From 2007: Five Movies That Prove MPAA Ratings Are Broken

[You can digg this post by clicking here.]

In Kirby Dick’s film, “This Film Is Not Yet Rated,” Dick examines the MPAA ratings board members and explores the sketchy and seedy underbelly of our country’s ratings system. We learn that ratings, far from being an exact science, often leave people guessing as to what criteria are used when evaluating their films; that MPAA ratings amount to censorship; that raters are probably subject to the whims of studio pressure; and, ultimately, that the ratings board is completely unaccountable for its actions.

More than any year in recent memory, 2007 demonstrated that these assertions are true, through the preposterous ratings that have come out for some of the year’s most popular and/or highest grossing films. And while I will examine some of them during the course of this post, there are several premises that I base my arguments on, which will be important to understand before I get going:

Rating a movie with an R rating limits its reach, its audience, and potentially, its grosses – Since R is the only rating (other than NC-17) that actually prevents someone from being able to get into the theater, directors and studios will often bend over backwards to get the coveted PG-13 for an adult-themed movie. The reasons are obvious: PG-13 ratings open up the huge 12-16-year old market, and allows them to get into the theater unhindered (My local movie theater, for example, actually cards).

Parents trust film ratings as a guide to tell them whether or not they should take their children to see a film – Whether they are right to do so or not, the fact that they do remains a fact of life. And when parents take small children in to see a film that features dozens of maimings, impalings, and brutal murders because it’s only rated PG-13, you know that the system is broken somewhere.

Independent film studios hold less sway over the MPAA than big established studios – Paramount, Universal, and Disney have more money, more power, and more influence.

The MPAA has established itself as the de facto gatekeeper of who gets in and out of films. I don’t necessarily mind this, but if they’re going to do it, all I have to say is: don’t do such a crappy job of it. Without further ado, here are five films from 2007 that prove that the MPAA ratings system is unequivocally broken:

5. Once
What it was rated: R
What it should have been rated: Anything else less severe
Comments: One of the ratings rules that has actually become quite evident is the prohibition against the F-word. “Once,” winner and nominee of many awards (and listed by many critics as one of the best films of the year) is a completely innocuous, innocent, and sweet love story in which two people find a shared affection of music and for each other. But because the F-bomb is dropped a few times, the MPAA decided that it’s too extreme for your kids to watch. Also, in this slot, feel free to put in any other independent film this year (or any other year) that’s been dicked over by the MPAA’s shenanigans. While this example in and of itself is not enough to demonstrate the MPAA’s incompetence, the ones that follow show how ridiculous the “Once” rating decision truly was.

Here's a preview of "Once":

click here for the clip


4. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
What it was rated: PG-13
What it should have been rated: R
Comments: In an obvious display of Disney’s influence, this brutal film was given a PG-13, undoubtedly a fact that allowed it to rocket to an incredible box office take. The movie opens with the public hanging of a 10-year old boy, and features countless killings and maimings of pirates and soldiers, a couple scenes in which people are brutally burned by cannonball fire, an attempted rape, and in the most disturbing scene of the film, the complete annihilation of a man’s face with a Davy Jones’ tentacles. Not pleasant to watch and not appropriate for kids, despite its Disneyland ride pedigree.

Bonus video: See this spoiler-y video while it's still up and decide for yourself (fast forward to 6 minutes in to see what I think is the most gruesome death in the film):






3. Live Free or Die Hard
What it was rated: PG-13
What it should have been rated: R
Comments: The MPAA’s liberal stance on violence and conservativeness on foul language is fully on display here. It’s okay to show Bruce Willis graphically putting a gun into a wound in his shoulder and pulling the trigger, but having him say “Yipee Kay-yay Motherfucker,” as McClane’s character was meant to do is, of course, unacceptable. The film also featured a woman getting hit by a car, then plunging to a fiery death, dozens of graphic gunshot deaths, and a man getting ground up into a fine hamburger-y pulp. But no F-word and no sex means that kids are allowed to check this one out. Go here for the opposite perspective on this issue.

Bonus Video: Ignore the music and check out this summary of many of the film's killings (spoilers within):

Click here for the clip

2. Beowulf
What it was rated: PG-13
What it should have been rated: R
Comments: Despite being animated, this movie features an Angelina Jolie that’s basically naked, a hideous monster that murders - often brutally - dozens of townspeople (for example, he tore one in two and chewed off another one's head, slowly), several impalings, a graphic dislocation of an arm, a graphic severing of an arm, and lots of gore in the slaying of the monsters featured. One character's family is burned alive, although this is only implied off screen. I went to see it in IMAX 3d (a great experience, by any stretch of the imagination) but was disappointed to find out that several families had brought infants in with them to see the film. As I saw Grendel's horrific visage barrel onto the screen, a prelude to his murderous rampage, I myself was on the edge of my seat and just a little frightened. I can't imagine the mental scars that these kids in the audience would have to bear. Beowulf 3D is what little kids' nightmares are made of.

