"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" Nearly Crashes

Official Movie Poster Courtesy of 20th Century Fox.

            Usually when you watch a movie, you expect it to be dumbed down so that the average audience will understand, or at least have the ability to understand. Not so with “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” a movie which covers an insider trading scandal, a market crash, a bailout, a love story, and of course a ton of greed in the middle. It shows the infamous Michael Douglas back as Gordon Gekko, a role that won him an Oscar in 1987 when the original “Wall Street” came out. Douglas nailed his role as the most greedy slime ball of a man imaginable, and  yet I love it. Douglas was perhaps the best part of the movie because the rest of the film was confusing and overly didactic.

            Gekko gets out of prison after serving eight years for what he considers “a victimless crime,” but what most of us would call insider trading. He meets Jacob Moore (Shia LaBeouf), a new up-and-coming trader who is planning to marry his estranged daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan). Jacob was feeling vengeful toward the man (Josh Brolin) who started rumors against and crashed the company Jacob supported, causing his mentor (Frank Langella) to kill himself and so he bonds with his future father-in-law and learns his ways. Winnie warns Jacob that her dad will hurt them, but he thinks Gekko is a changed man. True to character, Gekko betrays his own family to get back in the game. The movie ends with him trying to reconcile after his many betrayals.

Gekko (Douglas, pictured left) and Jacob (Labeouf, pictured right) decide to have a relationship behind Winnie's back.

            Douglas is the real focus of this movie because his performance was so outstanding. Sure, LaBeouf, Mulligan, and Brolin were good supporters, but they were so overshadowed that they are barely worth mentioning. Douglas is the villain you love to hate and the perfect Wall Street tycoon that exemplifies greed and manipulation. He plays the father who wants to reconcile with his daughter just as well as he plays the greedy backstabbing jerk that steals from his own family. He won an Oscar for this role years ago and he is still just as good at it.  

            The downside is that Douglas was just a platform for Director Oliver Stone’s preachy thoughts about Wall Street. Stone’s father worked on Wall Street, and so he displays a lot of his feelings toward the greedy people of Wall Street through speeches and conversations.

When Jacob was talking to Brolin’s character he asked, “What’s your number? Everyone has a number that they feel is enough and when they get that much money, they will be satisfied. What’s yours?”

 Brolin replies, “More.”

Another time, Gekko says, “It’s not about the money, it’s about the game.”

Stone was overly didactic and really made it obvious that he was trying to portray the people of Wall Street as greedy, power-hungry slime balls. There was a little bit too much of Stone’s own feelings in the movie.

            On top of all that, the first half was way too difficult to understand for the common man. They used a lot of financial lingo that isolated most of the audience from understanding what was going on. It was not until it picked up with more character motivated plot lines in the second half that the movie was even slightly watchable. As a director, Stone should have made it clear what was happening so that you did not have to be a finance guru to comprehend what was going on.

            The original “Wall Street” was such an amazing film and the sequel that appeared  23 years later just did not live up to it. Michael Douglas continued to keep the infamous Gordon Gekko alive and better than ever, but Stone was unable to create an interesting successor with a boring, confusing plot line and his preachy speeches. The point of this movie seemed to be to get out feelings about greed and power instead of make a clear cut, enjoyable film. It was not terrible, but it was just too perplexing for me to know the difference.

Now on DVD and Blue-Ray.

Not So 'Crazy' in Love

             Everyone remembers their first love and the feelings that brought. It is something you can never forget because it was the first time you had that special connection and  thought it could overcome anything. Such was the case for Jacob and Anna, who tried to make their first love work even with a 5,000 mile distance between them. “Like Crazy” has been successful at film festivals, like Sundance, where it earned the title of Best Picture and lead actress Felicity Jones received a Best Actress nod. “Like Crazy” is an indie film, and obviously so because it is made apparent through its camera work and its story line. The love between them was cute, romantic, and relatable, but that did not overshadow the fact that the film was not as professional as I would have hoped.

The official poster of "Like Crazy" provided by Paramount Pictures.

This movie starts out as your typical “first love” type of story. Jacob (Anton Yelchin) and Anna (Jones) meet in college in Los Angeles. She is from the U.K. and he is from L.A. Once her studies are completed, she was supposed to go back to England, but instead she decided to violate her student visa and spend the summer in bed with Jacob. When she went back home for a wedding, she was banned from returning to the U.S., putting a heavy strain on their relationship. They go through cycles of other people and then texting or calling each other out of the blue and rekindling their relationship. It is unhealthy because we see how happy they are when they are with other people and yet they keep going back to each other which causes them more pain. In the end, the ban gets lifted, but did they end up happy together? It is left open-ended. Writer and Director Drake Doremus made it seem like too much had happened between them for them to be truly happy again, but that is more up to interpretation.

