Alice In Wonderland: A Look Down the Rabbit Hole

So, here is another Comic-Con story that maybe I should have posted earlier, but (1) I think this merits its own post, and (2) I just thought of posting about. Disney released the trailer for Tim Burton's upcoming live-action/stop-motion/motion-capture version of Alice In Wonderland, and I am very excited (I would have embedded the trailer, but Disney disabled that feature).

As with all Burton movies (I should do something about Edward Scissorhands sometime), the film looks like it will be very beautiful, so at least we'll have that, even if the movie itself is not so good. There are some things about the film that would trouble me had it been any other director, most notably making the Mad Hatter look like a kooky clown and making Alice an adult (in many versions, Alice is played by a teenager, but she is still meant to be a prepubescent girl).

There are a few things in the trailer that I want to comment on. First, I am happy, but not excited, to see Mia Wasikowska as Alice; she was the only thing I liked about the movie Defiance mainly because she is nice to look at. She showed some ability to act, but that movie was so poorly written that not even Daniel Craig could make his lines convincing (I apologize for breaking my "no hating" rule). There are plenty of other actresses I wouldn't mind seeing in the role (I've read that Amanda Seyfried auditioned, and I think she would be a good adult Alice), but I want to see if Wasikowska can act or not. Second, it looks like the Mad Hatter's role in the story is going to be increased considerably; Johnny Depp gets the one on-screen credit during the trailer, and he seems to be doing things in addition to holding his mad tea party. Finally, I'm a little surprised that Burton is having Alice shrink out of her clothing in the door chamber at the entrance to Wonderland. I'm going to try and avoid the, um, "mature" (or should that be "immature"?) areas of my mind, but to me, having her shrink out of her clothes is the beginnings of a much more adults-only version of the movie. Obviously, this is a Disney movie, and in all subsequent scenes in the trailer, she is still wearing clothing, so I am wondering how Burton is going to play that scene.

The one last nitpick I have right now has to do with something that has been done in nearly every adaptation of Alice I've ever seen. In the book version of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, part of Wonderland was represented as a deck of cards, and those scenes featured the Queen, King, and Knave of Hearts. In Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There, the entire book was structured like a game of chess, and that book featured the Red and White Queens. In most adaptations, the Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen are combined for whatever reason, leading to a character who has aspects of playing card suits and chess queen attributes, and this adaptation looks to be no different. Helena Bonham Carter has hearts all over her costume, yet she is opposed to her sister and rival, the white queen.

I hope this adaptation will be good. He has done some good kids films (Nightmare Before Christmas... well, he produced that, Henry Selick directed it) and some less than good ones (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), and when he has done movies that are not his own works, he has done some very well (Sweeney Todd) and some just ok (Chocolate Factory again). I wish that Disney wasn't the distributor so that he could go as dark and crazy as he wanted, but I have faith that he can still effectively show us his vision under the confines of the Disney name.

Up next: A Jedi shall not know fear nor anger nor love...

Dollhouse: Actuals

So something came up. My curiosity was piqued, and I had to watch "Epitaph One". It turns out that FOX is going beyond shooting itself in the foot by not airing this, because not only will the events of the episode matter in the upcoming season, but it is a damn good episode. It mostly takes place in 2019, but we see a series of "memories" (which may or may not be accurate) of the Dollhouse's later (and early) days. One scene features Echo and Ballard working together, and shows us that Echo's time as Omega left some strange side effects. But the rest of the episode is dedicated to showing how the technology that makes the Dollhouse possible could (and in the continuity of the show, does) destroy the world.

In "Man on the Street", each act begins with someone discussing the existence and potential of imprinting people. The last interviewee states that the human race will end because of this technology because if we can erase who we are, there will be no way to be ourselves. In the future of Dollhouse, that is exactly what has happened. It started with Rossum deciding that the dolls would become permanent slaves in order to allow their clients to upgrade themselves by permanently placing themselves in an active's body. If a client doesn't like the way they look, or doesn't want to be allergic to shellfish, they can upload their mind into a better body. And when that body dies, they can put themselves in a new one. Suddenly, the episode "Haunted" takes on all new meaning. Will this stagnate the human race? Will anyone new ever be born? Or will people be raised like animals to be made into vessels for the wealthy if the person is attractive?

One of my favorite aspects of the episode was the tragedy of Topher Brink; here is a man who wanted to change the world, and he succeeded in ways he never imagined. Topher wasn't the most moral of people; he not only was ok with the idea of the Dollhouse, but he relished the ability to improve it. He made the technology better, faster, and more accessible. And then, all his ideas were corrupted and used to turn any broadcasting device into an imprint chair (kind of like in "Gray Hour"; you see, Joss knew what he was doing back at the beginning of the season when everyone was complaining about the episodic nature of the show). The knowledge that he gave world governments the power to turn people into killing machines through telephones eventually drove him insane.

