The Notebook - My Wife’s DVDs

This is the kind of movie my wife had in mind when I started doing this. The fact that I have never seen The Notebook has come up a few times, so I finally broke down and watched it. I thought it was fine, but it’s just not my type of movie, which is why I never watched it to begin with. Not to be a basic bitch dude, but I just don’t find love stories all that interesting. At least, movies that are only about love stories; I need something extra in there. Bram Stoker’s Dracula comes to mind. That movie is essentially a love story, but there are vampires and blood and in-camera special effects, and it just looks cool. The Notebook has very little going on beyond the central relationship and one of the strongest attempts to make an audience cry that I can remember (for the record, I didn’t cry; more on that in Random Thoughts). Still, there are some crazy elements to The Notebook, and all of it happens in five minutes.

A Wild Five Minutes

For The Notebook to fill out a full running time, it’s essential to break Gosling and McAdams up for most of the film. It’s set up that her family thinks he’s trash, and things fall apart when they whisk her away back home, leaving Gosling heartbroken. Gosling decides to write her a letter a day for a year to see if she truly loves him. McAdams’s mother intercepts all these letters, leading Gosling to believe it’s over and time to move on (more on that in Random Thoughts). This starts off a crazy five minutes of story.

It starts with Fin (E from Entourage) messing things up between McAdams and Gosling for no reason. McAdams comes by the lumber yard while Gosling is off on a job somewhere, so she talks to Fin. Fin inexplicably tells her it’s over, and she just needs to leave Gosling alone. Why does he say this? McAdams reluctantly leaves, and Fin tells Gosling what happened, leading Gosling to drive off to find McAdams, but he’s too late. Clearly Gosling was not over McAdams, so why did Fin tell her this? 

I got vibes from Fin that he actually had feelings for McAdams the whole time to the point that I expected Fin to play a bigger part in the relationship later on. That ended up not being the case, but am I crazy for thinking this? Either way, it was a dick move to tell McAdams that Gosling was done with her.

So Gosling writes the letters, thinks they are ignored, and decides to move on. He and Fin move to Atlanta, but then America enters WWII. They both enlist, and Fin dies in battle (that’s what you get for cock-blocking your best friend!). McAdams becomes a nurse and meets her future fiance (and future cuck) James Marsden.

This all happens in five minutes of running time. I get that the movie has to keep things moving, but it seems like a little more time could have been spent during the war or something. I would’ve liked this a lot more if there had been a moment between Fin and Gosling with Gosling becoming angry with Fin for the McAdams stuff. While angry with each other, Fin could die, leaving Gosling feeling guilty for not patching things up with Fin before he died. This would also make Gosling’s transformation into a crazy person later make a little more sense. 

I didn’t expect to come away from this movie being more interested in what was going on with Fin, but this five minute segment just brought up so many questions for me. Perhaps that’s my biggest problem with The Notebook: I’m so uninterested in Gosling and McAdams’s relationship that I find E from Entourage more interesting. 

Why My Wife Likes It

First off, I think all women were legally required to like this when it came out twenty years ago (feel old?). Beside that, she said she liked how direct Gosling was with McAdams. Sure, he threatened to kill himself for a first date, which is a bit of a red flag. But it was clear where he stood. I did argue a bit with this because I think a direct move would have been to actually go to McAdams’s house in Charleston instead of writing a letter every day like a romantic lunatic.

Random Thoughts

So about the crying. The reveal that the old couple was Gosling and McAdams’s characters was pretty predictable. Her suffering from dementia is definitely heartbreaking, but somehow it didn’t get to me enough to produce tears. And I’m a guy who cries like a baby at movies now that I have kids (at least, that’s what I tell myself when I’m reduced to a blubbering mess after watching Coco or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). Speaking of Button, that’s another love story that has more interesting things going on. Anyway, this ending is extremely depressing with her breakthrough followed by her immediate regression. And just thinking about a lifelong relationship ending this way is heartbreaking. Them dying in each other’s arms is sad, too, but also a nice ending since she does seem to remember again right before they die. I can see why this brings the tears, but I just didn’t connect to the characters enough for it to get to me. Part of it might be the casting; I just don’t buy that Ryan Gosling becomes James Garner. I almost wish they had just used old age makeup on Gosling and McAdams or something, but I guess that would ruin the “surprise” of who the characters are even though I think everyone knows immediately who they are, but whatever. Anyway, I appreciate the effort to make people cry, but this is the rare occurrence of it not working on me.

