Category Archives: General Entertainment

Oculus

Posted on by
Reply

Oculus PosterDefinitely one of the scariest horror movies in recent years. “Oculus” is the feature film from Blumhouse that is based upon a short film by the director. The plot centers in and around an ominous gilded mirror whose origin is sketchy, at best. According to legend and circumstantial evidence, it is allegedly responsible for nearly 50 deaths in approximately 400 years. Two young adults who crossed paths with the mirror 11 years prior, must face “it” again in order to destroy the mirror. Having been recently released from a mental facility, Timmy reunites with his older sister Kayleigh on a dangerous mission to send the mirror back from whence it came. The audience will be totally engrossed in this spine tingling journey into the world of the mirror and its affect upon the reflection of the mind.

This movie could’ve just as easily been subtitled “Through the Looking Glass” or “Alice in Horrorland.” Unlike the recent movies such as “Insidious” or “The Conjuring,” “Oculus” does not rely upon jump scares to curdle the blood and cause the heart to race. It takes a much more Hitchcockian approach–the fear is in the mind of the audience. Hitchcock once said, “greater is the fear in the mind than the fear on the screen.” And, director Mike Flanagan has “suspense” in spades. Not that “Oculus” is without an ominous presence materializing behind a character; but the film is successful in creating legitimate fear in the minds and stomachs of the audience without having to result to cheap parlor tricks. The writers did an excellent job at blending the elements of a psychological thriller/suspense with some visceral body horror. However, there is little blood in the movie compared to many of its contemporaries. Unlike a typical horror movie, the enemy is an intimate object with molevalent powers of “perception.” Throughout the entire movie, you will ask yourself if what you are seeing is real or are you seeing what the mirror wants you to see.

Are their demons in the movie? Yes AND no. This is part of what gives this movie a unique blend of horror and suspense. And yes, I am aware of which “there” I used in the previous sentence. Within the context of the movie, the demons (never mentioned directly) are both real and objects of perception in the mind of the characters based upon their troublesome past (hence, the usage of “their” earlier). You only get a glimpse of apparitions throughout the movie…and seldom a clear one until the very end. The movie plays with both perception and memory. What the audience actually sees, what the audience thinks they see, and what the mirror wants you to see. Yes, this movie engages the audience nearly as much as it engages the main characters. You are definitely along for the ride from the moment the movie opens to the close. Turn after turn, the mirror thwarts any and all attempts to destroy it. But, it needn’t even move from the wall upon which it is hung. The question of whether the mirror is actually haunted or used as a dwelling place for evil is minimally explored–though, it is definitely cleverly answered at one point. Throughout the movie, the mirror is used as a “reflection” of the human condition in a macabre allegory.

Memory is a tangled web; it’s often rewritten or clouded by hidden terrors, fantasy, or that which we wish were true. We see what we are willing, programmed, or prepared to see and we are often psychologically “stuck” in certain moments from our childhood, events which we find a way to replay in a loop as our lives progress. Kayleigh has been metaphorically “trapped”, frozen in that childhood trauma until she must literally relive it. Mark Twain wrote in his book “Innocents Gone By” that we see what we want to see. It’s not so much what the mirror does to you, as much as it is a reflection of the damage we reap on our selves and others when rooted in dark and sinister fear. The mirror will have you second-guessing every move you make; and like a magician, while you are looking one way, it is screwing with your very conscious till you don’t know what is real and fantasy. Although the movie does an excellent job at developing the present and past story lines, at one point they converge; and, it does get a little confusing following the separate narratives. This could very well have been intended by the writers; but it would have been nice to have more clearly defined what time period each scene is in. Fortunately, the decor and furniture does help some to clarify this.

Like Hitchcock, Flanagan knows that the greatest fear he can create in a movie is to move the fear from the screen and place it in the minds and stomachs of the audience. But, “Oculus” is not without its faults. It was shot quickly and with a minimal budget. And, that shows through in the final cut of the film. It does not benefit from the lavish sets build for big budget horror films. However, this makes what it was able to achieve even more impressive, than had it benefitted from a big budget. Unlike “Psycho,” “Oculus” will not likely linger in your mind for a long period of time, and it will likely achieve its greatest success on Netflix, or another video-on-demand equivalent in the coming months. The movie is creepy and designed to give an audience a couple hours of sinister pleasure. There are many unanswered questions following the close of the movie. And, to get into all the questions would ruin the movie for those who have not seen it. But, one main questions that an audience should ask themselves when watching a movie with a typical villain (or evil presence) is what drives them to commit the atrocities they do? There needs to be some method to the madness. Even in “Saw,” there was a reason why Jigsaw was out to kill. And, in “Silence of the Lambs,” Jamie Gum had a desire to become a woman by building a human suit. The audience in “Oculus” is left wondering why the mirror does what it does. What drives it?

