cinematikal

Revisit: Krull

2009-04-22T14:36:00.004-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1983

Directed by Peter Yates

Written by Stanford Sherman

A prince and a fellowship of companions set out to rescue his bride from a fortress of alien invaders who have arrived on their home planet.

Star Wars meets Lord of the Rings in this fantasy medieval space mash up. The story follows the typical fantasy archetype: long awaited prophecy involving a future king and his bride finally comes to pass, as the prince must rescue the princess before the evil consumes the land. Only for some reason the evil in this film is a giant Alien looking creature who controls a nasty set of beetles inside Darth Vader-like stormtrooper suits that shoot lasers.

Literally everything in this film is an amalgamation of LOTR & Star Wars, from the epic landscape shots, complete with a snowy mountain trek and wild horse rides through forests and plains, to the pew! pew! laser shootouts in close quarters. There are giant spiders, a cyclops, bumbling magicians, elaborate sets, natural sets. It's even got Liam Neeson.

For some reason, despite the film's lengthy expositions, I couldn't quite grasp the main character's name, or the name of his shiny sharp boomerang. But thankfully, the title of the film is enough to describe all people, places, and objects within it. "Did Krull get his Krull back?", "Oh shit, he's gonna toss the Krull!", etc. I laughed a whole lot while watching this but unless you're a serious fan of early 80's fantasy epics (Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Beastmaster, etc.), you probably won't want to watch this. It's too cheap and slow for modern audiences, and too silly to take seriously.

Peter Yates, by the way, directed the supremely awesome Steve McQueen vehicle Bullitt. He was nominated for two Oscars the year this film was released -- both for his follow up, The Dresser, with Albert Finney.

Review: Observe & Report

2009-04-14T10:07:00.004-05:00

A Warner Brothers release 2009

Written & Directed by Jody Hill

Bi-polar mall security guard Ronnie Barnhardt is called into action to stop a flasher from turning shopper's paradise into his personal peep show. But when Barnhardt can't bring the culprit to justice, a surly police detective is recruited to close the case.

After the delirious high that was Eastbound & Down, I had much hope for this comedy helmed by Eastbound co-creator Jody Hill. Mr. Hill, it seems, has a penchant for mining foul-mouthed, aggressive, unlikeable characters for comedy gold. Unfortunately the schtick is too thin here. Hill's script doesn't push far enough, and Seth Rogan is terribly miscast as the bi-polar, pill popping mall cop. Rogan is too jovial and affable to make the deranged, obsessive personality of his character come to life. And since most, if not all of the film rests on his shoulders, it falls flat in the end.

Supporting actors Ray Liotta and Anna Faris are given little to work with; in fact, their presence barely registers. Sadly, most of the film suffers from this half-assed feel -- characters feel more like sketches, and the plot meanders without much story supporting it. The events of the film sort of just happen, there's no rhyme or reason to it. Through lines are set up and then left sitting for a while until they either resolve themselves or are forgotten. Others simply barely exist to begin with, like a feud between Ronnie and an Arab store worker that is basically comprised of a bunch of Fuck you!'s back and forth.

Ronnie's personality troubles are glossed over with the blanket "bi-polar" explanation, except nothing about what Ronnie says or does is particularly emblematic of someone actually suffering from bi-polar disorder. This was particularly upsetting to me; it seems to be a recent trend in films to use bi-polar disorder as an excuse for a character's odd or aggressive behavior. Anyone who acts out of tune in a film is suddenly a "bi-polar" character, regardless of the accuracy of the representation. Someone needs to call bullshit on this: bi-polar disorder is real, and to use it simply as an excuse to create batshit aggressive characters is unacceptable. There's a way to constructively explore bi-polar disorder and it's affects on people, even through comedy, but so far it's only been approached as a blank justification for petty behavior, and I ain't buying.

But forget the bi-polar thing: many critics and outspoken individuals have been up in arms about a scene in which Rogan's character is having sex with a seemingly unconscious Anna Faris, only to hear her cry out "I didn't tell you to stop, mother fucker!" when he begins to second guess his actions. "Date rape!" they cried. "Inappropriate! Too far!" Frankly, I think that's also bullshit; the joke didn't go far enough. It would have been funnier if they had taken that line out. You can't push a joke that far, only to pull it back at the end. It sucks the wind right out of the sails. Likewise, there's nothing suggestive in the scene that it promotes date rape or paints it in a positive light. That scene to me embodies the entire problem of the movie: Jody Hill can't seem to decide if he's going for a caustic, aggressively dark tone or Apatow-style slapstick raunch. He ends up with neither.

Observe & Report is a film that has a lot of ideas working underneath it but ends up with few of them making it onto the screen. It's a shame. The film suffers from so many tonal shifts and such a lack of breadth that it comes across as a faint blip. Hopefully they're just saving all the goods for Eastbound Season 2.

Revisit: California Split

2009-04-10T13:58:00.005-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1974

Directed by Robert Altman

Written by Joseph Walsh

A down on his luck gambler partners with free spirit on a winning streak, but finds himself deep in debt. As a final act of desperation, he pawns most of his possessions and heads to Reno for the poker game of a lifetime.

Elliot Gould and George Segal shine in this affable comedy-drama about gambling addiction. The two make a great on screen pair, with Gould playing the fast-talking, easy, sleazy know-it-all against Segal's excitable but straight laced persona. Add to the mix Altman's meandering, multi-layered audio, long takes and tracking shots -- a perfect match for the film's loud, chaotic casino settings -- and you get a pretty unique buddy picture.

The story is pretty simple: an amateur gambler meets another and find they make perfectly profitable partners. Soon enough the pairing goes sour and the two must part ways. While Gould pretty much sticks to what he does best (re: wisecracks), Segal gets to stretch his chops a bit once he gets in too deep. The film doesn't really aim to make any poignant commentary -- one scene between a mournful Segal and a loud, foul-mouthed female alcoholic seems to make a statement on the blind nature of addiction -- but it does do some interesting things to the buddy picture, namely in the fall-out ending.

While not one of Altman's landmark pictures, California Split exhibits much of his trademark style and motifs at a more palatable pace for broader audiences. If you're new to Altman, this isn't a bad place to start. I'd recommend it for the Gould & Segal pairing as well.

Revisit: The Hunger

2009-04-10T13:20:00.003-05:00

An MGM film 1983

Directed by Tony Scott

Written by James Costigan, Ivan Davis & Michael Thomas

Based on the novel by Whitley Strieber

An ancient vampire seduces a famous gerontologist after her similarly ancient husband begins to fade away.

Tony Scott's studio debut has become somewhat of a cult classic since its release in 1983. The Hunger is a vampire flick cut from the Anne Rice tradition -- elegant, ageless, and refined. Much of the film focuses on the seductive powers of the female, played by the always beautiful Catherine Deneuve. Likewise, the main theme is the quest for immortality, and the consequences that come with it.

However, once you strip away the film's glamorous atmosphere, it falls rather flat. Tony Scott's films always seem to be in montage mode; he's a fan of cutting back and forth between planes of action while synchronizing voice-over to wring out double meaning, a trick I always found to be a bit obnoxious. It can be done well but here (and in another one of Scott's films, Spy Game) the cuts move so fast there's barely any time to process the visuals. It's rarely a good sign when a film starts out with a flurry of quick cuts and crazy images, and this one turned me off almost right away.

The performances aren't too great either. Say what you will about Miss Deneuve's looks, but her acting here is stoic, aloof, and disengaging. Likewise for Susan Sarandon, who looks great but is unconvincing as a doctor who specializes in aging research. Casting David Bowie, however, as Deneuve's rapidly aging husband was a very inspired choice. Bowie is by no means an extraordinary actor, but he plays the role straight and does a serviceable job. Marrying the fading vampire character with Bowie's androgynous persona, openly bisexual orientation, and frequently reinvented image adds a lot of intertextual depth that would not have been present otherwise.

If you like gothic vampire lore, you've probably already seen this flick. Otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.

Revisit: Altered States

2009-04-07T10:41:00.002-05:00

A Warner Brothers film 1980

Directed by Ken Russell

Written by Paddy Chayefsky

A Harvard scientist conducts experiments on himself with a hallucinatory drug and an isolation chamber that may be causing him to regress genetically.

William Hurt makes his film debut in this 1980 sci-fi/horror thriller that poises itself as an intellectual dissertation on consciousness and slowly descends into absurdity by its last act. Directed by British filmmaker Ken Russell, the film meshes video art style with practical makeup and special effects. The film is sort of a cross between Cronenberg's The Fly and something like A Beautiful Mind. At the start it appears to be a drama revolving around post-radical 70's academic elites, but slowly it regresses (quite literally) as Hurt devolves into an ape like creature, and then some.

Russell is often criticized as being overly obsessed with sexuality and the church, and Altered States is no exception. Hurt's scientist is obsessed with restoring his faith and externalizing his past lives, and his hallucinations are often riddled with religious and allegorical imagery, from depictions of hell to himself on the cross. As he genetically retrogrades, the idea of man's progression from nothing becomes literal, and downright bizarre. Russell's direction treats these events so matter-of-factly that it's hard to take serious; the whole thing almost feels facetious, just short of camp. But the film's strangeness is its greatest asset; each twist and turn leads down an unexpected path until the ultimate WTF? climax is revealed.

Of course the films final message is that humanity is the ultimate truth - outside existence is merely a vast, impersonal nothingness. The film really strains to bring this idea to the forefront, and a lot of questions/absurdisms linger at the end. But if you're into so-heady-its-campy sci-fi or simply bizarre films, this one won't disappoint.

Revisit: Night of the Living Dead

2009-04-06T11:25:00.004-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1990

Directed by Tom Savini

Written by George A. Romero

One would assume that this 1990 remake of George Romero's zombie apocalypse classic Night of the Living Dead exists for the same reason as Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead - advanced film-making techniques "update" a horror classic for modern audiences. There are only two problems with this theory: Tom Savini's amateur direction, coupled with his DIY special-effects aesthetic, are rudimentary even for early 90's standards.

Alas, the remake does the original little justice, and brings little new to the table. Aside from being filmed in color, everything seems a lot more routine this go-round, particularly in the shadows of Day and Dawn of the Dead. A few alterations are made to the plot of Romero's classic horror tale, including the survival of our hero Barbara, who doesn't make it out alive in the first film. Romero has gone on to amend and augment much of his zombie apocalypse universe, with Land of the Dead and other recent forrays, so the chance to revisit his pioneering classic was, and still is, presumably very tempting.

I'll give Savini some credit -- Living Dead is his directorial debut, and hand-made effects are always a delight. But it doesn't negate the fact that the film is, quite frankly, a pointless excursion.

Ultimately you're better off watching the original or one of it's earlier sequels. But if you're a splatter fan or zombie freak, you could do worse. It's better than Return of the Living Dead by a long shot.

Revisit: Baby Doll

2009-03-30T11:35:00.005-05:00

A Warner Brother's film 1956

Directed by Elia Kazan

Written by Tennessee Williams

Steamy tale of two Southern rivals and a sensuous 19-year-old virgin.

The second film pairing director Kazan with writer Tennessee Williams brought much controversy upon its release in 1956. Francis Cardinal Spellman condemned the film in a stunning attack from the pulpit of St. Patrick's Cathedral two days before the film opened, saying that the film had been "responsibly judged to be evil in concept" and was certain that it would "exert an immoral and corrupting influence on those who see it", and exhorted all Catholics to refrain from patronizing the film "under pain of sin". Cardinal Spellman's condemnation of the film led to the Legion of Decency's first-ever nationwide boycott of an American-made film produced by a major studio. All over the country, almost 20 million Catholics protested the film and picketed theaters that showed it. The Catholic boycott nearly killed the film; it was cancelled by 77% of theaters scheduled to show it, and it only made a meager $600,000 at the box office. The film was also condemned by Time Magazine, which called it the dirtiest American-made motion picture that had ever been legally exhibited.

Despite all the fuss, the Production Code Administration gave it a seal of approval, (which in many ways led to the PCA drifting farther and farther away from its traditional guidelines until it was replaced by the MPAA ratings system in 1968), and Baby Doll was nominated for four Oscars, included Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actress for Carroll Baker.

By today's standards the film is a little less shocking, but its straight-forward approach to sex and violence still stings. Miss Baker struts around in a slip while Karl Malden's ineffectual male dishes innuendo after innuendo before Eli Wallach (in his first screen role) can swoop in and squeeze himself uncomfortably between the two. The acting is top-notch, and the tension starts on high and simply mounts with each progressive scene. A surprising amount of humor is wrung out as well; for all the seriousness going on, the film ultimately shapes itself as a sexual farce. The delta setting, including a dilapidated mansion, is gorgeously portrayed in detailed black and white.

Baby Doll is one of Kazan's forgotten masterpieces, a sort of sick sibling of Streetcar. Worth hunting down.

Revisit: The Holy Mountain

2009-03-30T10:51:00.003-05:00

An ABKCO Film 1973

Written & Directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky

A Christlike figure wanders through bizarre, grotesque scenarios filled with religious and sacrilegious imagery.

An epic exploration of the connections between religious and socio-political trends, Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain aims to be a spiritual experience of its own. Mixing traditional religious narrative with shockingly grotesque imagery, the film attempts to expose art and religion as tools of mass-mind-control. As with many of Jodorowsky's films, the bombastic and eclectic imagery often overshadows the thematic intent, resulting in a film that is more fun to simply absorb rather than analyze. But Jodorowsky has a lot of ideas working in here, from the artificial nature of film to the corruptive powers of prominent social/religious stature and the fraudulent nature of spiritual guru's. Decoding all of the film's symbols would be a herculean task -- objects ranging from the solar system to a war between frogs and cameleons act as representative figures -- with much of the film's icons rooted in occultism, astronomy, and alchemy.

From a production standpoint, Holy Mountain is drop dead gorgeous, particularly aided by a 2006 restoration effort, which brings much of Jodorowsky's harrowing imagery to brighter, more detailed heights. Jodorowsky is a master of the surreal, and the restoration process certainly did this film justice. Dada would be proud.

Holy Mountain is an interesting experience chock full of controversial imagery and engaging ideas. While it may not be a spiritual experience that will rock you to your core, it will certainly leave a lasting impression, most likely different for every person.

Revisit: Going Overboard

2009-03-25T10:02:00.002-05:00

A Trimark release 1989

Directed by Valerie Breiman

Written by Valerie Breiman & Scott LaRose & Adam Sandler

A struggling young comedian takes a menial job on a cruise ship where he hopes for his big chance to make it in the world of cruise ship comedy.

Going Overboard, Adam Sandler's first feature film, rests comfortably at #71 on IMDB's Bottom 100 list. It's the kind of film you'd find on the turn-style rack at your local supermarket - forgotten. Let's hope it stays that way.

Going Overboard is terribly humorless. It strains to wring laughs out of mean-spirited characters, a lame-duck plot, and piss poor production values. Of course some of the quality issues have to be forgiven - director Valerie Breiman made the film on a shoe-string budget while on a cruise - but it doesn't help when the script is an unfunny travesty to begin with. Sandler leans on the usual angry man-child schtick, though not quite as refined. The rest of the cast adds nothing. The result is a film that feels like a bunch of slapdash ideas with little comedic merit. Avoid at all costs.

Revisit: Transformers

2009-03-24T15:22:00.003-05:00

A Dreamworks film 2007

Directed by Michael Bay

Written by Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman

An ancient struggle re-erupts on Earth between two extraterrestrial clans, the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons, with a clue to the ultimate power held by a young teenager.

Transformers is a big, loud, dumb movie. That would be fine - I'd expect nothing less, especially from Michael Bay - if it were fun. But it isn't. It's just big, loud, and dumb.

What's wrong with it? Two things, namely: the script, and the action. Writers Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman spend a lot of time dilly-dallying, wasting our time with corny jokes, backstory and general B.S. before getting to the action. When it finally comes, the robots move too quickly, with their 'transformations' so visually complex, that it's difficult to follow. The result: boring boring boring.

How hard is it to make giant robots fun? Get 'em smashing shit and we've got a movie! You would think pairing Michael Bay and giant friggin' robots would be a match made in heaven. Hopefully they up the ante with the sequel, due this summer, cause this first installment was quite the snoozefest.

Revisit: Starman

2009-03-24T15:03:00.005-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1984

Directed by John Carpenter

Written by Bruce A. Evans & Raynold Gideon

While being pursued by the government, an alien takes the form of a young widow's husband and asks her to drive him from Wisconsin to Arizona.

Jeff Bridges scored an Academy Award nomination for his performance as an otherworldly being adjusting to life on Earth in this film from John Carpenter and producer Michael Douglas (yes, THAT Michael Douglas). Surprisingly, it's the only film ever made by John Carpenter to garner a nomination, and as a result, exists as proof that all you really need to do to get an Oscar is mix some ticks with a stutter and act like a retard. The film itself is fine, if not a little dated - Carpenter handles the romantic stuff surprisingly well, and the story is effective, despite more recent thematic advances in mainstream science fiction. If you're a Carpenter fan in need of another weapon in arguing why Carpenter was one of the masters of genre, Starman makes a great addition to your arsenal. Otherwise, I'd recommend it for a quiet night with the significant other, if they're down with older-type flicks with 80's nostalgia appeal.

Revisit: Undertow

2009-03-24T14:31:00.003-05:00

A United Artists release 2004

Directed by David Gordon Green

Written by Joe Conway and David Gordon Green

Based on a story by Lingard Jervey

Tragedy besets a broken family when a mysterious uncle returns from prison with more on his mind than a happy reunion.

An unsettling film with a strong Southern voice, Undertow is a fine representation of David Gordon Green's skills as a director. While far from perfect - the script takes a while to get going, stumbles in some information reveals and relies a little heavily on Christ metaphors - Undertow is a captivating mix of melodrama, suspense, and horror. Green really makes the most of the setting, a Southern bayou, letting cinematographer Tim Orr really stretch his camera and get a good feel for the murky, hot, muddy surroundings. Performances from Josh Lucas, Jamie Bell, and Dermot Mulroney are more than passable, elevating the somewhat leaden script to a much scarier place. Ditto for composer Philip Glass's music, which certainly adds to the tension and moves many of the scenes. Under anyone else's supervision, Undertow may have been a sub-par or downright silly affair. But David Gordon Green and his crew make it something more: a sort of modern day Night of the Hunter, fairy-tale-esque and all the more tragic. Worth a watch.

Revisit: Blood Hook

2009-03-24T14:06:00.003-05:00

A Troma Films release 1986

Directed by Jim Mallon

Written by Larry Edgerton & John Galligan

During a local fishing contest, people are being mysteriously dragged into the lake and killed by a giant fish hook.

For a D-list film revolving around "Muskie Madness" and a fishing rod wielding killer, Blood Hook is a surprisingly satisfying (and unsurprisingly hilarious) adventure. Shot in 6 weeks with a cast and crew of non-professionals, the film looks like crap but is campy fun and a testament to the independent spirit. It's no surprise the director, Jim Mallon, went on to be part of Mystery Science Theater 3000 - Blood Hook is the exact kind of film those guys love to trash. Yet at the same time, it manages to be aware of the inner-workings of the genre, subverting some of the slasher flicks most timeworn cliches, including characters like the idiotic punk-rock teen, shell-shocked war vet, among others. While the plot may be completely ridiculous and full of Midwestern inside jokes, information is never revealed too quickly, and the story keeps you guessing up until the very end. Far more intelligent than it looks, Blood Hook is perfect for anyone who loves well thought out, shoe-string DIY horror trash.

