focoproject.com

Alright, I saw this today and I just could not pass up on the opportunity of posting this up in here, because it is pretty funny. Not so much that it happens, because, everybody needs a spotter at some point, otherwise, weight lifting would be pointless…but this is just…funny.

(alright, the code embedding was not working and I did not have the time to figure it out, so I will just provide the link, maybe switch it up later to the actual video, once I can be bothered)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=45079213

Fco.

Song of the Day: “Fuera de mi” - La Ley

• Director: Gus Van Sant
• Genre: Drama
• Year: 2007

While most people have praised Gus Van Sant for his more mainstream films like Good Will Hunting and Finding Forrester, I personally gravitated more to his introspect, quieter film Elephant, which was as haunting as it was beautiful. Paranoid Park follows in the vein of the latter and not the former, which in my opinion is a good thing, but something which in most people’s opinion may be more difficult to enjoy.

Here, like in Elephant, GVS gives us a look into the mind of a teenage skateboarder who has been linked to a gruesome murder on the rail road tracks near Paranoid Park, a skateboard park in Portland. Told in broken segments, scrambled and out of sequence, we follow Alex as he narrates in an imperfect, compositional way, the events that have plagued his life in recent days.

Filled with long, dreamy shots, an abundance of slow motion and cinematographic quiet, GVS creates a portrait that is both troubling and peaceful alternatively. Once again–as he did in Elephant–it would seem that the director has called on a list of teenage non actors, which give the film a dose of realism, even if some of the secondary actors–Lauren McKinney, Jake Miller, I am looking in your direction–drop the ball a couple of times. While the actors certainly managed to taint the film with a few of their short comings, I can only point the finger at GVS, because they were things that could have been easily edited out or edited differently. Nevertheless, Alex, who is the main character as played by Gabe Nevins, strikes gold with his performance.

While this is not a perfect film, it is certainly a thought provoking journey into teenage angst, where numerous events collide to make, but sparing us the overly dramatic MTv crap. The way the film is narrated, like the way it is shot, adds to the mood of the feature and  it seems to deal with the teenage mind in a rather honest fashion, to the point where you actually feel like smacking a few of the kids in the back of the head, they feel so real. If you are of the independent mind, able to handle slower pacing in movies, then this is a film you will most definitely enjoy.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Rated R due to a couple of disturbing scenes, language and brief, adolescent sexual content.
Quote: Macy: They should be out now, dude.
Alex: What are you talkin’ about?
Macy: The war, Iraq, no? What do you think?
Alex: I really don’t care.

• Author: Robert A. Heinlein
• Category: Fiction - Sci-fi/Politics

You will find this book under the Sci-Fi section and I have to be honest, as far as sci-fi books, this one is not much. I will give it props, considering that it was written in the sixties, it actually was pretty accurate in the way somethings would have worked in the future, but as far as this book being an entertaining sci-fi, Mistress falls short of the mark. That being said, it is very clear from the beginning that this book is intended to be far more than an ‘entertaining’ sci-fi book, focusing instead on politics, social commentary and libertarian ideals and that is where this book shines.

The setting is the Moon (or Luna, as they refer to it) a penal colony, where all of earth’s outcasts were once sent to serve their prisons. It was the perfect set up, as far as Earth was concerned, you got rid of your malignant entities pretty much for good, because once you spend a certain amount of time in the moon, your body becomes adjusted to the lower gravitational pull and you will eventually reach a point were coming back to earth is impossible. And as far as the prison in the Moon goes, it is also perfect. No need for cells, bars, walls, the prisoners were free to live as they wished, it is not like they could escape anywhere.

Time goes by and eventually the colony ceases to be a prison, more people begin to head out to Luna to make a living, the way pioneers did during the gold rush. It is a difficult lifestyle, but one that they seem to have streamlined without the aid of government or any true ruling, quite easily. The only darkside to this lifestyle, is the precense of the Warden and his troops, who remain in authority even though the colony is no longer penal. ‘Authority’ controls all the crucial aspects of society, dictating the prices of the produce they sell, the water they utilize, the air their breathe, etc. Needless to say, by the 2070’s certain citizens have had enough. It is not until Wyoming Knott, a beautiful blonde speaker, comes to speak in regards to revolution and independence that the wheels start actually turning.

