Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Her Vs. Robot and Frank

Her2013Poster.jpg    VS  
HER VS. ROBOT AND FRANK:  After watching Her I really wanted to compare it against Robot and Frank, a movie currently on Netflix.  Both dealt with similar ideas regarding humans and their interactions with artificial intelligence.  One deals with it in the form of an operating system and one with a robot.  Which one is more effective in delivering the point of this not-so-distant future of human/ AI relationships?

HER:  2013: SCI FI DRAMA: ++:  Her received many accolades and it certainly deserves it.  It's an excellent film and deserves to be on most must-see movie lists.  Spike Jonze carefully warns us against something that he feels is troublesome, but in a subtle and clever way; a love story.  The reason it's so effective is that it doesn't shy away from imposing the truth that humans are becoming increasingly dependent, if not utterly connected to, their electronic devices. Be it a tablet, laptop, or cell phone, it is almost impossible to go the day without seeing 90% of the population fixated on one.

The internet and the modernization of electronic devices have enabled us to be sufficiently enthralled in a virtual world.  People are becoming fixated on their avatars in World of Warcraft (I played Everquest way too much), or making Sims (I myself spent many hours until the game "stopped" because the world was too complicated), or re-inventing themselves on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr.  Why?  Were people in the 70s and 80s living in the dark ages?  Were they completely devoid of entertainment?  How could they have lived?  These questions are now prevalent to younger generations, but they wouldn't have been to those in earlier decades.  They were placated with their CB radios, CRT monitors, and land-lines.   Why wouldn't they have been?  There was nothing else...yet

From telegraph, to radio, to television, to computers, to internet, to artificial intelligence, this progression has been steadily surging forward through the decades.  It actually seems like every decade there is a huge leap.


It begins..

It's not necessarily a bad thing to have a game or a distraction to occupy yourself during a commute, but when everyone is literally fixated on a hand held device it's a little unnerving.  Next time try to go out and notice this.  Really try.  OR try to put YOURs down. How long can you do this?  Can you?  You could, but you would laugh and say, "That was silly, let's not do that again..<clicks FACEBOOK>"


Why can't she be more like Samantha?

Either way, this movie drills this theme home.  Although he initially questions his new role with Samantha, Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with the operating system almost immediately.  In Robot and Frank it's a little different, but it has the same outcome.  Feelings for an inanimate object or program are manifested.  Why?  Is it because they don't object?  Not really, because as I will indicate, the Robot in Robot and Frank actually objects and argues with Frank.  Maybe it's because we can mold them.  We have to "teach" them how to think and that makes us feel good.  It makes us feel like gods in a way. This is very addictive..


Samantha goes where I WANT dammit!

What if our favorite electronic device or the internet said "NO", I don't want to do that.  OR, "I don't feel like going to the beach because the sand get's everywhere!"  We would have to adapt and make a compromise.  Even in Robot and Frank, the robot can be coerced into doing what Frank ultimately wants, even though it's against the law.  That would defeat the purpose.  We all hate when our devices run out of power.  IF they could be on all the time, I'm sure we would start to all lose a lot of sleep.  As it is, there is a phenomenon of people sleeping while texting.  This is scary.  It's not good.


Partners in Crime

Both movies make this point in a way.  Her leaves you understanding that he should have dealt with a human.  This is especially true during the scene with the surrogate.  He doesn't like  that because the elements that he wanted to avoid, such as human interaction and possible rejection (i.e blind date with Olivia Wilde), were re inserted.  Even though the surrogate could act interested, humans can pick up on body language very easily.  With computers and AI, there is no grey area. OR it was that he didn't want to taint the image of Samantha, but I think it's the first issue.  In Robot and Frank this theme is developed, but it takes a different route.  Let's take a look...

ROBOT AND FRANK: 2012: SCI FI DRAMA: ++:  The robot in this movie comes programmed with a holographic memory which cannot be partially deleted so it's all or nothing.  This is of critical importance because it has huge ramifications in the end.  


Robot can do chores!!

The Robot, who remains unnamed (an interesting distinction between the two movies), is purchased by a son who wants to assist his father who is becoming confused and possibly suffering from dementia due to lack of structure in his life.  The father, played very well by Frank Langella, initially refuses the Robot's assistance and shuns it.  It's not until Robot accidentally aids him in one of his favorite past times, theft, that Frank becomes interested.  Suddenly, Robot is useful.  Suddenly Frank found his "god" moment with the AI.


Let's see how you pick this lock...

