Limitless

 

Limitless. So this is not normally a film that I would rush out and see. But, a few friends wanted to see a movie, any movie!, preferably an ACTION movie. So, Limitless it was!

So the basic story-line is, a struggling writer gets a hold of a new, not-yet-approved super drug that him super intelligent for 8 hours or so. He finishes his book in four days, and then tackles the stock market in order to achieve supreme wealth in a matter of weeks. 

With films, I have a basic test: watchable or unwatchable? I think that the line of watchable or unwatchable hovers around 2.5 out of 5 stars. Are all of the film elements of a passable level in their own right?... and do all of those film elements mesh together imperceptably to create a believable scenario that draws you in to the point where you forget about your own life, your own body sitting their in the chair, the un-eaten jar of nuts in your bag?... On this point, Limitless passes the test! I give this film a 3.5 out of 5. It's definitely above a pass, with seamlessly arty special effects, an apt sound-track, believable casting and acting.

There is also something to be said about films that are based on books. Limitless is based on a novel of the same name by British author Alan Glynn. Contrasted with other action films (that often have only limited dialogue peppered throughout expansive visual action scenes), Limitless has an intelligent and thoughtful narrative flowing throughout the entire film, adding a layer of interest for the cognitive senses.

Thematically, the film (and novel) are apt and timely; at present, smart drugs are actually starting to become available through both legal and illegal means. This film will therefore be of use to various high-school and university teachers wanting to engage students in discussion regarding the ethical complications that these sorts of drugs will have as they permeate society.

A few of the major thinking points that this film raised for me are:

1. Currently, Olympic athletes must pass drug tests in order to compete. What sort of status would smart drugs have in society in terms of regulation and control? Would aspiring students need to pass drug tests in order to entire prestigious colleges or companies? Or would these colleges and companies tolerate the use of such drugs in respect to the intellectual advantages and productive benefits that may result from usage by students or employees?

2. What kind of impact would these drugs have on society if they are only available to those who can afford/obtain the drug? How would you feel if you were applying for a job in competition with a person using a "smart drug"? Would it become necessary for you to also take the drug in order to retain competitiveness?

3. The drug portrayed in this film is an "intelligence" drug, which enables the user to fully draw on his own memory and neural pathways, recognise patterns and make accurate predictions. In my experience, however, intelligence is separate from motivation and action. It's one thing to be a high level thinker, but another to be motivated enough to do something with your intelligence. This relates to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of judging individuals on IQ. Provided that the IQ is high enough (ie, 100), individuals have been known to achieve great things in life due to motivation and sheer tenacity. Having a genius IQ does not mean you will create genius work,...  making a mark on the world usually entails a great deal of perserverance, effort and productive activity. People may take a smart drug expecting that they will suddenly shoot to the top of the ladder, but I think a lot of people make it in this world by actually putting in the hours (whether that be through research, repetition, vast productivity, or networking with the right people and entering the circle of cronyism at the top of many organisations).

At the end of the day, Limitless is very watchable; exploring interesting issues regarding the human use of performance enhancing substances; which is certainly a phenomenon that is not going away any time soon.

13 Going On 30 / Suddenly 30

So if you haven't noticed already, I'm a big fan of comedies/romantic comedies that involve a fantasy/time-travel element. By this, I mean either a body swap, or a "going back in time to your previous self" type plot-line. Suddenly 30 involves the "going back in time to your previous self" story line.

I'm always entertained by the different methods by which the fantasy time travel takes place. Sometimes people bang heads in a pool and switch bodies, sometimes it's a voodoo statue in an art gallery that the characters accidentally invoke. In this case, it's some glitter on top of a dolls-house that falls on the 13-year-old Jenna's (Jennifer Garner) head and magically whisks her 17 years into the future; her 30 year old self.

