Hard to Kill

Steven Seagal is easily the hardest working person in show business. When he's not busy keeping New Orleans safe or developing energy drinks, he's kicking kicking some serious ass in his movies. In all honesty, the man just exhumes douchbaggery. He's a martial arts master, a musician, a PETA humanitarian, and a Buddhist. Wow, he really wanted to cover all the bases. Well a man as well versed in such a cluster fuck of arts must be a great actor, right? Totally right! I have never viewed an actor who takes his job so seriously despite the film's level of absurdity. In Hard to Kill, Seagal was hard to turn away from.

As one of the most nonsensically named characters of all time, Seagal plays Mason Storm. Storm is a cop who uncovers corruption at the highest levels of state government and at the lowest levels of the police force. In retaliation, some corrupt cops kill Storm's hot, supple breasted wife and put Storm into a seven year coma. When he finally wakes up looking like the man who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart, Storm embarks on a mission of revenge with his nurse (Kelly Lebrock) to massacre those who wronged him. Think Tuesdays with Morrie meets Kill Bill.

This movie casted two actors who dominated two decades. Lebrock murdered the 80s with Weird Science and The Woman in Red and Seagal would go on to destroy the 90s with Under Siege and a whole arsenal of straight to VHS movies. Their on screen chemistry is reminiscent of the Hippo and the Oxpecker bird. Seagal kills as many people in this movie as hippos do per year (the total is 2,900 deaths) and Lebrock chills on the side trying to clean him up with her tongue. I know, hot right? Even though Lebrock's character essentially kept Storm alive for seven years, he still acts pissed off whenever she says something stupid, much like a brother-sister relationship. A brother whose wife died and now kisses his sister....um. Yeah.

We can applaude Seagal and Lebrock all we want in this film, but the real credit goes to the ballsy Mr. Steven McKay. Who the fuck is Steven McKay you ask? He is the genius behind the one liners and dialogue of Hard to Kill. It takes a lot of guts to put on a stupid costume, but it takes even more guts to risk your career writing gems like these. What I was really impressed with was the level of maturity that Seagal delivered these lines. He proclaimed them like they were legitimate statements.

Hard to Kill shows us that films do not need to abide by genre standards. Film can poke fun at itself, it can accentuate the irreverent and exploit the unrealistic. At the end of the day, you will still be rooting for Seagal to break arms and legs and stick pool cues in bad guys necks no matter how stupid his monotone voice sounds. Because if you can't cheer for a man who bodyguards the Dalai Lama, well you just aren't living.

Safe House

Have you ever felt like you're working in a dead end job? No room for advancement? No opportunity to really make a difference? Well you are either a telemarketer or you work for the CIA as a safe house operator. But as soon as Denzel Washington appears at your front door, you've become the most important person in the country (literally, if Denzel Washington showed up to your telemarketing job then you would become very popular). Well Denzel does show up to a CIA safe house in non other then the film Safe House. His presence there makes lowly operative Ryan Reynolds a valued target of the CIA and other parties involved.

As a rogue CIA operative, Denzel Washington portrays his character with a grizzled sense of authority. He knows he is the best, but he shows this more in action than words. Attached to co-star Reynolds at most times in the movie, Washington's bold dictation of the rules conflicts heavily with Reynold's frustrated timidity.

I always say that Denzel Washington could walk into the toughest of bars and walk out with a roomful of admirers. How can you not like a man who puts up with this shit? He is quite literally one of the greatest actors of our time. But Brendan Gleeson, another genuine actor, makes an appearance in the film quite memorably. As the mentor of Reynolds' character, Gleeson conveys a sense of protectionism and patriarchal skills. He keeps you believing that he has Reynolds' best interests in mind and that everything will be fine. Most importantly, he wins over the support of the rest of the cast of characters.

As important the acting is in Safe House, its plot tells an even greater tale. Safe House is a film about corruption on the highest level of government. It is a tale of morality in a time when security trumps what should be the right thing to do. It is about going against your breeding and always questioning the status quo.

Safe House got my adrenaline going. It wasn't necessarily the most complex of plots, but the answers to some of the movie's toughest questions were answered at the end. There is no telling what else may be in store for Washington or Reynolds, but the future can only look brighter and brighter for them.

