FRED Entertainment

March 19, 2010

Opinion In A Haystack: REPO MEN

haystackheader.jpg

green1

A plethora of issues need to be addressed about Repo Men before actually discussing Repo Men. Well, really just three issues, so maybe it’s not a “plethora,” but it’s still much more than normal, let us not anger El Guapo with improper word use. First, all issues with Repo! The Genetic Opera are completely covered here and here by Repo!’s co-writer/creator Terrance Zdunich from his point of view. Second, Repo Men has absolutely no connection or affiliation with the 1984 Emilio Estevez classic Repo Man. Third, (SMALL SPOILER) the filmmakers behind Repo Men are fully aware of the similarities to the Monty Python’s The Meaning Of Life “liver donor” segment, going so far as to include a shot of the sketch itself in the film. Good. Everything out of the way? Let’s not speak of these things any further. Well, except…

Not to anger genius/legend John Cleese, but Meaning Of Life is unquestionably my favorite Python film. Blasphemy you say? Sure, and it’s an opinion that often must be defended in everyday life, an argument that usually ends with “It’s not like I don’t love all the other Python flicks as well, leave me alone.” When I saw the first trailer for Repo Men the very first thought in my mind was the possible occurrence of a John Cleese or Terry Gilliam cameo. Little did I know that Repo Men would owe more to Meaning Of Life in tone than in concept. If you haven’t seen it, the “liver donor” segment involves John Cleese and Graham Chapman as liver-collectors, who go from home to home, and nonchalantly collect livers from people that signed up for a liver donor card. So the skit is basically Chapman violently ripping out the liver of Terry Gilliam’s Rastafarian-Jewish character, blood spurting and screaming in pain, whilst Cleese casually hits on his wife, Terry Jones, who isn’t at all affected by the gruesome murder of her husband happening before her, instead complaining about it as if her husband made one of his normal idiotic day to day decisions. Comedy genius. Simple and direct.

repo_men_movie_poster1

The relationship that Repo Men, the film, wants the audience to have with its two main characters is very much like that Python sketch. It’s very befuddling at first, and as much as I hate to say it, very “refreshing” in such a big studio action/sci-fi flick as this. The tone of the film is almost that of a 1980’s buddy-cop comedy, Jude Law and Forest Whitaker, black and white partners and life long friends that battle the struggle of their jobs together, and relax with cold beer and some laughs after a hard days work. The catch is that they are brutally murdering people, poor people, day to day, by repossessing bio-mechanical organs in which the client has lapsed on their payment. These are the bad guys, and for a healthy chunk of the film, Jude Law’s character is a remorseless killing machine. It’s a risk as well as an art to be able to have characters such as these and yet still handle the tone in such a way that the audience can “laugh” with them. Repo Men pulls it off very effortlessly. One minute you have Law and Whitaker killing innocents, the next you are chuckling at their chum-like banter. It’s like American Pyscho, we laugh with Patrick Bateman in the face of his obvious insanity and bloodlust, however in Repo Men it’s very interesting and welcome to see that in such a huge, mainstream film. Mixing comedy with murderers that you don’t exactly hate is, oddly, a lot of fun. This, of course, brings the Monty Python “liver donor” comparison full circle when there is a short moment where these two Repo Men are sitting in their living room, watching Meaning Of Life, and chuckling to themselves.

repo-men-photo

On the surface and via the marketing the movie seems like a very straightforward Blade Runner meets a-thousand-other-genres type of flick, which, in a lot of ways, it very much is, but it survives by its sense of humor, and its craftsmanship. It has a muted Minority Report/Blade Runner type of evil-future-corporate landscape setting, one that is only really referenced in the visuals aside from the one corporation we deal with in the movie. Its most obvious element is that of the “what happens if the corrupt system you uphold turns on you” genre, very Logan’s Run, which we’ve seen a gazillion times, but luckily the movie has a bit more happening underneath and even if it is derivative, its still very well made and fun. The system turns on Jude Law’s Remy when an accident in the line of duty causes him to need a heart replacement. He then becomes part of the system, and sympathetic toward others with a similar problem to him, thus making him unable to kill, thus making him poor, thus making him lapse on his artificial-heart payments, thus making the plot.

Aside from one or two over-edited fight scenes, the movie is very appropriately shot and stitched together…drab textures and solid geography and pacing. From what I can tell, this is Miguel Sapochnik’s first major studio directorial effort and a very welcome one at that. Having not read the book, The Repossession Mambo, I don’t know what the tone of the source material is, but the film, while not a comedy, has no qualms about irony or making a joke via freeze frames, or voice over.

repo-menjude-lawremygets-a-conscience

In the past I have argued that all action-heroes are actors, but not all actors are action heroes. Here we have two of the best working “actors” in Hollywood throwing the punches, their acting ability is not under scrutiny; however their “punches” might be. Forest Whitaker, while certainly more than an “action” star, has done this type of film before, so no concern there, especially considering how enthusiastically joyful he plays his part. I’ll admit, that even for us Jude Law fans, there is a slight concern that he couldn’t carry an action film. When I think of Law, no offense to him, but I see a tiny guy, a great actor, and someone best suited to drama, comedy, and perhaps some Eddie Izzard-coined films where British people named Sebastian walk into rooms where other British people are arranging matches. It’s a pleasure to report that he not only carries the film, he knocks it out of the park. I thought the site of Gigolo Joe beating people up and slicing out their organs would feel wrong, but instead, I found myself more than entertained while he was brutally slicing and shooting his way through plenty of “bay guys,” looking great (sexy?) while doing so. I mean, Law is no Statham, Stallone, Willis, or Ah-nuld, but he held his own. The great Liev Schreiber rounds out the leading men as the head of the Repo Men’s corporate office, silly New York accent (played for laughs,) asshole-ish demeanor, and all. Seriously though, has Schreiber ever not been class-A great? He’s another case of “why isn’t this guy more famous?”

**************MAJOR SPOILERS START HERE**************

While reviewing Shutter Island most of my time was spent harping on the fact that cinematic twists, MOST of the time, are the lamest possible device a movie can use…especially one involving a dream during sleep, cryogenic stasis, or brain illness or injury. Well Repo Men has a twist, not a huge all encompassing “M. Night is crazy” twist, but a twist none the less. I am going to try my best to defend this twist, while sticking to my guns on my Shutter Island review. Skip over the next paragraph if you don’t need your memory refreshed.

REM_Wild1Sheet_33 (Page 1)

About three quarters of the way through the film Jude Law and Alice Braga’s characters are on the run from the corporation. Law has an artificial heart; Braga’s Beth has almost half of her body comprised of fake organs. There is a rather minor showdown between Whitaker’s Jake and Law’s Remy. Jake, of course, is trying to repossess Remy’s heart, in the face of his life long friendship. During the fight sequence, Jake hits Remy in the head with a huge steel hook, right before getting tasered unconscious by Remy. Remy is then awaken by Beth, and the too of them decide to storm the corporate building, kill anyone in their way, and destroy all the credit files to free everyone on the books. Well, including a truly, truly bad ass Jude Law knife fight, they succeed. They make it to the cliché inner sanctum of organ re-acquisition, the sub-basement of evil, the all-white-décor file storage department. They then realize that the only way to get themselves out of the system is to scan the body parts inside them, which brings about an extremely gory and oddly sexual scene where the two of them slice each other open and stick the scanner module (very similar to one you’d find at a supermarket) inside the each others body. They succeed again, they survive, and then Whitaker and Schreiber enter the room, Whitaker has a change of heart on a dime, kills Schreiber and the three of them blow up what’s left of the evil basement.

Cut to: They are sitting on a beach, Jake, Beth, and Remy, enjoying tropical cocktails and laughing it up like all is well. At this point, some overly anxious people in my theater, assuming the film was over, walked out fully satisfied with the most obvious, cliché ending in history. The screen then glitches with static, you hear voices talking, cut back to that small encounter earlier, Remy is lying on his back in a coma, that huge steel hook actually busted his skull wide open. Paramedic’s from the corporation had him on an artificial neural-net, in which he was dreaming beautiful dreams. He’s been in a coma for the entire end climax of the film, a computer creating his ideal scenario. Movie Ends. Bad guys win.

0

I walked out of the theater completely baffled as to why I liked the flick so much, especially with a twist. I think I figured out why. Unlike M. Night’s twists, this twist didn’t change the entire film, just about the last 20 or so minutes, it also didn’t change the world they were living in. This wasn’t a twist where they find out that all the organs are actually made by aliens or that they aren’t actually on earth and the whole city is a government experiment on the moon or some crap like that. The world that the movie sets up is true, and the twist doesn’t change that. Secondly, if they edited out the twist, the movie itself would still be a completely formed, albeit clichéd, narrative that makes absolute and total sense. There would be no Vanilla Sky/Shutter Island “why are things all weird for no discernible reason” type of confusion. Remy’s delusion is perfectly comprehensible and finishes out the story (If anyone knows how the book ends, leave a comment about it below.)

repo-menjude-lawyremyartificial-heart-transplantfi

Also, the twist take’s a turn, at least in my opinion, towards reality instead of the more fantastic and “Hollywood.” The reality of how things end in real life would be that a human head getting smashed in by a giant piece of metal gets busted open and the hero’s journey ends. This makes the twist almost more welcomed, in that the “fake” Remy-created ending wraps everything up in such a nice little package, especially the sudden and unearned change-of-heart that Whitaker’s character takes. Jake, in the span of literal seconds, after an entire film of being unquestionably devoted to the system of organ repossession, decides he’s on the wrong side and stabs his boss in the neck. It’s awkward to watch him laughing it up on the beach with Law. Remember, the both of these men are effectively mass murderers, Law’s character has somewhat fought for redemption, while Whitaker just did an Anakin Skywalker and said “Ok, I’ll be on your side now.”

So it is nice that the corny, saccharin nature of Jake’s turn from the dark side actually never happened. And sue me, but I love it when the bad guys win, when drab, cold reality wins out over triumphant fantastical Hollywood hegemony. Hollywood endings have their place, but it does get tiring seeing the good guy win, giving the audience what it wants. You got to love a twist like this, ESPECIALLY opposed to Shutter Island since the viewer thinks that their emotional journey is over, relaxing on a tropical beach somewhere, just to strip it away and remind them that life sucks, and not every movie exists to help them escape the reality of their banality filled job at the horse manure processing plant (I’m not sure if those exist.) Some movies want you to know that horse manure processing might be as good as it gets. Those movies aren’t for everyone.

While cliché and derivative, Repo Men is worth a look. Jude can kick some serious gluteus-maximus too, good for him.

Thanks for reading, I’m Bob Rose and you probably (PROBABLY) are not.

March 5, 2010

Opinion In A Haystack: ALICE IN WONDERLAND

haystackheader.jpg

green

Alice In Wonderland is the greatest film of the year, based on the trailer. A flick that we THINK we will love, and have already CONVINCED ourselves that we love, before having to, or needing to, see it. It seems like an easy sell, right? You got Tim Burton, Mr. Hot Topic, a parody of his former self, taking on the wild, weird, world of Lewis Carroll. We even get Johnny “surprise, surprise” Depp in the (sort of) lead role as the (supposedly) crazy, cooky, zany, wacky, insane-in-the-membrane, effeminate comedy tornado known as the Mad Hatter. Can’t go wrong. Right?

Admitting that one has never read classic literature is always tough, but this reviewer will do it. I’ve never read any of Lewis Carroll’s works, with the exception of “Jabberwocky.” Like many of my fellow Generation-Pepsi brethren, my biggest forays into “Alice” were via Disney, The Disney channel, that TV movie, and any and all “eat me, drink me” pop culture references. Oddly, I think I am the perfect demographic for Burton’s film: people who have a hazy knowledge of the material to the point where confusion overtakes enjoyment and we just assume that what we watched was good, accurate, and well done due to special effects and filmmaker credentials.

allice_in_wonderland_poster

Well, first off, after much research and common-knowledge-recall, I think we can agree that Lewis Carroll’s works were meant to be gibberish, odd, and “cooky” (in an intentionally literate way) to begin with. The brilliant (I’ve heard at least) source material is obviously the least of Alice’s problems, especially since this film, much like Disney’s original, is a huge mash-up retelling of all things “Carroll” in a story that is a sequel to the stories that he wrote. Yeah, let me try to organize that thought: Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland is a sequel to the source material that uses story/plot elements from the source material coupled with newly-written material and material that is written from assumptions based on source material. Whew. Now, at least Disney’s original film was just a merging of two books, it doesn’t completely obliterate all possibility of children one day reading the books and understanding how the already confusing brilliance of Carroll fits together with their lifetime of understanding of what Burton told them it was. In the year 2030 there will be a lot of adults surprised to find out that ALICE IN WONDERLAND was possibly the most confusing title choice for a beloved nostalgic film of their youth. I guess Alice Returns To Wonderland was too complex for audiences to grasp. Hook wasn’t titled Peter Pan for a reason.

I love(d) Burton, please know that, but the guy lost his “genius” switch almost a decade ago with Planet Of The Apes. Since then he truly has been doing Tim Burton “Auto-Pilot” theater, and Alice is no exception. If anything, it is more proof. There’s nothing wrong with a director teaming up for several upon several projects with a lead, especially one as talented as Depp. The problems begin when the collaboration starts to get obvious to the point of banality, to the point where it almost seems like they are dragging each other down because everything is taken for granted that nothing is artistically progressing.

aussie-mia-wasiklowska-as-alice

This time around Depp and Burton’s past has painfully caught up to them, helped in no way by the marketing blitz displaying the Mad Hatter’s admittedly insane appearance. So how off the deep end does Depp’s performance get? How maniacal does he take his character? How much does Burton’s Mad Hatter resemble a sentient volcano, filed with molten-crazy, ERUPTING COMEDY AT EVERY TURN??? Zip. Nothing. Notta. The MAD Hatter of Tim Burton’s nightmarish dream world is less crazy than most action-film comedy-relief characters during their subdued moments. His entrance and subsequent screen time is scathingly boring, to the point where his bland presence almost becomes embarrassing. In fact, he is actually one of the most serious characters in the movie, yet the movie itself doesn’t seem to realize it. I would assume this was intentional, they were trying to give the Hatter depth, yet it takes away the essential nature of the character. If I create a character called Homeless Jim, and he stops being Homeless, who is he? The craziest thing Mad Hatter does is dancing, via the excessively boring magic of CGI, for like 30 seconds. “Cringe-worthy” is a very clichéd term to use in any review. It was cringe-worthy as all hell.

**********VERY MILD SPOILERS START HERE**********

The last time Burton re-adapted the source material of an already beloved movie (a.k.a. it wasn’t a remake) I absolutely, positively hated it with every ounce of my body. Why should this be any different? Perhaps I’m not the audience for this (I guess.) Although, I try to stay positive, I’m always hoping that my fears about a flick are unjustified. Now I realize that I’ve talked very little about the actual movie itself, and honestly, it’s because I forgot most of whatever it was about. Something having to do with killing the Red Queen’s dragon, the Jabberwock, with the Vorple sword, which is from the poem “Jabberwocky” (yeah, it’s confusing.) What I do remember is that the plot was like Alice In Wonderland adapted, both in script and style, as the most derivative fantasy movie of last decade. I’m not joking either; there are shots of Alice and the Mad Hatter standing on a balcony together in front of Rivendale. Yes, that Rivendale. Waterfalls, majestic landscapes, soft focus, white glow and all. There is even a Narnia-like prophecy about an English child (Alice) returning to the fantasy world to kill the evil Queen (which from what I can research, is not from the books, so they willingly wrote such a derivative concept”¦I could be wrong.) This is all inflamed by an epic battle at the end, where we finally get to see Johnny Depp, as the Serious Hatter fight Crispin Glover with a CGI body. Finally, my dreams made corporeal!

ba748944c8da2517_alice_in_wonderland_tim_burton

The movie is made up of giant assumptions and it derails from the second Alice steps into Wonderland. The tone is predicated upon audience’s perfect recollection and knowledge of the source material to the point that character’s speak Carroll’s gibberish, which if fine, BUT, they speak it fast and without the slightest bit of enunciation. The movie doesn’t seem to care that if the audience can’t hear the “nonsense” words, we can’t comprehend that they are, in fact, nonsense. I’ve read “Jabberwocky,” I know the word “bandersnatch,” yet I couldn’t tell they were saying it during the entire movie until the very end, struggling to Frankenstein-stitch all the syllables up in my brain. I’m all for nonsense and lunacy, but if I need subtitles to understand what the characters are speed-whispering the whole movie, what’s the point? This gives the entire production a feeling of disjointed, slovenly pacing, not to mention the fact that it doesn’t bother with any character setup. Burton expects that you know the individual and overall plights of these characters, and their struggle against the evil Red Queen, from the word go. Sure, we know what Alice’s deal is, but give us a bit more meat as to why these characters chose the sides they did, and what they have been doing since she left. You are writing a whole new story anyway, if you going to crap on it, at least explain some character motivation. Why doesn’t the Cheshire Cat use his powers to do anything of worth? Burton’s film leaves behind the helping Alice/hurting Alice, deviant nature of the books and Disney’s original film”¦in this he’s a force of apparent, straightforward “good.” This is a “new” story, one in which you’ve changed the tone to action-fantasy and the nature of the character”¦so I’m not asking Lewis Carroll, I’m asking Tim Burton (but I would be interested in Carroll’s response.) Why doesn’t the Cheshire Cat transport himself behind the Red Queen’s throne and slit her jugular with his nails? Ok, it’s a kid’s movie, but come one, this Cat is almost omniscient, practically immortal, and devilishly smart (he also has the power to physically morph into other forms?!?!) Yet, like a badly written Superman comic, he doesn’t work at his full potential.

alice-in-wonderland-trailer

The cast does a fine job. It’s nice to see Crispin Glover on screen, even with a CGI body. Mia Wasikowska does a damn fine job as Alice. Alan Rickman, Helena Carter, Anne Hathaway, Stephen Fry”¦they are all top notch, movie aside. Right around here, two years ago, you would be treated to me complaining about CGI and green-screen based filmmaking, but I don’t have the energy anymore and I doubt there are any new arguments to bring to the pro-analog table. I would also have to explain why Avatar would get a pass from me, yet Alice seems to be killing my spirit, which in and of itself is probably the best review I could give you.

Highly recommended to The Last Unicorn fans, Hot Topic employees and customers, and elderly folks who have nothing to do at 2pm on Tuesdays.

I’m Bob Rose, thanks for reading, this sentence is going to end now.

Trailer Park: Life, The Universe, & an Oscar Ode

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

WE LIVE IN PUBLIC – DVD Review

we_live_in_public_official_posterThere’s a moment in WE LIVE IN PUBLIC (Now out on DVD) in which Josh Harris, an Internet wunderkind who saw the convergence of our online and everyday lives meshing long before any of us delighted in the joy of broadband service, makes an underground lair. Now, as founder of Pseudo.com, one of the very first sites to ever make video on the Internet available in the late 90’s, he wanted to push the sociological and psychological boundaries of what we would consider voyeuristic. He built a bunker, for lack of a better word, underground in New York where dozens upon dozens of people, artists mostly, had to submit not only applications for the chance to have their lives taped 24/7 but were put through rigorous examinations to determine their willingness to be completely exposed to those around them in ways we hadn’t yet been exposed to. One of the things you learn quickly about the cultural mores of artists, I think, is that through this selection process you notice that these people are open to the idea of things, the idea of a good artistic endeavor, in a way that I don’t think Ma and Pa Kettle would, as the general looseness of those who agreed to be filmed bathing, fornicating, and doing whatever they wanted while the cameras rolled is apparent in their giddiness to take part in this experiment.

Through the fresh direction of Ondi Timoner, her documentary DIG! still ranks as one of my favorites in that genre, we see how Josh’s own theories about the Internet’s allure for instant fame and our insatiable need to consume information about the lives of those we follow play out on camera. The bacchanalia of sex, video cameras, guns, and general licentiousness that took place over the course of 30 days is fantastic in how revolutionary the idea was at the time at the turn of the millennium. Oddly enough, it was the clock striking the year 2000 that put an end to the communal party as “The Man” stepped in to put and end to what was a living, breathing example of the world that was about to come.

Josh decides to get intimate with the idea of the personal expressed through online channels and decides to do the same thing but makes it above ground and limits it to 2 people: his girlfriend and himself. What occurs is really the meat of the things we all know about today in some way or another. That the idea the Internet could allow for real intimacy is really a fallacy. This situation only confirms that when you scrutinize and pick apart situations for everyone to look at and comment on there is nothing, absolutely nothing, positive that can come out of it that would indicate how humans really act when the doors are closed.

It’s a false sense of reality and this film captures the essence of the Internet age in a way you never thought to ask because we’re all too busy making our own opinions, and lives, known on the Internet. The situations that Harris create only bolster the argument that technology, inherently, does not allow for personal intimacy. It’s a false front but the advent of new and better ways for people to communicate with one another, ironically, artificially create that sense and it’s that sense that Timoner captures so very well.

If you’re a fan of documentaries this one should be required viewing for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of what kind of lives we’re building for ourselves online and whether this is truly healthy for our own sense of self. Loved it.

About the film:

As the social networks become more and more mainstream, questions of personal privacy continue to be an issue. But in the “˜90s, Internet guru, artist, futurist and visionary Josh Harris was experimenting with that very subject. Ten years in the making and culled from 5000 hours of footage, WE LIVE IN PUBLIC, from award-winning director Ondi Timoner (DIG!), documented his tumultuous life for more than a decade to create a riveting, cautionary tale of what to expect as the virtual world inevitably takes control of our lives. Called “remarkable [and] mesmerizing”, the 2009 Sundance Grand Jury Prize Winner for Best Documentary reveals the effect the web is having on our society, as seen through the eyes of Harris, “the greatest Internet pioneer you’ve never heard of”.

Harris, often called the “Warhol of the Web”, founded Pseudo.com, the first Internet television network during the infamous dot-com boom of the 1990s. He also curated and funded the ground breaking project “Quiet” in an underground bunker in NYC where over 100 people lived together on camera for 30 days at the turn of the millennium. With “Quiet”, Harris proved how we willingly trade our privacy for the connection and recognition we all deeply desire, but with every technological advancement becomes that much more elusive. Through his
experiments, including a six-month stint living with his girlfriend under 24-hour electronic surveillance which led to his mental collapse, Harris demonstrated the price we pay for living in public.

Featuring music by The Pixies, Spoon and Jamiroquai, WE LIVE IN PUBLIC is presented in widescreen with Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo. Extras include commentary from Internet pioneers Chris DeWolfe and Jason Calacanis and venture capitalist Fred Wilson, a Sundance 2009 retrospective, the official trailer and more.

THE UNIVERSE SEASON 4 – DVD Review

uniI’ll admit it: I’m dumb.

I hated math and I liked science a little less. However, I was utterly enthralled with Mr. Wizard’s World.

Don Herbert was a master of taking really complex concepts that ruled our every day existence and crafted experiments to show kids like me that there was practical explanations about how calories were calculated, the nuances of gravity, and what the effects of liquid nitrogen were on a hot dog. This engendered a sense of wow about the world I lived in but the problem was that Mr. Wizard only came on for 1/2 a hour a day and school lasted hours upon hours and they never brought that kind of teaching style to the table.

Fast forward 20 years. I still hate math but I do like science. I may not understand the complex means by which people get to the answers what the coefficient is of the force that will ensure the wing of the plane I am riding in doesn’t snap off but it intrigues me. Thankfully, The Universe is a lot like Mr. Wizard for grown-ups like me who aren’t necessarily nerds when it comes to understanding how the larger universe around me operates but who want to learn.

In the fourth season this series continues to impress and educate with its methodological tack for making sense of the space that our globe is ensconced in on all sides. From using computer modeling to show how star clusters function and what happens when big things collide into planets to employing real life scientists who actually enjoy what they do and communicate as such on camera provide a viewing experience that just felt easy for me to follow. And I think the ease with which these things are explained help to make this a show that isn’t just aimed at people who may fancy themselves junior astronomers. This is a show for people like myself who aren’t well-versed in the complex mathematics involved which would explain everything they’re talking about but who really do need some help in slowing down and compartmentalizing the information in bites that are simple enough to consume. No, I don’t realize the difference between stars that seem to be the same and the relationship of dimness which can set them apart but, thanks to season 4 of The Universe, I saw someone with a white car back up in a parking lot to illustrate the point they were making.

Look, there should be no shame in saying that you’re deficient in certain areas of your mental wheelhouse but the pleasure a series like this brings, where people are delighted to explain ideas that eggheads have been agonizing over for centuries and where scientists are more than happy to create a real-world scenario that contextualizes what they’re saying, makes me more than giddy to see where else they can fill in the holes. To boot, this is also a series I can enjoy with the rest of my family as everyone can get something unique out of it and I think that speaks volumes about the production aims for a series that wants to not only cast the net really wide but wants to try and elevate the conversation for everyone involved.

As long as they keep making shows like this I will be more than willing to try and school myself because if they’re anything like this, I don’t mind sitting in front of the television for hours on end.

About the film:

Using stunning HD graphics and packed with authentic NASA footage, THE UNIVERSE returns in SEASON FOUR to transport home viewers past the wonders of our own solar system and out to the bizarre far-flung reaches of the cosmos. From death stars to ringed planets, star clusters to space wars, THE UNIVERSE: THE COMPLETE SEASON FOUR on DVD and BLU-RAY uses new discoveries and more advanced CGI to help explain the mysteries of outer space.

These special edition sets feature all 12 episodes from SEASON FOUR plus special “Ask the Universe” segments in which the series’ most popular experts answer viewers’ questions. Examine which elements from popular sci-fi movies could really exist ““ from the ice moon of Endor to wormholes and transporters. Discover how the universe is awash in all sorts of strange liquids, from oceans of methane to blobs of alcohol floating in space, and even iron rain. And watch and marvel as experts cook up ten ways to destroy the Earth, including blowing it up with anti-matter, hurling it into the Sun, and colliding with another galaxy in this top-rated #1-selling HISTORYâ„¢ franchise.

TELL THEM ANYTHING YOU WANT – DVD Review

mauriceAs Maurice Sendak tells it, life growing up was sweet with his older brother and older sister.

This rather compact documentary on the man who would pen Where The Wild Things Are is a sincere and touching view into the life of an author who never deigned to spend his life writing for children. His muse was set to make him the vessel through which he produced dozens of books that kids everywhere adored and revered.

Clocking in at around 40 minutes this is a film directed by Lance Bangs and Spike Jonze that, honestly, is emotionally stirring when you listen to a man who initially comes off as a crotchety old coot who you wonder, initially, why he even agreed to be on camera. The man is crotchety, no question about it, but instead of railing against the ills of the world around him he seems consumed with the ills that plague his soul.

While he recounts a life growing up with an older sister who he adored, in the special features there is a “dramatic” recreation with Jonze and Katherine Keener of a time he threw her under the bus after being left in a bake shop one time, and an older brother who helped him make hand-made toys you get a sense here was a man who had a rich childhood that was filled with wonder. He recounts the time, in a slow and exacting manner, how when he was a toddler seeing a picture of a badly decomposed photo of the Lindbergh baby that was kidnapped and left to rot in a forest. He tells how that affected him and you cannot help but feel in awe of a man who is able to recall those things which shaped his perception.

About his writing for kids, and it sounds like he’s a grumpy old man, but he likens his talent to a malfunction. He doesn’t understand why he was able to churn out story after story where his characters were no older than kids in the throes of childhood. He doesn’t seem mystified by the process. He seems resigned to knowing that he was just following a path as an artist and never wavered from it. It’s sweet and tender but it offers insight into how Maurice would grow up to create Where The Wild Things Are, a story that was controversial for its depiction of a mother who would stoop to the level of her child. Controversial for its depiction of a mother that would let her emotions get in the way of societal niceties that dictated hard and fast rules about the role of parents.

He talks sanguinely about death and its implications but you see an artist who knows he’s created something special for the world but, as any good artist would say, it doesn’t seem good enough. He has that “one more thing” still wanting to be created and you hope for all our sakes that he finally does. At one point, near the end of the documentary, he talks about why he wrote books for kids. He asks, almost self-reflexively, “Why is my needle stuck in childhood? I don’t know…That’s where my heart is.”

This is a movie that should not be missed and should absolutely be hunted out and viewed.

About the film:

From Lance Bangs and Spike Jonze, acclaimed director of WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, comes A PORTRAIT OF MAURICE SENDAK, a loving look at one of the most cherished and controversial figures in children’s literature. Featuring TELL THEM ANYTHING YOU WANT, this is a deeply moving tribute to Sendak, a seminal talent whose conflicts with success and lifelong obsession with death have subtly influenced his work.

Now 81, Sendak is best known for his book, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, which he wrote twelve years into his career as a writer and illustrator. WILD THINGS would go on to become one of the most beloved and critically lauded children’s books of all time and, much to Sendak’s chagrin, would come to define his career. Through his own words, personal photos, and illustrations, Sendak offers a rare, intimate, and unexpected look at his exceptional life. A TRIBUTE TO MAURICE SENDAK also features James Gandolfini, Meryl Streep, Catherine Keener, and Tony Kushner honoring their friend and colleague.

And the Winner is”¦

By Ray Schillaci

picture1The Academy Awards is either just around the corner or has been announced depending on when or if this gets posted. It’s been awhile since I’ve delivered my input on what’s out there. Thinking back I do not have a good enough reason not to have delivered Mr. Stipp a review or two a month. I could use the excuse that I have been traversing through a labyrinth of pain while in and out of a drug haze that impedes my writing, but I just don’t think that is acceptable. I will not continue on with my condition in fear of falling into maudlin territory and depressing you, the reader, and myself. So, in my humble opinion it’s unfortunate that the Academy has reduced itself to a cheap marketing ploy rather than get more creative to capture a television audience with the announcement of 10 “best picture nominees” rather than the streamline 5. Pardon me; did I use the word “creative” conjunctively with the Academy?

