The Film Thugs Movie Show

This is going to be a difficult task. Terrence Malick is a different kind of director and even his most conventional films are difficult to review. I won't say that he is indifferent towards his audience, because I don't think that's true. I will say that he knows what story he wants to tell and how he wants to tell it, and if you aren't right there then you will be left behind. He does not compromise to simplify or to make his work more accessible, opting instead to remain steadfastly true to his vision.

We are talking about a man who, for his third feature in 25 years, turned in a 6 hour cut of a war film. Six. Hours. Think about this. We are not talking about Jimmy Cameron coming in with "Titanic" in his back pocket, or Chris Nolan after "The Dark Knight" throwing this film down for a studio that owes him one. This is a guy who made a few moody, atmospheric masterpieces coming in with a move that could get MAYBE two screenings a day in.

Granted it was eventually cut down to 170 minutes (that's right, the three hour one was the shortened version). In that form it was powerful enough to make me really wish for the chance to see the full deal.

I guess what I'm saying is that Malick is a difficult guy to pin down, even when his work is more conventional.

The thing is, "The Tree of Life," is anything but conventional. By that I do not mean that it flaunts or challenges conventions, but rather that it does not acknowledge the existence of convention at all.

I believe this needs to be repeated. If you go into this film looking of any sort of conventional narrative structure you will be disappointed. This is a good movie, but it is not what you are expecting. Even if you think you know what it is, even if you enjoy it you need to remember this. You are not going to see the movie you expected.

At this point a review of this film becomes very difficult to write for two reasons. The first is that it involves describing something that is essentially indescribable. The second, I am not entirely sure what I feel about this movie. I know that I liked it, but I'm... it's just hard to say. For lack of any other way of expressing myself, I guess I've never seen anything like it before and that is a strange and interesting experience for me.

There were times during my viewing where I thought that somehow an incorrect reel had been added. There were other times where it felt like I was watching an extended version of the trailer. I know what you're thinking, "Aren't all trailers just shorter versions of the movie? No, they aren't. Watch the trailer again, there are good stretches of the movie that play exactly this way. I don't want to ruin anything, but what happens in these moments is breathtaking.

Now, there is a story after a fashion, but you have to put some work into it. This is a film shown in very intimate close up, but is not laid out for you. The characters aren't introduced to you as an audience member, but rather as an unseen observer. Is that a neighbor or a family member? You kind of have to figure that out. Absolutely nothing is handed to you here. There are moments in this film that you may not be able to make sense of, but that is the point of this film. It is about life and what we as individuals bring to it.

As strange as this might sound, I think this is the most subjective film I've ever seen. There is very little solid or concrete in this. Your attitudes, feelings, and reactions are all chained to the reality of the moments. You will both love and hate Brad Pitt. You sympathize with and despise Jack. Jessica Chastain will make you feel safe in one breath and completely exposed in the next.

Were I to use one word to describe this move it would be gorgeous. I mean crazy gorgeous. I mean, think of the most amazingly shot film you've ever seen, now imagine the movie that makes it look like a piece of crap. I don't know, or really care, about the major awards, but I think we might have seen the first front runner. If nothing else this will take every cinematography award given this year.

The performances.... Well,... damn. Just... damn. Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain take a flamethrower to every other acting job I've seen this year. Both of them are completely authentic and thoroughly hypnotic. The three young men who play their sons give absolutely stunning performances, especially Hunter McCracken as Young Jack, played as an older man by Sean Penn who is... well, he's Sean Penn, I don't really think more needs be said here. McCracken has to do some pretty heavy lifting here and he makes it look effortless.

Malick achieves one of the most pitch perfect examples of impressionism I've ever seen. This film is sweeping, and exists in the fragments of emotion that form a person's life. It breathes in the spaces between the memories we hold on to and the meaning we take from those memories. It shows us our lives and our world from the absolute ground up, and leaves the weight of meaning on your shoulders. If you need a film to be spelled out for you, if you are looking for some light summer entertainment, or if you don't like or want to think about the movie you are watching, then you most likely will not enjoy "The Tree of Life." It is a challenging film, but it is also a brilliant film that is most definitely worth seeing.

