Film Reviews, kind of

9 (Shane Acker) 64- Humans destroy the world through the misuse of technology, machines have taken over, lone scientist trying to fix mistake… Nothing ‘new’ about this film but form and context are more interesting than usual. Although no live humans are present, 9 takes place within the real world, that is to say Earth. Artifacts of human existences remain (broken down buildings, but also smaller items like stained glass windows, buckets, scissors, candles, books, etc.) and coupled with the extreme attention to detail of the CGI and sound design the film enters into the uncanny (a la Toy Story) where you forget this is essentially a cartoon. The scientist is the true hero, showing not only that one person can make a difference but also place the responsibly of a solution back on the people who created the problem. Would like to make the case that each different numbered creation is some extension of the scientist but the argument is kind of thin and simply reduces people into simplistic characterisation.

Zombieland (Ruben Fleischer) 48- or my changing position on Jesse Eisenberg. Thinking back to what to what I said about Adventureland, I unfairly compared Eisenberg to Cera. Both have this under-the-breath/in-the-margins style of dialogue (just know that Hugh Grant has been doing this for years churning out consistently funny rom-com; Music and Lyrics and others.), but where Cera uses his as a wise-ass passive aggressive form of engagement, Eisenberg’s comes from a place of simple frankness. His is more of a dry wit, a monotone delivery of a statement of facts. Also I feel that his characters are much more independent/free thinkers than Cera’s outsider, timid turtle approach. It’s the difference between an eccentric and someone who’s just socially awkward. Oh, you want to know about the film itself. I didn’t find it all that funny and kind of long even at 80 mins. Even in the ‘end of days’ people still form white patriarchal heterosexual relationships, and were they really that stupid to think turning on all the lights and rides at the amusement park wasn’t going to attract every zombie in the area. Did anyone else find the sequence where they destroy the Native American store slightly racists?

Surrogates (Jonathan Mostow) 44- *In a world where people actually live as their avatars any ‘real’ connection to the outside world is loss*. Movie only gets interesting when Bruce Willis disconnects himself, allowing an actual human to rub up against the synthetic ones. Wasted what could have been a good premise (why I’m still surprised these Hollywood action films do that is beyond me, but one day I’ll find one that doesn’t and be fucken all over it) where the outer world literally reflects peoples inner states with traditional roles of gender, race, age, and class no longer apply. Chase sequence in human resistance camp somewhat good with a Burtynsky-esque environment of discarded shipping containers. Which reminds me I’ve seen like three different post referring to Manufactured Landscapes, has anyone even bothered to watch it, the second half is dead boring.

Blood Simple (Joel Coen) 53- If you don’t think you’re influenced by the people you surround yourself with know this- the Coens were living with Frances McDormand and Sam Raimi when they made this.

Star Wars (George Lucas) who cares- Watched it for completionist reasons. (My brother and me are working backwards through AFI’s top 100 list. Shit got in the way and we pretty much have been at a stand still for like two years only recently picking back up.) To be honest I wanted to skip it. Of course I’ve seen it, well more than once, and outside of historical and cultural importance I’m just kind of ehh about it. Thirty minuets in I realized that this film is unratable and, even more so, throws my whole rating system into relief. How do you rate something where you’ve sen more references and parodies than the thing itself? Can I admire something without really liking it? Where does this film stand amongst others, or in other words, how do I establish value, by historicist? formal considerations? context? theoretical issues? personal preference? Few quick thought though- I never realized how much non-human dialogue there is esp. in the first half. Why does everything I thought I knew have some weird pronunciation, Millenium Faulcon? The end award sequence has apparently become some kind of cornerstone and that’s not a good thing.