The War of Wars: The Great European Conflict

In movies, there has always been an enormous passion for period pieces. Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth. The Count of Monte Cristo. Gone With the Wind. The Great Gatsby. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. What all of these films have in common is a romantic recreation of the past and what it was like to live in them. Yes, most of these movies don't shy away from some points where we see how nasty it could be to be around in these periods but, without exception, we are asked to follow characters who are most able to enjoy their surroundings and the benefits of their time. In Elizabeth, we witness the travails of a princess who will become queen. In Master and Commander, we follow the friendship between a distinguished ship's captain and a skilled doctor. In Pride and Prejudice, we watch an upper class girl try to avoid arranged marriage in order to marry a man that she can respect and love. First world problems much?

The point is that we have a fascination with the past, one that is particularly focused the people with the most freedom in their respective eras. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But, as a whole, we love reading stories of those who have the immediate power to change their surroundings. We are fascinated with times foreign yet familiar to our own, awestruck that these periods once existed. This isn't fiction; it's real. And, while we may focus on the stories of characters and events that are fictional within these eras, it does not take away from the truth that these dramas could have happened, and that the settings were once vivid reality.

.

The Meteoric Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte

Though I'm here reviewing a book and not a movie, that introduction is perfect for describing the tone and power of The War of Wars: The Great European Conflict 1793-1815. This book is a history, a grand drama of a twelve year war, a massive tome capable of knocking out any nearby housecat. It's about an era that, for some reason, we never really see in movies. Whenever I've shown this book to people asking about what I'm reading, the result is immediate disinterest and surprise that anyone would read such a gargantuan book about a long past conflict. And yet, despite all of these negative factors, I'm here to tell you one thing:

This book fucking rocks.

The War of Wars imbues its time period with vigorous life. Have you ever wondered how it feels to be a frigate captain at sea? This book is filled with the grandeur of a life in the navy, storming the crests of high waves in pursuit of the enemy. Have you ever wondered what it's like to be a diplomat in Paris? There's so much political intrigue and shenanigans in this book that it is beyond compare. At every stage, we are given a retelling of events from the French Revolution to Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, from the cat-and-mouse naval chases of the Caribbean to the epic battle of Waterloo; all fully factual, all possessed with a page-turning narrative worthy of an award-winning novel. After reading this book, I was frankly astonished that I've never seen a movie about the Napoleonic Wars before. How have filmmakers missed this? This era is filled with such drama, heroism, and conflict that it's preposterous that it has not yet been immortalized in modern film.

.

Dynamic Personalities

But if there's one thing that makes this book great, it is the way the author brings the personalities of the various figures into life. As hinted in my introduction, this book focuses primarily on the statesmen, commanders, and leaders of the period. Yet, despite a vast cast of characters stretched across dozens of years, I never got lost. Just about every man and woman is memorable. What's more, we are given a balanced view of them. It is very easy for historians to get caught up in the near-mythic brilliance of Napoleon, but Robert Harvey manages to hit both his highs and his lows. We are able to appreciate Napoleon's genius intensity, his quest for recognition, and determination to succeed. Yet we are similarly able to witness his lack of self-control and uncontrollable megalomania. Through this we get a multifaceted perspective of Napoleon and many, many other 'great people' besides. Even with those that the author obviously admires (such as Pitt the Younger and Thomas Cochrane), we are shown their failings, petulance, insecurities, and more. This serves to create an incredibly deep and interesting cast of characters, unforgettable figures set amidst the dramatic backdrop of Europe's first truly global war.

.

Critique

The first thing one should know going into this, though, is that it is a general history meant to be enjoyed by those who aren't fussy professors. Essentially, it is (in my opinion) a well-balanced story of the Napoleonic War brought to life but, if you're seeking more specifics about this or that conflict, then it's best to look for a more focused book. You'll get a superb overview of every single stage of the war here, but you might come away wanting more. Perhaps the best way to put it is that this is a great introduction to the Napoleonic War for anyone who hasn't read of it before, a Napoleonic War 101 course, if you will. For me, that was perfect. But for anyone looking for a deep exploration of this or that battle or conflict, it might be best to look elsewhere.

Aside from that, I'd point out that some of the land battles and naval engagements were kind of hard to follow. But, really, this is totally my own fault. There are a great deal of detailed maps at the beginning of the book and, sloth that I am, I found myself far too lazy to flip back to the front in order to visualize what I was reading on the page. Regardless, I never felt completely lost.