Revisit: Memoirs of an Invisible Man

2009-03-09T14:16:00.005-05:00

A Warner Brothers film 1992

Directed by John Carpenter

Written by Robert Collector, Dana Olsen & William Goldman

Based on the book by H.F. Saint

After a freak accident, an invisible yuppie runs from a treacherous CIA official while trying to cope with his new life.

Horror master John Carpenter teams up with Chevy Chase in this bizarre effects-pushing adaptation of H.F. Saint's famous novel. Not quite a comedy (as Chase's presence would imply), not quite a horror film, and yet not quite a thriller, Memoirs is a bit of everything but not enough of anything. A fun film, but a weird one, it's not surprising audiences didn't connect with it during it's 1992 theatrical run. The tone is simply too scattered, and Chase too uncouth and indifferent a performer to keep it centered. I've always appreciated Chase's nonchalant style, but it feels really out of place here. Carpenter surrounds Chase with a bevy of quality supporting actors, but Sam Neil seems to be trying way too hard (it's almost like he's in a different movie), Darryl Hannah is just kind of there, and Michael McKean gets nothing to work with. The real highlight (at the time) must have been the invisible effects from Industrial Light & Magic. One year before Jurassic Park blew everyone's minds, ILM was tinkering with mixing CGI and practical effects on this film. Watch only if you're a fan of those involved, or have nothing better to do.

Revisit: Kindergarten Cop

2009-03-09T13:47:00.004-05:00

A Universal Pictures release 1990

Directed by Ivan Reitman

Written by Murray Salem, Herschel Weingrod & Timothy Harris

A police officer goes undercover as a kindergarten teacher to track down the wife and child of a ruthless drug lord.

This 1990 comedy is endlessly quotable, thanks to counter-programming Arnold Schwarzenegger's over-the-top action persona with a group of sharp-tongued little kids. Like many of Arnold's films the plot verges on completely ridiculous, and serves a fine helping of subverted genre cliches, including a crazed mother/son crime combo that make the Bates family look normal. A mild diversion, with the kind of dirty jokes involving kids that don't really make it into movies much anymore.

Review: Watchmen

2009-03-09T12:24:00.004-05:00

A Warner Brothers film 2009

Directed by Zack Snyder

Written by David Hayter & Alex Tse

When an ex-superhero is murdered, a vigilante named Rorschach begins an investigation into the murder, which begins to lead to a much more terrifying conclusion.

Long considered 'unfilmable', Watchmen is one of the most celebrated graphic novels of all time, and often credited for ushering in an era of more serious, cerebral, adult-themed comic books. Hollywood took stabs at bringing Alan Moore & Dave Gibbon's time-altering, mind-bending grit fest to the screen for nearly 3 decades, with everyone from Paul Greengrass to Terry Gilliam to Michael Bay set to direct. Zack Snyder finally succeeded in producing the film, which finally hit theaters this week after much fanboy anticipation.

Fanboys like myself, who fell in the love with the graphic novel's sharp thematic and formal critique of the medium, as well as it's intense philosophical and political exploration, engrossing characters and wonderfully rich universe. Watchmen the novel is as complete a package as one could ever expect or want; a vast and detailed world with no stone unturned tenderly committed to the page.

Which begs the question -- why make it into a movie at all? Particularly one that adheres so faithfully to it's source?

Of course, that's the question I asked myself before the movie was released, and after having seen it, I'm not sure I have a full answer. From a business standpoint, I could understand why the movie was made -- large built-in fan base, a film that paves the way for grittier, more difficult graphic novel adaptations, and lots of fanboy cred for the distributors. But artistically, what are the merits? It seems there are some, but mainly the film exists as a celebration of Moore & Gibbon's work.

To their credit, Warner Brothers and Mr. Snyder have delivered one balls to the walls, full-force, hard R, uncompromising vision of Watchmen. Like the comic's creators, they left no stone unturned in bringing this epic to the big screen, inserting as much possible detail with extra care. For those unfamiliar with Watchmen's source, the film must be a dizzying experience with many WTF? moments, but fanboys rejoice: never has there been such a detailed adaptation in the history of the medium.

Snyder's visual flair and special effects prowess certainly help bring the panels to exacting life. Some sequences, particularly the Dr. Manhattan chapter, the back-peddling opening credits and almost anything involving Rorschach, are undeniably brilliant. Others, such as the Silk Spectre father reveal and the tweaked ending, lack some of the emotional punch delivered in the novel, but are nonetheless visually arresting.

Perhaps my biggest problem with the film is that it could never replicate all that the novel contains. Much of the climate of the Watchmen universe -- the nuclear war paranoia, the aggression towards authority figures, the degrading of social moral -- is reduced to blanket statements and quick set ups. The majority of the second and third tier characters present in the novel, many of which establish and elaborate these themes to flesh out the temporal backdrop, are absent here. Likewise, many details surrounding the characters origins are trimmed down, making their screen counterparts feel somewhat incomplete.

The music, too, felt jarring to me. The film deserves it's own original score, not some smattering of pop songs that vaguely adhere thematically to the action. I think Warner Brothers were a tad afraid of mainstream audience reactions, and figured if they put some huge pop hits behind some of the more audacious sequences it would make them more palatable. Maybe -- but it also severely undermined the tone. I highly doubt Hendrix would be blasting while Rorcshach and Nite Owl scourge Antarctica for Ozymandias's hideaway.

But with that said, it's amazing how much Synder and his team managed to cram into this two and a half hour epic, and it's even more amazing that Warner Brothers was willing to see through on his vision. This is one bloody disgusting, gut-wrenching, depressing, dark as hell film. It's views on humanity and social decency make Dark Knight look like kiddie play time. As does the on-screen sex and violence.

Watching the origins of Dr. Manhattan unfold on screen will remain one of my favorite cinematic moments for a long time. Billy Crudup does an amazing job and really nails the character to the T. But seeing it come alive, watching it unfold in real time -- nothing will ever compare. It's breathtaking. And that alone makes Watchmen worthy of repeat viewings.

And I definitely think I need to see it again, now that the fanboy giddiness is out of my system. It's hard to really critically assess Snyder's formal elements in that malaise. There is too much immediate beauty in the imagery to really look deep into what Snyder uses to shape the story. Regardless, Watchmen remains a unique ride, one that will (probably) never be duplicated.

Review: The 2009 Short Animated Film Oscar Nominees

2009-02-17T13:52:00.004-05:00

The Oscars are only a week away, and I finally had some time to sit down and watch all the nominated animated shorts. As per usual, the selection comes from a variety of countries -- Russia, Japan, & France to name a few -- and feature styles ranging from computer animation to traditional hand-drawn. It's always a treat to get to see independent animation up on the big screen, but I felt this year's selection was a tad lackluster.

Nominee Photo Gallery

Of the five films up for the statue, Pixar's Presto was honest to God the best. As much as it hurts me to say it, the Pixar short was just more entertaining: livelier, brighter, sillier, and simply more impressive than the rest of the bunch. A relatively insignificant short about a hungry rabbit and his inept magician owner, the film looks gorgeous and stands head and shoulders above the other entries on technical terms. It goes up against three love stories (one about a Lavatory attendant in a nice but ultimately flat 2D flash design, one from Japan about an old man revisiting his life in gorgeous hand-drawn that's just too long and depressing, and another CG one about Octopi that just doesn't hold a candle to Pixar's lush lighting and shading techniques) and a silly CG animation about two pallbearers that just looks like crap (no offense, producers Mike Judge & Don Hertzfeldt. I still love you and the Animation Show).

The real treats lay in the short list entries, including Plympton's latest Dog short and a real gem from France titled Skhizein about a man who gets hit by a meteor. Worst of the lot was a 24 minute self aggrandizing, overly simplified treatise on the state of the environment called Varmints, directed by Marc Caste. Despite the lush CG and beautiful score by Icelandic composer Johann Johannsson, the film is a gratuitous plea for environmental change. I'll take my metaphors a little less ham-fisted, thank you.

All in all, last year's shorts were a better lot, and I'm surprised so many of the short-listed nominees didn't make it to the top five. Oh well. Either way, it's nice to be able to catch cartoons on the big screen, and I'm glad the AMPAS airs these guys out for everyone to see, even if it is just a glorified screener. (For those who see it -- be on the look out for awful, awful DVD style transitions with insipid quotes about the benefits of the short film medium).

Revisit: Fantastic Planet

2009-02-17T13:18:00.004-05:00

An Anchor Bay release 1973

Directed by René Laloux

Written by Roland Topor & René Laloux

Based on the novel by Stefan Wul

On a faraway planet where giants rule, tiny humanoids must fight for their lives and their equality.

This surreal animated film was winner of the Special Grand Prix at Cannes in 1973. Decades later it still reigns as one of the premier surrealist animated features. The film lives up to it's title; artist Ronald Topor populates the story with a host of strange creatures and bizarre landscapes. A beauty to behold, the animation and artistry of images is what makes the film work. Without it, it's a bland tale about learning to live in peace with mutual benefit. But do check it out if you're an animation junkie.

Review: Let the Right One In

2009-02-17T13:07:00.003-05:00

A Magnolia Pictures release 2008

Directed by Tomas Alfredson

Written by John Ajvide Lindqvist

Oscar, an overlooked and bullied boy, finds love and revenge through Eli, a beautiful but peculiar girl who turns out to be a vampire.

A chilling film about adolescence, love, and vampires, Let the Right One In sounds like an arthouse grindcore mess but manages to marry budding romance with bloody horror in just the right way. Alfredson's snowy white/pitch black palate, cold Sweden setting and deliberate pacing create a truly unsettling mood, one that grows throughout the picture and shakes off any absurd notions that come with the idea of human/vampire love. The child actors are terrific, particularly Lina Leandersson as the ancient vampire Eli. And the film has plenty of blood and effects to keep any splatter fan happy, without being too silly. An original and enjoyable film that was unjustly shut out of this years Oscar race.

Review: Coraline

2009-02-17T12:49:00.002-05:00

Written & Directed by Henry Selick

Based on the book by Neil Gaiman

A young girl walks through a secret door in her new home and discovers an alternate version of her life.

I've seen Coraline twice now and I can't seem to get it out of my head. The mix of intense artistry and chilling children's fantasy is infectious, and incredibly beautiful. As of right now it's my top film of 2009 and sure to be on my top ten list come the end of the year.

There are two major reasons why I love this film. Number one: Henry Selick's incredibly detailed, labor of love animation. This is as good as it gets people -- a fully realized, amazingly in depth 3D world made entirely of miniature puppets and set pieces. A lot of heart and soul went into the making of this film, and every ounce of it shows on screen. Everything from the soundtrack to the V.O. to the little hairs on Coraline's head are pitch perfect. It's truly a wonder to behold, and infinitely more impressive than any computer generated image. It's a shame more filmmakers don't follow in his footsteps.

Number two: Neil Gaiman's beautiful story. A take on the classic Alice in Wonderland, down the rabbit hole type tale, the story of Coraline is as breathtakingly imaginative as the animation that brings it to life. Despite being a fantasy, it doesn't pander to overprotective parents and has some real scares that are sure to upset younger viewers. But no matter -- Gaiman knows that kids are braver than we give them credit, and it's refreshing to see a children's film that isn't all cute animals and silly colors.

The film does have its flaws. Some scenes drag on a tad too long and overall the screen story isn't as streamlined as the novel. But those are some small grievances that were easily overlooked on my first viewing. I may be biased as this film has a lot of elements that tickle my fancy, but seriously -- I don't think I could be friends with anyone who didn't like this film. Selick and Gaiman have done children (and adults) everywhere a service, creating a masterful and resonating work that should be cherished for generations.

Review: Friday the 13th

2009-02-17T12:09:00.003-05:00

A Warner Brothers release 2009

Directed by Marcus Nispel

Written by Damian Shannon & Mark Swift

A group of young adults discover a boarded up Camp Crystal Lake, where they soon encounter Jason Voorhees and his deadly intentions.

Not so much a reboot or remake as it is a sequel of sorts, the new Friday the 13th amalgamizes elements from the first three Jason movies to create a 'fresh start' for the series. Continuing where the original Friday the 13th left off -- with Jason's mother being brutally beheaded whilst her son watches in the darkness -- the film quickly dispenses its ludicrous plot involving a weed heist and starts the killing almost right away.

While Jason and his victims may have never looked as stylish or sexy as they do in this entry to the series, they've also never been so damn boring. The strength of a slasher always rests on the creativity of its kills, something this entry severely lacks. Most of the death scenes rely on run of the mill pop up/jump 'look out behind you!' scare tactics, or even blatantly rehash kills from early Jason flicks (ie: the famous jump through the window scene from Part II). Several key story elements, such as the manipulation of Jason's mommy complex, are all lifted from earlier Jason flicks. As a result the whole flick has a been there/done that, I-saw-that-coming-from-a-mile-away type feel.

Rather than amping the creativity of the kills and the omnipresent nature of Jason's character, the film relies on and retools the worst slasher cliches: annoying, bratty, stupid teens and their sick vices. While I commend the filmmakers for managing to get Willa Ford naked and showing an ample amount of breasts, it's hard to sit through a flick where the main characters keep saying "bro" and pound beers till they vomit. Truly they are better off dead. The stupidity and immorality of the victims has always been a major thematic point for these kind of flicks, but I'm not sure if they've ever been quite as vapid or abhorrent.

It would be nice, for a change, to see some relatively decent people go up against the monster that is Jason. Or, perhaps even better, some actual camp counselors. Why does the series always move away from the camp idea? Wouldn't it be more terrifying to see some teenagers dealing with young children as well as a masked psycho killer? Balancing responsibility with survival? Camp Crystal Lake is barely present in these films anymore (at least beyond an overgrown forest/murder scene), and it would be nice to see it return.

Ultimately this reboot/rehash/whatever was all about streamlining the inconic killer and making a version that adhered to our modern technical standards. On that level it succeeds. But as entertainment it's completely inept. Amping all the intolerable cliches and lacking any real creativity, Friday the 13th is a truly awful representation of the slasher genre. Hearing that the guys responsible for this are planning a Nightmare on Elm Street reboot sends shudders through my spine...

Revisit: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

2009-02-02T15:28:00.003-05:00

An MGM release 1966

Directed by Richard Lester

Written by Melvin Frank & Michael Pertwee
Based on the musical play by Burt Shevelove & Larry Gelbart
With lyrics by Stephen Sondheim

It's a shame Buster Keaton spends his last screen credit hiding in the shadows of Zero Mostel -- not that Mr. Mostel wasn't a terrifically talented performer, but this aborted fetus of a musical-comedy doesn't do either of them justice.

Released at the low-point of musical-comedy's popularity, this Forum is a stripped down version of the stage play, substituting most of Sondheim's trademark bouncy show tunes with sight gags, puns & wordplay.

I watched this because I was in the stage version in high school and wanted to see how it translated to film. I got my answer: it doesn't. Without the songs, there simply isn't much to go on; stripping to the show to it's essence you sort of realize slavery, prostitutes and Greek tragedy aren't that funny. Add in tons of jokes that are more stale that Roman fresco and you've got yourself one cornball comedy. Likewise, the directorial 'flashes', including jump cuts and the kind of dance sequences Mel Brooks liked to spoof, don't add much flavor.

The cast is terrific -- Phil Silvers, Zero Mostel, Jack Gilford and Mr. Keaton all working hard to elevate the material. They are a pleasure to watch. But it's just not enough. This is a story meant for the stage -- where you can feel the energy -- not the screen.

Revisit: Tommy

2009-02-02T14:50:00.003-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1975

Written & Directed by Ken Russell
Based on the album by The Who

A deaf, dumb and blind boy becomes a master pinball player and the object of a religious cult.

Ken Russell's 1975 adaptation of the classic Who concept album is a psychedelic kaleidoscope, a smattering of elaborate set-pieces, insane costumes and cartoon colors set the tune of Pete Townsend's windmill licks. It's a lot of fun in that tripped out, self-important yet actually silly & superfluous 70's way. It features the band along with several name actors -- Oliver Reed, Ann-Margaret (in an Oscar nominated turn), Jack Nicholson -- as well as other musicians -- Eric Clapton, Elton John, Tina Turner -- as they tell the story of Tommy, the famed deaf/dumb/blind pinball wizard.

What strikes me most about this film is how it jumbles the story and song out of sequence from the album to bring its vision to life. They make a lot of changes to the source material and take the story down a path I had never truly envisioned in my own head. Tommy was my favorite album growing up -- I used to listen to it every night as I went to bed -- so you could say I have some personal attachment to it. Little details, like the fact that the song "1921" was changed to "1951" so the setting would make sense, seem like strange and unnecessary compromises, while other songs, like "Cousin Kevin", are put to image perfectly. Overall it's a fun film and certainly engaging visually (as Ken Russell films usually are), so it's worth a watch if you're a fan of The Who.

Revisit: The Thief of Bagdad

2009-01-23T16:11:00.005-05:00

A United Artists film 1940

Directed by:
Ludwig Berger
Michael Powell
Tim Whelan
Alexander Korda(uncredited)
Zoltan Korda (uncredited)
William Cameron Menzies (uncredited)

Written by Miles Malleson

Prince Ahmad is the rightful King of Bagdad but has been blinded and cast out as a beggar. Together with Abu, the best thief in all Bagdad, the Prince sets out on a series of adventures that involve a Djinni in a bottle, a mechanical flying horse, an all-seeing magic jewel, a flying carpet and a beautiful princess in order to restore his kingdom from the wicked Grand Vizier Jaffar.

Old school Hollywood in all its splendor, The Thief of Bagdad features exotic locales (!), amazing special effects (!), beautiful women (!), and high-flying action (!), all in glorious Technicolor (!!!). Not to be confused with the (arguably better) 1924 silent film of the same name, this Thief cobbles its plot from a bunch of stories out of Arabian Nights, which makes for some spectacular sequences that were then re-imaged for the Disney animated film Aladdin.

The film is delightfully simple stuff -- easy to digest and fun to look at with a lot happening on screen but little going on up stairs. For some reason, none of the actors are Arab -- Sabu (who plays Abu in the film, why'd they even bother to change his name?) is the most famous actor here, and the most ethnic, having been one of the first Indian actors in Hollywood. It also marks John Justin's film debut, a British stage actor who occasionally dabbled in film. He sports a hilarious thin-lip-stache and struggles to hide his British roots throughout the film. We had a lot of fun making jokes at his expense while watching.

Legend has it that producer Alexander Korda was so demanding that he went through six directors during the making of this film, including his brother Zoltan Korda and leading art director William Cameron Menzies. Not shocking -- everything presented on screen, from the lavish set pieces to the extravagant effects to the pastel-saturated color scheme looks expensive as hell, especially considering the time. This is one of the best example of early big budget Hollywood movie-making one could find. Worth watching if you dig that sort of thing.

2008 Oscar Nominations

2009-01-22T10:17:00.006-05:00

The 2008 Oscar Nominations were released today, and while there were a few surprises, mostly I think this list stinks of mediocrity. What a bad year for movies, 2008! Dark Knight got snubbed (as we all expected) for... The Reader? Really?... while Slumdog & Benjamin Button lead the pack with 10 & 13 nominations respectively.

Slumdog isn't my kind of fare but I can see why people liked it -- uplifting, exotic, moving, and contrived, it's definitely a romanticized viewpoint of the world and a treatise on fate, love, & destiny, which is a subject people tend to cling to. Outside of the technical achievements, I have no idea what anyone liked about Benjamin Button. A crapfest in every sense of the word, it was by far the most snooze-inducing, mind-numbingly vacant film I'd seen all year.

