The Boondock Saints: Just a Bad Taxi Driver

Taxi Driver is a 1976 film by Martin Scorsese. It is a psychological character study about an insomniac Vietnam-War Veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder illustrated by his disgust of what post-modern society has become. It is about more than that. But that's the most basic interpretation. Ultimately, he rescues Jodi Foster from being a 12 year old hooker. All he wants is to clean up the streets. Taxi Driver is significantly more effective because it provides the basic elements to a story that The Boondock Saints doesn't: Proper motivation, character development, fallibility, decision-making scenes, empathy for character.

The Boondock Saints just shows us two guys. Were not sure what they are until 20 minutes into the film. And even at 20 minutes were still not exactly sure. Are they angels? May be. If they are then that implies that the credit documentary sequence was more or less unnecessary. Regardless, we come to understand that somehow these guys are really good at shooting and they take it upon themselves to clean up the streets by killing people.

I think that Enlightenment philosophers would have a problem with this.

In the end of the film during the documentary sequence a man says "yes, I support capital punishment."

The problem with this film is that it is worse than capital punishment because at least executed prisoners had a "fair" trial and was considered innocent until proven guilty. While the film tries to present a 50-50 mentality about morality, it is clear what side the filmmakers support via the glorification of the "heroes".

(Side Note: does anyone else think Il Duce was hyper-random?)

The film is in essence style with no substance. And its bad style at that. The cinematography was really bad. When it comes to this type of film, generally the only redeeming quality is the really cool lighting and badass action sequences. This was just weird.

The flaws with this film really fall under basic filmmaking 101.

If The Boondock Saints don't want to give their victims a fair trial, then the filmmakers need to. We as the viewer must be convinced that these are the scum of the Earth and deserve to have their head blown off. We are just told they are bad. The film was 1hr and 50min, they definitely could have had more in there.

I hate to say it, but for this film to work. We would have needed to see some rape. Some torture. Some abusive and sadistic mutilation. We have to think to ourselves "yeah! go saints!" But when we are just told of these "bad guys" and watch them die... As far as characters go they are not "bad" to the viewer, only the filmmaker.

I am reminded of the film A Clockwork Orange. The first third of the film is constant and brutal violence to emphasize the themes of individual liberties over safety.

This film needed to start off showing the first third of A Clockwork Orange, and then the remainder of the film is The Saints seeking revenge on the Droogs. That's how this film works. We can't just be dropped into something, be told who is good, who is bad, and just accept the violence in front of us.

At a minimum we needed to see corruption in the police or government.

We need to see two guys who have known a (preferably small) town their whole life. That town has to become overrun by gangsters, killers, rapists, pedophiles. They have to seek the government and police help. There has to be corruption so that we, as the viewer, understand that the system of democracy and order has failed. Then after a lot of self-reflection, these two guys take it upon themselves to take back their hometown. They kill. The police come after them because they are being paid off by the mob. They in essence become Batman in the film Batman Begins... except with guns. Then after some highly stylized action they die in a blaze of bullets. Except there were reporters or something and the cops and politicians go to jail for corruption, better police come in, and the social ills are alleviated. The end. That is The Boondock Saints (the better version). And I wrote that story in under 3 minutes.

The Academy Awards: EPIC FAIL

First of all I have to point out that 'Wall•E', 'The Dark Knight', 'Synecdoche, New York', 'Doubt', 'Revolutionary Road', 'In Bruges', and 'Gran Torino' were severely snubbed. That being said, I have a problem with the way the Oscars do their thing.

The Academy must really not like movies. Because if they did, then they wouldn't limit the nominations for Best Picture down to just 5. 

http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml

These are all legitimate film critics and their lists vary a lot. Granted, there are some similarities, but that's why I propose this. Why doesn't the Academy give a "seal of approval" instead of a golden statue to an individual. Why don't they nominate as many as they feel appropriate, and then from there take like the best 10% or something and give them 'extra special' awards?

Look at Roger Ebert's top list. He doesn't even bother ranking them. He chose the movies he thought that were the best of the year and put them on a list. He doesn't say which is better or worse, he just gives them his "seal of approval."

I'm not saying I don't believe in competition, but it's like Malcolm Gladwell says in his book Outliers, all you have to be is "good enough". Who is to say that a passion piece like Gran Torino is worse than the 5 movies picked by the Academy? Who is to say that Curious Case of Benjamin Button isn't just Forest Gump all over again? Who is to say that Doubt (a Pulitzer Prize winning play) isn't even good enough to be nominated for anything besides acting (not to hate on acting awards, I just feel bad for the screenwriter).