My last critique is that, like I pointed out at the beginning, this history falls into the period piece trap of focusing largely on the 'big' 'important' upper class figures of the time. Unlike, say, the histories of Max Hastings, we only occasionally get the perspective of the average citizen or soldier of the time. This may damage its credibility as a truly effective history. But I can honestly say that I just didn't care. I was having too much fun. And at no time in this book did I feel like I was wasting my time or getting too incomplete of a picture.

.

Conclusion

Thus it is that, in order to shower praise upon a history with an exciting and sweeping narrative that is perhaps a tad light on substance, I've created a review that only sings lustrous praises and calls attention to dazzling adventures. I didn't call much attention to the specific figures, I didn't really talk about the incredible events, I didn't assess the immensely interesting effect the Napoleonic War had on the world, ramifications that we still feel to this very day. Perhaps I'll have to write a follow-up to do that.

But for now just be assured that, if you've ever had any passing interest in learning about this era of history, this is the book to start your journey with. I can't emphasize enough how excited this book makes me about teaching history and calling attention to the spectacular events that have happened in the past. And that's worth sharing.

Rock of Ages

Rock of Ages is a movie that takes all those songs you heard in the 80's and makes a musical out of them.

That's pretty much it.

.

.

.

Oh, you're still here? Okay!

.

Criticism

Rock of Ages was alright. Theoretically, one could get excited about the prospect of a variety of famed movie actors taking the stage and bellowing forth golden oldies. Awesome actors plus awesome songs? What can go wrong! The problem is that this sounds better on paper than it does in reality. Just like communism.

In Rock of Ages, the plot is loosely tied around an ensemble cast of characters. Primary among these are two young lovebirds with utterly forgettable names played by Julianna Hough and Diego Boneta. And then there's Tom Cruise's rock legend, Stacee Jax. Aside from these main three, we have the two owners of a nightclub (played by Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand) going through trouble keeping it open. We have Malin Akerman's Rolling Stone reporter who interviews Jax. We've Catherine Zeta-Jones' religious conservative protesting the rock prevalent throughout the movie. And some other people who I really don't care to talk about.

The fact of the matter is that the story is almost completely irrelevant and nobody cares. Part of this is that this is intended as a loosely wrapped cinematic spectacle and homage to 80's brilliance. That goal is fine. The other part of this is that, by and large, the acting and how the songs are presented are just not as epic or interesting as one would hope for.

.

They Didn't Hit Us With Their Best Shot

Overall, this is a case of young actors being completely overshadowed by the older. Diego Boneta is completely uninteresting; his singing just isn't memorable. Julianne Hough is certainly attractive, but I just couldn't get over her voice. Imagine a kitten on helium being forced to sing. It's impossible, but it effectively portrays how aggravating her singing can get. Further adding to the flames of indifference is the fact that their story arc is almost completely bland. Young girl moves to the city, falls in love, they briefly separate due to some incredibly stupid misunderstanding, then fall in love again. Augh! It isn't well written, it's cheesy, and it is beyond rescue. Most of the songs I didn't like fall into their hands and made it even more difficult for me to appreciate the film as a whole.

By contrast, the older actors are far more entertaining. We don't really care about their respective stories, but they're a riot. Although I had immense foreboding over Tom Cruise portraying a rock star, his scenes tend to be the most amusing to watch. This is a level of deranged ridiculousness that made me think of Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean. All of the other older actors get really into it as well. But the problem is that, with rare exceptions, these people just aren't singers. We look to musicals to provide interesting and new twists and takes on songs, or to create entirely ones. I came out of this with zero desire to buy the soundtrack.

It doesn't help that the direction of the film just isn't there. I say that because surely there was some better way to make these classic oldies more exciting to watch. Instead, it seems we're barraged with one after another, as if they believed that causing some sort of 80's mental meltdown would translate into greatness. On the contrary, there were only two songs that I liked the delivery of (“Harden My Heart” and “I Want to Know What Love Is”). Everything else was simply okay. What was it? The choreography? The singers? The threadbare plot? IT JUST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

.