This is the Academy that anointed “best picture” in 1973 to the long forgotten, “The Sting” rather than embrace one of the most memorably chilling movies in film history, “The Exorcist”. The same group that selected the now forgettable, but still well made “Ordinary People,” completely dismissing the greatest film of that decade, Martin Scorsese’s monumental achievement, “Raging Bull” and one of the most emotionally draining and provocative films of all time, David Lynch’s, “The Elephant Man”.

Between 1932 and 1943 the Academy had 10 “best picture” nominees and if you take a look at any one of those years (with the exception of 1939) the category could have easily been reduced to five. Seriously, does this year’s crop of film come anywhere near the mythos of the batch that was provided in 1939; Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Wuthering Heights, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach, Of Mice and Men, Dark Victory, Goodbye, Mr. Chips, Love Affair, Ninotchka. If you are not familiar with some of these, do yourself a favor and rent them. They are the inspirations for many famous filmmakers in the last 40 years!

Frankly, there are only five best pictures this year; The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air, Avatar and Up. I place Avatar on a precipice nearly being toppled by the far less expensive, but deeper District 9. The other films are well made human dramas that have no place under the best picture banner. Each one of the films I’ve mentioned as legit nominees have their strong sells to command the coveted spot. Avatar is the only questionable one. I’m not a Cameron basher and I do not concern myself with the budget of a movie. I am more concerned with the story itself and for the life of me I don’t understand how a film can be nominated for “best picture” without getting nominated for “best screenplay” or “best adapted screenplay”. Seeing Avatar is like going out with Paris Hilton ““ can it really last? Where’s the depth? It’s good for the time being, but years later it will get old and there will be little to enjoy. Am I being too mean?

For me, Kathryn Bigelow’s, “The Hurt Locker” is every bit as visceral as Oliver Stone’s, “Platoon”. It’s one of the few films you watch after the first ten minutes and say, how can they possibly top that. The expectations are too high, and yet Bigelow delivers! On the other hand, Pixar’s, “Up” personifies a classic tale that nearly rings as original as “The Wizard of Oz”. It should not be dismissed as an animated film. The feelings are genuine and so are its actors, whose voices bring to life characters that forever stay in our heart and make an indelible mark in our lives. The story is both simple and unique carrying a bittersweet tome about life; the joys of youth and the pains of growing old. Speaking of original, Tarantino steps up to the plate and knocks it out of the ballpark with his grinningly fun inaccurate WW2 take, “Inglourious Basterds”. Tarantino challenges and we are all the better for it. He shows growth both as a director and a writer. He also remains outside the Hollywood system making his style not as accessible to mainstream audiences, but that’s why we love him. It reminds me of when Scorsese brought us Taxi Driver and Raging Bull ““ ending up being whole chapters in cinematic history.

But superseding as the most important statement about where we stand as a nation and where we may be going is Jason Reitman’s, “Up in the Air”. From the subtle performances, nuanced script, deep rich cinematography and a score that leaves one with a mild taste of the sixties harking back to the classic, “The Graduate,” Reitman proves that he was the genius behind “Juno” and not Diablo Cody. Cody proved that herself with the tepid “Jennifer’s Body”.

If you have not seen this masterpiece on corporate America, by all means do. Do not be put off by what you may think this picture is about. I thought, going in, it would be too bourgeoisie for me. How could I relate to people making 100 grand a year getting laid off when I knew way too many people making half of that getting the ax? How could I possibly care for the lead character that performs this heinous act? Reitman and company pull this off magnificently with George Clooney delivering the best performance of his career. Vera Farmiga (Orphan) cannot receive enough praise as Clooney’s seductive co-pilot who happens to have a delicious back end (unless they used a body double). She is not only the epitome of aging gracefully, she’s downright sexy too.

The importance of this film speaks volumes and rightfully places it at the top of my list as best picture. Of course, that does not mean a thing when you look at the past; “French Connection” beating out “Clockwork Orange” or “No Country for Old Men” stealing best picture from “There Will Be Blood”. But every so often the Academy does surprise us and does the right thing. Look at “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” in 2003, “Braveheart” in 1995 and both “Godfathers ““ I & II” in 1972 and ’74. I only hope box office does not become the ultimate decision over what is actually the best we have to offer in American cinema.

February 19, 2010

Wonderful World of Talkies: Tenacious D & Friends Stand With Haiti

talkies-header.png

Howdy Interwebbers. I’m Matt Cohen and I dig the D.

Of course, I am referring to Tenacious D – the folk-metal guitar duo made up of Jack Black (Jables) and Kyle Gass (Kage). I’ve been getting my socks rocked off’ since high school, and have been an avid follower of all things D ever since. I voraciously devour their new albums and attend as many live shows as I can, so it was to my delight and surprise that the boys had put together an epic night of comedy and music… and better yet, it was for a great cause. I snagged my ticket, patiently waited a few weeks, ventured out in the heart of Korea Town (and hunted for a good/free parking spot, WHICH I found, thank you very much) and was presented with a night of performances I would never forget.

Want to live vicariously through me? Well, besides it being a tad creepy… I’m flattered… Here’s your chance! I’m proud to present my review of “Tenacious D and Friends: Stand With Haiti”, presented in chronological order for all you fans of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder!

———————————————————————————————

Maya Rudolph: What’s funny is that I had just watched Ms. Rudolph’s infamous SNL “Nation Anthem” sketch mere hours before attending the show.

What’s also funny is getting to see it in person. Maya took the stage as “Pamela Bell” and proceeded to sheepishly walk to the center, pick up her microphone, and – well, you all know how this one goes (If you don’t know how this one goes, watch the video above). It’s been a minute since I’ve seen Rudolph in anything (I think since IDIOCRACY, which was a few years back now) and seeing her on stage reminded me she really is one of the more talented women in the funny business. I look forward to seeing more of her in the future.

Tig Notaro: Heading to the show, I had no clue if this was a comedian, a musician, a man, or a woman. I knew one thing – Tig is fun to say. Happy to report that Ms. Notaro is a) A Woman and b) A comedian… and a very funny one at that. Ms. Notaro admittedly looks a bit like she could be Mr. Notaro at first glance, and she talks about the consequences of such a misidentification. Witty, calm – Notaro has the poise and presence of an old hand at the comedy game, and her set was better then most “spotlights” I’ve seen on major TV networks in recent years. A really solid stand up set by someone who was previously unknown to me goes to show that comedy can come from anywhere, and to never overlook a “new” voice. Consider me a fan.

Will Ferrell: The big surprise of the night. Without fanfare, without hype, without notice – Will Ferrell took the stage to what was probably the biggest applause of the event (other than The D). Ferrell quickly apologized to the audience, as he had “forgotten” the scheduling of the benefit and, as such, had arrived unprepared. He then proceeded to delight and confuse the crowd with the only “routine” he could remember off the top of his head – a third grade dance routine set to the synth classic “The Popcorn Song”, by Hot Butter. Cue two minutes of “Kaufmanesque” type performance art that made you smile more then it managed to illicit belly laughs. Ferrell was a welcome if not odd addition to an already stellar line-up of entertainers, and it was pretty cool to get to see one of my favorite on-screen comedians in the flesh (albeit 20 or so feet away).

Frank Black: The frontman from the PIXIES (sometimes know as Black Francis) took to the stage for the evening’s first musical number, and I was fairly excited. I proudly put the PIXIES in my top ten all-time favorite bands, and I had not gotten the chance to see them or their illustrious leader (Miss you, Kim.) live. The set was not quite what I expected – picture a heavy, raw, oddly tempoed angry rockster – but was still quite enjoyable. I did get to hear “Where Is My Mind”, which brought up all kinds of FIGHT CLUB related memories. Definitely worth checking out, but I’d much rather hear the whole band (or what stands for the whole band at the current date and time).

Bob Odenkirk: Out of the grand list of illustrious talent assembled, Mr. Odenkirk is my number one. Allow me to clarify. Yes, I am a huge Tenacious D fan, as I am one of Patton Oswalt, Aimee Man, Brand/Segal, etc. However, if the benefit had just been Bob Odenkirk talking to himself on a stage for an hour, I would not only have attended, but would have payed a lot of money to do so. In terms of “influences” in my life, Bob Odenkirk (and David Cross) are in the top quadrant. Without MR. SHOW in the world, I most likely would be an accountant somewhere, asking people around the office, “Hey, what’s this Twitter thing I keep hearing about?” Odenkirk emerged in a mustache and horn rimmed glasses as Steve Job’s lesser known but “better” brother. Odenkirk walked us through a presentation (complete with slides) of his newest inventions. Classic Odenkirk – weird but not zany character, tons of pop culture references (His partners in business? Clint Howard and Gordon Spielberg), and a concise and well paced sketch. One of the kings of comedy doing what he does very well. My only complaint was that Odenkirk was only on stage for about seven minutes. I could watch that man do comedy for days on end and beg for more.

James Mercer: This was a benefit and all the artists were appearing out of the kindness of their hearts, so I would feel bad “maligning” anyone, but…. I don’t think I like the Shins. I had never heard of them or their frontman James Mercer before the night, and after hearing said dude perform a couple songs, I don’t think I’m missing much. Yeah, Mercer has a nice voice and can play guitar alright, but he’s so opposite my type of music. So mellow I almost fell asleep standing up. Mercer played about three acoustic songs and the ladies swooned. I had to hold on to a railing to stop from “slumbering off”. People seem to like him and the guy came out for a good cause and lent his time, so – right on. A Shins fan I suddenly am not, though.

Nick Kroll and Ben Stiller: Oh, Fabrice Fabrice. I cannot get enough of this character. From the first time I saw Nick Kroll perform as Fabrice Fabrice, I’ve been hooked – bordering on obsessed. For those unfamiliar with the character, Fabrice Fabrice is a loud, obnoxious, ridiculously dressed “Head of Craft Services” who is of somewhat questionable sexuality. His “routine” consists of regaling the crowd with some of his stories from his many years spent in the fast track world that is feature film craft services. He oftentimes invites some of the celebrities he’s worked with in the past onto stage with him for an embarrassing and ridiculously offensive interview. Tonight’s guest: Mr. Ben Stiller. I don’t want to try and paraphrase an act that began with “What up you cock-ass bitches?!?” so I’ll leave the exact details to your imagination. However, the interview included references to Michael Jackson being a woman, Stiller’s inappropriate relationship with the monkey from NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM, and an invitation of oral sex, “For Haiti”. It’s not often that one of Hollywood’s biggest comedians plays the straight man, but Stiller certainly filled that role during Kroll’s savage and ridiculously funny assessment of his career. Nick Kroll is funny with or without a rhinestone belt that says “Bing Bong”, and to see him share the stage with the likes of Ben Stiller was a thrill for someone who’s been following his career since its inauspicious starts at a basement theater in New York City. And Ben Stiller is a also person who ain’t that bad.

Jason Segal: A musical interlude from the man who forgot Sarah Marshall. I’m sure you’ve all seen the film by now so you may know that Segal performs (and wrote) some original songs for the film, including a mini version of a Dracula musical entitled “A Taste For Blood”. All six plus feet of Segal took the stage to a warm welcome, though he looked a bit sad. Once seated at the keyboard he told the audience, “I’m bummed because my buddy was supposed to show up to help me tonight but he couldn’t make it”. Now, I know a bit when I see one, but I wasn’t sure just who exactly would be joining Segal on stage. Incidentally, Segal was joined by a guest on his first song of the evening – Jack Black came out to perform a duet of “Dracula’s Lament” in which Jables belted out some high notes to match Segal’s now-famous Dracula impression. Funny stuff. But, of course, this wasn’t the aforementioned buddy who had missed the show. We’d have to wait for Segal’s second number to find out who that was – and from the moment it started, it was kind of an easy guess. The opening notes of “Inside of You” rang out in the theatre, the first verse proceeded (with Segal doing a sort of fake Brand impersonation), and then the man of the hour took the stage – Russel Brand. The two joined for a spirited version of the Infant Sorrow classic and finished it all of with a uncomfortably long open mouthed kiss. Good stuff and a good reminder that GET HIM TO THE GREEK drops soon (At least it was for me).

Patton Oswalt: I am a fan of stand up comedy, but I’m not a “stand-up guy”, per say. I’ve got my favorites, and I always try to keep up to date on their newest releases/routines – and Patton Oswalt is definitely included in that pack. I have listened to Patton’s albums dozens of times and had been anxiously awaiting the opportunity to catch a live show. This wonderful night did not fail me. Patton did a full half hour of brand new stand up (I’d never heard it before) and within a few minutes I was doubled over in hysterics, trying to stay afoot. Patton is so unassuming that when the insanity leaves his mouth it not only catches you off guard, but sort of wakes you up a bit. His presence on stage is so polar to the material he’s delivering, which is conscious and brilliant. If he was Dane Cook telling the same jokes, it wouldn’t work. There’s something so instantly likable (almost lovable) about Patton that his insights, while not always the most profound statements ever, are always familiar – which, of course, is one of the ingredients for good stand up. Relatability. Familiarity. Etc. If this set is any indication of where Patton’s taking his comedy (more family material, kid stuff, less geek-oriented material), I will purchase his newest release gladly, and I relish the day when I get to see him take to the stage again.

Aimee Mann: Aimee Mann is one of my top 3 favorite solo artists, and it was a thrill and a pleasure to finally get to see her perform live (and one of the motivating factors in my attendance of the show). Ms. Mann took the stage with a skeleton crew – a bass player and a keyboardist – and began to rock the house in her own very unique and other-worldly way for a solid half hour or so. As far as female voices go, Aimee Mann’s is at the top of the heap, and her guitar skills match – to see it all live is to be caught up in a sort of rapture. Lots of talented folks in the house this evening but Aimee Mann – at least musically – is on an entire other level. I was first exposed to Aimee Mann with her work on the MAGNOLIA soundtrack (and within the film itself), and since then have been longing to catch her perform. Of all the tracks Mann and co. played during the show, my favorite has to be “Save Me”, from the MAGNOLIA soundtrack. Very different from my usual concert fare, but so damned talented and, dare I say, beautiful that I would definitely check out Aimee Mann live again in the future (And wouldn’t mind seeing her also very talented husband, Michael Penn, either).

Russell Brand: By this point in the night, I thought that Tenacious D would take the stage for the finale, and I was quite content with that. Luckily, like always, I was wrong. “Rusty” took the stage like a pit bull takes to raw meat and delivered what is definitely the most energetic and frantic set of stand-up comedy (if you could really call it that – more like “observational philosophy) I’ve ever seen. Wordy is an understatement when one describes Brand’s stage set – It’s like studying for your SAT verbal section. Rather then being off-putting or excluding, Brand’s intellectual (and highly spiritual/sexual) bent differentiates him from ANY comic working today. Like all the bests, Brand uses the stage as a psychotherapy couch, and the cathartic rambling that spews henceforth from his waifish frame is a look into the mind of a very complex, very intelligent, very disturbed, and – luckily for the audience – very funny human being. Brand muses on all things from life, love, and the pursuit of “happiness” to more topical subjects as his recent stint as host of the MTV Movie Awards. A mile a minute, very funny, and oftentimes challenging, if you get a chance to see Mr. Brand take to a stage, I would definitely recommend jumping on the chance.

Tenacious D: The men behind the entire evening. Respectively – Jack Black and Kyle Gass. Collectively – The D. I’ve had the pleasure of both meeting The D at a signing and seeing their PICK OF DESTINY TOUR when it hit Madison Square Garden, so I knew that some face-melting was about to occur. Since I heard the first licks of “Wonderboy” back in the 9th grade, I’ve been hooked on them. And not as a parody group or a comedy act, but rather as one of my favorite bands in the world, musically as well as ideologically. This very special set kicked off with the debut of a new song, chronicling the failure that was THE PICK OF DESTINY, and foretelling The D’s inevitable return to greatness. Pop songs, these are not. All the favorites were rolled out – “Tribute”, “Fuck Her Gently”, etc.) with a few songs I’d never heard thrown into the mix as well (including a very funny new tune called “The Roadie”). Look, you either love The D or you’ve never heard of them. It was a D show. Rocking and funny while at the same time melodic and impressive. Notable moments include Ben Stiller making a guest drum appearance on a cover of the GOOD TIMES theme, and Kyle quitting the band (as he always does). A fantastic finale to a truly remarkable night of laughs and music.

———————————————————————————————

And like that, it was over. One of the most entertaining nights I can remember in a long while, and all for a worthy purpose, as well. Sometimes, all is right with the world. Thanks for the gander, and I’ll see you cats next time with a op-ed piece on the 90’s equivalent of LOST… THE X-FILES. How good was it? How important was it? How Canadian was it?

Matt Cohen is currently Standing With Laziness

For more Matt Cohen, check out CameltoadProductions.Com and, of course, “Bagged and Boarded“, right here at FRED entertainment.

Stalk Matt Cohen on Twitter = @CamelToad

Opinion In A Haystack: SHUTTER ISLAND

haystackheader.jpg

green

Plot Summary from IMDB:

It’s 1954, and up-and-coming U.S. marshal Teddy Daniels is assigned to investigate the disappearance of a patient from Boston’s Shutter Island Ashecliffe Hospital. He’s been pushing for an assignment on the island for personal reasons, but before long he wonders whether he hasn’t been brought there as part of a twisted plot by hospital doctors whose radical treatments range from unethical to illegal to downright sinister. Teddy’s shrewd investigating skills soon provide a promising lead, but the hospital refuses him access to records he suspects would break the case wide open. As a hurricane cuts off communication with the mainland, more dangerous criminals “escape” in the confusion, and the puzzling, improbable clues multiply, Teddy begins to doubt everything – his memory, his partner, even his own sanity.

shutterposter

****************MAJOR SPOILERS********************

Now that no one will partake in this review due to the spoilers I can pretty much be as candid as I want. It is quite a drag when you walk out of America’s greatest living filmmaker’s latest effort and all you can say is “It’s good, but lame.” Shutter Island is just that: good, but lame. Why good? Martin Scorsese’s style and ability to tell a story is just as sharp as ever. There is a lot of very effective, yet puzzling camera work, editing and story injections that feel fresh and give this movie the only leg it has to stand on. Why lame? We’ve seen it all before. Scorsese’s biggest flub here is simply using the source material (once again, I haven’t read it, but I’m going to assume.) He can try his best(est) to infuse all that beloved style into a giant hunk of yesterday’s rotted fruit, and the end product will still be moldy peaches.

If Dennis Lehane’s book is anything like the film, then I guess it’s the literary offspring of an orgy between The Wickerman (1973), David Fincher’s The Game, and M. Night Shyamalan’s entire cranium. It’s 2010 people”¦twists are lame, especially mental illness twists. I’m not being hard on the flick for plagiarism, not at all, what I am saying is that there isn’t one theme or story element in this entire production that we haven’t seen so many times before that they already haven’t been parodied. I guess the hope is that Shutter Island, with it’s cast and director reputation, will do a 180 on the parody/criticism and bring back these themes to being too legit to quit (no reference intended.)

leomark

Did no one on set ever see Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze’s brilliant Adaptation? Remember how one of the huge jokes in that movie was that Nic Cage’s character Donald Kaufman was a writing a script where a detective was chasing a serial killer and in the end it turns out that the killer is him, THE DETECTIVE!!! (WHAT A TWIST!) The joke was, if you didn’t get it, that twists like that are lame, lamer than lame even. It’s the whole stigma of the Hollywood “dream solution.” You can theoretically end every movie and TV show with the plot twist that it was all a dream/mental illness happening in a character’s head. It’s not creative; it’s stupid and disrespectful to the audience. Vanilla Sky was a pretty cool flick, all right up until we get “oh it was just a dream, everything you were invested in was nonsense”¦ok roll credits!” How about the ending of Roseanne or St. Elsewhere“¦so everything we were watching every week was just in someone’s head? THAN WHY TELL THE STORY! If anything, at least M. Night’s twists were marginally respectful to the investment the viewer put into his characters, with that said, he is almost single handedly responsible for making the “twist” lame, and he spent a whole decade making sure it stayed that way (and I like some of his work, but truth is truth.)

*********HERE COME THE MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS*******

So what’s the twist? What’s the dream? What is the obvious, makes-you-pray-while-watching-it-that-it’s-not-the-twist-twist? Leonardo’s character, a U.S. Marshall assigned to investigate the disappearance of a female inmate, responsible for murdering her three kids, is actually AN INMATE HIMSELF AND A MURDER AND THE FEMALE WAS HIS WIFE AND HE’S A GHOST!!! Ok, not a ghost, but the other parts are really the twist of the movie. Lame right? This movie’s plot twist would have been lame in the late “˜90s, now it’s just utterly pathetic.

What really hurts is that DiCaprio’s delusion, where there’s a conspiracy at the mental hospital in which it’s being controlled by Nazis/Communists who are turning people into crazy psychopathic “ghost” killers and releasing them back into society, is way more interesting than the outcome. Not to brag, but I could feel the twist coming from a mile away, so the movie had me sitting there, begging for it not to turn the corner and not to become a “dream solution.”

leo

Enough whipping the movie for its twist, besides that, there is actually quite a lot to love. As I said above, Scorsese is still such a sharpened talent that he almost makes the film rise above its last act. There are quite a few scene’s of Teddy (DiCaprio) having flashbacks to his service in WW2 in which he witnessed, and participated in, the killing of several Nazi’s and the gruesome result of a concentration camp: train cargo cars overflowing with frozen, rotting Jewish innocents. These scenes are just as disturbing as one would assume due to the history, plus more on top due to how well they are handled. The good news is that these flashbacks are not “completely” part of the delusion. Basically Teddy was suffering from a pretty severe case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from WW2, which in turn led to him being an alcoholic, which in turn made him neglect the realization that his wife was mentally ill, which in turn led to her murdering their three children, at which point teddy has a fully formed mental breakdown and kills his wife which lands him in a criminally violent mental hospital for two years right up to when we, the audience, join the story. So, in Shutter Island‘s defense, some of his delusions are real, they are just scrambled up, him confusing his guilt of one thing for another.

The other saving grace is the cast. DiCaprio is in top form here and he really does one of the best jobs of his career in carrying a movie. Ten years ago I was not sold on DiCaprio, he was just a sellout pretty boy (it seemed,) but by now I am fully convinced of his chops, and am very much in support of his this constant, and fruitful, team-up of him and Scorsese. DiCaprio’s shining moment in the film, in my humble opinion, is a long conversation he has with the character George Noyce (Jackie Earl Haley, wonderful as always, in a bit part) in which he is trying to find the location, on the island, of his wife’s killer. Mark Ruffalo plays a pretty convincing sidekick and fellow U.S. Marshall through out the film, of course by the end we learn he’s actually Teddy’s primary care physician. Of course you can’t go wrong with Ben Kingsley and Max von Sydow (better known as Brewmeister Smith to all you hosers,) two men so regal and talented in their delivery that they could make Dane Cook’s stolen jokes sound poetic. There’s even a very short, but pivotal, scene starring Elias Koteas (Casey Jones!) as a character completely cooked up by Teddy’s delusion. It’s a small scene, however it’s nice to see Koteas act under Scorsese, hopefully it won’t be the last time.

eliasfix

I’ll say this, I’m glad I saw the movie, lame twist and all, if not only for the acting and Scorsese’s direction. Is it worth the $87 ticket price (not adjusted for inflation)? No clue. However, while it’s lame, it’s less lame than most chick flicks. Seeing Nazis get brutally shot, even for only a minute, is way more satisfying, financially worthy, and cathartic than the banality of seeing a movie about Valentines Day.*

*If Garry Marshall’s Valentines Day is in anyway about Nazis or killing Nazis, I stand corrected. I haven’t seen it.

Thanks for reading, I’m Bob Rose, and this sentence is over.

Trailer Park: TERRIBLY HAPPY, $9.99, DEAD SNOW and BRAVE NEW FILMS 5th ANNIVERSARY COLLECTION

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

TERRIBLY HAPPY – REVIEW

terribly_happy_ver2You have to look at a performance by Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds in order to fully comprehend why Jakob Cedergren, who plays town cop Robert Hansen in Terribly Happy, deserves his own spot on the world stage.

Cedergren takes a character, an urban police offer who is exiled into a rural, remote village town after having a nervous breakdown, and twists it into a complex individual who has no predictability, no hints about what he’s going to do next. He’s thrilling to watch on screen as he is tasked with what ought to be a simple enough assignment: watch over a sleepy hollow where no one seems to even want official law enforcement. The town has its own rule of law, its own way of handling things, and Cedergren disturbs the natural order with his presence. He’s a cop who seems to engender not an ounce of intimidation or respect from the townsfolk but he does find a kindred spirit in a local woman who isn’t from around here, either, a woman with her own secrets.

The pastoral themes abound in a town that wants to keep its close knit community closed off from interlopers looking to change things and Cedergren is absolutely dynamic in a role that showcases his range, not only in ability, but in the way his character vacillates throughout the film. When we meet him he’s Superman, a hero who is absolute in his convictions and black and white-ness, but, by the end of the movie, as the town’s secrets slowly give up its dead, it’s Batman that takes over. By the third act moral ambiguity becomes the predominant theme, the line between what’s right and what’s wrong blurs in ways that haven’t been seen in modern cinema in some time.

Sure, to those who wonder whether director Henrik Ruben Genz’s film that deals with such ambiguity smacks of Cohen or Lynch-ian type of filmmaking would be right in postulating as such but that would be a disservice to a filmmaker who demonstrates his ability to craft a noir tale that does not relent. More importantly, Genz’s film is its own creation, living and breathing within this hermetically sealed world where oddity is subjective. For example, when we meet who is ostensibly the femme fatale of this thriller, Ingerlise (played by Lene Maria Christensen), she leans on Cedergren to help her escape her abusive husband Jørgen (Kim Bodnia). The outcome of what will be a face off between these two men will not only surprise you in its originality but will satisfy any filmgoer’s expectation to be entertained along with being jolted. The dark comedy that simmers below this film’s bleak palette is there but it exists only insofar in its subtlety. It won’t smack you or be ostentatious in order for you to recognize it but that’s the draw with filmmakers of this type. It makes you work for it but there is a payoff in the form of the movie’s themes.

Such a theme, like subjugation, looms large when you consider the movie deals a lot with the idea of drowning a town’s dark secrets in its bogs. Literally. Bogs play a symbolic role but, again, its use is done with intelligence, not obviousness.

The movie transcends its linguistic cadence that does take some getting used to but, once you give into how it is telling its story, the story is enveloping to the point of amazement. Amazement that this movie has flown underneath so many people’s radars because it offers so much sustenance to those hungry for a good story about a man who has to trade in some of his altruistic character in order to maintain some sense of normalcy in a town where absolutely nothing is normal.

tatia$9.99 – DVD REVIEW

$9.99 is not your typical stop motion film.

There are no cutesy talking bears, no star-studded roster of actors who just happened to lend their voices to the main leads of the movie, and certainly it is not concerned with one singular tale. $9.99,  a film from Tatia Rosenthal who based this film on a series of short stories by Etgar Keret, is a movie that deserves not only to be watched but deserves to be ruminated on.

The way this movie sets itself apart from any other animated film is that the subject matter it deals with packs enough wallop you wonder why little figures were used and not full sized actors. The meaning of life is something that is knocked around in other films but here it is dealt with head-on as all the vignettes that are told through its nearly 90 minute run time confront the notion of what is really the purpose of human beings. It’s heady to be sure but Rosenthal makes exquisite use of drama and the absurd in an ebb and flow fashion.

From grown adults who are trying to find love, one wants it from a gorgeous woman while the other is looking to get approval and love from his father, a lazy roustabout who needs some direction in his life, to a boy simply looking to save up for a shiny new toy, there are other stories in here which really try and push the boundaries for what you can put in a stop motion production. There are mature themes and elements, sex does manage to happen between two puppets, but it never feels like the medium is being used unnecessarily or in a way that seems exploitative. There is some genuine heart and soul put into these inanimate objects as they ruminate about what they are really after but what’s exceptional about this film is that Rosenthal manages to be emotionally affective with her presentation.

Real moments are shared between these voice talents that blend seamlessly with what we’re watching on the screen. While, yes, there are times that the animation takes away from what’s occurring on the screen there is nonetheless a world that’s created where you believe in the action happening before you.

Surely, if you are in need for a grown-up film that deals openly with what many think about every now and then in the quiet moments of our lives you could not do any better than $9.99. It’s a movie that provokes you to think, if only for a few moments, and in a movie landscape cluttered with treacle which leaves your system as quickly as it’s processed by your eyes this is movie is a wonder.

Amaray Wrap.EPSDEAD SNOW – DVD REVIEW

If you’re only able to see one movie that deals with Nazis and zombies this winter, you’ve got to check out Dead Snow.

Dividing audiences and critics alike, this movie, about resurrected zombies who terrorize a pack of individuals who find themselves holed up in a snowy cabin (isn’t that always the way) and a wily kook who tells these vacationers that evil abounds who is quickly dispatched in order to let the narrative take its eventual course, is a literal howl. Getting everything right about what makes a good splatterfest of gore and viscera, director Tommy Wirkola ought to be given some kind of Congressional Medal of Honor for having a clear vision of what he wanted to make and making it the way he did.

Yes, Nazis awake from their dead slumber and attack these youths in a way that is reminiscent of Night of the Living Dead tinged with an obvious nod to a movie like Evil Dead and Dawn of the Dead. The fast moving zombie debate is one that purists can go impale themselves on if they feel that animating dead tissue ought to be accompanied by slow movement. In Dead Snow I delighted with how Wirkola used his quick moving undead in order to keep the pace fast. The editing ought to be recognized as well for assisting in making this a movie that, once it starts, never lags.

