Schmoo at the Movies

Once More Into the Fray: The Good and Bad of The Grey

2012-01-30T13:04:00.000-06:00

I've been looking forward to The Grey for some time. I'm a fan of Liam Neeson and the niche he's carved out for himself recently as a tough guy and master of violence. It suits him and the resulting films are usually quite entertaining even if they aren't of the highest quality. I, and many others, am guilty of making cracks about this film and the highly-anticipated wolf-punching, but The Grey is much more than that. When you boil down my feelings on the film, many of my reservations actually stem from my disappointment that it wasn't just a little better, because the potential was there for The Grey to be a great film instead of just "pretty good".

The film starts off introducing Neeson's character - Oddway, a hired gun for a oil company, who keeps renegade wolves from picking off their workers. Do such positions really exist? It doesn't seem like they would be necessary in the real world (but maybe, who knows?). Anyway, the nature of his position causes the viewer to take an early, and completely necessary, leap of faith. The world of the film is place where such positions would be necessary. These wolves aren't like real wolves. Sure, their aggression later in the film is given a reasonable explanation, but these monsters are meant to represent more. They're nature - in all its cruelty, indifference and persistence. More realistic-looking creatures might have improved the film a little, but when they weren't fully exposed, I think the film did a good job of making them terrifying (I'm specifically thinking of when we just see their eyes glowing in the dark).

The opening monologue by Oddway is done in the form of a letter to his absent wife. In it, he sets the scene of his harsh reality and that of the men we come to know throughout the film. It's one of the feature's strongest segments and it follows that the other Oddway-centric moments are of this high-quality. Neeson is a pro at playing haunted and coupled with his excellent "theme" in the score, it makes for some stirring cinema.

That being said, much of the film focuses on Neeson leading a rag-tag group through the Alaskan Wilderness, and those characters are far-less interesting. A plane-crash lands Oddway and his fellow survivors in their impossible predicament. The crash itself as well as the moments that precede it are tense and frightening (especially for anyone who has the same amount of turbulence-anxiety that I do). What follows is a fair amount of squabbling between Oddway and the perpetually annoying Diaz - a fellow-survivor with his own ideas on how to handle the situation. I appreciate that this conflict is supposed to mirror the alpha-male contests of the wolves, but it still put too much focus on a character I found to be obnoxious and unrealistic considering the dire situation of the group.

The other supporting players aren't as abrasive as Diaz, but I can't say that I cared a whole lot about them. Dermot Mulroney has some decent moments, as does Dallas Roberts (who has become even more of a dead-ringer for John Ritter), but these characters' roles in the plot seem more about their various deaths at the hands of the unforgiving wild. This is fine; I liked that the perils in the film were more numerous than just the ravenous wolves, but still, some of these guys do amount to just mere filler. There's also a little too much campfire chit-chat for my taste. Men sitting around talking about their lives back home seems like such a cliche and forced character development. In one case, a character talks about his young daughter and later, in the moment of his death, he sees a vision of her standing over him. Had that expository dialogue been excised entirely and the death scene remained the same, I still would have gotten what was going on.

If The Grey had just been a slightly quieter film, with more attention paid to the grim atmosphere, the beautifully shot surroundings and the unspoken perils of survival, it could have been beyond great. I don't mean to hate on Joe Carnahan, because this film was a big step forward for him and, on the overall, a success, but I can't help but feel that the potential of this story, in the hands of a more lyrical and confident director, might have been more fully-realized.

At the film's conclusion, we once more end up solely focused on Neeson's character (sorry for the spoiler, but what did you expect?). As he damns god's name while all but shaking his fists at the sky, you expect some rescue 'copter to zoom overhead, but thankfully one never arrives. Quite unfortunately, he finds himself wandering into the den of his adversaries, where he must face down the alpha wolf one-on-one. Death is inescapable for Oddway at this point, and he knows it, but he chooses to face it bravely. In these final moments, he recites a re-occurring poem in his mind: "Once more into the fray. Into the last good fight I'll ever know. Live and die on this day. Live and die on this day." Memories of his wife (who we now understand to be dead) also pop up, telling him not to be afraid (of death I'd assume) and the film cuts to black as he makes his final charge.

I feel that my description doesn't really do this ending justice because it was truly excellent and highly emotional. I thought it was the perfect way to conclude a picture of its themes. However, only after leaving the theater did I hear that there's a momentary scene after the credits. Initially, this angered me, as I thought it might cheapen the ending. I still have to see it, but some viewer descriptions have since lead me to believe that it doesn't.

The Grey has stuck with me over the past couple days in a way that many films don't. I look forward to seeing it again and hopefully soon. Though I was not entirely pleased with the film's middle, the beginning and end are certainly good enough to warrant a second viewing.

B+

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - One of 2011's Best

2012-01-19T12:14:00.000-06:00

Until the BAFTA's announced their nominations earlier this week, Tinker Tailor had been criminally underrated in the higher-profile award competitions. I take this as an indicator of our times, where the awards season is used to prop up what is most likable as appeasement to the masses. It's a glorified popularity contest with political maneuvering involved instead of what it should be - a celebration of the medium's greatest annual accomplishments.

Practically everything about Tinker Tailor is an achievement. It's beautifully shot, expertly acted, patiently directed and, in some ways, an exercise in audience engagement. You'll hear from a great many of its detractors that it's confusing, boring and hard to follow, but that's not really a fault of the film, it's a viewer defect. It's boring if you're not paying close enough attention to the details and subsequently hard to follow. You presumably paid money to see the film and someone (a lot of someones actually) took a great deal of time and effort to put all the pieces together to create the film's end-product, so why not pay attention? And I don't mean just sit and stare and let the whole damn thing, from beginning to end, be spoon-fed to you.

Listen to what is being said, watch what is being presented to you and how and trust yourself enough to come to your own conclusions on matters that the film will not expressly divulge. This is a spy movie after all, where watching and deducing are important to the plot itself. George Smiley's (Oldman) glasses are probably the most important prop in the film, for god's sake.

I think one point of frustration with Tinker Tailor is that there actually is quite a bit of dialogue, but very little exposition. Much is told, but not the type of things your general audience is waiting for. They're waiting for clear statements like "blank is the mole!", "such and such is our enemy in Russia" etc. Instead, a more believable world is built and characters are developed through less direct conversations. Smiley gives a long dialogue about his sole encounter with the mysterious and never-present Soviet-ops leader, Karla. It's chilling, and more informative about the antagonist than the entirety of Sherlock Holmes 2 is for Moriarty.

The film concludes with an outstanding sequence set to a Julio Iglesias version of "La Mer" that continues to knock my socks off with every viewing. In it, we see an assassination, Smiley's return to glory, and a number of other quick shots of the film's cast - effectively explaining their individual outcomes at the end of this whole ugly affair. For me, it was more fun and gratifying as a viewer to process and understand these things without them being said outright. And in the case of the more nebulous aspects, it's more enjoyable for me to speculate about the potential truths than to simply be handed everything with a written onscreen prologue - "Smiley went on to do this. Tarr did that and so on".

For my money, Tinker Tailor is right behind Drive in the list of 2011's best films and in any other year, it might easily take first place. Alfredson, making his english-language directorial debut as a follow-up to the stunning Let the Right One In, proves he's a force to be reckoned with. Oldman deserves, at least, a Best Actor nomination and practically the entire supporting cast could be considered in that category as well. Firth, Cumberbatch and Hardy are all outstanding and Mark Strong is particularly...well...strong in his role. Take the time to see this film and truly watch it. There's so much that's spectacular about it that only repeated viewing can unearth it all.

12 Films in 2012 Pt. 2

2012-01-11T00:21:00.000-06:00

7. The Master - ?:

This film has long been in development by Paul Thomas Anderson and it actually still doesn't have a release date. However, it's in post-production currently, so I'll use the same logic as I used above and assume it's hitting theatres in 2012. A 1950s drama centered on the relationship between a charismatic intellectual known as "the Master" (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) whose faith-based organization begins to catch on in America, and a young drifter who becomes his right-hand man (Joaquin Phoenix). To me, this sounds fascinating and Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Boogie Nights) certainly has a knack for creating excellent period films. I'm not a fan of everything he's done, but either way, I know the end result here will likely be interesting.

8. Moonrise Kingdom - May 25:

Another Anderson - this time Wes - has a film coming out this year. The plot revolves around a pair of young lovers who flee their New England town, which causes a local search party to fan out and find them. This sounds interesting enough, but the story really doesn't figure in to the film making my list. It appears here because, well, it's Wes Anderson. The guy doesn't know how to make a bad film, especially in recent years. There are plenty of detractors who will deride his films as being for hipsters and fanboys, but I'm neither - just a film enthusiast. I don't dislike Bottle Rocket or Rushmore by any means, but I do think his last four films were substantially better. Darjeeling Limited is simply one of the finest films of this young century and Fantastic Mr. Fox is one of its best animated features. I'm interested to see if he can keep this streak going.

9. The Avengers - May 4:

I'm starting to see that a lot of my list is auteur-based and this selection is no different. I'm not terribly excited for Amazing Spider-Man or The Avengers, but I'm going to see both and feel one of them deserved to make my list. Avengers gets the edge based on the fact that Whedon is in the director's chair. I have a hard time imagining such an ambitious, ensemble super-hero film turning out really well, but if someone can pull it off, it's Whedon.

10. Only God Forgives - ?:

This is wishful thinking somewhat, but there's a chance this film hits theatres this year, so I'm including. This is the scheduled follow-up collaboration to Drive between Nicolas Winding Refn and Ryan Gosling. The latter is reportedly set to star as a Bangkok police lieutenant who ultimately ends up settling his differences with a troublesome gangster in a Thai-boxing match. Frankly, this sounds awesome, but the specific nature of the film hasn't been officially announced, so don't be surprised if it ends up deviating from the above synopsis. What we do know is that it's a violent revenge/crime thriller with a rad title, directed by a guy who does violence quite well. I'm just hoping that the Thai-boxing element remains because, well, wouldn't that be interesting? Production is slated to begin in February, so here's hoping we see this released before the world ends.

11. Django Unchained - December 25:

I'm really looking forward to Tarantino's "Southern", but who isn't? The film is a re-imagining of slavery in the American South about an escaped slave turned bounty hunter played by Jaime Foxx. Tarantino's last flick showed his skills in the area of historical-revisionism, so I'm hoping this is similarly effective. One only need look at the cast and marvel at the talent he has to work with on this project. Leo DiCaprio is the plantation-owning villain named Calvin Candie?! Kurt Russell is his whip-wielding right-hand man, Ace Woody!? Outstanding. I'm just sad that I have to wait nearly a damn year to get a look at this freaking thing.

12. The Raid - March (limited):

This Jakarta-set action film has been riding a wave of nerdy goodwill and interest since its screenings at film fests late last year and the release of its crazy teaser trailer (see below). To me, this just looks like a lot of fun and the trailer shows a lot of potential, so I'm definitely going to be keeping an eye out for it. A minor synopsis is as follows (though critics say the plot is secondary): A SWAT team becomes trapped in a tenement run by a ruthless mobster and his army of killers and thugs.

Honorable Mention:

Abe Lincoln films - Two features focusing on the ill-fated President will be released this year - one based in fact and the other...not so much. Steven Spielberg's version, simply titled Lincoln, is set for a December release and is highlighted by Daniel Day-Lewis' return to the big screen in the titular role. This might have made the above-list if not for Spielberg's relatively poor track record since the turn of the century. My personal opinion: he just doesn't have it anymore, so Lincoln has the potential to fall flat.

The second of such films is Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (June) based on the revisionist novel of the same name. I actually quite liked the novel and found it surprisingly serious in tone. My concern is that the film will succumb to the ridiculousness of subject matter and end up lamely silly. Done right, this could actually be a really good film, but I have serious doubts. I also can't help be imagine the potential of such a film with Day-Lewis playing the lead here instead.

The movie Wettest Country (August) also fell just short of making my list. It's about prohibition-era bootleggers - interesting enough. It's directed by the extremely talented John Hillcoat (The Road, The Proposition) - sounds great. It also features the acting talents of Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce - this just keeps getting better and better. But there's a catch! The film also stars Shia LaBoof, who tends to knock down the quality of pretty much anything he touches. So, for his inclusion alone, I couldn't include the film in my official list.

12 Films in 2012 Pt. 1

2012-01-10T13:01:00.000-06:00

There's a lot to look forward to in 2012, though that doesn't always mean we're in for a great year in film. I wasn't terribly excited for much in 2011, but on the overall, it was a very solid year in film. Conversely, I was initially hyped about a lot of 2010's offerings, but felt the year was somewhat lacking. Who knows what this year will bring? I'm still very very excited, but realistic that at least something on my list is likely to let me down. Anyway, it looks like it's going to be a big year for Tom Hardy and Ryan Gosling.

1. The Dark Knight Rises - July 20:

Well, this was an easy one. Christopher Nolan has built a nice level of respectability for himself in Hollywood and the mainstream in recent years. I'm a fan and I'm definitely interested to see what he has planned for this third, and reportedly final, installment in his Batman series. Can he match or possibly even improve upon The Dark Knight? How will it all end? How effective of a villain will Bane be? These are all questions which have answers that I'm greatly anticipating. The trailer hints at something massively epic, with hints of surprising social commentary - the "batten down the hatches" dialogue from Selina Kyle. Whatever the outcome is, I certainly appreciate Nolan's handling of the franchise. I grew up with Batman being something goofy and small, with episodic films that just seemed interested in cashing in on their predecessors. Nolan has given Batman an appropriate scale on par with his graphic novel exploits. This is his grandiose, three-trade run and I can't wait to see how it all pans out.

2. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - December 14:

I really wanted Guillermo del Toro to direct this film, but I'll settle for Peter Jackson because of his adequate handling of the Rings trilogy. There's something special about this story and while it's not as expansive as its three-part follow-up, it might be more magical. It's a smaller story about a particular struggle instead of the fate of the whole world and I find that refreshing. Martin Freeman was the perfect choice to play Bilbo and there's a number of other castings that I'm happy about as well. As much as I still appreciate the Trilogy, recent viewings show it to be aging somewhat. Its CG was done at a time of exponential growth, but technology has advanced considerably since and the look of The Hobbit's trailer suggests a much more sophisticated level of visual effects. And speaking of the trailer - that song! I'm hoping that more of the book's musical numbers make it into the film, but the "Misty Mountain" track from the trailer really sold me.

3. Cogan's Trade - ?:

This film initially had first-quarter release date, but I can no longer find evidence of that. However, whenever it's released, I'll see it for the simple reason that it's directed by Andrew Dominik. The Aussie director made a name for himself with Chopper, but returned several years ago to a mixed-response with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. There's nothing mixed about my feelings on the film, however - I feel that it's one of the best films of the last decade and a personal top-10. In Cogan's Trade, Dominik re-teams with Brad Pitt, having him again playing a titular role. He's Jackie Cogan, a professional enforcer who investigates a heist that went down during a mob-protected poker game. That sounds interesting enough to me. The cast also includes other favorites of mine: Ben Mendelsohn, Sam Shepard, and Garret Dillahunt.

4. The Place Beyond the Pines - ?:

There's no release date for this one as of yet, but it's in post-production, so it's a safe bet to hit theatres some time this year. The synopsis is as follows: a motorcycle stunt rider considers committing a crime in order to provide for his wife and child, an act that puts him on a collision course with a cop-turned-politician. This might not inspire a ton of confidence, nor does Bradley Cooper's place in the case, but the film was written and directed by Derek Cianfrance, who also wrote and directed the excellent Blue Valentine. This film also reunites him with Ryan Gosling, who has proven himself to be consistently solid. Signs point to this one being more than your average crime thriller.

5. Prometheus - June 8:

What can you say about this one? It's a big-budget sci-fi film directed by the man who brought us Alien and Blade Runner. It's mysteriously connected to the "Alien" mythos. It features a solid cast. It was co-written by Damon Lindelof. And it already has a stunning trailer. This one might be the one I'm most looking forward to in 2012 and that's saying a lot.