Bonus Video: Beowulf, rated PG-13, ironically has a red band trailer. Catch a glimpse of the gore here:

Click here for the clip
1. Taxi to the Dark Side
Comments: "Taxi to the Dark Side" is Alex Gibney's yet-to-be-released documentary looking at how our country slowly transformed, post-9/11, into one that tortures civillians and ignores the Geneva conventions. This top example on my list doesn’t concern the film’s rating as much as the MPAA’s preposterous decision to censor its poster, seen above (which, let’s all admit, is not so much inappropriate as it is shocking in its veracity). As Boing Boing put it, “MPAA message? Torture for entertainment is suitable for all ages. Torture examined in a documentary is not.” In a society in which the real-life torture of terrorists suspects is so salient to the American image in the world at large, the MPAA’s hampering of this movie’s messages strikes me as especially despicable.

**

Reading over this post again, I sound like a prude, but in fact, I'm not arguing against violence, sex, or language in movies. I am strongly against censorship in any form, whether that comes in the form of an NC-17 rating for movies or an AO rating for videogames. I'm arguing that the MPAA should either 1) Use clear, sensible standards that every movie can abide by, and/or 2) Be publicly accountable with the methodology it currently rates films. Usually the argument about parents taking children in to see adult films is that the parents should know better. But if the MPAA does such a horrendous job of informing them, then I think more of the blame should fall on the organization them than on the parents.

Shame on you, MPAA. Shame on you for censoring great indendent films, while simultaneously bending to the will of studios and using leniency on their ratings. Shame on you for all the kids you've scarred by allowing their uninformed parents to take them into see the atrocities in films like "Beowulf." And shame on you for using politics in a time when America needs more honesty and self-examination about its international activities, more than ever.

***

If you liked this article, you'll probably like these:

What Do Bioshock and The Incredibles Have In Common

The Top 5 Jason Bourne Improvised Weapons

Why Do Great Films Get Awful DVD Cover Art

***

Update 1: Added in the word "sensible" to 2nd to last paragraph

The Objectivist Implications of Ratatouille

In my crapulence, I missed out on Ratatouille in theaters, despite the fact that Brad Bird is one of my favorite directors, and Pixar hasn't made a film I haven't liked yet (with the potential exception of "Cars"). In any case, I basically purchased a blu-ray player just so I could watch the film in high-def the first time. That's how certain I was that I would like it.

The film certainly delivered on all fronts. While some of the messages about dealing with prejudice and, separately, about rising above your humble beginnings were a bit lost in the mix, I was dazzled by the film's amazing animation, great voice acting (esp. by fellow nerd Patton Oswalt), and uplifting ending.

So how does it relate with my last post?

Between "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille," I think Brad Bird has really come full circle. Cracked.com once described "The Incredibles" as an "Ayn Rand bedtime story" and I basically tried to prove as much in my last post. But the message of "Ratatouille" seems drastically different. The film chronicles the activities of Remy, a rat who has a keen sense of smell, a complete understanding of English, and a strong desire for delicious food. The problem is that his rat-like appearance poses problems whenever he tries to get into a kitchen for grub that compares favorably to his normal dumpster-diving fare.


One day while pawing through a kitchen for some foodstuffs, Remy encounters the work of master chef Auguste Gusteau, whose cooking skills and populist message ("Anyone Can Cook") resonate deeply with Remy.

Shortly afterwards, through a series of comedic and outlandish circumstances, Remy is marooned in Paris and figures out a mutually beneficial arrangement with a young boy named Alfred Linguini. They work out a system in which Remy pulls on his hair to control his hand movements, using him as a vessel to make divine culinary creations.

There's the standard bad guy and the obligatory love interest, but the heart of the story is Remy's break from his rat family and how he grapples with his role in the world. Does the world have a place for a chef from such humble beginnings? The end of the movie seems to offer an unequivocal and hopeful answer: Yes.

The thematic differences between "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" are quite stark. Whereas one argues that there are those among us who are inherently superior (and that's a good thing), the other argues that even the lowest of the low can achieve greatness. Whereas one argues that "special-ness" is something that is granted or inherited, the other shows that it must be worked at, in the midst of obstacles that risk even life and limb. Whereas one is a celebration of the superiority of others, the other is a celebration of egalitarianism, and the triumph of an indomitable will.

"Ratatouille" repudiates the message of "The Incredibles" and it does so in a way that only a genius like Brad Bird could. It is sweeping in its simple and profound message. It has characters that grow and change throughout the course of the film's running time. And it is deeply moving.

See it!





BONUS VIDEO: For longtime readers, you'll know what this is:

Click here for clip

The Trajan Invasion

MAN, what a long week. I hope everyone out there is getting into the holiday spirit and not working yourselves to death. Cause I am.

Kirby over at Goodiebag.tv has posted up an insightful video about one design element (My DVD cover art post is referenced in his notes). Check it out:


click here for the video


Have a great weekend!

What Does Bioshock Have In Common With The Incredibles?

vs.

Digg this post by clicking here.

[MAJOR SPOILERS for Bioshock and Incredibles to follow]

[This post has been updated to respond to comments left on the blog. Please see update at the bottom.]

On Thanksgiving Day, NBC broadcast the network premiere of "The Incredibles," allowing me to watch the film in HD - a pretty great experience since there's currently no other way to do so. I love the film, but every time I watch it, its overriding themes always bother me. Coincidentally, I also recently played and beat the wonderful "Bioshock," by Irrational Games, which is what led me to write this post.