That said, I'm really glad to see Michael Shannon get his due for Revolutionary Road. The man slays in the picture, and is a fantastic actor all around that elevates basically every project I've ever seen him in, so kudos to that. Likewise for Josh Brolin in Milk, which was a fantastic and understated performance from a man who's had one hell of a track record as of late. Of course they'll both lose to Dead Ledger, but that's fine -- Dark Knight was my favorite film of the year and he was incredible.

The only other surprise was the snubbing of both Bruce Springsteen & Clint Eastwood in the Best Original Song category. The academy must really love that westernized India shit; I didn't even realize Slumdog had 'original songs'.

Otherwise this list just sort of stands to show how boring boring boring boring 2008 was for movies. None of the top films are that memorable, nor would I bother to watch any again (except maybe Milk). Truly this is one of the lousiest Oscar nomination lists I've ever seen.

Oh well. What's done is done. I guess I'll have to check out the Animated Shorts soon as they make the theater rounds. Here's the full list of nominees:

Best Motion Picture of the Year

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008): Ceán Chaffin, Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall
*Frost/Nixon (2008): Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Eric Fellner
*Milk (2008): Bruce Cohen, Dan Jinks
*The Reader (2008): Nominees to be determined
*Slumdog Millionaire (2008): Christian Colson

Performance by an actor in a leading role

* Richard Jenkins in “The Visitor” (Overture Films)
* Frank Langella in “Frost/Nixon” (Universal)
* Sean Penn in “Milk” (Focus Features)
* Brad Pitt in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
* Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler” (Fox Searchlight)

Performance by an actor in a supporting role

* Josh Brolin in “Milk” (Focus Features)
* Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder” (DreamWorks, Distributed by DreamWorks/Paramount)
* Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Doubt” (Miramax)
* Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight” (Warner Bros.)
* Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road” (DreamWorks, Distributed by Paramount Vantage)

Performance by an actress in a leading role

* Anne Hathaway in “Rachel Getting Married” (Sony Pictures Classics)
* Angelina Jolie in “Changeling” (Universal)
* Melissa Leo in “Frozen River” (Sony Pictures Classics)
* Meryl Streep in “Doubt” (Miramax)
* Kate Winslet in “The Reader” (The Weinstein Company)

Performance by an actress in a supporting role

* Amy Adams in “Doubt” (Miramax)
* Penélope Cruz in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” (The Weinstein Company)
* Viola Davis in “Doubt” (Miramax)
* Taraji P. Henson in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
* Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler” (Fox Searchlight)

Best animated feature film of the year

* “Bolt” (Walt Disney), Chris Williams and Byron Howard
* “Kung Fu Panda” (DreamWorks Animation, Distributed by Paramount), John Stevenson and Mark Osborne
* “WALL-E” (Walt Disney), Andrew Stanton

Achievement in art direction

* “Changeling” (Universal), Art Direction: James J. Murakami, Set Decoration: Gary Fettis
* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), Art Direction: Donald Graham Burt, Set Decoration: Victor J. Zolfo
* “The Dark Knight” (Warner Bros.), Art Direction: Nathan Crowley, Set Decoration: Peter Lando
* “The Duchess” (Paramount Vantage, Pathé and BBC Films), Art Direction: Michael Carlin, Set Decoration: Rebecca Alleway
* “Revolutionary Road” (DreamWorks, Distributed by Paramount Vantage), Art Direction: Kristi Zea, Set Decoration: Debra Schutt

Achievement in cinematography

* “Changeling” (Universal), Tom Stern
* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), Claudio Miranda
* “The Dark Knight” (Warner Bros.), Wally Pfister
* “The Reader” (The Weinstein Company), Chris Menges and Roger Deakins
* “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), Anthony Dod Mantle

Achievement in costume design

* “Australia” (20th Century Fox), Catherine Martin
* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), Jacqueline West
* “The Duchess” (Paramount Vantage, Pathé and BBC Films), Michael O’Connor
* “Milk” (Focus Features), Danny Glicker
* “Revolutionary Road” (DreamWorks, Distributed by Paramount Vantage), Albert Wolsky

Achievement in directing

* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), David Fincher
* “Frost/Nixon” (Universal), Ron Howard
* “Milk” (Focus Features), Gus Van Sant
* “The Reader” (The Weinstein Company), Stephen Daldry
* “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), Danny Boyle

Best documentary feature

* “The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)” (Cinema Guild), A Pandinlao Films Production, Ellen Kuras and Thavisouk Phrasavath
* “Encounters at the End of the World” (THINKFilm and Image Entertainment), A Creative Differences Production, Werner Herzog and Henry Kaiser
* “The Garden” A Black Valley Films Production, Scott Hamilton Kennedy
* “Man on Wire” (Magnolia Pictures), A Wall to Wall Production, James Marsh and Simon Chinn
* “Trouble the Water” (Zeitgeist Films), An Elsewhere Films Production, Tia Lessin and Carl Deal

Best documentary short subject

* “The Conscience of Nhem En” A Farallon Films Production, Steven Okazaki
* “The Final Inch” A Vermilion Films Production, Irene Taylor Brodsky and Tom Grant
* “Smile Pinki” A Principe Production, Megan Mylan
* “The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306” A Rock Paper Scissors Production, Adam Pertofsky and Margaret Hyde

Achievement in film editing

* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall
* “The Dark Knight” (Warner Bros.), Lee Smith
* “Frost/Nixon” (Universal), Mike Hill and Dan Hanley
* “Milk” (Focus Features), Elliot Graham
* “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), Chris Dickens

Best foreign language film of the year

* “The Baader Meinhof Complex” A Constantin Film Production, Germany
* “The Class” (Sony Pictures Classics), A Haut et Court Production, France
* “Departures” (Regent Releasing), A Departures Film Partners Production, Japan
* “Revanche” (Janus Films), A Prisma Film/Fernseh Production, Austria
* “Waltz with Bashir” (Sony Pictures Classics), A Bridgit Folman Film Gang Production, Israel

Achievement in makeup

* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), Greg Cannom
* “The Dark Knight” (Warner Bros.), John Caglione, Jr. and Conor O’Sullivan
* “Hellboy II: The Golden Army” (Universal), Mike Elizalde and Thom Floutz

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score)

* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.),Alexandre Desplat
* “Defiance” (Paramount Vantage), James Newton Howard
* “Milk” (Focus Features), Danny Elfman
* “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), A.R. Rahman
* “WALL-E” (Walt Disney), Thomas Newman

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song)

* “Down to Earth” from “WALL-E” (Walt Disney), Music by Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman, Lyric by Peter Gabriel
* “Jai Ho” from “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), Music by A.R. Rahman, Lyric by Gulzar
* “O Saya” from “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), Music and Lyric by A.R. Rahman andMaya Arulpragasam

Best motion picture of the year

* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), A Kennedy/Marshall Production, Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall and Ceán Chaffin, Producers
* “Frost/Nixon” (Universal), A Universal Pictures, Imagine Entertainment and Working Title Production,Brian Grazer, Ron Howard and Eric Fellner, Producers
* “Milk” (Focus Features), A Groundswell and Jinks/Cohen Company Production, Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, Producers
* “The Reader” (The Weinstein Company), A Mirage Enterprises and Neunte Babelsberg Film GmbH Production, Nominees to be determined
* “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), A Celador Films Production,Christian Colson, Producer

Best animated short film

* “La Maison en Petits Cubes” A Robot Communications Production, Kunio Kato
* “Lavatory - Lovestory” A Melnitsa Animation Studio and CTB Film Company Production, Konstantin Bronzit
* “Oktapodi” (Talantis Films) A Gobelins, L’école de l’image Production, Emud Mokhberi and Thierry Marchand
* “Presto” (Walt Disney) A Pixar Animation Studios Production, Doug Sweetland
* “This Way Up”, A Nexus Production, Alan Smith and Adam Foulkes

Best live action short film

* “Auf der Strecke (On the Line)” (Hamburg Shortfilmagency), An Academy of Media Arts Cologne Production, Reto Caffi
* “Manon on the Asphalt” (La Luna Productions), A La Luna Production, Elizabeth Marre and Olivier Pont
* “New Boy” (Network Ireland Television), A Zanzibar Films Production, Steph Green and Tamara Anghie
* “The Pig” An M & M Production, Tivi Magnusson and Dorte Høgh
* “Spielzeugland (Toyland)” A Mephisto Film Production, Jochen Alexander Freydank

Achievement in sound editing

* “The Dark Knight” (Warner Bros.), Richard King
* “Iron Man” (Paramount and Marvel Entertainment), Frank Eulner and Christopher Boyes
* “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), Tom Sayers
* “WALL-E” (Walt Disney), Ben Burtt and Matthew Wood
* “Wanted” (Universal),Wylie Stateman

Achievement in sound mixing

* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Mark Weingarten
* “The Dark Knight” (Warner Bros.), Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo and Ed Novick
* “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke and Resul Pookutty
* “WALL-E” (Walt Disney),Tom Myers, Michael Semanick and Ben Burtt
* “Wanted” (Universal), Chris Jenkins, Frank A. Montaño and Petr Forejt

Achievement in visual effects

* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton and Craig Barron
* “The Dark Knight” (Warner Bros.), Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Tim Webber and Paul Franklin
* “Iron Man” (Paramount and Marvel Entertainment), John Nelson, Ben Snow, Dan Sudick and Shane Mahan

Adapted screenplay

* “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), Screenplay by Eric Roth, Screen story by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord
* “Doubt” (Miramax), Written by John Patrick Shanley
* “Frost/Nixon” (Universal), Screenplay by Peter Morgan
* “The Reader” (The Weinstein Company), Screenplay by David Hare
* “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight), Screenplay by Simon Beaufoy

Original screenplay

* “Frozen River” (Sony Pictures Classics), Written by Courtney Hunt
* “Happy-Go-Lucky” (Miramax), Written by Mike Leigh
* “In Bruges” (Focus Features), Written by Martin McDonagh
* “Milk” (Focus Features), Written by Dustin Lance Black
* “WALL-E” (Walt Disney), Screenplay by And

FUCK YOU!

2009-01-20T17:08:00.005-05:00

You twee-loving arrested-adolescent cutesy-wutesy hipster bullshit fucks. Fuck each and every last one of you. And get out of Brooklyn!!!

Thanks to Noel Murray for writing the review I've been wanting to read for quite some time. I heard about this flick a while back and it made me want to punch face. Glad to hear someone agrees.

Text bold by yours truly to accentuate the awesomeness of this review.

From the AV Club:

Paper Heart

Director: Nicholas Jasenovec (88 min.)
Cast: Charlyne Yi, Michael Cera, Jake Johnson
Headline: Alternative comedian goes looking for love, is unsure if she’s found it
Indie type: Faux-profound faux-doc

Report: Here’s another movie like Cold Souls in which the actors play “themselves” in a plot rooted in an abstract concept. Ostensibly a documentary about the existence of “love” and whether comedian/performance-artist/flibbertigibbet Yi will ever find a love of her own, Paper Heart cuts between scenes of Yi grilling everyday Americans about their romantic histories and scenes of her embarking on a new relationship with puppyish actor Michael Cera. Jasenovec and Yi want to play with the idea of documentary realism and human emotion, by showing scenes of genuine human interaction and then pulling back to reveal that they’re just “scenes.” But beyond the fact that this kind of “living in the camera eye” experiment has been done to death, Paper Heart fails because the very idea of making a playful documentary about whether love exists is, let’s be honest, incredibly dopey. (And I mean “dope” in every sense of the word.) And it doesn’t help that Yi comes off like every arrested-adolescent college sophomore who still carries a lunchbox and thinks kissing is icky, even though she’s still enamored of the idea of having a boyfriend (in an elementary school, passing-notes-at-lunch kind of way). True, those horrible, horrible people are very much a part of American life—they’re a byproduct of a culture in which growing the hell up has become less and less of a priority—but their habits and ways have been pretty well dissected in the recent films of Andrew Bujalski, Joe Swanberg and Greta Gerwig, all of whom apply a fair amount of self-criticism to their inside-out depictions of prolonged post-grad juvenilia. Yi, on the other hand, apparently thinks this crap is still cute. So she concoct this quirk-beset quasi-documentary in which people talk about “love” as though it has nothing to do with commitment, responsibility, sharing, nurturing, and—not incidentally—sex. Frankly, I’ve been over these kinds of movies (and attitudes) for some time now. But there’s really no place for Paper Heart in a post-Humpday world.

Grade: D-

Revisit: Stroszek

2009-01-20T15:46:00.003-05:00

An Anchor Bay release 1976

Written & Directed by Werner Herzog

In Berlin, an alcoholic man, recently released from prison, joins his elderly friend and a prostitute in a determined dream to leave Germany and seek a better life in Wisconsin.

Herzog's second masterpiece with muse Bruno S., Stroszek is a deconstruction of the American Dream as it is confronted by reality, and (as always!) the inability to communicate. Bruno expects riches when he comes to the states, but he finds his girlfriend is still a whore and no one can understand him, nor he understand them. The film is sad, beautiful, and hilarious. Typical Herzog firing at all cylinders. A must see.

SPOILER: THIS IS THE FAMOUS ENDING SEQUENCE, WHICH IS GODDAMN AMAZING

Revisit: The Dark Crystal

2009-01-20T15:32:00.004-05:00

A Universal Pictures release 1982

Directed by Jim Henson & Frank Oz

Written by Jim Henson & David Odell

On another planet in the distant past, a Gelfling embarks on a quest to find the missing shard of a magical crystal, and so restore order to his world.

I miss Jim Henson. The man was an incredibly vibrant creative force who's energy and creative philosophy you can feel pulsating through each of the film's he touched. The Dark Crystal, in particular, is brimming with Henson's personal touch -- from the bevy of creatures they created to populate the world, to the spot on characterizations of each Muppet, you can feel his presence hovering over the film throughout.

Dark Crystal is your typical fantasy fare: a strange land is in peril, and a young hero has been chosen to save the day. But what separates Dark Crystal from other fantasy epics is the amount of visual detail, flair, and attention paid to the most minute of characters. The Muppet performers are delightful, wringing personality and life out of every little piece of cloth. Particularly impressive are the vile Skeksis, who look like vultures mixed with Victorian era-elitists. A dinner scene featuring these disgusting creature is particularly hilarious, and like something straight out of Bunuel. The film is just as well shot too -- a beautiful landscape sequence shows thousands of Henson's Muppet creations marching through the desert, almost blending into the background as they slowly walk past.

If you like fantasy, Muppets, or just plain old cool special effects, Dark Crystal is a must see. The sheer magnitude of the production -- thousands of tiny little puppets and effects -- is almost unbelievable. They simply don't make movies like this any more.

Revisit: The Neverending Story

2009-01-20T15:19:00.002-05:00

A Warner Brothers film 1980

Directed by Wolfgang Petersen

Written by Wolfgang Petersen & Herman Weigel
Based on the novel by Michael Ende

A troubled boy dives into a wonderous fantasy world through the pages of a mysterious book.

This effects-ridden fantasy film by German filmmaker Wolfgang Peterson, best known for action set pieces like Air Force One and Das Boot, was a failure at the box office when it was released, but quickly garnered a large cult following, and in turn a bevy of sequels, as well as an animated series. Based (somewhat) on the book of the same name, it follows the usual fantasy epic trajectory -- a vague evil is plaguing the land, and some young buck hero is fabled to stop it. The effects aren't quite as impressive as The Dark Crystal, nor is the land littered with as many quirks and quips to really bring it to life. But the story is simple and engaging enough that I could see why children would enjoy it.

This Family Guy spoofs sums up the best parts of the film pretty well:

Revisit: Cobra Verde

2009-01-20T14:57:00.004-05:00

An Anchor Bay release 1987

Written & Directed by Werner Herzog

Based on the novel by Bruce Chatwin

In the Nineteenth Century, feared bandit Francisco Manoel da Silva (Cobra Verde) is sent to Almeria, in the West of Africa, to negotiate for slaves with the crazy African King Abomey, as opposition towards the trade grows.

This film is a tough one, especially for Herzog, who tries to combine his typical 'portrait of the insane' with the beauty of nature while discussing the most deplorable African slave trade. Klaus Kinski plays the bandit Cobra Verde -- his atypical step-behind-the-times-totally-batshit-crazy type character -- who is injected into the slave trade at the end of it's run. Language plays a major theme, as it does in many of Herzog's films -- the film stresses the difficulty of global communication in the 19th century and deals with cross-cultural miscommunication and misunderstanding. But ultimately the film suffers from the weight of its subject matter -- it can't help escape a sort of 'been there, done that' feeling for all the major players, and the deplorable nature of the slave trade overshadows the struggles of the titular character, no matter how insane we already know he may be. Aside from the fantastic end sequence (which I've posted below), and some gorgeous shots of the African landscape and peoples, the film fails to tread any new ground for it's director or performer.

Revisit: Phantom of the Paradise

2009-01-20T14:23:00.002-05:00

A 20th Century Fox release 1974

Written & Directed by Brian De Palma

Music by Paul Williams

A disfigured musician sells his soul for the woman he loves so that she will perform his music.

Silly, surreal, insane, dumb, infectious and hilarious, Brian De Palma's 1974 gothic rock opera Phantom of the Paradise is deliciously absurd, and one of my favorite films. Starring the beautiful Jessica Harper (best known from another one of my favorites, Suspiria) and legendary Muppets/Carpenters songwriter Paul Williams, the film is basically a suped-up, drugged up, 70's version of Phantom of the Opera.

The first time I watched this I was quite infuriated; I had no idea what was going on, what the point of it was, why the characters were breaking out into such awful songs. By the end of my first viewing, I was hooked. The film has a 'so bad it's good' quality to it, until you realize that it's actually a work of genius. The off-beat music, the ridiculous costumes, the absurd humor -- it all works together to form this highly energetic, completely insane film that can never be duplicated.

I have a particular fondness for this film, and I know not everyone enjoys it as much as I do. But give it a shot -- you may find it delightfully entertaining.

Revisit: Lifeforce

2009-01-20T14:00:00.003-05:00

A TriStar Pictures release 1985

Directed by Tobe Hooper

Written by Dan O'Bannon & Don Jakoby
Based on the novel by Colin Wilson

A space shuttle mission investigating Halley's Comet brings back a malevolent race of space vampires.

80's horror masters Wes Craven, John Carpenter, George Romero, and Tobe Hooper all enjoyed mixing pop genres with psychoanalytic sex, and Lifeforce is no exception -- in fact, it's entirely built upon that idea. Combining elements from Alien, Night of the Living Dead, and Nosferateu, Lifeforce happily borrows elements from sci-fi to horror and throws a bit of eroticism in the mix to create a silly mess of genre conventions, B-level special effects, and sexual commentary. The Species-like plot follows two British Secret Agents as they try to track down a (very) naked girl-alien-vampire-from-space who's sucking the life out of the unknowing public and turning her victims into bone-dry zombies who crave souls.

Really, this movie is only worth your time if you fall into any of these categories:

1) You're a sucker for mixed horror/sci-fi genre fare or enjoy the lesser known work of famed horror directors.

2) Constantly topless women and an insane amount of B-level special effects (explosions, people turning to dust, zombies, etc.) is your idea of a good time.

Keep an eye open for a young Patrick Stewart, and the fantastically hilarious faces he makes throughout the film.

Revisit: The Grand

2009-01-16T14:12:00.004-05:00

An Anchor Bay release 2007

Directed by Zak Penn

Written by Zak Penn & Matt Bierman

An improvisational comedy using a handful of actors playing characters competing in an actual poker tournament.

This movie is terrible. Not funny, not interesting, really dumb and lame. All sorts of bad.

