Tag: Review

Trailer Park: IDIOTS AND ANGELS, GET HIM TO THE GREEK

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

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

Idiots and Angels – Review

How do you look at a blank canvas and create a world where you are held back by language but want to tell a story that anyone can understand?

Artists have been doing this for thousands of years, trying to distill the innate things that connect every human being regardless of time or geography. Animator Bill Plympton may not be a Flemish master but his latest feature length film, Idiots and Angles, transcends every normal narrative construction and delivers a wonderfully realized world where a story about redemption doesn’t feel rehashed or tired.

When we come into the world of Angel we are brought not only into the world of a man whose sole objective seems to be how much more angry he can be than the day before but we’re introduced into a world where there is no dialogue, no voiceover, no transitions. In fact, the world feels particularly unique as Plympton’s animation is given to fits and starts of natural movement, a trademark of his, with the absurd becoming absolutely normal. To wit, Angel reacts harshly to a perceived parking slight from another motorist and responds by creating a fuse into the other motorists’ gas tank whereby that car delightfully explodes as it careens down a city street. However insane this world is, though, Plympton’s use of depth and perspective never feels jarring or out of place. It just is and we accept it because it’s the character who never utters a word, Angel, that is so fascinating to watch on the screen. Through a series of grunts and guttural noises that humans universally use to show signs of great pleasure or disdain we see what a vile seed Angel is. Plympton sets up this man who is, by all intents and purposes, a just plain unlikable and does what any person looking to shake things up with a little Kafkaesque bizarreness would do with this guy: make him sprout wings.

So, what follows is a story that has Angel growing a pair of wings that obviously cause the man great annoyance. But of course they won’t come off with a little clipping, but of course he can’t get rid of them, the joy of the film comes at seeing how others would wish to use Angel as a means to their own fortune and fame. The story takes shape around the themes of exploitation and naked ambition whereby no one, not even Angel’s doctor who he goes to for help, is able to resist thinking about how their own lives could benefit from the man’s tragedy.

Take this tale where you want, Plympton’s work is easily interpretable in many different fashions as it relates to the human condition and the shameless depths people will go to satisfy their own base desires before thinking of the needs of a human being in need of actual assistance.

Ballasted by a soundtrack that is simply exquisite, helping to serve as a gentle, invisible hand guiding you through the insanity that is this man’s life when it all spins out of control, the film relies on making sure we understand that there is something to be felt for this man, this Angel. Of course, what movie about redemption could be had without mentioning the conflict that will eventually bring us to a satisfying resolution. In a movie where nothing is based on any formal laws of normalcy it would be a shame to ruin a plotline that is almost too strange to put to paper but when jealousy rears its head Angel is the only person at the center of it.

Through a series of fantastic moments that could only come out of Plympton’s own sense of how to make the insane something glorious to witness, breaks laws of physics and reality along woth it, the film ends satisfyingly with a resolution that affirms that beauty can come out of chaos and that even though things can sometimes unravel in the worst way possible, with people showing themselves to be the greedy, self-interested animals they are, that there can be that one person who shows you there is something to believe in when it comes to humanity. That there can be redemption, in whatever form it takes. The mere fact that Plympton does this without ever uttering a word, that it could transcend geographic boundaries and be comprehended by even the meagerly educated is a triumph in itself, let alone knowing this film is representative of animation that can pierce the skin and speak to something intrinsic in us all.

Get Him To The Greek – DVD Giveaway

I should not have liked this film simply based on its premise.

When you consider how many people thought that Forgetting Sarah Marshall was an exercise in mediocre filmmaking there was little hope that those of us who stayed away from this movie based on that would come out to see what would be a surprising hit. Filled with genuine laughs and a surprising comedic turn from Puff Daddy himself, Sean Combs, the movie is a much welcomed reprieve from some seriously bad studio comedies this year.

So now you can own a copy of the movie that will show you why Russell Brand is indeed the real thing and why Jonah Hill will always be a clutch sidekick. All you have to do is send an entry to Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll enterÂ you to win. It just doesn’t get easier than this, kids.

About The Film:

Aaron Greenberg (Hill) gets things done. The ambitious 23-year-old has exaggerated his way into a dream job just in time for a career-making assignment. His mission: Fly to London and escort a rock god to L.A.’s Greek Theatre for the first-stop on a $100-million tour. His warning: Turn your back on him at your own peril.

British rocker Aldous Snow (Brand) is both a brilliant musician and walking sex. Weary of yes men and piles of money, the former front man is searching for the meaning of life. But that doesn’t mean he can’t have a few orgies while he finds it. When he learns his true love is in California, Aldous makes it his quest to win her back”¦right before kick-starting his world domination.

As the countdown to the concert begins, one intern must navigate a minefield of London drug smuggles, New York City brawls and Vegas lap dances to deliver his charge safe and, sort of, sound. He may have to coax, lie to, enable and party with Aldous, but Aaron will get him to the Greek.

October 1, 2010
Trailer Park: INCEPTION and LOOK AROUND YOU

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

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

INCEPTION – Review

A summer film that distills the best of what a blockbuster should be, INCEPTION is the thinking man’s action film that marries drama, wicked fast pacing, and the designation as the best big budget movie so far this year.

In literature, Marcel Proust’s “The Remembrance Of Things” is thought of a classic because of its exploration of memory and the acute moments that are triggered by the nature of living. It’s a familiar smell, it’s a taste that triggers flashes from a time that has forgotten. It’s a wonderful distillation of the nature of the mind and how it is able to start lines of thought merely started by a bite of Madeline cookies, a sip of tea.

To try and contain a review of Christopher Nolan’s masterstroke of space and time within the barriers of the written word is to not appreciate the multidimensional gambits he took in trying to make our own minds malleable. It’s a movie that brings together the talents of an ensemble that could not have been more well-crafted and chosen, a score that weaves its way into what’s happening on the screen as if it were the film’s sixth man that’s comes in at clutch moments, a directorial style that has all along been leading up to this moment, and a story that is nothing short of tight and lean.

To talk about this film’s plot is to take away a layer of ignorance that any person wanting to steep themselves in this world would best avoid, but merely recapping its plot doesn’t do much to diminish the astonishing moments that pepper this film’s running time.

Our protagonist Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is charged with one task in this film: plant a thought in a target’s mind and have them believe it to be his own. The mark here is Cillian Murphy who stars as Robert Fischer, Jr., a corporate player who Saito (Ken Watanabe) would like taken out of his way. The payoff, if this expert in thought extraction could do it, would allow DiCaprio to return to the U.S. a free man. What has kept him out of the country, what has kept him away from his children, what has made him a wanted man, is left for us to discover in small bits and bites on the way through the subconscious of Fischer, Jr.. Using a team that’s assembled of people that has more in common with Hermes than they do with the usual action movie tropes of ragtag mercenaries they all seem more likely to unwind with a glass of wine than they do handling the weaponry that takes this movie from being a clever idea and makes it a clever idea that might be Nolan’s best one yet.

The literal cat and mouse game that ensues once we get the groundwork laid about what is real in this world, what its rules are, what is possible, is without question one that filmmakers have to look at and be amazed by. What Nolan was able to do with a supporting cast that includes Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine, Tom Hardy and Tom Berenger is something of an art itself. He was able to make every person earn the right to be on the screen and to harmoniously fit in with one another. There are no standouts, with the exception of DiCaprio’s sublime yet thunderous performance, and Tom Hardy’s real coming out party, per se but that’s the brilliance of the film. As a team they make up so much more than the sum of its parts. The synchronicity they share with one another makes this an uninterrupted experience unlike anything you’re likely to see.

What’s more, this film represents something about Nolan that many already know: he is passionate about telling a good story. Not just a story, but a good one. One that is airtight in its ability to thrill and excite you while also informing a part of human nature. All of his previous efforts are imbued with the small ways our humanity manifests itself in the acts of his protagonists and it’s no different here. Although, in this dream world the manifestations are literally interpreted on the screen, laying bare the psychoses that hobble everyone to some degree. Obviously here, a runaway train on the loose in a city street ought to be nothing less than spectacular if for no other reason than it is spectacular.

But Nolan doesn’t go the easy route as these visuals mean something more than what they are. Every piece of broken glass, every ice cold look from a passerby, they mean more than just what you’re seeing with your own eyes. The deception of inception is that everything is in front of you, nothing is hidden. Every question is answered and that’s the brilliance. What makes your mind hurt by the end of the film as you try and wrap your own sense of logic around what you’ve been presented is how it’s all right there to be interpreted. Lesser directors have made it an art form to hide its secrets, to throw out red herrings to toss you off its scent, but it’s the scent that means everything to Nolan as he made a world that feels too real.

It seems so simple that each and every one of us have a baseline with which to connect with this film. We all have to give in to our minds at night and at the very least allows for every person who sees this movie to understand, on some level, the totality of what’s going on. Examining the nature of memory was what made Marcel Proust such an unforgettable writer and it’s the very same thing that will make Christopher Nolan an unforgettable filmmaker.

Look Around You – DVD Review

A television show that jettisons you back to an age when classroom instruction meant listening to an old coot ramble on about things that seemed antiquated to even the most basic of thinkers, Look Around You is a show that really isn’t for everyone.

Who it is for, however, are those who like their comedy on the subtle side, the kind of funny that comes from the absurd. What writers Robert Popper and Peter Serafinowicz managed to do was bring a piece of scientific nostalgia from the past (think Bill Nye The Science Guy circa mid 1970’s) and give it a language all its own. Look Around You examines common, scientific topics like music, water or the brain in a way that feels like they’re coming at us from that time. From a narrative and editorial standpoint these episodes wouldn’t be nearly as funny until the very laws of logic are conveniently left out of the program’s creation.

Very much like what Tim and Eric have managed to do for many, many seasons on Adult Swim, Popper and Serafinowicz deny you any chance to ground this straightforward science show in any kind of reality at all. It’s the mixture of the brilliant attention to detail and the ways in which these topics are covered as if it’s the gospel’s truth that make this a show that’s a must-see for any fan of alternative comedy.

The joke isn’t that nothing is as it seems, this could be done by any fool looking to make fun of programming from when we were children, but that no one ever gives the punchline. It wants you to go halfway and meet it as an experiment, for example, on the brain ends with the brain in question being suspended in brine and hooked up to a telephone making a phone call to the experiment conducting scientist to say how many nuts are in a jar that’s sitting in front of it. It’s truly bizarre but it’s bold in that it never feels the need to accentuate anything, nothing that would let anyone know this is all a big put-on. The level of restraint shown on this program only shows how serious they were taking this premise, of crafting a very short program of bogus science information that’s presented as if it were the truth, is something I rarely see. Performers want to let the audience in, to get them in on the joke. Look Around You is amazing in that it doesn’t give you anything but situations that you can either take or leave. It’s up to you to find the humor in the situation and that’s more than anyone could ask for out of comedians operating on another level.

About the DVD:

Look Around You is the BAFTA-nominated comedy series based on the unforgettable Open University and Television for Schools programs of the1970s. Through a series of gloriously deadpan experiments, we observe a colony of ants build an igloo, receive a telephone call from abrain, discover why ghosts can’t whistle, and reveal the largest number in the world. Science has never been so silly.

Special Features –

Advanced double-length module: Calcium
Little Mouse: full-length pop video
New exclusive commentaries featuring Robert Popper, Peter Serafinowicz, Tim Kirkby, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Edgar Wright, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Michael Cera, Jonah Hill, and Tim & Eric
Little Mouse commentary by Jack Morgan (BSc)
Pages from Ceefax
Play-at-home quiz pages
Additional music by Gelg
Test card

July 16, 2010
Trailer Park: DESPICABLE ME

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

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

DESPICABLE ME -Review

The issue with Despicable Me isn’t so much that it’s a good, albeit mediocre, kids film but it is the film’s contentment with just being average that genuinely holds the movie back from being anything more than forgettable.

With Steve Carell starring as our baddie with a soft spot for small girls, Gru, and Jason Segel as a true nemesis for our nemesis, Vector, the perceived talent is ultimately wasted on a script that depends too much on forced sentimentality where there is none and a sub-plot that seems wholly inserted just to pad out a story that is wafer thin as it already is.

Primarily, the tale of an evil mastermind who adopts three orphans under false pretenses in order to get at Vector, a new villain who is usurping this old man at every opportunity, and who surreptitiously steals an item that Gru himself was pilfering at the time, goes nowhere. As that plot fizzles like a wet bottle rocket, screenwriters Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio (both of Horton Hears a Who! and The Santa Clause 2 notoriety) insert these three orphan girls as a way to build a story about self-confidence and caring. The girls, as well, have become the centerpiece of a marketing plan that finally was able to shed some light on the question many people have had as this film neared release: What is this movie about?

Truly, this movie doesn’t know what it wants to be about, quite honestly. At one time it’s a cheeky throwback to spy films long gone, Carell rolling out his best Boris impersonation from Rocky and Bullwinkle, whileÂ at other times it’s a hackneyed yarn about what it means to feel compassion and love when all you’ve known is how to be a villain. Believe me, the irony of the screenwriters ripping a thematic page out of Dr. Seuss’ The Grinch Who Stole Christmas after they themselves worked on a Seuss adaptation isn’t lost on me but the story is as translucent as its characters. Segel for his part proves you don’t need any finesse, or subtlety for that matter, in order to voice a character in an animated film. His speaking parts seem out of place with the mouth moving on the screen as there is no inflection, no passion for creating a truly obnoxious Bill Gates-ian kind of villain. This only compounds the real problem of this movie and it’s that in an age where every single animated movie is falling short of its Pixar counterpart you are witness to the disparities in quality from one film to another. Like an essay in school that needed to be compared and contrasted, you can see that while the animation is somewhat on par there is a reason those lamp loving animators are going home with golden statuettes year after year after year.

For example, in Toy Story 3, the moment when Buzz and Woody are in danger of being melted like marshmallows at a campfire. The music by Michael Giacchino complements the emotional punch that’s tightly shot by director Lee Unkrich. It works to draw your feelings out because everything was accounted for and executed right. Contrasting that, we get moments between Gru and the orphans that don’t earn their emotional cash-in. The composition by Heitor Pereira doesn’t work or help tie anything together in a meaningful way. It’s as if you have all these moving pieces that want to act independently of one another and what you get is exactly what this is and that’s a mediocre movie that thinks it wants to be a movie about overcoming past emotional roadblocks or a movie about turning a corner in your life in order to love something other than yourself or it’s a movie about these small little yellow creatures called minions.

But let’s talk about the minions for a moment. All things being equal, the minions would still edge out everything else in this film for bring the funniest thing your kids will see this month. These adorable little creatures thankfully steal the movie away from all of their co-stars and they barely are able to say a word. Who cares about wondering why there are dozens of them scurrying about, the true delight is that they bring so much levity and slapstick humor to a movie that desperately needed it. It’s the minions who ought to have been the focus of the film, the story from their perspective would have such a more interesting creation than we have here which is all about Gru’s obsession to shrink the moon to show the world his capacity for true evil, but I understand the aim of the film. It’s not looking to reshape animation or redefine it in any way, I get that, but when you have others in this animated space showing you how films like this can be done you have to be disappointed when films like this fall just short of the mark.

Not that any of this matters, I get that as well. The movie will make millions upon millions and will probably result in sequels and spin-offs galore. (I’ll be anxiously awaiting a poorly animated Nickelodeon series based on the lives of the minions which will probably be truly awful as they’re the edgiest thing about this film) Success here is absolutely quantifiable and that is why this movie is an unquestionable hit. I may not like the way it meanders towards an ending we all see coming from the moment this film begins but the kids will enjoy it for what it is while I see it for exactly what it is.

July 9, 2010
Trailer Park: ICE ROAD TRUCKERS, GREEN ZONE, BLOOD ON THE HIGHWAY, MARY AND MAX, HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE: SEASON 2, IT CAME FROM KUCHAR

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

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

ICE ROAD TRUCKERS – DVD Review

I once had a job where it was my job to obtain truck freight.

As I made my way all across the US I realized that everything that we get in this country is obtained by the trucking industry. Bottom line. From the keyboards that you and I write on, the chairs we sit in, the produce and food we eat, the clothes we wear, everything gets here by truck.

That’s why knowing this information makes for a good primer in understanding why Season Three of Ice Road Truckers is such a thrill to watch. While not necessarily family entertainment, some of these road dogs are a bit salty, the program continues to feed my appetite for good reality television and I’ll tell you why: these are people who literally live like the people from The Deadliest Catch. They live their lives one mile at a time and are always looking for ways to make some extra dough. They may not have a place where they clock in 9 to 5 but they know they can beef up their paycheck on any given day just by doing whatever it takes to go some extra distance.

This season is filled with the usual fare you’ve come to expect from the previous two seasons but, I’m telling you, in Blu-ray the whites of the ice and the black of the road that chunks up from time to time just pops right off the screen. The net effect of which is you getting a frightening feel for just how sharp you have to be to do this job. While it doesn’t take a college degree to drive a truck it does take someone with a little finesse to know exactly what their rig can and can’t do. This disc was an absolute delight to watch and it, honestly, will be put into rotation because it’s just that compelling.

About the program:

Just when you thought trucking couldn’t get more dangerous”¦ICE ROAD TRUCKERS: THE COMPLETE SEASON THREE BLU-RAY EDITION brings you to the most treacherous landscape on earth: northern Alaska.

In Prudhoe Bay (250 miles north of the Arctic Circle), a network of ice roads in the tundra crisscross river systems and open ocean to connect America’s booming North Slope oil fields to dry land. Every winter, truckers have less than three months to shuttle critical supplies over the ice. The only problem is there’s just one way to get to this remote location: 400 miles of ice-covered, mountainous terrain known as the Dalton Highway. The Dalton is the lifeline to Alaska’s oil industry. It’s also the most dangerous road in North America and has claimed the lives of more than 400 people since it was built just 30 years ago. The next chapter in the hit HISTORYâ„¢ series returns this season with veteran drivers Hugh Rowland and Alex Debogorski, new drivers (including the show’s first female trucker) and more heart-stopping adrenaline than ever before.

BLOOD ON THE HIGHWAY – DVD Review

Words escape me when describing the fun I had watching this film.

I know it’s kind of en-vogue to make a movie look like it was shot for $5,000 but this movie isn’t being ironic. It wants to embrace its indie vibe and exploit everything in it for maximum effect.

The plot isn’t relevant here as the movie swirls around a bunch of young adults on their way to a concert only to find themselves in a town populated by real dumb vampires. On paper, this shouldn’t work. On paper, this is the most ridiculous idea ever conceived for a movie looking to take advantage of the current wave of vampire inspired programming.

But it works. It works real well.

A movie like this succeeds because of its attention to good fundamentals when it comes to low budget horror directing and it takes the spot in my Top 5 of 2010 so far of horror films that know how to express themselves honestly. Whether you have a low budget or a high budget what should ultimately matter is what you do with the money and I’m betting dollars to doughnuts these kids spent their money on fake blood because there is a lot of it here. As well, the movie succeeds because it’s genuinely funny in the way some of the best Troma films were back in the day. I found myself laughing at some parts but, really, it was finding myself enjoying watching some filmmakers know what they’re doing which was the most satisfying part.

If you can find this on Netflix rent it and watch it as I am 99% certain you will find something to like in this movie which just oozes passion from those who made it.

About the program:

If you’re looking for more blood, gore and vampires than Twilight and Saw put together topped off with a hefty dose of laugh-out-loud comedy, you’re in for a delectable treat with horror film festival favorite BLOOD ON THE HIGHWAY, making its DVD debut this June!

Featuring hilarious cameos from genre favorites Nicholas Brendon (“Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Criminal Minds”) and Tom Towles (Halloween, The Devil’s Rejects), BLOOD ON THE HIGHWAY tells the blood-and-gore-ridden tale of three maladjusted twenty-somethings (Deva George, Nate Rubin and Robin Gierhart). While on their way to a rock concert, the trio accidentally wanders into a town populated by bloodthirsty, dim-witted vampires. With no way to escape, they join the last remaining humans and prepare for an all-out, no-holds-barred battle with an army of the undead.

Called “a Texas vampire opus” by Fangoria, BLOOD ON THE HIGHWAY amassed numerous cult credentials during 2008-09 including: Winner, B-Movie Film Festival, Best Feature; Winner, Atlanta Underground, Best Horror Feature; Winner, Madison Horror Film Festival, Best Feature; Winner, Kimera Film Festival, Best Fantastic Feature; and Winner, Shockfest Film Festival, Best Feature; and was honored as an Official Selection at the AFI Dallas Film Festival, Fantaspoa Fantastic Film Festival (Brazil), Bram Stoker Film Festival (England), Hollywood Film Festival, San Antonio Film Festival, Shockerfest International Film Festival, Horrific Film Festival, Atlanta Horror Film Festival and Haapsalu Horror and Fantasy Film Festival (Estonia).

MARY AND MAX – DVD Review

Filmmaker Adam Elliot is a master storyteller and has the Oscar gold to prove it but Mary and Max is perhaps his true masterpiece.

A film about pen pals who live on separate continents is so much more than a friendly back and forth narrative about their lives. The contents of this film are indeed not meant for young viewers but the contents of this film speak to the human condition of release, of wanting to be understood, of needing someone to simply hear them that there isn’t another film about loneliness I would rather have as a reference. It’s simply spectacular filmmaking from an animator who knows what the medium is capable of and pushes it to limits where bridging the gap between the perceived fiction of clay people is transformed into believability.

While on the surface there is something strange about an 8 year-old girl who is having a rough go at life in Australia starting a pen pal relationship with a 44 year-old single man in New York who has own emotional maladies but it works wonderfully.

Through the course of the film we get to see these individuals mature as people and it’s, I would posit, life affirming in a way to see how these two strangers come together in a way that’s unexpected but yet satisfying on so many levels. Adam Elliot, as well, should be seen as a Svengali when it comes to harnessing the abilities of claymation in a way that not only show up Nick Park with all the attention to detail that Elliot puts into this film but he also should be seen as having that ineffable quality that Pixar films have when they’re at their tear-jerking best: he understands there needs to be a connection with the characters and the people watching these characters. He does this better than most everyone else who toils in animation looking for a franchise or a “hit.”

This is a hit simply based on how long it lingers with you long after you see it.

About the program:

A chance “meeting” changes two lives forever in the extraordinary claymation feature MARY AND MAX, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Toni Collette and Eric Bana. The full-length debut by the Oscar-winning director of Harvie Krumpet and Writer-director Adam Elliot brings the unique stop-motion style feature about the unlikeliest of friendships. In 1970s suburban Melbourne, lonely 8-year-old Mary Daisy Dinkle (voiced by Bethany Whitmore, and later by Oscar nominee and Emmy winner Toni Collette of The United States of Tara), the only child of an alcoholic mother and a distant father, picks a name at random out of a Manhattan phone book and writes to him. The recipient is Max Jerry Horovitz (Oscar winner Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote), an obese 44-year-old single man who, despite suffering from the behavioral disorder Asperger’s syndrome, responds in kind.

HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE: SEASON 2 – DVD Review

I had no idea what to tell my daughter when she asked how the Grand Canyon was made here in Arizona.

I live here in a desert, it’s hot out, what on earth could possibly have carved out a crevasse as wide and as deep as the hole up there in the northern part of the state. After watching the episode dedicated to actually showing me the erosion and how the Colorado River factored into it I can honestly say that now I know.

Many of you already know how slow I am when it comes to having knowledge dropped on me of an academic nature. I really have to pay attention, sometimes squint a little in order to funnel at that information into my brain, but this is what makes How The Earth Was Made series such a blast to watch with the kids. Instead of giving half-cocked answers that are probably wrong the History channel yet again is able to take some serious looks at the prevailing theories and physical evidence and make them real.

With talking heads that don’t bore you, with visuals that actually tell the story for guys like me who need to be shown a shiny object for me to get it, HTEWM succeeds where others fail in that it makes it, gasp, entertaining. I didn’t like science growing up but I am attune to what’s being said, for example, when they explain how Mt. St. Helens came to be simply because they know they need to set themselves apart from the stuffy guys who get paid by universities to bore students to death with the academics of it all.

By no means fluff, and certainly not a definitive dissertation on why their explanation is 100% accurate with no room for dissension, this series is something that the kids can enjoy watching along with their parents (I certainly appreciate programming like that) or that can be causally enjoyed by your average person who just wants to watch a wonderfully produced program about the Earth we live on. Cannot recommend this one enough.

About the program:

Spectacular on-location shooting, evidence from geologists in the field, and clear, dramatic graphics combine in HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE: THE COMPLETE SEASON TWO to show how immensely powerful, and at times violent, forces of geology have formed our planet. The stunning series from HISTORYâ„¢ peels back layers of rock, fills up river canyons, parts the oceans and investigates awe-inspiring formations on 4 DVDs featuring all Season Two episodes.

This season, HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE goes back in history ““ from 4.5 billion years ago to today ““to investigate the origins of some of the most well-known locations and geological phenomena in the world. With rocks as their clues and volcanoes, ice sheets and colliding continents as their suspects, scientists launch a forensic investigation that will help viewers visualize how the Earth has evolved and formed over millions of years. Mt. Everest, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Mt. St. Helens, Death Valley and Supervolcanoes are among the fascinating geological creations featured across 13 episodes of this innovative program.

IT CAME FROM KUCHAR – DVD Review

Bizarre.

If you could suppose who Tim and Eric were inspired by growing up I would have to imagine that saying “The Kuchar brothers” would be a dead lock for a right answer. A film dedicated to showing how two brothers shook up the world of underground filmmaking this documentary which really delivers on showing two guys who never gave up on their passion.

What’s remarkable about this movie is that you see how these kinds of people inspire others to do great work of their own. It’s not that they never had great success in their careers but, rather, they made other artists see the possibilities in things based on the work that these two guys put out there.

I certainly never heard of them before watching this film but watching their process and how they navigate their own film sets you begin to understand that these are not two eccentric men on a mission to triumph over the commercialism of film; they are two men, however, who know what they like and want to keep making films based on these likes. They seem undaunted in their quest to pump out movie after movie and it’s watching them go through the motions of making these things where you understand that for as long as they’ve been making these little films not a lot of people have watched they’re filled with the need, the drive to make more.

In a way this is a testament to people’s dreams and what it takes to realize them because they’re doing it. They’re living with it. John Waters and Buck Henry all have their own say about these movies but after watching this documentary I wasn’t left thinking here are a pair of weirdos. The label is my projection when, in fact, they are operating on a creative level I can only hope to attain someday. These are men among boys and this documentary ought to be required viewing for anyone wanting to know what kind of passion you have to have to make films because they have it by the truckload.

About the program:

Long before YouTube, there were the brilliantly insane, no-budget movies of underground, filmmaking twins George and Mike Kuchar. Ceating stars out of their friends and family with just consumer-grade cameras, the teenage Kuchar brothers went from the 1960’s New York City underground film scene of Andy Warhol and Kenneth Anger to become the twin maestros of B-movie glamour and sleaze. This June, join IndiePix as they celebrate the wildly warped world of these inimitable auteurs with IT CAME FROM KUCHAR. Debuting on DVD following a highly successful film festival/theatrical run, don’t miss this special collector’s edition piling on more than 45 minutes of behind-the-scenes footage, additional interviews, footage and secrets from the Kuchar Brothers fascinating and bizarre world.

In a mesmerizing stream-of-consciousness style, IT CAME FROM KUCHAR effortlessly weaves nostalgic footage of 1950’s New York, a “greatest hits” collection of Kuchar clips and present day interviews of an all-star lineup of fans including John Waters, Buck Henry, Atom Egoyan, Wayne Wang, Bill Griffith, Gerard Malanga, B. Ruby Rich and Guy Maddin. Both outrageous and lovable, George and Mike will inspire you to pick up a camera and start making movies. IT CAME FROM KUCHAR is a must see for lovers of film everywhere.

GREEN ZONE – DVD GIVEAWAY

This is a great contest for some lucky readers out there and I’ll tell you why: this movie was marketed by someone who got it in their head to spin as a what if. What if Jason Bourne ended up in a warzone?

The film couldn’t have been any different and the box office suffered for it. Luckily, the movie is a tight thriller that does not relent. I know there are some issues with pacing and at times the story is a little convoluted but, overall, this movie is a standout in a year with so-so and mediocre releases.

If you would like a chance to win one of these things just shoot me your name and address to Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com. While you’re at it, and to try and weed out those who would lazily just shoot in an entry, let me know your favorite Matt Damon film.

About the film:

Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Supremacy, The Bourne Ultimatum, United 93) re-team for their latest electrifying thriller
in Green Zone, a film set in the chaotic early days of the Iraqi War when no one could be trusted and every decision could detonate unforeseen consequences.

During the U.S.-led occupation of Baghdad in 2003, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Damon) and his team of Army inspectors were dispatched to find weapons of mass destruction believed to be stockpiled in the Iraqi desert. Rocketing from one booby-trapped and treacherous site to the next, the men search for deadly chemical agents but stumble instead upon an elaborate cover-up that inverts the purpose of their mission.

Spun by operatives with intersecting agendas, Miller must hunt through covert and faulty intelligence hidden on foreign soil for answers that will either clear a rogue regime or escalate a war in an unstable region. And at this blistering time and in this combustible place, he will find the most elusive weapon of all is the truth.

July 2, 2010
Trailer Park: CYRUS, THE MAID, BURMA VJ, and A BOY AND HIS DOG

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

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

Cyrus: Instant Cult Classic – Ray Schillaci

Run to the theaters before this gem is lost in the summer shuffle. “Cyrus” is the best comedy of the year. It may be the best comedy of this decade, because we have not seen anything like it since the outrageousness of such underground subversive classics as “Harold and Maude” and “Where’s Poppa?” Now mind you, I know those movies are not for every taste, but my lord what a breath of fresh air “Cyrus” is. Both uncomfortable and downright hilarious at the same time, “Cyrus” soars to the heights of cult classic with the combination of talents; its three stars John C Reilly, Jonah Hill, Marisa Tomei and writers/directors Mark and Jay Duplass.

The great thing about “Cyrus” is that it never quite goes over the top like some of the comedies of late. There are scenes that are awkward and make one uneasy, but we end up too busy laughing to dwell on it. As much of a Judd Apatow fan that I am, I find some of the gags, just that ““ gags. The grossness of the gag puts the brakes on the story and character. “Cyrus” is wonderfully underplayed and works beautifully. It takes a very bizarre situation and puts real people in it and allows the audience to enjoy it. In some ways, it has actually tapped into the strange attraction to reality TV in the way the whole subject matter is handled.

John C. Reilly plays John, a middle-age dysfunctional, anti-social loser who still lives with his ex-wife (in separate rooms), Jamie, played to perfection by Catherine Keener. Jamie is about to be remarried and attempts to get John out of his room and her house. She and her fiancÃ© encourage John to join them at a party so he can mingle and maybe meet somebody. The result is John making an ass out of himself by being way too open and awkward. But one sweetheart, Molly played by Tomei, at the party actually finds some redeeming value in John and semi-invites him into her life.

Problem being; Molly has a secret ““ a very unusual relationship with her 21-year-old son (still living with her) that puts the kabash on anything that remotely appears to be an adult relationship. Enter Cyrus, Jonah Hill’s best performance ever. Hill is not used as a sight gag or somebody we wait to emit the laugh lines. This is a deep, 3 dimensional look into a seriously disturbed person that at times almost makes us feel that he could be capable of just about anything ““ including violence. Don’t misinterpret, Hill is funny but in a very dark sense. It’s an edgy representation that fuels the other performances and it’s what keeps us watching with baited breath. Cyrus is more dysfunctional than John, manipulating and totally into mindf*@#ing his opponents for his mother’s attention.

Everything that John goes through to keep the relationship and try to deal with Cyrus while growing as a mature adult himself is worth the price of admission. John C. Reilly has proved on several occasions how well he can convey the life of a loser. But in “Cyrus,” Mr. Reilly brings a genuine angst and a wonderful touch of someone truly fighting his inner child that so many men deal with. It is such a beautifully natural portrayal that it’s almost a crime to even think of it as a performance.

Then there is Marisa Tomei’s character that is caught in the middle. She’s not entirely blameless for the way Cyrus is. She is both frustrating and endearing trying to appease the mess that has been created. She wants to be a woman again and longs for an adult relationship while being afraid to let go of her over 200lb baby boy, funny and touching. I believe Ms. Tomei is one of the most under-appreciated talents in the business. She has a tendency to imbue her characters with an uncomfortable honesty while remaining sexy and fun at the same time and it works to perfection in this film.

What makes this movie so damn hysterical is how blatantly honest it is. The characters actually say things that you think you’d say but maybe it would be too hurtful. It isn’t, it’s necessary and political correctness is thrown out the window with glee. This is a wonderfully adult comedy that hearkens back to the golden days of Hal Ashby (Harold and Maude, Being There). Jay and Mark Duplass are to be commended for such a brave film during these overtly politically correct times. There is nothing more to say without giving away all the wonderful surprises except, “Cyrus” is priceless.

The Maid – DVD Review

A movie that, on the surface, looks like it does not say much The Maid is a wonderfully deceptive movie about one woman’s life who seems so much a part of, yet detached from, one family’s journey. Somewhat taken for granted by the family that employs her, the maid Raquel (Catalina Saavedra) simply is a fondly thought of woman who helps act as the rudder for the lives she literally cleans up after.

While the movie shows this dour, and many times morose, woman navigate her life in relation to the family the film is a delicate portrait of someone who has so intertwined their being with the work they do that it becomes nearly impossible to separate the two. While everyone else is able to enjoy the pleasures of swimming or ping pong, as the children are wont to do on this movie, Raquel’s world is the home. There is no refuge. Her room feels and is shot, through the warm eye of Chilean director SebastiÃ¡n Silva, like it is her own cell. A prison of her own making but, and this important, she equally finds comfort in her role however diminutive it is in relation to everyone else in the family.

The real treat in this film is seeing how Raquel reacts when the family decides to employ another maid to help out around the home. In almost slapstick fashion Silva creates an environment of bizarre and hilarious moments that juxtapose well with Raquel’s sour disposition at the mere thought or implication that she is being replaced after so many years with the family. She isn’t and she’s not but it’s the idea of it that sends Raquel into a mental tailspin where she is leading maids out the front door so she can lock them out or sending another so much into a torturous rage that the viewed interloper scales the family home just to make it to the backyard, though the back door, and upstairs in order to give Raquel a proper thrashing. Others meet the same passive aggression but it’s not until we meet yet another maid, Lucy (Mariana Loyola), where things turn and the film becomes something so much more than just the defrosting of a frigid woman.

