kellym40 film review

Weighing in on ’21 Grams’

Rating 4/5

The film is an older film released in 2004 from Focus Features. It runs about two hours and five minutes. Mexican film director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, most notably directing last year’s Oscar-winning film “Birdman” with Michael Keaton, takes Guillermo Arriaga’s script and tells a beautiful story with heart and style. Inarritu does so with flashbacks weaving the characters’ lives together in a climactic end. You can view the trailer below.

21 Grams

The story involves Paul Rivers (Sean Penn), who is in need of a new heart, his wife Mary Rivers (Charlotte Gainsbourg), Cristina Peck (Naomi Watts), a former drug addict and housewife, Jack Jordan (Benicio Del Toro), an ex-con who has found Jesus, and Marianne Jordan (Melissa Leo), Jack’s wife.

After a tragic accident, these lives become intertwined, building up to the climax and tells each character’s story through unique non-linear storytelling. Much like “Memento” before, flashbacks and flash forwards tell the story, which honestly, I thought was a little distracting at first but I quickly bought into the convention and let the characters and story unfold before me.

The title of the film comes from a line from Paul as he says, “They say we lose 21 grams at the exact moment of death … How much do we gain?”

I believe that line sums up the context of the film as the characters struggle with their own lives and come to terms with the life changing moment that affects all of them in the film. The story develops to hint upon what we, as people, do in our own life that can impact others. Inarritu stated that he believes all people are connected in some way. He goes on to say how one person’s actions affect another and how that person’s actions affect another and so on and so on. It is a little mind boggling to think that we are connected in some way. That our actions seem to and can have a ripple effect upon the world. I guess it can happen. And it certainly happens in this film.

Penn gives a remarkable performance as in “I Am Sam” and “Mystic River.” Through the story, he became a lost soul who was desperately trying to hang on but thought there was only one way out. Watts was believable as a former drug addict dealing with her past demons and coming to terms with her family’s death. Del Toro gives a gripping performance as a born-again Christian who is trying to find his way before the tragic event that alters the characters’ lives. Gainsbourg and Leo give heartfelt performances, as Paul and Jack’s wives respectively, and show how their lives are together changed over the course of events in the story.

21 Grams

It is a classic piece of storytelling that brings together the emotional events in the story in a way that a traditional linear structure would not. It allows the viewer to follow the characters on the emotional ride throughout the developing story and by the end the audience can be in the moment with the characters.

The film was nominated through several American and International organizations and took home 34 awards.

kellym40 film review

‘Terminator’ franchise gets a reboot, but does not compute

Rating 2.5/5

I read an article about two years ago that claimed there was talk about making a fifth installment in the sci-fi franchise. The article didn’t state at the time if this was a reboot (another sequel) or a remake of the first James Cameron directed classic. I posted an article about it at the time stating I didn’t see a need for another sequel, as “Rise of the Machines” and “Salvation” didn’t really deliver for me. And I didn’t think the original could be improved upon in any great way.

Terminator-Genisys

After viewing ‘Genisys’ my theories were correct, and there didn’t seem to be a need for this fifth installment. Don’t get me wrong. I thought it had somewhat of an interesting premise and it played with alternate timelines and took time travel to a different level (and not necessarily a good one). View the trailer below.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1249751321//embed?autoplay=false&width=480“>Terminator: Genisys

It begins with a narration of how the world was before Judgment Day and how it is after. This leads to a battle where the resistance attacks Skynet on the night Skynet sends back the T-800 (or Cyberdyne Systems model number 101…aka Arnold Schwarzenegger) to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor in an attempt to prohibit John Connor, the leader of the resistance, from being born. A trusted soldier and friend to John, Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) volunteers to go back to protect her. This is where it gets a little convoluted and confusing. Without bogging you down with all the time travel and alternate timelines, I’ll just say it didn’t quite work for me. It left me with more questions than answers. And, needless to say they left the film open for possible sequels, with an end of credits scene (much like Marvel has done with their films). And I don’t know how you can really top the near masterpieces that were ‘The Terminator’ and ‘Terminator 2: Judgment Day.’