Worst of all, they somehow convinced Werner Herzog to be in it, playing a German stereotype. I don't know if he needed the money to fund his next trip into the jungle or what, but poor Herzog. He provides the only real amusement, but at what cost?

According to IMDB, "The script was barely 29 pages long. Zak Penn had the actors improvise." Basically a bunch of actors did it as a favor for their writer/director pals and just decided to dick around. They probably had some fun making it, too. But it ain't no fun to watch. Seriously -- don't watch this crap.

Review: Revolutionary Road

2009-01-16T11:59:00.003-05:00

A Paramount Vantage release 2008

Directed by Sam Mendes

Written by Justin Haythe
Based on the novel by Richard Yates

A young couple living in a Connecticut suburb during the mid-1950s struggle to come to terms with their personal problems while trying to raise their two children.

This talky drama often feels more like a play than a film, but considering the talent of all involved that's not necessarily a bad thing. Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, and Kathy Bates reunite for the first time in ten years since 1998's Titanic in this stirring drama, deftly handled by Winselt's husband and Oscar winner Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition).

The script is a little overt at times -- there's a lot of yelling about 'dissatisfaction' and 'this empty/hopeless/bleak life' -- but the performers have such natural chemistry and talent that they manage to elevate some of the more leaden dialogue into something more honest and heart-wrenching. Particularly impressive is veteran stage actor and Bug star Michael Shannon, who's electric, albeit brief turn as the so considered 'insane' son of Kathy Bates literally tears the screen apart. This is some of the finest acting you'll see all year, and it's a shame Shannon's screen time is so brief, or he'd be a shoo-in Oscar contender.

What struck me most about this film was the amount of humor it managed to wring out of such bleak, serious material. I'm not talking inappropriate laughs, either -- there were some genuinely humorous moments in this film. A lot of this can be attributed to the talented performers, who create real people with real struggles, rather than stage performances or succumb to their star qualities.

The film is, ultimately, a condemnation of American conformity in the 1950's. Another reason for some of the weightiness of the dialogue is that the film begins with a couple already past their breaking point. April's acting aspirations are revealed and cut down immediately in the opening scenes -- from here on out we are meant to understand her sacrifice to Frank and their suburban lifestyle. Frank, on the other hand, has no real aspirations of his own, and so his inability to look beyond the life they've already established is a natural track. Doing the minimum to get by at work without developing any alternative self, Frank finds himself earning a promotion -- a damning hypocrisy of the American workplace -- in contrast with April's taking concrete steps to accomplish their move to Paris. When that plan falls through, April becomes distraught, disillusioned, and broken -- the American dream is dead.

Winslet won a Golden Globe for her performance and is the front runner tapped for this year's Oscar -- much deserved. The film is carried by the actor's performances and hers is an especially difficult role. It's a crying shame to me that Mr. Shannon isn't receiving the same sort of accolades, but the mere fact that he can hold his weight with such heavy hitters shows a lot of promise for the future.

While not the best film of the year, or even the best condemnation of American conformity put to celluloid, Revolutionary Road is a good film, one worth seeking out if only for the performances. It also really makes me want to read the book by Richard Yates -- anything that makes me want to read I figure is a good thing.

Revisit: The Enigma of Kasper Hauser

2009-01-15T12:58:00.004-05:00

A New Yorker Films release 1975

Written & Directed by Werner Herzog

Based upon the true and mysterious story of Kaspar Hauser, a young man suddenly appears in Nuremberg in 1828, barely able to speak or walk. His benefactor attempts to integrate him into society, with intriguing results.

Herzog's Kasper Hauser tackles the German equivalent of the French L'Enfant sauvage -- a real life wild child, abandoned at birth and void of any linguistic or cultural understanding of the world. As doctors, scientists, and the cultural elite try to 'educate' the boy, tension mounts, and the child ultimately rejects civilization, preferring to run amok in nature.

But where Truffaut's L'Enfant Sauvage focuses on the struggles of the educator (indulgently, I might add, as Truffaut cast himself in the role of Dr. Itard), Herzog's film uses Hauser as a tool to question language, religion, and society as a whole.

After all, what would happen if a person had no concept of speech, of writing, of God? How would he react when presented with such things? Herzog tackles all these issues through Hauser's 'education', and, in typical Herzog fashion, they provide a springboard for some beautiful natural imagery and a condemnation of the 'unnatural' acts of man.

As always, Herzog's camera is constantly probing the Earth, and we get some beautiful shots here -- a gull picking apart a frog, plants spiraling out of the ground, shimmering lakes and stormy deserts. Likewise, Herzog cast the perfect actor as his idiot child -- Bruno S., the real life abandoned musician whose broken speech and awkward mannerisms blur the lines of reality and fiction. The New York Times published an amazing profile on Bruno S., Herzog's former muse and the start of Kasper Hauser. Check it out: Bruno S. NY Times Profile: From Berlin's Hole of Forgottenness, A Spell of Songs

Ultimately, I prefer Herzog's film over Truffaut's. Then again, I prefer Herzog over Truffaut in general. But where Truffaut saw drama in a doctor's attempt to conquer nature, Herzog found a character who could question the very fabric of life itself. The result is a much more profound and interesting film, one that challenges our conceptions of language and nature. Worth a gander.

Revisit: Heavy Metal

2009-01-14T14:46:00.004-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1981

Directed by Gerald Potterton

Written by Daniel Goldberg & Len Blum, based on the short stories of various authors

A glowing orb terrorizes a young girl with a collection of stories of dark fantasy, eroticism and horror.

A sci-fi snuff film wrapped in colorful kid's clothing, Heavy Metal is about as silly as pulp stories can get. Crossing film noir with science fiction, erotica, action thriller, fantasy and grunt war genres, it's a hodge-podge of adolescent testosterone with a kick ass soundtrack.

The animation is circa 80's Bakshi style, back when studios still believed (somewhat) that there was an adult audience for such things. Crude but colorful, I actually prefer this style to the current CGI kick. I don't think I've seen so much animated sex in my life -- it actually gets kind of awkward -- and a lot of the stories are complete schlock, but it's pretty entertaining nonetheless. No doubt aided by the awesome soundtrack, which features some killer tunes by Black Sabbath, Blue Oyster Cult, Devo, Nazareth, among others.

Interesting production note: Ivan Reitman produced, with Harold Ramis, Eugene Levy & John Candy doing multiple character voices.

Revisit: Ghostbusters

2009-01-14T14:08:00.003-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1984

Directed by Ivan Reitman

Written by Harold Ramis & Dan Aykroyd

Three unemployed parapsychology professors set up shop as a unique ghost removal service.

Ghostbusters is a classic, but it's always felt like one of those franchises that never really lived up to it's potential. The sequel is basically a rehash of the first, and while the cartoon was entertaining, the animation is barely passable by today's standards. Don't even get me started on Extreme Ghostbusters... extreme my ass.

What surprised me the most in revisiting this film is how paper thin the script is. The movie basically coasts by on the chemistry of its affable lead actors and the silliness of fake technical jargon. The special effects are spotty and the story is lose and ridiculous. But it's still wildly imaginative and entertaining, even after all these years.

Ghostbusters could seriously benefit from a revamp, assuming they don't go all Apatow and cast Seth Rogan and McLovin in it. They could do some crazy ghost effects and the possibilities within the concept are essentially endless. Here's to hoping Bill Murray gets his shit together and decides to don the old power pack for another go.

Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-14T13:28:00.003-05:00

A Paramount Pictures release 2008

Directed by David Fincher

Written by Eric Roth

A man is stricken with a bizarre condition and forced to go through life aging backwards.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is really long. And boring. And nothing like the book at all.

It's a shame too, because I really like Dave Fincher. Fight Club and Se7en are both wildly entertaining, and Zodiac is one of the most criminally under-appreciated masterpieces of all time. He's got a sharp, distinct visual style and a gritty sense of story. None of which serve this film in any real way.

Oh sure, Benjamin Button is pretty. The cinematography is gorgeous, lighting incredible, effects are grand, and Cate Blanchett looks damn fine in that leotard. But the film is all gloss and no depth; it's so vacant it makes Postal seem like an honest treatise on the sociological effects of 9-11 on American Imperialism and suburban violence.

NOTHING happens in this movie. Nothing worth noting at least. Benjamin ages backwards, but it doesn't seem to matter -- when he's old (young), people just make cracks about how spry he is, and when he's young (old), people just seem to want to sleep with him. Brad Pitt provides his pretty face but not much more in terms of emotions; he seems to just waltz through the movie as if nothing is even happening.

Part of the reason for that is the terrible, terrible script. The whole "aging backwards" thing is basically treated like a special effect -- if you took it out, you'd lose nothing but a few quips, a handful of jokes, and some cool special effects. Eric Roth took a fantastically funny short story, ran it through a shredder, mixed it up with some scenes that got cut from Forrest Gump, put it together with some duck tape and handed it to execs with the pretense that it's some big "meditation on life and death". What a crock of horse shit -- really it's a meandering mess that has absolutely no focus with a dash of pretension and a butt load of basic Hollywood romance.

None of which services Fincher's abilities. The guy can piggy back of most 70's era filmmakers, but Button is clearly old Hollywood, and Fincher flounders. The film doesn't know if it wants be a somber tale of woe, a fantasy epic, or a comedy, and it fails at all three. Fincher's dark color palate and brooding camera doesn't make it any more clear.

My advice: don't waste your time with this one. It commits the worst of movie crimes -- it's over 3 hours long and boring as hell. You're seriously better off watching Postal. Not joking.

Revisit: Uwe Boll's Postal

2009-01-14T13:06:00.002-05:00

A Vivendi Entertainment release 2008

Directed by Uwe Boll

Written by Uwe Boll & Bryan C. Knight

In the ironically named city of Paradise, a recently laid-off loser teams up with his cult-leading uncle to steal a peculiar bounty of riches from their local amusement park; somehow, the recently arrived Taliban have a similar focus, but a far more sinister intent.

Postal is easily one of the most crass, vile, despicable, idiotic, offensive, piece of shit movies I have ever seen. Written & directed by the über-awful Uwe Boll (unanimously considered and self-proclaimed worst filmmaker alive today), the film aims for every bottom barrel, low-blow, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink kind of joke imaginable, punctuated by random outbursts of extreme violence. Targets of comedy include terrorists, obese women, blacks, Jews, President Bush, welfare recipients, hippies, 9-11, Osama Bin Ladin, movie executives, conspiracy theorists, American corporations -- you name it, if it can somehow be twisted into something offensive or violent, it's in there.

To give you a sense of what I mean, here's the opening sequence:

For some reason Dave Foley gives a pretty damn good performance in the film and shows his cock for at least five minutes. Poor Dave Foley.

While the movie is pretty goddamn awful, it's much more well made than any of Boll's previous efforts -- the lighting is well done, edits relatively smooth, and effects surprisingly... effective. All in all I didn't mind watching it because: 1) it didn't hurt my eyes and 2) I was pretty damn stoned. I even chuckled a bit at some parts. After all, I'm a crass man, and I like crass humor. But still, it amazes me that this film even made it past the scripting level. It's really that vile and tactless.

I'm sure this film will slowly but surely develop a small cult following and one day be considered by a select group to be a work of idle genius. Some people just like really stupid shit. To be fair, it does have the trimmings of a cult film. But it also lacks any sort of dignity or redeeming value, short of its tasteless jokes. For the overly curious only.

Yeah, fuck you too, buddy...

Review: Synechdoche, New York

2009-01-13T14:18:00.003-05:00

A Sony Pictures Classics release 2008

Written & Directed by Charlie Kaufman

Of Synechdoche, New York, Manohla Dargis of the New York Times writes: "To say that Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York” is one of the best films of the year or even one closest to my heart is such a pathetic response to its soaring ambition that I might as well pack it in right now."

I wish I shared her enthusiasm.

Synechdoche is ambitious, for sure, but that doesn't make it good. Mr. Kaufman misses the mark so spectacularly it's surprising he hasn't committed suicide yet.

I don't say that because the film isn't well made -- it is, particularly for a debut director, technically impressive. But the ideology behind it is so sickening and sad that it prohibits me from appreciating it. Synechdoche isn't a reflection or exploration of life -- it's an active stance against it.

Philip Seymour Hoffman plays an unsuccessful theater director named Caden Cotard. Being a Kaufman film, we know from the very first frame that this character is doomed. Doomed from the start. As he struggles with his creative bankruptcy, Caden opts to analyze every instance of his life through recreation and reenactment, thanks to the help of a sizable grant and a cast of dedicated actors. This would be fine, if it weren't a tactic deployed by depressed teenagers everywhere, and Caden were a likable character. He's not.

Caden is depressed, you see. Understandable. His life sucks and he is doomed. Perhaps if there were some light at the end of the tunnel he might cheer up a bit (and so would the audience). But there isn't any -- only death. And so it goes, over and over, with a dab of surrealism here and there to keep things interesting (and confusing. What the hell was the burning house metaphor for? It appears in the film at least three times and seems to be a differently symbol each time, but for what? Nothing as far as I can tell).

Ultimately the film is about life, death, and trying to make your mark. Caden fails, miserably, to impact the people and world around him because he is selfish, self-absorbed, and scared. He's an asshole. That's fine, but I don't want to watch that character get nowhere for 3 hours of my life. I could use that time for something else.

That's my biggest beef with this film -- ideologically it's so bleak and asinine that I don't understand why anyone would want to watch it to begin with. The character appears to be trying to make something of himself, but his tactics are so childish and futile it prevents him from moving forward. He is stagnant from the first frame onward, and in turn the film is stagnant.

There is some humor in there -- especially in the beginning -- but it wears thin as the film moves towards its final act. By the last third, I was just bored. I didn't care about Caden, I didn't care about his play, and I didn't care about the movie.

Interestingly enough, a lot of this years big movies have dealt with the concept of life and death -- Benjamin Button and The Wrestler, being two standouts. While The Wrestler was equally depressing, I found myself rooting for the main character. I couldn't do that with Synechdoche -- there is simply no one or nowhere to latch on to.

Several film critics have pointed out that this is a film that demands multiple viewings, and it will be analyzed and scrutinized by film students for years to come. I only have one question for those people: Why?

Revisit: Ratatouille

2009-01-13T13:52:00.006-05:00

A Pixar film 2007

Directed by Brad Bird & Jan Pinkava

Written by Brad Bird & Jan Pinkava & Jim Capobianco

Remy is a young rat in the French countryside who arrives in Paris, only to find out that his cooking idol is dead. When he makes an unusual alliance with a restaurant's new garbage boy, the culinary and personal adventures begin despite Remy's family's skepticism and the rat-hating world of humans.

It took me over a year to sit down and watch Ratatouille because I have my reservations about Pixar. I tend to find their animation technically impressive, but flat and disinteresting, especially the color schemes (very purple and yellow), character designs, and all too fluid movement. Likewise the writing, while tightly wound, is often very formulaic, safe, and soft. The films hit the right beats, but all too well. For a company that puts so much individual care into each of their films, they sure seem to churn them out conveyor belt style. Not too mention most of the anthropomorphized characters could easily be substituted for humans and not much would change.

After watching, I still don't understand why this film was so well received. The animation is flat and bubble-like, the story has the same elements as every other Pixar film (an anthropomorphized animal is 'different' from the pack, gets separated, is sad about being lost but learns to love it, etc etc), and the humor is so safe it's practically non-existent. This is a kids movie -- Pixar only makes kids movies, let's be clear -- but where's the adventure? Where's the edge? Where is anything interesting? Why am I watching this?

Technically I am impressed -- don't get me wrong, the amount of tiny detail that gets its due is impressive -- but ultimately the film is unsatisfying. I really wish Pixar would grow a pair and make a goddamn movie worth watching. I still haven't seen Wall-E so maybe my feelings will change after that, but nothings done it for me yet...

Revisit: Street Trash

2009-01-13T13:37:00.004-05:00

A Synapse Films release 1987

Directed by J. Michael Muro

Written by Roy Frumpkes & J. Michael Muro

When a liquor store owner finds a case of "Viper" in his cellar, he decides to sell it to the local hobos at one dollar a bottle, unaware the drink causes its consumers to melt. Two homeless lads find themselves up against the effects of the toxic brew, as well as a Vietnam vet with sociopathic tendencies, and the owner of the junkyard they live in.

This inane horror-comedy is one of the dirtiest, grossest, grungiest things I've ever seen. If you're a fan of splatter flicks it's a must see. People explode, they melt into piles of goo, one guy even gets his dick ripped off. It's disgusting. And great.

The plot isn't important -- you could even watch it with the sound off, but I guess you'd lose some of those nasty sound effects. There is some commentary on post-Vietnam vets and their quality of life -- a great scene at night in the dump with a ranting vet and a terrifying pan shot stands out -- but you're not watching this flick for the social commentary. You're watching it for the blood.

Here are most of the great scenes. There's another one of these on youtube somewhere. I highly recommend seeking this out if you're a splatter fan but the casual movie goer might want to stay away, especially if you're squeamish.

Review: Man on Wire

2009-01-13T10:41:00.004-05:00

A Discovery Films release 2008

Directed by James Marsh

A documentary that follows the staging of tightrope walker Philippe Petit's daring, but illegal, high-wire routine performed between New York City's World Trade Center's twin towers in 1974.

I first learned of Philippe Petit when I was a freshman in college. I saw photographs of his daring tightrope walk between the Twin Towers and was instantly amazed by the image. He appeared to be walking on air, floating, literally dancing in the sky. It was unbelievable. Still is.

Man on Wire is a fantastic documentary that follows the events preceding Petit's famous walk, what some consider the "artistic crime of the century". It's not a flashy film, nor does it need to be -- the subject matter and main protagonist are in and of themselves so enigmatic and interesting that the film's composition barely matters. Focusing mainly on the planning and the event itself, the film often compares Philippe's artistic vision to a heist, using the bank robbery metaphor several times. But the profound beauty of Philippe's actions and the dedication of his cohorts make it a noble cause.

Perhaps what I took away most from this film is that this was a once in a lifetime event -- in the wake of terrorism and high security, a stunt like Philipe's is not only impossible physically, but philosophically. Public space isn't equated with public ownership in the same way; performance pieces like Philippe's rarely come without press releases, and tightrope walking is a particularly antiquated (and French) art form. But Man on Wire serves to celebrate and preserve that moment in time, in all its beauty. Easily the best documentary of 2008.

Revisit: Super Fly

2009-01-13T10:23:00.004-05:00

A Warner Brothers Picture 1972

Directed by Gordon Parks Jr.

Written by Phillip Fenty

A cocaine dealer who begins to realize that his life will soon end with either prison or death decides to build an escape by making his biggest deal yet.

Super Fly is not a good movie. It's a trashy, poorly shot, sloppy, boring, silly, incoherent mess. There's little to no action, tons of slow, extended sequences, terrible acting, and still image montages galore. That said, there are two redeeming factors to this film. One is Curtis Mayfield's soundtrack, which made him super-famous and stands today as one of the best soundtracks of all time. Mental Defective's Tim Slowikowski recently compiled a list of the best music moments in film and how this one is not included is beyond me. It's one of the major centerpieces, and the song appears at least 12 times throughout the film, which would be annoying if it weren't so damn good.

The second redeeming aspect is the long takes, which make for some of the most boring yet bizarrely engrossing moments in the film. The best example of this is an extended sex scene, which I can't seem to find online, but it's unmissable if you catch the film. It goes on for like 10 minutes and there are so many close ups it's almost obscene.

Super Fly was director Gordon Parks Jr.'s follow up to his debut film Shaft, a classic blaxploitation film. According to legend, the script for Super Fly was only 45 pages long, hence all the still images, cut aways and extended slow motion sequences. If you're a fan of blaxploitation, you've probably already seen this film, but if you're new to the genre, I wouldn't recommend this as the place to start.

