Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Directors: Lana and Andy Wachowski

Cast: Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne

It’s an interesting thing keeping the pulse of the film industry, you see directors rise to become almost rock stars and then you see them fall, to never be heard from again. They make that one good movie that takes over the world and then a god awful second and third film. For some reason, they can’t recapture whatever it is that audiences loved about their first film; the muse fades away and vanishes completely. I can now say that I have witnessed the downfall of the Wachowski’s, the duo of film directors who became box office sensations when they released the Matrix Trilogy onto the world. Their downward spiral started with Speed Racer (2008), a visually interesting film that tanked at the boxed office, because audiences considered it too cartoony and silly. They continued with Cloud Atlas (2012) a star studded sci-fi film that failed to connect with audiences, probably because it was too complex or convoluted. I’ve yet to watch it in its entirety. That one tanked as well, yet another film by the Wachowski’s that didn’t make its money back. And now, they’ve probably put the last nail on their coffin with Jupiter Ascending (2015), a gigantic mess of a film that didn’t make its money back either. I ask myself, how do these guys keep working when their films keep losing money? I’m thinking Hollywood’s patience with the Wachowski’s is running out, they ‘re probably thinking “third one you’re out dudes”. I don’t think we’ll be seeing a film from these guys in quite some time. Hollywood producers can be very unforgiving when it comes to losing their millions. 

I didn’t want to believe Jupiter Ascending was a huge mess of a film because usually, I’m the guy defending those films that everybody hates for seemingly no reason, like for example Waterworld (1995). Sadly, on this occasion I could clearly see why people didn’t connect with Jupiter Ascending.  It was clear as daylight. First off, it had a female protagonist and that usually spells certain doom for science fiction films. I would love to see more female laden science fiction films, sadly, the track record shows that female laden science fiction films equals death at the box office. It could be one of two things. My theory is not that these films fail because they have women as protagonists; they fail because when they decide to cast a female in a sci-fi film and market it as such, it’s usually a shitty film like Barb Wire (1996), Aeon Flux (2005), Catwoman (2004) or Elektra (2005). I cheer every time they put a female lead in a great science fiction film, say something like Charlize Theron in Mad Max:Fury Road (2015) or Noomi Rapace in Prometheus (2012). But both of these films are rare exceptions and both films were not marketed as having females as leads. Are sci-fi fans mostly chauvinist pigs that won’t go see a movie if they know a woman is the lead? Or are female leads cast in shitty films? Whatever the case may be, Jupiter Ascending was one of the times when they cast a female lead in crappy film. What matters to me with movies is not what gender is leading the film, but if the film is a good one, if it entertains, if it says something. Sadly, Jupiter Ascending failed on all these accounts.  

Where did Jupiter Ascending go wrong? Why was it a huge fail? One of the reasons is that this was The Wachowski’s trying to do their own version of Frank Herbert’s Dune, unfortunately, it feels like the Wachowski’s bit off more than they could chew, because Dune is not a gee-whiz, magical, feel good, happy ending type of novel. It’s deep, complex, political, religious and all encompassing; Frank Herbert’s sci-fi classic is the anti-Star Wars and by that I mean, not exactly commercial. It’s dense, it’s epic, yet it has heart, it’s passionate. What the Wachowski’s did was make a soulless commercial version of Dune. They’ve stolen so many elements from Frank Herbert’s Dune novels that it’s not even funny. The element of royal families feuding over planets, the idea that aristocrats use a drug that makes them more powerful, the idea of young people with wisdom beyond their years, these are all elements taken from the Dune novels, yet Herbert’s novels deliver all these ideas with gravitas, dignity and solemnity. Jupiter Ascending brings it down to b-movie territory, accompanied by cheesy dialog and terrible performances. While Dune keeps a solemn tone, Jupiter Ascending turns into an overdose of messy computer generated effects involving flying boots and incomprehensible laser battles. I guess the Wachowski’s thought they could pull off a story like Dune, but with an emphasis on action and a dose of ‘cool’ which doesn’t sound so bad. If only Jupiter Ascending didn’t have so many negative elements going for it, I might have enjoyed it.  