6. The Grey - January 27:

Why not? It's rare that I have much to look forward to in the early part of the year as far as movies go, but I'm excited for this one. Do I expect a lot? Not really and that's part of my excitement. Of my entire list, this one might have the least potential of letting me down. The trailer looks fun enough. I love this niche Liam Neeson has carved for himself as a badass, master of violence. And in this one he's fighting wolves! Outrageous!

Rating Fincher

2012-01-04T14:06:00.000-06:00

David Fincher has garnered a fair amount of respect over the years, but especially in recent ones. He's met critical and box-office success with films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Social Network - leading to numerous high-profile award nominations. Now, with the release of his remake of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, he has nine feature films under his belt (in addition to a plethora of music video credits).

Despite my serious fondness for the film medium, I can't always see every movie and it's somewhat rare that I've seen every title in a director's filmography. However, I have been vigilant enough to catch all of Fincher's feature film work, so I thought I'd rate those nine films from my least to most favorite. I'll preface this by saying that there isn't a single Fincher film that I "dislike". There are several that I am indifferent to, some that I like well enough and a couple that I really love.

9. Panic Room (2002):

There's nothing wrong with Panic Room, I just have a hard time remembering much about it and I viewed it recent enough. I remember some decent performances and an entertaining enough story, but it's not a film that has stuck with me in any way or one that I see as possessing much of Fincher's style and presence.

8. The Game (1997):

Between his immensely popular Se7en and Fight Club, Fincher made The Game and it falls remarkably short of either. The Game is a decent enough film and I am an admitted fan of its lead - Michael Douglas - but it's somewhat predictable and not all that much to write home about.

7. Alien 3 (1992):

On the overall, I don't really think this third installment in the Alien franchise is a good film - and neither does Fincher for he's practically disowned it. However, there are a lot of good aspects to it, particularly the non-alien ones, and, at the end of the day, I pay it a lot more mind than the above-two films. Alien 3 is a disappointment when considering the success and appeal of Alien and Aliens. It's a vastly different film that fails to capture the horror that the xenomorph provided in its predecessors. But, like I said, there are positive elements to the film. Its setting, a prison-planet run by repentant religious inmates, is atmospheric and a threatening environment all its own to the stranded Ellen Ripley. The film, up until the arrival of the alien threat, is solid, but its quality quickly falls off in the 2nd half. The cast is strong, with Weaver, Dance and Dutton giving solid performances, but, for me, the film feels like a missed opportunity. I imagine Fincher feels much the same way, as reported studio tampering and creative differences are said to have left a bad taste in his mouth.

6. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011):

I just caught this english-language update last night and, though I appreciate Fincher's efforts, I'm left somewhat disappointed that he couldn't improve on the original more. I don't dislike the original Dragon Tattoo film, I just don't think it's anything special, nor do I believe its international-phenomenon status is warranted. The story is somewhat interesting, as are the characters, but there's too slow a build, too much exposition and document reading and not enough of a present threat to the protagonists. Fincher's version suffers from all of the same problems, though he does attempt to insert some of that lacking threat with the cat-incident. Such is the case across the board - minor improvements where major ones were necessary. The film is stylish, slick and handled better all-around with Fincher behind the camera, but it still feels overlong and uneventful. I also find it hard to believe that anyone won't see the answer to the mystery staring them straight in the face throughout the entire film considering its casting. Fincher did, however, make a solid bet in casting Mara in the lead. She knocks it out of the park.

5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008):

I was somewhat sore when Benjamin Button received so many critical accolades in 2008, as I think there were a lot better films. But, again, it certainly wasn't a bad film. I actually remember vividly my experience watching it in a theater. At around the lengthy film's half-way point, I can remember thinking that it was one of the best films I've ever seen. I loved the story, the look, the feel and the performances. I don't think I had a single complaint - then the 2nd half of the film happened. The film's love story, between Pitt and Blanchett, just didn't strike a cord. I failed to buy their romance, which made it hard to process the intended tragedy of it. I saw much more tragedy and dramatic material in Button's personal journey, which I feel was incomplete because of the focus on Blanchett's character - who I simply did not care that much about.

4. Fight Club (1999):

I, like most people, really enjoy Fight Club. There's a lot to like about it. Norton and Pitt are at the top of their game. It's twisted, funny and often shocking. I actually don't have much bad to say about it. Having read the book as well, I'd call it one of the more successful adaptations in film history. They are much the same and my memory often confuses various elements from both, but they both can stand alone on their own merits.

3. The Social Network (2010):

This film gained a lot of critical acclaim and, in recent years, that means it comes under a fair amount of contrarian scrutiny. Sure, it wasn't the best film of 2010, but it was still pretty high in the running. It's a great, hyperbolic account of the rise of Facebook, its peculiar creator and the changing face of communication world-wide. Solidly cast, impressively acted and featuring a subtle yet appropriate score out of Trent Reznor, The Social Network also represents Fincher near his finest.

2. Se7en (1995):

Se7en was Fincher's breakout film and firm evidence of the potential that was squandered in Alien 3. There are probably films on this list that I would much rather watch for the simple reason that they're much less disturbing, but that, in itself, is a testament to its effectiveness. The serial killer depicted in the film is frighteningly perverse and represents the kind of horrific and ever-present threat that I felt Dragon Tattoo lacked. The Leland Orser/lust portion of the film has, on occasion, completely unnerved me to the point that I need to shut it off - there are few films in all of history that have this power over me. There are so many maddening details to the various disturbing elements of Se7en that paint this bleak, mysterious and un-specified setting, making it more interesting than if it took place in a real location and time. I somewhat regard Se7en as the twisted cousin of, and a great companion piece to, its 90's serial-killer film predecessor - The Silence of the Lambs. Both are dark, gritty, graphic and great.

1. Zodiac (2007):

Again with the serial-killer material? What can I say? Fincher does it really well, though Zodiac is so much more. It's an expansive, epic and highly-entertaining chronicle of the mysterious and still-yet-unsolved Zodiac Killer case that loomed over California in the 60's and 70's. Besides being tense and frightening (there's that present threat again), well-acted and frankly fascinating, Zodiac is an excellent period-film. The costumes, details and soundtrack are all first-rate in their capturing of particular eras. The final scenes of the film are especially outstanding: First - Gyllenhaal's Graysmith facing down the man he suspects to be the killer and the look he receives back and second - the final interrogation scene where one of Zodiac's survivors points to the picture of that same man, cutting to credits and the perfectly utilized "Hurdy Gurdy Man". Even though I've watched the film many many times, I still enjoy it just as much as the first time I saw it and that final cut-to-credits always gives me chills.

2011 In Review

2011-12-23T00:52:00.000-06:00

Just stopping in to express my feelings on some of this year's releases.

1. Tyrannosaur:
The directorial debut of Brit-actor Paddy Considine stars Peter Mullen as a man consumed with rage who ends up getting involved in the domestic trials of a local shop-owner. The shop-owner, played by Olivia Colman, is terrorized initially by Mullen, but we come to see that her treatment at the hands of her husband (Eddie Marsan) is much worse.

I'm a fan of Considine and the creative circles he runs with - most notably Shane Meadows - and while this film seems to borrow somewhat from the DNA of those films - it's still rough around the edges and rife with cliches. The emotional performances of both Mullen and Colman have received a lot of press, but that emotion sometimes disguises mediocrity. Mullen, another actor of whom I am a big fan, is just fine, but I wouldn't call it his finest performances. Marsan, on the other hand, is chilling in his role as abusive husband, outshining the entire cast. There's a lot of good here and Considine shows promise behind the camera, but here's hoping there's still some room for improvement.

B-

2. Attack the Block:

Another Brit film, this one by Joe Cornish (a veteran of British television) follows the adventure that ensues after an alien crash lands in a London project (the Block) and is subsequently beaten to death by a bunch of teenage thugs. Unfortunately for them, their victim was an extraterrestrial of the smaller variety and the resulting invasion of the big boys is a bit too much to handle.

I couldn't be any more effusive in my praise of this film. There's hardly an aspect of it that I didn't find excellent. There seems to be a lingering nostalgia for young-ensemble adventure and sci-fi films of old as evidenced by 2011 titles like Super 8 and Paul - Block is the only movie this year that comes so close to that spirit, while also treading ground all its own. The film is fun and often funny, but it does not neuter the antagonists - the aliens and the rough neighborhood itself - of their threat. People, or more specifically teenage children, die often and brutally at the hands of these villains and their deaths are met with the appropriate sense of tragedy.

The ensemble of young actors are all quite good and Nick Frost is a pretty entertaining, but not distracting addition to the cast. Block's score is one of the best I've heard all year, offering something unique and booming that fits the action like a glove. The aliens and the idea behind their appearance takes a minute to get used to, but it's novel and they look great for how much they're shown. The ending was also one of the most satisfying and flat-out cool conclusions to a film that I've seen in recent years. Some part of me wants to know where else this story could go and there's certainly room for a sequel, but another part thinks the film should just be left alone in it's near perfection. Easily one of the year's best.

A

3. Martha Marcy May Marlene:

I feel like this film isn't getting enough credit in the recent awards season and that's a shame, because, like the above, it's also one of the year's best. I went in to the film expecting a stellar performance from newcomer Elizabeth Olsen (as was the hype at the time), but what I got was much more. In it, the title character runs away from a peculiar commune/cult environment and ends up with her estranged sister and brother-in-law. As the film progresses, we begin to see more of what her life in seclusion was like and how the experience has damaged her.

Olsen is great in the lead role, but so too is John Hawkes in the supporting role of cult leader. I think, when depicting situations like this, films too often stumble due to an inclination toward hyperbole. Cults and the people in them are batshit crazy and they do scary things - is what we usually see (I'm looking at you Red State) - but first-time feature director Sean Durkin uses expert editing to paint a much more subtle picture that, over time, becomes infinitely more disturbing with each added detail.

We don't see Hawkes dashing babies against rocks, but a dialogue with a new recruit about how the girls at the commune impregnated by their leader only give birth to boys gave me chills when I processed it. When blood is eventually spilled by the groups members, it comes as something even more shocking because they're not outwardly mad men and women, they're just a little off the norm, but maybe that's all it takes.

A-

4. Knuckle:

This doc covers the very interesting and intense world of Traveler Bare-Knuckle Boxing contests (what they call Fair Fights). It would have been a lot easier for a director to exploit these people and their insane actions for cheap shock and awe, but where Ian Palmer succeeds is in exposing the shame of it all.

Knuckle follows several different family-clans in the UK as they settle old scores by the ancient laws of combat. Their family pride seems heightened by the various feuds they find themselves in and their boldness is multiplied by their overt Celtic machismo. One of the film's central figures, James Quinn McDonagh - a Fair Fights legend - laments the fighting, but over time is repeatedly drawn back to them for one reason or another. There's hope that some sort of peace can eventually be reached, but the reciprocal nature of violence is a hard one to shake off one the stone gets rolling.

A

5. Bellflower:

Another interesting title coming from a first-time feature director. It takes a bit of time to get going and the viewer has to get used to the douchbaggery of the protagonist and his best friend, but in the film's latter half you'll find payoff.

Essentially, the film's main character, played by director Evan Glodell, builds Mad Max-inspired weaponry with his best bud in-between getting wasted and never working a job. He falls in love, but that, sadly, doesn't last and a resulting car accident/brain trauma renders him somewhat unhinged. Violence and devastation ensure, but in the end, due to the film's slight lean toward the experimental, we are left to wonder what exactly we just witnessed - alternate timelines of reality? Dreams? Hallucinations? It's left up to our interpretation. Glodell shows some potential as a filmmaker and storyteller and while his performance isn't anything mind-blowing, he possesses enough charisma for more work in front of the camera.

B

6. The Skin I Live In:

I'm not what you would call a student of Almodovar's films, but I quite liked this one. It's a bit twisted and European-eccentric, but I also found it to be surprisingly broad in its appeal and accessibility. The plot involves a scientist (Antonio Banderas), whose wife was burned in a terrible car-accident, trying to create a super-resistant skin via human testing. The story jumps around a bit chronologically and we come to see how the tragedy has affected his family - most notably his young daughter. To give away much more would ruin the film's various twists and turns, so I'll leave it at that.

The Skin has the DNA of many genres and that's what I liked so much about it. There's the revenge side, the Frankenstein/mad-scientist side, the psycho-sexual-political side, the prisoner/torture side (though it's much more subtle than the American variety) and the family drama aspect. I love the journey this film took me on and I was left uniquely satisfied by every direction it chose to take. It's not a perfect film, losing momentum when the flashback begins, but it's pretty darn good. Though there is still much of 2011's crop still to see, this one currently sits fairly comfortably in my yearly top-ten.

A-

7. Into the Abyss:

Werner Herzog's latest documentary about capital punishment is certainly worth seeing. It's not my favorite of his recent docs, but it gave me a lot to think about and whether you agree with what he's putting out there or not, that's at least a small victory. I have some very complicated feelings on the subject that I won't get into, but the story of the film had me confront those various feelings head on.

Despite what anyone says about Herzog being an impartial narrator, that's simply not the case with Abyss. He states very openly that he does not agree or believe in the use of the death penalty - specifically stating that he does not believe humans should be executed. The topics he chooses to cover, while unique and obscure (in classic Herzogian fashion), are clearly meant to address the inhumanity of the practice. However, one has to applaud the director for covering the case that he does - one that is particularly brutal and featuring two highly unsympathetic sociopaths. Cases of persons a lot less deserving of the death penalty would have been simpler propaganda for Herzog's position, but he chose something that would muddy the waters a bit more, which makes his film a helluva lot more interesting.

The film's score is repetitious, but I really thought it worked. Some of the film's segments were a bit long-winded and obnoxious, but, on the overall, it was a solid film.

B

8. The Adventures of Tintin:

Of the 8 films Steven Spielberg has made since 2000, I've seen 7 (still have War Horse), but I can safely say when looking at these crop of films that he's lost it. Sure, Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can are decent, but I can't say that I care for much else - Tintin included. I'm not hating on the director; he's been behind the camera for some of my favorite (and greatest all-time) films. I just think that, in this day and age of filmmaking magic and technology, he can't focus, eschewing the heart of his stories for bells and whistles.

His latest suffers gravely from this. Yeah, Tintin is great on a technical level. The 3D is great (saying a lot because I hate 3D) and the animation is great (also saying a lot because I hate motion capture/human animation), but that's where the greatness ends. The plot's action picks up right off the bat, which might sound appealing, but the film also forgets to develop any characters. I remember the character somewhat from high school French class, but not enough to feel some background/character building wasn't necessary. All we get in that department is repeated doses of general archetypes. Tintin is plucky and resourceful - watch what he does! Haddock is a drunk, he loves liquor! The bad guy has a sinister face and doesn't like the loveable drunk on a personal level, what a jerk!

Most of the film consists of elaborate chase scenes - brought to you by modern movie magic. These things are well and good in moderation, but here it's just one troublesome calamity after another with no time in the middle to breathe and develop a reason to care about the fact that these things are happening. Tintin looks like something that would be chalk full of heart, but it's actually completely devoid of it, which is a shame because I wanted to like it a lot more. I don't want to unduly blame Spielberg, but I have a hard time believing the end-product was anything close to what the film's three, heavy-hitter screenwriters envisioned. I see Steven Moffat as something of a storytelling genius and Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish are talented filmmakers in their own right. I can't imagine they wasted so much time one mindless-action-filler.

C+

9. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows:

My Tintin review should serve as a pretty good clue as to how I feel about Sherlock Holmes 2. The film is devoid of any heart, instead relying on gimmicks, overlong action and some of the least humorous comedy banter I've ever heard. However, I'd have to say that I dislike this film a good measure more than Tintin. I hate practically everything about it, which even I found shocking since I rather enjoyed the original. Considering there are so many aspects I disliked about Holmes, I figured I might as well just list them:

- There isn't a goddamn mystery! Sherlock Holmes solves mysteries, right? Here, he's just engaged in fisticuffs with Moriarty and his henchmen over and over again. Sure, we're not exactly sure what Moriarty is up to, but we know it's bad and that he's the bad guy. Nothing comes as a surprise, nothing's a revelation.