Movies I would force Hitler to sit through V

In 1986, Geraldo Rivera hosted a television special in which he would open up a mysterious vault belonging to none other than Chicago's infamous gangster, Al Capone. Nobody had any clue what would be hidden in the depths of this Italian man's secured room, but people just assumed it was something big anyway. Maybe this vault was where Scarface had stowed away classic cars or disposed of mutilated bodies? Analysts even concluded that millions of dollars could be stored inside. Well, Geraldo and his mustache dynamited the doors in front of millions of Americans that night in April and this was their reaction. Well, obviously there was no commercial and for fans of A Christmas Story, you understand what just happened. All of this hype had been built up around the Al Capone vault, and yet nothing was found except empty bottle and a license plate. So why and how does this relate to a movie review? I saw The Artist recently, easily one of the most sought after films of this years award season. I didn't understand how people could become so enamored with a movie that wasn't The Shawshank Redemption. I thought I would see it and hopefully join The Artist fanboy wagon. I got to the theater, paid a ridiculous $9.50 for a ticket, and proceeded to sleep through the next two and a half hours of my life. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you with French cinema.

Set in 1920s Hollywood, The Artist tells the story of silent film superstar George Valentine (Jean Dujardin) and his fall from fame as movies begin being made with sound. Oh, I forgot. The entire film is silent.

Before I begin bashing the country of France for producing what can only be described as a means of taunting America, I will mention something I liked. I give director Michel Hazanavicius credit for making me feel like I lived in the 1920s, before Facebook, before the car was as plentiful as bowler hats. Michel essentially brought The Depression to the viewer. To initiate that kind of emotion in me is quite simply, a daunting task, but that French bastard did it. Probably thinking this way the whole time.

Now back to the bashing. I fell asleep within fifteen minutes of the opening credits. I don't know how people of the Roaring 20's did it. There was always intensity on the screen, all actors present brought 110% of their abilities because they had to. Without any sound to accompany them, the actors needed to over exaggerate their mannerisms which, in a sense, took away from the realism. I guess not being able to speak takes away from realism as well. Without sound or hearing vocals, it is also difficult to sympathize with characters. There is a piece missing from the puzzle.

I guess the film couldn't have been that bad, it did win Best Film at the Oscars. I'm mad because The Descendants didn't win and it turned out to be my favorite film of the year. So maybe I wouldn't force Hitler to sit through this one. Maybe I'd put Eichmann or Goebbels in the front row instead. Everyone who sees this movie, however, will grow personally. You will never take your ears for granted again.

Anonymous

Since birth, we've been groomed to believe in certain fallacies. For instance, we believe that every December a fat bearded man repels down a chimney to deliver presents under a tree. We think that a midget lady with wings runs a black market of our teeth for cash. We also think that a rabbit, a rabid animal by most standards, can logically hide eggs during Easter from children. We have been raised to believe such things with a grain of salt. But what happens when we are tricked into believing something that seems fairly sturdy. What if Pearl Harbor was no sneak attack by the Japanese, but just the beginning of Sony? How would we react if we found out the Watergate scandal was just the Chinese trying to embarrass Nixon? Or what if Monica Lewinsky was actually Hillary in a wig and she just had some image to uphold? Everything would be thrown into a total mind fuck. Well, the credibility of Shakespeare as the actual author of the plays and sonnets by the aforementioned has come into question. Anonymous deals with the very real possibility that Shakespeare didn't write anything and our entire grammar school English career was spent reading some alcoholic's blackmail.

It is the 16th or 17th century (I can never figure the difference between the two) and there is turmoil in England. Protestants are beating the shit out of Catholics and everyone wants a shot at the Crown. Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) is in power and is searching for an heir apparent. The Cecils (David Thewlis and Edward Hogg), Elizabeth's advisors, try desperately to get a successor that is not Robert, Earl of Essex (Sam Reid). During this political intrigue, one courtier, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), makes a secret deal with playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto). He will give Jonson his collected works to produce as long as they are performed under total anonymity of the author-de Vere. Turns out these works are Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Twelfth Night, and every other play that we have associated with Shakespeare. This shows that it is not Shakespeare who is the true playwright, but actually de Vere. de Vere is only halted from producing them himself because it is out of place for a courtier to do this. Shakespeare (Rafe Spall), an alcoholic, illiterate, and perverted actor, ends up attaching his name to the works after Jonson declines the author.