Some of the acting was decent but could have been better. Schwarzenegger was decent and delivered some of his deadpan funny lines and showed he can still create some action. I thought Courtney delivered a somewhat stiff portrayal of Kyle Reese. It was much different than the great performance Michael Biehn portrayed in 1984. Emilia Clarke played the young Sarah Connor in 1984 and played it with some strength. John Connor was portrayed by Jason Clarke and seemed to shine in the role (considering there was only one other adult John Connor played in the franchise – Christian Bale).

The film moved along at a decent pace for the action and the action, fights and chase sequences provided entertainment and some excitement. One chase/action sequence involved a speeding bus and then flipping said bus to where it crashes and ends up dangling from a bridge. The sequence was thrilling to an extent, but still lacked that Cameron-esque excitement. Then there was an insane helicopter chase through the sky and city of San Francisco. While it had its moments, it again lacked some of the action that Cameron delivered.

I don’t feel the film delivered a reason for its existence. It seemed at times they were almost disregarding the first two films and then at the same time referencing the first classic with recreations of the some of the most iconic moments and timeline from the first ‘Terminator.’

The film was released by Paramount and directed by Alan Taylor, who most recently directed the second ‘Thor’ film from Marvel. Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier wrote the script based on the characters created by Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd. It runs 126 minutes and is rated PG-13.

kellym40 General

A Center of Controversy

In recent weeks, turmoil and controversy have once again reared its ugly head due to the Charleston shootings in South Carolina. It seems it is something else to put the fear and hatred in people and fuel a seemingly never ending cycle of hate and bigotry.

Conf. battle flag

Things have come so far as to removing “The Dukes of Hazzard” from television to petitioning to remove the flag from the capitol in South Carolina.

The current flag in controversy was the fourth flag the Confederate Army had under Robert E. Lee. When the Civil War began, a flag was made to represent Southern pride and tradition. As the war went on and slavery became an issue, although not the original reason the Southern states wanted to secede, the flag went on to symbolize the seceding states in addition to pride.

All one really has to do is read some history. From what I gather, that was the original intent for the flag. But only because someone began spouting off that it represented slavery and oppression did it become an issue. I believe what hurt the flag’s meaning was supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan used the battle flag as a symbol, and with other believing made the flag into a symbol of hate.

Learn a little more about the history and political background surrounding the Confederate Flag: Political History of the Flag

We (the American people) need to not follow blindly into another person’s view simply because of the person’s persona or popularity. Do your own research and open your eyes to different things. Because I believe that if all of the haters and narrow-minded people out there would choose to see the flag as it was supposedly intended, then we all could get along that much easier. Then, there wouldn’t be a need for a division between hate and love. Everyone has their beliefs and ideas and everyone should learn to live and grow.

Learn more about the Confederate Flag here: Confederate Flag Myths

As FDR said in 1932, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” If something, or someone, is different than us I don’t believe there is any reason to “fear” that person. It’s mostly because we don’t fully understand the other person. If all of those people against the Confederate Flag, could get past the hate and see it as something good then maybe we can all live in peace and harmony.

kellym40 General

Changing Times

Yesterday the Supreme Court voted same-sex marriage legal across the country. From what I’ve heard, it appears there was thunderous applause and an outcry of support for the decision. However, there are still those that seem to think this was a bad decision and it undermines the Constitution.

You can read a story about it below.

Same-Sex Marriage Legal

I get why there are divided people in the country over the issue. But I really don’t see what the big problem is. And I think that’s the reason why there is such a divide. Many people are taking their own beliefs, what they have been taught and using it as ammunition to fuel a fire to create more of a problem than there should be.