It’s equally sad and funny but I would assert that it’s Silva who wants it that way. It would be too easy to have a movie where you have a character like Raquel represent class struggle and all the metaphors you want to heap on top of her but that would be doing the movie an injustice. You certainly can see that in this film but the movie becomes much more enjoyable when you consider the nuances of personality that Saavedra is able to channel through her face. So forlorn yet still capable of so much humanity the movie undermines your expectations and delivers a movie that is rich in character, spirit, and the strength inherent in the belief that work should not define who we are, we should define it for ourselves.

About the film:

After 23 years working as a devoted maid in an upper class Chilean household, embittered and ailing Raquel (Sundance Film Festival and Gotham Award winner Catalina Saavedra) can no longer care for the family alone. Trapped by guilt, matriarch Pilar (Claudia CeledÃ³n) refuses to let Raquel go, even though it is clear their longtime maid is slowly unraveling. Instead, Pilar hires more help, throwing Raquel into a jealous frenzy. The seemingly happy home soon becomes the stage for Raquel’s dirty tricks as she attempts to drive away anyone who threatens to take her place with darkly comedic, and in the end, endearing results.

DVD Features

Behind the scenes video clips with the cast and crew

From Sketch to Screen ““ a video comparison of storyboards to scenes

Photos from SebastiÃ¡n Silva

BURMA VJ – DVD Review

Forget about the easy lines of “The revolution will be televised” when seeing a movie about the tyrannical rule exerted by the forces of the Burmese military junta that suppress any public declaration questioning their authority. You think marching around your town with a picket sign is the work of brave people? Try doing it in that country.

Burma VJ, shot with handheld devices, small digital cameras, objects that have gloriously allowed people to inconspicuously shoot video, stands as a document for those who want to see what true oppression can do to a populace. What you initially notice about those who would try and demonstrate is that, at first, no one really notices or cares to. One moment they’re out telling people about the grave injustices done to them by their government and all seems well. But it’s not until you see the plain clothes, government stooges round any dissenter up with the kind of speed and inconspicuousness of a shoplifter, that you start to see this is the stuff of bogeymen. Watching what could be an ordinary person on the street literally pull you through the street, throw you on the back of a truck, swallow you in the congested traffic of the city, possibly never to be heard from again, it’s then when you realize how frightening it must be for these people on a daily basis to simply exist.

The film chronicles many stories just like this, narrated by a man simply known as Joshua, whose true identity is kept secret due to his involvement with the pro-democracy movement, and exposes the supposed government as a ruling force that not wants to stay in power but will do anything to stay there. From the aforementioned kidnappings, let’s call them what they are, to soldiers who open fire on a gathering of many, Burma VJ is a collection of clips and recordings that show you the true cruelty of oppression.

The movie, directed by award-winning Anders Ã˜stergaard, is not only a story of how one regime can keep a population down but yet it’s also conscious of how technology can televise a revolution. While it seems that the proliferation of modern accouterments of daily life would help make a world aware of the cruel and inhumane things done to citizens of Burma the reason why this film even exists is because people are unaware, or are ignoring, the plight of so many. While some moments are blurry, intelligible, or confusing there is nonetheless a certain kind of outrage that steadily builds as you watch this documentary. It’s a documentary that shows you the power of the 21st century that can, for the first time, tell this story in living color but it’s also a testament to how far some regimes will go to keep people from standing up, from speaking out. It’s truly inspiring in a way that doesn’t seem forced or manipulated as the whole point of the movie is to tell this story from those who were there, who are still there, living in fear of a government that could make them disappear should it find out who these individuals are.

It’s something that’s frightening and comforting at the same time, knowing that the fight still rages on certainly inspires but knowing this document now exists for others to witness is a small victory for those looking for change.

About the film:

Anders Ã˜stergaard’s award-winning documentary shows a rare inside look into the 2007 uprising in Myanmar through the cameras of the independent journalist group, Democratic Voice of Burma.

While 100,000 people (including 1,000s of Buddhist monks) took to the streets to protest the country’s repressive regime that has held them hostage for over 40 years, foreign news crews were banned to enter and the Internet was shut down. The Democratic Voice of Burma, a collective of 30 anonymous and underground video journalists (VJs) recorded these historic and dramatic events on handycams and smuggled the footage out of the country, where it was broadcast worldwide via satellite. Risking torture and life imprisonment, the VJs vividly document the brutal clashes with the military and undercover police ““ even after they themselves become targets of the authorities.

DVD Features

Audio commentary with BURMA VJ director Anders Ã˜stergaard and film critic John Anderson

FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM ““ a video interview with BURMA VJ “Joshua”

Burmese Monks’ stories from the uprisings televised on Democratic Voice of Burma

A video message from Richard Gere

CROSSING MIDNIGHT ““ a riveting film about refugees on the Thai/Burma border

Worth Reviving: A Boy and His Dog – Ray Schillaci

It’s been far too long since I’ve treated all of you to a dip into the revival pool. So I had to dig down deep to exonerate myself with something so fun, titillating (love that word ““ it brings out the eight-year-old boy in me) and downright obscure that perhaps you will find this piece worthy enough to continue on with. In today’s words “A Boy and his Dog” is the shits!

Even by today’s standards it is still subversive. At first glance, it could be passed on as just another post-apocalyptic tale. But wait, it’s taken from a story by Harlan Ellison and known as the inspiration to the “Mad Max/Road Warrior” movies. Aside from that how would one bark balk at an allegory involving man having a telepathic communication with his best friend (his dog) and hunting down meals for him as the dog reciprocates by hunting for women (not for a meaningful relationship). The best part ““ this is done long before the overuse of computer generated talking animals. So we forego the cutesy animated lips that Disney and so many others perpetrate on the animal kingdom.

This also stars a very young, pre-Miami Vice, Don Johnson, playing a none-too-bright, wide eyed horn dog. Johnson, along with the rest of the cast (including Jason Robards and a very funny Tim McIntire as the voice of the dog) is spot on with this apocalyptic satire. Johnson is Vic, a ragtag dimwitted loner, who is consistently losing a battle of wits with his telepathic pooch, Blood. One can easily tell the influence this film has had on films from “Mad Max” to “Book of Eli”. That wonderful desolate world-has-gone-to-shit look, trash and all perpetrates through a good part of the film. Those who are not savage are ravaged.

Avoiding other marauders, hunting down food and women, poorly, Vic stumbles upon the yummy Quilla June Holmes, played by Susanne Benton (see Playboy cover May 1970). She’s not like the other women who have suffered through the apocalypse. Ms. Benton, back then, was what young men’s wet dreams were made of. Quilla is a heartthrob mystery woman who leads Vic to a secret underground society that appears right out of Stepfordville. Interesting side note; both “A Boy and his Dog” and the original “Stepford Wives” were released in 1975. But the former was written earlier in 1969. The funny thing is, just when you think you have this film pegged, it takes a wild darker tone once Vic enters the underground hometown. Don’t want to give too much away since there are several double-take moments that have you want to hit the pause button and say to yourself, “You’ve got to be kidding me!”

Although an independent cheapie at the time, “A Boy and his Dog” is a biting masterful piece of work capturing the true essence of Harlan Ellison. Direction is tight and creative, and the cinematography is perfect, capturing both the post apocalyptic world and the underground society with a hint of “Twilight Zone.” Acting is wonderful with Jason Robards giving a fantastic low-key performance. But what it really comes down to is not the chemistry between luscious Susanne Benton and Don Johnson, which is fine, but the near comic timing between Johnson and the dog. It’s wonderfully and refreshingly adult with a hint of bringing out the juvenile in the male species.

This is not a date movie! Do not make that mistake. The ending will have guys roar and women cringe. It’s misogynistic and hilarious, and it’s meant to be to the fullest degree. This film was done during a time when people were not so uptight and politically correct. It’s also hard to see how it could be remade in our time. But somebody has the asinine notion to attempt such a defeat. I just heard that David Lee Miller (My Suicide) is now attached and making an animated film out of this. If you ask me (for what it’s worth) this is as wrong-minded as Joel Silver’s decision to remake Don Quixote with the fantasies being real. That negates Cervantes’ whole work. Of course, what does a literary genius like Silver care if there may be a few million bucks in it and a toy franchise? Either way, rent or buy “A Boy and his Dog” and be the judge. This film should not be remade; it’s as classic to the underground, cult movement of the seventies as Wizard of Oz is an endearing classic of its time.

June 24, 2010
Trailer Park: A-TEAM Review

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

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

A-Team – Review

The tagline to the 2010 version of the A-Team is that There Is No Plan B. Unfortunately, there seems to have been no Plan A, either.

Watching director/writer Joe Carnahan’s latest action opus you half wonder if he really thought that having characters with absolutely no backstory, no lives to speak of prior to what we see when we hit the ground literally running on the opening fifteen minutes of the film was an especially good idea. Certainly having a Quinton “˜Rampage’ Jackson fill in the shoes left by the charismatic Mr. T in the 80’s might have seemed good in theory but, in execution, it was a miserable decision. Jackson tosses out T’s wildly popular refrain “Fool” as if he were a drunken slob performing it in front of the venerable TV action star in jest. Jackson seems to be well enough equipped to perform as his own if he weren’t trying to inhabit the body of a character decades old but it does feel old. This movie feels old.

What Carnahan’s camera work, accurately depicting what it would look like if you were to strap a movie camera on a paint shaker and left to run, disappointingly fails to accomplish is a sense of visceral action, of fun. In Smokin’ Aces, Carnahan’s last directorial outing, the camera was in love with what it was capturing; be it Jeremy Piven’s descent into madness, the Tremor brother’s equally impassioned decent into madness, or the action that punctuating the moments where mayhem was the name of the game, that film should have set Carnahan up here to make something with an even bigger budget to blow things up. What we get, however, is humor that doesn’t cut as deep as Aces and action set pieces that simply feel perfunctory than they do a visceral part of what we all want. What we all want the whole time, mind you, is one that captures Carnahan’s talents but when the movie takes no time to give these four men, Hannibal (Liam Neeson), Face (Bradley Cooper), B.A. Baracus, and Murdock (Sharlto Copley) any sense of camaraderie or kinship these men are all expendable.

The story itself is painfully simplistic: while performing the kinds of things that the A-Team is known for doing in Iraq, while we don’t know what these things are we do see some of our members strategically battle scarred (Cooper, who has a lot of screen time without his shirt on) for proper effect, they’re offered a job. The job has them retrieving American currency printing plates from the dirty clutches of Iraqis who are up to no good. With shocking ease and movie magic that elevates what these men pull off to heights that even the most forgiving person with a good suspension of disbelief would think is insane, the men do the impossible, literally, and are framed once the job goes south. The men, wanting to clear their good name, are freed by a little nudging of CIA agent Lynch (Patrick Wilson, who plays his part with as much listless gusto as Edward Norton did in the Italian Job) go on the hunt for the plates in a story that presents no speed bumps or obstacles too realistic that these men can’t overcome.

The fault, primarily, lies at the feet of Carnahan, Brian Bloom, and Skip Woods. The former, Carnahan, has no excuse. Both Narc and Smokin’ Aces still hold up as examples for how great and pulpy screenwriting can be and the writing here just reeks of someone who has no interest in logic or depth. Bloom, on the other hand, has an excuse. This is his foray into credited screenwriting after over a 25 year career in Hollywood and if his character in the film (Pike) was any indication of the kind of material he’s capable of producing it’s a sad indication of how one-dimensional he decided to present. However, writer Skip Woods has written such action films as Hitman and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. These two films take the wonder out of trying to decipher why there is no blood coursing through the people we see on the screen, why they feel as alive as a piece of scenery, pawns to be simply moved at the whims of a script that deems it so without any fundamental reasoning.

The wafer thin love subplot between Cooper and Jessica Biel (Charisa Sosa) is a particularly curious addition to the film in that it too feels like it was put there simply to keep it being a premature sequel to The Expendables. A woman and man do not a romance make and the nonexistence of chemistry or, again, deeper history between these two fails to help make this a compelling relationship to care about in any meaningful way. The direction that Gerald McRaney’s (General Morrison) character goes not only feels like lazy scriptwriting but it’s a shameful callback to old Scooby-Doo episodes where the big reveal depends on a literal unmasking. All that was missing in this movie was for these men to all wake up and realize they were just fantasizing the idea that they were all a super team impervious to logic or reality.

This was a movie that is supposed to be fun to watch because we want to see these men overcome the danger of being the hunted while also being on the hunt. The failure to capture the sense these men were in any real danger of either being taken back into custody or being killed on assignment almost makes you wonder whether if this ought to have been shown on NBC as a movie of the week if this was how toothless the movie was going to play out on the screen.

When one of the best compliments you get from a critic who actually gave a positive review of your film remarks about the good-lookingness of your lead actor as a reason why people will like your movie, there’s something wrong with it. We ought to embrace the mayhem and excitement of men like this on the loose, fighting two sides of the law, and we ought to have been given a movie that took an OK television show to explosive heights. Instead, we have a pack of actors just wandering in a movie where you simply don’t care what happens to them. We just want them off our screen so we can go home.

June 11, 2010
Trailer Park: ONDINE, THE WOLFMAN, PRINCE OF PERSIA, & More

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

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

Ondine – Review

The story seems silly enough if read on paper: Local fisherman (Colin Farrell), out fishing looking for seafood to sell at the local market, finds a woman in his net (Alicja Bachleda) who doesn’t remember who she is or how she ended up caught in a man’s fishing line. He allows the woman to live in a small house located in a sleepy wharf where she can get her bearings all the while telling his young daughter who suffers from kidney failure a story that involves an Irish version of mermaids, silkies, thus bringing us to the beginning of the story. The brevity with which writer and director Neil Jordan sets up almost all of the plot points is almost fantastical in its execution. Without realizing it as someone watching the film Jordan lays out all the pertinent stories that need telling at breakneck speed.

Not only do we learn that Farrell, whose real name in the film is Syracuse but who town folk still call Circus for his legendary alcoholic antics before he gave up the sauce, is divorced from his wife, trying to put his wild days behind him, and is sharing custody of his daughter but we also learn of his troubled past as it relates to his present in a manner that seems better suited to the stage than it does the screen.

And this isn’t a knock on Jordan, mind you. I think this performance from Farrell is just as compelling as seeing him in In Bruges. The man simply melts into this man who is not a Hollywood version of a fisherman who’s lived, and still is living, a hardscrabble life he is that fisherman who only has his work and his daughter. There isn’t anything to grab onto beyond this and it’s refreshing insofar that Farrell has to lean on his ability to inhabit someone who feels more real than he does a caricature.

What Jordan does best in this movie is to put Farrell in a position to navigate the world of a man who has scooped up a gorgeous woman, and make no mistake Bachleda is a quintessential mermaid, a true flower of the ocean with her pale skin and radiant features, and understands his position as a man who could help someone not be found. Farrell buys into the mythos of the mermaid, however, when he thinks that this woman has helped changed his fortunes at sea with the amount of fish and lobster he catches with her aboard his ship but the movie is so much more than a man who thinks he’s on to something with this woman.

This is a movie about intimacy. Jordan captures an Ireland that is removed from the usual features of the Emerald Isle which are usually accentuated in a film that could have been set anywhere there was a boat and some fishing to be had. This film lives and breathes. From the small details like keeping in moments of people walking down a dirt path and the flourishes that show him to be an expert at capturing a moment, for example, when Farrell and his daughter Annie (Alison Barry) are talking during one of her dialysis treatments, the closeness of the camera and lighting creating a tender moment between a father and daughter that doesn’t feel manipulative, it feels heartfelt and sweet.

At the heart of it, of course, the mermaid has a secret and it might be one of the more typical elements of a movie that defies most every other convention when it comes to movies about two people falling in love. The brilliance of the film is that from the music to the cinematography by Christopher Doyle which just fits in with Jordan’s aesthetic here the movie has a quiet passion about it; the notes that play underneath the conversations, the shared moments between the players, this is a movie that is dependant on its acting and its pacing.

Without the ruggedness and everyman charm of Farrell, the mystery which surrounds Bachleda and how she navigates a character that has something to hide but covers it up with a thin veil of sweetness, and the precociousness of Annie who seems more like a real child her age rather than one cut from a script the movie would not be what it is. The idea of mythology and how Farrell believes this strange woman is indeed from the sea is interwoven into the film with a muted amusement while never being distracting to the actual plot of the picture.

True, Jordan’s script wavers slightly in its final act, the penultimate moment all but telegraphed leading up to the final moment when it all goes exactly to plan, but that shouldn’t take away from a movie that brims with character and is a romantic drama that just radiates talent and sweetness. There’s something to be said about living life in a small town, everyone knowing everyone else’s business, but that’s never been captured so personally and as precisely as Neil Jordan has done here.

The Wolfman – DVD Giveaway

I know some people ragged on this film for its silliness but I loved this picture in a real affectionate B-movie way.

The action was solid, the gore was viscous, the set design was spectacular and the acting was sub-par. All elements needed for a good horror film. I realize that’s not really what they were hoping to achieve on this picture but seeing how plagued the production was with shifting talent behind the camera I am amazed that this wasn’t a bigger disaster than it was because it’s still a really good film.

I am hoping this movie finds a new life on DVD and to that end I am offering copies of this movie to anyone who wants to get entered in a contest to get one. I have a few copies so your chances are fairly solid if you send me a note to Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and simply state your all-time favorite, classic Universal movie monster.

It’s just that easy, folks.

A film description:

Inspired by the classic Universal film that launched a legacy of horror, The Wolfman brings the myth of a cursed man back to its iconic origins. OscarÂ® winner Benicio Del Toro stars as Lawrence Talbot, a haunted nobleman lured back to his family estate after his brother vanishes. Reunited with his estranged father (OscarÂ® winner Anthony Hopkins), Talbot sets out to find his brother…and discovers a horrifying destiny for himself. Lawrence Talbot’s childhood ended the night his mother died.

After he left the sleepy Victorian hamlet of Blackmoor, he spent decades recovering and trying to forget. But when his brother’s fiancÃ©e, Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt), tracks him down to help find her missing love, Talbot returns home to join the search. He learns that something with brute strength and insatiable bloodlust has been killing the villagers, and that a suspicious Scotland Yard inspector named Aberline (Hugo Weaving) has come to investigate.

As he pieces together the gory puzzle, he hears of an ancient curse that turns the afflicted into werewolves when the moon is full. Now, if he has any chance at ending the slaughter and protecting the woman he has grown to love, Talbot must destroy the vicious creature in the woods surrounding Blackmoor. But as he hunts for the nightmarish beast, a simple man with a tortured past will uncover a primal side to himself…one he never imagined existed.

A Dead End, a Resurrection and a Disturbed After.Life by Ray Schillaci

Pardon my tardiness for posting this article. I have discovered that hell is moving and movers are its minions. I’m finally able to get my work space in semi-order and hammer out my thoughts (or what’s left of them) on some other highlights of the Phoenix Film Festival. The last time I checked, only 1 out of the 3 following films had distribution deals. Each filmmaker has infused their film with their own unique vision and artistic passion which sets it far apart from the standard studio drech and they deserve an audience (film festival, small art house run and/or cable deal).

“NoNames” was the big winner and obviously struck a chord with anyone from the mid-west. This is the simple story of people growing up in small town Wisconsin with very few choices and those who pick the wrong ones. The ones that tread the wrong path have little joy to look forward to but the local bar and partying in the back of their cramped trailers. For them, success would be staying out of trouble, getting their own home (that was not a trailer), maintaining a decent job, finding love and keeping it to the best of their ability. These are obviously not priorities in the lead character’s life, Kevin, played by James Badge Dale and that’s the frustrating part of watching his life spiral out of control.

At this viewer’s first glance it was easy to dismiss many of the characters in this cautionary tale as Jerry Springer candidates and hard to connect with when the choices seemed so simple. I’ve known people like this and try not to be around them since their narrow mindedness and stubborn ways always end up creating more drama in their lives which seems to suck so many unsuspecting others in. But rather than just dismissing this as a backwoods Shakespearean drama, I had to take myself out of the critic’s seat for a moment after seeing the reaction of the audience that stayed for the Q&A. Those people were actually from small towns and their heartfelt feelings were vindicated by the director, cast and crew capturing exactly what goes on in this lifestyle that Hollywood has no clue of or interest in.

All the more heart wrenching was the discovery that it’s based on a true story. The director and co-producers were very close to the people and their account. That may explain the straightforward style of the picture. The director, Kathy Lindboe, does not accentuate the palette of the narrative with canvases, editing techniques or music. Instead she relies on her actors, the lives of their characters and the town itself. This is captured in a very blunt way that some will embrace while others may feel put off. Lindboe and her talented cast and crew have put together a hard look at small town living and dismantled any romantic conceptions that usually has Hollywood scoop up and serve the inane pabulum to an unsuspecting public. No, director Kathy Lindboe has a purpose and intends to display it without heartstrings and pretty pictures.

This film is made for small town Middle America and those who have been fortunate enough to escape it. Let me back step for a moment that is not to say that being a small town is instant doom for those who reside in it. The choices have become extremely minimal thanks to America and its politics joining in on the good ol’ global bandwagon. Small towns use to be considered the heart and soul of America and now have been under sold as a worthless commodity. This leaves many in disarray constantly searching for some kind of balance in a purposely unbalanced world. Dysfunction has become the norm and we’re told to live with it rather than address it. “NoNames” displays these symptoms with pathos and guilt, capturing a very sad side of the nation we live in.

The film is by no means perfect with some editing issues (a little long) and some much needed dialogue to be punched up. But the film struck a primal chord with the Phoenix audiences and has continued to do so with various other showings, hence the accolades. Both James Badge Dale and Gillian Jacobs turn in notable deep felt performances while the rest of the cast blend well with the tale itself. “NoNames” is not the kind of film that opens in L.A. or New York. And, it may find a struggle pulling itself out of obscurity like the characters that are portrayed, but it already has a built-in audience that could definitely give a smart distributor a reason to pick it up and make a profit on an entire heartland audience that can speak volumes.

Now for something really different; when was the last time you were truly taken on a journey that left you breathless? In the 70s there were a multitude of such films that explored the human condition and left one with so many deep conversations at small coffee shops; Michelangelo Antonioni’s “The Passenger” Nicholas Roeg’s “Walkabout” and any one of John Cassavetes’ films of that era. The Phoenix Film Festival was treated to such a personal event with Jason Lehel’s “Gaia,” an amazing journey of self realization for one troubled young woman. It appears that Lehel may be cut from the same creative cloth as those mentioned.

The director has made (what some may say) an insane proposition; to film an emotionally charged concept infused with brilliant ideas without the aid of a script and then cast an unknown in the lead role with everything hinging on her believability. On top of that, he puts her right smack dab in the middle of a real Indian reservation with non-actors. It pays off in spades! This is the art that has been missing from art houses. Lehel conjures images that haunt and have one talking for days while Emily Lape pulls off a performance that is not only Oscar worthy, but should have other actresses taking notes for years. It is a beautifully nuanced and natural piece of acting that almost feels like an intrusion into one’s life thanks to Lehel’s wonderful eye.

To say Gaia is a troubled woman with a dark past is an understatement. This young woman appears hell-bent in partying herself to death till she winds up wandering the Arizona desert in a complete drug and alcohol haze after being brutally raped. She eventually collapses and is taken in by a caring Native American Indian, named Ed. What transpires between Gaia, Ed and the other natives is a revelation. Nothing is taken for granted and Gaia’s journey is not a quick fix. It is an arduous task that is never clear if it will ever come into fruition until the very end. This is not a horrifying cautionary tale, but an ode to hope, survival and self-realization. It is both the frailness of being human and the triumph of the human spirit. The story almost takes on a cosmic sojourn with the time spent with the Native Americans and their culture.

Aside from Miss Lape’s stellar turn, Ed Mendoza as the Native American who helps her along is wonderfully touching with a lightheartedness that lifts Gaia and the viewers from the ashes of her life. He is the grounding rod to Gaia’s lightening and his sensitivity and interaction with so many others makes him even more embracing. There is also a strained, touching and nearly doomed relationship between Gaia and a deaf mute Native American. Their scenes range from the gentle to the abrasive with Gaia’s past haunting both of them.

Warning: this film is not for the simple minded. It makes you think about life and what it has to offer. Director Jason Lehel (a 25+ year veteran cinematographer) has created, for his directorial debut, a complex drama that does not follow the normal narrative. He explores time shifts, uncomfortable sexual dalliances and an exploration into a culture virtually ignored in film today. I recommend this beautiful thought provoking film to those who miss intelligent drama laced with a hint of the metaphysical. It is a rare breed and a breath of fresh air that makes one thankful for the talents of Jason Lehel and Emily Lape.

I have saved a most puzzling for last. There are times that life imitates art and other times when there is a bizarre collision that results in uncomfortable, nails on the chalk board, moments. Case in point; actress, Brittany Murphy’s recent passing in her bathroom colliding with the debut of her new movie on DVD, the cover displaying the actress dead in a bathtub”¦eerie. Now treading from eerie to damn creepy is Liam Neeson’s turn as a funeral director who claims to have a relationship with his (dead) clientele. For some, “After.Life” will be the equivalent of afterbirth; disgusting and tossed aside. But it’s not that easy for the curious at heart and as aggravating and unsettling it is to watch the film can be considered either a carefully crafted twisted piece of Grand Guignol or the demented work of a sick mind. I may save the last for another gruesome film oddity, “The Human Centipede”. After all, “After.Life” plays more with your mind than serving up stomach churning visuals.

I’m on the fence with this one since I could not help but wonder what possessed the great and respected Liam Neeson to take on such a ghoulish role and then to top it off have the love of his life pass away in an unusual accident just months after finishing the project. It adds tremendous weight to the story as we watch it unfold between Neeson’s funeral director and his new visitor Christina Ricci, who may or may not be dead. It appears that the funeral director has a gift/curse to have conversations with those on the slab who insist they are still alive and it is his job to assist them into the beyond. On the other hand, this guy may be the greatest slight-of-hand trickster since Norman Bates.

This is as cold and calculating as it sounds. Mr. Neeson gives a performance that harkens back to the good old days of the great Boris Karloff, but it is not over the top. If anything, he underplays beautifully which adds to the gruesomeness of it all. With several naked shots, Ricci is very off-putting to watch. A combination of material, performance and direction make the scenes feel very wrong, almost taboo. There is nothing sexy here, like what was delivered in “Black Snake Moan”. Ricci runs the gamut of emotions trying to figure out if she is actually dead and so do we.

Although there are others in the cast, “After.Life” is basically a two person melodrama/thriller and at times may remind one of a play. Justin Long as Paul appears to be in for the ride, once again as a long suffering boyfriend. I don’t know if it’s a casting curse, but Long’s character looks like it just traversed across the screen from the same thankless character he played in “Drag Me to Hell”. He has the ability to be engaging, but it’s wasted in movies of this sort. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was casted in “Scream 4” as another victim.

“After.Life” has played some festivals, had a limited run in April 2010 and is readying for an August 2010 DVD release. But this film cries out for the midnight show freaks. The director’s ghoulish twists and turns keep the audience on its toes and hammered to their seats while the weak may watch through parted fingers. Agitating, aggravating and like searching for a pulse that may or may not be there, “After.Life” challenges its viewers. Are you up for the challenge? Me, I had to take a good shower afterwards, remind myself it was only celluloid and look forward to a lighter side of a tanned Mr. Neeson as Colonel John “Hannibal” Smith on “The A Team”.

Prince of Pulp and Circumstance by Ray Schillaci

How easy is it to take apart another Jerry Bruckheimer spectacle that hopes to follow in the footsteps of Cecile B. Demille or is that too lofty a goal to suggest? Perhaps it’s the idea of taking another ride, toy or video game and making oodles of money on merchandising via a movie while nearly forgetting the entertainment value. Whatever it may be, “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” is as convoluted as its title. Too bad, it didn’t have to be, had somebody taken a little more time with the story and direction. The movie had any number of classic yarns it could have emulated from, Ali Baba, Aladdin and so forth. Instead, gymnastics and CGI cover up plot holes, dead space and time filler.

The story is simple; a street urchin demonstrates his tenacity in a marketplace and the king of Persia not only spares his life for the spirit the young man displays, but adopts him as well. The young man grows up with royalty and like nearly everyone else learns to speak with a British accent even though they’re Persian. The only exception is Ben Kingsley, but that’s because he looks more the part, is suspicious and is far capable of acting rings around everyone else. That’s just one of the many things that irks me in this wrong minded new venture from the man that brought you “Pirates of the Caribbean”. Just to prove that, Alfred Molina is thrown in for good measure to represent the Captain Jack Sparrow character in the guise of Sheik Amar. Molina is the lighthearted rogue that is more bark than bite with a sense of humor that gets crushed in all the slam-bang antics. To be fair to Mr. Molina, he is a redeeming value in this mess and should have been spared and put to better use in the new “Pirates”¦” movie instead.

Oops, I almost forgot to finish what story there is. Jake Gyllenhall plays Dastan the adopted brother who is raised with two other good looking brothers. Without the king’s knowledge, the three march on a sacred city as a suspected enemy of their land. In doing so, Dastan accidently discovers a mystical dagger that can reverse time. The adventure starts from there and if anybody ever had a chance to see the sorrowful time waster “Next” starring Nicholas Cage, one could only guess where it will all end up. It’s the equivalent of a lot of build up and then discovering”¦it’s only a dream? That’s right, dress a pig up all you want, but in the end it’s just an overdressed heffer.

Jake Gyllenhall plays cavalier well, unfortunately it’s to Gemma Arterton’s emotionless, cardboard cutout character that makes us appreciate Keira Knightly’s underwritten character from “Pirates”¦” all the more. The CGI cities are becoming stale wastelands for the eye and are better suited for the small computer screen where they belong. The acrobatics, supposedly achieved by Gyllenhal’s character, soon become redundant after twenty minutes leaving a lot of useless commotion as time filler.

Is it unfair to ask for just a little bit of creative writing or wit from this lackluster piece? The trailers themselves could not muster up enough of a great weekend box office for this tired retread. Mind you, it’s not a bad time waster for the under 15 year-old male set. The sad part was half way through, my 10 year-old son and his year younger cousin were getting antsy. They didn’t even want to stay past the credits to see if anything would happen as some of the Disney films have. They could care less. But they did want to get the Prince of Persia lego set. They thought it was cooler than the movie.

June 4, 2010
Soapbox: Fritz Lang’s M

M

It is somewhat customary in the review of a classic to point out the age of the opus in question before insisting that it still feels “as fresh as ever.” It’s a lazy shorthand that can be used for Wagner’s Ring cycle, Joyce’s Ulysses and Citizen Kane in the same breath, a write-off that attempts to reassure the reader that hallmarks of art do not have to sit in a museum, not even collecting dust because of protective cases. The statement is usually presented on its own, a QED “proof” without demonstration, allowing the writer to move on quickly out of fear that he or she has nothing to add on an already thoroughly analyzed work (“What can I say about ____ that hasn’t already been said?” is also a trite shortcut that we have all used at some point no matter how much everyone hates to read the sentence). But, damn it, how can you talk about Fritz Lang’s masterpiece, M, without pointing out its continued ability to grip, illuminate and provoke on the eve of its 80th anniversary?

Before one can address the subject of M, one must first consider Lang’s career up to that point. The director spent his early career balancing between art projects and action-packed crowd-pleasers. Spiders, first earliest surviving film, is a two-part adventure epic that greatly influenced Spielberg’s Indiana Jones series, while Destiny (or Weary Death if you prefer the more accurate translation) was a more Expressionistic story despite its own plethora of special effects (which were so impressive that Douglas Fairbanks bought U.S. distribution rights so he could bury the film until he figured out how to steal those effects for his own Thief of Baghdad). From that point, Lang began to bridge the two, making significant artistic leaps in his next epics, Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler and Die Nibelungen, before starting to condense the grandeur of his work into shorter timeframes, starting with Metropolis and continuing with Spies. Spies in particular points toward M, having condensed and refined the crime thriller elements of Dr. Mabuse and lessened the Expressionistic material to a more realistic atmosphere — even its abandonment of traditional dissolves in favor of faster cutting aided this effect.

Of course, the key difference between Spies (and Lang’s next film, Woman in the Moon) and M involved the development of working sound technology and soundproof camera casings. Lang, already an operatic director, seems in retrospect the perfect filmmaker to show the capabilities of the invention.

Contrary to popular belief, M was not the first major sound film; it was not even the first noteworthy German sound film, as Josef von Sternberg’s The Blue Angel premiered a year before. However, in the four years since talkies hit in 1927, nobody explored the boundaries of the technology like Lang. The failure of the early talkies, brilliantly lampooned in Singin’ in the Rain (a film that, as a musical, of course depends on sound), was in the tendency for filmmakers to treat the technology like a fad even though nearly everyone embraced it. Apart from the odd exception of Lubitsch’s early musicals or von Sternberg’s Blue Angel, talkies did not approach the level of the last silents, and when the Depression hit sound became a last-ditch effort to spike theatrical attendance when it first took a dive before later spiking.

But Lang establishes sound as an integral element of the film, inseparable from the rest of it. Sound introduces the child killer who terrorizes Berlin in the form of his voice and a shadow (the most overtly Expressionistic moment of the film and a audiovisual transition point of Lang’s career), allowing the murderer to remain out-of-sight and unknown to the audience; later, it is sound that destroys the man when his whistling is the clue that leads to his capture. That whistling, of “In the Hall of the Mountain King,” an innately foreboding song with is accelerando structure that builds from an eerily quiet and slow low register to a cascade, as well as the schoolyard rhyme the children sing at the start (carrying, like so many rhymes, a darker undercurrent) adds tension to the film from the start. And nothing conveys tragedy like the mother of wee Elsie Beckmann, the girl the killer abducts, as she calls for her daughter in panic, her disembodied calls played over shots of horribly empty places around the city (a all-too-common device today that was introduced here) before showing the ball the girl carried rolling out from behind a bush and the balloon the killer bought her floating into power lines.

It is that minimalism, in fact, that makes M so unique among the director’s German output. His previous features, even the smaller ones (or at least the ones that survive) had bombast, swirling in Expressionism and Expressionism-lite. An earlier crime epic like Dr. Mabuse, with its supernatural antagonist, grabbed its audience through an advancement of Feuilladian editing and through the artistic visualizations of Mabuse’s mental powers. M, on the other hand, does not put anything in the frame that doesn’t need to be there. Consider how much mileage Lang gets out of whistling, how he sets a horrifying leitmotif with “In the Hall of the Mountain King” and later uses it to catch out Hans Beckert, who is himself freaked out by whistling when he is discovered by a lone searcher who then alerts the rest of his posse. Images are likewise spare, from the shot of the chalk ‘M’ a runner draws on his hand to slap on Beckert’s back to tag him as the murderer to Beckert’s last attempt to hide in an attic (an oddly and disturbingly prescient image in a film that criticizes the rise of Nazism) as footsteps grow louder until the door bursts open and a flashlight illuminates the culprit. Expressionism allowed artists to paint or film images that suggested ideas, a more universally legible portrait than the works of Impressionism, which convey only the artist’s sense of the subject, but M is more immediately arresting than any of Lang’s more aesthetically ambitious pictures. The images and sounds are all meticulously chosen to raise tension and put forward a social commentary, which is as didactic as you might expect but layered enough to provide more than a simple anti-Nazi sentiment.