"Flash Gordon approaching" 

When I say the film is messy, I’m speaking of the special effects heavy action sequences, which have cool concepts and ideas (like the flying boots) but things move so fast on the screen that all we see is this huge blurry  mess, we can’t really appreciate what the hell is happening on screen. Sometimes the action happens from so far away, we can’t even appreciate who or what we are seeing. This is something that happened to me once before in a film called The MutantChronicles (2008), a film I totally despised. Well, Jupiter Ascending suffers from this same malady; the camera distances itself from the action so much that we can’t see what the hell is happening; mix that with lightning fast action and the end result is you won’t understand a thing happening on screen. The visuals are too fast and too cramped, at times I felt like I was watching a Jackson Pollock painting, look at all those pretty colors, but what the hell is happening? The effects work goes from good to terrible, for example, I loved the look of the spaceships, but I hated these terribly animated lizard men that kept reminding me of the Koopas from Super Mario Brothers: The Movie (1993). These lizard creatures where so obviously computer generated, there was no effort put into making these creatures look remotely realistic or alive. Also, for some reason the film looks very dark, it made it even harder to see anything. 

Jupiter Ascending is infested with ancient clichés that any knowledgeable filmmaker would try and avoid. For example, they decided to dedicate a whole portion of the film to the age old cliché of having the good guy stop the naïve girl from marrying the wrong guy, ugh. That was cool when I saw it in Flash Gordon (1980), with Flash trying to stop Emperor Ming from marrying Gale. But here it feels old hat because it’s been done to death in a million movies before, most recently in John Carter (2012). By the way, this whole thing with the wedding, it plays out exactly like Flash Gordon (1980), so much so that the whole scene felt like a copy paste. I could probably do a whole list of films that end with a wedding having to be stopped by the good guy, so whenever I see this particular cliché I just have to roll my eyes. Yet, here are the Wachowski’s, filmmakers who were once considered groundbreaking, doing a film that’s filled with every single cliché in the book. They even included the one where the bad guy falls to his death! Come on! Don’t believe this film is ridden with cliches? Okay, then count the times in which Channing Tatum rescues Mila Kunis at the last moment from certain doom.

Then we have the main character, Jupiter Jones played by Mila Kunis, in my opinion, a terrible miscast. She doesn’t come off as strong, or a possible leader, nothing like say Paul Muadib in Dune. My advice to The Wachowski’s is, if you’re going to have a female lead a film, at least make her a strong female. Isn’t she supposed to become the leader of a nation? Shouldn’t she at least have demonstrated some leadership skills or at the very least be a go getter? Instead, she comes off like some helpless damsel in distress, and that my friends is just so passé. Audiences want to see strong women who use their brains and smarts to escape their perils. Sadly, Mila Kunis’s character comes off as an airhead who hates her life, she hates honest work. She wants to stay home sleeping. And this is the person to whom incredible responsibilities will be bestowed upon? I guess they were going for a Cinderella type of deal, but with Cinderella, you felt like she deserved better, Mila Kunis’s character doesn’t come off that way. The filmmakers just didn’t demonstrate her changing or evolving, she doesn’t seem to learn to become responsible, her character doesn't go through a journey of growth, or what they call a "character arc". Things just happen. Boom, now she’s royalty, boom know she owns a planet. These magnanimous events don't seem to affect her much, she just takes for granted that she is now responsible for a whole planet. Bottom line, Mila Kunis was horribly miscast here, she falls in my opinion on the list of beautiful actresses who can’t act. She's taken her place right next to Megan Fox. The screenplay with its cheesy dialog, didn’t help much either. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a movie squander its cast in such badly written roles; did the directors not give a crap about solid performances? Was the script beyond repair? Whatever the case, the cast was wasted on this film. Not even recent Oscar winner Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything) can escape from this scripts awfulness.