Robot is not programmed against theft, but knows it's inherently illegal and therefore not a good "activity" for Frank.  He took the object Frank initially tried to take, because he thought Frank had forgotten it in the store. 

Robot even agrees to learning new skills like lock picking and walking quietly.  In addition, he adds a fictitious destruction sequence if anyone "molests" him or bothers him.  These parts of the movie are hilarious.  Don't tough Robot!!  Robot doesn't object to him "casing" a bigger plan to steal millions of dollars worth of jewelry because it is "engaging" Frank and he seems interested in something, as opposed to being depressed. 

Where Frank was once completely detached and forgetful, now he is "displaying great care" in his plan and showing vigor.  He has to if Robot is going to allow him to carry it through and help him.  The Robot is going to make sure that he has an airtight plan because he is a very "Strict Judge!"


Who's the boss here??

Ultimately, Frank spends many hours hatching a perfect plan which Robot is impressed by, but it's not until Frank says he will eat more fiber that Robot agrees.  This was both funny and pragmatic. Frank has the god moment where he controls the robot.  He likes that.  

Overall, Her delivered a more artistically sound movie but I thought watching Robot and Frank was more enjoyable.  While I felt sad for Theodore, I laughed with Frank and his robot.  There were some really funny scenes in this movie.  The getaway in the car when the robot jumps in was excellent, and when the robot wears his cat burglar outfit was hilarious.  The cinematography in Her should be studied carefully, because it was groundbreaking.  I felt that should be handled in another rating.  This one was more about the thematic elements and how they were delivered and my personal opinion.  It was very close and I welcome comments; this isn't really a competition as it is a juxtaposition..  Her 90 % Robot and Frank 92%


Not just a blender..

Unfortunately, the ending is the same in both movies.  Both main characters are left empty as a result of their interactions but during the process of their interaction, they were fulfilled.  Ultimately is this different from ending a real relationship?  Why?  I think it has to do with the syntax, which I will quote from the movie PI.  


Feelings are to humans as syntax is to artificial intelligence?

Monday, February 3, 2014

The Marked One: Paranormal or just Normal?

Paranormal Activity - The Marked Ones 2014 poster.jpg
THE MARKED ONES: --: 2013: HRR:  The new Paranormal  didn't live up to the original, but really, at this point, how could it?  The first one broke all sort of records for an independent movie and really set the whole "found footage" stage on it's head.

So is there a reason to watch this?  Well, it depends how much time you have.  It is a little bit of a time sink, but the mythology and some of the effects are decent.  Overall, it had many of the elements that made the original a hit, but fell short on many of the others.


Where is this scene in a bodega?

The primary thing that this movie fell short on was the fact that the focus of the fright was a tangible figure, an adolescent kid.  In the previous movie(s), it was a being or entity.  This made it quite the bit more frightening.  I'm going to be a lot more scared of an evil entity than a skateboarding kid.  That in itself, makes the move not as good as the previous ones.  Plus the way in which the scares were delivered, were a little more obvious.  


Why be afraid of this kid?


I would be more afraid of this, as was the case in the first one!

Again, there was a nice buildup, a nice backdrop, and overall a great discovery scene, but it was just a let down because it was a possessed kid instead of a being or "ghost".  

There was a cultural element in the movie which was entertaining and made it unique, plus the found footage element did lend to it's supposed reality, but overall it just didn't deliver.  The original movie had some people in it as "experts" that gave it a bit more of a real feel and perhaps this missed that.  


There were some scares, but few and far between...

I wanted to like this movie, I just couldn't give it my all out endorsement.  Let's face it, it's the 6th one.  Give it a break.  If you want a scare and LOVE the Paranormal movies, this one won't disappoint.  Just based on it's own merit, it does fall short.::::65%

I Frankenstein..Breathe Life Into this Old Story?

I Frankenstein Poster.jpg
I FRANKENSTEIN: -+: 2014: ACT:  So if you combine Underworld, Resident Evil and some other current movies to the time traveled tale of Frankenstein, does it make for a better story?

OK, so this Frankenstein doesn't wear a purple blazer and isn't intellectually challenged, but that didn't stop the previous Frankenstein, who was no other than Robert Di Nero.  Please don't remind me.  Why?   He was just not right.  I pictured him saying lines from The Godfather, not Frankenstein.   That movie was an abomination.  Was this one?  


Argh, this Frankenstein was disgusting..."Yhea Suuure!"

