A Jack Attack Review: Blue Valentine

I have been looking forward to seeing Blue Valentine for MONTHS. MONTHS, I SAY! When I heard about the premise: dual story lines - the past and the present - of a couple's relationship (I find these kinds of things very interesting) and then I heard it had Ryan Gosling (who I absolutely adore) and Michelle Williams in it, I was completely sold. So I watched clips, read reviews from film festival screenings, and waited.

Then there was the whole NC-17 rating debacle, delaying its release even further, and then it was FINALLY screened in theaters on December 29th, but on a very limited release. So, I waited, checking the movie theaters here in Denver daily, until I saw that it would be playing at the Mayan Theatre (thank you, Mayan!) this past Friday, January 14th. I immediately made plans to see it after I got off work that day.

So after all of this waiting, I began to find myself getting worried as I drove downtown to the movie theater. Was this going to be one of my cases where I hyped something up so much, I was only bound to leave disappointed? I was upset, because I had to stay 20 minutes later at my work, and I ended up showing up one trailer before the movie started and the place was packed. I ended up with a crappy seat in the very back, but it was stadium seating, so I was pretty high up and I had a clear shot at the screen without (what seems to be almost always) someone's big head in the way.

So are you ready for me to actually tell you about this movie? Here we go: this movie does something that is very hard for me to explain. The director's name is Derek Cianfrance who I have never heard of, and as far as I know, has never directed any other major motion picture. But I thought he was amazing. I think my two favorite shots are the very first scene and the very last scene and, well, there was also a certain scene where the camera is set inside, looking through a window, watching the couple embrace outside on the sidewalk, that was so beautiful it made me want to cry. Cianfrance is able to capture a feeling so well and so clearly and so simply and so elegantly. I have trouble articulating my thoughts here, but with the simple clips that open the scenes, I am able to know exactly where I am and what I should feel. Does that make sense?

And the acting is amazing. I didn't know if I could love Ryan Gosling any more than I did, but guess what, I can. He was so authentic and real and heart-breaking. And Michelle Williams was fantastic, too. The film, in part, revolves around day-to-day living that is involved in a relationship, and doesn't have the typical Hollywood romance. This is okay with me, but there was one thing that kind of bothered me. I felt like, in order for this film to really resonate with an audience, it needed to be universal, and I felt there was a certain aspect to the story that created a distance between the audience and the characters. (I don't want to give anything away here, because I walked into the movie not knowing this so I don't want to spoil it for anyone else.) When this turn in the plot happened, it bothered me a lot, and it made me start viewing the story differently. I feel like the direction that it had been going within the film would've had a greater emotional intensity.

It was well-acted, visually well-executed, but I still left feeling like something was lacking. I haven't really put my finger on it. I guess I would attribute it to what I mentioned above, the distance I felt at a certain point within the film, but even so, the closing scene really stuck with me. It was as though I could feel the intensity of the moment in my chest, the weightlessness of the point where there are no thoughts, only feelings. So...with that kind of connection at the end, I can't say that this film wasn't good. I've thought about it since, I've even dreamt about certain scenes. But I thought it could have been better. Perhaps I am being too nit-picky.

A Jack Attack Review: Inception

I watched Inception on Saturday, but I felt like I needed to give myself a few days to fully digest it and mull it over before I wrote anything about it. Really, with any movie, I like to wait a couple of days before I give an "official" opinion about it. This is because I like to give my brain the ability to reflect on it if needed...and if I find myself not thinking about the movie a couple days after I have seen it, then that tells me something. It means it's either boring, fluff, stupid, or just a plain time-waster. Inception is none of those things. I could give you a ton of superlatives to describe it, but that still wouldn't even touch the surface of how awesome this film is. I can't stop thinking about this movie. I've become kind of obsessed with it.

BUT, let me just say, that I can understand why someone might not like this movie. It is easily one of the strangest movies I have ever seen...and that's saying a lot. (I have seen A LOT of movies.) But the strangeness is part of what attracts me. There's nothing else like it. It's original. How often does that happen in Hollywood now adays?

Also, I could see some people not caring for it because it is complicated. It is a very intricate and elaborate film, and I can see how people can become lost within it. I'll admit, there are parts I'm not sure I fully understand. It's definitely not a movie you can go to and just sit back and watch. You need to have your brain turned on, you need to be actively thinking and absorbing everything that's going on to help you understand what's happening. But, again, this is just another reason why I liked it.

I mean, in its most basic form, Inception is a heist movie. Leonardo DiCaprio's character and his team break into people's minds through their dreams and steal ideas and information. But they take on a job that is just the opposite: planting an idea in someone's mind while in a dream. But it is much more than a heist movie.

The acting (especially by Leonardo DiCaprio...why doesn't he get more credit?) is AMAZING, the visual effects are stunning (there is a fight scene that is unbelievably badass), the content is absolutely mind-bending...it was just...crazy. I'm seriously considering seeing it a second time.

I'm not going to spend any time explaining the plot, because it's too complex, and I think the viewer needs to find out for themselves. There is a ton of stuff I could say about this film, but I will hold off so you can make up your own mind. I will say that my brother and I have had crazy conversations about what we think this film means and what we think is really happening within the film.

The thing I loved most about this movie is that it made me think. The main idea/question the film leaves you with is: What is reality?

It is not a simple answer.

A Jack Attack Review: The Runaways

Sometimes, I learn about a movie that is in production or I see a preview for a certain film, and I get super stoked on it. When I read months ago that Kirsten Stewart was going to play Joan Jett and Dakota Fanning was going to portray Cherie Currie in a movie about the all girl rock band The Runaways, I was pumped. Most of what I read lead me to believe it was a Joan Jett bio-pic, which I was excited about because I really admire and like Joan Jett. Three or four months ago was the first time I saw a trailer for the film, and that pumped me up even more. I've been building up the excitement on this one, and my expectations became high.


Last week, I saw The Runaways and I left the theater feeling utterly disappointed. I still haven't figured out if it just didn't live up to my expectations, or if it was just a disappointing movie in general. A couple things right off the bat: the film is not a Joan Jett bio-pic, but a Cherie Currie bio-pic. The script is based on Cherie's memoir, so the film focuses on her almost the entire time. I was wanting more of Joan Jett, or even more about the relationship between the girls in the band. The film basically left out the other band members, the other girls (with the exclusion of Joan Jett) had only a handful of lines, and most of them were related to how unfair it was that Cherie was always the center of attention. I'm sure this movie didn't rehash old wounds.
Anyway, when the film first started, I had high hopes. One of the first scenes is Cherie Currie lip-synching a David Bowie song at her high school. She's dressed in full glam gear and even has the David Bowie lightning bolt painted on her face. The kids boo her and throw stuff at her while she's up on stage, and she stops what she's doing, and proceeds to flip them off. This was probably my favorite scene in the entire film...it cracked me up.

Another early scene shows Joan Jett going to a guitar lesson. When she tells the teacher (who is male) that she wants to play electric guitar, not acoustic, he tells her that girls don't play electric guitar. She plugs her guitar into the amp anyway, jams in his face, and then leaves. This was the kind of stuff I had been hoping for with this movie. A statement about women in the rock and roll industry - how they were tough-as-nails chicks that weren't going to take shit from anybody. That's why Joan Jett is so freakin' awesome! She didn't listen to society, she changed the
norms. She was one badass bitch. Unfortunately, this is the only scene in the movie that really touches on that kind of progression.

The scenes with their manager are probably the most interesting ones. Michael Shannon plays their manager, Kim Fowley, and he steals every scene he is in. He is so ridiculous, over-the-top, and outrageous, that I couldn't take my eyes off him. Kim Fowley convinces the girls that they need to be tough to survive in the world of rock and roll, but he does this by abusing them - mostly verbally but sometimes physically, as well.


The film was just far too generic, it even included a montage of newspaper clippings that stated how big The Runaways were becoming. Really? A montage of headliners? The narrative fell flat, as well. It vaguely touches on the fact that Cherie Currie had a less than ideal home life with a drunk dad and a mom who moves to India. (I think it was India, now I'm having trouble remembering. It was a country far away, though.) She gets seen by Kim Fowley at a night club, and is recruited into The Runaways. She's only 15 at the time, so I can see how the rock and roll lifestyle is a jarring experience, but I've already seen the story of the rock star spiralling into drug addiction. I get it. Fame leads to drugs, which leads to downfall. Show me something new, why don't ya?

Here's another thing that bothered me: I felt like the lesbian scenes in the film were unnecessary. Let me make this clear, I have nothing against lesbians, and I have no problem watching films that are focused around homosexual characters. I also know that Joan Jett is rumored to be bi-sexual, so it's not a huge surprise that they would incorporate this into the film. But, it just didn't work for me because I felt like the scenes that did involve homosexuality were exploitive. The sex scene between Joan Jett and Cherie Currie, I felt, was more of the production company saying, "Hey, I know what would be great! If we had two attractive, young, female actresses kissing! People will like that!" The relationship between the two was never really analyzed. Instead, there was their sex scene that came out of nowhere, and the film never delved any deeper than that.

Anyway, I thought the acting by Kirsten Stewart and Dakota Fanning was good. I know a lot of people may discredit Kirsten Stewart because she is in the Twilight movies, but I think she was good in other stuff like Into the Wild and Speak. Dakota Fanning is always amazing, and I think she's becoming a really diverse actress. This film just didn't allow them the ability to expand on their roles.

So, overall, big disappointment. I did like the cinematography, though, and the costumes were pretty awesome, too.