"Waiting for Superman"

Part 1- The Film

This is going to be something a little different from a review. I am going to break it into two parts. The first will be a review of the film and the second will my views on one of the most easily fixable problems with education in America. I firmly believe that complaining about a problem without offering a solution makes you part of the problem so I will be offering my insight. But first...

The film "Waiting for Superman" addresses the biggest, most complex, and most important issue facing our country today. It's about education. Specifically, what is wrong with it, and how do we fix it.

In short, the US is falling behind the rest of the world and something must be done. The film hits close to home for me for a number of reasons but mainly because I am a teacher.

This film takes a look at this complex problem and offers a simple solution: charter schools.It is also one of the most irresponsible, slanted, and manipulative pieces of propaganda I have ever seen.

Although, according to this film, I would say that. I am a teacher who is a member of a union, and therefore part of the problem. The film states that because of union contracts, and tenure it is impossible to fire teachers and therefore public schools are fundamentally flawed and irredeemable because schools are saddled with bad teachers and cannot do anything about it.

Now, on some of these points I actually cannot say much. While I am in a union I also live in a right to work state, so my membership is voluntary and almost more ceremonial than anything. Yes, they lobby and negotiate on my behalf but I get that benefit regardless. The only reason I joined is for the legal services. Sadly, we live in such a litigious society that it is wholly possible for parents to sue me if they think their child should have gotten a higher grade. It wouldn't get them anywhere, but it would cost me a lot of money.

I also work in a district that doesn't grant tenure. If a teacher is completely ineffective and the administration is dedicated to high standards that teacher can be removed. This is true even in tenure states. There has to be evidence that a teacher is truly "bad." An administrator can't walk in on a teacher who is just having an off class (it happens) and decide that that person has to go. You see, you actually need to prove that the teacher is bad, which is a bit harder to do than it sounds.

Do you do it base it on a few classroom visits? You would have to do a lot to establish a pattern because even the best teachers have off days. Do you base it on test scores? If so, how? Is it off the median score of your class? That puts AP and teachers who have mostly upper classmen at a distinct advantage. Do you base it on test scores as opposed to other teachers of the same type and grade level? Even then it is possible for one teacher to have a more challenging group of students than another. This is why just firing a teacher is difficult.

But, I will concede this point: There are bad teachers, and those teachers are "impossible" to fire. Fine. Even if this is the case, using the film's own data, we are talking about 5-10% of teachers. In my mind this number is unacceptably high, but let’s think about it in other terms. If you look in any profession you will find at least this many people who are horrible at it. There are bad lawyers who are responsible for innocent people going to jail, there are bad doctors who cause great harm and loss of life to people, there are even bad drivers who kill and ruin lives. Do we give up on the justice system or hospitals or driving because of it? No, we don't. Basically, this is not a simple problem with a simple solution. This is a very complex problem and anyone who says there is a simple, cut and dried solution is probably selling something.

To condemn the 90% because of the 10% is a disservice to everyone involved. But I know what you're thinking; you only care if your kid gets one of those 10%.That is where you come into play. If you are active in your child's education you will know this. I am brought to mind my 9th grade algebra teacher who responded to my mother’s request for an after school meeting with "I don't meet with parents outside of school hours. If you need to see me I have a conference period during the day." Just so you know, were I to try that at my school I would have a "clarification session" with my principal and call that parent to schedule a meeting at their his or her convenience. My mother's solution to this was near daily contact to ensure my progress. This brings up a point I will go into detail on later.

Early on, this film puts forth an opinion which is then treated as a fact and provides the basis for all of what follows. The problem isn't bad neighborhoods that create bad schools, but rather bad schools that make the neighborhoods bad. This is one of the most foolish statements I have ever heard. But, for arguments sake, we'll go with it.

So, let's take a look at the film’s solution. Charter schools are public schools that operate outside the regular school system, and according to this film they are dreamlike oases of learning where even the most disadvantaged students flourish with absolutely no problems.

First off, I want to take my hat off and applaud the people behind these schools as much as humanly possible. They do more honor to my profession than I can ever fully express and I am grateful they are there. However, the model for these schools is impossible to implement on a large scale and sustain, and it isn't any more effective than public schooling. I am not opposed to charter schools, quite the opposite, in fact. I am strongly in favor of anything that provides quality educational opportunities to children. However, I feel that it is of paramount importance to ensure that those opportunities, whatever they may be, work.