The quality kills, however, are the real crowning achievement here. From brains, to guts, gnashing flesh, to torn limbs this movie achieves high marks for, even though it is low budget, managing to keep every penny up on the screen. Often times, in an age where there is a lot more modesty in horror films in the last decade, as an audience we have to fill in patches of action with our own idea of what’s happening. Here, however, nothing is left to the imagination and “Huzzah!” all around for the copious amounts of blood.

It’s obvious that the plot is not what you came here to see. However, writer Stig Frode Henriksen crafts a screenplay that doesn’t try too much nor tries to be anything more than what it is. What that is, however, is an absolute winner of a movie that not only gives you everything you expect out of a zombie film but, as the second disc of this DVD shows you, the production that went into this movie is just fascinating. To wit, a 45+ minute documentary that shows how these filmmakers brought Nazis back to life north of Norway is nothing if not educational.


braveBRAVE NEW FILMS 5TH ANNIVERSARY COLLECTION – REVIEW

In an interview I did with Henry Rollins a couple of years ago. While Henry was talking about the nature of information gathering and the level of news he consumed on a daily basis and the amount of reading he does that I started to feel inadequate as a citizen of this country in that I don’t feel like I’m plugged into what’s really happening out there. I kind of felt like a piece of plankton that’s at the mercy of the ocean’s current. I feel that way about a lot of things that happen in this country that I just feel resigned to because I work all day at a job and then come home and work at another job as a father. How am I supposed to know what is really brewing behind the twinkling lights of Washington D.C., how the slickly dressed and perfectly coifed talking heads on networks like Fox News are disseminating their information or what the Wal-Mart effect means to average people like myself? Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films collection is an excellent and highly recommended place for you to start getting answers.

That said, this 10 DVD collection ought to be bought for its scholastic and academic merit than it does its filmmaking. And it’s not that Greenwald’s 10 films are somehow poorly made, certainly nothing more could be further from the truth, but these documentaries are done with minimal flash and sizzle. Compared to a movie like Super Size Me you can see how editing and effects are like snapping fingers, things that are meant to hold your attention. These movies, in contrast, are no frills. You’ve got to take each one of these movies in stride, trying to jam through all of them in one sitting will make you feel angry, despondent, and thinking the world outside your door is not worth fighting for. Greenwald should be taken in doses. Anger goes a long long way and where Greenwald excels is getting his facts straight and his interpretations fleshed out. You do walk away from each one of these films more educated than you were before you started and for that alone these deserve your time and attention.

It’s the production values that make me want to educate buyers that what you are getting with these are not just documentaries that are trying to pick apart social issues that need some light and air on them but this is, honestly, a collegiate level course in Modern Civics. This is the best way to view a collection of movies that range from examining the Iraq war, to uncovering the seedy goings on of Fox News, what Wal-Mart is doing to America, and scads of other topics that are culturally relevant this is a compendium of knowledge that should be required viewing for anyone wanting to know more about the country they live in.

While there is some narrative bias in some of the reporting in these films the points raised in the films are sobering if not frightening. Finding out a lot more about the very things that we take at face value doesn’t always end well but getting to the point of raising your consciousness ought to be good enough incentive to take a look at this hefty collection.

ABOUT THE DVD RELEASE

NEW YORK, NY ““ For the last five years, Robert Greenwald and his production company Brave New Films have been at the forefront of the fight to create a just America. Using new media and internet video campaigns, Brave New Films has created a quick-strike capability that informs the public, challenges corporate media with truth, and motivates people to take action on social issues worldwide. Now, the team at Brave New Films has compiled virtually everything they’ve produced to date into a colossal, 10-disc box set. This must-have full access tool kit for every documentary filmmaker, activist organization and person who wants to use film and video to achieve social and political change will be released on January 26 by The Disinformation Company and will be available for $59.98SRP.

The New York Times has cited Brave New Films as an example of the growing influence of the internet on American politics, and from Real McCain and Sick For Profit exposés to calling out FOX News for its overt media bias and hard-hitting videos on social and economic injustices, Brave New Films’ groundbreaking online campaigns have revolutionized traditional grassroots politics.  Using online video, bloggers, social networking sites and strategic partnerships with both national networks and local activists, Brave New Films reaches millions of people and gets results ““ fast.

Included in this comprehensive box set are ten dual layer discs containing 40 hours of video and film:

“¢Â Â   RETHINK AFGHANISTAN
“¢Â Â   UNCOVERED: THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR + all related antiwar shorts
“¢Â Â   OUTFOXED: RUPERT MURDOCH’S WAR ON JOURNALISM + all the “Fox Attacks” shorts
“¢Â Â   WAL-MART: THE HIGH COST OF LOW PRICE + all related shorts and extras
“¢Â Â   IRAQ FOR SALE : THE WAR PROFITEERS + all the related shorts, Greenwald’s media appearances and more
“¢Â Â   The War on Greed: all the shorts including Henry Kravis, Fighting for Our Homes, Starbucks, Bank of America, Burger King and Sick For Profit
“¢Â Â   The Political Shorts including The Real McCain series, The Real Rudy, Lieberman Must Go and many others
“¢Â Â   This Brave Nation + many more activist shorts
“¢Â Â   Brave New Films focus with Arianna Huffington,
“¢Â Â   Larry Lessig, Sam Seder and more

Over 1,000,000 members strong and growing by the day, Greenwald has built the Brave New Films machine into an organization that can produce a hard-hitting three-minute video in less than 24 hours that exposes John McCain’s double talk and receives 8 million views around the world.  However, they can’t create a nation of socially conscious activists alone.  If you’ve ever been interested in fomenting change through the quickly evolving medium of film and the Internet, don’t miss THE BRAVE NEW FILMS 5TH ANNIVERSARY ACTIVIST COLLECTION.

February 12, 2010

Trailer Park: THE WOLFMAN and VALENTINE’S DAY

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

Couples Retreat – DVD Giveaway

cplretrtfeatI did not have the chance to see this film while it was playing in the theaters but it made a decent amount of coin at the box office and I now have a few copies to give away for a few people who would like a chance to win one.

For a chance to win, just e-mail me at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and let me know what you got for your valentine this year. I do realize I am making some of you work a little harder for free stuff and, for that, I am not sorry at all.

Good luck…

A film description:

Dave (Vince Vaughn) and wife Ronnie (Malin Akerman) are happily married with two young sons as is Joey (Jon Favreau) and wife Lucy (Kristin Davis). Shane (Faizon Love) has recently divorced from Jennifer (Tasha Smith) and has taken up with 20 year old Trudy (Kali Hawk). But Jason (Jason Bateman) and wife Cynthia (Kristen Bell) are crumbling under the pressure of trying to conceive and in a bid to save their marriage, come up with the idea for all of them to spend a luxurious week together at the Eden tropical island resort. It’s cheaper that way. Besides, think of the fun they can have while working on their relationships.

Valentine’s Day – Review

valentines-day-posterI deeply regret having to drag Robert Altman into this.

Short Cuts, for those who need a quick lesson, is a movie that revolves around some Los Angelinos dealing with life as it comes. A series of loosely intertwined narratives, the strength of this modern masterpiece from Robert Altman juggles over two dozen actors who are each important, in their own way, in helping to move a massive story along. The action is minimal, the exposition is endlessly fascinating, the characters are actually fleshed out and human,but the net effect is a movie that rewards multiple viewings and can be interpreted from various angles every single time you watch it. The movie is rooted firmly in the terra firma of human relationships that just happen to all meld together at once.

In contrast, Valentine’s Day, which is similarly a movie about random folks living in Los Angeles, with intertwining stories to tell, is a waste of everyone’s time, and talent. It’s a film that proves that if you want a toothless, uninspired, pedantic, made for television yet it’s still a movie, kind of film then this is for you. It’s the kind of collaboration where there is so much possibility inherent in the idea but the execution of that idea is predicated on dumbing everything down so even a fourteen year girl, who is ostensibly there to see the pairing of Taylor Swift/Taylor Lautner, could follow its plot at any waypoint along this movie’s timeline.

Garry Marshall, bless his Happy Days heart, disappoints as the directorial leader for a movie where every scene has his anachronistic sensibilities smeared all over it. The stories he is trying to capture seem to be informed by a time that has long since past, and probably never were, as they all feel false and blatantly cooked up in a writer’s room with people who have never lived a real life behind the safe, lilywhite confines of Beverly Hills, a place where life is manicured, sanitized.

The stories here are numerous, no question about that. Ashton Kutcher plays Reed Bennett, a flower store owner who starts off the film asking his girlfriend, Jessica Alba, to marry him. She says yes, he’s happy, and starts his day. He meets up with his friend Alphonso (George Lopez) who works at the flower shop Kutcher owns. We meet a football player (Eric Dane) who is conflicted about his future as an NFL quarterback. His PR flunkie Kara Monahan (Jessica Biel) has some extreme emotional issues with regard to the Valentine’s holiday, and his agent, Paula Thomas (Queen Latifah), plays the part of the big bad boss in a way that is neither fresh, original, or interesting. There is the doctor (Patrick Dempsey) who sleeps with his girlfriend (Jennifer Garner) but who also has a wife and is trying to keep it all under wraps. You’ve got Topher Grace who plays Jason, a guy smitten by his new girlfriend Liz (Anne Hathaway) but who does not know anything about the dark secret that could threaten the relationship which Liz flaunts before us throughout the film. There’s Bradley Cooper who plays Holden, a businessman on a long plane ride sitting next to Julia Roberts who plays Captain Kate Hazeltine, a soldier who is looking to spend just one day in Los Angeles with her man before going back where she came from. And then, among a couple of other relationships, there’s Taylor Lautner who plays Willy, a guy who loves his energetic girlfriend Felicia (Taylor Swift). It’s this latter pair that perfectly encapsulates what is so terribly wrong about this movie.

I realize I’m just Monday morning quarterbacking here, and there are people who get paid more money every year than I will in my lifetime to make these decisions, but if one of your teenage draws is Taylor Swift shouldn’t the axiom of “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link” apply? From my vantage point, Taylor Swift is not only this movie’s weakest link but she is a frightening aberration on the screen and has the mannerisms and presence of a female Napoleon Dynamite in a way that doesn’t feel ironic. She carries herself horribly, I assure you, and is more like a woman trying to overcompensate for her overacting in every scene she’s in with the end result being horrific.

The other stories play out beyond the acceptable norms of predictably for a movie like this and the acting prowess of those who’ve been awarded for their ability to memorize lines well is non-existent from pretty much everyone. You just have to wonder what was the point of making this film. Ah, but that’s the point, isn’t it? There is no need to address such poetic attitudes such as William Carlos Williams’ idea that there are no ideas but in things because there isn’t a thing or an idea here. It’s a pure business, economic transaction that’s in play because how else do you explain a movie where the ultimate resolution of all the narratives is happy and pleasant. I am at a loss to logically explain how we can go from adultery, to cheating, to lying, to heartbreak, to brake-ups, to people withholding from one another, with a final sprint to the finish that rewards the good and punishes the bad. This isn’t escapism; this is a movie of lies better suited for an after school special on how we’re all worth something as people.

The sanitized suburban, and urban, lives of those in this movie feel false because they are. I am positive, however, the movie will do fiscally well with audiences who will see things differently. Even broken clocks are right at least twice a day but the mixing of so many celebrities and so many personalities are, by default, going to bring the audiences in regardless of how well or, in this case, how bad a movie is. I am powerless to stop it but I can state without equivocation that Valentine’s Day had so much potential and it’s just squandered in favor for a celebration of mediocrity.

A movie with so many titans of current pop culture should have been handled with material that could have meant something more than what this is: a pop culture flash in-the-pan money grab that will become irrelevant just as quickly as this movie has come and gone. These aren’t superstars, they’re super actors who earned far more than a single ticket is worth.

The Wolfman – Review

the_wolfman_poster_02There’s no denying that this movie has had its setbacks. From delays to reshoots to the replacement of the editor, and original director, this film ought to have been a multi-million dollar, direct-to-DVD dud. Instead, what we have been given by director Joe Johnson is a movie that is paced quickly, has more than a few quality kills, has a story that isn’t completely insulting to the viewer, and is pure fun.

This movie was a simple charmer that had genuinely good performances across the board and possessed a pace that did not relent. About the former, Benicio Del Toro imbues his character, Lawrence Talbot, with a subtle, muted powerfulness. Anthony Hopkins, starring as Del Toro’s father, Sir John Talbot, shines as an emotionally detached father to not only Del Toro but to his dead son Ben, a death that brings Lawrence back home to investigate. To watch Hopkins is to witness an actor who knows exactly who this character is and pulls back on any impulse to get gregarious with a role that sincerely rewards a steady hand. Emily Blunt actually puts in a convincing turn as the recently widowed wife of Ben, the actress a convincingly grief stricken woman who never strays into the maudlin or melancholy. The three of them represent the emotional core of this film and they all contribute something unique to the overall vision of what this movie ended up being. Hugo Weaving (Abberline) adds a little to the overall narrative flow but it’s the three leads that make you believe that we are in a place that actually exists and I think that’s what makes this a fun film.

The movie essentially relies on the old retread of a man who gets bit by a werewolf and then becomes one himself. Essentially, most of the plot is taken care of by this idea but the way this movie takes the next step beyond the 1941 Lon Chaney Jr. classic is by how the character is interpreted. Del Toro excels in this regard by making the man a real man, someone beset by psychological/emotional pain in returning to a home he long since tried to forget and a man who genuinely wants to know what happened to his dead brother. The ways in which Del Toro carefully and slowly navigates his physical and emotional space in this film is curious if only because he doesn’t stray into bombast or hyperactive. He is more threatening as a pensive thinker, I would assert, and this also makes him more dangerous as the film goes on.

Never once does the movie stray into the silly nor ever does it wink knowingly to the audience. The film is a darkly fun trip that feels like a Haunted Mansion ride meshed with a modern slasher. To note, there are some quality, solid kills in this movie with enough viscera to satisfy anyone looking to get a more violent Wolfman up on the screen as he moves through the fog laden forest where a lot of the killing takes place. And much of this movie’s atmospheric charm should be credited to cinematographer Shelly Johnson and set decorator John Bush who both made conscious choices in ensconcing the events of this movie in a brooding, wet environment, to say nothing of the asylum where everything has the pall of disease and desperation. Someone else who deserves attention, and part of what makes this film such a delight, is an unseen member of this film’s crew: Rick Baker.

When last we caught up with Baker, the make-up extraordinaire, he was helping to turn Robert Downey Jr. into Kirk Lazarus, extreme method actor. Most of what people should remember of that movie was Downey Jr.’s stark visage and it absolutely is relevant here as the comments about what people see on the faces of those turned by the beast is nothing short of impressive. The make-up applied to Benicio Del Toro feels like a homecoming for the man who advanced the medium in An American Werewolf in London and it, again, should be something people take notice of and be impressed by. The level of care that’s taken with the transformations from man to wolf are striking when you consider how fast this could have happened with the aid of computers in a field now ruled by microchips. Baker is an unsung element that makes this movie feel like an old-fashioned throwback to the movies that depended on creative directing to induce a level of tension in the audience and it works. While it did not get to the heights of Drag Me To Hell, another movie that depended on practicality, not 1s and 0s, the movie stands on its feet with effects that don’t feel manufactured in a non-natural way. The hair is there, the make-up is there, there is a very real wolf man running around. Sure, there are some elements that have been digitally assisted but the movie’s editing pushes everything along at such a quick clip that you don’t have time to linger on any one moment. It’s that latter fact, however, that also lays bare this movie’s shortfall.

The Wolfman doesn’t spend the time to reflect on anything and it’s that superficiality that prevents the story from being anything more than a man who’s bitten by a feral creature. We never get a chance to get to know Lawrence beyond some backstory of what brought him to his current state of mind. A handful of flashbacks do not a character make and the remains of this quickness is a brevity in spirit that prevents any lasting connection to the movie’s titular characters.

The Wolfman is a movie that delivers on being a first rate classical horror film that pulls in some modern need for blood and guts (literally) while also gussying everything up with prim and proper affectations. The net result of which is a movie going experience that thrills, delights, but leaves you less than sated.

February 7, 2010

The Wonderful World of Talkies: Pee Wee Herman & Broken Lizard

Filed under: Reviews,Wonderful World Of Talkies — Tags: , — admin @ 6:03 pm

talkies-header.png

Howdy Interweb. I’m Matt Cohen, and I am a theater snob.

Okay, to be honest, I’m far from it. In my twenty-five years on this planet, most of my time has been spent deep in the world of comics, comedy and movies – with an emphasis on movies. Since before I can remember, my life revolved around all things cinematic, and this has not changed with time. I was never a musical theatre fan, and the only times I’ve gone have been mandatory, either by family or school. As far as “straight” plays, I think I’ve seen less than five performed in my life. And sure, I love comedy (specifically long form Improv, if ya please), but other then the occasional jaunt to the Upright Citizens Brigade, I don’t get out to the “Theater” much. It comes down to a general lack of interest in what’s being performed. I’d like to get out there more, but can’t seem to muster the energy for just any old show. So I wait… and wait. And wait some more. Then it happens. Once in a very long while, the right mix of my passions combine into a two-headed passion monster (pretty, I know) and I am left with no choice but to tackle the beast head-on. With scimitar in hand, I ventured into the depths of Los Angeles this past week a pair of gargantuans.

If horribly drawn metaphors aren’t your thing, I went to two stage shows this past week. I’d like to take a quick gander at my take on each, if you’d be so kind.

———————————————————————————————

The Pee-Wee Herman Show – Nokia Live, Los Angeles

I grew up a fan of Pee-Wee Herman. A lot of people my age can say the same thing. Though I missed out on the HBO show, I was the perfect viewing age for both PEE-WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE and PEE-WEE’S PLAYHOUSE. The VHS of the Burton film was in heavy rotation in my house, and the television show was an important part of one of my most important childhood rituals – Saturday Morning TV. I owned the Playhouse playset and spent countless hours with Conkee, Chairy, Magic Screen and the rest of the gang. Cut to a few years later and “Pee-Wee-Gate” happened, forcing Mr. Reubens and his man-child alter ego out of the spotlight for too many years. The man who was Pee-Wee got sporadic supporting work in comedies and the odd TV show but the world was definitely suffering from a Pee-Wee drought. This all changed a few months ago when it was announced that Paul Reubens and many of the original stage show cast would embark on a month long run of THE PEE-WEE HERMAN SHOW – a stage revival of the original show that brought Pee-Wee and the gang to fame. I was lucky enough to check out a performance at the Nokia Club in downtown Los Angeles. I am happy to report that Pee-Wee is back – and yes, my friends, he holds up well with time.


As Pee-Wee greets the audience, one can’t help make physical comparisons to the “old” Pee-Wee. Yes, Reubens is older and a bit “wider”, and yes, the voice isn’t exactly the same one you grew up with, but man, it’s Pee-Wee. Live and in the flesh. It’s hard to describe what it feels like to see one of your “fictional” childhood heroes come to life, but I can only say this – tears were being held back (Keep in mind I’m a ridiculous person). Pee Wee then lead us through a quick introduction and a rollicking pledge of allegiance, and with that the curtains part and we’re off. Off to the Playhouse. And what a Playhouse it is. On stage in front of you lies a scaled down but incredibly faithful version of the TV show set, complete with all of your (and my) favorite characters moving and brought to life. Mostly all of the old Playhouse gang is there – Conkee, Chairy, Mr. Globe, Magic Screen, Randy, The Talking Fish, Pterry, etc. Cue those tears.

The show kicks off much in the same way the television program did, with Pee-Wee finding out “Today’s” secret word. And therein lies my biggest issue with the show – The Secret Word. It’s fun to scream at the top of your lungs when you’re home alone and when you’re seven, but stuck in a sold out theater with drunk thirty-somethings? By minute ten you want that “Secret” word to be stricken from the human language and for your fellow audience members to suddenly be stricken with laryngitis. Other then that mild complaint, I can honestly say that the show works and it works well. Pee-Wee is still just as absurd and entertaining a character as he was in the early 90’s, and to see firsthand the energy and zeal that Ruebens (who is no longer a spring chicken) brings to the role in person is really an experience I won’t soon forget.

A revamped version of the original show that ran at the Groundling and Roxy Theaters in LA, the real draw of THE PEE WEE HERMAN SHOW is a whimsical blend of bizarre and refreshingly lighthearted comedy coupled with the nostalgic value of seeing Pee-Wee and friends again (and in person for the first time). Some of the jokes fall flat and other just fail entirely, but the majority of the ninety minute show is spent in grinning rapture (at least it was in my case). It’s just so unique to see a show so rare, and one can’t help but be amused by the absurdity of it all. It’s the same old Pee-Wee brand humor – lots of puns, sight gags, prop jokes, etc, so if you weren’t a fan of Pee-Wee during his original run, his particular type of madcap might not be for you. Some low points involve some very topical gags and a few abstinence “zingers” but every comedy has its misses. I happened to laugh pretty solidly during the show, which is more then I can say for most comedic endeavors I check out nowadays. Besides the jokes, the stage cast shines as well. Not only does Ruebens return in the titular role, but the original Ms. Yvonne and Jambi (Lynne Marie Stewart & John Paragon, respectively) are back and perform their roles as if no time had passed at all (MADTV alum Phil Lamar steps in for Laurence Fishburne as Cowboy Carl). The chemistry of a cast that has been working together for a quarter of a century certainly benefits the show and makes the entire thing feel like a visit with an old friend -which sums up the entire experience quite nicely.

Other then the usual Pee-Wee brand of surreal performance art masked as kids fare, the show features some fantastic production details, front and center the aforementioned Playhouse set. The technology and design that goes into bringing all of the inanimate characters to life is really something that rivals any big time Broadway production. From the moment the curtains part you are entirely transported into the world of the Playhouse, and if that world ever meant anything to you, it will be one of the thrills of a lifetime. Colorful, vibrant, kinetic… it’s like an acid trip gone right. I would live on that set, and live on it proudly (I don’t even care about the lack of a bathroom… Pee-Wee’s got a pool, yo! Remember?). The effect is a complete disconnect from reality which is so essential in such a “non-real” show. Absolutely perfect and spot on and entirely important in creating that feeling of “familiarity” the show relies heavily on.

That may be what it comes down to. Yes, it’s funny and different and certainly more entertaining than most things on the American stage today, but it’s also a piece of my childhood brought back to life. I may be viewing this one through nostalgia-colored glasses – and if so, I apologize – but I think it’s impossible to remove one’s memories in reviewing such a show that is basically my memories come to life. This could have easily gone the route of INDY 4 and I could be dropping the too-often Geek dropped “Raped my childhood” bomb right now, but gladly and definitely I say this show is worth your time. Also, if this starts a trend of adapting late 80’s, early 90’s kids shows into stage productions, sign me up (SECRETS OF THE OOZE Reunion Tour!!!!!) Pee-Wee is back and I hope he hangs around for a long time to come.

———————————————————————————————

Broken Lizard Live – El Rey Theatre, Los Angeles

Where were you in 2002? Chances are, if you are like me, you were holed up somewhere with your favorite illicit substance and a DVD copy of comedy group Broken Lizard’s SUPER TROOPERS on permanent loop. I still consider TROOPERS one of the best comedies ever made and, to tell truths, I’ve been a pretty big fan of the troupe’s other films, CLUB DREAD and BEERFEST. At one point, I even used to tote around a… smoking implement, which I engraved (with sharpie marker) as “Broken Lizard”. So, suffice it to say, I consider myself a fan. It was to my delight that Broken Lizard announced that they would be touring the country in a live stage show and, when the group finally came my way (last show of the tour, being taped for a Comedy Central broadcast), I jumped at the chance and dragged “Bagged and Boarded” contributor Brendoman to the El Rey to take in the show. Did I live to regret that decision? Yes. Am I bad at building up tension in a story? Perhaps, my friend. Perhaps.

I arrived at a packed house for what I assumed would be a night of sketch comedy, the very thing that started the group and first brought them to infamy so many years back. What I got was a frat boy, beer-fueled heckle fest set to mediocre stand up comedy. The boys arrived on stage, did a minute or two in character from SUPER TROOPERS, and then promptly stopped, headed backstage, and re-appeared one by one for traditional stand up spots. Since the show followed that format, I thought the review should as well. Because I am extremely original. An innovator, some might say. Say it… it feels good.

Steve Lemme: Word of advice to the man who we know as Mac – A stand-up routine consisting entirely of masturbation jokes does not the funny make. This is made all the more true when you preface the act with how “dirty and edgy” you’re about to get. Keeping in theme with the lowest common denominator, Mr. Lemme serenaded us with a barrage of “masturbational observations” (think I may have just coined a phrase) that covered the gamut of everything from “early whack-off stores” to an unfortunately too live reenactment of a man having sex with a teddy bear. Lemme played the teddy bear. If that sounds like the heights of comedy then you’re in luck. If you’re like me, you will find it embarrassing and cringeworthy. Stick to the movies, homie.

Paul Soter: Meh. Another misguided attempt at capitalizing on some sort of “edginess” by creating a filthy and un-funny stand-up number. This might sound awful (in terms of my reviewing credibility), but Soter’s set was so unfunny and unremarkable that I can’t remember a single specific joke from it. I remember that he was slightly better then Lemme, but still in train wreck territory. Makes sense that the least memorable member of the group has the least memorable stand up routine.

Erik Stolhanske: Not horrible but, again, far from great. At least this Lizard wasn’t offputtingly vulgar for absolutely no reason. Allow me to clarify: I live in a world of “blue-jokes” and consider myself a big fan of off-color comedy. One rule, though – Make it funny. Otherwise, your “zingers” are a smack in the face of any intelligent comedy-minded audience who isn’t looking for the next Larry the Cable Guy. Stolhanske goes for the “family joke” genre of stand-up comedy and takes us through his experience getting his sperm count checked. Chuckle worthy without going too dark for dark, like Soter and Lemme. At least Erik comes out looking like a nice guy as opposed to some cheesy college tour comedian. A future on the stage? No. Funny guy? Sure.

Jay Chandrasekhar: If it weren’t for this man, it would have been a complete bust of a night – but if anything good came out of my Broken Lizard Live experience, it’s that I learned that Jay Chandrasekhar is a pretty damn good stand-up. The material didn’t particularly break any new ground (Jay went on a hypothetical journey about his manhood falling off), but Jay’s demeanor and polished presence on stage made for a laugh-packed, fast-paced stand-up sprint. Jokes flew quick and hit almost as often as they came. There’s no wonder Chandrasekhar has directed all the troupe’s films and seems to be the “brains” of the operation, comedy-wise. Jay seems to be the real “genius” of Broken Lizard. And unfortunately, after this show, I use that phrase very lightly.

Kevin Heffernan: Not a stand-up act as much as just a nice guy being funny on a stage (and the only other really enjoyable Lizard besides Jay). Heffernan takes us through a five minute or so look at what it’s like for the world to have seen you naked (complete with visual aide). Again, far from stand-up comedy, but Heffernan seems far from a stand-up comic. Still, he got some laughs out of me, which is more then I can say for most of his compatriots. On a side note, my favorite portion of the night was actually a story told by Heffernan and Lemme about the first time they met Patrick Swazye (not a stand-up portion… hint hint… OK, forget hints – BROKEN LIZARD: DON’T DO STAND-UP AGAIN!)

All in all, needlessly juvenile and not really funny, and it made me kind of embarrassed to consider myself a Broken Lizard fan. I still love the films and anxiously await their newest (which doesn’t seem to be getting a theatrical release), but I will definitely reserve judgment from now on before declaring them one of the “Top” troupes in comedy today.

———————————————————————————————

Sadly, that’s all for this installment. I must put on my heavy coat and once again wander out into the mysterious world of life. What perils will I meet along the way? Rockslides, paternity suits, late night disco jams – the possibilities are endless! Check back soon for a look at the very special, one time only “Tenacious D – Stand for Haiti” benefit featuring the illustrious likes of Aimee Mann, Frank Black, Russell Brand, Patton Oswalt, Bob Odenkirk, etc. And, of course, more movie reviews and special surprises are on the way.

As always, I thank you for taking my hand as I lead us on a tour of the wonderful world of talkies.

Matt Cohen is currently a talking chair

For more Matt Cohen, check out CameltoadProductions.Com and, of course, “Bagged and Boarded“, right here at FRED entertainment.

Stalk Matt Cohen on Twitter = @CamelToad

January 29, 2010

Trailer Park: The Wolfman Cometh

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

WWII in HD – Blu-ray Review

aaae209340-03Roger Ebert recently made people aware of a video on YouTube called The Open Road London.

The film was taken decades ago. The hustle and bustle of life in the city is enough to make you think that even after all technology has done for us we’re still as busy as ever. The Beefeater who just saunters in the frame, the double-decker busses, the police directing traffic by hand, it’s all very quaint. The amusing thing about this full color document was that it was shot in 1927. When you recognize that it’s only 13 more years shy of being a century old it’s an amazing ten minutes of a time that feels like it was only a few years ago. I know my brain was just mesmerized by the clarity and it helped to frame my own sense of time, like Public Enemies’ use of digital video, in a new way. That’s what this new collection of moments from World War II, in HD and on Blu-ray no less, does to your mind as you watch it.

The program, which initially aired on the History Channel, charts some of the most pivotal battles in a war that we can’t seem to let go in our popular consciousness. To that point, we have History to thank for giving what is one of the most detailed portrayals of the war through the eyes of the people who were there and the narration of those who weren’t. The latter detail points to one of the more humanizing aspects of this series as some heavy hitters from Steve Zahn, Ron Livingston, Rob Lowe, Amy Smart, even Rob Corddry help to narrate the stories of people who had bullets and bombs to tend with as we morphed from a country that had a laissez-faire approach to what was happening in Europe to having one of the fiercest fighting forces ever formed.