So that’s it my friends, this was in my opinion one of the worst of the year. It’s an overdose of unintelligible CGI. Some reviewers refer to this one as a visual feast, but I don’t, I like to be able to appreciate and look at my visual feasts. Bottom line is this was a real disappointment coming from once groundbreaking filmmakers; there was no intent here to be innovative or interesting. Is there anything good I can say about this movie? Well, I liked those flying boots that’s for sure, but a movie cannot ride on cool flying boots alone. Oh and they cast legendary director Terry Gilliam in a cameo in which he plays a bureaucrat, which was awesome because as most film buffs know, Terry Gilliam’s films are always against bureaucracy! And like I said, the design work on the spaceships and buildings was interesting, but that’s about as good a compliment as I can give this movie. Did I mention this huge mess of a movie is over two hours long? I don’t mind long movies, just as long as they are good. To me Jupiter Ascending was lazy filmmaking, mired by bad writing and lack of originality. Sure it’s trying to be as epic as Dune, but it falls short because it feels like a stupefied version of Dune, which isn’t a good thing.

Rating: 2 out of 5 

Cool boots, bad movie. 

Ted (2012)

Title: Ted (2012)

Director: Seth McFarlane

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth McFarlane, Giovanni Ribisi, Sam J. Jones  

                                              

Review:

When Ted was first released in theaters, I totally ignored it because I thought it was going to be a stupid movie, a one trick pony about a Teddy bear doing all sorts of obscene stuff. And while it was that, it was also much more than that and I’m sorry I missed this super funny movie in theaters, I totally underestimated, my bad.  Still, I managed to laugh just as much in the comfort of my home and so I’m here to say that if like me you thought Ted was going to be a sucky movie and haven’t seen it yet, then give it a chance, you’re missing out on a truly funny movie.

Story is all about this kid named John who is a social outcast; his class mates make fun of him and he is lonely most of the time, which is why he ends up talking to his teddy bear. Like many kids at that age, when they got no friends, they make up one. One night, John wishes upon a star. His wish is that Teddy would be real, so he could talk to him like a real person. To his surprise, his wish comes true; his Teddy bear has come to life! Fast forward thirty years and John is now an adult and his Teddy bear still talks! In fact, John and Ted are best buds, they smoke weed, drink and party together. They are inseparable.  Problem is that John’s girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis) wants’ more out of their relationship and gives John and ultimatum: her or Ted.

The most relevant thing about Ted are the themes it plays with. Yeah we have a little Teddy smoking weed and cursing like a sailor, but at its core Ted is a movie about growing up, leaving behind childish comfort zones and facing responsibilities head on. Sometimes, people don’t want to face the often times overbearing responsibilities of adult hood. Some would just rather party all the time, like that stupid ass  Eddie Murphy song. To some, responsibilities loom heavily on the horizon, threatening to end all their fun in life, so they ignore them and party as much as they can. Problem is that, if you don’t face these responsibilities and ignore them instead, then you’re hiding away from growing up, you remain a child forever, hence the term “Peter Pan Syndrome” a term commonly used in the world of psychiatry for people who just don’t want to grow up. These are people who are afraid to face anything that threatens their comfort zone. They don’t want to hear their parents, girlfriend, or friends telling them to “do something with your life”. Basically, people like this shun away anything that questions or threatens anything in their comfort zone. People who suffer from this state of mind, shun the rest of the world because they don’t want to face it, they feel inadequate facing others who have moved on with their lives.

John, the character played by Mark Wahlberg isn’t so far down the rabbit whole, he’s at least managed to get himself a beautiful girlfriend played by Mila Kunis, and he wants to become an adult even though he is already 35 years old. He has fallen into that gutter where your life is essentially going nowhere. But his girl is willing to give him a chance, and John at least demonstrates a desire to stand up for himself and become a man; which of course includes one of the biggest responsibilities imposed by society on any human being: marriage! The ultimate compromise! Can John grow up, get married and become a man? That all depends on him leaving his child like things behind, his comfort zones which include smoking weed, drinking like a mad man and watching movies. The problem with these things is not that John does them, it’s that they are the only things he does with his life. It’s all about that delicate balancing act, work hard and then you can party hard. But it can’t all be party! John at least admits that he is 35 and “going nowhere”. So this is a movie about a man who has to stop wasting his life away. The problem is Ted the talking Teddy bear. This little talking Teddy represents that friend that doesn’t want to stop partying, the facilitator of mirth, the one that always calls you up to hang out and party like there’s no tomorrow. According to the film, this type of friend can be detrimental to a person, because they are the kind of friends who won’t let you move on with their lives, who will drag you down with them into their own neverland.  

   

But you have to admit; sometimes a good party has a strong pull! And in this film the party is not only filled with babes, drugs and alcohol, it also counts with the presence of Sam J. Jones, the actor who played Flash Gordon ("Quarter Back, New York Jets!") in Mike Hodges’s Flash Gordon (1980)! This was the coolest joke in the movie for me because I am a fan of that particular Flash Gordon film, it’s so campy, so flashy, so cheesy, but oh so very fun! Thing is that this Flash Gordon joke is a running gag throughout the whole freaking movie so I was laughing like a mad man every step of the way. Take it from me; if you’re a fan of that Flash Gordon film, with Queen singing “Flash! AaaAaaaaa he’ll save everyone one of us!” then you are in for a special treat with Ted.

"Look Flash, there's Tim Burton blast him away with your laser cannon!"

Ted can be categorized as a “guy’s film” which is basically the kind of movie a guy will want to play for all his buds in his man cave, drinking beers and eating pizza, though woman can also identify with the film since it is a woman that is pushing John to make all these changes in his life. The theme of commitment in a relationship is also one that women will find interesting. Though if they want to see the female verison of this film, then I urge them to check out Young Adult (2011) starring Charleze Theron which plays with similar themes but from a females point of view. Word of warning to those who can’t take a raunchy jokes, the film does indulge into its fare share of vulgar jokes that I’m sure many will find offensive, but again, Gene Simmons definition of success shines through:  “offend as many people as possible”.  This film might have had a Teddy Bear smoking weed, drinking beers and attempting to have sex (even though he has no penis!), yet still, the film went on to make more than 500 million dollars at the box office! So a ‘congratulations’ is in order for first time director Seth McFarlane. Making such a huge hit his first time out is always something good, let’s see if he can duplicate it with his next one, which no doubt we will be seeing sometime soon. I’m sure the success of Ted has Hollywood knocking on his door as I type this.

Rating:  5 out of 5 

The original 'Flash Jump'! 

The Book of Eli (2010)

Title: The Book of Eli (2010)

Directors: The Hughes Brothers

Cast: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon, Tom Waits

Review:

Most post-apocalyptic films play with the same themes and situations over and over again. In these films, most of the time humanity is fighting for gasoline, water or food. The main preoccupation in many of these films is to simply keep the human race going, to not let the light of humanity fade away. So many times, procreation plays a big part in these films. And most of the time, it’s humans vs. humans, humanity as their own greatest enemy. And I’m not saying The Book of Eli is the most original post-apocalyptic film ever, because it isn’t. It actually plays with many of the genre trappings we’ve come to expect from post-apocalyptic films. But fear not! The Book of Eli actually displays a glimmer of originality! To my understanding, this is the first post apocalyptic film to address issues of religion and belief as an integral part of its plot. That I remember, only one other post apocalyptic film does this (albeit in an extremely superficial manner) and that was Enzo G. Castelliari’s Italian flick The New Barbarians (1983), a film in which a religious sect called ‘The Templars’ is in a mission to wipe the earth clean of those they don’t consider worthy. The Book of Eli addresses religiosity a bit differently and in a more profound way. It’s nowhere near as cheesy or unintentionally funny as The New Barbarians was.

