Initially called The Boat That Rocked for it’s British release, Pirate Radio is, in a nutshell, a coming-of-age dramady that is reminiscent of Almost Famous and Adventureland. It centers around a boy named Carl (played by Tom Sturridge, an insufferably awkward combination of Zombie-Adventureland’s Jesse Eisenberg and Harry Potter) who finds his manhood and the father he never met on board a boat that broadcasts the pop music of it’s day to a repressed country called England, where, we learn, the music of groups like the Kinks, the Who and the Rolling Stones used to be outlawed from the nation’s official stations. Fortunately, there are no broadcasting restrictions out in international waters, and the protagonists of the film take full advantage of this, airing everything from announcing the loss of a crew-member’s virginity to the dreaded “F” word, which makes them a target for the stiffs of the British government, who make several impotent attempts at thwarting the Station’s antics. There are also a bunch of unnecessary sub-plots and sidetracks to the story, cut between montages of random British people dancing badly or swooning over their favorite rebel DJ.

The movie has it’s moments, for sure, but too much of the film is wasted on uncomfortable scenes and dialogue that never pays off, and few of the ensemble characters are interesting or likable at all. The women are especially badly written, to the point where you’d almost think that writer/director Richard Curtis has never talked to one before. I would call it a sexist film if the men weren’t as equally flaky and fickle. The only reason we are to believe that the Pirate Radio crew are the “good guys” is because of the stark contrast of the uptight, joyless members of the prime minister’s cabinet who want nothing but to put an end to people dancing in their bedrooms and lunch breaks. The ship sinks at the end of the film, but we are meant to believe that the Pirate Radioers were ultimately triumphant because nowadays, rock and pop music is played all day, every day, on the corporately owned and funded radio stations all over the world, so we can all go home self-assured and satisfied that the freedom and beauty won out, in the end. This is in a way a summation of the failure of the sixties — that it never looked beyond the bright lights and stimuli that initially seduced those people into rebellion, and ultimately was too easy to appropriate back under the dark wings of the established order. Like watching Tipper Gore dance to the music of Fleetwood Mac, there are few things less Rock ‘n’ Roll than this.

It hardly needs to be said that David’s character is basically a stand in for Woody Allen, as he has everything, from the death-obsession to the marrying-of-a-barely-of-age-girl, down to a tee (Allen himself would be unable to star in this role for obvious reasons). The rest of the characters in this story, however, seem far too flat to be based on anyone in reality, they are more like sitcom archetypes — the young, naive girl from the sticks moving into the big city, the charming male actor who lives in a house boat, the conservative Christian who is secretly gay — the characters and situations in the film seem more suited for an episode of Caroline in the City than for a feature film, but this seems to be acknowledged by Larry David’s character when he speaks to the camera despite the confusion of the other people in the movie. He is a genius, after all, and unlike everyone else, he knows this is all a big joke, he can see beyond the curtains to the theater full of cretins and mouth-breathers watching him. Unfortunately audiences didn’t find the joke funny enough for a theatrical release.

Filled with a dream cast of amazing actors, the director of the Mummy, and being shot all over the world, the movie sounds like the perfect popcorn blockbuster movie…

But that ends here… Following the bad buzz that trailed around the movie, from the director being fired, through the distributor pushing it back to recut it to other bad stories about it; let’s just say GI Joe is not a great movie… and it’s a fan writing this…

Despite some really talented actors being in there, from Dennis Quaid to Channin Tatum, and with a stellar John Eccleston as Destro, the movie is such a waste of talent, and it’s so difficult to watch those actors trying to do there best while wrestling against a terrible script which includes nano machines and super exo skeleton body armors… a whole bunch of non sense that makes the movie goes to places where the Joes should have never gone…

If you’re thinking of buying it… wait… it will be in the bargain bin soon enough…

I’ll let Joe finish him; however, we’ll start with a bang by revealing that the apostle of indie movie and detractor of big hollywood movies, in his fact a sucker for the geekiest ones…

