--> Random Post

Author Archive

Thoughts on The Social Network

1 October, 2010 by

“Every origin story has to have a devil”

by Jack Kentala

What’s unexpected from The Social Network: That, even in the midst of everything, and once the smoke clears, Zuckerberg comes out clean. He’s not some megalomaniac asshole – that role is convenientally filled by Justin Timberlake’s Sean “Napster” Parker – or straightjacketed in a ward for paranoid schizophrenics. He’s a brain in a vat that was put into a human body. He has no inner censor, and having that perceived total lack of empathy ends up ruining more than one relationship. Saying he’s not very social is the understatement of the day. It’s more like he’s this little bubble floating through society and very, very rarely interacting on any more than a superficial level.

And yes, it’s a movie about people, and it’s far more a movie about Facebook than all this nonsense, left-field Oscar buzz (who the fuck started that?) would have you believe. I don’t think anyone over forty would get this movie the same way us hip kids do. I still get chastised at work if my boss catches me on Facebook, even if I’m computing something work-related in the background.

Zuckerberg, clearly at the movie’s center, acutely speaks about this generation gap. During his multiple depositions, he’s adrift, aloof, but probably thinking about a way to improve Facebook. There are some choice lines during such scenes – such as whether or not a lawyer has Zuckberg’s full attention, of which he clearly does not – that were spoiled in the trailers. But during all this lawyering, all these depositions, all these cease-and-desists and workarounds about IP law is a bunch of garbage – implied by Zuckerberg – when really he just seized on an idea at the right time and bet on the right horse. (Well, he built the horse.) It’s like those people who correct you when you say Bell invented the phone and they say nuh-uh it was some Italian guy. In the movie, when defending his Facebook, Zuckerberg says, “If you build a chair you don’t go out and pay everyone who’s ever made a chair before.”

Everyone knows the story of Facebook and Harvard Connect / ConnectU. What’s unfortunate about that is the beefy brothers who tried to start the latter end up as total buffoons, and only when they wield the cudgel of the justice system do they actually have to get down in the dirt and figure out what was Zuckerberg, what was Harvard Connect, and what was just floating out in the ether, ready to be snatched.

That’s a lot of the first part of the film: like how Zuckerberg marries the idea of separate dorm house facebooks into one giant facebook; or how a friend asking if Zuckerberg knows whether or not a girl is dating somewhere jumpstarts the whole idea of adding relationship status onto profiles.

There are a lot of scenes of Zuckerberg running, usually to his room to hammer out some new code. It also serves as a pretty blatant visual metaphor: Zuckerberg always, always running past throngs of people and students, all socializing, showing that he’s the lone genius, the loneliest man atop the mountain. And that’s part of the allure of his character. That’s why we’re drawn to reclusive or troubled or eccentric or socially-stunted geniuses; why we’re fascinated with J.D. Salinger, Terrence Malick, Syd Barrett, Brian Wilson, and, in an extreme form of the latter, the real-life Rain Man.

Being a writer/director myself, I definitely know that feeling of catching lightning in a bottle, of having this absolutely genius idea and greedily knowing it’s all yours. It’s bliss. It’s intoxicating. But at some point you have to release it into the wild, and sometimes it’s not ready. And it’s usually terrifying when you uncork that bottle.

A bit about the direction. From Alien 3 through Zodiac, Fincher dealt only with action or thrillers. Then with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button it seems he made the career move to only make Prestige films. This ties in with my earlier assessment that The Social Network was, first, scoffed at; second, thought Too Soon in the vein of Stone’s W.; third, buzzed as Pretty Good; then magically, considered in a horse race for Best Picture. But anyhow, what I wanted to say is, with just two films, Fincher has become a chameleon; he could make any kind of film short of a costume drama or musical. Other than looking at his filmography, it’s totally unpredictable what he’ll do next. It’s his mid-stage renaissance of sorts, sort of like Darren Aronofsky coming back after three heady, heavy films and making The Wrestler.

(more…)

Share

Thoughts on LIMBO (Xbox Live Arcade)

31 July, 2010 by

Between heaven and hell

A lonely sea

by Jack Kentala

My ex-Catholic dad once explained the concept of purgatory to me. He summarized it as “a grey waiting room to get into heaven.” The idea stuck with me. I embellished upon it, especially when my grandmother was convinced my grandpa was stuck there after he died. I imagined him sitting in a very uncomfortable chair, next to a loudly-crying baby, with some white noise piped in through some speakers at an absurd volume. And as my grandmother put it, he had to wait there until the Rapture which, according to her, wasn’t going to happen for a while.

Danish game developer studio Playdead has a very different idea of purgatory. In their debut title, LIMBO, a young boy travels through a wasteland in search of his sister. The title alone suggests that the game occurs “in limbo,” which is often considered the same as purgatory. But while my version was simply very, very annoying, the proto-afterlife of LIMBO is a deadly place.

The game’s look is instantly iconic. The visuals are either black, white, or a shade of grey, and in the foreground and background are hazy, out-of-focus scenery, flickering like an old German silent film. This establishes an immediate immersion, as does the simplicity of the game’s mechanics. LIMBO is a 2D puzzle-platformer, and the only actions are walk, run, jump, and grab. There is no heads-up display. There are no superimposed markers to denote new areas. It’s one seamless experience in one seamless world.

The puzzle elements of LIMBO are integrated in the world depending on the location. At the game’s start you find yourself in an overgrown forest, and the first obstacles are bear traps you have to drag apart to jump safely over. One false step results in triggering the jaw’s deadly clamp, leaving you impaled and decapitated. Fortunately, the game generously grants checkpoints very close to the spot of death, allowing a penalty-free do-over. This is how the lion’s share proceeds in a game. I’ll rip off another review and say it’s less trial-and-error and more like trial-and-death.

The game is divided roughly into two parts for its fairly-short runtime. (It took me, a self-described supergamer, about four hours to complete on my first try without consulting any walkthroughs. I’ve played it six times in less than a week, and my average completion time is around 55 minutes.) The beginning takes place in the aforementioned forest, as well as some hilly terrain, and in some damp caves. What marks this half are distant human figures in the background who try to kill you at every encounter.

A hint of what lies ahead

This is actually a point of contention among reviewers. While playing the game yields no story, and Playdead only offers that you’re in search of your sister (who appears twice as a silhouette most have claimed is tending a garden, but who I think is mourning over a grave), many wish there was an explanation of these murderous natives. Since they deftly navigate the terrain, I see them as the inhabitants of purgatory, and your presence is quite simply a matter of trespassing. And that, naturally, warrants death.

The puzzles in this section of the game seem much more organic than what occurs in the second half. After your last encounter with the natives, you go on to explore a derelict factory and a sort of ghost town. These seem quite out-of-place in the otherwise all-natural world, and the puzzles share this man-made quality. While the early game involved dodging traps set by the natives, platforming across dangerous terrain, and (the game’s highlight) an epic, multi-stage encounter with a giant spider, the latter game resorts to game-design tropes involves switches, crates, moving crates onto switches, and a few inexplicable total reversals of gravity. After such a fluid intro, the uniqueness of LIMBO seems to fade and lean on old standards of the platforming genre.

It’s unavoidable to compare LIMBO to fellow 2D puzzle-platformer Braid, which came out two years ago on Xbox Live Arcade. Braid dealt with the manipulation of time, and upon your first death, the screen froze and highlighted the button that reversed time. Upon pressing it, your actions reversed, and you could navigate to any point before your death. It made sense for the story, and it was an unique take on death in videogames, which often makes no narrative sense. LIMBO doesn’t have as elegant a solution. When you die, it’s either from player error or ignorance of unforeseen traps. The deaths are violent – you can get crushed by something heavy, ripped to shreds by a sawblade, electrocuted, or simply fall too far – but the lack of connection with the main character and the instant respawn gives them no consequence. The playable young man is simply a black outline and two white orbs for eyes, and when I see him get maimed or killed, I don’t find it as emotionally disturbing as it is visually gruesome.

