I’ll spare you all the hours of group therapy and just say that I watched a movie this weekend with a  plot line that tops all previous phobias; the fear of being kidnapped in Paris by an Albanian crime syndicate and sold into sex slavery to an overweight Arab sheik.  I don’t even think there’s a name for that one.

The movie was called Taken. The plot was pretty much as I described above. Except add-in that the kidnapped girl happens to be the daughter of a retired US Special Forces agent played by Liam Neeson.

I thought the movie was well made. But DAMN. It was scary. I spent all day yesterday researching human trafficking. The scenario of random female tourists being snatched off the streets of Paris seems rare. But human trafficking in a major problem. I hope there’s someone out there that’s not me who will dedicate their life to fighting it.

I would recommend this film. Its scary as hell of you’re a woman. And its even scarier if you have kids. But I think its worth a viewing just to see how Liam Neeson beats the tar out of the odious bad guys. And they are despicable. When you finish this film you want nothing more than immediate and painful death to anyone who trades in human trafficking.

But just know that you will have the poop scared out of you. I had a hard time sleeping. It’s like every woman’s worst nightmare played out in an hour and half movie. For some reason I had nightmares after watching it of Hannibal Lector chasing me through my old high school trying to eat my feet. But that’s just my weird subconscious. Yours will probably make more coherent nightmares.

While my heart burned with romance and chili fries, I outwardly showed no signs of approval. I hated mass female movements. I tried to play it cool but this film, this epic cinematic piece de resistance hit my girlish passion at just the right time and I was change.

It could only have happened once in a universe

I’ve never been a chick flick kinda gal. I shun anything with the words “Kate Hudson” or “tear-jerker” involved. I like loud and I like guns. So I was a little shocked by my initial reaction to Titanic. I expected to mock the film and mock the film goers. But there I sat on opening day with my prepubescent cronies actually eating it up. The story, the romance, the tragic unrequited love. It was everything a thirteen year old girl should dream about. And it hit me at the perfect moment. And I loved it.

Let sleeping boats lie

Fast forward twelve years. I’m 25 now, married, and wading in my own life romance…so to speak. I haven’t revisited my titanic love since that day in the theater when I had a kismatic experience. But last night, around 12:30 am, I had the most unquenchable urge to watch this movie. My dear husband uses the power of the “internets” to download the film and we partook.

Oh, my. Well…the movie hasn’t change any but I sure have. Its amazing how our perceptions change. The love story suddenly seemed contrived and annoying, the boat sinkage predictable (I guess the name kinda gives that away…) and the death scene almost unwatchable. Dan made appropriate gagging sounds and I realized I should have just left that one in the past.

So…no more Titanic for me. Maybe tonight I’ll revisit my love affair with another James Cameron that I know is sure to please. You know what I’m talking about…dickwad.

Here’s what I thought…as if it matters.

This movie is obviously about the War in Iraq…and Osama bin Laden…and the Isreali-Palestine conflict…and the ever present battle between dogs and cats. Or something.  It starts in a room full of terrorists interrogating the hell out of some guy. Then it moves to lots of shooting and swearing in arabic. And then it ends. That’s about it. And in all of that there’s supposed to be a gripping, bone chilling message. But I must have blinked and missed it.

If it was trying to raise awareness (because awareness-raising is all the rage these days) about the evils of Al Queda and its bin Laden leader then it missed the mark. We all know terrorists are bad. I don’t think anyone’s arguing against that right now. So a movie warning people about the perils of joing an Islamic (that’s right Dan…I said Islamic) militant seems a little redundant.

Leo DiCaprio’s been in a bunch of meaty little movies lately. And in every one he gets more and more burly and un-shaven. In this experiment he was even more rogue-like and “Bourne”-esque than the last few. But what he lacked was any true direction for his character. It seemed like he was trying so very hard to push his character into doing something Ocar-worthy. But all he succeeded in doing was running around looking cool and speaking kinda sh*tty arabic.

So in a nutshell, I’d say this movie is not worth the time. But its does have some cool scenes and if you’re listening very close you might find a moral in it somewhere. Oh, and they did decide to add some anti Iraq War stuff…in the last twenty minutes of the movie…when the main characters have run out of other things to yell at each other.

Every era of cinema has its ethnic super villain. In 1940′s the Japanese were always the bad guys. They were portrayed with with such loathing by American directors that many people here in the US still have unfounded fears of “The Japs”. Then that whole WWII thing ended and it was Ze Germans. Yes, we all love a good Nazi antagonist with his ranks of gestapo and thick German accent. The Sound of Music made sure of that. During the Cold War it was, you guessed it, those pesky Ru-skies. Many movies didn’t even bother to differentiate between the Russian KGB and the Nazis and a whole generation has grown up thinking Hitler was a communist. Thank you James Bond.

So who do we hate these days, cinematically speaking? The Arabs, of course. It seems movie after movie recently has pited a hearty, all American hero against a crazed Middle Eastern war lord. In Transformers half the movie seemed like a “War in Iraq” propaganda movie with silly looking arab extras scrambling out of the way as heroic Army men battled monstrous robots.

The most glaring example of our modern movie menace? Any one see Iron Man? Apparently a lot of us. Here we have every one’s favorite slosh-head Robert DJ fighting, you guessed it, an evil Iranian (or something) gun trafficker. The arabs are the bad guys. Mr. Downey and his suit of many colors were the heroic “all American” super dudes. Guaranteed if this movie was made 20 years ago he would have been captured in Russia and the gun guys would have been KGB line men.

I wonder what the future will hold for us? The Italians? The Costa Ricans? The Luxemburgians? What ever comes, rest assured America will always have its ethnic super villain to keep movie plots moving along.

Why Should we fight the system if the system works?

Peter, the film’s main character, becomes at one with himself due to a botched hypnotherapy session. Because of this new found mental peace, he’s able to, in essence, give his job the finger and do what he’s always wanted; nothing. Now, many corporate goons would say that doing nothing is not only a ridiculous pursuit but a detriment to the system because it costs money to do nothing. As I watched “Office Space” and thought about our society, I thought maybe this guy Peter is the only sane one among us…in a cinematically abstract way being as he actually doesn’t exists in real life at all. But his mantra is one that makes sense to me.

Making the Most of a “Learning Experience”

I’ve spent the last little while working in a cubicle on the “business” end of the workforce (a first for this liberal arts major who spent more time mocking the accounting majors than actually studying for her finance test). Its amazing to me how much people will do to make money. I guess the main drive for so many isn’t just to make money but to make lots of money. Then they can buy more ‘things’. In the words of Tyler Durden “The things you own end up owning you.” So what’s the end result? You spend your life making money to buy things so you can fill the rest of your life taking care of the things you own.

Now Go and Do Likewise

Ah, hail to “Office Space”. This movie should be virally installed on every computer in every gray office complex in America. Ironically the people who built the computer on which I am writing probably sat for hours in an oppressive 4×4 cubby hole wondering how to make a better lap top for me to use. Thank you! I guess what is comes down to is what I see as the core of Peter’s message: do what you like, no matter what the cost…or lack of cost. We may not all have the luxury to do what we want for a living but at least we need to remember that there’s a lot more to this life thing than a bunch of furniture and time shares. The end. Watch “Office Space”.

We should all do this at least once in our lives *language warning*

I hesitate almost to write about “Kill Bill”. I know its probably an amazing movie. More likely than not I’m just not cool enough to understand the real depth of cinematic creation that went into the making of this film. I’m sure people much “hipper” than me like and watch this movie on a regular basis. And I guess I can just say; “give me my Care Bears and fluffy bunnies”. I’ve had all the carnage I can take for a few weeks…days…or until I go outside and find someone has trampled my flowers.

What the..???

So, for a long time now every one I know has told me, “oh, the violence in this movie is really not bad. Its more like cartoon violence.” I have two things to say about that; 1) Were they on peyote when they saw it? and 2) What kind of creeped-out cartoons did they watch as a kid?. It’s not that I’m girly or anti-violence. I herald cinematic gore at some level in movies. “No Country For Old Men”, as it was put by a friend, was elegantly brutal. I’m a big fan of “Black Hawk Down”, “Terminator”, “Matrix”, and other such bloody fares. I even really enjoyed “Sweeny Todd”, (my husband says it’s because I had my eyed closed for 2/3 of the movie) and would watch “Fight Club” any day of the week. My beef with “Kill Bill” is that it tried so hard to be violent.

In true Tarantino style it goes above any beyond to make carnage the main driving point of the movie. Scene after scene of bloody battling did nothing really to further the plot or tell the story. I wanted character development, motivation, pathos. Instead is was scalpings, bludgeonings, stabbings, and a lot of rather comical dismemberments (which I grant might have been Tarantino’s drive-the comic tone of the film.) I’m all for craziness, if it has a point eventually. Now I know what you’re saying, “but you didn’t watch V. 2.”. True as that may be, I’d rather form my opinions from part of wholes, like a certain candidate we shall call J. McCain. No, too obvious. We shall call him John M. Yes. Anyway…

Ok, I’ll Give You This

I hate to rant in my blogs. In my mind, film is art and all of it makes an effective statement at some level. I did think the art direction in “Kill Bill” was stunning. And Uma Thurman was amazingly convincing. I guess it comes back to my original hatred of Tarantino really. It began many years ago when I saw “True Romance” and has carried now into an almost irrational disdain for anything associated with him or his movies. Like getting scalped or stabbed in the eye. Call me crazy. But if you do, I may just go postal and take you down Asian style with a million dollar Katana and a yellow stretchy suit. Be warned.

Pros

Excellent concept JJ Abrams. Two thumbs way up…your nose! I believe that’s called “poned” or something. Anyway.  I liked the point of view filming. I thought it gave the film a more personal feel most smash-up-the-Big-Apple movies lack. I was worried I might revisit the tex mex I had just consumed but the camera work wasn’t as unsettling as I thought it would be. Huzaah. The acting was alright and I thought the characters were believable. Again, rare to do in a movie about a city being schooled by a large, phalange waving lizard thing. (Oh, c’mon. That was no “spoiler”. Unless you live in a cave on Mars you had to have known it was going to be a monster. Or Paris Hilton. Whatev.)

Cons

Regular “Duck” readers may be sick of me singing this tune but I have to yet again: this movie needed major help with pacing. Even in an action flick where buildings are being trampled by the dozen we need a minute to process what’s going on. The events of the movie were so rapidly thrown at me I eventually stopped caring what might happen next. Its like the Rocky franchise. After a while, we just didn’t care anymore. I read that Abrams wanted to film the movie in 86 minutes, the same amount of time on a DV tape. I say, buy two tapes. I needed breathing time.

So…

Do I recommend this movie? Does it really matter? Are you all going to go home, make a pot of Mac and Cheese and watch “Lost” re-runs regardless of my pontification? I hope so. And I hope you choke. Anyway. “Cloverfield” is worth a dollar. Definitely. It might even be worth having the Scientologists come after you if you illegally download it and change the head of the monster to the head of L. Ron Hubbard. Now that would be fun. A monster terrorizing the City of New York. And then denying them psychiatric treatment. I smell a sequel coming on….

Why it Worked

Acting. George Clooney did a good job with his leading role because he did not over act his part. All too often we see acting replaced by vibrato and phony emotion. ‘Clayton’ worked because Clooney played his part like a real lawyer. He came in to work and did just what he needed to in order to get the job done. The supporting cast, especially Oscar-honored Tilda Swinton in her role as the unsuspecting top dog lawyer at a pesticide company, was especially golden.

Another plus for the film: Editing. I’ve made a big stink about this in former entries but I’ll say it again: the devil of a movie is found on the cutting floor. So many would-be-good flicks are almost unwatchable because the director couldn’t part with superfluous footage. ‘Clayton’ did a good job at keeping things moving along and relevant to the story. The plot points were well executed and the dialog was sharp and natural.

The Point

I try not to demonize nor hero-ize (yay! for made up words) any one film (except maybe “Lady in the Water”. I don’t think I could ever stop finding reasons why that film sunk). But “Michael Clayton” was overall a refreshing cinematic experience. It was understated and fun to watch. This writer gives it two enthusiastic ducks up, four monkey’s paws, and the cosign of 6.253 out of 12, simultaneously.

Ok-lets talk about a little phenomenon I call “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. We’ve all heard the story from baby-hood. King gets new clothes, said clothes don’t really exist, nobody wants to tell him he has no clothes for fear of looking dense, and it goes on. I think this little parable fits nicely into movie criticizing this days. Lets take a case study and I will explain.

“There Will Be Blood”.

Good premise-man becomes corrupt after striking it rich in the oil industry around the turn of the twentieth century. Great setting, cool characters, and an awesome bible pounding sermon from the local preacher boy. Should be a classic, no? No. Here’s my “guff” with this bloated celluloidic endeavor.

A good movie, like the devil, is made in the details. One word to director Paul Thomas Anderson:editing. This is the biggest little mistake so many directors make; they fall in love with their own work and can’t cut anything out. This movie sorely needed some snip-snipping in the editing room to make it more user friendly. A small detail but if unchecked a long and boring movie is born.

Another blarring detail that should normally be undetected in film watching: MUSIC. I like a movie score to move along with the emotion of the characters and give the audience a chance to anticipate what’s going to happen next. This movie literally pounded the score in to the scenes with jarring uneasiness. The opening sequence sported such annoying “something’s going to happen so hold on” music I really wanted to punch the composer. Luckily he wasn’t there so there will be no law-suit for me today.

The acting was ok but again:details. Daniel Day Lewis didn’t give his manic foil the depth he needed for viewers to really understand his motivation. He yelled and acted crazy, but by the end I really wasn’t sure if I liked him, hated him, or just wanted him to talk in a normal decibel range for once. And I usually love this man in every role he does. I’m a big DDL fan. Go team.

So, naked king story and how it relates. The reviews for this movie were staggeringly positive. “A masterpiece of our times”, “best leading character since Citizen Kane” (that’s sacred ground buddy), and so on. I thought this movie was long, boring, and unmotivated. It did have it’s moments of brilliance, but overall I wanted a shorter, more direct version of the story. However, not being a repudiated pundit-producing “scholar of the cinema”, I’m not allowed to not like it. But the hierarchy, in my opinion, was forced to herald this headache as genius so as not to call the king naked, if you get my drift.

I close with a comment posted by a movie-goer on a popular movie critic forum.

“I’m not going to waste my time in explaining how well this movie was done because it was perfect in every way. People who gave this movie a 0 obviously don’t have the brain capacity to absorb such a powerful movie about life. I’m sure those people most likely gave biodome a 10.”

The only thing my brain was absorbing was the need for sleep. I guess I’m a “biodomer”. Figures.