I was somewhat relieved when they made this Frankenstein less of a monster and more of a character that you might actually want to watch.  I understand, he's a monster, which is a point that Aaron Eckhart makes abundantly known.  It's just that he doesn't need to be an atrocious fiend of a thing.  This movie got it right and made it aesthetically pleasing to the eye, which is a welcome change to the treatment.  The effects were awesome.


Not eye candy, but better than hideous Robert De Niro.

The Robert Di Nero character just seemed lost, hopeless, and ridiculously pathetic.  Yes, he was strong, we get that, but not the part that Shelly envisioned.  After all, he only wanted a girlfriend..So why watch this movie?



Don't believe everything you hear.  This movie was literally trashed by everyone.  Why?  Well, maybe they didn't pay the right people or maybe this movie wasn't meant to be made, i.e. if Robert Di Nero played it then why bother?  

Well this movie has a lot to say for itself and good for it!  Sometimes when a movie get's horrifically trashed by Rotten Green Crap holes, I want to see it just to see why?  Why trash a movie so badly? Surely you have some WoW game to play or something?  Maybe paint some figurines?  Why 'you mad bro?

The effects in this movie were pretty good, nothing spectacular, but I didn't expect them.  Plus the addition of a whole other enemy in the gargoyles was a welcomed difference in the story.  Nice way to keep it fresh.


The gargoyles were sick!  Love the killing effects!

The fighting sequences were on par of killer martial arts movies, so again, why destroy this movie?  The action and effects were fine, borderline awesome.  The story even had merit.  I think that this is a movie that exposes how corrupt movie rating is currently. It's totally obvious.  This movie didn't deserve a 3/10 from Rotten Crap Tomatoes.  Seriously, STFU.

LEARN HOW TO RANK A MOVIE!


There was even some nice chemistry!

Put the guy as Two Face in Batman  and make him Frankenstein, plug in some great action, some love interplay, and a decent plot, and you trash it?  Well, I guess I'm just a fan boy.  I welcome some sequels to this one.  I wouldn't have had an issue sitting through this.  Ganster Squad  on the other hand, wow, that sucked.  Plus Rotten gave that a 32%.  What are they thinking?  :::73%

Sunday, February 2, 2014

An American Hustle

Five people, three men, two women, dressed in '70s clothes, fading into a black background
AMERICAN HUSTLE:+++: 2013: DRM:  Ok, so this is the first movie to get three +++ denoting that it is JAM packed full of notable actors and actresses.  Jennifer Lawrence probably stands out and she should.  She shows, again, just how versatile she can be.  She keeps taking these roles and nailing them.  Just stay away Jack Nicholson, she already pushed you away...




Seriously though, this movie had an excellent cast!


A Star Studded Cast

In addition, Bradley Cooper and Christian Bale round out the crew. The movie itself was an interesting, often times over-complicated view of the 70s,.  I watched it after hearing many rave reviews about it but I was skeptical.  I feared that this movie would be plagued by the ever popular, "too long" syndrome.  Don't get me wrong, it was afflicted, but some how or another, it kept you watching.  Even if you had to take a few breaks in between.


Can we say, bathroom break??

The character development was on the par of over kill.  You basically knew everything that you wanted to know about each character and more just for measure.  This was awesome, finally someone is listening!  There wasn't a moment when you questioned what motivation characters had in their delivery. Well done on that part, but could it have been more efficient?  At times you think so, but then the movie delivers another one of it's many side twists.  I call them side twists because they are so many intertwined in the movie and together, they comprise the last big one..


What's going to happen now, who the heck knows?

It's not like some of the characters are so ridiculous that they do such outlandish stunts like ridicule themselves completely just for the sake of making a point.. oh what, they do that.  See below:


Yes that is "Face" from the A TEAM in curlers....

I would be completely remiss if I didn't spend a moment on Jennifer Lawrence and her outrageous performance which was nothing short of impressive.  OK, her accent tinged a few times, but overall, it was on point and her demeanor was spot on.  She is really quite talented and no accolades that were brought her way were unbecoming.  She is the real deal.  A rated actress there are none better right now.  Period.


JL can do no wrong apparently..


Burn burn burn..

Did I like the movie?  Sure, I liked it.  It's going to win Academy Awards and Oscars.  Christian Bale and Cooper were surprisingly refreshing and have shown themselves to be versatile actors.  The politician who was Hawekeye in Avengers was decent, nothing special.  I didn't like him in the role personally.  

I thought the most redeeming part of the movie were Christian Bales relationships with his wife and his mistress.  This was the part of the movie that really demonstrated excellent story telling.  Above all else this movie is a :::86%