- Holmes' deductive skills are reduced to a combat trick and his trademark eccentricities seem to have merely given Ritchie liscense to create a Jack Sparrow-wannabe, who revels in kooky disguises and pickpocketing.

- Moriarty sucks! There's so much build-up to the character in the first film and he's also Holmes' most feared adversary in literature, but here he's completely wasted. I thought it was a coup when they cast Jared Harris in the role, but he plays it boring. Despite the fact that he's already depicted as a wealthy man, his primary motives are monetary gain - hardly the mark of a sadistic, genius villain. He wants to be a war profiteer, so what? His marksman of a #2 is infinitely more interesting.

- The schtick is unbearable! Sherlock Holmes is an asshole to Watson and his constant posing punctuated by "witty' comments (the above-mentioned Jack Sparrowing) is incessant. I know he was like this a bit in the first film, but here he never seems to be taking anything serious ever. He's constantly pandering to the audience and it made me sick. If I hear another person use the term "bromance" to describe the pair in the film, I'll strangle somebody. Do I sound like a contrarion if I say that maybe I don't like Robert Downey Jr. anymore?

- Cut it out with the slo-mo! It's not necessary to use any cheap trick so often, but slo-mo is particularly tiresome.

I hope they never make this series a trilogy. There's only need for one Sherlock Holmes and today, that man's name is Benedict Cumberbatch. Funny name, I know, but he's seriously fantastic, as is almost everything about BBC's "Sherlock" (series 2 begins in January)

This film gets a D.

2011 In Review

2011-11-06T12:53:00.001-06:00

I've gotten behind a bit on my reviews, so I thought I might just do a few quick reviews for some of the 2011 films I've seen recently.

El Velador:

A solid documentary from this year's Milwaukee Film Fest. This semi-experimental documentary doesn't tell much of a conventional story. It instead follows the coming and goings of the night watchman (El Velador) at a Mexican cemetary - pairing these images with audio from heinous news stories chronicling cartel violence. In it we witness the brutal daily reality of our neighbors to the south that often seems to be swept under the rug. One of the year's best documentaries.

A -

Coriolanus:

Another entry from this year's Milwaukee Film Fest - I give this Shakespearean-update a lot of credit for its ambition. Set in a war-torn modern Rome, director Ralph Fiennes presents a well-formed and visually interesting translation of the Bard. Fiennes is also spectacular in his performance as the titular character, which is doubly-impressive considering that Shakespearean dialogue can reap havok on even the most seasoned of actors. Vanessa Redgrave is solid in her role as Coriolanus' mother as is James Nesbitt in his supporting role, but everyone somewhat lacks a command of the language.

This film might be too much of a true adaptation to really make its mark, however. The final act seems stunted, but that's probably just because the film is following the play so closely. I was so memorized by Fiennes' performance that I wanted to see more of him, but his involvement in the plot seems to fall off right when it hits its peak. Subtle changes might have been just enough to really make this impressive. Still a decent film, however.

B+

Paul:

The trailers for this film made it look horrendous. I'm a fan of the Pegg/Frost duo and even more a fan of director Greg Mottola, so I was disappointed in what was being advertised to me. However, after finally catching Paul on dvd, I had to eat my words. Sure, Seth Rogan is slightly irritating as the voice of the alien, but he's also funny on occasion. There's so much heart-felt nostalgia here as well that it becomes really hard to dislike. Though they are much different in tone, I saw a lot of similarities to Abrams' Super 8, but found Paul to be the much better tribute to Amblin-era sci-fi.

B

Red State:

I caught this film on the Netflix instant-queue recently and I must say - it's not Kevin Smith's worst film. Some of it is lame, childish and nonsensical (three friends wind up in the hands of militant Jesus-freaks because they are lured by the prospect of a four-way with Melissa Leo??!), but it's interesting enough when it counts, occasionally funny and highly unpredictable.

However, My primary issue with the film is in the treatment of the religious fanatics. I know from following Smith's Twitter account that he has a real problem with their real-life counterparts - Fred Phelps and his lot. Why then is there a need to up the volume so much on these characters? They're such caricatures of the real thing that it's hard to take them seriously and the film comes off as a condemnation of no-one because of it. A much more interesting film by a much more clever filmmaker might have been about how these people are in real-life and it would have been a lot scarier for it.

C+

Melancholia:

Lars von Trier's latest won't be getting a wide-release until later this year, but you can catch it On Demand through various outlets. Was it worth the $10 I spent on it? Probably not. Melancholia is an OK film on the overall, but had the potential to be much more. It has some beautiful imagery and uses the impending apocalypse appropriately to say something about depression and the place of women in a male-dominated world, but ultimately falls flat.

The major issue is that the film is just too damn long - 135 minutes split into two parts. The first half focusing on Justine's (Dunst) wedding is interminable, feeling drawn out with seemingly little purpose. By the time I got to part two about Justine's sister Claire (Gainsbourg), I had a hard time caring about what was going on, which is a shame considering it's definitely the more interesting half of the film. I believe Melancholia could have been a tighter, more affecting film with a runtime under 100 minutes. It's not that I don't like longer films- quite the contrary in fact - it's just that so much of the film feels like wasted time.

Another issue I have - not necessarily with the film itself - is how much attention Kirsten Dunst is getting for her performance. It's OK, sure, she's an OK actress. But when Charlotte Gainsbourg (and pretty much everyone else in the cast) is acting circles around her, it's hard to see what exactly was so memorable about her time on screen.

B-

Now Playing - Take Shelter

2011-11-06T11:47:00.002-06:00

Take Shelter, Jeff Nichols' sophomore feature, is one of the year's best films. (His debut, Shotgun Stories, also features Michael Shannon in the lead and is likewise also fantastic.) Take Shelter possesses a heavy atmosphere, leading us through Curtis' (Shannon) delusions, paranoia and compulsions about a potential and impending apocalyptic event.

Clues along the way point towards him being schizophrenic (his mother was diagnosed when she was around his age), however, the real strength of the film is that it provides no easy answers. Yes, Curtis is having hallucinations, but many of his symptoms, such as his vivid, frequent nightmares don't necessarily mesh with the mental illness hypothesis.

The film ultimately ends up at a grand conclusion that also provides few definitive answers. Our protagonist is obviously unreliable, so being able to decipher truth from events happening to him is difficult, if not impossible, so we are left somewhat in his shoes - not knowing what is reality and what is delusion.

Shannon delivers a powerful performance. He's known for taking on peculiar roles, such as his part in HBO's "Boardwalk Empire", but he never goes overboard like he does there. Despite Curtis' difficulties, Shannon is able to play them with reserved horror and frustration, before his major, chilling blowup in the third act. Not considering him highly for a Best Actor Oscar here would be a crime.

Shea Whigham, also of "Boardwalk Empire" fame, gives a solid supporting performance as Curtis' friend and co-worker. Also of note is Jessica Chastain, who plays Curtis' concerned, yet supporting wife. Chastain's has really become quite a sought-after actress of late, but until Take Shelter I never really got a sense of her abilities. She's shot beautifully in Tree of Life and there's evidence of a good actress there, but the performance is minimal. I saw her in Coriolanus, but she doesn't have the best command of Shakespeare to make for a good showing. Take Shelter sold me on her - I wouldn't protest if she garnered some sort of nomination here.

The score is also solid. It's unique, eerie, persistent and matched the film perfectly, really driving home the semi-classic-horror aspects. In some ways, Take Shelter reminding me of Peter Weir's The Last Wave. I think that when I read the description of the film some years ago before viewing it, Take Shelter is, in a lot of ways, similar to the film I'd imagined The Last Wave would be. That's not a knock against it - it's still a great film - but something more akin to Take Shelter is what I really wanted. Now I have it and I'm satisfied.

A

This is Halloween: Directors #2

2011-10-29T12:38:00.002-05:00

I already got John Carpenter out of the way and, for my money, he's the most important of the elite horror directors. However, there's a couple more who do the genre justice (or did at least).

George Romero:

As much as I hate his more recent films (post Land of the Dead) and the stupid zombie-fad we're stuck in, Romero deserves to be mentioned amongst the higher echelon of horror directors for what he's accomplished in the past.

I feel as though I hardly need to mention Dawn of the Dead because pretty much everyone accepts it as the zombie film. Night of the Living Dead was a good start, but Dawn is just phenomenal. It's creepy, it's intelligent and it gets better with every viewing.

I'm also fairly partial to Day of the Dead, which seems to have picked up a bit more respect since its release. The zombies here are less the focal point than the unsettling human drama playing out between the survivors. If Dawn is a depiction of mid-apocalypse, then Day is the first true post-apocalyptic film in Romero's series. Remnants of the human race are trapped underground, coming into conflict with each other more than the undead. I get the sense when I'm watching it that the actors haven't slept in days and it makes for a very tense, engaging film.

As much as I enjoy these two zombie flicks, I wouldn't have felt Romero worthy of this list if they were his only accomplishments. What really elevates Romero for me is his 1976 take on the vampire - Martin.

The film tells the story of a young man who believes himself to be an ancient vampire. Romero presents a very good "is he or isn't he?" narrative,offering evidence for both possibilities - the alternative being that he's just crazy. Either way, he still stalks and subdues victims and ultimately drinks there blood. Martin is a tragic and twisted antagonist and his story, set against the backdrop of a failing industrial town in Pennsylvania, results in one of the better vampire films ever made. (Lofty as that praise might seem, 99% of movies about vampires, werewolves, zombies and miscellaneous ghouls are downright terrible).

This is Halloween: Directors #1

2011-10-22T02:02:00.002-05:00

With Halloween so close, I wanted to take a look at my favorite horror directors. The men (sorry, but are there any great female horror directors?) who've given so much to the genre that's given so much to pop-culture Halloween.

1. John Carpenter:

Carpenter gets first billing for a number of reasons. a) He directed the best slasher-horror film, featuring the best horror franchise antagonist of all time, on a relatively tight budget. b) He directed what I would call the greatest horror film of all time The Thing. c) he's done some decent stuff along the way.

I realize that I've made some pretty bold claims, but I stick by them. Halloween is the best slasher of all time. It's legit scary. Its theme, which has become such a big part of the holiday itself, makes it even creepier still. Michael Myers is a far more respectable villain than other franchisers like Freddy or Jason. Frankly, neither of those characters were ever featured in a film half so good as the original Halloween.

The great things about him are numerous. His introduction - yeah, the one with the dead-eyed kid in the clown costume brandishing a butcher's knife - is excellent. Just going off the 1st film - we don't have a clue what drives this maniac. He doesn't talk, he's slow and calculated, rarely getting over-excited, he's unstoppable by conventional means though, by all accounts, he's very much a human being (and how about that Shatner mask!?). And he's got Dr. Loomis to boot, who works as something of a hype-man, constantly talking about what a bad mutherfucker Michael is and why we should all be very afraid.

Carpenter severed his directorial involvement with the franchise after the first film and despite the many opportunities there have been to capitalize on what he delivered, none have come even close. He reportedly wanted to do a sequel focusing on the aftermath in Haddonfield, but it was not to be, which is unfortunate because that sounds like a great film.

As for The Thing - it IS the best horror-film ever made. The visual effects used in the movie are astounding for the early-80's. It's gross and horrifying what the titular Thang can do to you, but that's not the focus of the film's terror. Instead, it derives its edge-of-your-seat tension from the paranoia and distrust among the players. The blood-in-a-petri-dish scene is just such a classic, but then again, so are a lot of scenes.

The Thing also features a great cast, including Kurt Russell at his best, Wilford Brimley (also at his best) and Keith David who aint bad. Great theme to this as well and a pretty fantastic conclusion.

Oh, and since I want to cover three horror films per director I feature - why not praise The Fog a little. I've heard some pretty nasty things about the remake, which is too bad because people shouldn't be turned away from the original because of it. The film already has a hard enough time with a slightly silly plot featuring ghost-pirates (pirate ghosts? well, maybe they're just fishermen).

Anyway, The Fog is a moody, slower-paced horror that excels at giving a sense of impending doom. There's nothing perverse or visceral about the vengeful ghosts that inhabit the fog; it's old-terror, classic-terror of American seafaring legend.

There's a lot more good to Carpenter's filmography, horror and not. Unfortunately, his career hit a pretty sharp decline in the 90's and he's yet to recover. Personally, I'd love to see one more success before he finally calls it quits, though we could already consider it a career well-spent. I don't know why directors like Carpenter fall off like they do. Sometimes auteurs refuse to change with the times and it becomes their undoing, but looking at Carpenter's recent works I think perhaps the opposite is true. Maybe Carpenter was never meant to change, or maybe he's just had his day. Either way, he's still the director I'm drawn to most this time of year.

Retro Trailers: The Three Musketeers (1993)

2011-10-19T23:35:00.000-05:00

They've got this new Musketeers film coming out and frankly, it looks like garbage. In fact, it looks like less than garbage - like even bad for Paul W.S. Anderson. Which got me thinking about the Three Musketeers of my childhood; that's right - Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt, Charlier Sheen..and uh, Chris O'Donnell (that's four, so what?). I can't speak to this film's quality since I've long-since lost my VHS copy, however, I do remember enjoying the shit out of it when I was a kid. My level of interest in this movie was so high at that time that I can't imagine it being unbearable today.

As far as I remember: Sheen and Platt were a lot of fun in their side-musketeer roles and Sutherland was a badass leader. O'Donnell's character represented pure goodness while the villainous Tim Curry and Michael Wincott stank of corruption. It's a simple film with a lot of fun swashbuckling and, oh yeah, the powerful ballad by Bryan Adams, Rod Stewart and Sting (!) "All For One". I bet that one could still get me juiced.

This new film just makes me feel sad and empty. Here's a fan-made trailer for the 90's film. It makes it out to be a little less silly than it really is, but I just can't find an official trailer on Youtube. Follow this link if you really want to see the original.

And, even better, here's the music video for "All For One":

This Is Halloween

2011-10-14T00:48:00.001-05:00

Well, it's getting to be about that time. Halloween is already getting pushed aside by retailers in favor of X-Mas decorations, but there should still be at least two weeks of jack o'lanterns, black cats and spooky ghouls, dammit!

Admittedly, I've never been that into horror films, but I appreciate their importance to this holiday season. Everywhere you'll find scary movie marathons and allusions to Jason, Freddy, and Michael as well as Frankenstein, Dracula and the Wolfman.

I wanted to just do some sort of horror movie top-10, but I couldn't narrow the list down and, in the end, I felt that was less inventive and didn't quite cover my feelings on the genre. Therefore, I will try to come up with numerous horror topics to discuss over the coming weeks. First up - quintessential horror directors. Who will make my cut? I bet you can guess. Until then, watch something gory.

MKE Film Fest Reviews: We Need To Talk About Kevin

2011-10-11T12:38:00.000-05:00

I was lucky enough to catch the sole screening of Lynne Ramsay's adaptation of We Need to Talk About Kevin a couple weeks back at the Milwaukee Film Festival. I'd read the Lionel Shriver novel a few years back, so I was definitely interested in seeing how it would translate to the big screen. However, enough time had elapsed that I wasn't concerned too much about how that would affect my view of the film.

Kevin is a good film; definitely unique with some great performances, but also not without its flaws. I saw three, in particular. First, is that the film's opening half-hour or so is intensely jumpy in a chronological sense. The film, which shows a mother (Tilda Swinton) struggling in the aftermath of a Columbine-esque act committed by her son Kevin (Ezra Miller), shifts to various points in his development, from conception to young-adulthood. This continues throughout the film, but the plot becomes considerably more linear as it progresses. The opening act the film hurt my head though and I was left frustrated by the lack of dialogue or interaction between anyone during this time. Had I known that this wasn't going to be the style of the entire film, I might have been less annoyed, but hindsight is 20/20.