The letter writing stuff just doesn’t work for me. First off, throughout an entire year, Gosling never thought to just make a trip to Charleston to see why she wasn’t responding? It’s not like she was moved to a hidden location; he literally had her address. I just wish there was some reason given for him not being able to make a trip to Charleston, especially since he has no problem going there later in the movie to get building plans approved. Are building plans more important than the love of your life? And how did the mom keep 365 letters away from McAdams? McAdams didn’t get the mail one single time in a year? Was her mom just waiting out there every single day? Look, I know I’m nitpicking here, but this should have been addressed in the movie. I just think the writer loved the romantic idea of someone writing a letter every day for a year and didn’t think about the logistics of it. Just like with the Fin thing, this wouldn’t bother me if I was more invested in the main relationship of the movie. But I wasn’t, so I focus on nitpicky things like this.

The foundation for any good relationship: threatening to kill yourself for a date and lying in front of traffic.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to hate her dad. I mean, he's wearing a smoking jacket like an asshole, and he has the mustache of the dude who ties ladies to train tracks in old timey movies, but I just don't know if this is a bad rich man.

So you can go to Charleston to get building plans approved but not to see why the love of your life hasn't responded to 365 letters?

And you just knew Noah was sad and troubled because he grew a drama beard.

Dudes don't like this movie because of the unrealistic expectations it creates for a man: “Why can't you be impossibly handsome, fight in WWII, rebuild a plantation mansion by yourself, and turn into James Garner and read to me until I die of dementia?”

What a strange niche part James Marsden has perfected with this and Cyclops: decent guy who doesn’t deserve to be cheated on but the audience is okay with him being cheated on.

"Blade Runner 2049" - More "Blade Runner" Than "Blade Runner"

Blade Runner 2049

(This site is supposed to be about movies I own, but I'm making an exception for this Blade Runner 2049 review since I will own it when it is released on blu ray.)

Returning to beloved films from decades ago usually results in disappointment. But thanks to a recent influx of new films that continue the franchise (Star Wars, Alien) rather than reboot it, the results have been a bit more satisfying. Still, revisiting Blade Runner seemed like a bad idea. There's not much to the original film that begs for a sequel. In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of the film is the unanswered question of whether Deckard (Harrison Ford) was a replicant. It seems like a sequel featuring Ford would be problematic for that question. Also, the first Blade Runner was not an action movie. It was a moody noir set in a dystopian future. Would Hollywood allow a sequel to be made without turning it into an action film?

Thankfully, the filmmakers (director Denis Villeneuve, producer [original director] Ridley Scott, and writers Hampton Fancher [original] and Michael Green) handled things beautifully. They do not answer the question of Deckard. In fact, they add more to the debate for both sides of the argument. And, more importantly, Blade Runner 2049 is nowhere near an action film.

The plot, which I'll be vague about since the studio left it very vague in the promotional materials, is in the same vein as the original, playing out as a simple detective story in a complex, visually stunning setting. While the plot does add plenty of questions to the series and brings up plenty of existential themes concerning humanity and technology, the true appeal of the film is its style.

Director Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Sicario) was the perfect choice to succeed Scott in the director's chair. He has proven himself a master of tension and mood already, so it was great to see him set loose with a large budget in an already richly designed world. I rewatch the original Blade Runner on a yearly basis because of the world of the film. Blade Runner 2049 takes that bleak future and turns into perhaps the bleakest future in a film that isn't post-apocalyptic; perhaps it could be described as pre-apocalyptic. It's interesting that such an ugly moral world can be so beautiful. Villeneuve and director of photography Roger Deakins take massive landfills, radioactive cities, and bleak farmlands and turn them into cinematic wonders. 

The visuals, which are a perfect blend of CG and practical effects, are amazing on their own, and the nearly oppressive score (which rattled the speakers of my theater regularly) is the finishing touch. A world is only beautiful if you get to spend plenty of time in it, though. This is where critics (and Blade Runner fans) and a typical audience member might differ in opinion. Blade Runner 2049 gives you over two and a half hours in its bleak world, with many sequences consisting solely of Ryan Gosling walking slowly. I see that and can't take my eyes away because I want to examine and enjoy every frame of the film. Others might see that and want to yell, "Do something!" 