Intentional or not , both of them derive strong inspirations from Ayn Rand's work. But where "Bioshock" illustrates the downfall of objectivism, "The Incredibles" spends most of its running time advocating it, to an extent that's fairly shocking for a mainstream film. This article will explore the similarities between the two works, but I will spend the bulk of the time interpreting their take on Rand's philosophies.


First, a quick tour of objectivism: Rand's philosophy, made evident in books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged essentially boils down to the notion that humans are self-interested and should be allowed to pursue their own happiness. In her own words,

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Those that are smarter, more talented, or just plain better should be allowed to pursue their own interests without interference from government, religion, or anyone/anything else. The societal consequences of this are, of course, unfettered laissez-faire capitalism. This, coincidentally, is the exact same principle that Andrew Ryan (whose name is a play on Rand's name), one of the main characters from Bioshock, lives by. The following clip from the game should give you a pretty good summary of it, while also demonstrating how awesome the game is:

Click here for the clip

In Bioshock, Ryan perfects the notion of objectivism in his underwater city but when scientists came up with plasmids and the devious Fontaine - more word play on Rand's The Fountainhead - cornered the market on them, things went horribly awry. Although we know that Ryan continued to have faith in free market capitalism ("Just design a better product!"), ultimately human nature took over. The power of plasmids was too hard to resist. And some, like Ryan and Fontaine, just became addicted to power:


click here for the clip

While Bioshock shows us the promise of objectivism, with its beautiful underwater city loaded with brilliant scientists and artists, it also shows us its downfall. What Ken Levine, the game's writer, seems to be saying is that human nature is incompatible with Rand's vision of the heroic person and that objectivism, noble and promising as it may be, is doomed to failure. Ugly, dystopian, freaky, frightening failure.

On the other hand, consider "The Incredibles."

In the opening scene of "The Incredibles," Mr. Incredible saves a suicidal building jumper, who in turns sues the daylights out of him. The "Supers" are then all forced into hiding by the government and the old-school film depicting the incident shows how they have now become everyday people:


Consider this piece of narration from the above section:

The supers will be granted amnesty from responsibility for past actions, in exchange for the promise to never again resume hero work. Where are they now? They are living among us. Average citizens, average heroes. Quietly and anonymously continuing to make the world a better place.

The world in the film is one that clearly glorifies normality and same-ness. And that fact is intended to frustrate the audience, especially given the acrobatics we've just witnessed in the opening scene. We want to see these super heroes doing what they love to do, what they were born to do. And we hate that it's been taken away from them.

Speaking of which, there is a clear delineation between the supers and "normals." The character Incrediboy/Syndrome/Buddy, played deliciously by Jason Lee, is one of the latter, and his affections for hero work are repeatedly rebuffed by Mr. Incredible. In the opening scene, Incredible heartlessly ejects him from his car after Incrediboy tries to tag along:

Mr. Incredible doesn't mind working with cohorts like Frozone and Elastigirl, but Incrediboy seems to be out of the running simply because he wasn't born with superpowers. Forget the fact that he has worked immensely hard and has single-handedly engineered incredible technology; in the opening scene, he is depicted as annoying, foolish, and almost responsible for destroying a train full of innocent bystanders:


The primary problem with Incrediboy is that he's not one of the "chosen" ones, he's not "incredible." And therefore, he shouldn't hinder the efforts of those that are "incredible." Of course, i can't continue without mentioning the (in)famous scene in which Mr. Incredible laments mediocrity:


Bob: It's not a graduation. He's moving from the fourth grade to
the fifth grade. It's psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate
mediocrity but if someone is genuinely exceptional...
Helen: This is not about you, Bob. This is about Dash.
Bob: You want to do something for Dash? Then let him actually
compete. Let him go out for sports!
Helen: You know why we can't do that...
Bob: Because he'd be great!

Mediocrity should not be celebrated, Bob seems to be saying. Greatness should be. And greatness, in the realm of the movie, means having superpowers. Weren't born with them? Too bad, even if you have an intelligence that can only be described as monstrously large (e.g. Syndrome).

By the end of the film, Syndrome has transformed into an evil menace and the Incredibles are cheered for thwarting his plan, and eventually, for killing him. The message of the film seems clear: Those that hinder greatness will be destroyed. In the end, greatness reveals itself and triumphs over mediocrity. Pretty heady stuff, and actually a pretty horrifying message for a children's film.

Except for one last thing.

In the final scene, Dash is seen actually taking up sports, while his family cheers him on from the bleachers. But they don't tell him to use his gifts to their fullest extent. Instead, they scream at him to do just well enough to come in second place:

It's actually a poignant scene and funny scene. But what are we to take from all this? This last scene seems to confuse "the message" of the movie and it's not entirely clear what Brad Bird is trying to communicate here. Perhaps he is saying that everyone can co-exist peacefully, that being "incredible" isn't all that important, and that it's not necessarily exclusive of normality. If this is true, then I think it's a positive message, but certainly a contrast from the 1 hour and 45 minutes that have come before.