Conclusion

Now, I won't say that this was an awful movie. I watched it to the end and thought it was alright. But it isn't what you are expecting and what you want. The magic just isn't quite there. The older actors give it their best and are pretty entertaining. But not enough to make this anything more than a passable and forgettable dip into the sea of what makes 80's songs so damn fun to sing at karaoke.

The Best and Worst Break up Films

by DionysusPsyche

The Best

1. 500 Days of Summer
   This is one of the films where having an anonymous voiceover doesn't feel out of place. Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zoey Deschanel) have different ideas about love and dating, but when Summer breaks Tom's heart, he relives the past year in an attempt and find out what went wrong.
   
   Why it's Great
   The film does an excellent job of not making either character "the bad guy." It shows you that both these people are awesome, and their chemistry is just alive. The film is fun, and even when it's sad, it's still really good.
2. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
   Peter (Jason Segel) tries to put his past girlfriend (whom he works with) behind him by going on vacation. Unfortunately, Sarah (Kristin Bell) has picked the same location.
   
   Why it's Great
   Everyone sooner or later has to deal with seeing their ex with someone else, but sometimes it feels like when we try to escape them the most is when we're forced to resolve the person we thought was The One. The often vulgar humor clashing with Pete's morose mood and frequent crying is amusing, but Jason Segel's character being a composer makes it even better, because it makes us remember how awesome we are. Pete gets to put his dream at the forefront, which helps us say goodbye to all the Sarah Marshalls that don't deserve us.
3. High Fidelity
   Based on the book by Nick Hornby, this is John Cusack as his best as Rob Gordon who goes back through all the lists of women (like he would any album) that he's loved and how they've broken his heart.
   
   Why it's Great
   This is the mother of all break up films, which dissects each major relationship resolving why Rob shouldn't get back together with any of them, and how it's actually his fault that he screwed up the only one that could have worked. Plus, Rob yells at his ex, "Charlie! You fucking bitch! Let's work out." A sentiment that I'm sure a few of us are familiar with.
4. Better Off Dead
   Lane Myers (yes, Cusack again) decides to kill himself after his girlfriend, Beth (Amanda Wyss), breaks up with him for stereotypical jerky jock.
   
   Why it's Great
   It shows teenagers lamenting their love lives in prototypical dramatic fashion of saying that life just isn't worth it unless you're with the girl you're obsessing about. The under appreciated actor that plays Booger from Revenge of the Nerds is in it. There are competitive racing scenes. Ridiculously awesome and weird one-liners. Take your pick.
5. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
   Joel (Jim Carrey) goes to a specialty brain surgery clinic where he undergoes a procedure to wipe his girlfriend from his mind.
   
   Why it's Great
   My favorite role for Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet, this tells a story in reverse. Erasing the person you love from your mind is a pretty nifty way to get rid of them...until you decide that maybe it was the heat of the anger and you love them, even if you're not together.

The Worst

1. Closer
   Based on a play, this film uncovers the depressing double life of cheating and examining whether or not the person you're with actually loves you.
   
   Why it Sucks
   This film actually might make you feel better about your relationship. It's an interesting story, but it really brings out the worst in human beings which is not what you need right now, especially since you're already probably doubting the past.
2. The Break-Up
   In order to keep their apartment, a couple's (Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn) break up gets worse and worse.
   
   Why it Sucks
   This film pretended to be a comedy so audiences would want to watch us. Yet, it shows us everything we hate about break-ups and then some weird unrealistic terrible additional things this couple does to each other.
3. The Shape of Things
   Quiet, nerdy Adam (Paul Rudd) is entranced by art student with big ideas, Evelyn (Rachel Weisz). Yet their bizarre relationship threatens Adam's friendships with his best friends.
   
   Why it Sucks
   While at times boring and weird, this film actually does not suck. Still, you shouldn't watch it right after a break up. It makes you go back and re-examine your old relationships in a way you should only do long after you've distanced yourself from them.
4. SwingersI have never liked this movie. It magnifies everything I hate about the single life, the single person mentality (especially in the '90's), and the vulnerability that one goes through.
5. Now You Know
   This is about the calling off of an engagement. However, this film is extremely pessimistic about relationships and marriage in general. It was the first film I tried to watch after a break up, and I still can't go back and watch it. It's also not a very good movie.

Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)

by DionysusPsyche

Based on a true story, Hachi is a puppy who finds Professor Parker Wilson (Richard Gere) at a train station on his way home. Parker is determined to find the owner, then to find the dog a home, but ends up falling in love with him and forging a bond that can only exist between humans and dogs.