Perhaps the best way I can describe how interesting I found this arguably "boring" film is this: I went to see this after working a twelve hour night shift. I went to the earliest show I could, which allowed me to get two hours of sleep beforehand. I've done this with other movies and could barely keep my eyes open no matter the type of movie I was watching. Yet with Blade Runner 2049, I didn't so much as yawn a single time. I was truly worried I would fall asleep when I first planned to watch this lengthy film under those conditions. When I walked out of the theater feeling completely awake, I knew I had seen something special. 

Although the visuals, pacing, and music were the stars of the film for me, that does not mean the performances were lacking. Gosling is perfectly cast in the lead role. Harrison Ford is fine as the aged Deckard (though it seems like he's just being Harrison Ford instead of the actual characters he's returning too). Jared Leto was oddly zen-like in a villainous role, but he was underused. The standouts are the female performers. Robin Wright turns what could have been a one-note boss character into fully realized character. Sylvia Hoeks provides quiet menace as Leto's muscle. And Ana de Armas gives possibly the best performance as Joi, an AI girlfriend. 

With all of this praise I'm giving Blade Runner 2049, you might think it's obvious that I prefer it to the original film, but I'm not sure yet. My impulse is to declare this the better film, but it will take time to truly tell which film has the more lasting effect. The original Blade Runner didn't catch on for years. So maybe my opinion of this film will change over the years, as well. I doubt it, though. Like most films that I love, my immediate thought as I walked out of the theater was, "I can't wait to see this again." I think my yearly viewings of Blade Runner just became a double feature, and Blade Runner 2049 is definitely one of my favorite films of the year.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Unfortunately, this is probably the last Blade Runner for a while since it's underperforming at the box office, but I'm okay with where it ended. It definitely felt like a few things were set up for future installments, but it didn't end on a cliffhanger or anything. You can imagine where things go from that ending. But I do wonder if they ignored Leto's character at the end in hope of a sequel. Or maybe they introduced that replicant underground group to be expanded upon in the future. Either way, it stands on its own as a great movie.

Gosling was meant to play a Pinocchio-like replicant.

The Joi character reminded me of Her quite a bit. It's still an interesting plotline. At times you're watching a robot interact with a hologram. The fact that these two "lifeless" characters make up a big portion of the films says something about the overall question the film posits: What is humanity?

Man, Los Angeles is bleaker than ever. You can imagine if most people had moved off-world back in 2019 how bad it must be by 2049. 

Glad to see Edward James Olmos return, still making that origami.

So is Deckard a replicant? I think he's human at this point, though I thought he was a replicant after watching the original. It's not the aging that makes me thing he's human; it was the scene with him in the car as it submerged. If he was a replicant, he would have easily gotten out of the handcuffs. Of course, Tyrell could have made him pretty much identical to a human in all aspects if he was capable of making a replicant able to procreate. Perhaps Deckard and Rachel were his replicant Adam and Eve... Okay, maybe Deckard is a replicant after all. 

Refn Returns to the Weird with "Only God Forgives"

*Only God Forgives is in theatres and On Demand now.

 

Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, written by Refn, starring Ryan Gosling, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Vithaya Pansringarm - Rated R

This is definitely one of those disturbing Chigurh movies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicolas Winding Refn got a lot of attention with Drive so it comes as no surprise that some people (critics, as well, I guess we count as people...) are disappointed with his latest film, Only God Forgives.  I am not discounting anyone's negative opinion of the film (opinions can't be right or wrong), but if people are upset because the film isn't all that much like Drive, they should take a second look.  If forced to compare the two films, I will admit that I enjoyed Drive much more than this film.  That said, Only God Forgives is the more challenging, and interesting, of the two.  Fans of Refn pre-Drive should definitely check this out.  But think more along the lines of Valhalla Rising than Drive.

 

Since I started off with comparisons to define this movie, I might as well take it one step further to give you an idea of what this movie is like, at least in tone.  I would describe it as Kubrick's The Shining by way of David Lynch's Blue Velvet.  This is a very psychological film, and a lot of the main character's inner conflicts are represented in a nightmarish hotel-type setting.  These scenes feature plenty of slow tracking shots as well, so that's where the Kubrick comes from.  It's kind of like Refn decided to keep going through the rooms in the hotel in The Shining instead of just glimpsing in at the weirdness (remember that strange shot with the dude in the dog costume?).  The Lynch comes from the randomness of the film, most notably the karaoke.  Yes, Only God Forgives features multiple karaoke scenes in which the audience watches in perfect stillness.  Think Dean Stockwell's rendition of In Dreams in Blue Velvet.  By the way, I don't consider these similarities a weakness in any way.  Refn still has his own style, and I love it.