She's ecstatic to discover that she is now the owner of a huge shelf of shoes, and the successful editor of her favourite magazine, Poise. Apart from that, she is rather shocked to find out that her 30-year-old self is also a huge bitch with a back-stabbing best-friend and lame jock/himbo boyfriend. She rushes to track down her old best friend (played by Mark Ruffalo) and is further shocked to find out that they had a falling out in high-school when she ditched him to hang out with the popular crew, the "Six Chicks". Of course, this ex-dweeb is now this AWESOME kind of indie, very modest, down to earth photographer living in New York and Jenna is now KICKING HERSELF HARD because he's totally awesome but now engaged and she has zero chance. Actually, I was in love with his character too. Here's a photo:


* sigh * . So Jenna realises that she totally stuffed up her life by choosing popularity, fame and the bitchy road to success instead of this completely awesome guy who was right in front of her. Is it too late!? You'll have to watch in order to find out. Hahah though it's not hard to guess what happens.

In terms of this particular genre, I thought this film was pretty successful - the characters had an authentic chemistry and Jennifer Garner really played a 13 year old in a 30 year old's body quite well. Her performance made me reflect on the way some adults become; as they get older they get wrapped up in money and career and stop seeing the magic in life. Well, it's ok to care about your career, and money to some extent, but not when you lose your heart in the process. It does make you realise that we do have choices in life, but sometimes they are so gradual that they don't even feel like choices. Over-time, these tiny little "mini-choices" add up and suddenly that's your life. I think this would be a good lesson for the 13 year old girls who probably made up the majority of the audience for this film, to ignore the superficial bitches and try and just live your life with heart and authenticity.

I think if this happened to me; if some wishing dust fell on my head and I was SUDDENLY 30, I'd be like, oh ok. Hahah actually it's only 3 years away so I can't imagine life will be hugely different. I won't be the editor of a successful magazine. Actually, when I was younger I couldn't wait to be old enough to move out and live my own life. Now I'm doing that, it's harder and not as much fun as I thought it'd be. By 30 I hope I'll be better at looking after myself so that it's less stress. Going from being the youngest of 7 children (with the whole dependent/slacker/wait-and-see style of living) to self-sufficient adult has been hard. I think my challenge in life is to get above that and not get weighed down by it all, which is how I often feel these days. Work seems to suck out a lot of my energy and then I just feel like sleeping the rest of the time. If I continue like this, then I think I'll be a boring 30 year old so I should give myself a kick up the ass eh.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Ok let me try and summarise the plot. If my summary is incorrect, forgive me, I'm trying to do this from memory instead of just looking on IMDB. So, Doctor Parnassus (top image) is this guy who gained immortality by promising his daughter to the devil on her 16th birthday. Her 16th birthday is fast approaching when the devil re-appears, keen for another gamble. So, Doctor Parnassus and the devil make a bet with his daughter as the wager; the winner has to "capture" five souls by her 16th birthday.

Doctor Parnassus has an "imaginarium", which is a kind of magic mirror. When someone goes through the mirror, they find themselves in their own imagination, surrounded by everything they'd ever wished for. They are then faced with a choice; of temporary, material, earthly satisfaction, or the eternal truth of life. In order to pass into the eternal/immaterial, they have to let go of their narcissism, hedonism, materialism, and their fear of death. If they choose the eternal, then Doctor Parnassus has "won" their soul, but if they choice hedonism/materialism/earthly desire, then the devil wins.

Doctor Parnassus is hopelessly struggling to attract willing participants to the Imaginarium when Tony (Heath Ledger) comes into the story. Tony revamps the stage and presentation of the show and manages to "win" several souls. As the story goes on, we realise that Tony is not who he claims to be, and the battle between dark and light is not as clear as one would imagine.

Gosh that was very hard to explain. I think it'd be best if you watched the movie for yourself and tried to make sense of it. The concept, the story and the film are all quite incredible, it's always a treat to watch something by Terry Gilliam. It reminded me a lot of Hermann Hesse's "Journey to the East" where the main character is on a long symbolic/metaphysical journey where things are not as they seem.

I tried to visualise what my imaginarium would look like. I think it would be very pretty and aesthetically perfect, I always want to be in nice surroundings. Is it bad to wish for a perfect life? Nice house to live in, nice clothes, nice friends, nice hobbies, nice family, nice partner, nice holidays, nice everything. Is it bad to wish for everything to be pleasant? Because that's what my imaginarium would be. I'd be living in a kind of amazing tree-house in a city with a perfect layout, brilliant public transport, intelligent and humane governance. I would have amazing clothes, toe-socks every day, and extremely cute pets. Then, what would be the choice I have to face? To accept things as they are instead of constantly chasing perfection? But sometimes it's better to strive for things or you go backwards. I guess the key is to strive whilst also being content with the imperfect moment? I'm not sure. I'm just thinking aloud here. Anyway, when you watch this film it'll definitely make you ponder your own imaginarium and how we create our own heaven and hell right here on earth.

Uncle Buck

So, Uncle Buck is a story by John Hughes about an unmarried, fat, drinking, cigar-smoking uncle who comes to look after his brother's kids when the couple leaves town to visit the wife's father (who's just had a heart attack). The kids parents are extremely square and meal-times are tense. Then crazy ol' Uncle Buck arrives to stir things up. He swears and curses, smokes cigars indoors, makes giant pancakes, tells the daughter's nitpicking headmistress where to go, punches an alcoholic clown and threaten's the teenage daughter's boyfriend with a hatchet. My favourite scene is when he crashes a highschool party to find her and walks through with a cigar and beer in hand totally freaking out all the teens who are like, WTF who is this crazy old fat guy doing here? Basically, Uncle Buck is great because he doesn't stand for any kind of shit and he's not afraid to poke a stick in it no matter how many people it'll piss off. His honest humanity wins the kids over, and even breaks the icy wall of the teenage daughter. Society needs more Uncle Bucks.

As I was watching this movie, I constantly keep feeling, wow! That's nuts!? How the hell is he doing that??.... I think that today's society is a lot more square and regulated and you couldn't make and release Uncle Buck today. It's interesting, if you asked people if they thought society was more square or more liberal than 30 years ago, a lot of people might assume it's more liberal because of all the "sex, drugs and violence" on TV. I haven't seen any TV from the 70's but I've been told that there were totally naked people on TV all the time, and not just late at night. So, maybe there is more violence on TV today, but that doesn't exactly indicate a culturally liberal society. Yes, I definitely think that society has got more square in some ways.

Another reason why you wouldn't see this film made and released today, is due to the social climate in context of the recent "war on men". I'm not sure when it all started, but it seems that these days, the media is completely and overly obsessed with the threat of pedophilia and pedophilic porn. OK, so pedophilic porn is no good. Keep funding police programs to thwart it. So, sexual abuse of children is of course no good. Well, haven't studies shown that most sexual abuse comes from family members or those known to the family and not strangers? So, they should address that through family-centred social programs. So, why this very generalised, hyper-paranoia about men? Apparently it is hard for men nowadays who want to pursue careers child-care or early-childhood teaching without being seen as dodgy... And although we were always taught "stranger danger", I think it's really been hyped up generally over the last few years and especially towards men. Today's Uncle Buck wouldn't stand a chance. I think that's sad.

The end.

Up In the Air

In trying to find some good movies to watch, I was browsing top films on Rotten Tomatoes. Up In the Air had like 92%, so I thought I'd give it a go. The movie ratings on Rotten Tomatoes are not always reliable. Films that I've loved, have only scored in the 50's and 60's, and then some films that I think are total bullshit have scored in the 90's. So you can't use this website as a guide for all films. However, in this case, I realised that the film is by the writer/director of Thankyou for Smoking, Jason Reitman. If you haven't already seen that film, it's really funny and I recommend it. C and I once went to see it at Innaloo Megaplex Greater Union whatever it's called on a Saturday night and although the cinema foyer was PACKED, there were only about 5 other people watching the same film as us. So we could kinda stretch out across the seats of a row as if we were on a couch at home. I was kind of wearing my pyjamas under my coat, which made it all pretty awesome.

Anyway, what have I got to say about Jason Reitman based on these two films. Well, he knows how to WRITE. The characters and dialogue were great. Both films are pretty smart and I consider them both to be compulsory viewing. I don't know what else I can tell you about Up in the Air that you can't learn from other sources. Oh! Anna Kendrick's portrayal of a early 20's graduate go-getter was spot-on. Intense and still with a head full of book-learning from university. Aww.

I just realised I have neglected to mention that Jason Reitman also directed Juno, a film which upon retrospect, I realise that I didn't really like. I liked the aesthetics of the film, the music, the characters, everything. The only problem was, Ellen Page's character, Juno's lines were just WAY TOO witty/ironic/sarcastic for her age. It didn't seem believable to me. I wished they would've toned it down a bit so I could believe in her character a little more. But hey, Jason Reitman didn't actually write this film, so it's not entirely his fault.

Oh, and one last point, I never noticed this before but George Clooney's voice is REALLY DEEP. C recently built these funny sound-trap things for our lounge-room for his recording, and it makes the bass level on everything pretty immense. George is definitely a real man.

Two films about very different girls.

So I've been slowly making my way through the "films to watch" list that I wrote in April. The latest films that I watched were The Double Life of Veronique by Krzysztof Kieslowski, and Happy Go Lucky by Mike Leigh. I like watching films where the main lead is a girl, because, unapologetically, I am a girl. We often subconsciously/consciously identify with the lead character in a film, and as that person is quite often, male; the female in me has nothing to connect to.

The Double Life of Veronique...seemed like a rather slow and solemn version of Amelie. There's atmosphere, there's European-ness, lovers using weird ways to contact each other. From there, it is not like Amelie at all. It's far too serious, far two existential. The story goes: there are two Veroniques; one living in Paris and the other, in Poland. They are not twins, they are not related, but they look identical - are they identical? It's never really explained how the existence of two identical girls came to be. I wonder, does this actually happen? Is there someone out there who looks exactly like me? I'd like to meet her. What's weirder?: that there would be someone out there who looks identical to you?, or that you are absolutely unique and there is no one like you?. Both of these prospects are pretty amazing.

Happy Go Lucky, yup, this film was very different. The main character, Poppy, is a perky school-teacher who refuses to take life seriously. I suppose that she was kind of charming; her character was pretty convincing. But I wasn't entirely taken by Mike Leigh's floaty slice-of-life style story-telling. The film just kind of drifted along, showing Poppy on a trampoline, Poppy taking spanish dance lessons, Poppy teaching her class about bird migration, Poppy going to visit her sister, Poppy having driving lessons with a mentally unstable instructor, Poppy hanging out with a homeless man in an abandoned industrial park. Generally, you feel like: gee, good on Poppy for giving life a good shot. Overall, did this film really resonate with me? Well, if you asked me while I was watching it, I would've said, "not terribly so", but actually it has stayed with me for over a week so there must be something in it.

Well, there's my films for the week. Writing about films is hard. Makes me appreciate really good film reviews. Ciao for now.

Baby Mama - lazy chick flick times on a Saturday night.

Looks a little cheesy, right? In a way, you are correct,...this movie is definitely like a big fluffy (yet ultimately enjoyable) marshmallow. On the other hand, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are sharp, sarcastic and bubbling with that kind of smart, self-aware humour that few actors can really pull off. Making it in comedy is hard, and I'd guess it'd be even harder for women.

So although yeh, this is probably a 'chicks flick,' that doesn't make it instantly dismissable. Though some of the jokes are a little obvious and lame, the film never takes itself too seriously. My new method of assessing a film is this: - at the end of the film do I feel cheated of 100 minutes of my life? The answer in this case is, no, not at all.

*****
Why does the office smell like vinegar? Maybe it's me?