Although Bird has often stated that he didn't intend any of the Rand-ian parallels, they are often sometimes embedded even within the visuals of the film, such as during the climax when Mr. Incredible takes a pose that looks a heck of a lot like Atlas Shrugged:


Whether or not they were intentional, the parallels and messages are fairly clear.

My law professor once called "The Incredibles" a "Republican movie." There are those that are incredible, there are those that aren't incredible, and that's just the way life is. You have to just have "it" in you (i.e. in the "Republican" analogy, "it" would be wealth, power, or an overriding desire for those things) and if you don't, you're looked down upon. When I first heard him, I didn't really know what the hell he was talking about. But now, I think I've come to terms with it.

"Bioshock" and "The Incredibles" show two visions of objectivism. "Bioshock" glorifies this vision before burning it to the ground, and quite rapidly at that. "The Incredibles," on the other hand," simply glorifies it. Yet regardless of what these works have to say, they remain some of my favorites of all time, and I hope they will be for you too.

So what do you think?

Next Friday: The Objectivist Implications of Ratatouille

Update (11:00pm, 12/10/07): There's been lots of great discussion going on in the comment section, so I thought I should take some time to respond. I think that responding to Brock's points will help answer some challenges that you guys have posed to my theories.

Brock said:

As others have mentioned, Incrediboy was out of the running because he was a child without the training or skills to survive Hero work. Mr. Incredible said the exact same thing about his own children.

I don't recall when Mr. Incredible said this about his own children, but in any event, Incrediboy was not Bob's child, and therefore, he wouldnt' have felt as protective over him. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Incrediboy could have been trained over time, in a Batman-and-Robin situation. Certainly that would have been preferable to rejecting a potential apprentice outright.

Brock said:

In the scene where Incrediboy's help is rejected, he hasn't done any of the times you've mentioned. If you're going to discuss movies, you NEED to keep your timelines straight.

Sorry, Brock. YOU need to get your timelines straight. In the opening scene, Incrediboy has already developed rocket shoes that allow him to fly...technology that we don't yet have today (in the real world). He definitely showed promise and when he shows up years later with zero-point energy, it's not a complete surprise because we've already seen his brilliance demonstrated at such a young age.

Brock said (I'm cutting and pasting his responses into one whole one):

I would have thought that 'the problem' with Incrediboy/Syndrome was that he was a psychotic murder. The message I got was: "Those who build giant killer-robots, murder people, and try to destroy whole cities, will be opposed by good people who have the power to do so." The other lesson I got was: "Just because someone was mean to you as a kid is no excuse for building giant killer-robots, murdering people, or trying to destroy whole cities."

What you don't fully take into account here is that the REASON Syndrome became a psychotic murderer was partially a result of his rejection by Mr. Incredible at the beginning. I don't disagree with you that he was a psychotic murderer (and should have been held to account for his actions) but if Incredible had said "Hey kid, you clearly are brilliant and have a lot of potential, despite your lack of super powers. I would like to train you as my successor," we can imagine the movie having a much different ending. It also would have been a much less exciting movie.

My problem is with Mr. Incredible's reason for not accepting Incrediboy, and I think it was primarily a result of his not having superpowers (and secondarily as a result of other reasons, e.g. he was annoying, he was young, he was inexperienced, etc.)

One last thing to consider before moving on from Syndrome. Consider this passage of dialogue from the film:

Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it
without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics.
I'll give them the most spectacular heroics anyone's ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that everyone can be superheroes. Everyone can be super. And when everyone's super...no one will be.

This last line is delivered ominously, and with scary music in the background to boot. The director is indicating to the audience that they should fear Syndrome's vision of the future, a future in which there is nothing remarkable about anyone, a future in which everyone can be super. And ultimately, for a children's movie, I think that's a shame. Despite his hyper-intelligence, at this point in the film Syndrome still represents mediocrity, sameness, and the status quo, which (as I've tried to point out) is what the film rails against.

Shifting gears to Bioshock: As for the notion that Andrew Ryan didn't truly exemplify Rand-ian ideals, I think user Edgeman says it best, when he's quoting user Brackhar:

"There's a large hole in your analysis regarding Bioshock though. In the end Rapture didn't collapse under the weight of its Randian ideals, but instead because Andrew Ryan betrayed those principles."

I was thinking, isn't this EXACTLY why Randian ideals always fail, and wasn't this the point the writer made about it. In my personal opinion, if you really think it through, pretty much ANY form of government would work perfectly fine if human beings weren't so...human. Randian philosophy fails exactly for this reason. It fails to see reality beyond the naive ideals, and fails to see that human beings are greedy and selfish.

For those that have read and taken my thoughts seriously, thank you. I have tried to do the same for yours. Even if you didn't agree, I hope you at least found the post thought-provoking. If more comments come in, I'll do another update (or if you feel your comment didn't get a fair shake, feel free to e-mail me and I'll try to write up a response).

Thanks for reading!