Issue two is in the depiction of the titular Kevin. Ezra Miller gives a solid, creepy performance as the character in his teenage years (as do the two child actors who play him at other points). However, at times it goes a little overboard, making him out to be preternaturally wicked - like Damian or Michael Myers. This is slightly divergent from the book, where Kevin's idiosyncrasies were a notch more subtle. And even when he's being particularly bad in the book, we are still supposed to recognize that the mother, Eva, is an unreliable narrator, who projects her feelings about Kevin post-incident onto her memories of him as a child. There's no real sense of that here in the film.

Kevin is just an evil psychopath, which I suppose works in its own right if you think of it in an It's Alive sort of way; Eva was never too psyched about having a kid - ergo her child is a monster. However, to me, this makes the film a little more melodramatic than I'd hoped from Ramsay.

Issue #3 is with the soundtrack - simply that I don't think a lot of the musical cues work that well. There are both hits and misses, one hit being this warbled older song that I still cannot track down the name of that's used a couple times throughout the film, but misses certainly outnumber the hits.

Apart from these issues, Kevin is pretty good. Swinton's performance has received a lot of buzz, and rightly so, but she's almost always excellent, so this came as no surprise. As I mentioned, Miller is pretty good and so is John C. Reilly in his relatively subdued role as dad.

The film looks great throughout. It also gives the audience just a taste of what Kevin has done from the get-go, so everyone thinks they already know the extent of it, but also have no idea. My heart jumped with panic a little watching firemen cutting through bike locks on the high school's gym doors - this shot leaves audiences to wonder "what will they find inside?". These snippets elicit some pretty heavy tension throughout most of the film and the ghastly reveals near the end make due on the promises that those tensions suggest.

Though my issues with the film have framed this review, they now seem only minor-to-moderate infractions and I applaud the movie for winning me over despite them. I'd definitely be interested in catching another screening some time in the near future.

B+

Great Expectations: A Plea For Consumer Responsibility

2011-10-10T12:33:00.000-05:00

A news story surfaced today about a Michigan woman suing the distributors of the film Drive and the theatre at which she viewed it because of misleading advertising. I found this annoying because, for one, I think Drive is one of the better films made in this century, and two, I don't really remember the trailers being terribly misleading. Perhaps some of the TV spots presented Drive as a bit more of an car-chase film than it was, but that's typical in film marketing these days. She also claimed that the film was racist against the Jewish people and encouraged violence against them, which simply isn't true in the least bit.

My critical opinion of Drive and their marketing tactics notwithstanding, this woman is still 100% wrong. Films have used way more misleading trailers than FilmDistrict did in the case of Drive. This can be annoying, but trailers aren't the only resource we have to figure out which films we want to see.

This idiot is claiming that Drive pulled the bait-and-switch, marketing a film similar to that of The Fast and the Furious series, which I find to be somewhat untrue, but either way - why would you want to go so another film like the neverending Fast and Furious films. You're just clamoring for more stunts and chases? Have you never wanted more from a film. And say they did completely mislead you via their marketing? Say they really tried to dupe you by false advertisement - it's still your responsibility as a consumer and a movie-goer to be more educated.

There are countless websites and online resources that will give you a clear picture of every major film out there. Rotten Tomatoes offers critical and consumer reviews. IMDB features much the same and even greater info about the film. On IMDB, you can also research the filmographies of directors and writers with the click of a button. It's no excuse for anyone to say, "I don't know who Nicolas Winding Refn is, so I had no idea Drive wouldn't be standard Hollywood fare". Do your research, don't go into a film without knowing who directed it and what they're capable of.

In the case of Drive, it's adapted from a goddamn book, so even reading a synopsis of that should have given opponents of the film pause before seeing it.

I feel like Drive has fallen victim - albeit to a much lesser extent - to the same curse of ignorance and stupidity that The Tree of Life did earlier this year. I remember a bunch of giggling girls staring up at the Oriental Theatre's marquee this summer saying, "oh, that's that Brad Pitt movie! I really want to come see that!". Brad Pitt is an actor who appears in the film, much in the same way Ryan Gosling stars in Drive, but neither man directed those films. And with just a few exceptions, both men also tend to pick more unique roles and films to take on anyway. Just because they're handsome, popular, leading men doesn't mean they're going to pander to the populous.

Multitudes of people around the country asked for refunds to The Tree of Life, claiming it was boring or nonsensical, but I bet a lot of those people don't have a clue who Terrence Malick is or what type of work he's done previously. That's their fault. Not the theatre's. Not the distributor's. And certainly not Terrence Malick's.

Film-goers need to be cognizant of/realistic about their level of taste as well. You can't come out of a film like Drive of The Tree of Life crying foul if you're an uncultured person. I'm not trying to be an elitist prick here, but there are obviously different classes of film-viewers, with greatly varying levels of film literacy. It's like someone who doesn't read books throwing down "War and Peace" and saying "this was stupid! It makes no sense! I'm bored!". That's your fault, you shouldn't have picked it up in the first place, or if you did, you should have the perspective to say, "this wasn't for me" because that's fine, not everything is for everyone.

I'm not saying that you have to be smart to like films like the above-mentioned (but it helps), or that if you're film-savvy you will automatically like them, it's just that you have to be more vigilant in choosing the media you ultimately engage with. You can't hate on Drive because you're not patient enough to sit through it or can't appreciate it like a higher-functioning human being can. Just don't see it.

Nobody anywhere should ever be allowed a refund for a movie ticket on the grounds that they didn't like it. I see films I don't like all the time and that's as much a part of being a film-goer as seeing films you love. TS, buyer beware.

And as for claims of being duped by advertising - take that as a sign encouraging greater vigilance. You were "fooled" into seeing a film that wasn't at all like Fast and Furious (oh fucking no!). Too bad, do your research next time, lady. The trailers don't need to change, you do.

El Velador

2011-10-09T11:05:00.000-05:00

Review Coming Soon.

Coriolanus

2011-10-09T10:59:00.001-05:00

Review Coming Soon.

An Important Film: Give Up Tomorrow

2011-09-27T12:35:00.002-05:00

It's easy for cinephiles to say that a film is "important" and a great many of them are, but that importance just needs to be put into perspective. Films can drive philosophical and artistic discussions and trends into new territories, but how often is one imperative viewing? I have an addition to that rare category, a documentary called Give Up Tomorrow. It's not a "must-see" in the oft-used sense, but literally a film that you must see if given the chance.

Set amidst old world vestiges of colonialism, classism and backdoor politics in the Philippines, Give Up Tomorrow rivetingly exposes a Kafkaesque contemporary world of corruption and injustice. In a murder case that ends a nation’s use of capital punishment, but fails to free an innocent man, two grieving mothers personify the chasms – both nightmarish in scope – that divide two families and, by extension, a nation.

The documentary tells the story of Paco Larrañaga, an innocent man who has been in prison for 14 years. Much of the first half of the film provides overwhelming evidence of Paco's innocence in regards to the heinous charges of kidnapping, rape and murder, but that evidence also goes far to expose unbridled corruption, conspiracy and indifference to human rights that is present in the case. This culminates in a circus of a trial and a bogus conviction followed by a vindictive appeal on behalf of the victims' mother to upgrade Paco and his co-accused's life-sentences to death (which she wins due to connections in the country's supreme court).

The latter portion of the film presents Paco's struggle for life and liberation and the unbelievable complications in freeing the man despite his widely-believed innocence. The efforts of his family, friends and the international human rights community have brought him to much better conditions in a Spanish prison, but no conditions behind bars are acceptable for a man, who, by rights, should be allowed to walk free.

Give up Tomorrow is a massive achievement in investigative journalism - of which seven years went into the making of the film. It is also a continuing cause to be fought. You'll find the filmmakers, Michael Collins and Mary Syjuco, actively pursuing Paco's cause outside screenings - giving audience members the chance to sign petitions and send well-wishes. For them, this is more than a film, it is a rallying cry for human rights and a plea for the life of an innocent man. Seeing this documentary is important because corruption and injustice thrive on shadows and casting light upon such things makes their existence that much harder.

See Give Up Tomorrow wherever and whenever you can. Visit their site,"like" their Facebook page, follow them on Twitter. For my money, it's the best and most affecting documentary you'll see this year.

Retro Trailers: The Thing

2011-09-26T16:03:00.000-05:00

Inevitably, there's going to be a lot of talk about this John Carpenter classic with the prequel (also titled The Thing) being released next month. I'm not going to rag on the update because, who knows, it might be good; I'll only say that I doubt it will be even remotely close to holding a candle to the 1982 version.

Scientists in the Antarctic are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of the people that it kills.

The Thing is easily one of the best horror films ever made. It features some great performances from Kurt Russell and Wilford Brimley (that's right, Wilford Brimley!) and the craziest practical monster effects ever attempted.

*On Friday, Oct.14, the Times Cinema in Milwaukee will be doing a late-screening of the film. I'll be there and I would highly recommend it for just about anyone.

Now Playing - Drive

2011-09-21T17:31:00.002-05:00

Being an avid cinema goer and someone who chose to get an education in film, I think it's fair to say that I've developed some fairly discerning tastes in regard to the medium. This can, at times, be somewhat of a curse. Sure, I probably enjoy a majority of the films I see, but not a lot really knocks me off my feet. That being said, there is an upside to being a film snob; when something comes along that is truly great and I mean truly great, the feeling of intense satisfaction that follows is like electricity. I saw Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive yesterday evening and I'm still feeling the residual effects of its greatness.

Such glowing reviews are difficult to write. I find that the films I love are the ones I have the hardest times describing off the bat. My enjoyment of most viewing experiences is often interrupted by the movies themselves - their plot holes, inconsistencies, poor performances, exposition etc.. Critical minds are trained to be alert, but I've found that the best films don't trigger it nearly as much as bad ones. I was so thoroughly engrossed with and invested in Drive - from the opening frames to the closing credits - that I didn't really think all that much on it. A day later and I'm still just so pleased with my experience that I have only now started to really think about the specifics (and will likely continue to for some time after I'm done writing this review).

Praise in these cases can be difficult, especially when considering the limitations of words to truly capture what the art of film presents. I so badly want to see Drive a second time, so I can understand my feelings toward it a little better, but I'll try to work a few things out as I write.

Here's the brief synopsis: A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.

Drive is a lot about style and a lot about character. The film opens up with some great 80's-esque music and pink font. Despite not taking place in that era, the film continues to use music of that sort done by various contemporary artists, while reinforcing the not-so-period aesthetic with dated details - such as Gosling's trademark gold scorpion jacket.

Gosling has said in previous interviews that Drive is his superhero film and it's easy to see why. The jacket and, to some extent, the track "A Real Hero" by College serve as themes for the unnamed protagonist (in the credits he's referred to simply as 'Driver'). Despite being almost frustratingly quiet and reserved, Driver is almost never without his ostentatious jacket, which continues to accumulate blood, dirt and wear as the film progresses. We know very little about the character, except for some momentary and vague exposition by Shannon, his boss, played by Bryan Cranston.

The Driver is something of an archetype in the fashion of Eastwood's "Man With No Name" character. He has a trademark outfit, speaks very little and most importantly is a master of violence. But, in this case, that aspect is somewhat more unexplainable. As far as we know, the Driver isn't some experiment a la Bourne Identity, or an experienced fighter/violent criminal (as far as we know). He's a blank slate. The film is less about who he is than his actions and his motivations for them. Yes, the film's title is an obvious reference to his profession as a stunt/getaway driver, but a lot of Drive is about the character's own drive.

The catalyst for his motivations begins with meeting his neighbors, Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son Benicio. The development of his relationship with them is reserved, never hyperbolic or blistering with passion, but it's sweet and it becomes very apparent that he cares deeply for both of them without a whole lot of sex and emotion. The heist that goes bad isn't something he will profit off of, it's being done to help the recently-released husband/father out with some debts he owes. Driver is concerned that the thugs will come after Irene and Benicio, so he agrees to do the job.

When everything goes wrong, he is left to tie up loose ends that could somehow end up at Irene's door. Rarely does he wield a gun in these altercations, which results in some severe brutality on his behalf by way of more creative methods.

One scene in particular that struck me is when he and Irene share an elevator with a hit man of sorts. This is the stage of their only on-screen embrace, which is followed by the brutal beating and skull crushing of the hit man. The kiss almost seems like a 'goodbye', not because he is afraid the other man might get the best of him, but because his necessary violent actions might irrevocably alter her opinion of him. Despite this, despite the fact that it might tarnish his image in her eyes, he does what needs to be done to keep her safe. As he stands over the fallen man, now without a head at all, he turns to Irene, who has left the elevator - her face is blank and she is horrified - and the door closes between them. (Fun fact: Refn was advised by Gaspar Noe on the skull crushing. Noe's brutal 2002 film Irreversible features a rather infamous skull caving scene).

Such is the nature of many of Drive's scenes; one might be short or at least is the action within, but volumes could be written on their details, nuances implications.

It's no surprise that Gosling is great in this because the man is a brilliant actor, but his performance still further solidifies this image. Unlike last years passionate, fiery performance in Blue Valentine, Gosling is here a man with little emotion, but with rage and fury boiling beneath the surface, made only apparent by fist-clenching and intense silence. Since he was criminally overlooked for an Oscar nomination last year, I would love for him to get one here as it is more than deserved.

As for the film's other players: Mulligan is cuter and more likeable than I've found her in anything else. Irene is herself a somewhat reserved character, which required her to convey her emotions physically, which she's done quite well. Ron Perlman is a joy (as usual) in his role as an obnoxious wannabe (though still dangerous) mobster. His associate, the even more dangerous Bernie Rose, is excellently portrayed by the perfectly cast Albert Brooks. Bernie is intimidating and mean (he's the second most violent man in the movie), but he doesn't revel in his villainous actions, in fact he seems to approach them reluctantly - as unfortunate acts of necessity.

Wrapping up - it's rare when I find a film that resonates so completely with what I want to see in the medium. To me, Drive is a near-perfect film; so good it makes me want to cry. It's the best film of the year so far (and I have a hard time imagining that any will be better). Going even further - Drive undoubtedly belongs in the company of this century's most powerful films.

A+

I'd See That - Trailers

2011-09-21T10:39:00.000-05:00

Three trailers for upcoming films that look pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good.

1. Knuckle:

An epic 12-year journey into the brutal and secretive world of Irish Traveler bare-knuckle fighting. This film follows a history of violent feuding between rival clans.

Sounds crazy. The film, by first time director Ian Palmer, has a December release date, but has been playing at festivals like Helsinki and Sundance. Knuckle impressively holds a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes with 15 reviews. Also, rumor has it that HBO has designs on turning this into a series (whether fiction or non is a mystery though).

2. J. Edgar:

As the face of law enforcement in America for almost 50 years, J. Edgar Hoover was feared and admired, reviled and revered. But behind closed doors, he held secrets that would have destroyed his image, his career and his life.

Eastwood and DiCaprio working together on a film about one of America's most notorious and peculiar icons? Sounds like a home run to me. Opens 11/9/11.

3. Wuthering Heights:

Based on the Emily Bronte classic - A poor young English boy named Heathcliff is taken in by the wealthy Earnshaw family where he develops an intense relationship with his young foster sister, Cathy. Based on the classic novel by Emily Bronte.

Sure, this trailer looks interesting, but the real reason it appears on here is the director - Andrea Arnold. This is her 3rd feature film after Red Road and Fish Tank, which were both dynamite. Arnold is emerging as one of the premiere female director working today. Hopefully, she keeps the streak going with Wuthering. The film has a November UK release (nothing set for US yet) and currently holds a 100% on RT with 6 reviews.

