Puerto Rican Beaches to Dutch Attics

This weekend, "The Rum Diary" mixes up Puerto Rican parties, Johnny Depp, late nights on moonlit beaches and, as you probably guessed, a lot of alcohol. The poster (which I have included for your perusal) also throws in some outrage, a bit of justice and... well, even more alcohol. Does the movie offer some unique tastes and good times, or will viewers forget it after a crushing hangover? Based on early reviews, critic opinion seems evenly split. One part giddy joy, one part stern rebuke. Mixed well, of course.

Johnny Depp plays Paul Kemp, a writer for a New York newspaper. He has grown weary of the big city bustle and jumps at the chance to change his venue. Puerto Rico is his destination, where he adopts the easy lifestyle of the island. However, an American entrepreneur named Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart) wants to change all that. Sanderson desires to convert Puerto Rico to a capitalist paradise and vacation spot for the extremely wealthy. When Kemp in recruited to write favorably about unsavory business schemes, he is faced with a crossroads; bend to business or live in freedom.

This week, I am stretching back to 1959.

I have used up most of my alcohol knowledge in the first paragraph, so I am going to depart from that metaphor. That leaves me with "diary" (and "the," but I'm bypassing that). I could go with "Bridget Jones' Diary," "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" or "Diary of a Mad Black Woman"... but I don't want to. Instead, let's look at a movie based on a play based on a book about a diary.

This week, let's look at "The Diary of Anne Frank."

I think most people know the story of Anne Frank. Her diary has been admired for ages, due to a depth of spirit not seen in most teenagers. This young Dutch Jewish girl hid for two years, jotting down her thoughts on family and the grand topic of life. Despite their tension and crowded conditions, the Frank family still found time to celebrate Hanukkah and rejoice with each other. Of course, they would not exit the attic as free people. Instead, they were led out by Gestapo police to greater horrors.

This is not the best movie I could have picked. The subject matter alone gives the movie some clout, but "The Diary of Anne Frank" is an overly long rendition of a great play. I believe this is a difficult story to transfer to a visual medium, as it doesn't lend itself well outside of books or stage plays. However, the appreciative core of the story can still be found, so try to watch it if you can. "The Diary of Anne Frank" is not a bad film, but it cannot compare to the other mediums this story truly lives in.

The Final Stretch:
Diaries offer a unique glimpse into a singular life. Both of these films use that to communicate a message, but I don't believe film is the place for such an intimate bond. With a book or a play, the thoughts and feelings of the writer live in front of you. In a film, the screen increases the distance between viewer and writer. Diary movies are hard to plant in the ground. However, that does not mean they should not be seen or attempted. If a director can ever tap into the innate human condition of a personal journal, they will accomplish something spectacular.

Suburban Demons to Darker Devils

Paranormal Activity releases it's third installment of home-shot horror this weekend, bringing the popular franchise to theaters just in time for Halloween. The plot is highly secretive, but I can guess that whoever lives in the suburban house is about to get demonized. The first two Paranormals were interesting forays into a relatively new type of film (home-shot horror), but the second saw a rather sharp decline in originality. The horror genre suffers greatly in that new ideas quickly become inane, but will this trilogy find new ways to shock and scare?

This week, I am stretching all the way back to 1973.

Demon movies can get a little too gross, but a select few actually approach the real terror possession can cause. Paranormal Activity does it pretty well, but few movies are as terrifying as this 1973 horror film. I'm keeping demons, I'm keeping children. However, the easy styling of Paranormal Activity gets replaced with directorial bravado.

This week, I will discuss "The Exorcist."

This movie has gained a terrible rapport since it was first released. It approaches a seriously dark subject matter, and some people cannot jump over that major hurdle. The subject of possession, depending on your religious belief, is a real threat that this movie uses to scare people. Many find this manipulative, and I can understand the sentiment. Not everyone should see this movie.

However, if you think you can manage, "The Exorcist" deserves appreciation. Underneath the spooky and controversial veneer, the film is spectacular. Cuts and shifts are used to tremendous effect, pulling the viewer along this terrible tale. The old special effects will probably make modern audiences scoff, but the movie was revolutionary in its day. In fact, I would say the special effects make it more watchable to modern audiences. In it's day, people would faint in the theater. Now, our desensitized sensibilities enable us to better appreciate the filming genius.

The Final Stretch:

Horror films are not the highest form of cinema. In fact, most are cheap and rudimentary. The Paranormal Activity movies are exceptions to modern contrivances, but horror used to house directing genius. Don't dismiss the entire genre too easily. "The Exorcist" is truly terrifying, but the mechanics behind the scenes are amazingly well-executed. Watch modern horror films if you want to be scared. Paranormal Activity movies will get under your skin. However, don't be too afraid to watch old horror films. They are not that scary, but they are fantastic. Horror is not a great genre of film, but there are a few gems hidden among the mud.

Warning Dates to Nursery Rhymes

This weekend, "The Ides of March" comes to theaters, offering a tale of political intrigue and government scandal.

The film is set during the frantic last days before a heavily contested Ohio presidential primary. When an up-and-coming press secretary (Ryan Gosling) finds himself involved in a political scandal, he discovers a trail leading all the way to his potential presidential boss (George Clooney). The entire candidacy is threatened, putting Gosling in a tricky situation: save his job, or save his morality.



This week, I am stretching all the way to 1976.

I like the whole corruption business. When corruption goes all the way up the American ladder, it becomes especially dramatic. So let's take it all the way to the president. One thing needs to change, though. Instead of Clooney's fiction, let's go to real life. When I think presidential corruption, I think of one man.

This week, I present "All the President's Men."



To give some perspective, Watergate happened in '72. Nixon resigned in '74. This film came out in '76. Within the span of four years, movie producers made a biographical film about one of America's most shameful scandals. Maybe they were capitalizing on scandal, but wow... talk about guts.



However, "All the President's Men" does not focus on the scandal itself, but rather the hardships endured by Woodward (Robert Redford) and Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman), the investigative journalists who uncovered Nixon's plot. The film follows their infamous meetings with Washington insiders, wronged secretaries and duped security guards. Every clue leads to more clues or, more frequently, dead ends. The information comes in trickles, making this film an exercise in suspenseful tension. 

The Final Stretch:


Power corrupts. It's an age-old mantra, but one that people need to keep hearing. Truth can and will be obscured from public view. "The Ides of March" looks at what a person hides to obtain presidency, while "All the President's Men" observes what a man did to control that power. However, in both cases, we meet people who have the power to stop them. Politics is the same, no matter your time period. Corruptions and scandals will always pollute the American landscape. However, the search for truth is equally unending.