Caught in the motion are Manny, a one armed tech man, in charge of Authority’s computer systems; Profesor Bernardo de la Paz, an eclectic, well respected old man and Mike (named after Mycroft Holmes, brother of Sherlock Holmes), a computer that has made so many ‘neural’ connections with other computers that it actually becomes sentient. And it is this ragged bunch, that come together and plot revolution, to gain a free Luna.

It is a cool and interesting concept, with very interesting ideas, however ideological and in for that aspect, this is very much a book worth reading. However, those of you that are looking for an entertaining read, will find this bland, at best. The plot moves painfully slow and dialogue is over abundant and on the verge of repetitive, to the point where if you have no interest in politics and the libertarian theories, then chances are you will not get to the end of this book. So….keep that in mind before picking this one up. There are some interesting theories in regards to society, the role of government and even marriage, but all of that may not amount to an interesting read, if what you are looking for is a thriller.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Notes: See the book cover I am showing up there? Do NOT buy that version of the book if you can help it at all. It is a cheap cover (not to mention poorly designed), flimsy, the paper is cheap to and overall I was quite dissatisfied with the quality of the book. I knew this when I bought it, but it was the only book they had available and I had already committed myself to reading it. So…yeah, try to find a better edition out there, this one sucked.

Song of the Day: “Konga” - Van Gederen

• Director: Michael Haneke
• Genre: Crime/Horror/Drama/Thriller
• Year: 1997

Chances are, if you put this film in your Netflix list, or rented it, or are watching it willingly, you probably knew what you were getting into. A horror film-slash-thriller about two young, bored, rich kids wanting to entertain themselves at the cost of an unsuspecting family. What you probably did not expect was to be made feel guilty for coming in with this mindset. How many films invite you to watch them and then give you a spanking for it? Not many, but that is exactly what Haneke achieved with this film, with a slight tweak of the rules that make the film not only unnerving and uncomfortable, but also technically questionable. It is the sort of film that in the end will stick with you long after you have ejected the DVD.

The synopsis has already been given and it really is not that much more complicated. A family returns from vacation with their young kid, to find themselves visited by friends of the neighbors, who soon enough make it known they are neither friends of the neighbors, nor are they stopping just to borrow some eggs. It would seem, that the two young antagonists, who look to be boys in their late teenage years, are simply looking to find themselves entertained by torturing others, but perhaps more importantly and more troublingly (is that a word?), they are looking to entertain us by actually breaking the fourth wall, something Paul does in a handful of occasions.

Now…it is my understanding that addressing the audience directly is something largely frowned upon, at least, that was the impression I have gotten over the years, and yet I think Haneke has done something very clever with it in this example. To the director’s credit, the mechanism is utilized seldom and with calculated effect. The result is an uncomfortable moment which begins to build guilt for your continued interest in a movie which becomes increasingly violent. The fact that the we are drawn into the moment as accomplices is quite rattling, personally making me flinch. In one instance, when Paul turns to the camera and gives us a small wink and a smirk, it becomes enough for me to recoil and think: Don’t you be making me part of your sick-ass games. And yet that is exactly what makes this film disturbing. It is not the violence itself, because in all honestly, there are thousands of films out there far more violent, more gory and visually more distasteful. So one can not say that the violence of this film is really what becomes so controversial, but rather that they antagonists snatch up the audience and force them to join in, whether willingly or not.

Much of the horror is left implied, not to say there are not some rather brutal moments, but that most of the punch this movie packs is either in the implications, the consequences or the escalating sense of dread that continues to build even after the two young men have finally decided to leave the home (not without having made a true mess of things). In that sense, I have to applaud this film for being so unflinchingly honest about what it is doing without gratuitous gore, but it still does bring up to the forefront, the ‘violence in the media’ question, which these last few years has become more and more prominent.

It took me a while to figure out what troubled me about this movie so much, was it the violence itself? No, not really, because as I stated, I have actually seen much much worse. Was it the breaking of the fourth wall? Initially I thought this was the case, but in the end and after much deliberation, I realized that what bothered me was not the breaking of the fourth wall itself, but rather the violating feeling one gets by being pulled in at such uncomfortable moments. In essence, this movie makes captives of the audience, asking you to side with the two young men, when there is absolutely nothing there to sympathize with. In fact, they have made a conscious effort to give us a very sterile background on Paul and Peter, granting us no information with which to sympathize. We can not say we can understand their motivation, because they may be abused children, or certifiably insane, or any other excuse. There is no cushion for comfort.

There are two versions of this film by the same director, the original (which is the one I saw) which was released in 1997 and the American version released in 2007, which is essentially, shot for shot the same movie, but made with actors you will recognize (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt). My understanding is that the only changes between the two movies was updating the movie to Americanize it and that is it. I chose to watch the original simply because by seeing non-familiar faces in the roles, I tend to buy the story much more convincingly. And in the case of the original release, the four main actors and the child actor, are so good, that it actually makes this movie much more painful to watch, particularly during heart breaking moments when we are forced to watch form a detached distance, the aftermath of Peter and Paul’s reckless actions.

Kudos to the directing and the acting and solid story telling. But be aware that, though this film may not visually be a gore fest, it does bring with it a tempest of riotous violence that it may provoke pressing the fast forward button which is ironic, given the effect of one of the scenes in this film towards the end, which make the audience feel as if they have been terribly cheated. I mean that in a good way, which may seem awkward, but in this film the utilization of this movie’s self awareness actually serves to drive the point that much more effectively. Ultimately, this film may sicken you or thrill you with its stark commentary on violence, but whether you like it or not, it will certainly give you something to talk about.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Notes: Violence, adult situations, graphic imagery and brief nudity. German with English subtitles. Also, it must be noted that the foreign version got significantly higher marks than the American version. I personally can not make comments on that, since I have not seen the American version myself, but you may want to know that before choosing which version to watch.
Quote: Georg: Why are you doing this to us?
Paul: Why not?

Song of the Day: “In the Aeroplane Over the Sea” Neutral Milk Hotel

• Director: Martin Scorsese
• Genre: Biography/Drama
• Year: 2004

Not at all what I was expecting. Perhaps I heard the wrong people talking, or maybe I filtered out the information I heard and settled only in bits and pieces. However, due to high amounts of hype on a film that based on the trailer I really did not  feel like watching, I made the decision to put off watching it until later on in the future. I do that a lot, if there is a movie I am not too sure about and they hype it up, I tend to give it some time to cool before  I watch it to keep myself from hating on it too much. Part of my nature I suppose.

Quite frankly, I ended up forgetting all about the Aviator until I bought a small Scorsese box set which came with The Departed, The Aviator and Goodfellas. The deal I got at Costco was worth buying two good movies and getting the third as a freebie.

If I were forced to compare this film to another, for referential or recommendation purposes, I would probably compare it to A Beautiful Mind and essentially that is what this is, the biography of an eclectic man that ends up falling victim to his mental disorder but achieving a tremendous amount in the process. Both stories share the same concept, which to me is a turn off. Thankfully, the particulars of each movie are unique enough, different enough and interesting enough that you still do not feel like you are watching the same movie on a different setting.

Personally, I did not know much about Howard Hughes prior to watching this film and I have done no research on him after watching it, so off the bat I was not sure what to expect. The portrait that is presented by Scorsese is an interesting one, of a wealthy man obsessed with planes and movies and trying to do and create the best of both, an endeavor that eventually leads to his acquisition of TWA airlines and puts him in heated conpetition with Pan Am. It does not help that from the onset, Hughes is a terribly eccentric man, ambitions, driven and motivated, hindered only by his obsessive compulsive disorder and his depression.

It is an interesting movie, depicting the life of a very interesting man and Scorsese does a great job bringing the audience in to the movie and setting them in the era. Needless to say, the star studded cast delivers across the board with memorable performances starting with Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes, Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn, Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner, and ending with the secondary roles played by John C. Rielly, Alec Baldwin and Ian Holm among others.

I have no complaints about this film, technically, visually and thematically it is interesting enough, though I still felt myself not quite being able to love this film. Perhaps it was the setting itself that I have a hard time getting into, maybe it is the subject of planes (which I like as much as the next guy but am not passionate about) or maybe it was the fact that it seems there are enough biographies out there already that in the end, good as it may be, this film still feels like one of a bunch. Whatever it is that was missing, it was not there to make it stand out as one would have liked and because of that, I think this film will end up living the same fate of A Beautiful Mind in my opinion, a good film to watch, but once is enough.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Nudity, language, some violence and a potent crash sequence.
Quote: Howard Hughes: I want ten chocolate chip cookies. Medium chips. None too close to the outside.