Now Playing - Contagion

2011-09-13T11:19:00.001-05:00

There's a lot to like about Soderbergh's most recent film. For my money, it might be the best film he's made since The Limey. The cast and their performances are mostly excellent. The score is fitting and unique. It breeds paranoia without force-feeding it and is highly respectable and without much hyperbole in its depiction of a world-wide pandemic.

The latter quality is what sticks out most to me as to why I enjoyed Contagion. Going in, I was under the assumption that this would be more of an apocalyptic thriller about a virus with the potential to eradicate the human race and while this appeals to me, it's something that's been done before. Films about the pre and post apocalypse are a dime a dozens these days and in light of Contagion's restraint, it's easy to see that such dramatics are not necessary.

The Spanish Flu of 1918 (which is referenced often in the film) was intensely devastating, estimated at killing more people than the bubonic plague. The death toll figure sited in the film is 1% (which I'll just assume is accurate) of Earth's population, which isn't a world-ending event, but still incredibly frightening. This is the type of event that Contagion portrays. And it's scary because this feels a lot closer to reality than the end of the world. Without hyping up figures, people still panic (including the government), body bags still run out, as well as food, medicine and room to treat the sick.

Contagion is most effective right off the bat, depicting with frenetic urgency the measures taken to control and figure out the novel and deadly virus. I feel like, in any other film, there would be a ton of focus on finding a cure before innocent protagonists are afflicted. Things are a bit slower moving here. Cures for brand-new viruses do take some time, it would seem, and the first challenge is to simply grow it in a lab, which isn't a certainty to begin with. In the meantime, people die, which includes children and seemingly important characters. Around the time of Paltrow's skin-peeling autopsy, I imagine the audience will figure out that they're watching a film that doesn't shrink away from the grim.

The film shows us multiple sides of the story; the government/CDC response (Ehle, Fishburne, Winslet), a family touched by the virus (Damon, Paltrow), a World Health Organization representative abroad (Cotillard), and a conspiracy theorist/opportunistic blogger (Law). For the most part, these stories are well-balanced, though I feel that Cotillard's WHO character is somewhat forgotten for the latter half of the film. Each story has its interesting elements, though I'll admit that the CDC, science-y parts were more captivating that anything else. I didn't care so much about Damon's relationship with his daughter, but the glimpses at rioting and instability that are part of his arc are very interesting and startling. Law's blogger character becomes more intriguing as more is revealed about him, though I'm somewhat disappointed at how his whole story plays out.

As I mentioned above, some characters are given less screen time as the film moves along. This makes me long for a film an hour longer, with more room to cover the many relevant facets of such a horrific outbreak. However, I can't say for sure how a 3hr Contagion would actually turn out. In and around its final act, the film's pace noticeably fizzles, which makes sense considering the greater amounts of time elapsing within the story, but that shouldn't result in the sudden drop-off in tension and urgency that occurs. That's not to say that what's on screen is all bad, it's not at all, but it's almost like the "all clear" is given a bit too early, so the audience is left riding a somewhat more peaceful, yet somewhat less enjoyable, wave to the very end.

But on the overall, a pretty good film - one of the better films I've seen all year, in fact - complete with some noteworthy and skilled performances. I'm just left a little disappointed by the feeling that Contagion could have been a little better, which is to say it could have been great.

A-

Retro Trailers: The Silence of the Lambs

2011-09-12T17:39:00.000-05:00

My selection for this edition of Retro Trailers is inspired by the awful news that a "Hannibal" TV series is currently in development. Reportedly, this would deal with Lecter's early career as a serial killer and his run-ins with FBI agent Will Graham - the protagonist of Red Dragon.

This series is being bled dry. I don't have any real opposition to Ridley Scott's Hannibal or Brett Ratner's Red Dragon (it's probably the best work of his sad career), but the Hannibal Rising prequel was an abominable mess and I think it's about time we put the beast to rest.

Frankly, Lecter was never more interesting than he was in his ten minutes of screentime in The Silence of the Lambs. Now 20 years old, the film could be called one of the first classics to come out of the 90's. It also represents some of the best work ever by many involved - onscreen and off.

A young FBI cadet must confide in an incarcerated and manipulative killer to receive his help on catching another serial killer who skins his victims.

Now Playing - The Guard

2011-09-07T14:27:00.002-05:00

A few years back, I decided to watch Martin McDonagh's feature debut In Bruges on demand without really knowing much about it. I was pretty impressed. Last night, again with little information, decided to go see his brother, John Michael McDonagh's, debut film The Guard. Again, I was impressed. These brother know what they're doing.

There's a sense, while you're watching The Guard, that you've seen this all before - the clever/funny criminals, the unlikely pairing of cops, the crass police man with a peculiar moral code - but rarely is it done this well and with the talent involved.

Brendan Gleeson is outstanding in the title role and a great part of what makes this film work. The plot of the film involves a supposed drug-smuggling ring operating in and around Sgt. Boyle's (Gleeson's) coastal, Irish town. This is what brings FBI Agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle) to the area. However, this aspect of the story could almost be called a sub-plot. The bad guys do some bad things and pop up every now and then, but the life of Sgt. Boyle is what the film focuses on primarily. His mother is dying, he enjoys the company of escorts, he's foul-mouthed with an offensive sense of humor, he takes drugs, drinks liberally, never married or had kids and might have, at one point, been an Olympic swimmer. These are the snap-shots we see of his life and they're infinitely more interesting than the crime aspect.

There's a lot of good humor in the film as well. I laughed often at the things Boyle would say in his exchanges with Everett and even harder at Everett's unamused reactions. As the straight-man, operating in a completely foreign land, Cheadle performs admirably, playing great opposite Gleeson's confident, savvy, wise-cracker. The three villains, played by Liam Cunningham, Mark Strong, and David Wilmot have some great interactions with each other and with Gleeson. As Gleeson stands over a dying Wilmot, chiding him as people often do to villains on film, Wilmot blurts "don't mock me!" in a pathetically humorous fashion that typifies the brand of comedy you'll find in The Guard.

The film is relatively action-less until the finale, but that's not a problem, especially considering that the conclusion - Sgt. Boyle's last stand - is pretty awesome. The credits sequence that follows, featuring John Denver's classic "Leaving on Jet Plane", is darn-near perfect as well.

Apart from everything I've mentioned above, the film looks great, embracing the dark, gray aesthetic of the area, giving it the semi-unpolished look of a 70's British crime thriller. However, as an American, I had a hard time understanding some of what was being said by the heavier-accented characters in the film, Gleeson included (Gleeson most of all actually). But that's not really something I can fault the film with though, I'm just saying that when I watch it on DVD, I'll take advantage of the captioning option.

A-

Casey Jones: The Movie?

2011-09-07T13:04:00.000-05:00

You might remember Casey Jones - the hockey-masked side character in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise (played on film by Elias Koteas) - well, now he has his own movie, apparently.

The fan-film of sorts, directed by Polaris Banks - an editor from Arlington Texas - will premiere on Sept. 17 at CaseyJonesTheMovie.com. The title role is played by Polaris' brother Hilarion Banks and frankly, it looks pretty good. There's no dialogue in the trailer, but it shows off some high-quality footage of Jones getting his shit together and messing people up. I might have to check this one out.

On DVD Impressions

2011-09-03T14:47:00.001-05:00

As we near the latter quarter of the year, more and more films from early 2011 are being released on DVD. Let's take a quick look at a few of those that I've caught in recent weeks.

Sucker Punch:

What a joke of a film! Terrible from the onset. This is less a film than a bunch of incoherent music videos for some of the worst covers I've ever heard. I'm not even one who habitually hates on Zach Snyder. Personally, I enjoy his three previous live-action features (though I have reservations about all of them). The man has certainly developed a particular style, and one that is intensely concentrated in Sucker Punch, complete with the above-mentioned musical sequences, high-contrast, glossy imagery and stylized violence. This is something that needs to be culled ASAP if Snyder wants to avoid being lynched by rabid Superman fans. No more original ideas from this director, I say.

The Conspirator:

In this film, director Robert Redford is able to effectively visualize some important moments in history - most notably the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He is able to keep up with the Civil War aesthetic, which is impressive and engrossing throughout, which is sad considering that the story is not. Perhaps my liberal sensibilities are not as heightened as I once thought, but I fail to see the notion of grand injustice this film attempts to perpetuate. To me, Mary Surratt seems guilty of at least some form of conspiracy. Yes, the deck is stacked against her and the game is unfairly rigged to guarantee her conviction, but that doesn't make her innocent. To presume that she was entirely so, even from the biased depiction of history inherent in the film, seems naive. Some of the films performances were decent. McAvoy is on target as usual and even Kevin Kline gives an uncharacteristically stern (and solid) performance as Edwin Stanton, but Robin Wright's oft- lauded performance is rather annoying and coldly inhuman.

Super:

James Gunn's most recent feature didn't receive a ton of acclaim upon its release earlier this year and I get that, it's a pretty strange film. However, I found it to be darn-near fantastic. Not really being a big fan of Rainn Wilson, I was apprehensive about catching this flick, but I'm glad I did. I found that Super avoided major superhero/vigilante film cliches, while also embracing the genre.

Wilson's character isn't someone with your typical illusions of grandeur brought on by pop culture or the superhero fiction he attempts to emulate. In fact, he's delightfully ignorant of these things. His hallucinations are a gift from god - the delusions of old - a point that's driven home by the banner/mantra hung in his home "some of his children are chosen". The Crimson Bolt, (his innocuous superhero moniker) wavers momentarily in the faith that what he is doing is right, but returns to it with full fervor, even if the audience will not. He then can continue on to the goosebump-inducing final showdown with his nemesis, Kevin Bacon (who, while villainous, is vastly different from his First Class antagonist), where he spews forth the distinctions between good and evil as he sees them.

The film doesn't pull any punches; it's incredibly violent, but never in a way that allows you to take it for granted. The blows in the movie result in realistic injury, such as crushed bones and holes in the head. It's a dark film featuring some dark humor, (thankfully) never really encroaching on the quirkiness implied by the trailers and Ellen Page's involvement. Page is actually pretty okay in the film, if just a little over-the-top. I might have enjoyed a little exposition on how her character got to be a peculiar as she is. Michael Rooker and Nathan Fillion also appear in the film to its benefit.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams:

Alright, so this one isn't on DVD yet, but it's On Demand via Time Warner for those interested. The caves that are the subject of this film are not something that I came into the film knowing a whole lot about. So, as less ignorant people might imagine, I was blown away by what I saw. France's Chauvet Cave is an unbelievable marvel. When someone says "cave drawings", my mind produces images of crudely scrawled stick figures and animal icons, but the truth of it couldn't be any different. What Herzog captures are some of the most beautiful renderings ever put down; art to rival anything found in the same country's Louvre. I'm disappointed I wasn't able to see this in 3D as I believe it might have had an actual point here in bringing the cave to life. Apart from the beauty captured in this film, Herzog adds an extra dimension intellectually by bringing about legitimately thought-provoking notions about the human relation to art and its importance in defining who we are.

That's My Philosophy

2011-08-29T13:35:00.000-05:00

Movies are such an important component of many people's lives, not just cinephiles. They teach us things, give us hopes and dreams, inform our personalities and sometimes they even change our world-view. That's what this new feature will focus on. What in film has altered or informed my way of thinking? Let's start with a goodin'.

"What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."
- Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The whole scene in which this line is uttered is pretty tremendous. Hammond and company are all sitting around a table enjoying their Chilean Sea Bass when they start discussing the merits of his accomplishment (the resurrection of dinosaurs!). Much to Hammond's dismay, his esteemed guests from the scientific community aren't too high on what he's trying to do, least of all Jeff Goldblum's chaotician character, Ian Malcolm.

Malcolm has a plethora of good lines, but the above-quoted is probably the best and ever-increasing in real-world relevance.

10 Things About Fright Night

2011-08-29T13:07:00.001-05:00

I saw the Fright Night remake about a week back and I just haven't been able to muster the enthusiasm to write a full-fledged review. What does that say about the film? It's not all bad. The reviews I like writing most are for the movies that fall on the extreme ends of my "like" "dislike" spectrum, or for the films that either exceed or fall short of my expectations. Fright Night is an okay movie, which is pretty much what I expected, but that doesn't mean I don't have anything to say about it. So, here's 5 things I liked about the film and 5 things I didn't.

What's to like?

1. Colin Farrel. I've always thought Farrel's abilities were underappreciated because of his pretty-boy exterior. Here, he uses both to his advantage. As Jerry, the neighborhood vampire, Farrel is good at being scary and threatening while also oozing his trademark charisma and sex appeal, especially during some rather uncomfortable exchanges with Yelchin's Charley Brewster.

2. It manages to be legitimately suspenseful at times.

3. The High School Drama. Anton Yelchin doesn't really pull out any new tricks in this film. He's a talented actor, but he certainly has a style about him (the kind of trademark style that actors like Michael Cera or Jesse Eisenberg catch flack for) and that doesn't change here. His character is well-developed though and he actually seems like a high-schooler, instead of some 25-year-old playing a teenager. His drama with his girlfriend and his former best-friend seem more genuine this way.

4. The Showdown. While I had issues with some of the build-up, the actually showdown between Charley and Jerry is pretty exciting. The way he busts in clad in vampire-proof gear brandishing a crossbow is pretty badass.

5. Solid as a remake. Remakes are a target of derision by most serious movie-goers and are often met with intense scrutiny. This one is different enough and decent enough to (likely) not piss off too many fans of the original. My assessment: it stands on its own legs.

What not to like?

6. Christopher Mintz-Plasse. What sets Mintz-Plasse apart from his contemporaries (like Yelchin and Eisenberg) is that he actually is cast to type. He's always an annoying nerd. As a vampire, he's even more annoying.

7. Peter Vincent. The trouble here isn't Tennant, who performs just fine, it's the utilization of the character, who is hardly featured. Cliches ensue - no, he won't get involved...still won't get involved...shows up for back-up during the showdown.

8. Length. The film runs close to two hours, but it doesn't feel like it. Normally, people would site that as a good thing - in this it's not, especially considering I had some issues with the story's development. If it were a great film, I'd understand, but this left me wondering "what did they do with all that time they had?'. Some of the suspense scenes, while effective, were a tad overlong.

9. Lack of build-up. I alluded to this above and by it I mean there wasn't a sufficient lead-in to Jerry's vampire reveal. Pretty much off the bat Charley knows that Jerry is a vampire and then things go to shit. I understand that they were trying to do away with the whole "nobody believes me" cliche, but there could have been a little of that before Jerry starts tearing up the neighborhood, blowing up houses. Jerry pretty much terrorizes Charley throughout the entire film and Charley finally goes after him at the end. I would have liked to see Charley attempt to go after Jerry a few more times during the film and fail.

10. 3D. Post-conversion 3D sucks and that's no different here. The 3D blood-spattering and ash clouds were lame and distracting and there were plenty of superfluous 3D moments as well, like 3D money being thrown around in a club.

Retro Trailers: Once Upon a Time in the West

2011-08-27T09:10:00.000-05:00

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968 Sergio Leone):

In preparation for a piece I want to write about the Western genre, I'm posting this trailer for perhaps the greatest, most epic Western of all.

Epic story of a mysterious stranger with a harmonica who joins forces with a notorious desperado to protect a beautiful widow from a ruthless assassin working for the railroad.

Now Playing - 30 Minutes or Less

2011-08-23T10:38:00.001-05:00

30 Minutes or Less:

I don't know why this film is catching the flack that it is. Sure, it's not fantastic and it's no Zombieland (director Ruben Fleischer previous film), but it's also not unbearable and it succeeds where so many comedies fail - it's actually funny.