Revisit: Murder By Death

2009-01-03T15:29:00.007-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1976

Directed by Robert Moore

Written by Neil Simon

Five famous literary detectives and their sidekicks are invited to a bizarre mansion to solve an even stranger mystery.

This screwball detective story takes jabs at some of the literary (and film) world's most popular crime-solving characters. Full of fast wordplay, puns, slapstick and absurdities, the humor is fairly antiquated (especially the Chinaman jokes), as are many of the spoofs -- in a few generations I doubt any one will get all the Thin Man or Charlie Chan references -- but it's all kept light and breezy and in good fun, and the talented cast helps give it legs of it's own. What other screwball comedy can boast a cast comprised almost entirely of Oscar winners and nominees? The flick has David Niven, Maggie Smith, Peter Sellars, Alec Guinness, Estelle Winwood, James Cromwell, Eileen Brennan, Elsa Lanchester -- all of whom were nominated or won an Oscar in their careers. Not too mention it features Truman Capote in his first and only screen role.

But the star of the show is Peter Falk. His Sam Diamond - the hard headed, fast talking, trigger happy take on the classic Sam Spade character from noir detective stories - has all the best dialogue, and the best delivery. He even manages to upstage Peter Sellars, which is pretty incredible. Some quotes:

Sam Diamond: The last time that I trusted a dame was in Paris in 1940. She said she was going out to get a bottle of wine. Two hours later, the Germans marched into France.

Sam Diamond: Why don't you push her wheelchair down the driveway? We got business here!

Sam Diamond: Wouldn't you know, out of gas.
Tess Skeffington: I saw a station about five miles back, Sam.
Sam Diamond: [hands her a gas can] I want you to know I'm gonna be waitin' for ya, baby

Dick Charleston: Another diversion. He gives us meaningless clues to confuse us, dangles red herrings before our eyes, bedazzles us with bizarre banalities, while all the time precious seconds are ticking away towards a truly terrible murder still to come.
Sam Diamond: You're good, Charleston. You're not my kind of cop, but you're smart and you smell good. You're not a pansy, I know that, but what the hell are ya?
Dick Charleston: Classy, I suppose.

Sam Diamond: Shut up, all of ya's. Nobody move!
Dick Charleston: What is it?
Sam Diamond: I have to go to the can again. I don't wanna miss nothin'.

All classic. His mysogionisty insecurities provide some of the heartiest laughs, and are probably the most likley to translate in years to come. Falk's range is really incredible.

Worth a view if you're a fan of old literary detective stories, Clue, or older styles of comedy they just don't seem to make any more. Also, Peter Falk. God bless that man.

Review: Repo! The Genetic Opera

2008-11-14T10:47:00.003-05:00

A Lionsgate film 2008

Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman

Writing credits:
Darren Smith (screenplay)
Terrance Zdunich (screenplay)

A worldwide epidemic encourages a biotech company to launch an organ-financing program similar in nature to a standard car loan. The repossession clause is a killer, however.

This horror-musical directed by Darren Lynn Bousman (Saw II-IV) was a passion project, and it shows. Clearly made for the cult-niche market, Repo! is a mess of electronic music, goth imagery, pulp violence and slapstick humor. While by no means a good film, it will certainly find its place amongst those for whom it was made, as well as a few stragglers, like myself.

Why did I like this movie? I'm not sure. Maybe it's because I have a penchant for horror-musicals -- the audacity, the self-awareness, the silliness of it all was reminiscent of Phantom of the Paradise but for the digital age. Maybe because I've never quite seen anything like it before.

It has it's problems for sure -- comic book style title cards display the action before the film kicks in, revealing way too much information. The acting and singing are terrible. The music has no hooks and isn't memorable. The color palate is disgusting and terribly digital and overexposed. But that's the charm. You can tell so much heart and soul went into making it that eventually it just sucks you in. And the self-awareness that holds throughout adds a lot of humor. It's a pretty damn funny movie.

The film was released in a road show format earlier this year, and already had a sizable cult following before its first date. The showing I went to was completely sold out hours before the showing. I can't say I recommend it, but one look at the trailer, and you can immediately tell if this film is for you.

Man, I Wish It Were March

2008-11-14T09:36:00.004-05:00

Every time a new Watchmen item is released I get more excited/worried about this film. Watchmen is my all time favorite comic book and one of my favorite books in general. It's a stunning psychological work, incredibly thought provoking and layered with meaning. Dark Knight proved that comic book movies don't have to be all action and silly costumes. Let's hope they get this one right as well.

Remembering the Pioneer Theater

2008-11-07T10:17:00.003-05:00

Dear Pioneer Friends, Filmmakers, & Film Lovers,

Ten years ago, when we began construction on The Pioneer, we were told we were crazy - that no single screen, indie-oriented, 99 seat theater, east of Avenue A, could possible survive. But for nine years, we did - showcasing the best of truly independent cinema, presenting restored classics (from The Last Picture Show to Ace in the Hole), curating special programs (from Luis Guzman Night to the 42nd Street Smut Show), hosting guest filmmakers (from Robert Altman and Robert Downey to Steve Buscemi and Richard Kelly) and partnering with local film organizations including the IFP, Filmmaker’s Co-op, Cinema Tropical, Fangoria, Women in Film and Television, Cinewomen, Third I, Slamdance, Docfest, and many more...

We’ve been blessed that The Earth Mother, Mel Cooley, The Dude, and the other Two Boots pizzas have been able to support our labor of love all these years, but now, with our lease ending and a rent hike looming, it’s no longer economically feasible to keep the theater going. Friday, October 31st at midnight, will be our last regular screening, appropriately: Night of the Living Dead.

We want to thank our amazing staff, past and present, and we want to thank you, our loyal audience, for your patronage over the years. Please, PLEASE, keep supporting independent films and independent theaters.

Finally, on Friday, November 7th, we’ll be having a goodbye party starting at 6pm - free movies, popcorn, and reminiscences. Please come by!

I used to live a few short blocks from this theater, one of the only true "independent" art houses left in New York City. These guys showed everything, from
classic Kubrick and Sam Fuller, to pop horror, splatter, and grind, to thought provoking documentaries. They often supported local artists, allowing patrons to rent screens and arranging one-off screenings of no-budget features and shorts. They also screened a lot of Gay/Lesbian themed works and were a great outlet for progressive film-making.

One of my fondest memories of that place was the night I met Bill Plympton there. He was screening his latest feature Hair High (which is an incredible film, by the way, if you're an animation junkie like myself). I arrived like an hour or so early and got to sit with Bill and chat about animation, John Kricfalusi, New York, Plymptoons and much more. He signed a bunch of DVD's for me and was a truly gracious guy. To get to meet one of my heroes - and then watch him introduce his latest work - I can only thank the Pioneer for that.

The Pioneer is/was probably the only theater in New York still brave enough to house low-brow and high-art under one roof. The fact that they're closing down - regardless the reason - is a tragedy for the current New York cinema scene. It will truly be missed.

Remake: Oldboy

2008-11-07T10:03:00.005-05:00

Another tip for the bad idea file: /film is reporting Will Smith & Steven Speilberg plan on remaking Chan-Wook Park's Oldboy

Speilberg & Will Smith to remake Oldboy?

There is no reason to remake this movie, but Hollywood's going to do it eventually anyway. It's been in the pipeline since the original was released in the states in 2005. But Will Smith is a very odd choice for this -- I don't think he has the gritty sneer to be able to pull of the titular character. Spielberg is an odd choice as well, considering the dark tone and feel of the film. And how will the hyper-but purposeful-violence of the original translate in a senseless Hollywood version?

Who knows. Who cares. Here's the side-scrolling hammer fight sequence that made the original Oldboy famous. Go rent this flick if you haven't seen it.

Hollywood, you disappoint me.

Revisit: Bad Taste

2008-11-03T12:30:00.003-05:00

A WingNut/New Zealand Film Commission release 1987

Written & Directed by Peter Jackson

A crackpot team of agents investigate a group of aliens that chase human flesh for their intergalactic fast-food chain.

Peter Jackson made this film over a series of weekends across four years, starting in 1983. Hard to believe that twenty years later he'd be picking up a trove of Oscars. Continuity errors and goofs abound, but Jackson's distinct sense of humor and visual language finds its footing here. Lots of crazy close-ups and meandering hand-held pans.

The plot is paper-thin and there's a lot of scenes with characters just running through the woods, but Jackson's effects are stellar and the sound design is unbelievable. One of the grossest sounding movies I've ever seen.

If you're a fan of splatter, you've already seen this. Worth a gander if you're a fan of Peter Jackson or just enjoy cheesy horror.

Review: Zack & Miri Make a Porno

2008-11-03T11:31:00.005-05:00

A Weinstein Company release 2008

Written & Directed by Kevin Smith

Lifelong platonic friends Zack (Seth Rogan) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) look to solve their respective cash-flow problems by making an adult film together.

You would think that crafting a painfully by-the-numbers romance story line would allow plenty of wiggle room for jokes. Not the case with Zack & Miri, which may go on record for being the most predictable romantic comedy disguised as raunch to come out in ages.

Zack and Miri are platonic best friends and are both broke. So when a video of Miri in some questionable attire becomes an internet sensation, of course it's only logical that they film a porno together to collect some quick cash.

Only, that doesn't make sense at all. And what follows is a trajectory of the most predictable kind: they have sex and realize they love each other, things get awkward for a moment, but it all works out.

Now a person could probably figure all that out from the trailer - it's called 'convention' for a reason. But assuming that is the template, what makes a movie standout is how it goes about utilizing that template. In this case, raunchy, disgusting, hilarious jokes.

Only there weren't many. There were lots of slow reaction shots of Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks. Lots of really awkward conversation scenes about whether they were/weren't in love. But very few jokes. The funniest parts of the film came from the performances - namely Craig Robinson & Justin Long - and weren't derived from the scenes or set pieces.

Say what you will about Kevin Smith - self-aggrandizing, talentless, fat - his films characterized my youth. Growing up in Jersey, they spoke to me and many others at a very young age, and showed us that all you needed to make a movie was a simple, clever set up and some good dialogue.

Well, Zack & Miri doesn't have any good dialogue. It's not witty, nor clever, nor does it even make much sense. The performances are mildly amusing, but none of the actors are in top form. I simply can't recommend seeing it.

Revisit: A Nightmare on Elm Street Part V: The Dream Child

2008-10-31T09:08:00.003-05:00

A New Line Cinema release 1989

Directed by Stephen Hopkins

Writing credits:
Wes Craven (characters)
John Skipp (story)
Craig Spector (story)
Leslie Bohem (story & screenplay)

Alice, having survived the previous installment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son?

A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of my favorite horror flicks of all time. Combining slasher scares with meta-physical reality, Wes Craven crafted an original and truly scary film that took advantage of the 80's gore effects boom. It also spawned a slew of knock-offs and an obsession with altered-reality/dreams/paranormal activity that dominated 80's horror.

The sequels all tinker with the nightmare formula a little bit - Freddy's abilities to haunt and scare and the definitions of the dream world are all a bit fluid - but one element always keep these films from being a predictable slasher flick: the kills. Freddy Krueger murders are always an excuse for outlandish, over-the-top effects, and the crazier the better.

In this film, the fifth in the series, Krueger returns in an attempt to inhabit the soul of Alice's unborn child. The precedence for Freddy's soul-stealing was set in the second film - which is universally hated, I believe, for having gone astray from the original formula - and is no less ridiculous here.

Neither are the kills, which range from a ridiculous comic book style slashing to Seven-style force feeding to the infamous "Freddybike". This film is all about the effects, which take a cue from the works of Rob Bottin (The Thing) and feature a lot of flesh mutation and slippery tendons.

By this point in the series, Freddy had developed a strong personality too, which also separates it from many other slasher flicks. He's given some hilarious quips and says the word "bitch" a lot.

Look out for a great scene that addresses the subject of abortion (if Alice just got rid of the damn baby, Freddy couldn't keep killing). The dialogue is priceless.

Revisit: Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives

2008-10-30T19:24:00.004-05:00

A Paramount Pictures release 1986

Written & Directed by Tom McLoughlin

Tommy Jarvis battles the infamous Jason for a third time after returning to his grave and accidently bringing him back to life.

The original Friday the 13th is basically a Halloween rip off with Kevin Bacon and a few twists. This film, the sixth in the series, wears the whole slasher killing sexy teens formula on its sleeve so much that it doesn't even bother to explain Jason's return. His corpse just gets struck by lighting and suddenly the slaughter begins.

I guess it's good that they cut to the chase. And some of the slaughter is sweet. The scene where Jason punches straight through the dudes heart is pretty kick ass.

Overall though this shit pales in comparison to the effects heavy Nightmare on Elm Street stuff, or the works of John Carpenter & David Cronenberg several years earlier. Maybe it's not fair to compare, but I still think there's room in slasher flicks for some pretty hefty visceral gore.

Revisit: Blast of Silence

2008-10-29T09:09:00.009-05:00

A Magla Production 1961

Directed by: Allen Baron

Written by: Allen Baron (writer), Waldo Salt (narration written by)

Having been 'away' for some time professional killer Frankie Bono returns to New York to do another job: assassinate some mid-level mobster. Although intending to avoid unnecessary 'contact' while carefully stalking his victim Bono is recognized by an old fellow from the orphanage, whose calm and unambitious citizen's life and happy marriage contrast heavily with Bono's solitary and haunted existence. Exhausted and distracted Bono makes another mistake, but his contract is not one to back out of.

Though film-noir was a relatively dead genre by 1960, this film by Allen Baron is often cited as a classic example of the genre. Not a revisionist work like, say, Cassavete's Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Blast of Silence relies on more traditional noir elements to resounding effect.

Voice-Over narration, written by then black-listed writer Waldo Salt (Midnight Cowboy), provides the meat of the story. While the film is famed for this narration, and it is a tradition of the genre, I found it particularly distracting. I'll admit there's a handful of lines in there that are absolute gold ("Pay for the woman, and take her to a dark corner -- where no one can see your face"), it's pretty unnecessary.

Why? Because Baron - a first time director - gets the most out of his camera and his actors. Baron himself plays the lead, the unraveling hitman, to startling effect. Larry Tucker (most well know as the writer partner of Paul Mazursky) gives a commanding and incredibly enjoyable performance as Big Ralph, an overweight seedy gun salesman. But most impressive is Baron's camera, which captures some amazing shots of New York City. The film is downright gorgeous. And it tells us everything we need to know - without the VO.

Criterion recently put out a great remastered version of this flick, which Martin Scorsese often cites as his favorite New York City film. If you're a fan of the genre, this is a must see. And at a mere 77 minutes, it's a swift, easy watch.

High & Low Remake

2008-10-29T08:57:00.004-05:00

Mamet & Nichols to Remake Kurosawa's High & Low -- /film.com

Been a while since I've posted on here, but this news item prompted me out of retirement. Mike Nichols (Closer, The Graduate) and David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross) plan on remaking Kurosawa's classic 1963 drama High & Low. The remake is supposedly going to be produced by Scott Rudin and Martin Scorsese.

This is probably my favorite Kurosawa film, one that's made with a lot of heart and technical skill. The film tells the story of a rich man who must pay ransom for the son of one of his employees. It explores the economic disparity between rich & poor in post-war Japan. Kurosawa's first film to be shot in widescreen, his staging is absolutely incredible. He knew just where to put his actors to maximize each shots impact. And the presentation of geography and the city landscape is also unbelievable.

Normally I'm flat out against remakes of perfect films (and this film is perfect), but my feelings are mixed on this one. While it could never hold a candle to the original, it could be very interesting thematically, considering the current political and economic climate.

Give the original film a look, if you haven't already. You won't be disappointed.

Also, expect more regular posts from here on out. I'm watching more movies and want to make a better record of what I've seen.

NYJSFF

2008-02-22T12:12:00.001-05:00

David Lynch on the iPhone

2008-01-07T19:27:00.000-05:00

Top Movies of 2007

2007-12-31T15:10:00.000-05:00

My favorite films of the year thus far:

And there are still many more I have to see... Things may change after voting for this year's Independent Spirit Awards begins.

Here's this year's NYC Screening Room dates

Review: I Am Legend

2007-12-29T11:45:00.001-05:00

A Warner Brothers picture 2007

Directed by Francis Lawrence

Writing credits:
Mark Protosevich (screenplay)
Akiva Goldsman (screenplay)
Richard Matheson (novel)

After a supposed miracle vaccine turns the world's population into undead mutants, one scientist (Will Smith) fights for a cure.

This apocalyptic effects extravaganza suffers from the worst of Hollywood flaws - a poor script. The idea itself is great: a man, perhaps the last alive in the entire world, struggles to find a cure for a devastating vaccine that was supposed to cure cancer. One man alone in the world... think of all the things you could do with that concept! Well, this movie doesn't do anything interesting, and is riddled with plot holes and hokey movie-science.

SPOILERS! WARNING!

Legend sets up some basic facts for the environment and the effects of the virus: 1) Manhattan is completed quarantined, as the bridges were all blown up. 2) The virus is spread both air-borne and through saliva. 3) The creatures effected by the virus show no signs of human behavior, social skills, or human intelligence.

The film then systematically debunks all of these rules through action.

Questions:

If Manhattan has no road access, how do Anna and her son Ethan, Smith's supposed saviors, drive their car onto the island? Where do the deer and lions roaming the streets come from?

How come 1% of the population is immune the virus? Why are some animals effected by the airborne virus, but others are not? At what point did the virus stop curing cancer and start killing people?

The film spends time setting up this arch-nemesis type creature who appears bigger than the other mutant humans and seems to exhibit some basic behavior skills. For example, he runs after the woman creature Smith catches; he sets up a trap for Smith; he leads the creatures in the attack on Smith's fortress. But the script doesn't elaborate on this idea any further, and goes out of its way to suggest that this character is merely a freak anomaly. So what's the point? Likewise, why did Smith kill himself at the end? There's no reason for it - he could have easily tossed the grenade and hid with the woman and things would have turned out the same.

There is also a lot of coincidence and repetition of scenes. Smith's character just so happens to find the cure as the creatures are breaking into his fortress - just like how Anna just so happens to show up right as Smith is about to kill himself. Smith hunts deer at least twice. Why do we need to see this more than once? Why is he hunting deer in the first place? It's not like he needs them for food. Repetition is a tall tell sign of poor screen writing.

The landscape scenes look gorgeous - especially on IMAX - but the creature effects are extremely second rate. They could have easily just dressed up a bunch of people as zombies but for some reason they used this incredibly fake looking CGI.

Millions of people have already seen this movie and it blows my mind that no one has taken the time to just think about what the film presents. Two minutes of meditation on the story reveals that it's a pretty incoherent, illogical pile of crap - not even in a nit-picky sense, but on a basic transitional level. See it on IMAX, if you must see it at all.