What’s really special about these programs and why I cannot say “Buy this thing!” harder than I will about anything else this year is its crystal clear fidelity. One of the issues with the black and white footage of the planes dropping bombs, of guys running out of foxholes with their rifles, of the Nazi horrors with regards to the holocaust is that a lot of it looked it was rubbed vigorously with a steel wool pad. Unfortunately, and many filmmakers can attest to this, the shelf life of film is not finite and a lot of what we’ve seen in the past attests to what the passage of time can do. However, what we get here is a completely new rendering of that film, while not perfect by any standard, making it feel that the time between when this happened and 2010 has compressed. As well, some of the video here is taken from individuals who weren’t there to make sweeping vista shots come alive. A lot of footage feels personal and intimate, and there is a reverence that comes across when you watch certain moments of this series.

Seeing Hitler up close and with as good as clarity as I’ve ever seen has an almost eerie feeling to it, the footage of concentration camps chills even more knowing it wasn’t a set created by Steven Spielberg, and the personal stories of those who were there just helps to ground this series in a realistic manner. It’s easy to just disassociate yourself with what you’re seeing but when you hear the tales of troops and others as they had to deal with the very real threat to their lives.

I hope you at least check this series out to see what kind of gaps existed with your knowledge of WWII. I know I learned a little bit more about the war which changed the course of history and for that I am thankful such a phenomenal digital resource is now in existence.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, indeed, but after watching hours upon hours of WWII In HD you won’t soon be able to forget what you’ve seen.

Small Wonder: Season 1 – DVD Review

small-wonder-dvd-3You’ve just got to put yourself back into the frame of mind in order for this to work.

Before watching the first season of Small Wonder on DVD I was reminded of all the other shows that have come to this medium only for people to use some variation of the “nostalgia” effect. That effect goes along the lines of judging whether the show/program/film you used to like when you were younger has “held up.” For some things I can understand the logic but I don’t necessarily agree with someone who then reassesses the enjoyment they once had in something that filled a certain void. Such is the case with Season 1 for Small Wonder.

As I watched the episodes, one after the other, I was struck by its non-urbaneness. It was toothless, simple, straight forward, non offending humor and I loved it. I think it was important to grant the material the chance to express that, for it’s time, what it set out to accomplish and, I believe, it does it well. You had young Vicki (played by the solidly inert Tiffany Brissette) who was created by a robotic engineer, and the uber pater familias of the 80’s, Ted Lawson (Dick Christie) who crafts this kid in the hope of advancing artificial intelligence. I mean, how cool was that when you were a lad or lass younger than 12 you had this guy in 1985 who was creating a robot? Not only that but the series is predicated on the idea of secrecy, another attraction to any kid who realizes that half the fun of childhood is lying about almost everything.

Ted’s wife Joan (Marla Pennington) and the real boy Jamie (Jerry Supiran) go along with the ruse only to find that their pesky next door neighbors, which seemed to be a tried and true trope of a lot of sitcoms, the Brindles. A special mention for actresses Edie McClurg and her on-screen daughter Harriett (Emily Schulman) who just shine in what they were tasked to do and that was to be as annoying and hackneyed as possible. This sets up what would be a four season run for the series and, I have to be honest, it’s just good fun.

For example, in an episode where Jamie gets Vicki to complete mounds and mounds of homework for the grade school lad, the boy gets himself special accolades and inclusion of the school’s honor roll. This racks Jamie with guilt, as is sitcom’s moral code to eventually always reward the good and always punish the bad, and it eventually results in the boy coming clean. That’s it. That’s an entire episode. What you’re not going to find in an episode like this, and it can be extrapolated to the rest of the series, is anything searing or biting. During the Regan era, prosperity and morality were on the ascension in pop culture and nowhere does the 80’s get more perfectly distilled than with this microcosm of what passed as decent comedy.

Yes, it’s a bit saccharine sweet and, yes, this is a series that ought to appeal to young boys and girls more than it should a man well into his 30’s but the nostalgia is there to be certain and there isn’t anything wrong with that. The acting is good, the premises are sound, the idea of a young girl who is trying to assimilate into humanity is a novel one, and nowhere else will you find something so unobjectionable and so sweet.

I will admit that the experience of watching these episodes had the lasting effect of a sugar rush, soon to be forgotten, but as a document of network comedy that stayed on the air as long as it did really is something worth checking out.

My feeling is that wistful nostalgia is wasted on the old; they’re the ones who get crotchety about experiences past, so try and remember what made this such a delight to you as a kid. I did.

The House of the Devil – Blu-ray Review

the-house-of-the-devilI am a man of simple pleasures.

One of those pleasures are horror movies and the ones that came out in the 80’s which were at that tipping point when grainy footage was the norm and the violence was visceral. For every weak Scream entry at the turn of the 20th century or for every H2 type of film that wanted to be something more than just a blatant indulgence of showing how creative you could be with your effects there was an April Fool’s Day or Chopping Mall that exuded so much more coolness and swagger.

House of the Devil is one of those films where they got it right and at least attempted to embrace all the subtleties of 1980’s horror films without ever being blatant or ironic about it. Director Ti West exquisitely takes a tried and true horror trope, the innocent babysitter who gets in way over her head, and makes an enjoyable time at the movies that just makes you ache for more like this.

A film that feels like a visual reply to the cries of horror films that we’ve long abandoned in modern adaptations of old classics like Friday the 13th or Halloween, House of the Devil gets it right because it doesn’t push itself on you like an unwanted advance. You are fully complicit with the way West weaves his yarn around the very idea of a retro horror movie without ever winking back. That’s where the thrills come from. That’s where the scares come from. This is the kind of movie, you understand, that you want to own because it just feels like it should be a part of your collection. Hyperbole aside, the movie is near perfect in meting out information slowly, deliberately, and that’s part of its charm.

West has written a screenplay where the action, actually, is quite minimal. Whereas Sam Raimi knocked it out with Drag Me To Hell, a movie that proved you could have fun at a horror film again, West’s Devil exceeds by getting back to those movies where there just wasn’t enough money to make something visually stunning. He relies on building the suspense of a girl, played pitch perfectly by Jocelin Donahue, who not only gives a fresh life to the Final Girl theory with a believability that even I enjoyed but he also considers the needs of an audience who want a little somethin’ somethin’ and gives it to us in the final act.

I do wish I could spoil so many of the minute details of this movie but part of the attraction of a film that flew under the radar of so many people, it didn’t even show in a theater near me, is that you do not want to spoil it for everyone else. It’s a movie that deserves to be a treasure to be discovered by someone who doesn’t know better. It’s so deceptive in the way the scares feel so simplistic but, as I postulate, it’s just Ti West’s way of getting back to the films that triggered that engendered a feeling of amazement.

Get back in touch with the kind of movie that made you love horror films in the first place so many decades ago. House of the Devil is one of your only tickets back in time worth buying.

Pontypool – DVD Review

pontypool-poster_280x415What made a movie like this so unique when compared to seeing Ti West’s House of the Devil in the same week is that here are two movies that get it right. While one is a distillation of everything that made old school horror such a hoot Pontypool proves that you can fast forward your time machine, Doc Brown, and enjoy the stylings of an artist that knows how to make 21st century horror cool again.

How these movies are related, you see, and why both of them are getting buying recommendations from me, is that they both understand the value in a good build-up. I’m not talking about waiting to see someone get their leg chewed off or a butcher knife in the back, either, but Bruce McDonald directs a movie that slowly burns in anticipation of the payoff. Tony Burgess, the writer of the film, understands this idea as he crafted a screenplay that eschewed visual gore in lieu of having a character, played by Steven McHattie as Grant Mazzy, that isn’t one-note. No one is one-note here and it absolutely, positively makes this movie better because of it.

Too many times we get characters that are just that, characters, in horror films and sometimes that’s OK but when you get characters like Laurel Ann (Georgina Reilly) or Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) played with as much depth as anyone in a modern drama you have something special. It shouldn’t be so novel that what we have here is a story of a man who comes to work at a radio station, underground no less, and only has his ears as eyes to the “horror” happening around him but it’s in the execution that makes this stand out. It’s the psychology of having sound be a guide, of the claustrophobia knowing you can’t leave where you are, and of the paranoia that sets in when you don’t know exactly what’s happening around you.

As well, revealing the moments that work so well would only prove to be a disappointment for those who don’t know what to expect and this is, honestly, a movie that rewards a blind faith pledge to deliver something good. It’s rare to hear a story that wants to thrill you from the inside out, and forgo the torture porn or splatter factor to win you over, but by the end of this movie when you’re questioning what it is you just saw the only correct answer is this: greatness. Greatness of story, of meticulous direction and blocking, and certainly it should be noted that leaving things open ended for interpretation or sequel possibilities is fine by me.

Too many times we, as moviegoers, have our tales told to us without opportunity to ruminate or chew on after the credits roll; however, Pontypool deserves a shot to place itself up there in your top 10 films of 2010 if you errantly let this movie slide by in 2009 because of the way it constructs its story and allows your mind to question what it is you just saw.

WOLF MEN : The Men Who Created 1941’s THE WOLF MAN – Essay by Scott Essman

wolfmanThe long-awaited release of Universal Studios’ 2010 version of The Wolfman conjures the history of the men who made the original horror films at the studio in the 1920s through the 1940s.  Not only was the original 1941 film The Wolf Man key among them, but the rich history of the other films is directly tied into both why and how that film was created.

In 1928, after his father had appointed 21-year-old Carl Laemmle, Jr. as head of production at Universal Studios, the machinery was in place for a new wave of films based on classic horror stories. By 1931, the studio had both Dracula and Frankenstein as two of its greatest successes, and they followed those up with a few more early 1930s originals, including The Mummy and The Invisible Man.

By 1935, they had produced Werewolf of London, their first film based on the Loup-Garou stories from France of men who turned into wolves at the turning of a full moon. When the Laemmles left the studio in 1937, Universal seemed doomed to a slate of poorly produced sequels to the great films of the Laemmle era as quickly churned out sequels to Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Mummy arrived in droves. However, there was one exception to the rule which arrived in 1941 which would set a new standard and ultimately be ranked with the greatest of the Universal horror classics.

As the 1940s began, horror movies were beginning to take a back seat to sweeping romantic dramas and comedies. But one intended B picture was the landmark The Wolf Man, reestablishing the horror genre at Universal. The film was originally meant for Boris Karloff some ten years earlier, but by 1941, when Karloff had moved onto mad scientists and other older characters, a new actor was positioned as the new Karloff at the studio. His name was Lon Chaney, Jr. Until the late 1930s, the younger Chaney had been less heralded than his silent movie superstar father, but his appearance in 1939’s adaptation of Of Mice and Men put him on the cinematic map. Chaney, Jr. was a star in the making and Universal snapped him up for a run of horror films that lasted throughout the 1940s. With Jack Pierce’s innovative makeup – a more thorough lycanthrope overhaul of Chaney Jr.’s face than had been utilized on Henry Hull in Werewolf of London – The Wolf Man was a remarkable horror movie character and equally as memorable as Karloff’s Frankenstein Monster and Mummy and Bela Lugosi’s Dracula.

In addition to the team of Jack Pierce, director George Waggner, and visual effects wizard John P. Fulton, the craftsmanship of The Wolf Man was also entrusted to editor Ted J. Kent, A.C.E . Of all the monster movie editors, none was more prolific than Kent, an in-house editor at Universal for over a quarter century. Kent’s monster tenure spanned no fewer than five ownership changes at the studio. Though research dictates no clear reason for the change, Universal assigned Kent to James Whale’s follow-up to The Old Dark House, which had been competently edited by Clarence Kolster and was released only a year after Frankenstein.  This film, released in 1933, The Invisible Man, would prove among Whale’s most challenging films, with equal contributions by Kent and Fulton. No doubt, both Universal and Whale were enamored with Kent’s work, and he cut three of Whale’s last several films with Universal, including Show Boat in 1936 and The Road Back in 1937. But the one film that elevated Whale’s reputation beyond that which his earlier films offered him was a picture he didn’t even want to make.

By 1935, the idea of The Bride of Frankenstein didn’t appeal to the man who was wary of being labeled a horror director. Nonetheless, many consider Whale’s long-overdue sequel to be superior to the original Frankenstein with its mixture of unforgettable sequences, demonic characters, and wistful comedy. In a likely homage to Clarence Kolster’s work on that first film, Kent cut Bride in similar fashion, most notably in the reveal of Elsa Lanchester’s hideous title character in the final scenes; we see her in the same three matching closeups that Kolster implemented so effectively to show us Karloff’s monster in the original film. Even after Whale and the Laemmles departed Universal, Kent was recruited by studio brass to cut 1939’s final sequel with Karloff as the monster, Son of Frankenstein, featuring a towering performance by Bela Lugosi as Ygor that Kent surely played up in the editing room. He even cut Vincent Price’s 1938 debut film, Service de Luxe! But though he likely didn’t realize it then, Kent’s Universal career was just starting to peak.

wolfman1For the Waggner Wolf Man film, slated as a B-picture by the Universal brass, Pierce and Fulton knew that they had an opportunity to create a unique project that would harken back to the old Laemmle years at the studio.  In Chaney, they had the hulking physical actor who could be used to realize their ideas.  With The Wolf Man, Kent, along with major contributions by studio mainstays Pierce and Fulton, created the film’s showpiece “transformation” sequences which became standard fare in the many spin-offs that followed. Witness the lap dissolves that Kent and Fulton implemented for transformations from man to wolf, and especially, in the film’s tragic climax, from wolf back to man. Kent also cleverly orchestrated the noted end of the film where Claude Rains unknowingly beats his own son with a silver-tipped cane, later realizing that it was his own flesh that he killed. In their tussle, an especially marked cut to a close shot of Chaney, Jr. as the Wolf Man struggling with Rains makes for one of the film’s most fascinating moments.

During pre-production of The Wolf Man, Jack Pierce worked diligently to create the makeup for the title character, having been disappointed with his reduced makeup for Henry Hull in Werewolf of London. Pierce pulled out all the stops for The Wolf Man with Lon Chaney, Jr. in the title role. Though the two did not reportedly get along–Chaney did not like wearing the makeup or undergoing the lengthy application and removal period–Pierce excelled again with his werewolf concept, utilizing a design he had created for Boris Karloff a decade earlier when the Laemmles were planning a werewolf film. Thus, even though it was originally intended as a B movie, The Wolf Man was a true horror classic, and Pierce’s version of the character has been the model for the numerous werewolves that have since come to the screen.

The idea of Jack Pierce re-creating a wolf character from scratch every day of principal photography may seem daunting, but – as with the Frankenstein Monster and the Mummy before – Pierce prided himself on doing things from the bottom up with each new makeup application.  “I don’t use masks or any appliances whatsoever,” proclaimed Jack Pierce about the development of his famous monster characters.   The one exception to Pierce’s rule occurred with his striking initial realization of The Wolf Man in 1941.   “The only appliances I used was the nose that looks like a wolf[“˜s nose].  There you either put on a rubber nose or model the nose every day, which would have taken too long.  It took 2 1/2 hours to apply this makeup,” Pierce said, indicating the head, chest piece and hands.  “I put all of the hair on a little row at a time.  After the hair is on, you curl it, then singe it, burn it, to look like an animal that’s been out in the woods.  It had to be done every morning.” Pierce’s other key characters in The Wolf Man included 1940s “scream queen” Evelyn Ankers as Gwen Conliffe, Claude Rains as Sir John Talbot, Béla Lugosi as Béla the gypsy, and Maria Ouspenskaya as Maleva, the gypsy woman.  As a result of Pierce’s methods, audiences were treated to the perfectionism in The Wolf Man.

Alas, what might have been was never realized with the stunning originality and critical and commercial success of The Wolf Man. As the U.S. entered WWII, a slew of sequels and remakes of the original horror films were cranked out at Universal with few standouts as momentous as their antecedents.  Pierce went on to create the Wolf Man character in succeeding sequels, including Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), and both House of Frankenstein (1944) and House of Dracula (1945).  The latter, originally titled “The Wolf Man’s Cure” featured an end to the cycle of appearances by the Wolf Man in Universal films, but the character would inexplicably re-appear in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein three years later.  By that point, Bud Westmore was supervising makeup artists Jack Kevan (the Frankenstein Monster) and Emile LaVigne (the Wolf Man) in their execution of Jack Pierce’s original designs. The classic monster movie era, in effect, was over.

Upon the occasion of Jack Pierce’s death in 1968 and Ted Kent’s death in 1986, the last of the monster makers were gone, but their work continues to live on again and again, as new audiences begin to discover their treasured films. Perhaps with the fresh perspective now available to audiences with Universal’s recent re-release of many of the classic horror films on DVD, including a new Legacy Collection of The Wolf Man (1941) due on DVD from Universal Studios Home Entertainment in winter, 2010, the talented craftspeople who realized these films will ultimately be recognized for their singular efforts. Alongside the collection of actors, directors and executives responsible for Universal’s great horror collection, editors including Kent deserve due credit for bringing the original monsters and their movies to life.

January 21, 2010

Soapbox: So, AVATAR…

Filed under: Articles,Reviews — Tags: , , , , — UncaScroogeMcD @ 2:55 am

soapbox-header.png

So, AVATAR

lucyline.gif

depJames Cameron wanted me to let you know that, in addition to being “the king of the world”, he is now also the king of Pandora. That, of course, is the name given to the moon associated with the planet Polyphemus in Mr. King of the Galaxy’s new movie, Avatar. An Avatar is, as I’m sure you know, the binary and digital equivalent of an “AKA”, which itself is just an acronymic way of saying “I can’t stand on my own two feet, so I’ll adopt a more exciting alter-ego”.

In this rather bizarre and “meta” way, Avatar is indeed a real avatar. Pretending to be its own movie, it is, in fact, a fascinating cross-cut blend of several other films, including Ferngully, Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Apocalypto, and maybe a bit of Braveheart. However, since Avatar dresses up its brazen plagiarism with some absolutely stunning and spectacular digital imagery and special effects, we’ll give it a pass and hand it some awards.

A quick synopsis, then: we Americans are a greedy, unfeeling, insensitive bunch of chunk-heads who have no appreciation whatsoever for other cultures, let alone other planets. We frequently go around with actual dollar signs flashing out of our eye sockets, and we will stop at nothing to make a lot of money very quickly. Thus, the RDA Corporation has set out on a mining expedition to Pandora, where it will blow stuff up, kill innocent life-forms, and generally make a drunken fool of itself in the quest to obtain a valuable mineral called … wait for it … unobtainium. Please, stop laughing, Mr. Cameron can hear you.

One of the ways the RDA Corporation intends to get this unobtanium (genus: nowaytoprocuremal) is to infiltrate the native Na’vi people using “avatars” – a human-Na’vi hybrid, specially built for the purpose, and operated by human beings using slightly upgraded The Matrix technology. Seriously, you jerks, quit laughing, this is serious art.

Jake Scully operates the lone avatar that is successful in being accepted by the Na’vi people, and this forms the basis for the movie’s morality tale: once Jake gets to know and love the Na’vi (because you just know he will), will he remain loyal to the humans and help them rape the land, or will he become a traitor to his race by helping the Na’vi preserve their civilization? I’ll bet you really can’t guess, can you?

I liked the film, in a sort of “3 stars out of 5” way. As promised, the CGI and digital effects show was very good, and the epic battle at the end of the film was as epic-y and battle-ish as anyone could want. My point of contention is that James Cameron carved up an over-used story, threw in some seriously shameless and pedantic political propaganda, and used that as an excuse to put on a digital dog-and-pony show.

The Na’vi prance around in their skimpy outfits, with their long and braided hair, worshiping the Mother Nature Goddess Life Energy Force and living off the resources of the land – and they have a pretty catchy war-cry, to boot. You can go ahead and mentally supply the eagle-feather warbonnets and tomahawk dancing.

As the unapologetically mercenary humans prepare to go to war against the Na’vi, their actions are justified as “pre-emptive”, and described as a “shock and awe” campaign. Jake complains that we humans have already killed our Mother (Earth, I think, although he may have been talking about Mother Teresa), and declares that human beings must be taught that we cannot simply take land away from other civilizations in order to get what we want.

In short, as the climactic battle begins, and the war cry is sounded, the average viewer will be so fired up and emotionally provoked that he may very well leap up out of his theater seat, raise his fists into the air, and scream “DEATH TO THE HUMANS!” Presumably, he will then return to his seat and continue consuming his 885 oz. Pepsi and 50-gallon drum of popcorn, little realizing that he has just sided against his own race in favor of a fictional, digital, alien community.

I fail to understand why James Cameron chose the American people as the antagonists in this film. After all, he was writing a story line that simply needed to pit humans against aliens, but out of all the cultures and races on Planet Earth from which to choose, he selected Americans. Obviously, Mr. Cameron has not watched enough Bugs Bunny or Connery-era 007 films, or he would have known that the nationalities preferred for representing Evil Incarnate in cinema are Russians or Germans.

I can only conclude that James Cameron is himself an alien, currently operating a genetically engineered human avatar, sent here to infiltrate our planet and prepare us for the coming alien invasion by filling us with self-loathing.

Still, he’s doing it with some fantastic special effects, so … who cares? Pass the popcorn.

Jacob Michael

January 19, 2010

Opinion In A Haystack: THE LOVELY BONES

haystackheader.jpg

green

Twitter Friendly Lovely Bones Reveiw:

It’s like Peter Jackson doing Terry Gilliam-Light. Stanley Tucci is amazing. Good night everybody!

Attention Span Friendly Lovely Bones Review:

Plot Synopsis from IMDB:

Based on the best selling book by Alice Sebold, The Lovely Bones is the story of a 14-year-old girl from suburban Pennsylvania who is murdered by her neighbor. She tells the story from Heaven, showing the lives of the people around her and how they have changed all while attempting to get someone to find her lost body.

********SPOILER FREE** SPOILER FREE** SPOILER FREE********

You watch a movie like Peter Jackson’s latest effort and wonder why we have the Hollywood system that we do. You think about that for about a second and you quietly remember: it’s 98% based on who is sexier. Duh. Silly to forget such concrete facts. Death. Taxes. Attractive people always win. Why is Mark Wahlberg more famous and prosperous than Stanley Tucci? No offense to Wahlberg, but other than saying hi to mothers vicariously through their offspring, a whispy voice and looking serious all the time, what does he have to offer in a world where acting behemoths like Tucci exist? It’s a rhetorical question, yet the answer is seemingly sex appeal. That could be wrong though, perhaps we haven’t seen Wahlberg’s full potential, but we have seen Tucci’s for decades now. Tucci can do drama, comedy, action, sci-fi, hero, villain, anything”¦just give the guy a script and he pours the premium-acting-serum down his gullet and blows you away. Once again I apologize for my bitter snark, but I’ve been a follower and fan of Mr. Tucci since Undercover Blues. It gets a touch annoying when the community starts praising an actor, who has been great for twenty years, like he came out of nowhere and it’s a surprise he is that damn good. His incredibly nuanced and Oscar worthy performance in The Lovely Bones is the least surprising cinematic pleasure I’ve witnessed so far in 2010.

16269_212164746284_115941171284_4488248_959914_n

Praise of Tucci aside, The Lovely Bones is an uneven delight. Having not read the book, it seems obvious to say that none of these assertions are based on accuracy to the source material. Peter Jackson channels his Heavenly Creatures mojo and adds a dash of Terry Gilliam’s aesthetic to the skeleton of the movie. The scenes featuring Saoirse Ronan’s Susie Salmon wafting through the “inbetween” of heaven and earth are easily the strongest elements of the whole film, and the scenes in which Jackson seems to be most comfortable. The director’s output for the last ten years has no doubt become household knowledge. Being a strong fan of his films, (especially his early work) it is a touch disappointing to see him come back from heavy fantasy worlds in order to prove to those that forgot, or didn’t know, his pre-Rings career had shown he can do other genres besides fantasy, only for him to deliver a movie where the fantasy scenes work so well and the scenes based in reality fall way off key. If anything The Lovely Bones will only serve to push him more into the pre-defined little fantasy treasure-chest that it should have broke him out of.

susie-in-heaven

Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Wiesz play the parents of Susie Salmon, and they feel like a huge presence in the narrative”¦for about 15 minutes. After Susie goes missing, murdered by Stanley Tucci’s disgusting George Harvey, the role of the parental units (Conehead speak!) seems to just dissipate off into the wind, so much so that I forgot about Wiesz’s character even being in the movie for a good chunk. Her comings and goings happen without much fanfare, much like the father’s obsession with finding the truth about his daughter’s disappearance. In fact, it seems we are suppose to be following the father’s heartbreak more than anyone’s, but suddenly Susie’s invisible-to-the-audience sister, played by Rose Mclver, comes to the forefront in the hunt for the killer and it gives off this very uneven feeling of who we are emotionally suppose to follow. Add in a wacky montage (wacky montage? Yes really) of Susan Sarandon’s hard drinking, smoking Grandmother trying to do house chores and take care of the kids while the parents mourn and you have one very disjointed feeling. First the movie is killing a kid, and then Susan Sarandon has a wacky “˜80s-style montage, with a side of more wacky. WACKY! There is also a semi-side-story involving a psychic girl who becomes this film’s “Whoopi Goldberg” which I won’t go into, but let me stress, it makes it even more unbalanced.

jack-and-susie-at-the-table

The one consistent character through out is Tucci’s George Harvey. The razor sharp performance coupled with the dimly lit scenes of the killer bombastically pounding, sawing, and thoughtfully planning out the murder of an innocent girl molds George Harvey into an archetypal villain worth noting. Susie narrates the events of her killer’s life, past and present, showing us the horrid crimes he’s committed and how much he craves them. If there is anything to be said about craftsmanship here it is the wonderful sound design and editing concerning George’s scenes. The sounds are sharp, full, and hit hard in contrast to the rest of the film’s soft audio texture. A small piece of praise, but a worthy one”¦someone’s got to give the sound guy’s their due!

stanley-tucci-as-george-harvey

It needs to be said that the uneven tone could possibly be due to the long span of time that the film’s narrative covers. In many ways the movie reminded me of David Fincher’s Zodiac, due to the long spans of time not shown and character progression that has to be sacrificed because of such. In all honesty The Lovely Bones might be getting a rather unfair assessment from me, it felt like one of those movies where repeat viewings help the flick to find its footing in your mind and sell you on it a ton more. Perhaps I’m just saying that because I’m a fan of Jackson, but all the flaws taken into account, the movie still has much to offer. Highly recommended for fans of Stanley Tucci and the concept of purgatory (the non-Catholic version.)

Thanks for reading!

December 18, 2009

Opinion In A Haystack: Looking At AVATAR

haystackheader.jpg

avatarposter

LOOKING AT AVATAR

He did it. James Cameron pulled it off. All of the praise and positive quips you’ve read, heard, and watched are spot on. Avatar is a behemoth spectacle to behold, a mighty game-changing cinematic dinosaur made of fire and fueled by Jolt Cola. The all-encompassing 3D CG environment coupled with the “BEST EVER” motion-captured actors is all numbingly realistic to the point of confusion. Take one of the greatest mainstream directors of all time, let him gestate on a film’s production for over a decade, then stir in a well-used $300 million and you will get Avatar. This is hardly the misfire, dream-project that so many feared. This isn’t James Cameron’s Legend (even though I like Legend.) It has all the markings of a wet-dream-big-director-project gone wrong, yet in the equation Cameron remembered one thing, to make the movie for himself AND the audience.

sigourney

The film is a triumph not because it’s perfect, which it isn’t, but because it’s succeeds as grand entertainment. When is the last time the public received a movie of this caliber, based on original material, with this level of passion behind it? The fact that this is an original script with a production of this magnitude, sadly, gives it a nostalgia factor of 15-20 years ago, regardless of the technology. It is a very welcomed feeling that makes us glad that Mr. Cameron is back, and worried that he will go away, possibly back to the obscurity of making ocean documentaries.

The film’s plot, blue aliens, and overarching themes have obviously been heavily criticized for the past few months. The horrid advertising for the film should be to blame for this. What marketing department in their right mind thought that advertising a movie as “game-changing” was a good idea? Is “backlash” or “cynicism” not in their vocabulary? What is curious about all the criticism is that they are all more or less true, but not really in a detrimental form. Cameron’s script is simply playing on conventions as old as storytelling itself, which does lend the movie to being rife with cliché, but it’s cliché done well. Let’s take a closer look at the criticisms, from the point of view of someone who’s seen the flick:

***************EXTREMELY MILD SPOILERS**************

Criticism 1: “It’s James Cameron’s Smurfs.”

smurfs_l

The Na’vi are blue.

They Live in the woods.

They are peaceful.

The villain (Humans) send a “Smurfette” (Sam Worthington) to infiltrate them.

The “Smurfette” is won over by the love and way of life of the Na’vi (thank you Donnie Darko, and Wikipedia .)
The “Smurfette” yearns to become one of the Na’vi.

The male leader of the Na’vi tribe has prominent RED body adornments much like Papa Smurf. (yes, seriously.)

Conclusion: Yes, it is sort of like James Cameron’s mega-budget-ultra-serious Smurf movie. It should be pointed out that Saturday Night Live called it first, even down to the Celine Dion/Titanic joke. SNL guessed Cameron’s next movie over a decade in advance!

Criticism 2: “It’s the exact same movie as FernGully, even down to the message.”

ferngully

The humans have come to sap resources (Unobtainium) from the land.

The male lead gets physically transformed into a being much like the natives.

A female of the forest dwellers befriends a member of the humans.

The man and the native fall in love.

