The Orange County Screenwriters Association
Be Inspired, Do Good Work
I will admit that I am harder on scifi movies than any other genre. Being a huge fan, having read it since I was a kid (starting with Tom Swift Jr.,) I know the scope of incredible themes, characters and concepts available and possible. Scifi can be anything any other story can be - romance, actioneer, comedy - and still deal with dystopian and utopian futures, post-apocalyptic scenarios, aliens, microscopic worlds, uni-sex planets...the range is breathless.
"Repo Men" is a clever scifi concept looking for a decent story. It tries and fails to visit a possible future where artificial organs are de rigueur and financing for those organs has become a business run by "The Union." (Begin psuedo-future-societal scifi bullshit with that vaguely threatening and totally implausible corporate name.) If you can't pay you're visited by the Repo Men section of The Union and they cut their pastdue merchandise out of your body on the floor of your living room, public bathroom, or wherever else you're unlucky enough to be if you're 96 days past due. No extensions possible.
And yes, most likely you will die after they complete their gruesome task because they don't use anesthetic, care about hygiene or really anything but getting said organ back to the shop.
Repo men (Jude Law and Forest Whitaker) are not sentimental or squeamish about cutting people open and removing things. Eyes, ears, limbs, hearts, livers - just about anything that can be replaced with a mechanical one can also be repossessed by slicing it out of you.
In a not-unexpected twist, Jude Law becomes a recipient of an artificial heart, gets behind on his payments (does no one have health insurance in this fakakta world? ) and is hunted by the Repo Men. Note to President Obama: Please, do not show this movie to the Senate to shock them into passing health care legislation - they'll turn on you.
He tries after surgery to go back to being the cold-blooded S.O.B. he was before he had his heart replaced but he can't. Oh, the irony abounds! With a real heart, he's
a prick without a conscience; with an artificial heart, he's a marshmellow with feelings. He just cannot bring himself anymore to cut an organ out of anyone. He says, "I kept thinking that every one of those people had a wife and kids" - or words to that effect. Wha-huh? This is now just occurring to him? Wouldn't you assume that he would have had this thought or conversation just once or twice before? Especially since his wife leaves him specifically because he does this for a living?
Therein lies the problem in a nutshell to this mess of a movie. Characters have revelations that have no solid basis and plot elements are casually tossed in without regard to setup or payoff. Along with a loooong time to get to the meat of the story, and some horribly bad extrapolation, it all makes for a tedious and not-entertaining sit.
In perhaps the most egregious example of plot elements tossed in willy-nilly, a major player, Beth, (Alice Braga) becomes Jude's love interest midway through the film and he suddenly becomes willing to sacrifice everything to save her simply on the basis of a song she sang in a bar one time.
Miss Braga is an attractive woman but she isn't classically beautiful, and we see no scenes with her up to this point - none - during which she speaks so we can't get to know her and understand why she's so special to anyone, let alone a man she meets while sitting in some garbage in the requisite burned out urban area where all the people running away from repossession seem to gather. Attention all scifi bad guys: just find the urban-decayed area in your city and you'll find whoever you're chasing plus a bunch of hapless victims to kill.
Why in the world the Jude Law character falls in love with Braga is just never explained. His entire life is going to shit around him (new heart, can't work, wife leaving, etc.) and this guy suddenly gets the hots for a woman who has more artificial parts than The Terminator (ears, voice box, knees, hips...oh, who cares.)
Liev Schreiber who plays Jude Law's boss has scenes that make absolutely no sense. What upper-managment wonk do you know who dons an apron and checks in reclaimed artificial parts like some grocery clerk? (Trust me it makes no sense if you see it either.) The scene exists solely so they have to go to The Union HQ and find "the pink door" and *sigh*, never mind.
And what exactly was the point of the book the Jude Law character "writes" (on a typewriter, no less - give me a f*ing break) called "Repossession Mambo." Oh, I know that's the title of the actual book the film was based on (by Eric Garcia who also contributed to the screenplay) but the title is dumb times two and is never really explained. Oh, wait - was it a joke? Yeah, well, I didn't get it. Like most of this film.
The movie borrows from "RoboCop," "Blade Runner," "Logan's Run," and "Fahrenheit 451" to no good effect. Where those films were cautionary tales, and this one tries to be, it's not finely-tuned enough to be effective, settling instead for ultra-bloody moments and lame jokes instead of decent explorations. You can see the backdrop of health care gone rampant in this - it's obvious - but it never achieves the moments where you really get scared that someday you're going to need a part and won't be able to afford it.
The other major problem with this film is it can't decide what it wants to be tonally: slasher flick, comedy, tragedy, horror...the story and characters just are simply not strong enough to sustain this salad of themes and genres. The opening tone is smart, jokey, bizarre - almost "Brazil-like." Then it gets dumb and serious.
It's just very hard to cozy up to a character who puts on headsets to listen to music (decent soundtrack by the way) as he's slicing open a dude and forcibly removing his heart. But if that's going to be the tone, then make that the tone. Stop dropping in moments of anguish where he begs to see his kid or he falls intensely and Shakespearianly (yeah, I know that's not a word) in love with an enigmatic woman - or when he's discussing his historical manlove for his big, dim-witted compadre who has now become the instrument of his destruction. Stay the hell on tone! Now who thought I'd ever write that phrase?
WARNING: GEEK RANT AHEAD - Social commentary of the kind that "Repo Men" is trying to accomplish has to be fully thought out. Scifi works because scifi writers spend hours thinking and researching the far-reaching effects of their worlds, understanding the impact of the societies they are creating. I know this is a terribly small thing but there's this tattoo that all these guys have on the side of their neck - not some of them, all. It's a fakey kind of bar code thing - pseudo futuristic, doncha know? Like putting 
an apostrophe in a name to make it an alien name. Mark becomes Ma'ark and suddenly I'm alien. Anyway, the tattoo has absolutely no function. It isn't a way to get into anything like a secret room or even the Repo Men bathroom; no one ever recoils in horror from someone who is wearing one; and just a thought but if you're trying to repossess something don't you think you'd be a little less obvious about it and perhaps not have this big-ass ink that screams "I'm here to cut your parts out!" Small maybe but it points to a larger problem. God save me from directors and writers who don't understand scifi and who do that kind of crap thinking that they are creating subtle and clever social commentary. Ugh.
"Repo Men" almost redeems itself with its ending - if it hadn't come out of basically nowhere. Oh sure, the technology is mentioned but it's never given enough emphasis for us to guess it will play a part so it feels like a total cheat.