Let’s start by talking about that one time when after a long morning shoot of special effects where Peter showed his Eraser Head signature haircut, he and the guys there convinced me to trade a lovely afternoon with my beloved girlfriend to go see Star Trek Nemesis… Peter has every Star Trek movie on DVD, and even if I have to admit that he didn’t take part on the “what quadrant have they discovered yet” or he wasn’t standing in tears when the robot died, he still enjoyed the movie a lot…

To go back on the geeky part and not to piss off the other fanboys, I have to say that Peter, Joe and I went to see Star Wars Episode 2 Attack of the Clones on opening day… and even if it’s Joe who brought his toys collection, it’s Peter who was playing with the action figures…

But I’m not making fun of Peter to hurt him, Peter is a very cool guy that would not let a brother down, or shall I say would not leave a buddy sleeping in a car… After a long night of playing video games leading to the screening of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers at the fanciest Seattle movie theater (ah College, I miss thy)… While waiting in line one of our fellows fell asleep in the car and as we all said to let the poor dude sleep in peace, Peter insisted to wake him up and drag him to the movie… where the fella fell asleep…

Joe is taking over…

I’m sure you remember when he made us watch The Last Starfighter, at your apartment. An interesting choice for a bunch of grown up guys in their 20’s. He’s convinced to this day that it’s one of the best movies ever.

Another funny thing about Peter is that he sleeps with a DVD playing on repeat in his room, a fact you’ll become well aware of if you ever crash at his place. It’s all well and good if the movie is something quiet like A River Runs Through It, but one night Frenchie and I were subjected to that epic space opera, The Wrath of Khan, played on repeat the entire night. Every couple of hours we were awakened by the voice of Shatner bellowing “Khaaan!” out into the depths of space and to the futon I was trying to sleep in.

On it’s base, Antichrist follows a motif found in many so-called “horror” films, though in a more abstracted way. It tells the story of a man and a woman, respectively named “He” and “She,” who, in the wake of a terrible tragedy go out into a cabin in the woods, a remote place called “Eden,” with the purpose of helping the woman (Charlotte Gainsbourg) deal with her grief. They go there because She has negative associations with the place and He, a licensed therapist played of course, by Willem Dafoe, believes that it will help her to learn to face her fears. At first She is catatonically terrified of going anywhere other than outside of the Cabin, but very soon she finds that she is “cured,” her fears are gone, though soon we discover that there is more to that place, and to She, than He had anticipated; in bringing her there He finds that he has unlocked something terrible, an evil power that will end up seducing and destroying them both in a series of sadistic and self-destructive acts of pagan eroticism. (I won’t spoil the film by describing any of the gruesome actions, though you probably have already been made aware of them, anyways.)

Walking out of the theater, Peter and I tried to figure out the film’s deeper meaning. Was it an anti-feminist statement? In the title of the film, the “T” in “Antichrist” is the symbol of Venus, and the movie depicts feminine energy as a Satanic force when unleashed. That said, it’s difficult to pin down any conscious political motive to the film, which is perhaps why so many critics have viewed the film as a work of aimless, pretentious provocation. I think Ebert was correct in saying, “If you have to ask what a film symbolizes, it doesn’t.” Ultimately, there’s something much more visceral and subliminal about Antichrist.

It has been said that Von Trier was in a deep depression while writing and making the film, which may be a key to understanding it a little more. Ultimately, Antichrist is a deeply psychological and spiritual drama. The film gives the impression of a mind under assault by chaotic forces that it is unable to control or suppress. For both He and She, Eden is a mythical, primordial place, a dark recess of She’s recent past that terrifies her and confounds him. It is a psychical embodiment of nature, and as Gainsbourg’s character proclaims, “nature is Satan’s church.” As He guides She through overcoming her anxieties towards Eden, things begin to turn, He finds that he’s left the rational world and has entered unfamiliar territory, a place he can’t explain or control, a world of witchcraft, of sadism, of sex and psychological violence that both entices him and threatens to engulf him completely. He first tries to escape, then he tries to extinguish the evil, to kill it off, but that only causes an uproar, a deluge of demonic femininity.

The progressive hopelessness of the movie is staggering, but it does point to a truth about life that everyone understands in a visceral sense. The film is a depiction of the failure of reason, the failure of the human will in overcoming the deeper, perhaps less-noble motives that are locked in the subconscious. We may try to suppress or control this duality of the spirit, the knowledge of good and evil, but we do so at our own peril.

I could write a lot about this movie but to keep it really short, I’m going to paraphrase Joe Jackson and say that I’m pretty sure they used a body double for a lot of shots of the movie… and I really think that Michael Jackson is worth more dead than alive…

Now to talk about what the movie is and isn’t… If you’re hoping to learn more about Michael Jackson’s death, this is not it… If you want to see a drug addict washed out celebrity trying to make a come back trying to dance and being replaced by a body double on every wide shot, this is it! (nop pun intended).

Watching the movie I had a really difficult time… First off I could totally imagine the producers of the movie upset of not having the idea of doing a reality show about it, thinking about all the cash they could have made from it… and then I felt really uncomfortable watching the musical numbers with a sick Michael Jackson, and asking myself if this was the way I would like to remember him.

Some say it’s a nice last hommage to the king of pop, but maybe re-releasing Moonwalker in theaters or in DVD would have been a much more respectful thing to do.

If you have the chance, like I did, to enjoy a free screening, go for it and make your own opinion… but if you have to pay 10 dollars or more, then go in your favorite dvd store and buy the HIStory 1&2 and watch Michael Jackson at his best.

I’m adding the one clip here that is the way I will remember this icon of pop music.

I found this movie to be quite depressing. Sasha Grey (in a role that she does well in) portrays the often lonely but very edgy escort named Chelsea. Chelsea is at the top of her game in the escort business and looking to expand. She caters to rich men who are either cheating on their wives or looking to get away from their tedious job.

Half of this movie is a slanderous look at rich men complaining about the downturn of the economy and the effects it is going to have on their business. Sasha makes on impression on these men because she doesn’t just have sex with them, she talks to them about their daily lives trying to uplift them. All of this happens with her boyfriend supporting her.

The movie turns when Sasha encounters a man who is similar to her.You feel compassion for the boyfriend because she goes about breaking up with him in such a shallow manner. Soderbergh is brilliant in showing his compassion for her and his support for her, to which she doesn’t give a shit about. Thank god the movie ends like karma on display in an episode of My name is Earl.

The movie is summed up for me at the tail end of the story. Sasha is interviewed by a journalist who is interested in writing a story about her. He talks about how she is so cold that she doesn’t show any emotional feeling towards others and this makes her more the less shallow

Good movie, but very depressing. If you want to see rich assholes that are self loathing, this movie is definitely for you. If you do not care for rich moguls that are depressed because they aren’t going to make as much money as they once did, then you might want to stay away.

Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces. – Malachi Ch. 2 Vs. 3

While many people may be anticipating the forthcoming comedy The Men Who Stare at Goats, thinking it’s the new Coen Brothers film, the real movie that was just released by the makers of Fargo, The Big Lebowski, et al, shows that the Coens have no intention of revisiting their earlier films, or ceasing to surprise and confound moviegoers. A Serious Man is a story of mid-life anxieties, cultural and personal antipathies, and the incompatibility between ancient traditions and modern moral dillemas. And it is probably one of the most unsettling films the Coen Bros. have made. It has been called a “black comedy,” I suppose because “dark” just doesn’t suffice. It has also been called their greatest film to date, which is no small praise for a filmmaking team that always seems to be as fresh and original as they are fastidious in their craft.