What will drive audiences to see this movie is what typically drives those who love to be scared. This movie will take many by surprise; because the audience is as much a part of the action, as are the characters on the screen whilst they battle the malevolent force of the looking glass. Everyone who watches this movie will take a journey, much like Alice, through the looking glass into a world of perception, reflection, and deathly memories.

Could We Use the Former Studio System Today to Create Jobs?

Posted on by
1
My newest article on "The Artifice"

My newest article on “The Artifice”

Check out this article I recently had published on “The Artifice.” It talks about one hypothesis that by bringing back some semblance of the former Studio System, the entertainment industry could create more jobs. Click HERE!

Remembering Mickey Rooney

Posted on by
Reply
Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney put their heads together over a TV script for their first onstage reunion in 18 years in this 1963 photo.

Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney put their heads together over a TV script for their first onstage reunion in 18 years in this 1963 photo.

A true Hollywood Legend has passed away at the age of 93 on April 6, 2014. From the age of 6, Mickey Rooney has been entertaining audiences since Hollywood’s Golden Age. He will truly be missed. Even as recent as “Night at the Museum,” he has maintained a presence on the silver screen and your living room television. He starred in more than 200 films over the course of his career and received 2 Golden Globes, 1 Emmy Award, and 1 Academy Award. He was also honored with an Oscar as an adult. He received numerous nominations in many award categories over the course of his dynamic career. He truly represents the best of Hollywood talent. For the Disney fans and Cast Members out there, interestingly, Rooney claimed that, during his Mickey McGuire days, the series in which he first gained national attention, he met cartoonist Walter Elias Disney at the Warner Brothers studio, and that Disney was inspired to name Mickey Mouse after him; although Disney always said that he had changed the name from “Mortimer Mouse” to “Mickey Mouse” on the suggestion of his wife.

Rooney was among the last survivors of Hollywood’s studio era, which his career predated. Rooney signed a contract with MGM in 1934 and landed his first big role as Clark Gable as a boy in “Manhattan Melodrama.” A loanout to Warner Bros., brought him praise as an exuberant Puck in Max Reinhardt’s 1935 production of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” which also featured James Cagney and a young Olivia de Havilland (last still-living member of the principle cast of “Gone with the Wind”). Unlike contemporary Hollywood, the Studio System (abandoned in the 1950s/60s) developed stars in such a way that is unmatched by present day practices. It was a time in Hollywood in which they employed and contracted regular actors, crew, and other creative personnel to develop movies and shows. He was blessed in such a way that he made regular appearances that built his career to stardom. One could argue that a return to a modern-day studio system would provide more job opportunities for developing talent in the world of entertainment.

Not as well known to modern society and entertainment connoisseurs, is that Mr. Rooney enlisted in WWII to entertain American and European the troops during and after the war. He received a Bronze Star Medal for his efforts and dedication to providing quality entertainment during a time in which there were many reasons to be depressed. He was able to bring about smiles and laughter upon the troops. Even during the war, he lived up to his reputation of “putting on a show!” Along side his Bronze Star Medal, we was honored with many other awards from the military. In 2000, Mr. Rooney spoke at the Pentagon honoring the USO. Much in the same way Bob Hope brought smiles to the US military, Mr. Rooney did the same. His commitment to the US military will be a timeless memory cherished by those who benefitted from his talent.

Taking after Henry VII, Mr. Rooney also had several wives–8 in fact! In a sense, this provided a bottomless pit of material for comedians who would often craft jokes around his inability to stay married. Mr. Rooney’s first marriage was to then-future Hollywood starlet Ava Gardner, but fell apart before she become the star is is widely known as. Although he is widely known for his multiple marriages, during the later part of his life, Mr. Rooney became a born-again Christian and operated a ministry in California. Following his conversion to Christianity, his marriage to his most recent wife Jan Chamberlin lasted until his death.

Critically acclaimed actor Laurence Olivier called Rooney “the greatest actor of them all,” yet he was unlike many stars of old and contemporary. Just over 5ft, Rooney had elfin-like features and an energy typically more associated with a used car salesman than a star. But his flare for character acting and in-your-face comedy is what made him the star he was and will forever be. Furthermore, during the Depression, when the national sentiment was grim and sad, audiences loved his joie de vivre (French phrase often used in English to express a cheerful enjoyment of life; an exultation of spirit) and his down-home appeal. In 2001, Mr. Rooney told the “Palm Beach Post” that “I don’t retire; I inspire.” 

He will be greatly missed!

Read the NPR.org coverage of the story by clicking the link.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Posted on by
Reply
(c)2014 Fox Searchlight

(c)2014 Fox Searchlight

One of the most enjoyable movie experience of the year! “The Grand Budapest Hotel” has something for everyone. From highbrow quirky humor to brutal murders; from mystery to romance. Surface level, you have a classically written whimsical caper, in the vein of “Clue;” but beneath the surface lies excitement and adventure! The story is about hotel concierge Monsieur Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) who teams up with his newly hired lobby boy Zero Moustafaone (Tony Revolori) to prove his innocence after he is framed for the murder of one of his wealthiest regular guests.

His eighth feature, this latest Wes Anderson film will delight nearly anyone who chooses to darken the doors of the theatre auditorium. Yes, even those who are inclined to grumble at his whimsical cinematic style, both in terms of dialog and cinematography. The movie has a way of charming even the most incorrigible creatures–probably that date you brought. Throughout the movie, there are many situations in the plot that are so ingenious that you will likely roll you eyes at the conceit and lavish imagination that has been woven so intricately into every nook and cranny. However, you will chuckle to yourself, if not laugh out loud a few times. Probably one of the funniest, and uniquely Wes Anderson, moments in the movie is when the prison inmates are using tiny tools smuggled in by way of decadent pastries to tunnel out of the Alcatraz style prison in the Alps.

Probably the most striking element of the movie is the distinct visuals that only a Wes Anderson movie can provide. The art direction and cinematography are two of the elements that stand out the most. His cinematographic style of storytelling is very consistent, filled with very tight shots with plenty of interesting angles. Many shots, he chooses to use, are densely packed with characters and set dressing; and at times, the camera appears to glide along with the characters. Most of the shots in the movie are very static. Ordinarily, this can create a staleness or boredom in a film; but, now with this one. He carefully crafts each shot to give you so much to look at that you forget the shots are not tracking or moving as they do in many films. Interestingly enough, the 4:3 ratio was the primary format used to tell the bulk of the story. I cannot remember another movie that chose to do the same thing for artistic reasons. There are also more classic elements of cinema magic, such as: stop-motion, matte paintings, and rear projection. It’s a brilliant amalgamation of old and new-style cinema to create a unique movie experience for the audience.

Ordinarily, I do not care for a movie where two people sit around, while one of them tells the story that is essentially the movie. And, this one takes that cliche to a whole new level. We start out by witnessing a little girl reading a book that comes to life. We encounter the author of the book who then proceeds to tell the story to his son. Wait, the layers aren’t over yet. Can anyone say “Inception”? Two characters in the story, that is being told by the author, who’s book is being read by the little girl, begin to tell yet another story–the story of the movie you are watching. Did you get all that? I’m not even sure if I did. However, like Jon Avnet, director of “Fried Green Tomatoes,” Wes Anderson is able to create an interested listener in the character who becomes the author of the story of “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” Very few director/writers have been able to accomplish the whole story being told within a story, without it turning out sub par. Under most cirumstances, there is no reason to have two people telling the story which is essentially the entire movie–just tell the main story and be done with it. The dialog is smart and sensible, and each line moves the plot along. Unlike the setting of the movie, the dialog is oddly contemporary–even American. There is no time wasted in the film; moving at an excellent pace, the screenplay keeps your attention the whole time.

This movie is certainly not for everyone–especially those who are already predisposed to disliking Wes Anderson’s style. However, I urge you to try it out. Even the curmudgeon couple sitting next to me laughed along with the movie. The slapstick comedy with an edgy twist to it, will delight and endear the audiences out in the dark. Before you know it, you’ll be laughing at the hijinks and your mouth will water at the very sight of the decadent pastries that are displayed for you. But, don’t forget that you’re actually witnessing a ghastly tale unfold before your eyes. There are many allegorical references and visuals throughout the movie that make it a dynamic cinema experience.