This is where I fond my real problem with this film.

The only people the film makers talk to are either running very successful charter schools, or ... well, they do talk to the chancellor of the Washington DC public school system and... um... I guess that's it.

So, they set out to make a "documentary" about the problems with public education and the virtues of charter schools and they go about it by showing only one side of the story, briefly brushing over the successes of public schooling and highlighting the absolute best of the best in charter schools. That information is then dressed up in a slick package and presented as gospel. But, back to charter schools. These are schools that, in many cases, have fewer students enrolled than I have in my classes.

Let me clarify. I have a student roster of around 150. Some of these schools have an entire population of 100.

Much smaller classes, more one-on-one time, and a student body comprised entirely of students with parents who have to specifically apply for them to go there (again, more on this last part later).

These schools have limited space, and since they are public they have to hold completely random lotteries to decide which of the applicants will be accepted. Let me give you a numbers breakdown directly from this film.

APPLICANTS ACCEPTED % ACCEPTED

455 100 21%

135 10 7%

792 40 5%

767 35 4%

27,462 2,175 7.9%

The last number may seem a bit off, and I will admit that I cheated on that one. It's not from the film. It's Harvard. That's right, THE Harvard. Let me put this in perspective: Harvard University has an acceptance rate of less than 8%. 3 of these 4 schools are harder to get into than Harvard. If your school only accepts 4% of applicants (half that of Harvard) you had damned well better guarantee academic success.

Let's put that number aside and get to what I think is the truly important factor, and the topic I've been promising to address. All of these children are lucky enough to have parents who want them to get an education so badly that they are willing to go to extreme measures to ensure they get the best opportunities available.

In my experience there is no greater predictor of academic success than parental involvement. It doesn't guarantee it, and there are many kids who succeed without it, but it is a good predictor.

Yes, there are other indicators, and many of these kids have things going on in their private lives that I couldn't even handle and that is something this film completely overlooks. For as much as you hear about "at risk" youth there is a large percentage of these children who aren't at risk, they are already damaged. They are kids who are damaged by forces beyond their control and to ignore this is to fundamentally disrespect their life experiences.

They show you a low performing school and present it as the reason for all of these problems. But there isn't any mention of a culture that makes being smart “un-cool” (which is universal among teenagers), or unstable home lives, or teenagers who are responsible for taking care of younger siblings or their own children. These are problems that transcend race, ethnic, and socio-economics. Kids today are dealing with a world that makes it much harder to be young and innocent it was for any of us and that does spill over into education.

They speak about "no excuses" and having "high standards," but completely leave out what happens when a child fails to meet these standards repeatedly. That's the thing about charter schools. You have to apply and be accepted, even if there are no up front academic requirements, and if you fail to meet the standard you can be removed. The numbers are inherently slanted because you are dealing with thousands who have to as opposed to hundreds who choose to. This isn't an excuse, its a reality. And that reality makes the issue infinitely more complex.

This is a well meaning documentary that completely misses the point. It holds up the worst case scenario as a condemnation of public schools while using a best case scenario to show the virtues of charters.

Here's the truth about charter schools. The data that is out there, and there is a lot, shows them to be almost identical to public schools. Some are amazing, some are awful, and most are no better or worse than their "public" counterparts. But even in looking at reports, articles, and studies it is impossible to get a clear picture of the success of these schools because so many of the pieces out there are written by people who strongly support charters that even critical pieces end up being spun in favor of the schools. Only in looking at a large sample of data from a diversity of sources will you even begin to be able to put together the truth about these schools. I would quote studies, but I have seen too many to narrow it down and would ultimate be fruitless because for every article that praises there is one condemning, and for every critical one there is a laudatory one. You're an adult, the information is out there and you should look it up for yourself rather than taking my word for it (that's me teaching you how to fish, rather than giving you a fish.).

This is a manipulative film that uses skewed scientific data and emotional footage of struggling kids to advance an agenda. Well, two can play at that game.

I went to private catholic schools until the second grade. During that time I was relegated to the "very slow" group of students, a group which consisted of just me. Why? Because they ignored my very severe, and very apparent, learning disability and pushed me aside because it was too difficult to teach me. Had my mother not been insistent and gone outside of the school she never would have seen that I was not being taught (the teacher stopped correcting my math work and allowed me to make up my own way of doing it). Had I stayed in that school college, well let's be honest, college was off the table for me in first grade.