The film centers around the disheveling life of Larry Gopnik, a man facing a failing marriage, ambivalent children, a troubled couch surfing brother, car-accidents, lawyer fees, and countless other inauspicious people or forces that almost seem to be relentlessly plucking away at his already vulnerable state of mind, not to mention his finances. Everything that he believed about life seems to have been false, and the moral crisis he is going through mirrors that of the Biblical Job, or of the writer of Ecclesiastes when he said “all is vanity, and vexation of spirit.” In the film, the Coens use the music of Jefferson Airplane in the place of the poetry of Job or the Preacher. The beginning of the movie takes us through the midst of a black void within which all we can hear is the voice of Grace Slick singing, “when the truth is found to be lies, and all of the Joy within you dies…” and the rest of the film is Larry’s search for an answer, some sort of connection to a cultural heilsgeschichte that is never found. He seeks counsil from Rabbis and even his lawyer, who seem to be just as clueless as he is. Finally, he is haunted by a menacing former rival in a dream who tells him to talk to the elder Rabbi Marshak, but the Rabbi refuses him, he no longer speaks to anyone. An old man in an ancient looking room of books, skulls and other artifacts, Marshak is the closest thing to God that we see in this film, and his silence is God’s silence. Yet while the god in this film doesn’t seem to speak or give any answers, there is a supernatual or mythic quality to the cruel events that unfold in the story. In the end it seems like we receive an answer from God, but it is not a redemptive God, it is the malevolent God we often find in the so-called “Old Testament;” it is the God of Job, the voice from the whirlwind.

Michael Moore, the champion of liberal conspiracies and socialist of America’s predicaments draws on Black’s argument and details the recent scandal that Americans are forced to be in. Unfortunately because Moore instills himself into his documentaries, most people think he is more of a sell-out than the humanitarian that he believes he is. I think that he points out great arguments, but when he attacks the system itself by himself, it tends to be a little flawed and disgruntled.

What Moore does is bring out arguments that should be worth talking about. Moore starts out his movie by talking about how we got into the housing crisis mess that we are currently in. During the movie he focuses on the travesties that have befallen on the people who have families. Because they are falling apart because of money, and have no idea where they are going to end up living, you find yourself choked up with emotion. Capturing these plights makes the movie powerful and it’s what Moore does that is the most powerful and moving of all his documentaries. What Moore does in this film that he hasn’t done in others is interview some of America’s top officials talking about how the banks swindled the American people. This made the film more credible and more interesting. It’s a powerful argument and one that Moore is unafraid to take on because of the reputation that he has.

The one thing that I didn’t like about the movie was that Moore believes that we have to instill democracy to save our future. He builds up all this doom and gloom and then tries to present a way out like your usual typical Hollywood ending and it doesn’t work. Yay for what Moore points out, boo for his Hollywood ending… It almost ruined the entire movie for me, but my interest in the subject kept it interesting… At least in my point of view.

Bright Star is based on the true story of the ill fated lover John Keats and his attempt to quell the system of the sanctity of marriage. Jane Campion, the director of the Piano (one hell of a movie!) creates the eclectic backdrop of the two very young lovers.  Keats is a very poor and starved poet, living with a tutor and friend in rural England. Keats lover Fanny, played by Abbie Cornish, is a woman whose undeniable passion for something different makes her more desirable.

After meeting the eccentric woman that lives next to him, Keats begins to fall in love because of her undying interest in the arts. In fact, it’s a treat because we see the world through her eyes and not Keats, which makes the story much more mysterious and engaging.

As the story progresses, we begin to see the predicament that the two lovers are in; John Keats is a poor poet, who is embarrassed and ashamed that he cannot support himself to be able to marry Fanny (Abby Cornish); His friend and confidant, Charles Dilke (played by Gerard Monaco) goes through his own self discovery which separates the lovers from each other.

The true testament to this story is Keats poetry. When Fanny reads his letters allowed, we begin to see the passion that Keats has for his lover and the passion and intrigue that Fanny exudes in Keats conscience. The poetry is glorious and renowned even to today, which I believe helped the director (Campion) basic storyline and because of this she was able to create an emotional feeling that identifies with the audience.

Now because this is a Victorian era love story, most people would compare this movie to Jane Austin’s books, but I believe it has more of a presence. Pride and prejudice, and Sense and sensibility are great stories nonetheless, but they don’t have the same emotional sensibility that this movie has. A must see for people who love serious romantic stories. If you are more into romantic comedies… Meh. This movie is about passion for the arts and passion for undying love. I totally recommend this movie, and I was happy to see it bring back my excitement for romanticism.