Thread: Viddy's Views

Milk (2008, Gus Van Sant)



For the second time in several years we get a homosexuality themed film that features A-list males making out on screen. I reckon that's a good thing. Gus Van Sant tackles this project/biopic based on San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk who was assassinated in 1978. This is not the first time his story's been covered cinematically. In 1984 The Life of Harvey Milk was a documentary that came out and while superior to the non-doc version that Van Sant just release I still wouldn't say that's an insult to Sant.
Homosexuallity seems to be topic Van Sant is versed in, as he too is gay and has made my favorite gay-themed film in My Own Private Idaho. Milk is more mainstream and straight-forward than that film. It is good that we have become open minded enough that a film like this can do well critically and commercially.
Now about Sean Penn. Great actor and great performance. No real surprise there. Should he win the Academy Award for best actor? Maybe, though I'd rather see it go to Rourke, a less acceptable and recognized choice. I thought Penn got it right. The look of Harvey Milk and even the way he talks isn't far off. His behavior and mannerisms are good. It's easy to see Penn did his homework in no doubt watching clips of Milk himself.
The pacing of the movie was as good as a biopic can be. I always think it's difficult to cover a lot of ground in two hours and the last eight years of Harvey Milk's life is no exception. They say no bad movie is short enough and no good movie is to long, that's the case here as Milk is a good movie. I would have rather had a three hour long film that took more time to pace itself out, but Van Sant has never really made long pictures.
I think the political angle of the film works well. I understand how the striking down of Proposition 6 was the major contribution of his short public career, but it would have been nice to see Milk presented as a politician who happened to be gay rather than a gay politician. All too often homosexuality is seen as the prominent force in shaping the identity of gays. I'm mostly heterosexual, but it doesn't matter because gay or straight sexuality is the least interesting thing about a person. The more we define ourselves by sex, gay or straight, the more we are bound by silly limitations. I have been around the gay culture and it's a very insecure and youth oriented culture by its own design. Once we get beyond sexuality being a culture we can truely get down to defeating discrimination. Milk seem to treat its characters as though they were their sexuality instead of simply having a preference.
I do think the relationship between James Franco and Penn was excellent. I would have much rather seen him get the supporting actor nod than film-mate Brolin. I would argue that more of the film's success depends on him than Brolin, but who knows. The film is an actor's tour-de-force.
One thing that did bog the film down was Diego Luna's character because it seemed under-written or focused on. It simply was tacked on and bogged the film down. I did not connect with that relationship the way I did with the others. I almost forgot to give props to Emile Hirsch who was excellent as Cleve Jones and Van Sant's recreation of a 1970's San Francisco.

Grade: B

Half Nelson (2006, Ryan Fleck)



This is the best movie about a teacher or a classroom that I've ever seen. With so much worthless dreck out there like Dangerous Minds, this film rings home as honest and true. As an English teacher I could relate in part to the main character, Dan Dunne - played with marvelous somberness by Ryan Gosling. Dunne is a teacher who lives alone in his apartment with his cat and has a shady past and a shady habbit. He smokes crack and an unlikely friendship developes between him and a junior high student (Shareeka Epps) when she catches him. This film is not cliche. It's brutal and honest and never spells out the live's of the characters too much. Anthony Mackie is strong in a non stereotypical part which could have played to type as the drug dealer. We need more movies like this and less idealogical garbage like Dangerous Minds. Teachers can also have issues the same as students can and this film shows the other side of the classroom.

Grade: A-

Is it just me or that guy in the pic looks a lot like Matt Damon.

Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan (1982, Nicholas Meyer)



The second Star Trek film seems to be a response against the negative reception of the first film. I enjoy the first film slightly more with it's connection to historical space exploration, the Voyager probe. The enemy was too abstract, the dialogue was too dense, and the ideas were a bit too much for mainstream audiences. After having watched the entirety of the first season of "Star Trek" this summer, it is clear to see the first movie is much more in tone with the series.
The Wrath of Khan takes place 15 years after "Space Seed" where Khan is released after 200 years from his cryogenic freezing chamber. After he attempts to take over the Enterprise, Kirk maroons him on a planet. Enter 15 years later where the film takes over. In the film Khan manages to take hostage the USS Reliant and plans on getting revenge on Kirk. There is also a scientific pursuit called "Project Genesis" which can terraform barren planets in a matter of minutes. Khan plans to use this as a weapon. It's also one of those side plots that gets brushed over too quickly.
I think the film is a good, but not my favorite of the Trek films, that title goes to The Undiscovered Country. I do like the idea of an easily understandable and traditional villain, but I thought the film could have gone much further with the Chess game between the two. Quite simply this movie feels slightly rushed and sparse. It's a hint of great things, but the film could have been spectacular if more of the subtext had been explored. I'm guessing this is a reaction to the long running time of the first film. As a side note, and it's already been mentioned, but Ricardo Montalban is amazing as Khan and was in great physical shape. It's a shame they didn't do more with this excellent character.