Before M, crime films defined clearly good heroes and incontrovertibly bad villains. But Lang routinely contrasts the police who crack down on Berlin to find the child killer with the criminals who are so affected by the increased pressure that they also decide to hunt for the killer to return things to normal. The clearest distinction between the two groups, brilliantly intercut between planning conferences until it becomes difficult to tell them apart, is the simple truth that the criminals are more effective; in their conference, the criminals speak of forcing landlords and homeowners to allow access to their property for searching, at which point Lang cuts back to the authorities who speak of a similar plan, only for the wizened among them to warn against such a politically disastrous act. When Beckert is eventually collared by the thieving mob, the leader, SchrÃ¤nker (Gustaf GrÃ¼ndgens in the role that led to his immense popularity in Germany during the Third Reich), downplays the killer’s demands for legal representation by slyly assuring the man, “We are all law experts here.”

Not only does Lang blur the line between cop and criminal, he does so under the pretense of heightened realism (he even struck a deal with police to allow real criminals to work as bit players, and when shooting wrapped they scattered before cops could re-apprehend them). M opens with a gong strike which, according to the commentary track furnished by Criterion, linked the film to the radio newscasts of the day, as if establishing the film as docudrama. At first, M plays like a well-researched police procedural, as Inspector Lohmann uncovers tiny clues and examines them thoroughly as Lang inserts shot of blown-up photographs of fingerprints and psychologically breaking down the handwriting of the killer’s note to the press. At this stage, the film’s direction centers on the mystery of the killer’s identity and follows the legal process as if showing an audience watching a newsreel how police intend to capture the fugitive. That Hans Beckert is based on serial pedophile/killer Peter KÃ¼rten, captured only a year before the film’s premiere and executed several months afterward, only adds to the ripped-from-the-headlines immediacy.

But Lang subverts his own film, itself already an innovation in terms of detail and precision, by showing Beckert’s face, that of a young Peter Lorre, faced still lined with baby fat. That sudden shift establishes Lang’s high-minded piloting of the events in directions the audience cannot expect. By revealing the face of the killer, Lang introduces a Brechtian element to the erstwhile realistic film that gives the audience a knowledge the other characters do not have. However, he subverts this influence, using Brecht’s style often as another mode of deception, as the revelation of Beckert suggests a change to a more personal profile of the killer, which M never becomes; at times, Lang uses this more objective viewing to lure the audience astray even though it tells us the truth. Even taken on its own, the scene carries an importance, as the shot of Beckert is played with a handwriting analyst describing the killer’s need for attention. As Lorre poses in the mirror, his facial contortions of menace and madness matching the descriptions of the analyst diagnosing Beckert’s writing as a form of acting. As the letter was meant for the press, we can gather from Hans’ sardonic attempt to look and act the way people expect him to that he not only exploits the press but is exploited by them, that the papers will turn him into that grimacing madman to sell more copies.

That mixture of social commentary with the personality of the killer has kept both the examination of Beckert as a killer and the society that hunts him fresh. Lorre gives one of the greatest breakout performance in all of cinema — there cannot be five others to match it — as a killer whose motivation is never explained away by a cruel childhood but who nevertheless does not fit into the role of a completely repulsive creature. In contrast to the nefarious blackguard of earlier films, Beckert does not wish to commit his crimes, and Lang often frames the killer in a way that suggests that his actions are out of his hands. He spots one girl in a mirror (portentously framed by a display of knives) and begins to whistle compulsively; he abducts her under the eye of the street rats who watch him, and Beckert must face all of his self-loathing and fear of his uncontrollable urges when the man who marks the killer makes Hans drop his knife, which the girl innocently picks up and hands back to the man who intends to use it to kill her. It’s a sublimely edited and framed sequence that shows how Beckert, while unforgivable for his crimes, deserves more consideration than the mob will show him.

Naturally, compassion is the last thing on the mind of a mob. In the wake of the Beckmann murder, Berliners turn on one another, from upper-class men accusing each other and vowing to take each other to court for slander to crowds forming with alarming speed around a kind old man who tells a young girl the time, a move perceived as a lure. Made just before the Nazis took complete control of Germany and overthrew the Weimar Republic, M shows how mob rule both signified the current system, with a section of the criminal community living in open luxury from wealth gained through theft and cheating, and prefigured what Nazi policies would become when they took control, with citizens pointing fingers and naming names against those deemed suspicious. The mise-en-scÃ¨ne of any communal location, particularly the scenes of plotting, are swathed in cigarette smoke, choking the frame as if visualizing the noxious impotence of the authorities to right society’s wrongs and their inability to stop the rising tide of fascism and the rampant corruption of a society that more or less posited the cleverer criminals as the aristocracy.

The film culminates in a farcical underground trial run by the thieves, who know full well they will kill Beckert and whose decision to hold their kangaroo court anyway demonstrates how many legitimate trials are just for show. Lang seeps this sequence in irony, with the criminals swatting down Beckert’s initial protests that he cannot help himself by derisively saying how none of them can help himself when he’s called to the stand. Who better to see through the tricks and excuses than the other people who use them? But Hans throws it right back in their faces, saying they simply rob and swindle and could cease their crimes by looking for work. He, on the other hand, is driven to kill; in one of the most memorable monologues in cinema, Lorre contorts in despair and loathing, passionately recounting how something inside of him takes hold and directs him against his will to murder. “Who knows what it’s like inside me?” he cries, and for a moment the mob is struck dumb.

I first saw the film when I had a reactionary view of extreme crime. I scarcely wanted trials for rapists and murderers, much less compassion (even now, as an outed liberal, I will come down swiftly on rape). But M had a profound effect on me, dispensing with sob stories of childhood, an explanation that has by now become clichÃ© in film and in reality, yet still examining how even the most abhorrent crime is not as black-and-white as we would like to believe. There is no forgiveness for murder or rape, but there must be understanding and empathy so that we might find a way to identify the mental imbalance and combat that as a method of crime prevention instead of focusing all of our outrage onto those who have already done their deeds. Lang stresses this in the final shot, after Beckert has been seized from his mock trial to attend an equally pointless one in a true court (he slyly hides how quickly the trial passes through editing, as the arm of an officer lands on Beckert’s hand in the kangaroo court as the man says, “In the name of the law” before cutting to the actual courtroom as a judge continues from that phrase and prepares to declare his ruling). Just before the judges hand down the inevitable death sentence, Lang cuts to three of the mothers who lost their children to the monster, who morosely note that no punishment can bring back their children. Even as the director shows the misery and horror Beckert has caused, he also points out how capital punishment only feeds our own thirst for revenge and does not truly administer justice.

It is strange how so broadly sociopolitical a film is personal enough to speak about it from a first-person perspective. Goebbels, the Nazis’ propaganda minister, adored the film upon its release, missing the anti-Nazi sentiment expressed within entirely and reading the ending as an endorsement of the death penalty. If that proves anything, it’s that the Nazis perhaps weren’t as calculating and intelligent as we believe, or maybe they were and could not process the emotion of the film. Goebbels himself rejected what he called “degenerate art,” and while he initially made some exceptions for Expressionism he clearly cared more to see clearly defined objects and not the emotions they represented. Here, he saw a film operating in documentary-like fashion to attack the rampant crime of Weimar Germany and the necessity for harsh reprisal to force the seedier elements in line. (It was his reaction to M, in fact, that led Goebbels to seek out Lang to work for the Third Reich, leading to that infamous meeting between the two that has been greatly exaggerated, if it ever took place at all. Goebbels would, however, ban the film after Lang made an unmistakably anti-Nazi feature with The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, which used literal excerpts of Nazi doctrine, and then fled the country.)

For me, however, M offers not only, within the context of film history, the chance to see the language of fully synchronous sound being developed for the medium for the first time but, in terms of its sheer impact as a movie to be watched, an emotionally devastating statement by a director who was about to quit his country in complete disgust and fear. Thus, M is unmistakably didactic, but its messages are interlocked with its emotional and aesthetic directness. Perhaps the greatest illustration of this comes with the final lines, as a grieving mother makes the most obvious social statement when she proclaims, “You must look after the children. All of you.” Clearly a message, the moment nevertheless retains a power when one considers that, at that very moment, the Hitler Youth’s membership was growing and would soon become a social mandate for the children of Germany and Austria. These first-wave additions to the Hitler Youth would hit recruiting age by the time the war erupted, ensuring that they would be sufficiently brainwashed just in time for the Third Reich to call upon their loyalty. Lang certainly could not have known how deeply the Nazis would take root and pervert the nation — much of M‘s incisiveness is applicable in retrospect — but that ending runs deeper than a mere Nazi protest.

When different versions appeared in international releases, for example, this ending was typically cut in favor of a happier shot of children frolicking once more, now safe after (we assume) the state put Beckert to death. This is, of course, entirely antithetical to the proper ending, which calls for constant vigilance, not only to physically protect children but to prevent poisonous social ideas from rotting their minds. It’s a far more contemplative ending that calls for intelligence and skepticism, and the fact that other countries would remove this out of discomfort of its promotion of questioning authority makes Goebbels’ blind reading all the more hilarious. (That the last line, “All of you,” was originally “You too” before the final word got lost in irreparable print damage only further emphasizes the importance of the task Lang assigns to parents.) The true ending makes everyone culpable, both for cleaning up crime and raising a more vigilant and noble generation to replace us, all the while balancing the emotion of the scene on its own terms.

And now, I find myself back at the start, doing everything just short of begging to insist one last time that M will grab and provoke you regardless of your politics. When I say that it is superior to the psychological thrillers, sociopolitical statements and police procedurals released today, I do not do so to denounce all contemporary cinema as inferior to the “classics” nor to promote my “refined taste.” I merely want to impress upon you how incomplete the life of any film lover is without seeing it — and we live in a sad time when many people will speak of their love of cinema and never branch out of their own country’s output nor even delve deeply into that nation’s cinematic history — and how I can still find this much to write about it after a number of viewings. M will make you ask more of the crime films you watch; more importantly, it will genuinely make you question the justice system and whether capital punishment is acceptable just because it makes us feel a bit better about life. Above all, though, it will show you (or remind you, if like me you haven’t watched a Lang film in a while), that Fritz Lang is one of cinema’s true originals. This is confirmed by Claude Chabrol, who made a short homage to M for the French TV program Cine parade. When asked about remaking some shots and making his own Langian spins on others, the New Wave director, famous for his own psychological thrillers, noted the difficulty of reproducing Lang’s precise detail. I’ve spent nearly 3500 words discussing why the film sears into me, but Chabrol nicely cuts through the technique, the blocking, the commentary and everything else with six cautionary words to those who would aspire to this film: “Trying to imitate Lang is madness.”

M is out now on Blu-Ray in Region-A by Criterion and Region-B by Eureka! in their ongoing “Masters of Cinema” series. While picture quality may have been somewhat improved by separating the feature and the extras onto separate discs, M likely looks as good as it ever will, with greatly reduced scratches and pops without loss of grain. Screenshot comparisons between Criterion and Eureka’s editions show a darker color grading on the Criterion transfer, but those who have watched both cannot point to one as the superior looking film. As M is a landmark in sound film, the uncompressed mono track is arguably the bigger draw, and while M doesn’t exactly tax the surround-sound the clarity of the track is astonishing. The Criterion Blu-Ray ports over every feature from its 2004 DVD, including:

-A commentary track by Anton Kaes, a University of California at Berkeley professor who wrote the BFI Film Classics volume on the movie, and Eric Rentschler, a German professor at Harvard and author of The Ministry of Illusion: Nazi Cinema and Its Afterlife. The track is engaging and deeply insightful, featuring shot breakdowns, thematic explication and reams of well-researched detail, such as Goebbels’ diary entry on the film and news articles on Peter KÃ¼rten, the killer who inspired Beckert’s creation. Both speakers sound as if they could easily be quite dry on their own, but together they boost the other and reduce any dead air. Criterion hires the best for their commentaries, and these two deliver in spades.

–A Conversation with Fritz Lang, in which director William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection) speaks with the eye-patched director only a year before his death. Friedkin asks Lang about the social messages in his films, and Lang offers up plenty of juicy, apocryphal stories such as the supposed encounter with Goebbels and his own projection of what working for the Nazi propagandists might have been like. The interview reveals a great deal of Lang’s mindset with working and his disdain for certain elements of the filmmaking process (including giving interviews), but some of the most entertaining moments come from Lang deflating Friedkin’s readings with his more pragmatic explanations — Lang was never as leftist as films like M and Metropolis would have people believe.

-Claude Chabrol’s M le Maudit, the 11-minute recreation he made for French TV, is included, as is his brief interview discussing Lang’s influence on his work.

-An interview with Harold Nebenzal, son of the film’s producer, Seymour. Nebenzal discusses his father’s work producing notable artistic triumphs from the period, including G.W. Pabst’s The Threepenny Opera (which incidentally was also lensed by M‘s cinematographer, Fritz Arno Wagner, and was also one of the first films to deal with crime in a complex manner). Seymour would also flee Nazi Germany and wound up in Hollywood, where he funnily enough produced the remake of M in the ’50s, though it fell pray to anti-Communist blacklisting. Harold paints an intriguing portrait of his father, from Seymour’s founding of independent financier Nero Films through his Hollywood work, and for all of Lang’s thunderous hatred of producers expressed in the Friedkin interview, Nebenzal comes off as someone who tried his best to support artistic talent wherever he worked.

-Audio tapes of editor Paul Falkenberg giving a guest lecture at the New School. The audio is synced to the clips of the film being discussed in the class, though Falkenberg speaks more of behind-the-scenes production and the film’s history than the specifics of many shots. Still, he’s an engaging and disarming speaker, and his insights into the film’s making are well worth a listen.

–A Physical History of M, the best of the original features, charts the film’s path from premiere to its 2004 restoration, discussing its reception and recutting at the hands of those looking to make a bigger profit off of it. In some cases, extra sound was added over the more purposefully silent portions of the film as a gimmick (thus ruining the careful and innovative use of the technology that would make it a more involving addition to cinema); elsewhere, various parts were chopped up and re-sequenced for international distribution. This mini-documentary is not only a well-mapped progression of M‘s lost footage and subsequent restorations but a fascinating look into the travails of early sound cinema (when everything had to be re-shot and re-dubbed instead of just subtitled) and the laudable work done by restorers who literally piece great films back together out of multiple prints and the written instructions of the filmmakers. Finally, Criterion shows how their own digital restoration, upon the most complete print of the film in existence, removed dirt and scratches without affecting the actual image. Criterion has since largely stopped showing restoration demonstrations after some studios took offense (perhaps out of embarrassment at the state they’d allowed some of their finest works to fall into), but this thorough demonstration of the work put into keeping great films alive will make you appreciate the efforts of restorers everywhere. My only complaint with this feature was that it was not updated to show how they processed the film for Blu-Ray, but that’s a minor quibble.

-The jackpot, however, is the long-lost English version of the film, found and cleaned up for the Blu-Ray release. Its interest lies purely in historical context, but it’s engrossing to see just how much trouble people had to go to make a sound film back when people were used to just swapping out the title cards for international distribution in the silent era. Most actors are overdubbed, but Lorre speaks at least a portion of his words, thus making his work on M not only his breakout but his first English-speaking role. What’s most interesting about the English version is the altered ending, which loses the didacticism of the original but also in many ways the point. I would have liked Criterion to provide some subtitles for this, however, as the dubbing loses so much of the aural sophistication that it can be impossible in some places to understand what’s being said. Still, this is just about the niftiest special feature that could ever come attached to the movie and it’s a huge find for film buffs.

-Also included is a stills gallery of production photos, sketches, promotional material and more, as well as a booklet containing an article by the great New Republic critic Stanley Kauffmann, the only living critic who might have seen the film when it first came to America in 1933; an outline for a missing scene; three articles from contemporary German papers and film periodicals assessing the film’s themes at the time of its premiere in the midst of a public hysteria over serial killers, including one article by Lang himself; and an interview with the director conducted in 1963 by film historian Gero Gandert.

The Eureka! Blu-Ray also comes with the English version and the 2004 commentary, as well as a second track recorded in 2003 with Martin Koerber, who aided the 2001 restoration that has since become the basis for home video releases (including both Blu-Rays and the 2004 Criterion DVD) as well as director and film historian Peter Bogdanovich. The track also includes excerpts from Bogdanovich’s 1965 interview with Lang. Also featured is a 20-minute documentary on Lang, and a booklet that reprints the missing scene pages and the article Lang wrote after the movie premiered from the Criterion set, in addition to another article by Robert Fischer. The Criterion set has more extras, but I can’t imagine anyone across the pond being disappointed by what they get.

– Jake Cole is a 20-year-old journalism student at Auburn University who hopes to become a critic. He constantly updates his blog, Not Just Movies [with link to site here], where he garrulously spouts about film, television and whatever else strikes his fancy. In his considerable free time, he wonders what it would be like to know how to talk to women

May 17, 2010
Soapbox: SUMMER HOURS

SUMMER HOURS

The family that Olivier Assayas tracks with his latest film, Summer Hours, is such a well-to-do, bourgeois clan that, initially, one can scarcely imagine many people identifying with them, particularly in a global economy that has placed millions of previously middle-class citizens in a position lower than that of this family’s maidservant. And yet the film remains one of the most profoundly humanistic and relatable movies of recent years. It is a work of quiet grace, a gliding, meditative elegy that passes over generation gaps so gently and effortlessly that the poetry of its movement alone exposes the fragility of such a compartmentalizing concept.

The film opens upon, and symbolically concerns, a quaint manor in the south of France, one of the world’s most beautiful regions. The people there are, if at all possible, more stereotypically self-absorbed and haughty (and therefore “French”) than the Parisians, but it is exceedingly difficult to fault them for feeling superior in such a place. Many French productions exist only to show other countries, and remind its own citizens, of the South’s beauty, and part of Summer Hours’ charm is its sly adherence to this style for just the right amount of time to make us think that it’ll be yet another artistic tourist video before heading in another direction.

Instead, Assays focuses upon that wonderful brand of refined middle-class folk who populate the region, here typified by HÃ©lÃ¨ne, a 75-year-old connoisseur who is as much a curator of her home as she is a resident. A fearsome matriarch, HÃ©lÃ¨ne filters her considerable knowledge through the mannerisms and directness of a mother. She has that ability to calmly, even lovingly, point out flaws in her children’s professional and private lives, speaking without judgment as if her criticisms are facts and therefore not worth editorializing upon. Played by Edit Scob, 72 at the time of filming, HÃ©lÃ¨ne scarcely looks 60 and would look even younger if not for her silvery hair; like her house, HÃ©lÃ¨ne is immaculately preserved. (It has always puzzled me why so many Europeans went off to die in the Everglades looking for the secret to youth when it clearly existed somewhere in France already.)

So sharp is the matriarch that she knows her days are numbered. At the 75th birthday party that opens the film, one of her sons, FrÃ©dÃ©ric (Charles Berling) gives her a cordless telephone set, and the woman who immediately afterward receives a French translation of an art textbook to proofread suddenly looks confused and ignorant as she takes one look at the phone and its accessories and throws up her hands. HÃ©lÃ¨ne takes FrÃ©dÃ©ric aside to discuss her will. Here the film ceases to be a paean to Southern France and becomes something far deeper. The son, the only of the three children to still live in France ““ Adrienne (Juliette Binoche) lives in America designing for a Japanese company, while JÃ©rÃ©mie (JÃ©rÃ©mie Renier) has relocated to China as an executive for shoe company Puma ““ wishes to hear none of this morbid talk, and he assures his mother that the various artworks and artifacts that line the manor shall pass down the line. But HÃ©lÃ¨ne knows better, and she gives her son instructions on what to sell and how to divide the effects and the house.

A few months later, HÃ©lÃ¨ne dies, an event left entirely off-screen. There are no long shots of HÃ©lÃ¨ne tending her garden and collapsing Ã la Vito Corleone, no jarring telephone rings in the middle of the night; Assayas merely cuts from a cold, literally blue shot of the old woman sitting in her vacant home and FrÃ©dÃ©ric discussing burial plots with a funeral director. It is at this moment that the film truly begins and, while the narrative itself continues to slowly and unremarkably progress, it also marks the moment where Summer Hours begins to rapidly set itself apart from its contemporaries. The elision over the typical cinematic details as seen in the jump between life and death starts a recurring subversion of nearly all the screenwriting tropes that come with what could condescendingly be called “this kind of movie”.

Watch the way the three children interact with each other when the time comes to discuss the inheritance. FrÃ©dÃ©ric assumes that his siblings will want to keep the house in the family, as he does, but Adrienne and JÃ©rÃ©mie clearly do not agree. Yet neither openly states dissent, sheepishly mentioning how far away they live (Adrienne even says that she’s been living away so long that France itself holds little intrinsic value). They also do not say aloud that HÃ©lÃ¨ne was the only reason the siblings ever got together anymore, and her funeral will likely be the trio’s last time together for years. FrÃ©dÃ©ric understands his siblings perfectly without them outright saying it. Later, when he and JÃ©rÃ©mie discuss appraisals and tax deductions with an adviser, JÃ©rÃ©mie lets slip that he’d spoken with his own realtor about selling the house for some time, which the more sentimental brother notes but does not use as the basis for some melodramatic attack. Assayas is above such shortcuts, preferring instead to show these people as actual people.

Indeed, were it not for the advanced camera movements, one might mistake Summer Hours for docufiction. So many of the film’s indelible “little moments” stand out because they feel as if we are being allowed to share them with these characters rather than advance trite character development. When Adrienne mentions her engagement, the brothers and their spouses slowly crack up with amusement, moving from the tittering, nervous inhalations of suppressed giggles to open laughter. We are not told what, exactly, went wrong with Adrienne’s previous engagement, which is right. As it is, the moment is warm and quietly revealing, telling the audience about Adrienne’s impulsiveness and the teasing and distant but loving dynamic between the siblings without wasting time with a story that has no sway on this narrative. By way of comparison, watch the scene early in Attack of the Clones in which Obi-Wan and Anakin make awkward, meaningless chat over a “nest of gundarks” that gives us no insight into its characters and instead clangs like a wrench bouncing off the wall of a canyon.

There must be some point to all of this, however, and the key to the film lies in the manor. FrÃ©dÃ©ric does not wish to part with his mother’s house because of the memories it contains; the extreme value of the artwork HÃ©lÃ¨ne stored in her home means less to the son than the memories they connote. Thus, the pieces of art and architecture that pass from the family to private collectors and to museums for the tax write-off stand as blatant symbols, but symbols whose meaning speaks to the characters more than the analyst in the theater. It is, after all, silly to place such import on trinkets, but Assayas uses Summer Hours to examine how ordinary, even banal objects, gain importance, be it artistic or personal. Many of the house’s most valuable paintings are the work of one man, HÃ©lÃ¨ne’s uncle. HÃ©lÃ¨ne kept them because of her close, possibly very close relationship with him – this too is left largely unsaid and leads to a character insight rather than a mystery – and through her eyes we see these invaluable originals as naught but sentimental sketches given to a muse as a gift.

Adrienne and JÃ©rÃ©mie have little time for such reflection, blithely taking stock of their mother’s effects so that they may sell them and return to life outside of France. These are not bad people, of course, but they have their own set of priorities. They are modern people, connected to the businesses that employ them instead of outdated ideas of settlement and lineage.

It’s a typically American point of view, given our own shallow past and the perception of the nation as a place to start all over and make a new life. In fact, the younger characters of Summer Hours subtly reflect a mindset that has become as much American as French. Adrienne lives in New York with her American fiancÃ©, and the children of the brothers are – like all youngsters, we’re told – infatuated with American fads. JÃ©rÃ©mie represents the speed with which people can adapt now to new environments, what with his flippant attitude toward moving halfway around the world for work. He mentions that his daughter will spend a term in San Francisco, the city where Asian immigrants traditionally landed; his daughter not only wants to see the America she’s fascinated with but she’ll arrive more as a Chinese visitor instead of a French one, vaguely reminiscent of the pure-French Arielle referred to as “La Chinoise” in Arnaud Desplechin’s Kings and Queen.

That these Americanized characters are chiefly unconcerned with the artifacts being auctioned and donated without a second thought should not, in my humble view, be seen as some sort of attack on the United States (although one could easily make that case, given the rabid anti-French sentiment egged on for nearly all of Bush’s years in office and Hollywood’s ever-strengthening chokehold on genuinely artistic cinema). Rather, Assayas considers how modernization shapes culture: in the age of the Internet, instant worldwide connection erases, at least partially, cultural divisions – is the censorship of Google or Twitter not the modern sign of a repressive regime? When a group of visiting American teenagers walks among the family’s donations in the MusÃ©e d’Orsay they look and act no different from the French teens, who would likely be just as bored by the tour. Thus, we have all become one people, which is great, but unification brings with it side-effects: if everyone adopts one civilization and one language, what will become of the art that is tied to a specific culture?

Summer Hours remains a quietly incisive film after multiple viewings precisely because it finds the intersection between these larger concerns and the more personal ruminations on changing generational attitudes toward tradition, even family. Adrienne and JÃ©rÃ©mie have drifted away from home, and HÃ©lÃ¨ne’s grandchildren appear even more separated from the passion of the older generation. As such, Summer Hours calls to mind the work of the Japanese legend Ozu Yasujiro, that great cartographer of the generation gap and family relations. Ozu has long been misinterpreted, by those who only watched Tokyo Story and decided to extrapolate an entire career from it, as a director who lamented the passing of the older generation and looked down upon the modernized youth. While Ozu certainly eyed the Western influence on culture and tradition with suspicion, even regret, his attitude toward characters was always nonjudgmental, just as Assayas’ is with these characters. He does not write off Sylvie, FrÃ©dÃ©ric’s teenage daughter, as just another dead-eyed, shiftless millennial, nor does he condemn the two ex-pat siblings for abandoning their heritage.

Instead, the director gently sculpts these characters, giving them such dimension that the story and themes come naturally from them. Adrienne, who hypocritically disapproves of JÃ©rÃ©mie working for a company that exploits cheap labor while wearing a pair of Converse sneakers made the same way, would in any other film be the flighty, self-absorbed bitch denied her chance to prove any hint of humanity until a hackneyed breakthrough near the end. Here, however, she displays three-dimesionality from the start, setting aside her modern conventions to marvel over an old, silver platter, justifying her admiration of it to her mother by claiming that beauty is beauty, regardless of age. Later, as appraisers storm the house to attach price tags to everything, Adrienne discovers the platter and can barely contain her pure joy, and we see that even a whimsical nomad like her can assign meaning and memories to objects just as strongly as the more sedentary and traditional.

Perhaps the influence of such artistic keepsakes can be traced to the participation of the MusÃ©e d’Orsay, which not only loaned the art but funded the film as part of their recent focus on making films as a way of expanding the museum’s artistic boundaries. But the relation between objects and assigned importance has purportedly been a recurring theme in Assayas’ corpus, of which I must shamefully admit ignorance. The director certainly uses this partnership to its fullest potential, and the artwork he places in HÃ©lÃ¨ne’s estate is as priceless as it is perfectly suited for the film. Apart from the use of Jean Berthier as the matriarch’s famous uncle, Assayas particularly highlights a few works by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot and Odilon Redon. Corot, one of the great landscapists, operated in the nebulous territory between the Neo-Classical movement and Impressionism. Classical art strove to depict subjects as they were, while Impressionism captures subjects as they strike the artist. Summer Hours, with its honest depiction of character and its analytical probing of inanimate objects until they take on a resonance, could be said to walk the line between the two as well. One should also remember that Impressionism grew, in part, out of the redundancy of realistic art in the face of the invention of the camera, a technological development that reshaped art as a response. Redon, on the other hand, was a Symbolist painter, though the designation suggests a more didactic approach than the artist really took. “My drawings inspire, and are not to be defined,” he once said. “They place us, as does music, in the ambiguous realm of the undetermined.” Summer Hours contains plenty of symbolic imagery to chew on, but Assayas’ structuring of the material places it in a more contemplative context than one that stresses its message over all else.

But I fear that I’m losing control of this review now. Discussing Summer Hours can be a tricky proposition, as so much of its power and insight is directly tied to what’s on-screen. It is easy, for instance, to point out an arcing track-pan of a shot of a desk in the MusÃ©e d’Orsay after being moved from HÃ©lÃ¨ne’s house and say that it symbolizes the ephemeral nature of the transformation of an object from something of deep personal significance to a sealed-off artifact to be disinterestedly ignored by schoolkids. In that one shot is the crux of the argument that modernization desensitizes and demystifies us all, that email and planned obsolescence of so many of our goods will rob everything of its spiritual value, that nothing will even last long enough to gain significance.

Far more difficult, however, is putting into words just why that shot can evoke a deep sadness and a sense of loss, even in this Mac-loving, nature-averse writer. Or why pointing out the scene’s symbolism is less fulfilling and thought-provoking than simply recalling a moment early in the film when FrÃ©dÃ©ric tours his kids through the house and recounts the history of the paintings and tries to sell the children on it just like the tour guide trying in vain to hook the teens in the museum. “It’s from another era,” the kids flatly tell their deflated father. This scene is echoed once more at the end, when Sylvie invites her friends to the gutted manor to give it a sort of farewell party, where the kids kick around footballs and blare music as if living out their fantasy vision of a museum field trip.

Yet it is this coda that cements Summer Hours as more than just the patient but cranky rambling of a ranting old man. As the teens smoke and drink and generally font les quatre cents coups, Sylvie and her boyfriend move to the outskirts of the garden, where the previously bored young woman quietly reflects upon her own memories in the house and wonders whether she will lose something she cannot get back when the house changes hands. “It’s my youth,” HÃ©lÃ¨ne told FrÃ©dÃ©ric when she surprisingly surrendered her family’s hold upon the artwork stored in her house, and the meaning of that dismissal becomes clear only at the end. As he has delved into this topic before, the director by now understands that our own attachments to trinkets and keepsakes cannot be transferred to another. HÃ©lÃ¨ne understands this too, so she releases her family from the burden of hanging on to objects that can never mean as much to them as they do to her, and in the process she frees them to build their own collections, whatever they may be. Thus, a relatively plot-less film ends with the director releasing his final major character, setting Sylvie off to make her own story, one that will make an interesting update of this one in a few decades.

When I first saw Summer Hours in a cozy arthouse in Columbus, Ga., I knew instantly that I’d seen one of the most charming, insightful and meditative films in recent years. Repeat viewings only enhance the feelings of regret, acceptance and hope as the familiarity these characters already exhibit with each other becomes ours as well. Open without being obvious, thematically occupied without losing its human element, elusive in a manner that makes everything inescapably clear, Summer Hours has a piercing vision but a soft touch. So very little actually happens, and yet every shot reveals something – an interaction, a reflection, a thematic advancement – and gives the feeling of immediacy despite its lax pace. At various stages in the development of this review, I pointed to one aspect of the film as being the most arresting, yet as I continued to write I would erase the last assertion to spotlight something else as the film’s true triumph. After watching it again, I think I know at last what truly makes the film so memorable: every time this film is set to make the usual cinematic choice, it doesn’t. What does it say about the state of cinema, then, that each of these diversions feels truer to life than anything playing at the megaplex?

Summer Hours is available now on DVD and Blu-Ray from the Criterion Collection. The Blu-Ray boasts excellent color levels (particularly the greens of the estate’s gardens) and a nuanced DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack. Included in both versions are: an informative half-hour interview with Olivier Assayas, who describes how the project came to be and how his interests and those of the MusÃ©e d’Orsay aligned; a half-hour making-of documentary; and another, hour-long doc titled Inventory, which details the art loaned to Assayas for the film and the way it is used. Also included is a booklet featuring an essay by British critic and editor-at-large of Film Comment, Kent Jones, who pens for Assayas’ first entry in the Criterion Collection an introductory (and personal) overview of the director’s career in addition to his appraisal of this film. Praising Criterion’s Blu-Ray treatments is becoming an increasingly redundant gesture, but it’s fascinating to see how a simple, quiet film like this can be just as gorgeous as the company’s restoration of Days of Heaven and its flawless presentation of the digitally shot Che. The set comes almost as highly recommended as the film itself.

–Jake Cole

May 12, 2010
Trailer Park: TOY STORY 3, WHY WE LAUGH: BLACK COMEDIANS ON BLACK COMEDY, & The Phoenix Film Festival

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

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

Toy Story 3 Footage Preview

So, I was able to see the first 70 minutes of Toy Story 3 this week.

Watching the movie begin, hearing the reactions of the college students who literally grew up with this franchise, I was worried something wasn’t going to be right. That there was going to be something there on the screen I could no longer identify with a decade after Toy Story 2 debuted in the theaters. I was shocked that it’s been fifteen years since the first installment came out, the number 95 pasted on the runaway train in the opening sequence feeling like a tender callback to that time.

I was worried, fraught with nervousness that somehow I made the wrong choice in finding my old college ID from, ironically enough, a decade ago in order to gain admittance to a “Cliffhanger” screening that was only going to show 70 of, ostensibly, a 90 minute movie. As the film, played out, though, I found more and more to love about a series that always stood for something more than just a movie about some toys. These were indelible characters imbued with a humanity that so many animated films simply failed to replicate. Buzz and Woody were more than just playthings. They were individuals who had emotions like you or I, not giving a thought to the fact they are toys and aren’t humans at all.

Toy Story 3 makes you realize that this is alpha and omega of animated films because it makes you believe, with deceptive ease, that these machinations of a computer can truly move you. It was almost overwhelming when it hits you, that your friends were back in all their glory, never missing a beat.

Some have asked why see a movie all the way to the 70 minute mark only to be denied the 20+ minutes left in the film. I know it doesn’t make much sense but when you’ve waited for ten years to see these characters that will never age, and realizing they’ve actually matured in the time since Jesse and Bullseye joined the crew, consuming 3/4ths of the film means that there is still a 1/4 of the movie I still have yet to enjoy. I can savor the delight that was Michael Keaton’s Ken, a true scene stealer. I can anticipate that there is far more to enjoy about Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear. I know there will be a true moment of sadness still to come when Andy’s departure to college is finally dealt with. And I know that at least one of the characters, unfortunately, will stop speaking Spanish. (Such a fun part of this movie).

I wanted to be able and talk like a fan, not a critic, of a movie that I genuinely enjoy by not spoiling any of the nuances that this movie strives to give those who have been fans of these movies for so long. I want to be able and talk about all those things that really pull at your heart, to say exactly why Jeff Garlin was an inspired choice for Buttercup, but it’s not my place to spoil anyone’s fun who has been waiting for a decade to see them all together again. I think my purpose here is to be one person to say that everything you hope this movie is, it is. I can’t wait to buy the soundtrack, to feverishly anticipate buying the Blu-ray when it comes out, to taking my kids to see it a few times on the big screen. It’s just that good. There are enough callbacks to the previous films to make it a great time for those who’ve seen the last two, enough “adult” jokes to make it fun for those of us who are harangued into seeing shoddily make kids films from studios who don’t care about being in touch with every member of the audience, and certainly enough emotion in the way the movie makes you care about each and every one of these toys. Especially when a tortilla has to step in for Mr. Potato Head, classic.

The toys are definitely back and I cannot wait for June 18th. For me, and for my family. It’s hard not to spill about every little detail about what I saw but it was glorious, fantastic fun.

About the movie:

The creators of the beloved “Toy Story” films re-open the toy box and bring moviegoers back to the delightful world of Woody, Buzz and our favorite gang of toy characters in TOY STORY 3. Woody and Buzz had accepted that their owner Andy would grow up someday, but what happens when that day arrives? In the third installment, Andy is preparing to depart for college, leaving his loyal toys troubled about their uncertain future.

Why We Laugh: Black Comedians on Black Comedy – DVD Review

When I was in my formative years as a youth I gravitated to comedians like Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, eating up movies like I’m Gonna Git You Sucka, and, eventually, the whole Wayans clan in In Living Color. I never gave thought to the provenance of the black comedic experience in America. Either out of ignorance or sheer stupidity I never recognized the nuance of how comedy evolved within the black community and its rather tumultuous origins.

In the new Robert Townsend documentary, a film that played at Sundance last year to much acclaim, Why We Laugh: Black Comedians on Black Comedy is a powerful document to pour over and experience. In understanding how we ended up with Chris Rock, Townsend takes people on a journey that not only starts with minstrel shows and performers like Stepin Fetchit but the documentary excels in explaining the context of black performers who not only played roles that seem to sublimate the feelings of a people who were being marginalized but only appearing as fops, nitwits. The hideousness of blackface isn’t just written off as a practice that can be dismissed but, rather, comedians like Dick Gregory explain why performers did what they had to do and, in fact, some were being compensated well for their complicity.

It doesn’t make the practice any less vile but the documentary takes the viewer down a well-reasoned path of those things which people have enjoyed but may have never thought to ponder. The struggles that the black community had to overcome, the civil rights era sparking a nationwide fire that rankled many people’s conventions, was expressed in the comedy that was being produced on stage. Again, it was comedians like Dick Gregory who channeled that and trans-morphed it into something that sharp, funny, and piercing. As the modern touchstones of comedy that many in my demo would know right away, Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, Chris Rock, it was Foxx and Cosby who would be the ones to not only transcend the racial barriers we had erected but were the ones to pull in the white audience into their collective experience. This documentary explains how it was more than just comedy to these performers. Some, as Townsend has said, only took the use of bad language and lacked the ability to incorporate social commentary but the movie is careful to pick apart these nuances in a way that shows each comedian for what they were able to accomplish.

The interviews with the performers could not have been more of a delight as you not only get professorial opinions on the impact these people had to a community needing some kind of release but you get men and women who are usually only known for their outrageous behavior to just slow down for a moment and be real. Realness doesn’t stop with explaining why white people responded so well to Bill Cosby as one of the more introspective moments comes when talking about what Dave Chappelle did when he walked away from millions upon millions. The documentary is worth the price alone for listening to an explanation that is thoughtful, considerate, and wholly honest with regard to its implications.

Where does black comedy go from here? If this documentary is to be believed it simply needs to keep doing what it has for over a century: be a voice to a community that needs to laugh. To make all of us laugh at a system that was once unjust and unwilling to accept the greatness that were these comedians who only happen, by function of birth, to be black.

Why We Laugh will be available on April 27th.

More about the DVD:

“Why We Laugh” tracks the evolution of black comedy from the character of Stepin Fetchit and minstrels in blackface to the politically tinged humor of Dick Gregory, and from the television success of Good Times and The Jeffersons to the big-screen accomplishments of stars such as Eddie Murphy and Whoopi Goldberg. The film also turns a perceptive eye on the controversial career decision of Dave Chappelle and the implications of corporate efforts to capitalize on the massive success of Russell Simmons’s Def Comedy Jam and Spike Lee’s The Original Kings of Comedy.

“‘Why We Laugh’ is a major historical contribution to American culture,” said Codeblack executive vice-president Quincy Newell. “This film is a tribute to the way one courageous person with a microphone can change history.”

Newell produced the documentary which he co-wrote with John Long. The film is based on the book “Black Comedians on Black Comedy: How African-Americans Taught Us to Laugh,” by Darryl J. Littleton. Codeblack’s Clanagan, Richard Foos, and Littleton. Codeblack’s Clanagan, Richard Foos, and Littleton are executive producers on the project.

Director Townsend has been at the forefront of black cinema for 30 years and received a Career Achievement Award from the American Black Film Festival in 2002.

The 10th Annual Phoenix Film Festival By Ray Schillaci

Fanfare please, for fun, excitement and a near technically flawless anniversary of PFF. Also, to the undaunted filmmakers who continue to provide a vision free of homogenized entertainment to a ravenously hungry public that is in desperate need of something more mature than CGI animals, flat comedies and pandering “movie-of-the-week” dramas that make their way to the big screen via inane studio deals. Now for the naysayers; yes, there were a few blips on the radar of technical difficulties, but compared to so many other film festivals PFF sparkled on their 10th anniversary.

The parties were an energetic blast with a celebration of 80’s bands and a delirious disco night. The seminars and workshops proved both entertaining and informative while the Kid’s Day gave a glimpse of the limelight to the wide-eyed 5-12 year-old set. Aside from the independent fare higher profile films also graced the screens. Remarkable and touching performances from Martin Landau and Ellen Burstyn in the Arizona Premier of “Lovely, Still” played to packed houses. Audiences were also treated to George Gallo’s (Midnight Run, Bad Boys) “Middle Men” the new Joseph Fiennes drama “Against the Current” and the 2010 Sundance Selection “Mother and Child” with the impressive cast line up including Samuel L. Jackson. But the biggest enjoyable Easter egg to pop up was “Cyrus” starring John C Reilly, Marisa Tomie and Jonah Hill. I promised the studio no review until opening day. All I’ll say, you”˜ll have to salivate while you wait!

Most independent brethren met with enthusiastic audiences and the hopes of getting seen in other markets. In my humble opinion; two stand outs delivered the goods with enjoyable performances and engaging stories that were executed in a very creative way. These films might not have won the accolades at the festival, but they certainly provided big laughs and a good time for all. Todd Berger’s “The Scenesters” takes a comic jab at “reality” shoots that is usually reserved for horror and succeeds tremendously while the co-creative team of “Hoodwinked” presented their brand of off-the-wall humor and applied it to a very funny road trip with “Jeffie Was Here”. Both films have the luck of an extremely talented cast and crew, but “Jeffie”¦” has a slight edge with a brilliantly comic timed performance by Peter Bedgood.

In “Jeffie Was Here” Bedgood plays Alan who has his hands full with a thankless low-paying professor job, an over-sexed teacher’s assistant, a long-suffering girlfriend, unrelenting writer’s block and a pending road trip that needs funding. Enter Jeffie, the last person one would ask to share the ride with. He’s part wannabe musician, guru, tree-hugger and general pest. But Alan has his reasons for accepting his application and the results are priceless. Bedgood brings a fine mix of frustration/sorrow/regret and hilarity that has not been seen since the early days of Jack Lemmon. There have been comparisons to Tom Hanks, but I believe Peter Bedgood as Alan gives a far more sympathetic/pathetic performance than he’s been credited for. Also, Bedgood’s chemistry works amazingly well with the other performers. He could have been the center of attention, but instead he plays with his fellow thespians so well that nearly everyone’s performance shines brighter.

Of course, the performances have to also be credited to the talents of director Todd Edwards who does double duty as Jeffie. Edwards’s direction at times is ingeniously daffy. From Alan’s living quarters to a tough man contest at a child’s birthday party in the barrio, it’s oddball humor that comes out of left field and hits a homerun with its audience. “Jeffie”¦” is not a throw-it-all-on-the-wall comedy and see what sticks. It’s a well calculated mature piece that has some adults acting like the children they have inside of them. I also have to mention Edwards’s very capable soundtrack that had me humming long after the movie was over.

Aside from Peter Bedgood other notables are Alexis Rabin as Amanda in a wonderful heartfelt performance and an all too brief comic burst from Vanessa Ragland. Ragland’s eccentric Chastity (the teacher’s assistant) reminds one of a young Shirley MacLaine with a touch of Sandra Bernhard. She manages to be abrasive and engaging all at once. Speaking of abrasive, Cristine Rose (NBC’s Heroes) delivers a wonderful comic turn as Alan’s mother.

Then there is the character of the title, Jeffie. Director, Todd Edwards plays him with glee; annoying, scheming with a dash of bizarre innocence that keeps us guessing what is next on his agenda or does he even have one. If I had one criticism it would be the lack of an edge on the character of Jeffie’s part. If there was the slightest bit of danger that he exuded, the film could have set it itself up as a classic. After all, Jeffie holds all the cards. But perhaps the filmmakers did not want to take that chance with the possibility of alienating some of their audience. As it stands; “Jeffie”¦” has mass appeal.

“Jeffie Was Here” provides unusual situations with laughs and a thought-provoking, satisfying ending that hearkens back to the comedies of the 70s and early 80s. At that time writers/directors like Paul Mazursky and Paul Bartel were not just looking for basic toilet humor, they demanded the audience to think as well as laugh. Writers Todd Edwards and Peter Bedgood accomplish that right mix of pathos and fun delivering a road trip that one looks forward to taking again.

Word-of-mouth was already making its way through the festival with nearly every screening of “The Scenesters” providing packed houses. Smart, smug and clever as hell Todd Berger takes the unusual route of creating a very funny comedy by way of crime scene footage. What successful horror films have been able to accomplish on a micro-budget under the guise of “found footage” (Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity), Berger traverses the unstable route of comedy and creates a funky free-for-all of comic twists and turns.

From the very beginning we are treated to a couple of low budget filmmakers seeking out their break and accidently discovering a new way of making money and possibly getting creative in the long run if they manage to manipulate their subject matter as crime scene videographers. Director Todd Berger and Producer Jeff Grace play the indomitable duo with all the fixings of a great comedy team. The chemistry is hilarious and lends a goofiness that is unwelcome in the serious public servant world making the film funnier than we expected. Berger uses a courtroom as his device to tell the story where he is challenged by notable guest stars Sherilyn Fenn (Twin Peaks) as the D.A. and director John Landis as a judge. How bizarre is that?

With all the comical vignettes strung together through the courtroom one would think the film would leave the audience with a disjointed feeling. But Berger accomplishes a seamless story that more than satisfies the viewer. The acting is all too real and the situations regarding the search for a serial killer are quirky and at times uncomfortably funny. In fact, big laughs are found in this wacky take on surveillance tapes, news reports and documentary footage almost having you lose track of who’s doing what to who and how.

Accompanying all the hilarity is a righteous soundtrack which makes one wonder, how the heck did these guys afford it. But nothing seems to have stopped director Berger and his cast and crew, not even budget constraints. These filmmakers are as undaunted as the characters they play. They obviously went to some very creative means to get what they wanted and deliver a film that has their ingenious mark on it. This is not a standard comedy; instead it’s a hip look into a new comic mind that has something to say and prove. I encourage everyone to take the challenge and enjoy the show.

April 23, 2010
Trailer Park: KICK-ASS Review

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

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

The Basketball Diaries – Blu-ray Review

I wouldn’t say it if I didn’t believe it but this is without question the best film Leonardo DiCaprio has ever done.

A story about the young life of Jim Carroll, the film is an abrasive, dark, evocative portrait that showcases DiCaprio as an actor that seamlessly blends into the background of a story that is nothing short of compelling. Now in Blu-ray this is a wonderful chance to revisit a movie that helped Leo be known as an actor to contend with but, I think, the real joy in re-watching this movie is its dealing with drug culture that wasn’t proselytizing in nature but exposed it for what it was.

There was no joy in addiction other than the satisfaction we get in seeing DiCaprio bang on the door of his mother’s home begging for money in order to score another fix. It’s a moment that is not only jolting but it still manages to get underneath your skin over a decade and a half later. It was years before Trainspotting peeled back the top layer of drug addiction and it was certainly long before Darren Aronofsky made the quintessential tale of the depraved depths that addiction will push you to. What’s more about this film is that the narrative blends fantasy and reality in a way that reflects Carroll’s poetic sensitivities. Looking at it now, the sequences showing DiCaprio finding strength in his writing, trying to exert a level of control and coolness to a life clearly out of control, are this film’s strength. This would be just another coming of age film, drugs being the only real stand-out, had there not been a blending in of Carroll’s perception.

I could not recommend checking out this classic any more than I am now, a movie starring a kid who was perfectly suited for a role of a lifetime. It’s that boyish look that prevents me from seeing him as anything but a young Jim Carroll who was bound by the demons that would never ever let him go.

About the film:

Based on the autobiographical journals of poet Jim Carroll, BASKETBALL DIARIES follows the descent of a Catholic high school student from star basketball player to drug addict. Jim (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his friends roam the streets of New York City as goof-offs, petty thieves, and junkies. Expelled from school for using drugs before a game, Jim is also thrown out of his house and takes up street hustling. A pre-superstardom DiCaprio gives a strong performance in this gritty and uncompromising look at being young and streetwise.

Mammoth – DVD Review

Gael Garcia Bernal is an actor who blurs the line between what is supposed to be real and what is fiction. His delivery is so effortless and so smooth that you half wonder where he ends and where Leo, the protagonist of this film, begins. It’s almost like one of those singers who you swear is just speaking the lyrics, but, as Leo, Bernal embodies the role of a distant parent with a power that audiences need to see.

Left to wither in the multiplex the movie is now on video and it very easily could become the best movie you’ll see this month if people open themselves to a movie that deals with divergent plot lines in a story that never stagnates and is always moving. With a mom who is trying her best but isn’t trying hard enough in her personal life, to a nanny raising her kid who pines for the sons she left behind in the Philippines, and to a father who comes face to face with the very real problem of the sex trade you have a movie that won’t earn a place on any US Weekly Best Of lists for the ladies anytime soon.

Rather, this is a movie that demands your open mind as you watch a family in freefall on their way to a collision course when decisions, the right ones anyway, aren’t made. Michelle Williams shines just as brightly as Bernal but what’s shocking about this movie is that more people don’t know about it. Just as provocative as anything Michael Haneke has put out what’s special about filmmaker Lukas Moodysson’s vision is that, unlike Funny Games, there is a point here. Hopefully you see it by the time you make it to the end.

About the film:

Thanks to the Internet and cell phones, we live in a state of virtually complete, global connectedness ““ but in his latest film, writer-director Lukas Moodysson reveals that true human connection may be more fragile than ever.

Mammoth revolves around successful New York couple Leo (Gael Garcia Bernal) and Ellen (Michelle Williams). Leo is the creator of a booming website, and has stumbled into a world of money and big decisions. Ellen is a dedicated emergency surgeon who devotes her long shifts to saving lives. Their 8-year old daughter Jackie (Sophie Nyweide) spends most of her time with her Filipino nanny Gloria (Marife Necesito), a situation that is making Ellen start to question her priorities. When Leo travels to Thailand on business, he unwittingly sets off a chain of events that will have dramatic consequences for everyone.

MAMMOTH is the first English-language film from the award-winning Swedish director Lukas Moodysson

The Baader Meinhof Complex – DVD Review

I’ll admit that I was intrigued by the lilting pronouncing of this movie’s title.

After getting past the superficiality, however, this movie is explosive in the way it deconstructs what it means to be agents of terror. It turns the black and white lines between terrorist and agent of meaningful change into shades of gray. Dealing with individuals operating in West Germany in the early part of the 1970s, those who were allowed the kinds of freedoms that their oppressed neighbors to the east were still dealing with, the movie looks at the group who saw American involvement in Vietnam and virtually every government movement as a step closer to what they saw as fascism. How could you not be sympathetic for those who were raised out of the ashes of World War II, the dead leader of their country responsible for millions of innocent lives lost, and were overly sensitive to prevent the very same thing from happening again.

The irony of this hyper vigilance, however, is that this group comes off the rails and employs the very same tactics they ostensibly eschewed as the basis for their very reason of being. The film takes a hard and difficult look at a group that had a great initial idea but who were consumed by their own paranoia and propaganda. It hopefully will find a new life on DVD where you can see how even those who are looking to create a peaceful society will turn to violence as a means to their ends.

The story is chilling but the film is a wonderful document to that period in time and place.

About the film:

In the early 1970s, West Germany began to see the foundations of its still-young postwar democracy shaken by a group of self-described Communists and urban guerrillas who called themselves the Red Army Faction. These children of the World War II generation lashed out at what they deemed to be the new face of fascism: American imperialism supported by the German establishment, many of whom had a Nazi past. Through a series of kidnappings, assassinations and bombings, the RAF ““ called the Baader-Meinhof Group in the media, after the names of two of its leaders ““ kept West Germany in a state of terror for years.

Director Uli Edel (“Last Exit to Brooklyn,” “The Mists of Avalon”) has adapted Der Spiegel Chief Editor Stefan Aust’s award-winning book about the group in THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX, whose cast features many leading German stars: Moritz Bleibtrau (“Speed Racer,” “Munich”) as Andreas Baader, Martina Gedeck (“The Good Shepherd”) as Ulrich Meinhof, Johanna Wokalek (“North Face) as Gudrun Ensslin and Nadja Uhl (“What to Do in Case of Fire”) as Brigitte Monhaupt. Edel brings to life a group who, while claiming to want to create a more human society, employ inhuman means by which they not only spread terror and bloodshed, they also lose their own humanity. The man who understands them best is also their hunter: the head of the German police force, Horst Herold (Bruno Ganz, “Downfall,” “Wings of Desire”).

Acclaim for THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX has been universal. “Electrifying” (The Austin Chronicle), “gripping” (The Washington Post) and “fascinating” (The Los Angeles Times) are just some of the critical superlatives bestowed on the film. Mick LaSalle of The San Francisco Chronicle said it’s “a rare epic that deserves every minute of its length.” The New York Times’ Manohla Dargis called it “a taut, unnerving, forcefully unromantic film.” The Times also listed it as Honorable Mention in its Top 10 movies of 2009.

Among its many industry accolades, THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX was nominated for Best Foreign-Language Film at the Academy Awards, the Golden Globes and the BAFTA awards, and won the top prize at the Bavarian Film Awards.

The distinctive DVD/Blu-ray cover art is by Shepard Fairey, whose Barack Obama “Hope” poster has become an icon of our times.

Uncertainty – DVD Review

I didn’t know what to make out of a film that had a clever idea: explore two different storylines and see both of them to their cinematic end.

While it initially sounds gimmicky, and it might have led people away from it when it came out last year, just see how Sliding Doors fared at the box office when you incorporate multiple “What If” scenarios into a movie, the end product makes for a genuinely good time in the secondary market. It’s the kind of film that was designed for DVD as it does deliver on the promise for a good night at home.

Starring Joseph Gordon-LevittÂ ((500) Days of Summer) and Lynn Collins (Wolverine) the movie does play a game of “What if…” with the film’s protagonists as decisions drag themÂ down two different paths, having us follow in its wake to see how these things turn out. The filmmaking gimmick works for me, though, as I was unsure whether it would when it was out in the theaters and actually kept me from looking into it further but I like that I had the chance to give it another opportunity because the result is two short stories, separated by only a coin toss that started all of this fuss in the first place.

It would be too much to explain what kind of wackiness ensues with both stories but the key here is that they are short stories and should be enjoyed as little vignettes that, by themselves, wouldn’t have made for much of aÂ film but, condensed, they are perfectly suited in a movie like this. From a found cell phone to a found dog there is no limit to the inventiveness, if not unbelievable, that screenwriters/directors Scott McGehee andÂ David Siegel areÂ able to infuse into the production of this movie.

On the whole,Â be it the dramaticÂ yarn or the more thriller-ish story that has these kids running all around the film stacks up well againstÂ some of the ligher fare that has been passing for entertainment as of late.Â Put this one on your list and see if a little Sliding DoorsÂ 2.0 is rightÂ for you.

About the film:

Responsibility clashes with freedom as a young New York City couple experiences two decidedly different holidays in this drama from filmmaking duo David Siegel and Scott McGehee (SUTURE, THE DEEP END). It’s the Fourth of July, and Kate and Bobby are struggling to make a decision: do they stick with tradition and spend the weekend with Kate’s family, or do they set out on their own for a spontaneous adventure?

After making their initial decision, an alternate narrative emerges to show just what would have happened had they chosen to do otherwise. While the decision-making process may seem mundane, the implications of each choice are profound. Sure, a holiday with the family doesn’t seem nearly as exciting as an impromptu romantic trip, but that doesn’t mean it will be any less dramatic.

As the stories diverge and a “what if” scenario becomes reality, it soon becomes apparent how much one seemingly minor decision can ultimately affect the rest of our lives.

KICK-ASS – Review

How I wish this could have been solely Nicolas Cage and Chloe Moretz’ film.

In effect, Kick-Ass, the latest from writer/director Matthew Vaughn, doesn’t suffer so much from a marginally interesting protagonist in Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) who plays the titular superhero, taking on crime without powers of his own, it’s the story of how a father can devolve into pathos that is the real fuel to this film’s power. It’s certainly the most interesting story in this movie as the role of murderous vigilante is played with a kind of joie de vivre by Nicolas Cage as Big Daddy. Seeing him dispatching thugs and Mafioso types, each and every one oozing the uninspired sameness of archetypes that have been done better years before it’s become such a standard, Cage absolutely steals this movie away from Johnson as does Chloe Moretz who plays Hit-Girl and thankfully so. Moretz, in comparison, schools an ignorant and ostensibly innocent everyman who radiates nothing but a juvenile charm in the ways of street justice that are not only hilariously concocted but they drive the best parts of this film. Moretz and Cage: the real dynamic duo.

It’s not that Johnson doesn’t have a lot to do. When we come upon this small townÂ he’s not liked by many of his peers, where girls ignore his every advance, and where mugging a comic book nerd seems to be commonplace. There’s nothing really extraordinary about him and even the meager scraps we’re given about his life don’t add up to anything interesting. So, as the ridiculous blandness of his life becomes too much it all seems to coalesce into a teenage fantasy of wish fulfillment as he sets his thoughts and misguided ambitions into becoming a vigilante of justice. Armed with only a couple of night sticks and a green wetsuit we find he isn’t very good at becoming the defender of the law, he can’t even defend himself. The boy is pummeled, stabbed and hit by a speeding bus the first day into the job and is taken to the hospital after failing to administer a little street justice but what makes this movie fail to live up to the promise of showing what would really happen if a kid took matters into his own hands and fulfilled his superhero dreams is that the plebe was unmasked and identified by medical professionals who had to in order to help save his life. Thus making his secret identity moot. The story ought to have stopped there with him yet he is able to keep not only the ambulance technicians hush about this incident when he gets in the news for performing great acts of bravery, this information is somehow lost to the ephemera. It’s disingenuous and only slightly insulting to the other characters, Big Daddy and Hit Girl, who actually value their secrecy.

No matter, however, as it’s Cage and Moretz who provide a richer comic book tale that I only wish could have been delved into with greater detail. Detail only because you have a father/daughter relationship predicated on violence and the application of that violence in order to reach a certain end. Cage was once a decorated officer of the police department who is wrongly accused of a crime he didn’t commit, not anything real original about that, but, on his release, becomes something dark and sinister that knows no regard for the law he once served. And this is where the real thrill of Kick-Ass comes in. It’s in the application of the skills that Cage has passed down to his daughter without any regard to the insanity of doing such a thing, a 11 year-old girl delivering pain, death, and misery with a macabre sense of humor to those she murders that is the genuine thrill of this movie. Vaughn clearly loves this pair as the moments we share where these two are allowed to showcase their skills in well used slo-mo, and where Cage is able to stammer through his verbal cadence which has a delectable piquancy, are priceless.

Sure, we could talk about how Aaron Johnson uses his newly found glory as a masked super hero who takes to walking the streets to fight crime and launches a mania within the city for people to embrace this character with the kind of merchandising campaign usually reserved for Mickey Mouse but why bother? He’s a frustrated geek who wants more out of his existence and genuinely wants to effect change in his life and the lives of others who might have otherwise suffered at the hands of generic thugs committing petty crimes. It’s not a completely wasted storyline but it’s not the reason the right people will appreciate this film. It may be for Christopher Mintz-Plasse’s turn as Red Mist who is equal parts toadie and hilariously inept human being, reminding me a lot of Teddy Beckersted from One Crazy Summer, but he too becomes a perfunctory part of the story.

Again, it’s Cage’s efforts to get to mafia boss Frank D’Amico (played adequately by Mark Strong) which provide the best shotgun bang for your buck. It’s not Dave Lizewski who causes such a stir within the D’Amico organization, it is Big Daddy and Hit-Girl who are the catalysts for much of what makes this movie so thrilling to experience. When Daddy and Kick-Ass find themselves in a lurch with no way out it is the actions and exciting quick moves of Hit-Girl where the movie dynamically shifts from wondering whether Kick-Ass survives this chance encounter to the audience being concerned for the fate of Daddy. It is this sequence, awful digital squibs aside which plagues every moment when a weapon is used on another human being whether for effect or for economy, a distraction either way that you can’t help but noticing, that perfectly captures the essence of Vaughn’s vision. In this moment, I would assert, it’s not Kick-Ass that is of any concern to the viewer. The events that are set into motion after this help lead us to the film’s dÃ©nouement and lets us finally fully experience Hit-Girl doing what she does best.

As a rhetorical statement, where is Kick-Ass in all of this? Relegated to a final token moment and a half-assed, if you will, fist fight that succinctly shows that the real appeal is Moretz’ own development as a character and how she can come through the other side a changed person is the real draw. It’s fantastic, the action is vibrant, and there is a real sense of accomplishment in allowing the viewer to see how ordinary people react when put into extraordinary situations is far less thrilling to see how extraordinary people, like Big Daddy and Hit-Girl, thrive in extraordinary situations.

Cage and Moretz push the boundaries of what’s acceptable in the superhero genre, out sociopathing even Bruce Wayne, and it’s these two who deserve the dollops of praise that will be heaped on the film. The foul language, the bad jokes, the twisted family life, the little nuances that are both funny and frightening, it all adds up to exactly the kind of film that feels like a comic book come to life.

April 16, 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

I 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

I 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

There’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 12, 2010
Soapbox: So, AVATAR…

So, AVATAR

James 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 21, 2010
Trailer Park: Zachary Levi – Part 1

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

Bitch Slap – Giveaway

When I was at Comic-Con a year and a half ago I can remember this being one of the most memorable interviews I ever conducted. I say conducted as I think conduct was what in order when I was told that the interview I was about to participate in was going to happen in bed.

Sure, you get that sinking feeling when you’re faced with having a conversation with three really lovely women about a movie that is being talked about with the kind of delight the film no doubt was going for. Part pulp, part exploitation, and all fun I don’t believe this movie will require you to do anything more than just enjoy the spoils of their labor.

To that end, and to celebrate the film’s debut today in theaters and on VOD, January 8th.

I’ve got a SIGNED Bitch Slap poster sporting the signatures ofÂ Julia Voth, America Olivo, Erin Cummings, Kevin Sorbo and Zoe Bell, a SIGNED mini-sheet poster (just the girls), one unsigned poster and the full BITCH SLAP 11 card collectible set.

If you’re feeling randy just shoot me a line at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll enter you to win one of these prizes. And if you’re still unsure if this movie’s right for you just read the following synopsis:

Bitch Slap is a post-modern, thinking man’s throwback to the “B” Movie/Exploitation films of the 1950’s – 70’s as well as a loving, sly parody of the same.Â Inspired by the likes of Dragstrip Girl;, Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill; Kung Fu Nun and the pantheon of Blaxploitation films, Bitch Slap will mix girls, guns, outrageous action and jaw-dropping visuals with a message”¦ don’t be naughty!

At its core, Bitch Slap follows three bad girls (a down-and-out stripper, a drug-running killer and a corporate powerbroker) as they arrive at a remote desert hideaway to extort and steal $200 Million in diamonds from a ruthless underworld kingpin.Â Things quickly spin out of control as allegiances change, truths are revealed, other criminals arrive for the score, the fate of the world hangs in the balance and they are forced to confront a villain much worse than they ever expected”¦ themselves.Â It’s the ultimate morality tale as, one by one, they realize the whole she-bang was a set-up and one of them may not even be human…

What also makes Bitch Slap different is a complicated “B” story device that runs throughout the film to illuminate character, backstory and relationship histories not previously revealed.Â Like the film Memento, these scene flashbacks take place in reverse, so by the end of the film, you have a wholly different take on who these women are and why they are behaving so badly.Â Bet you never saw THAT in Jailbait Babysitter!

So grab your popcorn and fasten your safety belt.Â With “Cult Classic” written all over it, Bitch Slap is gonna be one wild ride”¦

Freestyle, IM Global and Epic Slap will premiere BITCH SLAP in theaters and VOD January 8, 2010

YOUTH IN REVOLT / LEAP YEAR – Review

One insult after another with nary a punchline to be found.

What’s astounding about Leap Year, the latest in a long line of painful movies where we are to believe that a woman has mistakenly thought the love of her life is the man she’s with but that it’s not until they meet a strapping, charismatic man before they forsake everything they’ve built in their lives just to be with a stranger they invariably know for a relatively short period of time. It’s an insult to an audience to try and sell an idea that a woman (played by the usually charming Amy Adams) who is willing to fly, on her own accord, to Ireland in order to ask her boyfriend to marry her in a leap year in an act that seems passionate and kind and romantic and incredible yet manages to fall out of love with that man. It defies all rationality to think how a woman could do this yet Anand Tucker tries to sell a comedy that just seems sad, pathetic, and speaks ill of a heroine who just comes off as easily impressionable and just plain, well, easy.

Through a series of situations which exist and play out in farcical fashion, one such moment involves Adams indiscriminately destroying the world’s smallest hotel room and shoehorning a piece of a sub-plot which is there, I assume, to help those who have difficulty with pesky subtly and nuance, we are to trust in this tale of love that wasn’t meant to be yet obviously will.

The logistics that this movie defies is truly astounding and noteworthy. After not being able to find a rental car, in what I can only believe is some remote outpost of humanity butÂ exists mere hours away from a bustling metropolis of Dublin, Matthew Goode, who plays his one note character as best as one could expect, becomes the de facto transporter although he really, truly, doesn’t want to. The level of stupidity this script shows in its obviousness staggers the mind.

Love abounds, as it usually does, after a series of unbelievable moments that involve a wrecked car, stolen luggage, missed trains, an outdoor wedding reception (I thought this was February in Ireland), a forced kiss that betrays Adams’ purpose in the first place, and through tiny moments of revelation that show just how right these two are for one another when, in fact, it feels like how it would happen in a fairytale. At one point, after Adams seems trapped in a Bermuda Triangle when trying to find some mode of transport that will just get her to Dublin, she buys a ticket for a train that will take her there. She’s had enough of Goode, as is usually the case with a woman who feels she is being weighted down with a fop , and sits on the train’s platform. The train, we’re told, will take more than two hours to get to the station. Goode motions to Adams in taking a walk to the ruins of a castle where he can extemporaneously talk about the mythical history of the runs and, by proxy, explain how this story will end with the two of them together. Won’t take more than fifteen minutes, he says. She relents, goes, listens to the story, and, wouldn’t you know it, the train shows up. Running will do no good here, as would be the logical deduction that we just told the train wouldn’t be there for two plus hours, and there is nary an explanation as to what worm hole that train appeared from or what just happened. Compound this moment a dozen or so times and you’ve got yourself Leap Year.

How can Adams walk around Ireland at the end of February wearing nothing but a dress, high heels and a light overcoat with no problem at all? How can a dog bark without moving its head? Why on earth would she strip nude and shower in front of a stranger? How could she demolish a rented room without once noticing the detritus falling around her and stopping?Â Your logic is no good here as you’d be a fool for trying to piece together the broken shards of this film.

Much like Gavin Hood straying from what he seemed to be strongest at, creating emotionally charged and deeply affective films, and instead deciding to craft a prosaic movie about a mutant with metal coming out of his hands, Tucker seems to want this kind of career pathing. This movie suffers from the kind of inane traps that plague bad romantic comedies but it’s ironic in that the movie engenders neither romance nor comedy. Sure, we are given situations where comedy is supposed to flourish, Adams finds herself blowing out a small village’s power supply after trying to plug in her BlackBerry, she accidentally destroys her guide’s car, she muddies herself after tumbling down a muddy mountain, but it’s all very ham fisted even by romantic comedy standards.

Much is made for fires and the one thing you would grab should you find your home engulfed in them. The importance of this is stressed like a mantra that is repeated over and over again in an effort, I am to believe, to make sure you absolutely positively get that this will be important later. At one point Adams’ great epiphany comes when she thinks about pulling the fire alarm in her posh new apartment after we learn that Scott only proposed marriage after finding out that the only way for them to get into the uber exclusive tenement, which required an interview with a committee at the beginning of the film, was to feign being married or at least on the road to it. Scott obviously comes off as the typical bad boyfriend who only cares about materialism, the fire alarm shows how he only wants to save his electronics (Gasp! He must not love her and must only worship false, electronic deities!), and the scene ultimately shows how bad the script written by Deborah Kaplan and Harry Elfont actually is. To wit, the writing team who brought us Made of Honor, Surviving Christmas, Josie and the Pussycats, and The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas obviously feel comfortable with keeping expectations low as any movie that wants us to trust in their ability to give audiences something entertaining only end up failing, once again, to think this is anything but a movie for simple-minded bumpkins who don’t realize they’re being insulted.

Youth In Revolt, in contrast, only suffers from being too well-written.

Director Miguel Arteta ought to be praised for his ability to bring one of the best novels about adolescent lust gone wretchedly wrong in every way, the visual character he brought to Chuck & Buck and Star Maps is here in its essence, but there is a fundamental issue that hobbles this film from being the teenage classic it could be. It’s the expediency with which events transpire and then expire from the movie that only serves to confuse viewers who aren’t familiar with the life and times of Nick Twisp (Michael Cera) as he pursues the girl of his dreams, Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday), but the story is rife with comedic possibilities and the handling of the things that made the book wonderful only feel rushed here.

Writer Gustin Nash‘s hand feels present in every scene as we go from plot device to plot device, we aren’t allowed to let the story breathe on its own, as if Nash wanted to be sure to include as many bits as he could from the book in order to remain faithful to it. Who could blame him, at almost 500 pages there is an inordinate amount of laughs to be found within the pages as writer C.D. Payne developed this over sexed and overly intelligent protagonist with the flourish of a great storyteller, for wanting to do so but the result is a greatest-hits compilation of scenes that sometimes feel jarring as a viewer.

This isn’t to say the film is bad. Far from it. It’s perhaps one of the frankest explorations of what “good” young men have to do in order to satiate that side of themselves which, here, makes for good comedy. Nick is deftly played by Michael Cera, who is able to carry not only the meek personality which seems to come naturally to the actor but is able to transform into his daring alter ego, FranÃ§ois Dillinger, with gentle ease. It’s Dillinger who had the greatest opportunity and latitude to go for the laughs in this movie and he does so with gusto. As he compels Nick to do what he is unwilling to do on his own, Cera morphs from a smart, frustrated boy into the kind of man we have never seen before on camera. You believe Cera is capable of the destruction and perversion he partakes in simply by playing off of himself with charisma and aplomb. From suggestive remarks about violating the body of his girlfriend, to possessing the affectations of an English speaking Frenchman with a pathological bent, the film is a delight when these two share the camera.

As well, Adhir Kalyan, who plays Nick’s friend Vijay Joshi, is a superb compliment to Cera as the two of them feed off one another in the kind of patois this film excels at when it’s not speeding through scenes. Again, we are briefly shown how these two become friends and aren’t really allowed to appreciate how vital Vijay is to what becomes one of the movie’s best set pieces. As an aside, I wish we would see more of Adhir as he’s more than competent to jostle with Cera for laughs on screen. However, a lot of the issues regarding this movie’s quick pace, however, stem from this movie’s first act.

Adapting the novel seemed too much for Nash as what we get in the first third of this movie is a lot of rushing. We move from one moment to the next, inserting pithy scenes from the book to fit the moment, without ever delving into the characters of the book or the implication of what it means in the grand scheme of things. It not only implicitly casts a pall on a book that is packed with pure comedy but, explicitly, it has the effect of cheapening this movie’s intent which is to show how one pervy boy with a pathological streak manipulates those around him. To wit, Zach Galifianakis plays one of Nick’s mom’s boyfriends. He is introduced, used for a few scenes, and is crumpled up just as quickly as he came on the screen like a piece of detritus that needs to be swept away in order to make room for other characters. This is the case for the rest of the movie, characters coming and going in order to introduce everyone in this book’s universe, along with their strange proclivities. Zach feels there almost in a utilitarian capacity as he’s the driving force to get Nick out of town so he can meet Sheeni, he’s the one who buys the camper that ultimately meets a fiery finish, and he conveniently meets his demise just at the right time in order to progress the journey. There’s nothing wrong with making every moment contribute to the whole, and for there to be reasons why something is in a movie, but the end result is mass confusion as these contrivances just make everything feel too convenient, too pat.

The issue that this movie never deals with, then, is why Nick and Sheeni are willing to go back and forth with this relationship. We know Nick’s reason for sure but it doesn’t ever feel genuine and it certainly doesn’t earn its ending which feels rushed and shoehorned in as if someone happened to look at their watch to see that the movie was about to break 90 minutes. We ought to feel the penultimate moment these two kids share is well-deserved but the way in which they finally consummate their relationship just doesn’t work.

It’s sad that the relationship that could have spoken to so many pent-up and sexually frustrated boys everywhere is relegated to the backseat of a movie that seems determined to drive the shortest route between two points instead of taking the longer, more scenic route. The result is a movie that certainly could have detailed the life of this young man on the road to finally getting some but it’s a journey that speeds by too fast to appreciate how we got there.

Zachary Levi of Chuck – Interview

I’m used to interviewing celebrities one time. Many of the times they’re enjoyable, sometimes they’re fantastic, and some other times are completely awful. It’s the latter ones where I secretly wish their career commits seppuku just to ensure I never even remotely have the chance to talk to them again.

Zachary Levi is a special case in that I have talked to him a handful of times and every time, absolutely every time, he’s just a kind, open, honest, naturally funny guy who doesn’t put up a superficial front and genuinely thinks about answers before he gives them. He also likes to talk. A lot. That’s really fine for me as when we had a chance to spend a long conversation talking about Chuck’s near demise and the future of network television in general last summer at Comic-Con there was a sense of calm with the actor about all the hullabaloo surrounding the show’s direction. He was passionate when talking about the effort a lot of fans put into making the public aware of the precarious position the show found itself in as it closed out it’s second season. So passionate was Levi about rolling up his shirt sleeves to save the show, Levi literally rolled up his shirt sleeves. Making sandwiches at Subway, coinciding with the series finale, it was a clever sponsorship drive that asked fans to purchase subs, writing a comment or two about how much they wanted the show to stay on the air, Levi didn’t let this oft abused rallying cry on the Internet to save yet another show go unnoticed.

It was this kind of effort, small as it may have been, that speaks volumes about the man who goes into work and gets to play a secret agent on TV every week.There is no affectation when he speaks, it’s just a guy talking about a career who’s just thankful to have one. It doesn’t seem like a lot but it’s conversations like this that remind me how much better interviews could be if people were just more, well, human.

Chuck is indeed back for its third season starting this Sunday night with a two-hour season premiere at 9/8c before returning to its regular night and time, January 11th at 8/7c.

CS:Â One of the things that marked this year, this season, for Chuck was the number of people who came out wanting to be sure the show was saved from the network chopping block.Â What was your take on how that swell started?Â I know a lot of people in your position would say “There’s nothing we can do about it” but what was it like to have all those people come out and say, “Please save the show?”

LEVI: It certainly gives you an appreciation of what you do.Â Being a working actor and getting to do what I love to do is already awesome.Â Â Â For the most part, no matter what you do somebody out there likes it and somebody out there will find you at some point and say “Hey, I love your work” even if it’s a horrible piece of crap, which is sometimes the case…

(Laughs)

But, with this I think we’ve collectively all been pretty proud of what we’ve accomplished ““ what we continue to accomplish.Â So on top of just that and appreciating it that way and knowing that your fan base, your core demographic fan base which is ““ we live and die by Comic-Con ““ because Chuck would be here.Â Chuck would be at the Chuck panel ““ which would be a very out of body experience.Â Wait a minute?Â That’s me!

CS:Â There are hotel keys with your face on it”¦

LEVI:Â I know man.Â That has been that way for three years now.Â Warner Bros. has done a great job at doing that.Â All those little things certainly help.Â I remember when Jerico was about to get canceled the first time and all the fans went crazy and they worked in unison and sent tons of peanuts to CBS and it worked.Â It got 13 more episodes for Jerico.Â But I feel like what’s happened is kind of like ““ and I’ve never seen it happen like this before ““ where a fan really had a kind of moment of genius – when some people sent Nerds, those little candy Nerds, to NBC which is all effective in some way because they are passionate fans, but at the end of the day it doesn’t change the problem.Â It doesn’t solve the problem.

The problem is television is failing.

The formula doesn’t work anymore.Â Back in the day you had 3 options.Â CBS, NBC, and ABC and there was no cable, no DVR’s, no Internet, so if you were going to be home, which a lot of people were on any given night, Nielsen’s worked.Â You could see a cross section there. 70% of the audience is going to be watching the Cheers finale and they have to watch the commercials through and in that way you could offer free entertainment like that.Â You could force commercials down people’s throats but you can’t do that anymore.Â So more and more people, especially audiences of a show like Chuck that are tech savy, are watching it online.Â They are watching it on DVR and so, as much as I think they like to think that that still counts. It actually doesn’t. Even networks and studios say “Well, every little bit helps” but they know it doesn’t really work out that way.Â Because, at the end of the day, advertisers are only looking at the live numbers.Â They need to know if we spend this amount of money on advertising, who’s actually seeing those commercials.Â And live numbers are the only ones that count.Â Really.

So, it makes it very difficult.Â The roundabout way of getting to our very dedicated fans, Wendy Farrington, a smart cool chick, she was watching the show one night and worried about the show getting canceled because that was the word on the street that it was on the chopping block. And she saw one of the scenes where Big Mike is chopping away on a Subway sandwich and thought, “If we can get enough fans to actually patronize one of the main sponsors, actually spending money that directly connects to, it’s not just wasting your money on peanuts or Nerds and making some statement.Â “So what if we’re not watching the commercials.Â We know who is behind the show and we will spend money and buy their product?”Â So she came up with this idea, wrote it up, came up with a mission statement and that got picked up virally basically by everybody.Â Some of my fan sites asked for my take on it and I told them what I’m telling you, that I think it’s a fantastic idea.Â It’s a real idea and not just people swarming their fists around saying, “No, no, please don’t.”Â We get it.

The rubber has got to meet the road somewhere.Â And so that, mixed with a couple other variables, allowed us to come back for a 3rd season.Â I think it’s really kind of blazed a trail and I think if network television is going to survive in this new DVR, internet, downloadable world, why not like that?Â Why not just have one main sponsor and harken back to what TV used to be?Â How about Borax? I don’t know.Â But as long as it’s an easily consumable product. Unfortunately for car makers, you can’t be a Toyota and hope that people will go buy a Civic, or a Celica, I mean.Â All of that combined to create a perfect storm of this is really happening.Â It was weird because at first your pride takes a hold a little bit.Â You think, “Why aren’t we picked up?Â We are a good show and critics like us, a lot of critics love us, our fans love us, and yes, we only do 7 million live but there’s a number 5 if you count all the DVRs and download and DVD purchases.Â That’s a lot of people.Â Right?”

So, at first I was a little bummed.Â I thought it just sucked that this show gets picked up right away and this show is back and we’re still waiting and hanging on but as we went through this whole process what I realized is A) it gave me an appreciation for what we do, like I was saying because it’s humbling especially today.Â Being out there in front of a packed hall of 4,000 fans that are dedicated to the show and that’s just a sampling because there are people that stood in line but couldn’t make it into the room and what we do impacts them in some way enough for them to be there with us today and it’s really, really, really humbling and to be here at Comic-Con because we live and die by these very fans that joined the cause and picked up the torch or whatever analogy or metaphor ““ it’s only right that whatever time we can spend with them to say, “Thank you.Â I only have a job today because you guys cared enough to Tweet about it or blog about it or emailed it to other friends.”

We also have fans that just bug the heck out of their families and friends ““ check out Chuck ““ did you see Chuck? ““ Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, you know?

(Laughs)

LEVI: I was telling a reporter and the lady from the Chicago Tribune ““ and people like yourself ““ anyone in the media who through all that and before we went on the chopping block, during the season we’ve gotten a lot of love and I’m sure their viewers were saying, “OK, enough of this freakin’ Chuck ““ I get it, you like the show, OK.”Â But they are constantly plugging the show and constantly giving us love.Â So I really feel that, not that we are the first to stick around because of that kind of love ““ Arrested Development stuck around because of critical acclaim and a dedicated fan base, and winning a couple of trophies didn’t hurt – but even despite that it wasn’t enough for Fox to keep them around, so three seasons and then it was done.Â And there are people that still today say, “How could they possible do that?Â It was the best show on television.”Â And it was.Â It was an incredible show but it was ahead of it’s time I think.Â And being ahead of your time isn’t always the best thing because audiences still hadn’t caught on to the single camera comedy in that way.Â Scrubs has stayed around and weathered some storms and now it’s going to keep going and I’m sure there are fans that are really happy about that.Â Then also, so through the process I went from being like that really sucks that we weren’t renewed to seeing all the outcry and outpouring of the love of our fan base and the critics because everybody picked it up: Entertainment Weekly, and E, and TV Guide, and People.Â The show that might go away”¦it’s Chuck.Â And then I realized that we are getting lots of free press out of this.Â This is really good.Â And then you start to think about it in the bigger scheme of things like stuff that only later on in hindsight ““ you think clearly God had a bigger plan than all this because now this is keeping us fresh in people’s minds because we are not going to be on the air again until March 1st possibly and that’s all I know.

CS:Â That’s like another writers strike.

LEVI: Yes.Â Fortunately it won’t be that long until we go back to work but nonetheless, that’s a long time off the air.Â We certainly benefited tremendously from not being quietly renewed in the night.Â We fought for it.Â Our fans fought for it.Â Our critical fans fought for it and we’re back.Â And, I feel like because of that, now it’s almost like our fans are part owners of the show.Â They are all shareholders.Â “Yeah, we fought for that and we got that back.”Â It wasn’t just because the numbers were so great that 15 million people are watching it and of course you are going to get renewed.Â No man, it was the strong, the proud, the Marines”¦

(Laughs)

LEVI: And nerds everywhere.Â When I was in the UK right before the finale I was in Birmingham ““ Adam Baldwin and I were at a Comi-Con out there and doing some signings and stuff and it was right before the finale and my publicist was calling me saying that a lot of people are asking, both editorial and fan sites, asking what we are going to do for the finale.Â “Are you going to do a footlong finale thing with the grassroots thing?” and the girl who started the thing was in the UK and I met her there for the first time.Â I think she was from Philadelphia and there happened to be a Subway there.Â I didn’t even know they had them there because it’s called the Underground there.

(Laughs)

January 8, 2010
Trailer Park: EXTRACT and MY ONE AND ONLY

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 – HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE

I really was a bad student in high school. Not horrible in the classical sense but I was absolutely a C student and I couldn’t grasp mathematical or scientific in ways that made me wonder if I was functionally retarded.

Smash cut to college and one of the very first classes I took my first semester was Geology 101. Kid you not, it was really brutal. Theories on geological formations, how earth’s natural functioning is a result from eons of slow and steady processes, why Illinois is so damn flat (glaciers!) and a multitude of other nuggets that I still feel good for remembering today.

HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE is a lot like that geology class we all had in one form or another in that you are taken on a blazingly up-close exploration into the things that will help anyone appreciate the literal globe of dirt we’re all spinning on with the added bonus of being genuinely friendly to those of us who aren’t versed in nerd. If you’re looking to add a sharp looking title to your Blu-ray collection that’s also educational you have to go with this.

For more on what you get in this check out the product description:

From a seething ocean of radioactive, molten rock to a refuge for life as we know it, Earth has undergone a staggering series of cataclysmic transformations in its long and epic history. Assailed relentlessly for millions of years by meteorites, our once toxic and hostile planet has been covered in water and in ice, and seen the rise and sundering of continents, the creation of an atmosphere, and, ultimately, the beginning of life.

HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE plots the twisting course of Earth s amazing journey. Using groundbreaking special effects and traveling to remote locations where our planet still bears the scars of its violent history, this compelling documentary tells a story of unimaginable timescales, world-shattering forces, radical climates, and mass extinctions.

HISTORY journeys back in time to show the creation of Earth s land masses, the birth of the first complex creatures, and devastating extinctions–before speculating on the future when all life becomes extinct.

BONUS FEATURES: Bonus Documentary Inside the Volcano; Additional Scenes

Item #2 – HEROES SEASON 3 GIVEWAY

People will try and take pot shots at this series which has certainly had issues with trying to find its footing and voice but it still is trying to be something that geeks and nerds can call primetime goodness. This season finds itself marred in various storylines that seem to drag the series down a bit but it is still ballasted by its intriguing premise and the hope that they’ll actually listen to the fans who made this series last this long and get the train back on its proverbial course. There’s stuff to love and there’s stuff to, well, not love about this series but Season 3 still deserves a look see and what better offer out there today to do such a thing than with my contest to win Season 3 on DVD.

Shoot me your name to Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll make sure you’re entered to win one of many I have sitting on my desk just waiting to be devoured who is curious enough to check it out.

El Producto Descriptiono:

Experience all the explosive action and shocking twists as Heroes: Season 3 comes to DVD! Rediscover the phenomenon in this six-disc set that includes all 25 suspenseful episodes from the third season’s volumes, Villains and Fugitives. Plus, go behind the scenes with the show’s writers, stars and artists as you explore hours of exclusive and revealing bonus features.

EXTRACT – REVIEW

In OFFICE SPACE writer/director Mike Judge deconstructed the white collar workplace that has now become a classic in a way that some films never achieve on their own; the film has embedded itself underneath the collective experiences of those having to endure the pains of modern working life. IDIOCRACY explored the way in which our culture seems to be on a slow steady shuffle off the mortal coil of intelligent living. Who could disagree that the one of the more colorful choices of a future president of the United States was found in Terry Crews’ President Camacho? It was an honest examination of our descent into the banal, the bast and just plain stupid.

EXTRACT, unfortunately, explores nothing new and certainly is a disappointment from a man who could very well become a professor of this American life.

The basics of what happens with all our main characters should have produced more comedic gold than the lead we’re given. A sexually frustrated husband, played by Jason Bateman as Joel, has to deal with his distant, frigid wife (Kristen Wiig) while dealing with a clueless bartender friend Dean (Ben Affleck) and a potentially damaging lawsuit from an employee who loses a testicle (Clifton Collins Jr.), threating to derail a plan to sell the extract plant that Joel owns. On the surface, it’s all there. The ways in which marriages can sometimes slip into ruts and routines, how some friends never seem to get over their own arrested development in adulthood and what it means to be loyal as an employee in an age when loyalty and hard work doesn’t seem to have any currency. Instead, we get a strange love story between Bateman and a woman (Mila Kunis) who plays a tempting grifter that smells opportunity where Joel only smells the sweet nectar of infidelity.

The issue that occurs early on in this movie is that none of these opportunities are ever taken advantage of and, instead, we’re given a fairly rote story of a man who thinks he wants to cheat but has cold feet at the moment he realizes it’s too late to go back to the way things were. He ultimately follows temptation and fulfills his lusty fantasy but there is no redemption for a man who obviously has it all wrong to begin with. This isn’t a Mike Judge expose on the nature of human relationships, rather, it’s a poorly constructed and pedantic tale that is not interesting and seems forced at every opportunity to elevate its story to something other than C+ storytelling.

The bright spots, script notwithstanding, are Jason Bateman and Ben Affleck who both give life to characters that are absolutely lifeless on the screen. There are gags (Joel takes bad drugs without knowing what he was taking! Watch the wackiness ensue as he does things he wouldn’t otherwise do without being under the influence!) and coincidental situations (Joel ends up in an apartment taking more drugs and ends up meeting someone who will prove pivotal to the plot! How convenient!) that are not only far fetched but obviously were tossed into a movie that doesn’t feel sincere, devoid of any subtext worth ruminating on.

Clifton Collins Jr. turns in one of the more intriguing performances as a man who deals with issues concerning loyalty and the lure of cashing in on life’s lottery ticket. It’s the issue of loyalty that you could find yourself most attracted to, as it’s ripe for examination at a time when the modern corporation would just as soon replace a worker than to cultivate, take care, of one of its own. He isn’t used much in this film and it suffers more because of it. We don’t examine anything, really, of much importance. The film seems more focused on the absurd and the shocking than it is with becoming a touchstone for any great message. And while Judge certainly has every right to make the film he wants to make, even in this incarnation the movie just isn’t amusing.

The movie ends with the kind of resolution that would be more appropriate on a Must See TV sitcom, the dramatic elements falling flat and flying far off the mark, and we’re left to wonder what it was that we are supposed to get out a movie that wants to blend the contents of a dissolved marriage, subplots that end with a whimper and a completely useless cameo by Gene Simmons that is more sideshow and grinds what little momentum there is to a halt.

EXTRACT is not what you would expect from Mike Judge as it’s a movie that’s terribly flawed and unfortunately doesn’t have anything new to say about the human condition other than what we already know.

MY ONE AND ONLY – REVIEW

I am in love with this movie.

There was a time when you would be hard pressed to think of Renee Zellweger as anything but a high priced movie star who makes choices based on how high the profile of a picture than of its value. In MY ONE AND ONLY she actually smashes preconceptions about her range as an actress and delivers a performance that feels like an intimate period piece, think Neil Simon’s BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS, and is truly one of her most accomplished roles to date.

Renee plays Ann, a mother who has honestly had enough of her cheating husband (played deftly and delightfully by Kevin Bacon) and loads up a car with her stepson Robbie (Mark Rendall) and a young George Hamilton (Logan Lerman). Yes, that George Hamilton. The movie asks a thoughtful “What if” as we’re treated to a quintessential road trip movie that not only is a fresh take on a stale concept but the very idea of piecing together a movie that gets Renee to act in a film that is not too saccharine sweet and manages to eek out one of the stronger performances I have ever seen her is delightful.

We see what happens when a woman can’t stand to conform any longer to society’s expectations of women, but needs her son to drive her in a latent vestige of her old-fashioned femininity, and sheds that shell as she takes her kids to the west coast in the quest to find a better life for all them. Through a series of madcap hookups with such notable actors as Chris Noth, Eric McCormack, Nick Stahl and David Koechner (who plays a lot better here than he did in EXTRACT) Renee plays the part of kept woman who has to deal with the realities of leaving a successful, but cheating, husband behind to find something more out of life. Yes, the premise sounds wickedly cliched. Yes, by all accounts this should be a direct to DVD movie that should share shelf space with the next Antonio Sabato Jr. release but there is something electric and wholly satisfying about this film.

What’s most pronounced in this film is the way director Richard Loncraine has taken the 1950’s and instead of showing the darker, harsher realities of 1950’s living, a la FAR FROM HEAVEN, this is a movie that embraces the perception of this decade and shakes it up to great comedic effect. As well, the script, written by Charlie Peters (HOT TO TROT), crafts a world where zaniness can co-exist with a minor tale of one woman’s slow discovery of liberation. Cinematographer Marco Pontecorvo dusts everything we see with the kind of perceived, augmented reality that only enhances the movie’s comedy.

Renee Zellweger should be in more films like this that allow her to show off just what she’s capable of doing as a genuine actress. While it would be hard for anyone to deny the siren song of big budget production it is her firm grasp on helming every scene she’s in with, at times, quiet ferocity. At times you want to dropkick her, at times you feel for her but the point is that you feel something for her. There are a few films, as of late, that she’s been in where she couldn’t earn any kind of sympathy but she does it here. Logan Lerman, who plays the young George Hamilton, shines as well as a boy trying to find his own way and, of course, crossing paths with his mother as the two of them fight for their independence. It shouldn’t go without noting that the music deserves a nod for being the unseen actor in the back helping to bring the spot-on locations and moments pop with the right amount of energy and wistful nostalgia. The movie has a lot of charm and it spends it slowly, evenly, throughout the picture.

By the time the end of the movie comes it is almost a disappointment in that you’re unsure whether this film can be seen a second or third time but you know that the first time through was a ride that was absolutely worth the effort to take.

September 8, 2009
Trailer Park: PUBLIC ENEMIES – Review

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

RIP: A REMIX MANIFESTO – Contest

Girl Talk is without question one of the more progressive musical artists of the 21st century and it’s an abomination that current laws prohibit this man from fully realizing his potential.

Back when albums from The Beastie Boys or Biz Markie in the late 80’s included enough samples to make any litigious lawyer nowadays salivate at the chance to sue for copyright infringement it is a godsend that they did not because these artists brought another dimension to their own vision of what music should be. There is a difference between the wholesale theft of a musician’s original work and what someone else could do with the atoms and particles of it and crafting a pastiche of originality.

RiP: A REMIX MANIFESTO brings this issue and more like it to the surface as a documentary that is out to define what it is to be dealing with the issue of copyright in our modern age. Crafted over 6 years and still not finished as the makers of the film allow viewers to make their own version of the film, their own mash-up of sorts. Further, those living in the US name their own rate for the film which is also available in Apple’s iTunes store.

Lucky for three of you I have the chance for you to watch the film in its entirety for the low low cost of free. Shoot me your name at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll enter you in a contest for a copy of this brilliant documentary on a subject that you all should care about; the copyright laws have, without a doubt, prevented an album like Paul’s Boutique to change the musical landscape.

More about the film:

In RiP: A remix manifesto, Web activist and filmmaker Brett Gaylor explores issues of copyright in the information age, mashing up the media landscape of the 20th century and shattering the wall between users and producers.

The film’s central protagonist is Girl Talk, a mash-up musician topping the charts with his sample-based songs. But is Girl Talk a paragon of people power or the Pied Piper of piracy? Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig, Brazil’s Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil and pop culture critic Cory Doctorow are also along for the ride.

A participatory media experiment, from day one, Brett shares his raw footage at opensourcecinema.org, for anyone to remix. This movie-as-mash-up method allows these remixes to become an integral part of the film. With RiP: A remix manifesto, Gaylor and Girl Talk sound an urgent alarm and draw the lines of battle.

Which side of the ideas war are you on?

MAFIA – DVD Review

Watching PUBLIC ENEMIES last week put me in the mood to take advantage of watching a series that out some reality back into my television watching.

For some it’s Friends or the Office or some variation on the sitcom we’ve all come to know and revile, for me it’s a solid documentary. Specifically, I’m addicted to the seedier side of our American heritage and nowhere else has this addiction been better satisfied than with the History channel’s examination into the mob with The Mafia. In what feels like 10 brisk hours you go from thinking you know everything about the mob because you’ve watched all the seasons of the Soprano’s to having a better understanding on a subject that has all levels of great storytelling: love, murder, revenge and the dark realization that this is still going on in the world. (Just ask the author of Gomorrah, Roberto Saviano. He wrote an expose on organized crime in Naples and was put under police protection.)

The DVD set is currently available through the History Channel and, an added bonus, on sale. For $28.00 you are getting more than a history lesson, you’re getting a dose of cold reality that even though the Irish help build America it was a sect of Italians who were there to make sure they got a piece of the action.

A little bit more about the DVD:

MAFIA: THE HISTORY OF THE MOB IN AMERICA – VOLUME ONE

Starting with the prohibition years, this groundbreaking investigation traces the origins of the ethnic gangs that capitalized on criminal activities by turning them into family enterprises. With men like Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, and Lepke Buchalter at its heart, and bootlegging, racketeering, and murder at its soul, this four-part series is a sweeping saga of bloodshed, betrayal, and big business.

* THE PROHIBITION YEARS / BIRTH OF THE AMERICAN MAFIA: Prohibition spells 100 proof profit for local gangs…Until the “families” arrive from Sicily.

* THE KENNEDYS AND THE MOB: The Kennedys’ murky past returns to haunt them.

* UNIONS AND THE MOB: The Mafia takes on the Communists for control of the unions.

* EMPIRE OF CRIME: The Mob steps on a gold mine in World War II.

* BONUS FEATURES: Documentary “American Justice: Mob Hitmen”.

* LUCKY LUCIANO: CHAIRMAN OF THE MOB: He ran the Mob like a corporation–diversifying rackets, organizing gangs and running his own political candidates–and his top-secret war efforts earned him parole from a 50-year sentence.

* MEYER LANSKY: MOB TYCOON: From the pogroms of Eastern Europe to the heyday of the Vegas Mob, rare footage and interviews reveal the double life of the man known as the Mob’s financial leader.

* GENOVESE: PORTRAIT OF A CRIME FAMILY: Known for their high level of sophistication, the Genovese family not only played a leading role in creating the structure of organized crime in America, but in shaping how the mob used its vast power.

* BUGSY SIEGEL: Handsome, glamorous and the most vicious crime boss of all, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel began as a hit man on the streets of Brooklyn and died the victim of a mysterious murder, but not before turning a desert mirage into a Las Vegas dreamland.

* MAN, MOMENT, MACHINE: AL CAPONE AND THE MACHINE GUN MASSACRE: Crime boss Al Capone elevated the violence of Prohibition Chicago to a new level with the Thompson submachine gun, a messenger of death that led to one of the most famous mass murders in history.

* DEAD MEN’S SECRETS: AMERICA AND THE MOB: WARTIME FRIENDS: Did WWII spur a partnership between the U.S. government and organized crime? In 1942, fire broke out on the luxury liner-turned-troop carrier, the Normandie. While some mafia leaders claimed responsibility, an alleged protection deal with the government kept the blame on “Nazi sabotage.”

* BIOGRAPHY: THE GAMBINOS: THE FIRST FAMILY OF CRIME: Trace the rise and fall of one of the most famous Mafia families, from crime legend Carlo Gambino to his successor Paul Castellano, and the reign of John Gotti.

PUBLIC ENEMIES – Review

The very thing that makes PUBLIC ENEMIES a fresh entry into the summer movie dogfight is its Achilles heel.

When Michael Mann made the decision to shoot the film about the notorious gangster John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and the FBI agent assigned to catch him, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), he shot a film throughout the Midwest corridor that tries to capture 1933’s America.

Banks were seen as the real public enemy, much like if we had a gangster knocking down AIG branches if there were any, their locations already familiar to Mann who knows how to break down and block a bank robbery, down to the detail of the crook letting the common man know that their money is not the money they want. There is a kind of reverse vigilantism at play in some portions in this film but one of the sticking points this story has is that Dillinger was not ever ready to go back to jail and, if given the opportunity, he would just as soon as mow down a pack of coppers with his tommy gun as he would proclaiming how untouchable he is. Marion Cotillard, playing Dillinger’s flavor of choice throughout the movie, is another Mann trademark, a woman whose odd sense of independence is overwhelmed by the machismo of her male suitor to the point of rendering her all but feeble and powerless to fend off the advances of such a Lothario. One of the frustrating things about women like her, like HEAT’s Brenneman, is that they are caught up in this gangster lifestyle without so much as a terrible crisis of faith. It’s easy to see how a man like Depp could become the criminal he is just by the quickly shot opening moments of this film but Marion’s flip to a life of crime just doesn’t connect and that’s really what prevents this film from becoming anything else but a slicker dramatization of something you could see on the History channel any night of the week.

The set pieces, though, are gorgeous. Mann takes full advantage of this HD world in a way that challenges an audience’s expectations of what a period piece should look like. Mann brings an immediacy to the moment and takes what could have been a very simple recreation of past events look and feel like something that happened yesterday. This plays into Mann’s favor. One of the things that linger with you, or ought to, is that for anyone who thinks that using HD somehow disturbs the sense of time and place go to any moment when Depp walks into a bank. The richness of the colors, the polish on the floor, the marble that shines everywhere, the ornateness of the ceilings it all adds another dimension to the world that Mann wants to create. To those people in the 30’s life was in HD to them. This was how their world looked and felt. What some may fail to recognize is that Mann faithfully executes 1930’s America in a way that has never before been done in cinema. When Depp traipses through Purvis’ office, leisurely, quietly you cannot help but feel that you are there in moment with him. The only issue with the way he has decided to shoot his film, however, comes in the moments when you see the limitations of the technology plays with trying to capture a time when there was none.

There are great gun battles, to be sure. Outside of a bank, a couple of banks actually, fleeing from a jail in a daring and brazen prison break and a fantastic fire fight that occurs late at night. It’s the latter tussle that causes some of the weaker moments of this film to be exposed. It is HD’s inability to be consistently crisp which can lead some viewers to be jarred while keeping an eye on the action. There are moments when the characters “ghost” on the screen, they leave a faint trail at times that can be distracting to those paying attention if the action moves too fast, and can actually get in the way for real cinematic tricks where film, actually, could have brought a better result.

As well, the movie cannot stand on just the promise of derring-do and double-speak for those looking to an escape for a true crime film. The movie actually suffers from a lack of context. John Dillinger, yes, was a crook and criminal but where are the moments that show a more defined man? To deny Dillinger his humanity, and anyone pointing to his treatment of Cotillard as an example might as well long for the days when cavemen dragged their ladies by the scruff of their hair, is to deny the audience a real opportunity to feel emotionally invested in what happens to the man. Surprising as it is coming from Mann who so effortlessly humanized Robert De Niro in HEAT in a moment that few people could ever forget, the scene where he plays against Al Pacino in a diner, and made you root for him when he came to settle things up with Waingro. It’s surprising because you know how it ends for Dillinger. Any text book could tell you, any television show could recreate the moment but a real opportunity was missed in bringing some semblance of a human being to the screen.

To think more about Christian Bale’s performance only highlights the egregious oversight about Dillinger’s wasted character arc as Bale simply exists in this landscape with nothing more to do than just act out the lines he’s given. It’s not that he can’t bring something exciting as the man in charge of bringing Dillinger in but unless Purvis was a real drip Bale’s performance illustrates his inability to actually bring some emotional depth to this agent of the law. It’s disappointing that what we get is just Bale being Bale but with a twangy accent to go along for the ride. Billy Crudup provides some of the best unintentional comedic relief as his J. Edgar Hoover impersonation feels as if it belongs in a Saturday Night Live sketch about the man who founded the FBI as it fails to embody the sense that here was a man who was in charge of bringing some kind of order, some semblance of safety to a landscape that felt out of control.

While the film plods along, it’s examination into what happened in these pivotal years when Dillinger strolled free through Chicago before eventually meeting his demise simply does nothing more than just regurgitate recreated moments on the screen, it still is a wonder to look at on the big screen. There are real moments of good filmmaking here but it is a disappointment that there aren’t real moments of excellent filmmaking from a man who shown better depth dealing with men who bear arms.

July 2, 2009
Trailer Park: THE HANGOVER – Review

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

So, 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

THE HANGOVER – Review

A ra-tard.

A ra-tard is perhaps the one word that I have been chewing on like a cow gums cud for weeks after seeing THE HANGOVER. It’s delivered by Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and it’s such a non sequitur, one of many, that you wonder what’s taken so long to get Zach into the mix of modern cinematic comedy; he’s the cosmic little brother of Danny McBride. And it’s Zach who illustrates why THE HANGOVER is the comedy that will keep people coming back for a 2nd or 3rd viewing.

What everyone should know going into this film is that the premise of it is deceptively simple: Doug Billings (Justin Bartha) is going to Vegas to have a bachelor party. Aided by an ethically challenged mischief maker Phil Wenneck (Bradley Cooper), browbeaten and p-whipped whipping boy Stu Price (Ed Helms) and Alan the boys go off to enjoy an evening of frivolity and licentiousness. The brilliance of the comedy really begins after we’ve established who everyone is and are watching these gents offer a toast to one another as they look forward to their last evening with their bachelor friend.

Time fast forwards without you seeing nary a moment more of the evening and you have a scene that is reminiscent of the SIXTEEN CANDLES after-party when we find Farmer Ted trapped in a table. Here, though, that table is shattered, furniture is smoldering, nudity abounds and there’s a tiger in the toilet.

The non-linear storytelling is a unique way to tell the story even if this wasn’t a comedy. It’s a bold decision to make because we don’t know, aren’t told and there are not any convenient flashback sequences to assist in filling in the gaps as we get acquainted with the reasons why their very expensive hotel suite has gone from pristine to thrashed and why Doug is MIA. Now, and of course, we’ll eventually figure out why there’s a big tiger hanging out in their bathroom but Todd Phillips as a director metes out the information in small bites, opening up the ability to have Galifianakis, Cooper and Helms to really explore the comedic possibilities of what did happen last night.

The mix of performers here is what heightens the comedic effect of two comedians doing their thing and one actor who is just reacting to the obnoxiousness of it all. To that point, this is really an ensemble comedy, much like Phillips’ ROAD TRIP where you have a non-comedian in Breckin Meyer who was at the center of the maelstrom that was Seann William Scott and company, and that is spearheaded by Galifianakis and Helms. The former, a celebrated underground comedian who trades in the sharpest forms of subtlety, and the latter, in Helms, who has been a periphery player in another ensemble comedy, The Office. The pair are one/two punches of non-stop quips, parries, offhanded comments and totally wrong behaviors. To wit, Galifianakis’ opening salvo to the puerile funny about to be unleashed on the audience has him taking a baby, who they’ve just happened to find in their hotel room, an using the child’s hand to perform auto erotica. Yeah, it’s not going to be your parents’ STARSKY AND HUTCH.

While these gents try and piece together what exactly happened to their missing groom (his disappearance is one of the better sleight of hands in cinema as of late as you almost think of him as an afterthought while the film progresses) the wackiness that ensues is really the core of the film’s comedy. You have improbable characters popping up left and right, you’ve got a nude man who makes a break for it after climbing on Bradley Cooper like a spider monkey and the number of sub-plots abounds. One of those plots, where Helms finds out he married a Vegas stripper is one of the more heartfelt moments (if this could even be classified as one) throughout the film as Stu really goes far afield for the usual henpecked man who finds the stones to stand up to his domineering significant other but he makes it work to great comedic effect. Bradley Cooper, meanwhile is just the face man throughout this circus; he’s just a willing accomplice to the frivolity and the profane that happens as they track down their missing groom. The real star here in this movie is Galifianakis.

His strange, Asperger inspired behavior is the real treat that you should be watching as he is part enigma, part sideshow. He’s more than willing to go along with the physical humor required of him when the boys make their way to a police station and he’s incredible at not letting on to anything remotely funny that escapes his lips. He makes you work for the comedy, his dry wit translates well to a movie that depends heavily on some of the basest forms of modern comedy (nudity, slapstick, bestiality, et al..) but it’s his perceived innocence that makes him the true darling of this movie. You almost fear for his well being as the boys get into physical altercation after altercation and he knows how to make mental illness funny again. He’s the man you root for. He’s the guy who can deliver a joke about roofies with not so much as a smirk on his face. This movie is the vehicle, I will assert, that captures his comedic essence and, equally assert, it’s a shame that I predict you won’t see it in its natural form on the big screen any time soon.

Ed Helms acquits himself well in this movie as the film’s resident p-whipped weakling but Helms displays the ability to not only display humor in a broad, bombastic way but he’s just as razor sharp if you compare him to Galifianakis. Helms’ most nuanced line comes as the boys come back to their hotel room after a long day of searching for Doug. They are no doubt exhausted and as one of them complains of having a foggy head Galifianakis makes a quick remark to which Helms picks right back up to score one of the best lines in the film.

Cooper, for his part, just plays well with others. He isn’t especially compelling but he is the Moe to the other Stooges on display and, in fact, provides a real weight to the film’s narrative. He brings a level head, a suave tone and simply makes the film nicer to look at. From knowing how to wrangle Galifianakis, to dealing with the police when it’s time to strike a deal Cooper is exactly what this film needs.

This movie couldn’t be any more recommended. It is absolutely the reason to go to the movies if what you need is just a good laugh. It is so out there, so bizzarre, so completely unrealistic that it finally brings Todd Phillips back to where he belongs: in an elevator getting head. His last few films have been weak entries into a career where his only aim should be to figure out how to be incredibly entertaining, fantastically out there while employing the talents of those, and this is key, who know how to be funny. Anything less would warrant having a roofie popped in your Pepsi before going in to see it.

June 5, 2009
Opinion In A Haystack: UP Makes Children Cry

Hollywood hates children. Well, nowadays, for the most part. The past decade has seen a decline in the realm of family films so drastic it’s almost embarrassing to behold. A constant barrage of sub-par, placating, dreck that insults the intelligence of the child and the adult they will one day grow to be. Substance and craft are no longer the main concerns for children and families, simply be garish, be happy, and NEVER be realistic in tone (DEATH DOESN’T EXIST, ONLY iPods DO!!!) The youth of today have virtually nothing to grow up with and rediscover as surprisingly well-made entertainment, all they have is films equivalent to my generation’s Masters Of The Universe (great for nostalgia, not so great for adult criticism.) They need, and deserve, more fare like Beetlejuice, Return to Oz, Gremlins, or The Neverending Story (yes, I’m bias)… films where they grow up, re-watch and think “Holy hell! This was for kids?” They are feeding them messy piles of sugary air such as Alvin and the Chipmunks, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, or Night At The Museum (1 or 2, take your pick), which are so hackneyed and sloppy that the slightest hint of adolescent logic or understanding of story structure forces them to collapse under their own faulty welds and lashings. However, in a world of film that treats kids like permanently-imbecilic-spider-monkeys, there is still Pixar.

And Pixar has balls. SEXY. PLUMP. BALLS.

Not even going to bother jumping on the Pixar worship-wagon here. You know, as well as I do, about their reputation and their increasingly growing catalogue of well-crafted films that are arguably genre masterpieces (Wall-E, The Incredibles) or great against all odds (Cars: completely entertaining in spite of stilted-premise and Larry The Cable Guy.) Up continues this trend, possibly in the animation house’s greatest triumph of supremely original ideas and adult-story-telling-for-kids.

The film opens by following the life, from pre-adolescence to golden years, of Carl Fredricksen (voiced by the great Ed Asner.) He is an old man with an unfulfilled dream of adventuring in the South American wilderness and a home that is being strangled by industrial development. In short, he ties thousands upon thousands of balloons to his house and floats away, toward South America, on what is to be the last adventure of his life, one that he is forced to share with a young boy who inadvertently is on his porch during take off. Simple right? Odd right? Confusing right? Right, but it’s the approach that matters.

Amongst the fantastical elements in the film, the ones that can be seen in the trailer, like a house being floated by mere balloons, talking dogs, or elderly men being WAY too physically active for their own good, Up has a grounded heart and realism in place that metaphorically punches the adult-mind in the gut, and righteously, yet not viciously, sprays pepper-sauce in children’s faces (the kid next to me in the theater cried A LOT.) The movie deals with death, abandonment, and the loss of heroes at the fore front of its surface.

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

This blunt realism kicks right off, as the beginning of the film introduces us to the epitomes of pure cuteness and naivete that are young Carl and Ellie (his future wife.) They both seek adventure and have the same hero, Charles Muntz (voiced by the legendary Christopher Plummer), and we are treated to a montage of their life together. We witness their marriage, their home life, their romance, their laughter, and eventually, their inability to conceive children (yup,) and ultimately their parting. THAT’S RIGHT. Ellie dies. Not just dies, but dies in a montage around 20 minutes or so into the film… Pixar sets you up, and knocks you down… all to the loving tunes of a soothing and sad score. All that went through my mind was “Holy hell! This is for kids?” Which, trust me, is a huge compliment.

Pixar’s balls, by this point in the movie are already huge and pulsating, but they still get even bigger. The reason Carl even floats his home in the first place is because the government is taking it away and forcing him into a retirement-home due to him attacking a construction worker with his cane (drawing blood!) Through the course of the film we also see Carl discover that his (and Ellie’s) childhood hero is a deranged, psychopathic, MULTI-murderer and that the kid, Russell, has a deadbeat dad who basically wouldn’t care if he lives or dies… we even see dogs getting hurt and possibly killed (due to their own actions, its not Pixar’s Hostel.) Topping off the dark tones found here is a joke played on the audience that is so genius, cruel and hilarious that scriptwriter Bob Peterson must have been laughing since the day he put it on paper. I won’t spoil it for you. Heh.

******************END SPOILERS*******************

Up‘s realism, risks, and complimentary attitude toward the audience is not the only positive however. In no way am I trying to sell it on the merits of making children cry alone… ok, maybe a little. It is also quite successful on all other standard fronts, and it’s got plenty of well-executed laughs and a grand vibrant color scheme. The script is extremely original, not to mention the cast of characters which includes a huge bird, Dug the Dog, and his fellow army of talking K-9 brethren. Dug is the comedic stand out of the movie, as his dialogue perfectly plays out the awkward nature of how dogs would actually sound if they could miraculously speak English. All the main players in the movie get their own small, but useful, character-arcs… even the bird (oddly the only character not able to speak.)

The fantastical elements are handled in a way that doesn’t grate the logic. Unlike sloppy piles of confusion like the continuity, rules, or consistency of the magic tablet in Night At The Museum 2, the material here is given mystery and logic where it needs it, and glazes over where it doesn’t… which is why you wont be questioning how Muntz (Christopher Plummer) invented a collar that translates dog speak to English, or how those balloons wouldn’t remotely lift that house, let alone tear it from it’s foundation (I believe Mythbusters tested a similar idea, and it was only picking up the weight of a single child)

The triumph of the animation here is that Pixar does make art, but they don’t try to re-invent the wheel when the wheel is working just fine. The movie is absolutely beautiful, not as visually breath taking as Wall-E, but still it looks fantastic. The blocking of some of the scenes is incredible, the little house mushroom-topped with a cloud of balloons floating across a vast blue sky in an ultra-wide shot is iconic and slightly haunting, especially considering the “rainbow” visual of the balloons. Up, much like most of Pixar’s flicks, excels in its craft (from all angles, writing, direction, choreography) and not merely in the technology of the craft. The digital 3D print is especially gorgeous, and is highly recommended.

It’s not often that a bitter old grump like me sees a film and can’t find too much negative to say about it. If I had to really rack my brain, I guess I could say the only problem was that maybe the movie makes Carl too much of a physical action hero at times, considering his age, but it’s handled with such care in the narrative of the movie, so its not a big deal, and certainly not out-weighing the good. This is probably Pixar’s least marketable film yet, being so morbid an odd. The less broad they get, the better they get…which is kind of a mind boggler when concerning Pixar… how do they continue to get better? How? In this case most of the praise should be directed toward director Pete Doctor, who some how improved on his wonderful Monsters Inc. with this new offering.

Also, just to put things into perspective, this review was written by someone who doesn’t even honestly like computer-generated animation at all, and who has really never publicly “sucked off” Pixar. Up was just class-A entertainment, and perhaps an arguable masterpiece in the family film genre. It’s good to know that this generation has at least a few movies, like Up, to grow older with and re-watch and see the adult themes, the quality craftsmanship and exclaim “This was for kids?”

QUICK THOUGHTS AND RANDOM BITS

Star Trek: a few weeks later…

J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek was great fun. As a die hard Original-Cast-film fan, still have no debilitating complaints… except, upon further reflection… it was great, but it really just isn’t Star Trek. Long Live Shatner.

Annoyed at “revisiting” reviews

Something that grates on the nerves is when an old franchise is resurrected (Terminator) or announced to be resurrected (Ghostbusters) and we have to sit through a plethora of reviews, rants, and ravings by young-ins saying how the originals (T1, T2, Ghostbusters) are overrated in the first place. Just want to say: SHUT UP JUNIOR! Your ill-informed meandering is not making your CGI-raped re-imagining any less horrendous.

What’s in a name?

If you hate McG, director of Terminator Salvation, simply because of his name then your opinion is invalid. First, his real name is McGinty, “McG” is the nickname given to him by his family… it’s not a self-chosen moniker due to douchebaggery. Second, hate him because his movies are sub-par… even though to hear the guy talk it really seems like he is actually trying, just failing miserably.

Exterminators exterminate… so Terminators should… ?

If you are going to make Terminator 4, if you just can’t help but do it, and you have to make it a heaping pile of poorly constructed blandness… could you at least follow the one rule that even the hokey Terminator 3 didn’t break? If a Terminator, no matter what make or model, gets its hands on a human, don’t let the machine give a dramatic pause, don’t let the machine just “play around” with them, let them INSTANTLY kill. Terminator 1-3 never let the villains even touch the targets… why? Because they are terminators, they would terminate at all costs. Why couldn’t you at least follow this logic? Why sir?

It works in Reno, but not at the multiplex.

Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon, You were great writers on The State, and are hilarious writers on Reno 911!, so how come every time you make the leap to film its completely dreadful? Taxi (the Queen Latifah movie), Balls of Fury, The Pacifier, Let’s Go To Prison, Herbie Fully Loaded, Night at the Museum, Night at the Museum 2: Battle for the Smithsonian… Your film work reads like the listings for a multiplex in the deepest circles of hell… what is going on there guys?

There is always room for Jell-O… and more Bitterness!

Got into an argument with a young “film buff” who was saying that The Dark Knight and Iron Man are better films then The Outlaw Josey Wales, Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai, and Apocalypse Now. Is there any hope for the future?

May 27, 2009
Trailer Park: TERMINATOR SALVATION

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

So, 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

A lot of talk this week about Quentin Tarantino’s newest film screening at Cannes. Consensus? It’s talky, light on action and seems like a WWII DEATH PROOF.

TERMINATOR SALVATION – REVIEW

There absolutely shouldn’t have been any blessing given from James Cameron with regard to TERMINATOR SALVATION. The only religious intonations given over this movie should have been its last rites.

Now, I can’t stop you from seeing this movie. You will see it irrespective of anything I have to say on this. I realize this.

You’ve been sold on it, I was sold on it, director McG’s P.T. Barnum huckster antics during preview showcases to fanboys teased and titillated audiences everywhere (“I really fought hard for those mammaries to be in there, fellas!”) but there is no escaping the fact that behind the tell-tale daa-daa-daa-daa-daa drum beat we all know as the sonic opening calling card for this franchise is nothing but a lot of smoke and a weak film. A film, mind you, which McG himself said should speak for itself. If it did it would say: Don’t spend $10 on me. Wait for Netflix.

There are a few things that make this a truly remarkable misstep in a franchise that should have ended 2 films ago but one of them comes early on as we meet John Connor (Christian Bale) who absolutely owns the first few minutes of the film in the way he carries his heavy burden as the leader for the resistance and the Batman-like voice with which he wants reality to conform to his own. He’s badass, he chews nails for fun and he’s not going to let crashing in a helicopter, which is a great special effects moment in this film, stop him from thrashing a terminator that deserves leaded violence.

The problems begin with the moments following when Bale is flying over an ocean, wanting to get back to resistance headquarters. He’s been beat up, almost killed and is denied entry to the underwater base of operations. But that’s not going to stop him from getting in! Much like another summer movie hero from over two decades ago, Jack Ryan in HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, he’s going to get on that damn sub. The fundamental issue which is wholly representative of what ails this movie is that in OCTOBER there was some emotional weight, genuine drama as he unhooked himself from that line to get in that submarine; there was tension, mood, atmosphere, a real sense of danger. Bale’s bullheaded bravado, masked by the tired trope of cinematic bullheaded machismo as he flippantly tosses himself out of the low flying aircraft into the ocean, is nothing more than a cheap way to try and make this guy seem like a real tough guy.

When next we see Bale, he’s sitting in a chair looking all kinds of torqued, moody, getting chewed out by Michael Ironside, playing a character I am not unsure of whether is any different than we saw from any number of 80’s movies where his role is to try and be an even tougher character than those he’s acting opposite of, all the while it begs the question of how much suspension of disbelief is going to be required of me in this film?

It’s a trick question, of course, as the film has moments like this peppered throughout the entire film. For example, the people who have been living without real homes since Judgment Day. They’re fantastically dirty and dusty but the glare coming off their teeth as their lips and faces are sullied with the detritus of a cataclysmic event reminds you that at least they have their Colgate. Another: When Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington, and you’ve got to appreciate the grade school irony in a script that names a man Wright) meets up with young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) in one of the best sequences of the film as we have our first look at a terminator who is at once zombie-looking and completely sinister. Hours later, after escaping death, Marcus fiddles with a radio. He just happens to fix it at just the time when, speak of the devil, Connor is broadcasting his fireside chat with those out in the field regarding their next moves. Never mind the timing, the way they catch the signal at just the right frequency or the acknowledgment that it’s Connor speaking to them. It’s just all very convenient.

Later, Reese is part of an escape from a very bad situation from a slew of terminating machines. He and Marcus are departing the explosive moment in a tow truck when moments later he has to pull a single lever at just the right time to make the scene work; forget logic, it begs us, as not only does Reese pull the right one at the right time from a literal array of choices it does nothing to help the dramatic thrust of the film. There is no danger here, no threat of imminent danger, because these guys have an exponential amount of luck on their side and this is the problem with the film.

Further, in the film’s first hour, we find out early that the resistance has found a way to stop the machines, a poorly explained software program that is embedded on a jump drive that needs a clunky boombox to use. About this time, Connor sends his team to fetch an aqua terminator, a lot like the squids from the MATRIX sequels, to which they find one, bring it aboard, all the while being able to keep it from informing other aqua terminators that its been captured or of its current location. This sonic disruptor is one of the weakest McGuffins as it leads exactly nowhere. It’s a ruse, a poorly devised plot device whose sole purpose is used to an awful and regrettable convenience when finally employed to its strongest effect. The film is riddled with lapses in logic, and honestly if an action movie were on point doing what it has to, we shouldn’t care but from rain that just seems to stop on cue to a fiery explosion that singes nary a hair on the person who is caught in a fireball there is more than enough to puzzle at.

Moon Bloodgood, for all that McG has made about her, is actually one of the more redeemable things about this film. Along with Sam Worthington and Anton Yelchin as the reluctant hero you have the three best reasons to see the film. I would even posit that their story, by itself, could have been a more entertaining diversion than what we build up to here. Marcus’ second lease on life is slightly introspective and rather interesting. Kyle’s progression from hesitant killer to lethal hero is wonderfully laid out. But that’s the most frustrating thing about this film. It has fits and starts of potential and has excellent action set pieces only to dumb itself down to appease the lowest common denominator as moments just happen to break positively for those we are supposed to care the most about in the movie. When the “big reveal” in the 3^rd act happens near the end try and convince me otherwise that it doesn’t make you feel cheated. The shadows, the calculated angles, the careful placement of bodies, it feels more like a math assignment than it does a celebration of all that’s great in excellent action movies. The effects at this point felt on par with THE CROW. The penultimate battle between man and machine, in the bowls of Skynet headquarters, however, tries to win you back with a glorious display of physicality and menace but by then it’s too late. The film cannot elevate itself above a 2^nd tier auctioneer when compared to more thought out films in its genre; leave it to Nolan to raise the bar for everyone else who comes behind him. I commend McG for not bowing to the pressure of actually integrating more of the terminators in the film, Lord knows that would’ve made it far more intriguing and add to the summer spectacle this should have been, but he demurs to telling a bullet ridden story with nowhere to end but with a whimper.

For all his ruminations about how Bale said he flatly turned down this role until he was given a script that you would have thought came with gilded light pouring down from every page if it got Bruce Wayne to say “Yes” to it after turning it down what you have is a story that is full of logical missteps, plots that go nowhere, effect work that at times has you wondering whether it was worth the cameo and the questionable taste for an actor that proved with DARK KNIGHT you could have a great summer film that was designed, and whose sole purpose was, to make money for its cash master while being reasonably intelligent. TERMINATOR SALVATION is a wonder as it doesn’t want to be intelligent, it doesn’t even want to be smart, it just wants to be a throwback to the films you could enjoy on basic cable and be done with once you’ve seen it. It’s an embarrassment of spectacle that leaves a lot of money on the table.

From a pure franchise standpoint, a solely economic exercise, McG may win the weekend but he will lose the summer war.

May 22, 2009
The Greatest Movie Blog Of All Time: Terminator Starvation

TERMINATOR: STARVATION

The year is 2018. Skynet has risen and the few humans left (Terminator: Salvation makes it seem that there are only a handful of humans remaining) are trying to win the war against the machines. This is a few years before John Conner (Christian Bale) will acquire his legendary status and he comes across a new kind of enemy. Unfortunately, this is not the core of the film. Conner doesn’t even seem to be the primary character. Mostly, we follow Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), an apparently resurrected man who was lethally injected after serving time on death row in 2003 (For a crime that is never explained). He awakens fifteen years later, having not aged a minute, and befriends a young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), the future father of John Conner. Reese is soon kidnapped by the machines and Conner is forced to trust Wright in rescuing his dad.

I tried to find a way to eloquently put into words the way I feel about this film and the following is what I came up with. Enjoy.

Oh, Terminator: Salvation
When you were announced, it scared me
There was no cause for celebration
And you were going to be directed by McG

But my interest was ignited
With the casting of Christian Bale
And I will admit that I got excited
When the trailer was unveiled

So when the lights went down
My eyes lit up
But what I actually found
Was that you really did suck

The story was bland
Common sense you were ignoring
The acting was far from grand
In fact, it was quite boring

You took away the depth
The legend you have devoured
Maybe you could have saved yourself
But you didn’t utilize Bryce Dallas Howard

So when they captured Kyle Reese
Why hasn’t he died yet?
With that single little piece
It wouldÂ be victory for Skynet

You tried to be clever
But smart you were not
With in-jokes during the bad weather
But unintentional laughs were all you got

But I have to say
There are a couple reasons why I would recommend it
At the end of the day
The cinematography was absolutely splendid

And I also cannot lie
I may give it another visit
Because I won’t even try
To say the action scenes were not exquisite

But that wasn’t enough
At least not for me
I had to deal with enough stuff
While watching Terminator 3

Go ahead McG, ask the main man
You know this is not what Cameron intended
Obviously, I’m not a fan
But at least Michael Ironside was in it

So I’m quite disappointed with you
I wish I could keep our relationship intact
But if Terminator Salvation is the best you can do
Please, I beg you, don’t come back

VROOOM!

*MINOR SPOILER TO FOLLOW*
So that is my review, but there is one more thing I would like to comment on. In the last bit of the film, a T-800 arrives. A real T-800, with the face of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It doesn’t 100% work, but it’s pretty damn close. I’m not sure of the specifics of how they did this (apparently they CGI’d Arnold’s face onto someone else’s body), but I think it’s a great achievement. It leads me to wonder how close we are to being able to do this on a consistent basis. How many actors will we be able to replicate? I’m not saying that computer graphics will overtake actors anytime in the future. We still need the personal connections to a role, the emotions, and so forth, but if someone were to use this in a different way, what could happen? Is it possible that we will sit in a theater one day and see Jimmy Stewart chasing Tom Cruise? Or maybe Cary Grant investigating George Clooney? The possibilities would be literally endless. I’m extremely interested to see where this goes.

-Jesse Rivers would love to see a Jackie Chan/Ingrid Bergman movie.

And, as always, check out Bagged and Boarded.

May 21, 2009
Greatest Movie Blog: REVIEW – STAR TREK Boldly Goes Where No Other STAR TREK Film Has Gone Before

There’s a commercial running for the new Star Trek film that says “This is not your father’s Star Trek.” And for a change there is truth in advertising.

This new Star Trek is a conversion to the summer blockbuster. Whereas most Star Trek films in the past were released around Thanksgiving, this one will play well on a hot day where you can hide away in an air-conditioned theater with a big bucket of popcorn and an ice-cold soda.

I enjoyed most of the previous Star Treks (particularly Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the underrated Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and Star Trek: First Contact), but I’m not what one would consider a Trekkie. I’ve seen maybe one episode of the original series and a good portion of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but that’s about it. And I can say unequivocally that I enjoyed this Star Trek far beyond anything that’s come before it. This is the most fun Star Trek has ever been.

Everything about this film is given a fresh spin: the way starships jump to warp, the sound of the phasers, the way teleportation looks. And the thematic nature of this Star Trek is a departure for the previous ten films. While the series was about an intergalactic crew of explorers and the films were by and large Horatio Hornblower in space, this film is much more like Star Wars with grand themes of world destruction and epic destiny.

The film is part origin story, part revenge story (perfect combination for a summer movie, right?). A Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana) travels back in time seeking revenge for something that happens in the future (I won’t spoil it). His ship, the Nurada, possesses the Death Star-like technology to destroy planets. It’s up to a brash young crew of Starfleet cadets to stop him (hint: they are onboard the Starship Enterprise).

Chris Pine’s James T. Kirk is perhaps the biggest departure from the original characters (the changes are plot driven,). The trailer points out that Kirk’s father was captain of a starship for 12 minutes and saved 800 lives (including Kirk’s). Trekkies, no doubt, will realize this is a deviation from canon because Kirk’s father originally lived to see Kirk become captain of the Enterprise. So Pine’s Kirk is brash, rebellious and reckless in addition to the qualities that Shatner’s Kirk had (charismatic, strong, smart leader, good with the ladies).

The rest of the cast is fairly in line with their original counterparts. Zachary Quinto does an admirable job as Spock, Karl Urban is a scene stealer as Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy, and Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott provides plenty of comic relief.

The film is not without its flaws. I won’t get into many of them here as they would induce spoilers. The first half of the film covers a lot of time while the second half covers a very short period. Some of the humor is a bit over the top and simplistic (particularly Scotty’s alien sidekick). And for some reason the new Enterprise’s engineering looks like a brewery.

The major drawback is, I fear, that this film may alienate the core, devoted Trekkies. I won’t get into major spoilers but there are major changes in the Star Trek canon in this film. I hope Trekkies accept the changes because efforts to reboot the franchise through additional television series and Next Generation movies have by and large failed to cross over to mainstream audiences. I sincerely hope that Trekkie nation embraces this film and the ones that will surely follow. Change can be a good thing – and, in this case, a very good thing. Come on, Trekkies – Yes we can!

Brett Deacon joined the Twitter nation: @brettdeacon.

April 29, 2009
Trailer Park: FRIDAY THE 13TH and CONFESSIONS OF A SHOPAHOLIC – Reviewed

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I’m awesome. I wrote 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. Find me here, my oh so original name on the thing is Stipp so come on and follow my stray ramblings.

CONFESSIONS OF A SHOPAHOLIC – REVIEW

For anyone wanting to know the bottom line on this film here, verbatim, are the notes I sent to the studio rep about the movie:

“I thought the movie was formulaic, the writing was pretty weak and a little derivative but I thought Isla Fisher was positively effervescent and bubbly. She performed well in the role that she was given with other standouts being Krysten Ritter, who does Winona Ryder better than Winona Ryder, and Fred Armisen who I wished was given more to do. Overall, a movie that will positively work well with women who will gravitate towards the female-friendly material.”

Those still sticking around to read my additional thoughts on the movie I have to start by saying producer Jerry Bruckheimer was brilliant, getting in on this action. A man who usually has more to do with guns and bombs than he does with pantyhose and bombshells obviously saw something worth producing in a movie that is insipidly simple in its construction and wretchedly executed from the standpoint that there is no thinking involved at all by those in attendance. He saw, or at least I think he did, that there was a story that a large swath of the population not usually served by his usual fare deserved to hear because of what’s popular right now in our female society’s zeitgeist. It’s not a polemic on Middle Eastern relations, it’s a treatise on how one broke woman deals with shopping a lot, wants to write for a fashion magazine and then ends up falling in love.

That’s it. There’s nothing else you need to know about the film because it’s all filler and fodder to push along the 3 basic tenants of debt, shopping and fictionalized love. Isla Fisher, who plays Rebecca Bloomwood, absolutely shines in a role that requires nothing more than to be endearing, funny and charming. And she does it especially well when you consider how painful some other actresses have tried to pull this off in the pantheon of vapid female romantic comedy leads. Isla is a delight every single time she is on the screen and what’s impressive is that she was able to be compelling in her turn as a down-on-her-luck (self-inflicted down-on-her-luck, natch) writer who yearns to be part of the fashion world by writing for a prestigious magazine dedicated to all things glamorous. Her best friend, Suze (Krysten Ritter), is amazing insofar that, like I mentioned, oozes Wynona Rider all over her face but she manages to radiate the kind of peace and love that even Ringo Starr wouldn’t be able to resist autographing; she’s a delight.

After a series of wacky coincidences and unbelievable opportunities that defy any sense of logic, she becomes a lightning rod of attention for a staid and stuffy financial publication by writing a female-centric column focused on dumbing down complex issues dealing with money in a cheeky fashion. Her editor, Luke Brandon (played by the affable and likable Hugh Dancy), takes a fancy to this young wordsmith and the two end up playing the hackneyed game of girl likes boy, boy likes someone else, boy ends up liking girl.

Apart from these written elements there is an inordinate amount of slapstick. From fighting over boots at an exclusive sale of couture clothing to Isla actually putting palm to face of a foreigner from Finland at a cocktail party there is more to keep the ladies laughing from start to finish. And that’s the other thing. The movie appeals to women for reasons that should be abundantly clear when you understand that this movie is not predicated on looking at love from the perspective of that other fashion-centric movie, SEX AND THE CITY, as if you were to compare the two SEX would be considered an introverted examination of amour, this film just wants to be easy breezy.

There is a sub-plot of Isla dealing with a hard-nosed debt collector throughout the film as she avoids his calls, his visits and, ultimately, the fallout was a pleasant diversion that actually pays off at a pivotal moment in the film and there’s no denying that all the roles that are on the screen are used to their greatest potential. It’s not to say that all the performances are great or particularly pleasant, I wish there was more done with Fred Armisen who turns in a sublime and comical performance as Dancy’s boss, but there isn’t any long, drawn out moments that can at times disrupt the quick flow to these comedies.

In sum, this isn’t a movie I will ever purchase or pay to see again. I think the strongest comment I can make is that it’s a pleasant diversion to some of the fare out there that this could have been a lot worse if not for Isla Fisher. Fisher is the reason why this movie excels and you cannot help but notice that she is a comedic talent who actually manages to delight.

FRIDAY THE 13TH – REVIEW

I’m not one to begin with a quote so I apologize in advance. It’s gauche, I know that, I hate it when I see it in other publications, but it’s completely appropriate and relevant to what follows. It comes from SUMMER SCHOOL:

Dave: Have you seen the movie, Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

Anna-Maria: No. It is good?

Dave: Oh, I’ve got to tell you, I love this film. It had passion and a plucky spirit. And, the characters had integrity, like when Leatherface went on that strict diet of human flesh, he had to cut out chicken and fish completely.

Francis “Chainsaw” Grimp: Dave, I agree with you. I’ll go a step further, sure Leatherface, he wore a mask made out of human skin, and he hung people on meat-hooks, but hey, we’ve all got quirks, I got ’em, you’ve got ’em Dave, that’s what makes this character so, so compelling. Thumbs up for me.

Thumbs up, indeed.

FRIDAY THE 13^th absolutely deserves to be hugged and coddled by those wanting to go back to the days when horror meant killing, horror meant sparking up a spliff and getting nuts with your lady friend and when horror meant Jason was actually menacing.

One thing that Marcus Nispel deserves credit for as director on this film is knowing what this property used to mean to those who were weaned on a hearty diet of straight-forward hack/slash films in the 80’s and why it was absolutely time to deconstruct the deconstructors that brought us the SCREAM franchise. Damian Shannon and Mark Swift as writers deserve equal credit for making a movie that walks that fine line of knowing what makes good horror good and bad horror, well, unwatchable. One of the biggest compliments you can give a movie like this, then, is that it managed to actually thrill and excite without it ever feeling goofy or having too high a polish.

When you look at the pretty teen entries in the 90’s (I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, SCREAM, FINAL DESTINATION, HALLOWEEN H20, et al.) the clean and clear cinematography put a polish on things stuck out a frayed thread that you wish you could just unravel. These movies are supposed to be gritty, overexposed at times, dirty. Now, while Marcus’ previous reboot of TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE wasn’t deserving of any great praise overall he at least got the atmosphere right. And he gets it right in this film.

From the start we push right through some of the basic tenants of what made Jason, well, Jason. He sees his mom beheaded from afar in a flashback sequence, drenched in blackness and rain, which takes all of 5 minutes. Whereas some would love to dwell on this moment Marcus and Co. just plow through this information and you can feel this is a story that is going to move at a quick clip. When we get into the actual narrative we’re led to believe that a pack of kids who are off wandering around, backpacks in tow, looking for a stash of marijuana that has been planted somewhere deep in the recesses of tall grass, tall trees, far away from humanity, the backwoods. It’s effective in setting up of how distant all these events are taking place, how susceptible they are to the natural environs or any other danger that will fall upon them. Cell phones don’t work here either, natch.

The first pre-act, an extended moment really, of the kids looking for a plantation full of weed takes up a solid 15 minutes and is really a definitive look at how the rest of the film will unfold. We’ve got ourselves a story that knows how to pace itself, how to generate good tension with its characters as we all wait for the killing to go full throttle and how to execute its executions.

I have to hand it to the filmmakers in that they’ve properly figured out the proportions of sex, drugs and violence. The first two kind of take care of themselves, I think Jeffrey Wells won’t want for pictures of these ladies, but the latter was done with a little creativity. It’s hard not to be able and spoil things with descriptions of how there were some quality kills at the outset but it is sufficient to explain that there are messy ways to go here; America Olivio and Jonathan Sadowski both deserve a golf clap for setting things off in the right manner and it’s absolutely terrifying to see Jason have a spring in his step as the conversation, come Monday, will probably revolve around slow lumbering Jason versus Olympic sprinter Jason. I like the fast moving one because you can really feel the physics behind every machete hack and every ax toss.

As we settle into the story proper I was struck by the pacing. Whereas in the other entries you had Jason mostly attacking people in the night (there are exceptions to this) Jason is not relegated to being the boogie man who only strikes at night. As judged by the preview you do have Jason coming out to terrorize some young swimmer and this only enhances the experience in that you are left to wonder where and when he might strike.

The main players in this feature, Jared Padalecki (playing Clay Miller) and Danielle Panabaker (playing Jenna) were solid entries as the focus of this film. The two of them are relatively unknowns, most everyone in this film are unknowns, and again this only enhances the experience as you subconsciously are left wondering who is going to be spared and who’s going to die next. Thankfully this movie doesn’t play favorites and this is, perhaps, the film’s greatest advantage. Whereas other films in the 90’s played with young actors on the bubble you had some good beads on who was going to live and who was not. For the most part, this film keeps it all going as we traipse from one kill to another.

However, I will mention that the Jason Lair is a little goofy and idiotic. Its presence was the one thing that kept this film from being absolutely great and took me out of the 3^rd act somewhat. This area seemed awfully well-constructed, not to mention well-lit, for a man who is supposed to be a mentally deficient, homicidal maniac and it’s completely unbelievable in every regard. Also, its eventual use as we head home toward the ending is equally bizarre and logic defying but it does deserve a little credit for reasons that deserve to be seen to be believed.

One of the other issues that are raised when reviewing a horror movie is that you run in to a lot of things that are simply too goofy to try and be eloquent about: the drug use; the promiscuity; the nudity; the bad choices; and, subsequently, the bad decisions don’t really deserve to be scrutinized in the conventional sense. These elements made good horror films good then and it certainly makes it good now. To pick apart at these things would only serve to unravel the tight noose that is wrapped around your expectations for what you hope this movie will deliver. You go into this film wishing for these things and, if you’re really a fan of the genre, you hope things honor its heritage and you hope its fun. Derek Mears delivers an excellent, reenergized Jason Voorhees and even though there is nothing more to do than to act menacing his performance competes with that of C.J. Graham from FRIDAY THE 13^TH PART VI. I am recusing any talk of the subtleties of Derek’s performance as really any talk beyond his form would just spoil the goodness of his heinousness with how he dispatches his victims to the afterlife.

This movie delivers on delivering a solid horror experience with its thrilling pacing and dark atmosphere. Terror seems to be around many corners and it deserves credit for not only erasing the awfulness and shame the sequels have inflicted on the more respectable entries into this much maligned franchise. There is nothing intellectual going on in these movies and I think this accounts for why many have failed to “get it” when it comes to what makes these good movies. It’s about nudity, about gettin’ high and about how people are gonna die. And this movie delivers on all three. Chainsaw and Dave would have absolutely given this a thumbs-up.

And now, for those still reading, who would like to win some FRIDAY THE 13TH swag? I have 6 FRIDAY THE 13TH branded hoodies to give away and if you’re interested in winning just jot me a note at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and just write somewhere in that e-mail what your favorite entry is of this series. These things are L and XL, have a red little swath on the front saying FRIDAY THE 13TH and a pimp looking Jason mask that will always be looking behind you. They’re pretty pimp so big thanks to the sponsors who tossed some my way.

February 13, 2009
Trailer Park: End of Year Holiday Cornucopia
By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, Delightful Hanukkah to you all…I’ve got tons to talk about today…

I think years of doing my favorite trailers has become a little same ol’ same ol’. This time, however, for those keeping track of me as I’ve been doing this column now for almost 5(!) years now it looks like I need to shake it up a little bit. No one hates lists more than me, I rarely do them, so I figure I would just stick in some of the more memorable moments from this last year. From the good to the bad, I figured I would reflect on what 2008 has brought me. So, I’ve interspersed two film reviews, a check-in call from Ray Schillaci along with a DVD giveaway (among the other ones I’m runnin’) as I keep it loose and informal. Should anyone have anything to add as their own BEST/WORST for aught 8 feel free to leave it in the comments section below as I’m interested to hear about your own Best of 08.

BEST FREE T-SHIRT GIVEN AWAY AT COMIC-CON: THE WATCHMEN

This shirt made the wait to not only catch the panel that showed some of the best footage that we had seen to that point. Zach Snyder cut together a loose trailer that played more than a few times and, to be honest, it triggered the same response in the crowd as when he played the trailer for 300. To boot, the interviews I did on site right after the panel, even though they were not exclusive, made the trek from Arizona worthwhile. The ravenous scramble for this free piece of merch was not unlike the running of the bulls in Pamplona. Seriously, some of these kids need a Stairmaster or get on some kind of cardio program. I want to see future nerds in better shape than what I’ve been seeing at these conventions.

Coming in a close second would absolutely have to be the TERMINATOR: SALVATION shirt that was given away after the Terminator panel which surprised even me; I wasn’t expecting much and was more than pleasantly surprised to see what G was up to with this property and, as a topper, a sweet ass shirt to wear to the gym.

As an aside: Check out Rich Johnston’s WATCHMENSCH comic that is coming soon to your local comics retailer. Not even Alan Moore is above a little parody.

BEST REASON TO HATE PUBLICISTS: The Kids in the Hall 2008 Tour

One of the really nice things about writing for this site is that I basically dictate my own material. I lick my thumb, stick it up in the air of my own mind and then determine what way the wind is blowing. For those who know me, which isn’t many of you and I know that, I am a Kids in the Hall mark. I own all their damn DVDs, I drove 6 hours just to see a live show they did years ago, I bought a lot more merchandise than anyone whose name is Mark David Chapman shouldn’t and I have always maintained they really were an influential force in modern sketch comedy. Now, when it was announced they were doing a spring tour I was all about finding a way to talk to one, perhaps all if I was particularly lucky, of the KITH. I figured one PR rep would know the other and that it would be a smooth process. Who would’ve thought that the Kids in the Hall only had one publicist? I was thrilled when I eventually landed to the person who handles them and was actually enthused that I showed an interest in covering their tour. Their publicist wrote back quickly. I was amazed. They were interested. What did I have in mind, they asked. So, I make every possible concession I could in order to get these interviews. I was in rare form; I was giving away the Featured Interview space, I was willing to do these interviews at all hours of the day, I was whoring myself to every degree. All I wanted was some exclusive content and some time with the Kids.

It worked.

They wrote back, giving the site some non-exclusive (Hint #1) content and some ambiguous time about when to set all these interviews up (Clue #2). Like a sucker, I posted it. However, they wrote back letting me know how great it was that I posted some generic information linking back to a site that wasn’t ours and content that was branded as such.

I am absolutely, totally, and completely in love with you. I just thought you should know that before we go any further 🙂

Seriously, this is great – now we need to get you on the phone with the guys so that you can have some fresh meat for the site beast. Let me get them safely on the road, and then let’s talk about anything and everything you might want to do!

Thanks again, Christopher – it’s truly a pleasure to work with you on this (I don’t get to say that often!)

Well, what would you think? Yeah, that you were the f’ing man, I tell you that. And I think you would be right. Who wouldn’t believe that pile of steaming BS? Fast forward 3 weeks of teasing. I was so hungry for this that I thought it was in the bag. The only bag I was in, I take it, was some Nigerian 419 scam. Like a loser I kept going forward and the following e-mail came in when I could tell it wasn’t me she was hoping to hook up but, rather, the overlord of everything here at the site, Mr. Kevin Smith, that they was ultimately interested in. This is speculation but since I never was able to produce the man or even play with the thought of forwarding her half-assed invitation to anyone who I thought would even come close of pushing this up the ladder (the world became clear when I saw the line) I will never know for sure. Why I couldn’t see that this was the first move of the Bad PR person’s Heisman play against me I don’t know…

Hey!

I don’t care what you have to do – rent a horse, or a zeppelin, or a trolley car. Get yourself to one of the LA area shows. It will be WORTH the trip, I swear: the new show is fantabulous. The guys are having a blast – we just wrapped up four shows in NY and they’re headed to Texas next to tackle Houston and Dallas.

Dave has written what is perhaps the most classic, textbook sketch I’ve ever seen him produce – it should be taught on college campuses because it’s that good, and round, and premise-perfect. Bruce has contributed a truly hilarious bit called “Grade 8 Dance” that audiences howl over.

The Russo brothers directed a clip that’s featured in the show – it’s called “Carfuckers”, which probably gives away the premise a bit. It’s in the main viewer on Funny or Die today (a deal done with the company that produced the piece). Go check it out!

Not sure how to accomplish this, but we’d love to invite Kevin to the LA show as well – I think we’re going to be hosting a reception afterwards, and it would be good to shake hands and that sort of thing. Can you tell me how I might reach him to invite him too?

If you’d like to speak to any of the guys, let me know and I’ll arrange it. If you have a preference for one over any other, just tell me and I’ll take care of it on this end.

Hope you’re doing great – but you shouldn’t be reading this email anymore. You should be on Orbitz right now, booking a flight to LA for May 9 🙂

SIGNED,

BAD PUBLICIST

So, did you all see the interviews? Did any of them materialize? Check out my archives. Then, if you had the opportunity, check out my SEND box in my Yahoo account and tally up every unresponded to e-mail I tossed their way when I felt things were going south after I couldn’t magically produce her real quarry. Again, I realize I’m not from Rolling Stone, I know I don’t write for Slate but this is just another example of why I abhor all the sketchy, over-promising publicists who dangle the carrot and then see which of the litter they can get to bite at it. Invariably I end up being picked last but take a look at the archives this year; I’ll just find someone better to talk to.

BEST GRAPHIC NOVEL: Too Cool to be Forgotten

To talk too much about this graphic novel would take away from the funny and heart-breakingly sad moments in this traveling back in time story about one man who revisits his high school years as he tries to kick his smoking addiction and, instead, is given another chance at his formative years. It’s Alex Robinson’s compelling artwork and delicate care with which he handles his characters that make this an easy pick.

BEST GRAPHIC TRAVELOGUE: Moresukine

Imagine you are a stranger in a strange land. You don’t speak the language. You want to do as the Romans do but what if you don’t know what it is they really do? You ask the Internet, of course. Dirk Schwieger consulted the ranks of folks who visited his comic blog to offer up things, dares really, that explored Japanese culture and customs. From having Dirk figure out how to use a mechanized toilet to actually using a capsule hotel there are small pieces of real life that show us how the other half really lives. The reason it makes my list as best travelogue of the year is because it’s the kind of work that is absent in so many travel guides or personal narratives. This is one of the best ways to take a fly over of a country and peek into what you or I would be interested in knowing. The bigger question that you should find asking yourself after reading this fascinating book: What would foreigners be dared to do if they’ve never been to America?

BEST REASON TO THINK THAT SETH ROGEN WAS NOT THE MOST INTERESTING FUNNY MAN OF 2008: Danny McBride

Did anyone here see Tropic Thunder, Pineapple Express or even The Foot Fist Way? The latter I had to see right after I saw Tropic Thunder as I just savaged the trailer when I first saw it. I didn’t get it and the trailer was horrible in relaying the kind of comedy that Danny dabbles in. He’s irreverent in a way that’s not a soundbite and he’s genuine dead-pan delivery separates him from the rest of the herd.

FAVORITE INTERVIEW: Danny Boyle

This cat not only made a movie that would become the movie I took my wife on our 1st date but he was just the nicest and most gregarious person you would ever want to meet in a closed room. Too many times you get stuck in moments that become rote wherein you just want to get your questions answered and your piece posted. Danny wasn’t like that insofar that he had a real openness about him. His genial nature made for a relaxed atmosphere and he was happy as a clam to answer any question asked. It was a dream interview and for him to have been so accessible was reason enough for me to question any “artist” who thinks that in order to be great you have to be elusive.

BEST REASON TO LOVE PUBLICISTS: Name Redacted

I worked with a ton of excellent PR firms who helped land interview people from the likes of Henry Rollins (not up yet), Jesse Ventura (not up yet), Darren Aronofsky, Danny Boyle and tons of others through the year. These people don’t like being mentioned by name (but make sure you get their client’s name right!) but I make it a point to always send a thank you e-mail whenever possible to say how much I appreciate them getting me in to do my thing.

These things don’t happen in a vacuum so it’s nice to recognize those who are merely standing in the way of you and the subject. I don’t know if they appreciate hearing it but it’s important to know there are a few who will go the extra mile to get you your story.

BEST FILM: The Wrestler

This film redefined what the word “resonate” means.

It’s not enough to just talk about the performances on the screen from Mickey Rourke and Marisa Tomei. They’re captivating. What is really of note that explains why so many people have loved this movie is that it stays with you. The moments and words in this film are like oatmeal to your mental ribs; as such, it’s satisfying and you are not left wanting.

A longer review will be coming but it’s enough to know that this film should be seen by anyone who wants a movie that stirrs you from the inside.

BEST SURPRISE: Tropic Thunder

I wasn’t sure what to make of this film when I saw the trailer. It was interesting and it seemed like a goofy comedy.

And then I saw it.

The satire, the raw viscera of seeing Steve Coogan’s head held up with Ben Stiller drinking its juices, listening to Robert Downey Jr.’s treatise on going retard, Danny McBride’s turn as a pyromaniac hell bent on visual spectacle and, as a capper, Tom Cruise playing a role that I will go on record as saying it was the best he’s ever done in my eyes (he made me laugh for the 1st time…intentionally).

WORST INTERVIEW: Dicky Barrett from The Mighty Mighty Bosstones

I don’t know if he just hated the way I talked or if he didn’t care for the simple questions I was asking but homeboy was not enthused to chat with me about his latest album. They all can’t be winners, I know, but looking back at how curt and matter-of-fact things went reinforced the idea that you just have to be ready for any situation that comes up and to make do with you’re given. Sometimes, that’s not much and this one still spooks me every time I have to do a phoner.

BEST ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN: The Dark Knight

Who else got wrapped up in the un-campaign that drew in followers from all over the U.S. of A as people looked for bowling balls, got cakes in the mail, went to campaign rallies for a candidate that didn’t exist and other on-line scavenger hunt that added up to one of the largest films that ever was? I sure did and I loved it. There’s something to be said about marketers that want to take things to the next level and this campaign did not disappoint. For every person who was annoyed by the ploys to get people more and more hyped for this film there is no denying that by the time the movie opened the core audience was ravenous to see what was going to be on the screen. Nolan didn’t disappoint but Bale’s voice came awfully close to ruining the whole mystique.

BEST REASON TO LOOK FORWARD TO 2009: I’m not sure

One of the things that make life on this side of the fence so much fun is that you never know what might come out of the year. I’ve had a lot of other small bits that are just too numerous to mention but, like I mentioned, since I am slowly growing tired of critics’ Top 10 list of the year I figured I would try and put this year into a different kind of perspective. At the end of all of this, though, is the appreciation for all of you. You allow me to knock on the virtual doors of publicists everywhere as I wonder whether I’ll be deemed good enough to be let in through their door. With every passing week and every passing interview I hope this process gets easier and easier.

Now, let’s give away a movie…

DEATH RACE

This was a much maligned movie. Some people have problems with it but I don’t share that opinion. The movie was a real gas for what it was and I enjoyed all the incredibly unbelievable and impossible things that went on it. Jason Statham proves why he is the go-to man for these movies and for anyone else to say different has something against genre flicks. Since this is the holidays, I’ll make this really easy for you. E-mail me your name at Christopher_Stipp@Yahoo.com. I’ll choose at random some readers who haven’t already extorted free stuff from me in past few weeks.

BONUS FEATURES ““ DVD AND BLU-RAYâ„¢ HI-DEF:
- THEATRICAL AND UNRATED EXTENDED VERSIONS OF THE FILM
- START YOUR ENGINES: MAKING A DEATH RACE: From pre and post-production to the casting of Jason Statham, this bonus documentary takes viewers on set to see how a huge, stunt-driven Hollywood movie was made.
- BEHIND THE WHEEL: DISSECTING THE STUNTS: In this featurette, the many jaw-dropping stunts in the film are documented including interviews with the cast and crew.
- FEATURE COMMENTARY WITH DIRECTOR PAUL W.S. ANDERSON and PRODUCER JEREMY BOLT (Unrated Version Only).
SYNOPSIS: Terminal Island: The very near future. The world’s hunger for extreme sports and reality competitions has grown into reality TV bloodlust. Now, the most extreme racing competition has emerged and its contestants are murderous prisoners. Tricked-out cars, caged thugs and smoking-hot navigators combine to create a juggernaut series with bigger ratings than the Super Bowl. The rules of the Death Race are simple: Win five events, and you’re set free. Lose and you’re road kill splashed across the Internet. International action star Jason Statham leads the action-thriller’s cast as three-time speedway champion Jensen Ames, an ex-con framed for the murder of his wife. Forced to don the mask of the mythical driver Frankenstein, a Death Race crowd favorite who seems impossible to kill, Ames is given an easy choice by Terminal Island ‘s ruthless Warden Hennessey (Joan Allen): Suit up and drive or never see his little girl again. His face hidden by a hideous mask, he must win the insane three-day challenge in order to gain freedom. But to claim the prize, Ames must survive a gauntlet of the most vicious criminals – including nemesis Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson) – in the country’s toughest prison. Trained by his coach (Ian McShane) to drive a monster Mustang V8 Fastback outfitted with 2 mounted mini-guns, flamethrowers and napalm, an innocent man must destroy everything in his path to win the most twisted spectator sport on Earth.

MARLEY & ME: A REVIEW
I don’t read any newspaper writer whose musings deal with the mundane or observational, I depend on the comedians of the world to skewer day-to-day life in the way that the successful ones can, but I certainly don’t believe that a newspaper columnist’s sense of wonderment at the “ah, shucks” level of life warrants a cinematic envisioning.

One of the issues I have with MARLEY & ME is its dependence on the dog as a metaphor for all the bad and good things that happen in the lives of Owen Wilson, portraying the milquetoast, middle-of-the-road Andy Rooney like pundit John Grogan. It isn’t that your average canine isn’t capable of imbuing your life with a little bit of humanitarianism, I know I grew up with those commercials that talked about how owning one could help geezers lower their blood pressure, but to have this as the basis for a full length movie where we’re bashed over the head with enough obviousness that this dog represents everything good and fair in this man’s life is a little hokey. I think the movie will play well with those who take stock in books written by Mitch Albom as the reasons why they love reading and why the Hallmark channel still churns out yarns that even Laura Ingalls Wilder would say are obnoxiously sentimental.

But that’s fine, you see.

This movie isn’t for me. It’s not even for those who I could engage in a debate about whether THE FOUNTAIN is pure genius (it is) or whether it was an exercise in artful indulgence. This movie is for people like my wife who love movies that want to make you feel all gooey inside, to hell with real conflict or dramatic infusions that would deepen the film’s original meaning. No, instead I get the story of how one irascible and temperamental mutt chews everything these people own as John pines to have the life of his fellow reporter (not columnist. The film will also take its time differentiating these two professions to the point that if you don’t get the difference by the end you have no business watching this) and best friend in human form, Eric Dane. In fact, I would posit that I wish we could have followed the life of Dane as he seems to be going off to Columbia, traveling all over the country, simply living the life of a newspaper Lothario as be beds scads of different women (the movie makes sure to point this out) while Owen Wilson is trapped writing dissertations on whatever people who read the newspaper to get their slice of life read about.

It’s not so much the mundaneness that I mind, actually I mind it to the point that I wonder why there is a shockingly dangerous moment that is inserted right in the middle of the film, his neighbor is stabbed in her own driveway, if for no other reason than to move the plot as this chunk of actually interesting material is dealt with in such a flippant way I actually feel let down. What an opportunity to deal with the dark underbelly of life in any community where there come the moments when a columnist like John could talk about how this altered his sense of purpose.

No, it’s just used to talk about how he gets the hell out of his neighborhood.

I know like it seems I’m being hard on this film for how soft a sell this is going to be for all involved but there are some real wasted opportunities in this movie. As well, you have Jennifer Aniston turning in a performance that is alarmingly casual, someone forgot to tell her this wasn’t just a longer episode of Friends and I am serious when I say that either this woman can’t turn in an actual performance when needed or she’s mildly retarded for not understanding the ways life changes you when you go from no kids to 3 kids and being bitchy doesn’t count as a stretch for the end zone, and let’s also talk about Kathleen Turner. I apologize that I haven’t seen her in anything since WAR AND THE ROSES but I literally rocked backward when I saw Large Marge personified as a dog trainer and realized it was Turner. I’m not sure where she’s been or why she would take a truly thankless role but she turns in a performance that genuinely makes you want to take out your pocketbook to donate to whatever organization has been established to help her get back on her feet. A real reversal of fortunes and the reason why I bring this up is that it’s glaringly obvious to anyone who knows who Turner is. It’s distracting. However, there is a bright light in this film. Alan Arkin. The man can take a role as the editor in charge and turn it into something special. It’s hard to pin down why Arkin is the conduit through which all the life of this thing genuinely flowed through but he’s the real mentor of Grogan. While we don’t get a lot of time with him Arkin doles out the fatherly advice while being the calm voice in the cacophony of averageness.

To say why the dog isn’t deserving of any real judgment by me in this review would to say that there was something special about the trained animal in this movie. The dog is a dog and in order to make sense of Owen Wilson’s hypothesis about why this dog represents the kind of humanity that warranted this film it is on the shoulders of all the other actors in this piece to make him relevant. Unfortunately, everyone is too busy chewing up their own scenery that the dog is an afterthought until it’s time for the movie’s penultimate moment. And the moment isn’t deserved. It’s rushed, it’s hokey and it doesn’t do anything to contextualize the almost 2 hours I spent trying to figure out the answer the question of why we’re watching a movie about a dog. Any answer wouldn’t be a good one as this film would belong better on ABC, interspersed with commercials for Purina Puppy Chow.

VALKYRIE: A REVIEW

The sooner you realize that Kenneth Branagh isn’t really in this movie the better you’ll be off in realizing what is at issue with this film.

Branagh is billed second in the movie’s IMDB page and it made we wonder as I watched this movie about why that’s the case. I hope I’m not spoiling anything by saying that we only see him as he takes the first crack at killing Der Fuhrer in this film, a token appearance later and then once more in a moment where he’s all by himself at the end of the picture. I just couldn’t grasp why there was such a Houdini act with some of the players of this film but it’s really representative of why this movie only deserves to be a thriller when you look at the last half of the movie, the first half deserving to be lost in whatever editing bay it came out of.

The problem with the first half is that we have a few issues that need hammering out. First of which is why Tom Cruise’s portrayal as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg starts off with a rather compelling moment in his career, a real watershed that made him the linchpin of this whole attempt to kill Adolf Hitler (an attempt that would the last one and 9 months before he committed suicide before the allies had the chance to grab him), and I don’t know if it was brevity or the fact that they were running short on time but the man flips awfully fast. The way in which Cruise is approached and the manner in which he accepts not only the offer to kill Hitler, never once minding the fact that his family’s life, his children and his wife, would then be targets on the acceptance of this opportunity, but the swiftness from how he goes from conflicted military man to full on freedom fighter is alarming. It defies any sense of logic if you were to wonder what it would take to get you to kill your own president if you happened to have a beef with what your government represented.

The second problem of the first half is its History channel treatment of the events that took place leading up to the assassination attempt. I was less shocked at the swiftness of Cruise’s acceptance to be a party to off Hitler than I was at the cold and detached nature in which we’re treated to everything that leads up to the film’s exciting second half. To wit, Cruise and his German buddies want to rewrite the failsafe plan, Valkyrie, which would go into effect should Hitler be pronounced dead. Long story short, and this is a really long explanation that goes to support the claim the 1st half is nothing but a long litany of factoids punctuated with moments of superficial sentimentality between Cruise and his wife/family, Cruise needs to get Adolf to sign off on the altered plans for Valkyrie as this is the first step in seizing control of the country after they kill him. The issue becomes that this tense moment should have been a true jewel of the film but it’s treated, honestly, like the re-enactment all the players involved were probably trying to avoid.

Now, as much as Cruise has been maligned in the production of this film in the press I can tell you that it’s all unfounded. It’s not Cruise that is the problem here as he submits a solid, bombastic free turn as this ripped from the history book figure. He’s honestly one of the best parts of the movie. His quick flip not withstanding Cruise is a delight as the man who would try everything he could in order to defeat and kill the personification of evil. The second half is his, thankfully, and one of the things that adds to the movie’s distinctions as an honorable thriller in the true sense of the word is that it’s near bloodless. The entire last half hinges on how well the movie can propel itself forward without resorting to the usual violent trappings of other WWII film not to mention that they’re having to depend on actual events which were, themselves, bloodless to begin with.

Thankfully the intrigue that follows as soon as the final plan is put into motion is indescribable. The events on the screen surely can be described, and they are as if we were following the 9/11 time line, but it is the nuances of Cruise as he plays von Stauffenberg, lurching ever closer to fulfilling what he went out to do and then how he deals with the aftermath. Cruise displays the kind of chameleon like qualities that warranted him a Golden Globe nomination in TROPIC THUNDER. The reason why that worked so well, and why actors like Robert Downey Jr. gained some attention, is that they gave themselves to the parts they were playing. Tom Cruise gave in to what von Stauffenberg was about in a way that not only felt genuine but impressed me with his taciturn delivery of the film’s key moments when it isn’t words that pay off, it’s the expressions that do.

And I think this is why I’m so disappointed with the end result of what we have. You have Cruise leading the charge to make this movie so much more than just a re-creation, what this film mostly feels like, but everyone else on the periphery just feels like British (Branagh, Bill Nighy, Terence Stamp) and American (Tom Wilkinson dominating everyone else) actors just playing their parts. If you look at why a film like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN worked so well or why DOWNFALL starring Bruno Ganz was so affecting it really comes down to how well you cast your parts. In RYAN you had a clear verbal demarcation that Americans, well, were going to sound like Americans while the Germans, we all remember the one that gets away and comes back to haunt Hanks and Co., were going to sound like Germans. In DOWNFALL there wasn’t any of that clap-trap going on. It was a full-on German production that cut right to the core of bringing to life as to why this was a sinister regime that needed to die; I would dare any of you to find a better Hitler anywhere else on the screen who manages a 1/10th of the evil that Bruno Ganz brings to life.

VALKYRIE doesn’t have any of that. We have countries of all kinds filling in for the Germans and while I guess that works fine for some people it’s a distraction to others. It was to me and it took away from what should have been a movie about the last throes of Adolf Hitler, the walls slowly and steadily closing in on the Nazi party while a pack of men seek to euthanize it sooner rather than later. Instead we have a movie that won’t make you too angry that you just spent $10 on a story that could have been delivered so much better if everyone else shared the passion Tom Cruise delivers throughout the entire production.

And let’s finish out the year by letting Ray Schillaci get the last word…

Don’t Judge a Movie by its Title

When was the last time you sat in a movie theater and found that you discovered something special? A future talent that could get you excited again to go to the movies rather than wait to see it on DVD. Someone who you could look forward to screaming out, “Ya gotta see this person’s work!”

I remember the debut of “Tattooed Love Boys” by the Pretenders or “Psycho Killer” by the Talking Heads and running out and telling all my friends that these people were going to leave a mark in the music industry. I was shunned in the beginning. They did not have the foresight. The same went with a little Canadian horror show entitled, “Shivers”. I raised my glass to its fledgling director, David Cronenberg. Once again, my friends abandoned me. But they thought I maybe on to something when I lead them to a little known street thriller called “Assault on Precinct 13″ directed by newbie John Carpenter. I was finally vindicated with the sneak preview of Carpenter’s next outing, “Halloween” which all of us jammed the theater time and time again.

Later, I would find some really cool minor “B” classics that my friends looked forward to me recommending which included “The Hidden” and “Vice Squad”. The talent might not have moved onto greater things but there was no denying the raw power behind the creative force. This leads me to introducing a must-see movie (for all you horror/action/suspense fans) and director that I happened to catch at the International Horror and Sci-Fi Film Festival in Phoenix last month.

The title is terribly misleading, and the director and writers have nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, it is the product of an unimaginative marketing department, which could hurt this fantastic fun film. The title alone had me dread going into the theater for the viewing, but its director, Ben Rock was such a nice sincere guy who had a genuine love and wonderful knowledge of the genre it peaked my interest enough to give it 10 minutes or so.

Boy, what a surprise! Ben Rock’s “Alien Raiders” KICKS ASS!! This movie is everything we love about escaping into a dark movie theater ““ the adrenalin rush, the unnerving creepiness that almost makes you want to close your eyes, but you’re too excited to see what the director has up his sleeve next. I’m sorry if I’m raising expectations too high, but I went in expecting low-rent, unimaginative Roger Corman or worse Uwe Boll. This movie has it all, engaging characters, an eerie setting and a director at the helm that is ready to take you on a roller coaster ride you won’t soon forget. There are images that stay in your mind (empty supermarket aisles, a handwritten blood-stained window front, to name a few) and make you wonder, “What’s next?”

If it was not for the lame title, we the audience would start off thinking this were a possible political/terrorist thriller. That soon changes after ten minutes and we get a hint of something out of a cool X-Files episode. I’ll be brief and stay to my m.o. of being spoiler free. A small band, of what appears to be, masked militants break into a sleepy little town’s supermarket and begin a hostage situation along with a couple of chilling killings. This is not by-the-book suspense. The scene is unnerving and is like watching Hitchcock for the first time. Don’t worry; Rock does not get carried away with himself with this wonderful piece of pulp. He tends to throw in quips and situations that elicit nervous laughs and make one enjoy the ride. Adding to the fun are not only a team of talented writers and crew, but a great cast lead by Carlos Bernard (of “24” fame) as well.

Turns out, our militants are actually rogue scientists seeking out a very dangerous group of aliens disguised as human beings. I know, sounds bargain-basement, but Rock and crew elevate the tale much like “The Hidden” did, which became a sleeper at the box office and went on to spawn a sequel. Yes, the story has many elements that we will recognize from other films (The Mist, The Hidden, Carpenter’s The Thing, to name a few), but in many ways we end up appreciating it more than some of the bigger budgeted and CGI ridden spectacles that have trashed our theaters of late.

At the Q&A a couple of people had some great suggestions for replacement titles, Raw Feed and Warner Brothers should take note (because you have huge potential with this Rock and his film). One tongue-in-cheek title proved to be fun and go along with the tone of the film, “Clean Up in Aisle 13″. But the one that won me over was a wonderful play on words “Aisle 51″. The entire setting is in a supermarket, much like “The Mist” but contains far more dread and proves to be much more satisfying.

I urge all of you to email or write Raw Feed and Warner Brothers and push for a theatrical release, rather than the usual direct-to-video. This film deserves to be seen on the big screen having its audience scream and laugh with it. Hopefully a title change will ensue, a theatrical release date will be granted and I (along with many others) will see a sign of cinematic hope from a bottom-dollar industry that caters to bigger budget fare that lacks the creativeness that Ben Rock, cast & crew have displayed.
December 25, 2008
Trailer Park: Danny Boyle Interview

By Christopher Stipp

The Archives, Right Here

I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

This had to be the most deceptively easy and rewarding interview I have done all year.

When I had a chance to speak with Danny Boyle I was brimming with questions even prior to meeting him. I had seen his movie weeks prior to talking the man, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, when it was just a whisper on cinephile’s lips as the one to watch out for. There was no trailer, no marketing, no clear direction of how to bring this movie to the masses. The story’s tough and it’s hard to explain to someone looking for a jolly flick to catch on the weekend but this film rewards you tenfold if you just give in to where it leads you. Every moment where you have a talking head talking about this film’s chances for Oscar gold isn’t just baseless chit-chat but the movie is a bonafide contender against any of the mindless noise that are going to be propped up against it.

Talking with Danny was a delight in that he was expressive, excited and simply open to discussing the nuts and bolts about why this film was a different process to make when you compare it SUNSHINE, 28 DAYS LATER or even TRAINSPOTTING. The latter of which holds a special place in my heart, almost literally, as it was the movie I took my bride to on our first date. True, this really bucked against every innate voice in my head that said it probably wasn’t the perfect choice but I was not expecting to meet the man who made it to give me the response he did when I divulged the eventual Cupid’s arrow that came out of that viewing.

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is currently in theaters.

DANNY BOYLE: Where are you from?

CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I’m from here. I live in Scottsdale but I came from Chicago.

Boyle: Are you? A bit warmer here isn’t it in the summer? But it’s hot in Chicago too I suspect but the winters are pretty brutal.

CS: Yeah.

Boyle: The winter is pretty brutal. I’ve been there in the winter.

CS: Oh, but I miss that. I don’t like living here at all. I pine for colder days.

Boyle: Why do you live here then?

CS: Family. Wife. Kids. So, I’m here but planning for colder days someday soon.

Boyle: I’ve just come from New York and it was one of those days in New York where the sun is blistering but the temperature is cold. I love those days.

CS: I love those days as well.

Boyle: You can just walk and walk and walk and feel good about yourself. Anyway”¦

CS: But we digress. Off the bat, I’ve been reading a lot about this film even though there has been no promotion at all for this film as of yet. This is no hyperbole, it is one of the best movies I’ve seen this year.

Boyle: Fantastic. Cool.

CS: It seems like it’s in the vein of everything that you’ve done. I took my wife on our very first date I took her to see TRAINSPOTTING. I still have my movie stub from our first date.

Boyle: It’s a weird one to take her on a date but”¦

(Laughs)

CS: It absolutely was looking back on it.

Boyle: At least you won’t forget it.

CS: No. This movie fits within that but I wouldn’t say it’s weird. In fact, I took the wife to see this one she agreed that it was a breath of fresh air of what’s out there. I read how when you initially got the germ for this film you read the initial treatment but you essentially said, “I’ll do it as a favor…I’ll read it and say it’s not my thing.” At what point did you read this and say, “I simply have to do this.”

Boyle: 10 or 15 pages. I remember that feeling. I can’t remember exactly what scene it was but I remember it being about 10 or 15 pages and thinking, you can just feel it. You read some scripts which are better probably. I read a script the other day by David Benioff who is a brilliant writer and it’s a brilliant script and you just have it in your head but if it doesn’t vibrate or if you don’t think it’s anything special you can bring to it personally ““ I remember reading the first 10 pages of TRAINSPOTTING and having the same feeling. All three of us were reading the book because we hadn’t adapted it yet and just thought, “We are going to make this film. I don’t care what anybody says.” And you have to trust those instincts.

It’s such a calculated business this business, because there is so much money involved, even at a very low level. A very calculated business on everybody’s behalf. So when you get a chance to be instinctive you’ve got to follow it. You mustn’t abandon that because you are not going to have that all the time. You are going to be making calculated decisions. But, you must keep enough organic decisions going as well. If you follow them and you’ll be OK. What that means is, I think the higher up the ladder you go into the money the more difficult it is to retain those instincts because there is just so much at stake financially. At the kind of level I work at now you can stick to certain decisions.

For instance it’s clear when we got there you could not do the film in English and have 7 year olds. You just couldn’t do it. You had to translate it into Hindi. Now that is an instinctive reaction. You can just see that straight away. So you ring them up and have these terrible conversations about what they are going to think about that but you can follow your gut instincts. But if you make a film for one hundred million dollars, you gut instinct wouldn’t be important because what would be important is the hundred million dollars. Obviously. And do it in English. Find kids who could do it in English or you’d make them older so they could cope with English, the kids you are casting. And that’s the result you would see. You would never see the result that we did. So that is why It’s really important not to take too much money. You’ve just got to not take too much money. Sometimes you are tempted because people say, “Listen, we could do this, we could do that.”

You gotta keep your focus on as many of those gut instincts as you can, you know?

CS: Right. And on that point that it was almost a run and gun approach ““ you did it in three months, was it January, February, March?

Boyle: No, November, December, January.

CS: Sorry, right. But you had it ready by this September.

Boyle: Well, August in fact. Yeah.

CS: That’s a very tight, tight schedule.

Boyle: We didn’t really get back from Mumbai until March with all the equipment for editing, so we did March ““ basically ““ finished by August. And that was deliberate because of the energy of the city.

Instinctively you just thought “We’ve got to do this quickly” and I remember being in the editing room and the editor saying, “Oh, I think we should tell them we are not going to be ready for that day.” And I said, “No, we are going to be ready.”

I was just hell bent ““ I did a sci-fi movie before that which took an eternal time to edit, too long, [it’s not] creative when it’s that long, you distort it when it becomes that long because you keep editing and you’re distorting and you arrive at where you should be but actually you keep going because there’s another 6 months left before the CG is finished so I knew there were advantages to just push it through, push it through.

The city felt like that.

What was wonderful about Fox Searchlight about picking it up and saying “Let’s release it before Christmas” is that you thought “Yeah, but it’s over that day” already because that city is just in fast forward. So get it out there as quick as you can. Just absolutely do it. And I can’t believe like Pathe and Europe are waiting until January. What’s the point of that? Do it now. Let’s just do it. Let’s get it out there and let people make up their own minds. They are all so nervous about things. They want to have a proper run up, they want to get their materials right and the web campaign, and blah blah blah. And Searchlight hadn’t had enough time really to get it out there because you can talk to a lot of people who still have not heard of it yet you feel like you’re doing massive publicity. But I much prefer it that way because it reflects the momentum in the way the film was made.

CS: And speaking of momentum, the way your approached filmmaking within the city of Dharavi, one thing that genuinely struck me when I read about what it was like to shoot there was that when you asked to film in that location you were told that National Geographic had once been there and they said to them “Just please don’t say we’re poor” and they promptly did. A couple of times. And you were subsequently not allowed to film there. How did that affect you when you went in there, and you were in the middle of it, as you essentually had to say, “I’ve got to make my film.” Obviously gurella style isn’t what you wanted to do but how did you handle that?

Boyle: I come from a very small place and not a poor background, I come from a very nice background, a working class background. So I understand that feeling of it’s kind of fierce dignity and shame and it’s all mixed up together. It’s a mixed up, weird feeling, about your background. So I thought, I’m not going to lie, you are poor, to the people looking at this it’s going to look poor but I knew the spirit of the film it would not be pitiful. That’s the way you balance it. Because you can’t lie. You aren’t going to say they are all millionaires in spirit. That’s a whitewash. But you show it like it is. There is terrible poverty and there is incredible cruelty that goes on but there is also a spirit that transcends it, so the journey of the film moves toward that and that is accurate.

I don’t care if people say that’s sentimental. It’s accurate how I find Mumbai, which is resourceful how the people are. I think it’s absolutely exhilarating that this kid is typical of the place that this kid can get on that terrible glitzy, glamorous TV show which thinks it’s going to eat him up and spit him out and he can run it, he can hijack it. That’s the spirit of the thing. That’s what they want you to show. Not, oh so poor. Oh what a shame. And oh, what can we do about it? Let’s give him some money. They don’t really want that. They want to harbor a figurehead like that who goes and uses it for his own and then he hijacks the show for his own ends. He’s not interested in the money. He’s beyond them. Way beyond them. He’s actually on for a different reason. I love that spirit.

CS: Which leads to the poster itself. It’s Who Wants to be a Millionaire with the answer being Destiny. What does that say about the movie? Was this really made as a love story between these two individuals who are trying to find”¦

Boyle: It’s not really a full love story because she’s absent too much to be a classic. To be a classic love story she’s absent too much I’m afraid. Which is one of the reasons we cast it. She’s so extraordinary, memorable. And you need someone like that because she ain’t going to be there. So she has to be worth all this trouble and she’s got to be remember her in a way. So, it isn’t really a love story like that. It’s a life story. It’s ironic that life stories usually are fed from an 8 year old death bed, they are usually reminiscing from the death bed. Extraordinary tale of the life is told.

And it’s told from an 18 year old who’s going to walk off at the end with 20 million rupees and he has set his life free by his memories and he’s still only 18. So it’s incredibly a radical idea in a way. The problem with memory films is they are old. And he’s got a lifetime of memories already and he’s only 18. It helps he wins the gold, it helps he wins the girl and it helps he walks off in the distance.

CS: And that’s part of it too. It felt fluid. The whole process. The first time you see it you wonder if it’s going to go back and forth, back and forth, but it’s seamless.

Boyle: It starts with the writing. Doesn’t feel like flashbacks. Very few people describe them as such because they don’t work like flashbacks. Everything feels like it’s now. Even though you know it’s not because he’s 7 and he’s the same guy and we’ve see him and he’s 18. He’s obviously different but it feels like now. It feels like it’s all happening now and you can visit – and you can go backwards and forward just for a line. You can go back 10 years just for a line and then come straight back again. There’s no whiplash. His mental strength going on that show and being able to access this terrible past and some of the things that has happened to him ““ to access that and use it is amazing. I love that kind of determination. You need to have that in the actor. And he does have that despite the rather charming exterior. The only thing he’s done before was kind of a goofy comic part in a TV show in Britain. He’s got that kind of determination. He was 17 when we flew him to Bombay and dropped him in it and sent him to work in all these terrible places to give him a taste of the city and he was shocked but also determined to get through it, you know?

CS: It’s shocking to us as Westerners but to them it’s their life. It’s what they do and how they survive. When you went there…

Boyle: And you would go there too if you were there. We are like that. We forget that because we surround ourselves with such comfort now and we’ve separated everything from us but basically if there’s no where to shit you are going to shit there because it’s just a human function and that’s it and you have to confront that in Mumbai because, boy the first time you see the people on the street”¦it’s just nature. And they make best use of it always. The city is built on recycling and has been since time immemorial. Not like the last 10 year fashion that we suddenly realize we are ruining the planet. Their whole lives are based on recycling. They throw stuff away in a way that is shocking. They eat something and just chuck it away. The reason they do it is because there are people who’s life is built on picking that up and recycling it. Everything is inter-connected. The most extraordinary thing. You don’t find any loose ends.

Everything is built in to everything else and it’s inseparable. And you can’t discern it as a pattern ““ you can’t go “Oh, I see…” you get little glimpse of it but most of the time it’s way too complex to understand. You just have to go with it to understand and learn from it really. And you would fit in there if you were dumped in there with no return ticket, you would make your way and you would benefit from it as well. You would find yourself a better person in a way. I did. I certainly learned from it and you do learn from it. The hippies were right. I’m not a big hippie fan but you do learn about yourself. It takes you back to something very pure about humanity as to how we are all connected. Basically what we do in the West is separate ourselves from other areas. We pretend it’s a free movement society but actually we secure our place. Clear away people from the bottom of our buildings.

CS: Talking about actually making the film, you had a smaller crew than you’ve had, you were physically in a tighter spot than you’re used to. What kind of opportunities did that create for you? I would say challenges but you are obviously thinking, “How can I do this? We will do this.” What kind of opportunities sprung up for you?

Boyle: It’s just exhilarating to kind of abandon ““ I mean we had a very good narrative which gives you the confidence to abandon objectivity ““ so you abandon objectivity and you make it subjectively as possible. And by that I mean, sometimes you’d shoot and have no idea if you got the scene in the way conventionally as a director you are controlling the scene until you think, I’ve got it enough sufficiently. There you cannot have that coldness when you look at something with a steely eye and go I’ve got that or no I haven’t got it, let’s go again. Often you can’t go again. It’s just impossible to go again so you go with what you’ve got and find out ““ I’ve sensed it enough that I thought ““ it’s when you get to the editing you realize that you have much more than you ever thought you’d get. Much more, you know?

CS: What came through in the editing?

Boyle: The sense of the city. That’s what we abandoned everything to try and get. The sense of the city, the energy, the exhilaration of the city living there, the cruelty, the randomness of it, and that came through really, really strongly immediately and I kept that. Didn’t try to clean up the sound too much because again ““ we would try experiments to clean it up and it seemed fake. I’d come in the morning and look at it and think it doesn’t feel like the city. You know when you clean up the sound so that somebody’s voice sings clearly and then you add a bit of background noise, the miasma of sound there is just unbelievable and you can hear it when it’s convincing, so you go with that. And you go with people who know the city and know how to deliver the city to you. Whether that’s the first assistant director, the casting director became the co-director, or whether it’s the composer

CS: Rahman.

Boyle: What’s happening in India is this huge fusion of different influences at the moment. And a lot of that comes from America ““ rap, hip-hop is just pouring in, R&B. The Euro disco house from London and European cities ““ they love that ““ connects with the dancing ““ pushes the dancing much further in their music videos. He just uses that. You say use that and that’s the city. That’s the heart of the sound of the city blazing away at you. Very tinny. Very loud. Hysterical strings spill in. A sitar buried in there somewhere. I never thought I’d make a film with a sitar in it ““ used to make me grate ““ but you get there and you know it’s just got to be heard.

CS: I know we have to wrap up but one of the final questions I have for you ““ I keep coming back at how you made this film so swiftly, you edited it swiftly, so what has it told you about the movie making process? You learned ““ you obviously went to Mumbai and had this experience there ““ went to editing and did it fast ““ how have you reflected on SLUMDOG as to how you want to make movies? Has it changed it?

Boyle: Definitely. It makes you much more able to deal with extremes really, which is obvious, but it’s true. The only way you can survive there is you accept the extremes. You can’t do anything about them. You have to learn to accept them and see them side-by-side and that’s what it’s like making a film sometimes. What happened on this film, 10 weeks ago, is that we lost the North American distribution because Warner Brothers closed down Warner Independent but that normally would make you fly into a rage, an impotent, vengeful rage because it’s a big a blow as you can get. It’s like losing your actor to illness halfway through the film. There’s just about nothing worse than you can think of. And I remember not thinking like I would have. You just learn being in India you go, “OK, maybe that’s for the best actually.” And extraordinarily it was. And you get a different distributor, Fox Searchlight is actually a better distributor for the film than Warner Brothers because they are skilled at this sort of difficult sell and they not only wanted that, they wanted to put out the film immediately which was extraordinary because we weren’t ready with all the materials like a poster, the campaign, the trailer and all those marketing things, the soundtrack. None of them were ready to sell. You need four months to get all those things in place. But they said they wanted to release it now because it was the right time and you think, “Yeah. It’s already out of date because that city changes so much.”

So it’s wonderful to get it out that quickly so I think you make benefit from stuff really without really knowing it. It’s like abandoning yourself to it really rather than trying to get a rigid kind of control of it, you know? Anything, that the thing I love about filmmaking. You probably can’t do it on a lot of different films and a lot of places, but certainly for that place I learned a lot about that. I learned to not have that kind of control we have here.

December 18, 2008
Party Favors: Ring A Ding Ding

VIRGINIA CITY – Not every woman working at the Bunny Ranch is an HBO star. You’ll recognize Bunny Love, Air Force Amy and Audrey in the line up, but there’s plenty of fresh faces ready to introduce themselves. These are women who don’t want to bask in the limelight or even have their pics posted on brothel’s website.

Why be anonymous at the high profile Bunny Ranch? One woman grew up in the area. She always makes sure the local guests don’t recognize her. She has no dream of being a spokesmodel for “Take an Uncle to Work Day.” She won’t arrive at the line up until she checks the security monitor. One night a pack of old high school classmates decided they were going to party in the parlor. She spent the night in her room with a good book. Quite a few women commute from around the country. They appreciate the chance to earn more cash than pulling extra shifts at Hooters. The folks back home think they’re earning quick bucks cocktail waitressing at Reno casinos.

Hollywood always likes to push the prostitute character as either dim or a streetwise cookie. A majority of the Bunnies we spent time with were well educated. Many of them had not even worked as strippers. They’re smart enough to know there’s little point in shaking your breasts in a guy’s face while hanging on a pole for a dollar.

People will always ponder what drives a smart woman into prostitution. After quite a few informal chats, I deduced one common thread: Student loans. Many of the women had graduated from very influential schools. They were stuck owing over $100,000 plus for a liberal arts degree that sounded great, but could barely land a gig at Barnes and Noble. One had a degree in social work that after a five year career, left her living under the poverty line. They needed an economic boost that waitressing doesn’t offer. A person can only handle so many extra jobs before they question the point of living if your waking hours are spent punching the clock and getting deeper in debt.

Currently Dennis Hof has Natalie Dylan offering up her virginity to pay for her grad school. Alana Love is 7 months pregnant and eager to take on clients to wipe the slate on her pharmaceutical school loan and afford to be a stay at home mom. Ivy League schools ought to offer Prostitution as a minor for the non-trust fund kids. There was a recent high school graduate who had chosen working at the Bunny Ranch as her career goal when she was 14 after seeing the first HBO America Undercover special. She’s saving up for school.

Our hostess for Saturday evening was Danielle Luciano. She had returned to the Ranch after taking a few years off. During her first tenure, she was a low profile Bunny. Nobody in her family knew that she did this for a living. When she decided to get back in the business, she came out to her close family members. She wanted to be able to put her photos up on the website and help with publicity events without worrying about a nosey aunt finking her out to dad. Turns out that it wasn’t a traumatic revelation. The family knew about HBO series and didn’t have any problems with her working at that brothel.

Danielle was very open when it came to talking about her profession. While there is a gym at the Bunny Ranch compound, her most important exercise routine is Kegels. A Bunny has to be tight and rocking all over. Since my wife had come along on the trip to act as producer and Bunny wrangler (although mostly she wrangled me), the subject of threesomes was inevitable. Many of the Bunnies are gay for pay. If your wife is ready for her first threesome, you don’t want a woman who isn’t fully enthusiastic about the fun. You can’t afford the afterglow to be ruined by your wife declaring, “That was more for you than me.” You want her blissed out and drooling from all the attention. You want this to be a do-over moment. While you might have your dreamy third partner picked out, let your wife do the choosing. Odds are she’ll find the Bunny who will know how to equally divide her attention. Using our journalistic skills, we were able to observe that Danielle’s tip really worked. She’s very knowledgeable when it comes to couples play.

During breakfast, we hung out with Max. She’s best known for playing naked chess on Cathouse. She believes that a majority of men want princesses when they ring the buzzer. They want to spend time with the woman that’d be unapproachable in a normal social setting. Max doesn’t think a woman should smoke a cigarette or drink out of a beer bottle while lounging near the bar. What’s the point of coming to the Bunny Ranch to hit on a woman they could find in any Nevada honky tonk? She told us about a guy who was a major fan of Cathouse and wanted to hook up with one of the leading ladies. Upon arrival, he saw her by the bar sucking down a longneck and puffing away on a Virginia Slim. The image turned him off. He didn’t even approach his intended Bunny. Instead he found a lady in the parlor that impressed him and spent $5,000 for a night long party. Further proof that smoking is bad.

While Max thinks that a Bunny can elevate her career by doing adult material, the Bunny has to be careful of the genre. Do the wrong film and she’s no longer considered a high dollar date. What hedgefund manager wants to spend $10,000 to hook up with a woman who stars in hobo gangbang videos? Guys don’t like to think about who’s been with her before them. Even less men want to know that they’re getting Boxcar Willie Jr’s sloppy fifty-thirds. I came to trust Max’s opinions since she only works by appointment.

We come to the final two video segments of The Party Favors interview with Dennis Hof. Ron Howard has dropped out of the bidding war for Hof/Corey. All we have left is Roger Corman and a VHS-only operation out of Brussels. Corman promises I can play myself if I’m flame resistant. Otherwise he’s calling Clint Howard.

Our talk picks up with the cliffhanger of how Dennis went to an extreme to legally smoke pot. The topic changes to how he feels when he sees pimps and madames being busted outside of Nevada. Learn about Dennis’s relationship with Heidi Fleiss. Dennis discusses the new episodes of Cathouse on HBO (best found at the HBO OnDemand channel). He plugs the boxset containing the first two seasons and the musical of the show. He explains the educational value of the series. We dip into the new trends in what clients want to enjoy during their visits. Plus legendary boxer Butterbean is coming to the Bunny Ranch, but not the same way as porn stars Sunny Lane and Anna Mills.

Seeing how Ron Jeremy is rumored to be Jewish, the Golden Nugget Casino won’t accept wagers on his chances to beat Butterball for the last pork chop.

The final segment features exterior shots as we show off the area around the Ranch and the changes to the Brothel. There’s a Pony Express stop on the property. As a warning: Moonlight Benny’s is a real body shop and not a brothel. None of the selections the receptionist offers are euphemisms. The full service does involve paint and a hammer. Dennis discusses how the gift shop helps lure the curious into being full service guests. You can even buy his special hot sauce at any hour.

After the interview with Dennis wrapped up, Brooke Taylor arrived. She’d been in New York City to appear on a variety of shows including Tyra. Brooke has had a strange career path. Her life at that Ranch had been fully documented by HBO. America got to see her first day on the job. We were there when she popped her professional cherry. Because of her performance on Cathouse: The Musical, Brooke has performed at the Filmore West and the House of Blues. She became the centerfold in Hustler at the same time Marie Claire did a profile piece on her. She’s a very busy woman who still has time to lay back and enjoy her day job.

The sad fate of Isabella Soprano weighed heavily on my questions. I wanted to know what kept Brooke Taylor stable. She invited us into her bedroom and we turned on the camera.

Brooke explains things that a woman needs to know before she considers a life at the Ranch. Remember to practice negotiations before you arrive in Carson City. I end up asking Brooke how strange it is that she went to college to study music, but received her big break while working in a brothel. This is a path that your college career counselor never discuss.

Thus we come to the end of the Party Favors visit to the Bunny Ranch. We’d like to thank Dennis Hof, Madame Suzette, Brooke Taylor, Max, the charming staff and the extremely rocking Danielle Luciano for their hospitality.

WIN SOME SWING

CBS DVD has been nice enough to let 5 of my faithful readers win copies of Swingtown: The First Season. The DVD will be released on Dec. 9. Normally I’d have you email in your name and address and five randomly chosen folks would win. But since Swingtown has been a favorite of this column, we’re having a quiz. In addition to sending in your name and address, you must answer these three questions about the show:

What star of Swingtown filmed a scene for a movie I produced?
According to the Party Favors, what series now features Grant Show’s pornstache?
What did Dennis Hof and I say about Swingtown during the Hof/Corey interview?

If you have these answers, drop me an email at mokaha@aol.com by Dec. 14. You must be 18 and allow 4-6 weeks to get your prize. My parents, co-workers, Anson Williams and Grant Show’s pornstache are not allowed to enter. Enclosing Polaroids that your parents sent to swingers magazines in 1976 won’t help you win, but they will be appreciated by our judges. Thanks once more to CBS for making a few of my readers be winners this holiday season.

In case you’re curious about the show, there’s a proper review in The DVD Shelf section.

DINING TIP

If you’re in Carson City, drop by Ti Amo in the Casino Fandango. The Seafood Lasagna still makes me drool. There’s plenty of shrimp, lobster, crab and scallops between the layers of noodles. It reheats nicely for when you need extra fuel for playing the Happy Days penny slots. Did I mention that Anson Williams cost me $2.38? Damn that Potsie.

VEGAS EATS

When you plan on visiting Las Vegas, skip the Strip and head to Fremont Street. There’s a friendly vibe downtown. My favorite place to snack on the street was Mermaid’s Casino. The slot palace offers up 99 cent Nathan’s hotdogs, deep fried Twinkies and deep fried Oreos. What makes the little grill in the back extra special is the staff is just bouncing around to the music on the PA system. The folks seemed like they were being pumped full of oxygen. They gave off enough energy to revive me from my Potsie downfall. I couldn’t help but smile and bounce around while waiting for my chocolate covered frozen banana. The Mermaid’s Casino is truly old school since they have change cups unlike that cheapskate Steve Wynn’s new casino: Redundant.

LEARN FROM MY PAIN

A little tip for business and tech people: When a person on the internet advertises that they’re proficient in CBT, this normally doesn’t mean Computer Based Training. Do not invite them to your office for a presentation.

JOE THE ZILCHER

John McCain screwed up and it cost me my ambassadorship to Hawaii. The position is still on the books at the State Department. You think the feds ever eliminate a gig? There’s still a Department of Buggywhip Inspection. My destiny of being Ambassador to the land of Don Ho was screwed by Joe the Plumber. When John McCain needed a Joe to prop up his campaign, he refused to call me. I’m a real Joe. As we know by now, Joe the Plumber is really a guy named Sam. Those of us named Joe take the business of being a Joe seriously. If your first name isn’t Joe, you’re not a Joe. It’s that simple. Jesus didn’t go by his middle name (which I think was Joe). John McCain ticked off the International Brotherhood of Joes and cost me my chance to operate out of Jack Lord’s old palace office. Let this be a lesson to all those in America that when you need a Joe, you come to a Joe and not a dofus named Sam.

MSNBC needs to fix their Joe crisis. When Joe Scarbough goes on vacation, they need a guest host named Joe to host Morning Joe. Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist aren’t Joes. Neither is that Mike Barnicle guy. I’m not even sure if he’s really a Mike since he comes off as a Gary. MSNBC needs to understand that when you advertise a Joe, you better have a backup Joe ready to go. It can’t be that hard of a job unless you have to wax Pat Buchanan’s back during the commercial breaks.

THE DVD SHELF

A Colbert Christmas: The Greatest Gift of All! is as great as advertised. This is the greatest Christmas special since Pee Wee’s Playhouse Christmas Special. The premise is simple: a ruthless bear has trapped Colbert in his cabin. He can’t get to New York to host his Christmas special with Elvis Costello. The holiday festivities come to him with truly an all-star cast without any faux-stars with E! reality shows. Toby Keith has confused me. The guy was a big turn off with his Karl Rove approved anthems. But on this special, Keith gives a hilarious song about what he’ll do to defend Christmas. John Legend performs the sexiest song about nutmeg. Jon Stewart brings a little Old Testament holiday wishes. Willie Nelson’s fourth wiseman song will never be sung at a Catholic Church’s midnight mass. Feist is angelic on all levels. You’ll probably wonder why you need the DVD when this special is being repeated on Comedy Central right now. The DVD has bonus features. You get a video Yule Log that gets an extra flame boost from books. There’s even a Colbert Advent calendar that’s better than the one your Aunt Eunice gave you. Plus be thrilled by the alternate endings. Your Christmas isn’t complete unless you give all your friends A Colbert Christmas: The Greatest Gift of All!

Swingtown: The First Season gives a strange bit of hope that last summer’s series might be back for a second round of hanky-panky. Molly Parker and Lana Parrilla put the Bi into Bicentennial with this short season that centered around the 4th of July in 1976. The 13 episodes explore what happens when a normal married couple move to wild side of Chicago. Parker (Deadwood) and Jack Davenport (Pirates of the Caribbean) discover their neighbors are swingers. Parrilla is an ex-stewardess who knows how to tighten more than a seatbelt. Pilot Grant Show (Melrose Place) plays second banana to an amazing pornstache. The couples boogie down, but guilt grabs Parker and Davenport. They’re not sure if they’re cut out to cut loose. There’s also the issue of their daughter hooking up with her summer school teacher. Oddly enough that while the action takes place 32 years ago, the morality brigade went nuts over CBS running the series. But there’s nothing on this show that isn’t part of an afternoon soap opera. The DVD has a few bonus features including a blooper reel. They didn’t include the ’60s record deal commercial hosted by Peter Fonda. If the DVD does well and the show grabs a couple end of the year awards, Swingtown might be back next summer. This might be the perfect Christmas gift for the neighbors you want to covet in a group plan.

Man On Wire is a bold, death-defying examination of Phillipe Petit’s illegal wire walk between the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers in 1974. The film mixes recreation footage with the actual coverage of the historic day. They show Petit’s previous walks between Notre Dame Cathedral and the Sydney Harbor Bridge. He’s like an outlaw version of the Flying Wallendas. The execution of securing the wire between the buildings is more exciting than any scheme in the lame Ocean’s Eleven films. While the documentary should be the celebration of a daredevil’s spirit, there is sadness. How can a viewer not get misty eyed seeing the Towers still erect? Michael Nyman’s music from The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover plays during a section showing the Towers being constructed. And it hits how temporary this massive structure became. You need to watch this film twice – once for the Towers and another for Petit. Man On Wire is compelling cinema that pulls us into Petit’s passion to accomplish this outrageous feat. Man on Wire and The Dark Knight are the films that mark 2008.

Happy Days: The Fourth Season brought the word Mallachi Crunch to sports. “Fonzie Loves Pinky” was an epic three parter. Howard’s lodge is hosting a demolition derby. Part of the entertainment is female motorcycle daredevil Pinky Tuscadero. While the Fonz is favored to win the derby, he has to worry about the Mallachi brothers. They’re notorious for a move where they smash a car on both sides at once. During the episode Fonz falls hard for Pinky. But before he can marry her, they have to survive the Derby. As a kid, these episodes were more terrifying than when Fonzie jumped the garbage cans in season three. Pat Morita returns for “The Graduation.” During the end of school dance, Anson Williams jumps on stage and unloads a not even close to the 1950s ballad. How come you can’t find any Anson Williams records outside of a 45 on ebay and the show’s theme? Why aren’t there bootlegs of Anson Williams live at the Whiskey A-Go-Go? “Fonzie’s Baptism” brings the Fonz to Jesus. Wasn’t this a Family Guy episode? Happy Days: The Fourth Season was the final year before it “jumped the shark.”

Petticoat Junction: The Official First Season is the link between The Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres. The action takes place at the Shady Rest Hotel that’s on the rail line near Hootersville. The place is run by Bea Benaderet (Jethro’s mother) and her three really hot daughters. They’re all a handful for the quiet community. The first few episodes have the immortal Charles Lane swearing to shut down the steam locomotive. Bea does her best to have him forget about it. Many of the Green Acres characters are also on this show including Sam Drucker (Frank Cady) running the general store. Adam West (Batman) plays the doctor on “My Daughter the Doctor” and “Hootersville VS Hollywood.” It’s amazing that this show ran for seven seasons, but never received the rerun action of its sister shows. The DVD includes the old commercials starring the cast. This first season has 38 episodes Southern hospitality.

Beverly Hills 90210: The Sixth Season is a must see for old timers who feel pangs of nostalgia when they catch promos for 90210 on the CW. The action on this boxset took place for 1995-96. The shocker of the season is Kelly Taylor (Jennie Garth) becomes a junky. She was the original Amy Winehouse. Who could imagine sweet little Kelly snorting up blow like an English supermodel? Donna (Tori Spelling) has to break with an abusive boyfriend. Dylan (Luke Perry) is ready to wed. Does this mean he’ll leave the show? I’m not giving it away. For many, this was the clutch season of heartbreak and triumph. For Steve (Ian Ziering), this was the year he joined AARP.

Cannon: Season One, Volume Two brings Leif Garrett back to the column. “Death Is a Double Cross” has Cannon riding the train to protect a millionaire’s wife and two children. Leif and Dawn Lyn are the kids. Lyn is best remembered as Dodie, the adopted daughter on My Three Sons. Turns out she’s also Leif’s sister. “”Treasure of San Ignacio” puts Cannon on the trail of thieves who rob a church’s artifacts. “To Kill a Guinea Pig” brings us the always creepy Geoffrey Lewis (who is not Robert Pine) to horrify Vera Miles (Psycho). She’s running a drug study at a prison. Lewis’ boss wants a certain inmate to be part of the program. Only Cannon can help her from this evil web. Even with his huge gut, William Conrad is still physical in scenes. He moves pretty well for a hefty guy. He’s got 13 clients on this boxset that need his expert detective help.

Jake and the Fatman: Season One, Volume Two means you’re getting a double dose of William Conrad fighting crime. This time he has help with Jake (Joe Penny) doing the heavy lifting. The big highlight of the second half of the first season is watching David Soul choking the life out of his wife on “How Long Has This Been Going On?” How can the star of Starsky and Hutch be so vicious? He’s a Yacht Rock superstar. Of course discovering your wife is banging a priest might get a man upset. He frames the priest, but Jake doesn’t buy it since he’s pals with the padre. Speaking of hall of fame creepy character actors, Joseph Ruskin is a mobster in “After You’ve Gone.” Did you know he’s the only actor to have appeared on every Star Trek live action TV show? “Lady Be Good” also has a Trekkie connection with Nana Visitor (DS9) killing a rich guy while he was staging his own death. Even though Conrad is slow to move and looks like he sleeps in his office, he knows how to solve a case. He didn’t get to be Los Angeles District Attorney by looking good on posters.

Perry Mason: Season 3, Volume 2 allows us to once more see America’s greatest TV lawyer in action. Raymond Burr accepts 14 more clients in this boxset. “The Case of the Slandered Submarine” allows him to visit a military court. There’s a few bodies connected to the testing of a high tech device. “The Case of the Singing Skirt” has a bunch of illegal actions taking place at a legal casino. The owner decides to set up a worker for the fall. But she does the smartest thing a you can do: hires Perry Mason to prove her innocence. “The Cast of the Prudent Prosecutor” has D.A. Hamilton Burger begging Perry to defend a pal. How much did that have to hurt Burger to get assistance from the man who kicks his ass almost every week in the courtroom? The picture quality is still stunning on these transfers. Just remember that anything you see in an episode of Perry Mason can’t be used on the Bar exam.

The Mod Squad: Season 2, Volume 1 unleashes the grooviest crime fighting trio. Pete (Michael Cole), Linc (Clarence Williams III) and Julie (Peggy Lipton) are still the mystery unit run by the Captain (Tige Andrews). “Lisa” has them protecting Carolyn Jones (Morticia from The Addams Family) from a mysterious hitman. The most obvious suspect is Joseph Ruskin. The Squad suspect Carolyn isn’t telling them her whole story. “Ride the Man Down” has them meet Richard Anderson (The Six Million Dollar Man‘s Oscar Goldman) after Pete gets nailed with murder charges. “The Healer” has a homicidal quack loose in the urban jungle. Dwayne Hickman (Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine) rubs elbows with Julie. Linc gets to fall in love again during “To Linc – With Love.” The object of his affection is a DMV instructor has a dark past. What could be darker than working for the DMV? The Mod Squad is still the coolest because Peggy Lipton makes me melt.

Gunsmoke: The Third Season, Volume 1 is perhaps your best quickie gift for Grandpa. Who didn’t grow up with their old man watching Matt Dillon cleaning up Dodge City? The series at this point is still black and white and only 30 minutes long. “Jesse” has my favorite plot of a son showing up in Dodge City ready to gundown the man who shot his daddy. Sadly this does not star Dennis Hopper. “Romeo” lets Robert Vaughn (Man From UNCLE) get romantic with a land baron’s daughter. Daddy isn’t happy and takes it out on the town. “Doc’s Reward” shows he can handle a gun like a scalpel. He puts a slug in Jack Lord. But in a shocking twist, Lord returns for his revenge. Fans of The Dick Van Dyke Show will get a thrill with Rose Marie in “Twelfth Night” and Morey Amsterdam in “Joe Phy.” Jack Klugman (Quincy) rides the range in Buffalo Hunter. He’s poaching on Indian land so the Sheriff has to do something that’s tantamount to murder!

Rawhide: The Third Season, Volume 2 reminds us that there was time when Clint Eastwood’s face didn’t look like a Francis Bacon portrait. Clint is youthful and not even in charge of the drovers. He keeps the cows moving as they cross paths with other stars. “Incident of the Running Iron” has one of them accused of rustling. Dwayne Hickman is part of the family that holds his fate. John Cassavetes (Killing of a Chinese Bookie) gets heated up during “Incident Near Gloomy River.” He’s been courting a woman who has eyes for his brother. “Incident of His Brother’s Keeper” puts Jack Lord (Hawaii Five-O) in a wheelchair. He gets nasty when Sheb Wooley takes his woman dancing. The Lord versus Clint should pay-per-view. Star Trek fans will get to see Spock vs. Clint during “Incident Before Black Pass.” “Incident of the Lost Idol” has Claude Akins (Sheriff Lobo) bounty hunting. Rawhide‘s extensive outdoor shooting makes it play more like a short movie than just a normal TV Western.

Bachelorman is a romantic comedy starring David DeLuise (Dom’s son) as a guy who knows what women need cause he worships them. He’s the second coming of The Tao of Steve with Donal Logue’s trainer. He gets involved with his neighbor (Josie and the Pussycats‘s Missi Pyle) only to discover she’s not a one night stand. Can he muster the energy to remain a swinging single? Blake Clark gets work without Adam Sandler writing the check. Clyde Kusatsu (Midway) plays the sushi making neighbor. He’s been in tons of shows over the years. Fans of naughty things on the internet will get to ogle Kira Reed. Bachelorman allows Missi Pyle to use her comic muscles for longer than her short time on Soul Plane. There are quite a few useful tips given off by DeLuise. The DVD contains the complete promo for TesteFlex.

Mister Foe is an unnerving piece of cinema from Scotland. Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) has become a voyeur in the wake of his mother’s death. He suspects that his father’s new wife (Mallrats‘ Claire Forlani) killed her. Dad (Rome‘s Ciaran Hinds) tries to be understanding of his son’s weirdness. However the son’s peeping tom hobby is driving him nuts. It’s quite shocking to see Claire play a wicked stepmother. Her sweet face can turn diabolical. The weirdness get kicked up a notch when stepmother goes Cinemax After Dark on her stepson. Is she distracting him or just a slut? This is another small film that you’ll need to watch on your TV screen.

Hancock was such a big piece of crap that Stephen Sommers ought to have his name on him. The first half has a weird potential with Will Smith as Abel Ferrara with superpowers. Although the idea of super sperm nearly killing a woman was an old “why Superman has to pull out of Lois Lane” joke. Jason Bateman trying to clean him up was OK. When we get the plot twist with Charlize Theron, I thew up in my popcorn. Why did I think this film wouldn’t blow chunks with the star of The Wild Wild West, I Am Legend and Bad Boys II? Cause I’m a cockeyed optimist.

Horton Hears A Who proves you can make a feature length film out of a Dr. Seuss book that doesn’t get annoying like the dreadful live action Grinch and Cat in the Hat flicks. Horton goes CGI which allows them to truly explore Dr. Seuss’ illustrations without merely adapting them to human form. Horton the elephant discovers a whole world living on a speck. Everyone thinks he’s nuts including the mayor of Whoville. The Whoville folks don’t think they’re on a speck. Horton wants to put the speck in a safe place outside of his vicious jungle domain. It’s an action heavy flick with animals out to take down the weird elephant. Jim Carrey as Horton and Steve Carell as the Mayor play well of each other with their voice work. These guys should host a talkradio show. There’s enough adult level humor to make this worth watching with the kids. The DVD has tons of bonus features about the CGI work and vocal booth weirdness. You can even create your own animation. They tossed in a digital copy of the film so you can watch it on your iPod.

IN CASE I FORGET

Remember to have a great Festivus this year.

Charo has been saved for the Christmas column! Prepare to be coochie-coochie-cooooed!

December 8, 2008