The final moment of the movie as Jacob (Yelchin) and Anna (Jones) reflect over all the time and events that have passed through the course of their relationship. Picture Courtesy of the SundanceChannel.com

            “Like Crazy” showed its independent nature through some sloppy camera work as well as a slow, character driven story line. Whether it was intentional or not, the camera work was awful. It was shaky and blurry, and that was extremely distracting from what was going on in the story. I mean, have the filmmakers ever heard of a tripod before? Also this was a character driven story, and yet the characters were very underdeveloped. In the beginning you get a slight glimpse of their growing feelings for each other and how they get along, but past that, all you really know about them is that she is an English journalist, and he is an American furniture maker. Their motivations are not really known because their characters are vague. Towards the end they find other people to be with, and the audience starts to like the new people better! This is because throughout most of the movie we see a lot of dishonesty, a lot of tension, and a lot of trials between Anna and Jacob that proves they are better off apart. “Like Crazy” is what I like to call a “shout-a-long” because throughout the movie you want to scream things like, “What are you doing?! Obviously violating your visa is a bad idea.”  The director did not establish a great connection, the characters did not make good choices, and then we got to watch them grieve over their situation when they are the ones that caused it. There were bad choices made by both the director and the characters which made the film annoying.

            The reason this movie is doing so well is because it is everyone’s story. Doremus wrote and directed the film so that you could see yourself in every situation. Doremus justifies the undefined characters and the open ended story because he wants the entire audience to place themselves in the story, but that is not a smart directing choice. We already know our own stories; we paid to see theirs. It was a little unsatisfying.

            Granted I did appreciate the realistic way Doremus portrayed first love and how it feels impossible to let that go, and I did think the acting was amazing, but I just left the movie completely unfulfilled. The fact that the characters were undefined, self-destructive, and just plain foolish was a real turn off.

6ix "Park it Right Here" Grill

The turkey ciabatta sandwich from the 6ix Park Grill.

           Upon visiting the 6ix Park Grill, you get an aura of class. Not too fancy, but just elegant enough to display true class. Behind the ambiance though, is delicious food that leaves a lasting impression. On top of all that, 6ix Park Grill is wrapped up in great service, catering to your every need and desire. I would say that is a fine dining experience.
           Located adjacent to the Hyatt Regency in Irvine, California, the restaurant defines themself by their California Coastal Cuisine. Their dinner menu is dripping with juicy steaks, salmons, and other choice meats. Their lunch menu is splattered with a variety of salads, soups, sandwiches, and other light, but filling dishes that are appealing to a very general clientele. The sandwiches are served with your choice of french fries, sweet potato fries, fresh fruit, or green salad, and while the french fries are above average, and the green salad is phenomenal, the fresh fruit is a sure-fire delectable choice. With an array of colors and tastes from succulent pineapples to refreshing blueberries and raspberries, you get a savory compliment to any fresh sandwich you choose. The turkey ciabatta which consists of a good amount of turkey, soft ciabatta bread, some dill Havarti cheese, a healthy portion of ripe avocado, chive aioli, and a layer of green lettuce is truly divine. Never before has a simple sandwich been so scrumptious and filling at the same time. You get the same kind of quality and portion with every dish on the menu. For a nicer restaurant with slightly higher prices than your average Cheesecake Factory type of place, you get large portions, so it is worth the cost.
           One of their specialties, a dish that people come far and wide for, is the wood fire shrimp which is doused in a Thai chili marinade that is absolutely addicting. It is impossible to get enough of this prawn because it is so succulent, so rich, and is comparable to a juicy steak. It is complimented by spicy aioli and a slice of avocado to really "Californianize" the dish. It is definitely a must have if you are visiting the 6ix Park Grill.
           The setting is part of what makes the restaurant though. The lighting is low and romantic and you feel classy even before the food is served. It helps to hone in your senses on the glamorous taste that the restaurant provides. 6ix Park Grill is perfect for a nice outing with good friends, a romantic spot for that special someone, and they even have a private room that works for business meeting or wedding parties. It has the perfect atmosphere and feeling for everyone and that is part of what you paying for.

The menu captures the essence of the restaurant.

           Finally the service is the icing on the cake. The servers are polite and friendly and they are very understanding of everything that you need. Quick to refill and cater to special orders, the waiters are what really make this restaurant great.
           Ted Hill, Executive Chef at 6ix Park Grill, has a lot going for him at this restaurant. He has a good staff behind him, killer recipes, and a beautiful setting in the building connected with the Hyatt Regency. It is so good that you will definitely want to park it there for awhile and never leave; just have the good food keep on rolling in. The sign of a good restaurant is not how many people want to go there, but it is how many people never want to leave, and 6ix Park Grill has that going for them.


         

Well, "Breaking Dawn" Doesn't Suck

            The latest installment of the “Twilight” saga, “Breaking Dawn Part 1,” was released on November 18, 2011 after much anticipation from raging “Twi-hards.” One word comes to mind when thinking about the production of the film—improvement. Sure, it is still not great; none of them are. However, this sequel shows vast improvement in its acting and directing in comparison with its predecessors, and is true to the integrity of the book. So maybe it is not the best movie in the world, but it is fun, it has some intensity, and it leaves you wanting more.

An official movie poster provided by Summit Entertainment

 “Breaking Dawn Part 1” is the next chapter in the book of Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart)’s love story. In this movie, the two love birds get married, go on their honeymoon, and get pregnant, which would not be too out of the ordinary except for the fact that the baby is half vampire, half human. It grows quickly and destroys Bella from the inside out and so Edward and werewolf friend, Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), try to protect Bella from the baby, enemy forces, and even herself. It turns into a commentary on abortion with their fetus versus baby debate, but in the end, Bella gets her way and delivers. The last time we see Bella she is completely thrashed on her bed, sunken in and frail from the ordeal she has gone through, and as the movie comes to a close, Bella is revived and her eyes open to see what will come next in “Breaking Dawn Part 2.”

            The acting has shown a huge increase in development over the course of the saga. Pattinson, Stewart, and Lautner came off as complete amateurs in the first Twilight movie and have experienced growth with every new installment of the series. They demonstrated great characterization and a real understanding of emotions that was actually believable. It breaks your heart to see them in these awful positions, heavily weighted with decisions, and that is what good acting should do.

The wedding of Edward and Bella. Courtesy of HollywoodLife.com

            That might have something to do with the director, Bill Condon. With a new director for every film in the series, each movie has shown a completely different vision and style, and this follows the trend. The way Condon stylistically chose to portray the birth was very tasteful, and the method in which he chose to show Jacob “imprinting” really helped those who have never read the books understand the concept. I did not agree with everything he did, like having random flashbacks suddenly, or using credits that reminded me of movies based on comic books, but the fact that he was better than the other three before him is commendable. He brought out the best in his actors, made stylistic choices that were tasteful and helped the audience understand. He even made the movie visually remarkable with everything from beautiful wedding scenes to the disgusting, rotten look that Bella had while she was pregnant. Huge improvement to the series.

           The only negative thing I can say about the movie is that the music and sound was absolutely awful. It did not fit the mood or what was occurring on screen, and was extremely distracting. There is this random flute that just pops up out of the blue, and sometimes a happy, light-hearted piano and violin combo would rear its head at the most serious moments and it was just entirely inappropriate for the sound team to orchestrate it like that. Music is supposed to suck you into the story and the music that was chosen for this film definitely took me out of it. The sound was the only thing I really hated in the film.

“Breaking Dawn Part 1” was so impressive because of the huge improvement it has shown over the other movies in the series. The movie was satisfying to those who have read the books and it leaves anticipation for the final part of the saga’s release. It was not comparable to any Academy Award winning films or anything, but as a follower of the books and the movies, all I was looking for was a good time and improvement and that was provided.

Gotta "Love, Jack"

Usually student films come with a little bit of a learning curve. They are not as well shot, not as well acted, not as elaborate as films we see in theaters these days. “Love, Jack” defies all preconceived notions though and does not fail to exceed expectations. Director Taylor Horky led a very capable team through a year’s worth of production and the final product proved to be aesthetically pleasing, emotionally engaging, and extravagant in comparison to what most student films are able to do.

The "Love, Jack" poster from the their Facebook page picturing Aaron Shand.

“Love, Jack” explored the story of Jack who was going through a hard time in his life when we got behind the wheel under the influence. He landed himself in the hospital next to an older man named Frank, an lively old guy who had a passion for life and an excitement for all that he had gone through. Frank always looked out of his window and described how glorious the park across the street was to Jack, whetting Jack’s appetite for life again. After Frank was gone, Jack went to look outside of the window for himself and found nothing but a brick wall. Apparently the park was across the street, past the brick building. The movie closes with a shot of a note that Jack left for Frank saying, “Beginning to see beyond the brick. Love, Jack.” Horky wrote the script with the inspiration of the brothers of Horky and editor Riley Robertson who both passed away. Horky’s coping method culminated into the beautiful work of art that is “Love, Jack.”
        Visually, the film was vivid and clear. Each shot was exquisite and was conducted with preciseness thanks to director of photography, Isaac Svensson. Frame after frame was breath takingly gorgeous with its white hues for the hospital, hazy overtures for flash backs, and darker hues for times of deep sadness. It set the mood for the story and was easy on the eyes to watch. They were able to limit the dialogue in the movie because they told the story more through visuals, like showing Jack getting drunk and crashing his car. The moral of the story was a little bit unclear through most of the movie, but they solved it with just one shot of Jack’s note. The crew’s skills with a camera did not go unnoticed in this film and were definitely the highlight.