Initially, I had read this book in the children's section of the library, so learning it had been turned into a movie adaptation was a treat. Some of the things that attracted me to this story are that Hachi is played by a real dog, one that doesn't talk animatronically, and isn't surrounded by some ludicrous story about a dog's adventures. The film is primarily seen from Hachi's eyes, and when it does is tells the story of true loyalty, love beyond comprehension, and how we should never, ever forget someone we have lost even as the years go by.

The message is good, although as a pet owner, I have qualms with some of the technicalities of the film. Spoilers beyond this point.

Grievances and Errors: Responsibility
The film was clearly intended for children audiences, and I realize that this is not a tutorial to owning a dog, but the person who wrote the screenplay for this was misinformed.

Although we see Parker working with Hachi and their friendship is strong, people should not have their pets off leash in public places with or without training. It is dangerous to both the dog and other people. What if the dog gets hit by a car? Attacks someone or a cat or child? Gets issued a fine for not showing tags of vaccinations? No one seems overly paranoid that Hachi could meet someone frightened of big dogs or that the Humane Society would see a stray dog and snatch him up or that Hachi would be adopted by someone else. "Oh, it's just Hachi. He knows exactly what he's doing." Um, what?

Hachi is mainly an outside dog in the film, which bothers me on a personal level, but what bothers me more is the fact that they live in the Bay Area in California and seem to get a TON of snow. I kept forgetting they lived there, because of all the snow they got. Now, Hachi is a dog made for cold weather, but if weather is getting that extreme, he should be inside when it gets to be too cold or too hot. Yet, when the dog is skunked he is allowed to be inside, which makes NO sense whatsoever.

I've worked with a lot of people in the animal training and veterinary field, and these are big no-no's. It also gives the wrong message to uneducated pet owners or potential ones that owning a dog is easy. Hachi is a large dog who never pees, gets sick, eats (except for his constant hot dog diet) or requires any maintenance other than being adored by his owners. These all play into my next point.

The original story took place in the 20's and 30's, and I was sad that the adaptation was done in present day. I think it would have had more authenticity, and I wouldn't have had the same complaints.


On the bright side, there is a scene where Parker inquires to the Humane Society only to be told that they are full and cannot accept any new additions. This is completely true, and the movie does serve as a more heartfelt and fuzzy message than the commercials done by Sarah McLaughlin. There are a lot of homeless animals, a lot of unaltered dogs and cats that have more litters every year only to find there are not enough humans to go around for them.


Conclusion
Despite my annoyances about the film, it is a family friendly film, so as long as some of the oversights are pointed out to children and adults alike, I see this as a sweet way to spend time with family. As usual, I get paranoid at the idea that humans view pet ownership as a flippant thing and not a real responsibility, but this is probably true of tons of children's movies, and I just haven't seen enough of them recently.

Ringer

By DionysusPsyche

Ringer is a television show that welcomes back a much beloved actress in a new role. Sarah Michelle Gellar plays Sibhon Martin and her twin sister Bridget Kelly. The show intrigued me, the way stories about twins have sparked my interest since Sweet Valley High's Jessica and Elizabeth from their kid days until college. I even read the special books.

This ain't no Sweet Valley (despite the concept of twins and swapping places).This also isn't a fun fest where Mary-Kate and Ashley run around for 90 minutes of shenanigans.

Bridget Kelly has witnessed a murder. Upon being asked to stand trial by the local police (Nestor Carbonell, Lost and The Tick), she realizes that before and after testifying, she'll be vulnerable to an ex-boss and killer on the loose. Despite years estranged, Bridget flies to New York, where her Shibhon (Shiv-on) has forgiven her. Something strange happens, and Bridget takes on Shibhon's identity, and unbenownst to her, Shibhon's messy life.

Why it's Good

Unlike Revenge or Tru Blood (at least season 1), the antics while stretched from reality, are not far fetched. At least some of the characters are lovable in their own way, and their motives (at least most of them) are understandable. Unlike a lot of shows about broken people who make bad decisions, say a few kind/charming words then make worse decisions, Ringer is about overcoming your past. It's also a rubix cube. Characters say or do things that seem to define them, but when the cube turns, more pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

For Bridget, becoming someone new is relatively easy, since that person is a deep part of her the way twins are. However, entering into Shibhon's life requires some finesse and off the cuff lying to save face. Trying to explain things that Bridget's not had full disclosure on is tricky, but the writers and Sarah Michelle Gellar do a good job of balancing the line between realistic and entertaining. Because Bridget is the solo witness in a trial, keeping her identity secret is crucial to her survival.