30 Minutes is uneven, yes, but I think that's a result of its attempt at being unique. The bulk of the film is centered on Eisenberg and Ansari's characters, but a sizable portion is also spent getting into the heads of antagonists Danny McBride and Nick Swardson. This might have seemed like an unsavory prospect to me as I'm not really a fan of either man's brand of humor, but, ultimately, they won the uphill battle and made me laugh. Their situation is so outlandish and their ideas so ill-conceived that it can't help but be funny. However, in the end, there's a definite lack of clarity as to how we should feel for the characters and this stems from the film either ending too early or too late. So, what I mean to say is: there should have either been more about these characters in the final act or less. (Supposedly there's a minor clip after the credits that I didn't stay for that might have made me feel somewhat differently)

As for the primary protagonists, Eisenberg and Ansari are solid. People like to give the former a hard time for seemingly playing the same character over the course of many films. I understand why people might think that, but I see subtleties to his performances that make each distinct. He definitely has a specific style, but he plays a character here that I haven't seen him play before. In 30 Minutes, he plays more of an aimless slacker than he ever has and does just fine at it. Ansari plays his partner in crime; the straight-man necessary to complement Eisenberg's loser character. He also performs admirably. However, this role is somewhat foreign to him as well as he's typically the odd-ball (see "Parks and Rec"s Tom Haverford). I'm not saying that I would have preferred him just reprising his "Parks and Rec" role, but it's apparent that he's funnier when allowed to cut loose a little more.

30 Minutes or Less is sometimes unnecessarily vulgar, the jokes don't always hit their mark, and the plot is a tad out there, but it's solid. Any misgivings I might have with it are severely mollified by the presence of the beloved Michael Pena. An accomplished actor in his own right, Pena also possesses a mastery of unique characters - in this case a friendly, but oft-maligned hitman. His character has some of the best lines in the film and his scene with Fred Ward is pure gold.

B

P.S. Those monkey masks are f'ing creepy and a nice touch.

Now Playing Movie Reviews - Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2011-08-23T00:45:00.004-05:00

I've been seeing a lot of films lately and I wasn't sure that I wanted to spend the time writing full-fledged reviews for all of them, but I just couldn't help myself with Apes.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes:

There are a few positive things you can say about Apes: it's probably the best film in the franchise, it's certainly better than its original series equivalent Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, there's some pretty impressive CG, and, on the overall, the film didn't suck in it's own right.

However, what sticks with me, is the incredible number of plot holes. You might say, "who cares? it's Planet of the Apes!". Well, I care, because most of the plot holes could have been avoided by better, less lazy writers. Plot holes materialize in every script, I'm sure, but the best films are the ones that find a way to either erase or work around them. Again, people will say, "it's just fun, Apes doesn't need to be a masterpiece" and I suppose they're right, but that doesn't mean that I won't lament the fact that it could have been a lot better.

I won't just list the plot issues outright because I don't want to spoil everything and, frankly, it would take too much time. I'll just say that the film begins with a whopper. Caesar, our protagonist ape, is found by Franco and a fellow scientist as an infant left behind by the test-chimp they didn't know was pregnant. How a supposedly high-profile pharmaceuticals company could run a battery of tests on an animal without once realizing it was pregnant is beyond me and a rocky way to start your film. Also - and this could just be me being scientifically ignorant - the miracle drug being administered to the apes (meant to be a cure for Alzheimer's) is repeatedly referred to as a virus. I've heard of viruses altering behavior, but the notion of one that could repair/regrow brain tissue just seems nonsensical.

Other issues with the film stem from minor things. The CG, while brilliant looking whilst portraying the more reserved motions of the Apes, looks distractingly bad when the apes perform overly complicated actions. James Franco, who I'm very high on, seems to be phoning in his performance. He claimed in a recent interview that his work on Apes was without the passion of some of his other projects and it shows.

Apes also lacks a strong antagonist. It's not Caesar - he's our hero. Brian Cox is a seemingly apathetic ape sanctuary head and Tom Felton is his mildly sadistic son, but they're weak adversaries. One might say that animal testing, animal cruelty and human scientific conquest are the villains, but, if so, Apes fails to truly develop them. Caesar has a pretty severe shift in perspective part-way through the film and it's hard to say why. Sure, Malfoy sprays him with a hose once, that might get my blood to boil too, but if pressure hoses and superior intelligence are the only things being inflicted on him as a test animal, I'd say he's a hell of a lot more fortunate than his real life counterparts. Caesar being our protagonist, we naturally want what's best for him, which is only achievable through the utilization of human scientific endeavors, so we can't really pin the villain label on that either. So, bottom line, Apes fails to really say anything about anything in any coherent way, which isn't necessary, it's just a disappointing, missed-opportunity.

Another annoyance in the movie stems from the suggested passage of time. I hate when films slap a title at the bottom of the screen and little else to suggest the passage of time. First we get "three years later" then "five", yet the characters and the lives they appear to live remain unchained. Chronology appears to be a nuisance for the film's writers that is necessary to explain Caesar's aging, but is, in no other way, relevant to the plot.

Anyway, I suppose I've trashed the movie enough. Andy Serkis' performance as Caesar is noteworthy and there are some really good moments in the film. I particularly enjoyed Caesar's interactions with the apes at the rundown sanctuary, the bridge scene is well-visualized and the use of the window icon was a nice touch. As I said, this is light-years beyond the abysmal Tim Burton installment, I just think that, with a little more careful attention paid to certain details and developments, it could have been great.

B-

Coming soon: 30 Minutes or Less, Fright Night, a look at Super and Sucker Punch now on dvd.

Retro Trailers: Boogie Nights

2011-08-07T15:09:00.000-05:00

This is my favorite PT Anderson film. What a strange, peculiar epic. Features great performances by Mark Wahlberg, Julianne Moore, Burt Reynolds, Heather Graham, John C. Reilly and Thomas Jane.

The story of a young man's adventures in the Californian pornography industry of the 1970s and 1980s.

The 5 Worst Films of 2011 (So Far)

2011-08-03T16:32:00.001-05:00

Everyone else seems to be doing it - even that damn wiener-kid on "Ebert at the Movies" - so why not me? Well, I actually don't see all that many bad movies, to be honest, as I can't spend money to see just anything. However, that does not mean that I haven't seen a few bad ones this year, especially with the year's early releases finally making their way to DVD.

5. Limitless

I caught this one on-demand and I can say that it wasn't really worth it. For some reason, the film received a lot of praise when it was released earlier this year, which resulted in me wanting to check it out. Not a whole lot happens in the movie, which is also full of peculiar stylistic choices that come off more amateur than unique. Cooper is decent as the main character, but he doesn't really exude the charisma that he does in his comedic roles. Ultimately, Limitless is low on thrills and exciting plot lines, but high on lazy montages and exposition.

4. Cairo 678

An overlong and poorly-acted Egyptian melodrama, which doesn't seem to follow logic or contain realistic characters. 678 has high-minded goals of challenging issues of sexual-harassment, but fails to do so, only making its female leads appear irrational.

3. Battle: Los Angeles

An incoherent rabble of military/war movie cliches and hard-to-follow battle scenes. The characters also lack any development that would make you want to cheer for them. Battle: LA is a heartless, unimaginative, dull feature that should have never seen the light of day.

2. Dragonslayer

This is a documentary that mysteriously received acclaim at festivals earlier this year despite being almost unwatchable. The subject, a hardly-passable former ex-skateboarder, has no redeemable qualities and he obviously revels in the undeserved attention him and his loser friends receive. Dragonslayer is a waste of time for anyone who comes within three feet of it.

1. Red Riding Hood

What an embarrassment of modern filmmaking. Catherine Hardwicke proves what a worthless hack she is with this ugly, lame teen vehicle set in a fairy-tale village plagued by a murderous werewolf. Poor dialogue, poor plotting and even poorer visual effects take Red Riding Hood out of the realm of ironic-funny and into the sadly deepening pool of just plain bad.

AND, like I said, I haven't seen a lot of films that might have made this list. Here's a few potentially-bad films that I hope to catch before the year is out:

- Suckerpunch
- Straw Dogs
- Pirates 4
- Green Lantern
- Transformers 3

The Best of Comic-Con

2011-08-02T13:02:00.001-05:00

The San Diego Comic Convention took place recently and although there wasn't anything too spectacular announced or unveiled, that doesn't mean that some exciting tidbits didn't come to light.

1. "Dexter" Season 6 Trailer:

2. Refn's Drive Trailer:

3. The Amazing Spider Man Trailer:

4. The First Official Image from Ridley Scott's Prometheus:

5. The Logo from Guillermo del Toro's Monsters vs. Robots Film - Pacific Rim:

6. "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Extended Trailer:

Here's some more things you might enjoy that weren't necessarily from Comic-Con

7. The Dark Knight Rises Trailer:

8. The Avengers Teaser:

*a shortened version of what appears after the credits of Captain America

9. John Carter Trailer:

10. Trailer for George Clooney's The Ides of March:

Retro Trailers: Gross Pointe Blank

2011-08-01T14:42:00.000-05:00

Here's a trailer for George Armitage's 1997 film Grosse Point Blank. Armitage is a bit of a one-hit wonder, but this film is great nonetheless. I would say that it's underrated, but it got fairly good reviews so calling it underappreciated would be more accurate. Cusack and Aykroyd are both at their best and the soundtrack is one of the best compilations you're likely to find. Here's a description:

Martin Blank is a professional assassin. He is sent on a mission to a small Detroit suburb, Grosse Pointe, and, by coincidence, his ten-year high school reunion party is taking place there at the same time.

Captain America Review

2011-07-30T10:27:00.001-05:00

When trying to think back on moments that I loved in Marvel's Captain America: The First Avenger, not a whole lot comes to mind. In fact, the whole movie is something of a blur. The character certainly has a following and his presence in recent comic books like Civil War and The Ultimates has given him a great deal of depth. However, that does not translate over into this fairly bland film. In it, we merely see a good man, imbued with super strength and set against an evil foe. How many films of the genre could be described by that description? Although Captain America isn't a terrible movie, it sins in that it doesn't give Cap the origin he deserves.

There are some decent performances in Captain America. Chris Evans and Hugo Weaving attack their roles with serious gusto, with the former proving himself as a solid Steve Rogers. Their good vs. evil struggle throughout the film, lacks anything interesting behind it. Weaving's Red Skull has harnessed the power of the gods (in a Thor tie-in) and aims to blast the good guys with nondescript laser beams - Captain America is the only man tough enough to stop him.

I'm getting bored just writing about it. I've never bought into the superhero-movie fatigue that many critics have sited (especially in relation to this year's Summer lineup), but I'm beginning to understand. Every film released could be a comic-book adaptation and I would be fine with that, but the films need to be interesting. Many superheroes, at their core, are quite similar, and parading their origin stories in front of us only makes that more apparent. It's the captivating situations in which they find themselves that make these films worth making. Not every film in the genre is going to have an edge like Nolan's Batman films or even that of X-Men: First Class, but creative individuals (such as graphic novel writers) need to be on-hand to make these characters worth watching onscreen, otherwise the fact that Hollywood is cashing in on a fad for quick $ becomes real.

So what went wrong with Captain America? I have a few guesses. Primarily though, I'd throw the blame at director Joe Johnston's feet. How this guy got the gig to direct the film is a mystery to me - perhaps he's still riding the goodwill he earned by designing Boba Fett as one of George Lucas' underlings. Since October Sky over a decade ago, Johnston has helmed failure upon failure. Hildalgo was laughably bad and Jurassic Park III might have single-handedly marked the end of my childhood. Let's not forget that Johnston's last film previous to Cap was The Wolfman, both a critical and box-office bomb. Maybe it's just me, but aren't directors for huge properties usually chosen when coming off successes? Johnston is as bland, boring and cookie-cutter of a director as you're likely to find working in Hollywood. The guy doesn't even seem to have any passion for the craft anymore. In Captain America, he even fails to capture the same, fun, period-aesthetic that he did so many years ago in The Rocketeer.

I wouldn't really recommend that anyone see Captain America in theaters, but good god, if you must, do yourself a favor and see it in 2D. Part of what ruined my viewing experience of this film was the post-conversion 3D. The images in the film were blurry and way too dark. Was it really worth it to make the movie 3D just for a few shield throws? Most of the film's 3D accomplishes an 'enhanced' depth-of-field, which is something 2D film does just fine by itself. I couldn't decide whether it was better to watch the dark, blurry film with the glasses on, or watch the bright and occasionally blurry film with the glasses off. I'll admit that I think 3D as a whole is pretty stupid, but I'm aware of the potential there for image clarity at least when film's are shot in 3D to begin with. Converting to 3D in post-production is just lame though and an avenue for quick profit.

After the credits are done rolling, viewers are treated to an Avengers trailer. In it, you see the title characters all interacting for the first time, which is fun. I feel like the ambitious project would be biting off more than it can chew if Joss Whedon weren't directing. There's just so much to fit into one film, I don't believe any of the Marvel films' previous directors would be able to pull it off. Whedon has a close relationship with the comics, so he knows how to make these characters interesting. He's also adept at working with ensembles, which should help immensely here. The footage from The Avengers looks promising, but I can't help that my excitement was slightly stifled after having just seen Captain America.

C

Retro Trailers

2011-07-20T11:59:00.000-05:00

In honor of Aliens' recent 25-year anniversary, I have posted a trailer for the film here. If you haven't seen it, or haven't seen it recently, do yourself a favor and watch it. It's one of the best films ever made and, in my opinion, the best thing James Cameron has ever done.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 Reviewed

2011-07-14T11:39:00.001-05:00

I know I'm in the minority here, but I legitimately didn't like J.K. Rowling's final "Harry Potter" installment. I found it to be somewhat boring, anti-climactic, and terribly unsatisfying. It bothered me for months after finishing. My one hope that this series wouldn't leave a bad taste in my mouth lived with this final film (actually the final two). This time, I was not left disappointed, for Harry Potter finally has an end worthy of the series.

These last two Deathly Hallows films are just a cut above the rest. Almost every film in the series could have benefited from being split into two parts. It cuts down on that rushed feeling that often accompanies literary adaptations. Pacing, mood and character development are no longer slaves to the necessary shoehorning of important plot points. Part 1 is the slower film of the two, an enjoyable yet bleak affair that leads you through some tense events with a near-post-apocalyptic feeling to it. Part 2 is the showdown where everything finally comes to a head. It's definitely the film with the shortest plot duration, which is a plus in that it allows events their proper exposure.

The Hogwarts portion of the story, which, in the book, I found to be terribly brief when considering the length of entire series, essentially gets its own film. There's a definite "this is it" "let's go" feel to the film. It's high energy, loaded with action and emotionally draining. Harry's return to Hogwarts feels special since that element was missing from the previous installment. Even in these dire circumstances, it was still good to see all the familiar faces that we've seen consistently throughout the series. One of my favorite moments of the film involves Professor McGonagall sending the castle's knight's to protect the bridge. It just screams "epic", but then again, most moments in the movie do as well.

It wouldn't take much for these characters, their situation and their world to seem silly, but Yates displays a knack for drawing us into this fray, making it feel as realistic and as frightening as possible. Dementors, gliding like black death, threaten the castle, as do giants, dark wizards and enormous spiders, which is pretty out there, but the way it's captured makes it feel like a real warzone. This truly feels like the showdown everything else has lead up to.

Some fans might be disappointed by the lack of screentime and attention received by certain supplementary characters, but to me, the film concentrates on what's important - Harry himself. Even his closest friends, Ron and Hermione seem to take an even further-removed backseat. This really allows for the character to become the man he was meant to be. Radcliffe attacks his performance as a man on a mission, giving Potter the aura of a legend who is truly good and fearless to boot.

With emotions running so high, the end almost feels a tad underwhelming. Harry and Voldemort battle for a while, but the moment of truth might have been a little more spectacular, but I won't hold that against the film too much because I think it would be impossible for any part of the film (or most films for that matter) to match the emotional quality of the tear-inducing Snape-sequence.

As with much of the other Harry Potter films, this one also suffers from a fair amount of exposition, but I guess it's necessary at this point, so people don't get confused by the murkier story developments. I'm inclined to brush over it more with this film because there's just so much good in it.

