua Jackson is believable enough as the terrified hero, but Liane Balaban‘s performance is rather flat.

Even so, I had a good time watching One Week. For one thing, Jesse is definitely right about the cinematography; there is some great footage of Canada. And I actually thought the soundtrack was better than just decent. (Stars!) The cameos by Gord Downie and Joel Plaskett were fun too.

But my main reason for enjoying this film was the novelty of seeing familiar places. Canada is so rarely depicted as Canada in movies and television. It was neat to see Ontario road signs and all the silly things that Canadian towns use to put themselves on the map – like the totally random giant red paperclip in Kipling, Saskatchewan.

If anything, the best part about the story is that it doesn’t get in the way of backdrop that has so many interesting things to see. A nice light early evening flick.

7/10

Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!

What Jesse said:

I watched this awesome documentary about the Australian film industry last year and thought it was hilarious. It’s always amusing watching “dignified” high-brow people squirm, and you get plenty of that in this doc about how exploitation films like Mad Max and The Howling became the face of Australian cinema during the 70s and 80s. It seems like in order to compete with big budget Hollywood movies, the only way to go was to go for shock, gore, and all of the over-the-top activities associated with generally bad scripts, hilariously bad performances, and some truly ill-advised stunt work by people who were either incredibly brave/dedicated, or just plain stupid. Enjoy.

Mike’s verdict:

I’m still a little on the fence about reviewing documentaries because there is a very different dynamic between the film and audience compared to traditional fiction-based films. But since there are definite qualities that make documentaries more (or less) enjoyable to watch I’m going to give it a try.

I think that I might have missed the point that the writers were trying to make with Not Quite Hollywood. Before last night, my thoughts on American movies from the late 60s through the early 80s could be summed up as: boobs, gore, and busted cars. After watching Not Quite Hollywood, my thoughts on Australian movies from the late 60s through the early 80s can now also be summed up as: boobs, gore, and busted cars. The only real differenceseems to be the accent.  The writers tried to make the argument that Australian films of the time were somehow ‘worse’ – more boobs, more gore, more busted cars. Maybe that’s true – but I wasn’t convinced. What really came across for me was a feeling that the people involved in Australian genre films had lost their audience at some point after the 80s, and wanted a way to get back in the spotlight. Maybe the film would have come across as less self-serving if it had been written by someone not obviously involved in the subject.

In any case, none of that changes the fact that this film is quite interesting. For me, the most surprising thing was just how closely American culture and counter-culture in the 60s and 70s were mirrored in Australia. Women’s liberation, the sexual revolution, anti-Vietnam protests, the abortion debate: they all feel like very North American subjects to me – obviously because that’s the angle that I learned about them from. Realizing that these issues were being dealt with in very similar ways in Australia (and probably other western countries) at the same time is fascinating. In hindsight it shouldn’t be surprising at all, but perspective  is everything; especially regarding the teaching of history. Placing films on the backdrop of the culture that produced them is eye-opening. It would have been nice to have had more actual comparison with American films though; at least to make the differences more obvious.

While the content of Not Quite Hollywood was definitely engaging, I did find that at certain points I was impatient for the film to move on. The section covering horror/gory films seemed particularly drawn out. It wasn’t a case of the gore being too much, but actually the opposite – eventually I was bored.

In some sense this film actually falls victim to the same issue that its subject matter was criticized for – it tried to be over-the-top, but instead was just too much. A re-edit to bring the film down to an hour and 30 minutes would make it much more accessible.

7/10

Her

What Jesse said:

Crazy movie about a guy who falls in love with his computer’s operating system. Joaquin Phoenix does a great job as an introvert going through the painful/depressing process of separating from his wife while trying to deal with the “feelings” he is developing for the latest technology available: an artificially intelligent OS very competently played (voiced) by [CENSORED].

Mike’s verdict:

Jesse got lazy with his overview of this one – probably because Brad Pitt isn’t in it – but I happen to know he liked Her a lot more than the above suggests. He definitely thought the artificial intelligence was portrayed more than just ‘competently’, and he went on a lengthy tangent about how Phoenix’s acting may or may not be affected by the untimely death of his brother.