***

If You Liked This Article, You'll Probably Like These:

Stephen Colbert's Top 10 Funniest Correspondent Pieces

Demetri Martin: Spiritual Successor to Mitch Hedberg

The Top 5 Bourne-Improvised Weapons

Shooter Is Sniper Porn

There are films that seem like they give you a glimpse into another world, films like "Babel," "Dark Days," "Amores Perros." Ostensibly, these films offer an unadulterated examination of the lives of people who you would never normally interact with. They are, in many ways, fascinating yet also to some degree pornographic. They rely heavily on the fact that they're showing you something new, something fresh, something unknown, in order to hold your attention. And while comparing "Babel" to a film like "Shooter" is a really bizarre thing to do in any circumstance, that's loosely what i'm doing today.

I saw shooter on DVD the other day and found it to be offensive, pointless, disgusting...yet somehow awesome. But the most fascinating part of the film is that it wants you to think it knows a lot about sniping. Take this bit of dialogue:

"Long shots generally go places you wouldn't want to go afterwards to confirm'em. Confirmation does pose a problem. You know what it takes to make a shot a that range? Everything comes into play that far. Humidity, elevation, temperature, wind, spin drift. There's a six to ten second flight time so you have to shoot it where the target's going to be. Even the Coriolis effect, the spin of the Earth comes into play. President will be wearin' body armor, that means a head shot, at over a mile? You believe there is a shooter involved capable of makin' this shot?"

"Yes."

"Then you got a real problem. You got to find the shooter."

A scene like this is really interesting to me. It makes one feel enlightened, yet at the same time probably does nothing to scratch the surface of what's really involved in being a good sniper. While educating, it also perpetuates our ignorance, allowing us to wallow in our minimal knowledge of a subject. And to a significant degree, that's what movies like shooters are all about: Giving you a glimpse into the unknown, but only enough that the unknown is sexy, unreal, and unattainable.

Mostly though, we just watch these movies to watch people killing other people. Expertly. To this extent, Shooter delivers (This is the movie's climax):


Click here for the clip

Matt Withers Commentary on "The Fountain" Is Dead Wrong

[This post will not make much sense unless you've seen The Fountain. Sorry about that. Spoilers ahead, so beware.]

Roger Ebert recently wrote a review of Darron Aronofsky's wonderful film, "The Fountain," and published a commentary by Joblo's Matt Withers. A few paragraphs into the commentary and I already knew that I would vehemently disagree with this man. Withers writes:

Given that Tomas is a fictional character in the universe of the film, we must now turn our attention to both present day Tom (Tom 1), and Spaceman Tom (Tom 2). It is made clear that both these men are in some fashion the same man. While the evidence could take up pages to list, it is enough to recognize that they have the same name, the same tattoo of a wedding band on their ring finger, and the same memories of Izzy. While it may seem tricky to establish if Tom 2 is actually Tom 1, somehow still alive 500 years in the future, or some other fiction, fear not for the answer is actually quite simple.

Tom 2's journey is clearly the final chapter of Izzy's book, the chapter she asked Tom 1 to finish for her as she lay on her deathbed. In it we find the Spaceman transporting the Tree that seems to contain the spirit of both his beloved Izzy and Queen Isabella to a dying nebula. In Tom 2's journey lie all the elements we would expect a grieving husband, a man who is a scientist not a writer, to present when finishing a story he did not start. It is his love letter to his dead wife.

Withers goes on to describe why Tom 2 is different than Tom 1 but completely ignores all the evidence that indicates they are the same person. They have the same markings, including the mark on Tom's finger, although Withers does give this lip service. More importantly, Tom 2 has been hearing Lizzy asking him to "Finish It" throughout the whole movie, an indication that he has not yet finished writing the last chapter in her book (Withers thinks he has, and that he IS the last chapter, which makes even less sense than the explanation I am positing).

The point of the movie is that Tom 1 (who is the same person as Tom 2) is in a constant struggle against death. This is evident in the way he fights to save Lizzy's life. He lacks an acceptance of her death even as she has already come to one. His endless pursuit of continuing life and his inability to finish the story only comes to an end hundreds of years later in the depths of space.

The most epic stories we've ever been told in our lives are those of (literally) insane love, of intense stubbornness that can only be sated by tremendous, far-reaching acts. The battle of Troy was launched over one woman. Romeo and Juliet made the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, for their love. And Tommy from "The Fountain" took a spaceship bubble into the depths of space in a dramatic attempt at thwarting death.

Tom 2's appearance in the old Spanish conquistador story at the end of the movie indicates that he is now writing the story, and his ending concludes with the conquistador not living forever, but dying and contributing to the circle of life, which coincides with Tom 2's fate as well, whose involvement with the exploding star redistributes his biological material throughout the galaxy. In the end, he finishes the story (we hear an imagined Tom whispering to Lizzy, "I finished it")...and we SAW how he finished it too.

Aronofsky has made clear his intentions that the movie was meant to be a science fiction epic. If Tom 2 was merely imagined, that would subvert the entire reality of the movie. Furthermore, interviews with Aronofsky and Weisz (who are married), in which they expound on the cyclical nature of life and death, reveal this interpretation to be accurate.

All told, although I'm sure Withers is a great guy and apparently a very good writer, he's dead wrong on this interpretation and it's unfortunate that Ebert would defer to this single perspective as the correct one. My emotional attachment and appreciation for the film compelled me to briefly try and explain why I feel this way.