The very end of the film (the book's epilogue), plays out a tad silly here with CG that doesn't seem to age the characters the necessary amount. However, it's still sorta sweet. Now we must say goodbye to Harry, possibly for good. I will hold out hope that someday Rowling will return at least to the Wizarding World and that perhaps we will have more of these great films (don't you think a period-set prequel featuring Voldemort's initial rise would be awesome?).

Adapting books to film can be tricky - even more so with popular fiction. I don't love all of the Harry Potter films, but I love a majority of them and like the rest just fine, I suppose. But when speaking about the series as a whole - these films are better than they ever had any right to be. Pumping out eight quality films with a fairly consistent cast whilst maintaining the interest of the masses is no easy feat. In fact, it's unprecedented. I'm sure someday a series will come along that rivals this one (there are certainly enough pretenders out there), but for now, Harry Potter stands alone. In the end, I must give a great deal of credit to director David Yates, who took on the series after three directors had already had their hand at it. He gave the series the tone and style it needed for these final installments, something I don't believe any of his predecessors had the ability to.

A-

The Rundown: The Dark Knight Rises Teaser Trailer

2011-07-14T10:11:00.001-05:00

Personally, I'd just wait and see it for myself, but if anyone is interested in what The Dark Knight Rises teaser trailer entails, here it is (as far as I remember):

- There are a bunch of clips from the previous films (mostly Begins) with titles intercut saying things about "the heroes journey" and how they must always come to an end.

- There are also images reminiscent of the teaser poster, showing buildings crumbling from above. Throughout the trailer, these images move progressively upwards until the end where they become the bat symbol in a fashion similar to trailers for the previous installments.

- What felt like the bulk of the trailer was new footage of Jim Gordon laid up in a hospital bed, barely able to breathe, talking to an offscreen Batman/Bruce Wayne. He's wheezing, so I don't think I picked up on everything he said, but it was something to the effect of "You left us and allowed this evil to come in. Please come back" and Wayne responds "what if he can't?" and more from Gordon on why they need Batman.

- There's a split-second cut of Bane's face in the mask, though most people have already seen what that looks like.

- The final fresh image from the trailer is Batman lifting himself from standing water and seemingly struggling, hands raised to fight, and then Bane's enormous back enters the frame.

This isn't a 100% account, but I assure you it's pretty close. Though, since it was very late and much of my attention then went to Harry Potter, some details may have escaped my memory.

The Top-Ten Films of 2011 (So Far)

2011-07-13T12:10:00.234-05:00

It's a little over halfway through the year, so it's only appropriate that we do a mid-year top-ten films list. Typically, most of the year's best are released closer to its final quarter, so it'll be interesting to see what selections from this list make 2011's final cut.

1. X-Men: First Class:

Of all the many superhero flicks that have come out this Summer, First Class is a cut above the rest. There are some moments where the film deteriorates into the standard fare, but they are few, far between and easily forgettable when considering the film's many bright spots. Michael Fassbender knocks the Magneto role out of the park, as do Kevin Bacon and James McAvoy in their respective roles. Unlike this month's Captain America, First Class also nails mostly every aspect of the period setting.

Year's Best?
Could be. You never know, especially considering the quality of films released during the final quarter of the year. However, I'm very high on this film and could easily see it taking up the spot in my top-ten typically reserved for Summer blockbusters.

2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2:

An excellent ending to a solid series. Unlike the equally excellent Part 1, Part 2 is defined by a definite "let's do this thing" attitude, filled with emotion and thrills.

Year's Best?
This is also a possibility. Again, this depends on the crop of films going forward, but this film could succeed where Part 1 fell slightly short last year.

3. City of Life and Death:

This Chinese WWII drama depicting the Rape of Nanking perpetrated by the invading Japanese forces is hard to forget. The film is shocking and upsetting, but also hauntingly beautiful in its portrayal of war and all those involved. City of Life and Death is probably the best war film I've seen in years.

Year's Best?
Strong possibility. (Though the film was released a couple years ago abroad, it hadn't made its way to the States until recently)

4. Meek's Cutoff:

Kelly Reichardt's newest, a wagon-train western of sorts isn't for everyone. It's slow and utterly without cliche, which makes it foreign territory amongst most mainstream modern westerns. Besides being visually stunning, Meek's features a reserved-yet-dynamic performance from the always-excellent Michelle Williams, who can't help but look great even in a bonnet and peddicoat. Over the course of the film, you become greatly invested in the characters and their plight - a search for drinkable water with an inept guide in Meek himself. The film comes to a conclusion at an unlikely point and that's initially frustrating, but once that feeling passes, it becomes thought-provoking and entirely too fitting for the type of film Reichardt was making.

Year's Best?
Also, highly possible.

5. Midnight in Paris:

Woody Allen's latest is one of his best in years. Wilson gives a great performance as do the actors in the historical roles. Midnight's time-travel aspect is magical and without unnecessary explanation. The whole movie, in fact, is quite (for lack of better word) whimsical.

Year's Best?
I'd doubt it, but it's destined to be the year's best comedy. Sure to be on many senior citizens' best of 2011 lists though.

6. The Tree of Life:

Malick's latest gets better with every viewing. The visuals are stunning throughout and anyone who cares to scratch the surface of the film's titular implications will get something out of viewing it. There is likely to be no other film like it this year or next.

Year's Best?
A possibility, though it might just fall short when the time comes.

7. Source Code:

Like director Duncan Jones' feature debut, Moon, Source Code examines some interesting existential issues in an effective and engaging way - though this sophomore effort is definitely higher on action. Gyllenhaal gives a solid leading performance and the film comes to a satisfactory conclusion that is likely to elicit some audible "hmmm"s from viewers.

Year's Best?
Probably not, but an above-average effort from the first third of the year.

8. Hanna:

Joe Wright's edgiest film to date features some solid performances, especially from its leading lady, as well as a great soundtrack and some creative action sequences. Hanna makes the list because of its originality and uniqueness.

Year's Best?
Nah. See Source Code.

9. Thor:

Definitely the better of the two Marvel offerings this Summer - Thor is a lot of fun. Hemsworth owns the role and Branagh captures Asgard admirably.

Year's Best?
Not likely. Not ahead of First Class anyway.

10. The Troll-Hunter:

A foreign, found-footage horror/fantasy, you say? A silly film, for sure, but also quite imaginative.

Year's Best?
Well, no, but that's not to say it isn't awesome though.

The Casting Call

2011-07-13T11:56:00.000-05:00

There's been just so much interesting casting news lately that I can't really ignore it. Here's a list of what's been going on recently.

1. Ted Danson joins CSI in place of Laurence Fishburne:

Okay, I've never really watched CSI, but I might have to start. Ted Danson in the show's lead role sounds great and just plain weird.

2. Chris Pine might be Robocop:

A lot of people aren't happy about the Jose Padilha-helmed Robocop remake and I can see why. Plenty of loyalists don't want it because the original is so good and perhaps doesn't need updating, others don't like it because Darren Aronofsky was previously attached to the project and moving forward without him just seems like a missed opportunity.

I, on the other hand, have faith in Padilha (whose Elite Squad is a pretty awesome film) and believe an updated version of the now-classic film might be pretty cool. However, one of the major problems I see this production having is casting. Verhoeven was at the top of his game with the original, for certain, but he was lucky to have someone like Peter Weller in the title role. Apart from being a decent overall actor in his own right, Weller really goes the extra mile physically to make the somewhat ridiculous character premise believable. Having some pampered Hollywood celeb as Robocop just doesn't seem feasible. I imagine a lot of the character will be computer animated, so that might take a little bit of the strain out of the performance, but it's still going to be hard.

I'm really very high on top-contender Chris Pine normally, but I don't know if he's right for the role. His limitation isn't is his acting ability - perhaps he will show just how good he is and give an excellent performance - his drawback is that he's just too darn charismatic. Why have him play the role of an android? Personally, I'd rather see him in a different role, like Bob Morton (played in the original by Miguel Ferrer). I'd buy that for a dollar. Anyway, this is all purely academic at this point. Who knows if this film will ever actually get made, let alone stick to its original casting wishes (which no large production ever seems to do).

3. Josh Brolin might take on the lead in Oldboy remake:

This is a big "meh" for me. Oldboy is another remake film-fans are already contemptuous toward. Blah blah blah, you love the original, why remake it? blah blah blah. For my money, Oldboy isn't all that good to begin with, so remake it or not, I don't really care. A Spike-lee helmed, Americanized version could be interesting, but whatever, it's taking forever to get this project off the ground as well, so we'll just have to wait and see if this becomes reality.

4. Edward Norton might be villain in next Bourne film:

Can't a franchise just end these days? Enough with the Bourne movies already. This one doesn't even have Bourne in it. I like Jeremy Renner as a replacement and Tony Gilroy as a director, but I can't help but feel that their talents are wasted on this. This news is the only thing that makes this project worthy of notice. Norton is a fun actor to watch and a pretty good heel, so he could give this film a much-needed shot in the arm.

5. Schwarzenegger chooses role for acting return:

And it's just the one I was hoping he would. The various Terminator rumors surrounding Arnold were somewhat interesting, but I'm kind of rooting for him not to return to the series when it gets its inevitable reboot. For his return, he'll be taking on some baddies at the border in The Last Stand, Kim Jee-Woon's (The Good, The Bad, and the Weird and I Saw the Devil) American feature debut. When the film was first announced, Liam Neeson was in line for the role, which I was all in favor of, though it was a little on-the-nose. Arnold makes for a more interesting choice, though, and I'm excited to see how him and Jee-Woon work together.

Here's a synopsis for the film:
Schwarzenegger will be starring as Sheriff Owens, a man who has resigned himself to a life of fighting what little crime takes place in sleepy border town Sommerton Junction after leaving his LAPD post following a bungled operation that left him wracked with failure and defeat after his partner was crippled. After a spectacular escape from an FBI prisoner convoy, the most notorious, wanted drug kingpin in the hemisphere is hurtling toward the border at 200 mph in a specially outfitted car with a hostage and a fierce army of gang members. He is headed, it turns out, straight for Summerton Junction, where the whole of U.S. law enforcement will have their last opportunity to make a stand and intercept him before he slips across the border forever. At first reluctant to become involved, and then counted out because of the perceived ineptitude of his small town force, Owens ultimately accepts responsibility for one of the most daring face offs in cinema history.

Retro Trailers

2011-07-11T13:27:00.000-05:00

Remember how much you wanted to see this one?

Boardwalk Empire S.2 Teaser

2011-07-11T13:12:00.000-05:00

How come I didn't hear that this had come out? I was worried "Boardwalk" might be one of those shows that would be too ambitious to conform to a typical yearly schedule, but it appears everything is set for the show's second season to premiere in September as expected. Here's the teaser trailer.

For my money, "Boardwalk" is currently the best show on television. I've got high hopes for season two.

Independence Day Speech

2011-07-04T09:55:00.001-05:00

In honor of the 4th of July, I'm including President Pullman's inspirational pre-battle speech from Independence Day here. I'd post a video if I could, but I can't.

"Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in the history of mankind. "Mankind." That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it's fate that today is the Fourth of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom... Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution... but from annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: "We will not go quietly into the night!" We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!"

The final sentence of the President's speech was not in the original script and was added at the last minute for dramatic effect in an effort to convince 20th Century Fox not to avoid a legal battle to earn the right to name the film "Independence Day".

Retro Trailers

2011-07-03T13:35:00.000-05:00

Every week, I'll be posting a trailer for a great film from years past. Here's the first:

To Live and Die in L.A. (William Friedkin, 1985)

A fearless Secret Service agent will stop at nothing to bring down the counterfeiter who killed his partner.

Jamie Foxx IS Django IN Django Unchained

2011-06-25T00:35:00.001-05:00

The rumor mill has been swirling for a while as to who would be playing the lead character in Quentin Tarantino's next film - a self-described "Southern" called Django Unchained. Two names were prevalently mentioned: one being Will Smith and the other being Idris Elba. Smith was an awful choice and I think almost everyone who loves films breathed a hefty sigh of relief when his negotiations fell through. Elba was a heavy fan-favorite for the role, but he never entered serious talks. I feel like Foxx is a nice middle-ground. He's a big name (bigger than Elba for now), but less annoying than Smith and a better fit for something that likely won't fit the status quo.

Foxx will play the title character, a freed slave who becomes a hired killer en route to saving his wife from an evil plantation owner. Christoph Waltz will again collaborate with Tarantino in the part of a German bounty hunter who trains Django in the art of killing. In a bit of inspired casting, Leonardo DiCaprio is likely for the role of the evil plantation owner, Calvin Candie, with Samuel L. Jackson reportedly signed on to play his manservant.

It all sounds like a lot of fun. The film opens everywhere Christmas 2012.

Trailer Time

2011-06-21T13:27:00.001-05:00

Here are some trailers for interesting upcoming films:

1. Bellflower

This film has been receiving a healthy amount of buzz after playing recently at a few festivals. It looks pretty interesting and was reportedly made on a budget of less than $20,000 over the course of a few years.

2. Daylight

Another violent, independent film that's making a little noise recently. I don't think the trailer explains a lot, but it does show some promise. The plot of the film is said to deal with a couple lost in America fighting through an ordeal with a gang of conniving kidnappers.

3. The Last Circus

I don't really think I need to say much of anything about this film. Looks insane.

4. Becoming Santa

I actually had the privilege of seeing this film recently and would highly recommend it to anyone. An entertaining gimmick documentary (as opposed to a subject documentary), Becoming Santa is funny, touching, interesting, and downright strange. The subject - Jack - isn't some crazy to be marveled at, he's in on the joke and is a great source of the film's comedy as our tour guide through the peculiar world of Santas.

5. City of Life and Death

This is another film I was lucky enough to see. To call it an unpleasant viewing would be an understatement, but that's because the historical subject - Japan's Rape of Nanking perpetrated against the Chinese in WWII - was such a monstrous act. City of Life and Death is a great examination of the deplorable nature of man in wartime and the struggle of those who are subject to it.

6. A Dangerous Method

This is David Cronenberg's next and features some very talented performers. The director's latest efforts have been some of his best and some of the best films in recent years too, so one can hope that he'll keep his streak running.

Tree of Life Review

2011-06-21T12:37:00.004-05:00

The word I have come to associate most with The Tree of Life in the past couple weeks is "hyperbole". Some people say that it's the "worst movie ever made", which is obnoxious and completely ridiculous. Really, it's the worst movie ever? Just because it's unconventional? The beautiful images, at least, don't score any points with you? On the other end of the spectrum, I hear that it'll "change your life" or that it's "what cinema is made for", which is also crazy. The Tree of Life is not film at its very best, but rather simply film doing something different. It also does not transcend the screen in any profound, life-altering way. It might elicit some eye-squinting, chin-grabbing, glasses-chewing "hmmm"s, but if it fundamentally alters the way you think about the world we live in, chances are you never really thought about it before to begin with. No, The Tree of Life isn't film perfection, or the best film ever, or of the year or even Malick's best, but it is a great film and more importantly an interesting film and one worth seeing and sitting through, perhaps more than once.

So now that I've officially lead with what reads like a conclusion, let's discuss the film itself. It is hitting American theaters now after a tremendous amount of hype and interest. I don't think anyone going into the film knows quite what they're in for, but with the director being who he is, the product of his labors should come as no surprise. Malick has always been unconventional, highly-visual, highly-lyrical filmmaker, but The Tree of Life seems to take his tendencies and distill them down to their purest forms. The film is his least narratively-inclined. The story of the film, one could say, focuses on a 1950's Texas family with Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain playing the respective 'riarchs. They don't have a particular story, or linear path - we are just given glimpses of their lives as if it was anyone else's lives. They eat dinner, they fight, they run, they play, they grow, they change.

Stuck in the middle (actually nearer to the beginning) is a sequence of breathtaking shots depicting the beginning of all things, Earth, life and man. I loved this portion of the film and while I enjoyed the family sequences too, I could have watched this go on for the full 2.5 hour runtime. (Perhaps someday I'll get my wish as Malick is said to be currently working on a documentary that would do just that). It's exciting to see these images and know that you share a world with them.

