The Rum Diary film review

The Rum Diary Theatrical Poster

“The Rum Diary” seemingly advertises itself as a companion piece to “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” — which was also based off of Hunter S. Thompson’s novel of the same title — yet it goes nowhere near what “Fear and Loathing” offered to audience members.
 
Based on Thompson’s book “The Rum Diary,” the film adaptation entails a voyeuristic journey of an American journalist, Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp), who pursues a freelance job in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.

Depp hashes up a watered down version of the “Fear and Loathing’s” lead in “The Rum Diary.” But that’s not surprising, considering “The Rum Diary” is basically a reproduction of “Fear and Loathing.”

The story of “The Rum Diary” begins with Kemp, who wakes up in the midst of an outrageous
hangover the night before. To his surprise, he’s thrust into a world of political greed and economic downfall in Puerto Rico. Then, he decides to search for an honest story, the truth or perhaps the American Dream.

I look pretty bored. What about you?

So, where is the American Dream?

It’s possibly somewhere in the heaping bags of rum, whiskey, beer and any other alcoholic drinks you can possibly name — don’t forget the hallucinogens, which seem to be core themes in Thompson’s stories.

But bogged down by the drugs and alcohol, Kemp seems unable to stumble upon it. Simply put, there is no American Dream. While the idea of the story sounds great, it becomes a quick mess on screen. We’ve all seen the same film before and we get it — the economy sucks and has for the past decade.

All those years of production and this is what I get?

Though the film tries to get this message across, it does a measly job of balancing the subplots. As the film progresses, characters are literally shoved into your face without giving you time to breathe. You would think that with a film that runs for approximately two hours, the filmmakers could find a medium to balance each subplot. But it doesn’t take long before the film becomes a fiasco of characters and subplots that you could care less for. And even the beautiful location and Depp’s routine antics can’t salvage the film in the end.

“The Rum Diary” tries excruciatingly hard to depict an escape from society’s corruption through alcohol, the tropics and, of course, the one and only Depp, but it simply and sadly falls flat in the end.

2/4

Paranormal Activity 3 film review

Paranormal Activity 3 Theatrical Poster

            There are some films that shouldn’t be made. With horror films, audience members have become so picky with finding a “good” one, they almost forget to appreciate those classical and less tacky films.

           

            Paranormal Activity 3 is film that sets the backdrop of the previous two films. Surprise, surprise. We hardly get anything new here.

An anticipated scene that is not in the actual film.

            My biggest problem with Paranormal Activity 3 was not its concept, but its execution. The film mainly relies heavily on cheap scares consisting of people barging through doors, light bulbs popping, and always something dropping. And the saddest part is that the “ghosts” do not cause most of these.

            I do, however, appreciate its attempt to redeem itself with a “classic” Paranormal moment where the character attaches his camera onto a rotating fan, which puts the audience members in a voyeuristic point of view. With each slow spin, audience members wonder what might be in that corner, or maybe the other corner. But, unfortunately, this becomes repetitive and dry.

Did you hear that? It's probably just some cat that will make an absurdly loud noise because it needs to in order for it to scare audience members.

            Apart from this measly compliment, there were much more gripes I had about the film. One, being the “twist,” that completely rips off of other mockumentary-style of horror films. First time with Blair Witch was creative. The next few times were O.K., but now…is it really that shocking? The audience constantly demands for a breadth of fresh air for horror films, but what we get is another big cliche, sadly.

            What’s more appalling is the enormous amount of money the film earned at the box office, setting the record for an opening horror film. If this will dictate the new horror genre, then mother of lord be with me.

1/4

Contagion film review

Contagion Theatrical Poster

Steven Soderbergh’s latest spin on disease and technology eerily infects its way to the audience members.

            An all-star cast – which I will not even bother to go in-depth with – does not ruin the film, fortunately. A film that generally boasts star-power may lead audience members to ask that question of whether or not the film’s substance is good enough for a  “less-appealing” cast to carry on. Apart from this, I cannot point out any more positive aspects of Contagion.

            The film begins with a woman who is obviously up to no good with a possibly ex boyfriend of hers (I’m not going to tell you too much about it). However, from the start, we hear her cough. Uh oh, she got infected.

"Stay right there. Do not touch anyone, speak to anyone, or do anything."

            The remainder of the film follows multiple subplots of different character’s accounts of the year as this epidemic disease becomes pandemic.

            It’s important to look at Contagion as not just a disease or apocalyptic film, but rather, as a film that portrays our modern society. The film addresses technology and its capability to spread news across this entire earth in just a millisecond. 