The Top 10 John Woo Shootouts

[Please Digg this post by clicking here!]

In a week, filmmaker John Woo's first ever videogame, "Stranglehold," will be released...and I couldn't be more excited:



Although the trailer makes the game look schlocky, the game gives everyone an opportunity to do what John Woo fans have always dreamed of: To play the role of hard-Boiled cop, Tequila.

I grew up watching John Woo's films and I'm one of his biggest fans. Sure, he uses the same old tricks over and over and over and over again (Doves, guns pointing across from each other, jumping/flipping while shooting guns with both hands, excessive slow motion). But I can still eat up a good John Woo film like it's nobody's business. Almost every one of them is a well-choreographed ballet of violence, a visual representation of the intense and eternal struggle between good and evil.

In celebration of the game's release, here are the John Woo's Top 10 most intense shootouts, in no particular order:


The Killer - Opening shootout - Let's start with something light; the opening scene for "The Killer." It's just a plain ol' execution of a target (plus all the guys in the room). Still, it's done with amazing style. Observe:



Hard Boiled - Teahouse shootout - A perfect opening for Woo's action extravaganza, this scene has a lot of memorable moments (the part when Tequila smashes open the birdcage is unforgettable). Coupled with the messy editing and the final, cold-hearted murder, this scene deftly paints a picture of Tequila as an uncontrollable, unstable cop you don't want to mess with.




The Killer - Apartment shootout - Chow Yun Fat has it tough in this movie. Right when he is starting to come to grips with his friend's betrayal, that's when a cadre of henchmen come in to miss his s**t up. Just remember when you watch Chow whip that gun out of his sleeve: Before "Desperado," there was "The Killer."



The Killer - Church shootout - John Woo's darkest film contains one of the most hyper-stylized action sequences ever shot in a church. This scene is vicious, insanely long, and basically a work of art, an excellent culmination for the brooding film that's just come before it.


(Fast forward past first 2 minutes to get to the action)


A Better Tomorrow 2 - Final Shootout - This film was mostly crap, save for this one scene at the end where Chow Yun Fat and two dudes absolutely mess up the bad guys. My favorite sequence is the mutual gun-slide at the end (which by the way, makes absolutely no sense), a new addition to the Woo canon at this point:






Face/Off- Hangar shootout - Woo's best American film also has many of the elements of his Asian films. Namely, conflict between two charismatic main characters and a hell of a lot of bullets. However, the Hollywood budget lets Woo play with planes and humvees too. For that, we can all be grateful.



Hard Boiled - Warehouse shootout - The violence in Woo's movies is so over-the-top, it borders on comical. This is the warehouse shootout, but it's more appropriately called the warehouse massacre. First all the bad guys come in and massacre the rival gangsters. Then Tequila comes in BY HIMSELF and single-handedly massacres the entire warehouse full of guys. The ending is classic.
Part 1:

(ignore the awful spanish dub)
Part 2:

(ignore the awful spanish dub)

Face/Off - Somewhere Over The Rainbow shootout - Violence in Woo's film never really feels like violence (not like it does in, say, the Bourne films). You really feel as though every single movement, every gunshot, every bullet wound has been planned. No scene captures this feel better than this wonderful pairing of "Somewhere over the rainbow" with some shootout carnage in "Face/Off":



The Killer - House shootout - Chow Yun Fat and his buddy take out fifty guys as they storm the house. There's really nothing else more to say:



Hard Boiled - Hospital shootout - It wasn't enough for John Woo to open the movie with a shootout, then shove in a couple more shootouts in the middle. He had to end "Hard Boiled" with one of the longest, uninterrupted streams of violence ever filmed. The hospital shootout is an absolute classic and cannot be missed by any serious action fan, or certainly, any fan of John Woo. Here are some excerpts:

(ignore the awful English dub)

***

If you liked this article, then you'll probably like these:

The Top 5 Bourne-Improvised Weapons

Why Do Great Movies Get Terrible DVD Cover Art

The Difference Between the UK Office and the US Office Explained in Two Videos

DVD Cover Ruination: Zodiac DVD Cover Smothered With Floating Heads

[This post is part of a weekly series. Click here to see the rest of the series. Click here to see my original rant against DVD cover art.]

One of my favorite directors of all time is David Fincher and one of my favorite films of the past year was "Zodiac." Not content with being just an ordinary serial killer thriller, "Zodiac" reached for much higher goals and ended up being a masterpiece about obsession and the need to know. I just wish that David Fincher would make some more movies; though I love each and every one of his films (even "Panic Room" has its pleasures, although I wasn't as much a fan of "Alien 3,") he is not what you would call prolific.

Check out "Zodiac's" great poster art:
It's mysterious - a simple, a foggy shot of the Golden Gate with a delicious punny tagline: "There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer."

Now comes the floating head DVD cover art:


Although they've retained a different angle of the original shot, it has now been plastered with the zombie-like heads of the stars, a one-liner review from Peter Travers, and a headline informing us that it's by "the Director of Seven and Panic Room," which replaces the original tagline.

It's a thinking person's film. Why not retain the more elegant cover art rather than shoot, yet again, for the lowest common denominator?