Both sisters benefit from this transaction of Bridget's portrayal, even if one of them is not present for many of the moments. The real Shibhon, while she may at one point have been sweet and kindhearted, has been extremely secretive and leads something of a double life without her twin wrapped up in the mix. This gives her an opportunity, a door by which to pass through in order to escape some of the walls she's backed herself into.

Repentence

Unlike Revenge where every episode is another attempt to take a stab at a past ruined by the rich and a failing corporation, Ringer provides us with something more. While Bridget's first priority is to become her new life, she is not willing to completely absorb Shibhon's life as is. Bridget has had her share of rough times, and she has done things she's regretted that have irreperably damaged her relationship with her sister. She also views Shibhon's choices as questionable considering the hand she was dealt.

While Bridget made mistakes in the past, many of the ones she made she didn't do out of malice. In part she begins repairing damage that Shibhon has done to her current life while attempting to make amends to her sister by being the better version of herself. Of either of them. However, perhaps there is reason to believe that Shibhon has not been completely out of line.

The show does a good job of keeping the audience on its toes. At times, it's unclear which twin is which, but the real one always gives herself away. There is also a medium sized cast that works each end to make sure that the over all story arc keeps coming back to the same place. While the show does a good job of answering the questions the audience asks itself while watching, it also does a good job of not overwhelming its viewers by creating too many questions.

Negatives/Spoilers

Towards the end of the first season, the entire plot kind of caves in on itself. The drama becomes more of a night time soap opera than ever. Characters become incestuous in unbelievable ways. One character is replaced by an almost identical one, and we're not talking twins. It's hard to tell if any of the characters are telling the truth, if people will die, if those who've disappeared are dead, and who to point fingers of blame at. It could be that the writers found out the show wasn't renewed for a second season.

Don't get me wrong, I was still hooked on watching the show, but the characters peaked, and everyone was just sort of pooling into one awful character. No one ended up being blameless. Also, one of the characters, I really enjoyed, so I watched it 'til the end just for him.

Conclusion

Ringer is superior to many shows on tv—at first. One season, full of turns and tricks provides mystery and entertainment for awhile. Its momentum and creativity start deteriorating halfway through, and although it temporarily sees bursts of interesting moments, the latter half of the season lacks the originality and curiosity the first half provided. I still think it's worth watching, because it's both interesting and provides characters that require more than one look.

Drive

Drive is one of those movies that you either love or you hate. Unless you're me. I say that because I have multiple friends who loathe this movie. I also have friends who deeply love and appreciate it. I am the weird loner in the middle who nervously looks from one side to another, waiting for the inevitable bloodshed.

Consequently, writing this review was rather difficult for me. After all, how do you construct a post that both praises and rips something apart? Here is my attempt to do so. We'll see how it goes.

.

Drive – Tale of the Lonely Hero

Drive, at its essence, reminds me of a cowboy adventure. Not some lighthearted romp where ladies are charmed and villains' pistols are shot out of their hands. There is no Cherokee guide, no friendly bartender at a saloon. This is more the story of the lone wanderer, that troubled soul who, despite a dark past, seeks to escape it by doing good. He is an anti-hero, a guy who makes you wonder how he manages to live his life within a society that he wants almost nothing to do with.

This movie is about a nameless character, known only as the Driver. He has a life that, despite its action-oriented nature, seems ultimately unfulfilled. By day, he is a garage mechanic and stunt double. By night, he serves as a getaway driver for all manner of heists. Yet he has no real friends or family. His apartment is bare, a mere roof and board serving only for him to sleep in. Despite the excitement that you would expect from being involved in the criminal underworld, the Driver seems almost completely detached from it. In fact, his modus operandi is to obtain as much distance as possible from those involved; if his clients do not fit themselves to his timetable, the Driver leaves. He has no personal connection to the heists and only a reserved, tolerant friendship with Shannon, the boss of the garage he works in. He is a man adrift with seemingly no purpose or, well... drive.