The humans continue to collect the resources, without care or regard for the natives.

There is a winged creature that helps the protagonists along the way.

There is a clear message about humans destroying nature for the sake of progress.

Conclusion: Ok, so it’s “sort of” like James Cameron’s live action FernGully remake. It probably even has more thematic/character similarities that I forgot to include, however that doesn’t mean its plagiarism. Do you honestly think James Cameron cares about, or even remembers FernGully? If so, do you think he’s seen this?

Criticism 3: “It’s Dances With Wolves on an alien planet”¦with Smurfs”

southparkavatar

I’m going to cop out and just say watch the South Park episode entitled “Dances With Smurfs.” I doubt anyone could explain it as well as Eric Cartman.

Conclusion: As usual, South Park is pretty much on the mark.

Criticism 4: “The Delgo Comparisons.”

delgo

Look at them.

Conclusion: Yes, it is pretty similar… but what movie was in production first?

So what does all of that mean? Is James Cameron a plagiarist? No, certainly not. FernGully and Dances With Wolves are both stories built on conventions as old as time, and none of us are going back even further to see what they were “copied” from. If you are going to insult the film for something trivial, how about for using a title font, and subtitle font that is way to close (if not exactly the same) to the corny, over-used font known as Papyrus. As for the Smurfs comparison, yes, that is humorously close. James Cameron even said he found it funny in an interview, right before he went on to insult Jar Jar Binks, which should help us to give him the benefit of the doubt. When all is said and done, even if you think he stole from these other things (which he didn’t) he took the elements and made something great with them. Do you really think for the past 15 years he has been in his basement watching FernGully, Dances With Wolves, and Smurfs DVDs, while sipping cognac and laughing maniacally about his deceptive future plans? Is the theft of FernGully really worth creating revolutionary new technology for? No offense to FernGully, but no, it isn’t.

cameron

This column, Opinion In A Haystack, is often overflowing with disdain for special F/X of the computer generated persuasion. Bob Rose (me) is not a fan of CG. However, the level at which Avatar’s environments work, and the nigh-photo-realistic skin texture and muscle movements achieved by Cameron’s team make it so real, that it’s just that, real. By the second half of the film, the effects aren’t even a question anymore. Avatar doesn’t feel like Sin City, Sky Captain, or 300. There’s not this constant search to see the seams because there is no seams, it is one giant cohesive visual. The 3D is not gimmicky either. It is only used as a tool of depth and space, much like how Pixar’s Up utilized it earlier this year. 3D most certainly adds to the whole experience, but even now I think 3D should still be considered a gimmick. Avatar would work in 2D just as well as it does in 3D, if it didn’t then the whole film would be a gimmick itself. I don’t really care how much Cameron, Spielberg, and Jackson back the tech of 3D, until it can be accomplished without the viewer having to wear glasses then it’s not “normal” cinema. To me there is a fear that some movies will start being produced ONLY in 3D with no 2D counterpart.

gunfire

All the performances in the movie are top notch, perhaps except for Sam Worthington being a touch bland. The shining star of the movie is easily Stephen Lang as Colonel Miles Quaritch. Once again we have cliché in his facial-scars coupled with his hard bitten disposition, but Lang pulls out all the stops and goes for broke with the cliché. He is easily the most enjoyable character to watch through out the run time, and his physical appearance is baffling. It looks as though James Cameron told Lang to spend the last decade in physical training to play this role, it’s hard to believe that is Ike Clanton from Tombstone, or George Pickett from Gettysburg.

lang2

The question of whether or not this movie will prove successful is not really a concern of mine. It’s classic Cameron through and through, right down to the “revolutionary” effects, and it’s a damn entertaining flick. The downfall of this will be the aura of “pretension” surrounding it, most people will walk in thinking that Cameron himself is saying that he reinvented the reinvention of the wheel and he’s damn serious about it. However, after reading most interviews with him, he is much more concerned with the quality-entertainment aspect then the need to change cinema. He didn’t spend 15 years on a useless light show, he spent it on a story he felt people would want to experience, and how to tell that story. Avatar works because Cameron worked hard.

Thanks for reading.

November 25, 2009

Opinion In A Haystack: Buck Shots Round 3 & THE ROAD Review

haystackheader.jpg

buckshotstroll2quicksize

Money Shot (Wikipedia): provocative, sensational, or memorable sequence in a film, on which the film’s commercial performance is perceived to depend.

Buck Shot: moments on which a film’s cheese-factor is based, often underlining the tone of the entire production and providing the viewer with the opposite effect intended.
Round 3: The Wizard of Speed and Time and The Greatest Film Ending Ever (which is a fact.)

(Here’s Round 1 and Round 2)

Taglines:

  • His Life Is a Special Effect…
  • This is the kind of movie you would make, if you had nothing better to do!

wizposter

Here at the Opinion In A Haystack Department, we make it our goal to purport the message of “opinion isn’t fact” concerning the world of cinema. This notion is only null and void on a single subject: the greatest film ending ever. Sure, you would have to be some type of megalomaniacal-fizzlebottom drunk on your own power to claim that anything in the world of “art” is “the greatest” (let alone, to use the word “fizzlebottom.”) We are going to go out on a broken limb (glued with oatmeal) and proclaim that The Wizard of Speed and Time has the absolute monopoly on greatest endings ever, with the one ending it has. The unique dilemma, and triumph, of this fact is that the ending doesn’t necessarily take place at the end, nor is it part of the narrative reality of the movie. If we were face to face, here is the subsequent conversation that would take place:

(You reach in your pocket, worriedly grasping your canister of mace.)

“If it’s not at the end, than it’s not the greatest ending.”

“No, I assure you it is.”

“I’m not listening to anymore of this nonsense.”

“You just listened to a whole paragraph of nonsense.”

“How did you know it was a paragraph?”

“I write out all my conversations beforehand.”

“Even what the other person will say?”

“A 1985 Chrysler minivan, gray interior with several apple juice stains in the wheel well.”

“I guess not.”

“It’s the greatest ending, I can prove it; you don’t need to mace me.”

“How did you know I had mace in my pants?”

“Well, you are a mace salesman, and this is a mace factory.”

“An odd place to walk around discussing The Wizard of Speed and Time, hence why I hold my mace in defensive preparation”

“Perhaps if I worked here you would be less aggressive.”

“Perhaps.”

(You proceed to mace me.)

Confusion is probably setting in, which is a perfectly instinctual response we assure you. Director Mike Jittlov is the all-encompassing wizard of speed and time in his movie (you guessed it,) The Wizard of Speed and Time. His 1988 feature film, which took over five years to complete, is his big headed baby. He is the head writer, director, producer, actor, animator, editor and all-around deity of his gloriously bitter film, which tells the story of a special effects filmmaker, named Mike “The Wizard” Jittlov, who is trying to make it in the corrupt corporate world of Hollywood. Surprisingly, it’s apparently based on his real life experiences. The stop-motion animation in this film alone makes it a B-movie rental worth its weight in gold-plated space-diamonds (the fancy ones, usually found in black holes.) Remember earlier, before the mace, when I said that the “greatest ending ever” doesn’t take place at the end nor in the reality of the narrative of the film? Well, that’s because the ending, the one being discussed, is actually Mike Jittlov’s (the character, not the real person. Don’t worry, it gets more complex,) film reel, the effects sequence he makes to prove his talent. Needless to say, it’s a total brain-melting tesla-coil to the eye sockets in style, scope, and content.

fantasticfilmsrobe-thumb-400x289

We, at the Opinion In A Haystack Department, came across TWOSAT long before we, I, Bob, started referring to myself as we (weself?) Jump into the wayback-machine and travel to the triumphant age of 2005, where your humble reviewer stood stoic behind the counter of a video store desk grasping for a reason to live. One day, a random VHS tape was chosen for in-store viewing. It had non-sexually nipple erecting cover art:

wizposter2

Eighty minutes later, my attention unable to be pulled from work, I had stopped watching Mike Jittlov’s peculiar film. Soon, I was awakened from the dark stupor of retail slavery with cries of:

“Bob, are you seeing this? Are you seeing what is happening on screen?”

“REWIND!”

No less then five VCR malfunctions later, the entire crew, all two of us, of the mostly-porn-mom-and-pop video store were mesmerized by the sights and sounds of a wizard running all over the planet spreading his magical “positive” deeds. Have you ever wanted to see night change into day? Poverty into riches? Struggle into fame? Tanks into Taxis?! This is the film sequence for you. Mike Jittlov’s Wizard runs at the speed of pleasantness, his mere presence makes flowers bloom, women become famous, and entire foreign cities explode with sunlight regardless of the possibly severe environmental effects. There’s more blood, sweat, and tears in this one sequence then in all of Michael Bay’s most action-packed nightmares (even the ones where his penis is a refurbished Howitzer that can dance.) Mike Jittlov accomplishes a feat that no known filmmaker ever has or ever will, one that deserves respect, adulation, and many surprise fruit baskets: He made a movie in which a guy slips on a banana peel so hard that he shoots out into space. See for yourself:

A Short Review of The Road

the-road-poster

Plot Summary (taken from IMDB):

A father and his son walk alone through burned America. Nothing moves in the ravaged landscape save the ash on the wind and water. It is cold enough to crack stones, and, when the snow falls it is gray. The sky is dark. Their destination is the warmer south, although they don’t know what, if anything, awaits them there. They have nothing: just a pistol to defend themselves against the lawless cannibalistic bands that stalk the road, the clothes they are wearing, a rusting shopping cart of scavenged food–and each other.

Based on the book (which this reviewer hasn’t read) by author Cormac McCarthy, The Road stars Viggo Mortensen and a vicious world of grime and, frankly, sadness. This post-apocalyptic drama might just be able to wiggle its way into the Oscars unlike most movies concerning its subject matter. The Road is a movie of depression and hopeless existence; it is the story of a father and son being suffocated by no options to survive. There are many films that end on a note of hopelessness, the credits roll right after we learn that the disease has spread, or the asteroid can’t be stopped. This film takes place after that moment. The heroes of the world, the leaders of the planet, already fought the battle with nature, lost, and now we are brought into the story.

road123

Beautifully photographed with unending grayness, Javier Aguirresarobe’s cinematography perfectly compliments John Hilcoat’s extremely nuanced direction. Our main characters look as though they are about to cry at every moment, and the movie gives us several different reasons why. Everything, everything, is covered in a thick layer of grime, which dampens all the color out of the frames. The dirt, grime, and struggle of this film make it a great companion piece to Werner Herzog’s Rescue Dawn, even though the genres are admittedly very different. The main characters of the film don’t ever let on to their names, they are Man and Boy, which makes it all the more dark, since they both are essentially deer with broken limbs, walking through a world comprised of wolves in the form of cannibals and thieves. Since the movie takes place well after civilization has ended, the cannibals aren’t the mentally-shocked crazies we normally see, they have grown accustomed to this life, killing and eating people is now the norm, which is all the more scary, of course. Robert Duvall gives an almost chameleon-like performance as the “Old Man.” His make-up is so outstanding that the credits are the only way to know it’s actually him.

the-road_l

The movie felt very truncated at times, which could either be a complaint or a type of praise. While there were many situations that came and went without much fanfare or especially colored reactions from the characters, which is what makes the movie feel so “real.” It doesn’t feel like a movie most of the time, excluding flashbacks, because the action/thematic beats don’t happen at the length and speed of a script we’re used to, especially the ending, to which there is no real build up. While all of this enhances the experience, and while all of the acting and craft of the movie is top-notch, Oscar worthy even, I wouldn’t really recommend it for anyone looking for escapism. It’s one of the best films I’ve seen all year, yet not one I would want to voluntarily revisit too often.

Thanks for reading.

November 23, 2009

Nocturnal Admissions: 2012 versus THE BOX

Filed under: Nocturnal Admissions,Reviews — Tags: , — UncaScroogeMcD @ 6:47 am

nocturnal-header.png

2012poster

Roland Emmerich is the Irwin Allen de nos jours, and his new film, 2012, is an anthology of disaster films past. It’s got a bit of Volcano, of Earthquake, of all the Airports, and even When Time Ran Out, not to mention The Bible, at least the part about Noah. But unlike those earlier films, 2012 is primarily a comedy. Sure, serious things happen, such as the near demise of the earth and the deaths of billions of people, but the story is told with a certain measure of wit, a wink to the audience that says this is all for fun. When you see elephants being hauled by helicopters to a modern ark, or when someone says, “I’m not going to let anything come between us,” immediately before a fissure opens up on the floor before him, you have to realize that the director and his fellow credited writer had a Hitchcock-Psycho attitude to their material. Unfortunately, 2012 runs out of gas about halfway through the film, just like the subject of its disaster machinations.

It’s hard to figure out why. Even if you don’t like the film, and many don’t, the tale does move swiftly for the first half, and there are a lot of laughs and last minute escapes to keep one preoccupied. But the first half takes place in the sunshine, and in suburban residential areas, and in vast forests emblazoned first by the sun, and then by noxious fireballs. The second half, like The Poseidon Adventure, takes place at sea, mostly inside, and way too often in the dark. On the other hand, maybe the first half of our movies are always better. Maybe filmmakers should start conceiving their narratives from the back, moving forward, instead of the more common other way around.

2012team

2012 is essentially an animated movie, and like most animated films these days it tells the story of a small clique of beings who are trying to rescue someone. In this case, it is divorced novelist Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), trying to ferry his two kids and his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) ““ and her current boyfriend ““ to a secret site hosting escape ships that he heard about from a looney conspiratologist radio broadcaster (Woody Harrelson). This means flying out of Los Angeles as it crumbles and into Yellowstone National Park before it goes up in flames, and thence to China before it is consumed by water. I would also say that the second half of the movie, besides being sluggish, if not inert, is not as easy to follow as the first half.

2012kennedy1

At root, 2013 is a zeitgeist movie, less important in and of itself as another indice of the culture’s preoccupation with the end of the world, from the debate over global warming to the subjects of numerous movies such as The Road and TV shows, some already cancelled, others such as Flashforward ongoing. In that regard, it is interesting how much of the emphasis falls on black characters, from the opening scientist, to the president, to the fact that in the end Africa becomes, once again, the birth of civilization. On the other hand, end of the world movies have been around as long as the 1950s, and even the racial thing isn’t particularly new, if you’ve seen The World, the Flesh, and the Devil.

2012 makes an interesting contrast with The Box. Both are apocalyptic, though The Box is more subtly so. At the same time, The Box is a quirky intricate “small” film with none of the identifying marks of a big budget tent pole film like 2012.

boxposterRichard Kelly does not make “normal” movies, that is, films in the style or manner of the day, and especially not the cookie cutter style of storytelling found in most studio pictures or CBS police procedurals. The better art films, on the other hand, follow either the style of, say, Terence Mallick’s Badlands, which is also the new “international” style, somewhat distanced from the action and often visually beautiful and about “real” people, or they follow the juiced up musical Scorsese style of Mean Streets.

Kelly’s films are much different. Because they obey no known cinematic style, not even the Miramax-indie style of minimal locations and novelty casting, his movies can discombobulate viewers who are expecting at least some semblance of the same old thing. Like David Lynch or Guy Maddin, he films to the beat of a different drum, one so different that the viewer has to be educated in the language of the film itself. Donnie Darko puzzled viewers though many were intrigued, enough to start a cult. Southern Tales has its defenders but was widely viewed as a misstep, an uneven production, though it was very much in the spirit of Donnie Darko, though on a broader canvas, bigger scale. Worst of all for the regular viewer, Kelly doesn’t feel inclined to explain the metaphysical mysteries his films traffic in.

Take the crazy scene in which teacher Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) is browbeated by a student into showing why she limps. There are a lot of things “wrong” with this scene. It is unlikely that someone would let a conversation go in this direction. It is unlikely that a teacher would allow herself to be so humiliated by someone in her class. It is unlikely that the student would be so aroused by the spectacle. Or that the other students would stand for it, or at least not express some reaction to the incident.

Other questions arise. Why does the dean of Norma’s school get a nosebleed? Why does that humiliating student end up at a family celebration at Norma’s parents’ house? Why do the nosebleeds become epidemic? How does the babysitter Dana (Gillian Jacobs) suddenly become psychic? Who is the strange disheveled guy watching Norma?

Unfortunately, most people these days have a high disregard for other human beings and would have no trouble pushing the button. So the existential debate between the couple can spark impatience in the modern, cynical viewer who will say to herself, “Damn the other person, press the button and get the million dollars, and see what happens!” After all, someone somewhere in the world is going to die anyway whether or not the Lewises push the button.

boxthebox

The Box is based on a story by Richard Matheson, perhaps the most inventive science fiction writer ever, but Kelly has taken the material back to the strict suburban world of Donnie Darko, its tree-lined lanes and big houses and expensive wedding receptions and its working government employees and professionals. Kelly has also added a strain of The Day the Earth Stood Still and maybe even Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But another important book is sociologist Erving Goffman’s Stigma, which is an examination of our reaction to visible and cultural disabilities in ourselves and others, and how the stigmatized have internalized the “normalcy” of the society in which they live and in a sense take its side against themselves. Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), the man who proffers the box, and the deal of a million dollars to the Lewses, has a ghastly facial wound. Yet though Steward shocks Norma when she first sees him, the man with this stigma in this case, unlike in conventional society, is the one with the power. Norma’s stigma has made her, it seems, less trusting of others. At school she teaches Sartre’s maxim that hell is other people. In the end, it is Norma, the stigmatized one, who must be eliminated. It turns out that the box is a form of enormous metaphysical chain letter.

The Box gets a little hard to follow in its second half. After a series of endeavors to change fate, things end up once again at the Lewises house, with the couple sitting across from the agent of the box. And thus most of the events in the film are explained. Or not, depending on one’s sense of horror. The “end of the world” as envisioned by Kelly takes place one suburban household at a time.

November 5, 2009

Opinion In A Haystack: THE FOURTH KIND

haystackheader.jpg

fourthkindposter

Elias Koteas would hate me. No matter how great an actor he is (and he is a great actor) or how accomplished he becomes, it is very hard not to imagine him with a hockey mask and a golf bag. He is like Frosted Mini-Wheats. The adult in me knows the guy has some of the most underrated acting chops ever; the kid in me watches films, such as The Fourth Kind, and screams “Pound their owl faces in with your cricket bat Casey Jones!”

elias

He is so much more then the role of Casey, that still doesn’t erase the fact that he was a childhood hero to some of us. The first truly great “bad ass” delivered to my generation via an excellent kid’s movie. My point is that actors carry the baggage of past roles with them sometimes. That is expected, and fine, but this is why most “normal” mainstream movies, especially horror, don’t scare as much as they could. We are familiar with these people. Their faces are a constant visual reminder that it’s all make believe. When the step dad from Liar Liar saws his foot off, while you might be in shock at the concept, you know deep down that the Dred Pirate Roberts has still got ten toes. The Fourth Kind confuses me: why go through all the motions of watering down supposedly real footage with the baggage of Hollywood actors? Why even go so far as to blatantly make that part of the marketing campaign?

The Fourth Kind is going to be looked at as another “found footage” movie, especially in the recent wake of Paranormal Activity. However, two very big things separate it from the pack: the footage is supposedly real, and the footage was never lost. In short, this non-sequel-but-titled-confusingly-and-probably-deliberately-like-a-sequel to Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, is about a supposedly real psychologist, Dr. Abigail Tyler, who is investigating the strange occurrences of alien abductions in Nome, Alaska circa the year 2000. Milla Jovovich plays the title role of Dr. Tyler in the in-movie dramatization of the actual events. Elias Koteas and Will Patton act out the supposedly real events along side Jovovich, all of them doing an admirable job with what they have to work with. Now this is what makes this film so unique: it’s simultaneously shows us the real and the dramatized version of the doctor’s recorded sessions with the supposed alien abductees. The movie even goes so far as to often split the screen in half (or fourths!) and shows the real tape, versus the dramatization of the tape. In many ways it makes the same editing mistakes that Ang Lee’s Hulk did years ago. It is very unique, as I am not quite sure something like this has ever been done before, yet it is also very tiresome, confusing to the eyes, and like a giant exercise in futility. Why do we need Milla saying the same lines simultaneously with the real Abigail while they both are on screen? The answer is that we don’t. They fill in the gaps between the supposedly “actual footage” of the story with the Hollywood actors. One would assume that the gaps being filled in are from the mouth of the actual Abigail Tyler herself. So in conjunction with the “actual footage and audio” you are also getting dramatized accounts of what supposedly happened in between.

Why water it all down? Sure if you want to release this in theaters as a “film” you have to give people more then a Discovery Channel UFO special”¦or do you? I’ll admit that Paranormal Activity made me lose an entire night of sleep, probably for the first time in a decade. This being ever more embarrassing because I was fully aware that it was completely fake. That is not a critique of the movie, I am just saying that it got to me, and horror movies never do. It has something to do with this low budget genre. Any time where no “Hollywood” is present, and no sign of the “evil” is shown on camera it screws with the mind. If Paranormal Activity had showed the demon, I wouldn’t have lost a wink of sleep, if we saw the Blair Witch I probably wouldn’t have flinched, regardless of the quality of the beast (sorry Rick Baker.) The irony being, the less visceral the villain is, the more visceral the scares are. This brings me to all my questions concerning The Fourth Kind. If you have “actual footage,” in many ways similar to the “fake found footage” of Paranormal Activity or Blair Witch, why take all the piss out of it and inject heaps and mounds of Hollywood into its core, wasting all the time and money in the process? Then they go so far as to show them side by side, as if to say “SEE, LOOK, THEY MATCH!!!” As an audience member are we suppose to be thinking “yes, they do match, are the accurate performances what I am suppose to be focusing on?” Who wouldn’t rather just watch the straight up, untouched videos of these regression psychology sessions? I would, and it would be leaps and bounds more terrifying.

milla

The backbone of the entire documentary/dramatization/film/docu-drama-film is a supposedly real interview with Dr. Tyler that happens long after the events in 2000. This interview footage, for me, was the scariest part of the experience. If all of this actually happened then this women has been completely put through the ringer, so I don’t want to outright insult something so trivial, but her face is disturbing. Really disturbing. In fact her facial features and shape are so “alien-esque” that I started to wonder if the twist of the whole Fourth Kind experience was going to be that it’s fake, then her face would start to distort CGI-style, then cut to credits. Her overall look and demeanor is what actually started to make me almost assuredly doubt the claims of the movie. She is perfectly emaciated and morbidly colored to the point where if they were making The Fourth Kind as a farce from the beginning they would have cast this woman and through makeup made her look exactly like she does. Also, while I can’t personally give any validity to its claims, this can be found in the trivia section of the film’s IMDB page:

According to promotional materials from Universal, the film is framed around a psychologist named Abigail Tyler who interviewed traumatized patients in Nome, but Alaska state licensing examiner Jan Mays says she can’t find records of an Abigail Tyler ever being licensed in any profession in Alaska. Ron Adler, CEO and director of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute and Denise Dillard, president of the Alaska Psychological Association say they’ve never heard of Abigail Tyler.

One very questionable aspect of this whole ordeal to consider is what the term “Actual Footage” implies. The subtitles make constant note of when “actual footage” or audio is being presented. Actual footage? All footage is actual footage isn’t it? The footage of Jaws popping out of the water, in Jaws, is actual footage. Sure, maybe this is “actual footage” of a psychologist’s regression therapy session in 2000, but that has really no bearing on the fact that the people in the video aren’t simply actors. Yes, it is a bit ridiculous of me to assume this movie, this possible farce, was 9 years in the making, but if they are pulling on our leg hard enough to say these abductions are real, why would they sweat over saying that footage shot with an old camcorder in 2008 happened in 2000? It should simply be given consideration, due to the ease at which language is often used to deceive. Yes, it could just be nitpicking, and common sense should dictate that the “actual footage” is simply film or video stock that wasn’t shot with the intent of story telling.

***SPOILERS START HERE***

The “actual footage” itself is very creepy, however it felt produced. I obviously don’t know the truth, nor will I probably ever, but something about the video footage seemed perfectly imperfect. It’s hard to explain. When ever the patients start to recount what they think they saw, the video fills with distortion (supposedly caused by aliens.) However, there is just enough clarity in the distortion to tell what is happening, and what is happening seems very”¦cliché. We get loud, digitized, thundering voices, screams of terror, mouths opening extremely wide whilst howling, and a man levitating off a bed. While all of that is filled with the creeps, all of it is also very Hollywood. Also, perhaps it is just me, but it felt as though the mania happening beneath the distortion was digitally touched up. It is obviously very difficult to explain, some of the lighting in those shots just seemed manufactured, as often seen with special effects in the digital age. I am fully open to that not being the case.

***SPOILERS STOP HERE***

If there was a final assessment to make about The Fourth Kind it would be of a missed opportunity. They ladled too much Hollywood gravy all over this delicious, if synthetic, steak and made it just taste like wet salt. However, it would be interesting to find out this story from the point of view of the abductors. There’s a great Kids In The Hall sketch that involves the boring lives of aliens who spend every day anal probing abductees. They complain about their unfulfilling jobs as would a dock worker, or an office temp. That KITH skit was in my head during the entire duration of The Fourth Kind. As the human’s are tortured and screaming with nightmares and getting abducted, are the aliens just doing their boring day jobs?

kithanal

Thanks for reading. Now go rent, buy, or watch a lot of Elias Koteas movies. He’s a great talent, you won’t regret it.

Now it’s time for a chicken sandwich.

October 12, 2009

Nocturnal Admissions: Movie Review – ZOMBIELAND

Filed under: Nocturnal Admissions,Reviews — Tags: , , — UncaScroogeMcD @ 4:46 am

nocturnal-header.png

Zoombieland

In what is widely considered to be a bad year for movies, I’ve finally been able to add one more title to a slim list of viewable and re-viewable movies. Zombieland is one of the best, funniest, most entertaining films every made about zombie attacks (for the record, the other films on my 2009 list are Orphan, Inglourious Basterds, and Antichrist).

But what do we talk about when we talk about zombies? The earliest cinematic zombies are found in the Bela Lugosi cheapo White Zombie, where zombies are people controlled robotically by a hypnotic and charismatic villain. In I Walked with a Zombie, a remake of Jane Eyre, zombies are supposedly the dead (but not really), resurrected to do slave labor. A key, transitional zombie effort is The Zombies of Mora-Tau, an obscure horror film released by Columbia in 1957 that happens to anticipate a lot of the zombie myths later codified in ’60s drive-in movies and in Italian films, such elements as the slow moving hands-outstretched zombies impervious to everything except fire. Since the regional horror film The Night of the Living Dead, zombies have been those recently dead or newly bitten who are infected with something, in the case of Romero’s first film, some vague meteorological event that reanimates the recently buried, where the monsters are slow-moving, drooling, intestine-draped retards, a concept which may or may derive from Ed Wood’s Plan 9 From Outer Space. There is by now of course a long history of zombie movies, but the fast moving zombie seems to have been inaugurated with 28 Days Later, which is really an unofficial remake of Romero’s The Crazies, in which the “zombies” are victims of a world wide virus. The fast moving zombie is supposed to be scarier, but there really hasn’t been a truly scary moment in a zombie movie (as opposed to many horrific moments) since the scene in Night of the Living Dead when Barbra fled the graveyard and got into the car that rolled down the road with Zombie Zero chasing her.

The love object of Zombieland.

Since the advent of Romeroworld, the zombie has been portrayed as a relentless scavenger of food, but exclusively human food: zombies don’t seem to like pets. In fact, as the genre has evolved, some zombies themselves become pets, at least to military scientists eager to derive crucial information from their behavior. The zombie’s “horror” to human beings is that their deadness makes them singleminded, and impervious to reason or rational argumentation. They are stupid, or act like greedy children, and we human beings, when not scared of them, like to shoot them for sport and amusement. Zombies also represent, if you are a Freudian, the explosion of the appetite driven id, taking down the fragile ego and its tenuous connection to structured civilization.

Two parts of the Zombieland team.

That’s the situation in Zombieland, which is kind of a take off on the novel World War Z. A global zombie infection has eradicated civilization as we know it and roving bands of survivors attempt to stay alive by following a set of rules, which the main character, nicknamed Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) after his home town in the manner of an army private in a WWII film, narrates to the viewer at the start of Zombieland. Among the rules are No. 2, “Double Tap,” i.e., don’t be stingy with bullets, and No. 31, “Check the Back Seat.” These rules have amusing pay offs throughout the film, as does a cameo by Bill Murray as himself.

Columbus teams up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a sort of Mad Max figure, and later with Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), two scam artist sisters. The team ends up in Los Angeles at the mansion of Murray and then, for the film’s climax, in a carnival. Eisenberg, who was the star of the recent Adventureland, just can’t seem to stay away from fun fairs.

But Zombieland isn’t really about zombies. It is about love. Director Ruben Fleischer and credited writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick have made a movie about how love and the desire for love survive even world wide devastation.

Love and human remains.

Jaws is a great American film, and one of its greatest moments is when Ellen Brody says to her husband, “Wanna get drunk and fool around?” The scene celebrates intimacy and easefulness between two people and, for an alienated lonely segment of the audience, also shows a woman initiating sex with a man. Jaws offers up a vital, admirable portrait of a marriage, one, by the way, that is much better than the marriage in the book, which is compromised by infidelity and other problems and emotions. In Zombieland, Columbus, in a flashback that shows his first encounter with a zombie, finds himself in what he calls a dream situation, on a couch with the cute girl next door, who was just attacked by a homeless man on the street who tried to bite her. As they sit next to each other and she snuggles up to him for protection, Columbus says, “I always, my whole life, wanted to brush a girl’s hair over her ear.” It is one of the most heartbreaking sentences ever uttered in a movie. And, like the list of anti-zombie rules, it has a glourious payoff at the end.

The zombie chase.