Let’s face it. There are many kinds of people in this world from all walks of life. Many have differing beliefs and values from one another. I can’t believe that several hundred years have passed in this country and there is still bigotry and hatred for things, or people for that matter, that may be different than the “norm.” It really pains me to see people treated differently because of their religion, beliefs, or sexual preference. Whether their sexual preference is a choice or some chemical imbalance in their brain, it makes no difference to me. Because what I see is a person. A person who wants to live. A person who wants to be loved and to love. A person who wants to work and live life to the fullest and not be tormented or ridiculed for the clothes the person wears, or their beliefs or faith, or the color of his or her skin, or even the person’s sexual preference. Which, I would venture to guess, are basically the same things that pretty much every one else in the country wants.

Let’s look at it this way. The Constitution was written more than 200 years ago. This is no longer the 18th century. Let’s pick up our heads and move into the 21st century people. Let’s stop taking everything written in the U. S. Constitution at face value. Times have changed. Things have changed. Let Congress get their heads out of their asses and adapt the Constitution for the 21st century and beyond.

And that goes for EVERYONE in the U. S. If you don’t like something or someone because of his or her beliefs or sexual preference or whatever, then fine. Just keep your mouth shut and keep walking. Because that person has a right to live just as you do. We are all HUMANS. Let’s all live as civilized beings and maybe, just maybe, we can make ourselves and this country stronger.

kellym40 film review

Jurassic World – A Return to an Original Vision

Rating 4/5

With the release of “Jurassic World,” the fourth installment in the franchise, the story takes us on an adventure at a place that was seemingly originally envisioned by John Hammond, played by the late Richard Attenborough. Released by Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, with direction by Colin Trevorrow, the film runs just over two hours and is perfect for some summer blockbuster action. The film is executive produced by Steven Spielberg, the man who brought us the first “Jurassic Park” in 1993. Watch the new trailer below.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1176612889//embed?autoplay=false&width=480

Going into the film, I was thinking, “Great, another one!” I thought shouldn’t they have learned something from the previous films? That is, not to play “God.” But I guess there are still greedy people, corporations and business that get in the way of good judgment. And I guess without those people, there would not be a movie for audiences to see.

That is part of the story in “Jurassic World.” BD Wong plays Dr. Wu, the only returning character from the original (if you don’t count the T-Rex). Wu and his team of geneticists have created a new hybrid dinosaur at the request of corporate CEO Simon Misrani, played by Irrfan Khan. However, he did not necessarily want what was produced. In order to keep the public’s interest, they wanted to create bigger, better and scarier. We learn Wu and his team have created a mixture of the T-Rex and some other animals and another secret mix of something else, (later we find out what that secret is). After the introduction of two parents sending their kids (Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins) off for a weekend to see their aunt, who is also the operator of the park on Isla Nublar, Claire Dearing, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, we see the park in all its full functioning theme park glory, from hotels to gift shops to large exhibits and a “petting zoo” with baby dinosaurs. Soon after, we also meet the hero of the story, Owen Grady, played by Chris Pratt, who has become something like the latest new action hero, and he doesn’t disappoint in this. Grady is ex-military and is now an animal behaviorist who has “trained” a group of velociraptors. Pratt’s character is countered by a military contractor (Vincent D’Onofrio) who plans on using the raptors as weapons. A “containment anomaly” occurs and thus the action and story develop.

The film has included scenes that remind us of the original “park,” and even a showdown with the T-Rex and the new Indominus Rex. The film has no hesitation to get started and continues until the climax and resolution. We not only see Howard as a no nonsense park operator but as a thriving action heroine who is not afraid to get a little dirty and run in some hectic action sequences…IN HEELS. All of the acting was done to near perfection within the world of the film. Writer/Director Trevorrow, along with Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver and Derek Connolly have delivered a piece that is fun, exciting, and worthy of a summer blockbuster. It has already grossed more than 400 million dollars in the two weeks it has been out. Not bad for a film that cost about 150 million to make.

I thought this film captured the essence and magic of the original “Park” with all the acting, editing, direction and special effects. Everything that went in to making this film made it a true “Jurassic World.”

kellym40 film review

The Play Within a Play: “Shakespeare in Love” film review

Rating 5/5

A film that made its United States nationwide release in 1999 went on to win numerous awards, including Oscars for best picture, best actress, best supporting actress, best writing, and best directing, among others used a useful dramatic strategy to convey the story.

The film was “Shakespeare in Love” and starred Joseph Fiennes as the bard and Gwyneth Paltrow as Viola De Lesseps, the love interest and muse for Shakespeare for the film.

For those who haven’t seen the film, there be some spoilers that follow.

The film’s opening uses two short bits to establish the time and place of the story, which is in the Elizabethan age of theater in England. The second bit provides comedy and starts the action of the film. Philip Henslowe, played magnificently by Geoffrey Rush, is a theater owner who has not paid his bills and is being tortured by Hugh Fennyman, (Tom Wilkinson) a producer and businessman.

The first scene after these bits introduces Shakespeare. Henslowe requests Will (Shakespeare) write a new play for his theater company. However, a problem is introduced in this scene as we, the audience, discover that Shakespeare has lost his gift of writing, a sort of “writer’s block.” This sets the action in motion. Will must come up with a new play to perform or it will be curtains for Henslowe’s company.

A bit that follows reveals Viola De Lesseps. She has a strong love for the theater. This is important to the story because this movie parallels the play Romeo and Juliet. She is also set to marry Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) in a few weeks. In her desire to be on the stage, she dresses as a man, Thomas Kent, (since women were not allowed to perform on stage at that time). Will becomes infatuated with Viola after a chance meeting and thus begins the love affair that would become the tragedy we have come to know.

I would say the major dramatic strategy used in this film is parallelism. Almost every scene and bit parallels the play “Romeo and Juliet,” since that is the play in which Shakespeare is trying to write, which is better than the original title “Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter.” The film cleverly and strategically places the story of the film in the context of writing the play, which becomes more and more of the tragic story of Romeo and Juliet as William and Viola’s romance begins to grow.

The film also does a nice job to let the viewing audience in on the film audience (groundlings and upper class), costuming, props and stagecraft of the Rose Theater during this time. The other cast members worth noting were Martin Clunes, Richard Burbage; Antony Sher, Dr. Moth; Simon Callow, Tilney, Master of the Revels; and Ben Affleck (who played a cocky but determined actor Ned Alleyn); and Dame Judy Dench portrayed the Queen.

A remarkable cast. Witty writing and acting. Impeccable directing. Brilliantly produced. The film, “Shakespeare in Love,” is wonderful entertainment. Additionally, this film has a “theatrical” sense to it (as it is about theater). In all my experience and years in academic theater, I have always enjoyed the story within the story, or the play within the play. This film had it and played it very well.

“Shakespeare in Love” was directed by John Madden, and written by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard. It has a run time of 123 minutes and is rated R.

kellym40 film review

Face/Off: a review at “face” value

Rating 4/5

In the film “Face/Off,” directed by John Woo, the story concept centers around FBI agent Sean Archer, played by John Travolta, seems so obsessed in stopping his nemesis Castor Troy, played by Nicolas Cage, that the Travolta character “becomes” Troy in order to stop a biological bomb from detonating in the city.

This is an older film, released in 1997, but if there is anyone who hasn’t seen it then be forewarned…there are some spoilers.

MV5BMTU4MjA5NTc2NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTI2Mzk5MDE@._V1_SX640_SY720_

In the film’s opening, Archer is playing with his son at a carnival. In a confrontation between Archer and Troy, Archer’s young son is shot and killed. Troy is eventually caught, but is in a coma. This is really the point the sets the whole action of the film in motion.

Soon after Troy is captured, the FBI learns of a bomb threat that is set to go off somewhere in the city. A plan is devised through a breakthrough surgical procedure where the face of Troy and Archer are “swapped.” Now, Archer looks and sounds like Troy. In doing so, he hopes to infiltrate the prison where Troy’s brother, Pollux (Alessandro Nivola), is being held in order to find the location of the bomb.

Seems like a pretty simple idea. Archer discovers the location of the bomb, gets out, helps save the day, and then is reunited with his family. But as anyone knows there has to be some conflict in the story. So, while Archer is in prison “disguised” as Troy, the real Troy wakes up from his coma and gets the doctor to transplant Archer’s face on him. The procedure is complete so Troy kills the doctor and destroys all of the equipment and records that explains the operation. Now Archer is in real trouble.

All Archer wants to do is to get Troy and return to his life he had before with his wife and family. These two characters have a classic hero-villain relationship and they each play “each other” well. There is a long history with these two characters and sets up the dramatic conflict in the film well. Archer wants Troy because he killed his son and, well, because Troy’s just a bad man. Overall, the acting was decent in the film, which also brought me into the world of the story.

I found the pacing of the film to move very well, as it almost had to being an action thriller. There were some slower paced bits and sequences, but only for the needed character and story development and really didn’t detract too much from the pacing to bring me out of the story. John Woo seems to have blended all of these elements well into a watchable action film.

Other notable actors in the story were Joan Allen, who played Eve Archer (Sean’s wife) and Dominique Swain portrayed Jamie Archer, their daughter. Colm Feore was Dr. Malcom Walsh, the doctor who performed the transplant, and Gina Gershon played Sasha Hassler, Troy’s girlfriend.

I was a little hesitant at the science of the film at first, with the whole transplanting of faces and altering voices. It may have been a little far fetched at the time (late 90’s), but I quickly moved beyond that and bought into the story and action of the film. And with technology and science now, the possibilities may have been set in motion.

Obviously there are some who may have not liked this film. Others may have thought it was just horrible. I for one viewed it as entertaining action. It had interesting, varied characters, a good story, and action.

“Face/Off” was written by Mike Werb and Michael Colleary. It has a run time of 138 minutes and is rated R.

kellym40 General

Overcoming Challenges

A lot has been going on with me in the last month and a half or so. I’ve left my job as a news anchor and I am now on unemployment. I’m not ashamed to say it. It’s reality. It happens.

Although at times, it seems kind of shameful (or perhaps another word could go here that would be more appropriate), but as I said it’s reality. It’s what happened. I guess the shameful part about it is that I’m in my 40’s and sometimes it seems I don’t have a direction to go in my life.

It’s like, “I’m 40 years old and I don’t know what I want to be when I grow up.” The sad part is that I am grown up.

We all make choices in our lives. Some good, some bad. Sometimes we don’t know what that choice is until later. Maybe years later.

In an earlier blog post, I talked about how I need to set small, attainable goals in my life. (I believe that was a new year resolution last year). The thing is I didn’t. I still haven’t. Job to job, trying to make ends meet. It just didn’t cut it. That’s one reason why I left my last job. However, there are also deeper issues into why I left. I don’t want to get into real specifics but would you stay at a job where you seemed unappreciated? Ignored? Or maybe got into trouble and making it sound like it’s your fault, when you haven’t been instructed on how to do it right, or even how to do it? I held on as long as I could, but I just couldn’t take it anymore. It was causing me stress and health problems and other issues. It got to be where I didn’t really want to talk to anyone or talk about it. It’s like I just wanted to shut the world out and hide. I had to leave.

I’m feeling better now. But I am still dealing with my health, but it is better. I’m in a better frame of mind now.

It still is somewhat stressful job searching and not having a bigger paycheck, but I do feel better. Having some more “time” has had me thinking about “what I want to be when I grow up.”

Now, back to choices. I’ve recently been thinking about all the choices (well, most of the choices….okay….some of the choices) I’ve made. I won’t go into them here, but I just want to say that there are some different paths my life could’ve taken if I had made different choices.

But, I’m here now. This is the life I’ve made for myself. Only I can change it. I read a book my dad let me borrow. It’s “The Total Money Makeover” by Dave Ramsey. He talks about taking baby steps in order to become financially wealthy. He also references that with becoming healthier. It also can be referenced to what I was wanting to do and setting small attainable goals and achieving those goals to move on to a bigger goal. I was recently rereading it (some parts of it anyway) and seeing how that makes good sense.

