Kim Gentes

Life. Death. Joy. Pain.

Summary: Most films have a specific plot. They develop tension through the story, hoping to surprise you a bit with the conclusion and warm or thrill you along the way. Very few films try to approach a topic as broad as "the meaning of life" or as grand as "what happens when we die". The film "The Tree of Life" climbs into the ring with the epic Stanley Kubrick film "2001: A Space Odyssey" and tries to give us answers to what our universe is about. It is to be heralded for its attempt, though it will feel like its wash of ubiquitous meanderings may well leave viewers so unsure of what they just saw, they won't feel inspired to believe its premise. Some will get it, others simply won't stay interested long enough to wait out the proposals that the film makes.

Full Review: First, let me say that if my summary seems languishing and uncertain, you have just felt what most people will feel seeing the film. This creation of art is a truly breath-taking journey from no less than the beginnings of the universe until the virtual end of time (at least for our central family on which the story will finally rest).  If you are considering watching "The Tree of Life", you need to know that this film is not meant to give you a sharp, well defined 90 minutes of story. Rather, the movie is meant to draw a visual understanding of the entire history of the universe, how we fit into that, where it might all be going and how an individual families story might make sense in that continuum.

If you think that goal is lofty, you apparently haven't met Terrence Malick, the writer and director of this movie.  His vision of reality is certainly enthralling, though ultimately unsurprising. From a philosophical standpoint there is nothing new with his presentation. He is not breaking any new genres in origins theory or developing new ideas about life after death. What Malick does, though, is merge a good many of those ideas into a visual timeline that threads the viewer into a world that transgresses barriers of reality- from the ephemeral , physical here and now, to the eternal, other-worldly cosmic hereafter. 

The problem with the film is that you can lose site of what he is doing, primarily because he does nothing to prime the audience where he is starting, where he is going and where you might be stopping along the way. One has to construct that by watching. For example, there is one segment in which he travels to the origins of time and takes literally 15 or more minutes without a word being spoken. You travel in and out of earth "space" and only hear fleeting words from the narrator, who ends up being a boy who is found on both sides of the alive and eternal spectrum. 

What you eventually find out is that this boy has a story, and this film lands, finally, on his life and that of his family. The story arc progresses nicely then, with brief detours into cosmically other realities. The goal is for you to begin to see how everything is knit together, and yet how grand and important each person's life can be, if but for one proposition.

I won't give the point of the movie away, but it is certainly an insightful one. Not original, but certainly in agreement with many who have spoken on this topic of our grand purpose.

While the movie does have this vast self interest, it nonetheless does bring you poignantly into the world of a 50's reality in which a man and his family struggle with real life issues. Eventually, you come to the point of a death of one of the children. All this is beginning to make sense and gives context as you are occasionally flashed forward into a future time as well.  Actors Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain become the fully embodied examples of humanity, life, joy, struggle and pain that we can see both on the screen and in ourselves.  Pitt and Chastain are the best, and more prominent. Penn is cast as a brooding, lost man, still broken from some past event. He does well but remains too undeveloped to engage the audience other than perhaps feel as unsettled as his character does.

People who want a quick movie for a romantic date should avoid this film. People who want a heartwarming story with endearing clichés will also want to pass here. Creationists and evolutionists will each be enthralled and ultimately disappointed at a film that leaves room for literally a thousand interpretations. And that, I think, is the point. Malick attempts to draw such a grand vision that he leaves us asking far more questions just about his film than we had before we went into the theatre. I felt like this was good, and an inspiring journey along the way. There is a strong moral lesson at the end and I also think it is good (that helps when one agrees with it).

But there is something about the film that I also felt was contrived, especially where he looks to include symbols and metaphors from literally dozens of schools of thought from religion to science to philosophy to psychology. At times, it seems too much for a single film and loses potency with the over-reaching.

That said, it was one of the best films I have seen this year. I would recommend it to anyone wishing to see an engaging spectacle of thoughtful film with grand aspirations.  You may not agree with Malick's perspective, but that may actually be the point of the film.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/pBFvPm

Review by Kim Gentes.

Dry. Focused. Artful. Perfect.

Summary: Real life seems to be the rage in recent movies. The challenge becomes more arduous for major productions when the plot doesn't include any of the silver screen big five: superstars, sex/romance, CGI, suspense (or horror) and action.

The new film "The King's Speech" is a screen rendition of the book "The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy" co-written by the grandson of Lionel Logue, the speech therapist who helps Albert (titled as King George VI) to achieve his ability to speak publicly without stammering.

The film has low star power- Colin Firth plays as "Bertie", the common name give King George VI by his family. While Firth is recognizable to many, he is certainly not a popular draw. Geoffrey Rush likewise plays the uncompromising speech therapist, Logue.  Great character acting is done by both. The cinematography has the predictably drab realism of grey, dreary England. The contrast of royal furnishings and clothing are all that holds hope for any visuals that might wake up the audience.

Content caution: for moms, dads, and such- this film has no objectionable content, violence or images. Except, that is, for two specific and demonstrative examples of extensive cursing from which its R-rating is completely based. I say this to clarify the rating. To the film's credit, it is completely in context for the script, where it is meant as a therapeutic exercise. Both times the tirade of language is contained, strong and over quickly.  I wouldn't bring a child under 13 to this film, but anyone over that age would not be unfamiliar with any words spoken in this film.

Beyond that, the plot is swift and simple and unfolds in just that manner. Bertie is crowned King George VI after the death of this father, King George V, and subsequent abdication of the throne by his older brother, Edward, just a year later.  In just weeks, the new king must deliver a crucial speech to address the nation and empire as the United Kingdom declares war on Hitler's Germany.

Firth becomes what he must for this film- the consummate professional. Acting along a thin line between historical fact and brilliant character development, Firth bristles with life. There is no perfection, because the character himself was rife with imperfection. But there is life, because the character becomes a very realistic, endearing and human example of determination and perseverance. Firth is balanced in two spheres by Helena Bonham Carter (as his characters' wife, Elizabeth) on the royal homefront and by  the aforementioned Geoffrey Rush as his speech therapist, Lionel Logue.

With such a thin plot, there is little to rely on for sensation. The movie is based purely on character development with a touch of humor. I won't pour out more details, when they are best picked up in the viewing of it.  This was the first film I have seen in quite a while that audience members clapped spontaneously at the end.  It is, in a word, brilliant.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/pUv5va

Review by Kim Gentes.

A story about waiting to die. Audience participation required.

Summary: Imagine if you had the opportunity to know you were about to die.  That in a few days your body would shut down and you writhe painfully from dehydration, exhaustion into complete physical collapse.  This is the real life story of Aron Ralston. An Intel engineer who was a serious hiking enthusiast, took on one too many challenges.   

I won't recite the entire storyline for you.  If you haven't heard it, it is well worth either reading his real life story or watching this movie. Suffice it to say that Ralston has his life dangling in the balance while stuck in the crevas of a slot canyon in Utah, his arm wedged between the canyon and a rock.

The very best about this movie is the acting by James Franco. Edging out a character study for this protagonist gets center stage. The movie, quite frankly, is little else.  And Franco is more than up to the task. He elevates the film to believability, pain and course reality.  You feel the wind, the grit of sand, the losing of sanity, the struggle of dehydration pressing in on you as you watch the film.

Danny Boyle (director) achieves precisely his goal with the stark renderings and narrow effect given to the cinematography- to make you feel like each moment is grainy, slow and arduous. This is the point of the film making, that you will feel what the character feels. But this becomes the ironic anti-point to most viewers, since the very thing Boyle intends to make us feel, when it succeeds, is the exact opposite thing you need to keep people in the seats at a local theatre. Twenty-first century Americans can't be bothered with painful, frightening, gnawing, ugly reality. They can't handle story telling that is not 120 minutes of 7 second sound bites and 50 car explosions.  So I don't expect 127 Hours will do well as a money making venture.

But if you would like to hear an amazing story, of a truly heroic individual, who grinds out life and death with the elements of a desert canyon, and you are willing to endure for 133 minutes what he endured for 127 hours, then you can learn the lessons he learned. And you won't be disappointed.

I also usually give warnings related to content for age. For parents out there, you should know that this film has a few instances of cursing, though, it is occasional. There are also sexual innuendoes, but again they are passing. However, in one scene, James Franco's character does pleasure himself, apparently as an attempt to alleviate pain. This may be offensive to some viewers. I would not bring my 13 year old to this movie, but I would bring my 16 and 19 year old boys. I have boys and do not have girls so I have no good grid for evaluating well age appropriateness for daughters. As you might imagine, there are some visceral, disgusting things that he does to his body to survive (including drinking urine, considering severing body parts, etc). Much the same way as "Saving Private Ryan" was a particularly shocking viewpoint of war, this movie is a microcosm of personal human struggle. It is realistic and yet painful and visceral.

The film has a man who goes from happy, to angry, to hopeful, to hopeless, to base human animal, back through to thankful, changed, human. When he reaches the base human animal, on a human level this reflects a journey where a person goes from seeming happiness into transformation, through a deeply terrible self-revelation, which forces him to leave behind part of his old life to move on to the new.

I am slightly less compelled to feel like Boyle worked as hard as Franco on the film. The one thing that seemed a bit too obvious was the moral lesson that he pounds out in the script. The epiphany moment (at the end of the movie) when the Ralston character yells the word "Help" is about the fourth or fifth time the moral lesson is hammered home for the viewers. That felt a little over done for the normally more clever style that Boyle employs in his films.  But I certainly can grant this concession for an otherwise poignant and painful triumph to a powerful story.

Amazon DVD Link : http://amzn.to/pMEcog

Review by Kim Gentes.

Not so true. Not much grit.

Summary: I have to admit, I went to this film because it was directed by the Coen brothers. Their ability to take a story and turn its perspective upside down without ruining it is near legendary.  And while they certainly did take a seeming classic story and spin its viewpoint, the result is a placid, ineffectual, yarn with little drama and misuse of a star-studded cast.

The Coens had help in killing the life of this film, but not from Hailee Steinfeld.  Hailee plays Mattie Ross, a 14 year old girl who is left to deal with her murdered father's affairs. She takes it upon herself to hire two men to track down her father's killer and joins them in the pursuit.  Her acting is crisp and well set for the role and story.  It could be argued that she overplays the capabilities of a 14 year old, but that seems to be written into the story and not a misrepresentation in her acting.

Jeffe Bridges also does a reasonable job as the drunken, hard-nosed US Marshal, Rooster Cogburn.  Flashes of intensity in his character save the film from absolute boredom.  Matt Damon is ill-cast as the lucid, weakling Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf.  He provides a sympathetic, but nearly ineffectual character that neither fits Damon's intense style or helps the film.  Likewise, James Brolen's character is less than what you hope for as well. Neutered by a subjugated role to the "Lucky Ned Pepper" character, Brolen ends up in 2 strange and almost discardable scenes. All this leaves you thinking- "that's the villain?"  The real antagonist ends up being the "Lucky Ned Pepper" character, whose namesake is ironically similar to the actor, Barry Pepper, who plays him. Pepper (actor and character) is the only one who seems to take the film as a serious western.  If you're looking for "grit", Pepper is all you'll find.

The film fails, in my estimation because it lacks any chemistry between the characters. There is no intensity, no dialog and no attraction to speak of. Nothing relationally seems real in this film.  That would be fine if it contained actual and suspense to keep you going, but it fails there too.  In fact, the Coen's try to rely on humor to keep you interested.  Humor which, though occasionally seems helpful, is ultimately all that is left.

I wish I had more encouraging news on this film.  It is definitely not the best movie to see in this season. Both "127 Hours" and "Fighter" are much more worthy of your money, in my opinion.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/nx8fdR

Review by Kim Gentes.

A super geek. An average story. Brilliant direction.

Summary: What would it be like if you had a movie made of your life? Some things would be exciting enough to be "media" worthy, other things might seem rather "run of the mill".  But what makes your story particularly interesting to your friends and family is that it actually happened, and it actually happened to someone they know.  

Mark Zuckerberg is a geek.  A Harvard geek.  The story of his rise to fame and the explosion of his website, Facebook, is not as tumultuous and extraordinary as you might think.  But it is believable and it is engaging.  "The Social Network" takes you on that story, and it does so with an exceptional script, excellent acting and perfect direction.

Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark Zuckerberg as the irrepressible, though socially awkward computer geek that bumbles his way into the brilliant idea of Facebook.  Eisenberg's execution of the script, pacing of his lines (rapid fire geek-talk included) and coyish (though duplicitous) characteristics leave you with the character as he is: uncertain, yet brash; loyal, yet easily seduced; naive, yet considerably cunning and possibly disingenuous.  There is no lack of top notch acting in this film.  Andrew Garfield plays the slighted best friend, Eduardo Saverin, who carefully executes the hint of similar genius on a script that sounds genuine and compelling.

But the best acting in this film is done by Justin Timeberlake. I know, it sounds like a claim to garner celeb thanks, but frankly, Timberlake simply is deviously brilliant as Sean Parker, former co-founder of Napster.  The Parker character is the icon for the slimy underworld of hubris filled "entrepreneurism".  With pithy lines and insidious conniving, Parker weaves his way into Facebook ownership and management by befriending Zuckerberg and essentially destroying the relationship between the startup's founder duo. It would be hard to dislike this character more, and that is the point.  What Javier Bardem does as an unrelenting assassin in "No Country For Old Men", Timberlake does as a creepy, self-infatuated, megalomaniac in "The Social Network".

I am not sure how close to reality that the film plays with the dialog, but the top notch writing in this film keep you laughing and very interested in the next moment. And the next.  And the next. Each of the 121 minutes flew by and director David Fincher made sure you couldn't find one of those minutes you regretted.

Negatives? If you don't like witty cynicism this film may prove to be less than entertaining.  And it appears that the film certainly steps out of reality a few times with its overwrought scenes of partying and plot twists that keep you watching.

I would not bring my kids to see this film, though there is no explicit nudity in the film or excessive language (relative to other films). But the film is clearly portraying a college atmosphere at its hedonistic height (and exaggerating it at that, says the real Mark Zuckerberg in a separate interview about the film). There are numerous drug and alcohol use scenes, parlayed against additional scenes of sexual innuendoes. All told, it's simply too much for anyone under 17, in my opinion.

Those items aside, "The Social Network" is worth watching.  With the rash of bland to bad films that have come out this year, it's not hard to call the film one of the best 3 of the year.  As a geek myself, I found "Social Network" amusing and self-complimentary to all who might classify themselves as such. But mostly, its just good fun and surprisingly moralistic (the yarn points at a simple moral lesson throughout).

Go see it. You won't be disappointed.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/pLJ5dz

Review by Kim Gentes.