How to make it in ...

Hello, my name is Andrew Jara. I am trying to be a writer/director. I made a film named "Last Days" that i'm trying to bring some press to.

Home
Archive
Subscribe (RSS)
Ask me anything
Random post
Twitter
Last Days Film
Andrew Jara Facebook Page
Movie Reviews by Me

Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor

 

movieisaw: Plot: A documentary following several children that are the victims of bullies.     Review: This documentary starts off with the family of Tyler Long talking about his suicide after being bullied in school. They mention how he was, how it’s affected their family and is a powerful way to open the film. But now let’s talk about Tyler Long.  After the film was released it was found out that Long had mental health problems, been performing disturbing actions before his suicide, had been seeing a therapist but neither him nor his family mentioned bullies or suicide, that he missed his last therapy session but that his family covered up for him, that he had recently broken up with his girlfriend and that he may or may not have been bullied in three years. When asked about it, the director stated that it wouldn’t help the narrative of the story. There have been more accusations against the film but we’ll focus on Tyler Long. We’ll also try to go with that the film left these out because of narrative reasons and not because of the parents lawsuit against the school board.  The problem with leaving these out is that the film wants to present itself as an issue documentary that is shining the truth on a serious problem. With a movie like “exit through the gift shop” it isn’t as important whether the film is real or fake because the main goal is entertainment. But with this, it is neither needless or dangerous omissions. Look is bullying a problem? Of course.  But showing us that the bullied can also have more underlying problems or that bullying can be the final straw regardless of the intensity of the bullying is all prevalent. By omitting them, it paints a very black and white image of bullying and of teenagers. If the point is to show the effects of bully, leaving out backstory robs us of that. If the point is to show the effects it has on children, not letting us get to know the children makes the scenes pointless. I don’t think that the director thinks we are dumb enough to not understand that even a sad person who has some mental problems may also be bullied to suicide is as important as just being bullied. And if they left out so much on a child that was so lost as to take his life, how are we to believe anything else that we see. The omissions hurt the film more than it could ever help it. So what’s the reason for this and in turn the documentary? Well after watching it, I feel it is to make a pandering torture porn propaganda film more than a documentary. We meet other children and we hear their story from their point of view and sometimes their family. But we don’t get other kids’ perspective, we don’t authorities’ perspective or anyone with any merit. We also don’t get any answers to how to fix the bullying problem. And that is the problem. Listen again, bullying is a touching subject and I don’t want to make it seem like I think he or the kids made it up the bullying issue but what he’s doing is wrong. He shows us a kid that is friendless but arent’ given reasons why. His sister calls him creepy but again we don’t see that. We don’t see why other kids don’t like him even enough to befriend him. We don’t see how teachers and counselors think of him other than interacting with him. All we have is the opinion of a child in middle school that feels he is hopeless and is having a camera in his face to validate his point. This isn’t about seeing how bullying is a problem or how it affects everyone. This is about parading outcasts in front of cameras with the hope that they are attacked to help the illusion of importance.  At the end of the day, the film bullies us into trying to think what it wants us to without rhyme or reason behind it.  It’s a disgusting film that doesn’t start a conversation, it silences a problem.  Trivia: Was the subject of a battle between the production company and the MPAA over the rating.  I’m not falling for your tricks bully! 

movieisaw:

Plot: A documentary following several children that are the victims of bullies.    

Review: This documentary starts off with the family of Tyler Long talking about his suicide after being bullied in school. They mention how he was, how it’s affected their family and is a powerful way to open the film. But now let’s talk about Tyler Long.  After the film was released it was found out that Long had mental health problems, been performing disturbing actions before his suicide, had been seeing a therapist but neither him nor his family mentioned bullies or suicide, that he missed his last therapy session but that his family covered up for him, that he had recently broken up with his girlfriend and that he may or may not have been bullied in three years. When asked about it, the director stated that it wouldn’t help the narrative of the story. There have been more accusations against the film but we’ll focus on Tyler Long. We’ll also try to go with that the film left these out because of narrative reasons and not because of the parents lawsuit against the school board. 

