Escaping a Superficial World (E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial)

       ET, the alien looks hideous and he sounds hideous, but why is it that most people find this alien lovable? Steven Spielberg shows us a kid’s movie about innocence and growing up. It's a coming of age story about a human character and his slow developing friendship with an unlikely friend, an extra-terrestrial. While watching clips from E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial on the big screen, in my Music and Film class, I tried to hold back my tears, despite already knowing what's happening in the end and watching it countless times. This movie is timeless and will always be remembered despite its age, its bland look, and its old looking special effects.

            When I was young, probably too young to remember which particular year that laid somewhere in the single digits, I had a video of this movie before the 2002 re-release. Watching it and being spell bound by it was all forgotten and the video was lost in a pile of junk in the attic. Several years later when I was finally a high school student, I found this video covered in dust. After giving this movie another go, I was spell bound once again. Typically, we outlive kids movies and find them immature or childish. This movie was entirely different. While watching, there was a huge rush of memories that came back. I remembered watching this movie as I did when I was watching as a kid. I remember the good old days when I didn't have to worry about money and stress. I also had simply forgotten how great this movie was and how it works differently when watched as a kid, and watching as an adult.

The character "Keys" represents adulthood and the loss of childhood.  

            I remembered those days when a part of me was in Elliot’s character. The adult character, “Keys,” represents the adult responsibilities, for each key in the person’s chain shows his tasks, his roles, and his duties in his adult world. In Elliot’s world, there is not much responsibility to hold, except for taking care of ET. I felt that "Keys" was the person that we would turn into one day. He represents the adults who had dreams of being a kid again and losing their childhood while Elliot represents the target audience; the kids who live a carefree life. If I should work in a boring job, or lead a dull life, then I would find solace in this movie because it will bring me back to the innocent days where I was free and adventurous as a kid. In general, this movie brings out the kid in me.

A huge bulk of this movie is told through the perspectives of the children.

Spielberg does a great job of not showing
any adult faces, except for the mother, until the third act.

There is a huge distinction between fantasy, as shown on top
where E.T has the ability to levitate objects, and reality,
where E.T grows sick and is in danger of dying.

            Elliot lives in a superficial world where we see almost everything through the eyes of a child. When we watch movies, we take away all of the outside world, our turmoil and problems, and try to be taken in by the movie’s gripping theme, message, and its story. Our outside world is tough, stressful, and cruel. For such reasons, we need to escape reality. We find comfort through watching movies, particularly fantasies, because they show a superficial world that’s void of the real world. This movie has the same premise with the statement above. We have Elliot, a kid going through a post-divorce family where his mother cannot properly raise the three kids, and Michael becomes a father figure. With the horrible reality exposition, Elliot finds an escape through ET, the alien. E.T. is the epitome of fantasy. He has telekinetic powers and the ability to levitate objects, he can heal wounds, and he has the ability to communicate to the humans. However, this movie is not entirely fantasy for there are real life issues that creep into the third act of the movie. When we get to the ending, the alien fantasy world intertwines with reality where we, for once, see adults.

The bike is a symbol of childhood, and the concept of
flying represents the dream of never growing up in a dull world.

            The most iconic scene in the movie was where Elliot was on a bike and ET was in the basket. Here, the bike goes off the cliff, but instead of falling, it flies and as Elliot is amazed by this newfound ability from ET, the bike flies over the moon, casting a silhouette of the bike. I love this scene because of its focal point is to bring out the dream of us flying and the way the music escalates into the main theme that we're all familiar with. In here, the bike also serves as the symbol of the child's life and when it takes to the sky, the child in us is brought out. Steven Spielberg didn't just make a kid's movie; he made a movie that shows how great it was to be a kid again. That particular image stayed in my head, epitomizing the greatness of Spielberg and the unlocking the power of one's imagination. To me, it hits me at a gut level to an extent where I could explain on how amazing the style and the substance is, but nothing can describe the emotional impact it had to me. This is the very definition of the power of movie magic. I first saw this on an old video as a young kid. It was memorable when watching this movie because as a kid, I wanted to be like Elliot. I wanted to find an escape from a mundane world, and be rebellious to the faceless authorities. I wanted to be on a bike that flies over the moon.

In the ending, the children escape the authorities with
their bikes, thus exercising their freedoms from adult oppression.

Note: the bike can go any terrain is not restricted
on the road, representing the freedoms of being a child.