Edward de Vere is one of the alternative author candidates because of the numerous similarities between his real life and the works that Shakespeare supposedly created. For more information follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship

I was speechless during this movie. Not only is it motivated by historic events, but it actually manages to consider the question of Shakespeare's legitimacy. Actually, Shakespeare takes a backseat in this film and de Vere heads the cast. Ifans displays de Vere as a tortured artist, a man chained up by the standards of his society. He cares deeply for those around him and those who are loyal, and in this sense he is very altruistic. he only cares for art and keeping the world entertained despite the world's attempts to block him. As a history lesson, Anonymous does a great job depicting the tensions between religious factions and social classes in old London. And in a swoop of remediation, Anonymous brings back to life the magic the old fashioned stageplay. Performances inspired and rallied the audience to action. This was truly a time of awe.

Think back to ninth grade English class and reading The Merchant of Venice. Shylock is being verbally berated cause he is Jewish. Antonio is getting sympathy he doesn't deserve. Your classmate is poking holes in his paper out of boredom. You begin imagining a scenario in which Shylock comes back to Venice and machine guns all the assholes who screwed him over. And then you might think, "Wow, this jerk Shakespeare was a fraud. I'm reading a play whose author isn't even clarified!" It's just like finding out that Ipads and Ipod touches are the same thing, there's nothing special about either of them at all. Sorry.

Beginners

Few movies make me eat up my pre-conceived notions in a whirlwind of emotion. Recently, I made the accusation that the Oscars only give out awards to people who are going to die soon (if they are nominated in a category). I was referring of course to Jonah Hill's performance in Moneyball being overlooked because Christopher Plummer was nominated as well for Beginners. Well, I just watched Mr. Plummer's performance and I reject the day I ever made the assumption that he won his Oscar because he was knock, knock, knockin' on heaven's door. Wow! Not only was Beginners a great film, it was also acted out tremendously well. This was a film about exploration, acceptance, loss, and remembrance. It's a film about the little things in life that pile up to make great, big things.

Oliver (Ewan McGregor) is mourning the loss of his father, Hal (Christopher Plummer) who announced he was gay a few years before his death. Oliver meets Anna (Melanie Laurent) and begins a romantic relationship with her. Documentation of their relationship is interlaced with Oliver's memories of his childhood as well as his final years with his father. The childhood sequences are sprinkled with few signs of Hal's homosexuality, but heavily illustrate his wife's slowly decaying sanity. The final years sequence shows a now adult Oliver helping his father with medical bills, parties, depression, memory loss, and the name of a certain music genre from a gay dance club. By reflecting on his past, Oliver is able to make decisions regarding his future without his father and with Anna.

I'm going to talk about the relationships of the film. There are Oliver, Hal, Anna, Andy (Goran Visnjic), and Arthur the dog. First there is Oliver and his father Hal. Oliver relationship with his father comes in two parts: one where he is living with his father who has come out of the closet after years of marriage and one where he is coping with the lose of him. Plummer plays so well off of McGregor's all-knowing personality. And like any other child trying to help an aging parent, Mr. McGregor displays frustration and love all at once. But it is clear that Oliver is very close to his father which leads to our next relationship: Oliver and Arthur. Arthur is essentially all that remains of Hal. Oliver adopts him after Hal dies and goes everywhere with Oliver. Everyone understands, as well, that Arthur is Hal which is why everyone who knew Hal is drawn so close to the dog. This is evident in Andy's relationship with Oliver and Hal and Arthur. Andy is the young, foreign boyfriend of Hal. He is deeply and truly in love with Hal. In one scene, Hal admits to Oliver that young straight men have it easy, that nobody will ever fall for an old man. This makes Hal and Andy's relationship even more admirable. And this is why in one of the last scenes, Andy has such an emotional reunion with Arthur because he reminds him so much of Hal. Finally, Oliver and Anna's relationship reflects around the unknown. The film does not dive so deep into their affairs as it does the affairs of Oliver and his home life. Fortunately, Oliver applies the same unspoken relationship of his parents to himself and Anna. There they find the true meaning of their love.

Beginners is a must see film because it has all the elements of a modern day comedy-drama. Fifty years ago, you wouldn't see films about fathers coming out or uncomfortable relationships. This film latches onto something in your stomach and makes you feel differently about life and the way we should live it. It speaks out to a number of audiences with a number of experiences. And Mr. Plummer, sorry for the Oscar comment, you've got at least another six years on Earth.