Bornstein and his favorite window, provided by their Facebook page.

Another key element to this film was the acting. Aaron Shand was the perfect jaded young adult to play Jack. Quiet and introspective, Shand played off every emotion clearly to the audience whether it be anger or excitement or longing. He was supported by Jerry Bornstein (Frank) who really lightened the movie with his jovial spirit. A lot of awkward moments in the movie between the characters could have made the audience feel uncomfortable, but Bornstein exhibited a likable character that brought hope and joy to a dark and downtrodden situation. That was impeccable casting because Bornstein is just the right mix of Santa Claus and the grandpa you have always wanted to create the foil to Jack. The two of them together provided great chemistry and heart hopping moments. They really help you to grasp the emotion behind the story and understand everything they are feeling.
All this was wrapped in a pretty little package of extravagance. No one could have imagined that a student film coming out of Biola could include the use of real 1950s fire engines and cop cars, let alone a car crash! This was a never before seen surprise from Biola film that shocked the audience with delight. It made the film all the more real, all the more captivating, and all the more like a real film that could be seen in theaters today.

“Love, Jack” was an enjoyable short film created by Biola students over the course of the past year. It was impressive in both camera work and acting as wells as surprisingly high tech for its magnitude. Horky and the rest of the cast and crew are hoping to submit the film to various film festivals, so the short film will be available to be seen at festivals and DVDs to come.

Monet and Lichtenstein Cathedrals at LACMA

           World renowned impressionist painter Claude Monet (1840-1926) and some of his finest work is being featured right now at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) alongside the pop art of Roy Lichtenstein (1923-1997). Both feature their interpretation and vision of the Rouen Cathedral in Northern France which are quite different in style and feel. It is truly an astounding exhibit containing just ten paintings on three walls, but the Monet/ Lichtenstein presentation is a wonderful comparison of two separate art forms at an unparalleled skill level.

           Monet is regarded as the French father of Impressionism. His paintings have been significant for the style of art they show, as well as their value even in the current day. As one of the most recognized names in the art world, Monets have been regarded as masterpieces for the last century. Lichtenstein was also a prominent figure in the art world, especially when it comes to Pop art as well as the entire 21^st century. His works have been referenced in movies and in regards to the World Trade Center. Both have been exalted as some of the greatest artists in history and so a comparison of their series’ on the Rouen Cathedral is an interesting study and made for a wonderful art show.

One of Thirty Rouen Cathedral painted by Claude Monet. Courtesy of LA Times.

           Monet created a series of 30 paintings of the Rouen Cathedral between 1982 and 1983 and five of them were collected for this exhibit. They come from major impressionism collections—two from The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, which co-organized the show with LACMA, and three from Paris' Musée d'Orsay. Monet uses the same subject for every painting but different lighting and position for each one to display his various impressions on it on any given day. He implements his whole arsenal of colors in this series, capturing the different times of day, weather, and feel of the Cathedral. It is absolutely breath taking to Monet stack up layers of paint to perfect every color, every stroke, every texture. It is interesting to see how something can look a little bit messy up close can be such a phenomenally planned work of art when you take a step back.

Rouen Cathedral series on display at LACMA painted by Roy Lichtenstein. Photo provided by the LA Times.

           This is what Roy Lichtenstein counts on when he did his series on the Rouen Cathedral. Lichtenstein’s form of art mirrors that of comic books with his use of Ben-day dots. His method was that he would paint a canvas one color and then project a picture of the Rouen Cathedral onto the canvas. Then he would have his assistant paint circles with a stencil by hand while he directed them where he wanted them to go. He could see the bigger picture, even though close up it was merely a collage of dots. The viewer must look at it the same way to be able to see it. Once you take a step back, the Cathedrals jump out at you with vivid colors and flavor. Some are hard to see though, as he washes them out with his usage of white on yellow and black on blue to portray high noon and the dead of night. The five paintings Lichtenstein created are owned by LACMA patrons, Eli and Edythe Broad and are all placed close together on one wall to show the series. It adds to the already comic book feel that Lichtenstein tends to possess. Even though it is a little bit hard to see the big picture without squinting, the array of colors brightened up the very serious feel that the Monets have in the exhibit.

The Monet/ Lichtenstein exhibit is quite fascinating, seeing impressionism at its finest and pop art as its opposite, working together to portray the same subject. Walking into this widely popularized art show, it was slightly disappointing to see so few painting and to see such works of art as Monet and Lichtenstein pieces contained in so small of a space, but is it definitely still worth it. The Monet/ Lichtenstein paintings are truly works of art because of their depth and no matter how small the show may seem, it is worth your money to be in the presence of greatness.

It will be open to the public at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art until January 1, 2012.