Then my father, who was in the Air Force, was transferred to a base in Panama where I met the amazing educator who changed my life forever (thank you again Wanda). Had it not been for this public school teacher my educational career would have died before it began. As it stands I hold a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Texas at Austin. I have had success in several different professional fields and am now nearing the end of my 5th very successful year as a teacher. All thanks to a public school teacher.

Anecdotal and unscientific, yes. But my example is exactly as scientific and reliable as what you'll see in "Waiting for Superman."

My real problem with this film has nothing to do with it's assault on my profession. It gives a false answer to a vitally important question and, in doing so, takes time, attention, and resources away from finding a real solution, and that is unforgivable.

At the end of the film, the mother of one of the kids who didn't get accepted to a charter school makes one of the most touching and powerful statements I've ever heard on film. "I will never give up on my kids." As a public school teacher I want to assure her that we won't either.

This is going to be a two part review because if I am going to be as honest as I pride myself on being I have to admit upfront that it is almost impossible for me to be objective about this film. Almost.

From this point forward everything in regular font is my fair minded, objective critical take and everything in bold is my harshly biased Motörhead fanatic slant. You've been warned.

As I said in my review of The Doors documentary "When You're Strange" I find most of the hyperbolic demagoguery (side note: the Microsoft Word thesaurus has no synonyms listed for demagoguery) associated with certain rock acts to be silly at best. John Lennon wasn't a prophet. He was a guy who wrote some good songs ("Imagine" is not one of them. "Imagine" is a pretentious sentimentality masquerading as profundity. I do not care if you disagree, so save it). Jim Morrison wasn't a shaman/warrior poet of the counterculture. He was an egotistical asshole who wrote some decent songs and laughably awful poetry.

That being said, Ian "Lemmy" Kilmister is GOD! It's true. Everything he does is awesome and he will never die!

For those unaware, Lemmy Kilmister is the bassist, lead singer, and only consistent member of the band Motörhead, which is both the loudest band in the world (Verified by Guinness) and the greatest rock and roll band on the planet.

At the age of 65 (just younger than my parents) he is a bit of a medical marvel. He still drinks, smokes, and ingests enough speed to kill your average hard partying rock musician, stands in front of speakers blaring at over 125 decibels almost nightly without losing his hearing, and records damned near an album a year.

During the course of Motörhead's 35 year history he has been elevated to the status of superhuman by some, and God himself by others because of how incredible awesome both he and his music are.

Finally, after years of touring and kicking inordinate amounts of ass, someone has decided to make a feature length documentary about the man known the world over as Lemmy.

Two things I need to get out of the way right off the bat.

1) This film is too damned long. Much as I love documentaries you really have to earn a one hour fifty six minute running time. This one almost did, but you really do feel the length near the end.

2) Although this film is solidly entertaining and appealing outside of the world of the metal head, I don't really think this is for everyone. If you are into metal but not Motörhead you will probably still dig it. If you aren't into metal or Motörhead then you may enjoy it, but there is just as much chance that you will not.

So, how do you do a movie about someone who has a musical career spanning 45 years during which time he:

1) Was a roadie for Jimi Hendrix.

2) Played guitar for the legendary "space rock" band Hawkwind.

3) Has played with bands as varied as The Damned, The Rockin' Vicars, Probot, and The Head Cat (a rockabilly group).

4) Written songs for Ozzy Osbourne.

5) Far, far too many other things to catalogue.

The depth and breadth of his career makes the very prospect of this film far too epic to even consider rationally. And in many ways it suffers from it and in other ways it is the greatest documentary ever made because of it.

It becomes pretty obvious early on that there isn't really a solid focus here. This isn't a chronological look at his life, it's not a look at his musical career in the strictest sense, and it's not a groundbreaking expose of the most awesome man in rock and roll.

Perhaps the most accurate and appropriate descriptor is "character study." It's a mixture of interviews with fans, other musicians, former band mates, current band members, and Lemmy himself that only seem to be organized around the theme of "this is what makes Lemmy awesome and the reasons why he is still relevant."

The real problem with this film is that it lacks focus. Although character study is the most accurate term it still cycles through all the other types of film I listed above, but doesn't ever commit fully to being any of them. Had it just been about Motörhead over the past 35 years that would have been amazing. Had it been about Lemmy and his influence over music in general that would have been amazing. Had it been about just the man, and what it's like to have a Grammy and a few gold records but still be somewhat outside the mainstream that would have been interesting. Had it been a straight biography... well, you get where I'm going. The problem is that it tries to be all of these things and in doing so ends up feeling a bit overwhelmed and unfocused and stretched just a bit too thin.

There are some wonderful and natural moments with other musicians (an early scene with Dave Grohl is one of the best examples of life caught on film I've ever come across) but they come a little too early and there aren't nearly enough of them.

The bulk of the film is divided between interviews with other prominent musicians about the appeal of Mr. Kilmister and long interviews with the man himself. Sadly, the interviews get a bit redundant at times. Don't get me wrong, not every interview is the same but there are some consistent threads.

The interviews with Lemmy are... well pretty damned surreal. Most of them are conducted in his unassuming two bedroom apartment in Los Angeles (two blocks from The Rainbow Room, where he spends most of his time) where you learn about his two sons (the one he is in contact with and the other who doesn't even know who his father is), his love of military history and war memorabilia (He has a lot of Nazi stuff, but claims not to be a Nazi and that "If Israel had the coolest uniforms I'd collect them, but they don't.).

I could go on with odd details and interesting moments, but that's not really the aim here. Essentially this is a somewhat interesting movie (that could have been much better had it been 30 minutes shorter) with a very specific audience that (but which can be appreciated outside of that niche market) about an interesting man.

That being said, I did enjoy it and would probably enjoy it more sitting on my couch than I did sitting in a theatre. I do recommend it, but not to everyone. However, if you do watch it I think you will find something to enjoy in it even if you think you won't.

The movie is like Lemmy itself. It's honest, fairly direct, and lasts a bit longer than you think it possibly could.

As an American the idea of a monarchy seems… well, kind of odd. I don’t mean that in any dismissive or insulting way, but from a cultural standpoint it’s a bit strange. You see, as you may or may not be aware, the US doesn’t have a monarchy and we worked pretty hard to reach that point so the idea of someone who God chose to be the ruler of my nation is about as foreign a concept as calling cookies biscuits and fries chips.

The idea is kind of surreal to me. My first trip to London I overheard an older British woman explaining that she still has a hard time using the word “citizen,” as she had always been taught that she was a “British subject.”

It’s fascinating. We do have our version of it here in the US. I mean we kind of hold famous people in a similar light, but we don’t really have anything on the Brits.

However, this cultural difference did nothing to diminish my enjoyment of “The King’s Speech.” Kind of a weak segue I know, but work with me. To give you some perspective, I had no idea who the previous Monarch of the Realm was. Basically, if the name isn’t connected to a movie, Shakespeare play, or my countries revolution I don’t know much about them.

This movie shows how much weight can be given to a pretty simple relationship. Think about it. A guy has a stutter and he goes to a doctor for help. No biggie. Make that “guy” the face of the monarchy and suddenly you got yourself a ballgame.

As I said before, I have no real knowledge or feelings towards the British monarchy. As I see it it’s nothing more than a very wealthy person with a title, but no real job beyond making speeches, going on holiday (from what I’m not quite sure), and attending polite parties.

The strength of this movie is in the relationships. No big surprise there. However, if those relationships were not as strongly developed and as solidly presented this film would fall flat on its face.

Geoffrey Rush is fantastic (I realize this is kind of a non statement, he’s always good) in his role as the therapist who takes on the daunting task of giving his nation a clear voice. He strikes the balance between the awe and respect of a subject and the commanding presence of a therapist. Think how hard it must be to pull off the dynamic of being both subordinate and superior to a person at the same time. Sounds hard, right? Well, he pulls it off brilliantly.

Helena Bonham-Carter acquits herself wonderfully as the Queen. She is as loving and supportive a wife as one could hope for and her absolute love for her husband is undeniable.

Then you have Colin Firth, all talented and handsome. I’ve said it before and will say it again; this will be the first of multiple Oscars for this man. He is as brilliant as you have come to expect him to be. He strikes that delicate balance between a man who is terrified of the responsibilities of his position while knowing that he is the right man for that position with a skill that is nothing short of masterful. This performance doesn’t have any tricks or flash, but it has all the weight and power. It is all steak and minimal sizzle.

I think most people view being King or Queen as a really glamorous job, but I’ve never seen it that way. I mean, no matter how famous or lauded an actor or a salesman or a doctor becomes their children are not required by law or custom to refer to them as “Oscar Winner” or “Midwestern Regional Salesperson of the Quarter,” or “Wisconsin Society of Dermatologists Notable Member.” You personally might require this, but that just makes you strange. If you’re King then your children have to call you “Your Majesty” and bow or curtsy when you enter the room. Nice as that might sound, it would be a bit strange.

This isn’t a job you can just quit. Yes, you can abdicate, but you’re still a part of it. The only way out is to die. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel sorry for them. The unrealistic wealth and privilege makes up for a lot of this, but it’s still really surreal to think about.

That is something this film captures beautifully (the only other one I’ve seen recently to do it as well is “The Queen”). It shows how difficult your life can be when you’re never the equal of anyone in the room, when you are seen as the face of a nation, and when every word you say is taken as the voice of your country.

My colonial predilections aside I found “The King’s Speech” to be one of the most engaging, moving, and entertaining films I’ve seen in quite some time.

True Grit

The balls on these guys. I mean, really. The fucking balls on these guys. Is there a more intimidating persona in American film than John Wayne? Think about it. We’re talking about one of the biggest American icons EVER.

How many other actors inspire images like this?

Or products like these? The answer is.... Well, maybe Elvis, but that's about it.

So, when it was announced that the Coen brothers were going to do a remake of “True Grit,” the movie which won John Wayne his only Oscar, I was a bit… puzzled.

Granted it was more of a lifetime achievement type award than anything, but still. And, yes, I do maintain that it was more of a lifetime award than an actual performance award. He beat out both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman in “Midnight Cowboy,” Peter O’Toole in “Goodbye Mr. Chips,” and Richard Burton in “Anne of the Thousand Days.” No slight against Mr. Wayne, but I think the other performances hold up a bit better.

And while we’re being honest, the original “True Grit,” isn’t that great. I mean, it’s a decent western and a good way to spend an afternoon, but it’s not “The Searchers.”

But still, the Coens decided they were gonna go for it and we got…

How does it compare? Well, in regards to the original it absolutely blows it out of the water. The writing, the direction, the acting, and the overall look are superior, more authentic, and far more engaging than the original film. Not that the original is bad, it just isn’t great. This film is.

The big question is Jeff Bridges taking on Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn, the role that won Wayne his Oscar. It’s not his best performance, but it is damned good. He is solid and believable and really makes the part his own. The same with Damon and Brolin, neither of which should be a surprise. But it does claim my personal award for best casting by having Berry Pepper play Ned Pepper. I honestly feel like a bit of a fool because of how much I love that.

The standout, without question though, is Halee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. Not only is she better than Kim Darby (who was also outstanding) but she firmly outshines everyone on screen at every turn. This is they type of performance that makes me happy she’s young and will have many more years of outstanding performances ahead of her.

Aside from the performances the direction and writing are solid Coen. They removed any doubt of their ability to tackle a film like this with “No Country for Old Men,” but find greater success in infusing their humor and style in this effort. This feels like a Coen take on the western. There are solidly funny scenes, interesting characters, solid pacing and a real feeling of resolution at the end.

There is one problem. It’s small and doesn’t really affect the movie as a whole, but it’s a sticking point for me.

The film begins and ends with totally unnecessary narration. I mean COMPLETELY unnecessary narration. It doesn’t add anything to the story and made me feel like they were trying to spoon feed me information that was easy to get from the rest of the film.

I’m really not nit picking here, I’m just being honest. This is a near flawlessly executed film, which is why the narration felt so out of place to me. Everything, literally EVERYTHING that it tells you is something you are shown moments later. It stood out because it is beneath this film.

Other than that, which is a bit of a pet peeve of mine to begin with, this is an outstanding film that is expertly written, directed, acted, and shot. Essentially, it is everything you would want a Coen brothers western to be and more.