"The Men Who Stare At Goats: A Film By The Coen Brothers."

That is actually not true, like many parts of the film, but it might as well be. This movie has as much Coen Brothers quirkiness and humor as The Big Lebowski. It can be very uneven at parts but, in the end, The Men Who Stare At Goats is an enjoyable ride.

Based off a book by Jon Ronson and directed by Grant Heslov (a producer and writer of Good Night, Good Luck), The Men Who Stare At Goats is a strangely named film about the story of  Bob Wilton, played by Ewan McGregor, an Ann Arbor journalist who, after being dumped by his girlfriend, is seeking for reckless adventure. He finds it in Kuwait when he meets Lyn Cassady, George Clooney in a mix between his nutty Burn After Reading character and the chill Danny Ocean from the Ocean's series. Bob heard of Lyn back in the States when he interviewed a supposed "super soldier" who had psychic powers. He mentioned Lyn as being the best of the best, someone able to stop a goat's heart from beating by merely staring at it. When Bob and Lyn go into Iraq on a joint effort, they run into kidnappers, a Coen's staple, and must escape. Flashbacks are also shown in between the current day action, such as a hippie Lyn Cassady receiving training from Bill Django, basically an aged version of The Dude played by Jeff Bridges. The similarities between this character and The Dude in The Big Lebowski are the main reason why this movie seems so akin to a Coens film, though the general vibe it has definitely attributes to this. More plot and events develop as the movie progresses, but, much like the state of many of the character throughout the film, it all seems to be under the influence of questionable substances.

Kevin Spacey makes an all-too-short appearance as Larry Hooper, a soldier with a grudge against Lyn and Bill. His deadpan delivery is a bright spot of the film and the ratty moustache he wears also ends up being one of the film's best jokes. The title of the film can be seen as a joke in itself as well. The psychic powers are never fully revealed or shown besides a few questionable occurrences. There is no denying that the title really draws in the passerby though. Kudos to the marketing team then. The movie also claims some of the events to be true without asserting any proof. Some people have been bothered by this but I find it humorous as well as drawing yet another parallel to the Coen Brothers. Their masterwork Fargo starts with the line "THIS IS A TRUE STORY," even when the entire story was a fabrication of Joel and Ethan's mind. The Middle Eastern setting makes The Men Who Stare At Goats a more debatable story, though it is almost certainly false.

When looking at The Men Who Stare At Goats from the bigger picture, it does not leave the brightest impression. The story was jumbled and the characters never were fully-developed. However, the fun in this film lies in the minute-to-minute scenes. Kevin Spacey giving Clooney a "death palm" and George's hilarious reaction to are where the film finds its strengths. The Dude (I cannot call him anything else), old and overweight, with a ripped open shirt flying a helicopter while on LSD is priceless in itself. McGregor's narration can be a bit bland at times but his final scene is a good parody, or realization, of the film's events. I certainly recommend any Coen Brothers fan to see The Men Who Stare At Goats. Some may be left flabbergasted but that is the point. It was a wild acid trip while it lasted: you may not remember all of it but you can recall it being a fun ride.

Final Verdict:
3.5 Stars Out of 5

*Two months late maybe, but that is how my school newspaper rolls. I wrote this for it over the weekend and decided to post it here too. ;)
 
“By reinterpreting an essential symbol of one generation in the medium and technology of another, The Beatles: Rock Band provides a transformative entertainment experience. In that sense it may be the most important video game yet made.”

Seth Schiesel, the New York Times video game critic, declared this upon the release of The Beatles: Rock Band on September 9, 2009. In the field of journalism, this type of statement is viewed as hyperbole. And it is. However, Schiesel makes a somewhat valid point here about the importance of this new release. By blending icons of two generations (Beatles for old; video games for current), The Beatles: Rock Band is a far more important release for both music and video games than the fifth Guitar Hero or another Rock Band featuring LEGOs (yes, there is one).

But first, a short history. Practically every human being on the planet with an ear for popular music is aware of The Beatles. From their Liverpool days to the final rooftop concert they performed in London, The Beatles defined a generation and remain one of the most influential acts on the planet. John, Paul, George and Ringo created immortal albums such as Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul that remain ingrained into the public consciousness today. Thus, this Rock Band release is significant in its ability to bring The Beatles’ music to those who may not be that acquainted with their music already.