That leads me to what I want to do. I’ve recently started getting into the world of freelance writing. It can be a hard road, but for some it is a very rewarding lifestyle. I’ve started reading “You Are A Writer (so start acting like one)” by Jeff Goins. I can already see by taking some of the concepts about baby steps, being focused, and just start writing, it could work. And as I said, it will be a difficult road, but it is possible.

I will continue to look for some other work as well. But I feel that I can use this “free time” to become focused and get some writing done. In fact, I am going to begin a novel based on a screenplay I wrote that did not go anywhere. It was a screenplay I wrote in my second master’s program that I have put down, worked on, put down, worked on…and put down. I’ve decided to try turning it into a novel.

So taking those baby steps, all the planning is done…now it is time to write.

I will leave you with this. If anyone ever has to encounter obstacles and think that it is too much to overcome. Just remember you can ask for help and to take baby steps. Those steps can lead you up the mountain.

kellym40 General

Rioting: What’s the point?

The article is about the riots that took place in Baltimore last night and will likely continue. What’s the point?

I understand people are angry, upset, or frustrated, but is that cause enough to burn, loot, and destroy?

It’s like the riots after the verdict in the Michael Brown case or the Eric Garner case. Protesting in such a violent way does not solve anything. All it does is it leaves a city in ruins and causes numerous injuries or unnecessary deaths.

During the St. Louis protests over Michael Brown, I saw one protestor on the news say something to the effect that sometimes you have to get attention and this is the only way to get attention. Seriously?!!

The work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished a lot in his time and he NEVER used violence. In fact, if peaceful marches or protests began getting violent, King would remove himself from the situation.

There is never a need to burn a business down just because of a disagreement. That person, or persons, should be held accountable, because all that happened was another life hurt by the destruction of his or her business.

The riots in Baltimore have caused not only physical damage but now have postponed baseball, America’s past time, yet again.

Everyone just needs to take a chill pill and chill out. There are many ways instead of violence to let your voices be heard and resolve differences.

That’s my take on the situation. I now return you to your regularly scheduled activities.

kellym40 General

2nd Amendment thoughts….

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That is what the 2nd Amendment says. It seems that a lot of people either don’t know that or don’t care. How many people are actually members of a well-regulated militia? I have no problem with people owning guns for protection, sport, or hunting, but I don’t think the average person needs machine guns, attack or assault rifles to hunt. Those should be for military and some law enforcement. Any type of gun legislation that has been proposed, or has yet to be proposed, is denying individuals to own guns.

It seems some people are acting as if the government and any type of gun legislation are making it illegal to own any type of gun and trying to ban all guns. That does not appear to be the case. The amendment does not clarify what kinds of guns are allowed for citizens to own, so if you have some types of guns (i.e. hand guns or hunting rifles), be happy with what you have.

There still seems to be much gun violence today. I believe what past legislation was trying to do was to make it more difficult for certain people to obtain guns. Additionally, the legislation would hopefully assist with the immediate access to medical or psychiatric services that people may need, and background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun.

Will this stop people from getting guns? Maybe not, but perhaps it will be more difficult for the wrong person to get a gun. Will it help with the guns that are already out there? Maybe, maybe not, but hopefully it will help regulate illegal firearms and such and perhaps allow the tracking of such weapons easier. Because, as mentioned, the amendment does not specify what type of firearm an individual can have.

Yes, we all want to deter and stop violence. But as I heard this that there are a higher percentage of murders by knives and other weapons that guns. Why not get to the root of the problem with violence? In order to understand violent acts, we need to understand the people committing these atrocities. That is why it is important to have background checks, make psychiatric and mental health more accessible so that people that need it can get it. I think it’s common sense.

So think about that before you post some other insane comment or picture that the government is denying you your 2nd Amendment rights, because, in reality, I don’t believe they are.