If you like your films bloody, senseless, and manic "Repo Men" has flashes of entertainment. And I will give it points for trying in all categories. Had they done better work, kept it reasonable, I think I might have liked it more. As is, I wish theaters allowed us to do the Priceline thing and negotiate our price for movies. Well, maybe not - even at half the face value of the ticket, I still would have asked for a further reduction and/or refund.
See it on DVD (if at all) and you'll hate yourself less.
"Justified," is not the latest Justin Timberlake CD but rather a new drama on FX based on novels and a short story by Elmore Leonard. For those who don't know, Leonard is an American novelist and screenwriter who has been selling stories about hard-scrabble men and women since the 1950's. A lot of his early work was in Westerns but evolved to become more noirish-type material.
This series is a modern-day western that features Timothy Olyphant in the lead as U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens. He walks tall, talks soft, and "pulls" as fast as any gunslinger in the Old West.
The premise is simple: Catch some bad guys. The opening gambit is set in Miami where Marshall Givens has given a drug cartel "gunman " 24hrs to get out of "Dodge."
It's not completely believable why he's doing this rather than buidling a case against him and arresting him but let's just go with it and enjoy the steely-eyed stares and tension that the scene builds.
Because of this incident (he kills the guy after the idiot actually draws down on him) he is transferred to the U.S. Marshall's station in Kentucky close to his hometown of Harlan - a place he left many years before and would really like to stay away from. His mom is dead and his father, who he obviouly doesn't want to see, is apparently some sort of hell-raiser from the old days so expect some dramatic issues there when we meet the old man.
The KY section chief (Nick Searcy) explains that here they do everything. The do-it-all nature of the station - investigations, arrests, prisoner transports because they are much smaller than the big-city stations - should provide a rich tapestry of stories that Givens will be involved in going forward.
This is not a cerebral lawman. He probably won't be doing much CSI work or matching wits with Hannibal The Cannibal (although he could - he's pretty smart too.) Even the crooks 
he's after seem to be out front, in the open, and accessible. You can just drive up and knock on their doors. Or churches as the case may be.
The strength of the Marshall Givens character is that he knows when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. He'll have a drink if you offer - no false "I'm on duty crap." He always goes in quiet but will come out guns blazing - actually, it usually takes only one bullet so blazing might not be the operative word here. He'll talk to a crook first, and shoot second - but make no mistake, he will "pull on you" if you "draw on him." And eventually, the bad guys do make that one fatal error. And his shoots are always...justified (so expect at least one of them not to be.)
Givens, in a long view sort of way, is like Kwai Chang Caine, the seminal character from the old (old!) series "Kung Fu." You watch him because you know at some point no matter how he might prefer otherwise, he's going to have to get to kicking some bad guy ass. The "Kung Fu" stories normally waited until the last part of the hour to set Caine loose; Givens is more likely to have a series of confrontations that lead to the ultimate one.
There is a marked difference however - Caine wasn't the angry lawman that Givens appears to be. His ex-wife calls him "the angriest man I've ever known" and you can sense that perhaps Givens enjoys shooting a bad guy just a bit too much. This should be rich dramatic material to explore going forward.
Actress Joelle Carter does a sexy turn as Ava who has had a crush on long-tall Givens since she was a little girl. There were times where I probably would have dialed back the Southern sex-kitten routine but Ava does provide a nice counterpoint to the bad boys that populate this series. Even still, she's more than capable of racking a load and shooting some bad ass when necessary (she has just killed her abusive husband with a "deer rifle" as the main story in KY opens.)
Walton Goggins plays white supremacist Boyd Crowder, a "friend" of Givens ("we dug coal together when we were 19.") Of course he gets shot by Givens but only enough to put him in the hospital. The Crowder character is more criminal and less supremacist as Givens mentions when they've got "a jar" and are drinking a white lighting toast to their youth like proper good 'ole boys. I'm not sure how complex their relationship is or will become but the men seem to work well with and off of each other.
As mentioned, this is not an overly-complicated piece of work and yet it possesses reasonable depth. Interpreted by writer Graham Yost ("Speed" "Raines") Givens isn't too much or too little; Goggins as the bad guy could easily chew the scenery but his character is played just right. There's a scene in an SUV where even knowing what's coming, Goggins smooth, understated character mesmerizes you into not anticipating it.
I gotta say I really enjoyed this pilot. If Olyphant isn't the second coming of Clint Eastwood - at least in this role - then I don't know who is. Right out of the box, this show shows great potential being a nice mix of drama and ass-kicking. There's a tone here that's hard to resist and impossible to quantify at times. It's as if everyone is on exactly the right, same page at the right, same time, a tribute to the actors, producers, director and writer.
Hard to imagine this not being a must-see for a large segment of the audience because it's got something for everyone including some perfectly-timed dry humor.
"Justified" is not for kids. I doubt the demo skews that young anyway but I wouldn't let my 13-yr-old (if I had one) watch this.
This went on a Season Pass immediately. My hope is that they will continue to churn these out for a goodly amount of time to come. It's on FX, which has another of my favs "Rescue Me," on Tuesday nights.
At one point in his career, Jerry Seinfeld could have sold ice to a penguin; sand to a camel; smoke to a fire. Then came the short-lived Microsoft ads that he did with Bill Gates and suddenly it was anathema to be seen with him on film.
"Cop Rock?" Really, what was up with that show, Steven Bochco? A drama-musical-whatever hybrid that nearly wrecked Mr. Bocho's career after the genius of "Hill Street Blues," and more quality television writing than you can imagine.
How about all the "Saturday Night Live" alums who can't seem to make one decent film or tv series between them when they leave the show to pursue their "genius?" Dana Carvey, Amy Poehler, Chris Kattan where art thou?
I have to admit that I love success stories - those seemingly larger than life real life tales that make you feel that anything is possible if you just don't quit. But even more I love those stories about those who reach so high at times they forget they can't really fly and they crash and burn. Why? Because its a sobering realization that we can't always believe "our press." The kicker is that most of those stories are also accompanied by a story of redemption and success - not alway but enough times to make me think that failure is just simply another phase of success.
The truth is, even geniuses fail - we just don't focus on those failures - unless they're spectacular - as much as we remember the successes. Scratch any career in Hollywoodland with a light fingernail and you'll uncover more failure than anyone wants to admit.
The difference is that those who succeed:
1) Aren't afraid to fail.
2) Aren't permanently devastated by those failures.
3) Learn and get stronger from failure. In fact, anyone who succeeds almost must fail either first or second or at some point in their career.