The problem with leaving these out is that the film wants to present itself as an issue documentary that is shining the truth on a serious problem. With a movie like “exit through the gift shop” it isn’t as important whether the film is real or fake because the main goal is entertainment. But with this, it is neither needless or dangerous omissions. Look is bullying a problem? Of course.  But showing us that the bullied can also have more underlying problems or that bullying can be the final straw regardless of the intensity of the bullying is all prevalent. By omitting them, it paints a very black and white image of bullying and of teenagers. If the point is to show the effects of bully, leaving out backstory robs us of that. If the point is to show the effects it has on children, not letting us get to know the children makes the scenes pointless. I don’t think that the director thinks we are dumb enough to not understand that even a sad person who has some mental problems may also be bullied to suicide is as important as just being bullied. And if they left out so much on a child that was so lost as to take his life, how are we to believe anything else that we see. The omissions hurt the film more than it could ever help it. So what’s the reason for this and in turn the documentary?

Well after watching it, I feel it is to make a pandering torture porn propaganda film more than a documentary. We meet other children and we hear their story from their point of view and sometimes their family. But we don’t get other kids’ perspective, we don’t authorities’ perspective or anyone with any merit. We also don’t get any answers to how to fix the bullying problem. And that is the problem. Listen again, bullying is a touching subject and I don’t want to make it seem like I think he or the kids made it up the bullying issue but what he’s doing is wrong. He shows us a kid that is friendless but arent’ given reasons why. His sister calls him creepy but again we don’t see that. We don’t see why other kids don’t like him even enough to befriend him. We don’t see how teachers and counselors think of him other than interacting with him. All we have is the opinion of a child in middle school that feels he is hopeless and is having a camera in his face to validate his point. This isn’t about seeing how bullying is a problem or how it affects everyone. This is about parading outcasts in front of cameras with the hope that they are attacked to help the illusion of importance. 

At the end of the day, the film bullies us into trying to think what it wants us to without rhyme or reason behind it.  It’s a disgusting film that doesn’t start a conversation, it silences a problem. 

Trivia: Was the subject of a battle between the production company and the MPAA over the rating. 

I’m not falling for your tricks bully! 

movieisaw: Plot: A group of friends find themselves at odds with some ex-soldiers after one of the soldiers tries to rape one of them. Directed by Katie Aselton.   Review: I’m actually really glad I saw this film. You see I tried to watch Lola Versus this week but it was so terrible, I had to shut it off. But I had something I wanted to say about it but couldn’t get through it and I never review films if I don’t finish them. But luckily I had the same complaint with Black Rock! Awesome. You see like Lola Versus was a film that was trying to be a different kind of break-up film but ended up falling on all the old tropes and cliches of romantic comedies to tell it’s story. The fact that it’s striving for a more realistic tone makes me more critical to the film and also makes the film harder to believe or get sucked into. The actions should feel real but come off like jeans with holes in them. They are trying to look worn in and earned but are really just a shallow husk. This can also be applied to Black Rock.  Going into Black Rock, I had hoped that it would tell a more progressive thriller being directed and starring women or at the very least an interesting take on one. Instead we get cliched characters, wooden dialogue and the same old tropes that we have seen since deliverance. The villains are bland characters that manages to mix the “crazy vets” trope with the “crazy hunter trope” into a lifeless fusion. Now it may be unfair for me to judge the film for just being a generic thriller but really if you are going to make an indie film and do something outside of the system (especially after the success of The Freebie and the Duplass Brothers) why go for such a bland route? And not only that but the characters are very interesting. They are distinct and different and well-written… until the terror starts. Then they lose all characteristics and become nothing more than stereotypical woman. (Spoilers) At one point, one of the females is killed because she was complaining too much. At this point, I started to really think about whether this was supposed to be a send up of past thrillers and the misogyny of horror films, (which would have been more interesting.) But sadly, it’s just the product of lazy writing. If only the film hadn’t tried to be a thriller or tried for something new and fresh, it could have been worth watching. But at the end Black Rock is just a bland thriller that appears like it has something to say but doesn’t.  Trivia:  The cast stayed in one house for the entirety of the shoot. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A group of friends find themselves at odds with some ex-soldiers after one of the soldiers tries to rape one of them. Directed by Katie Aselton.  

Review: I’m actually really glad I saw this film. You see I tried to watch Lola Versus this week but it was so terrible, I had to shut it off. But I had something I wanted to say about it but couldn’t get through it and I never review films if I don’t finish them. But luckily I had the same complaint with Black Rock! Awesome.

You see like Lola Versus was a film that was trying to be a different kind of break-up film but ended up falling on all the old tropes and cliches of romantic comedies to tell it’s story. The fact that it’s striving for a more realistic tone makes me more critical to the film and also makes the film harder to believe or get sucked into. The actions should feel real but come off like jeans with holes in them. They are trying to look worn in and earned but are really just a shallow husk. This can also be applied to Black Rock. 

Going into Black Rock, I had hoped that it would tell a more progressive thriller being directed and starring women or at the very least an interesting take on one. Instead we get cliched characters, wooden dialogue and the same old tropes that we have seen since deliverance. The villains are bland characters that manages to mix the “crazy vets” trope with the “crazy hunter trope” into a lifeless fusion. Now it may be unfair for me to judge the film for just being a generic thriller but really if you are going to make an indie film and do something outside of the system (especially after the success of The Freebie and the Duplass Brothers) why go for such a bland route?

And not only that but the characters are very interesting. They are distinct and different and well-written… until the terror starts. Then they lose all characteristics and become nothing more than stereotypical woman. (Spoilers) At one point, one of the females is killed because she was complaining too much. At this point, I started to really think about whether this was supposed to be a send up of past thrillers and the misogyny of horror films, (which would have been more interesting.) But sadly, it’s just the product of lazy writing. If only the film hadn’t tried to be a thriller or tried for something new and fresh, it could have been worth watching.

But at the end Black Rock is just a bland thriller that appears like it has something to say but doesn’t. 

Trivia:  The cast stayed in one house for the entirety of the shoot. 

movieisaw: Plot: Kirk and the crew of the enterprise must face an villain unlike anyone else they have ever faced.  Again directed by JJ Abrams. Review: I thought that Star Trek was beyond bad ass. I also felt it had a couple of problems. But it’s definitely a fun time and a great summer movie. So let’s get into other things.  Let me start by saying I’m not a Trek loyalist. I watch and enjoy the movies, and liked the tv show but I don’t think Star Trek is something that can’t be touched or changed. In fact, since the next generation I always kind of viewed Star Trek as thing thing that different writers or creators could use to tell good sci-fi stories in a more hopeful and bright world than traditional sci-fi. It was a trek, not a war. Explorers and not fighters. That was always my favorite thing about the series. But I don’t really care if every single thing is the same or different as long as they stick to those things.  The film looks impressive. Abrams seems to taken the hint of too many lens flares and has toned down a bit. I find the lens flares refreshing and it’s cool that we get to see different worlds and places from all over the universe. There is a sense of how big the world of the film is.  The story is good. Essentially the theme is about roles. What are the captains roles, what are the federations role, what are friends role and so on. We see people pushed to the brink and the roles are tested to the point of breaking. Again and again these people are tested. The story boils down to a federation admiral wakes up an old solider to try and make the federation armed with the threat of the Klingon war on the horizon. But the soldier takes over and it’s up to the enterprise to try and stop him. Meanwhile Kirk and Spock are struggling with how much interference they should implement into not only their professional life but their personal lives as well. The theme is good if not a bit heavy handed, which is kind of star trek’s thing.  The characters have some problems but mostly do amazing. Again the crew is dead-on and everyone does a great job without getting lost in the role. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are amazing as Spock and Kirk. They have a great chemistry and really hold down the story. My only problem is that Dr. McCoy has very little screen time and I hope he is given more to do next time. Also Peter Weller shows up as one of the villains and it’s awesome to see him having an actual role instead of a glorified cameo. He is still a bad ass. Alice Eve is here but she doesn’t do much and it’s hard to remember she is even there. Benedict Cumberbatch is here and is playing Khan as we all thought. His reveal was a bit weird as the characters have no idea who is, we have already figured it out and he doesn’t act like Khan. So why was he Khan? Cause Khan is famous. This is my first problem. Cumberbatch is a great villain and an awesome antagonist for this but he’s not a great Khan. I kind of wish that he hadn’t been Khan because he is limited by what he has to be and what he is. I kind of wish he had been someone else in Khan’s crew and we only saw Khan at the end going to Ceti Alpha V. The weird thing is they don’t do anything new or fresh with Khan and there isn’t much more he can do from his previous times.  The main problem with the film is the previous film. It’s not enough to ruin the film but it had me thinking more than once. In this film, Abrams and the writers are so focused on the past that it sometimes loses it’s way. In fact at one point, Old Spock comes out and tells new Spock that his destiny is his own and he can’t help him. I wish that Abrams had listened. There was bit too much importance put on things from the past. There is no greater example of this than Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus. Star Trek fans know her importance but here she is little more than eye candy. It diminishes her character for old fans and does nothing for new fans. In a lot of ways, I feel relieved that Abrams is moving on to Star Wars because I liked to see someone else step into the story and do something new. Which was kind of the point of the reboot.  Having said all that. I personally loved the film. These are all things I felt as fleeting thoughts that didn’t stop me from enjoying the film. Again I would mention plot points but to me all star trek movies have had huge plot holes in them so they never bothered me.  See this film if you want to see the crew suit up again!  Trivia:  Leonard Nimoy has appeared in 8 Star Trek movies, more than anyone else. 

movieisaw:

Plot: Kirk and the crew of the enterprise must face an villain unlike anyone else they have ever faced.  Again directed by JJ Abrams.

Review: I thought that Star Trek was beyond bad ass. I also felt it had a couple of problems. But it’s definitely a fun time and a great summer movie. So let’s get into other things. 

Let me start by saying I’m not a Trek loyalist. I watch and enjoy the movies, and liked the tv show but I don’t think Star Trek is something that can’t be touched or changed. In fact, since the next generation I always kind of viewed Star Trek as thing thing that different writers or creators could use to tell good sci-fi stories in a more hopeful and bright world than traditional sci-fi. It was a trek, not a war. Explorers and not fighters. That was always my favorite thing about the series. But I don’t really care if every single thing is the same or different as long as they stick to those things. 

The film looks impressive. Abrams seems to taken the hint of too many lens flares and has toned down a bit. I find the lens flares refreshing and it’s cool that we get to see different worlds and places from all over the universe. There is a sense of how big the world of the film is. 

The story is good. Essentially the theme is about roles. What are the captains roles, what are the federations role, what are friends role and so on. We see people pushed to the brink and the roles are tested to the point of breaking. Again and again these people are tested. The story boils down to a federation admiral wakes up an old solider to try and make the federation armed with the threat of the Klingon war on the horizon. But the soldier takes over and it’s up to the enterprise to try and stop him. Meanwhile Kirk and Spock are struggling with how much interference they should implement into not only their professional life but their personal lives as well. The theme is good if not a bit heavy handed, which is kind of star trek’s thing. 

The characters have some problems but mostly do amazing. Again the crew is dead-on and everyone does a great job without getting lost in the role. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are amazing as Spock and Kirk. They have a great chemistry and really hold down the story. My only problem is that Dr. McCoy has very little screen time and I hope he is given more to do next time. Also Peter Weller shows up as one of the villains and it’s awesome to see him having an actual role instead of a glorified cameo. He is still a bad ass. Alice Eve is here but she doesn’t do much and it’s hard to remember she is even there. Benedict Cumberbatch is here and is playing Khan as we all thought. His reveal was a bit weird as the characters have no idea who is, we have already figured it out and he doesn’t act like Khan. So why was he Khan? Cause Khan is famous. This is my first problem. Cumberbatch is a great villain and an awesome antagonist for this but he’s not a great Khan. I kind of wish that he hadn’t been Khan because he is limited by what he has to be and what he is. I kind of wish he had been someone else in Khan’s crew and we only saw Khan at the end going to Ceti Alpha V. The weird thing is they don’t do anything new or fresh with Khan and there isn’t much more he can do from his previous times. 

The main problem with the film is the previous film. It’s not enough to ruin the film but it had me thinking more than once. In this film, Abrams and the writers are so focused on the past that it sometimes loses it’s way. In fact at one point, Old Spock comes out and tells new Spock that his destiny is his own and he can’t help him. I wish that Abrams had listened. There was bit too much importance put on things from the past. There is no greater example of this than Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus. Star Trek fans know her importance but here she is little more than eye candy. It diminishes her character for old fans and does nothing for new fans. In a lot of ways, I feel relieved that Abrams is moving on to Star Wars because I liked to see someone else step into the story and do something new. Which was kind of the point of the reboot. 

Having said all that. I personally loved the film. These are all things I felt as fleeting thoughts that didn’t stop me from enjoying the film. Again I would mention plot points but to me all star trek movies have had huge plot holes in them so they never bothered me.  See this film if you want to see the crew suit up again! 

Trivia:  Leonard Nimoy has appeared in 8 Star Trek movies, more than anyone else. 

movieisaw: Plot: A documentary about a man who pretends to be a guru from India to try and prove that religion doesn’t work.   Review: So I don’t get into the debate of whether there is a god. Mostly cause it’s too long but also because the movie starts out by saying that this is a journey about religion and whether it still works in our day and age. But that is quickly forgotten in loo of the hoax that the guy wants to do. Basically this guy when out to Arizona and convinced the people that he was a guru from India and had people follow him. If it feels like Borat that’s because it has shades of it. It’s also where the movie falls. The whole point of the film is in question and by the end you wonder if they looked at the footage and didn’t know what to do. Kumare wants to make people believe that we shouldn’t be listening to these religious heads and instead make up our own mind. His intentions are well meaning and that is one of the problems.  Okay so the problem with the film is the hoax itself. The genius of Sasha Baron Cohen is commitment. Cohen does not break character no matter how bad it makes his subject or him look. It’s the only way for the film to be effective. The problem with Kumare is he can’t do it. He doesn’t want to hurt people so he is always standing back and it never works. This is never more relevant than when he is supposed to reveal himself but doesn’t. Another problem is the subjects themselves.  These people aren’t racist or bigots or even dumb (one is a lawyer) but are people lost and how have no one else to turn to. These are wounded people (a montage shows them talking about rape, incest, etc) so tricking them into believing into a guru seems mean even if the intentions are well meaning. Kumare wants to show people that god is all around us or that we are our inner peace but it’s hard to tell us which is which because much like the man himself, the movie wants to ask uncomfortable questions but does not want uncomfortable answers. This isn’t life and the fake guru ends up being more real than the real man behind it.  Trivia:  Premiered at the South By Southwest film festival. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A documentary about a man who pretends to be a guru from India to try and prove that religion doesn’t work.  

Review: So I don’t get into the debate of whether there is a god. Mostly cause it’s too long but also because the movie starts out by saying that this is a journey about religion and whether it still works in our day and age. But that is quickly forgotten in loo of the hoax that the guy wants to do. Basically this guy when out to Arizona and convinced the people that he was a guru from India and had people follow him. If it feels like Borat that’s because it has shades of it. It’s also where the movie falls. The whole point of the film is in question and by the end you wonder if they looked at the footage and didn’t know what to do. Kumare wants to make people believe that we shouldn’t be listening to these religious heads and instead make up our own mind. His intentions are well meaning and that is one of the problems. 

Okay so the problem with the film is the hoax itself. The genius of Sasha Baron Cohen is commitment. Cohen does not break character no matter how bad it makes his subject or him look. It’s the only way for the film to be effective. The problem with Kumare is he can’t do it. He doesn’t want to hurt people so he is always standing back and it never works. This is never more relevant than when he is supposed to reveal himself but doesn’t. Another problem is the subjects themselves.  These people aren’t racist or bigots or even dumb (one is a lawyer) but are people lost and how have no one else to turn to. These are wounded people (a montage shows them talking about rape, incest, etc) so tricking them into believing into a guru seems mean even if the intentions are well meaning. Kumare wants to show people that god is all around us or that we are our inner peace but it’s hard to tell us which is which because much like the man himself, the movie wants to ask uncomfortable questions but does not want uncomfortable answers. This isn’t life and the fake guru ends up being more real than the real man behind it. 