Macho Feminism pt I

2007-12-21T13:53:00.000-05:00

Macho Feminism, or What Your Girlfriend Could Get Out of Watching Rambo

A Look at Female Spectatorship & Genre

The role of the female in cinema as both screen presence and spectator exists as a highly debated struggle between filmic representation and psychological theory. In her essay Visual Pleasure in Narrative Cinema, Luara Mulvey explores the power of the female image in relation to cinema and psychoanalysis. Early in this essay, she writes: "Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his fantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of a woman still tied to her place as bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning" (Mulvey 838). In simpler terms, Mulvey describes the woman as an object of fantastic lust trapped in a male-oriented society. She furthers this concept by discussing Freud's notions of scopophilia and the voyeuristic gaze. According to Freud, it is natural human instinct to regard other people as objects, often subjecting them to controlling, curious, or erotic gazes. Mulvey aligns this with the cinema, considering film a stimulant of the voyeuristic instinct and separating it into a contradition between the libido and ego. Out of this contradiction, she surmises, forms identification processes and elicits sexual desire. From there she continues to outline the cinematic functions of the female: "as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator" (Mulvey 841-42). She describes the current Hollywood narrative format as supportive of the male role in accelerating story, and thus controlling fantasy and gaze. She writes: "the male protagonist is free to command the stage, a stage of spatial illusion in which he articulates the look and creates the action" (Mulvey 842). Consequentially, spectatorss can identify with male protagonists, and indrectly possess the sexualized female. Mulvey broadens these ideas with more psychoanalysis; the threat of sexual castration, represented by the female screen presence, forces the male to escape this anxiety via the destruction or fetishizing of the female.

Mary Ann Doane's essay Film & the Masquerade: Theorizing the Female Spectator takes these concepts one step further, allowing room for the female audience. Like Mulvey, Doane channels her theories through Freud and psychoanalysis. She writes that the voyeur must maintain distance between objects and self in order to create desire, and that the female spectator can never form this distance because of a "claustrophobic closeness" to the female body present on screen (Doane 24). Too easily related to the objectified, female spectators must therefore readily accept a masculinized form of spectatorship. Doane likens this to the transvestite; mobile in their sexual identity, females can steal masculine traits, and often compensate for this masculinity by excessively flaunting femininity. This explains the creation of the femme fatale character, a sort of sexually empowered distinctly feminine mask. Doane fuels her article with cinematic examples of desirous, gaze controlling females - all of whom are punished or meet untimely deaths. She concludes by almost dismissing the feminine spectral gaze entirely.

My interest in these theories lies not in general assessments of feminine spectatorship, but rather as they apply to specific film genres. Though it is fair to characterize the female role in cinema, both as spectator and image, according to current pyschological practices, I do not feel it is worthwhile to apply these theories to cinema as a whole. Rather, it is of great necessity to study the feminine gaze in relation to genre and the evolving trends of cinematic practice. Genre, defined as the categorical division of artistic works based on specific criterion, shapes a great deal of cinematic traditions and representations. How an object appears and functions on screen depends significantly on the genre or genres in which a film is based. For example, a gun in a horror film might signify death or fear to the spectator, while at the same time affirming safety or security in an action thriller. This does not stand to negate Mulvey or Doane's claim that women are assigned certain (often surface or erotic) positions in cinema, but rather calls for the further exploration of these positions as they are related to distinct filmic types.

Other film critics seem to agree with me. Linda Williams writes: "this [feminine] victimization is very different in each type of film and cannot be accounted for simply by pointing to the sadistic power and pleasure of masculine subject positions punishing or dominating feminine objects" (Williams 732). In her essay Film Bodies: Gender, Genre & Excess, Williams complicates Doane's assertions about the female spectator by raising questions specific to genre. For example, Williams discusses Horror, a genre referred to by Doane as an example of defeating feminie gaze, claiming that even in the most violent of feminine suffering, there must always remain a component of either power or pleasure for the woman victim. Similarly, Williams argues that while melodrama might seem to drown female viewers in an excess of forced emotion, it also suggests and alignment with powerful matriarchal figures. Ultimately, she concludes: "the subject positions that appear to be constructed by each of the genres are not as gender-lionked and gender-fixed as has often been supposed" (Willaims 735).

But what happens when we remove the sexualized woman from the screen entirely? What if she is replaced by glorified male figures? What, if anything, shifts in gendered spectral gaze? In order to address these questions, we must find a film genre in which the female screen presence is rendered obsolete. The Macho Action film may fit this description.

Developed out of Hollywood's displacement of art to action in the 1980's, the Macho film places and emphasis on a sort of surreal masculinity where the male body occupies the main narrative focus. Fueled by a sort of weightless politics, these hyper-male heroes obliterate their way through thinly outlined, special-effects-laden espionage scenarios. Starring buff body-builders such as Arnold Schwartzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Chuck Norris, the Macho film glorifies the sculpted male figure, often focusing on the charm and sex appeal of the Macho while still remaining action packed. Camera use in these films general accents physical size, featuring extreme close-ups of biceps, triceps, pecks and other impressive physical attributes. These male bodies can also withstand extreme physical pain, as if they posses superhuman tolerance and can refocus their agony towards eliminating the enemy. And, interestingly enough, sexualized female presence in these films appears almost non-existent (Vincente).

Look out for Macho Feminism Part II coming soon!

WGA Strike

2007-11-20T13:52:00.000-05:00

Screenwriter Irv Brecher (Meet Me In St. Louis, Shadow of the Thin Man, Marx Bros' At The Circus) offers his perspective on current WGA strike.

The Western Heroes Dual Part III

2007-11-16T12:13:00.000-05:00

Starring two of the genre’s biggest names – John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart – The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance strips the Western of its window dressing, providing a reflection on the motifs and common themes that only a director as experienced in the genre as John Ford could produce. However, perhaps most striking are its competing protagonists who, through their dual natures, become a commentary on the Western hero and on the power of mythmaking, the film’s central theme.

Liberty Valance makes its dual protagonist structure quite clear from the very beginning. Stewart’s character, an established politician named Ransom Stoddard, heads to the small town of Shinbone for a funeral. Acting as narrator, he recounts the story of the deceased – John Wayne as Tom Doniphan – through flashback. This structure, coupled with the billing of two top stars, immediately implies dual protagonists.

Doniphan, “the toughest man south of the Picketwire”, is pragmatic and bound to nothing. Like Shane, he represents the savage side of the West: he lives in a house well outside of town, is nomadic and authoritative, and, most importantly, believes in the power of a gun. Doniphan doesn’t see much use for the law books and school teaching that Stoddard brings to the town of Shinbone. Stewart’s character represents civilization in its most pure, democratic, idealized form. A young lawyer from the East headed west to strike it big, Stoddard’s knowledge of the law, ability to read and write, and sheer idealism prove to be quite useful. However, over the course of the film, Stoddard finds that he needs to adapt to Doniphan’s more savage ways to survive. In the end, he comes out on top, remembered forever as “the man who shot Liberty Valance.”

This myth is the central point of the film: while Stoddard is memorialized for ending Valance’s reign, it was Doniphan who actually did the deed. Liberty Valance pits these two characters in direct competition and uses this structure to comment upon the myth-making abilities of the West. The fact that Stoddard is remembered for Valance’s death, and not Doniphan, shows how the West as an open frontier was rife with possibility for a man to prove himself – and how rumors could easily become truths by way of the press. As Maxwell Scott, editor of a now civilized Shinbone Star says, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

Doniphan is forgotten by nearly everyone at the end of the film. Unlike Shane, his valiant efforts and self-sacrifice are not lauded or memorialized, but hidden, rejected by those who control the myth-making process for the sake of civil progress. However, Stoddard’s civility is not portrayed as cut-and-dry as that in Shane either. Stoddard lapses into savage ways, and finds his well-intended career built on a myth. It is in such a way that the themes of Liberty Valance differs from that of Shane; whereas one films finds honor in the Western Hero, the other exposes a bittersweet reality.

Check out The Western Heroes Dual Part I & Part II!

5th Annual New York Jewish Student Film Festival

2007-11-08T14:41:00.000-05:00

The Western Heroes Dual Part II

2007-11-06T10:16:00.000-05:00

Directed by George Stevens and featuring Alan Ladd in the title role, Shane tells the story of a mysterious gunfighter who comes to the aid of an oppressed group of homesteaders. The film maintains much of the traditional iconography of the genre, from vast, sweeping landscapes to a sinister, gun-slinging villain. While consciously working within this set of images, Shane produces a vision of the West in which savage means are necessary for civil progress. The title implies that Shane, the almost miraculous gunfighter, is the main protagonist, but there are in fact two: Joe Starrett (Van Heflin), leader of the homesteaders, is equally important. These two protagonists are inexplicably linked, but embody certain opposing semantics of the West.

Shane is portrayed as a weary gunfighter, a wanderer with no place to hang his hat. He literally rides in from nowhere, his past a mystery never discussed. From the first shot of him riding on his horse, it is clear that Shane represents a dying breed of cowboy. Conversely, Joe Starrett is a family man who believes in the notion of private property and democratic organization. He represents civility, a new order of prosperity. Much of the narrative structure of the film relies on their relationship, their strengths and their weaknesses, to shape meaning.

Though wary of each other at first, the two are quickly presented as a team, working together to mutually improve quality of life. Joe hires Shane as an extra hand on the farm, providing him a temporary home, and the film shows how Shane’s cowboy qualities come in use. One scene boils it down into an easy metaphor: a tree stump too heavy for Joe to move by himself is lifted, with some strain, when he works with Shane. This scene could be interpreted as a summation of the movie; Joe can’t seem to shake the ranchers that want him off the land, but together with Shane, the two manage to put up a fight.

The oppression from the ranchers is much greater than that of a stump, however, and develops a much more complex relationship between the two protagonists. Both Shane and Starrett can fight physically – an extended fight sequence in the saloon exhibits this fact – but Shane’s quick-shot skills are necessary in keeping the film’s ultimate villain, a gun-for-hire named Jack Wilson (Jack Palance), at bay. Conversely, Shane’s presence irks some of the homesteaders, some of which feel they “don’t need no bodyguard” while others simply want to pack up and quit. Starrett’s unending optimism and oratory skills, coupled with his American ideals of individualized prosperity, manage to keep the homesteaders aligned even in the darkest of times, something Shane could not do. In turn, Shane and Starrett bridge together traits from both the savage and civil West that are necessary in accomplishing the plots ultimate goal – winning the land for the homesteaders.

However the narrative also pits the two characters in competition with one another, especially in relation to the Starrett family. Joe’s young son is constantly sizing his father up in comparison to Shane. He asks Joe many questions – “Could you shoot better than Shane? Could you whip him?” – that elaborate upon why Shane’s presence is so necessary for the homesteaders. Likewise, Joe’s wife, precautious but intrigued by the gunfighter, develops a flirting infatuation for Shane, which Starrett comes to recognize towards the end, admitting that if something were to happen to him, he’d at least know she’d be “taken care of and in good hands”.

This competition elaborates upon why the savage Westerner was so crucial, and helps glorify his nature, but the film remains conscious that he is a dying breed. Shane’s gun-toting way of life, though helpful in the circumstances, cannot work in the civil setting. He is conscious of this: “There's no living with a killing. There's no goin' back from one,” he says. “Right or wrong, it's a brand... a brand sticks. There's no goin' back... And there aren't any more guns in the valley.” The film ends with Shane riding back into the wilderness, but the shouts from Starrett’s son are a reminder that he is one cowboy that will not be forgotten.

Such is not the case for The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance...

Check out Part I
The Western Heroes Dual Part III coming soon!

The Western Heroes Dual, Part I

2007-11-02T12:17:00.000-05:00

As a film genre deeply rooted in the transposition of civilized and savage elements, the Western inherently allows for the exploration and establishment of specific, individualized moral codes. In turn, the Western offers a variety of protagonist archetypes: the outstandingly upright Ladds, the forthright and masculine Waynes, the morally ambiguous Eastwoods, the slightly on edge Stewarts. These Western Heroes may have spurs and a sense of ruggedness in common, but it’s their distinct moral personalities that made them legends. Perhaps this is why it is most interesting when a film places two protagonist types in a dual narrative structure. Aside from adding layers of tension to melodrama, dual protagonists allow for a tiered representation of the civilizing process; a kaleidoscope that refracts concepts of a blossoming America.

However that is not to say all Westerns with dual protagonist structures reach the same conclusions. Both Shane (1953) and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) feature dual protagonists, but their reflections on the civilized West are much different. Each film contains a ‘savage’ and ‘civil’ protagonist, and both favor the prospect of democratic growth. But where Shane shows clear praise for it’s savage hero, Liberty Valance paints a storybook West in which one myth is exchanged for another. The next few posts will be dedicated to exploring dual protagonists as they exist in these two films.

The Western Heroes Dual Part II coming soon!

Revisit: Ride the High Country

2007-10-30T09:23:00.000-05:00

An MGM film 1962

Directed by Sam Peckinpah

Written by N.B. Stone Jr.

Ride the High Country is a eulogy for the traditional western. The film is conscious of the myth of the American Frontier, presenting it as dying legend that can, and has been, manipulated. Here is a version of the West where Eastern civilizing culture and ideals have pushed savage lands to the very corners of the Earth. However, that’s not to say that such savage ideals don’t exist. The film doesn’t exactly regret the loss of traditional Western values, but rather appears to celebrate moral ambiguity in the genre, desiring to push that trend even further.

The film provides three male heroes: Steve Judd, moral and upright, the Gary Cooper template for the classical Western hero; Gil Westrum, a good but morally gray man, the John Wayne type; and Heck Longtree, a youngin’, the next generation of cowboy. While Judd is presented as upstanding, his character is constantly referred to as old and out of date; even from the beginning, when he mysteriously rides into town in the most classical fashion, it is made clear that this character’s function in the genre is no longer effective. In the end, he is the only one killed off. Westrum, seemingly corrupt and villainous at times, is redeemed, rewarded in the end for his ability as a character to make sacrifice and overcome immoral temptation. Likewise, Longtree grapples with morality, ultimately establishing an honor code from both Judd and Westrum.

Peckinpah finds good humor in the banter between the two dying breeds of hero, but the real excitement in the film comes through the villains. These men are equally morally blurred, as they exhibit knowledge of moral codes, but choose to ignore them, instead settling for insincere symbolic measures that clean the appearance of their evil ways. The Hammond Gang represents tiers of damaged psychology, from sharp and sly to straight crazy, and they incite all of the riotous action in the film. While Ride the High Country is aware that it is declaring the end of one classical mode, it appears to be celebrating a newfound interest in damaged characters, and ambiguity in savagery.

Review: Gone Baby Gone

2007-10-25T23:47:00.000-05:00

A Miramax release 2007

Directed by Ben Affleck

Writing credits:
Ben Affleck (screenplay)
Aaron Stockard (screenplay)
Dennis Lehane (novel)

Two Boston area detectives investigate a little girl's kidnapping, which ultimately turns into a crisis both professionally and personally.

Ben Affleck's directorial debut is by no means memorable, but it is an effective, well made film that shows promise from the former Academy Award winner. Affleck handles his camera with an assured confidence, and while the script lapses at points, the picture drives towards some interesting ideas on moral ambiguity and making firm decisions.

Where the film succeeds most is in its casting. Affleck manages to draw some intense performances from his actors, particularly his brother, Casey, who despite wire thin, boyish looks, takes charge of the screen. Likewise, Amy Ryan completely captures the emotion of a cracked-out mother searching for her child. Ed Harris gets a bit hammy as a police detective on the case, and Morgan Freeman sort of sleepwalks throughout, but neither feel out of place.

The script has some dips, particularly a twist towards the end that doesn't sit well, but at the same time feels necessary, mostly because it secures the main theme of morality. Having kids clearly effected Affleck, and he's not afraid to probe what it means to be a parent, to do what's right for a child. The Boston location adds depth to the concept of community, and makes the film feel much more real. The final shot of Casey sitting on a couch with the newly returned child is both depressing and poignant.

Overall, Gone Baby Gone isn't a perfect film, but Affleck managed to wring a lot of interesting ideas out of the material, and handled the picture with confidence. It scares me to say it, but I'm looking forward to his next picture. Worth a gander.

Review: La Vie en Rose

2007-10-05T15:18:00.001-05:00

A Picturehouse Entertainment release 2007

Directed by Olivier Dahan

Written by Olivier Dahan & Isabelle Sobelman

The extraordinary life and times of famed French singer Edith Piaf (Marion Cotillard)

Like most biopics, this incredibly uneven but suprisingly moving portrait of Edith Piaf, one of France's national treasures, relies heavily on the performance of its lead, Marion Cotillard. Thankfully she nails Piaf to a tee, capturing her movements and manneurisms with such precision it's almost uncanny.

If only the script did her performance justice. Dahan's presentation of periods in Piaf's life is so scatterbrained, it's almost hard to tell what is going on. The film does an incredible amount of jumping back and forth through time in the most illogical of ways; snippets from Piaf's childhood are connected to her final days or mid-life antics without any real causal connection, thematically or emotionally. The poor pacing results in a fragmented portrait of this powerful artist, one that leaves the spectator feeling as though they are missing something, despite the film's two and a half hour plus run time.

If you're already a fan of Piaf, then you're sure to love this film. If not, stick to the soundtrack - it'll tell you all you need to know.

Revisit: Force of Evil

2007-10-05T14:33:00.000-05:00

An MGM film 1948

Directed by Abraham Polonsky

Writing by Abraham Polonsky & Ira Wolfert

Lawyer Joe Morse (John Garfield) wants to consolidate all small-time numbers racket operators into one big powerful operation. But he is met with conflict from his elder brother Leo (Thomas Gomez), who as one of those small-time operators prefers not to deal with the gangsters who dominate the big-time.

Watch a clip from Force of Evil here!

Abraham Polonksy's directorial debut is a noir masterpiece, a film that effectively depicts a world rampant with greed, corruption, and dispair. Polonsky, who had already achieved a name for himself as a scriptwriter, most notably for the gritty boxing film Body and Soul also starring John Garfield, was eventually blacklisted under the HUAC communist investigations. Watching Force of Evil, it's hard to separate Polonsky's political views from the story, which comes off as a strong critique of capitalist practices. However, the film contains with such beautiful wordplay and lingual puns that it's almost breathtaking. Likewise, the complex relationship between the brothers forms a delicate psychological, emotional and narrative core - a great example of powerful noir filmmaking. The film was a key influence on Scorsese's Raging Bull and, surprisingly enough, was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry. A must see.

Revisit: Trust

2007-09-26T23:54:00.000-05:00

A Fine Line Features release 1990

Written & Directed by Hal Hartley

A pregnant teen (Adrienne Shelly) meets a moody genius (Martin Donovan) with a hand grenade.

Hal Hartley's satirical view of suburban drama is arbitrary, but interesting none-the-less; a soap-opera world of absurdisms stuck in a Long Island vacuum, where things just happen. Roger Ebert once wrote "when a Hartley film plays on TV, you won't be tempted to go channel-surfing because the movie will seem to be switching programming for you", and it's true, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Trust has just enough American-indie, dysfunctional family quirk to keep it from feeling manufactured; considering the time of its release, it's probably more responsible for influencing the modern commodified indie backlash. The film is a ball of ideas, some work and some don't, but they all seem to point towards the fucked-up-ness of east coast suburban living, a theme Hartley has dealt with his entire career. The performances here are amusingly dead-pan, and the colors drab. If you like your hopeless romanticism with a bit of restraint, this film is for you.

NYC Drive In!

2007-09-25T22:09:00.000-05:00

Longing for the days of the Drive-in? Grand Opening is Manhattan's only drive-in cinema - in a store. Choose your favorite film from the 60's - 90's, book a one-of-a-kind 1965 Ford Falcon convertible with seating for six and a full concession stand, and relax like it's the good old days all over again. Highlights include Dr. Strangelove, Cool Hand Luke, The Hustler, Pulp Fiction, and many more.

$75 per show
(Car seats up to 6 passengers)
2 shows per night (7pm and 10pm)

139 Norfolk Street
New York, NY 10002

Grand Opening

Review: Eastern Promises

2007-09-21T18:16:00.000-05:00

A Focus Features release 2007

Written by Steve Knight

Directed by David Cronenberg

When an innocent midwife (Naomi Watts) accidentally uncovers potential evidence against his Russian mobster family, Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) must put into motion a harrowing chain of murder, deceit, and retribution.

While not as thematically complex as A History of Violence, Cronenberg's latest offering is a taut, moody thriller, almost economic in approach. No Cronenberg film makes a stronger tie to Hitchcockian modes of storytelling; each scene moves the story efficiently, while maintaining maximum entertainment value. Yet, the film also contains that trademark Cronenberg style, a queasy mix of violence and humor, absurdity and density.

Viggo Mortensen gives a bravura performance, one of intense restraint yet physical prowess. The knife fight scene, already infamous, will go down as one of the best fight scenes in history.

Definitely worth a look.

AV Club on Cronenberg

2007-09-07T11:25:00.000-05:00

Primer: David Cronenberg

The Onion's AV Club has taken the liberty of dictating a pretty basic introduction to the works of one of my favorite filmmakers, David Cronenberg, for those of you unfamiliar with his body of work. Cronenberg is the genius behind some of the most psychologically twisted, reality-bending films of the past three decades, not to mention the inventor of 'body horror'. It's a great read, check it out.

Dinner with the Rat

2007-08-13T12:53:00.001-05:00

There's an auction going on Ebay right now that offers the chance for a private dinner with director Brett Ratner. Right now the current bid is at US $8,643.73, which is a heck of a lot of money. The disclaimer says nothing about bodygaurds being present, so let's hope whomever wins this bad boy takes the opportunity to punch Ratner in the face. They'd be doing film fans everywhere a favor.

Review: The Simpsons Movie

2007-08-04T01:14:00.000-05:00

A 20th Century Fox film 2007

Directed by David Silverman

Writing Credits:

James L. Brooks screenplay
Joel Cohen consultant writer
John Frink consultant writer
Matt Groening screenplay
Al Jean screenplay
Tim Long consultant writer
Ian Maxtone-Graham screenplay
George Meyer screenplay
David Mirkin screenplay
Michael Price consultant writer
Mike Reiss screenplay
Mike Scully screenplay
Matt Selman screenplay
John Swartzwelder screenplay
Jon Vitti screenplay

After polluting the local lake, resulting in Springfield being put under a giant government instituted glass dome, Homer must simultaneously save the town and his marriage.

Those of you who read this site may have noticed that I haven't written a review of a new film in quite a long time. That's because I haven't been to the theaters in over two months. That's right - two whole months have passed since I've been compelled to go to my favorite place on Earth, the movie theater, and watch a film. I've been so fed up with the crap that Hollywood has churned out this summer that I simply decided to boycott pretty much every movie that has been released. Sequel after sequel, revised franchise to remake, I couldn't stand to sit through any of them.

But The Simpsons was something I had to see. Eighteen years in the making, The Simpsons Movie was something that was always on the tips of everyone's tongue, but seemed like it would never happen; a mythical idea that looked great on paper but could never be done. Like most of my generation, I grew up watching The Simpsons, and just couldn't picture a jump onto the big screen that would do the show justice.

So when the movie finally landed - to rave reviews, nonetheless - I had to see it. I went in with the best of expectations: that it would undoubtedly disappoint, but if there were two or three good jokes, I'd be happy. And I'm glad to say that the film not only met those expectations, but exceeded them. The Simpsons Movie is about as good of a film one could ask for from a show that seemed to have run its course almost a decade ago.

Without side-stepping the legacy that they've already built, Groening and Co. have managed to craft a fast paced, funny, cinematic counterpart to the show that retains its spot-on portrait of the American family. While some might complain that the satire isn't as biting as, say, South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut, the film somehow manages to make its points clear while staying fresh. After all, The Simpsons was never really about controversy, at least not in the same way as South Park, but the dives it takes at religion and American life are still quite funny while aimed at an incredibly wide audience; I saw the flick with my whole family, and my parents laughed just as hard as I did.

Ultimately the film is a bit short and maybe too fast paced for its own good - it's a bit top heavy and starts to lose steam towards the last act - but I have to say I was impressed. Was it worth the eighteen year wait? No - but it didn't ruin the show in any way, and was certainly an improvement upon the last couple of seasons. If anything, it reminded me of why I liked The Simpsons so much to begin with, and that's certainly a good thing.

Cloverfield

2007-08-02T11:18:00.000-05:00

Lots of people have been asking me how I feel about the J.J. Abrams produced as-of-yet-untitled monster movie codenamed Cloverfield that's been driving the Infernets crazy these days. If you haven't heard about it, get on over to /film.com, who has the up to the minute skinny on this super secret, virally marketed flick. But back to my feelings... I think this photo sums it up pretty well:

Until they start releasing something more concrete than a two minute teaser, a no-name cast list and some blurry cell phone shots, I could care less about this 'mystery' project. After all, this is just a revised form of the marketing for Snakes on a Plane, and we all know how that turned out. Sorry, Paramount - Internet games and rumors are simply not enough to get this film nut in a frenzy. I'll get excited when I hear the film is actually watchable.

Revisit: High Sierra

2007-07-22T17:48:00.000-05:00

A Warner Brothers picture 1941

Directed by Raoul Walsh

Writing credits:
W.R. Burnett (novel & screenplay)
John Huston (screenplay)

Roy 'Mad Dog' Earle (Humphrey Bogart) is broken out of prison by an old associate who wants him to help with an upcoming robbery.

The film that made Humphrey Bogart a star, High Sierra also put film-noir on the top of Hollywood's to do list. A tense crime caper with a dark, bloody ending, it's no surprise that Dillinger is mentioned in the trailer - Sierra was loosely based on his life, despite his name being high on the blacklist of topics too taboo for mainstream cinema. The film also features Ida Lupino, who despite being one of the first female directors in Hollywood doesn't quite get the recognition she deserves. She's a great actress, and a fine director to boot. The picture is pretty straight forward, but it's great to see a pre-Casablanca Bogie perfecting his hard-ass image.

Revisit: Jesus is Magic

2007-07-22T17:29:00.000-05:00

A Black Gold/Roadside Attractions film 2005

Directed by Liam Lynch

Written by Sarah Silverman

Narrative digressions on sex, race, politics, and more from comedienne Sarah Silverman.

Essentially a Sarah Silverman stand-up special, Jesus is Magic doesn't veer far from the traditional three shot format of most comic films, but it does have some added benefits: a few suped-up musical interludes, and Sarah Silverman, whose uncouth, obnoxious J.A.P. persona is actually a better schtick on stage than in sketch shows or straight narratives. Everyone knows that girl, the kind of oblivious, self-centered show off whose heart is full of sentiment but in all the wrong places, and Silverman works it to perfection. The jokes are fierce and funny, and it certainly helps that she's a looker. But if you're not into those so-called 'alternative' comedians, this probably won't be for you. I can't help but add that I was disappointed by Liam Lynch's lackluster direction - the musical interludes look great, but he simply plopped the camera down for the stand-up, which could have benefit from some variety in terms of movement. Surely there are more ways to shoot a comedian on stage than just close-ups and medium shots, but this film isn't look to push the format any farther.

Hitchcock cameos

2007-07-19T20:56:00.000-05:00

For those Hitchcock fans wanting to find each and every cameo, here they all are, broken down into pictures. Pretty cool!

To Bay or Not To Bay?

2007-07-18T10:34:00.000-05:00

Here's a recent article written by Johnathan Foster discussing the two differing schools on Michael Bay: explosions vs art. Foster's makes a pretty simple argument

I gave up on Michael Bay movies having great stories or strong characters long ago, and yet, I find that he continually fails to deliver thrills. He wields explosions around as gracelessly as bad comedies do jokes, and yet his pyrotechnic fervor has wrongly come to symbolize the entire genre: the bigger the fireworks, the better the film.

but I think Bay's validity in cinema is a bit more complex. Bay's films are so overtly pro-American, patriotic in the truest sense of the word, that it's almost hard to ignore. Take Armaggeddon, for example, in which some variation of red white and blue can be found in every frame. While he may not have 'style', his aesthetic is so well defined that it alone can distinguish a film. Maybe its similar to the way people appreciate Ed Wood - bad, but so distinctly bad.

I haven't seen Transformers yet (or any of the other major blockbusters this season, they're all so crummy!) but I am definitely interested. I figure, if Hollywood can't get gigantic fucking fighting robots right, then they should really just stop making movies. Just stop.

Revisit: 1776

2007-07-05T16:54:00.000-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1972

Directed by Peter H. Hunt

Written by Sherman Edwards & Peter Stone (also play)

A musical outlining the birth of the Declaration of Independence.

Before he was roaming the halls as Mr. Fenie in Boy Meets World, William Daniels portrayed John Adams in this musical interpretation of the events that led to the birth of the United States. The film, based on the Broadway musical of the same name, is fairly straight-forward, unflashy, and lacks any real memorable numbers. However, if you're a history buff, or if the thought of seeing our fore-fathers parading around while singing songs about voting and Congress piques your interest, this may be the film for you.

Revisit: The Facts of Life

2007-06-26T17:40:00.000-05:00

An MGM release 1960

Directed by Melvin Frank

Written by:
Melvin Frank (screenplay)
Norman Panama (screenplay)

Bob Hope and Lucille Ball fall in love during a romantic getaway in Acapulco. There's only one problem - they're both already married!

Not to be confused with the classic TV show of the same name, this adult comedy contains some racy material, considering the year of its release. Bob Hope and Lucille Ball fall in love, but both are already married with children, and hilarity ensues as they try to cope with an extramarital affair. It's probably the only classical Hollywood film I can think of that tries to place a humorous spin on adultery. Its very much a reaction to the tedium brought upon by the construct of the American family in the 1950's; tension is derived from the difficulties of trying to keep the affair a secret, and the affair is not criticized as harshly as the home life. In fact, the film forces you to root for the adulterers, because they are 'in love' and their marriages are so poor. Of course this is a Hollywood film, and things do go sour in the end as they realize their actions are wrong. But it succeeds in making quite the case for adultery. It's also interesting that Ball acts as the films narrator; we're given much of the "woman's" perspective (written by males), but no real insight into the man's desires. Hope and Ball are at the top of their game in a film that is far more serious than most of their previous roles, and the picture was nominated for five Academy Awards, winning one for Costume Design.

Revisit: Port of Shadows

2007-06-26T12:17:00.000-05:00

A Janus Films release 1938

Directed by Marcel Carné

Written by:
Pierre Dumarchais (novel)
Jacques Prévert (screenplay)

A military deserter (Jean Gabin) finds love and trouble in a smoky French port city.

A truly beautiful film that follows the classic Hollywood template, Carné's Port of Shadows is the kind of movie where all of the elements culminate into a near-perfect package. The air-tight script is chock full of fantastic dialogue and well-rounded characters, aided by the incredible cast, which includes Jean Gabin, Michel Simon, and Michele Morgan. Even minor characters are surprisingly well developed. Likewise, there isn't a shot in the film that feels out of place or sloppy; everything is essential. The lighting, grain, and over-all look of the film is quite stunning and especially effective in telling the story. It's interesting to note that this film is pre-WWII, as much of the script feels like an allusion to the war. A must see.

Revisit: The Lost Weekend

2007-06-23T20:17:00.000-05:00

A Paramount Pictures release 1945

Directed by Billy Wilder

Written by Billy Wilder & Charlie Brackett

A writer (Ray Milland) struggles with alcohol addiction over the course of a five day binge.

Nominated for seven Acamedy Awards, and winner of four, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Actor, The Lost Weekend shocked audiences in 1945 with it's frank, relentless, realistic portrayal of addiction. Like with many of his films, Wilder chose an unpopular subject and somehow turned it into a smash - partly due to the strong performance of Ray Milland as addict Don Birnam, and partly due to the way the film deals with the taboo subject matter head on. Audiences had never seen anything like it before - crass, revealing, and fully realized, The Lost Weekend gives a full picture of the struggles of the addict, including some particularly terrifying hallucination scenes. The film was also the first to contain a theramin in the soundtrack, an instrument which later became associated with B sci-fi pictures.

Revisit: The Killing of a Chinese Bookie

2007-06-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

A Faces Distributing Company release 1976

Written and Directed by John Cassavetes

A proud strip club owner (Ben Gazzara) is forced to come to terms with himself as a man when his gambling addiction gets him in hot water with the mob, who offer him only one alternative.

Gazzara and Cassavetes were frequent collaborators, but their individual efforts culminate in this film, which tells the story of a drunk gambler who gets in over his head. Cassavetes uncomfortably close shots and lingering camera, mixed with the improv, emotionally driven acting style results in a rich, full protrayal that leaves a bitterswett mix of sadness, humor, and the complex emotions of real life. Gazzara's strip club owner character is constantly emasculated while trying to maintain his high roller image, setting up an interesting play in sexual politics. Make sure to watch the 138 directors version - its worth the extra thirty minutes.

NY Asian Film Festival

2007-06-21T14:29:00.000-05:00

The Annual New York Asian Film Festival starts this Friday at the IFC Center. Highlights include a screening of Takashi Miike's unreleased in the US Zebraman, anniversary showing of John Woo's Hard Boiled, shorts from Old Boy helmer Chan Wook Park, and more. This seventeen day orgy of new films will introduce you to buffalo-busting action flicks from Thailand, cartilage-cracking gangster films from Korea, and the first gore flick ever made in Pakistan!

You can find the full screening list and purchase tickets here.

Hard Boiled

Exiled

Revisit: Julius Caesar

2007-06-19T12:18:00.000-05:00

An MGM release 1952
Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Written by William Shakespeare (play)

An epic version of Shakespeare's classic play of betrayal and repentance.

Brando recieved his third of four consecutive Oscar nominations for this film, in which he appears all of about twenty minutes. In that twenty minutes, however, Brando gives one of the most intense performances of his career as Marc Antony, delivering Shakespeare's classic "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech with such unbridled passion that it almost makes sitting through the rest of this snoozefest worth it. Edmond O'Brien makes an appearance as well, and is the only other actor on the screen who can seem to captapult this epic-in-scope retelling of Caesar beyond being a mere big-budget stage play. Mankiewicz has some interesting shots in there, but this one is for Brando fans only.

Watch Four Eye Monsters for Free!

2007-06-09T17:11:00.000-05:00

Four Eyed Monsters was one of last year's best and most innovative films, and now you can watch the whole thing for FREE on Youtube! I highly suggest checking it out, it's only 71 minutes and well worth the time and admission. But catch it soon, it's only gonna be available for one week. Also, be a good sport and sign up for Spout.com. It's free and for each person who signs up, Arin and Susan each get $1 towards paying off their debt. So help these guys out!

Paris In Pictures: New Wave Visions of the Modern City pt. 6

2007-06-06T15:02:00.000-05:00

A Modern City

The formal differences between Godard’s approach to modernization in Two or Three Things and Tati’s Mon Oncle are clear: one takes on a lingual, documentary style while the other focuses on visual cues and spatial relations. However, both films feature similarly negative views on modern construction and seem to be of the viewpoint that ‘newer’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘better’. While Godard is preoccupied with the cinema and modernizations effects on language, his assertions that commoditized culture has negatively impacted individualism mirror Tati’s sentiments. Likewise, Tati’s affinity for old time housing and ways of life can be seen in Godard’s demonizing of urban organization and physical growth.

However, neither film is without hope. While Tati’s message may seem bleak, his humor-based approach stands as a silver lining. Likewise, Godard’s playful attempts to render verbal and written language through the cinema act as a call for greater attention to language as a cultural entity. The results are a vision of Paris, a modern city, which is both culturally expanding and aware of its own deficiencies.

WORKS CITED

Barthes, Roland. “Towards a Semiotics of Cinema: Barthes in interview with Michel Delahaye, Jacques Rivette”. Cahiers du Cinema: The 1960s. Jim Hillier. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Chion, Michel. The Films of Jacques Tati. New York: Guernica, 1997.
Leutrat, Jean-Louis. “The Power of Language”. The Cinema Alone: Essays on the Work of Jean-Luc Godard. Michael Temple & James S. Williams. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2000.

Makeieff, Macha. Playtime. Notes on Lecture, 4/10/2007.

Ramierz, Francis and Christian Rolot. Mon Oncle: Jacques Tati. Collection Synopsis, no. 16. Paris: Nathan, 1993.

Mon Oncle. Jacques Tati. DVD. Criterion, 2001.

Stam, Robert. French New Wave II. Notes on Lecture, 2/8/2007.

Thiher, Allen. “Postmodern Dilemmas: Godard's Alphaville and Two or Three Things That I Know about Her”. Boundary 2, Vol. 4, No. 3. (Spring, 1976), pp. 947-964.

Two or Three Things I Know About Her. Jean-Luc Godard. VHS. New Yorker Films, 1988.

Revisit: Straw Dogs

2007-06-06T09:45:00.000-05:00

An ABC Pictures Release 1971

Directed by: Sam Peckinpah

Writing Credits:

Gordon Williams: (novel "The Siege of Trencher's Farm") (as Gordon M. Williams)

Sreenplay by: David Zelag Goodman and Sam Peckinpah

Plot description: A young American and his English wife come to rural England and face increasingly vicious local harassment.

Upon its release in 1971, director Sam Peckinpah was engulfed by a storm of controversy (what else is new?) surrounding his latest film, Straw Dogs. Peckinpah and his crew were attacked for the vicious and sick scenes of violence and rape that occur in the film. While many claime the scenes were too extreme for audiences, the film is not merely violent without purpose. Straw Dogs centers on David and Amy Sumner (played by Dustin Hoffman and Susan George), and their life in a small rural village in the UK. Sumner is an American mathematician who was given a grant to work in the film's setting, where he has recently overtook his wife's farm and where the couple now lives. In conducting renovations on the house the two are incessantly harassed by a violent collection of brutes who were commissioned to repair their home. Ultimately, the provocations turn to violent action and Amy Sumner is raped by the workers and their home assaulted by the men. David Sumner, ever the reluctant pacifist, is forced to defend his home and the lengths to which he goes are partly what give the film its gritty, extreme violence.

In Straw Dogs, Peckinpah (forever remembered for his unflinching and gruesome depictions of violence) is at the top of his game. What separates the film from his other works such as The Wild Bunch or Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia is that in addition to jarring, blood-soaked physical violence (as expected), the film presents equally disturbing forms of psychological, and psycho-sexual torment. Hoffman plays David Sumner perfectly, summoning his then famous Benjamin Braddock persona from The Graduate, except adding a vicious, demented, and downright schizophrenic twist. Sumner is a reclusive, shy scholar whose reticence to engage in action is clearly established from his very first appearence. However, as the film progresses we see that he and his wife torment each other frequently, generally through verbal stabs and sexualized exchanges. In these exchanges we notice a peculiar agency on both their parts, as though David's shyness is not always sincere - it is in part an act, an attempt to outsmart others by allowing them the ease of assumption. Similarly, Susan George plays Amy with a double-face: In one sense she is the naive sexbot who never graduated from the lecherous gazes she no doubt received as a youngster/to this day. In other scenes, such as one in which she taunts the construction workers by walking topless in her bedroom as a form of revenge on David, she clearly possesses the agency and intelligence that her appearances before David obscure.

The film manages to provide both of these characters, each with seemingly split personalities all while using a setting in which every local townsperson is downright nasty, hateful and violent. What Peckinpah is suggesting with the stereotypical scholar David and the deviant, sexy wife have the capacity for all types of behavior, and as the film progresses David proves that he is in fact no different than the menacing lunatics trying to murder him and his family.