Nonetheless, the only thing people want to know is whether or not the game lives up to the hype or not. To an extent, it certainly does. The tried and true Rock Band formula is brought here with little change to the fundamental structure but many tweaks to the aesthetic style. The game is bright and organic, unlike many of the dark, dimly lit venues from Rock Band 2. The most famous venues of the Beatles’ career serve as backdrops for the songs, including the Cavern Club in Liverpool, Shea Stadium and Budokan. Once the Beatles moved past touring and fully divulged their creative element, they settled at Studio 2 in Abbey Road, which is where most of The Beatles: Rock Band takes place at. Here, each song starts in their expansive studio then

transforms into a “dreamscape” based off the song that is being played. For instance, “Yellow Submarine” will feature nautical scenery such as huge waves and, of course, a yellow submarine. All of the songs at Abbey Road have an individual scene and while some of them are drab (“Getting Better” is merely flashing lights and Sgt. Pepper garb), the dreamscapes really set this experience apart from any other music game out there and really make this game a loving tribute to the band that brought so much to the world.

Furthermore, the set list is stellar even if it misses some key tracks.   All points of their career are touched upon, starting with “I Saw Her Standing There” and ending with, well, “The End.” “Dear Prudence” is a blast to play on any instrument, with difficult hammer-ons for guitar, a steady groove for bass, complex fills for drums and a soulful vocal part. Speaking of vocals, there is an innovative (and somewhat overdue) addition brought to this game: 3-part harmonies. As any Beatles fan knows, much of the magic behind their songs lies in the layered harmonies between John, Paul and George. For this game, three different microphones can be plugged in for different participants to attempt to harmonize with one another. It is not easy to do but it is very

satisfying when the chorus of “I Want To Hold Your Hand” is mastered with a group of people. While vocals are obviously tough merely because of the voices behind the songs, the rest of the difficulty on the instruments are a considerable knock down from other Rock Band/Guitar Hero games. The Beatles were not the technical masters of their instruments like Eric Clapton and Keith Moon of the day even if they still rank up there with the best. The creativity they had was unequivocal and, thus, why their songs were so captivating. I was able to 5-star nearly every song on Expert Bass or Hard/Expert Guitar, something I am rarely able to do in other games. However, the drums actually remain very challenging, possibly dispelling the naysayers of Ringo’s ability. “I Wanna Be Your Man,” from the early album Meet The Beatles , is shockingly hard, with an erratic beat and intricate rhythm that is laughably difficult.   The note patterns on the whole are not as tough as other games but arrive at a good middle ground to cater to newcomers as well as veterans, leaving both parties satisfied in the end.

It is disappointing that such tracks as “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “Hey Jude” are unexplainably absent from the game as well, but they will most likely appear down the road in the form of downloadable content. The full albums of Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul are planned to release before the year is over, and Abbey Road already came out with songs like “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” and “Oh! Darling.” Even with the missing songs, the library included in the game is varied and fun to play, which ultimately means the most in this case.

The Beatles: Rock Band is obviously a labor of love from the folks behind it at Harmonix. Every aspect of this game feels more polished and refined then other music games that have come before it. The fact that this game was made is still somewhat shocking considering Apple Corps, the Beatles’ studio, and their strict protection of the band’s name. They obviously oversaw many of the stages of production, making sure this was not slighting the band in any sense. Apparently they demanded more wind to be added to the final rooftop concert, seeking to capture that chilly day accurately. However, the history in the game is certainly a sugarcoated one, with nary a mention of the forces behind their breakup. Any fan knows those details though, and this game really serves as a tribute to why they were so great in the first place.

Of course, there are many out there who could care less about The Beatles: Rock Band but still eagerly awaited September 9. That reason is because the remasters of The Beatles’ catalog was released on this day as well. Available in two different sets, stereo and mono, The Beatles’ catalog finally received the upgrade it has severely needed.

To those unaware, the 1987 CD versions of The Beatles’ music were released haphazardly in stereo, without much care or attention to detail. Fans for over 20 years have been seeking better forms of their music, found, of course, on vinyl. However, with the new release of these CDs, the LPs may not be the superior alternative anymore. I got an early holiday gift in the form of the mono box set and observed some of the differences between the remasters and the 1987 CDs.

Please Please Me , The Beatles’ debut, features a number of classic tracks but they usually were flat or lacking in energy. This is different with the remasters, with “Twist and Shout” being a great example. John, who recorded this song at the end of a daylong session, barely has any vocal cords left, giving it its famous, raw sound. The detail is fleshed out with this remaster, making it sound much more authentic and close to the original recording. One of my favorite Beatles songs, “Taxman,” was a rather shoddy track previously but is given new life with this facelift. The bass and drums are cranked up and sound drastically different. Some songs even change pitch or tempo, such as “She’s Leaving Home.” Raised a half step and sped up, Paul’s singing sounds more confident and less shaky than before. Listening to these songs on my PS3 hooked to a nice sound system, I really was impressed by the quality and overall vigor the songs captured. Even without a nice sound system, these songs are great on headphones or boomboxes because of the one-channel sound that mono is defined by. Truthfully, most of the changes are small but, overall, they create a new set of recordings that is really greater than the sum of its parts. Mono sounds very different from stereo and my time with the latter has been restricted to online samplings so I cannot properly gauge its quality. However, mono is the biggest jump from the 1987 set so this box set is probably the best way to buy the remasters considering that they are unavailable for individual purchase.

It is not often that a nearly 50-year-old act is given the spotlight in today’s fast-moving society, but The Beatles are no average band. As the top-selling band of all time, there was not much more ground that they needed to cover to gain more recognition or acclaim. However, they are now the feature of the best music game to date, one that is appealing to many who have been unaware of most of their work, as well as serving the ultimate fan service to the millions of loyal fans in the form of the new, remastered box sets.   Even after the death of George and John, their influence remains strong. There will never be an act that can rival their impact again, but the fact that we can celebrate their work together, decades later, benefits all of us.

There have been two movies as of late that have gotten a lot of attention for one reason or another. One is a tribute to the King of Pop, the one and only Michael Jackson, while the other has been declared the "scariest movie ever made." I found that only one of these two actually lived up to the hype. However, since they are shorter and, while not undermining the artistic merit of either of these films, less deep productions, I decided to write shorter reviews for them both.

This Is It

Love him or hate him, but Michael Jackson was one of a kind. From his roots in Gary, Indiana, where he started the Jackson 5 with the rest of his family to the days of Thriller and Off The Wall and until his tragic, confused death, no other individual ever made such an impact on pop music as MJ. As a tribute to his legacy, This Is It seems like a money-grabbing attempt at the countless legions of fans who want to see what Michael's final days were like. However, much to my surprise, this movie turned out to be surprisingly enjoyable and perhaps the best tribute that could be made.

This Is It's premise is simple:  take the footage of Michael's rehearsals for his planned reunion tour which was filmed all just weeks, days or mere hours before his death, and add some interviews and stylish editing to top it off. Honestly though, it works. The movie can be labeled a concert film considering that about 75% of the on-screen action is singing or dancing but it keeps you engaged throughout with great pacing and effects. 

The music is the star here, and it does not disappoint. MJ sings most of the songs with an energy that strictly contradicts his supposed sickly state of the time, considering he hits most of the high notes with relative ease. Basically all of his classics are here, with "Beat It", "Billie Jean", "Human Nature", "Thriller", "Wanna Be Startin Something" and many more. For songs such as "Thriller", filmed sequences in graveyards were filmed to be used as a backdrop for the concert action. We see the filming process and the intricacies involved, though obviously most of the detail will probably be included in the Ultra Super Collector's Edition of the film which is bound to be released.  The "Smooth Criminal" scene is fantastic, blending scenes from Humphrey Bogart's film Gilda with the, well, smooth criminal that is MJ. At the end, or even in the middle, of some songs Michael will stop to note something he wants changed or improved upon. He was always a perfectionist and this film truly shows how he wanted everything to be just right for his final shows. 

There is no look at Michael's troubled life or death in this film whatsoever. It is all about the music, and the lives he touched throughout his life. Interviews with backup dancers and musicians all gush over what Michael brought to their lives and the effect he made on them.  The director, Kenny Ortega, obviously saw the greatness in Michael as well and worked hard to make this concert be the best it could be. Unfortunately, it never happened. After watching this rehearsal footage you can only wonder what could have been. Seriously, this would have been one of the most elaborate, and probably best, tours ever done if it could have followed through. But, in the end, we are left with this tribute alone, and it achieves its job and then some by reminding us all of Michael Jackson's legacy in a positive, loving light.

Final Verdict:
4 out of 5 Stars

Paranormal Activity

Well, there is not much to say about this film besides the fact that I was disappointed. I do not know why I even anticipated much, though the claim that this was the "scariest movie ever made" definitely enticed me into seeing it. However, I never was genuinely scared or really spooked. I was interested in it, but not in a very attached way.

Basically, Paranormal Activity is the story of a couple in Los Angeles who experience various "hauntings" in their bedroom at night. The boyfriend installs a camera and documents everything Blair Witch-style, as the whole movie is in the handicam format. I am not an advocate of that type of filmmaking (Cloverfield was not a big hit for me) but, in this case, it does work to some extent. With the lack of any real special effects and the bare bones budget of $15,000, Paranormal Activity is taking the raw approach and an acknowledged, cheap camera can get the job done. Once the movie gets going (there are no opening titles or credits), it becomes very formulaic. A night passes by and we see the strange footage of things that happened. Micah (the boyfriend) and Katie (the...girlfriend) observe the footage and freak out. It is quite a bore for the first half or so as nothing really occurs of much significance besides an extremely cheesy appearance by an actor playing an expert at psychological and spiritual affairs like the ones the two are experiencing. I will not spoil anything else that happens in this film but I will say that I never was scared in a way that I anticipated. This seems to be a trend too; only the really, really sensitive will be genuinely freaked out by this. The ending is a bit of a disappointment too. Too anticlimactic, gimmicky and cliched to leave a good impression.

Overall, Paranormal Activity is a movie that really benefits from our current forms of communication (Facebook, Twitter, etc), because it has been making rounds on the Internet and claiming the spoils with a near $90 million domestic gross as of this writing. This may be the most profitable movie ever made in the long run. Still, Paranormal Activity is a shallow film that will be all the buzz now but never thought of again a few months down the line. It may be worth seeing it to just experience it, but the experience really is nothing special.

Final Verdict:
2.5 Stars Out of 5 

 *Disclaimer: This review may contain slight spoilers. However, the extent to which plot lines are revealed is about equal to a reading of the original children's novel. However, the following is as much a review as it is an analysis. I equate certain events in the film to what there true meaning may be. It is a joy for the viewer to find these by themselves, but reading some thoughts here will do no harm. But to anyone with no intent on seeing the movie, there is no harm in reading this (and maybe you'll change your mind). Nonetheless, enjoy.* 
 

Where The Wild Things Are:
Directed by Spike Jonze
Released in 2009

"Well, that was underwhelming." That was the first thought I had when I left the theater after seeing Where The Wild Things Are. The movie lacked focus, it did not pack the punch of emotion like I expected it to and the ending seemed abrupt. I was ready to cast the film aside and call it a disappointment. That was until I gave it some time to sit, to digest. The greatness of some films are not always apparent from the initial impressions; upon leaving Inglourious Basterds I knew I had seen a mad masterpiece but I didn't appreciate the perfection that is Dr. Strangelove until a second viewing. Where The Wild Things Are is no exception; beneath the cuddly, kid movie surface lies a film that is one of the deepest and emotional tales I have seen in years.

Initially, let me explain the general premise to the uninitiated:  Where The Wild Things Are is based off the beloved children's book by Maurice Sendak, released in 1963 and featured in the childhood of millions of American children since. The book is only 10 sentences long and, thus, hard to adapt to a full-length feature film. However, screenwriters Spike Jonze (also the director) and Dave Eggers take the overall premise of the picture book as well as the aesthetic look and make something entirely their own. This film is dark. Children may be fooled into believing that the playful creatures that are featured in the trailer only serve as one-dimensional playful objects but that is a false assumption. They occasionally look very frightening, act violently and behave in such intemperate ways that may even cause nightmares among the youth. Still, if a child has an open mind and a knack for analysis (I want to meet this kid), he or she will thoroughly enjoy this film.

 
In terms of plot, Where The Wild Things Are is the story about Max, played by the aptly named Max Records, who lives an imaginative yet lonely life at home. His sister has miserable friends who tear down his ice sculptures and she only looks on with mild disapproval, not acting or even being apologetic. Max's mom, with the ever reliable Catherine Keener at the helm, is a caricature of a mother that sadly exists in the real world but would make any mother, despite some similarities with this character, cringe. She is a divorcee or single mom from unknown circumstances, though it is fairly sure that the father walked out on the family early on. During a date with a man played by Mark Ruffalo (featured for maybe 40 seconds of screen time), she ignores Max despite his incessant pleads for attention. This culminates to Max embarrassing himself and his mother in front of this "date," much to mom's chagrin, and Max fleeing his house without looking back. All the while, he is dressed up in a wolf suit. Looking for liberation, he finds a sailboat and takes it to a faraway island where he encounters the Wild Things. They are about to eat him when he reveals to them his "magical powers" that are so powerful that he could make "people's heads explode." Clearly a manufactured lie, this excuse is bought by the creatures and they crown him king. From then on, the plot is not the focus.

The problem I had with the film upon conclusion was how it just meandered along, with no general concrete plot beneath it all. Max and the Wild Things have fun by engaging in a "Rumpus" or having a "dirt clod" fight, all featuring breaking stuff or throwing things in some way. There are scenes between these events such as the building of a large fort "where only the things you want to happen, would happen." There is never any sense of progression; the film's approach is very freewheeling and loose. However, this is revealed to not be the film's true value or even necessity.

 
Where The Wild Things Are's weapon is symbolism. It wields it often and with the grace of a poet.  A second viewing of the film may be mandatory to truly appreciate the detail and effort that went into it. The Wild Things are comprised of seven different creatures:  humble, loving Ira (Forest Whittaker), the mute and menacing Bull (Michael Berry Jr.), Judith, the pessimistic and rebellious one (an excellent Catherine O'Hara), the sympathetic yet plainly pathetic goat creature Alexander (Paul Dano), the consistently loyal Douglas (Chris Cooper), the affectionate and motherly figure KW (Lauren Ambrose) and, last but not least, the leading figure, Carol (James Gandolfini). These different creatures all represent a different aspect of Max's mind, thus showing the multiple personalities he has. He finds Carol to be the closest like him, accepting him without hesitation from the start. Max also sees the worst of himself in Carol, shown by the hostility between them near the end. Carol goes on anger tantrums, tearing apart their houses which reminds Max of his similar situations at home when he wrecked his own house. This bond proves to be the film's strongest point, as evidenced by the bittersweet conclusion. When Max sails back home, Carol runs to him in an emotionally devastated state, finally cognizant of the harm his ignorance has caused. He is unable to embrace Max for one last time but emits a howl of such shaky sentimental stature that only tears or ignorant laughs from the audience will result. As Max sails into the sunset, Carol gets a last look at the boy who revealed the best and worst in him. The analogy here is how Max's father recklessly abandoned his family but did not realize his mistake until it was too late. The father misses his family dearly now, just as Carol's tears show, but will never be able to partake in that final endearment. Upon realizing this revelation, I was torn. Not in a long time has a film hit me with such an emotional blow.

 
Truly, the film can be endlessly perused and analyzed for small details that carry significance. And they are there. Watch KW's introduction of the mysterious Bob and Terry and try not to think about the mother's date with that special individual or even the sister's unworthy friends. Better yet, Carol goes on a tantrum and reacts violently against Douglas who spouts the best line of the film regarding his "favorite arm." That, again, relates to Max's real world and Carol's pathetic excuses only make Max realize how immature he has become. The final salute to childhood will strike a chord with the high school crowd as shown by my thoughts. We are stuck in the middle between child and adult, not knowing when it is safe to set sail for the life of responsibility that lies ahead. But, shown by Max's journey, we all have the bravery to take that leap of faith. Clearly, there is no doubt that symbolism is this film's source of significance and emotion. Anyone who ponders the events of the screen will ultimately gain much satisfaction from realizing what was behind the cuddly exterior.

