The Soloist

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0821642/

Based on the book by LA Times reporter Steve Lopez about a true story, The Soloist features Jamie Foxx as Nathaniel Ayers, a schizophrenic musical savant who is now homeless and living in Los Angeles. Robert Downey Jr. plays Lopez, and the role affords him almost as much range and diversity as his charading in Tropic Thunder. The comic relief is well-timed and serves to bring us back to the genuineness of Downey's character, rather than distracting from the dramatic tones.

The film follows Lopez as its protagonist than Ayers, and the audience will identify with Lopez as the everyman as he encounters Ayers. Lopez is a popular columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and as he is coming up a deadline for a new story, he finds Ayers playing a violin under a statue of Beethoven. He tries to approach Ayers, and this is when we see that besides being homeless, there is something that seems to be wrong with Ayers. His speech is rambling, repetitive, and often nonsensical, but with moments of clarity that reveal his talent and intellect. Lopez later finds Ayers playing in a tunnel and speaks with him again. We find out that Ayers had attended Juliard, but dropped out, and flashbacks are presented throughout the film as they are triggered by voices Ayers hears, which tell us more about his past. They develop a friendship, and public interest rises as Lopez writes more columns about Ayers.

Foxx is in peak form to nail the idiosyncrasies of Ayers' condition, which had to have been a difficult role to play consistently and seriously. However, it is Downey's portrayal of the fascination and frustration of their relationship that carries the film. I was expecting a character piece on schizophrenia, but Foxx portrays Ayers in such a way that he is treated almost as a non-character, with Lopez's character arc being central.

There isn't much in the way of plot, which may bore some viewers. As a true story, they had to stick to some degree to the true story. Given this, there isn't much that actually happens. There's basically one note to the story - Ayers is a musical savant, went to Juliard, was overwhelmed by his untreated schizophrenia, and is now homeless. That's it. That's the story. So the only thing that makes this story continue to be compelling for two hours is the relationship with Lopez. However, since Ayers is largely a non-character human plot point, the real story is about Lopez's frustration, his relationship with his ex-wife/editor, and his desire to redeem his failed responsibilities with his family by taking responsibility for Ayers. This journey also introduces Lopez to the greater homeless population of Los Angeles, which is where the larger part of his character arc presents itself. The few scenes where these elements are highlighted are basically what makes this movie worth watching.

---------------------

The second major element of this film is its presentation of the homeless, and I couldn't help but draw some comparisons with Pursuit of Happyness. Both are based on true stories about homeless men. There are a number of montages in an around the homeless shelters that introduce us to some homeless people in both movies, and each one presents a completely different message.

Pursuit of Happyness gives us Will Smith as an ordinary man who falls on homelessness due to unfortunate circumstances piling up on him, and he is unable to pay his rent. He picks himself up by his own intellectual abilities and perseverance and becomes a successful stock broker. The message here is a classic American dream story line.

The Soloist, on the other hand, shows us homeless people as a category of society, rather than just as people who don't have homes. They are portrayed, as Lopez says in the movie, as "broken, helpless souls." The majority are mentally ill, helplessly addicted to drugs, or otherwise unable, categorically, to function in society. The film tries to show us diamonds in the rough, with Ayers' talents, and a few other bright characters and relationships in the shelter. However, the movie ends by telling us that Ayers' mental state is as precarious now as it was when Lopez met him, though he does now have an apartment to live in.

These are both true stories, about real people, so it is impossible to say which portrayal is more accurate, but I think Pursuit of Happyness will remain the more popular with a wider audience in the long run because of its consistency with our hopefulness and values as a culture.
-------------------------

Final Thoughts:
This film tries to do a lot of things, without a lot of plot or substance to do it around. For each of the things this movie does well, there's another movie that does it better.

If you want Jamie Foxx playing in a dramatic biopic about a talented musician: Watch Ray.
If you want fantastical escapism through a fairy tale about the magic of music: Watch August Rush.
If you want an uplifting based-on-a-true-story about homeless people: Pursuit of Happyness.
And if you want Robert Downey Jr., actually this is probably his best role.

I recommend to check it out, but you don't need to watch it twice.
3.5 Stars.

Hating a well liked movie is an internet crime?

I really have to get this off of my chest. This happens at IMDB, blu-ray.com, and pretty much anywhere else there is an internet forum on movies.

I was at blu-ray.com, which is a fantastic site, and looking at their message boards. It's something I like to do on sites, browsing message board subjects to get various takes on a subject. It's also a damned annoying activity because there's always someone in a thread that wants to stick the proverbial internet bayonet in you repeatedly.

I was reading this subject by this guy who just doesn't like Blade Runner. He bought it, watched the final cut and the theatrical cut, and didn't like either. I am also one of the few sci-fi fans that doesn't really care for Blade Runner. I find it pretentious, slightly boring, and I just never got what all the fuss was about. Well, this person who said he didn't like the movie over there is now being accused of having no taste in film, that he's spoiled by modern effects, and how pretty much he's a lesser person for not liking this movie.

I know the internet lets out peoples' real selves because of the anonymity of it all, but this is the equivilant of putting people in the internet stocks and taunting them. It's really stupid. If these people like all the movies ever made that are considered classics, can't I call them sheep, narrow-minded idiots, and without a shred of originality in their lives? I dislike quite a lot of classics... Requiem For A Dream, Pulp Fiction, Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, even Rashomon. If I, like this guy, have no taste, why do I like Memento, Jackie Brown, Alien, The Deer Hunter, or Sanjuro? Those are all classics or cult classics...

To say such things like, "you have no taste" without knowing what other movies a person likes or dislikes is one of the dumbest, damn fool things you can do. All people are different, and if everyone all liked the same movies, life would be really, really boring. I know this argumentative style will not die, but in fact will fester and grow, as it has since the beginning days of the web, and that saddens me. People talk all about intelligent discourse, but it's never done.

Sorry, I just had to rant people.

Regular posts are on the way

Hi, folks. Just wanted to check in and let you know that I've been extremely busy with exams and paper writing lately. After next Wednesday, I'll be done with finals, and able to concentrate on regular posting around here.

I'm cooking up a DVD series, so don't think I've just been ignoring you. Once I get everything in order, I'll be embarking on a DVD retrospective on Batman. It'll include the old movie serials, the animated features and, of course, the 90s Batman films.

So stay tuned!

Bond Review #4: The World Is Not Enough

Ah yes, The World Is Not Enough... This one was the first Bond movie I saw in theaters. Of course, by that time I had seen every Bond movie that came before it. I can remember being so excited to see the movie, as at the time I was even more obsessed with the series than I am now. I also remember being slightly disappointed in the movie after seeing it. It had not lived up to the two previous Brosnan Bond films, Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies. Even to this day it seems to drag to me. I now realise that I was not alone in that sentiment. It seems that most had, and still do, consider this movie to be a drop in quality from the other 1990s Bond movies.

Don't get me wrong. It's not horrible. It's just a very "meh" movie. "Meh" is a step above "ugh". It has its bad points, (Denise Richards, bland locations, a stupid plot), and it has its good ones, (Sophie Marceau, the action sequences, the theme song).

Let's start with the less than stellar, shall we? First, let's try to comprehend the plot. James Bond, (Pierce Brosnan) is sent to protect a girl, (Sophie Marceau) from a man named Renard, (Robert Carlyle) who once kidnapped her and held her for ransom. He's apparently interested in killing her and sabotaging her oil pipeline so that he can control the world's oil supply. By the end of the movie there's helicopters with buzzsaws, snowjets with parachutes, a hijacked submarine, and Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist. Yes, you heard me right, nuclear physicist. I don't know who decided that would be a good casting decision, but that person should never do casting again. We're talking about a girl most consider to be a ditz in real life, and you want us to believe she's a nuclear physicist? Ooooookkaaayyyy... Not happening here. Also not happening are the locations. My God, the director here, Michael Apted is a noted documetarian. He should be able to pick locations well, but the best we get is... an exterior shot of the Guggenheim and a small island fortress about the size of a lighthouse. It's really THE most drab looking Bond film ever made. Sure, we go skiing in the film once, but that's the most we get.

Now, before I start making it sound like this is the worst Bond film ever, (it's not), or that I absolutely hate it, it does have its good points. The action here is your standard James Bond action. Ski chases, gunfights, remarkable escapes... But with additional directoral flair that the previous two films didn't have. It is not really better than the rest of the films in terms of amount of the sequences or the type, but it's staged better. Also I should mention that Judi Dench gets more screentime in this movie, and Dame Dench is always a delight, so that's a great plus. Michael Apted wanted to bring to the forefront more character interaction, which he didn't really succeed in except with Dench. Finally she's in the action for a film! Sophie Marceau is also a pretty good Bond girl, even if she isn't all that she seems. She's stunning to look at and isn't too annoying, two positives that few Bond girls have both of. She also gives us the first unintentional nipple shot in the Bond series. (Either unintentional or the censors didn't catch it!) She also has a past, and issues coming from that past that are important to the story, which I believe is a first for the Bond series.

Locations: 2/10 Ugh... A submarine, Bilbao, a little fortress on an island off Istanbul, and Kazakhstan. Not really the most photogenic of places. This is THE most drab Bond film. I have no idea what Apted was thinking. According to the commentary he wanted to put in actual exotic places... as in buildings. Um, yeah, not a great idea Mr. Apted.