Overall, Straw Dogs is an extremely provocative and compelling film, and careful viewing proves that the criticisms that it is a one dimensional, blood-fest are unfounded. Peckinpah's strengths are in his ability to convey the potential darkness of man, and contextualizing this darkness within an appropriately familiar and quotidian setting. Much like Cronenberg's A History of Violence (only 35 years prior), Peckinpah's film deconstructs audience identification and their notions of "justifiable violence" in a meta-discursive fashion while within the narrative he explores the intricate sexual tensions that exist between man and woman. Straw Dogs is a primal and damn near bestial film both in its story and Peckinpah's signature film aesthetic of harshness and brutality. Peckinpah's shots (filthy and drained of all pleasantness the countryside could provide), disorienting edits and movements (perfectly embodied during Amy's rape flashbacks at a church gathering as well as the break-in scene), and ability to generate both seemingly obvious exploitation and ambiguity in the same breath make this flick a must-see.

- Paul Walker

Revisit: Dark Days

2007-06-04T19:53:00.000-05:00

A Picture Farm film 2000

Written and Directed by Marc Singer

Near Penn Station, next to the Amtrak tracks, squatters have been living for years.

This Sundance and Indie Spirit award-winning documentary follows the lives of several squatters as they deal with life in the New York subways. Shot in stunning 16mm black and white, director Marc Singer actually lived with these people for a short time, using them as his crew and his subject matter. The result is an amazing, honest portrait of the hardships homeless people face, a strong representation their tenacity and stubbornness. My only problem with the film is that it ends on such an overtly positive note - each of the characters recieves an apartment through a NYC works programs, but what happens next? I find it hard to believe that each person in the film managed to maintain a working lifestyle. This is one film that is begging for a sequel.

GROSS

2007-06-04T19:50:00.001-05:00

Lionsgate marketing exec and part-time photographer Tim Palen shot the photo as part of an upcoming book titled Guts: The Art of Marketing Horror Films. NYMag says that the book is “a collection of his creepiest work, including a pornographic, absolutely not-safe-for-work portrait of Roth”. The photo is called “Eli Roth Has the Biggest Dick in Hollywood.” The prosthetic was built by K.N.B. Effects, the same effects company that worked on The Chronicles of Narnia and The Island.

from /film.com

Paris In Pictures: New Wave Visions of the Modern City pt. 5

2007-06-03T15:38:00.000-05:00

Godard plays with the idea of consumption and mass culture throughout Two or Three Things. He offers many symbols of culture – magazine covers, famous quotes, novels – but sets them up so that, as signifiers, they offer little meaning. In one scene, Juliette and fellow prostitute Miriam don duffel bags bearing TWA and PAN-AM logos and are forced to parade around naked. In another, two men sit in a café compiling sentences out of novels in the hope of composing the ultimate book. Both these scenes exhibit the appropriation of cultural images or objects, but recontextualize them so that all meaning is obscured.

Godard keeps a philosophical dialogue going throughout the film via a non-diegetic voiceover. Considering the narrator’s penchant for the first person, and his lengthy transcendental musings, it’s almost appropriate to assume that it is a surrogate for Godard himself. One scene is particularly telling of this idea: as the camera focuses in on a cup of coffee, the narrator laments his inability to understand objects, and his verbose speech peters out into a verifiable spew of words. It is as if Godard himself is lamenting the way language has been corrupted by culture, rendered ineffective. “To say that the limits of language, of my language, are those of the world, of my world, and that in speaking, I limit the world, I end it” he cries.

If Two or Three Things presents the idea that consumerism has limited man’s ability to communicate, than it also suggests that the modern environment limits man’s ability to connect. As previously stated, construction is depicted in the film as imposing, a dominating force. But already established edifices are given equally biting critiques. “A landscape is like a face”. Towards the end of the film, Godard pans around Juliette’s building complex as she says this phrase. We see that the area is completely enclosed by buildings, each one composed of tiny little boxes, presumably individual apartments. The space is called le grand ensemble, a new form of urban organization implying a certain sense of togetherness, and yet we can only perceive the area in fragments, as each individual who lives there must do as well.

To Be Continued...

Revisit: The Sniper

2007-05-30T15:32:00.000-05:00

A Columbia Pictures release 1952

Directed by Edward Dmytryk

Writing credits:
Edna Anhalt (story)
Edward Anhalt (story)
Harry Brown

Rejected by women all his life, a loner with a high-power rifle starts on a murder spree.

This black and white B-crime noir from the early fifties remains fun depsite it's heavy pro-institutionalization reform sentiments. It also eerily echos that recent D.C. Sniper case. If you're a fan of crime films, it's worth checking out.

Review: Bug

2007-05-30T14:50:00.000-05:00

A Lionsgate film 2007
Directed by William Friedkin
Written by Tracy Letts

A paranoid, unhinged war veteran (Michael Shannon) who sees insects everywhere holes up with a lonely woman (Ashley Judd) in a spooky Oklahoma motel room.

This intense psychological thriller is being marketed as a horror flick, perhaps because director Friedkin is the man behind that scare classic The Exorcist, but to strictly label it as such is pretty unfair. Bug is scary, for sure, but the screams don't come from any slashers or supernatural beings. This is a film about what lurks deep inside the human mind, and the horrors it can manifest when two sick and lonely people spend too much time together.

Based on Letts' hit off-broadway play of the same name, the film is dialogue heavy, but stands supported by Shannon and Judd's strong performances. As they slowly transform from a pair of off-kilter drifters to certifiable crack-ups, they command the screen. Friedkin's semi-hand held camera captures the experience as if we were right along side them, producing a bitter-sweet feeling of sympathy and disgust.

Ambiguity plays a huge role in keeping the film interesting as well. We never do find out if the 'bugs' are real, and knowing that our narrator is a drug addicted deadbeat renders her completely unreliable. It's up to the audience to decifer exactly what's going on, and even if it seems clear, it's never quite crystal. But the film gives just enough details to patch together several unique interpretations that could leave film-goers arguing for days. One such interpretation has been heavily debated on the Lionsgate forum for the film, and claims that the characters are suffering from Morgellons disease, a sort of psychological impairment that causes extreme paranoia. While I find this idea way too literal (it does no justice to the nuanced tics of the characters), it certainly is interesting.

Bug is definitely worth a gander, but don't go into it expecting The Exorcist. It's a much smaller, more personal film that will either grab you or leave you cold. Think Terry Gilliam's Tideland, and might know what I mean. It really makes me wish I had seen the play - it must be amazing to see on stage.

William Friedkin on the actors in Bug

about Ashley Judd: "Ashley and I talked extensively about the film before we did it, and we were really on the same page."

about Michael Shannon: "To achieve Shannon’s performance took a great deal of discussion, toning, modulation. Shannon is primarily a stage actor, he’s only done small parts in films, though I’ve been told he has a very good role in World Trade Center, a small but pivotal part. He needs a lot of attention, love, appreciation. He becomes that character. And you have to realize that you’re talking to the character and not to him when you start rehearsing. You’ve got to walk on eggshells. He would tend to go over the top too soon, so I’d have to bring him down. But whenever I would modulate his performance, he almost took it as an insult to his character!"

about Harry Connick: "I’d met Connick at a party before I was casting this film, and I saw that a very large part of him was this guy. When I called him to do this role and sent him the script, I told him about some of his behaviour which I’d observed, and he knew exactly what I was talking about. There’s a part of him that likes to put people on like Goss does, sometimes maliciously."

Coney Island Summer Film Series

2007-05-22T13:03:00.000-05:00

Coney Island is offering a summer of fantastic popcorn movies every Saturday night for discount prices. Highlights include Dog Day Afternoon, Fritz the Cat, Viva Las Vegas, Marx Brothers At the Circus, and my personal favorite, Killer Klowns from Outer Space.

Find the full list of screenings here

CONEY ISLAND SATURDAY NIGHT FILM SERIES 2007
presented by indiefilmpage.com & Coney Island USA
MAY 19TH - SEPTEMBER 8TH
at the Coney Island Museum 1208 Surf Ave.
between Stillwell Ave. and West 12th Street
Tickets $5, Free Popcorn! Shows start at 8:30pm, doors open 8pm.

Paris In Pictures: New Wave Visions of the Modern City pt. 4

2007-05-17T00:05:00.000-05:00

Two or Three Things Godard Knows About Language

“I examine the city, its inhabitants, and the bonds between them as closely as a biologist examines the relations between individuals and race in evolution. Only thus can I tackle problems of social pathology and formulate hope for a genuine new city” - Narrator

The opening credits of Two or Three Things I Know About Her feature an inter-title that informs the viewer that the word Her refers to the Paris region, while it also refers to the main protagonist and the actress playing her. This concept – the suggestion of dual intendment behind a word – is crucial to the film. Like in Mon Oncle, Two or Three Things offers a semblance of a narrative: the film follows a day in the life of a suburban housewife who practices prostitution part-time in order to afford luxuries that society deems necessary. Through herstruggles to stay on top in life, the film explores mankind’s relationship to language, semiotics and meaning.

Two or Three Things opens with the image of a large highway construction site. The interminable racket of modern development heard over the credits is hushed as a voice over begins, outlining history and establishing philosophical viewpoints. Both of these elements remain constant throughout the film. Godard offers documentary style visuals of the physical growth of Paris; giant cranes and dump trucks, unfinished highways over dilapidated homes. The construction seems daunting, as modern buildings and work sites seem to tower into the sky, envelope older cityscapes. The fact that these are actual shots of Paris reinforces the cinematic idea of injecting symbolism onto reality, an idea that plays a crucial role in the film. How do we accept cinematic representations as being ‘real’ when the basic properties of film automatically convert all images into symbols? Godard plays with this idea by showing these construction sites, presenting them as they exist, but over-scoring their presence, having them appear monstrous and dwarfing. Thus the audience understands both what is ‘real’, and the critique of progress the images present.

A similar example of this idea can be found at the beginning of the film when the main protagonist, Juliette, is introduced. The voice over first introduces her as the actress Marina Vlady. Then the scene repeats, reintroducing her under her characters name. This demonstrates how the cinematic medium converts what is real into a symbol; Vlady is at once her real self, and her fictional cinematic counterpart. As Allen Thiher points out, this allows Juliette, as a cinematic character, to have multiple voices: “On one level she speaks as a fictional housewife-prostitute in a non-reflexive manner. On a second level she examines her language and uses self-reflexive language. This level leads to a third where she tests her language against her environment, which often shows how absurdly incongruous her language is with regard to the images that present her situation” (958).

From here, Godard is able to disregard conventional cinematic standards for conversation and allow the character to slip out of a scene and impose additional commentary. This, coupled with the film’s documentary style approach, grants access into the thoughts of both major and minor characters, almost in a novel-like fashion, highlighting the shortcomings of language and the cinematic medium.

For example, in the scene in the shop where Juliette purchases a new dress, the camera picks up the banal chatter of several young girls. In one shot, the camera stops and focuses on a girl, who says “I have a date with Jean-Claude at 8. We go to a restaurant, sometimes a film.” This part of the scene appears like a documentary, the camera focusing on the girl as if it were asking her a question.

However, when Juliette speaks into the camera seconds later, it becomes clear that Godard is not interested in the banality of the girls conversation, but rather their inability to fully communicate due to the consumer-based, degrading environment surrounding them. “I know how to talk. Let’s talk together,” Juliette begins. “Together is a word I like. Together means thousands of people, perhaps a whole city. No one knows what the city of the future will be like. Part of the wealth of meaning it had will undoubtedly be lost. The creative and formative roles of the city will be taken over by other forms of communication. Maybe… television and radio…Vocabulary and syntax, consciously and deliberately.” This reflexive speech seems to draw on the Parisian girls inability to discuss anything real. And yet, the speech itself seems equally disgenuine, clearly scripted. The following shot of a trashy paperback shows Godard is commenting on the way language seems to have piggybacked off of a massified culture. Language is no longer an effective mode of expression, because it has been commoditized, marketed, and consumed.

To be continued..

Check out Paris in Pictures parts 1,2, and 3!

Paris in Pictures: New Wave Visions of the Modern City pt. 3

2007-05-13T21:20:00.000-05:00

Sterility is a major theme throughout the film. The old sect is constantly littered with garbage; a man is put to the seemingly never-ending task of sweeping, and can be seen constantly, but contently, attempting to clean up after his fellow townspeople. Madame Arpel is obsessed with cleaning as well, but their overly aseptic home provides her with little opportunities for any actual work. So, she can be seen constantly scrubbing windows that are already clear, objects that aren’t dusty. The best example of this comes in the Arpels introduction, in which she can be seen washing windows, pulling at creases on her husbands suit, fixing his tie, and scrubbing strange objects: a plant, the front gate, her sons briefcase, the car. Everything she touches she has to give a good once-over with her washcloth. Madame Arpel especially treats her son, Gerard, with a germicidal zeal. “Gerard, don’t mess up your room! Take off your shoes and wash your hands!” she tells him when he enters the house. Gerard can be seen rubbing his feet furiously on the mats outside, and his mother, dressed like a nurse in a long white coat and blue gloves, sprays him with a large hose.

Sterility can be found in the kitchen as well. The Arpel’s modern home allows them to cook without ever touching the food. Cooking is impersonal, handled at a distance by buttons and machines. Madame Arpel flips a grey, sickly-looking steak by pressing a button under the stove; she butters a pan by spraying it with a hose-like object. This is shown in stark contrast to the way food is handled in the old town. The local market features carts of vegetables and fruits fingered by all sorts of people; an old woman picks up a head of lettuce, weighs it in her hand, and puts it back for a different piece. Later, a man grills meats and sweet bread for children on a large wooden cart, handling the food with a charred spatula. The children accept readily with their hands.

This idea of sterility stems from the Arpel’s obsession with status. Madame Arpel gives three separate tours of the house in the film, each time pointing out insignificant objects and highlighting the ultra-modern aspects of the space. One object, a ridiculous looking fish-shaped fountain, is particularly telling of this obsession with status. Madame Arpel rushes to turn it on whenever someone enters the gate. However, if it’s not someone she is trying to impress (Hulot, peddlers), she shuts it off in disgust. Likewise, Monsieur Arpel’s car is an object of status. However, once it enters the main road, we that everyone in town owns a car that appears only slightly different. The cars show that the modern society upholds an ideal of massified individualism funneled through consumerism.

It would appear that Tati is making a concrete criticism of modern society – that so-called ‘progress’ leads to disconnect with humanity, with an over-emphasis on status quo – however, that’s not entirely the case. While the characters in the old section are presented as livelier and less preoccupied than that of the new one, there is no evidence to show that the residents of the modern world are discontent. In fact, it would appear that the Arpels are perfectly happy in their tech-savvy world. Likewise, Hulot’s inability to adjust to their world stems not from his disinterest, but rather his lack of familiarity and physical awkwardness. We must, then, view these people as social types, representative of ways of being and not specifically critical of any particular way of life.

It is only in Gerard, the indelible young nephew of Hulot, that we see any true character-based critique of the modern society. Gerard seems stifled by the trappings of his parent’s modern ways, and is sternly attached to the lackadaisical Hulot; he prefers the simplistic toy presented to him by his uncle to the complex motor engine given to him by his father. When in the modern home, Gerard appears despondent, bored, and lifeless. He seems to desire nothing more than to join the group of mischievous troublemakers who play freely in the old town; and, when he finally does join their company, his face exudes pure joy. Here, Tati presents perhaps his most biting criticism: that the shiny conveniences of modern life stifle the imagination of youth.

Check out Paris in Pictures pt. 2 and pt. 1!

This Summer? Stay Indoors

2007-05-10T09:46:00.000-05:00

Summer is usually a great time for the movies. Theaters always beat the heat as Hollywood puts forth the big bucks to blow audiences away with special effects extravanganzas and escapist fare. But unless you live in a city where Herzog films or Lee Marvin tributes abound, there isn't much to look forward to this year. Most of the movies coming out are unnecessary sequels or tired ideas. It's in these trying times that I am thankful for DVDs. While home entertainment will never quite match the theater-going experience, at least it puts you in control of the crap that's on screen. So this summer, instead of wasting seven dollars on another sequel, crank the A.C., curl up on the couch and enjoy these flicks:

INSTEAD OF

WATCH

The original ogre, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a classic story and was perhaps no better realized than in this 1939 film starring Charles Laughton. Laughton gives an impressive dramatic performance as the insufferable Quasimodo, whose damaged looks went on to set the standard for Hollywood make-up effects and inspired effects artists such as Rick Baker. The 1928 silent version is great as well.

INSTEAD OF

WATCH

The original Rush Hour was noted for its plays on race relations, but people forget that this idea had already been perfected in the 1982 buddy pic 48 Hours. Much funnier than anything Brett Ratner could produce, 48 Hours features Eddie Murphy as a wise-cracking criminal turned cop who aids Nick Nolte in tracking down a killer. This one's almost a no-brainer - Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte? Handled by The Warriors Walter Hill? Obviously better than a bunch of Jackie-Chan-No-Speaka-Da-English jokes any day.

INSTEAD OF

WATCH

War and screwball comedy are often mixed with hellish results, but David O. Russel's best film manages to combine the two with biting results. Three Kings is as hilarious as it is critical, pertinent as it is pastiche. Besides, Larry the Cable Guy isn't funny.

INSTEAD OF

WATCH

The brillance behind the 1993 kid's flick Surf Ninjas is incredibly understated. You see, it's about ninjas. Who surf. That's cooler than Penguins any day. The pic stars a young Rob Schneider and Leslie Neilson as the bumbling half-cyborg supervillian. Trust me, it's sweet.

INSTEAD OF

WATCH

ANYTHING WITH ERROL FLYNN

Errol Flynn was the swashbuckler Johnny Depp wishes he could be. Don't get me wrong, Depp makes a great pirate and all, but those Carribean movies are crap. You're better off watching any number of Flynn's old flicks, including (but not limited to) Captain Blood, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Dawn Patrol, The Prince and the Pauper, or The Sea Hawk.

INSTEAD OF

WATCH

C'mon now. A PG-13 Die Hard? No one wants that.

INSTEAD OF

WATCH

If you're going to watch a musical that features cross-dressing males in prominent roles, you might as well make it one that stars Marilyn Monroe as well. This classic screwball comedy follows two musicians on the run after witnessing a mob hit. It's countlessly referenced as one of the greatest comedies of all time, and is a great way to get started on the works of master director Billy Wilder.

More suggestions coming soon!

Disney Won't Embrace Simultaneous Release

2007-05-10T09:34:00.000-05:00

Disney CEO Robert Iger threw cold water Tuesday on the disclosure by Comcast COO Steve Burke earlier in the week that he was in discussions with studios to make movies available on pay-per-view cable on the same day they were released in theaters for $30-50. Iger insisted that Disney was "not in discussions to sell movies to cable in the same window as theatrical." Iger's comments came during a telephone conference with analysts following release of the company's first-quarter report showing total revenue rising to $8.1 billion from $8 billion during the same period a year ago. Iger forecast a big second quarter but declined to predict whether the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End would exceed the box-office take of the new record holder, Spider-Man 3. He called the new Pirates film, due to open over the Memorial Day holiday, "simply great." Asked about remaining the only major studio to release new movies on Apple's iTunes online store at prices well below those for DVDs, Iger said that Disney makes the same amount of money from an iTunes sale as it does from a DVD. Commenting on the policy of other studios to release only library titles via the Apple site, Iger indicated that only Disney's "fresh titles" are selling well on iTunes.

- from IMDB.com

$30 sounds like a lot to watch a movie on cable TV. I'd much rather go to a theater. But nonetheless, same day multiplatform release is going to become a standard sometime soon. Read more about Simulatenous Release Platforms here.