The Academy is retarded. I guess that's what I am trying to get at. The Academy is retarded and doesn't respect art. They limit films down to the "top 5" and then pick the "top 1".

I think Slumdog Millionaire deserved best editing and best cinematography and nominations for best director and sound stuff. That's about it. It didn't really do anything else that good besides be really "cool" and "stylized."

There is a great history at The Academy Awards. But just because it's history doesn't make it right. Should we have kept slavery just because it was tradition? Surely that's an exaggerated comparison, but I think it's fair to recognize that there is no reason it can't be revolutionized. They already changed up the categories a lot since the start of the ceremony way back when. In fact they just added Best Animated Feature at the beginning of the millennium.

Oh, and with Wall•E, I'm glad that Animated Feature is in it's own category, but like I said I think the whole thing should be a "seal of approval". I mean, Bolt? Bolt was nominated for an Academy Award... and Doubt wasn't? Are you joking me?

Anyway - Wall•E - I think that it should have been nominated for more technical awards. Certainly it's a different craft, but more or less cinematography is the same whether its done digitally or in actuality. What about it's editing? No nomination? And what's with the song? It should have won hands down. This is just getting ridiculous. Last year was an amazing song from Once, this year is a rip-off bollywood song mixed with contemporary dance beats.

And what about the song from The Wrestler? That won the Golden Globe but wasn't even nominated at the Academy Awards. Lame. That was a good song.

Forget the Academy. They are just corrupt studio execs that think they can generate extra money from Slumdog after it get's the "oscar push" as it's called. It happened to American Beauty. It will happen to Slumdog. And the voters at the Academy know it.

Revolutionary Road: Is April Wheeler a Hero?

This film is a reverent tragedy of an incomplete artist.

The last few shots we see of April are interesting. We see her feet come down the stairs gracefully. She approaches the bright and hopeful window. The exterior shot makes things optimistic and glorifies her. A few shots later the camera zooms out revealing blood on the back of her dress, and continues to zoom out until she is alone in a big room. She runs off camera and in the most significant line of the movie says, "I think I need help..."

I'm not entirely sure what to make of that line. My uncertainty has manifested itself into sleepless nights (exaggeration). All I can claim is that I feel there were three levels to it. (1) She needs help from a literal ambulance perspective, (2) She needs help clinically from a depression perspective, (3) She needs help with life in general because she is stuck in the suburbs.

All, one, or none of those are correct.

And as always there are two ways to talk about art. What is it saying? And what do you think about what it's saying? 

From what I've interpreted from the climax, and the resolution of the other characters - I feel like Sam Mendes is reverent towards April, but he does not glorify her as a martyr. (If this is true) I agree that he did the right thing. I believe that from a plot stand point it was good that April gave herself the abortion.

But that brings up two questions. (1) Did she know she was going to die from the abortion (indirect suicide)? (2) Was she justified/a hero?

I feel like she did know she was going to die. It is tough to talk about the second question I pose because not everyone will agree with me that her act was indirect suicide. But for the sake of argument we should say it was. So, if April committed suicide, was it justified? Does the film glorify or condone her actions? I don't believe it does. But should it?

I feel like I would have directed the film exactly how it is because through my interpretation she is not glorified.

Remember John, "Matter of fact, the way you look right now, I'm beginning to feel sorry for him, too. I mean, you must give him a pretty bad time, if making babies is the only way he can prove he's got a pair of balls."

I'm not sure if I understand this film or if I don't.

I feel like it doesn't take sides, it is reverent. I feel like this film is a solemn and purposefully understated ode to those who yearn to not just live life, but to feel it. That's not to say that April was a hero, because I don't believe she was. I feel that she was as guilty of immaturity as Frank was.

They were young and idealistic, but they understood that they wanted something. They weren't sure exactly what, but they wanted it. The only way they could verbalize it was by calling it "Paris".

This film isn't a glorification of April, but a criticism of the society she is in. It doesn't say that her (perhaps intentional) death was justified, but that it was logical - two very different things.

So either everyone in the world who sees this movie all understand it, or we are all meant to just ponder and never come to any conclusions. I like the latter. I like thinking that may be the message of this film is not as concrete as I want it to be. I like thinking that may be the message of this film doesn't really exist, and that the film itself was the message. The experience and the reflection itself is the message. May be.

When Harry Met Sally: What Time is It?