In The Book of Eli we meet a lonely nomad named Eli, he wanders the world all alone, same as the main characters in Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981) and The Postman (1997). On his treks across the lonely quiet earth, Eli stumbles upon the usual gang of crazies that a loner will encounter in these types of films, you know, rapists, cannibals, and all around undesirables. Finally, Eli comes upon a town that’s trying to re-emerge from the ashes of the post apocalyptic world, trying to re-establish civilization and regain some normalcy. The towns’ leader, a man called Carnegie says that he needs a book in order to give the people of his town some hope; this book is the bible! And it seems that Eli has the only copy in existence! Eli uses the bible in a benevolent manner, while Carnegie wants to use it to control and manipulate his people. He sees the bible as a weapon that can be used to manipulate the minds of the weak. Apparently, this is a world that’s so far down the apocalypse, that they’ve forgotten all about religion. Too bad for Carnegie that Eli, same as The Blues Brothers (1980) themselves were, is on a mission from God. Eli says that one day; God talked directly to him and told him where he needs to take the book. So it is Eli’s mission to take the bible to this safe heaven. He tries not to get distracted, but this is something that is getting increasingly difficult for Eli, especially when Carnegie gets a whiff of the bible! Then it’s a race to the finish, will Carnegie get Eli’s bible? Will Eli get the bible to its ultimate destination?

So of course, this being a film that addresses religion, I was immediately interested. I find religion fascinating in many ways, though I don’t subscribe to any belief system. In fact, to be honest, I had not seen this film yet precisely because it was about the bible. I don’t particularly enjoy films that are preachy or try to convince me of how important faith and religion are, because I myself am a staunch non-believer. Im one of those guys who believes that religion is one of the greatest evils in the world. But thanks to this post-apocalyptic themed thing I’m currently conducting here, well, I decided to finally give The Book of Eli a chance a good thing because I actually found myself enjoying it. It reminded me of Alex Proya’s Knowing (2009) in the sense that it’s not exactly preachy. I mean you can either believe Eli was protected by God; or not. You could choose to believe he just really believes in the bible, and it's all in his head, or that God is actually protecting the guy. In the film, Eli represents the true believer; the guy who believes God can and does talk to him; that every word in the bible is worth following to the letter. Yet Eli is a mild mannered humble man; the quintessential good soul who looks forward to doing more for others than he does for himself. I guess he represents that balanced Christian who doesn’t crossover to the dark waters of fanaticism. Carnegie on the other hand represents that evil soul that chooses to use faith in an evil manner like the Jim Jones’ or David Korechs’ of our modern world. The guy who wants to manipulate and benefit from the weak minded. In other words: evil personified. At the same time, the film wisely uses the villain to state many truths. This is something that many films have done in the past and usually happens when a message or a theme is extremely controversial. You get the crazy guy to say it. Or the villain, but that crazy guy kind of makes sense sometimes don’t he?

Aside from its interesting exploration of religion, the film does have a fault or two. I think it needed just a bit more action to it. As it is, this is not a very exciting film, which is really the films only real fault. It does have its action scenes, but they are few. It was cool to see Denzel kicking ass, he actually trained a lot for this role, he did all the fighting sequences himself. But at heart, this is more of the kind of film that wants to explore its themes, and so we get characters having these conversations that explore the ideas of God and faith. The film wants us to believe that God is protecting Eli through out his journey; that the bible is the greatest book ever written, when in reality, it’s a very convoluted book with many, many contradictions. And don’t get me started on the things that don’t make sense about it. But on this film God makes it a priority to spread this book around so the confusion can start all over again! Why not write a new book through Eli who obviously functions as something of a prophet in the film? But no, according to the film, God decides to give the same old bible, with all it’s confusion to the world all over again. The way I saw it, the film states that faith is something that can help us move along through life, to get through it in a less painful manner; with a bit of hope along the way. In one moment of the film Solara, the female character that ends up following Eli around asks him “How do you know that you’re walking in the right direction?” and Eli replies: “I walk by faith, not by sight. It means you know something, even if you don’t know something. It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s faith, it’s faith. It’s the flower of light in the field of the darkness that’s giving me the strength to carry on, you understand?” I prefer not to go through life lying to myself. Reality is best for me, it keeps me grounded in something tangible, real. My thoughts don’t drift away to some fantasy land just so I can keep my cool, like some kind of drug to cool me off from the craziness in the world. I find my cool by looking for solutions to my problems, and if I can’t change them, then I adapt to them and keep on moving. But that’s just me, if religion and the bible works for you, coolio my friends!