The two distinct portions of the film come together in that both mean to show how we came to be. The latter does so on a much larger scale, showing quite literally the miracle of life, while the former aims to show how our development makes us into the people we are as adults, which would then effect subsequent generations. The two are certainly more connected than even that though as we are meant to realize that every event, from the dawn of life on Earth and perhaps before, has had an impact (though it may be minute) on the lives we live and who we eventually become.

Chastain and Pitt have their own ways of raising their three, onscreen sons and this parental duel ultimately creates the man we see in the presumably present scenes featuring Sean Penn ("Mother. Father. Always you wrestle inside me.") He doesn't become either one of them, in which case life could be described as more of a circle. He is from them, but not them; a branch moving in a direction away from them, but still wholly connected and even further down resides the whole of the tree and the rest of humanity and existence.

There's a fair amount of voice-over in the film as well; nothing expository, just some lyrical musings that I found less interesting than the visuals at the time of viewing. I won't dismiss them without seeing the film for a second time, but admittedly I didn't pay as much attention to them as some of the film's other elements.

Malick is allegedly working on a six-hour version of the film, which I would be all for (though I might have to take it in two parts). The potential for what can be shown within the film is endless. Apparently a great deal more of the family's "story" was filmed than what was shown. However, what does appear in this abridged cut is very interesting and quite an accomplishment. I applaud Malick for his ability to capture this story of life itself like no one has in film before. The Tree of Life isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, so to speak, and I wouldn't fault anyone for not liking it. It's not like any film you're likely to see in wide-release. That doesn't make it better or worse than conventional films, it just makes it different and these days that's a quality that's starting to become rare.

X-Men: First Class Review

2011-06-13T22:14:00.000-05:00

With all of the comic book related films coming out or on the horizon, it's easy to sweep X-Men: First Class under the rug. They aren't the draw that DC's big two are and their story isn't going to tie into the upcoming Avengers film. They don't even have the familiar fan favorites like Wolverine, Storm and Cyclops this go around. I didn't know whether I was that interested in this film either. I've been burned by the X-Men so badly lately with embarrassments like Last Stand and Wolverine. However, First Class is just the shot in the arm the series needed. Working as something of a reboot, First Class returns the franchise to the glory of the first two Singer films and even, in some ways, improves upon them.

Speaking of the Singer films, First Class begins on the right foot by using a scene identical to the one that began the first X-Men film. This is only logical considering the film's heavy focus on Erik Lehnsherr AKA Magneto. As a child I was really struck by the emotionally intense opening, which featured young Erik being ripped away from his mother at the gates of a concentration camp, which incites his mutant powers. It's use in First Class is no less intense, but this time Kevin Bacon's Sebastian Shaw character is inserted into the story.

I had some concerns about how Erik as a young man would be portrayed in the film, despite my being a fan of Michael Fassbender, but those were quickly put to rest. I expected a less enraged, more conflicted character than the one we've seen Ian McKellen play, but Fassbender's Magneto has perhaps an even harder edge. From the get-go, he's hunting down and viciously handling ex-Nazis, all the while using his unique power in startling violent ways - which I suppose isn't surprising considering the director. Even when he teams up with the more friendly mutants, he maintains his edge up until the fantastic and tense conclusion. Fassbender really knocks this out of the park, with every scene being better for having him in it.

The other main strong-point is in the film's other lead, James McAvoy as a young Charles Xavier. He brings a lot of humor, intelligence and an appropriate 60's sensibility that you'd hope from the man who will become Patrick Stewart. Despite their opposing viewpoints, Xavier and Lehnsherr make for a dynamic and believable pair, with the former helping the latter control his power and mollify his pain through use of his own unique gift. One of the highlights of their pairing is a scene in which they use a newly constructed Cerebro to hunt down and recruit various mutants, which features a highly-satisfying cameo. Their well-developed pairing comes to an emotional ending, which anyone who knows anything about X-Men could guess about. Frankly, I think I would have enjoyed the film more if it were simply the Fassbender-McAvoy show.

The film's weakpoints come from its supplementary characters. The ones that are given more attention like Beast and Mystique are fine, but the other recruits fall a little flat or feel a bit lame, especially in their little party scenes. The character Angel is particularly unpleasant and poorly acted, receiving way more attention than was necessary. I thought that the film held true to its period setting and 60's style for the most part, but it falls by the wayside on occasion, specifically with this Angel character who does not uphold the aesthetic or attitude in any way.

Some of the other rogues in this film were a bit unnecessary as well, however the primary antagonists in Bacon and Jones were quite good.

X-Men: First Class definitely sets itself apart from it's predecessors with many new characters, a whole new cast and its unique temporal setting, but it still connects itself to the other films when it counts. All in all though, and no disrespect to Singer, it might just be the best X-Men film of all (with X2 close behind). Vaughn is at his very best here, finding an outlet for his talents with this stylish and hyper-violent film. The conclusion definitely leaves the franchise open for a sequel in the same vein. Vaughn should forget his Kick-Ass follow-up as it would be a waste of time. I'm not sure anyone anticipated or wanted this prequel/reboot, but it's what we have and we're damn lucky.

Despite my reservations about some of the lamer characters, I have to give the film an 'A' based on Fassbender and McAvoy alone.

Midnight in Paris Review

2011-06-12T19:02:00.001-05:00

I can't really talk about Midnight in Paris in terms of Woody Allen's career as many have - many say it's his best in years. I really couldn't tell you because despite all the film-watching I do, I have never really kept up with the ultra-prolific director. I can tell you, however, that it's a thoroughly enjoying, inoffensive, lovely film for and about Romantics and the nostalgic. How anyone could not like the film is a mystery to me.

Midnight tells the tale of a writer, played by Owen Wilson, who is obviously a stand-in for Allen himself. He's in Paris with his snobby fiance and her snobby parents doing boring snobby things with their pedantic friends. One night, instead of dancing (can't imagine Woody dancing), he decides to take some air and once the clock strikes Midnight, he's approached by an old-fashioned buggy that whisks him away to the 1920's and the company of many historical luminaries (mostly writers and artists). They use their various expertise to help Wilson's character with his professional and personal matters, which are sometimes one in the same.

Not a whole lot happens in these encounters except talking, but the talking is highly enjoyable. Hemingway is prominently featured and his spirit is captured wonderfully. Adrien Brody's performance as Dali is another highlight of the film, as is the entire scene with the three surrealists. F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgeralds are also delightfully portrayed in the film by Tom Hiddleson (Thor's Loki) and Alison Pill.

Through an encounter with Gertrude Stein and Picasso, Wilson meets and subsequently falls for Adriana, played by Marion Cotillard. This brings him some conflict about whether he can have a wife and a mistress, but it's the lack of any sustained conflict that makes this film so enjoyable. We don't really care if he's unfaithful to his fiance because, frankly, she's not very nice or pleasant and Adriana is. This lack of conflict extends to the chronological and psychological as well. Nothing is thrown off or warped by Wilson's "time-traveling" and consorting with historical figures, nor is there any hint that he's making it all up in his head. He's not crazy, there's no overt magic at play or time machines or any need to explain what exactly is going on with him. It's very simple, after Midnight, he goes back to this era that he loves (and has the potential to visit other eras too apparently) and it's real because it's really happening to him.

Films, including a lot of comedies, make too much of unnecessary conflicts between characters. What we have in Midnight is something of an internal conflict and not one that's causing a terrible amount of strife even. Wilson's character is nostalgic for a bygone era that, to him, is the golden age. Upon meeting Adriana, he realizes that there are people like him in every era, who pine for days gone by. He can't very well live out his life in the 1920's Paris, even if he wanted to, but how does he reconcile this with the reality of his present? He has to capture what's golden about that age and insert it into his, which entails a permanent move to Paris.

The performances in Midnight in Paris are all quite good, especially Wilson's. The look of the film, especially in the period scenes is beautiful and whimsically rendered. I only wish I knew more about the characters and era portrayed in the film, but I appreciate Allen's expository restraint. He's obviously very knowledgeable about the figures he includes in the film and it's a credit to him as a writer for being able to give them all a voice. The point of these portrayals wasn't to learn about these characters, but instead to experience them.

A fun, lovely film.

A-

Super 8 Review

2011-06-12T18:44:00.001-05:00

Since I saw the first Super 8 trailer a year ago, I've been excited for it. Abrams coming off a home run in Star Trek and to be teaming with a legend like Spielberg sounded like a sure win. A Bad Robot/Amblin team-up with designs on replicating the latter's magic from decades past such as we've seen in Jaws, Close Encounters, and E.T.. I couldn't ask for anything more to my liking. The trouble is, in reality, Super 8 is a failure and a cheap imitation that has more in common with modern day films than those of hallowed cinema history.

So I've been waiting over a year to see what's actually going to pop out of that crashed train's cargo and I'm still left waiting as the film progresses. You're almost on the hook for the entire film waiting for the big reveal and when it finally comes, it's a huge disappointment. People will argue that this isn't what the film is about and that the children featured in the story are rightfully the focus of the movie, but the gang of filmmaking misfits isn't interesting enough to hold my attention for two hours. The lure of the monster is what has me. Without saying too much specifically about it - the creature turns out to be something of a mess. It's CGI limbs and teeth and nothing that looks remotely realistic or frightening. Even its origins and nature are uninspired and underdeveloped.

My question is why make the damn thing such mystery? The film is more Jaws or ET than Close Encounters, so what's the point? Yes, the shark in the former is offscreen for a great deal of the film, but the audience knows it's a shark. To me, there's just something arrogant about withholding your respective film monster. It's like "oh, wait 'til they get a load of what we cooked up!". They did the same thing with Cloverfield, which I'd argue is a superior film simply because it delivers something that is interesting. A better film would simply feature the monster and allow it proper exposure throughout, without all this grandiose revealing.

Another issue with the monster is that it can't just be a monster. It's not the true villain, it's actually a victim of the true villain - the military. All the while it destroys and devours people, but that's just a symptom of the abuse inflicted upon it by the cruel and one-dimensional military men. When portraying antagonists in the form of the government or military officials, I feel it's better to go to one extreme or the other as far as character development. Either you give these villains the a lot of attention or zero at all. They're either fully developed bad guys or faceless malevolent operatives. All Super 8 gives us a bunch of mustache-twirling.

I think this comes down to the root of the film's problem, which is a fundamental inability to make choices. It focuses on too many relationships and too many people without properly developing a single one, with the exception of perhaps the main children Joe and Alice. Joe and his distant father, Joe's father and Alice's father, the monster and the doctor, Joe and his pudgy friend Charles, Joe and his dead mother, the group of friends amongst each other - these are all relationships that try to get shoehorned into the film and none work very well. There's a scene when Joe and Charles meet up to watch their footage of the train wreck and it's discovered that they're both interested in Alice, which was pointless to begin with, but made even more annoying by the fact that it plays off what a strong bestfriendship the two have, which has not even been remotely hinted at up until that point. And in all this confused examination of the bonds between two characters, singular ones fall by the wayside.

Having the film set in the time period of Spielberg's greatest successes is a fun diversion from the film's mediocrity. Some of the shots and use of color are great throwbacks and the cars and the clothes too. However, there are moments when it starts to become a bit too overstated. I understand that this is a different time period, the kids don't need to be screaming the lyrics of "My Sharona" in unison to hammer that point home. Again, I'll mention a Matt Reeves film - Let Me In. I didn't love the film, but felt there was some very cool uses of nostalgia in it. The kids cruising around to Blue Oyster Cult don't need to talk about how they're listening to BOC because it's just a part of the background.

And speaking of the film's kids, I thought most of them were pretty good little actors, which I don't say often. However, their whole story seemed a bit contrived and boring to me. I don't really care about the movie they're trying to make, but it's given a lot of attention throughout the film. They're making a zombie movie whilst name dropping Romero repeatedly - hasn't this been done before? It also seems to me that the subject of their film is what it is because zombies are currently very in vogue.

I really wanted to like the film's conclusion, which features a touch of cool imagery and a nice cut to credits, but it fell very flat and left me completely unsatisfied. In the end, we see Joe letting go of his mom's death (which frames the entire film) and him and his father coming together. My problem with this is that it feels very forced. I don't see how that issue is relevant to the creature's departure from the film. There's this effort to connect the two - the town's experience with the monster and Joe's familial drama - but they're utterly unrelated. I mean, Eliot has an absent father in ET, but that's not mirrored in his relationship with the alien. Some things can just remain background, providing realism and development to the characters and setting. Super 8 suffers from an unnecessary infusion of cheap emotionalism.

I was hoping this film would recapture some of Amblin's glory from an era gone by. And I, being a huge supporter of period films, thought that setting the film within that era would be a major plus, but perhaps I was thinking about it all wrong. The 70's/80's Amblin films weren't great themselves for imitating an era gone by. They existed within their own era, so something hoping to match them would have to exemplify it's own times in an equally positive way. The most you can hope for by imitating is an imitation, where I was hoping for the genuine article. Turns out you just can't go back to that time. Super 8 is an unimpressive, heartless, an unoriginal action film consistent with what is currently being pumped out of Hollywood. Setting it in a different era doesn't change that. It won't be considered among the classics it's aspiring to be, except for as a cheap imitation.

C+

The Father, The Son and The Family Apocalypse

2011-05-31T14:11:00.001-05:00

A Schmoo Throwback Article.

We are all born with a clean slate. We are innocent, hopeful, and untainted. The world we see before sexuality is full of possibilities. We go on to spread the seed and heritage of our parents. It is children who keep the past, present and future alive. It was this pattern that kept the visage of the American family, with all of its values, intact. This all changed when Rosemary’s baby was born. In the realm of the horror genre, the family’s last possible escape was turned on its head. No longer was “the other” a member of the family who had grown into evil, but one who had been born so. There is no future in this, no recurring pattern to save the family norm, there is only a family apocalypse.

It is at this time that all aspects of horror are begun and exhibited within the confines of the family structure. The illusion of the family life that represses the fears and anxiety associated with child-bearing has manifested itself in the children themselves. However, these children don’t simply remain infants. Rosemary’s baby developed on screen within the horror film. He became Damien, then Regan, then Carrie and so on. Although, by the time it had grown into Carrie, the dynamic within the family had evolved. The apocalypse of the family is no longer wrought by the little children, instead the blame lies with the parents. Their ineptitude, absence and harshness forces their seed to further destruction, giving reason to the horror where there once was none.
Although there are some instances where the mother is at fault (CARRIE), the father is the primary culprit in this.

Even in CARRIE one could argue that the father’s absence is important. When the father is absent, he allows for his children to destroy and/or be destroyed (such is the case in slasher flicks). But there are more direct ways in which the father becomes the root villain. In hindsight, we can see that the cause of the apocalypse of which I speak is the father. Rosemary’s baby was born to change the face of horror and the family, but why was it born? John Cassavettes sold his wife to the Devil in exchange for an acting career and its monetary gains. Subsequently the Devil begat the demon spawn. This trend also follows directly into THE AMITYVILLE HORROR and THE SHINING in which the fathers go crazy while struggling to deal with financial or creative difficulties and attempt to eliminate their offspring. This idea also relates, although less directly, to Poltergeist, where the father’s shady real estate venture brings his family to a haunted house. John Cassavettes was able to stave off this more blatant insanity by nipping his problems in the bud. Sell your wife and potential child to the Devil and your worries are solved.

This one selfish act has seemed to doom the horror film family forever. His act in creating Rosemary’s baby spawned a horror child that transcended all horror, destroying the innocence of the American family in the process (or at least the appearance of it). Then the parents began to agitate and cultivate more terror from their children in an attempt to cope with this evil. This forced the hand of the father, who was too busy dealing with the rigors of capitalist society to act rationally. So, the cycle that was started by the father came to a halt with the father and began again.