Gravity (2013)

I have a very weird phobia: Dying by floating off into outer space. I tried to look up if that has a specific name, but the closest match I found was "Spacephobia," which sounds stupid like a cheesy 80's sci-fi comedy staring Lloyd Bridges or something. It's just this bizarre thought that has worked its way into my nightmares on occasion, and there are few ways that I can personally think of that would be a worse way to die. Fortunately I'm pretty sure that I'll never come anywhere close to having to face that particular fear unless I get selected for that Mars One thing. But I wasn't really going to try for that anyway. I'm too addicted to microbreweries.

So after I saw the trailer for "Gravity," there were two things that went through my mind. The first was "Wow, that looks pretty good." The second was "Crap. I'm going to have a heart attack during this thing."

Christ on a cracker...

I'm glad to report that I did not, in fact, need to go to the hospital after seeing it, although make no mistake, "Gravity" was just as intense as you were probably imagining it was. And yes, for someone with mild spacephobia it was a frightening experience that was borderline torturous on occasion. On those terms alone it could be called a success, but where "Gravity" goes a couple of steps further is in the absolutely gorgeous visual presentation with which it tells this simple story of survival.

The setup for this movie is dirt simple. Two astronauts, Matt (George Clooney) and Ryan (Sandra Bullock) are doing a spacewalk when the Russians do something that they really should have been more careful with and end up sending a whole bunch of shrapnel hurling towards everyone else. This destroys the shuttle and kills everyone on board with the exception of Matt and Ryan, who are left floating adrift in space. Their only hope is to make it to one of the space stations nearby to use one of the reentry pods to get back home.

 Uh oh. Look out, Alfonso Cuarón. I think J.J. Abrams has invaded your movie.

And that's it. That's the whole movie. Now, contrary to what it may have looked like in the trailer, Matt and Ryan do not spend the entire film free-floating in space. Not too far into the film they reach the station and all that good stuff, so for those of you who were perhaps concerned that it was going to be "Open Water" in space can relax a bit. There's more to it than that, although it's pretty obvious that at some point they're going to have to reach somewhere because Ryan is down to 2% oxygen within the first twenty minutes, and it's probably likely they're not going to kill off Sandra Bullock in the first act, as if "Gravity" could be structured like a traditional three act film, which it can't.

That brings me to the actors, both of whom I only can say good things about here. Sandra Bullock absolutely tears it up in this film, which isn't surprising since she's very good. I've been a fan of hers for some time now, ever since I got my first Hollywood Crush on her after seeing "Speed." I was so jealous of Keanu Reeves after he hooked up with her at the end of that movie. Anyway, she's also a fantastic actress on top of still looking amazing (to a possible black-magic-is-involved degree), and "Gravity" is one of, if not the best efforts of her career, which is saying a lot.

Caution: Her storyline involves the feels. Many feels.

George Clooney actually kind of stole the show for me, though. That's weird because I don't even like George Clooney that much as an actor. But he was fantastic in "Gravity," providing the level-headed calmness of a seasoned professional to balance out Bullock's panicked rookie. And he's charming as hell while he does it. And liking both of these characters goes such a long way, and is such an important thing for the tension because it ensures that we want to see them make it.

All that being said, the thing people are probably going to remember about "Gravity" is the visual presentation. In those terms this film is insane. That's the only word I can think of that describes it fittingly. Insane and beautiful. You'll get dizzy watching it. You might get vertigo. You might get queasy. That may sound like I'm trying to dissuade you from watching it but I'm not. "Gravity" does such an amazing job of conveying, at least in some small way, what floating in space must be like as the camera twists and turns and floats around while the Earth's horizon looms overhead like it's the only thing in the Universe, that sitting in your seat you feel like you're about to be sucked up into the movie screen as you plummet towards it. That may be my spacephobia talking, but I defy anyone to watch this and not feel their sense of equilibrium unbalanced.

"Aaah. AAAAH. AAAAAHJESUSCHRISTI'MGOINGTOPUKE."

In terms of any negative impressions I got from it, there's really only two things that I found to complain about. The first is that there comes a moment in the film, and you'll know it when you get there, when something big happens. It's an event that changes roughly everything, and while it was certainly dramatic and rather heartbreaking, I couldn't help but feel that it wasn't a great choice for the film to make. And the reason for that is because the movie is simply not as interesting after that point, and it makes any dialogue afterwards essentially meaningless, despite how well-acted it was. That aspect I was not a fan of.

The other thing that I have to complain about is the fact that "Gravity" isn't a movie I could imagine owning, let alone seeing again. That's a bit unusual for me since I fancy myself a collector, and I do enjoy rewatching films that I liked, and I did like "Gravity." However this film seems more like an event you sit through once, say "Holy crap that was a thing" and then never see it again. And it all goes back to the first thing I talked about. If that hadn't happened I may have had a differing opinion, but it is what it is, and I thought "Gravity" really suffered in the second half because of it.

All that being said, you should still see it at least once. Find the biggest screen you can. It's quite a thing.

Jesus...

THE BOTTOM LINE - I didn't personally feel that "Gravity" is worth the obscenely high Rotten Tomatoes rating of 97% it has, but it's still a damn good movie that's very much worth watching, and it's probably the prettiest thing you'll see all year in the theater. It's gorgeous, it's very well acted, and it's very intense. All that being said, it left me feeling just ever so hollow at the end, enough to make it so I wouldn't own it or see it twice. But it was definitely worth that one watch.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

I used to work at Blockbuster. One time while trying to recommend a movie to someone, I was asked why it is that I watch and collect so many older films. Granted, the person doing the asking was a vapid high schooler who, and I'm not joking here, refused to watch any movie that had been made more than 10 years ago on the basis of it "being old." They looked at me, head tilted to the side and said "Why would you watch that? It's old. I don't want to watch old movies." My answer was the suitably snide, condescending remark "Right, because they never made any good films until 2004." The sarcasm was dripping.

Of course the real answer as to why I am always playing catch up with older films is because there are just so many awesome ones out there that I haven't seen yet. Every time I pick up a title that I missed back in the day, I'm always secretly hoping that I'll be kicking myself for missing it earlier. Even better is when that one film leads to the discovery of the body of work of a director or actor I didn't even know about before, but find myself being a big fan of. It's like discovering an old friend you never knew you had.

And "From Dusk Till Dawn" most certainly fits that bill. Why, why, why...WHY IN THE NAME OF ZORDON did I never see this movie until 2013? I don't know how much I would have liked it back in the day, but after seeing it now I can safely say it's some of the most fun I've had watching a movie in a long time.

"From Dusk Till Dawn" is directed by Robert Rodriguez, famous for "Desperado," "Machete," "Planet Terror" among other hyper-violent bloodbaths which are ludicrously entertaining. He also does kids movies. He's not very good at them. Why he does both I have no idea. It's kind of weird. Anyway, Rodriguez is a director I like, and the screenplay was done by one of my all-time favorite writers, Quentin Tarantino, who also stars in the film. There is no way I'm not going to love this film.

From the very beginning of the film, which Rodriguez gives a hot, steamy, sweaty look right from the start, it's not difficult to imagine that this is a lost Tarantino film. The dialogue is punchy, funny, and so packed with fire coming from the mouths of the actors, all of whom are so good it's unreal, that the tension is through the roof and nearly unbearable. This is especially so in the first half of the movie, which plays out kind of like "Reservoir Dogs" mixed with "Natural Born Killers."

Oh yeah. There's no way this is a Tarantino movie with a shot like that.

The story begins in a gas station in Texas, as Texas Ranger Earl McGraw (a recurring Tarantino character played by the inimitable Michael Parks) stops by for a drink and a friendly chat with the attendant (a pre-"Deadwood" John Hawkes). What seems like random chit-chat takes a sudden, shocking turn as the bank-robbing Gecko Brothers, Seth and Richie (George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino respectively) show up to turn a relatively simple hostage situation into a bloodbath. Most of this is due to Richie being a total and irredeemable psychopath.

You know, not much is ever made about Tarantino as an actor, but he really deserves more credit for that than he gets. He's in almost all of his movies, but nobody ever really talks about how good he is when he shows up in any large capacity. His turn as Mr. Brown in "Reservoir Dogs" and Jimmy in "Pulp Fiction" were really good, but in "From Dusk Till Dawn" he really knocks it out of the park. He plays Richie so off-the-handle and so creepily evil that there's never any telling what in the hell he's going to do next. In fact he pretty much carries all the tension of the first half of the film by himself, and there's plenty of tension to be found.

Well, tension AND release...

Seth has to constantly do damage control for his brother, and Clooney is quite magnetic as the calmer, less overtly crazy brother. He'd still be a total scumbag no matter where he was, but next to Richie he's a pretty reasonable dude. Yeah, Seth set a guy on fire, but it was only after Richie started the whole mess. And once you account for Clooney's natural charm, you've got a character who is a villain, but a really likeable one, and you really want to see him make it. Tarantino plays a great character, but you can't help but constantly be amazed by how much Richie sucks, and you wouldn't be too sad if he bought it. In fact you're kind of waiting for it to happen. The biggest question is whether or not Seth is going to be the one to finally take him out or not.

"From Dusk Till Dawn" isn't really structured like an average three act film. It's more like two halves. The first half is vintage Tarantino, full of tension and fantastic dialogue as Seth and Richie kidnap a family and make them drive to Mexico and freedom from the police and FBI who's hot on their trail. The family is Jacob (Harvey Keitel), his daughter Kate (Juliette Lewis) and adopted son Scott (Ernest Liu). Jacob is a former preacher whose faith is shaken after losing his wife, and is on an indefinite road trip to clear his head. They go along with the Gecko brother's orders, but there's always the lingering doubt in both his and the audience's mind whether or not they'll be let go as promised at the end of the journey. This is especially so with Richie being insane and killing people over looks he imagined they had.

Not long after they reach their destination, a strip club in Mexico called "The Titty Twister," is when the movie begins the second half. And it's here that I will suggest, if you've never seen "From Dusk Till Dawn," and have no knowledge of it whatsoever, you stop reading IMMEDIATELY. Don't even watch the trailer. Don't look up any pictures of it. Don't do any research whatsoever. Don't even read the description on the back of the case or on Netflix. You need to go in blind because the second half of this film has one of the most radical, drastic and completely off-the-wall twists I've ever seen, and unless you've seen the trailer (which completely spoils it) there's no possible way you'd ever come close to imagining what's in store.

"Huh. Didn't see that coming."

I'm dead serious. Stop reading this and go watch "From Dusk Till Dawn" while 100% ignorant of it. Trust me, it'll be awesome.

I'm not even going to go into great detail about what actually happens on the off chance you're still reading. It's enough to say that during the blood-soaked climax of "From Dusk Till Dawn," there exists enough insanity for around 3 other films. Body parts fly everywhere, blood and other fluids of various colors and origin cover the place like varnish on a dresser, and the cheese is off the meter as "From Dusk Till Dawn" turns into something like a spiritual successor to "The Evil Dead." It's certainly a thing to behold.

The practical effects are skillfully done enough to be disgusting and corny enough to also be a comedic blast for those with a twisted sense of humor. This was also back before CGI blood was the standard, and action wasn't filmed with shaky cam to be "more intense," so there is also a lot of fun artistry to the carnage, harkening back to "The Thing" and once again, "The Evil Dead." There's just something special about seeing practical effects in front of the camera which lends an air of credibility and enjoyment for those of us who like seeing the creative process of film-making at work.

And of course this is all going down around a great cast, like everything Tarantino is involved in. The leads are all still there, but added to the fray once we arrive at the strip club are horror movie legend Tom Savini, NFL and B-movie hero Fred Williamson, Robert Rodriguez BFF Danny Trejo, and finally Cheech Marin in one of the three parts he plays in this film. Selma Hayek even shows up to do some sexy dancing. What's not to like?

"Well this was fun. I'm going to go lay down now."

From the first frame of "From Dusk Till Dawn" to the last, I was glued to the screen. I love this movie. Anyone looking to have a good, bloody time is going to love it. Some may prefer one half over the other, in fact I kind of like the first half more, but they're so vastly different that one can almost look at them as two different films all together. Almost like "Well, that movie's done. That was really tense. Too bad it didn't have much of an ending. Oh well. Let's watch this crazy gory splatterfest next! That's going to be a lot of fun! And hey, it's got the same cast. Neat!"

In fact...holy crap. Flip those two around in terms of order of sequence and cram it into an hour and a half and you've essentially got "From Dusk Till Dawn!"

THE BOTTOM LINE - I'm so upset that I came to this one late, because it's probably one of my favorite movies from the 90's now. In terms of blood, guts, laughs and awesome Tarantino dialogue, few things can top "From Dusk Till Dawn" outside of an actual Quentin Tarantino movie. One of the best action films of that decade. I just wish it hadn't been spoiled for me all those years ago when I saw the trailer. Seeing it blind would have been amazing.

The Ides of March (2011)

Oh man. Get ready for some typical Liberal Hollywood Propaganda! George Clooney and the rest of those flag-burning godless hippies are up to their old tricks again! I'm sure the movie will end with them having gay sex on the White House lawn after having nailed the Communist Manifesto to the front door and having used the Constitution as a moist towelette to wipe the blood from the baby sacrifices off their hands!

(The editors wish it to be known that the writers of the previous statement have been sacked)

Hey, when did Glenn Beck get access to my blog? And why is he writing film reviews? Crazy people, I tell you...

So "The Ides of March" was interesting to me because unlike other political dramas, there is only one political party. The movie takes place over the course of a couple days during the Democratic primary, and while the Republicans are mentioned, they aren't a part of the story. What it all boils down to is the two candidates running for the Democratic nomination are working to basically tear each other apart, using Ryan Gosling's character as a chess piece in a game he doesn't fully comprehend.

In a way, this is a more poignant story than if they had done the typical thing of having the two parties spatting back and forth. This is exactly the kind of in-fighting that has made people so weary of politics, especially after four years of the Republican party stonewalling progress in the name of being sore losers under the guise of false patriotism. In this way, it really makes the story that much more tragic, because these are members of the same party - they shouldn't be tearing each others throats out like that. It's really sad to watch.

And as far "liberal Hollywood propaganda" goes, George Clooney's character in "The Ides of March" turns out to be kind of a scumbag. So...not biased I guess? At least they're playing to the "all politicians are sleazeballs regardless of party" crowd. I'm a card-carrying member.

Has anyone else noticed that Ryan Gosling's eyes are really close together? I just thought I'd throw that out there.

 It's like having a staring contest with a perch...

"The Ides of March" was actually a pretty good movie. I'm not always on board with political dramas but every once in a while one comes along that really captures my interest. "Frost/Nixon" was one, as was Oliver Stone's "W." While I wouldn't call "The Ides of March" as good as those two films, it certainly manages to approach them in terms of entertainment value.

What really helps out is the cast, which surprised me because to be honest, after this and "Drive," I am so over Ryan Gosling, and I never really liked him much in the first place. I'm not a huge Clooney fan, either. That being said, they were both pretty good in it, although I still get annoyed by Gosling's mumbling, halfway stoned way of delivering his lines.

It's the supporting cast which really makes this movie work. Philip Seymor Hoffman was quite effective, if not slightly irritating as Gosling's boss, and Evan Rachel Wood portrayed a very human and vulnerable temp who has made some exceedingly bad mistakes to great effect. But for me, the real standout was Paul Giamatti as Hoffman's rival. He just oozes slimy sleazeball and totally deserves his status as the film's antagonist, but he never comes off as a villain.

I thought it was fascinating to have a villain who is really just doing his job - and doing it damn well. Yes, he manipulates Ryan Gosling. Yes, he wants his guy to win no matter the cost. And yes, lots of people get screwed over because of his actions. But in the end, the people who got screwed over, like Ryan Gosling, really brought it on themselves. They can't really blame Paul Giamatti's character for taking advantage of other people's mistakes. That's his job. It's like blaming a shark for eating a seal. It's what they do. And Ryan Gosling was the stupid seal who offered to floss the shark's teeth. What did you think was going to happen?

And by the end of the movie, Ryan Gosling is as big a "villain" as Paul Giamatti is. Or at least, he has reached the same level of sleazeball. It's basically about an idealistic man's evolution into a cynical, back-stabbing douche, which is exactly what all the political players around him are.

And who says Hollywood is biased?

THE BOTTOM LINE - This is a movie which has grown on me since watching it. I think the discussions to be had about the themes are probably more interesting than the movie itself, and it may have its head up its ass just a little, since it IS Clooney directing after all, but "The Ides of March" is by no means boring. Recommended.