In any case, Jesse and I agree that this film was fantastic. Whoever wrote the IMDB blurb did the film a real disservice because it sounds like Her is either a ridiculous comedy that should be staring Ben Stiller, or a geeky sci-fi flick about computers. It’s not either of those.

Her is primarily about people: how we define who and what is a person, and how we understand our connections to others. I expected that the human-computer interactions would be awkward or cheesy, but in fact they are all very natural. Spike Jonze chose to have the artificial intelligence act ‘normally’, so you can’t tell the difference between a conversation with a computer and a conversation with a live person using a  telephone. Perhaps I’ve just grown accustomed to our ever-connected environment, but to me most of the movie felt like Phoenix’s character was just in a long-distance relationship. The futuristic technology is so familiar that it never seemed like much of a stretch from what we have today; the electronic interaction never seemed out of place.

Of course there are major differences in how ‘meat’ people and virtual people see the world and that is explored brilliantly. Jesse thinks this is a story about how individual expectations based on initial impulses can turn terribly wrong when they’re allowed to develop in the imperfect, often irrational, mind. He sees the film from the ‘meat’ point of view, essentially limiting the computer to a fancy imitation of a person. He thinks Phoenix’s character tricked himself into believing a computer could be a person and then learned from his experiences. Looking at it that way, our ‘meat’ protagonist is not just the focus but the only concern.

For me that is only part of what this film is trying to say. I don’t think we are supposed to make a distinction between the ‘meat’ people and the virtual people – they’re all people, and there are actually two equal leading roles. The key is that the two main characters have different desires, view points and intentions based on their environment and abilities. Exactly like the world we live in today.

Overall, Her is a great film. The writing (there are some super awkward moments!), the music, the cinematography, the acting; everything is spot on.

10/10

One last note: I censored Jesse’s bit about the actor who voices the computer. She does an incredible job given the difficulty of expressing the character without body language, but you’re better off not knowing who the voice belongs to if you don’t already know. By the time I got around to starting the movie I had forgotten who the actor was. The voice was so familiar though that I couldn’t help but look it up halfway, and I immediately regretted it. Once you know who it is, you’ll only be able to picture her and it changes the movie.

The Dallas Buyer’s Club

What Jesse said:

Remember when I said I was gonna give you a “happy movie” to review next? Forget that. You need to watch The Dallas Buyer’s Club next. What an amazing  performance by an almost unrecognizable Matthew McConaughey! Jared Leto also turns in some serious work in this crazy “David vs Goliath” story. This one’s definitely a strong contender come Oscar night. Wow.

…

There is some unpleasant scenes for sure but I was surprised to find out it wasn’t really an “AIDS movie” (like Philadelphia). It’s really about the “little” guy taking on the big bad FDA. There were actually quite a few very funny scenes. Pleasantly surprised with this one.

Mike’s verdict:

Most movies are appraised based on the elements of film – writing, directing, acting, set design, etc. If one of the key elements is missing, the lack is reflected in reviews. Even movies that don’t have anything specifically wrong in those elements end up getting panned by critics if there isn’t something that stands out. It isn’t enough to be not bad; most films need to actually be good.

But for some reason certain films get a pass based on their topic. They don’t need to be stand-out good as long as there’s nothing stand-out bad. This is especially true with films involving the poor treatment of an already marginalized group. Unfairness is somehow universally acknowledged as cause for a good review; sympathy is applauded as long as nothing is undeniably wrong.

This is The Dallas Buyer’s Club. It isn’t bad, but it isn’t good either. Any interest in it relies entirely on the theme. I’ll admit that the story concept was decent and the characters were fairly imaginative. McConaughey obviously put a lot of effort into his role and so did Leto – in fact I think Leto did the better job. But as a whole the film is unremarkable. I didn’t want to stop watching it, but it didn’t hook me either.