The film jumps back and forth between the main plot involving Harry/Sally and old couples retelling their love stories. The film also jumps forward in time with two "5 Years Later" as well as some fade outs. But the question I have about this film is: What time is it?

Because during the New Years scene and especially by the Pictionary scene I was beginning to wonder how much time had passed. It was enough of a stretch for me to get over the "5 Years Later" scenario - but I did get over it - it was a movie and it was cute and I enjoyed seeing how they grew older and the way they interacted with each other.

But by the time I reached the Pictionary scene it was more than obvious that they were into each other and I am wondering the very thing Harry proposed at the beginning: "Can a man and a woman just be friends?" Now I know defenders of the film will argue that it is made all the better by reflecting the theme - but I'm not saying the plot development is poor. In all honesty I loved this film. The characters were real to me and dialogue was hysterical.

But at a certain point I wonder how it took so long for them to kiss passionately. Apparently it took Joe to get married, but regardless of that I just cannot believe - by any stretch of my imagination - that it took them as long as I feel it did. The reason I say feel is because film and relative time go hand in hand. A fade out means different things to different people and a 5 year time span means different things to different people.

All I know is that I am with Harry's original standings in which I am unconvinced they held off as long as I perceive they did. It takes more imagination by the view to believe they were best-friends-forever for as long as they were than it does to believe that Frodo Baggins from The Shire threw an all-powerful Ring forged by the evil dark lord Sauron into the fiery pits of Mount Doom in the hellish region of Middle Earth known as Mordor.

I just don't have the imagination for the former, but I do for the latter.

The romantic comedy lover in me enjoys how the plot develops. Really, I think its very understandable and strong. But the story should have taken place (besides the 10 years at the beginning - which should have been shortened in its own right) in no more than a few months. No two adults can spend as much time with each other as they have, doing the things they do, and not - after a few weeks - have legitimate questions in the back of their mind about a romantic relationship forming.

It's inhuman for them to have held out as long as they had.

If the story was shortened in its relative time, I would have believed it.

But because it was expanded as much as it was. I guess I just have to love it for what it is - a damn funny movie.

But my contrarian side just needed some clarification because I'm still not buying the chronology.

Revolutionary Road: "It didn't have to be Paris"

At a crucial moment in the film Revolutionary Road, April Wheeler tells her neighbor "it didn't have to be Paris." Paris, for most of the film, was just a representation of the ideal life. I, never being the biggest fan of philosophy, liked how middle of the road this film was. 

For the first half, the Wheelers overwhelmingly wanted to drop everything and follow their dreams. Their liberal yearnings were highly justified as Frank was "The Man in The Gray Suit" and April was Mrs. Cleaver. They couldn't stand it. Neither could I.

But about the half way point two things happen. April becomes pregnant and Frank gets promoted. It is at this point where the decent into madness begins. I've only seen the film once and may not understand some intricate pretentious idea - but I liked what I got from it: no answers. Things happen. Really intense things. But the film doesn't leave us with a "things are good" or "this is a good idea" or "this is the 'ideal'". That's because the people who made this were filmmakers, not philosophers. While philosophers like to think they can construct what we "ought" to be, Revolutionary Road understands that life isn't that simple and that sometimes liberal yearnings aren't as easy to jump on board with as philosophers might think.

While some may disagree, I felt that once we hit the halfway point both Frank and April's views were represented equally. So much so that when April makes the emergency phone call at the end there is immense depth to her last line in the film "I think I need help."

That line isn't supposed to indicate that she is crazy, per se. It's one of the best lines I've ever heard because it can be taken in many different ways. It's easy to derive from the story that she is clinically depressed. It's also easy to derive from the story that she is the "right" and Frank is the "wrong".

I feel that it is equal. And that both characters are right and wrong. The film is more so a cautionary tale without a clear advocacy. Frank argues that "we can have plenty of time to travel when we have the money. And we can't go to Paris with a baby on the way." and April argues "we aren't alive here." Both very valid, but what does it caution about? I think that it subtly shows that perhaps when Frank finally "gets the money to travel" he will be too busy to do so, yet April doesn't fully appreciate the difficulty of raising an infant in a foreign country - of course until she gives herself an abortion - but we all know how that ends.

It's a film about choices and their consequences and the fact that the choices are never clear. I've lived my life by the principle that "the grass is inherently greener on the other side" and I couldn't help but think about it the whole time during the film.

Yet I knew something was going to happen to destroy their liberal yearnings. There is no way its that easy. (1) Move to a foreign country, (2) live life.