I found it interesting how Eli says that the voice he heard came from inside of him because I’m sure this is what happens with most people who say they’ve heard the voice of God. They want to believe so much, that they end up hearing voices in their heads, in their dreams. I have faith of a different manner; I choose to believe that humanity will eventually evolve, improve and pull itself out of the darkness if we only leave greed behind and learn from our mistakes. I think we can rely only on ourselves to do what we gotta do in the world,  I believe in myself and the idea that I can achieve my goals in life if I put my mind and strength to it. Maybe that’s wishful thinking, but then again, so is faith in invisible beings we never hear or see. Still, The Book of Eli was an enjoyable post apocalyptic film. It has A-list actors, two directors who have proven themselves to be good in the past (The Hughes Brothers) and who by the way turned in a great looking film and finally, the film had a decent budget which is a rare thing in the world of post apocalyptic films. In other words, an enjoyable flick that explores faith, if you don't mind the preachy side, then you should have yourself a fine time.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Black Swan (2010)

Title: Black Swan (2010)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis

Review:

Darren Aronofsky has this incredible ability to make films that play with premises that I would normally not care about. Yet somehow, the way he weaves his tale completely pulls me, and before I know it, voila! I’m hooked! This happened to me with Aronofsky’s The Wrestler (2008). When I first heard that Aronofsky was making a movie that took place in the world of wrestling, at first I was turned off by the idea. I was like what? I freaking hate wrestling! It’s so fake! Yet Aronofsky managed to pull me in with this incredibly personal and introspective story about an aging ex-wrestler trying to do what he loves, trying to recapture his glory days. And there I was, watching a movie about wrestling. And I was completely moved by its honesty and its emotion. Now here comes Black Swan, a film about a ballet dancer. And it happened again! I was like: what? Ballet? Seriously? Still, I’ve come to entirely trust Aronofsky as a director. He has never disappointed me with his films. Ever! Was Black Swan going to be his first one? Or would he wow us again with another amazing film?

Black Swan tells the story of a New York City ballet dancer named Nina (Portman) who really wants to make it. Her dream is to play the Swan Queen in a play called Swan Lake. She tries her best to impress the director of the play (Vincent Cassel) so that she will get her chance. Much to her surprise she is actually chosen! Finally, her dreams are coming true! Now she has to learn to deal with the pressures that come with participating in such a prestigious play. In the play, she has to perform the role of two characters at the same time, the White Swan and the Black Swan. One is innocent, the other more sensual and daring, edgy. The director of the play doesn’t think Portman has enough of an edge to play the Black Swan, so he is constantly pushing her to “let go” to “live” to let the dark side of her soul emerge and run wild. This is Portman’s struggle in the film; should she continue trying her best to be the good girl her mother wants her to be? Or should she live her life the way she wants to live it? Which side will win the battle?