 

Speaking of style, if you just want to watch this movie for some spurts of brutal Refn violence with some interesting uses of color all set to strange yet perfectly fitting music, then you'll be pleased with this.  If you want an easily accessible story to go along with that, you'll be disappointed.

 

Only God Forgives does a have a relatively simple revenge story since it essentially just about Ryan Gosling killing the cop (an incredibly menacing Vithaya Pansringarm) who allowed Gosling's brother to be killed.  But this is not a movie about Gosling going around beating dudes up.  Gosling barely speaks, for one thing (although he speaks more than One Eye in Valhalla), and his brother doesn't really deserve to be avenged.  Gosling's brother rapes and kills an underage girl.  On top of that, Gosling's basically evil mother (an easy to hate Kristin Scott Thomas) manipulates him at every turn.  In fact, Gosling isn't very likable either.  The film kind of feels like a revenge story told from the "bad" guys' perspective.  There's nothing wrong with that, though, and I find it pretty interesting.  Some people might want to like the protagonist, however. 

 

The fact that the "hero" of the film isn't exactly into his quest nor do we want him to accomplish his task is strange enough, but Only God Forgives allows itself much more interpretation.  I don't want to posit any theories in a review, but when you look at the movie with characters representing some good and evil archetypes it gets pretty interesting.  If you're not willing to put a little thought into the film, some of it will be downright pointless. 

 

Because of that, this is up there with Valhalla Rising as one of Refn's more challenging films.  It's still entertaining, but not nearly as fun to watch as Drive or Bronson.  But it leaves an impression, and it might make you think a bit.  And it's still Refn, so at the very least you'll get an interesting audio/visual experience.  Is it as good as Drive?  No, it's different.  It's interesting and challenging.  And sure, I'll watch Drive at least a dozen more times over the years, and I'm not sure if I'll ever watch Only God Forgives again.  But it's still worth checking out.  When Nicolas Winding Refn challenges the viewer it's not always fun, but it's definitely worth your time.  

 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

Wow, does Gosling take a beating in this movie or what?  It might be the greatest one-sided fight scene I've ever seen.  Although it is kind of hard to think of many one-sided fights in movies.  There's usually a slight chance the other participant could win...  Anyway, very brutal.

 

Completely dug most of the music, especially the fight scene music.  Drive still takes the cake in that department, though.  I might buy one song from this soundtrack, but I still listen to songs from Drive regularly.

 

Okay, might as well get into the theory that I think fits the most.  I'll keep it short.  Gosling's mom is Satan and the cop is God.  This is why he seems almost supernaturally powerful and tends to dispense judgment (this is Old Testament God).  Gosling finally gets away from Satan's influence (and feels the need to reminisce inside the womb one more time...odd), and seeks forgiveness from God.  He wants forgiveness for killing his father years ago (confirmed by the mother), which is why he allows God to cut his hands off in the end.  This is his ultimate fear as early scenes in his nightmare/psyche/hotel foreshadow this punishment.  By the end, enough has happened to him that he accepts his punishment and it relieved/released.  Or whatever...

"Drive"

Drive - Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, written by Hossein Amini, starring Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Bryan Cranston, and Ron Perlman - Rated R

The first Vader of the year.  Can't help it, I just love the work of Nicolas Winding Refn.

Every now and then something great happens in Hollywood. An interesting director makes enough great films overseas and he’s given a modest budget and a little star power and he gets to make whatever he wants out of a film. And then that film ends up playing on the big screen in an area as small as Perry County. I sat back unbelieving Sunday night as I watched Nicolas Winding Refn’s latest film Drive and witnessed one of the best films of the year…and I didn’t have to drive an hour to see it.

Refn has been making quality films since 1996’s Pusher, and recently he made his finest film to date (in my opinion, of course) with 2008’s Bronson. His films are not easily digestible as they feature graphic violence, strange soundtracks, and plenty of awkward silences. Drive continues that tradition as it features all three of those elements. Because of this, many people might simply dismiss this movie as “weird.” That’s easy enough, especially since the previews make it out to be some hardcore action flick (it has action, but to call this an action movie is unfair).