Zombieland is really about is male longing. Columbus has survived at the opening of the film because he had no friends or family. He’s a loner who, he says, acted like other people were zombies before they were really zombies. Though his aloneness has “saved” him from the virus and from attacks, he still longs for the intimacy. Maybe it’s the way a high school nerd longs for a cheerleader, or the girl nerd in the class, but in any case the need is present, and in conflict with his strategic self-isolation. When he meets Wichita he is ready to fall in love, but of course, as in Flaubert’s Education sentimentale, one never purely gets what one wants. Zombieland is a comedy and a romance and a social commentary on anomie all wrapped up in a misleading dystopian tale of zombie hegemony.

September 24, 2009

Nocturnal Admissions: Movie Review – WHITEOUT and JENNIFER’S BODY

Filed under: Nocturnal Admissions,Reviews — Tags: , , , — UncaScroogeMcD @ 2:12 am

nocturnal-header.png

(This review discusses these two movies in great detail. )

whiteoutposter

There are two things that need to be said about Whiteout. First, it is based on a comic book. Second, it sat on the shelf for two years.

Kate takes a shower

Whiteout is based on the graphic novel by mystery-novelist-turned-comic-writer Greg Rucka and award winning illustrator Steve Lieber. Once the movie was made, however, with Dominic Sena (Swordfish, Kalifornia) directing and four writers ““ Jon Hoeber, Erich Hoeber, Chad Hayes, and Carey W. Hayes ““ as the credited adaptors, the studio, Warner, shelved the film for two years when shooting ceased in 2007. Thus there is a certain youthful freshness to the face of lead actress Kate Beckinsale, as Carrie Stetko, a U. S. Marshall assigned to the American scientific station at the South Pole, which is about to close for its six-months-of-night hiatus. At the last minute, a corpse turns up out in the ice, which undoes a carefully orchestrated crime scheme by some of the residents. Stetko solves the crime but at the cost of being isolated at the base for six months.

Kate shooting

Whiteout has many of the basics of the mystery thriller genre as we have come to know it in the last few years. There is a deadline that frames the action and squeezes it into a set amount of hours, in this case the sun going down. The main cop has a troubled past (she was betrayed by a partner), which she is trying to get over (the television series Warehouse 13 has a similar premise with its female investigator). There is an interloping federal agent who is a high profile suspect, numerous suspicious co-workers, and several set pieces, among them an ax-chase and a fight in the middle of a snow storm. The movie also evokes with Alien by having Tom Skerritt play the part of a kindly old retiring doctor.

Unfortunately, the movie is as inert as the wintry terrain in which it is set. The heroine is blurrily sketched, and unappealing, and we don’t see why she is still fretting over a justified shooting in her past. The co-workers and the villains all look the same. The action sequences are hard to follow. And when the mystery is “solved,” it seems so trivial in relation to the labors endured to get you there.

A panel from the original comic of Whiteout

Each new comic book adaptation disappoints in a different. The problem with Whiteout is that the source isn’t all that interesting to begin with. It’s fairly conventional mystery material in a “unique” setting, and the changes made in the transfer to the screen (making Stetko less hard looking) only make the film even more conventional.

Jennifer’s Body is much more effective. I didn’t expect to like it, but it proved to be a much more charming and entertaining variation on the teen horror movie than anticipated.

jenniferposterThe Oscar and Emmy winning screenwriter of the film, Diablo Cody, is the new Tarantino, a screenwriter poised to take over the town and inspire a clutch of fanatic followers. She has a column in Entertainment Weekly and a Showtime TV show and also helped produced Jennifer’s Body. But though she has the image of a tattooed hard drinking rebel there is a conservative steak to her work. The EW column thus far has been a self-glorifying journey through the nostalgia of her childhood interests, and the career making Juno was at heart a conservative vision of maternity. On the other hand, no major motion picture or TV series these days can endorse abortion. The dominant culture somehow demands that decry abortion, probably for fear of a backlash. As Nabokov said in an afterword to Lolita, no American work of fiction will ever concern itself with happy incest, an atheist who dies contented in his sleep, or a fruitful interracial marriage. He could have added to the list a tale about a successful, problem-clearing, and life-saving abortion (though Third Watch tried at the start of its second season).

Having taken on unwed pregnancies in Juno, here in Jennifer’s Body Cody conceives a tale about eating disorders. Of course the subject matter is coded. Jennifer (Megan Fox) is possessed by a demon and consumes the entrails of high school classmates susceptible to her human charms.

Needy is Best Friends Forever ....

The only person standing between Jennifer and Hell on Earth is Anita “Needy” Lesnicki (Amanda Seyfried). If Jennifer is the school’s designated hot girl. Needy is its class nerd. Yet Jennifer uncharacteristically loves her as much as the audience loves Needy, with her complex adoration of Jennifer and her glasses and eccentric clothes and her big man’s sports watch (when she finally has sex with her boyfriend ““ being a girl nerd Needy gets to have a boyfriend ““ her watch is the only thing she doesn’t take off, an erotic dream come true for some of us). But also her competence and bravery. In the old days ““ well, at least the 1950s ““ women in horror and science fiction were reduced to tears and faints by the threat of violation. Today they fight back. It is a form of progress.

Here’s what happens. Needy goes with Jennifer to Devil’s Kettle’s only music club, The Carousel. Jennifer has a groupie-ish fixation on the band Low Shoulder, led by Nikolai Wolf (TV’s Adam Brody). Though Jennifer is hot for sex with anyone from the band, the group at first considers Needy, but Wolf, drawing upon his own small town wisdom, asserts that Jennifer is more likely to be a virgin. The band, it turns out, needs a virgin for a sacrificial rite of appeasment to the devil so that they can rise to success, like John Cassavetes in Rosemary’s Baby. This plays into a pet theory of mine ““ that all Hollywood celebrities have sold their souls to Satan. How else to explain the rise of such stars as Sylvester Stallone from mere extras in films like Bananas to writer-star of Rocky?

In any case, the procedure goes awry ““ it turns out that Jennifer is not a virgin. As a consequence, as Needy learns when she researches the topic in the school library, Jennifer has become some kind of portal for a demon on earth, a demon with a hunger for human flesh. When Jennifer zeros in on Needy’s boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons), a line is drawn between the two lifelong friends.

... with Jennifer and her body.

The film ends on note of Kill Bill-like tragedy. Institutionalized (and we know this from the opening scene), Needy now lives with the secret knowledge that she saved Devil’s Kettle. Normally, a movie like this would end with her behind bars, but Cody has a few more cards to play. Needy escapes, and hitchhikes away, driven past a highway warning sign that reads Low Shoulder. But the movie doesn’t end there, either. In a terrific end credit sequence we see the results when Needy, who has been changed forever and will remain an outcast, finally catches up with the suddenly popular rock band (apparently they didn’t need the sacrifice in the first place). This is a wonderfully poignant ending, deeper and more evocative and more truly tragic than a typical horror film.

Cody also cunningly plays with eating disorder issues in the tale, but it is so coded you might not notice. Consumption is a running theme of the film, be it liquor by underage kids or tomorrow’s uncooked meat dragged right out of the fridge. Will teenage girls make the connection? Jennifer gains strength by eating; she is weakest when she is underfed by going too many hours without killing a boy. This mirrors mere biology, but in the eating disorder mentality the opposite is true. Strength comes from starvation, thinness, denial. You could argue that the movie subtly endorses under-eating, since Jennifer becomes a demon. But in the newly mixed up psychology of Needy, the satisfaction of hunger is a positive force.

The film is also an exploration of the complexities of female friendship, disguised as a horror film. Why does Jennifer take on Needy as a friend? For one thing, she is the only other sharp person in the school. Keep your friends close, but your potential enemies ““ or lesbian lovers ““ closer. The tension underlying Jennifer’s friendship with Needy is shown in a quick moment when Jennifer pushes Needy playfully up against a door. She does it way too hard. The complexity of Needy’s affection for Jennifer is revealed in a strange spectrum of emotions on her face as she watches Jennifer while Low Shoulder plays.

Jennifer’s Body is not quite as fun as you want it to be, and it doesn’t reach the heights of insight of earlier teen girl friendship movies such as The World of Henry Orient, Thirteen, Havoc, Haven, My Summer of Love, and Don’t Deliver Us from Evil, but it certainly makes some new and interesting points. As Jennifer says about Needy, her childhood friend, “Sandbox love never dies.”

September 20, 2009

Opinion In A Haystack: ZOMBIELAND

haystackheader.jpg

zombieland-poster1First, a word on how Zombieland isn’t Shaun of the Dead 2: Jay of the Dead (where did I get Jay? It rhymes with DAY… never mind.) All the atrocious grammar, inept spelling, and questionable motives of “talk backers” on the net would make one think that the issue of plagiarism would be no big deal. How wrong one can be. In the dim, darkened world of the internet-age all movies that are sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, sequel-remakes, remake-reboots, and rebooted-sequel-half-prequels are given a pass on their content. Generation “TROLL” screams out to Hollywood’s ears “Give me content I’ve already seen, only NEWER and with more CGI!” Yet, when a film tries to exist only on the merits of a script alone, that is when the content is harshly criticized. Apparently you can’t have two separate movies about the same subject anymore, not without bucket loads of hate spewed forth. These complaints seem to have mutated in the 90’s and snowballed into a mammoth sphere of ignorance.

The Patriot was not director Roland Emmerich’s Revolutionary War film starring Mel Gibson… it was Braveheart 2: Brave Hearter. This is obviously because, you see, Gibson is only allowed one period-piece battlefield picture per decade, any more then that and he is a one-trick-pony hack. This is not in defense of The Patriot, Emmerich, or Gibson, but it’s a great example of what isn’t given a pass. These are of course the complaints of a bunch of ill-informed youths, youngsters that have no clue about the seven billion westerns that John Wayne made every two months, all of them loved, all of them welcomed. We need not even go back as far as the Duke. Jean-Claude Van Damme made sixty action films per day back in the 1980s, all of them practically the same, all of them filled with awesome, all of them welcomed for what they were. Now we have gotten to the point where we can’t even have similar subject matter in the proximity of less then 5 years. (Begin sarcasm) You’re making a zombie movie? And it’s a comedy? Umm… Shaun of the Dead exists… PLAGIARISM!!! That’s right, it’s just a rehash for cash, that is all it can possibly be. It shares a whopping two (2!!!) broad elements with another film, Zombieland is dead on arrival (end sarcasm.) Seriously though, Zombieland is about as much of a rehash-for-cash (can I coin that term?) of Shaun, as Gettysburg was a rehash of Glory. It isn’t.

I realize that we are all guilty of this type of accusation from time to time, I know I’ve complained more then once about a new movie cribbing from an older, better flick. However, there is a difference between comparing Neil Marshall’s Doomsday to John Carpenter’s Escape From New York, to comparing films just because they share the same tone and genre. There’s obvious, and then there is just nitpicking. If you are going to shoot down a flick, do it because the writing is abysmal, the direction is shabby, the lighting is amateurish, it lacked any cohesive plot, and so on and so forth. Do not criticize because it might share the same setting and tone of another film. The only exception is for shark movies, we have JAWS, that’s enough.

*****MILD SPOILERS*****

zl3Director Ruben Fleischer’s Zombieland might be the first time fast-moving-non-zombies have actually been properly utilized. The nitpicking loser inside me wants to complain, but the forgiving, Left-4-Dead addicted, softy inside me has to admit something. At no point was I bothered by the fact that the “zombies” where still-living-infected-humans, in a film called ZOMBIEland. This is because of how much of the film’s comedy is derived from the speed at which these zombies move. Right at the start of the flick we are told that due to speed, “the fatties die first.” As a fatty myself, I have to admit that this hilarious (and sadly true) assertion alone is enough to forgive all further use of non-Romero-certified-undead-slow-motion-zombies. Plus the name Zombieland is coined by Jesse Eisenberg’s character… making it the character’s mistake instead of the script’s. Also, it is time all of us who actually care about the Fast vs. Slow zombie debate admit that if fast-still-living zombies became a reality, we would call them “zombies” without hesitation. That doesn’t mean we love George Romero any less.

zl1A hilarious slow-motion credit sequence is all we are treated to as for the initial onslaught of the infected uprising. Zombieland drops us into the already post-apocalyptic world of desolation. Narrated by Jesse Eisenberg, we are introduced to this world through his “rules” for survival, which makes a great running gag throughout the entire film. The movie doesn’t try to be a satirical horror flick bogged down in the meaning of life with heavy syrup. There is no sub-textual message about how “we are them, and they are us.” Zombieland is a simple action-comedy, but great in its simplicity and it stays true to what it is.

zl2Opening credits and flashbacks aside, there are only five non-zombified humans seen throughout the movie, all of them with the simple goal of finding something that reminds them of a pre-zombie life. The girls, Wichita and Little Rock, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, are looking to visit an amusement park one last time. Woody Harrelson’s zombie-hunter, Tallahassee, simply wants to eat a Twinkie, and Jesse Eisenberg’s Columbus wants to find his “family.” Even the characters in the movie try to avoid sentimentality by calling each other by the names of the places they are from. This is not to say that there aren’t serious moments in the flick, but no more then your average action movie circa 1985. When dealing with death and survival you have to add in some semblance of emotion, here those moments are welcomed, short, sweet, and do give depth to these four survivors. At no point does the film feel cold or devoid of relatable themes, which serves the comedy, and separates it from empty action fare like Transformers 2 (I know, I know, let it go already… )

teaserWoody Harrelson gives one of his best comedic performances since Kingpin. He is a classical machismo “badass” but he never stops giving us that sense that he’s basically just being Woody Harrelson, himself, which is arguably even funnier. He of course becomes the big-brother figure of Jesse Eisenberg, who is nothing more then a weak, scared, little wussy. Tallahassee is older, cooler, a hero archetype and externalizes all of his anger, so basically they are the Odd Couple in a zombie flick. In fact this might be the biggest flaw of the whole film, its mediocre character premise. We’ve seen these characters before and it’s pretty obvious where everyone is going and why. Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese’s script side steps most chances to make the movie’s themes and characters unique, not to mention all the technical aspects of the zombies them selves. However, all the sidestepping leaves more room for the comedy and the action, which in the end sells the movie as a cohesive entertaining whole. The characters have depth, we’ve just seen these depths so many times before, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The run time even felt short. It’s a movie review cliché but the flick doesn’t “overstay its welcome” one bit. If I’m going down the road of review clichés then I might as well mention that the flick is “just plain fun,” nothing messy. There is passion behind the need to provide light, hilarious, balls-out action-horror entertainment, you got to love that. It’s a rarity in theaters these days. Add to that a pretty good soundtrack (Metallica, Mozart, Van Halen, and Willie Nelson) and a rather cool teaser poster (the one without photoshopped actors.)

If you go back, you’ll notice I said there are only five human characters in this movie, yet four main characters, sans the credits and flashbacks. Well, a certain celebrity makes what is possibly the best comedic film-cameo in the past decade. His entrance, his stay, and his exit are all absolute gold, to the point where I plan to see it again just to hear all the dialogue missed due to the entire theater gagging with laughter. If anyone spoils this cameo for you, punch them in the gut, they’ve done you a great disservice. In fact, I feel wrong even telling you there is a cameo at all… it’s that great. This is coming from someone who usually loathes cameos to his very core.

wwoodyIf it must be done, I’ll do it. Is Zombieland as good as or anything like, Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead? No. Not really. Zombies and comedy is where it ends. Perhaps one could say that Shaun makes fun of the slow-moving-Romero-approved zombies in much the same way as Zombieland does the fast-movers. However, Shaun is a romantic comedy with zombies (a Rom-Com-Zom), with a much tighter, better script and a smaller scope. Shaun even has a “we are them, and they are us” message, plus a dump truck full of homage weaved throughout, with fantastic editing and direction to boot. Zombieland is a straight up action comedy, a great one, but that’s about it… unless there is something I’m not seeing. So there Mr. Internet, I hope that satiates your craving to compare mildly similar films. Thanks for reading.

September 15, 2009

Nocturnal Admissions: Movie Review – ANTICHRIST

Filed under: Nocturnal Admissions,Reviews — Tags: , — UncaScroogeMcD @ 2:45 am

nocturnal-header.png

(Antichrist will be discussed in detail in this review.)

First off, Lars von Trier’s Antichrist is one of the best films of the year, if not the decade.

Not many are going to share this opinion, which is really a fact. Antichrist has once again sparked a current of reaction and rebellion to von Trier and his work, already always controversial. But it’s difficult to understand what exactly it is that people, or at least critics, have against von Trier. His public pronouncements seem to irritate them. His threshold-stretching films seem to make them uncomfortable, as do the similarly provocative films of Michael Haneke and Gaspar Noe, all of whom had films at the 2009 Cannes film festival. The general attitude seems to be that von Trier is something of a fraud, playing with ideas like an uncomprehending child with letter block toys. Antichrist isn’t the first film to inspire the opprobrium of the Cannes masses: the masterpiece L’aventura was jeered at Cannes, with the audience shouting “Cut! Cut!” at the film’s lengthy takes of Monica Vitta running down a hall and opening doors in search of her lover.

Assuming that these are indeed the charges against von Trier, they can be addressed simply. It is the role of art in part to make us uncomfortable, to show us the truth of life unflinchingly, though it is difficult to take. As T. S. Eliot wrote, human beings can only take so much reality. And if von Trier plays the arrogant buffoon in public in his interviews and sound bites, well, as D. H. Lawrence advised in his important book of criticism about American writers, trust the tale not the teller; look to the work of art itself, not what the artist says about it or himself. Which leads us to the charge of fraudulence. If von Trier is a “fraud” in the sense that he doesn’t take his own work seriously and enacts the role of filmmaker in order to undermine and toy with audience expectations, that is of little concern to the viewer. If the film is coherent, if it rings true, if it says about about the human condition, then it doesn’t matter what von Trier “thinks” about it or what his intentions were. We don’t really know the “intentions” of Shakespeare ““ he left no journals or interviews or other records of his opinions ““ but we have the evidence of the plays themselves, which contain a rounded view of life.

Antichrist is many things at once. It is a religious allegory (the “antichrist” of the title is nature itself), it is a horror film, it is a story of fairy tale simplicity and resonance, and it is a European art film in the Scandinavian mode of Ingmar Bergman, especially the Bergman of The Hour of the Wolf and The Silence; essentially it is a “two hander” in the manner of a Strindberg play. The film also has traces of Miike’s Audition, and even the Stephen King adaptation, Misery. Antichrist is provocative, but also extremely well written. To my mind, von Trier is under-appreciated as a writer. Dogville is one of the best crafted but also best written of films, a richly detailed, psychologically acute tale with a brilliant management of a complex idea within which numerous characters interact.

antichristgainsbourgAntichrist will remind horror buffs right off the bat of Nicolas Roeg’s Don’t Look Now. Both begin with the death of a child due to the inattention of parents, significantly in the case of Antichrist after the child witnesses uncomprehendingly the Primal Scene, though as the wife says later, “Freud is dead.” In von Trier’s thick imagery, death and orgasm are united. The rest of the movie profiles how that death haunts the surviving parents, with both supernatural and psychological elements.

In the case of Antichrist, the married couple are He (Willem Dafoe), a Seattle therapist, and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg), a student working on her thesis. The bulk of the film takes place at Eden, their cabin in the woods, where He takes her for a long therapy session to help her overcome her grief and her panic attacks. Not unlike Jane Campion’s Holy Smoke, this foray into into a private and isolated therapy session leads to disaster: the confrontation of a professional with the ethics of profession and the “patient” with the nature of her identity. von Trier hints at the ominous date with the forrest by frequently cutting to images of the woods, scored against unnerving music or sounds, long before they ever get there, as if the black forest is summoning them for a confrontation. Forests are often scary in fairy tales just as they are in real life. Like oceans, they are theaters in which living things fight for survival almost invisibly all around you. Certain horror films, such as The Blair Witch Project, capitalize on the inherent dangers and fearsomeness of the forest. Antichrist is very much in line with this theme in fiction, with an overlay of psychological questing. In the forest, He begins to experience the reality of nature or perhaps is simply experiencing visions of its grosser edge, of animals giving birth and of helpless creatures overcome by predators, illustrative of “nature red in tooth and claw.” These visions are the pole ends of what he thinks he is doing and what he is really doing to his wife, “giving birth” to her new identity free of panic attacks, but also dominating her and even preying on her psychologically. That their woodsy getaway is also called Eden links up with some religious concerns within the film (though von Trier skeptics might scoff that as an unbeliever he is using such themes cynically). This Adam and Eve are seeking to re-enter Eden and reshape themselves, with unEdenic results.

Like a Tarantino movie, Antichrist is divided in four chapters, plus a prologue and an epilogue. After the Prologue, in which their son Nick falls out of their apartment window to his death in the snow, there is Chapter 1, “Grief” in which He tries to wrest control of her therapy from the medical profession, Chapter 2, “Pain (Chaos Reigns),” in which they embark on the forest therapy retreat, Chapter 3, “Despair (Gynocide),” in which He learns some disturbing things about the way his wife treated their son, and Chapter 4 “The Three Beggars,” in which their psychological combat becomes physical. Finally, in the Epilogue, He is free of his wife, wandering the forest like a hunter-gatherer, comforted by the re-visitation of the three animals he has seen earlier, but then he is advanced upon by an ambiguous army of females, their faces blurred out.

Not only is Antichrist, which is about psychological states and physical actions that are difficult to take and difficult to watch ““ because it is dealing with facets of daily life that we spend most of our time suppressing ““ beautiful to look at, thanks to the photography by Anthony Dod Mantle, but its sound production is fascinating (Kristian Eidnes Andersen is credited as the supervising sound editor). The dialogue between He and She is sharp yet rich at the same time, with a strange echoey effect, as if they are always alone in a room. The film uses sound effectively, such as the constant plank-plank-plank of the acorns that fall on the tin roof of their cabin, an audio analog to their disenchantment with nature and Eden. In Returning to Eden, this Adma and Eve find that everything that was beautiful there is now hideous or difficult ““ in her words, dominated by “the sound of things about to die.” He at first takes a distanced, practical stance toward nature, but that doesn’t work for long.

antichristdefoeAt first He seems like the epitome of the compassionate husband, a rational man seeking to cure his wife and save their marriage. His approach to therapy, though, could be viewed as reductive as the Bay Watch Philosophy, which dictates that in every episode, someone with a phobia is encouraged to “face their fear.” The Bay Watch School of Therapy erases phobias through confrontation; von Trier’s existential humanism is less serene.

As the “therapy” continues, an underlying hostility of the wife to the husband emerges. But von Trier hinted at this tension early in the film when He is visiting She in a clinic. As they talk, the camera is first on her, then whip pans left to him for his response to her dialogue. von Trier uses this effect repeatedly in the film’s first chapter, to underscore the anger darts that She is throwing at him without his perception of them. These looks, those pans, suggest an underlying contempt for her husband, which suggests the overarching theme of the impossibility of love in such a world as the one we have.

antichristcoupleHer contempt comes to the foreground in the forrest when she begins to speak frankly to him about his various foibles, such as his distance from She and Nick “last summer.” But he learns strange things about her, too. For one thing, she was hobbling her son with the wrong shoes, a fact that shows up in an autopsy report he at first refuses to look at. Her weird mistreatment of her son anticipates her Misery style ball and chaining of He. She also keeps something called a Gynocide scrapbook. Also, the book she was writing becomes increasing erratic in its handwriting (one of two or three subtle allusions to the films of Stanley Kubrick). She also begins to say “crazy” things, though there is the possibility of a terrible truth to them. She asserts that “human nature is evil,” that “women do not control their own bodies, nature does,” that a “crying woman is a scheming woman,” that “nature is satan’s church.” She also speaks the enigmatic “when the Three Beggars arrive someone must die,” which may refer to the three small statues that Nick knocks down on his way to the window, or to the three animal visitations that He sees. In response, He says that she has betrayed her own thesis that she has been working on for so long, and he also tells her somewhat less convincingly that “good and evil have nothing to do with therapy.”

There are three key points that will probably make an unsympathetic audience member laugh or jeer. There is the “talking fox” moment (in the husband’s hallucination, he is confronted by a fox who says “Chaos reigns”), the “leg iron” scene (von Trier seems drawn to imagery of men and women hobbled by some large impediment that restricts their movement, as in Dogville), and there is the self-mutilation (which has analogs with numerous films that lots of people like, such as Bergman’s Cries and Whispers, but apparently if von Trier does it, the moment is outrageous, cynical and provocative). But the whole movie will seem stupid to those who don’t want to think deeply about life, or prefer superficial films to adult examinations of psychology and tragedy. It isn’t as if the film isn’t thoroughly thought through, unlike so many other recent films. The credits include researchers on misogyny, mythology and evil, anxiety, horror films, music, and theology.

Antichrist is dedicated to Andre Tarkovsky, but a real, though probably unintentional, guiding spirit is Alfred Lord Tennyson’s “In Memoriam A. H. H., 1850” which refers to a man “Who trusted God was love indeed / And love Creation’s final law / Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw / With ravine, shriek’d against his creed.” But I guess if you don’t like von Trier you won’t like poetry, either.

August 24, 2009

Nocturnal Admissions: Movie Review – WORLD’S GREATEST DAD

Filed under: Nocturnal Admissions,Reviews — Tags: , , — UncaScroogeMcD @ 4:01 am

nocturnal-header.png

[Spoiler alert: I discuss the plot of this film in detail.]

World's Greatest Dad

We’ve all seen the cup. “World’s Greatest Dad.” Michael Scott has a similar cup on his desk, one that reads “World’s Greatest Boss.” The genre is of course novelty shop humor, like one of those backyard chef’s barbecue bibs with funny sayings on them that offer slight mockery of the wearer as a kind of pre-apology for the food on the grill. In Bobcat Goldthwait’s new movie, World’s Greatest Dad, his fourth directorial effort after Shakes the Clown, Windy City Heat, and Sleeping Dogs Lie, the cup logo takes on a larger irony but ultimately takes the novelty humor of it very seriously indeed.

Robin Williams steps forward from his uncredited role as the mime teacher in Shakes to play Lance Clayton, an aspiring writer and high school poetry teacher. His class at school is under threat of cancellation, his ostensive girlfriend (Alexie Gilmore) seems to be more interested in their African-American colleague (Henry Simmons), and though he is an aspiring novelist, Clayton has never had anything published, while his colleague has a first time effort published in the New Yorker.

Robin Williams as the world's most ironic dad

Despite all his frustrations in love and work, at least Clayton has a family of sorts, consisting of his teen age son Kyle (Daryl Sabara). We need to talk about Kyle. He’s a bit of a problem. He has turned that teenage phase of parental hate and embarrassment into a geographic age. Kyle’s mockery of his father, from Clayton’s enthusiasm about socializing with his son to his taste in music, which seems to consist solely of Bruce Hornsby, is relentless. Like a gold-digger on a date, Kyle flirts with going to a movie with Clayton only to make him a new computer monitor instead, and then abandon him in the mall. Anything Kyle doesn’t like is “queer.” Kyle has no friends at school. Even the Goth girl laughs at him when an athlete punches him in the hallway. He hates music, finds movies lame, and prefers anal pornography, which is why he needs the new monitor ““ to better see the gross images he downloads off the World Wide Web. This is a kid who takes clandestine pix of his dad’s girlfriend’s panties under the restaurant table and who then dies masturbating to them while undergoing erotic asphyxiation. David Carradine would spin kick in his grave.

Father and son

Clayton is of course distressed to find the corpse of his son in such an unsavory situation. And he does what any parent would probably do ““ disguise the embarrassing death as a teen suicide, even going to the trouble of writing a suicide note. Unfortunately, the note is leaked to off the Internet, and in death the once despised Kyle becomes a James Dean like icon. In a twist not unlike a similar plot development in Atom Egoyan’s Adoration, Clayton exploits the interest in his son’s death to promote his own writing career. It begins innocently enough, as it probably did for “J. T. Leroy.” A thoughtful essay here, a poem there. But it develops into a full diary, forged by Clayton over a long weekend, a book that ends up on the bestseller list and lands Clayton a visit on a day time talk show. How can Clayton extricate himself from this dire situation? Like a Frank Capra hero, he makes a humiliating public confession, one that destroys his career and all the relationships he forged while operating under the ruse.

At first, I didn’t quite know what to make of World’s Greatest Dad. I saw it under certain distracting conditions, and on a disc whose playback seemed video-y and mis-formatted. Parts seemed good (the enjoyable satire of some of the students), parts seemed bad (the Goth girl’s laughter didn’t ring true, but was of course necessary for later plot mechanisms). Also, I am not the biggest Robin Williams fan in the world (though he turned out to be fine in the role). But as it happens, the film stuck with me like few others seen this year, probably because it seemed to strike deeply and uncompromisingly at an array of male fears and phobias.

For one thing, Dad confronts a little discussed minor aspect of American life: sometimes parents just don’t like the kids they’ve sired. It’s an issue that forms the basis for the popular 2003 novel, We Need to Talk About Kevin, by Lionel Shriver. In that tale, parents find that they have spawned a high school mass murderer. That’s an extreme slice of a probable, if only occasional, reality, that a parent can look at a child and wonder where they hell they came from. It is, of course, only one of the 10 million fears that parents have, but Goldthwait, who also wrote the script, mines with over-the-top nimbleness. Misanthropes welcome here.

Sexual threats

For another, Goldthwait is the American poet of sexual humiliation. He evinces exquisitely honed gradations of embarrassment, frustration, and jealousy. Clayton’s co-teacher girlfriend has an inexplicable interest in him, but a supremely explicable if unstated interest in the African-American teacher, who is a single dad with a good con going, unconscious or not. There is a perfect moment when, at the nadir of Clayton’s public humiliation after confessing to the fraud, the girlfriend runs to Option No. 2 and embraces him while both shoot daggers at Clayton. A masochist couldn’t ask for a better set-up. It’s a moment worthy of those other masterpieces of sexual humiliation, Malice, The Palm Beach Story, Shampoo, and Blue Velvet.