Once again, Aronofsky succeeds in blowing me away. Black Swan, in my opinion is another stunning work of art in Aronofsky’s repertoire. In many ways, it’s similar to The Wrestler. They are both films about the working class, struggling to do what they love. They are both films about someone loving what they do so much, that they’d rather die doing it, then waste their lives doing something else. And they are both very personal stories. On both films, we follow a character closely, to the most intimate moments in their lives. The camera plays the role of the ultimate voyeur, always looming on top of the actors face, or behind them, following their every move. The similarities between both films do not end there. Originally, what Aronofsky wanted to make was one film in which a Wrestler falls for a Ballet dancer. Ultimately, The Wrestler ended up falling in love with a whore (played by Marisa Tomei) and Aronofsky separated that story into two films deciding that it would all have been too much for one movie. So in many ways, Black Swan can be seen as a companion piece to The Wrestler.

Aronofsky once again uses that documentary style that he used in The Wrestler, where the handheld camera is active all the time, following characters around. This story focuses mainly on Nataly Portman’s character, her struggles in trying to make it professionally. This is a girl who loves dancing and wants nothing more then to really make it, she wants to get a taste of greatness, of being recognized and appreciated. What I really loved about it though was that she also has to struggle with all these things that get in her way. The over protective mother, the rivalries with other dancers and her own psychological woes. It all builds up to that climactic moment when she finally achieves her goal, and you are right there with her when she makes it, you kind of get a taste of that greatness yourself. In this way the film was similar to many of Aronofsky’s other films, where events start to build momentum, slowly rising, in a crescendo, until by the films last frames we reach this amazing finale.

The film addresses themes that I wasn’t expecting. Like for example, the over protective mother who doesn’t let her daughter live her life and be herself. And this is really where the film caught me off guard because I thought it was only going to be about the struggles of a ballerina trying to make it, about following her dreams and all that. And it does address these themes, but as it turns out, the film explores a whole other group of themes as well. This is really the story of a sexually repressed girl who is so uptight, so wound up, and so conservative that she hasn’t really lived her life. Everyone keeps telling her to “relax and live a little”. So this is a story about someone learning to let go of all these rules that she lives by and learning to just have a little fun. She is the kind of girl who says she isn’t a virgin, but her shyness when it comes to talking about sex let’s us know otherwise. What I loved most about the movie was how Aronofsky compares the duality between the Black and White Swans in the play with the battle in the ballerinas’ life between being the good girl or the bad girl. That internal struggle is externalized in the play with both of the swans representing innocence and lust. Will she ever transform into who she’s really supposed to be?

The film is very dark, and at times it felt as if I was watching a Roman Polanski film. I make this comparison because like many Polanski films, Black Swan stars a female as the central character and this female is paranoid and unstable psychologically. Aronofsky plays with the notions of Natalie Portman’s character having a double, a doppelganger, so theres always that paranoia of “is someone watching me?” Aronofksy is always questioning the main characters mental state. I loved how he used mirrors on the film to illustrate her mental instability. And though it does feel like Polanskis The Tenant (1976) or Repulsion (1965) at times, it’s also very much a Darren Aronofsky film. I especially noticed this by the way he shot everything documentary style, and also because of how the film works itself up in a crescendo, by the end of the film both music and images have completely taken over. Even dialog falls into second place in the end. The direction, the shots, the editing is flawless.

By the way, I was not at all aware of it, but this “independent” film that comes to us from Fox Searchlight Pictures (20th Century Fox’s indie minded films division) was such a huge event! Well, at least here in Puerto Rico people are going to see this movie by the droves! I had not seen a line like that one at the art house theater in a loooong time! I was trying to pinpoint exactly what it was that was attracting so many people to the cinema to see Black Swan. Could it be the awesome poster? Natalie Portman? Darren Aronofsky as a director? Then it dawned on me, people are coming in droves to see this movie because they have heard that Portman pleasures herself and has oral sex with another woman in it. I guess that’s the main draw for most people. But to those that are going to see it for that reason alone, I can say this: you might be going to see Portman pleasure herself, but you will also be seeing another diamond in Darren Aronofsky’s directorial career. I have to wonder, what’s next for this amazing director?

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

Vincent Casell and Aronofsky talking out a scene