Grade: B

My first thought was: "Mark Wahlberg in Shooter"

I'm saying that whites are the main spectators that fill the pockets of black entertainers by going to the sports games and buying the $10 movie tickets. Exceptions in everything of course. I'm trying to look at the larger trends. And yes I agree there are more white entertainers than blacks, but that wasn't at all the point I was talking about.

Also why do you not see a lot of blacks in sports like Tennis, Golf, Hockey, and those sorts of things? The reason is because of demographics. Those are sports which require land/space/membership fees/lots of equipment to play. Basically upper middle class playground sports.





You need to watch the film. The character/role of Oher has very little to do in the film. He exists soley to support Bolluck's character and reaffirm her "savior" role. It's really shameful. Watch the film and notice the almost zero dialogue that Oher has. It reminds me of one of those performances where the character comes from outer space and has to be taught the ways of Earth through a host family character. There's really little difference. And it's not inspirational at all. Oher does nothing to control his own destiny, which is the problem, because there are forces that act upon him, and he simply receives them. Essentially the character in the film is a puppet.




I'm not offended that Oher is good at football. I'm offended that the story is told in film. Period. I'm offended that this white woman is portrayed as a hero. I'm offended that poor people "need" rich people to raise them up in life. I'm offended that we live in a society where there are people who have nothing while others have more than they could ever wish for.




That's the way the film comes across. And white people can help blacks without it being "white guilt" of course. This film doesn't come across to me as an example of that.

Watch the film. I'm curious to hear what you think about it, after you see it.

I'm also a big fan of Half Nelson.

Welcome to Macintosh (2008, Robert Baca and Josh Rizzo)



I've owned IBM products for as long as I can remember, but in the fall of 2007 I finally broke down and purchased one of those iPod thingies. I was in love at first sync. Two years later I now own a PowerMac laptop and though it's not going to do any impressive gaming (that's why I have an Xbox 360) it's very portable, sleek, runs well, and efficient. I get the appeal of Apple products and I guess I'm a sucker just like anyone.
What I don't necessarily enjoy is a 90-minute infomercial going through the history of the company. That is what this film/documentary boils down to. Welcome to Macintosh is a company piece of film making that serves to glorify it's subject, rather than look at it objectively as I had hoped. There are interviews with the likes of Mac VIPs, including; Jim Reekes, Richard Halsey, Wayne Bibbens and others. This is fine, but there is no thesis to this documentary. What is the point? To tell the viewer how loyal Mac fans are? I guess this works when the audience is taken through a man's house who has owned thousands of Mac products over the year. Certainly Mac users do tend to stick with Macs and don't cross the border into IBM. Ultimately this documentary is boring and serves little purpose other than to chronicle the history of various Mac products and interview people who have worked for and/or are loyal to the company. I guess I was hoping for something more indepth that adressed the issue of the Mac cult.

Grade: D+

Doubt (2008, John Patrick Shanley)



Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the priest who may or may not have molested a child in a private Catholic school. Meryl Streep plays the bitter sister and principal of the school who goes after him. This could be an interesting morality play because ironically the priest who may be guilty likely cares more about the child than the sister who protects him. That neither of the two main leads break into cliche' is refreshing. Hoffman's character, the audience suspects is likely guilty, but as played by the actor we tend to doubt his guilt. Afterall, aren't all child molesters evil gross men who twirl mustaches and bait children with candy? The most likeable, sympathetic, and caring people can also hold the darkest secrets, and it is a credit to the film and the performance that the role of the priest does not become caricature.
With the exception of Amy Adams, who plays the young teacher, all the other roles are minor. The mother, and child are after thoughts. Doubt is appropriately titled as different people will draw different conclusions. In the end I reckon it really doesn't matter, whether he is guilty or not, as he is the same caring person. We all have our sins, and we must all pay for them. We know the lead character has them, we're just not sure what they are. That's part of the mystery.

Grade: B

Very nice reviews, I'm enjoying reading 'em. Good work