Still, for all Dad‘s occasional searing wit and tireless thumping on some of our deepest fears, the viewer still might wonder why American performers who otherwise appear to be successful prefer to dwell on failure and unhappiness and leave their protagonists with little if any hope at the end? Goldthwait has been a comic since he was 15, has been married (and divorced) with two children, and then dated Nikki Cox, his co-star on the sit-com Unhappily Ever After. Since then has had a seemingly successful career directing for television. For all intents and purposes, he has achieved a great deal. So then why does he mine childhood feelings and male neuroses? What does he get out of it and what are we supposed to apprehend?

Subterranean homesick blues

If you thought about it long enough, you could posit the theory that comics distort the world. Think of Woody Allen. Way too many guys in the 1970s seeking a relationship took Allen’s comic persona as a role model, and operated under the delusion that women might actually like self-deprecating failures because such a male might seem honest. So while ordinary shlubs are flopping with chicks all over the country, the real life Woody Allen was dating models and actresses. In mocking the conventions of movie romance Allen unintentionally unleashed a new breed of male, programed to fail. Allen is neither the first nor the last. From Chaplin to Judd Apatow, comedians have trafficked in despair, yearning, failure. Comedies are usually, really, tragedies, often with grim or at least poignant endings. As genres, both tragedies and comedies deal in calamities, with tragedy, broadly speaking, focusing on the noble, and comedy on the quotidian. In Dad, though, Goldthwait has a weird, hybrid aim. He finds that true comedy, not just satire of current social conventions, is located in the deepest recesses of our primeval minds, in our obvious and shared but unstated fears, and treats a comic tale of ordinary people as if it is a high tragedy. Like the recent Observe and Report, World’s Greatest Dad is a comedy that isn’t really a comedy, but the marketers have to call it something. It’s an interesting experiment, if it is intentional (and not just my faulty interpretation), and shows ambitions far beyond . World’s Greatest Dad may not attract the cult following of Shakes the Clown, but it may will live on for those viewers who find it an unusually true comedy

August 17, 2009

Nocturnal Admissions: Orphan ““ Probably the Best Movie You Haven’t Bothered to See Yet, Thanks to the Critics

Filed under: Nocturnal Admissions,Reviews — Tags: — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:30 am

nocturnal-header.png

I think I may have just about had it with reviewers.

There's something wrong with the reviewers of this film

We, all of us, have our general gripes about movie reviews as well as a constellation of betes noirs among the reviewing community who can drive us crazy if we let them. When I was a kid, there was a reviewer for the city’s main daily who basically just offered a plot summary, culled, some believed, from the movie’s press kit, since this reviewer was famous for falling asleep during advance screenings. This narcoleptic approach to movies rendered the writer utterly useless as a consumer reporter, the primary reason for a reviewer’s existence. But some of the writers who stay awake are worse. They can be shortsighted, middlebrow, cranky, and write with some inexplicable chip on their shoulder.

Don’t get me wrong. I love reviews. I read them the way most of my friends scan box scores. They have been greatly important to me over the years, offering lessons (not that I’ve necessarily learned them) in clarity, as well as being founts of unexpected wisdom. But every once in a while you bump up against a national lock step reaction against a film that is inexplicable, a stance so dispiriting and surprising that it makes you re-think what reviewing is and why people do it. Such a film and its critical reception for me was the recent Orphan, and the phalanx of critics lined up against it.

Let me say right off that not only is Orphan a superior entertainment, but it raises interesting cultural questions. I rate it up there with The Hurt Locker as one of the best films I’ve sen this year.

No one, it appears, agrees with me. I won’t name names ““ you can find them easily enough at Rotten Tomatoes ““ but the critical community joined arms and moved in lock step against this film. A few writers set the tone, and the rest of the world followed suit.

Part of me understands their reaction. The first 15 minutes of Orphan were unpromising, with its pop out scares and dream sequences. But I kept my eyes open and grew to see that Orphan is a fascinating sociological document and a superior, intelligent entertainment.

Does mother know best?

Since you probably haven’t seen Orphan, here’s the plot summary. Kate Coleman (Vera Famiga) is a mother of two with a troubled past. Her career as a pianist and teacher is derailed, she’s had drinking problems, and she may have been the cause of her surviving daughter’s deafness (either me or the movie isn’t clear about this). She also has a son, but a third child died at or before birth. Kate and her architect husband John (Peter Sarsgaard), in the wake of all this domestic tragedy, decide to adopt. A visit to an orphanage results in the couple welcoming home Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), an Eastern European 13-year-old of preternatural talent and maturity. The son takes an instant dislike to the girl; but she forms an alliance with her deaf sister; meanwhile at school, Esther’s mean girl enemies start having accidents. Though the whole thing was Kate’s idea, she begins to have doubts about Esther and the adoption, especially since Esther has a knack for twisting the knife in the vulnerable woman’s psyche. John is unable to see what Kate is talking about, and Kate’s shrink also takes Esther’s side. At a certain point in the plot, the viewer is let in on the truth of Kate’s worries, and the rest of the film is a race to see who will prevail, Kate and her maternal instinct, or the unnaturally observant and seductive Esther.

Esther is old for her age ...

This is pulp material and largely preposterous, but within those limitations, if such they be, Orphan (credited to writers Alex Mace and David Leslie Johnson, and directed by House of Wax auteur Jaume Collet-Serra ) is a rather fascinating scrutinizing of real concerns that people have. The critics couldn’t see this. For one thing, they viewed it as a horror film, when in fact, though it has the trappings of a thriller, in reality it is more of a old fashioned “women’s picture” a weepie about a put upon mother. The film is wholly behind the attitudes and experiences of Kate. It takes her side. It views the world from her perspective, so much so that we find ourselves as mad at John for not seeing the obvious as Kate is. The opening sequence of the film is a meditation on the horrors of childbirth; not everyone has such fears of this beautiful, biological act, but enough people do to that they will be particularly freaked out by certain medical moments in those first few minutes.

And we all know how hyper-protective and micro-managing today’s upwardly mobile parents are. Orphan preys on a fear that families have of The Other (whatever that other may be) invading the home and taking it over, casting out the mother and seducing the father. I don’t know how real such fears are, but any social class that obsessed with the minutia of their children’s day to day lives must have a bunch of irrational ““ and maybe even rational ““ worries. Orphan also utilizes whatever worries that westerners might have about Russia. Though perhaps it is not been publicized as being as scary as its old incarnation, the Soviet Union, that isn’t for want of trying by some governments. Russia seems now to be richly competent in oil barony, corrupt politicians, gangsters ““ and now bad seeds.

... in ways you'll never guess.

Just on the purely practical level of plot mechanics, Orphan has one of the great shock twists of modern cinema, one that the writers, when they came up with it, must have realized was pure gold. But getting to that twist is a journey of discomfort and creepiness for the average viewer. At one point, you wonder where in the hell this thing is going. When it gets there, you can only, or at least this viewer can only, shake the head in wondrous appreciation. Yes, of course, to the “mature” scribes of our national publications, such pleasures in the craft of storytelling are to be dismissed, because they are vulgar and childish, and bespeak a sick and twisted mind. Fie on them, I say, as Stephen King might also do. If good novels these days aspires to the addictive attractiveness of children’s literature, then our best films are rooted in fairy tales, Saturday afternoon creature features, and old time serials. This doesn’t make them dumb. They don’t have to be. But it suggests that the visceral and the intellectual make a great couple.

Movie reviewing is in a state of crisis. No one reads newspapers anymore, and few people take established print reviewers as seriously as they used to now that anyone with an internet service provider and a Typepad account can “be” a movie reviewer. As papers continue to fail, old guard print scribes are let go, and this is viewed in some quarters as a loss to the national conversation about art. Those few writers who remain, at least within the New York presses, attract the ire of readers across the globe, as suggested by the recent controversy surrounding Armond White and his review of District 9 , well covered by Roger Ebert at his blog and the people responding in the talkback. The weepy sentimentality about the death of newspapers is a bit paradoxical when you think of all the stories that journalism hasn’t covered over the years, or how difficult it was for the Washington Post to keep at the Watergate story when the rest of the nation’s press ignored it. Perhaps newspapers so derelict in their duty deserve to die. The same goes for movie reviewers. Instead of spearheading new and interesting ideas and films, they bring preconceived notions and use the great grand middle brow as their fallback position. The problems surrounding White have more to do with his not going along with the prevailing sentiments about movies (and the reactions of readers on Ebert’s site are so filled with logical fallacies as to make one grieve for our educational system ““ just because “everyone” likes something doesn’t make it good) but the real problem among reviewers is close-mindedness and conventional thinking. Most of them aren’t reviewing the movies in front of their eyes, but the audiences on the other side of the breakfast table. Conventional wisdom says that regular audiences won’t like such a thing as Orphan, so the reviewers, thinking that they are anticipating the public taste, won’t either. Thus are readers and film aficionados in search of spirited, inspirational, and unconventional writing about unexpectedly interesting films rendered the true orphans.

August 14, 2009

The Greatest Movie Blog Of All Time: The Time Traveler’s Wife & RIP Mr. Hughes

Filed under: Reviews,The Greatest Movie Blog of All Time — Tags: , , , — UncaScroogeMcD @ 3:51 am

greatestmovieblog.png

THE TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE

Many women accuse their husbands or boyfriends of being emotionally unavailable at one time or another.  “The Time Traveler’s Wife” is feminine sci-fi that postulates what if he had a really good excuse?

Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) is a great guy, a girl’s dream.: sensitive, smart, caring and attentive but has one major flaw: he just disappears from time to time.  “Yeah, it’s a problem” his wife Claire (Rachel McAdams) says nonchalantly to a concerned friend at one point in the film.  The time traveling “problem” for Henry started when he was in a car accident with his mother.  Different things seem to trigger the jumps such as stress, alcohol or even television, though none of these really seem to make a difference.  Henry has no control over when he’ll jump nor does he have control as to where or when his destination will be.

timetravel

The screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin echoes his previous films, “My Life” and “Ghost”.  It’s a tender love story that deals with impossible what-ifs and impending loss.  It’s a well made film that never gets boring.  It’s rather clever and director Robert Schwentke (“Flightplan”) deftly handles Henry’s time jumping often with humor and frustration and never feels forced.

The problem is, there isn’t a compelling case for Henry and Claire to be the great loves of each others lives.  Claire first meets Henry when she is a little girl and he appears to her naked (when you time travel you inconveniently don’t take your clothes with you which leads to a lot of petty theft and embarrassing situations for Henry.)  He appears to her many times in this meadow, she learns to leave a set of clothes for him, and at her young age he becomes her ideal man.  But what does she become for him?  He says she makes him feel “safe” and never alone.  Well, sure, okay, but what do these two have in common?  What do they like to do on a Saturday night?  Do they laugh at the same jokes?  These questions are never dealt with any satisfaction.

Still, it’s a refreshingly original film and definitely worth checking out.

JOHN HUGHES (1950 to 2009)

John Hughes tragically died last week of heart attack in New York City while taking a morning walk, shocking the entertainment world and no doubt inspiring many John Hughes Film Festivals in living rooms across the globe.

He was the Barry Sanders of filmmaking, he left in his prime and everyone hoped he would make a come back (Breakfast Club 2, Ferris Bueller’s Next Day Off, or 32 Candles even.)  Okay, maybe more accurately we all hoped he would return like Terrence Malick after a 20 year hiatus like he never left off.  But John Hughes just wasn’t that kind of filmmaker, he said his piece and was happy to walk away.

CNSPhoto-John-Hughes

As a kid growing up in the northwest suburbs of Chicago in the 1980’s, the films of John Hughes had a larger resonance for me and those I grew up with.  Hughes was a dedicated Chicagoan who was insistent on filming many of popular films in and around the Chicago area.  Great writers are great observers and Hughes was an exceptional observer of the human condition.

Most remember Hughes as the voice of the mid-80’s teenager.  To say his best films are about teenage angst is myopic and blatantly however ignores two his best works: the always popular at Thanksgiving holiday, “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles” and the tragically underrated “She’s Having A Baby”.)

No other filmmaker has had a run quite like Hughes.  Aside from the films he directed in rapid fire fashion (which I’ll get to), he wrote “Mr. Mom”, the “National Lampoon’s Vacation” films, “Pretty In Pink”, “Some Kind Of Wonderful”, “Home Alone”, “101 Dalmations”, and “The Great Outdoors”.  Those films alone are fairly impressive but from 1984 to 1989, Hughes wrote and directed SIX films that are truly memorable.

Sixteen Candles (1984)

“That’s why they call them crushes. If they were easy, they’d call them something else.” — Samantha’s Dad

The film that put Hughes on the map as the auteur of teen angst in the 1980’s.  “Sixteen Candles” follows a day in the life of girl whose family forgets her sixteenth birthday while planning her older sister’s wedding.  It’s everything we’d come to expect from Hughes’s films: funny, honest, and heartfelt.

The Breakfast Club (1985)

“We’re all pretty bizarre. Some of us are just better at hiding it, that’s all.” — Andrew

This film was ranked the #1 high school movie of all time by Entertainment Weekly.  It works because, unlike many films, it’s simple.  Hughes understood that you could say a lot about high school by breaking it down into the core cliques: the brains, the athletes, the basket cases, the princesses, and the criminals.  Then take a representative of each one of those social classes and throw them in all day Saturday detention and you have the makings of a great ensemble film, and “The Breakfast Club” was one of the best.  It would never have worked if you had two brains or two jocks or two criminals.  The film teaches us that while we may all seem different on the outside, if you separate us from our cliques, we realize that in the human condition we are quite similar.  Hughes understood that and that’s why this film is accessible to teens and adults alike.

Weird Science (1985)

“It’s a really long story Chet. Gary and I were messing around with the computer Friday night. We decided to make a woman and we did and she went crazy and she messed up the whole house.” — Wyatt

Hughes supposedly wrote this film in 2 days and at times it feels like it.  But only a really talented director could make this preposterous plot work.  It’s a complete male fantasy: create the perfect woman with a model’s body and guy sensibilities.  And against all odds it completely works.  To me, it’s a film that suggests we learn to embrace imperfections in others.

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)

Life moves pretty fast. You don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.  — Ferris Bueller

This is my favorite of Hughes’s teen films because of it’s carpe diem ethic and unwavering optimism.  Plus, as a kid growing up in the suburbs of Chicago, I’ve taken more than a few days off in that wonderful city.

AFA 196402

In college I was asked to join a panel to discuss the film’s 10th anniversary and it’s impact.  At the time, and I think this still holds true, I observed that Cameron is really the main character of this story.  Cameron is the hero, the one who faces true adversity and inner demons coming out a changed, confident man at the end of the day.  It’s a story about friendship to me.

Also, this film was supposedly written in 6 days.  Combine that with the 2 days Hughes used to write “Weird Science” and he had a pretty productive week.

Planes, Trains, & Automobiles (1987)

“You wanna hurt me? Go right ahead if it makes you feel any better. I’m an easy target. Yeah, you’re right, I talk too much. I also listen too much. I could be a cold-hearted cynic like you… but I don’t like to hurt people’s feelings. Well, you think what you want about me; I’m not changing. I like… I like me. My wife likes me. My customers like me. ‘Cause I’m the real article. What you see is what you get. ” — Del Griffith

The first film directed by Hughes that featured adults and adult situations and to me, he doesn’t miss a beat.  As I said before, this is now a cult classic that gets a lot of spins on DVD players around Thanksgiving.  It’s relatable in that we’ve all been stranded somewhere at some point while traveling and we just want to get home.  I’ve always seen this as a film about patience.

She’s Having A Baby (1988)

“And in the end, I realized that I took more than I gave, I was trusted more than I trusted, and I was loved more than I loved. And what I was looking for was not to be found but to be made.” — Jake Briggs

This is my favorite of Hughes’s films (edging out “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”) mostly because it’s one that not a lot of people have seen.  I’m a fan of the hidden gem and this is one.  It’s a remarkable achievement in writing and filmmaking.  It’s one of Kevin Bacon’s best performances, one of Alec Baldwin’s earliest, and it’s hard to imagine Elizabeth McGovern didn’t skyrocket into the stratosphere off this film.  This was, in my opinion, the apex of Hughes’s directing talent.  Hop on YouTube and search for “This Woman’s Work” by Kate Bush, you’ll find the montage that sums up this film in the third act and if you don’t get moist in the eyes then you’re dead in the heart.

I left out two other films that Hughes directed, “Uncle Buck” (1989) and “Curly Sue” (1991).  Both are fine films, but they also showed Hughes was running out of gas a bit.  Perhaps he blurted out what he wanted to say too fast and could never recover, though we always hoped he would just one more time.

He was a unique writer and an underrated director (so few screenwriters understand film is a visual medium, but Hughes did.)  And his contributions to music (introducing America to British Pop for example) should not be underestimated.

The great thing about film is that it’s forever.  Even though John Hughes has left us, his films live on.  Every year a new generation of teenager will discover “Sixteen Candles”, “The Breakfast Club”, and “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”.  And every year a weary traveler will reminisce about how their journey home was in some way like “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.”Â  And I hope expectant fathers discover “She’s Having A Baby”.

Rest in Peace, Mr. Hughes.

Brett Deacon will twitter (twitter.com/brettdeacon) the punchline to Bender’s joke about the blonde woman, the poodle, and the two foot salami.  Maybe.

Trailer Park: DISTRICT 9 and THE GOODS: LIVE HARD. SELL HARD.

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

And now, you can follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

Item #1

geek

(Consider this a retweet)

Geek Monthly.

The magazine graciously let me write another piece for their publication and I couldn’t be more thankful. This entry, off my last one which chronicled the hosts of Attack of the Show, explored the events of the documentarians who made the film Don’t You Forget About Me.

Chronicling the films of John Hughes (rest-in-peace) and using a series of interviews with the players who helped bring the stories to life, the article in Geek Monthly delves into where John Went, what made his movies so enduring and why, oddly enough, his films were savaged in the press by critics when they came out.

The article really delves into the process of just making a documentary, much less one about John Hughes, and what you find out along the way to making a finished film. There are some surprises with who didn’t want to participate in the making of this movie but there is more than enough insight into John’s processes and picks of who would eventually become Long Duk Dong, Jake Ryan and The Princess from THE BREAKFAST CLUB.

If you happen to see the magazine at your local bookstore, grocery store, newsstand, wherever finer publications are sold, please pick up a copy.

Item #2

picture1Once again we’ve got passes to see a sneak preview of a film that’s about to drop soon. This time it’s for the new Ang Lee film, TAKING WOODSTOCK.

The screening will take place here in Arizona, Tempe to be exact, at the Tempe Marketplace on Thursday, August 27th. For those interested please shoot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@Yahoo.com and I’ll get you hooked up.

For those who want to know about the film here is a synopsis:

Academy Award-winning director Ang Lee tells the story of the Greenwich Village interior designer who inadvertently helped to spark a cultural revolution by offering the organizers of the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival boarding at his family’s Catskills motel. The year is 1969. Change is brewing in America, and the energy in Greenwich Village is palpable. Elliot Tiber (Demetri Martin) is working as an interior designer when he discovers that a high-profile concert has recently lost its permit from the nearby town of Wallkill, NY. Emboldened by the burgeoning gay rights movement yet still tied to tradition in the form of the family business — a Catskills motel called the El Monaco — Tiber phones producer Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) at Woodstock Ventures and offers boarding to the harried concert crew. Later, as the Woodstock Ventures staff begans arriving in droves, half a million concertgoers make their way to Max Yasgur’s (Eugene Levy) adjacent farm in White Lake, NJ, to witness the counterculture celebration that would ultimately make history as one of the greatest events in the annals of rock & roll. Imelda Staunton, Emile Hirsch, Liev Schreiber, and Paul Dano co-star.

Item #3

About a year and a half ago I interviewed Dicky Barrett of The Mighty Mighty Bosstones. Since then and from hearing Adam Carolla’s podcasts and seeing his movie THE HAMMER where he uses their signature hit “Rascal King” as a musical cue for both I was on a feeding frenzy for some live material. This band is simply on point when they perform live and I have to thank Scott, a much bigger fan of the band and of The Dropkick Murphys than I could be. He has royally hooked me up with some live concerts and I let him know I would plug his YouTube channel for his good deed of the day. So, if you’re into Dropkick Murphys or Mighty Mighty Bosstones please patronize his channel located here: youtube.com/LambruscoKid Huzzah, kind sir.

DISTRICT 9 – REVIEW

district9_poster-689x1024I remember my first time learning what satire was in college.

For a long time I was under the deluded impression that satire had to be funny, comedic or somehow gut-busting but I read “Dante’s Inferno” by Dante Alighieri and was schooled in the art of veiling the real world in a thin cloak of fiction. DISTRICT 9 isn’t as veiled but, to its credit, the bludgeoning of its message of apartheid from director Neill Blomkamp is one that is a first in some way for this science fiction tale of aliens who have come to earth and have, to some, overstayed their welcome.

The film’s use of pseudo documentary storytelling, using the absolutely charming newcomer Shartlo Copley as the movie’s emotional core, is certainly not new but what immediately becomes clear is that every penny of the film’s purported $30 million dollar price tag ended up on the screen. The fantastical physical centerpiece of the circular mothership of the aliens who inhabit the Johannesburg slum where they have been marginalized and physically contained is massively impressive. There is an attention to detail to presenting this story visually to us that many other science fiction films would rather gloss over. Neill intersperses interview footage of residents who live among the prawns, a derogatory term cleverly ascribed to the aliens, and that use alone brings a heft to the story that helps to elevate the film’s well-crafted world.

As for the aliens themselves, it has to be noted, they are deserving of every technical accolade one could hoist onto their digitally created shoulders. Blomkamp not only developed a species with their own ways of walking, talking and moving but he did so without you ever questioning for a moment that what you were seeing was not there. Blomkamp takes their development beyond just being used in darkened corridors or in the recesses of a post-apocalyptic environment (read here: every ALIENS movie) , he uses them out in the open, out under the sun. It is his use of light that makes these aliens seem more real than any other alien we’ve had up on screen since MEN IN BLACK. By integrating these creatures in the atmosphere and landscape that we ourselves move in that creates the kind of believability that sets this movie into motion.

Another element that adds another layer to a film that feels more verite than it does a science fiction film is having an organization like MNU. Standing for Multi-National United, the force tasked with the mission of policing the aliens who have been interred, for lack of a better verb, in these shanty towns where the aliens have learned how to exist just as any marginalized member of society would if group and herded together like refugees seems all too real in their execution of getting this settlement moved elsewhere. Led by Copley, as the bumbling and buffoonish man-in-charge named Wikus, the group goes out heavily armored, heavily armed and ready to displace body parts if needed. There is a tension there and in anyone else’s hands this is where a film could bog itself down using common tropes or hackneyed plots having to do with an alien’s otherness, rather, here things are just accepted as normal but different; this is the power of Blomkamp’s mining from his past in this culture. DISTRICT 9 also elevates itself by incorporating actual interview footage with the residents of Johannesburg, describing what these aliens are doing to their city and want to see this scourge of cat food eating miscreants gone from their city. Wikus acts as a buffer between both the aliens and the community that fears and despises them but he does so by being vulnerable. In the opening sequences he is shown as a man almost unable to put on his own microphone but, one element that cannot be overlooked, is his genteel manor.

Wikus is a man who may not possess the kind of brute mentality that his other co-workers at MNU share but he has a level of sophistication and wide-eyed optimism that the process of things will work itself out and to believe in that process which help make him a man that we can believe. He doesn’t want to see anyone hurt in the process and as he starts serving eviction notices to the aliens in District 9, as preposterous as it is, we accept it because everyone is as well. The issue I take contention with, however, is that since Wikus is our emotional core and our touchstone as the man who crosses that line between man and alien there should have been more to latch onto as the film progresses. In pseudo documentaries that are good you get the quiet moments between the subject and the interviewer which help to enrich the action on the screen. In a film like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT which used single person cameras to a great advantage you became invested in them when we had moments of meaningful 1:1 time. Meaningful 1:1 time. Some rube like Wikus looking dumb on camera does not help to anchor the film and, I would posit, hurts the emotional impact of what happens to the man. Everything that does occur to him after being exposed to some leaking gaseous material from an alien canister as the MNU look for contraband in a ramshackle tenement as they serve their eviction notices could have had a richer resonance if there was just more to know about this man.

Instead, what happens is that Blomkamp takes all that he builds up in the 1st part of the film, giving you effects that seem flawlessly added to the scenes of the picture without ever drawing attention to itself, a masterstroke of directing, and pumps in the rest of the budget to give you a sensory thrill ride that squarely puts this film into science fiction territory. Blomkamp razzles and dazzles with weaponry, the likes of which have never been seen before, and visual delights that make you absolutely affirm that every penny of the budget they had ended up on that silver screen. The final and penultimate moment in this film, that almost seems like a fireworks display’s final moments, explode with the kind of action that make you feel great to be a geek. You will find yourself clapping and cheering as the plot unravels itself, the final moments providing a sad and reflective guide as to what it means to be human.

Sure, there are some basic manipulative tricks that are employed throughout the film as Blomkamp tries to buy some favor and sympathy with the audience but it should be said that this movie is a delight and should be seen as the best way to end the fireworks of this summer movie season. Anything else that comes after it will seem like sparklers compared to this.

THE GOODS: LIVE HARD, SELL HARD – REVIEW

goods_live_hard_sell_hardThis movie deserves a place.

It deserves a place right next to MISS MARCH, in fact. I usually try and avoid superlatives whenever possible as even when I think I’ve seen the greatest, best, most or fantastical thing “evar” I like to take a minute and step back, reevaluate. 9 times out of 10 I usually back off and just give something a real positive spin, something that is congratulatory and best expresses the delight I felt at seeing the film I appreciated enough to write about glowingly.

THE GOODS is, perhaps, the 2nd worst film I’ve seen all year.

I assume that if I was 13 years-old and wanted a movie chock full of awful, embarrassing humor that is executed with the surgical precision as a doctor monitoring Michael Jackson’s vital signs on the last night of his life this would be the film for me. However, since I really believed that a movie that boasts Jeremy Piven, Ving Rhames, David Koechner, Ed Helms, Tony Hale, Craig Robinson (who is also in MISS MARCH), Ken Jeong and Rob Riggle as a 10 year-old trapped in an old person’s body due to a “thyroid” condition I thought this movie would absolutely be a lock for one of the funniest films of the summer just judging by the level of talent. From THE HANGOVER to The Daily Show to KNOCKED UP you have some of the best comedic actors working today but seeing how insipid the comedic situations were that made the final cut you almost find yourself wondering who would think that this was a film that had potential.

Some of the best comedies ever made had premises that, on paper, just sound like it could be a 4 minute Saturday Night skit. 3 guys wake up in a Las Vegas hotel room without any idea of what happened the night before sounds pretty basic but at least that film was able to harness the power of those in it and, as a result, THE HANGOVER is a film everyone is talking about this summer. It is my hope that no one talks about THE GOODS beyond this weekend.

Describing the plot of this film would be just as infantile and lame as the script itself but, in a nutshell, Jeremy Piven plays a guy who can move a whole lot of cars in a very small time frame. He surrounds himself with his 3 other partners in crime, Koechner, Kathryn Hahn, Rhames, who all seem intent on tossing out bon mots, “Querque”  is referenced a lot and we aren’t let in on the big reveal of what “Querque” is supposed to mean until the final moments of this film as “Querque” seems to hold something grave and deep but “Querque” is only an excuse, it seems, to have these actors try and get a new catchphrase into the lexicon of those who scan these films for 1 liners they can share with their friends, co-workers or wear on a shirt they can pick up at Hot Topic.

From an absolutely excruciating and forced romance between Piven and Jordana Spiro, the daughter of the dealer Piven is called in to help “move some metal” (Ooo! Another catch phrase! Collect them all and see what sticks!), that feels more forced and unbelievable than trusting in the fact that when all the salespeople beat the ever loving hell out of Ken Jeong, the fists and haymakers flying like a good gang up should look like, as the commercial gives away, Ken is simply able to go out and move some metal. (See how easy it is to incorporate these into your daily vocabulary?)

The movie seems less interested in telling a funny story than it is trying to go for a laugh that is unearned and is certainly not deserved. Making Ed Helms a walking freak factory of arrested development, he’s trapped in the idea that he is going to make it in a 3 person boy band but sells high priced imports across town, is an awful decision as making him an overtly obnoxious and unwitting rube only lessens the effect of whatever you have in store for him and what’s in store just helps to a) make Ed look pathetic, sad and delusional and b) not smart for taking a role where his comedic talent for being subtle isn’t tapped. If you’re a director looking to garner the best from your actors wouldn’t it follow you cast people based on their talents? Ed is wasted as is Ken and everyone else in this movie. Ving has to say lines that I would be hard pressed to say didn’t make him cringe but I am sure the paycheck helped, regardless of the fact that he seemed equally ridiculous and pitiful as his counterparts.

The writing should be the most important thing about a movie. Just because a premise sounds weird doesn’t mean there isn’t a goldmine of material to be mined by those who know what they’re looking for but this movie seems to have a blatant disregard for everyone trying to act in it as, separately and in other films, most everyone is capable of work I revisit regularly. It’s insulting not only to their reputations but to the audiences who are unfortunate enough to have to sit through this weak exercise in bad filmmaking.