            In the last fifteen minutes of the movie, the children face against the blind authorities and in the end, run away from them. The use of bicycles in the film is a symbols of what kids have that adult don’t have, which is basically the simple life. The ability of the bikes to go on any terrain shows that the bike is free from the road, which cars are restricted to. A car can travel faster, and because so, its responsibilities increases while the bike, on the other hand, has fewer responsibilities. The stark contrast between the cop cars and the bikes are the two opposing generations that are sought against each other. The kids and the adults are portrayed differently where one is carefree while the other is always worrying. In the end, the bikes prevail as they soar in the skies above. The particular chase scene in the end of the movie was what really touched me. During this time period, there was a change in subject where the movies have a rebellious character that’s against society. The movie better enhances this belief by having innocent children rebel against the police authority and the government agents. However, there is a genuine rebellious mentality where we see the government agents trying to use ET for their jobs while the kids want to respectively take ET home.

We become so into the story in that we don't
want to say goodbye to these characters either.

            The ending, of all endings in movie history, is by far, one of the best because we get so emotionally invested in these characters. When the movie characters all say their goodbyes, we have to say goodbye to them because they almost become your friends. At times, I didn't want the movie to end, but there has to be an ending to all stories. This one was one of the saddest endings, why, because we do care for the characters. In the movie, ET is sick and thus gets Elliot sick as they have a connective bond. The bond separates, thus having Elliot spared while ET dies. With that in mind, ET comes back to life, just as Tinker bell comes back to life when the audience claps their hands.

In this scene, the mom reads to Gertie the story of Peter Pan.
Both Peter Pan and E.T. shares a common thread
in which both deal with growing up and fantasies.

             The movie has many child-like moments that give the movie an innocent look. For a movie that won Best Visual Effects, Music, and Sound, the movie works wonderfully by how little it shows. It's a great science-fiction movie; however, the primary focus is not within the aliens or the technology behind the craft. The movie is really more about Elliot and his life in a post divorce life where his mom has to take care of him and Michael becomes a father figure. We don't really know much about ET, other than the fact that he wants to go home. The movie is more down to earth because it’s told through a child's point-of-view. The only adult we see before the third act was the mother. The use of having the children as the main characters is vital to the message. It was the children who show compassion to the alien and it was the adults who tried to take advantage of ET. It's because of these moments that Spielberg has developed this Frank Capra like whimsical moments that shows up in his other movies; such as Hook, and The Empire of the Sun.

Other movies that have the theme of child innocence and adventure.

            Movies that are shown through the perspectives of children intrigue me, as long as the kids can act. The Goonies, Stand by Me, and Super 8 are all examples of such. A director who can show a kid’s point-of-view is worthy to me. The childish moments in the movie can alienate some audience members; however, I find fascination in these scenes and it's impossible to take these scenes away. However, to some people, this movie is cheesy or too immature at times when showing the child like moments. Some people say that it's a bit outdated and it doesn't apply to this generation as opposed to the generations of the 80's and 90's. The movie is applauded by Critics, as shown by its 98% rating; however, on IMDB, the movie did not make the top 250 list. A lot of people cry foul at Spielberg's 2002 changes where he replaced the guns with walkie-talkies. In my personal opinion, this change is more justifiable for Spielberg second-thought the notion of putting guns in a kid's movie.

             The movie makes me dream of not having to grow up in a world that’s superficial and hollow ended. We only get one shot of child hood and remember the small snippets of it through our fragile memories. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial has been a part of that child hood memory that can be salvaged. Because of this movie, I took a huge interest in biking and tried to picture the rebellious mentality when I ride my bike. Even to this day, when I ride my bike, I am constantly reminded of the bike chase scene and would always hum the theme of the movie for motivational support. The bike is a huge contributing factor to my child hood, and because of this movie, I remembered this much of it. Many people will remember their first time riding a bike and many others will remember how they get use to it. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial serves like one of these memories.

An Unworthy Sequel that Made it Big (Troll 2)

        After watching Troll 2 at my friend's house, I had to go buy this movie straight away. While I was at a DVD store, I found a Troll/Troll 2 DVD and went up to a worker and asked if they had a Troll 2 only DVD, and he responded, “Oh, you’re one of those people.” This made me realize that there was a cult group going on with this particular movie. It’s fascinating to know that this movie, the one with vegetarian goblins instead of trolls, has actually found an audience while disregarding the first movie. Despite being labeled as one of the worst movies of all time and as human nature, we are supposed to hate bad things, I don't hate this movie for reasons because of its unintentional comedic nature, its unpredictability, and its memorable lines and moments.

In general, it was a bad movie.

            Troll 2, is considered one of the worst movies of all time. It has a zero percent on rotten tomatoes, and is currently number 73 on the IMDB's 100 bottom movies. Almost everything in the movie is horrible. The lines were cringing at times, and the story is ludicrous where the main character has to constantly rely on Deus Ex Machina in order to get out of the simplest situation. The basic idea of the movie is that the goblins (not trolls) are vegetarians and they need to trick the humans into eating their food in order for the humans to turn into plants so that the goblins can eat the humans. Why don't they just eat plants? The visuals are far beyond what's considered stupid. It completely destroys the suspense and makes it laughable. When the people turn into plants, they merely get covered in green dye. The goblins are horribly dressed and look like cardboard cutouts. The infamous "Oh My God" scene, where the character gives off the worst example of "on the nose dialogue,"  is a great example on continuity error. In one shot, he's talking, and in the next, there is a fly on him as he shouts "Oh My God."

            Troll 2 being called the best worst movie of all time, according to the documentary, Best Worst Movie. This movie has got to be one of the worst movies ever, and because of the way it's presented as a horror movie, I have to laugh at the farce of the fact that it's considered scary. Because of laughing, I am forced to experience this movie as a great comedy. It's a great movie to laugh at, rather than with. It's an atrocious film that gets you thinking, plot-wise. You question its logic and after a while, you learn to accept its awfulness. Because so, most people come in to watch it because it's a bad movie. ". . . it is possible for a movie to succeed because it has failed." (Hoberman, 517). In order to properly watch this movie, you must turn off your brain first before popping in the DVD. No one should ever try to properly digest this movie. However, when I typically see a movie that I hate, such as a Transformers movie, I would feel cheated in the end, knowing that I've wasted my time on such garbage that was supposed to be good. In Troll 2, I didn't feel cheated and in fact felt happier after watching it.

            I do give them some credit for making the movie a little unpredictable, even though they completely use it in the wrong direction. The ghost Grandpa is the perfect example that I would use on how Deus Ex Machina is a horrible storytelling device. In my opinion, this is where we get the laughs from. These scenes are unpredictably awful; such as, the ghost grandpa has the ability to stop time for one minute so the kid can urinate on the food, giving the kid a Double Decker baloney sandwich out of nowhere, and setting someone on fire by snapping his finger. If the grandpa was that useful, then there would be no point in this movie. Also, there is the famous scene after the kid urinates on the food where the dad is seemingly about to punish the kid by loosening his belt off. In everyone's mind, we would assume that the belt is used for whipping the little twerp, or to even go farther, so the dad can urinate on the kid. Instead, he tightens the belt so he won't feel hunger pains. Our expectations were far different from the reality and the reality is totally unrealistic. If I was in the scene, I would've whipped the kid for urinating on the food. The movie is unpredictable at times, making the movie unique in a time where most horror movies are clichéd, predictable, and boring.

Despite being so blatantly obvious, everybody who've seen
this movie will remember the town NILBOG
and how it's GOBLIN spelled backwards.

            The movie is so bad that I actually remembered it, as opposed to other movies, whether good or bad. When film people, including me, say that a movie is "interesting" or "unique," they are really saying that it's stupid. The bad moments in the movie are so bad that it stands out from other movies, thus making it extremely unique. It is so unique in that I actually remembered them as opposed to lines from movies, such as Pearl Harbor, in which I can never remember a single moment of importance. Because this movie is memorable, it trumps even certain good films out there that are not so memorable. Everyone seems to remember the infamous line “They’re eating her, and then they’re gonna eat me. . . Oh my God,” and the line, “you can’t piss on hospitality.” Everyone is going to remember the town of Nilbog and how it's goblins spelled backwards, showing that it's their kingdom. There are moments that we remember, and that means a whole lot considering that it’s a movie that’s not meant to be remembered for. In many ways, this movie is like Casablanca, where both never expected to be remembered, and yet, through the test of time, people continued to remember specific lines of dialogue from these movies.

Not a lot of movies get 20th anniversary releases. 

            There is even a 20th anniversary DVD re-release that I personally own. Not a lot of movies get a 20th anniversary release, showing that this movie is more than just a stupid horror movie. There is a documentary about the movie's cult fan base called Best Worst Movie, which seems fit, being that there is a documentary on the best movie of all time, The Battle over Citizen Kane. Ironically, it took a long time for both Citizen Kane and Troll 2 to find an audience. The "Oh My God" scene has been viewed two million times on YouTube and became an internet meme. There are underground parties regarding the movie, and there are even midnight showings that are always sold-out. The long lines for these showings go all the way outside. This is how memorable the movie is.

            In the documentary, Best Worst Movie, I love Drake Floyd's (the movie director) statement at the very end of Best Worst Movie. He comes to term that his movie is bad even though he constantly defends it as a good movie. However, he accepts the fans and the cult basis because of the way the movie evokes an emotion. Even though it's the wrong emotion, he would rather watch a bad horror movie that's actually funny instead of a cold emotionless movie. In many ways, I agree with the director on this. This is why we watch movies. This is why we will pay money and maybe even travel miles to watch movies, like Troll 2. We want to be emotionally invested in any kind of way, and Troll 2, is so full of it.

If you had to choose between emotionless (Pearl Harbor)
and the wrong emotions (Troll 2), I would go with the latter.

            Even though this movie is a bad movie, it was a watchable movie, and it's something that transcends other bad movies. It's so bad that it's good. Troll 2's awfulness is not just about whether it's good or bad movies. It's about what I like in a movie and there are good movies out there that fail to captivate me, despite its good story and/or remarkable visuals. Troll 2 on the other hand encompasses nothing on what makes a good movie. The story is stupid, the acting is horrendous, and the visuals were presented in a grade F style. However, despite all that, I still like this movie as it is; a bad movie. 

Repo Man (3 Stars - 4 Stars)

      Is it possible for an intentionally ludicrous movie to actually turn too ludicrous? That was the case for this 1984 movie, "Repo Man." It's a story that seems to start like a coming of age story with Otto as the learner and being indicted into a job that so many people resent. They're like the IRS, except they don't knock on your door. They have the legal right to break into your car, with any means possible, and drive away with it.

The repo men can repossess
cars through any means necessary.

            The beginning was a contrived mess from the beginning of the first act, to the second half of the first act. It starts with a police officer vaporized from opening a trunk of a car. It then cuts to Otto, a typical down on luck grocery worker who loses his job and stumbles upon Bud, played by Harry Dean Stanton, or the second victim from Alien. It seems strange that this guy is doing a different alien picture, but we’ll get to that later on. We first see him as a trusting, yet dishonest man as Bud persuades Otto into driving away with a repossessed car.

The movie stars the 2nd victim in Alien.

            As we meet Otto’s character and his job as a repo man, the comedy starts to ramp up to irrelevance that becomes surreal and nonsensical. There was a scene where Otto tries to woo the girl of his life and simply drops his pants just to get straight to the point. There is another scene where Otto and Bud get into a Mexican standoff with some punks who seem to do nothing but rob the same liquor store over and over. There is a conversation between Otto and an ex-hippie named Miller where they talk about plate of shrimps and how it links with the cosmic unconscious. One of my favorite types of comedies is surreal comedy, because basically, you don’t know what’s coming. This is why people flock to these cult movies. This is why people prefer movies like The Big Lebowski, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Rocky Horror

Picture Show.

Surreal Comedies, such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail,
Duck Soup, The Rocky Horror Picture Show,
and The Big Lebowski are a sure fire way of gaining an audience.

            The biggest pay off, or laughs from the movie were the generic names for the products used in the film. There was food that was labeled food, drinks labeled as drink, and beer labeled as beer. There is a big pay off in this movie from using alternative redundancy. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the production set only had one horse, and so the idea of the coconuts and the prancing ended up being one of the best aspects of the film. It's these small production inconveniences that makes the movie so interesting where the producers come up with a ridiculous Plan B and rework it in the story.

The biggest pay off would have to be
 the generic labeling of  food, drinks, ETC.

            The movie strives off of irrelevant funny scenes, scenes that don’t lead to anything or advance the story. The energy does seem to run off and seems to drag on for too long and the movie does seem to get boring at times as a consequence for annexing itself from a normal story and go full on ludicrous. I actually laughed in this story, but the tone was inconsistent when it digresses to ridiculous sub-plots. At first, we see a large collection of sub-plots that really don't seem to connect, and as we move to the bigger picture, it still felt confusing to me.

Like a Jason Reitman movie, the
main character is an unlikable guy in real life

            The movie dwells into the job of repo men and how it can be all fun on the other side. This reminds me of Jason Reitman’s movies, where he takes a hated person or job and turns them into lovable characters. In this movie, there is some fun in taking other people’s cars. Bud establishes all of these rules that don’t mean anything to the other repo men. It seems that repo men take speed in order to stay awake. Yeah, it’s a disgusting job that makes you less of a human being, but Otto is living in bad times and he needs the money regardless of his morality in all of this, if he does have any morality at all. Then again, taking someone else's car seems fun in certain situations, as long as the car owner doesn't bring a gun out.

            Among the sub-plots, there are the cliché punks who have nothing better to do but to be punks. There are the Mexicans who seem to pester the repo men. There is a wild offbeat sub-plot of aliens in a trunk of a Malibu that vaporize anyone who opens the trunk. The Malibu itself turns into some sort of a macguffin. Because the car is worth $20,000, the repo men need to get it as well as the rival Hispanic repo men. The alien trackers, as well as Otto’s lackluster girlfriend want the aliens inside the trunk. The punks needed a car to steal and the guy driving the car seems too attached to the car.

What's in the mysterious trunk? Everybody wants a piece of it.

            The movie’s ideology also dwells into the punk generation. After that liquor store standoff, there is the one punk who tries to make the excuse, “Society made me who I am today.” Again, the same punks rob the same liquor store over and over again, seemingly never learning their lesson. It’s a mirror of the eighties and how it seems to be flooded with the problems of punks running wild in the streets.

            It’s a ludicrous movie about ludicrous characters in ludicrous situations. Although this movie is ingrained into the cult status of underground groups, this movie never really stuck on to me like other cult movies. Repo Man alone is an interesting comedy that's anarchic and defies comedic norms.

The Social Network (Analysis)

            To some people, there is a skeptic hesitation over watching this movie because of its idea of having a movie about Facebook, a website that some people do not even know much about. However, this movie is much more about the creation of the website and the resulting consequences of it, according to the tagline, "you don't go from making 500 million friends without making some enemies." The tagline not only make sense, but it also makes sense in terms of physics. This movie is a generation movie that appeals to the struggles that teens face, along with opening up a company while coming across lawsuits with these enemies. The enemies consists of the Winklevoss twins, who claimed that Mark Zuckerburg stole the idea of Facebook from them, and Eduardo, a former friend of his who is filing a lawsuit against him. The movie is witty, funny, and smart; however, it too has a dark parable that we often see in some Aesop tales. To me, this movie is a parable on certain stories and it's a movie that attacks certain American ideals, in effect, trying to be the "Citizen Kane" of the 21st century.

            The movie grabs hold of us with a fast pace five minute beginning consisting of Mark and Erica in numerous discussions that leads to them breaking up. Struck by this, we see Mark using his computer abilities to hurt people's lives by creating Facemash, where you vote to see which of the two faces is prettier. With this, Mark is exposed to the concept of power, and it later functions as an important morality issue later on in the story. Later on in the movie, Mark comes up with the idea of Facebook and names Eduardo the co-founder, splitting the earnings 70 to 30.

            Mark, played be Jesse Eisenberg, talks fast, he speaks in logic, and only cares on how Facebook will succeed. He works as an emotionless character and he would become the anti-hero. It's only in the ending do we see Mark's true face. A sad, lonely kid isolated from the world who realizes that ultimate power does not grant everything in the world. Eduardo Saverin, played by Andrew Garfield, plays as the character who slowly becomes the sympathetic character, the character whom we learn to love and follow instead of the main character. He tries his hardest to get advertisers to advertise about Facebook, to which Mark is against, thus starting their rivalry.

On the left, we see Mark's eyes in shadows,
whereas the picture on the right, he shows his eyes
as we see him as he really is in the end of the movie.

At this point, the serpent, Sean, seduces
the main characters into doing his bidding
 by lavishing them with food and drinks..

            Eduardo serves as the loyal friend, but he is neglected and even abandoned when he goes on a business trip to New York. To Mark, Eduardo is more of a deadweight than a friend. Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake, serves like the Tyler Durden character, who seems to be the answer to all of Mark's problems. Sean Parker serves as the shoulder devil, or the serpent from the garden of Eden. This is fascinating in that he even mentions about a snake in order to call attention to something. He even has the girls and the drugs on his side. When we first meet Sean and Mark together, there is a comfortable yet eerie presence of Sean where he lavishes the group with food and drinks, thus setting up a sense of seduction that the serpent in Eden accomplished. However, therein lies the foot-in-the-door-phenomenon in which one small things lead to the next. He finds Mark new ways in making the company better, and making Mark, not a millionaire, but a billionaire. He tells him to print out the company's card that says, "I'm CEO, bitch," emphasizing on Mark's absolute power over the company and his ability to make his own decisions. Sean is, in many ways, fueling Mark's inhumanity. With the "I'm CEO, bitch" card, Sean attempts to give Mark a taste of absolute power. Although Mark's personality sounds like that of an autonomous robot with the brains, Eduardo's character is the heart and the humanity of the story. Even though friendship comes before work, and Mark's website is aimed towards connecting with friends, he truly doesn't know much about friends in general. He's socially awkward, he chooses to isolate himself, he's always wired in (having head phones on), and he chooses the more successful music industry businessman rather than his close dorm mate.

Before Eduardo's confrontation, the background is out of focus,
showing that there is the unforeseen notion
of backstabbing that's about to take place.

            The ending was really fascinating for it involves Eduardo having his 30% share diluted down to .03%, representing the loss of innocence from the sympathetic character. Eduardo was walking into a trap that was secretly concocted by Mark and Sean. To me, this is the equivalent of Brutus backstabbing Caesar, and it's heartbreaking to know that they started the company together as two friends taking on the world. Even though the diluting of the shares was meant for business purposes, there is a hint as to why it could've been for personal reasons. It probably had something to do with Mark's envious view on Eduardo's success among his friends. Eduardo makes it into the Phoenix club while Mark doesn't, despite making the biggest networking site in the world. Eduardo accuses him of ratting him out with the chicken story, thus leading to disloyalty. With this, we are reminded about the stark contrast between the inception of Facebook to what it resulted in, 30% to .03%. The 30% represents the cheery optimism of taking on the world together, and the .03% is what the real world can do to the unfortunate. What's also interesting is how Sean controls Mark like a puppet. During the confrontational scene, Sean takes over, not giving Mark room to talk and instead, talking for him. At this phase, Sean has influenced Mark to the point of where Mark is now a corporate businessman. All Mark can do is take the impact of Eduardo's threat. After the confrontational scene, Mark is given a package that contains the "I'm CEO, bitch" cards. He holds up the card and contemplates on what absolute powers resulted in, losing a friend.

The "I'm CEO, Bitch" card is the symbol of
power that resulted in the
losing of humanity.

In the confrontational scene, there is a literal triangle between
Mark, Eduardo, and Sean, showing that Sean has taken over Mark.

            The movie is more appealing to us because it's a movie about a business company, but the movie isn't run by boring executives, but rather, it's run by kids. It's the Oscar movie of the year that appeals to college kids. To me, it's more of an emotional appeal if we see kids trying to run a company because they are still growing up and learning life lessons while still having their friends from college by their side. When we move on with our lives, do we try to bring our friends along, or do we leave them laying in the gutters? When the Italian mafia contemplate over whether something is business, are there any hints of personal vendettas involved? This movie can be technical at certain points, but as a whole, it accomplishes to acknowledge the principals of the conflicts between the roles of friends and work.

There are many parallels with
Citizen Kane and The Social Network.

            In this movie, Mark has his own "Rosebud." One of his motivations in expanding the website to other campuses is that so he can get Erica Albright's attention. The last shot of the movie is one of the few times where Mark is not working and is actually trying to make a friend. In the conversation with Erica Albright in the beginning of the movie, Mark claims that he didn't want friends. He finally sends Erica a friend request, showing his true intentions on why he wanted to build Facebook. For the creator of Facebook, he's all alone in the room, crossing his arms waiting desperately for a confirmation from Erica. In most shots, Mark's eyes are in shadows, emphasizing on his soulless existence as a human being. In the last shot of the movie, the eyes are brighten up and we really see Mark show a real emotion other than frustration and anger. As we see his sad puppy dog face, the ending text says, "Mark Zuckerburg is the youngest billionaire in the world," emphasizing that money doesn't buy happiness or love. What's also interesting is the choice of having "Baby, You're A Rich Man" by the Beatles, playing at the end, signifying an irony of the situation.

Erica Albright represents Mark's (Rosebud).
The object that Mark couldn't
attain, despite having everything.

To me, the movie is an updated version of "Citizen Kane," aimed towards college kids. It's a modern parable that deals in friendship, loyalty, betrayal, integrity, honor, and seduction. It's one of my pet peeves when people say that this movie is about Facebook. For the hundredth time, it's not a movie about Facebook.

Drive (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Never has there been such an action movie where the main character acts like a real relatable character. I haven't seen this in other movies since "Leon the Professional," and "Spider-Man 2," where the main character is in a real dilemma where he has to come up with real decisions, despite being an action hero who can get out of any situation. The movie, "Drive," seems like an action movie, but it's a well thought out professional looking movie that actually received a standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. An action movie that received a standing ovation from professional film goers.

            This movie has the same concept and idea with the "Transporter" franchise. However, the style is done in a totally different and mature way. For a movie that's called "A History of Violence," the tone is very subtle in order to add a tremendous amount of carving out a proper character. Here, the same thing follows, where we actually know who the driver (Ryan Gosling) is, without even knowing his name and his mysterious past.

            For all we know, the driver is a stunt driver in the day time, while at night, he's a getaway driver for hits and bank robbers. The driver uses his wits to elude the chaser or the police and yet, his driving abilities are extraordinary. When he puts on his leather gloves, he'll mean business. However, aside from his action status, his neighbor, Irene (Carey Mulligan), and her son, Benicio, seems to be his small ray of happiness as he tries his best to slow down and develop a relationship between them and act as a father figure. Because of this new found family, he has but a weakness for them. When the real husband/father shows up, they tries to help pull off a heist that goes terribly wrong and the family, as well as the driver, is at risk.

            Because the action is very limited, when there is an action scene, it's not cool, but extremely graphic. The violence in this movie is there in order to shock the audience, rather than to incite them into some dazzling cheers. I guess it's extremely violent because we actually care for the characters and we too seek the long awaited catharsis. When we see a really cool car chase, we don't keep in track of the cool moments, but the idea that these characters are in trouble. However violent it is, there are some moments that happen off screen. When the driver kills someone he's extremely angry at, the killing is shown off screen.

 However, beside the action scenes, there are some utterly beautiful moments in the film that kept me captivated, and it has nothing to do with violence. There is the elevator scene where the driver, Irene, and the hit man are all in the same elevator. We know that something bad is going to happen and the driver is going to have to kill the hit man. Instead, he turns Irene away and start kissing. The lights fluctuate from elevator lights to warm lights and the music used is sweet, sweeping, and elegant.

           
            For an action movie, "Drive" is really subdued for an action movie that has car chase scenes, shoot outs, and personal vendettas. To me, people judge action movies by the quantity of action set forth upon the screen. We are trained to have a certain amount of violence in certain chunks spread around the movie in order to keep the dumb audience in their seats. In this movie, there are long moments, moments that are simply dialogue, and moments that dumb people will be bored with. There are many moments of silence, very little dialogue, and prolong takes that are often unprecedented in a normal action movie.

            This movie is actually based off of a novel, which goes to show that the major emphasis is the story. We know that Irene and Benicio will be in danger and the driver will save them in some shape or form; however, the execution is done with real production value. They actually utilize suspense, a real non-clichéd villain, moments that are shown off-screen, a certain dark tone, real characters, and real conflicts.

            This movie is a message to other action movies on how a proper action movie can be done. To me, it's an action movie for smart movie goers. "Drive" is even labeled as an independent movie with a small budget for an action movie, and yet it works too well for me to label this as an action movie. To me, a mainstream action movie would, by definition, be a movie about actions (cause) with no effect.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Strangers Tides (2 Stars - 4 Stars)

          

       The thing that bugs me is a fourth movie in a trilogy. Unless it's a reboot or a sequel with a different approach, like "Scream 4," or "Live Free or Die Hard," there should really be a time when the series should pull the plug. "On Stranger Tides" is the fourth in the series, and as typical, it's the worst of the series. It starts off with Jack Sparrow in his adventurous witty mode as he escapes the British soldiers in London. This was a very interesting beginning for me because it introduced Jack in a strange way, like all of his entrances, and it sets up the tone of the movie. However, the rest just goes downhill from this point. First off, does he really want to find the Fountain of Youth, or was he forced into it? Does he have a proper motivation and a proper character arc? Later on, Jack gets kidnapped by Angelica, the new character in the series who serves as his love/hate interest. He is brought on board of the Queen Anne's Revenge where we get to meet new people, new villains, and new henchmen who are all off to find the fountain, along with Barbossa, and the Spanish armada.

            The movie lacks a powerful villain. In this movie, Blackbeard controls a voodoo like power, which is not revealed why to the audience. He also torches a poor crew member for mutiny. This was a poor set up for a villain. One, he does a clichéd tactic of being a villain by killing off a crew member, and he is never given any back story. The one motivation he has is based off of a rumor. His zombie henchmen are never explained at all. If we don't know about them, then we don't care, and if we don't care, then they are not much of a threat.

 3D is, and should enhance the story telling. Not only was the 3D used to insult my fourth wall, it does not enhance the storytelling. This is a sure fire way of taking us out of the movie experience by sticking objects in front of us, whether it's a sword, a monkey, or bones. It's insulting and it needs to stop.

           
       I had some doubt when walking into the crowded theater filled with Jack Sparrow fans, but I thought, "Hey, it can't be as bad as the third movie." Sad to say, it was. But this gets to me. Why do we root for Jack Sparrow? Because he has a unique personality. He is the baffling and mysterious character. However, when you put a mysterious character as the main character, then how can we truly relate to him? There were many criticisms over Will and Elizabeth, mainly because they weren't really pirates, but merely fillers. Now, I know why they put those two in. They are, what I call, the guiding characters. You see, guiding characters are the clueless characters who are confused at the plot like we are. In "Inception," the guiding character was Ariadne. In the first Harry Potter movies, it was Harry Potter. These characters are told the ways of the settings and the story so that we can understand it. In the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, Barbossa tells Elizabeth about the Aztec curse and he tells it as if he was reading a story book. This worked really well. In here, we don't know about Blackbeard's voodoo powers, we don't know much about the Spanish and their monotonous motivation in finding the fountain. In the end, we just don't care anymore.

            Was there a spark in this movie at all? The battles are pointless in the movie and there were no ship battles or any sword fights that were memorable. The new director was emphasizing on the story, rather than actions, but all we get is nothing out of it. The mermaid scene was interesting but also hard to watch as it reminded me of dolphin hunting. This is a pretty dark scene for a Disney movie.

          Lastly, although the series is full of adventures, the ultimate part of it is the underlying message. In the first movie, the message was about accepting one's identity. In the second, it was about confronting your fears head on. In the third one, it was the about sacrificing ultimate power in order to save a friend. In the fourth one, we have nothing.

            There is the relationship with Philip, the priest, and Syrena that does kind of work, however, they are not the main characters and we don't meet them until we really get far into the movie. Another thing that worked for me was Barbossa. In the other movies, he was a mysterious character. However, we get to know his back story, and his motivation. It felt that Barbossa was the only character who gave a damn.

            This hype needs to die down. Why do we watch Pirates of the Caribbean? So we can feel and be a part of a character's journey. Why did we watch the fourth movie? Because it's a sequel. Before watching a movie that's going to be a sure box office hit, make sure you check the title. It has nothing to do with the any tides, but it is strange. Not the mysterious fantasy strange, but the alienated strange. It's probably me talking because while everyone applauded at the end, I refuse to do so, but let it be served that when you get an alienated strange feeling, then stay away from that movie.

Movie Trailer Pet Peeves

1.      The trailer voice guy. (Norbit)

2.      Someone gets hit in the balls, or if there's any unnecessary physical humor (The Zookeeper)

3.      When comedic movie trailers use classical music. Especially “In the Hall of the Mountain King.”(Bride Wars)

4.      Trailers that imitate the Inception trailer or have anything that resembles the Inception soundtrack. (Transformers: Dark of the Moon)

5.      When all of the cool parts are in the movie. (2012)

6.      When the trailer gives away the whole movie. (Cast Away)

7.      When mainstream music is used in the trailer. (Footloose)

8.      Deceptive trailers that has nothing to do with the movie. (Hancock)

9.      When the trailer leads up to a bad joke (Jack and Jill)

10.  When the main character exclaims a cheesy inspirational quote. (Independence Day)