Then he meets his neighbor, a shy and quiet woman his own age, Irene. She has a kid; the father is in jail. At first, the Driver is leery of talking to her. But, soon enough, he helps her and, just like that, he is hooked. He finds a quiet rapport with Irene that he can't seem to find anywhere else. They go out driving together, he helps her with groceries. It seems he has found his purpose. But then her husband comes back, released from prison. The Driver's idyllic time with Irene is endangered, first by the suspicions of the husband, then by his links with the criminal element.

*SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT*

.

Observations

Drive proves to be an incredibly effective movie at maintaining a certain tone. The atmosphere is very, very withdrawn. To the point of almost being surreal, everything that happens has a backdrop that is somber, at times with energy seething below the surface. In essence, it is a mirror of the personality of the Driver himself. Everything contributes to this artistic goal; the soundtrack is eerie and ethereal, the Driver's mode is to almost always be in complete and exacting control of himself, and the filming seems, at times, almost exclusively in one slow motion or another. When it succeeds, we are enchanted and drawn irresistibly to what is happening on screen.

Taken altogether, Drive gives us a story of one man's effort to be the white knight, even when the suit just doesn't fit him. On one level, we are frustrated he would even try; he is obviously attracted to a married woman and gets increasingly involved in bonding with her, despite there being no payoff for him. Even when the husband returns and it becomes clear that the Driver's future with this woman can never be, the Driver still puts himself out there for her. It gets to the point where we realize that he is making a mistake; the Driver is either going to cause some inappropriate rift in Irene's family or he will be shut out entirely.

But, similarly, we see the intense connection between the two and we can't help but powerfully empathize with the Driver's desire to help. As events transpire, it seems that the Driver is the only one capable of doing so. Yet, simultaneously, everything that the Driver does seems to put everyone into increasing danger. In the end, the Driver sees how massively he has failed and realizes that he must sever himself from Irene completely in order to end the threat, even if it means losing his life in the process. The Driver thus becomes the embodiment of a tragic hero, doomed to never get what he yearns for but sacrificing himself for it nonetheless.

.

This path is given further resonance with how the Driver's stoic personality is tested to its limits. Through one intensely grotesque scene after another, we see how the man barely seems to be holding it together. Underneath that incredibly reserved demeanor is someone who clearly has decades of pent-up rage; we can only speculate whether it is rage directed at the world, at the obstacles faced throughout his life, or at himself. It is a side of him that he does his best to hide carefully from Irene and inevitably fails in doing so. This is embodied in the fact that, when he is putting forth his best image for Irene, things tend to be in slow motion. By contrast, his most vicious side is almost always embodied in real-time. It is an illustration that one part of him is living a fantasy, and the other is the cold, hard reality.

It is hard not to relate to this. Though (hopefully!) none of us would brutalize people if pushed to the limit, we all can understand the desire to shape ourselves into the best we can be for the people we care for or seek to impress. At some point in our lives, despite what society tells us about 'just being yourself,' we try and inevitably fail to make ourselves appear to be more attractive to someone else. The experience of the Driver is an extreme case of this human tendency, but it still is able to resonate nonetheless.

.

Alternative Interpretation:

Drive – Creepy Masochistic Stalker Bores the Audience and then Freaks It Out

On the flip side, I can see how some could look at this movie as being hopelessly boring and then turning into a disgusting gore fest. It is worth noting that the events of the movie itself conspire to try and make the viewer restless; by showing us the early mundane life of the Driver with such a tone as described above, the movie's creators try to instill into us unsettled energy seething just below the surface, the same energy and darker side that the Driver tries to keep hidden from Irene. The fact of the matter is that the Driver's life is ridiculously uninteresting. A popular criticism of the movie is that, for a hundred minute-long movie about a getaway stuntman driver, we only get maybe eight minutes of car chases. Fair enough. It's like making a movie about a super-spy and then spending the majority of it on some irrelevant romance in the countryside. Drive misrepresents itself in this; the introduction is a high-tension cat-and-mouse escape from the police while the rest of the movie is essentially a slow character study.

Another criticism is that the romance between the Driver and Irene is both unrealistic and rather creepy. What married woman in her right mind would befriend a suspiciously silent stranger, a guy who spends the majority of his time staring at her instead of talking, whose only career description is that 'he drives'? Not to mention that she does this in a high-crime neighborhood while her husband is away in prison. It's also worth pointing out that their relationship isn't even honest; the Driver never fully reveals his background in crime, and neither of them say anything about what they expect from one another. It is an ephemeral relationship based on almost nothing but what they imagine the other to be.