There's a famous "sophmore jinx" that bands go through. After years of struggle, they make that 1st album which becomes a huge success and then wham - the 2nd one is so bad you can't even give it away. If they recover, sobered and enlightened by their disaster, they usually turn out a great 3rd album.
Writers have that too. We sell something hot and the production companies want more. So we go into our war chest, find that one stinking mess that we've always loved and no one else did, and give it to them. They (all of "they"), calling us genuises and not being able to back away from that appelation, buy it, make it and...never call us again.
Writer Diablo Cody, for example. "Juno" - huge success. "Jennifer's Body" uh...not so much.
How about "Mallrats," Kevin Smith's 2nd feature after "Clerks?".
"Anatomy of Hope." "Cloverfield," "Six Degrees," and "What About Brian" and the lukewarm "Fringe" - all J.J. Abrahms productions before he killed with perhaps the best reboot ever "Star Trek" in 2009.
In fact, in general, how many disgusting masses of celluloid have we had to sit through called "sequels" that completely failed to live up to the promise of the originals?
Failure is great (in hindsite) because it forces us to step back and re-evaluate - not take things for granted. Not believe our press clippings.
We simply cannot get too wrapped up in the buzz. It's like the high diving scores at the Olympics - toss out the high score and the low score and you've got a good idea of where you actually are in the world.`
Failure is also perception - one man's floor is another man's ceiling. I remember getting into a heated argument with a person who tried to say that a film that cost one million dollars and grossed seven million dollars was a failure because it made less than most blockbuster films' kraft services budget. Once I pointed out that the film to which he was referring which grossed 150 million dollars on a budget of 130 million dollars lost money he conceded my point. It may have been a failure to him but it was a huge unqualified success to the producers of the small film who happily sextupled their investment. Had the big budget film he mentioned done the same it would have had to gross nearly a billion dollars.
Failure is a force for good, not ill. No one succeeds without some failures. And no failure is the end of the road unless you allow it to be. The surest way to fail is to quit. Try to remember when you've been knocked down and you're a mewling pile of "why me" that most failures are transient. There's a statistic that states that most people who get fired go on to better (!) jobs.
Don't be afraid to fail because that means you're at least trying - and that says a lot about you no matter what else others may think.
I’m going to commit a bit of heresy here and make the suggestion that if William Shakespeare was alive today he would have been a screenwriter. Not just any kind of screenwriter but a genre screenwriter - a really good "B" movie screenwriter but nonetheless, he'd be writing "Die Hard" and "Terminator" and "The Lookout" - those kinds of genre films.
When you think about Samuel Goldwyn’s famous quote: "We want a story that starts out with an earthquake and works its way up to a climax. " - you’ve got Old Bill.
How about KING LEAR for example?
Act I, Scene I - King Lear's palace
Enter KENT, GLOUCESTER, and EDMUND
KENT: I thought the king had more affected the Duke of
Albany than Cornwall.
GLOUCESTER: It did always seem so to us: but now, in the
division of the kingdom, it appears not which of
the dukes he values most; for qualities [equalities] are so
weighed, that curiosity in neither can make choice
of either's moiety.
KENT: Is not this your son, my lord?
GLOUCESTER
His breeding, sir, hath been at my charge. I have
so often blushed to acknowledge him, that now I am
brazed to it.
KENT
I cannot conceive you.
GLOUCESTER
Sir, this young fellow's mother could, whereupon
she grew round-wombed, and had, indeed, sir, a son
for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed.
Do you smell a fault?
KENT
I cannot wish the fault undone, the issue of it
being so proper.
Soap opera anyone? I mean, say what? This is two noblemen, Gloucester and Kent, discussing the fact that King Lear is about to divide his kingdom. But - their conversation quickly changes, when Kent asks Gloucester to introduce his son. Gloucester introduces Edmund, explaining that Edmund is a bastard being raised away from home, but that he nevertheless loves his son dearly.
How about Hamlet? Act I, Scene I - right off the top.
BERNARDO
Last night of all,
When yond same star that's westward from the pole
Had made his course to illume that part of heaven
Where now it burns, Marcellus and myself,
The bell then beating one,--
Enter Ghost
MARCELLUS
Peace, break thee off; look, where it comes again!
BERNARDO
In the same figure, like the king that's dead.
MARCELLUS
Thou art a scholar; speak to it, Horatio.
BERNARDO
Looks it not like the king? mark it, Horatio.
HORATIO
Most like: it harrows me with fear and wonder.
BERNARDO
It would be spoke to.
Enter...Ghost? Really? "Paranormal Activity" had nothing on the Bard.
William Shakespeare wrote for people about people and places that his typical audience would never see. He understood that what fascinates is what we can't experience directly. He knew that he could be successful as a writer by delivering on dark secrets and mysterious goings-on. Sound anything like say, "Layer Cake?" Or perhaps "The Godfather?"
I mean, this is a guy who is considered a literary genius and really, all he was writing was...genre stuff.
Romeo and Juliet:
Romeo: O, wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied?
Juliet: What satisfaction canst thou have tonight?
Romeo: The exchange of thy love's faithful vow for mine.
Juliet: I gave thee mine before thou didst request it!
Romeo: Well, Juliet, I will lie with thee tonight.
Wow. Kinda hot, kinda sticky. Kinda "Grey's Anatomy."
Of course we understand that Shakespeare was using allegory in some cases. But at the core, this guy was writing his ass off about base human emotions and motives. Nothing all that deep there - ego, betrayal, jealousy and rage.
Sidebar: I remember seeing a Kenneth Branagh film a few years ago and it credited the material to William Shakespeare. I thought - that’ pretty cool - 500 years later and William is still getting an above-the-line credit. Now, that’s staying power.
A ghost who talks to his son, witches, kings failing and falling, a sex farce? Judd Apatow, J.J. Abrams, David Koepp, Ernest Lehman and every soap opera writer who ever lived...they all know what the Bard knew - because Shakespeare wrote material that engaged, involved, and entertained people. Old William wanted wham-o scenes; he knew how to make cats jump out of the shadows. Sex sells - who didn’t know that even back then?
Mark Twain said: “My books are water; those of the great genius is fine wine. Everybody drinks water.” Exactly.
Who exactly decided that you couldn't be a genius and write stuff that appeals to Joe Plumber? That's what Shakespeare did. His allegory was thinly-veiled if at all.