The only engaging aspect of the film is the interaction between the patients, the doctors, the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies. I found myself wondering just how closely the excuses and arguments reflect reality. But of course that’s not really the point of the film so that interest is left quite unfulfilled.

Was the public treatment of AIDS victims in the 80s (and ever since) terrible? Yes. Do pharmaceutical companies intentionally mislead everyone to inflate profits? Probably. Is the FDA completely bought-off. It wouldn’t surprise me. But The Dallas Buyer’s Club isn’t a documentary, it’s entertainment. And entertainment should be entertaining.

One thing I agree with Jesse on – this is exactly the kind of film that does well on Oscar night.

5/10

After the Dark (a.k.a. The Philosophers)

What Jesse said:

Ah! That [something interesting Mike said] reminds me of a great movie I saw called After the Dark. It’s about a group of kids in a philosophy class who are assigned to consider an apocalyptic thought experiment. The world is ending and there’s only room in the bunker for half of them – who, and how, do they choose? At first I thought it was going to be just another tense apocalypse movie full of kids from a Gap commercial. It is exactly that, but it’s also much more. It’s totally a trick – you think you’re signing up to be entertained and then, bam! – you get schooled in philosophy!

Mike’s verdict:

I completely agree with Jesse on all counts for this one; it’s an apocalypse movie full of Gap commercial kids that teaches you some basic concepts of philosophy. And it’s totally entertaining.

At the beginning I was a bit hesitant because the class starts with a discussion of some very cliché philosophical thought problems. I was worried that I was going to have to sit through an entire class of Philosophy 101 students reading from the first 2 chapters of a text-book. Thankfully the exposition is only used to set the scene and the film very quickly moves on to far less obvious considerations.

The dialog is well written, the cast is surprising dynamic and the plot really works well. This film moves fast, and you move fast with it. It’s exciting – I really wanted to see how the kids worked through their predicaments, and I silently cheered when they chose to run the experiment one last time. Oh, and the initial setting in Borobudur, Indonesia is really cool. It would be an amazing place to watch the beginning of the end of the world.

After the Dark is a terrific film, right up to the end. Unfortunately, the ending itself was fumbled. Back-story was tacked-on as if to add one more twist into the plot, but it was needless and greatly took away from the strength of two main characters. There’s an obvious point where this film should have ended and you’ll know it the first time you see it.

Overall, I really liked After the Dark and I wish I could give it a perfect score – but the ending was forced and completely out of character with the rest of the film. Even so, 9.5/10.

Take Shelter

What Jesse said:

Check out “Take Shelter“. Intense performances. The main character`s paranoia/fragile mental state really comes across. Great little film. Enjoy.

Mike’s verdict:

I mostly agree with Jesse – there are some very intense performances in Take Shelter. Unfortunately, I found the best parts rather spaced out with dull sections that just took too long. I’m sure the intention was to build intensity slowly, but in this case the slow pace lost momentum and had to start building all over again. If I feel the urge to see how much of a movie is left, I take it as a flag that things aren’t moving fast enough. I not only felt that urge with Take Shelter, but I actually checked three times – and there was still 40 minutes left at the point when I checked for the third time. I never found myself wanting to stop watching though, I just wanted the plot to move on.

One thing I really liked was that the characters mostly reacted realistically. Movies involving mental illness frequently rely on the ‘rational’ characters greatly over-reacting (or just over acting) as a means to advance the plot, but this movie managed to avoid that. I also really liked that Michael Shannon was able to portray an unraveling mind without letting that mind lose a sense of conscience. The tension between reality and delusion is all-encompassing, and you can see it pulling the character in all directions at once.

The only thing that really bothers me about this film is the last 30 seconds or so. The ending is a cop-out. Given the kind of audience that looks for this type of independent film, I don’t think it was necessary (or even warranted) to give it a Hollywood ending. Still, that is only the last 30 seconds.

Overall, Take Shelter is a decent movie that will keep you watching until the end – even if it does get a little slow at times.

7/10 (But let me redo the last 30 seconds and it could have an 8 instead.)