This is more complicated than some disease.

            The disease particularly serves as an allegory to show how society would act if a situation like this were to happen. It sometimes brings the worst out of people, but it can bring the best in people, too. As the film continues to build and society falls apart, the ending assumes that it almost didn’t happen. Maybe it’s suggesting that we overreact to something before it’s even that bad? (hint, hint)

            Contagion is a slick, well-executed film that boasts an incredible cast with wonderful performances. It’s one of the more important films about today’s society. I highly recommend Contagion.

4.5/5

50/50 film review

Theatrical Poster for 50/50

50/50 tells a sardonic story of Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who battles a rare cancer at the young age of 27.

A film about fighting cancer can only go two ways: the cliché route and the depressing route. Where does 50/50 land? In-between.

 

"I'm fine...okay?"

I was impressed with the film’s melancholic approach with life, which we all, as audience members, can relate to in some kind of way. We have the annoying, bothersome mother, the best friend as the comic relief, the girl-friend who cheats on her boyfriend with cancer, and his therapist, the only person he can relate to on a odd level.

As I continued to watch these characters unravel in the film, I couldn’t help but reflect back on my own life. The film’s theme is simple and clear-cut: don’t take life for granted. If you do, perhaps you might become a victim of some obscure kind of cancer that less than 1% of the population gets.

Now where is the time to make and take action of your bucket list? 50/50 successfully manages to address issues of our current lives. We continuously say that we are “fine” after we experience events after events, but it won’t be long until we reach our breaking point.

Of course, with its blissful and classical soundtrack, it’s hard not to get absorbed with the film based on the music alone.

 

Life is just better without hair...and the chemo.

50/50, however, can fall under the cliché category for many reasons due to its happy and up lifting turn outs, but it doesn’t convolute the film’s powerful message. The performances are all around fantastic, as well.

It was hard for me to purchase the ticket at the concession stands because I have my skepticism of these types of films, but to my surprise, I’ve made a deeper connection with this film than with any other [excluding The Tree of Life] this past fall season. I recommend 50/50.

4/5

The Thing Underwhelms

Theatrical poster for The Thing

Imagine stumbling upon a mysterious alien creature in the ice caps of Antarctica while going on about your everyday job as a Paleontologist. As you begin to further investigate this strange “thing,” you soon discover a terrifying truth: it can replicate human DNA. 

“The Thing” serves as prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” But don’t be fooled into thinking this is a remake because of the same title of its predecessor.

The film starts off with a trio of Norwegian scientists, who accidently find themselves beneath the ice caps and encounter an unknown spacecraft. Soon after this discovery, Paleontologist at Columbia University, Kate Lloyd, and along with her research assistant, are summoned to help Dr. Sander Halvorson and the rest of his crew to shed some light on this new creature. Do I need to further explain what happens?

            Nearly three decades after the release of “The Thing,” Universal Studios decides that it would be a wonderful idea to re-vamp the series. As great as it sounds, the problem is that only fans of the original will likely know what in the world is going on the film. But newcomers may be welcome to enjoy it. 

Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Kate Lloyd

“The Thing” is riddled with special effects and computer generated imagery (CGI), but it’s kind of what one would expect living in an era of technology. Carpenter’s film took a more “raw” approach since the film used practically no special effects or CGI because of the time era it was made in.

            The 2011 film effectively makes use of technological capabilities, which is apparent during the transformation scenes, making the movie-going experience twice as gross and fun to look at.

            But the problem here isn’t the age gap of both films or the “exploitation” of special effects and CGI; it’s the cheap scares and clichés that are riddled throughout the entire film. 

When a campy horror film uses formulaic rules of a typical horror film, it’s fine because it doesn’t take itself too seriously. But when films as anticipated as “The Thing” is released, it’s hard not to roll your eyes when the character says “I’ll go check out that sound outside in the middle a snowstorm all alone.” With all the hype, we ask ourselves, “Is this the best they’ve got?”

            I couldn’t help but predict when something bad was going to happen in the film. The clichés were, should I say, “right around the corner.” Effective in a theater? Sure, but only because the volume is blasted. Effective at home? Nope.

            “The Thing” does not boast a big-named cast but there are some relatively known faces including Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton.

            The majority of the characters don’t really serve a purpose other than to supply a list of kills, which is needed in a film like this and it does clear some ambiguity for the Carpenter version. We have the female heroin that is somewhat relatable to Ellen Ripley of the Alien series, but does not live up to horror standard’s expectations.

            The second and third act of the film primarily focuses on character trust and deceit. As members of the excavation group begin to transform into the “Thing,” characters become skeptical of one another and find themselves in quite a debacle.

            By the end of the day, it’s a matter of what we would actually do in the situation like this.

Leave the site and possibly open the gateway for the “Thing” to get out into society? Or forcibly quarantine everyone who is involved with the “Thing?” But how can we be so sure that everyone in the room isn’t already infected. For Kate Lloyd, though, risk isn’t an option.

            What made the film effective for me was the story itself more so than its execution. Certainly, I would be terrified being stuck in Antarctica with no way out and being trapped in a room with twelve other people who might be an alien. But what’s worse is that these little deviants act like your friend and then get you when you are alone and vulnerable. Sounds scary, right?

“Underwhelming” is the proper word that corresponds to “The Thing.” It’s not necessarily a bad movie but it is far from “great.” I commend “The Thing” for its ambiguous subplots, which is essentially what draws you into the film. 

Unfortunately, the film becomes a routine after the first hour and it’s only a matter of time before you look at your watch. But for what it is, it gets its job done.

Grade: C+

Drive (2011)

The Theatrical Poster for Drive.

Think Grand Theft Auto: Vice City [video game] meets Taxi Driver.

Ryan Gosling stars as "the driver" in this epic vignette of a film.

Drive is set in modern day Los Angeles, California, and follows an introverted young man who works as both a stunt driver for Hollywood films and mechanic at a car shop. But here’s the catch, he also has third job, where he drives criminals around the block as they do their dirty deeds. Oddly, Gosling’s character’s name is anonymous, so we shall refer to him as the “driver.” Well, the “driver” meets his neighbor, Irene (Cary Mulligan), an innocent woman who has had a troubling past with her ex-con boyfriend, and her son. As their relationship begins to cultivate, it becomes disrupted when Irene’s boyfriend is involved in some dirty deeds upon his release from prison and endangers both Irene and her son. It’s now up to the “driver” to end it all, but can he fight his own demons to what is the “right” thing?

You sure this is a good idea?

 While watching Drive, I couldn’t help but feel a strange inexplicable sense of nostalgia. Here, we have a protagonist, but at the same time we question if we can label him as the protagonist because of his actions. But let’s play the devil’s advocate in this one. The film centers around the driver, but has a few interesting additions, as well, including the driver’s one and only friend, Shannon, who primarily serves as a contradicting character and stirs up trouble unknowingly. Then we get the group of mob, who serves as the antagonist of the film. Irene’s purpose is seemingly to play the innocent side of the driver. 

Hey, it's Christina Hendricks from Mad Men.

From the start of the exposition, we are given the idea that the driver is skilled at what he does as he is able to escape from the police. However, we, the audience, are not given enough to know too much about him, but all we know is that he is a troubled man who seems to be trying to run away from whatever sin he has committed. As he intertwines himself into this bloody mess, the entire plot begins to dwindle into a path of twists and turns.

This is going to get ugly.

 Director Nicholas Refn certainly proves to the audience he can direct a movie with a combination of subtlety and brutality. Drive also echoes an 80’s backdrop with its electro-pop score and soundtrack, sort of taking us through a neo-Grindhouse kind of experience. Violence is not to be taken lightly in this subject matter. We have it all you want -- and shocking at that, as well. But, most importantly, it is used effectively as a storytelling device. With each blow, stab, and kick, we experience his solidarity and concealed anger, which gives us at least some clues to who he is as a person and what’s his motivation: psychopath or sociopath? Or perhaps something else? It’s up to.

Cary Mulligan and Ryan Gosling share a moment of "truth."

Drive is not movie for everyone; it's dark subject matter may push some audience members away, but maybe we can learn something from a film like Drive. The film strongly and implicitly revolves around the theme of personal conflict and uncovers something about the city of Los Angeles: the true L.A. where paparazzi and celebrities are not walking around; the gritty side of L.A., where drug inhabits and social issues continue to persist. I wouldn't necessarily label Drive as a typical revenge film, but more of a redemption film. But with an experimental film like this, it reminds us of the dangers and beauty of life with the ambivalent personal shadow that seems to inhibit over everyone subconsciously. In the end, we ask ourselves: how far are we willing to go end it all? To start new? Think of the meaning of the word "new."

However, that said, being familiar with works of Scorsese or the 80’s gangster films is not a necessity to enjoy Drive. Refn’s new addition to the modern genre is an undiscovered treasure of cinematic bliss for both the younger and older generation of audience members. That said, Drive is a dark film with a heart (oxymoron, right?). Performances are terrific all around; soundtrack is great; and the styli-sized violence makes the epic experience feel like it’s 1985…well, I wouldn’t know since I wasn’t born until 1993.

Grade: A

The Tree of Life (2011)

A simple, eclectic poster can sum up The Tree Of life.

“What is the meaning of life?”

We ask ourselves this ambiguous question every day of our lives. But what exactly is the meaning of life? To fall in love and get married; to hate; to get a job and earn money; to regret; to learn from our mistakes; to push our endeavors onto our children; to grow; to die? Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life takes us through a humanistic journey of the components of what makes up this inevitable and inexplicable jargon called “life.”

The Tree of Life begins with Mrs. O’Brien (Jessica Chastain), who receives a telegram one day, only to discover that one of her sons had been killed at the age of 19. Her husband, Mr. O’Brien (Brad Pitt) is then notified by the broken Mrs. O’Brien at his work. The once “perfect” family is then submerged into a world of grief.

The film then cuts to Jack O’Brien (Sean Penn), working in New York City as an architect. Jack continues to work but seems distant due to what he had said to his father before he pursued his own path. However, we are not certain of what he said.

We get a flash-back up to the “creation” of earth, which lasts about 30 minutes: molecules coming together, dinosaur extinction, the earth’s crust colliding to what forms our earth, etc. As we are eventually led up to the times of humans, we are introduced to young Jack as a baby. For the next hour of the film, we continue to see the progression of the growth of Jack; it’s obvious his empathetic mother is very loving as opposed to his father, who seems to be carry a hard-headed attitude of life.

Jack continues to grow and he becomes influenced by other boys of his age to participate in vandalism and even animal abuse, which his mother clearly disapproves of. At this point, we truly begin to notice the crumbling relationship between Jack and his father, a typical thing to experience as a child, right? Jack continues to act out in violence and theft, even stealing his mother’s underwear and throwing it into a nearby river. Mrs. O’Brien aversion to Mr. O’Brien grows, and Jack notices this. Mr. O’Brien’s job transfer causes the family to relocate.

We are now at present with adult Jack, reminiscing on his past. He is walking on a rocky terrain, which we aren’t sure if it’s in his imagination. He is then suddenly reunited with his mother, father, brothers, and everyone from his adolescent life. With his imagination, Jack brings back his dead brother and his mother reunites with him. After a few minutes of reunion, Mrs. O’Brien finally accepts his death and lets him join the afterlife in the skies.

There is nothing more liberating than watching The Tree of Life in the cinemas. Audiences cannot ask more from characters, apart from some ambiguous questions such as, “What did Jack say to his father to make him feel so bad?” The film primarily focuses on three characters: Mrs. O’Brien, Mr. O’Brien, and Jack. Character development is not an issue; however, there is no conventional characters a “classical” film supposedly needs.

Visually, The Tree of Life satisfies all videophiles. Beautiful scenic views of volcanic eruptions and microscopic glimpse of cells and molecules not only takes the audience through a documentary-esque expedition through the “land of times”, but fuses its elements with the characters of a conventional film, which brings a new kind level of entertainment. At one point I nearly forgot whether I was watching an educational History channel documentary.

At times, The Tree of Life can be difficult to digest for a traditional and modern audience. The motivations of Jack’s naive behavior and outbursts as he grows continues to disturb us as we watch him progress, even as going as far as killing a frog by attaching it to a firework. There is a scene where he deliberately tells his brother to put his finger in front of a BB gun -- only to actually pull the trigger. Religion is also another possible “conflict” in the film, which may bother a mass audience, but from my point of view, the film’s depiction of redemption is not necessarily theological. But the central message of the film was not to push religion upon the audience; rather, it is a standpoint of how one can view death as: Reincarnation or simply, Nothing. After all, it's Malick's take on life and death.

That said, The Tree of Life is not a film for everyone; even actor Sean Penn had a difficult time digesting Malick's directing format. Somewhat contrived for younger audience and possibly pretentious due to Malick’s seemingly unconventional narration style, it does accomplish one thing - pathos. It’s an extraordinary film about life of a seemingly ordinary family and how death can be interpreted as. Wonderful performances all around, and a film without much dialogue, it does extremely well with visual and musical narration; a beautiful and iconic picture. I give The Tree of Life my absolute highest recommendation.

Grade: A