Trivia:  Premiered at the South By Southwest film festival. 

movieisaw: Plot: A young man gets to know Marilyn Monroe when he works on one of her movies in England.  Review: This movie was harmless is the only thing good I can say about it. I have never really understood the appeal of Marilyn Monroe. I mean I understand the appeal at the time but now what is our obsession with her so strong while other like Vivian Leigh gone away?  So I was looking forward to this film to maybe show us why we were obsessed and then maybe show us what she was really like. Instead I learned nothing new and I barely knew anything to begin with. The movie portrays her as a kind of loopy  ditz that means well and does maybe too many drugs. But we knew that? We have the actors in the film tell us about how great and special she is but we never really see it other than her naked body. We never get any of the charm or spell that she was supposed to have and the director thinks it’s okay if he just have extras scream her name to show us how amazing she is. I don’t blame Michelle Williams as she does a great job with what she is given and a lot of times you forget you are not watching Marilyn. I blame the writing. In fact, it wasn’t until the end that I realized that she hadn’t even made “Some Like it Hot” yet. Was she really famous before then because I thought that was her breakout role? The film expects you to know all about Monroe and her career but I was watching it to learn about those things so it just comes off as confusing. I actually felt the only interesting character was the Judi Dench role of aging film actress dame Sybil Thorndike. In fact, the cast is amazing with everyone from Toby Jones to Kenneth Branagh to Dominic Cooper. Also this is Emma Watson’s first role outside of the Harry Potter series and after this and Perks, I’m not sure the girl can act. She is beautiful (which makes it more confusing as she is more attractive than Marilyn Monroe) but she over-projects every line and emotion that it all feels false. Instead of acting like she is from the 50s, she is acting like the actors acted in the 50s and I really hope she gets better at acting as she does has charm and grace.  Overall this isn’t so much a movie as it is a love letter to fans and the people in it. Which is fine I guess but maybe a bit of a risk, a bit of a chance to make the film compelling for everyone?  I was supposed to spend a Week with Marilyn but it all felt so fleeting.  Trivia:  Because of scheduling problems, Judi Dench and Michelle Williams were never in the same room despite having all their scenes together. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A young man gets to know Marilyn Monroe when he works on one of her movies in England. 

Review: This movie was harmless is the only thing good I can say about it. I have never really understood the appeal of Marilyn Monroe. I mean I understand the appeal at the time but now what is our obsession with her so strong while other like Vivian Leigh gone away?  So I was looking forward to this film to maybe show us why we were obsessed and then maybe show us what she was really like. Instead I learned nothing new and I barely knew anything to begin with. The movie portrays her as a kind of loopy  ditz that means well and does maybe too many drugs. But we knew that? We have the actors in the film tell us about how great and special she is but we never really see it other than her naked body. We never get any of the charm or spell that she was supposed to have and the director thinks it’s okay if he just have extras scream her name to show us how amazing she is. I don’t blame Michelle Williams as she does a great job with what she is given and a lot of times you forget you are not watching Marilyn. I blame the writing. In fact, it wasn’t until the end that I realized that she hadn’t even made “Some Like it Hot” yet. Was she really famous before then because I thought that was her breakout role? The film expects you to know all about Monroe and her career but I was watching it to learn about those things so it just comes off as confusing. I actually felt the only interesting character was the Judi Dench role of aging film actress dame Sybil Thorndike. In fact, the cast is amazing with everyone from Toby Jones to Kenneth Branagh to Dominic Cooper. Also this is Emma Watson’s first role outside of the Harry Potter series and after this and Perks, I’m not sure the girl can act. She is beautiful (which makes it more confusing as she is more attractive than Marilyn Monroe) but she over-projects every line and emotion that it all feels false. Instead of acting like she is from the 50s, she is acting like the actors acted in the 50s and I really hope she gets better at acting as she does has charm and grace. 

Overall this isn’t so much a movie as it is a love letter to fans and the people in it. Which is fine I guess but maybe a bit of a risk, a bit of a chance to make the film compelling for everyone?  I was supposed to spend a Week with Marilyn but it all felt so fleeting. 

Trivia:  Because of scheduling problems, Judi Dench and Michelle Williams were never in the same room despite having all their scenes together. 

movieisaw:

This week I will be looking at mud, also The Great Gatsby (don’t worry I’ve seen both) and maybe what to expect when you are expecting

What should you expect on Movie i Saw?

I wish it had just been the Great CATsby and was about cats in suits, partying to jazz music… That shit would have been the BOMB! (I put cat in bold because like Baz Luhrman, I don’t like the audience to form their own opinions)

Resume tip: putting “waiting for morpheus to wake me up from the matrix” under current job is frowned upon

movieisaw: Plot: A documentary following a group of MMA fighters in Louisiana.   Review: I wanted to say this was a good story but a bad documentary but it’s also not that good of a story.  Well I mean it could have been but we’ll never know as the documentary is bad. Now I am not a huge fan of MMA but I do like sports documentaries so I figure I would give it a shot. The problem is that I have no idea what the stakes are. They don’t even try to explain what is lost, what is gained, that UFC has to sign you, or really anything that happens. So what we are watching is two fighters who are trying to reach an unclear goal. It is interesting to see the lives of fighters are still struggling. And some realizations are cool like that they only get paid 800 dollars per fight of how much they have to workout to really get anywhere. In fact one fighter even stops working out because of a break up and in a week is not as good as he should be. But the fighters are also kind of boring. They spend a lot of their time speaking in cliches and finding different ways to say “life and boxing are the same.” It gets old fast and when you have no knowledge coming in, you get bored.  Overall I wish this story had been better and we had learned more. I can’t really recognize this and it did not make me love MMA. Trivia:  Dustin Poirier, one of the fighters, has since been signed to UFC. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A documentary following a group of MMA fighters in Louisiana.  

Review: I wanted to say this was a good story but a bad documentary but it’s also not that good of a story.  Well I mean it could have been but we’ll never know as the documentary is bad. Now I am not a huge fan of MMA but I do like sports documentaries so I figure I would give it a shot. The problem is that I have no idea what the stakes are. They don’t even try to explain what is lost, what is gained, that UFC has to sign you, or really anything that happens. So what we are watching is two fighters who are trying to reach an unclear goal. It is interesting to see the lives of fighters are still struggling. And some realizations are cool like that they only get paid 800 dollars per fight of how much they have to workout to really get anywhere. In fact one fighter even stops working out because of a break up and in a week is not as good as he should be. But the fighters are also kind of boring. They spend a lot of their time speaking in cliches and finding different ways to say “life and boxing are the same.” It gets old fast and when you have no knowledge coming in, you get bored.  Overall I wish this story had been better and we had learned more. I can’t really recognize this and it did not make me love MMA.

Trivia:  Dustin Poirier, one of the fighters, has since been signed to UFC. 

movieisaw: Plot: A teenager tries to win over his dream girl while also getting closer to a new girl in his life. Also he’s a virgin, hence the title.  Review: I wanted to like this film. I gave it such a change but man was it boring. This seems to be the new thing with teenage romantic comedy where they point out the cliches but instead of changing them they just take you on a maze that still hits all the same points as a Katherine Heigl film but want you to applaud it because the characters have heard of John Hughes. But really what you end up with is a film that is trying to be realistic but when it still hits these points, it comes off as even more corny and fake than if they just made it generic. Also they try to do the deep conversation between teenagers but the conversations seem to be only about sex, relationships, and the dream girl. Sure they touch on other things but it always leads back to sex. From that we dont’ get that the characters like each other than phsycially. I will say that Victoria Justice does a good job as the dream girl who isn’t quite the normal absent minded or mean cliche.  Other than that no one really stands out other than to say that each character has at least one scene where they are incredibly annoying (the male character gets more than one!) and it doesn’t endear you to anyone.  I say skip this one unless you want to see cliches hidden but told another way.  Trivia: This film played at Sundance. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A teenager tries to win over his dream girl while also getting closer to a new girl in his life. Also he’s a virgin, hence the title. 

Review: I wanted to like this film. I gave it such a change but man was it boring. This seems to be the new thing with teenage romantic comedy where they point out the cliches but instead of changing them they just take you on a maze that still hits all the same points as a Katherine Heigl film but want you to applaud it because the characters have heard of John Hughes. But really what you end up with is a film that is trying to be realistic but when it still hits these points, it comes off as even more corny and fake than if they just made it generic. Also they try to do the deep conversation between teenagers but the conversations seem to be only about sex, relationships, and the dream girl. Sure they touch on other things but it always leads back to sex. From that we dont’ get that the characters like each other than phsycially. I will say that Victoria Justice does a good job as the dream girl who isn’t quite the normal absent minded or mean cliche.  Other than that no one really stands out other than to say that each character has at least one scene where they are incredibly annoying (the male character gets more than one!) and it doesn’t endear you to anyone.  I say skip this one unless you want to see cliches hidden but told another way. 

Trivia: This film played at Sundance.