.

This criticism is completely fair. I would say that the relationship's validity is based on your ability or willingness to fill in the blanks. Alternatively, I could say that the unworkable nature of the relationship is part of what makes the Driver a tragic hero and the movie itself into a tragedy. It could go either way.

The last criticism is that this movie whiplashes from a romance to a gory crime drama halfway through. I'm totally with this, but I also understand why this decision was made. It goes back to the Driver's personality. The caring side that we see throughout the first half of the movie is the mask that he wants to wear and adopt for his own. But the brutal side is his reality, and it asserts itself over time, much like how the movie gets more and more violent as the minutes pass. On paper, it's brilliant. Watching it is more of a mixed bag, however. All the violent scenes are crazy violent. The drama surrounding the crimelord is watchable, but not gripping. The character of Nino, the foul-mouthed and dull second-in-command, is completely uninteresting. Thus the criminal underworld that we see merely becomes a device to push the Driver over the edge of what he can withstand.

.

Conclusion

All in all, I obviously find Drive to be a very interesting movie. I can't say it is great. It has flaws, and a decent segment of it is rather unbelievable. But I have to admire it for how completely it devotes itself to the story it wants to tell. Soundtrack, cinematography, acting, filming, character development... All of these things are subservient to the overall vision of what the director wants to create. For that, at least, it is worth seeing.

Valentine's Day (2010)

by DionysusPsyche

When the trailer first came out for Valentine's Day, I did what most people in America did. "Oh gooooood, another romantic comedy."

In a lot of ways, I wasn't wrong. It stars an ensemble cast that probably did a promo for movie theatres across the country to entice audiences to come out in mass to go see the movie despite hesitations. In fact, I'm 90% sure I sat through that promo and groaned to whomever I witnessed it with.

For a brief moment, I considered seeing it in theatres. I'm glad I didn't. There are some depressing parts, and watching it on V-day would've been kind of sad.

When one purchases/rents/etc. this film for the first time, they are signing a contract. Said contract dictates that stereotypical moments or even so-common-to-comedy-it's-drained-the-funny-out instances in this movie will be expected. They are expected, and they do happen. I don't want you to get any false ideas up front.

Were I not a willing participant, I would not have rented a film that looks like the multiplicity of romantic comedies. I planned on half watching it and doing other stuff at the same time.

I should've expected that the ensemble cast would dictate that the characters that all live in Los Angeles (angels, cupid, anyone?) would cross paths. How could they not? I'm naive sometimes, so it wasn't something I expected, since there was as little information about the film available even in the promos--although I know they said it and I missed it. It was mainly just actors talking about Valentine's Day and the roles it plays in people's lives whether they want it there or not. Below is a list of the usual suspects.

The Romantic- Person who loves the day. Absorbs the day, lives the day, etc. Is the definition of cutesy and romantic.

The Skeptic- Individual who hates Valentine's Day. Doesn't consider it a "real" holiday. Resents its existence.

The One Who Forgot- "Oh noooooo, I'm in a relationship, and I completely spaced the same day every year and basically only holiday (minus President's Day, and Groundhog Day) that comes that month!" Certainly the only holiday that month you buy a card for (unless you're a groundhog, and I'm pretty sure they don't buy cards for each other since they're either blinded by or hiding from the spotlight).

Those are the main three I anticipated, and of course I knew First Time Love would be on there as well. Yet, despite trying to guess all the right ways I'd come to anticipate a movie like this, it still threw me curve balls. Not a lot. Not enough to convince a hater of romantic comedies to see it. However, for those who are on the fence about Valentine's Day, this movie was entertaining. Will I ever watch it again? Probably not. But it was more Love Actually than Licensed to Wed.

Conclusion
For what it's worth, I liked this film. I would recommend it to others. Redbox this one or borrow it from your local library. I think there was one most surprising anticipated get together that I saw in the trailers that just didn't happen. I won't say what it was, but what I will say is that this movie, not unlike the real holiday is what it is. The few parts of the movie I didn't see coming, were by far the best gifts the film had to offer. I wish it had been more unpredictable like that, but I still enjoyed it.