The second half of the game also provides no narrative, whereas the first, at least, had you running from a spider and outwitting the natives. In the factory and town, you’re up against inanimate objects, and they hold no personal grudge against you. The puzzles, at worst, are dull, whereas a game like Braid sometimes got to a point of frustration that made it feel you were playing an interactive IQ test instead of an entertaining platformer. And while both games are equally stylized – LIMBO as a monochrome haze, Braid as an impressionistic painting – LIMBO fails to use the environment to tell the story, whereas Braid’s landscapes became more and more hellish as the game progressed. To its fault, Braid’s end was mired in empty symbolism, high concepts that didn’t work, and sheer pretentiousness. On the other end of the spectrum is LIMBO, which is totally open-ended for meaning.

Overall, there are few games available like LIMBO (I’ll give the obvious nod toward Ico and Shadow of the Colossus), and despite its shortcomings, it’s one of the truly original contemporary games worth playing. And, in my case, playing it over and over and over again.

(LIMBO is available through the Xbox Live Marketplace for about $15.)

Share

Thoughts on Inception

14 July, 2010 by

An interesting concept gets bogged down by utter confusion

by Jack Kentala

Inception is a movie that spends every single minute of its two-and-a-half-hour runtime explaining what’s going on. There’s no simple setup within the first ten minutes and then we’re off on some semi-psychological thriller that proceeds without any letup. Instead, we’re held hostage by some heady or, at worst, confusing topics: dreams, dreams within dreams, dreams within dreams within dreams (seriously), the nature of dreams, the malleability of dreams, the mental torture of dreams, and, of course, the fine line between what’s a dream and what’s reality.

On that last note, it’s really surprising that Inception didn’t follow The Matrix‘s zeitgeist immediately. Instead it cooked for a number of years in director Chris Nolan’s head, during which he made Batman Begins, the oft-overlooked The Prestige, and the overrated The Dark Knight. So it’s no surprise that, given his filmography, Nolan has a penchant for the ambitious. It is, ultimately, what keeps Inception from following a straight line from thrill to thrill, and its overstuffed narrative gets in the way of answering questions that are left maddeningly until the very end of the film.

First off, it’s only until well near the midpoint of the film that we actually figure out what Leonardo DiCaprio’s Cobb actually does. The trailers point it out well enough: he infiltrates dreams and, somehow, extracts information from them. But that doesn’t answer how he gets there, until the main plot thrust shows that it basically involves drugging a subject and then magically getting inside their dreams. Add to it that every dream infiltration requires an “architect” to create a maze-like environment (here, it’s Ellen Page that, thank god, never develops into a b-plot of some sort of love interest) to trap the subject and yet not cue them into the fact that they’re in a dream.

The latter is pretty safe ground to cover, since that’s what the trailers exploit. And they go a little too far, unfortunately. Inception is oftentimes a visually awesome film, but all the best shots have already been sold: the city folding over itself; dreams “collapsing” and explosions surrounding and not harming the characters; a netherdreamworld crumbling into the ocean; and the infamous “gravity hallway” where a rather tedious sequence occurs.

So what about characters, then? For good or worse, DiCaprio is the only one who has a background, a motive, and secrets. Everyone else just fills out the inception “team” for the big theft-dream-heist of the latter part of the movie. Consider it coincidence, but DiCaprio’s personal demons here are eerily much like this year’s Shutter Island, giving Inception a bit of too-soon déjà vu.

Going back to the final setpiece of the movie, we get into a dream within a dream within a dream. And while the first setup is bland, the second a bit more mazelike, the third almost decides to throw out the “dream rules” and just turns into an assault on a Russian bunker in some wintry deadland. And like The Dark Knight, it devolves into a messy action scene in which simply telling who is fighting who keeps it from feeling like there’s anything actually at stake.

I always give points for ambition. There’s plenty of it in Inception. Perhaps what’s obviously remarkable is that Chris Nolan helms such ambitious projects “between” Batman movies, and that, based on something I read in American Cinematographer a while back, he supervises every shot of the whole movie; he doesn’t sit in a trailer while a second unit does the grunt work for some rote material. But the problem with Inception is that, while it could work as a mind-bending What’s Going On? mystery, it’s simply confusing without hinting that the easy answer is just around the corner. You can’t figure it out by yourself. You have to wait for the film to tell you.

Share

Thoughts on The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

13 July, 2010 by

Too much talking.

by Jack Kentala

I always make this mental comparison between Twilight and Harry Potter. Whereas the latter mostly concerns itself with an often-overwhelming (for the movie adaptations, at least) combination of wizardry and secrets, the back end of the movies have this little concern about Harry Potter growing up and falling in love and all that. Twilight takes the opposite route: there are vampires and werewolves, sure, but it all hangs in the balance of a very poorly construct human-vampire-werewolf love triangle.

And that’s what ultimately makes any Twilight film seem a bit flat for those outside the tween-girl demographic. The love triangle is pure nonsense because Werewolf Jacob really has nothing on Vampire Edward. If anyone who has any inkling of the series can’t just guess what’ll happen with the love interest(s) has a serious problem analyzing movie posters and seeing that most promotional material has helpless Bella absolutely smitten with Edward and flatly saying she loves Jacob, too, but a bit less.

One aspect about the series that, given it’s the year 2010, really grinds me is the puritanical stance related to sex. Yeah, there’s plenty of lip-locking time with Edward and, briefly, Jacob, but it’s almost stated as a given that Bella doesn’t want to have sex until she’s married. And it just so happens that she’s going to get married when she’s 17; that’s what age my grandmother was when she married, and even back then it was young by most standards, and that, too, was a no-sex-before-marriage sort of thing. So Eclipse takes the odd stance of allowing marital sex, but it doesn’t matter if you get that free pass because you’re married at a freakishly young age.

I guess a bonus point can be given for a very brief conversation in which Bella’s dad gives sideways permission for her and Edward to have sex as long as they use condoms, but the way Bella dismisses it is like she’s the one with this whitewashed, not-realistic-these-days stance. I know it’s been a criticism lobbied at Twilight and other inavoidable zeitgeists, like the Jonas Brothers and their Promise Rings, and how it’s an easy way to sell sex under the guise that it’s “safe” because there’s no explicit sex and there are silly rings and all that. (I won’t even get into the subconscious insanity of last year’s Jonas Brothers concert stunt of spraying hot semen foam out of cannons onto their audience.)

But back to, you know, the movie, it gets into a talky dead zone that drags out the time to the mildly-enjoyable vampire-werewolf brawl climax. Film is visual, so you want to show things, but the way Eclipse is set up, it’s really hard to show the love that everyone keeps talking about. It only comes close when Bella is out camping, gets really cold, and shirtless Jacob has her cuddle up to him to get warm. But there’s no risk for Jacob, so that doesn’t go far showing that he does it because he loves her. Most of the movie is a lot of talk about love that goes in circles. Again, I have no inner tween to summon to come up with a defense of this.

The first Twilight worked pretty good. Like any superhero or supernatural saga, the origin story is always the best. There are the setup and the mysteries (and, in the first Twilight, a lot of sparkly vampires and vampire baseball). Then came the dragged-out, Romeo and Juliet-obsessed New Moon, and Eclipse straddles an uncomfortable line by killing off a villain that’s been dogging the vampires of the Pacific Northwest for the first three films and sort of shrugging its shoulders in a Now What? fashion before the probably-bloated two-part finale set to release far too soon.

Share

Thoughts on the Lost finale

25 May, 2010 by

The end to one of the most baffling shows to hit primetime

by Jack Kentala

There’s an old sort of theory. Or just an image, really. It’s a man riding a horse, and rigged to a stick is a carrot dangling just in front of the horse. The horse wants to eat this carrot, so it moves forward, but, alas, so does the carrot. The horse, though, keeps going for that carrot, and the rider of said horse gets where he wants to go. It’s the same sort of logic of a “Free beer tomorrow” sign permanently outside a local dive; an enticing promise that turns out to be empty.

That’s what Lost has been for the duration of its six seasons. Carrot and stick. Since the show thrives on creating mysteries that the hapless viewer think will get resolved, a reasonable person could assume there’d be equal parts carrot and stick. This, unfortunately, has not been the case.

Seasons one through five have concocted riddle after riddle on the enigmatic Island, and many viewers, myself included, finally thought the showrunners would finally give us that fucking carrot at the end of it all. We’ve endured polar bears, dinosaurs, magic children, visions, ghosts, hatches buried in the ground, the Dharma Initiative, a smoke monster, and, shit, wave after wave of plane-crash survivors and island inhabitants materializing each subsequent season just to pad out the cast of castaways.

Consider it a bad case of American television gone amok. If there’s party to finger, I blame ABC, getting the show’s writers to keep the endless, unresolved mystery going season after season because, hell, ratings weren’t that bad. Only once the scribes knew there was one season left to go, they could finally start gift-wrapping all the little oddities of the show and put an end to the shenanigans.

Season six was supposed to be the Rosetta stone for everything that had happened prior. But it wasn’t. It invented more things. Introduced new characters. Had the gall to put a Mayan temple on an island in the South Pacific with, sin of all sins to anyone halfway knowledgeable of civilizations, Egyptian fucking hieroglyphics inside. And it prominently featured a sideways parallel universe of sorts, in which the famed Ocean flight 815 didn’t crash, and all the passengers went on with their magically-intersecting, marginally-happier lives.

For those hoping the grand finale wouldn’t be total bullshit, well, it was a reminder that Lost never really was that great of a show past its first season. Once it gained its cult status, it veered into a really smarmy, smug, pompous, self-important show that had every sort of limp religious allegory thrown at it, along with a long-running debate of free will versus destiny that held about as much water as the shoddy Star Wars prequels. Same with the latter, Lost has always been pulp; one of the most expensive soap operas ever produced, complete with paper-thin characters, black-and-white morality, and oddly-foreseeable twists. All the while being, naturally, a horrid frustration for anyone wanting a legitimate, scientific explanation of What The Fuck Is Going On besides some warble about the Island possessing an enormous volume of electromagnetic energy.

(more…)

Share

Thoughts on Iron Man 2

10 May, 2010 by

One of the better superhero franchises returns with the standard baggage of all superhero franchises

by Jack Kentala

It’s easy to bemoan sequels, especially for the so-called “superhero” franchise films. For comic fans, there are innumerable changes to the coveted Lore for the sake of making a compelling hour-and-a-half to two-hour movie, laden with ret-conning and character compositing and various rejiggerings that muddy the pure waters of the diehard. For the adult populace seeking to watch something slightly more entertaining than reality TV, there’s the barrier of the PG-13 rating, which requires all possible grittiness and swearing and sex to getting sanded down to something harmless enough for the 14-year-old boys in attendance, not to mention the latter usually resulting in a lowest-common-denominator, playing-to-the-moronic-masses dumbing-down of most everything. And for anyone just trying to enjoy a damn film, there’s the product placement, the unwieldy comic relief, and the nagging suspicion that they’re watching a two-hour commercial for action figures.

Rather miraculously, Iron Man has proved itself to be one of the more tolerable, watchable franchises, which I’ll just go ahead and say I believe is entirely the result of the inspired choice of casting Robert Downey Jr. and getting micro-indie (circa Swingers) turned big-budget writer-actor-director Jon Favreau to helm the show. Amazing how Favreau went from slumming it with the criminally-underseen, Swingers-spiritual-successor, small-budget mob movie Made to a gargantuan, multi-unit, multi-million moneybag like Iron Man in around fifteen years, which is about the equivalent of fifteen minutes in gated Hollywood.