Dragon Day

What Jesse said:

I saw a trailer for a movie with a great premise, but I know that it’s going to be awful – so you should watch it for me.

Mike’s verdict:

Dragon Day is not awful. It’s low budget for sure, but not awful.

To start, I really liked the cyber-attack apocalypse premise. The technical explanation of how the attack was supposed to have been carried out was a little nonsensical (nanocore duplex microwave transmitters??) but plenty of big budget movies have nonsensical technology – I’m looking at you, Pacific Rim.

In fact, this movie isn’t even supposed to be about the technology anyway. It’s about what happens to our society when the things that we have come to rely on are very suddenly taken away. The fact that 50 years ago we could live without all our technology doesn’t matter – we probably can’t live without it now, and definitely not if it was taken away without warning. Dragon Day does a good job of creating a believable atmosphere in the wake of a complete technology shutdown.

Likewise, the movie isn’t about the attackers either. Aside from some fairly brief exposition to bring things into (very important) context, little time is spent dealing with the ‘real’ bad guys.

Admittedly, the acting is below average. This has a lot to do with fairly bland writing though and I think for the most part it’s still passable given the budget. The same goes for the cinematography. Someone apparently wanted to play around with some depth of field tricks, but they were more annoying than anything else.

A few other reviews I’ve read have criticized Dragon Day as xenophobic American propaganda. I can see how this might come across in the trailer – I was initially concerned about it as well. However, those reviewers either didn’t watch the whole movie, or they missed a very crucial part of it.

Overall, I give Dragon Day a 6/10 because the story is there even if the budget isn’t.

The Quiet Earth

What Jesse said:

The Quiet Earth was one of the first movies that Jesse recommended to me and it’s been so many years since that I don’t remember what sort of ridiculous arguments he used. They must have sounded good enough at time.

Mike’s verdict:

Fantastic. 10/10

The Quiet Earth is one of those movies that manages to put you on a wave riding from subtle to in-your-face and back again without making you sea-sick. At it’s base, the film is heavy science fiction that requires a major suspension of disbelief – and that will likely turn off a lot of viewers. But the story isn’t about the science – it’s about the people and how they come to terms with their predicament. Jesse got this one right.

ps. This movie is based on a book of the same title by New Zealand author Craig Harrison.  Being a big fan of the movie, I looked everywhere for a copy of the book. At the time, there had only been two editions of the novel released – the original hardcover and a subsequent paperback. They had been out of print for so long that hardcover versions were being listed at more than $1000US, but I managed to find a great deal on a very well-read paperback copy for $150 from a New Zealand used book dealer. Do not spend $150 on this book. It’s terrible.  However, as of this writing it appears that Amazon has a listing for a new edition of The Quiet Earth set to be released in May 2014. At the new edition price, it’s worth reading if you like the movie – but definitely start with the movie first.

Oldboy (“Oldeuboi”)

What Jesse said:

Yo – you have to watch Oldboy – it’s a Korean revenge flick and it’s awesome. It’s so awesome that I can’t even tell you about it. Just watch it. Oh, and it’s going to be remade this year so you’ll want to watch the original first. It has subtitles though – sorry.

Mike’s verdict:

This one was fairly good. A lot of Korean films lose pretty much everything in translation (at least I assume that’s the problem, since people are always raving about them and I never get it). But Oldboy came through pretty well. I thought it moved a little slow in the middle, but that seems to be what we call ‘building suspense’ now anyway. My main concern with Oldboy is the big twist. It’s super obvious. I mean, super, super, obvious. It’s the very first thing you think. That being said, it’s so super obvious that I immediately discounted it as too obvious. So when I finally reached the big reveal at the end, I had spent so much time exploring all the other possibilities that the truth really was a big shock. Kudos Chan-wook Park, kudos.

Bottle line: It’s not a movie I plan to watch again, but I’ll give it an 8/10 for the mind-games. And I’ll definitely check out the Spike Lee version when I get the chance, if only to see what he does differently.

UPDATE: I’ve now reviewed the Spike Lee remake too.