Childhood is an important formative time in a person’s life. When that time is spent in a spiritual laden schooling system where you’re sexually abused by the principal of the institution and at the same time refused the ability to have a relationship with your one true love due to this same principal, it’s understandable that you’d be a bit messed up about it.

This however, is the backstory. Bad Education is actually the story of how Angel (Gael Garcia Bernal) meets up with a former friend, now director, proposing to make his screenplay into a film. His screenplay, entitled The Visit, is about this childhood of abuse and about how in his adult life he ended up confronting his abuser. With little to lose Angel claims he’ll do anything to play the leading role in the film of Zahara, the transvestite singer.

The film structurally broke itself in half; just as it does out main character of Ignacio (Nacho Perez). It’s split between the story of the Ignacio as a child being abused and Angel making this movie/Ignacio’s adulthood taking his revenge. This allows for the film to be taken in two separate levels, and at the same time for it to be segmented completely. While one half of the story definitely informs the other it’s also easy to see that these parts can make their own whole, which is how I decided to interpret the film. I saw the story of Angel separate for the story of Ignacio; the story of an actor trying to get this great part and become a sensation is different from the tragic story of a child unable to love.

When the film ended I couldn’t help uttering a word I find myself using to describe certain films more and more; Pulp. While the first time I heard this word used in relation to storytelling was in Pulp Fiction – which opens with a definition — I honestly never quite considered it as a genre, as opposed to just one instance of a person bending a story to be this distinctly peculiar thing. Years later I can see it’s influence (and where it takes it’s own from) and somehow I want to say that this film, more than autobiography or anything else, felt pulp to me. This could possibly be me focusing more closely on the tale of Zahara and Manuel Berenguer (Lluis Homar) than anything else when all was said and done. This may be because, like even the characters in the film, I don’t want to think too much about the childhood in this film.

 What do you think of Bad Education?

Four years ago the world was witness to something it had never imagined possible; Star Trek was popular. J.J. Abrams took the job as director of what would be the revitalized world of a heavy geek-loved property that had very little out of market attraction and made it palatable to all. I would ask if this is a changing of the times? If audiences warmed to the idea of space? Or did J.J. Abrams put so many lens flares that it warped the minds of all into figuring out that it was plain and simple a great movie.

Today, with higher expectations and the addition of (more geek-beloved) Benedict Cumberbatch in the role of John Harrison, Abrams must scale another mountain and a half to blow fans out of the water — and us search for where R2D2 is in this one. Let’s take a moment before we answer if he made the mark; can we?

So what makes these batch of films (that I’m calling reboots, even though technically they aren’t) so good is that they hold spectacle over the niche elements without caring. Now, let me be clear before I go any further: I am not a Star Trek fan, I grew up with The Next Generation playing on my TV and actively disliking/ignoring it, so I may be speaking out of turn, but this is how the world of the internet makes it seem, so that’s how I decide to view it. Whenever I hear Star Trek fans describe the brand they always seem to reach a point of description that makes it seem more interested in creating paradoxical science claiming to be true (within that universe) using logic to reach it’s ends rather than making it – you know – FUN. Abrams with the swoop of a pen (and a few lens flares – seriously guys I’m going to keep making lens flare gags here) wrote that right out of the film. He asked us to jump onto a roller coaster and takes us point to point without asking any questions and I’m happy for every minute of it.

Now, before I make this movie seem completely mindless let me stop you from asking. It isn’t. The film does apply a lot of logic to it, and it’s not because Spock (Zachary Quinto) arguing with Uhura (Zoe Saldana) or Kirk (Chris Pine) telling us that it’s logical reminds us of it, but rather it’s own inherent nature does that. Even though early on in the film we’re queued into one of the biggest elements of the character of Kirk and his method not to be logic but dumb luck — via a wonderful monologue from Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) — and it taints that idea of logic, it feels like a misdirect. Yes, there’s a lot of ‘gut’ reaction that comes from Kirk but it always begins in a point of logic and just dovetailing into improvisation from that point on when things go wrong. You can even see it when logic fails Spock towards the end of the film how he end up abandoning it for an improvised ending.

Just like with many second chapters these days the highlight is the villain and Cumberbatch doesn’t disappoint. Every moment he lingers on a screen is a moment we all wish was at least 50% longer when it’s over and for a myriad of reasons. Part of me even wishes he was just playing his version of Sherlock and I’d be happy enough, but this is probably better. His terrorizing nature added to his physical dominance (as shown in a brilliant action scene where he has two big ass guns) just keeps the film on its toes in ways that the lacking menace from Eric Bana in part one just couldn’t manage.

What did you think of Star Trek Into Darkness?

I honestly didn’t know I could plan this better. With the weekend past being mother’s day and this month’s upcoming Blindspot (still preparing to watch) being All About Eve this film was somewhat perfectly placed to buffer between all these things.

Manuela (Cecilia Roth) is the single mother of a film/art obsessed teenager, Esteban (Eloy Azorin), who on his 17th birthday when attempting to get a famous actress’ autograph after seeing her in a play is run over by a car and dies. This event prompts Manuela to leave Madrid and return to Barcelona to see her now deceased son’s father and confront the life she left behind eighteen years prior.

During that first chapter where we’re introduced to Manuela and her son it kind of sets up the film perfectly. More than believing this is a story of Manuela dealing with the grief of losing her son I see it as a fantasy concocted by her son as he claims he wants to write a story about her. Esteban looking longingly at his mother who he loves deeply and continually scribbles notes into his book, watching All About Eve and A Streetcar Named Desire, as well as seeing her ‘perform’ in a simulated conversation at her work — as a nurse at a transplant hospital — with a pair of doctors practicing asking the bereaving to give consent to allowing their loved ones who’ve just past to donate their organs for transplants.

As the film progresses from it’s opening scenes and takes Manuela to Barcelona we find her embroiled in a fight in a prostituted area, meeting with a nun, becoming assistant to a famous actress (and eventually perform an stage next to her), and play a surrogate mother to many other wayward souls in this world. Remembering the mystic glances that we see Esteban look at his mother with it makes sense that he would write a story where she’s basically the hero to everyone we meet.

This film is the realistic kind of fantastical that with each element being grounded in reality the fact that all these things happen to one person over such a short period of time it compounds itself in unbelievable nature and coincidence that it’s hard to not allow the possibility of fantasy to enter the discussion.

With the direct references to Bette Davis in All About Eve (and with the film titled All About My Mother; obvious connections) and A Streetcar Named Desire we see multiple instances of femininity rising above all outside forces. Even with the connection with Gena Rowlands in Opening Night, with the scene of Esteban trying to get Huma’s (Marisa Paredes) autograph outside the theatre the film wants to highlight the notion of these strong female archetypes. We have the prostitute who’s not afraid to admit her nature, the woman who’s become pregnant and wants to see it through regardless of the social boundaries she expects to meet, the actress who’s having career trouble and her friend being the drug addict, added to that the woman who’s lost her child; these are all stories told through the film and through the varying characters presented, the great part about this is that none of them every feel overbearing. Almodovar isn’t afraid to take that mixture of insane and let them stew for a while in small scenes where they can admit to one another that things aren’t great but still enjoy the moment (i.e. the drinking/ice-cream moment).

What do you think of All About My Mother?

First, hopefully you read the above note of this being a spoiler filled review. While I barely enjoy writing spoilers in reviews for the fact that I think reviews should be written to advise readers on whether they should go and watch a film or not, somehow my desire to write about this film outweighs my inability to express myself on it without going into details. Also, for a film like this I doubt there is anyone out there who knows of it that hasn’t already decided whether they want to see it, and it’s available easily. I highly recommend the film and hope you see it, then return to comment on it below.

In 2004 Shane Carruth released upon the world the film that has defined time travel for the independent world of cinema in Primer. Nine years later he’s returned with a film that while discussing, or more correctly acknowledging a scientific side of things, is everything but that with Upstream Color.

In the first twenty minutes of this film we see Kris (Amy Seimetz) being taken and force fed a worm(?) via a inhaler and then under a form a mind control following. This unseen force that controls her completely manages to make her withdraw all funds she has available and give to him until she is no longer useful and leaves her alone in pain. It is only after she finds him that he removes this controlling force (worm?) and transplanting it into a pig. At this point we discover that he has a pen filled with pigs, that we can only assume correlate to many other instances of this happening.

With all this over Kris awakens at home with her life in shambles and is fired from her current job (which she happened to be absent from for many days, during this robbery) and unable to explain it all as it seems she does not recall any of it, other than the aftermath that she now sees. One day she meets Jeff (Shane Carruth) and manages to create a relationship with him, only to eventually find that he happened to have a similar series of events happen to him which left him on thin ice with his employers which is why he professional life is one of complete mystery.

The film then follows Jeff and Kris as they try to figure out this odd attraction as well as we observe the after effects of this event that happened to the two of them. At the same time we’re introduced this man, who has no name in the film but is titled ‘The Sampler’ on IMDb, (Andrew Sensenig) and his farm of pigs as he continues his work in numerous fields of study. Through the sampler we see the pigs and how they end up directly affecting Kris and Jeff in their lives, even ending up in their own romantic entanglement in the farm.

To use the word hypnotic as it relates to the first third of this film would be more than on the nose. Where we see the Sampler giving instructions to Kris in a tone that is as important as asking someone to pick up the newspaper and seeing her unable to be tired or hungry due to it is astounding and grabs the viewer by the balls immediately. Even more is how Carruth makes us fall into that trance like state where everything the Sampler says becomes applicable to us as well. He speaks of how his brain was made of parts of the sun and therefore we are unable to look at his face directly and we see this light source from the corner of the screen making us (as well as Kris) unable to look at him is mesmerizing.

However, this film truly starts when we get past the initial ‘robbery’ and on to following Kris and Jeff in their lives post these events. The film continues to compile a series of effects of this happening in a way that feels algorithmic. As if Carruth has a formula in his home on the side of every page of script denoting why each of these anomalies are happening. Why Jeff and Kris become so attracted in the first place, why she ends up being ‘diagnosed’ (with some unnamed thing) that puts her medication, why they eventually start to blend their own pasts and are unable to distinguish each other somehow. These are all side-effects of being put through this experiment and are barely explained because unlike the process that the Sampler puts these people through this side of the experiment was never truly documented – as far as we know – and is new ground to not only the Sampler but us as well.

However, we do see a series of new things happening with the Sampler as he sits with his pigs and ‘mind melds’ with each one to visit the happenings of his victims from time to time. It appears as if he’s turning channels on his television and just peeking into the world that he’s ruined, but we are never privy as to why he’s checking in, as it were. Is he assuring his safety? Is he looking to find that perfect sandwich? Is he just being a voyeuristic pervert hoping to catch someone having sex? We never know and it’s never explained, mainly because as a character he has maybe two lines of dialogue and it has nothing to do with the story. He just walks around his farm picking up mail, recording rocks hitting the ground, and obviously stealing money from random people.

So to begin with the question of what this all means is difficult to say the least. A sense of meaning is warranted by the viewer but more than anything else I want to talk about this half-hearted revenge. While it’s understandable happening, with what the Sampler did to Kris, and the others, it comes out of nowhere. Given this one vague moment where Kris is able to enter this weird connection to the Sampler, as he is “mind melding” with Jeff’s pig and Kris with the Sampler’s music, she magically appears at his farm with a gun in hand to deliver her judgement. It’s beyond odd, it’s almost wrapping up things for the sake of it as opposed to getting to the point organically.

As I come to the end of this post, not because I’ve said all I can, but I feel I’m running out of words to type, I don’t know if I’ve actually helped or hurt understand what’s happening in this movie, but one thing is for sure, I do enjoy it a lot. I find the idea of bringing romance into this weird science-fiction film about the cyclical nature of life — as we see the opening shot of the plants to the scene of the child pigs thrown in the river to die and become flowers (which I didn’t mention at all) — and dashing in a twinge of revenge was good. Was it a life changing movie that helped make me not do something stupid in my day tomorrow? I doubt it. But how many movies can I hold up to that standard? Ikiru, that’s it.

What do you think of Upstream Color?

Being candid, I’m not quite sure how to discuss this film. While I don’t mean to make it sound like the plot is akin to The Tree of Life where the filmmaker has purposefully made his point difficult to get at, or maybe the point itself was that obtuse to begin with, I find myself trying to look for more than what is on the surface and not sure where to start.

The plot of Volver follows Raimunda and Sole, two sisters who’re trying to figure out life. After the death of their Aunt Paula, Irene’s (Sole and Raimunda’s mother) ghost appears to Sole and ends up staying with her pretending to be a Russian emigrant who helps her out with Sole’s at home hair salon business. Also at the same time Raimunda is dealing with the fact that her life is upside-down with working three jobs seven days a week and her husband is now out of work. One day she finds an opportunity to take over a neighbour’s restaurant and finds a passion in that where she didn’t quite know before. This all while dealing with the death of her husband.

There are so many things happening in this movie that I’m already unsure of what is the pitch as opposed to the really deep cuts that you want a movie like this to make on you when you are walking out of that dark room two hours later.

One thing that remains at the forefront of my mind throughout is death. Not necessarily the morality, mortality or even the effects of death, but rather just death itself. Irene, being death, appearing to her daughter with hopes of helping her brings up thoughts of not just afterlife but an incomplete life. Is a life ever complete? Then one thinks of the people that are left after death. While the act of death ends the story for one person it leaves others with a gaping hole to fill. People like Sole go and mourn while Raimunda looks forward trying to ignore that hole in her.

At the end of the day, more than death or working like a dog, this movie is about mothers and daughters and the love that lies between them. We see Raimunda and Paula as they grow closer and further away over the plot of Paco, Raimunda’s husband and Paula’s father, as well as Irene and Sole. The definitive line in the film is “It really hurts when a daughter doesn’t love her mother”. We see Paula struggle to lover her mother, while at the same time Sole jumps at the chance to love hers. This can even be extended to Agustina (Blanca Portillo) who searches for answers as to what happened to her mother, that left her to be an orphan/gypsy (the film never answers what they really mean when the call someone a gypsy).

Regardless of all of these great themes and ideas I’m still at odds ends as how I truly feel about this movie. It amazes me how Almodovar is able to make his world feel tactile while also very much like a fairy tale. The colours blend so well that everything feels too intentional for me to mistake this world as reality, which works perfectly with the plot of Irene. Where I spend the whole film believing that she’s a ghost without every truly questioning the logic of it all. I end up accepting the film on those terms. However, at the same time I always have this feeling that something is amiss and I can’t quite out my finger on it.

This all ties into the fact that even though I enjoy most of what Almodovar is doing with his characters in bits it feels like too much when I try to conceptualize it all. When I try to think of what the film does on a grander scale I almost feel lost in details and I’m unsure as to whether that’s a failing of the film or of me as a viewer.

But, unless I’m lost at life it still doesn’t diminish the fact that the film has something to offer and I pray that when (or if you’ve already seen it) found something enjoyable in there.

What do you think of Volver?

Very much like a film released earlier this year, Side Effects, Trance looks to capitalize on the fun elements of the “taut thriller” genre that a lot of other films try their best not to pander to. To those of you who throw your arms up violently at this idea, I apologize for your sad dismissal of this film, because Danny Boyle has created a feature that I’m willing to say can rival a film he did earlier in his career, Shallow Grave.

Simon (James McAvoy) works for an art auctioneer and finds himself in a tight spot as he happens to have hidden a painting during a robbery and is unable to remember where because of a sudden case of amnesia. Franck (Vincent Cassel) then hires Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), a talented hypnotherapist, to help make Simon remember.

Very much like Christopher Nolan‘s 2010 film, Inception, we’re taken into a world where part of the fun is knowing at any point the filmmaker can purposefully pull you out of the world by saying “you’re in his head here” and at the same time he can use that type of plot device to bend things at his will and in the end make a much more interesting visual narrative. So with that in mind as a viewer you can either attempt to apply all forms of logic and be disappointed or lock in and go along for the ride; I chose the later, and I loved it.

It’s no surprise that Danny Boyle, director of Sunshine and Slumdog Millionaire, knows how to make a film a visual feast. In this manner Trance doesn’t disappoint. I particularly love how Boyle continually reminds us how we’re traversing the world of a person’s mind. Everything feels, on some level, cerebral. From the filters that we see the world through, as if the memories (that have been forgotten) are clouded, or a single shot of something normal that reminds of an interconnected system (like the brain), everything feels different somehow in this film than any other reality we’ve seen on screen.

For some it may be a problem to keep up with the pace this film makes for itself as it allows for Elizabeth to take Simon in and out of a trance-like state and even to believe that this level of persuasion could be possible for anyone in the world. However, it’s what the film asks of us to enter into so as to give us an enjoyable experience of the dynamics of this three pronged relationship between Franck, Simon and Elizabeth. Without this basic premise we have nothing, so once again, if this is the point where you’re going to start asking questions then you’ve already lost the battle against enjoying the movie.

This is a film of twists and turns that would make the most difficult of knots, but somehow that didn’t perturb me in the slightest. To me this was all a fun crazed roller-coaster ride. When we reached that ending third of the film and all these characters in full gear I was honestly scared and thrilled for what was happening now and begging for what was going to happen next. Expecting and accepting double and triple twists I had completely bought the film hook, line and sinker.

Some may take offense at being blindsided by these extra turns, that seems to be a case of preference. Here however, the film doesn’t hide it’s intentions. With the movie opening with a monologue from Simon discussing the thing that instigates an art robbery, “a bit of nerve and muscle” it’s easy to see where the muscle is, but where’s the nerve? The film takes us, sometimes not so slowly, down this rabbit hole of answering that question trying to see who’s the one with the most nerve, and I loved every minute of it.

What did you think of Trance?

While this franchise has been one of lasers and robotics that we doubt the world will be able to recreate within the next two decades (whether they’re trying or not) somehow it’s always remained a discussion industry and capitalism. With the third installment it somehow becomes more typical of a comic book villainy scenario than any of the others, and that’s a good thing.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), now in a seemingly good place, picks a fight with an international terrorist known as the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) after he seems to be pointing his rifle in the direction of America and all things ‘good’ in the world. The initial confrontation doesn’t go so well for Mr. Stark and he must spend the rest of the film retaliating against this new power.

What works most about this film is it’s return to the things that worked in the starting point of the franchise, we get to see Tony Stark not just being entertainingly elitist but he’s also being smart along the way. After his fall from stardom he has to almost rebuild himself completely and that forces him to focus more on the human side than the technology. We even get a really fun section of the film where he must rely on his own physicality rather than being a guy in an amazing robotic suit that lets bullets deflect off of him, very much like when we saw him design the Mark 1 in the caves in Iron Man.

Otherwise Robert Downey Jr. is the most Tony Stark we’ve ever seen. Early in the film, with Tony in his workshop testing new equipment, we see him dancing and doing his ‘thing’ and we can’t help but be amused. It’s a trope of the comic book to have its hero be the cockiest thing that ever existed, including quippy one-liners as well as generally not knowing when a bad situation has gone disastrous so that he keeps on fighting and more importantly laughing. Some would even question if a lot of the heroes that DC and Marvel (as well as other publishers) have given us are even brave or just downright unable to understand how much they’re coming up against when the finally face down with the ultimate baddy on the screen/page.

Where this film falters is in the realm of side characters. Previously we had Happy (Jon Favreau), Lt. Rhodes (Don Cheadle) and Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) — and they’re all still around doing their best to win in scenes against Tony, but with the addition of new characters, like Maya (Rebecca Hall) and Harley (Ty Simpkins) I’m not sure they hold up even to the level that our previous characters do. I would like to blame this on some ‘Temple of Doom‘ style child sidekick syndrome but the moments that work between Tony and Harley don’t outweigh the ones that don’t, and for the most part it feels like Downey Jr. is acting circles around the child and he’s just merely existing in the scene so that Downey has something to read the other set of lines with.

Lastly to talk about the villain himself, I’m happy to see Marvel pushing the series — as I alluded to in my into paragraph — into a more comic book style direction with the villain here. Previously Tony could’ve defeated all of his enemies with economics, but here it feels a much more idealized bad guy who has a point to prove, and a few screws pulled loose, than anything else. Throw in a but more science fiction fun and you’ve got yourself an ultimate fight scene that has so many elements rolling around that it just comes off perilously fun.

What did you think of Iron Man 3?

When the film begins we — looking at the stars — are given a short introduction with the yet to be introduced character of Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish) speaking to the children. She says:

Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly, they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Immediately we cut to Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum) driving down the road in a car talking to himself, or more specifically God asking him for what he shall send him next to keep him afloat so that he can preach the “good word”. It’s understood within those first few minutes that while Powell wears the clothes of a holy man he does not live the life of a holy man. Carrying those hands of LOVE and HATE he carries a different kind of religion with him and a different morality that we must fear.

John (Billy Chapin) and Pearl (Sally Jane Bruce) have been entrusted with the secret of where their father hid the $10,000 that he stole from the bank before being caught by the police. While in prison, before being hanged, Harry Powell happens to be his cellmate and learns of the existence of the money. Upon leaving the prison Harry sets his sights on the now widowed Willa Harper (Shelly Winters); this is where the story begins.

Just as stark as the much beloved speed from Mitchum of LOVE and HATE, which was then referenced in Do the Right Thing, the film is one of contrast. There is the contrasting religious preachers of Harry Powell against Rachel Cooper, who ends up taking in John and Pearl while they flee the mad preacher hunting down this money. The film also finds ways to contrast the faces of Powell in the eyes of the children versus the rest of the town. John, keeping his word to his father, refuses to give up the location of the money and this causes Powell to be more terrifying than we could imagine. We are given a glimpse into the terror to come from the initial moments of meeting Powell, with his knife sticking out of his pocket at the titillating show and how his shadow looms over the children at night when he first comes upon the Harper family, but somehow when we see the terror that’s being enacted on these children it feels a lot more nightmare-like than anything else.

In the final act we see Pearl and John actually go on the run down the river and Powell is left in the town. When we see him getting on his horse to head off we feel that at this point he could finally be saying to himself that this is a lost opportunity and he’s set off on a directionless journey again hoping to come across his next chance at continued prosperity. However, as we follow John and Pearl on the river we still see Powell looming in the distance. John even comes to say “does he ever sleep” as if to see Powell as more than a man, he’s the essence of their fears. Thanks to this man entering their life they have skipped over being scared of the boogey man, or the odd looking guy down the road and all that’s left is Harry Powell, the crazed preacher who turns their mother against them and is always ever present in their path.

While the thematic terror is an element that creates approximately 80% of the tension in the film, more than any acting greatness that is Robert Mitchum or the narrative, it’s the visual sense that the film gives that pulls this off. As mentioned, the first time we know that Powell has reached the Harpers is by a shadow that envelopes the children in their home. More than once Charles Laughton uses the image of shadows to convey this sense of terror. The visual ability of the director is what makes every frame of Mitchum (and his ever present shadow) is what makes the film as palpable as it is. When we have the moment of John and Pearl escaping you’d expect for that visual motif to change, but it doesn’t and it’s only at the very end is it that the film finally feels to come into the light.

What do you think of The Night of the Hunter?

So when a film involves a man being released from some sort of institution where he gains favour by sleeping with the director only to immediately go to a film set where he focuses on his prey, a former pornographic actress and drug addict, that he then kidnaps in order for her to get to know him so they can be together — you know you’re in for something special.

Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! feels almost like a blend between Secretary and After Hours. It captures the odd romance between these characters that we have no clue how to feel about with a torturous couple days that we see our protagonists suffer through.

While there is a lot in the realm of sexuality, possession and love to be discussed through this film it warrants a much more deep discussion on the comedy of the film. When a film presents a plot as absurd as shown above and refuses to take it to dark places it immediately becomes funny. We imagine early on that this is going to go poorly, as does Marina (Victoria Abril) when she says “just fuck me already” and Ricky (Antonio Banderas) refuses saying that they will when the time comes — which you can take as foreboding or hopeful.

But talking about the sexuality more specifically it’s something that Almodovar looks to highlight. Making his lead actress a former porn star in a film where she’s tied up by a male kidnapper it is in the forefront of our minds. We have a small scene, before Ricky becomes the dominant force of the film, with Marina in a bathtub having a scuba diver toy swim directly between her legs and boom. If we weren’t already thinking about sex we were now. There’s even a moment early on as Marina is leaving the set of the film she just wrapped where she’s bent over looking for something on the ground and her director remains there agape directly at her where he says “I’m not staring, I’m admiring”, is there a difference? We see that Ricky isn’t there to just take some physical pleasure from Marina and leave; is that admiration? There’s even later on when Ricky and Marina finally have sex; this is the moment that Marina finally says she remembers Ricky. What a moment for a character connection, not only is it physical but it’s much more.

Otherwise the film is a lot of really fun hijinks. We see Ricky trying to go get drugs in the middle of the night, he takes Marina out and we keep watching for how crazy they’ll both go as she tries to figure a way out of this whole kidnapped thing and even some of the scenes away from the couple with her sister at the film production are pretty fun crazy. I wouldn’t call this movie a complete winner but it’s definitely a fun start to this marathon.

What do you think of Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!

There was a war, and all that remains of Earth now is a desolate land that’s been ravaged by the after effects of that war — which went nuclear. Jack (Tom Cruise) is playing out his duty as a technician on Earth to maintain drones that have been left to protect resource gathering devices from the planet.

It’s difficult to give an honest plot synopsis of this film without giving into a lot of the non disclosed elements of the plot which actually are some of the most questionable parts of the film. On the surface the film plays very similar to a Reign of Fire, just replace dragons with drones and robots and such. We’re given a protagonist who manages to be charismatic in a world that requires no charisma or care just effectiveness and we’re immediately ready to root for him. However, it’s also painfully obvious from the ease to which the first half of this film moves that there’s something very wrong. The way that the film feels where we see Jack’s curiosity, desire to engage in art and even have his own little secret cabin in the woods; these are all things that we as we are now would be doing because they seem sensible and at the same time he can’t just say “I’m doing this awesome thing” to his partner, Victoria (Andrea Riseborough).

With that in mind we as the viewer begin to put doubt into everything we see and hear. So by the time we actually meet this resistance (Skavs), including: Morgan Freeman and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Jaime Lanister in Game of Thrones), we as an audience are already on their side. No matter how crazy it sounds to Jack, because he’s been led to believe that they’re these bad things, we hop skip and jump over that step of needing evidence and go straight to saying “YES” to everything they say. Which leads to the evidence.

I know that this film is a science-fiction film and complaining that there’s science-fiction in it is like complaining that water is wet, but that reveal was so lazy. Even more it was borderline boring. For a moment that movies like this live for I was left uninterested and just wanting to see the eventual final resolve hoping for crazy explosions to happen. More than anything else I was starting to wish I was watching Jack Reacher again instead of this film. Why didn’t more people see Jack Reacher? That’s the better film with Tom Cruise playing a guy named Jack.

I’d continue complaining and talk about the ending, but I feel I’ve already complained enough. The film’s biggest flaw is that it feels uninteresting. Oblivion (which why isn’t this an Elder Scrolls film?) is as paint by numbers as they come and while technically not a bad movie is one that barely cares that it exists.

What did you think of Oblivion?