(more…)

Share

DINCA: Favorite Films of 2009: Part I

4 January, 2010 by

Jack Kentala’s Three Most-Favorite Films of 2009

2009, like most other years, saw me going to the theater probably less than a dozen times. Chalk it up to insane ticket prices, or obnoxious other-viewers, or the slimming release window between the theater and DVD, or my daily binge of a movie per day via Netflix, or, hell, I can be my usual curmudgeony self and say that it’s rare when ten good films come out in any given year. This fine online establishment has hosted my lukewarm reviews of Avatar and Where The Wild Things Are, to the downright-mauling of Inglorious Basterds and, to a lesser extent, Drag Me To Hell.

That said, I expect I’ll catch up on 2009 films early next year ‘round the Academy Awards, when most of these hit DVD. If nothing else, I expect good things from Up In The Air, if only because of director Jason Reitman (though I honestly don’t like Thank You For Smoking) and George Clooney. Considering that I just watched the 2000 film Tigerland, which criminally played in a scant five theaters, and now have placed next to Traffic as my favorite of the year, I figure I’ll run into some 2009 films that slipped through the cracks for the rest of my film-watching years.

(more…)

Share

Brief Thoughts on Avatar

18 December, 2009 by

$230 million worth of pretty emptiness; or empty prettiness

avatar

written by Jack Kentala

I, like many others, already had an opinion about Avatar before I stepped into an IMAX theater and put on 3D glasses. I had an opinion about how I could spend $230 million. That, as a nonplussed, nonfan of Titantic, nor Aliens, nor the Terminator movies, I could make a hell of a better movie with $230 million than James Cameron. That as an independent filmmaker going broke making a film with an out-of-pocket budget of $15,000, I don’t have the risk of having so much money and marketing out of a product (as Avatar is certainly more product than film) and, thus, can actually tell a story where the morality isn’t black and white; where one set of people are eulogized while dying and the others are mercilessly slaughtered; where one feels a growing sense of fatigue at every shiny, pretty thing.

(more…)

Share

Thoughts on Where The Wild Things Are

16 October, 2009 by

Ten-sentence children’s book turned into a 101-minute film with varying degrees of success

where the wild things are

written by Jack Kentala

Consider the polar ends of the spectrum: Where The Wild Things Are, mostly-beloved picture book by an ageset now in their 20s and 30s; a hipster-approved trailer accompanied by an unheard version of The Arcade Fire’s classic “Wake Up,” and an OST by hipster-approved Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs; a film heavily advertised on adult-oriented outlets like Pitchfork and The AV Club; coming from solid director Spike Jonze and cinematographer Lance Acord; promised as “dark” despite a PG rating (which I give benefit-doubt to, since 2001: A Space Odyssey is rated goddamn G); in stark contrast to, at the 12:30 p.m. showing on opening day, myself being the only adult viewer without (multiple/loud) children. (more…)

Share

Brief Thoughts on Drag Me To Hell

15 October, 2009 by

A Sam Raimi film for people who really like Sam Raimi films

drag me to hell

By Jack Kentala

Some would say I’m unqualified to “review” a Sam Raimi movie. I agree. After all, the only films of his I’ve seen are Spider-Man (decent), Spider-Man 2 (worse), and Spider-Man 3 (deliberately terrible). I have seen nothing of his horror films. I can’t even remember the last time I saw a contemporary non-M. Night Shyamalan supernatural/horror film. (more…)

Share

Thoughts on The Informant!

16 September, 2009 by

The first movie to successfully copy the poster for The 40 Year-Old Virgin, but one of Soderbergh’s weaker films

the-informant

By Jack Kentala

Yet another disclaimer: This is not your typical film review. I spend half of it talking about cinematography and name-dropping the past ten years of Soderbergh films. I also may or may not reveal the ending. That said, you’re still allowed to read it. If you want.

(more…)

Share