Weird isn’t a bad thing, especially with some of the crap Hollywood churns out these days. Drive may not be a traditional film, but it has it where it counts. There are awkward silences and the soundtrack, which sounds like it belongs in an 80s thriller, may be out of left field, but it all comes together to make one stylish film.

Drive doesn’t seem so odd on the page, though. It’s about a Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway man (Ryan Gosling) who falls for a damsel in distress (Carey Mulligan) but gets into trouble with the wrong men (Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman). It’s your standard story of a low level criminal getting in way over his head. But it’s so much more than that thanks to what Refn and Gosling bring to the film.

Ryan Gosling has done well for himself lately, but he’s never really turned in a commanding physical performance. He’s stuck to these troubled characters that have issues operating in the real world. No problem there, since he handles that disconnected performance so well. In fact, he gives that same performance for much of Drive to the point that some people have speculated that his character is sociopathic. His strange, constant grin and ability to turn every moment into an awkward silence certainly makes for an interesting performance especially when he so seamlessly turns into a badass.

Gosling gets to go crazy in this film and it’s great. The film makes good use of his leather driving gloves and you can just feel (and hear) the tension every time he makes a fist. And every time he makes that fist you just know things are going to get violent. The violence is typical Refn: bloody, shocking, potentially disturbing…but perfectly reasonable for the story. The ultra-violence is acceptable for a film like this because it is meant to kick you in the face when you least expect it. Violence is standard in films these days but sometimes it can put in there just to placate the bloodthirsty hordes. Sure, those hordes will like Drive, but with this caveat, “It was awesome, but man, it was slow…and kind of weird.” Others will realize that the violence is there to shock you, not just entertain you. The scenes of violence are not treated trivially; they are intense. But they do look amazing (I never claimed I wasn’t part of the bloodthirsty hordes).

The title of the film may lead you to believe that the majority of the action of this film would take place on the road, but that is not the case. There are a few well crafted getaway/chase sequences, but this film isn’t exactly a full-on car movie, though there are plenty of cool shots of the dash with Gosling’s intent eyes in focus in the rearview. The title of the film is more about the drive of Gosling’s character than it is about the physical act of driving, however. Some may be disappointed by the lack of cars and all, but there should be plenty there to keep people entertained.

Drive also has the benefit of an amazing cast. Aside from Gosling, Mulligan does a fine job silently communicating with him in plenty of scenes and she certainly comes across as a woman worth fighting for. Bryan Cranston has a few good scenes as a mentor-type. Christina Hendricks has a decent, though small role. Perlman livens up the screen in his scenes. And Albert Brooks is the surprise of the movie as a menacing, though reasonable mobster.

If all of that wasn’t enough, then there are plenty of smaller elements to focus on with the film. The strange satin jacket emblazoned with a scorpion that Gosling sports in nearly every scene can add depth to the film when you factor in the reference to the fable “The Scorpion and the Frog.” Though the film is enjoyable by just leaving it alone and saying, “It’s just a jacket that’s meant to convey an almost 80s sensibility of the film.” That retro look along with the soundtrack is cool enough to keep things interesting as well.

Interesting is the word that should be used for Drive. The film can be looked at closely and it can be simply enjoyed. My suggestion: enjoy it simply at first, then stop and think about what you’ve just seen. There’s enough action and style to keep you entertained, but there’s also enough under the surface to keep you thinking of the film. That’s certainly the effect the film had on me and I can’t wait to watch it again.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Gosling stomps a dude’s face until it is nothing!  No comment really about this, just...wow.

That shotgun blast that disintegrated Christina Hendricks's head was ridiculous in all the right ways.

The Scorpion and the Frog is a fable about how the you can't change someone's nature.  In the fable, it's the scorpion.  In Drive, it's Gosling.  He can't change, so even if he does survive that gut stab at the end (I believe he's dead, though), he still has to move on and keep driving.

Refn loves it when making a fist makes a sound...and I do, too.

Finally, I heaped insane amounts of love on this film and I am not alone.  I'm sure the backlash has already begun, but you shouldn't let yourself be swayed by other critics or by the message board crowds.  I loved it and apparently other people loved, but that didn't sway my opinion.  Nicolas Winding Refn is who convinced me that this is the best film of the year so far.