Also, the scenes with Whiskey were beyond creepy, which, to me, means that I loved them. Amy Acker is a seriously underappreciated actress (Enver Gjokaj also is showing promise because he seemlessly becomes a new character every week), and her portrayal of a mind-wiped but still somewhat aware doll very well. I could have done without the speech from Felicia Day and Caroline-in-the-kid at the end, but I am super-psyched to see where things go from here. Oh, and I was very happy to see Laurence Dominic again; I knew he'd find his way out of the attic somehow.

Up next: Down the rabbit hole...

The Legend of Neil: Back and Forth

The first three episodes of the "first season" of The Legend of Neil are incredibly hilarious. The next three were also amazing, but, in my opinion, weren't as great as the front half. However, I still waited for the next "season" expecting more greatness. The first episode of "Season 2", which can be found below, was just released and it looks like we are in for another season of laughs.

Legend of Neil, Episode 7

I'm happy to see Felicia Day back as the fairy, though I hope they are able to keep her fresh (she was pretty one-note when introduced, and I'm not sure if they ever meant to bring her back). It also looks like they have a bigger budget. The one thing I wasn't so enthusiastic about was the scene of Neil's day before getting sucked into Hyrule. I feel that the theme song did an adequate enough job explaining things, and unless Neil has to fight the demons of his life (which would add a new dimension to the web series, which, until now, has mainly been about bizarre humor), the scene seems superfluous.

Up next (barring any other updates while I'm in Prague): Back to the galaxy far, far away...

Comic Con: Preparing for Next Year

First up, I want to thank Ain't It Cool News for posting these stories. In the LOST article, they reported on a lot of serious and humorous events from the LOST panel, many of which made me happy to hear. However, after 5 seasons, I am a little weary of believing everything they say; in the past, they have said things in order to misdirect us (they said a lot of things were going to happen in the Season 1 finale, only to either have the exact opposite happen, or to wait years for the event to actually occur. Other times, they have promised something, only to have to push it back (I think they have finally realized that they will never tell Libby's story, regardless of the promises at the end of Seasons 3 and 4). I am excited to see that (they claim) Juliet and Daniel are coming back. Unfortunately, because I am abroad right now, I cannot watch all the videos. I WAS able to watch the last one, marked "Fakery", which was very intriguing indeed.

UPDATE: A new link from The Onion AV Club!

UPDATE 2: So I just had a thought; Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have been saying that there won't be flashbacks, flashforwards, or time travel in Season 6, and that they are planning something different. A few of the Comic Con videos have involved an alternate universe where either the plane didn't crash and the castaways continued living their lives, or, the detonation of the bomb altered events before the crash as well. In one video, Kate was featured on America's Most Wanted for killing her step-father's apprentice by accident, rather than her step-father himself (and another video showed Oceanic 815 crashing on the tarmac in LA). What if this year, instead of flashbacks, etc., we see scenes from this alternate timeline? I don't know what the purpose would be because none of what happened in the timeline would matter unless Lindelof and Cuse (I don't know why I keep tagging J.J. Abrams for LOST) find a way to reconcile the two timelines.

Up next, in the Battlestar Galactica article, the reporter noted that there could be more made-for-TV Galactica movies after The Plan. I don't know how I feel about this; on one hand, I love the show and would enjoy seeing more from that world (and that time, since we are getting Caprica soon). On the other, I don't want some story shoehorned in that doesn't make sense. Finally, I still need to see the Caprica pilot, and if I like it, I will try to follow it here.

Finally, I have not yet read the Dollhouse article because it deals with "Epitaph One", which I haven't seen yet. I can't wait to check it out.

Up next: The Legend continues...

Humpday: A Guest Perspective

From the writer of Adventures of a Grad Student in the Kitchen:

I recently went to see the film Humpday, directed by Lynn Shelton. As a Seattlite, I was surprised and pleased to discover that the director is Seattle based, and that the film is partly inspired by Hump!, Seattle's own amateur porn film festival, created by the local paper The Stranger. Humpday is a thought-provoking comedy that takes place in the present day and introduces us to two men who have been best friends since college.

Ben and Andrew are reunited ten years after their college graduation. During those ten years, Ben married, landed a good 9-5 job and bought a home, while Andrew chose to travel the world, look for adventure and live as a vagabond. After Andrew shows up in the dead of night on Ben's doorstep, the two friends find that their bond is as strong as ever. Despite this, after a night of carousing, they get into a one-upmanship debate that results in them entering Hump!, and promising to have sex with each other. The premise may seem absurd given that they are two heterosexual men, but the movie is so well written, guided and acted that the resulting dare is completely understandable.

Humpday is a very unique and masterful film that is guided by the expert hands of Shelton. She wrote a bare outline of the movie with an idea of a goal for each scene. The actors improvised their lines and worked toward the goal together. The result is an astoundingly real, crisp, and natural film. In fact, Shelton refrained from outlining the ending because she was so committed to having an honest story that remained true to the characters. No one, including the actors, knew how the film was going to end!

Humpday is a very funny and refreshing film that has wisdom and depth. Actors Mark Duplass (Ben), Joshua Leonard (Andrew) and Alycia Delmore (Anna, Ben's wife) deliver perfect, resonating and multi-dimensional performances. Their characters navigate through a complex but hilarious situation and, in the process, reveal parts of humanity with which many of us can identify. I really loved this movie and I recommend it to everyone.

Up next: Comic Con update...

Star Wars Intermission

Hey everyone,
I am currently studying abroad in Prague, Czech Republic, which explains why I haven't done any posts recently. I will probably finish my Star Wars series when I get home in mid-August. In the meantime, I have a few posts that will be quick and easy for me to post. First up, as promised, is the post on Humpday, written by my fellow blogger, who took my tickets when I had to duck out of the screening. After that, I will have a brief Comic Con update which is made possible by Ain't It Cool News.

Up next: Straight gay sex...

Star Wars: The Tragic Tale of Darth Vader

I apologize now if I start bashing heavily bashing George Lucas in these posts. That is not my intent, but he has done and said things about the Star Wars movies (and let's not forget Indiana Jones and the License to Print Money) that don't always make sense. One of which concerns Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader; Return of the Jedi and the prequel trilogy established him as a tragic character, one who fell from grace to become one of the most ruthless and deadly beings in the galaxy, only to redeem himself by fatally injuring himself to kill his master, Emperor Palpatine. But there was no trace of his inner conflict in either A New Hope or The Empire Strikes Back. In those movies, he was portrayed as pure evil because the inner conflict hadn't yet been established (the revelation that he was Luke Skywalker's father was a late addition to Empire).

The entire story of the six Star Wars movies was redefined as the story of the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Never mind that the focus was clearly on the Rebels in the original movies or that George Lucas said for years that he wanted to make 9 movies (although he vehemently denies that now). The prequels were about telling his rise and fall, in order to explain why Darth Vader was who he was when we met him in the original trilogy. In theory, I really like the story because tragic characters intrigue me, and if Lucas had planned this from the beginning, I think it would have been an incredible story. But as it is, we were introduced to Vader as an absolute, a being of pure, unrepentant evil. And that's what audiences attached to. We liked watching a villain who was merciless and completely dedicated to the cause of evil. Don't get me wrong, I usually prefer villains (and heroes) who are very complex and neither purely good nor purely evil, but every now and then, an absolute is pretty fun (just look at the Joker). In A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back, there was not a single spark of goodness in Vader. When made his big paternity revelation to Luke, we could see it as the necessary step Luke needed to take to become an absolute to defeat Vader (because we thought we were watching Luke's story; and on the other hand, Vader could have been lying because he was EVIL).

But after Lucas decided to make Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker the same person, he decided that Vader should be redeemed through his son. He decided to introduce the Emperor in Return of the Jedi (instead of the proposed 9th film) as the new absolute evil, instead of the powerless bureaucrat he originally envisioned Palpatine to be. All of the sudden, Vader became but a pawn. There was also a scene where he showed some hesitation after Luke accused him of having good deep down inside. I still enjoy Return of the Jedi, but Vader went from being all evil to all good because his son told him so.

Interestingly enough, the opposite complaint is leveled against Anakin Skywalker in the prequel trilogies; people accuse him of going from all good to all evil without any reason. I think this is slightly exagerated, but this criticsim does have its merit. It was clear from Attack of the Clones that Anakin had some anger issues when he slaughtered the sandpeople who abducted and killed his mother. Granted, revenge is a basic human desire, but Jedi are trained to suppress a lot of basic human emotions and desires (more on that in the next post). In The Phantom Menace, we are TOLD that Anakin has a lot of fear and anger, but with the exception of one scene, all of that manifests as sadness (and he was a pretty happy kid for a slave).

When I talk about these "what-would-have-beens", I cannot substantiate most of them, but I have heard them from many sources for many years, so I am basing a lot of my conclusions on them. In Revenge of the Sith, Anakin was pushed over the edge when he saw Mace Windu try to kill Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (who had recently revealed himself to Anakin as Darth Sidious and promised him a way to save his wife). Strangely, even though he knew Palpatine was a Sith and that he had manipulated the events of the prequels, Anakin took Palpatine's side in the "Jedi Rebellion" and the formation of the Empire. I've recently read about how, originally, Revenge of the Sith was going to focus less on Anakin fearing Padme's death and more on Palpatine convincing him that the Jedi were trying to take over the Republic (see above for my position on my sources). In the final cut, there were cursory references to making people think the Jedi were trying to take over, then after Palpatine told everyone about the supposed Rebellion, everyone, including Anakin, believed him. But even when Anakin aided Palpatine in killing Windu, Anakin was still conflicted. It wasn't until Palpatine promised to save Padme's life that Anakin decided to join Palpatine and believe absolutely everything he said.

As I said, in theory, the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker is a great story. He came from nothing, could have had everything, but decided to take everything instead. He became one of the most feared men in the galaxy, but was redeemed by his son when his master tried to kill his son. But the story was reshaped numerous times, and we ended up with a somewhat strange path to the dark side.

Up next: The way of a Jedi...

Star Wars: The Politics of the Galactic Republic and Empire

I am ashamed to say that a rather large realization I had about the Star Wars universe came not only from one of the updates in the "Super Special Editions" (my name for the further edits made to the already edited films to maintain some continuity with the prequel trilogy), but from a Gungan (the species that Jar Jar Binks belongs to). At the very end of the latest version of Return of the Jedi, after the Empire falls, we see residents of various planets celebrating (in the first rerelease, we got our first view of Coruscant) , and the newest version shows a scene in the capital city on Naboo. A Gungan yells out, "Weesa free!", and I suddenly had an epiphany: we got very few scenes showing us how the Empire functioned as a government. We were well aware of how evil the Empire was because, after all, it was led by two Sith lords. Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader obviously ruled with iron fists based on the actions they took against their own men. However, we only ever saw them in their roles within the Imperial military. I know that wars are fought by soldiers, but wars have politics behind them, and we didn't see any other branch of the Imperial government.

That doesn't mean that we didn't get an idea of how the Empire ruled, but we only ever saw the military. After making my realization, I tried to think of any time in the original trilogy when we saw the Empire interact with civilians, and I came up with a very small number of examples. In A New Hope, we saw the Empire in action when they (1) killed Owen and Beru Lars after learning that R2-D2 and C-3P0 were sold to them and when (2) stormtroopers interrogated people in Mos Eisley about the droids. However, as I came to understand things in both the original and prequel trilogies, neither the Old Republic nor the Empire had much of a foothold on Tatooine. In The Phantom Menace, Republic money was worthless on the planet, which was primarily run by Hutt gangsters, and in A New Hope, Luke's comments about the worthlessness of the planet made it seem unimportant to the Empire. The impression I got was that the stormtroopers who were searching for the droids landed from the Star Destroyer that captured Princess Leia and would pack up once their mission was complete (this could be completely wrong, but it is the impression I got).

The other example is from The Empire Strikes Back; the Empire enforced its will in Cloud City through the use of its military. Once again, our heroes came to a planet free of Imperial influence only to discover that Darth Vader and a few ships from the Imperial Navy showed up to pursue them. Vader made a deal with Lando Calrissian, Han's old friend and the current leader on Cloud City, stating that in return for turning Han, Leia, Chewie, and C-3PO over to the Empire, he would enjoy continued existence free from Imperial control. Throughout the course of their dealings, however, Vader continually altered the deal, knowing that Lando would have no choice but to comply (the alternative was submit to the Empire). If this was any indication, the Empire functioned through its military, using its vast army and navy to bully star systems into compliance.

In A New Hope, there was a brief reference to the Imperial Senate, once the Galactic Senate, and how the Emperor finally dissolved it. From what we could tell, Emperor Palpatine had absolute power to make whatever decision he wished and that the military was used to enforce his will. But this makes me wonder why the Rebel Alliance wasn't larger. If the Empire was as oppressive as we were told it was, and the military was its primary enforcer, then why did it take so long to overthrow? Some people have drawn parallels between Palpatine and Hitler, which I'm not going to wholly refute, but while Hitler singled out groups for the camps, we are led to believe that Palpatine was ruthless to everyone, which is not a way to maintain a government. While going through Wikipedia before starting this post series, one article mentioned that Palpatine had disdain for non-humans, which would bring him more in line with Hitler. But I do not recall seeing this anywhere in the two trilogies; from what we saw, he was indiscriminate in who he would harm.

And yet, in spite of their actions, Palpatine and Vader constantly state that their goal is to bring order to the galaxy. They say this to each other at one point in Revenge of the Sith, which would make us think that maybe they really do believe it. But every other time they say it, it is to others; Palpatine says it to the Senate to make them go along with the idea of an Empire and Vader says it to Luke when trying to bring him to the Dark Side. One doesn't have to look to closely at these two to know that all they really want is power. Or maybe with Vader, there is more there, but that is better reserved for my post about him. Palpatine may believe that order will come out of fear, but I doubt he would have worked as hard as he did during the prequel trilogy if he truly cared about order.

Which brings me to the prequels; unlike the original trilogy, we got more than we bargained for with the political stuff in the new trilogy. George Lucas claims these are kids movies, but when I first saw The Phantom Menace, I was thoroughly confused by the political plot. The Trade Federation blockade made no sense to me and I had no idea what a vote of no confidence was. In Attack of the Clones, the Separatist movement was poorly explained, and in Revenge of the Sith, the "Jedi Rebellion" was one act that only Palpatine witnessed. And yet, while all of those important political events were short-changed, we got numerous scenes of political discourse that seemed superfluous. If the original trilogy was about the civil war between the Empire and the Rebels, the prequel trilogy was about the politics that brought down the Republic. Unfortunately, the politics we saw were either unnecessary or handled extremely poorly. It wasn't until I saw all three prequels at least twice to fully realize Darth Sidious' (Emperor Palpatine's alter ego) plan and how he was manipulating things. I knew he was the one responsible, but everything was so muddled. For instance, I realize that he started the blockade in Phantom Menace to oust the old chancellor with the no confidence vote, but I still am not sure why the Trade Federation went along with it.

Up next: The rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker...

Worlds Building

My friend said that she will get a post about Humpday, the free movie I had to give up my tickets to, written within a few weeks, so I will post it when I get it. The "Up next" line at the end of my last post has two meanings. The first meaning is that, next Friday, I will be leaving for Prague, Czech Republic for a month-long study abroad program, and I doubt I will do much posting while I am there. The other meaning refers to my next post series, which will probably be different than the style of most of what I have already published. I got the idea on July 4th, when I was over at a friend's house. We were supposed to go to the beach to watch the fireworks at Navy Pier, but the weather wasn't cooperating. Instead, we stayed in and turned on the TV. Return of the Jedi was on, and my friends and I started talking about various aspects of the Star Wars films, from the politics of the Empire, to the moral ambiguity of Darth Vader, to the quality of the prequel trilogy.

I can't believe I haven't done a Star Wars post yet for various reasons. For one thing, it is one of the most "holy" aspects of geek culture. It was the first of the "Trinity of Trilogies" released from the late 70s through the late 80s (the other two have already been covered here [Indiana Jones and Back to the Future]; interestingly, they are all connected through their creators because George Lucas created Star Wars, worked with Steven Spielberg on Indiana Jones, and Spielberg produced Back to the Future). The original trilogy has been referenced, parodied, and studied ad nauseum by filmmakers, scholars, and fans. Kevin Smith probably owes half of his estate to George Lucas, and Darth Vader has become a cultural icon.

In addition, there was a time in my life when I was absolutely obsessed with Star Wars; I saw the original trilogy an inordinate amount of times, I read the Young Jedi Knights books featuring Han and Leia's twin children as they trained to become Jedi (as I recently learned, one of them eventually became a Sith), and I eagerly anticipated the release of Episode I. My birthday is in May (for a long time, I was under the impression that the original film had been released on my birthday in 1977, although I later learned it was released about a week later), and when Episode I was released days after my birthday, my party was a Star Wars extravaganza culminating in my friends and I going to the movie (some of us for at least the second time).

I still highly anticipated the other two prequels, but after Episode I, my fandom decreased dramatically. Years later, after watching Firefly, there was a time when I had actual antipathy for the Star Wars universe due to the sheer "blind faith" that many people had for the series. I have since come to terms with the fact that (1) Firefly will never be as loved and (2) there are plenty of good aspects of the Star Wars universe. However, I certainly don't see the films the way I once did.

This post series will focus on various aspects of the six films (I am not going to venture too far out into the "Expanded Universe" of the multitude of books, games, comics, etc.). I will examine the politics (which were almost non-existent in the original trilogy and an enormous aspect of the prequel trilogy), morality in the galaxy far, far away, including the failings I now see in the Jedi Code, and how the series has influenced me in ways I did not realize until relatively recently.

Up next: Restoring order to the galaxy...

(500) Days of Summer: Seasons of Love

I didn't see this movie for free, but I still had an amazing experience seeing it. Like Public Enemies, I saw (500) Days of Summer introduced by its director (and in this case, star Joseph Gordon-Levitt was in attendance as well), and a hilarious short film was played beforehand. In one sense, (500) Days of Summer can be described as a romantic comedy, in that it is a funny movie about the romantic relationship between a man and a woman, but this is a "romantic comedy" the way Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a "romantic comedy". Unlike big studio romantic comedies, the drama in this film feels real and there certainly isn't a Hollywood ending. The opening narration states that the film is not a love story, but I disagree with that. This is a love story, but it is a story of unrequited love.

The movie is told over the period of 500 days, and is often shown out of order. A marker denoting what day it is pops up occassionally to tell us when the following scenes take place in the chronology of Tom and Summer's relationship (the number is always bracketed by parentheses, like so: (488), hence the movies title). Tom grew up believing in true love, soul mates, and that kind of stuff. He works for a greeting card company, where he puts these feelings to good use by writing sentimental cards (this career path was not selected for that reason though; he studied architecture, but took an easier path instead of applying himself). Summer grew up jaded about the notion of "true love" because of various experiences in her childhood, notably her parents' divorce. She is very beautiful and sweet, and is wary of the men who fall for her, because she is afraid that they are only attracted to her physical beauty and outward personality, rather than who she is on deeper levels. Her sweetness defines her social self, but that quality doesn't always define her personal self. She meets Tom when she gets a job as the assistant to Tom's boss, and after a rocky first couple of meetings, they begin dating.

However, the audience (but not Tom) soon realizes that Tom and Summer are looking for different things in their relationship. Tom thinks that he has finally met "the One", while Summer just wants to have fun and be friends (albeit friends who have sex with each other). Summer cares for Tom as a friend (possibly a little more than a friend based on something the narrator said), but she never feels the deeper feelings for Tom that Tom feels about her. This causes Tom to go from euphoria to near-suicidal depression, which is juxtaposed by showing Day (150) and Day (400) next to each other. And yet, even after feeling such depression, Tom is willing to set himself up for these feelings again when he believes that she is finally ready to commit to him the way he has to her. The narrator points out that Tom has expected and experienced far different things throughout his life, and that he still hasn't learned that expectations only lead to being let down.

The (500) days come to an end when Tom is able to accept that about his life (and when something happens to give the title of my post greater meaning). The unrequited love helps allow for self-discovery and helps Tom realize that a good life isn't contingent on finding true love. The journey is at times hilarious (the dance sequence was probably my favorite scene in the movie), heartbreaking, and moving. (500) Days of Summer is further proof that movies about rocky romantic relationships don't have to be awful cliche-fests.

Up next: Far, far away...

Public Enemies: Gangster Paradise

Because I live in the digital age, the idea of robbing banks baffles me. Most banks I've been in are relatively mundane, and very few of them have vaults as prominent as the banks in Public Enemies. I think the first time I even saw a bank vault was when I was in college. Money, like most things today, has gone digital. Banking can now be done over a computer and funds can change hands without either party actually physically touching a single banknote or coin. I know that bank robbery still occurs in both real life and the movies (last summer, The Dark Knight opened with a fantastic bank robbery scene that payed homage to Heat, a movie directed by Michael Mann, just like Public Enemies), but I can't imagine it's anything like how John Dillinger used to do it.

Dillinger robbed banks during the Great Depression, and to many Americans, he was a spectacular anti-hero. His exploits were almost like entertainment to an audience that needed escapism. This status suited Dillinger well; when one of his fellow gangsters sarcastically mused that none of them should care what the public thinks of them, Dillinger responded that because they hide out among the public (both generally and specifically, when they have to lay low in people's houses after a bank job), they should care very much what the public thinks of them.

Unfortunately, I'm not a historian, so some of the things I gleaned from the film may not be historically accurate, but I felt as if Dillinger's favorable public image was helped by the disdain that some people had for the government at the time. Or at least certain branches of it. J. Edgar Hoover was attempting to nationalize what would become the FBI, and he appeared to be willing to do anything to do it. Hoover was a shady person in reality, but Billy Crudup played him as a total creep and hypocrite, someone who was willing to break some laws to uphold others. The cops weren't much better; Mann showed us that the biggest difference between the cops and robbers was a badge. Many of the cops and Bureau agents, including Special Agent Melvin Purvis (the man hand-picked by Hoover to apprehend Dillinger) are just as willing to kill their targets as they are to take them alive, even if the situation may not call for it. A particularly brutal scene involves a cop violently interrogating one of Dillinger's known associates... his girlfriend.

I mentioned modern banking at the beginning of this post because part of the story of Public Enemies involves the changing criminal activity in America in the 30s. A few scenes in Chicago contrast Dillinger, who commits his crimes in the open and with an audience, with Al Capone and his men, who help create organized crime, which occurs in the shadows. One scene shows Dillinger's reaction to a roomful of men under Capone's employ; they are bookies, earning money through their number skills.

The film is a tad uneven at points, but it is still a great experience.

Up next: Summer lovin'...

Moon: All By Myself

Speaking of loneliness, Moon is another movie about someone who feels alone and cut off from humanity. However, Sam Bell literally is all alone; he is the sole human employee at a lunar mining base, and his only companion is a robot named GERTY. The communication satellite is broken, and although he can send and receive recorded messages, he has not been in a live conversation with a human in about three years. In the film, scientists discovered an abundant source of energy on the moon's surface, and a corporation was formed to harvest the energy. In order to keep costs down, the lunar base only requires one employee, who is contracted for three years. My first thought was that, at the very least, the corporation should have two people so that isolation won't drive the employees absolutely insane. However, I had no idea what was in store.

The first part of the film examines Sam's growing mental instability as the result of isolation, but after an accident resulting from a hallucination, the movie takes a total left turn. As is the case in numerous science fiction films/television shows, Sam's employers aren't as benevolent/ambivolent/benign as they first appear, and their one-employee-cost-cutting scheme runs much deeper than Sam, and I, could have realized. The trailer was very obscure about the events of the last two thirds of the film, so read on from here at your own risk.

As it turns out, Sam isn't exactly who he thinks he is. He is a clone of Sam Bell, whose three years ended long ago (or maybe the original was never actually on the moon at all), and after the accident, another clone is awakened to replace the first Sam we meet. Every time a new clone is required, GERTY gets a new one from the clone bank (that isn't what they call it in the film, but I wasn't sure how else to refer to it) and tells him a story about an accident. Each Sam is imprinted with knowledge on how to operate the various parts of the base as well as memories from Sam's life. The communication satellite was deliberately deactivated to prevent the clones from knowing the truth, and they last about three years before deteriorating. Upon learning about this, I thought about the reason the company would do such a thing. As the second clone pointed out, this saves a fortune in recruiting and training, but how expensive is it to make a clone? How expensive is it to imprint the memories? If you think about it, the company sunk a lot of costs up front for very gradual long-term payoffs.

One thing that I enjoyed was that GERTY was not a complete HAL analogue (from 2001: A Space Odyssey). GERTY certainly acted at the company's behest, but it also aided Sam when he was trying to find confidential files about his past, and it revived a third clone in order to aid in the escape of one of the others. At first, I was disappointed because it looked like GERTY became self-aware or was able to act outside of its programming, but then I realized that it was programmed to help Sam and to "care" for him so that he would have some way to stave off isolation madness and the things he was doing weren't so outrageous (from GERTY's perspective) to set off alarm bells in GERTY's system.

The film ended with what I felt was a dig at the way different parts of the media choose to portray stories. It was very subtle, but the various reactions to Sam's return echoed MSNBC and FOX and their respective biases.

Up next: Sweet home Chicago...

Stranger Than Fiction: A Different Kind of Will

The second free movie I saw this summer was Land of the Lost, starring Will Ferrell and based on the 70s kids' show of the same name. The movie was basically another typical "Will Ferrell" movie; basically, he always plays a loud, childish, moronic blowhard who either (rightfully) has no respect, has earned respect through bizarre means, or has fallen from grace. He was very funny when he was on Saturday Night Live, when he played other types of characters (such as Alex Trebek, who was intelligent but repressed), but his movie career has defined by playing the same annoying role over and over again.

But there is one exception. In 2006, he played the lead character in Stranger Than Fiction, a role that was marked by soft-spokenness and timidity. Like Jim Carrey in The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Ferrell showed us that he actually can act and make us care about a character. Stranger Than Fiction is a metafiction film about a man who realizes that he is the lead character in a novel; he hears the author's voice in his head as she types the third-person omniscient narration. Harold Crick, the protagonist, is a likeable but timid IRS auditor who is obsessed with numbers. He doesn't have very many relationships with other people, but he finds his life enjoyable enough.

At first, the narration in his head irritates Harold and fears that he may be crazy (however, he realizes that the voice is talking about him, not to him, and has a much better vocabulary, so he rules out schizophrenia). But the voice soon help him realize how lonely he is when it helps him notice Ana Pascal, a pretty baker he is auditing. Sadly, along with this realization, the voice also informs him that he will die soon. When Harold's now-erratic behavior earns him a forced vacation from the IRS, he begins to fully live his life, something that he had always put off. He learns how to play the guitar and begins a relationship with Ana, who is his total opposite. She is unorganized, spontaneous, and full of life.

Harold also contacts a literature professor to try and figure out who is writing the story, what kind of story he's in, and determine whether or not he can avoid his fate. The scenes with Harold and Prof. Hilbert humorously examine literay aspects such as characterization, the difference between classical tragedy and comedy, and story structure. The "test" Hilbert devises to figure out what kind of story Harold is in always makes me laugh. The one thing I think that got left out was a discussion about determinism and free will; I would have liked to have seen Harold try to defy the things his author, Karen Eiffel, stated. Some of her statements are out of his control, such as descriptions of people and places. But other times, she narrates his actions as he is performing them, such as brushing his teeth. If Harold hears what she says, does he have the power to resist? And if he does do something differently, would the narration acknowledge it?

The film eventually uses Harold's self-awareness to examine what it means to be alive and what it means to accept death. Harold's entire world is altered by the voice; he begins to live, rather than just exist (yes, I stole that from WALL-E), and he accepts his own mortality, something very few people ever do. Eiffel's final lines about the nature of life and death are very interesting to think about, and we learn that her experience with Harold has also changed her life for the better.

I really hope Will Ferrell makes another movie that shows off just how much talent he has. Stranger Than Fiction showed us another side of him, and it's one I'd like to see again.

Up next: Over the Moon...

500 Movies of Summer

This has been an incredible summer for me on the movie front; thanks to the website Ain't It Cool News and its Chicago correspondent, I have seen three movies for free, and I won a fourth, but due to family stuff, I had to miss it. In addition to that, someone invited me to see a movie that she had won free tickets to. Finally, although the final movie wasn't free, it does make the list due to the circumstances under which I saw it.

Every now and then, Capone, the Chicago correspondent for AICN holds contests for free screenings in Chicago. He asks questions related to the films and the people with the best answers get tickets. Through that site, I have seen Up, Moon, and Public Enemies (that one was even introduced by its director, Michael Mann) for free. For example, the question for Up asked us to talk about an adventure we wanted to have as a kid. I was able to see Land of the Lost for free when someone offered me a ticket to it after winning a pair from a radio station. And I went to a screening of (500) Days of Summer when it premiered at a Chicago film festival. It wasn't free, but for $25 per ticket, I saw that movie, and incredible short film called The Horribly Slow Murderer with the Extremely Inefficient Weapon, which were introduced by their directors and lead actors, a Q&A session with the directors and stars afterwards, tickets to an open bar after party at Bon V, and possibly the greatest goodie bag I've ever received.

I have already covered Up, so I would skip to the next movie I saw, Land of the Lost. However, that film is not up to the standards of the worlds I talk about here (I'll explain my feelings about Will Ferrell in the next post), so instead, I will talk about a great Will Ferrell movie, Stranger Than Fiction. I will then talk about the other movies I've seen, and I am hoping that a friend of mine and fellow blogger (she writes Adventures of a Grad Student in the Kitchen) will do a guest post. I won tickets to a movie called Humpday through AICN, but I had to give them away when I learned of some family plans. It was a bit of a fortuituous coincidence for the friend who got them because she is from Seattle, and Humpday was filmed there (it uses an actual Seattle-based event as the basis for its story).

Up next: Death and taxes...

Young Frankenstein: Fronk-En-Steen

Young Frankenstein is to classic horror movies what Blazing Saddles is to westerns. It is also one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. The movie works for the same reason that the works of Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright work; Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder obviously know the source material backwards and forwards. But the source material goes beyond the Frankenstein movies because various methods and cliches of classic movies are used for humorous effect. The laboratory set was meticulously recreated for the film to make it a kind of sequel to what has come before. And trust me, I've seen Bride of Frankenstein, and based on the way James Whale and co. retconned the ending of the original, Young Frankenstein could certainly exist in that same fictional world.

The story follows Dr. Frankenstein's grandson Frederick Frankenstein (he pronounces it "Fronk-en-steen" due to his shame from being related to a crackpot), who is a successful neurologist in America. When Frederick's last remaining ancestor dies, he goes to Transylvania to settle his estate, only to learn that he has inherited his grandfather's castle, library, and science notes. He also "inherits" the descendant of his grandfather's assistant Igor, whose name is also Igor (but pronounced Eye-gor). Frankenstein also starts a working relationship with Inga, who becomes his new lab assistant (the two also have some sexual tension, which is bad for Frederick, because he is engaged to an uptight society woman). When Frederick discovers his grandfather's lab, complete with a book called "How I Did It", he decides that he can pick up where his grandfather left off and successfully reanimate dead tissue. But a mishap at the "brain depository" results in Frederick placing an abnormal (Abbie Normal) brain in his enormous creature.

From there, hijinks ensue. The monster escapes and causes trouble in the Transylvanian countryside. These scenes involve bizarre reactions from the villagers and the monster alike; the monster is childlike and doesn't understand his own size or strength, while each villager has a different reaction to the monster (the best has to be the Blind Man, played by Gene Hackman, in a parody of a similar scene in Bride of Frankenstein). There is also plenty of Mel Brooks-style humor, including bizarre double entendres, 4th wall breaking, and the inability of characters to realize the obvious (Igor doesn't realize that he has a hump, let alone a hump that constantly shifts from side to side).

Brooks also deliberately made the movie look like it was made in the 30s. He filmed it in crackly black and white, and used a lot of circle wipes instead of basic cuts. The opening credits resemble those of early movies with the credits over a static image, and often, scenes will completely fade to black for a moment before fading back in to a new scene. These antiquated effects are extremely noticeable to audiences who aren't used to them, and they help make the film seem like an authentic classic horror movie, which helps accentuate the anachronistic elements of the film.

I don't want to give away too many of the film's wonderful jokes. All you have to know is that this is a film that everyone should see during their life.

Up next: Summer of films...