 
But what an exterior it is. Shot entirely in live action, Where The Wild Things Are takes an innovative approach at CGI through its natural blend of fantastical creatures in a real world. The Wild Things were filmed in costume with a static face; this was later changed when the voice talent was added and the faces emoted digital yet very lifelike feelings. They contain a stunning level of detail and emotional range that captures the nuances of every happy, sad or anger-filled moment. Complementing this triumph in imagery is the beautiful cinematography. Filmed in Australia, Where The Wild Things Are takes place on a wonderful island with great variety shown by the lush forests yet stark deserts adjacent to each other. While logically impossible (this is a fantasy story after all), this antithesis in environment only amplifies the beauty of everything else.

In the end, Where The Wild Things Are is a unique, fascinating film. Never before have I had such a 180° turnaround on a film from utter disappointment to unhinged love. The characters, and the true meaning that lies beneath them all, are fully developed even when they may seem shallow initially. The absolutely stunning visual work only helps the film's cause in the end as well, portraying the film's message about childhood even more effectively. I am not disappointed by Where The Wild Things Are:  I love it. Maybe my irrational dismissal of the film without truly comprehending what I saw suggests I have some growing up to do myself.


Final Verdict:
4.5/5 Stars  
 

For a movie that is poking fun at the current horror movie genre, Drag Me To Hell ends up being one of the best horror movies in recent memory. Its mix of campy violence, witty humor and genuine scares make Drag Me To Hell an entertaining, compelling film.

The overall premise is simple: Christine, played by Alison Lohman with a full committal to her role, is living a nice life until Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) comes along. This old, gypsy woman requests Christine for an extension on her mortgage. Christine decides to deny the mortgage in hopes of a promotion but Ganush, in her fury, casts a dark spell upon the poor girl, the curse of the Lamia. The Lamia stalks its victims for three days until finally bringing them down to eternal hell. Christine has no plans of eternal suffering and goes to great lengths to rid her of the curse. The film is brilliantly paced and just moves; this film will hook you from the beginning and not let go until the end. And what a finale; I could not have imagined a better way to end this movie and it combines equal parts humor and pure terror to leave the viewer shocked as well as satiated.

In a horror movie like this one, acting is not a field where this film will usually, or even necessarily have to, excel in. However, Drag Me To Hell has an excellent lineup lead by the lead actress, Alison Lohman. As an innocent girl with a (literal) hellish burden put upon her, she performs her part with a great mix of typical horror film naivety, pure terror and pissed-off badassery. Lohman even goes to disgusting lengths such as swallowing maggots in her full dedication to her role. Christine's boyfriend is played by Justin Long and is just what you would expect from him. He doesn't really believe his girlfriend's struggles and has bigot parents to boot. This role is not new for him but Justin Long is a likable actor and he fits the role with ease. As well, Lorna Raver as Mrs. Ganush is excellent without a doubt. Her makeup transforms her into a menacing, demented gypsy who haunts Christine at every turn. There is even an extended fight scene that involves her brawling with young Lohman. Clearly, Mrs. Raver put a lot of effort into her role. Another prevalent actor in this film is Dileep Rao who plays Rham Jas, the seer who can see Christine's troubles. He is a likable character who only has limited screen time but ends up being one of the few, real good guys in the film. Basically, the acting is better than expected and a big part of why this film is better than most horror films this decade.

However, what really sets Drag Me To Hell apart is its style. There is a certain campiness to it that was clearly the brainchild of Sam Raimi, the director, looking back to his early days of Evil Dead. The violence, especially for a PG-13 film, is shocking yet somewhat hilarious. At one point, Christine spouts blood from her nose like a fountain, with people around her viewing it as a minor distraction. Clearly, the violence is meant to amuse, not repulse. That being said, there are various forms of blood and bile liquid flowing throughout. Furthermore, its self-deprecating look at the horror genre actually lends it an advantage. Many situations are full of the typical cliches such as a dead flashlight, shadows under a door, or closet jump scares. It works though; this could be attributed to its excellent directing or driving pacing. It never plods along at a slow pace. Countering this humor and convention is real horror. There were many times throughout the film where I was actually creeped out by its Lamia spirit or Mrs. Ganush, even if I may have laughed at them afterward. All in all, it is very interesting how Drag Me To Hell blends comedy, parody and horror all into one creation that seems original as much as they may have been done before.

To sum up, Drag Me To Hell is a fun, wild film. It keeps you hooked, regaled and even spooked throughout with no time to breathe. Add in the surprisingly good acting and one of the best endings I have seen in recent memory and you've got one of the finest horror films of the decade.  
 
4/5