There is a moment at the end of this film after we find out whether Jeremy Piven is able to save an auto dealer from going under where, and I promise I won’t spoil this to the <2% of you still reading and still want to see this film that the UN should publicly condemn and consider off-limits under their torture protocols,  a famous actor makes a cameo and gives the camera a middle finger for reasons unknown. As I sat there looking at the big, extended middle digit I immediately thought that there isn’t a better punctuation mark out there today than that finger, pointed right back at that screen. This movie dishonors the laughs and genuine funniness of TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS.

Enjoy THE GOODS. I hope it ends up holding a special place for you this year as well.

July 27, 2009

Trailer Park: (500) DAYS OF SUMMER and a $50,000 Gift Card

Filed under: Contests,Reviews,Trailer Park — admin @ 2:29 am

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

McCafe MY Day – REDUX

mccafe

You are not seeing double, my friends, this is indeed a reprint from last week. I am all about winning this thing and need a last weekend push to try and snag the big prize.

How often have I asked anything of you? Not much, not many, not very often.

I need something from many of you: votes.

What’s in it for you is lots and lots and lots of movies and, if I actually win this thing, 15 films.

What happened was that I was futzing at home on my computer one afternoon after hearing that McDonald’s was going to be entering the coffee market. I don’t like coffee, I eschew everything coffee, I can’t relate to anyone anywhere when they talk about their morning fix and I certainly don’t understand the long queues that build up for people waiting in line to get that brown beverage.

But what I can and do love is my iced mochas.

That’s a drink I understand kicking down a door to get at if the time’s right.

So, I found out that McDonald’s was offering iced mochas and a short time after I procured one I entered their McCafeYourDay contest. The contest wanted to know why you deserved to have your day, essentially, made better with $50,000.

Well, I was coming off some fairly heady financial woes, those of you who have been affected by the recession know how much this thing has messed around with more than just one aspect of your life, and just wrote a passionate mini-missive about why I thought I deserved to win. They wanted a picture to go along with it and I uploaded one at the same time when I entered.

I forgot about the contest a couple weeks after sending my entry in. Didn’t even give it a second thought.

Lo and behold, a couple of weeks ago I received a FedEx in the mail letting me know I was a finalist in this contest. I had forgotten about what the prize was, forgotten about what I wrote and, just a few days ago, was on a call letting me know that my story was was going to compete with 4 others at Mcdonaldsmccafeyourday.com. I was just as shocked as anyone and was caught completely unaware that I even made it through the gauntlet of over 12,000 people who entered this contest.

Voting goes from now until July 26th and you can use every e-mail in your arsenal once every 24 hours. The longer version of my story will be up at azcentral.com this weekend and I’ll be profiled in the local Scottsdale Republic here if you happen to live in the Scottsdale area. It’s a sappy story, one that’s a little too sensitive for me to copy and paste in here but here is what I want to offer anyone who is willing to toss a few votes my way.

I am giving away a cinematic cavalcade of DVDs to one person who can send me a screenshot of their vote confirmation from their e-mail box. I will enter every screenshot for a drawing to get this pile. There is incentive galore at your fingertips so I hope if you have a church group, a room full of shut-ins with access to a computer or an honest way of spreading the word I will not only appreciate it but I will reward the effort with a glorious compendium of free movies.

Go straight here (http://www.mcdonaldsmccafeyourday.com/) and help me win this thing. Even if you think I suck, shoot a vote my way and help out the cause, please?

Again, I don’t ask much but I’m just looking for a vote. After you read the entry you’ll see what you would be helping to do.

If you win the bushel of movies here is what’s included in the bonanza:

DEATH RACE 2000, BLINDNESS, THE MUMMY 3, PINOCCHIO on Blu-ray, BOLT, WALL-E, CAPRICA, BURN AFTER READING, THE MINDSCAPE OF ALAN MOORE, A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY, ROLE MODELS, WANTED, CHOCOLATE, SWING VOTE and HELLBOY II.

Good luck to everyone”¦ (And thanks to all those who have already voted and sent in their screenshots. I appreciate every, single, vote.)

COMIC-CON AUGHT 9

comicconSo, wi-fi sucks and so does every hotspot that wants a 10 spot to log on to their already crappy service. Before heading out for my Friday activities (1:1s with a mess off great people and panels that I hope are worth waiting for) I wanted to let you know that you can follow my stream of consciousness through my Twitter strteam: STIPP. Some of the highlights from yesterday include:

Seeing DISTRICT 9 – A fantastic science fiction film of the highest order and one that will will not disappoint anyone looking for a wild story intermeshed with some stunning visuals. Not to be missed.

Talking to Mike Doughtery of TRICK R TREAT. From being the writer of X2 to fashioning a film that looks to embrace Halloween’s essence he was incredibly engaging and it will be shared right here in the near future.

TRON 2 press conference. Talking to Jeff “The Dude” Bridges was a thrill if only tempered by the fact that it was a moment shared with a few dozen other reporters.

Tim Burton of ALICE IN WONDERLAND. The man’s got his own vision to be sure and he was a riot to listen to as he broke down his idea about what ALICE should be.

There’ll be more to come so stay plugged in all weekend…

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER

500daysposterBoy meets girl. Boy falls in love. Girl doesn’t.

This post modern love story is never what we expect it to be – it’s thorny yet exhilarating, funny and sad, a twisted journey of highs and lows that doesn’t quite go where we think it will. When Tom, a hapless greeting card copywriter and hopeless romantic, is blindsided after his girlfriend Summer dumps him, he shifts back and forth through various periods of their 500 days “together” to try to figure out where things went wrong. His reflections ultimately lead him to finally rediscover his true passions in life.

I know it’s little more than hyperbole on my part but this is going to be a film you’re going to be talking about in effusive praise as the film breaks wide.

What separates this film from a lot of other less interesting takes on the nature of relationships that men and women find themselves falling into and out of is its originality. It’s difficult to mine a topic that has been done so many ways since time immemorial but what makes 500 DAYS OF SUMMER so precious is that they’ve found a way to do it again and do it in a pastiche of pleasure and pain.

In wanting to tell a story that doesn’t drip with the falsities of what happens between two people who come together this film goes beyond the tropes and trappings of less than fulfilling romantic narratives which usually end in perfectly predictable ways. Writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber have written a story that doesn’t try to be too dour, too deep or emotive. Rather, what they do manage to craft, and why this movie sticks to the ribs of your heart long after you realize what the narrator said in the beginning is true, is a story that tells what it’s like to really fall in love and have it fall apart. Such a simple premise, and I realize that in other hands this could have been yet another film in a long string of sub-par romance tales, but it’s the non sequential storytelling that at least primes the pump for an engaging movie experience.

After we’ve established that the story is not going to flow in normal order, some of the thrill is not knowing which in the 500 days you’re going to get next, almost like a visual Choose Your Own Adventure novella, we are beautifully ballasted by the school boy charms of Joseph Gordon-Levitt who simply plays a man named Tom and the girl-you-always-wished-lived-next-door in Zooey Deschanel as Summer. These two are matched up in a way that at once feels right and exciting; you can actually buy into the idea that this budding hipster could actually woo a woman of Zooey’s pedigree. She’s not portrayed as a woman who’s playing hard to get but, and this is absolutely where you have to praise the talents of the writers, she’s a woman who is independent and played as such throughout the movie. There is no abandoning the sense of who Summer is as a woman simply because she gets with a man like Tom. You want to think that everyone is able to cast aside their childish things once love walks into their lives, and certainly Tom does, but Summer stays constant and, I would posit, only heightens the searing pain of what happens when Tom’s devotion, dedication and dreams aren’t enough to make a whole.

Gordon-Levitt hasn’t been this arresting since his turn in THE LOOKOUT, his portrayal as Tom is alarmingly resonant to anyone who has loved so hard but ends up having nothing to show for it. Tom’s eventual meltdown in a staff meeting is particularly poignant as even though it’s played for dramatic effect and is obviously going for the overtly overwrought, despondent aspects of a man in a slight depression it’s psychologically telling as something that any human being who can’t make sense of their own emotional lives could relate to. As well, Gordon-Levitt, once he does get back on his emotional feet and has brushed off his shoulders a bit delivers a subtle, yet stinging, turn as Summer comes back into his life in a wedding sequence that kicks any man in the spiritual nut sack when you realize he’s still hanging on to “What if” instead of realizing it’s “What already was.”

Deschanel, for her part, mystifies. She’s a tough mistress in that she never gives us what we all want from her and that’s for Summer to realize that Tom loves her, that it should be enough for her to believe in but that there is more going on than any of us realize. Like it was mentioned, she’s her own woman but that only increases her attractiveness. She doesn’t fall into the usual trappings of young lovers or infatuation or any of the feelings that always befall her cinematic equals. We love her in this film because she is still herself, is gorgeously depicted as a woman who has a bedroom smile that you wish you could awake to, a demeanor that won’t allow stupidity but who ultimately will make you work for her affection.

The truly arresting moments come in the film’s quieter times. When Tom picks a fight with a guy who is obnoxiously coming on to Summer, and it’s a time when you can see the writers at work crafting a moment for a specific reason, that it doesn’t feel organic, the ultimate resolution of the fight between Summer and Tom is gorgeously shot and is bathed in the kind of silence that apologies without recriminations sometimes have.

On the opposite end of the heady and heavy you have Paul, McKenzie and Rachel. Played by Matthew Gray Gubler, Geoffrey Arend and Chloe Moretz, respectively, they represent Tom’s two closest friends in the film and Tom’s very young sister to whom he tells everything. These three represent the comedic relief in the film and while they do feel like they’re serving the story’s purpose of lightening the mood they are by no means wasted. Gubler is absolutely charming as Tom’s confidant, Arend is positively hilarious and wish I had followed that man’s love trajectory and Moretz is the film’s other female element and she plays it well, her youth is in stark contrast to the maturity the writers have imbued her with but it’s positively welcomed. Along these comedic lines there is a song and dance number by Hall and Oats that should absolutely become your go-to mental representation should you ever hear the ditty outside of the theater.

And that’s the other thing.

Kudos to the film’s director, Marc Webb, for choosing a soundtrack that isn’t a bunch of shoegazing emo idiots slapped together for the sake of molding a hipster mix tape. A song by the aforementioned Hall and Oats, a karaoke version of “Here Comes Your Man” by the Pixies from a wicked Gordon-Levitt who knows how to rock a mic and scads of other musical nuances round out an ephemeral environment that feels very real to those in this film. Webb deftly allows these two to become more than just prototypical constructs and those who want to take issue with the idea that we’ve been here, we’ve done that so many times miss the point that if you were to look at what people have been given as a cinematic representation of love in all its trappings and pitfalls we have not been given a movie that makes you understand why we’re all willing to do it all over again. And again.

July 17, 2009

Trailer Park: $50,000 For Me And 15 Movies For You.

Filed under: Reviews,Trailer Park — Tags: , , , , , — admin @ 1:36 am

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

McCafe MY Day

mccafe

How often have I asked anything of you? Not much, not many, not very often.

I need something from many of you: votes.

What’s in it for you is lots and lots and lots of movies and, if I actually win this thing, 15 films.

What happened was that I was futzing at home on my computer one afternoon after hearing that McDonald’s was going to be entering the coffee market. I don’t like coffee, I eschew everything coffee, I can’t relate to anyone anywhere when they talk about their morning fix and I certainly don’t understand the long queues that build up for people waiting in line to get that brown beverage.

But what I can and do love is my iced mochas.

That’s a drink I understand kicking down a door to get at if the time’s right.

So, I found out that McDonald’s was offering iced mochas and a short time after I procured one I entered their McCafeYourDay contest. The contest wanted to know why you deserved to have your day, essentially, made better with $50,000.

Well, I was coming off some fairly heady financial woes, those of you who have been affected by the recession know how much this thing has messed around with more than just one aspect of your life, and just wrote a passionate mini-missive about why I thought I deserved to win. They wanted a picture to go along with it and I uploaded one at the same time when I entered.

I forgot about the contest a couple weeks after sending my entry in. Didn’t even give it a second thought.

Lo and behold, a couple of weeks ago I received a FedEx in the mail letting me know I was a finalist in this contest. I had forgotten about what the prize was, forgotten about what I wrote and, just a few days ago, was on a call letting me know that my story was was going to compete with 4 others at Mcdonaldsmccafeyourday.com. I was just as shocked as anyone and was caught completely unaware that I even made it through the gauntlet of over 12,000 people who entered this contest.

Voting goes from now until July 26th and you can use every e-mail in your arsenal once every 24 hours. The longer version of my story will be up at azcentral.com this weekend and I’ll be profiled in the local Scottsdale Republic here if you happen to live in the Scottsdale area. It’s a sappy story, one that’s a little too sensitive for me to copy and paste in here but here is what I want to offer anyone who is willing to toss a few votes my way.

I am giving away a cinematic cavalcade of DVDs to one person who can send me a screenshot of their vote confirmation from their e-mail box. I will enter every screenshot for a drawing to get this pile. There is incentive galore at your fingertips so I hope if you have a church group, a room full of shut-ins with access to a computer or an honest way of spreading the word I will not only appreciate it but I will reward the effort with a glorious compendium of free movies.

Go straight here (http://www.mcdonaldsmccafeyourday.com/) and help me win this thing. Even if you think I suck, shoot a vote my way and help out the cause, please?

Again, I don’t ask much but I’m just looking for a vote. After you read the entry you’ll see what you would be helping to do.

If you win the bushel of movies here is what’s included in the bonanza:

DEATH RACE 2000, BLINDNESS, THE MUMMY 3, PINOCCHIO on Blu-ray, BOLT, WALL-E, CAPRICA, BURN AFTER READING, THE MINDSCAPE OF ALAN MOORE, A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY, ROLE MODELS, WANTED, CHOCOLATE, SWING VOTE and HELLBOY II.

Good luck to everyone…

COMIC-CON – 2009

comicconSo, who’s going next week? I know many of you are planning to descend on the land that is known for its temperate climate and willingness to let hoards of geeks and nerds pick apart San Diego in a frenzy that only would have heightened my sense of geekery had I started attending when I was 13.

Alas, I was in my late 20’s before I went to my very first one and this year celebrates my 6th straight year going to this cavalcade of comics and cinema. Those of you who are going, and have gone before, know what a violent ride we’re all in for as no one is safe from the “red shirts” of Elite Security who seem to know nothing more than their name, their hair color and that, “You can’t enter here!” Even someone like me, who is already being left off the lists of many events where the mighty will mingle I am just happy to be getting the drippings from the table.

Focus Features, it should be yelled from the mountaintops, are one of the studios who I love, love, love working with at the Comic-Con. They may concern themselves with wondering whether you’re worthy enough to be talking to those they’re bringing to the Con but from getting invited to a cocktail party to help spread the awareness of their film 9 to getting invited to the screening of their new film THIRST to getting a Comic-Con Survival kit in the mail and then following that up with this rather large pouch of simulated blood (one of the best promo items I’ve seen this year) I can’t say enough about this studio who really does have a human touch.

I am still unsure of what I’ll be doing while there, I got confirmation of a possible 1:1 with a director that many of you would dig to read about, a 1:1 with some people who have a film this year that I’ve heard is completely and homogeneously great and a handful of other things that still haven’t been finalized yet. As we head closer just pay attention to my Twitter feed, @Stipp, to see what and where I’ll be.

So, don’t be shy! Shoot me a note and let me know if you’ll be around…

Plus, be sure to stop by Geek Monthly’s booth, 4112. Geek Monthly will be running a piece I did on the John Hughes documentary you’ve seen here in their August issue.

Thanks to Ed Douglas of ComingSoon.net for supplying the photo of his own pouch of Capri-Sun blood.

FUNNY PEOPLE – SCREENING

fp_feild_300x250Many of you in Phoenix and beyond who have been hitting me up for screening passes have been just great in showing up and enjoying these films. Since the response has been so good on my end in getting these tickets out to those who love a good free film I once again have passes to see a sneak preview.

This time it’s FUNNY PEOPLE, starring Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen, and the screening will be Tuesday, July 28th at 7:00 p.m. at Tempe Marketplace in Tempe, AZ. If you’re interested in seeing this film hit me up at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and just let me know you want tickets. It’s just that simple and I hope to see you there. For those who need a synopsis, here it is:

Over the past few years, writer/director Judd Apatow (The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up) has shown that nothing – not even losing your virginity or the miracle of childbirth – is sacred. About his third film behind the camera, he says, “I’m trying to make a very serious movie that is twice as funny as my other movies. Wish me luck!” Apatow directs Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen and Leslie Mann in Funny People, the story of a famous comedian who has a near-death experience.

Adam Sandler, Eric Bana, Jason Schwartzman, RZA and newcomer Aubrey Plaza join a cast that reunites Judd Apatow with Seth Rogen, Leslie Man and Jonah Hill in their third comedy together.

HURT LOCKER/LIGHTBULB – REVIEWS

Summer of our Discontent ““ Maybe

Has the droning of explosives and colliding metal have you down yet? Why are so many movie previews starting to look the same with hard driving soundtracks, jacked up heroes that have less personality than a Ken doll without a thought behind their dialogue and special effects that are no longer special ““ merely hum-drum ““ attempting to maintain an artificial heartbeat in a DOA story? You cannot blame it all on the Peter Pan prone movie executives and filmmakers that have not matured since the age of 12. Part of the blame is on the movie-going audience that insists on getting suckered in on what they think is going to be special. The marketing and commercial community has finally taken over the entertainment industry by parlaying crap on a stick and making so many think it is steak on fine china. If that was not enough, now we are about to be inundated with 3D kiddie-fare; some computer animation is getting as mundane as President Obama’s stand-up routines.

I defy anybody to come out of a set of previews from “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” (By “Fallen” does that mean the money out of our pockets and our hopes for a better movie?), G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra, Terminator Salvation, Gamer and X Men Origins: Wolverine and tell me they don’t all look like the same movie. It is homogenized action without a thought of creativity and depth.

Then there is the promise of action with two great stars and a hit-and-miss director at the helm of, “Public Enemies”. First off, why would anybody cast Johnny Depp as John Dillinger? Would it not make more sense to have him portray “Pretty Boy” Floyd or “Baby Face” Nelson in a different movie? And, did we not just see this story from a less than enthusiastic film, but with at least two bravura performances, Sean Connery and Robert DeNiro? If you can’t do better than the last film ““ don’t even bother. Speaking of which, “Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3” is leaving theaters faster than a speeding subway. Also, below ground and already buried is the absent of laughs comedies “Year One” and “Land of the Lost”. Why does Jack Black insist on undermining himself after gaining our trust with “Tropic Thunder”? The Harold Ramis moaner is more slap-dash than “Mel Brook’s History of the World Part 1” and “Caveman” with far less entertainment value. I’d say wait for the DVD, but I would not suggest wasting one’s time even if it were on free cable. As for “LOTL” no “lol” here, just stupid jokes with dinosaurs that are far less entertaining than the ones in “Ice Age” ““ a bad TV show made into a worse movie.

If there is a glimmer of hope and a reason to get your butt back in a theater seat it began with J.J. Abrams’ re-imagining of “Star Trek”. For all those non-Trekkies, which I can be included, my wife who stays away from anything science fiction ““ especially “Star Trek” ““ actually enjoyed the movie. If you are not a fan, it’s almost as much fun as having seen “Star Wars” for the first time. If you are a fan ““ it’s the wet dream you’ve been waiting for. Following the fun of it all is another Pixar great, “Up” and that’s exactly how one feels coming out. This may be the very best yet from Pixar. For those opposed to “cartoons” it’s time to have an open mind and treat yourself to one of the most lovingly created stories that will have you laugh as well as cry. Even my 15-year-old shed a tear, and that’s a first in a movie. It is wildly creative and may rank up there with, I dare say, “Wizard of Oz”.
As for laughs, “The Hangover” has caught everyone by surprise including myself with a great cast of characters and comic timing that has some doubled-over hysterical. It’s refreshing to go into a comedy and laughing nearly all the way through rather than just walking out with a memorable scene or two ““ kinda like having the experience of buying a CD of your favorite band and only getting two or three worthwhile songs. Speaking of memorable, “the stripper with the heart of gold” is given genuine warmth with an engaging performance by Heather Graham. The Tyson scene is not as much fun as expected, but the rest of the hijinks more than makes up for it, especially the ending with some of the raunchiest, but flat-out funny pictures I’ve seen in years. The film proves to be another hit for director Todd Phillips of “Old School”.

A Hell Lot of Hurtin’ Goin’ On

That’s more than enough commentary, now for a review or two owed to you. If there is one movie that will take you places few ever do and leave you exhausted, yet wanting more it is Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker”. What “The Wrestler” did for Mickey Rourke, “THL” should do for Bigelow. After seeing this monumental achievement of guts, glory, action/drama mixed with a little testosterone humor you may walk away shaken and wondering where on earth has the real Bigelow been. After blowing everyone away with one of the very best vampire films ever, “Near Dark,” Bigelow went on to empty-headed action with “Blue Steel” and “Point Break”. She showed some promise with “K-19: The Widowmaker,” but now, 20+ years later, she proves to be that force to be reckoned with once again with her latest thought-provoking venture into knee-jerking suspense.

THL chronicles the life and death struggles of a bomb disposal unit in Iraq while also giving us a glimpse not only of the unnerving ticking of bombs, but inside the head of the highly-trained men that risk their lives every moment of every day. Talk about adrenalin junkies. Bigelow displays what we’ve turned these boys into and what little they may have to look forward to as they come back home”¦if ever. In that sense, the film nearly echoes the sensitivity of “The Deer Hunter” yet Bigelow is far subtler in her message. The real shell shock of this story is not only does the director make you feel like you’re in Iraq through her documentary-style take, but also ups the ante with freestyle kills. No one is safe in “The Hurt Locker,” not even our lead. I don’t think I’ve been this surprised about characters dying in a film since Hitchcock’s, “Psycho”. This leaves us on edge at every unsettling empty garbage-ridden street, deserted building and even child that may appear to be a friendly street urchin hawking chocolates and DVDs.

This is not a one-note movie ““ just waiting for the next bomb to be discovered. In fact, the first scene is so meticulously set up, one begins to wonder, “Have we just seen the best part?’ It’s one showstopper after another coupled with layers of sub-stories. How dangerous is Staff Sgt. William James to his men? How far will the men back him or will they follow through on plans to kill him so they may save themselves? Who will survive the next day out? Is their life after war and what is it worth? How well can one operate after an all-night drinking binge? What is the value of human life? The list goes on and on.

All the performances are natural and lend credence of realism that few movies match these days. From the street urchin and his adult partner to Anthony Mackie’s strong play-by-the-rules Sgt. Sanborn. The players almost come across organic with the story itself with one exception, Jeremy Renner’s bravado performance of Staff Sgt. William James. Can we say a star is born? His persona captures a cross between a young Alan Ladd and John Wayne. Yet he is able to show a vulnerable side that takes us by surprise. Dare I even say that Renner’s performance will probably prove to be one of the breakout performances of the year? He exudes a charisma rarely seen in film today and infuses it with a natural performance that goes way beyond action hero just like the way Bigelow has orchestrated her film.

This is the “must see” film of the summer. It has all the action one desires out of a summer movie and a great story that captivates us from start to finish. Bigelow, the crew and the cast are to be lauded for a film that may not be as big as “Apocalypse Now” or “The Deer Hunter” but has all the power packed in its small frame. It’s also a testament to our men and women in the Middle East. I encourage anyone 15 and older to see this intense portrait of war.

Speaking of urging one to catch great work”¦

Phoenix Film Festival: Gamer Dysfunction, Breakfast Club Meets Clerks, and a Bright Idea From a Couple of Dim Bulbs

386When I last reported on this site, I happen to mention I would finish up my take on a few other gems from the Phoenix Film Festival. I find it sad that so many turds have made their way to the screen with marketing budgets that nearly rival the film itself while smaller and vastly more entertaining fare has been virtually ignored. I guess it’s the way of the business ““ a fine female body draped over a motorcycle and nondescript machinery plowing into one another over a down-to-earth story that could actually makes us feel human again.

While at the festival I had the pleasure of checking out the feature film competition. A combination of quirks, jerks and even Turks. The funny thing is that the titles of some of the better films (and the winner of best picture) were less than enthusiastic. Even the posters were dull and the synopses in the program did not make one want to run out and buy a ticket. Perhaps that’s why some of these features were pleasant surprises, but marketing really needs to step it up a notch or two.

First off, “Corpse Run” the trials and tribulations of a group of dysfunctional gamers and the individual among them that starts to question who, what and where they are. Think of “The Big Chill” fast-forwarded to the age of gamers. It’s an interesting premise that is not as slick as TBC, but has something to say for those then and now. It’s generation gamer angst and if you are a gamer, which there is a whole generation of, you are likely to pick up on the flippant jargon far easier than most.

John-Michael Thomas (writer/director) plays Nick, the young man questioning life outside the box. He opens with a chronicle of how he and his generation became hooked on this alternative, and to some preferable, lifestyle. It’s amusing to see the evolution from the game of “Pong” to “Atari” “Nintendo” and beyond. How the invention of video games has captured a generation while creating a barrier nearly sheltering themselves from real people and emotions can be fascinating. But I have to admit; this reviewer’s age may have caught up with him and the fact that I never went any further than an hour with the game “Diablo”. Perhaps this is why I felt my interest wane on the film.

The players are amusing ““ especially Brea Adams (before “Heroes”). She is fun to watch and adds a bright light to the dark cloud that follows the group that sometimes comes across pitiful. If I sound schizoid with this review ““ it’s because I am. At one point I admired Thomas for his valiant effort and originality, but as the film progressed I found myself getting antsy with an urge to play my PS3 rather than continuing watching others discover themselves outside a world of made up heroes, villains and monsters. It may be too early to consider writer/director/actor Thomas a triple threat, but that does not mean he’s not one to watch out for. He shows promise in all three and most likely has an audience for this film that should really be pushed at any comic con or gamer convention.

“The Waiting List” is an odd piece that seems to divide an audience ““ men enjoyed the sarcasm and witty humor while some women may have laughed but were left unfulfilled. A group of parents attempt to get their kids into the most prestigious pre-school in the area. They have to spend the night in order to get on the school’s precious “waiting list.” I hate to keep making past movie references, but this cries out like Breakfast Club meets Clerks with parental angst. Now that may sound like a possible bummer, but it’s not largely due to the amiable cast and some very clever dialogue.

The standout amongst the parents is Chris played by Jayme S. Hall who also is the comic relief, a stay-at-home dad with no filter accompanying his thoughts regarding sex, kids, pregnant women, Dora the Explorer. This character is written with such glee and Hall gives a very funny, flippant performance that also touches the heart. I would say that his is the primary reason to see the film, but it’s not. There are genuine moments between Teresa Decher as Ella and Audrey Walker as Audrey. Ella is a teen who may or may not be pregnant and struggling with the notion of it while questioning Audrey who could be giving birth that week. It’s a casual and fun dynamic that does not hit us over the head with moral issues. Instead, it allows us to play with the complexities in our heads.

Then there is Ben (Bryce Flint-Somerville), the uptight, blackberry cursed, henpecked/work worn father who just needs a break. Unfortunately, he meets up with an old flame played with evil deliciousness by Kathryn Englund. She is the all-consuming bitch that plays hall monitor and snake, attempting everything she can to claw her way to a higher spot on the list so her son can be guaranteed a seat in the precious school. Ben is a great foil and one cannot help cheer for him at every turn. We feel his pain and laugh at it at the same time.

The film does wander off at times in its rhythm, but just before it loses you Hall breaks in with another funny bit that reels us back in. Budget constraint aside, “The Waiting List” is worthwhile with a cast that is worth the wait.

And, for those of you who might have lost hope in seeing greatness in a small film again, rejoice with another Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) star-turn and voted best feature length film at the Phoenix Film Festival “Lightbulb”. Attention creative parties of this film, can we at least attach an exclamation point at the end to give this wonderful feature a marketing chance? This was truly a surprise hit at the festival along with the background of writer/producer Mike Cramm. Audiences kept growing with every performance and the word of mouth spread like wild fire. Funny, touching, and sincere in its character portrayal, “Lightbulb” wins one over by its simple story telling, but eventually throws you a curve ball with its remarkable ending that goes way beyond the norm of comedies of late. In fact, writer, Cramm and director Jeffrey Balsmeyer (the quirky British comedy,” Danny Deck Chair”) have crafted the closest thing to the comedies of Frank Capra in a long time.

Renner is Sam, a sales and pitchman for his long time buddy and failed inventor Matt, played with frustrating warmth by Dallas Roberts. Their journey into the madness of small time inventions ending up on late night TV is a new twist on buddy movies and road comedies. To couple that with a ridiculous, yet genuine addiction to gambling makes for a story where we end up loving and caring for all involved. The next best thing since the pet rock or gia-pet may be just around the corner, but in the meantime, heartbreak, angst and disappointment are the hurdles one must jump several times over with rarely an end to the race of success. Along the way, Ayelet Zurer (Munich, Angels & Demons) is Gina, a grounding rod for the antics of the two and Matt’s long suffering girlfriend who unfortunately enables all of his foils for her devotion to him.

Writer, Cramm has written a remarkable comedy/drama that sneaks up and attacks from behind. What at first comes across aimless and lighthearted eventually is thought provoking and inspiring. It’s like the title of his piece, “Lightbulb,” it seems like nothing special till it is turned on and sheds a whole new light. Director Balsmeyer knows exactly what he has been handed and plays it with wonderful alacrity. Renner and Roberts make a great team and we feel their frustration with every downfall. It just gets worse by the moment and we are surprised, saddened and laughing at the same time. This film and its cast are too good to ignore. This is Cramm’s first script and he should be applauded for a story that is a step above so many others with carefully drawn characters that touch are soul and make us thankful that there are a still a few artists left in an industry of tinker toys.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress