Film Review: Jobs

I don't know how to describe this movie. You have to watch it to appreciate... whatever it is. Make no mistake, it is not good. It is not the world's worst movie, but I would not recommend it either.

There were a lot of good names attached to the movie, Ashton Kutcher and Josh Gad among them, and it was selected to close the Sundance Film Festival. But it was not developed by a major studio and had just a $12 million budget. Ultimately it feels cheap and, while ambitious, incomplete.

Story: 2/5 - Look, it's the story of Steve Jobs's life as he drops out of university and founds Apple Computer, gaining clients and investors and turning it into a major industry powerhouse. Unfortunately, the film does not do a good job of telling the story. I hope you didn't want to care when Jobs throws his pregnant girlfriend out of his house and his life, because you don't have any reason to. When he snaps at a friend and the friend tells another character that Jobs has 'changed,' we don't ever really know why. The pacing is awful.

Writing: 1/5 - This scene actually happens: Steve Jobs presents the Apple II at a computer fair, but which I mean he shows the case, says it will revolutionize the industry, then basks in a standing ovation as an actual, I swear to God, electric guitar solo cuts into the overlay. It's that kind of movie.

Acting: 2.5/5 - I don't hate Kutcher. I actually kind of like him. But he's not right for this role. He's game, you can tell he is passionate about his character, but it just doesn't work. The guy who played Kelso can't be the same guy who dumps his pregnant girlfriend and tears a swath of destruction through silicon valley - it's a level of intensity that doesn't make sense for him. There are some other decent performances in the movie: Josh Gas as inventor/co-founder Steve Wozniak, JK Simmons as tech investor Arthur Rock.

Aesthetics - 2/5 - Cinematographer Russell Carpenter won an Oscar in 1997 for Titanic. He's alright, and the movie is shot fairly well. The sets are pretty good, too. What really hurts the movie is the soundtrack. It sounds cheap, and a lot of the editing is poor as well (both audio and visual).

Total Score: 38% - Walter Isaac wrote a fantastic biography of Jobs. Read that. Or wait for the Sony Pictures movie version of it. Just don't watch Jobs.

A Monthly Dose of Westeros: Part 7-Sansa Stark

I guess it’s not-so-monthly now...but still, I will be providing my thoughts and predictions for one storyline every month until the show’s return. Since I have read the books, I know what should happen, but several plots seem to be taking turns away from the original material, while others are almost spot on. I will examine these apparent changes/accuracy, and do my best to avoid spoilers in “A Monthly Dose of Westeros”.

Sansa Stark is probably one of the most show's most hated characters. Not because she's a monster like Joffrey  Baratheon or because she burned down Winterfell like Theon Greyjoy or because she orchestrated a mass murder/wedding like Walder Frey and Roose Bolton. Sansa is hated because she's a princess. A lot of people think she's a bitchy little girl who only wants to be princess and get what she wants. But, that's what girls were in medieval times. Noble girls were groomed to be noble women when they grew up. Sansa is a product of her upbringing and that should be a reason to hate her. Sure, she's dumb sometimes, but she has gotten smarter as her situation has gotten worse and worse. Remember, she's being held captive by one of the most evil people in the realm. She's watched her father die, her direwolf lasted a single episode, her sister ran away without her, and her oldest brother and mother are dead, and she was forced to marry a drunken dwarf after being freed from Joffrey. I don't fault her for being stupid sometimes. Actually, she's one of my favorite characters. I love defending her and I do everything in my power to make people understand that Sansa is not that bad. It gets better.

It's difficult to say what's coming up for Sansa without giving too much away, so instead I'll just give a quick recap of season three Sansa and hopefully make this post long enough to allow me to include a bunch of pretty pictures of Sophie Turner. Anyway, Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey was broken off as Margaery Tyrell was brought into the picture. Sansa is still a captive in King's Landing, but Littlefinger has promised that when he leaves the

What a wedding!

city, he would bring her along with him. Sansa then meets up with Loras Tyrell, who she has a major crush on, and the two get along swimmingly. Unfortunately for Sansa, Loras is gay and also about to be forced to marry Cersei. This is when things get weird. Tyrion Lannister is now being forced to marry Sansa and has to break the news to her in front of Shae. On top of this, Littlefinger departs for the Vale without Sansa and she starts to cry. Then Tyrion and Sansa have a nice wedding, he chooses not to bed her until she's ready, and Shae appreciates that. Sansa and Tyrion begin to understand one another better and actually get along pretty well. Sansa doesn't realize it yet, but Tyrion is the only Lannister who truly cares about her well-being and this marriage makes her pretty damn safe. Just when things are beginning to go well, the Red Wedding happens. Tyrion is sent to break the news to Sansa, but she has already found out, and any good feelings they were starting to get towards each other disappear with one sad look:

She ain't forgivin' him

Sansa's story does improve. Just trust me. She's older and smarter than she has been in previous seasons. She's been forced to adapt to being a captive and she knows that she can't be a princess. For non-book readers, there are several points where you would think this story has hit a dead end and there's no more they can do with this character. Then Blackwater and the Tyrells happened. Then Tyrion happened. In this next season, there will be another major shakeup to Sansa's story that I'm hoping will cause the Sansa-hate to decrease. 

Sansa is one of the biggest pawns in the game of thrones, but in a few seasons, I feel she will be a major player. If you take a minute to rethink Sansa Stark, she might become one of your favorite characters as well.

Film Review: Mud

Just when I started to get down on 2013 in film.

Now, technically Mud may be considered a 2012 release - it debuted at Cannes in May of 2012, but was not widely released until the beginning of 2013. It was a smart choice to hold it off for this year, as 2012 offered much stiffer competition where critical acclaim is concerned -- and critics have loved Mud, which currently has the year's 11-th best score (98%) on RottenTomatoes. In fact, the Mud screener was the first DVD sent out to Academy Award voters. 

The film is virtually flawless, and cements Jeff Nichols among the best young directors in Hollywood. His other films (Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter) have some of the same tone, and he reminds me of a visual Cormac McCarthy. The abrupt violence, the pacing, and the gritty tone of his movies reeks of high literature, and Mud is his best film so far - a fine director operating at the very pinnacle of the art.

Unlike McCarthy, the film operates on more than a depressingly real level - as frustrating and close as the story is, there is a higher purpose - the story is about love. Ellis (a brilliant Tye Sheridan) and his friend Neckbone discover a man (McConaughey) who calls himself Mud on the shores of rural Deep South, USA. As Mud strains to reunite with his own forbidden love, Ellis, 14, is coming to terms with girls in his own right while watching his parents grow distant.

The film doubles as a Bildungsroman ('coming-of-age') story for Ellis, as he discovers what love is, what the point of love is, and what it means to be a man.

--

Story: 5/5 - The plot does its best to remain subtle while presenting very clear, classic themes. Love. Redemption. Maturation. Much like a McCarthy novel, the story is very plain, very real, and very, for lack of a better word, American.

Writing: 5/5 - This is how people talk in real life. There was not a single instance of a character saying something to explain something to the audience or further the plot. Again, McCarthy - these people are defined by their actions, and the story being told is the story of what they do - what they say is academic. That being said, there is some absolutely thrilling dialogue, and McConaughey is given some terrific moments to shine:

Acting: 5/5 - Matthew McConaughey deserves Oscar buzz for his performance, and I think he will get it. From the movies I have seen in 2013, it is he and Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips) against the field. Tye Sheridan, all of 15 at the time of filming, deserves talk as well (and not just for MTV 'best kiss' awards). The supporting cast all stands out: Michael Shannon (Boardwalk Empire, Man of Steel), Sam Shepard (The Assassination of Jesse James), and Ray McKinnon (Deadwood) were all perfect casting choices and all do their jobs perfectly.

Aesthetics: 5/5 - Adam Stone as cinematographer is good, not great, as he has been in Nichols's past work. The reason I thought the aesthetic of the film was perfect was how everything came together to create a flawless atmosphere. The sets, the costumes, the photography, the soundtrack - when combined with the characters and the actors' abilities it creates a flawlessly real time and place. I've never been anywhere in the States between Raleigh and Orlando (not counting Hartsfield), but I grew up in a similarly rural, economically-depressed, fuck-you-government area, and I have to say that the film triggered some kind of perverse nostalgia. It's Norman Rockwell, it's John Updike, it's Nelson Algren - the film is a Polaroid of a culture, and it accomplishes this with authority.

Final Score: 100% - I couldn't find a flaw in this movie. It's a drama, of course, so it's not for everyone - but if you like and/or appreciate film, this is the must-see movie of the year so far.

A Monthly Dose of Westeros: Part 6-Jon Snow

I guess it’s not-so-monthly now...but still, I will be providing my thoughts and predictions for one storyline every month until the show’s return. Since I have read the books, I know what should happen, but several plots seem to be taking turns away from the original material, while others are almost spot on. I will examine these apparent changes/accuracy, and do my best to avoid spoilers in “A Monthly Dose of Westeros”.

It's been awhile. This post will be a little later than previous ones, thanks to college, so it'll be a bigger one. This time, we'll take a look at everybody's favorite bastard, Jon Snow and the characters he'll interact with next season.

Last we saw Jon, he had arrived at Castle Black after an escape from his wildling "friends" and his lover, Ygritte. On his way home ,Jon and Ygritte went through a messy breakup that left Jon full of arrows and many viewers misty-eyed. In one single heartbreaking scene, both characters' worlds were turned upside down.

I mean, look at these two. They're young kids in love, who can't be together because they're supposed to be fighting a war against each other. Jon has that Stark sense of duty and honor and Ygritte thought she had

shaken that out of him. The look on her face at the end of this scene says it all: you know nothing, Jon Snow, but you are a Stark.

Anyway, here's what we know involving the other characters surrounding Jon's arc. The Night's Watch is badly bloodied and now lacking in numbers. There was a garrison left at Castle Black, but the strength of the Watch was either killed during the Battle of the Fist of the First Men or remains beyond the Wall after the Mutiny at Craster's Keep. Lord Commander Mormont has been murdered by sworn brothers, with Rast and Karl leading the assault. The two now lead the remains of the Watch at Craster's. We don't know the locations of Grenn, Pyp, and Dolorous Edd (hopefully they're all alive). Samwell Tarly escaped Craster's with Gilly and her baby, killed a White Walker, sent Bran Stark and friends beyond the Wall, and returned to Castle Black. Sam was then instructed by Maester Aemon to send ravens to the great lords of Westeros requesting aid against the coming force of the Walkers. This is the same time that Jon returns, arrow-filled and barely conscious. Meanwhile, Tormund Giantsbane is leading an army of

wildlings, which includes Ygritte, towards Castle Black. Thanks to Jon, the group knows where and when to strike.

That's a lot of information to process. We also learned that Stannis Baratheon is preparing to head north, being the only one to answer the call from the Wall. With Stannis coming from the south, Tormund sneaking in the back, and Mance Rayder marching towards the Wall, it looks like we're in for one hell of a fight.

Next season will be Jon Snow's season. No doubt about it. Jon's storyline in the second half of A Storm of Swords has a ton in it and, if everything works out perfectly, we should get a couple battles, a few sad moments, and a few moments of triumph all in a span of ten weeks. Clearly we have at least one huge battle to look forward to, since a bunch of huge forces are coming to Castle Black. The ninth episode of the next season is actually (at least tentatively) titled "Castle Black", and is being directed by Neil Marshall. Marshall was the man behind season two's "Blackwater", so take that as you may.

Many of the characters that are usually surrounding Jon might have a much lesser role to play next season. Sam should fade into the background fro the majority of the season and the rest of the crows we're familiar with are still lost in the woods. Ygritte will obviously still play a huge part in Jon's story, as her and the wildlings are quickly closing in on the remaining crows. For fans of the Stark family, this season could bring some retribution to make up for last year's Red Wedding, but there's still plenty of action left to happen for Jon and his sworn brothers.

Movie Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

I won't waste your time with preamble or plot overview. If you live in the Western world and are capable of reading this, you've seen a commercial.

Story: 5/5 - Honestly, I found the story very compelling. The first one was a bit lacking in this regard - it's virtually just Takami's Battle Royale. But this one was so much bigger than the game, with lot of clear motives and compelling emotional impact. It also totally avoided the stupid things that really tugged at the story of the first one (Peeta makes himself up like a log and just lies there until Katniss find him!), which was a big plus. It runs to 146 minutes, but it uses all of that time to tell a much grander story.

Writing: 4/5 - I had no problems with the script, either, which is shocking for a young adult film like this. The producers brought in some heavy hitters to pen the screenplay: Michael Arndt (Oscar win for Little Miss Sunshine, Oscar nom for Toy Story 3, Brave) and Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) are two of the best in the business, and while this script doesn't deserve Academy Award discussion, it has everything (realism, humour, opportunities for Jennifer Lawrence to speak) and for a film in this genre, is frankly outstanding. I really wish I'd read the book to see if the way the dialogue keeps the viewer up-to-date (perfectly) is something that Collins did in the novel, or something the screenwriters had to add.

Acting: 4/5 - I bet Josh Hutcherson is a really nice guy, but I hate his stupid face and I don't like his acting. That being said, everybody else is great. Donald Sutherland is perfectly arrogant, Woody Harrelson is equal parts frustrating and warm. Jennifer Lawrence is Jennifer Lawrence. Even Elizabeth Banks gets to open up a bit as Effie sees her victors forced into another awful situation.

Aesthetics: 4/5 - Jo Willems is a solid cinematographer, and I look forward to watching his career unfold. 30 Days of Night was pretty dynamic. With a budget of this size ($130 million), of course the effects and editing are going to be great.

Final Score: 85% Grittier and darker than the first one, this film has something for everyone. Just a fun movie.

Thor: The Dark World review

Rotten Tomatoes is a wonderful website. It exists as the ultimate collection of film reviews and critical assessments. The link to Marvel's "Thor: The Dark World" shows a film with a modest rating that is praised for its wit and mocked for its inability to contribute anything new to the film industry. In fact, many of the same criticisms of the second tour of Asgard are seen in film reviews for "Iron Man 3." It's easy to see that film critics are growing tired of superhero movies, and perhaps those individuals have a point. However, it is every bit as likely that these individuals are utilizing the wrong scope to view the film.

Try as they might, film critics have a very hard time leaving "The Avengers" out of their film reviews. It is well understood that Marvel's crown jewel helped to set the standard for comic book films--along with "The Dark Knight" from DC Comics. No disrespect to Marvel, but it is slightly absurd to compare the post-Avengers films to this high standard. The movies carry a different goal and should be judged independently of "The Avengers"--no matter how much their stories tie in.

In the post-Avengers world of Marvel, it is clear what Stan Lee's goal is: he wants to see the action-packed moments tie into moments of real emotion. Whether that emotion comes from laughter, happiness, anger, or sorrow is irrelevant when it comes to the delivery that has been seen in "Iron Man 3" and "Thor: The Dark World." One of the truly memorable parts of this film is how easily the film can draw out emotions. The transitions from laughter to anger to sorrow are swift, frequent, and sometimes very bold--while also carrying more subtle moments. One of the qualms many critics seem to have of the film is that it does go back and forth so swiftly--at times, it feels like the movie doesn't exactly know what it wants to do.

The transition between these moments is what makes this film so unique within the Marvel universe. Something "Thor: The Dark World" does better than any other Marvel film is make the audience feel as if they are reading a comic book. The film has many moments that feel as if it is jumping from frame to frame within a graphic novel, which is something that Stan Lee has hinted at wanting to accomplish.

Now, do not be fooled by the praise set forth to this point--there are several flaws in this film. While jumping from frame to frame is a unique trait that is hard to pull off, there are certainly moments where it shouldn't have happened in the film. One of the great moments in "The Avengers" occurs when The Incredible Hulk tosses Loki around as if he were a rag doll. The moment occurs within the film's major battle scene and provides a true comic-book quality moment. In "Thor: The Dark World" battle scenes are often interrupted by such moments--certainly not always for the better of the film.

***SPOILER WARNING***

There is also an issue in lack of plot. Over the arc of the story, audiences learn about the tale of the Dark Elves. From that point, the plot proceeds very slowly. Ultimately the plot follows the same kind of frame as that of the original Thor--minus the fact that this time around Jane Foster spends much more of her time in Asgard as opposed to Earth. In fact, that trailer for the film is rather misleading. While Earth is certainly in danger at points, there is no kind of widespread panic that audiences are exposed to--despite a huge alien ship landing just outside of London, England.

***END SPOILER***

"Thor: The Dark World" should be celebrated for what it has accomplished. It may not be the greatest of films, but it certainly sets itself apart in that it truly feels as if the audience has been thrown into one of Stan Lee's classic Marvel comic books. On a scale of "Iron Man 2" to "The Avengers", this film scores much like Marvel's most recent release: "Iron Man 3." In the end, the film lacks the classic moments to make it a great movie, but it is certainly an entertaining flick that audiences should flock to.

Rating: 7/10

Beyond: Two Souls and a lesson in game expectations

When I picked up a copy of Beyond: Two Souls I believed I was picking up a GOTY candidate. Based on the concepts, graphics, and celebrity personalities involved in the game I figured the resources spent on the project would result in one of the better games of the past ten years. What I got was a game that failed to find its identity and took on a bipolar personality. Parts of the game feel like classic video game moments whereas other moments feel bland, boring, or even worthless. What this creates is a game that is impossible to put down, yet impossible to feel satisfied with.

Story

Over the course of video game history, the industry has produced a wide range of stories. Some games capture their stories well as they properly utilize themes to draw users in emotionally. Creating emotional attachment to video game characters is something that is very hard to pull off--and few games do it well. When this attachment is successful, we are introduced to characters like Tidus from Final Fantasy X. When it isn't, games fall apart at the seams. In Beyond: Two Souls, it is nearly impossible to not feel an emotional attachment to Jodie and her counterpart Aiden--a paranormal being who has been attached to her since birth. Jodie's life is defined by her personal struggle of being "different" as many of us often feel. Due to Aiden's presence in Jodie's life, Jodie is mocked, ridiculed, and even used for scientific experiments and military operations. The struggle in Jodie's life is constant in every scene as she struggles to build relationships and control her emotions throughout the game. She is often distant, angry, and even confused by why she can never be like other "normal" girls.

Without spoiling the story too much, I'll say that the game is often defined by its darker moments. For example, Jodie--based on the decisions you make in the game--is sexually assaulted multiple times only to be saved by Aiden. Most of these dark moments occur when Jodie attempts to take control of her own life and separate herself from Aiden--though sometimes they occur when she attempts to take revenge on the individuals that have betrayed or used her. The story does carry its positive moments, but the deepest connections are made in the moments where Jodie is at her breaking point--which she reaches multiple times. We all feel lost and alone at times in life, and Jodie provides an avenue that we can connect with.

Game play

The game play in Beyond: Two Souls is what gives the game its bipolar feel. The structure of the game follows that of games like Fable and Mass Effect. Decisions can be made by the user to create or guide Jodie's personality--and in this game the decisions are DARK. This model is great for games with a great story, so the pairing of the game play and the story is great. However, the model for in-scene decisions and actions is pretty terrible. Buttons appear on the screen that lead to actions. The consequence for failing these actions is "oh well, try again immediately." This model--at least in my experience--created a situation where the user could never fail. No matter how good or bad your decisions were--or how good or bad your reaction time is--the game and story press on.

A form of media where you follow a story with characters and your actions don't matter is called a movie, not a video game. While the story was enough to keep pressing on, the game play was boring and incredibly frustrating, because there is never a sense of being challenged. The environment interaction--especially on CIA missions--is fun and makes for a good time, but without the possibility for failure there is little sense of enjoyment in actually beating the game. Completing the game feels like the end of a really good movie rather than beating a classic video game. This is enough of a flaw to automatically take the game out of Game of the Year running on its own.

Conclusion

While the story and graphics in this game are stellar, the lack of any difficulty in game play really puts a damper on the experience. I wanted so badly for this to be a GOTY candidate--and at the beginning of 2013 I pegged this as my GOTY pick--but it just wasn't. The connection that is made between the user and Jodie/Aiden is very strong, and it's hard not to be touched by many of the moments in the game. However, video games need to come with a sense of difficulty to be good, let alone great.

Game Score: 6/10