P.S. If you're thinking about getting the DVD, don't yet. There's a huge special edition coming out next year.

The Top 5 Jason-Bourne-Improvised Weapons

I have waited a year and a half for this day - The day The Bourne Ultimatum comes out. A fitting conclusion for the film series that kicked the spy genre in the balls and kept on kicking until it keeled over and gave painful birth to the wonderful "Casino Royale."

One of the best things about the Bourne films is the way that Bourne uses whatever random items that are at his disposal to serve his own ends. But unlike Jackie Chan, who does the same thing in a comical fashion, Bourne's ingenuity usually doesn't provoke laughter; it provokes a fear that would shake you to your core if you were a rival henchman/assassin. Here are the top 5 Jason-Bourne-improvised weapons:

1) Hardcover Book - (Bourne Ultimatum)

(photo by Rupert Jetson, via CC)

Just because you can use a book to educate yourself doesn't mean you can't use it to brutally injure someone. For obvious reasons, I don't have a video or screen grab of this one yet, but you can catch a glimpse of this bit in the trailer for the film:

Update: footage of fight scene found! Here you go:

The Bourne Ultimatum - Bourne And Desh Fight

2) Pen - (Bourne Identity)

(photo by realblades, via CC)

Picture this scene: You've lost your memory and you're visiting your posh apartment with a quasi-cute girl. All of a sudden, a trained assassin rappels through the window with an automatic weapon and starts shooting the shit out of everything. What do you do?

If you're like me, you'd cower in a corner and wet yourself, waiting for your inevitable demise. But if you're Jason Bourne, you grab a bic and cram it into the guy's fist. Because nothing says "deadly weapon" like a $.07 bic pen:


(To get to the fight scene, fast forward past the first 7 minutes of this video)

3) Magazine - (Bourne Supremacy)

(photo by ktpupp, via CC)

I never thought I would see a magazine used as a weapon in a fight scene, but Bourne doesn't just use it to beat the guy senseless: He also uses the magazine to blow up the guy's house afterwards. I pray that the real CIA trains our assassins to be this creative.



4) Electrical Cord - (Bourne Supremacy)

(photo by pollas, via CC)

(Same scene/video as above) After a brutal, messy, magazined fight, Bourne barely pulls off the win by grabbing a nearby electrical cord and depriving his enemy of life-giving oxygen. Good thing IKEA makes those lamp cords durable.


5) Vodka - (Bourne Supremacy)

(photo by notfilc, via CC)

Few people remember that before partaking in one of the most memorable car chase scenes in the last decade, Jason Bourne utilized a bottle of vodka to do two things: 1) Disinfect a gunshot wound, and 2) temporarily blind a Russian policeman, right before taking out the guy's partner with some martial arts. Badass.



Update: The comments on this post have been great and greatly appreciated. In light of the interest this post has generated, I thought I'd throw up the following:

Honorable mentions - items that Bourne used creatively, but not as actual weapons

Nondescript aerosol can - (Bourne Ultimatum)

(Photo by chuckumentary, via CC)

So a whole fleet of policemen are after you as you're walking through a crowded marketplace. If you're Bourne, it ain't no problem. Just grab a can off of a table and use that "Contents under pressure" label to your advantage.

Guy's Carcass - (Bourne Identity)

(Photo by Free Sample, via CC)

When you're taking out secret agents in a manner that forces you to fall several stories , there's nothing quite like a guy's chest cavity to shield you from the impact. Thanks Anonymous commenter!

Oscillating Fan and Flashlight - (Bourne Ultimatum)

(Photo by feaverish, via CC)

(Photo by something in my eye, via CC)

If you've seen Ultimatum, you know how awesome this scene is. If you haven't, then I don't want to spoil the surprise.

Towel and candlestick - (Bourne Ultimatum)

(Photo by YivaS via CC)

(photo by Kreg, via CC)

From the now-famous fight scene with "asset" Desh, Bourne uses these items to temporarily help him against his Blackbriar super agent nemesis. But honestly, the book was really the most painful of them all; the packed crowd that I saw the film with collectively cringed every time he shoved that thing into Desh's neck. Brutal.

[Update: This post has been mentioned on several sites, including Gorillamask, Digg, Neatorama, and Defamer - Thanks to everyone for visiting! Here are a couple of more clips to get you in the mood for "The Bourne Ultimatum," or if you've already seen it, to remind you how awesome this whole series is:

Bourne escapes:


Bourne takes down consulate rep and hacks his phone:


Bourne Identity Car Chase:


**

Related Articles:

The Bourne Ultimatum, starring Guillermo

The Difference Between The UK Office and the US Office Explained In Two Videos

How To Fix 24

Why Do Great Movies Get Terrible DVD Cover Art

**
[Note: All photos are from Flickr, via Creative Commons, and link back to their original photo pages]

The Bridge - a Portrait of Suicide and Death

After visiting San Francisco and the beautiful Golden Gate Bridge, I talked with a few of my friends about the film, "The Bridge." I saw it this past weekend.