I love Shakespeare for all the reasons most people mention - but think about this; he's using wham-o scenes, visual impact to tell a story and touching on the veryman's fobiles in even the highest reaches of society. In some cases we could see his work as "Gossip Girl" Victorian-style.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t write or film or produce the best work we can. It’s just that we should never accept judgments about our work that diminish that work. Writing a script, making a movie - any movie - is damned hard and those of you here who have tried or done it know that. "If it bleeds, it leads," is an old newspaper saying - The Bard of Avon got that - he really did.
We’re the shamen and witchy women around the fire, the Shakespeares, the Twains of our time. That a heavy responsibility - so - act right. Don’t embarrasse yourselves or us.
To thine own self be true. --William Shakespeare
Be Inspired - And do great work.
Film Noir has had a long, venerated history in European and American Cinema; its roots can be traced back to German Expressionism of the 1920s—The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) being one of the finest early examples that set the tone for the dark atmosphere that permeates all well written and directed noir stories. 
I had a film teacher once who opined that no one under the age of 30 should be allowed to direct movies, because until you hit that age, you do not know anything. Of course it’s hyperbole; however, in lies a small kernel of truth that explains why the vast majority of beginning writers and directors make the same basic mistakes about how to write for a visual medium. They simply don’t have the requisite experience and acquired knowledge that comes with practice, time, and study. Pay attention to Shakespeare: “Ripeness is all.” We’ve all done it: you spend hours and hours working on what you think is the perfectly crafted, Academy Award winning scene, only to be told that what you love as narrative will not play as anything visually filmable, because it can’t be translated into camera ready text. It’s one of many reasons why most movies based on literary masterpieces are generally unwatchable, and just plain awful. 
visual text to help create a noir hero the audience can easily identify and empathize with, since the character of Julian reflects the audience’s own psychology. Schrader managed to create a likable male prostitute the audience wants to root for—a rarity in mainstream Hollywood productions. The only other film that comes quickly to mind that managed to pull off a similar feat was Gus Van Sant’s My Own Private Idaho (1991).
real human interaction that Julian needs, in order to save himself. Pay attention especially to the scene where Julian sings along to Smokey Robinson, as he decides on the perfect set of clothing: tie, shirt, jacket, shoes. His whole life is revealed in what is shown of the décor that surrounds him: there is no sense of rootedness in Julian’s life; he lives in a hotel, the epitome of a temporary existence; his apartment at the hotel reeks of a lack of home: boxes left partially unpacked; expensive pieces of art stacked against a far corner; nothing tells the viewer that here is comfort; here is love; here is a humane presence. Schrader skillfully does all this with screen images—there is no dialogue to mediate between camera and audience to tell you what place the character is in; you are easily able to see and perceive.
Thursday night, MAOC and OC Screenwriters gathered four preeminent documentary filmmakers to discuss their craft.
The men and their subjects couldn't have been more different:
David Bojorquez was probably the most commercially oriented of the group. His company Vision4Media does many and varied documentary subjects. Most recently, he is shopping a documentary about early hip hop dancers called "Beyond the Moonwalk." It looks to be highly entertaining, informative and fun.
Jay Grewall, however, is just starting on the path of documentary filmmaking. His film "If Mother Only Knew" gets inside the world of Mixed Martial Arts fighting and the whys of these men and women who put themselves into such punishing situations. Grewall was very personable but seemed so much less sure of himself than the others, which was quite refreshing. He was rawer, less polished and closer to what I see in a lot of colleges with new filmmakers. His energy was good and his answers solid. He's going to be a filmmaker to reckon with.
Richard Theiss fairly vibrated with his mission to educate about his beloved sharks and his love of nature. A long-time diver, Theiss has supplied content for many, many productions now including Google Ocean. He's about as accomplished a filmmaker as you can imagine and even with so many years behind him seemed excited still about everything he's done and everything he's doing.
Peter Buffa was the most sardonic of the group. As a former politician, Emmy winner and current filmmaker he entertained the crowd with witty ease. His current project "Titans of History" about the blimp hangers in Tustin, CA was rich with archival footage. It looks fabulous and informative.
The Bowers is a gorgeous venue and all who attended enjoyed the sumptuous surroundings and the superb 200 seat theater.
The event was the perfect length although I personally felt like a little more depth could have been teased out of the enormous talent we had in attendance. Perhaps eliminating the opening statements by the filmmakers and having a bit more structured Q&A would have helped.
It was a solidily entertaining evening; hopefully something similar will be done again in the near future.
February 2010 Event
In conjunction with the Media Alliance of Orange County, we present a Q&A with documentary filmmakers at the Bowers Museum.
NOTE: Pre-registration is closed. Please pay at the door at the event.
Cost is $12.00 unless you present a valid Student I.D. in which case it is $5.00.
Well first off, if you have no idea what a steampunk story is I have to say shame on you. Where were you through the 1980's to the 1990's. To help those of you to remember the past or just to get an idea of what exactly is behind a steampunk story, check out the link to the wikipedia article on what is steampunk. 
So enough with the refresher course. Just recently I've been watching a new webisode on the internet called Riese. Located at (http://www.riesetheseries.com). It started out last year on the Chapter 1 story and then was just getting started on Chapter 2 toward the end of the year. Each chapter has at least 5-6 episodes in them which are at least 5-10 minutes long. In and of itself, that would not sound that impressive. But the cool thing about the webisode was that it was done
in a full production type of setting and environment. The costumes looked really good as well as the steampunk equipment being used. Each episode had a good story plot that built up on the past episode. Had a good sound track for ambience in the background. Dialog was crisp and clear. Basically this was not your do this in your garage and put it up on the internet type of production. They took real care and love in producing this and it showed.
Here's the basic story of Riese taken from their website.
Riese is a world of moral ambiguity and political intrigue.
A decimated land populated by characters from dreams and nightmares. Loyalties are ever in question, suspicion in the minds of all. The realm, however, was not always so cruel. Everything began with a peaceful nation called Eleysia.
The Kingdom of the Wolf, Eleysia was once prosperous due largely to the influence of Empress Kara and Emperor Ulric. This all changed when a coup d’etat, orchestrated from the shadows by a religious cult,
brought about a total regime change.
Taking the throne was Amara, the Empress’s cousin.
A power-hungry tyrant, Amara immediately utilized Eleysia’s wealth and power to begin colonizing the world, crushing nation after nation in order to unite the people under one banner. Even as she assaulted the world, an ominous, enigmatic group clearly wielded power over her. Called The Sect, they purported themselves to be the official religion of Eleysia, and began to spread alongside Eleysia’s borders. 
Since the coup, the land has begun to die, resources are dwindling and compassion is fading. Humanity itself is seen as impure. People have grown restless, almost feral. Rituals and mythology have resurged, and the darker side of mankind has begun to reveal itself.
The true horror of the world is not in how it ends, but what will become of mankind as it fractures.And yet, despite the impending doom, a single beacon of light shines in Riese. A mysterious wanderer, she travels with her wolf Fenrir across this barren land. Branded as heretics by The Sect, Riese and Fenrir will pause to aid those in need as they travel, but they must evade capture at all costs. As she flees, she’ll piece together her past and her destiny, in a conflict that will hold the fate of this world in the balance - and the once peaceful kingdom of Eleysia will be the battlefield.
That is basically the story behind Riese. Unfortunately by the time of this review being put up, the production of Riese got some good news for funding but for us viewers it is slightly bad news. By Februrary 5th of this year, they went into partnership with Fireworks, a digital dristribution branch of ContentFilm, based out of the UK. Fireworks has been able to move a number of webseries to the mainstream media. So while the negotiations with Fireworks are still on going, Riese had to remove episodes from their online stream due to the negotiations. But they are hoping to have it back online when negotiations are finished. The good news about this is that people might actually be able to see Riese on TV in the coming future. Which would be interesting to see.
On a side note, in my opinion, it looks like a lot of shows now and in the future might be first coming out as webseries first. Basically to test the audience pool and to cut cost out of trying to run a full episode for TV. If they catch on with fans, they might then be picked up by the mainstream media branches for distribution and showing. With the way technology is going this is more a likely hood then a guess. Since almost anyone can pick up a decent video camera and start filiming and then be able to edit it on a decent system. The thing is that not everyone can. You have to love that your doing it and be able to put the time in it to get it out. It's not really a cut and paste thing. The people who put out Riese seemed to have got it. Some episodes during last year were delayed but they came out eventually and they looked good as any of the previous episdoes.
Overall I hope to see more of this type of webisodes coming out in the future. It'll be interesting to see if Riese can stay as good as this in feel and story when it hits the main stream. I just say that cause of good series going down hill after they hit the public mainstream.
Well enough of my ramblings. Just wanted to say keep your eyes open for Riese when it hits a TV channel near you and keep an eye on the website for when they put the episodes back online. It's worth a look. But in the mean time you can check out the trailers for Chapter 1 and 2 on their website, http://www.riesetheseries.com
After 50 Years, It's Still a Classic.
Some movies live inside us long after we see them. That’s why we check the safety lock on hotel doors before we take a shower. And why the name Norman Bates makes us smile and shiver at the same time. And why so many people assume that Anthony Perkins must have been creepy in real life because “nobody’s that good an actor!” But he was. And it helped make “Psycho” the classic it is.
If you want proof of Hitchcock’s genius on this 50th anniversary of his 1960 masterpiece, check out the 1998 word-for-word remake with Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. The difference intimidates would-be filmmakers, who ask themselves how the exact same script can be made into such a dismal failure or become nothing less than the template for all horror films that followed.
I first saw “Psycho” as a boy in Lake Mohawk, New Jersey at a theater that for some reason got their movies well ahead of the New York market nearby. So no one knew what to expect. My childhood buddies and I sat behind my sisters and four of their friends.
As the detective, Arbogast neared the top of the stairs, I somehow thought it would ease my fear if my sisters were scared even more. So as Norman’s mother came running into the hallway with that raised knife and those shrieking violins I touched their shoulders! Their screams were deafening and triggered more screams in our whole section. They were furious at me for days, and the younger one wouldn’t shower for months.
What makes (present tense intended) “Psycho” so good? Even film classes can’t cover it all. But let’s start with the shower scene. In one of the scariest moments in
movie history, the gruesome knife murder of a beautiful woman at her most vulnerable – the woman we thought was the main character – comes at us so fast and so brutally it staggers us and switches on an adrenalin drip that lasts for the rest of the film and beyond. We’re left thinking, “This can’t be. She’s the star.” That’s when you know you’re in a whole new kind of movie. And now anything can happen. The adrenalin keeps dripping.
And Hitchcock keeps playing with us. After Norman covers up his “mother’s” mess we’re somehow on his side! Why else did we find ourselves worrying along with Norman when the car stopped sinking in the swamp. And why we were rooting for him not to be tripped up during his interrogation by Arbogast. Remember how we felt when he made the mistake of telling Arbogast about his mother meeting Marion? The master was setting us up. The dutiful son with the gentle voice who was just trying to help his poor old mother was never suspected. And that made our discovery all the more frightening when we came face to face with Norman the Oedipal train wreck killer and his decaying mother under that swinging lamp in the fruit cellar – an image still living in our collective consciousness.
Hitchcock taps into one of our deepest fears, felt more so by women – an unexpected act of violence just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and accidentally triggering rage in the wrong psycho. And at the same time he’s preparing us like fatted calves for the slaughter, he’s treating us to his sly sadistic humor.
Hitchcock often referred to his macabre masterpiece in comedic terms. Oh, we don’t notice it so much on the first viewing. We’re too scared. But the next time you have the privilege, watch two scenes in particular – Norman and Marion in his stuffed animal parlor when he treats her to a sandwich and milk, and the scene where Arbogast questions the increasingly fidgety Norman. If you haven’t already, you may see the Perkins performance in a whole new light – understated quirky perfection that made “Psycho” one of the blackest of black comedies and one of the scariest films of all time.
No matter your age, turn down the lights and treat yourself and someone you trust with your life to a 50th Anniversary viewing of this essential film lover’s classic.
Reitman Vs. Sheldon Turner Controversy: We Compare The Two 'Up In The Air' Scripts
This is an interesting comparison of the versions of the script that got made into the film "Up In The Air." This after the LA Times printed a piece suggesting that Jason Reitman wasn't giving credited co-writer Sheldon Turner his due on the awards circuit.
Imagine a person who travels so much and is so emotionally unavailable that he prefers the artificial environments of airports to home. In fact, in "Up In The Air" one of the first things we find out about Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is that all the things that might irritate us about airports - the bad food, the security measures, etc, feel like "home" to him.
Interesting character with lots of potential.
The story is adapted from a novel by Walter Kirn. Bingham, the main character, is a professional corporate downsizer (job terminator.) Even more to the point, he works for a company that is hired by other companies to do their dirty work. They come in when companies need to dump a work force and handle it for them. Bingham has a specific and time-tested way to do this.
He doesn't condescend to the terminated and he's supportive without being chummy. He's good at what he does and the fact that he's devastating people's lives doesn't have a huge emotional impact on him so no long term repercussions - or so he thinks. He's content and thriving. Eventually, his way of life and employment will be threatened but let's not get ahead of the story.
As mentioned, Bingham loves to travel. In a hotel bar in an opening sequence, he small talks potential sexual conquest Alex Goran (the stunning and sexy Vera Farmiga) by comparing rental car companies and their strengths. Then they swap plastic courtesy cards and she is massively turned on by his mythical American Airlines concierge key.
When they compare frequent flier miles and she confesses to only 60k / year, asking his numbers, he refuses, saying it's personal and she says "Come on, show some hubris - impress me."
A bit broad and artificially funny but also deliciously done.
I wish I could put all the dialogue in that scene in a bottle and sprinkle it on everything I write. That's how good it is with two veteran actors making it work by delivering it to pitch-perfect perfection.
Bingham's ideal existence is challenged by corporate spark plug Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) who is developing a way to dismiss people using a webcam and a script. Pushbutton dimissals. No more traveling. This horrofies and threatens the Binghm character's existence. Clooney objects, saying she has no idea what she's doing and the boss decides to put them on the road together so the young pup can learn from the old dog.
At this point, you'd think maybe this was romantic comedy material. Nope. They aren't interested in each other even when Kendrick's boyfriend breaks up with her via a text message. She's around solely to poke his conscience, tell him that his existence is a shadow of what it could be if only he'd find someone to love. In fact, at some point she even disappears from the storyline and we don't pick her back up until the end.
With her out of the story, "Up In The Air" lags and isn't nearly as sparkling as it was. The two of them made a good team - her Yin to his Yang. Once gone, the story becomes a bit tedious and mundane.
We miss moments like:
Clooney: "I'm like my mother. I stereotype - it's faster."
Clooney to her on plane where she's typing hard: "Are you mad at your computer?" Her: "I type with purpose."
The Kendrick character is both an archetype and stereotype at times. Her 1st real dismissal interview is too easy - too easy for him to be the hero because she's such a cluelss dork. But she's got a good presence and it is sorely missed when Clooney has to work the
story himself.
The movie takes a completely different turn as Bingham and Alex ( Farmiga) bond after Kendrick goes away. He shows her his high schol in Wisconsin, takes her to his neice's wedding, etc. Why? What function do these scenes serve. There's really no moment when he realizes he's left this community life behind and become this island of himself. There's also no reason given as to what event(s) pushed him into that lifestyle. Abusive parents? Selfish and handsome? What? But perhaps the entire sequence is meant to convey that. If so, it is really weak and aimless.
I won't detail the ending Act because it has a lot of fun reversals in it. It does keep you guessing at to what's going to happen and that's good.
Not a yuck fest, not a great drama, "Up In The Air" strikes an interesting balance between both but also fails to do either at times leaving you detached and uninvolved. It's not sweet enough to leave you feeling happy, not sour enough to leave you wryly intrigued. Perhaps that the place the filmmakers wanted. For me, it felt a little unsatisfying.
I have no strong desire to see this film again. But I am glad I saw it once.
Strong performances, solid material and a good job by director Jason Reitman (but not a Best Director win in my opinion.) I also doubt that this film will get anywhere near the votes to win Best Picture.
More...
What an odd little film this is. Based on a memoir from British journalist Lynn Barber about her affair with a con artist when she was in school, the original essay was published in the literary magazine "Granta" and wasn't transformed into in a book until the film was well into production. Begin the oddness.
Nick Hornby, who wrote the screenplay, is a well-known British novelist (High Fidelity, About a Boy) and who has had several of his books and essays turned into films but hasn't done much in the way of screenwriting. Another oddness.
The story is straightforward. A young girl (16) is transfixed by the attentions of an older man who sees her walking home in the rain one day. Unknown to her initially, he is a con man who makes a living stealing art and also moving black families into housing units so when the old women who live there become afraid and want to move out, he can buy the units cheap.
Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is a bright and educationally motivated young woman who is a bit bored by her life and its predictable paths. Every one tells her she should go to Oxford. She thinks that's an okay idea until one day along comes this charismatic older man who shows her things she only daydreamed about - like night clubs and Paris and dog racing and all sorts of psuedo-sophisticated whirlwind events.
She's sixteen and he's much older - maybe by ten years or more. They don't sleep
with each other until she's seventeen so I guess that was okay but no character ever mentions the disparity in their ages which I found a little troubling. Even her very controlling parents don't seem to comment much about their relationship. The filmmakers would have you accept that they are as seduced by David (Peter Sarsgaard) as Jenny is. A bit of a stretch perhaps.
A concerned teacher tells her to finish her education but also never says anything about the gap in their ages or how it's painfully obvious that David can manipulate Jenny's hunger to live a bigger existence so easily. The people that David hangs with even comment on Jenny's grades in school with little or no recognition that she is still in school. Odd compounded.
Jenny's coming-of-age is both exciting and painful. Her arguments for her lifestyle changes to her friends and teachers are solid and seemingly informed but they are without a knowledge of how the world can turn on you - how wonderful can become horrible in an eye blink. Ultimately, she has her way in pretty much whatever she wants and as the saying goes - be careful what you wish for.
The movie takes a darker turn at this point and I'll spare the details so as not to spoil it. Jenny learns that life lived at that high a level has an equally high price. Living like an adult means being hurt like an adult. In most cases, there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Cary Mulligan as Jenny is luminous. If you've got a heartbeat you can't help but fall in love with her. She reminds me somewhat of Emily Watson when she was up and coming, especially in "Breaking The Waves." Mulligan's performance is instantly accessible and powerful - part of the reason is certainly the excellent dialogue with which Horny infuses the script. The other reason is Mulligan's pixish face. The dimples on this woman's cheeks are so disarming when she wants them to be - but inside there is a core made of solid steel. Mulligan knows exactly how to use all that to best effect.
The rest of the cast is equally as accomplished and excellent with veteran actors like Alfred Molina as Jenny's father and Emma Thompson (in a throwaway role) as the school principal.
Hornby's screenplay is serviceable for the most part. At times it really shines and crackles with his obvious skill. But things like tired montages, skipping over lakes of emotion instead of diving in, and some unsatisfying resolutions drag those sparkling moments down.
Nevertheless, this is the rarest of all films these days. A drama that is well-paced, interesting, and illuminates only a small corner of a world that isn't all that open to most of us. What 
makes it work is the scent of sleaze that wafts from the Sarsgaard character. You know he's wrong, you just don't want to believe it because his character also oozes a sincerity and hunger for normalcy that belies your instincts. There's no doubt he loves Jenny - he just has no way to make that connection on a truthful basis. A truly masterful character turn.
I am a bit confused by one thing in that this is a British film and yet not in the Foreign Film category. It's about as British as it can be and yet it's in the "American" Best Picture category. I've seen this before, obviously, but what are the rules these days? I'll have to look them up.
This film won't please you if you're expecting big moments where people shout and throw things and chew the scenes. But as is typical of excellent British drama, the many small moments are truly powerful and scream and bleed with the best of them.
At ninety-five minutes, I think this film could have been expanded by about ten minutes or so. It felt as if there were a few scenes missing - a too fast transition to the darker parts and no solid expansion of them.
"An Education" isn't perhaps the best film I've ever seen but it's pretty damned good. Although I doubt it will win, it is worthy certainly of Academy consideration - and yours.
Spoiler alert: Most of this review is actually a rant about Quentin Tarantino.
Tell me honestly: how in the world does a film like this make the best of anything list, let alone the Oscars? Was it really such a good idea to let crap like this into consideration with the expansion from five to ten nominees? This film and "District 9" (my review) were my two least favorite films of the group and I have no idea why they're in the list. The only reason I watched this film was because I committed to review all the Best Picture nominees. Next time, I'll just pass.
I'm well aware that some people have an appreciation for Mr. Tarantino's works. I am not one of them. I've tried. Not hard but I have tried.
After "Reservoir Dogs" I've never gone to a theater to see one of his films although I have rented a few in an attempt to see what everyone likes about his movie making. It's not that I don't like violent films - I write them myself - I just don't get this guy and his ahem "artistic" sensibilities. Plus, there's a lot of good information that he heavily "borrows" a lot of his material from other sources. Don't get me started on where I think he got his "Kill Bill" story - I'd have to point you at one of my movies and how similar his is to mine which was done years before and he did know about because we were both at the same film company at the time.
Yes, okay - maybe it's sour grapes. I admit that he's got the sort of career I dream about. But then again, so do a lot of other people who I don't dislike as much.
Sigh...
Enough about my Tarantino rant. Let's talk about this movie.
Why? Why make this film? Did it tell us anything we already didn't know? No. Did 
it illuminate the War in any fashion? No. Did it teach me anything - anything - about myself or the human condition? Please. Does it show American soldiers being sociopathic killers and torturers? Yes. And that is really an affront to every American, but especially the soldiers who fought this war. And for crap's sake, it rewrote history! Hitler and his high command killed in a theater explosion? Do you fully appreciate the idiocy of that?
Lighten up - I can already hear you saying. It's made to be tongue in cheek. Don't you get the joke? No, I don't. The only joke here that is consistently funny is that anyone found any value in this movie.
Let's see if I can synopsize it for you: A group of serial killer Americans led by a serial killer commander choose to go to Germany and kill Germans in the most horrific fashion imaginable in order to scare the crap out of them. Fun. I'm getting the joke now.
Morally bankrupt, overly tedious and way too long, Tarantino falls into the same traps in this film he has always fallen into. He is too in love with himself to cut his scenes or his insanely long and boring dialogue - I'm shocked this wasn't a two-parter like the simple-minded, overlong "Kill Bill." Why not pack it with even more extraneous garbage that doesn't make any sense?
I confess. There isn't much that Tarantino could have done, based on his previous work, to convince me that this would have been worth my time. I did struggle to keep an open mind - and failed. The introductory scenes just left me dead inside (or asleep maybe.) Who exactly am I supposed to like in this film? I guess the girl Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) whose family is killed in the beginning and...hmmm. No one else.
I mean, seriously - defend these scenes and ideas someone:
- These very smart and clever men who are so good at what they do suddenly go stone stupid and make a plan that has no chance of succeeding. It's so clever that in five seconds the Landa character (Christoph Waltz) has sussed it out.
- The bar scene - wha..?
- The "war paint" scene where Shosanna puts on her "armor" (makeup) before going to battle. Tre' clever. Haven't seen anything like that before in a hundred other films.
- The awkward nitrate film explanation scene inserted with a once-only voiceover narrative and black and white film footage to us how explosive nitrate film stock is. Let's see - can't think of any other way to do this so I'll just jam in a one-time v.o. and break fourth wall. Now that's filmmaking.
- And who told Eli Roth he could act? Both he and Brad Pitt looked like they had gas through most of this film and Pitt seriously looked like he was channeling the Don Corleone character from "The Godfather" with his jaw struck in some ridiculous fashion.
- How about the stupid cinema lobby scene which wasn't funny but more like a pathetic student film moment with Mr. Pitt using the broadest possible accent in his Italian. Yuck, yuck - now that's just mega-funny.
- Of course security won't look behind the screen for the explosive film nitrate all stacked nicely for burning. Just because Hitler's coming for popcorn - that wouldn't make any sense to have extra security - or even normal security - now would it?
And how about all that really artistic slow-motion violence? Come on, Quentin - that was old in John Woo's heydey in Hong Kong twenty-plus years ago. Can't you think of anything original? Honestly, have you ever?
Damn it all. This was 153 minutes of stupidity in my life that I won't get back.
Shame on you Adademy voters for putting this miserable dog of a film in with some truly great films. What's next? Transformers III?
"A Serious Man" is as disturbing a film as one can imagine making. More disturbing than "No Country For Old Men?" Yes - blatant violence is absent from this film except for one unexpected moment that turns out to be a dream but what makes this film so hard to watch is the same thing that makes a newspaper so difficult to read - the random nature of life and the seeming non-logical nature of our existence.
"Why me?" Behind this simple question in this black comedy is a demon of epic proportions lurking - one we try to push out of our lives and deny. But at the edges of a silent scream it waits doing nothing but sitting there with a smug smile and the power to completely destroy our lives.
The story revolves around Larry Gopnik perfectly played by Michael Stuhlbarg, a professor of physics whose life is ruled by the certain logic of the Universe through his math. He does his job, comes home, takes care of his family and is a decently observant Jew. This is all of us at some point - taking our lives to a place we can't know and can't see so we just do the things we're supposed to do every day.
Things begin to unravel for Gopnik when one of his students tries to bribe him into changing his grade. Gopnik explains to the student that he has no knowledge of the math behind the physics and so he can't possibly give him a passing grade. The student says "But I understand the cat" refering to Schrödinger's cat, a thought experiment, often described as a paradox It illustrates what Schrödinger saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The thought experiment presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. The student is arguing here that he gets the paradox, intuitively and doesn't need the math. He understands the duality of our lives, both good and bad. To Gopnik this is incomprehensible - until his life goes out from under him and he he begins to understand that logic isn't applicable here; he needs to try to understand the cat, something he won't be able to do for most of the film.
This goes to the very nature of the film which feels like it's mostly about the uncertainty of life - that we cannot possibly know in which direction we're heading because all directions are random based on a thousand minor interactions. I kept
seeing raindrops in this film - raindrops that collasce and form into floods that can drown us or sweep us along willy nilly to another reality.
The story narrative is loosely based on the Book Of Job who was beset by Yaweh by so many trials that he nearly lost his faith in God's will but in the end was rewarded for his staunch faith.
I won't recount the various events that lead to Gopnik's ruin but suffice to say that they are both mundane ("Dad, 'F-Troop' is fuzzy") to the profound ("Hashem (God) hasn't given me shit!")
Gopnik tries to get answers from attorneys and rabbis alike. Most are inane, one drops dead. Gopnik might as well ask a wandering dog for answers - those answers will not be not forthcoming.
Some see this film as relentlessly bleak and discouraging. And perhaps that's the point. The Coens wrap it in their sly humor but they aren't joking around here. Or maybe they are since trying to figure out The Universe is like an ant trying to figure out where its at after being stuffed into a series of dozens of nesting boxes and then buried 1,000 feet underground. Woody Allen had a great quote about this: "When you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans."
It's amazing to me that the Coens, for all their exalted and priviledged status as filmmakers can still find the common man. Some would say they sit in judgment of these characters they create, laughing at them, showing us how superior they (the Coens) are to us all. I think that's wrong-minded. The story feels intensely autobiographical especially the Gopnik son who goes through the movie stoned and unaware of the bigger questions facing his father. I think the Coens are channeling, not sitting in judgement. At the same
time, their movies deftly point out that they have done some serious thinking about religion, God and these paradoxes of our existence and have come to no good conclusions, just more questions. Who has? Anyone who says they have the answers, these films seem to say, is a fool. Agnosticism is a robe the Coens pull on every time they sit down to create a movie.
The film is amusing and so very clever in its approach. It teaches and informs without being overly preachy. Okay, some of the scenes are thematically sledge-hammered into your brain but on the whole, there is enough cautiousness presented here that you're able to sit and allow the film to roll over you as you slowly develop this sense of growing horror that this is your life they're talking about - everyone's life in fact.
Nature plays a big part in the Coen films and this one is no exception. Whether the natural forces are just that - nature - or God - isn't ever really made clear but there is a hint in the book of Job where God appears as a "whirlwind." As it sits, you can interpet the ending any way you choose and it's valid. That, in itself, is quite an accomplishment since it's rare in today's Hollywood that an audience is allowed to make up their own minds about how they feel (Mr. Speilberg, are you listening?)
I choose to see the agnostic message here: Since we can't know we just have to act right toward each other and hope for the best. Yaweh, God, if he exists is unknowable and unreachable. Trust your fellow man, as bankrupt a philosophy as that can be made in some people's hands. Does Bernie Madoff get pay-per-view in prison I wonder? I think he needs to see this film.
The song "Somebody to Love" by Jefferson Airplane sums up the film to a neat degree:
When the truth is found to be lies
And all the joy within you dies
Don't you want somebody to love?
Don't you need somebody to love?
Watch "A Serious Man" and remember that no one in Hollywood, since Woody Allen went south on us, is making these types of films anymore. All right, perhaps the lightweight and self-serving Charlie Kaufman - but otherwise no one seems to be searching for these deeper answers in film and making that search as public and personal as the Coens.
Allen did it in the 80's - the Coens are doing it now; twenty years from now someone else will be doing it again because it doesn't matter how many people do it, we all come to the same conclusions: if you're not sure that your religion or philosophy has all the answers then you can search until you're dead and you'll never be able to say with certainty that you've figured it out.
Even if you're a serious man.
I saw "Up" with honestly little anticipation. The trailers didn't intrigue me. Not like "Wall-E." Nothing about the movie seemed to appeal to me but really, am I the target demographic anyway?
I know Pixar is a wonderful company, with "The Incredibles" being one of my all-time favorite films, but I was never a huge fan of "Toy Story" or the other Pixar films - except as mentioned and "Monsters, Inc.".
My first thoughts were confirmed. "Up" didn't thrill me. It's a good film - just not wonderful.
The movie spends a lot of time needlessly setting up the backstory about a young boy who meets a young girl who both love adventure newsreels. They become friends, marry and carry on for what seems an eternity growing old together. Honestly, was anything in that overlong montage worth the hundreds of hours it must have taken to put it together?
Eventually, the woman dies and the old man loses the love of his live. He finds
little to like about a world that has gone modern around him - literally. They are building a super, ultra, modern-type building around his little patch of heaven where he married and grew old. He simply refuses to sell or change. When he hurts a workman in anger, he's sued, loses his house and is forced out.
Instead of going to the nursing home, he uses his knowledge of balloons to lift his entire house 'up' and away to South America where he had always promised his dead wife they'd go. He doesn't realize that he's also taken a klutsy little nature scout with him who has to "help an old person" to get his last merit badge.
The story is typically Pixar-like; complicated, at times touching and at (few) times well-told. My problems with "Up" began after the landing in South America. The direction the script takes is nothing short of bizarre. Talking dogs (the one named "Doug" was freaking wonderful); an inventor who is also an old explorer who invented the collar that allows the dogs to talk and also to be his servants. Huh? There was absolutely nothing in the setup that fortold these parts and they come out of nowhere for a lot of head-scratching moments.
The old adventurer has an obsession to find a prehistoric bird which of course is right under his nose. The old man and the kid (and Doug, the dog) have to help the bird escape and fight of the old explorer who was a childhood hero of the old man but now is evil.
Just explode my head now.
I'm sorry. "Toy Story," "Monsters, Inc.," the incredible "Incredibles," etc. had clean storylines that made sense in their individual worlds. This one did not and the convoluted nature of the plot takes away a lot of the charm of the film. Is this really the best story they could have come up with? Based on other, better films I say no.
This one just didn't do it for me. I doubt I'll ever watch it again and I didn't recommend it to any friends although I wasn't negative about it. I just shrugged when they asked me if I liked it.
I say 5 oranges on this one - not sour nor sweet but certainly more sour than sweet.