Villain: 4/10 I love Robert Carlyle, but he's just not that great here. I dunno if it's because he's just a pawn and that diminishes his charm or if it's that he's given nothing to do but look evil and be bald like all the other bad guys in the movie... He doesn't even respect Bond as most villains do He doesn't wine and dine James Bond. It's something new for the series but it doesn't quite work.

Bond Girls: 5/10 Denise Richards is not the worst Bond girl. I'm sorry to those that hate her, but there are worse. At least she's good looking in a slutty way. She's smart in the movie as well. The ONLY problem is that she's so horribly miscast. Sophie Marceau, as I mentioned earlier is a great Bond girl being mysterious, stunningly beautiful, and smart. Good casting on that one.

Direction/Design: 7/10 The movie is overall drab looking, but the direction is spot on. Michael Apted is a documentary filmmaker most of the time, and the look of the film shows that. Natural lighting whenever possible, cloudy days, and a lot of copter shots. It's a bit odd to watch really, and Apted was an interesting choice to direct.

Theme Song: 10/10 This is one of my five favorite Bond songs. It's performed by Garbage and it is astounding. The music video, which is on the Blu-Ray is also a very good music video. I think it harkens back to the Bond themes of the 60s, which was a welcome departure from the 80s rock songs. I mean those are great, but a change is good sometimes.

Overall: 5/10 It's not a bad movie, but the plot is hard to follow, it's not pretty to look at, and it seems to drag so much, especially in the middle. In all, quite a forgettable film, and the only forgettable Brosnan Bond. (Though one is memorable for how bad it is.)
The blu-ray for this one is sadly just like the film. Pretty meh. It's filled with fluff pieces and the commentaries don't really tell you much. The reason it's like this is that all the special features were ported over from the first DVD releases which were right after the movie was released. It's not newer original stuff, which is usually more truthful. The picture and audio also are a bit disappointing. You think a newer movie like this wouldn't be as subdued.

James Bond will return in a week in... Goldfinger.

Grand Theft Auto: Crank

With Crank: High Voltage dropping tomorrow, I thought I'd take a look back at the first film. Now, I'll be the first to admit that Crank is not for every action fan. It's the kind of movie that appeals to people who like their action wild, wacky, and completely, utterly ridiculous. Crank has that in spades. Some might criticize it for simply being a video game on film. And guess what? They're right. Even the two directors admit that it's a video game movie. But it really stuck me this week that that might really be the film's point.

What got me was a message board discussion of the upcoming sequel, and the posters arguing over the justification for it. Isn't Chev dead? How can he survive falling from a helicopter? WTF? One poster laid it out by saying something along the lines of "When he beat the final boss, he got the high score and earned an extra life." Now, despite the fact that he was probably being facetious, I think that's a fairly apt way to look at the film.

I mean, when your opening credits look like this...



...It's pretty clear what you're going to get. But going further, the movie is more or less an 87 minute riff on everything that the Grand Theft Auto series has been cultivating since GTA2. First of all you've got your basic components. The film's overworld map is represented here by Google Earth, complete with logo, compass, coordinates, and location names.

Powerups? Crank's got 'em. Red Bull, energy pills, electricity (which the sequel will inevitably expand upon), hard drugs, medical remedies. Anything that might possibly get someone wired is in this film (short of coffee, strangely).


Then you've got that strange scene about two-thirds of the way through where Chev drinks the "Haitian plant shit". It's unclear whether he goes on some kind of drug trip, or what, but what is clear is that this wasn't just another 'powerup'.

Then, of course, you've got the little gameplay elements. To anybody who's ever played a Grand Theft Auto game, how often have you gotten bored of the story mode, only to find yourself steering a car into oncoming traffic, or walking up to a stranger and punching out a guy in a suit, just for the hell of it? If you're like me, the answer is "A lot.". You get those sequences here.

Particularly in Vice City, if you've ever found yourself in the mall, you know how tempting it is to just cut loose and wreak some havoc. Of course, you can't really crash a car sideways onto an escalator, but that's just about the ONLY thing you can't do.


Which brings us to that final scene. It all comes down to Chev and the 'final boss'. They're both hanging from a helicopter high above Los Angeles. At this point, he's lasted longer than anyone expected. He's probably earned a six-star wanted level, made a whole lot of GTA money, points out the wazoo. The boss is defeated, Chev crashes back down to reality, and he's dead.

But then that extra life kicks in, and here we are. Of course, High Voltage could negate all of this and just go the dumb-action-and-that's-it route. Though, I certainly hope not. So, if these movies do find a substantial audience, I'm pretty sure it'll be anyone who's ever played and enjoyed the Grand Theft Auto franchise. If anything could be said to be Crank's Ur-text, GTA would probably be it.

Just food for thought, I guess.