It's like the end of Into The Wild. The angst within the main character caused him to live out his dreams and go to Alaska. But when he died he realized how lonely his life was. Revolutionary Road was a little different because I assume, had they gone to Paris, they would have stuck together as a family.

Nevertheless, I wonder if Paris is all that its cracked up to be? But then again thats why "it didn't have to be Paris", it was just the idea that you have to chase your dreams (more or less). And regardless of the fact that Revolutionary Road didn't provide clear answers for the audience, we can at least take that from it.

Donnie Darko: Gimmicky or Spiritual?

I liked it right when I saw it. Plain and simple. But only after doing some reading did I finally understand the complete plot. An boy with angst has to sacrifice himself to save the world. 

Why did the tangent universe suddenly come about? Because Donnie was supposed to die but he didn't. But why didn't he die? Because Frank called him out of bed. But didn't Frank only manifest himself after Halloween? Where does it begin? I guess that doesn't really matter. Somehow destiny got off course and apparently that is enough to bring everything crashing down.

I am not one of the die hard Donnie Darko fans who have elaborate explanations for the story. I think that (when it comes to any film) you have to justify interpretations by using examples in the film that would hint at that interpretation as being primary. I find that most Donny Darko fans just like to use their imaginations a little too much. And thats what good gimmicks do. They make you think that they are more important or deeper than they actually are so that everyone else does all the work. 

It makes you think and want to talk about it. Two qualities of a good film. It was directed and acted very well. We as the audience are taken through so much of this world that we come to understand Donny even though he doesn't understand himself. 

A film was made. A good one - about destiny. But its ambiguity drives a subculture of imaginative film snobs who think the film is in some way spiritual.

It was good.

Not bad.

Good.

Not great.

A hint of post-modern.

Good.

Slumdog Millionaire: Can fairy tale escapism be bad?

Escapism is different to different people. As Americans, we can escape to India in this film and enjoy a 'pure' and beautiful experience about lovers who rise from "rags to raja" - sort of. It's hopeful in someways and tragic in others - but is it possible that art can fail humanity?

That sounds daunting, but hear me out.

In a nation of over a billion people (and growing exponentially still) and wrestling with a bad government, bad policies, and a bad standard of living - does this story do the Indian people any justice? It shows the slums of SouthEast Asia (something we don't think about often enough) and it puts us into another culture. We experience poor India, Hero-obsessed India, TV Show-Obsessed India, Muslim vs. Hindu India, Americanized India, and so on. But could Danny Boyle have done more for the people of India than just showing a classic story told in an original way?

I loved this film. I felt it was about time to share that before I get too off track. I can tell why it won Best Picture, Screenplay, Director, and Score. I can definitely tell the score. It was a very American-Indian in it's refreshing blend of traditional India music with American beats. The performances are excellent and the climax is well deserved. This film is not rushed nor slow. It unfolds before our eyes like a dance - even at tragic moments were amazed at the magic.

It is a film about destiny, (Jamal and Latika) fate, and redemption (Salim). It is very powerful and inspiring, but my realist continues to slap me in the face. Is this what the world needs right now? Is this what India needs right now? It's overly critical of me to cut the legs under this film by being a Negative Nancy. However, what we see superficially is India - but when no real solution is provided through this art - when nothing is advocated - no plan - then no real hope exists. I'm waiting for the day where a film is inspirational, not because of good filmmaking, but because the film itself is actually making a difference.

It is a modern fairy tale. The question is: in the world we live in today, is a fairy tale the right answer?

Justice, my friends, justice. Is there justice here to India's poor?

I must be the biggest Negative Nancy to have written this blog post, but it's all about the philosophy behind art. Adult fairy tales? What do they do for us? Is this really the best picture? It may be everything else. But how can best picture be given to a film that just perpetuates fantasies and neglects to solve issues. This is a movie, not a film. This is a really, really, really fantastic movie.

But just like in my post about Chinatown, this doesn't do anything. It inspires us, and most of the time thats enough for me! I promise! I sound bipolar because I honestly did enjoy this movie, I just figured no one else was going to ask the question...

Can fairy tale escapism be bad?

To a country like India........ hm.....

Nevertheless I am glad that this was a portal for the rest of the world to see into the recent history of India. The slums, the city, the tourism. It is a film about an India we don't normally see... I just felt like may be there should be a Slumdog Millionaire Part 2 where Jamal uses his money and brilliance to solve problems.

May be that would be a movie to inspire change.