Given that the Golden Gate Bridge is the single place where the most people in the world come to commit suicide, "The Bridge" isn't what I expected it to be. It isn't a gripping political expose of the problems with Golden Gate Bridge policies (or lack thereof). Instead, filmmaker Eric Steel filmed the bridge for a whole year, where he captured many of the dozens of suicides that took place on camera, and then talked with some of the people that witnessed the plunge, or who were related to the deceased. Each person's story is different and together, they represent a patchwork of the mindset of a suicidal human being.


RSS Readers: To see the trailer, click here.

Some of the stories are haunting, while others are told as nonchalantly as though they were any other anecdote. Every one of the victims approached death differently, as did every one of their families. The film is well-made from a documentary standpoint; despite its low budget, it doesn't look like it was made on a shoestring, and Steel is decidedly a good photographer. Perhaps the film's greatest strength is that in the end, it leaves you to decide completely how to feel about the deaths: compassionate, angry, or detached.

See it if you want to see into the eyes of someone who's about to kill themselves. But beware; it will leave you slightly different than when you started watching.

DVD Cover Ruination: The Premonition DVD Cover

[This post is now part of a weekly series. Click here to see the rest of the series]

Sandra Bullock's "Premonition" was not Oscar-worthy material. Still, it had one of the better movie posters of the year, a curious clump of trees that formed what looks like Sandra Bullock's face:

Classy, eye-catching, and not-a-little creepy. It really demonstrates how powerful just a simple image can be. Imagine my surprise, then, when they decided to ruin the one good thing the film had going for it. I saw the DVD cover today. It's like the movie poster, only someone has stolen its soul and replaced it with pure evil. It seriously frightened me:
Sandra Bullock's an attractive woman, but this cover is ugliness epitomized. See my rant about DVD covers at this link.

Abortion film wins top prize at Cannes

CNN is reporting that the top prize at Cannes this year is going to an abortion-related film. From CNN's article:

Romanian director Cristian Mungiu won the Cannes Film Festival's top prize Sunday with "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days," a harrowing portrait of an illegal abortion in communist-era Romania. The low-budget, naturalistic film about a student who goes through horrors to ensure that her friend can have a secret abortion beat out 21 other movies in competition for the Riviera festival's top prize, the Palme d'Or -- including films by well-known directors like Quentin Tarantino, the Coen brothers and Wong Kar-wai.

This seems like an important film that people should see, especially if they have an active voice in the abortion debate. Illegal abortions are a horrific phenomenonn that visit violence upon the women that partake in them. Before people make a judgment about whether or not abortions should be legal, they should at least see the visual and circumstantial reality of illegal abortion. Obviously the film will have a bias, an opinion on the matter, but then again, most of the best films do.

As a side note, it's too damn hard to see these films. Hopefully a US Distributor will pick it up and we'll see it on DVD; otherwise, we'll be forced to resort to imports....

Related posts:
-A new breed of evangelicals
-More thoughts on abortion

Win a copy of "Syriana" on DVD!

[Update: This contest has ended. Keep an eye out for more contests in the future.]

Hey all,

Thought I'd try an experiment today.

A few people have been starting to read this blog regularly, so I thought I'd try to reward you for doing so. I have in my possession an unopened copy of "Syriana" on DVD (Widescreen, of course) that I would like to give away. For those of you that don't know, "Syriana" is Stephen Gaghan's "Traffic"-like examination of the oil industry. Interested?


If so, use my new "Subscribe via e-mail" feature on the right sidebar, to subscribe to my Feedburner Feed. This will enter you into the drawing to receive this DVD. By subscribing, know that you will only receive e-mail updates to my blog on days that I update.

I'll let this run for until 11:59pm on June 7th and we'll see what happens. To be in the drawing, you must remain subscribed to my blog through this date. The winner will be randomly selected; if you've won, I'll notify you by e-mail so I can get a mailing address and ship the thing out (FYI, I will probably only notify the person that won). If the response to this is good, then I'll do more contests like this again somewhere down the line.

As always, thanks for reading!
-Dave

Watch "The Road To Guantanamo," See How Far We've Fallen In The Eyes of the World

I usually don't update with too much writing on the weekends, but I'm always looking out for interesting vids and content to post up.

I found Michael Winterbottom's entire film, "The Road to Guantanamo" online. It's documentary-style and the fact that it's non-fiction gives the film its power. It's the unglamorized version of "24," a real-world version of "24," where torture often happens to innocents and doesn't produce any useful information. As you will see, the psychological and political consequences are, and will be, staggering:

Why We Fight

The following video made the front page of Digg and quickly became one of its most popular posts:


(From Youtube user randomemailaddress1)

Great animation with an important point. But it occurred to me that it doesn't really do justice to some of the nuances that are important to understanding the danger of the military industrial complex.

This led me to search for a movie I'd seen on DVD, "Why We Fight," by Eugene Jarecki, which, while far from perfect, is at least better than a 2-minute animation on the subject. I'd urge anyone to watch this film; even if you don't agree with the points, it will at least jog your thinking and hopefully make you think more critically about our military-industrial complex. I found that Youtube user Eurasure has posted the entire movie on Youtube. So, if you have the time, here it is in 4 parts:

The Trailer:

One of the most telling lines: "The defense budget is $750 billion. Profits went up last year well over 25%. When war becomes that profitable, you're going to see more of it."

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4: