Ramblings of a Film-Addicted Mind

TRAILER: Watchmen

2008-07-28T16:14:00.005-06:00

Watchmen Trailer - The funniest movie is here. Find it
I won't lie. When I watch this trailer, I get a bit turned on. It's about as perfect a transfer from the graphic novel as you can get. Dr. Manhattan (the big blue guy) looks incredible. The costumes look great. Several shots look like they were copied directly from the source material. It doesn't change the fact that the film is probably going to suck, but they get an A for Effort because of the marketing.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Six Degrees of Separation

2008-07-28T15:55:00.004-06:00

Director: Fred Schepisi
Starring: Will Smith, Donald Sutherland, Stockard Channing
Synopsis: The lives of a wealthy couple in New York City become intertwined with that of a con artist who claims to be the son of Sydney Poitier.
Thoughts: A great "small" film that more people should see. Will Smith (in one of his first major acting roles) steals the show as Paul, a con artist who weasels his way into the lives of the rich and affluent. The editing is superb - the audience is shown bits and pieces of certain events, only to have their expectations twisted when the context of the full scene is finally revealed. Not only is this simply a great film, but there are plenty of thought-provoking ideas about life, experiences, and relationships left to ponder afterwards. Look for a cameo by J.J. Abrams, and what might be the first reference to Greg Grunberg ("Heroes") in movie history.

Watch the trailer here.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Suzhou River

2008-07-28T15:31:00.003-06:00

Director: Lou Ye
Starring: Jia Hongshen, Xun Zhou
Synopsis: The lives of two couples intersect when a courier is imprisoned for the death of his lover, who jumped off a bridge into the Suzhou River. After his release, he encounters a young woman who looks just like her.
Thoughts: Think Vertigo with a Chinese feel. This film helped define Lou Ye as one of the leading "Sixth Generation" filmmakers, and for good reason. It's a technical masterpiece; Ye uses handheld shots to give it a documentary feel, and manages to create beautiful images despite the dreary look of urban Shanghai. The parallel storylines are intriguing and effective, and he injects the perfect amount of surrealism into the plot, so that you're never quite sure what will happen next. A fascinating look at the lives of four Chinese youths looking for love.

Why The Watchmen Film Will Ultimately Fail

2008-07-22T13:00:00.006-06:00

If you've been to see The Dark Knight, then odds are you caught the trailer for Watchmen before it. If you've read the original graphic novel the upcoming film is based on, you probably spent most of that two minutes trying not to crap yourself with excitement. If not, you were probably just like, "Oh, shiny stuff! And people in costumes! I have no idea what I'm seeing!"

This film has a lot of people talking, and for good reason. Watchmen is quite simply one of the best novels ever written, period. Not only is it one of my all time favorites, but it's so good, Time magazine even listed it as one of the 100 Greatest Novels Of All Time. And that's actual novels, not just graphic novels. Not many graphic novels have had quite as much influence as this one has.

(In fact, if you're reading this post and you haven't read Watchmen, just stop now and go find a copy. Trust me, you will thank me.)

It goes without saying that this will probably be the biggest release next spring. But as someone who has read Watchmen, and considers himself to be fairly knowledgeable about film and what makes a good movie, I feel pretty confident when I make the following statement:

The Watchmen movie just won't be that good.

I'm sorry, it just won't. Especially when you compare it to the original source material. The best we can hope for at this point is a movie that is fairly engaging and stays relatively close to the plot of the novel. But if you're thinking that this is going to be fantastic, or that it's going to live up to the book, I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong. It's just not going to happen. And there are three main reasons why:

1) Watchman is about as close to an "unadaptable" novel as you can get. Of course, everything can be adapted. But by "adaptable" I mean that a film version can be made that is good and lives up to the source material. Examples of this: Fight Club, Lord of the Rings, and Farewell My Concubine, among many others.

But Watchmen is just not in the same boat as those. It's the kind of story that ultimately can only work best as a graphic novel. Why? Because the author, Alan Moore, wrote it that way. He's directly stated that he wanted to show how the medium of graphic novels could be used to do things that literature and film can't do on their own. And you know what? He succeeded. Watchmen is the perfect mesh of those mediums' strengths. It has a well-developed plot and a level of characterization that even most regular novels are lucky to achieve. But it also has extreme visual depth. Every frame is meticulously crafted, and there are dozens of subtle details that not only make it visually come alive but also add to the overall experience of the novel. For example: certain pages have mirrored frames (where the first and last frames are almost identical, as well as the second and penultimate, and so on). Partially-covered signs and newspaper headlines provide insights into sub-plots and thematic backdrops. There's the recurring image of the smiley face and how it's manipulated... those are just a few examples, and I've only read the graphic novel once. I'm sure if I went back and read it again and looked closely I would discover tons more.

Not only is it near-perfect from a storytelling and visual perspective, but it also deals with complex and abstract themes that most novels and films are afraid to touch, because they're difficult to pull off well. We're talking pretty heavy, complicated stuff here: the meaning of life and purpose, moral objectivity vs. relativism, the meaning of justice, time and causality, human nature, etc. Not to mention that at the same time all of this is going on in the regular story, there's a parallel story in a completely different world and frame of reference developing simultaneously that develops these themes even more.

The bottom line is that Watchmen throws all these elements together and somehow it works. It's a beautifully written masterpiece, and manages to balance all of these elements together without collapsing under its own weight. And a regular 2-hour movie simply can't do that. That's why I say it's practically unadaptable - you would need at least a 3-4 hour period and an extremely talented director if you were even going to attempt to pull it off and do the novel justice. And even then it just might not be doable.

2) Hollywood doesn't have a good track record with other, lesser Alan Moore properties. I haven't seen From Hell, but I've heard it's not that good. V For Vendetta was awful. And don't even get me started on The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I'm quite happy repressing that memory.

3) 99.9% of directors wouldn't be able to pull off a good Watchmen adaptation, and Zack Snyder is not part of that remaining 0.1%. Now, don't get me wrong, Snyder's not the worst filmmaker out there, and he has talent. Dawn of the Dead and 300 showed that he has the technical skills necessary to make a decent film. But does that mean he's right for Watchmen? Absolutely not.

Think about it this way. Dawn of the Dead was a zombie movie. 300, while it kept to the graphic novel, was basically just one big barbarian battle scene. In both of these cases, you don't exactly have a complex plot and a lot of three-dimensional characters to deal with. Yes, visually, they're spectacular. I'm not denying that Snyder knows how to make movies that are gorgeous to look at and stick closely to the graphic novel; that's his main strength. And if the trailer for Watchmen is any indication, he succeeded in that area. But one thing's for certain - if you're looking for complex themes and fantastic characterization, he's not the guy to turn to. He just hasn't matured enough as a filmmaker yet to pull that off.

In fact, if I had to pick someone to adapt Watchmen, there are only two people I can think of that could potentially pull it off. The first is Christopher Nolan. With Batman Begins and The Dark Knight he's shown that he can take comic-book characters and make films with them that aren't just action-packed, they're also very well-written and explore a lot of the same type of themes that Moore likes. And with Memento and Insomnia he showed that he's technically gifted and could probably do a good job of capturing the visual essence of Watchmen.

The other guy, my number one choice, would be Darren Aronofsky. Like Snyder, he's only made a few films, but he's already shown himself to be one of the most gifted filmmakers working in Hollywood today. With Requiem For A Dream and The Fountain especially, he showed he knows how to craft gorgeous imagery that is not only nice to look at, but also expands on the themes of subtleties of the overall work. Like Watchmen, each frame is meticulously crafted for a specific purpose, whether it's for visual parallels and mirror imagery, or to advance concepts and ideas. Also, with Pi and The Fountain, he showed he's able to handle stories and characters that are at times very complex and deal with some heavy, abstract themes. He knows how to layer his stories with different meanings and depth, and that's exactly what makes Watchmen so fantastic.

To sum up: Watchmen would be near-impossible to adapt into a film. That is, if you want to do it well. And if you're going to try, Zack Snyder is certainly not the guy you want at the helm. Yes, he's adapted graphic novels before. But Watchmen isn't just a graphic novel. It's a work of art. It's in an entirely different league altogether. And that is why, great trailer aside, this movie will ultimately fail.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: The Machine Girl

2008-06-09T22:16:00.003-06:00

Director: Noboru Iguchi
Starring: Asami, Minase Yashiro
Synopsis: After a gang of bullies kill her brother and chop off her arm, a high school girl goes on a rampage of revenge with a machine gun as a replacement appendage.
Thoughts: A Japanese movie that's out on DVD in the USA before hitting theaters in Japan? What? It's a weird distribution deal, but we're lucky to have it, because this is one fun movie. Think Kill Bill meets Monty Python. This is B-movie making at its finest - the acting is sometimes laughable, the CG effects are cheesy, and the blood gushes like a sprinkler from even the smallest of wounds. Just when you think the plot or the action can't get any more ridiculous, it does, and that's a true testament to the strength of the writing - even though it relies on some conventional plot elements, it somehow comes off as refreshingly original. This is the kind of movie you watch with a bunch of friends after a stressful day at work, and spend the whole time talking back to. If you're in the mood for a cheesy plot and buckets of red corn syrup, it doesn't get much better than this. I mean, come on, it's a Japanese schoolgirl with a machine gun arm fighting ninjas and yakuza! Don't question, just enjoy the ride!

TRAILER: Beverly Hills Chihuahua

2008-05-08T23:27:00.002-06:00

Could this be the best movie ever? I have seen this trailer around ten times now. My brain simply cannot comprehend what my eyes are seeing. This seems like something you see as a fake movie in a show like "30 Rock" or something. But no, I assure you, it is real, and it is coming. The sad thing is that this movie will probably make tons of money and there will be a sequel. In either case, I might actually see this movie, not because I think it will be good (on the contrary, I actually think this could be a sign of the Apocalypse), but because it might make for a fun podcast.

ARTICLE: Full Frame 2008

2008-04-10T04:49:00.003-06:00

As published in The Technician:

The 11th Full Frame documentary film festival -- which attracted filmgoers, press and filmmakers from all across the country for its screenings of more than 100 documentary films, 60 of which were eligible for various awards -- concluded last Sunday in Durham.

The opening-night film selected to kick off the festival was Trumbo, a documentary directed by Peter Askin about famous screenwriter Dalton Trumbo. Based on a play of the same name by Trumbo's son, Christopher, the film follows Dalton Trumbo's struggle to keep working after he was blacklisted in 1947 for being a member of the Communist Party. Christopher Trumbo was present at the festival and participated with Askin in a Q&A after the screening.

"My idea was simply to tell the story of a historical period … in terms of one person and the effect that it had," Trumbo said. "Peter and I wanted to make it into a play, but it was Peter's idea to continue ahead and make a documentary."

Askin said he felt the film's exploration of blacklist and censorship paralleled the current situation in the United States, citing the Patriot Act and the backlash against the Dixie Chicks as an example.

"I think the political relevance is pretty clear," Askin said. "But a lot of it is funny; it's not just a political treatise."

The big winner of the festival was Trouble the Water, which won three awards, including the Grand Jury prize. The film follows New Orleans resident Kimberly Roberts and her husband as they fight to endure Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath in 2005. A large segment of the film consists of home-video footage shot by Roberts during the storm.

Another festival favorite was Man on Wire, which focuses on the planning and commitment of what many have deemed "the artistic crime of the century": a high-wire routine performed between the Twin Towers by Philippe Petit in 1974. Containing archival footage of the event, as well as personal interviews with Petit and many of the other people involved in its execution, the film garnered glowing comments from audience members after the screening.

"After seeing this film, I feel like I'll be able to finally look at pictures of the World Trade Center and instead of immediately thinking of the terrorist attack, I'll think of this," one woman in the audience said.

Man on Wire went on to win the Audience Award as well as a special Grand Jury prize, which it shared with Trouble the Water.

Full Frame staff slightly changed the technical aspects of running a film festival. They used larger venues and set in place new ticketing and logistics systems, which made for an efficient festival-going experience. Early numbers project that more than 29,000 tickets were distributed, a 7 percent increase from last year.

"In 2008, Full Frame set a goal to allow more people access to the films," Israel Ehrisman, director of logistics for Full Frame, said. "The larger venues and improvements to the ticketing and logistics process really made that happen."

Peg Palmer, executive director of Full Frame, expressed her pride in the festival's staff and volunteers, without whom she said it would not have been possible.

"Full Frame 2008 was a huge success," said Palmer said. "The Festival hosted an eclectic audience of filmmakers and film lovers from all over the world who were completely engaged with our program."

Notable films

Up The Yangtze: Directed by first-timer Yung Chang, this film chronicles the effect the construction of the Three Gorges Dam has on families along the Yangtze River in China. With gorgeous cinematography and emotional revelations, this is a film highly recommended for those interested in foreign countries or the cost of China's growing economy. Winner of two Honorable Mentions.

Man on Wire: This engaging and entertaining documentary chronicles the journey of Philippe Petit as he walks on a tightrope between the Twin Towers in the mid-1970s. Director James Marsh uses never-before-seen footage and photographs of the event from its early planning stages through the final performance. Winner of the Audience Award and Grand Jury Award.

At the Death House Door: Retired minister Carroll Pickett shares his experience as a death house chaplain at a prison in Huntsville, Texas, where he presided over more than 95 executions. This film is a sobering look at the death penalty and an engaging look at one man's transformation from apathy to activism. Winner of the Inspiration Award.

Please Vote For Me: In one of the funniest and most thought-provoking films of the festival, director Weijun Chen examines what happens when a third-grade class in Communist China holds a democratic election for Class Monitor. Bribery, lies and manipulation all come to pass in the lives of three 8-year-olds as they strategize their ways to victory. Is this a pessimistic look at the future leadership of China, or could it perhaps also be a critique of the way democracy works in the United States? Winner of the Working Films Award.

FEATURE: Daniel Karslake and For The Bible Tells Me So

2008-04-10T04:42:00.003-06:00

As published in The Technician:

The Film Studies program sponsored a screening last Monday night of the award-winning documentary film For The Bible Tells Me So. The screening was held in cooperation with the Full Frame film festival, which concluded in Durham over the weekend.

The film follows five Christian families and how each responds to the realization that one of their children is gay. It also contains interviews with several prominent religious figures about different interpretations of biblical passages commonly used to condemn homosexuality. Director Daniel Karslake was present at the screening and described the film's examination of faith and sexuality as something he personally related to in his own spiritual life.

"It was actually my faith, ironically, that brought me out of the closet and made me really acknowledge who I was," Karslake said. "Most of the time it's the faith background of gay and lesbian kids that drives them toward suicide and suppressing it."

The audience at the screening consisted of about 70 people, some of whom were students. Afterward, the writer-director participated in a brief Q&A with the crowd.

"I think it was very well received," Karslake said. "Very few people left for the Q&A, and that's always a good sign. … Unless someone says, 'OK, last question,' people could stay forever and talk about this."

In the film, Karslake attempts to bridge the gap between conservative Christian doctrine about homosexuality with real-life stories of religious families that come to accept their gay children. It's a message he said he believes needs to be spread in order to heal the emotional wounds many homosexuals have retained due to negative encounters with religion.

"I get e-mails all the time from gay and lesbian people of all ages who really were in their last weeks before killing themselves and happened to see the film, and have come away actually liking Christians," Karslake said. "It's all about conversation. Silence on this topic is so damaging."

Overall, the audience responded favorably to the film. One of the students present at the screening was Cristina Wase, a senior in social work.

"There was obviously a lot of passion put into it," Wase said. "There was a lot of talk about reading Scripture in context, and I agree 100 percent with that."

Leah Horton, a senior in social work, said she found the film's message corresponded with that of her faith.

"The director stated the film was about transformation," Horton said. "From what I read in the Bible, the Bible is about transformation, too."

The event was supervised by Marsha Orgeron, an assistant professor and director of the film studies program.

"I think it is an incredible opportunity any time students get the opportunity to talk to a director, ask questions and be in the room with someone who's created this thing that we all consume," Orgeron said. "To have that one-on-one opportunity is very rare."

LIST: My Most Anticipated Chinese Films

2008-03-30T23:15:00.002-06:00

As some of you may know, I fell in love with Chinese cinema while studying in Beijing. Since then, I've been doing my best to stay updated on the latest movies coming out of China. Here's my list of my most anticipated Chinese films of 2008, in no particular order. With luck, these will all be imported to the United States or at least get a decent DVD release.

1) Red Cliff - This is John Woo's first Chinese-language film in over a decade, and is the most expensive film to be produced in Asia to date, with a budget of around $80 million. It also boasts an ensemble of some of China and Hong Kong's most famous stars, including one of my personal favorites, Tony Leung. With Woo at the helm, at least one thing is for certain: the action is going to be insane. Count me in!

2) My Blueberry Nights - I'm not really sure if this counts as a "Chinese" film, but it's the first English-language film made by famous Hong Kong director Wong Kar Wai. In The Mood For Love is one of my all-time favorite romance movies, and I've enjoyed most of his other films as well. It'll be interesting to see if his style translates well to an American cast and audience.

3) Mad Detective - The latest thriller by famous crime drama director Johnny To. The Election movies were pretty good, and Exiled is fantastic, so hopefully he managed to make another good one. Word-on-the-street is it's one of his better films.

4) Yip Man - Not only does this movie star my favorite Chinese martial artist, Donnie Yen, but it also marks his fourth collaboration with director Wilson Yip. After seeing what they were able to achieve together in SPL and Flash Point (the final fight in FP is probably my favorite hand-to-hand combat scene of all time), I'm definitely excited to see what they do next. Hopefully they'll get the ball rolling on this soon and it'll be out by the end of the year.

5) Fatal Move - I'm mainly interested in this because it stars Simon Yam and Sammo Hung, both of whom are pretty well-known actors in the East. It also looks like it has a crazy amount of violence and blood.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Lust, Caution

2008-03-30T22:52:00.003-06:00

Director: Ang Lee
Starring: Tony Leung, Tang Wei
Synopsis: In WW2-era Shanghai, a young woman must seduce a high-profile collaborator with the Japanese in order to assassinate him.
Thoughts: This is a good film, and it's unfortunate that many people don't know anything about it other than "it's that NC-17 Chinese movie with the graphic sex scenes." It's true, the sex scenes are very graphic (the Chinese government even officially encouraged people not to attempt some of the sexual positions since they might injure themselves), but unlike most of the even the tamest sex scenes coming out of Hollywood, they're far from gratuitous (trust me, I've seen both the edited and unedited versions). This is a film about acting, and how one actor engages in a battle of wits against the other, each attempting to break through the other's mask to discover his/her true motives. It's a psychologically devastating game, and the sex scenes are the core of the struggle as each character must decide how much of themselves to reveal despite the most intimate of situations. That said, don't be scared off by what you've heard - the sex scenes only comprise about 5 minutes of the movie, and you can always skip them or rent the edited version. However, I recommend the unedited one simply because of how integral they are to the overall portrait of the characters. Though overall I wouldn't call this a "masterpiece", it's certainly a fine piece of filmmaking, with gorgeous cinematography and superb acting by the leads. At the very least, it's better than Lee's vastly overrated Brokeback Mountain.

Watch the trailer.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Semi-Pro

2008-02-29T02:23:00.003-06:00

Director: Kent Alterman
Starring: Will Ferrell, Woody Harrelson, Andre Benjamin
Synopsis: Coach, player and owner of the Flint Tropics basketball team, Jackie Moon tries to lead his ABA team to fourth place so they can merge into the NBA.
Thoughts: Despite the fact that it's getting mediocre reviews, I actually like this the best of all the Will Ferrell sports movies (I wasn't a fan of Talladega). It's nothing spectacular, but it did get me to chuckle fairly consistently, and there were a few moments that had me nearly rolling on the floor with laughter. The film works best when it's parodying an actual organization (the ABA) and an actual event (its merger with the NBA). It lags a bit in the middle when dealing with predictable plot points, notably a romantic subplot (but thankfully this isn't as painfully overdone as in Blades of Glory), but the beginning is strong and the last third contains one of the most creative (and it turns out, hilarious) ideas I've seen in a comedy in a long time. It's worth the price of admission for this part alone.

Watch the trailer.

REVIEW: Jumper

2008-02-29T02:16:00.003-06:00

As published in The Technician:

Jumper mediocre at best

Let me start off by saying this: Jumper is a bad film. There is no denying that fact.

That said, it does have a few positive elements, and you'll be hard-pressed to find more creative action sequences.

The film's plot is fairly straightforward: David (Hayden Christensen) discovers he has the power to teleport. Unfortunately, this makes him an unwilling participant in a war between "Jumpers" (people who can teleport) and "Paladins" (people trying to kill them). He'll have to team up with another Jumper named Griffin (Jamie Bell) to take down Roland (Samuel L. Jackson), a powerful Paladin who wants nothing more than to exterminate all those who can teleport. Not to mention David's also trying to win back his high-school sweetheart, Millie (Rachel Bilson).

The biggest problem with Jumper is that it introduces many really interesting ideas, but never does anything with them.

Apparently, Paladins and Jumpers have been at war since the Middle Ages, but the details of how and why this war is playing out is left unsaid. What is Roland's connection to the government? Where did he get all these high-tech weapons? What separates him from the other Paladins?

Also, if this war is so massive and important, why is it that, over the course of the movie, we're only shown half a dozen Paladins and a grand total of three (that's right, three) Jumpers?

This isn't a war -- it's a schoolyard scuffle. There's some interesting mythology just begging to be explored, but the filmmakers leave it aside in favor of a cliched romance that fails to provide any sort of emotional hook and has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. It's as if they want to tease you with just enough information to dupe you into seeing the inevitable sequel.

The acting is never terrible enough to be distracting, but it's hardly noteworthy. Christensen proves once again that his performance as an actor depends entirely on the strength of the writing and directing, and unfortunately Jumper is weak in both aspects. Bilson never gets to stretch herself, and spends most of the film as a prop pulling the damsel-in-distress routine we've seen a million times before. And as for Samuel L. Jackson, well, he's Samuel L. Jackson, giving the same one-note performance we've come to expect from him. One half expects him to start spouting his Pulp Fiction monologue about the vengeance of the Lord as he grapples with David. Then again, when your character has no characteristics beyond "religious fanatic," it's hard to blame Jackson for seeming shallow.

The only actor worth noting is Jamie Bell, who delivers his lines with perfect comedic timing and looks like he's having a blast. If only the audience had as much fun.

All these problems aside, Jumper does have one thing going for it, and that's the action. The special effects are top-notch and director Doug Liman does an effective job at using teleportation in the film's fight scenes. There's nothing quite like watching characters jump from place-to-place in the heat of battle, and even using their abilities to teleport cars and other objects into the mix. There were more than a few times that I found myself truly impressed by the spectacle I was watching unfold.

If you're looking for an engaging plot and characters you can sympathize with, then Jumper isn't for you. However, if you just want to turn your brain off for 90 minutes, this is the kind of movie you might consider renting one weekend.

It's a bad movie, to be sure, but as bad movies go it's hardly the worst.

Rating: 5/10

BRIEF THOUGHTS: The Mist

2008-02-29T02:06:00.002-06:00

Director: Frank Darabont
Starring: Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden
Synopsis: In this adaptation of the Stephen King novella, Citizens of a small town are trapped in a supermarket when a mysterious mist containing blood-thirsty creatures envelops the town.
Thoughts: Frank Darabont proves again that when it comes to adapting Stephen King, he's the best of them all (he also directed the fantastic The Shawshank Redemption). Though the first twenty minutes of this film are mediocre, it doesn't take long after that for things to kick into high-gear. This isn't a monster movie as much as it's a film about the power of fear to manipulate and control people. I can't believe the studios let him get away with the ending, but I'm glad they did, because it's a climax that has stayed with me more than that of any other film in recent memory. Frank Darabont has cinematic testicles of steel for going with this ending. This is without a doubt the best horror film I've seen in years, for the simple reason that it explores every aspect of horror, from the physical to the psychological to the emotional. If you're looking for a good thriller, definitely give this one a shot.

Watch the trailer.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: No Country For Old Men

2008-02-29T01:52:00.005-06:00

Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring: Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones
Synopsis: A man flees from an assassin after stumbling upon $2 million in cash.
Thoughts: Though I don't think it should have beaten There Will Be Blood for Best Picture, this is still a really excellent film, and probably the best yet by the Coen Brothers. This is a film about Death, and how it comes for us all eventually. Javier Bardem plays one of the best villains in movie history, who is pretty much death incarnate. If you're looking for an intense film dealing with old-fashioned themes, look no further than this.

Watch the trailer.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Pennies From Heaven

2008-02-29T01:35:00.004-06:00

Director: Herbert Ross
Starring: Steve Martin, Bernadette Peters
Synopsis: Arthur Parker, a sheet music salesman in depression-era Chicago, suffers a mid-life crisis and falls for another woman.
Thoughts: Steve Martin's second movie after The Jerk, and he shows he's capable of doing dark drama as well as slapstick comedy. This movie has some really dark, creepy moments - Arthur has some serious issues that go beyond your average mid-life crisis. This is a film about how in life's darkest times, we long for the idealistic situations and values of old-fashioned songs. Characters express their desires in song; it's almost like a psycho-analytic musical, a psychoanamusical. The juxtaposition of bubbly, happy melodies with moral ambiguity and helplessness is a unique and effective tool. This movie's a bit twisted, but I recommend it if you're looking for something atypical with well choreographed musical numbers. Oh, and Christopher Walken does a striptease while singing and tap-dancing. Could this be the best dance scene ever?

Watch the trailer.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Into The Wild

2008-02-29T01:23:00.005-06:00

Director: Sean Penn
Starring: Emile Hirsch, Catherine Keener, Jena Malone
Synopsis: Based on the true story of Christopher McCandless, a young man who cast off the shackles of modern society and attempted to live alone in the Alaskan wilderness.
Thoughts: This should have been nominated for Best Picture; Sean Penn has some serious directing chops. The acting is solid, the cinematography is gorgeous, and the story is inspiring. Penn does an excellent job at capturing the spirituality of nature Christopher's search for himself. This movie almost makes me want to burn my Social Security card and go hunt deer to survive. That's how good it is. For an interesting night, watch this and "Grizzly Man" in the same evening.

Watch the trailer.

TRAILER: Summer Palace

2008-02-15T23:52:00.003-06:00

This film looks amazing. It's dealing with one of the most fascinating times of modern Chinese history, both politically and socially. If this was shot in China (which it appears to be), there is no way it was approved by the government. Political unrest and young Chinese women? Count me in.

TRAILER: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-02-15T23:32:00.004-06:00

A lot of people are raving about this trailer, but honestly, I'm not that impressed. I was totally sold up until Indy lands in the car and cracks a joke about thinking it was closer. I can understand Indiana Jones making a few wisecracks here and there (especially ones that acknowledge how old he's getting), but that line completely killed the mood for me somehow. Punch the Nazi scum, then crack a joke! The sets, costumes and props look great, but a couple of shots had some very sub-par CGI effects. A few of the action shots look like they have potential, so we'll see. I hope Spielberg doesn't pull a George Lucas and manages to deliver a good Indiana Jones film after nearly 20 years, but all the promotional stuff I've seen leaves me slightly optimistic at best.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Persepolis

2008-02-10T00:12:00.000-06:00

Directors: Vincent Paronnaud, Marjane Satrapi
Starring: Chiara Mastroianni, Catherine Deneuve, Simon Abkarian (voices)
Synopsis: This animated French film follows a young Iranian girl as she lives through the Iranian Revolution and goes to Austria to study.
Thoughts: A fairly interesting look at culture clash and the violence that often comes with political change. The animation style is interesting to look at, if not incredibly complicated, and is effective at telling the story. There are some pretty funny moments, mainly as the protagonist struggles to adapt to the regulations forced upon women after the Revolution. Its only main flaw is that I never felt really connected to the characters and their emotional struggle. Still, if you're looking for a fairly light film or have any interest at all in Iranian culture/political history, give this a shot.

Watch the Trailer.

REVIEW: Over Her Dead Body

2008-01-31T00:52:00.000-06:00

As published in The Technician:

Watch this over your dead body

Let's face it: Most movies these days are all the same. The vast majority of films are recycled formulas with a few tweaks here and there attempting to look "fresh." Thankfully, every once in a while, a film comes along that is different from the rest. A film that doesn't just entertain, but changes how you look at the world. Such gems are often described as "inspiring" or "thought-provoking" or "masterpieces."

I have witnessed the first film of 2008 that has changed how I view the world: Over Her Dead Body.

However, unlike movies that fall under the label of "masterpiece," I feel this one deserves its own special category: the anti-film. Not only does this romantic comedy fail to be either romantic or funny, it's also a perfect example of how not to make a film in almost every aspect. I did leave the theater with a renewed sense of fulfillment and appreciation for the world around me, but that's only because I couldn't believe I had managed to get through the past two hours without taking my own life.

The film follows a veterinarian (Paul Rudd) who hires a psychic (Lake Bell) to contact his dead fiancee (Eva Longoria Parker) in the afterlife, only to start falling for her and her supernatural abilities. Of course, this doesn't go over well with his dead girlfriend, who comes back as a ghost to keep them from ending up together. Think Ghost, but with a diabolical she-devil instead of Patrick Swayze, and without any of the things that made that film bearable to watch. You can probably guess most of the plot points and how it all turns out. The only thing surprising about this film is that it was green lit to begin with.

Parker should never be the lead actress in another movie ever again, over-performing even the simplest of lines in a tone more fit for daytime soaps than the big screen. She rigidly prances around the screen as if trying to appear formidable and antagonistic, but instead just comes across as annoying. And for those guys out there who are thinking it might be worth going just for the eye-candy, forget it -- the filmmakers even accomplish the incredible feat of making her appear unattractive. Bell fares only slightly better, delivering a performance that, at best, can be considered tolerable.

Rudd is clearly the most talented of the bunch, and manages to somehow squeeze a few pity laughs through his lines, but even he can't always act around the atrocious dialogue. Every once in a while he gets a mischievous gleam in his eye, as if he's longing to burn his contract and run triumphantly off into the sunset. He's better than this, and he knows it.

The script feels like it was written by a first-grader, from the cringe-inducing dialogue to the fart joke that lasts upwards of thirty seconds. Every single character can be summarized in two words or less, without leaving anything out: veterinarian, psychic, ghost fiancee. Is it possible for characters to be so flat that they barely even achieve one-dimensionality? Evidently.

This film has no redeeming qualities whatsoever -- even the musical overlays feel out of place and downright oppressive. The only good part is when the screen fades to black, the credits start to roll and you realize you've survived the cinematic equivalent of hell. One can only hope this is not a sign of things to come. Trust me, even if your friend begs you to go see this with him, there is only one proper response: "Over my dead body."

Rating: 0/5 stars

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Juno

2008-01-27T22:06:00.000-06:00

Director: Jason Reitman
Starring: Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman
Synopsis: Sixteen year-old Juno finds herself forced to make big decisions when she accidentally gets pregnant.
Thoughts: Firstly, I have no idea why this movie got nominated for Best Picture, it's not that good. Secondly, I have no idea why people are raving about Ellen Page's performance - she's very good, but not Oscar-worthy. Thirdly, this is still a great film that I would recommend to pretty much anyone. I can't think of any major flaws. The movie's greatest strength is its script, which has some of the most clever dialogue I've heard in a long time, and some of the lines will probably go down in history as memorable movie quotes. If you're looking for a light, funny and family-friendly comedy with a lot of heart, definitely give this one a shot.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: King of Kong

2008-01-27T21:19:00.001-06:00

Director: Seth Gordon
Starring: Billy Mitchell, Steve Wiebe (as themselves)
Synopsis: This documentary follows two men as they compete to set a world record - for highest Donkey Kong score.
Thoughts: Who knew an 8-bit video game could cause so much intense skill, obsession and backstabbing? It's not the best documentary of the year, but it's definitely a good one. I was amazed at how serious competitive gaming is; it's a pretty big deal. You'll find yourself really caring about how wins at Donkey Kong, believe it or not. It's the champion versus the elementary teacher who has potential to overthrow him, and it gets pretty intense. Maybe if this film becomes a hit on DVD, video game playing will start to get the respect it deserves (which is a lot, because I play video games).

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Dan in Real Life

2008-01-27T21:07:00.000-06:00

Director: Peter Hedges
Starring: Steve Carell, Juliette Binoche, Dane Cook
Synopsis: A widower with three daughters falls for his brother's girlfriend.
Thoughts: A surprisingly fresh and sweet dramedy. Carell and Binoche are perfect, and Dane Cook actually doesn't suck. It's definitely not a life-changing masterpiece of cinema, but it has enough laughs and drama to make it worth your while. Good flick to see with a date. Or your mom. Not a good one to see if you've fallen for your brother's girlfriend.

COMMENTARY: Heath Ledger's Death

2008-01-24T11:27:00.000-06:00

As published in The Technician:

Reflect on life, not on death

"I hope they finished filming The Dark Knight."

That was the first thought that entered my head last night when I heard the news that actor Heath Ledger had been found dead his in his New York apartment. I know, I know, I'm a jerk -- a guy dies and the first thing I think of is how it will affect the movie. But I'm not the only one who thought that, it seems. In fact, it seems like people everywhere care more about the circumstances and the effects of his death, rather than the simple fact that he died.

A few recent articles even have headlines like, "Ledger's autopsy inconclusive; details will take 10 days" -- as if to say, "In two weeks, we'll be back with the latest gossip and speculation!"

I guess that's to be expected in a culture where the cult of celebrity is growing larger every day. Americans are obsessed with celebrities, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they represent success, and wealth -- you know, the American dream. Maybe it's just because we're jealous. Whatever the reason, you've got to wonder why people can tell you the name of Tom and Katie's kid but don't know who won the last political primary.

There is a common perception nowadays that because someone is "famous" we should devote countless hours of attention to their lives, and not just their lives, but their deaths as well. Remember when Anna Nicole Smith died, and how for weeks you couldn't turn to CNN without seeing her face plastered everywhere? I'm not saying it wasn't newsworthy, but surely there were other more important and relevant events happening in the world during that time. What does that say about us as a culture? Is that something good or bad? I don't have an answer, I'm just saying it's something to think about.

A few minutes after the Ledger story broke, I got an IM from a friend telling me that Wikipedia was going bonkers. Users were editing Ledger's entry to include what was then just speculation about how he had died. One minute it said he had died of an intentional heroin overdose.Then you'd hit Refresh, only to find it was now listed as accidental. Some people even edited the entry as a prank, posting that he'd been found wearing his Joker make-up, and other film-related falsities. How respectful.

Hollywood has lost one of its brightest young stars, but rather than simply acknowledge this fact, the media (not to mention the majority of average citizens) immediately jumped all over the story and started implying things that may or may not be true. Heck, it's been two days since he died, and I'm still not sure what really happened. Was it an accident or a suicide? Was it related at all to his work, particularly his new role as a twisted psychopath in the new Batman movie? Was he a drug addict?

What I'm wondering is: does any of that matter?

A talented performer is gone, and the world -- at least from the eyes of a filmgoer -- is worse without him. Perhaps before we jump to conclusions and make investigations and discover the "truth" behind his death, we should take a few minutes to reflect on his life. It's a courtesy usually offered to non-celebrities. Why should the rich and famous be treated any differently?

I remember when I first saw Ledger on screen, in the Mel Gibson war drama The Patriot. It wasn't a breakthrough performance, but it certainly indicated that there were some serious acting chops beneath the pretty face. It would only be a few years later when he'd be nominated for an Academy Award for Brokeback Mountain. And with all the publicity surrounding his new role in The Dark Knight, it seemed like he was on the verge of superstardom. All that, and the main questions being asked now is, "Did the apartment belong to Mary-Kate Olsen?" and "Is it because he got too immersed in the role of the Joker?"

I wonder if Ledger could see us now, what he'd think about all the uproar. Maybe he'd feel honored we care enough to get so riled up about the details of his death.

But then again, maybe he'd think this was all just a big joke.

REVIEW: There Will Be Blood

2008-01-24T11:16:00.000-06:00

As published in The Technician:

Anderson strikes it rich in Blood

There Will Be Blood is the latest offering from director Paul Thomas Anderson, and marks his first film since Punch-Drunk Love in 2002. Nominated for eight Academy Awards, the film was just released widely this past weekend. The word-of-mouth on the film was that it was a masterpiece; one critic even referred to it alongside The Godfather and Citizen Kane as possibly the best of all time.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but one thing is for sure: There Will Be Blood is certainly filmmaking at its finest.

Anderson, who in films like Boogie Nights and Magnolia focused on an ensemble of characters and their relationships, this time turns his lens on a single oil prospector (Daniel Day-Lewis) in the early 1900s as he attempts to find the land with the most oil that he can buy for the cheapest price. Morality is not an issue, as he has no regard for any other human life except his own -- in his own words, "I see the worst in people." He will lie, cheat and even resort to murder, all in the name of profit.

In his quest for wealth, Plainview encounters a rival in the form of Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), a religious fanatic who opposes anything that might prevent people from coming to God -- specifically, through his church. And it is in this conflict that Anderson shows how he has matured as a filmmaker, for he focuses not only on character development but also on thematic development. Though in past films he frequently focused on the relationship between parents and children (and this is still present here), he broadens his view this time to also examine the American ideology that was born in the rush for oil in the early 1900s.

Plainview and Sunday provide the perfect metaphors for what happens when capitalism and religion are taken to the extreme and twisted for personal gain. In Anderson's portrait of the early 20th century, these two concepts are the dominant cultural forces in people's lives, and both share an affinity for blood, either that resulting from brutal competition or what Eli refers to as the "saving blood" of Christ. It's a bleak and desolate view of how certain American ideals began, but as Anderson himself has acknowledged, it's a view many people can relate to today.

Day-Lewis gives arguably the best performance of the decade, delivering his lines in a gruff growl that elicits chills -- whether he's talking about murder or milkshakes. And it's not just the voice, it's every little gesture and movement. In the very first scene, Day-Lewis and Anderson work so well together that they are able to firmly establish Plainview as a multi-dimensional character without a single word of dialogue. The rest of the actors are also top-notch, particularly Dano, who shows he's quite capable of handling himself alongside the older, more experienced Day-Lewis. If this is any indication, we can expect to see great things from him in the future.

The film is not without flaws, though there aren't many. A subplot involving a long-lost brother could have benefited from more development, and Plainview's characterization at times feels slightly out-of-place. But perhaps the latter is a strength rather than a weakness. Plainview is a moral enigma, alternating between savage cruelty and unexpected acts of kindness. Anderson has left his protagonist room to breathe and allows the audience to reach their own conclusions about his complicated psyche. Rather than telling viewers how to respond to Plainview, his direction is mature enough that images and silences are often more effective at gradually revealing his characters' motivations than dialogue.

There Will Be Blood is not a perfect film, and only time will tell if it goes down in history as a "classic." However, you'll be hard-pressed to find a better-crafted character study or a more thought-provoking exploration of American ideology.

Rating: 9/10

The Sweet And Sour: 2007

2008-01-06T22:08:00.000-06:00

It's time for The Candyman to hand out meaningless recognition to the best (and worst), the sweetest and sourest, films of 2007. It should be noted that as of the time of this posting, I have seen around 50-60 films this year. In the grand scheme of things, this is not a lot. There are many I still need to see, and plan on seeing, including several critical favorites (like No Country For Old Men and Juno, to name a few). So like all such lists of subjectivity, this is far from complete. However, given the circumstances (I spent the whole summer working and was out of the country in the fall), I think I did okay. So without further ado, here are the notable films of 2007.

Best Action Film: Live Free or Die Hard - If only all movies that are the fourth in a franchise were this good. It's not a perfect film, but it's much better than expected, and the action scenes are probably the best and most over-the-top of the series. He fights a fighter jet in an eighteen-wheeler for crying out loud!
Runner-Up: Grindhouse, Shoot 'Em Up

Best Comedy: Knocked Up - I love Judd Apatow. It's just as funny as The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and still has all the heart that's missing from most sex comedies. I've seen it about three times now, and it's still just as enjoyable as it was the first time.
Runner-Up: Superbad

Best Drama: Reign Over Me - The two leads carry this movie on their shoulders, and Sandler gives arguably the best performance of his career. It's funny, it's sweet, and just might get you misty-eyed.
Runner-Up: American Gangster

Best Documentary: Lake of Fire - The best presentation of the abortion issue I have ever seen. Fifteen years in the making, it's surprisingly objective and does an excellent job of revealing how abortion is a fundamentally unique and gray issue, and there are no easy answers.
Runner-Up: For The Bible Tells Me So

Best Animated Film: Ratatouille - Duh. It's Pixar.
Runner-Up: The Simpsons Movie

Best Foreign Film: Lust, Caution - I saw the edited Chinese version and I still enjoyed it. Tony Leung is the man.

Biggest Surprise: I Am Legend - I wasn't expecting much, and what I got instead was the most intriguing zombie/mutant film in years. Smith spends the majority of the film alone with no one to act against but a dog, and it works. The writing and directing is superb, gradually revealing more and more about the protagonist's fractured psyche. Finally, a post-apocalyptic movie where I actually genuinely care about the main character! The ending is one of the worst of the year, but the rest of the film makes up for it, and we can always hope for a director's cut with an alternate one.
Runner-Up: Live Free or Die Hard

Biggest Disappointment: Spider-Man 3 - I've said enough about this in my review. It could (and should) have been so much more!
Runner-Up: Shrek 3, Rescue Dawn

Most Overrated Film: 3:10 to Yuma - It's a good movie, but not as fantastic as most critics seem to think.
Runner-Up: 1408

Film That Deserved Better: Black Snake Moan - It's far from perfect, but for some reason I really liked this movie. Maybe it's the strong spiritual undertones, the great music, or Sam Jackson's superb performance, but whatever it is, this movie deserved a lot better. With a budget of only $15 million, it made only made $4 million its opening weekend and will probably barely break even. You'd think a movie with Samuel L. Jackson and a scantily-clad Christina Ricci would at least make its money back. This coupled with the box-office failure of Grindhouse only confirms to me that the reason Hollywood is becoming less and less original is because whenever it does take a risk with edgier films, we don't pay to see them. How can we blame them for turning around and giving us the crap our money says we want?
Runner-Up: Grindhouse

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood) - Quite possibly the best performance of the decade (or the past few decades, for that matter). Day-Lewis is Daniel Plainview; who knew such a despicable character could be portrayed to such perfection? Even when he talks about milkshakes it's chilling!
Runner-Up: Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises), Tony Leung (Lust, Caution), Adam Sandler (Reign Over Me)

Best Actress: Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone) - I almost completely forgot about Amy Ryan. She's so good that she doesn't stand out - when I was watching her on screen I almost forgot she was there. You don't question that she's a grieving mother who happens to be awful at raising kids, you just assume it, and focus on the other actors around her. If that makes any sense.
Runner-Up: Helena Bonham Carter (Sweeney Todd)

Best Director: Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood) - He directs Daniel Day-Lewis' finest performance and has produced the best film of the year, and possibly the decade. If this is a sign of things to come, he will go down in history with people like Kubrick and Spielberg as one of the greatest directors of all time. Give this guy an Oscar!
Runner-Up: Tim Burton (Sweeney Todd), Ben Affleck (Gone Baby Gone)

Worst Film: Blood and Chocolate - Other than an interesting (if not terribly impressive) process of transformation, this werewolf romance has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The acting is awful, the script is atrocious, and even the special effects are sub-par. How hard is it with technology nowadays to make someone's eyes change colors convincingly? I mean, come on!
Runner-Up: Ghost Rider, Shooter

Best Film: There Will Be Blood - This is the kind of film that will be studied in universities for decades to come. Everything from the writing to the acting to the cinematography to the structure is near-perfect. In fact, if it wasn't for a slightly under-developed subplot and some unclear characterization, this could potentially gain the status of "classic" in the vein of The Godfather and Citizen Kane. It's that good. Its exploration of what happens when capitalism and religion are taken to the extreme, and both the conflict and dependence they have for each other, is thought-provoking and stunning to watch unfold. This is a film that demands multiple viewings; I'm still trying to process everything.
Runner-Up: Grindhouse

And those are my "awards", so to speak, for the year. Feel free to post your picks and comments as well. It's time to look forward to 2008, and what will hopefully be a spectacular year for movies. On that note...

Most Anticipated Film of 2008: The Dark Knight

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Gone Baby Gone

2007-12-27T23:07:00.000-06:00

Director: Ben Affleck
Starring: Casey Affleck, Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris
Plot: A private detective investigates the disappearance of a little girl and uncovers a shocking secret.
Thoughts: Consider me stunned - Ben Affleck is one heck of a director. I knew the guy could write, but this film shows that Affleck is one of the few people in Hollywood that is above average at acting, writing and directing. Though there are a few editing flaws, this is one of the most gripping mysteries I've seen in a long time, as well as one of the darkest and most morally complicated. Props to the writer for asking the tough questions. Be warned, though, you'll have to pay very close attention or you'll miss important details and wind up very confused. I'm still not 100% on all the details, but I'm nevertheless impressed with what Affleck has accomplished. Might we be seeing a nod his way come Oscar season?

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Across The Universe

2007-12-27T22:49:00.000-06:00

Director: Julie Taymor
Starring: Evan Rachel Wood, Jim Sturgess
Plot: A young man travels to America to confront his estranged father, whereupon he falls in love and gets caught up in the revolutionary fervor of the 70s - not to mention the whole film is a musical formed around songs by The Beatles.
Thoughts: The music is, of course, fantastic. Unfortunately, the film as a whole is pretty uneven. Though it's peppered with moments of brilliance (and the last 20 minutes is about a perfect as you could get), a lot of the scenes feel like they only exist to contain another famous Beatles' song rather than serve the story any purpose. If you're looking for a well-developed story and characters, definitely look the other way. However, there is something to be said for the film's visuals, and you might consider buying the soundtrack.

REVIEW: Spider-Man 3

2007-05-05T15:23:00.000-06:00

Firstly: Spider-Man 3 is the best of the trilogy.
Secondly: Spider-Man 3 is the worst of the trilogy.

This one of the most bipolar films I have ever seen, taking viewers to new heights in terms of action and drama while at the same time hitting rock bottom when it comes to character development and coherency. At times, this movie is great. At other times, it's downright annoying.

At the start of the film, life is good for Peter - the public loves Spider-Man, and his relationship with Mary Jane seems to be going well. Unfortunately, Mary Jane is receiving awful reviews for her performance in a Broadway play, and is indignant at her boyfriend's success. Meanwhile, Harry Osborne is still seeking revenge for the death of his father, a slimy symbiote from outer space is following Peter around, and an escaped convict finds that his molecules have binded with sand after a tragic accident. Oh, and said convict is evidently the real perpetrator behind the murder of Peter's uncle. Plus, a new photographer named Eddie Brock is competing with Peter for a staff position at the Bugle. Have you got all that?

It's a lot to keep straight, but for the first half Raimi manages to find the perfect balance between all of the multiple storyarcs that are taking place. The character development is solid, the action scenes are spectacular, and I actually wasn't put off by the oft-criticized performances of Maguire and Dunst. If the first half was any indication, Spider-Man 3 was shaping up to be the darkest, most complex and overall best of the trilogy.

And then it all falls apart.

The third-fourth of the film feels like something out of a different movie. A subplot involving Mary Jane and Harry doesn't flow well, and leads into a 20-minute segment involving Peter as a selfish, angsty, symbiote drug user - or as I like to call him: Emo Pete. Emo Pete dresses in black, dances in the streets, and changes his hair to look like the guitarist from Good Charlotte. Emo Pete also has no place in a Spider-Man film, and makes me want to rip my eyes out of my skull.

It should be noted that Emo Pete is different from Emo Spidey. Emo Spidey can still be annoying (one fight scene in particular contains dialogue that sounds like it was taken directly from a schoolyard brawl between middle-schoolers), but at least he beats people up.

The final fourth of the film is a mishmash of grand spectacle and over-the-top melodrama. The final fight sequence involving all four of the main heroes and villains is the most visually fantastic fight of the series, and also the most suspenseful, even if Topher Grace's voice doesn't quite match up with Venom. In terms of action, it doesn't get much better than this. Unfortunately, the dramatic moments between characters feel flat, due mainly to poor dialogue, poor performances, and a cheesy musical score that seems almost overbearing. To me, this fourth of the film basically summarizes the movie as a whole: good action that is undermined by small (and sometimes major) problems with character development and drama.

Going into the film, I was worried that Spider-Man 3 would feel crowded with too many villains. The opposite is true: not enough time is spent with the villains, particularly Sandman and Venom. The most formidable and visually spectacular foes Spider-Man has ever faced aren't given the screen time and development they deserve in favor of watching Peter go through a silly emotional crisis. As a result, Spider-Man 3 is the best of the series in terms of visuals and action, and the worst in terms of how we relate to the characters. If I request one thing from the studios regarding the inevitable Spider-Man 4, it would be the following:

More action, less angst, please.

INTERVIEW: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Edgar Wright

2007-04-24T23:34:00.000-06:00

First zombies, now cops.

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, the comedy duo perhaps best known for their appearance in Shaun of the Dead, will light up the screen again this weekend in the buddy cop action film Hot Fuzz. In the film, Pegg stars as Nicholas Angel, a police sergeant so good at his job that his co-workers conspire to get him assigned to a quiet little town with no crime. With the help of a new witless partner (Frost), he'll have to solve a series of suspicious events that hint the town may be more than it seems.

This was a departure for Pegg, who had to play a more serious character than usual.

"It was difficult because I couldn't rely on the comic devices I could use if I was playing a more comic character. Shaun was very much closer to myself, in the sense that he was a regular guy," Pegg said.

His co-star also needed to do extensive research in order to prepare for his role as a policeman.

"I joined the Hungarian police force for a year. I played the character rather like a police dog." Frost said.

Most people are probably familiar with Pegg and Frost after they starred in the 2004 zombie comedy Shaun of the Dead.

"We kind of figured that we had to up the ante after Shaun of the Dead," Pegg said. "It's kind of similar in tone."

Whereas Shaun of the Dead parodied the stereotypes and cliches of zombie films, the team's new film promises to do the same thing, but within the buddy cop genre.

"We made Hot Fuzz because we wanted to make a cop movie. We're drawing attention to some of the more cliches that are used in cop films," Pegg said. "We want to make a film that could stand up as a cop buddy movie if you took away the jokes. We make jokes within the genre rather than about it."

Edgar Wright, the director of the film, said that Hot Fuzz was an even greater challenge to make than Shaun of the Dead due to its higher production values and larger crew.

"It was quite daunting. I think the thing that helped enormously was that we rehearsed with everyone before shooting," Wright said. "Doing scenes with lots of actors, no matter how famous they are, is always difficult. It was a real balancing act with the actors to make sure everyone had their moment."

Wright is also the person responsible for coming up with the title of the film.

"I always thought 'fuzz' was the coolest name for the police," Wright said. "If I was a policeman, the one slang term I wouldn't mind being called is 'the fuzz.'"

The film promises to be filled with many large-scale action sequences. Pegg and Frost did their own stunts when possible.

"We did everything we could. It was really good fun," Pegg said. "It was a challenge to leap through the air and all that sort of stuff."

Frost had a different perspective on the value of stunt work.

"I get very nervous before a stunt because hundreds of people are watching and you want them to like me afterward. It's very nerve-wracking," Frost said. "But afterward, a hundred girls clap, so it's great."

INTERVIEW: Adam Brody

2007-04-24T23:32:00.000-06:00

Adam Brody, the actor probably best known for his role as Seth Cohen on the television series "The O.C.", can next be seen in the film In The Land of Women. It's a film that puts Brody in his first leading role, in company with well-known co-stars such as Meg Ryan and Kristen Stewart.

The actor said he was drawn to the film by the power of the script.

"I really loved the script. It's such a mature script," Brody said. "This is a very old-fashioned, kind of sweet story. It's a very kind of hopeful, sweet, nonviolent story which I think there's a distinct lack of if you look around at movies today."

Brody stars as Carter Webb, a television writer who goes home in an attempt to find healing after his girlfriend breaks his heart. It's a role the actor said has the potential to connect with the majority of viewers.

"I don't want to say [my character's] an average guy," Brody said. "But he's just looking for some answers and, I mean, he gets broken up with. I think everyone can relate to that."

The actor said he is trying to move away from television and start a career in film.

"I'm pretty excited about film right now," Brody said. "I'm sure sooner or later I'll be back in television, but for right now I wouldn't mind doing some movies. I like the idea of telling one story and then moving on and telling another story."

Though he has had secondary roles in films such as Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Thank You For Smoking, this marks his first time as a leading man. It's a change that affected how he saw himself as an actor.

"You're always infusing a character with yourself. I felt like I sort of changed. At first I liked acting as close to me as possible, and by the end I sort of wanted the opposite," Brody said.

He also discovered how hard it actually is to lead a film.

"It's hard work. Cameos are sort of amazing because you go in for two days and then you're in a movie other people worked on really hard for a year," Brody said. "I'm in this for more than a few minutes. With this, you're working harder than you have, but it's also more fulfilling."

The film is directed by first-time director Jon Kasdan. According to Brody, he was as competent as a veteran of the industry.

"It was interesting because he doesn't come off as a first-time director at all. I don't feel like I worked with a first-time director. We became friends and hung out for about 10 months before shooting the movie while I was still doing the show," Brody said.

The actor said he chose his profession not for fame and fortune, but simply because it's what he likes to do.

"It's very important to me to love what I do, and try to find a career that I truly enjoy. You spend so much of your time at work. If you can find something that excites you to do from 9 to 5, that's half the battle of life, I think."

FEATURE: Full Frame 2007

2007-04-15T19:07:00.000-06:00

I have just returned from my fourth and final day covering the Full Frame documentary film festival in Durham, North Carolina. After much sleep deprivation, muscle atrophy, and enough caffeine to kill a small horse, it's over.

Full Frame really is an amazing festival. Although it's been growing, it's still very small and intimate considering it's basically the Cannes of documentary film festivals. I can't believe how many people, even around North Carolina, haven't heard of it. Holy crap, it was a blast. It's great just being surrounded by a community of people that share the same passion for documentaries and film in general. Below you will find a summary of the entire weekend, complete with pictures, day-by-day.

Firstly, though, I have to talk about the press screeners I received. I got about eight, but I only got a chance to see one, and that was The Great Happiness Place. The film focuses on the male "hosting" industry in Osaka, Japan. Basically, they're like prostitutes for emotion and love instead of just sex. Girls pay them to party with them and make them feel loved. Also, interestingly enough, most of their clients are prostitutes themselves. This is a really good documentary, and I'd encourage anyone reading to check it out. It's just really interesting how people spin webs of deception, and how other people in turn fall into them, even if they consciously know what they're doing. Fascinating.

The actual festival itself proceeded as follows.

THURSDAY:

After getting set up with all my press stuff and figuring out the ticketing system, I went to the first of many films: For The Bible Tells Me So. As I was standing in line, I noticed a middle-aged man with thick-rimmed black glasses standing in front of the theater. For some reason, I had the strange feeling that I knew this person. I puzzled over this mystery as I walked into the theater. I spied the man sitting on the aisle, and proceeded to go sit down on the row right behind him, a few seats over.

And that's when it hit me: I was sitting within arm's length of Kirby Dick. I hadn't even been at Full Frame for an hour before seeing my first celebrity. I had no idea that he was going to be there; I found out later he was part of the committee for selecting the Grand Jury Award. For those of you who don't know, Kirby Dick is an awesome documentary film director, responsible for movies like Twist of Faith and This Film Is Not Yet Rated (which is a really fun film). Unfortunately, before I could say hello and talk to him, he struck up a conversation with two guys that were there from UNC. Nooooooooooooo! Of all people, it had to be my bitter rivals!

I've noticed that I get really star-struck. It's really difficult for me to walk up to someone and be like, "I'm Andrew! I love your movies!" This even applies to non-celebrities and filmmakers that aren't really big names. The only time I can do it is if I manage to find the person alone, and not looking like they're focusing on something else. The last thing I'd like to do is piss them off because I interrupted what they were doing. So unfortunately, I didn't get to officially meet Kirby, though I saw him at several points throughout the weekend. Every time I saw him, he was either talking to someone else or seemed like he was rushing off to do something important. Still, it was cool to see him. Here's a rather poor picture of him I took at the awards ceremony:

Kirby Dick is awesome.

Anyways, back to the movie. For The Bible Tells Me So is really good. The film follows five families and the backlash they face when a member of each comes out as being gay. It's a fascinating examination of the conflict between homosexuality and religion. The film contains interviews with many religious figures (one of the main people in the film is even Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop), and they talk in-depth about the accuracy of biblical literalism and the necessity of exegesis (putting biblical passages in their historical and cultural context). A couple interesting things about the Robinson and the film:

1) The director got Robinson to be in it by sneaking through his security, barging into his office, and getting ten minutes to pitch his project.
2) Robinson has stated that he now has no idea why he said "yes" to appear in the film, but that the director was so passionate about his project he knew that it would turn out okay.

I highly recommend this film, particularly for people who struggle with the issue of homosexuality due to their religious convictions. It's particularly amazing given the fact that it's directed by a newcomer, Daniel Karslake, who ended up winning Charles E. Guggenheim Emerging Artist award at the festival for the best first-time documentary feature filmmaker.

Daniel Karslake gets his award.

Next up was the documentary I was most looking forward to seeing, Lake of Fire. Directed by American History X helmer Tony Kaye over a period of 10-15 years, the film delves deeply into both sides of the abortion debate. This film is amazing, and ended up being my personal favorite of the festival. It's shot in high-quality black-and-white (an obvious thematic metaphor) and contains some of the most interesting shots visually that I've ever seen in a documentary. It just sucked me in and wouldn't let me go. This film is definitely the single greatest examination of the abortion issue that I've ever seen. Both sides are given their fair share of screen time, and Kaye points out the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. If you're pro-choice, you will find yourself understanding where the pro-lifers are coming from, and if you're pro-life you will see the legitimacy in the pro-choice position as well. This film weighed heavy on my mind for a long time after I saw it, and has definitely expanded and influenced how I now feel about the issue. This is a film that needs to be seen by anyone who claims to have an opinion about abortion, and one that aims to inspire dialogue between the two sides. If you're a steadfast feminist, see it. If you're a hardcore conservative Christian, see it. If you're in between, see it.

After that, I wandered around for the while. Saw Ariel Dorfman surrounded by about half a dozen people. Next up was the opening night event, a screening of the German documentary Castells about a Spanish/Catalan human pyramid team. It wasn't fantastic, but it wasn't terrible either. It's one of the few documentaries I've seen that literally had the audience on the edge of their seats at points. Think of it as the inspirational sports film of documentaries.

Next up was the opening night party. It was okay. The food was the kind of upper-class fancy shmancy cuisine that looks better than it tastes. I met the producer of a film called Eloquent Nude (which I ended up not being able to catch), and chatted with a woman who was at Full Frame for the sole purpose of finding people to fund the documentary she wants to make about how Harlem is losing its culture and heritage as more and more upper-class white people move in and transform it into a typical suburban city. Sounded interesting. I hope she manages to get it made.

I ended the night by going to see Bob Dylan: 65 Revisited from D.A. Pennebaker. Pennebaker is one of the classic documentary filmmakers of our time, and the film consisted of cut footage from his famous documentary about music legend Bob Dylan, Don't Look Back. Although it lagged at times, it was interesting, and quite funny at times. I'm not a huge Dylan fan, but I don't mind his music, and a lot of the movie was made up of full-length song performances, so that was cool. I later saw Pennebaker later in the press room, but unfortunately didn't get a chance to speak to him. Still, the guy's a legend (though I must admit, I hadn't heard of him until I found out he'd be there).

After that, I got home for around 4-5 hours of sleep, before hitting the road again with Mason at 7:30 the next morning.

FRIDAY:

We started off the day by attending the Meet-The-Press/Filmmaker breakfast at a small restaurant near the theater. The food was good, especially since it was free. I ended up sitting with the director and producer of a documentary called Angels In The Dust. Although I didn't see the film, it sounded interesting. They informed me that it contains elephants, and elephants are always worth seeing.

The first screening we went to was White Light/Black Rain, which focuses on the aftermath of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's an interesting topic, but the film suffered from severe pacing issues, and I found myself dozing in and out of consciousness.

Next up was Leila Khaled: Hijacker, a film with complex themes centering on Leila Khaled, a famed Palestenian freedom fighter responsible for various acts of terrorism, including five hijackings. This film wasn't spectacular, but I liked it, and it ended up winning an award in the end. It really makes you think about the nature of terrorism, and whether or not violence can be justified in certain situations. This was followed by Promised Paradise, a film about an Indonesian puppeteer who confronts the bomber of a Bali night club in his prison cell, and investigates whether or not the terrorists' actions can be justified in the Koran and if they'll indeed wind up in Paradise. This is a unique, intriguing film that I'd recommend checking out if you get a chance.

Followed was another double screening: The Last Days of Yasser Arafat and The Hands of Che Guevara. The former was the better of the two, and follows a journalist attempting to get a privileged one-on-one interview with the President of Palestine. It was interesting. Arafat comes across as a really nice guy who really loved his people and was almost always very jovial. The one about Che Guevara was very beautifully shot, and had an interesting premise (it follows the supposed journey of the revolutionary's hands which according to rumor were amputated upon his death). However, maybe I was just too sleepy, but the film seemed like it should have been shorted by a good 20 minutes, and I found myself in and out of consciousness again. Bummer.

After this, I attended my first special event of Full Frame. Since it's the festival's tenth anniversary, ten notable filmmakers and supporters of the festival had been chosen to present a documentary that they found meaningful, along with an essay on why it's important. I went to check out The Battle of Algiers, the 1963 classic about the Algerian war for independence from the French. I had never seen it, and I figured this was as good a time as any. It's not really a documentary, but it was presented by Oscar-nominated director Mira Nair (director of the incredible Monsoon Wedding and most recently The Namesake), who after the screening talked about the film and made a case for it being considered part of the genre. I loved the movie, and recommend that everyone see it. Mira Nair also had a lot of very interesting things to say about it, and why it's more relevant today than ever. She's obviously very smart, having graduated from Harvard. I said hello to her after the screening, and let her know that I think it's great to see strong female directors such as herself making a name for themselves in Hollywood. She seemed like a very nice person.

The one and only Mira Nair.

The night ended with a screening of Larry Flynt: The Right To Be Left Alone, which focuses on the founder of Hustler magazine and first-amendment defender Larry Flynt. It's a really interesting look at the controversial figure, and touches on all of the main points of his life. Though the cut I saw did had some slight editing problems, I really liked it. Though I personally am morally opposed to pornography, I do strongly believe in the first amendment and the right of people to buy and sell it if they so choose. Flynt has been responsible for a lot of major events due to his adamant support of freedom of the press, from his Supreme Court trial against Jerry Falwell, to his refusal to reveal the source of the DeLorean surveillance tape, to his campaign to run for President and federal lawsuit over the freedom of the press in Iraq. He just seems like a really nice, funny guy (the director referred to him as a "true gentleman") who gets a lot of crap over his occupation. To paraphrase him: "Everyone claims to support freedom of speech, but many people don't really know what that means. You can't truly support freedom of speech until you support the right of someone to get up on stage and say every single thing that you personally disagree with."

Flynt himself was supposed to show up to present the film, but got sick at the last minute and couldn't make it. However, the director and producer were there, and Jimmy Flynt showed up in his brother's place.

The director, Joan Brooker-Marks.

The producer, her husband, Walter Marks.

The two together.

Larry's brother, Jimmy.

SATURDAY:

Started out with a short documentary called Nobody Calls My Parents Losers, about a teenager who lives in an orphanage since his mother is schizophrenic and his father is manic-depressive. This was a good character-driven little doc. I liked it. This was followed by The Killer Within, a dark and fascinating film about a man with a secret - he killed a man in college - and what happens when he decides to reveal it to his family and the world. It forces the audience to come to terms with questions like: Is it possible for people to change? Is there a limit on how far forgiveness can go? It reminded me a lot like a real-life version of my own script, The Act, in many ways. Highly recommended.

Next I went to see Julia Reichert (director of my favorite documentary of all time, A Lion in the House) present her choice of an important and ground-breaking documentary. She chose Roger and Me, the first film by Michael Moore, and the film that proved documentaries could reach mainstream audiences and be as entertaining as they were informative. Again, this was another classic I hadn't seen, so I took this opportunity to see it on 35mm film. I loved it. Moore does a good job of showing the negative effects of a culture centered on capitalism and greed, even if he doesn't directly come out and state that it's an anti-capitalist film. After the screening, Reichert talked with Moore himself about the film, and Moore took a Q&A from the audience. A few interesting tidbits from the session:

1) Paraphrasing Moore: "My films are designed to make people angry, and inspire action. I want people to have a good time watching my films, but then walk up to the usher on their way out of the theater and ask, 'Where is the nearest torch?'"
2) He views capitalism as an evil economic system. When asked if there is a system he thinks the United States should adopt instead, he replied, "Norway." His new film Sicko supposedly answers this question in greater detail.
3) All of the stock General Motors footage in Roger and Me was stolen. Moore had a friend that worked in the video department of GM that snuck him in and helped him make copies of the footage he wanted. According to Moore, "Now that it's been five years and the statute of limitations is up, I can make that information public."
4) When asked if he ever worries about assassination due to his outspoken stance against the administration, he replied that he couldn't go to details, but that lately it's been on his mind since someone was recently released from prison who at one time was indeed planning to kill him.

Anyways, he seems like a pretty cool and down-to-Earth guy. You can tell he comes from a working class background, with only a high school education. He was very relaxed and upfront about everything - he didn't make a big deal about posturing, if that makes sense. I'd heard somewhere that he's actually pretty arrogant and rude, but he seemed like an alright guy to me. I wanted to meet him in person, but unfortunately the one time when I got close to him (passed him on the way down some stairs as he was coming up), he seemed like he was heading somewhere and kinda just wanted to get away from everyone. Maybe it's just me.

Julia Reichert talks to Michael Moore.

The next big event I attended was a panel discussion with many of the guest curators. Nine of the ten were present at Full Frame in person (Scorsese couldn't make it in person) and seven of them were all on stage together to discuss various issues about documentary filmmaking, such as: the role of documentaries, the differences between documentaries and narrative films and which is superior, the concept of inspiring rage in the audience, whether or not it's possible to indeed find truth, etc. It was all very interesting. The panelists were: Michael Moore, D.A. Pennebaker, Julia Reichert, Cara Mertes, Mira Nair, St. Claire Bourne and Ariel Dorfman. A few observations: St. Claire Bourne seems like a really interesting filmmaker. I had never really heard of him (I don't know enough about documentary filmmakers), but evidently he's famous for his documentaries about African-American issues, and is good friends with Spike Lee. Also - Ariel Dorfman is the man. You can tell he's a writer. He is extremely articulate and structures his sentences very uniquely, almost poetically. I'm disappointed that I didn't get to meet him, but I guess since he works at Duke if I really feel the urge to talk to him I can always drive half an hour and do it. There was also a work-in-progress documentary called A Promise to the Dead that I didn't see playing at Full Frame about his life, but that should be interesting to see when it's finished.

Julia Reichert and Mira Nair.

St. Claire Bourne, Ariel Dorfman and Cara Mertes.

Next up was In The Shadow Of The Moon, a documentary about landing on the moon with interviews with several people from the Apollo missions. This was definitely the March of the Penguins of the festival, in that it's a very mainstream and family-friendly documentary with really high production values. I recommend it for anyone interested in space missions and the lunar landing. It's very inspiring, and a lot of the footage from the space shuttle is jaw-dropping.

Saturday ended with a very well-done animated short called The Guarantee, followed by a sneak preview. I decided to attend the sneak previews this year, since the sneak last year had been Jonestown: The Life And Death of Peoples Temples, which was awesome. Unfortunately, due to the fact that distribution details haven't been worked out yet and I'm not sure if it's had an official "premiere" yet, I'm not allowed to reveal the name of the documentary in connection with Full Frame. However, I will say this: it's a very sweet, poignant documentary that I think everyone will be able to relate to in one way or another, and it wound up being one of my favorites of the whole festival. I'm going to try and figure out when exactly I can reveal what it was publicly, but for right now if you want to know you'll have to ask me privately through email or instant message.

Mason and I had been planning on seeing two more films, but by this point we were exhausted, so we decided to call it a night.

SUNDAY:

Woke up feeling lousy, so we decided to skip the first slate of documentaries in favor of another two hours of sleep. This helped greatly.

I started out the day by managing to get a brief interview with the director of last night's sneak preview. Woohoo! I really hope this film gets wide release, because it really is quite remarkable.

The first film today was another sneak preview. I'm not sure if I can reveal what it was, but I'll go ahead and say that it's about the torture issue, and deals with the scandals that took place at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib. It's really heavy at times, but very good, and definitely worth seeing when it gets released. The director is also a fairly big name in the world of documentary filmmaking - three years ago he came out with a documentary about a certain corporate scandal. You might know who I'm talking about now.

After that, it was time for the Awards Ceremony and barbecue. The food this time was actually really good. None of that rich-people's food. This was good ol' North Carolina barbecue, slaw, baked beans, tea, rolls, etc. Unfortunately, like last year, I hadn't seen the films that ended up winning the big awards (Audience Award went to War Dance, and Grand Jury Prize went to The Monastary). However, I was pleased to see Lake of Fire receive an honorable mention for one award and Daniel Karslake get recognized for For The Bible Tells Me So. Another film that got a lot of attention (I think it might even have won two awards) was The Devil Came On Horseback, which focuses on the conflict in Darfur. I actually still have a press screener of this, so maybe I'll get a chance to watch it.

The final film of the festival for me was one that already has gotten a limited release, but one that I've really been wanting to see. It's Prisoner or: How I Planned To Kill Tony Blair. This would have made a good companion piece for the sneak preview I had recently seen. It focuses on similar events, but from a more character-driven rather than issue-driven approach. Check this one out, too.

I hung around after the screening in an attempt to talk to the director, Michael Tucker. Unfortunately, there were some other people talking with him and they were taking a long time. However, Daniel Karslake walked by and I took that opportunity to meet him instead, congratulate him on his award, and tell him how much I loved his film. We talked for a good 10-15 minutes about the film and filmmaking in general. We had a good 5-10 minute chat about the film and filmmaking in general. He's a cool guy, and had some good advice. He also told me he's thinking about next doing a documentary on world poverty, and how statistics suggest that if we spent $50 billion a year for 5-10 years, we could virtually eradicate that. That's a very striking statistic, particularly when you consider the United States has spent around $700 billion on the war in Iraq. No matter what he ends up doing next, I hope it turns out well. He's a really nice guy.

Here are a few more random pictures from the festival:

St. Claire Bourne presents an award for achievement by a filmmaker of color.

The award goes to this guy, Marco Williams, for his film "Banished."

Me and the director of the film-that-cannot-be-named. She went incognito for the picture.

Me and Mira Nair. Yeah!

Me and Daniel Karslake hanging out.

And that was this year's Full Frame. Once again, it was a blast. I saw 20 films total. There's so much to do, and I couldn't see everything I wanted to, but it was a lot of fun all the same. I hope I'll be able to continue to go, at least for the next two years while I'm still part of the college press. It's inspired me to start thinking about making documentaries myself, so who knows what will happen there. I can't wait until April 2008!

You can find trailers for some of the films you might be interested in below:

Prisoner or: How I Planned To Kill Tony Blair
The Killer Within
White Light/Black Rain
Larry Flynt: The Right To Be Left Alone

Until next year...

REVIEW: Grindhouse

2007-04-15T18:42:00.000-06:00

Filmgoers are about to get a blast from the past this weekend with the release of Grindhouse, a double-feature that pays homage to the grindhouse exploitation films of the '60s and '70s.

Robert Rodriguez (Sin City) and Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill) have teamed up to direct a tribute to the edgy, low-budget films of their childhood. The result is a film lover's dream come true, and a damn good time as well.

The film begins with Planet Terror, an over-the-top zombie gore-fest directed by Robert Rodriguez. Rose McGowan stars as Cherry, a go-go dancer who teams up with an old boyfriend, El Wray (played perfectly by Freddy Rodriguez) and a slew of other eccentric characters to take on a horde of flesh-eating zombies and the corrupt military officials behind the infection.

Gore oozes out of every scene, the violence is nonstop, and there are so many explosions you'll think you accidentally walked into the next Michael Bay popcorn flick.

If there is any major flaw with Rodriguez's entry, it's that there's too much action, and it all seems a bit too expensive for something claiming to pay homage to low-budget exploitation films of decades past.

However, Planet Terror packs such a punch and is such a thrilling ride that this is an easily forgivable offense.

Tarantino's offering, Death Proof is a much different film, in both style and tone. Tarantino has long expressed a love for exploitation films, and he clearly knows the turf better than Rodriguez. Big-budget action is pushed aside in favor of lengthy conversations and suspense, but if there's anything Tarantino has shown he has a strength for, it's clever dialogue.

It's possible that after the kinetic energy of Planet Terror, viewers might find Death Proof lethargically slow, to the point of boring. However, every good double-feature showcases movies that are vastly different in pacing and tone, and Grindhouse is no different.

Kurt Russell's performance as a serial killer stuntman who uses a car as his weapon of choice is one of the actor's strongest yet, and indicates that he still has the acting necessary to be a leading man.

Part slasher, part feminist revenge flick, Death Proof showcases Tarantino's ability to craft both intriguing dialogue and high-octane action. Though it takes its time in getting to the car crashes and chase sequences, each scene feels like it belongs, and there's enough dark comedy to keep things interesting. When it is time for the action, Tarantino chooses to use raw filmmaking techniques rather than CGI to keep things suspenseful, and the result is a spectacular chase that demonstrates how creativity and talent are more effective than a computer any day.

In between the films, viewers are treated to another staple of Grindhouse cinema: an intermission filled with previews for coming attractions. All of the trailers in Grindhouse are fake, and crafted by such contemporary horror film directors as Eli Roth, Rob Zombie and Edgar Wright. Each trailer pokes fun at a different subgenre of horror, from slashers to foreign imports, with hilarious results.

Technically speaking, Grindhouse looks and feels like something out of an old grindhouse movie theater. Both directors highlight the conventions and the flaws of the genre, from grainy and scratched footage to missing frames. When you add to that the inclusion of fake trailers, the atmosphere is perfectly nostalgic and campy.

Some might be put off by the extreme amount of gore and nudity in the film. Frankly, I'm surprised Grindhouse didn't receive an NC-17 for some of its more graphic imagery. However, these are both foundational elements of exploitation films, and Tarantino and Rodriguez were wise to acknowledge and have fun with the sheer absurdity of it all. As a parody of the gratuity of the genre, the result never feels gratuitous itself, but only as shocking and darkly hilarious as you'd expect given the material.

This is not a perfect film. However, in terms of entertainment value, it's the best time I've had in a theater so far this year. This is a movie to see with friends in theaters, and with a large audience to share the experience. At a running time of three hours, you'll be hard-pressed to find another film that gives you as much bang for your buck as Grindhouse.

Rating: 9/10

REVIEW: Blades of Glory

2007-04-15T18:35:00.000-06:00

It started with dodgeball. Then it was NASCAR. Now it's figure skating. Hollywood seems to be going through a phase of sports-themed comedies, and this weekend will see the release of Blades of Glory, the latest Will Ferrell movie in which he plays the same egotistical-jerk-at-the-top-of-his-game as usual. Really, does he play anything else?

Will Ferrell and Jon Heder play Chazz Michael Michaels and Jimmy MacElroy, respectively - professional figure skaters whose rivalry for each other eventually results in them being permanently prohibited from skating singles in the Olympics. However, the pair discover a loophole that will allow them to skate as a pair. They'll have to put aside their differences if they're going to steal the gold from the favored competitors, Stranz and Fairchild Van Waldenberg (Will Arnett and Amy Poehler).

Ferrell and Heder have great chemistry, and that's what keeps this comedy afloat. Although a lot of the jokes get repetitive, their facial expressions and mannerisms always result in at least a chuckle. With the exception of the two leads, all of the other characters are entirely one-dimensional, existing only to crack a few one-liners and move the story along. It's unfortunate more time wasn't spent developing the script, but as a comedy it does succeed in garnering laughs.

The film reaches its peak when it moves away from the obvious homosexual innuendoes and focuses on developing the rivalry between the two protagonists and finding newer and better skating techniques. The figure skating is perfectly exaggerated, playing off the conventions of the sport and its athletes with the right balance of seriousness and satire.

Blades of Glory is not the great, timeless comedy that it had potential to be. However, neither is it the tired clich�d piece of garbage it also could have been. Rather, it's content to stay somewhere in the middle. The jokes are the kind that you'll find yourself laughing at and then forgetting within minutes of leaving the theater.

In the end, this is just your standard comedy, nothing more. It doesn't live up to its potential, but it should satisfy viewers, at least until the next Will Ferrell sports movie comes out.

Rating: 6.5/10

INTERVIEW: Jon Heder

2007-04-15T18:34:00.000-06:00

Jon Heder is probably best known to most as the socially inept yet lovable Napoleon Dynamite. However, ever since that small film became a cult sensation, the actor has had the opportunity to work with many veteran directors and actors and make a name for himself in Hollywood. He can next be seen alongside Will Ferrell in Blades of Glory, a comedy about two male figure skaters who end up competing as a pair.

According to Heder, it's a film audiences are lucky to see. There was a brief period of time during which it was nearly cancelled, after the actor broke his ankle during training.

"I wish I could say it was a cool accident and I was doing a cool trick, but I wasn't. I was going into a spin and my foot stayed stuck in the ice, so I just kind of crumpled on top of it," Heder said. "There was a brief time where we really thought the movie wasn't going to happen."

Luckily, he was able to heal and complete the production. One of the biggest things he said attracted him to the project was the opportunity to learn how to figure skate. He found the sport to be demanding both physically and in terms of his acting.

"It was a challenge but I loved it. I was extremely excited to learn a new skill," Heder said. "It's athletic, but you're acting at the same time. You have to work your muscles but you also have to be showy. You have to have grace and pizzazz."

Unlike some of the other films he's been in, the physical nature of the role combined with the larger scale of production made it a challenge to work on.

"It was like a workhouse. We did have a fun time, but as opposed to some of the other sets I've worked on, it was a lot of hard work," Heder said. "We get there and we want to be funny but we also want to look good on the ice."

Heder said working with Will Ferrell was a good part of making the movie.

"It's great. There's no ego. All the guy cares about is making people laugh and entertaining people," he said.

There was, however, a little friendly competition between the two actors.

"The competitive parts usually came on the ice, like who was the better skater. We were both kind of new at it," Heder said. "I remember thinking, 'Will has three extra weeks of training than me, but I can still skate circles around him.'"

Despite the difficulty of the work, he and Ferrell were able to find ways to improvise and have fun on the set. For example, the actors would often invent new and unique figure skating maneuvers.

"'Love Dust' was a move I came up with. It's pulling the sparkles out of your heart, blowing them into the air and letting them fade into existence through your fingers," Heder said.

Heder also had input on some of the costuming choices for his character.

"I'm very proud of the peacock costume. That was kind of my doing," Heder said. "We got the idea from Johnny Weir, who's a great American figure skater who had a swan outfit that he used one time."

Weir was not the only professional athlete to influence the film. Many figure skaters were consulted for the film, and even have cameos in the final product.

"There's a lot of famous skaters that came on. The one I interacted with the most was Scott Hamilton. He was really cool," Heder said. "He was the one that was kind of telling us, 'There's crazier stuff in the world of ice skating. You need to go farther!'"

Although he would be interested in doing more dramatic roles, the actor said he finds comedic roles to be very enjoyable.

"There's something fun about it. You feel good when you can make someone laugh and make yourself laugh," Heder said. "I really enjoy physical comedy, kind of turning your body into a cartoon. You can get so much about a character through the way they position themselves and the way they move."

Blades of Glory opens nationwide Friday, March 30.

INTERVIEW: Mark Wahlberg

2007-04-15T18:33:00.000-06:00

Mark Wahlberg has risen through the ranks of Hollywood like few have. Once known as the crotch-grabbing rapper Marky Mark, he went on to become admired for his acting talent, even going as far as to achieve an Oscar nomination for his role in last year's The Departed. The actor can now be seen this weekend in Shooter, an action-packed shoot-em-up meant to pay homage to the action-conspiracy films of the '70s.

"The high-intensity action movies that they've been making lately aren't really the kind of character-driven movies that I love and that I grew up watching in the '70s," Whalberg said. This is kind of a throw-back to that."

The film was adapted from a novel, though other things were instrumental in crafting the character. According to the actor, one of the biggest challenges of the film was its physical demands. He did all his own stunts, as a means of maintaining the audience's suspension of disbelief.

"I knew going in it was going to be tough, but actually making the movie, the stuff was pretty rigorous," Wahlberg said. "And with this, I had no previous sniper training, so we went to sniper school and physically I had to really transform."

In the film, Wahlberg plays Bobby Lee Swagger, an ex-sniper hired to protect the president from assassination. Things take a turn for the worse when he's framed for an attempt, and he becomes a fugitive who must find the real killer and the reason for the setup.

"I don't think it's a glorified soldier role at all. I mean, now knowing what being a sniper entails, it is an extremely difficult job. There's not much glamour involved in it at all," said Wahlberg. "You know, you've got a guy who's all about honor and integrity. It's much more of a Travis Bickle or a Dirty Harry than it is a Terminator-type character."

INTERVIEW: Wes & Jonathan Craven

2007-04-15T18:32:00.000-06:00

Thirty years after the release of a remake of his 1977 horror film The Hills Have Eyes, Wes Craven teamed up with his son, Jonathan, in writing a sequel to the 2006 remake. The Hills Have Eyes II which will be released into theaters this weekend, follows a group of military trainees who are attacked by mutants in the desert.

"It was great. I've never had a smoother writing experience," Jonathan said. "We sat in a room for a month and pounded out a first draft. We got along great and had a great time."

Though both Cravens had writing experience, this was the first time they had teamed up and collaborated on a project.

"We could have conversations about being a father, which was a new thing for us. It was two writers and two fathers writing together," Wes said.

As one of the godfathers of the horror genre, responsible for films such as A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream, Wes said there are only a few rules he tries to follow when writing and directing his movies.

"The basic questions I try to ask are, 'Would I like to watch this?' and 'Have you already seen a movie like this?'" Wes said. "Also, don't kill the cameraman."

Though he has been displeased with some of the recent trends in the horror films, he said he feels that movie studios are finally back on the right track in regards to the genre.

"Thankfully they've gotten past the PG-13 remakes of Japanese horror movies," Wes said. "I think we're back to very hard-hitting horror films. It's very in-your-face sort of horror because it's so horrific."

His son agreed, and said he felt that this new film fits perfectly within that category of horror.

"This is sort of post-postmodern horror. It's just kind of back to the basic sincerity of horror filmmaking. It's brutal and direct," Jonathan said. "I think people that like horror with dark humor will like this movie."

Though The Hills Have Eyes II follows a similar premise to the first in that people are being attacked by cannibalistic mutants, there was a distinct difference in the characterization of the protagonists.

"The first one was about a family who was way out of their element. You had a baby who was taken and members of the family who were threatened and killed," said Jonathan. "This year's movie is more about the family of a small military unit. They're two different sorts of families, and this one takes it up a notch in terms of horror."

Focusing the film on a group of soldiers also brings up a interesting thematic difference with the previous film. Could something like The Hills Have Eyes II be viewed as a political statement against the war in Iraq?

"There is an obvious parallel," Wes said. "However, I don't think anyone wanted to make a film that was political, but just explore the idea of people forced into a situation that they're unprepared for and untrained for."

The two writers also hinted that there might be more films following this group of mutants in the future.

"We hope there will be a third," Wes said.

REVIEW: 300

2007-03-13T23:24:00.000-06:00

Director: Zack Snyder
Starring: Gerard Butler, Dominic West, Vincent Regan
Plot: Based on the graphic novel that depicts the historical Battle of Thermopylae, in which 300 Spartans stand their ground against a million Persian invaders.
Brief Thoughts: I was not as impressed by this movie as a lot of people seem to be. The characters are flat, the voice-over annoying, and you can expect at least one completely gratuitous sex scene. Also, though I appreciated some of the religious undertones, one image in particular struck me as the kind of gratuitous thing stuck in there for no other reason except that it's popular to do now (hint: pay attention near the end). The battle, while very cool at times, is really nothing compared to other epics like Lord of the Rings or Braveheart. The ending also is basically just a compilation of scenes and ideas stolen from other films. That said, it's still an entertaining movie. Visually it's extremely artistic and at times looks more like a painting than a piece of cinema. Also: this film is such a celebration of masculinity, and is infused with so much testosterone, that any guy who goes to watch it will want to roar and thump his chest during certain scenes. Plus, the women will enjoy seeing a lot of muscular shirtless guys. Not to mention that the most engaging and developed character in the film (as well as one of the strongest) is a woman. Good movie, but flawed.

REVIEW: Zodiac

2007-03-13T23:16:00.000-06:00

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr.
Plot: Based on true events, the film follows the investigations into the serial murders that occurred in the '70s by someone who called himself the Zodiac.
Brief Thoughts: This is a good film. However, it's very long, and the middle is somewhat slow. The performances are very strong and Fincher once again shows he's a very competent director. The script is extremely unconventional in that major characters drop out and come back, and there's so much information and so many perspectives being thrown around it can be hard to get into. Also: the ending is extremely un-Hollywoodish. However, the film is better for it. It presents the truth.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Black Snake Moan

2007-03-06T20:24:00.000-06:00

Director: Craig Brewer
Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Christina Ricci
Plot: When an old black farmer finds the town nymphomaniac beaten and left for dead, he heals her wounds, only to chain her up in an attempt to cure her of her wicked ways.
Thoughts: The most controversial film this year is also the most spiritually significant. There's a surprising amount of religious undertones in this film about two broken people whose lives collide in an attempt to find redemption. Though its subject matter may turn away some viewers, Brewer has crafted a raw, honest look at broken people desperately in need of saving. It's no coincidence that the protagonist's name is Lazarus - with the help of his pastor (it's about time we saw religious figures portrayed this positively) and a little white girl, he'll be forced to confront his sins and (one hopes) rise again. Jackson's performance is his best in years, and not even Justin Timberlake can put a damper on what is so far the best film of 2007.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Little Children

2007-02-10T18:24:00.000-06:00

Director: Todd Field
Starring: Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley
Plot: This sexual drama follows the lives of Brad and Sarah, each married, and their passionate affair and how it affects their lives. Meanwhile, their neighborhood struggles to cope with a recently-released sex offender who moves into the area.
Thoughts: Fuck. I'm not in the habit of cursing, but that is the only word that can adequately describe my thoughts when the credits began to roll on this film. This film is heavy. It's like a combination of Fight Club, The Woodsman and Desperate Housewives. There's so many themes being strewn around my brain felt like it was going to overload. Each of the main characters is tremendously flawed, and each is sympathetic in their own way. This film dares to go where most are afraid to go, and the result is the darkest character study of the year. Other than the occasionally annoying voice-over, pretty much everything in this film works. It's one of those films I would say is excellent, yet not the kind you find yourself wanting to go back to, unless it's to analyze all of the stuff the filmmakers are trying to communicate. Definitely not for everyone, but worth seeing if you're a fan of good directing.

LIST: The 2006 Academy Awards

2007-02-09T16:57:00.000-06:00

With only a little over 2 weeks to go until the big night, here are my picks for who will win and who should win. Let's see how close I come to predicting the winners.

BEST ACTOR - NOMINEES
Leonardo DiCaprio (Blood Diamond)
Ryan Gosling (Half Nelson)
Peter O'Toole (Venus)
Will Smith (The Pursuit of Happiness)
Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland)

Who Will Win: Forest Whitaker. This is about as definite as Philip Seymour Hoffman last year as Truman Capote.
Who Should Win: Whitaker. I haven't even seen the film, but I figured he'd get it ever since I first saw him in the film's trailers.

BEST ACTRESS - NOMINEES
Penelope Cruz (Volver)
Judi Dench (Notes on a Scandal)
Helen Mirren (The Queen)
Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada)
Kate Winslet (Little Children)

Who Will Win: Helen Mirren's got it for sure.
Who Should Win: I've only seen two of those films, but I'm happy with Mirren getting it. Her performance was certainly worth a nomination.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR - NOMINEES
Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine)
Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children)
Djimon Houson (Blood Diamond)
Eddie Murphy (Dreamgirls)
Mark Wahlberg (The Departed)

Who Will Win: Eddie Murphy got the Golden Globe, but Marky Mark's been getting a lot of praise. It's a toss-up, but I'll go ahead and say Eddie.
Who Should Win: This is a tough one. For once, I've seen all of the nominated films with the exception of Dreamgirls. Alan Arkin was great, but his performance didn't strike me as Oscar-worthy. Djimon Houson is always fantastic, and showed some incredible acting chops in Blood Diamond. I feel guilty saying Marky Mark, since although he was fantastic and gave his best performance yet, his character was rather minor and not very three-dimensional. I think I'll have to go with Haley on this one. Although his take as a pedophile isn't as powerful (in my opinion) as Kevin Bacon's in The Woodsman, it really did require some talent. He managed to be both monstrous and sympathetic at the same time, which is hard to do.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS - NOMINEES
Adriana Barraza (Babel)
Cate Blanchett (Notes on a Scandal)
Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine)
Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls)
Rinko Kikuchi (Babel)

Who Will Win: No clue.
Who Should Win: No idea, since I've only seen one of the movies, and I don't think Breslin deserves a nomination. She was good, but not that good.

BEST ANIMATED FILM - NOMINEES
Cars
Happy Feet
Monster House

Who Will Win: Cars. No question.
Who Should Win: Cars. Although it's not Pixar's best flick, it's certainly better than all the other animated films that came out this year.

BEST ART DIRECTION - NOMINEES
Dreamgirls
The Good Shepherd
Pan's Labyrinth
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The Prestige

Who Will Win: I don't really know what's specifically meant by "Art Direction", but based on my general understanding, I'm gonna go with Pan.
Who Should Win: Pan's Labyrinth. The sets and art design were fantastic.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY - NOMINEES
The Black Dahlia
Children of Men
The Illusionist
Pan's Labyrinth
The Prestige

Who Will Win: Children of Men. The Academy can be retarded at times, but to give it to something else would be beyond stupidity.
Who Should Win: Children of Men. This was by far the best cinematography of the year. There are two shots that must have taken ages to plan out and execute, and they really help suck you into what might otherwise be fairly standard scenes.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN - NOMINEES
Curse of the Golden Flower
The Devil Wears Prada
Dreamgirls
Marie Antoinette
The Queen

Who Will Win: No clue. I'm gonna go with Dreamgirls, though, since it seems like people have a soft spot for it.
Who Should Win: Probably Curse of the Golden Flower, though I haven't seen it. Zhang Yimou films always have crazy costumes that work really well.

BEST DIRECTOR - NOMINEES
Alejandro González Iñárritu (Babel)
Martin Scorsese (The Departed)
Clint Eastwood (Letters From Iwo Jima)
Stephen Frears (The Queen)
Paul Greengrass (United 93)

Who Will Win: Scorsese. He's been nominated a billion times but never won. I think this is his year. The only person who has a chance to steal it from him (again) is Eastwood, because the Academy seems to really like him for some reason.
Who Should Win: Scorsese. He's deserved it before, and he deserves it again. Although I did like The Departed, I didn't like it as much as everyone else. However, you can't deny the strength of the directing. Fantastic.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE - NOMINEES
Deliver Us From Evil
An Inconvenient Truth
Iraq in Fragments
Jesus Camp
My Country, My Country

Who Will Win: This is a tough one. I'm gonna have to go with Deliver Us From Evil, simply because everything I've heard about it has been fantastic.
Who Should Win: A Lion in the House. It is quite simply the best documentary I've ever seen. I caught this 4-hour epic at Full Frame, and it had me in tears by the end. I don't know if it could have been nominated, but if it could have been, then it should have been. Of the nominees, the best of the ones I've seen is Jesus Camp. It's remarkably even-handed, and it manages a good equilibrium between seriousness and black comedy.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT - NOMINEES
The Blood of Yingzhou District
Recycled Life
Rehearsing A Dream
Two Hands

Who Will Win: No clue. I haven't heard of any of these.
Who Should Win: See above.

BEST EDITING - NOMINEES
Babel
Blood Diamond
Children of Men
The Departed
United 93

Who Will Win: Either The Departed or Babel. The Departed was great, but Babel manages multiple storylines, which Hollywood usually loves.
Who Should Win: This is a tough one. Given that I haven't seen Babel, I'm going to have to go with Children of Men. Wonderful pacing and ordering of shots.

BEST FOREIGN FILM - NOMINEES
After the Wedding
Days of Glory
The Lives of Others
Pan's Labyrinth
Water

Who Will Win: I've only seen Pan's Labyrinth, and the only film that has a chance of beating it is The Lives of Others, which is getting rave reviews. I'm gonna go with Pan.
Who Should Win: Pan. Although it was different from what I was expecting, and not the kind of movie I'll watch again any time soon, it was still good. It deserves to win for the creature design alone.

BEST MAKEUP - NOMINEES
Apocalypto
Click
Pan's Labyrinth

Who Will Win: Pan again. It's gonna get a lot of the technical stuff.
Who Should Win: Pan. Apocalypto had some good make-up, but not even close to the visual grandeur of that eye-hand guy. I don't even know how much of Pan was CG and how much was make-up, but screw it, it deserves it anyway.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE - NOMINEES
Babel
The Good German
Notes on a Scandal
Pan's Labyrinth
The Queen

Who Will Win: Babel. It's the Brokeback Mountain of 2006, in that it's going to win things like Best Score in order to make up for the fact that it's not winning Best Picture despite the Golden Globe win.
Who Should Win: Clint Mansell and his score for The Fountain. The music for this film is so incredible that I had to have the soundtrack. Beautiful. Of the nominees, I have no idea.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG - NOMINEES
"I Need To Wake Up" (An Inconvenient Truth)
"Listen" (Dreamgirls)
"Love You I Do" (Dreamgirls)
"Our Town" (Cars)
"Patience" (Dreamgirls)

Who Will Win: One of the Dreamgirls songs. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know which.
Who Should Win: Probably one of the Dreamgirls songs. At least they're important to the film (at least that's what I'm assuming since it's a musical), unlike most of the crap that gets nominated in this category. For the love of God, stop performing these nominations at the ceremony! It's pointless!

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM - NOMINEES
The Danish Poet
Lifted
The Little Matchgirl
Maestro
No Time For Nuts

Who Will Win: I don't know anything about any of these. No clue.
Who Should Win: See above.

BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT FILM - NOMINEES
Binta And The Great Idea
Eramos Pocos
Helmer & Son
The Saviour
West Bank Story

Who Will Win: See the above category.
Who Should Win: See above.

BEST SOUND EDITING - NOMINEES
Apocalypto
Blood Diamond
Flags of Our Fathers
Letters From Iwo Jima
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Who Will Win: One of the Eastwood war films. Probably Letters.
Who Should Win: The Fountain. But since that's not nominated, I'm gonna go ahead and guess Letters From Iwo Jima even though I haven't seen it. Sound is key to a good war film.

BEST SOUND MIXING - NOMINEES
Apocalypto
Blood Diamond
Dreamgirls
Flags of Our Fathers
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Who Will Win: Probably Flags of Our Fathers, since again, it's a war film.
Who Should Win: Blood Diamond. Very good sound mix, from what little I remember.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS - NOMINEES
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Poseidon
Superman Returns

Who Will Win: Pirates, no question.
Who Should Win: Pirates. Although I thought the film was just so-so, Davey Jones is the best CG character since Gollum.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY - NOMINEES
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
Children of Men
The Departed
Little Children
Notes on a Scandal

Who Will Win: The Departed.
Who Should Win: Little Children. Amazing script.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY - NOMINEES
Babel
Letters From Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
Pan's Labyrinth
The Queen

Who Will Win: I'm going to go with Babel. However, the Little Miss Sunshine script was also excellent, despite being more conventional than the other nominees. That has a chance of stealing it.
Who Should Win: The Fountain. There's not a lot of dialogue, but the dialogue that is there really serves a purpose. And the description has to have been fantastic. Of the nominees, I'm gonna go with Little Miss Sunshine, because it made me feel good.

BEST PICTURE - NOMINEES
Babel
The Departed
Letters From Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen

Who Will Win: Although Babel won the Golden Globe, I don't think it's widely considered by people to be the best film of the year. This is Scorsese's year. The Departed.
Who Should Win: The Fountain. Of the nominees, probably The Departed.

We'll see what happens...

REVIEW: Blood and Chocolate

2007-02-01T11:31:00.001-06:00

Interspecies relationships make for good films.

At least, that's what the studio executive who green-lighted Blood and Chocolate must have thought. And, while the film does has a plot that might sound interesting on paper, the result is a cinematic mess from start to finish that feels like it was written by an angsty teenager caught in the throes of adolescent rebellion fantasies.

The film follows Vivian (Agnes Bruckner), a 19-year-old girl struggling to come to terms with who she is -- namely, a Rugharou, or shape-shifter from French legends. Think werewolf, but with the ability to transform at will, and only into an actual wolf rather than a superhuman hybrid. If you think it's not as scary as a traditional werewolf, you're right.

Vivian is only one from a secret society of Rugharou living in Romania. Desperate to avoid being hunted, the Rugharou kill any human who discovers them and tend to keep to themselves. So, it comes as no surprise that when Vivian falls in love with a human graphic novelist named Aiden (Hugh Dancy), the other Rugharou are less than supportive, opting to kill him before he learns of their secret.

Indeed, hardly anything comes as a surprise in this outing by German director Katja von Garnier. For a werewolf movie, there's very little blood, and the plot is remarkably dull. It feels more like a made-for-television or straight-to-DVD film rather than a full-fledged Hollywood production.

The directing ranges from bad to mediocre. There's only a single scene in the entire film that feels somewhat professionally made, and it's over far too soon.

The acting is exaggerated and unintentionally funny, particularly that of Olivier Martinez, who plays the principal villain. Only Bruckner's performance in the lead role proves tolerable, though it is undermined by inept and uninspired dialogue.

Even the editing is lacking, with instances that had the potential to inspire any sort of emotional response from the viewer being ruined by awkward cuts and over-stylized effects. The opening scene feels more like a trailer than an actual movie scene, with more gratuitous slow-motion shots than John Woo on crack. The film doesn't proceed to get any better. The romance is as sappy as it sounds, and the two lovers lack any sort of chemistry that might make it believable.

The bottom line -- if you're looking for a halfway decent werewolf film with elements of Romeo and Juliet, rent Underworld. Unlike this film, it probably won't be found in the Wal-Mart bargain bin for $2 any time soon.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Hannibal

2007-01-31T23:34:00.000-06:00

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Julianne Moore, Anthony Hopkins
Plot: Ten years after his escape from the asylum, Dr. Hannibal Lecter decides to come out of retirement, and Clarice Starling must face him once again.
Thoughts: Ridley Scott had a tough job on his hands when he chose to adapt the most complex novel about Hannibal Lecter for the big screen. Unfortunately, the result is mediocre at best. Given the absence of Jodie Foster, Moore does a decent job taking on the role of Starling, but one can only wish her efforts had gone towards a better script. This is the goriest of the Hannibal films so far, and that wouldn't be a problem unless, like Silence of the Lambs, it came at the culmination of suspense. Unfortunately, most of the suspense is lost in the break-neck pace. Though the last scene falls flat, the film's climax is handled relatively well, and is the only case in which the tempo creates a sense of dread. Hopkins is just as spectacular as usual, and to his credit manages to brings a lot of life into what winds up being a somewhat disappointing sequel.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Silence of the Lambs

2007-01-31T23:22:00.000-06:00

Director: Jonathan Demme
Starring: Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins
Plot: An FBI agent must obtain the aid of Hannibal Lecter in order to track down another madman.
Thoughts: Yes, this and Red Dragon have essentially the same plots. Does it matter? No. This film adaptation came before the other, and ended up winning 5 Oscars. Hopkins is Hannibal, and the result is chilling. There's a reason this is considered one of the most suspenseful films of all time - it is. Even though I've seen it multiple times, there are certain moments that never cease to make my hair stand up on end. Lecter is arguably the best villain in film history, and this is one of the few timeless suspense classics. Superb.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Red Dragon

2007-01-31T23:10:00.000-06:00

Director: Brett Ratner
Starring: Edward Norton, Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Fiennes
Plot: Detective William Graham relies on the aid of sociopath Hannibal Lecter to track down a serial killer who calls himself the Red Dragon.
Thoughts: A surprisingly decent adaptation. It has more Hannibal than the book, but that's certainly not a bad thing, as Hopkins once again steals the show. Considering the amount of character depth in the source material, the movie does a good job of getting the essentials into a two-hour film. Edward Norton is hit-and-miss, but the other actors fare better. This one of the few cases where artistic license was put to good use, with only a few exceptions. The opening and closing scenes really work, and it helps that a few of the same actors from Silence of the Lambs pop up here and there. Will Graham is a much more interesting character than Clarice Starling, and though the film doesn't quite flesh out his psyche as much as it possibly could have, it does a much better job at creating suspense than the 1986 adaptation, Manhunter.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Pan's Labyrinth

2007-01-31T22:58:00.000-06:00

Director: Guillermo del Toro
Starring: Ivana Baquero, Sergi Lopez
Plot: Set in post-war fascist Spain, a young girl goes to live with her mother's new husband, a cruel captain in the Army. She finds relief from her troubles by interacting with fantastic creatures and embarking on a quest to discover if she is destined to be the immortal queen of their world.
Thoughts: A good film. It's perhaps slightly overrated by the critics, but it's still worth seeing. This is a fairy-tale for adults, and it's surprisingly grisly at times, but the visuals are stunning and the creature design top-notch. Del Toro manages to find the perfect balance between real-world and fantasy-world occurrences, and the ending should at least inspire a little discussion, as it's open to a variety of interpretations. Also: this film reminded me that children can be good actors, if they have the right direction.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Children of Men

2007-01-31T22:37:00.000-06:00

Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Starring: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore
Plot: In a future dystopian Britain in which women have become infertile, a man must protect a pregnant woman from those wish to take advantage of her, and lead her to safety.
Thoughts: I always thought the trailers for this film made it look cheesy. Boy, was I wrong. This film starts with a bang and doesn't let up until the credits roll. The script and directing are strong enough to overcome a plot that could have potentially become insipid or just plain dumb. With the exception of some poorly-realized comic relief, once this film grabs you it doesn't let go. It's worth seeing for the cinematography alone - it contains two of the most lengthy, gorgeous tracking shots I've ever seen. I expected it to be good, but somehow it managed to click with me in a way that most films don't. I'm not sure if it's the kind of film I'd watch again any time soon, but it's quite possibly my second favorite film of 2006 behind The Fountain.

INTERVIEW: Sophia Bush

2007-01-20T22:44:00.000-06:00

Sophia Bush hitches a ride

Sophia Bush is perhaps best known for her role as Brooke Davis on the television series "One Tree Hill." However, the 26-year-old actress is rapidly making a name for herself in the world of film. Last year she starred in the slasher-flick Stay Alive and the comedy John Tucker Must Die. This weekend, she can be seen starring alongside Sean Bean and Zachary Knighton in The Hitcher, a remake of the 1986 thriller about a murderous hitchhiker.

"It's a major action thriller. The suspense is amazing," said Bush. "We all took a lot of care in making sure you don't anticipate the scare."

In the film, her character picks up a mysterious hitchhiker named John Ryder who turns out to be more than he first appears. When it comes to picking up hitchhikers herself, though, that's a different matter.

"I have never picked up a hitchhiker, and I never would. Nine out of ten times you'd be fine, but it only takes one time to leave you in pieces in the desert," said Bush.

The film was produced by Platinum Dunes, which is owned by director Michael Bay, famous for his over-the-top action films. As such, it's to be expected that The Hitcher contains many intense action sequences. What may be surprising, though, is that Bush did all her own stunts.

"I'm a total stunt junkie. That's where my tomboy comes out. I spent five weeks, five days a week training," said Bush. "At one point I was hanging out of the car banging on the windows of the car next to me."

Despite the grueling physical nature of the shoot, Bush felt that the experience of filming a horror movie had certain rewards films of other genres couldn't provide.

"Each genre has its own amazing qualities," said Bush. "I love comedy but there's also something very rewarding about pushing yourself to your emotional limit and breaking through it every day. That's just as rewarding as making the cameraman laugh while you're filming a comedy."

Working on The Hitcher also was advantageous in that she got to work with an established actor in the form of Sean Bean (Troy, Lord of the Rings). She found that acting alongside the veteran actor was a somewhat paradoxical experience, at times terrifying and at other times endearing.

"He turns it on and he is so maniacal and evil. And yet he's also a father, so if he grabbed my head and I made a sound he would stop and ask if I was OK. Then he would launch right back into it," said Bush.

Overall, the experience proved beneficial for the budding actress.

"There's a real challenge making a film like this where it's an emotional roller coaster," said Bush. "I know I will hold on to this film for the rest of my career and remember what a great time I had. It was insane."

Bush might love making movies, but she said a vacation might be in the making.

"I'm a workaholic and a perfectionist. I haven't been on vacation in four years," Bush said. "I need to take about a month off."

LIST: 2006 in Review

2006-12-21T22:54:00.000-06:00

Out of the hundreds of films released this year, I had the pleasure (and sometimes displeasure) of viewing around 50-60 of them. The following is my take on the good, the bad, and the ugly of the films I did happen to see in 2006. Keep in mind that as of this writing, I have not yet viewed many of the summer blockbusters, as well as the majority of the Oscar hopefuls and films that only received a limited release.

BEST ACTION FILM: Mission Impossible III

BEST COMEDY: Borat
Runner-Up: Little Miss Sunshine

BEST HORROR FILM: Slither
Runner-Up: The Descent

BEST ROMANCE: The Fountain

BEST DOCUMENTARY: A Lion in the House
Runner-Up: This Film Is Not Yet Rated

BEST REMAKE: The Departed

BEST SUPERHERO FILM: X-Men 3

BEST FEEL-GOOD MOVIE: Little Miss Sunshine

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

BEST VILLAIN: Owen Davian (Mission Impossible III)
Runner-Up: The MPAA (This Film Is Not Yet Rated), Global Warming (An Inconvenient Truth)

BEST HERO: Jaguar Paw (Apocalypto)
Runner-Up: Nick Naylor (Thank You For Smoking)

MOST ORIGINAL FILM: Brick

MOST DISTURBING SCENE: Castration (Hard Candy)
Runner-Up: Wrestling (Borat), Escape By Erection (Tenacious D)

BIGGEST SURPRISE (good): Running Scared
Runner-Up: Lucky Number Slevin

BIGGEST SURPRISE (bad): United 93
Runner-Up: Talladega Nights

BEST SURPRISE PERFORMANCE: Mark Wahlberg (The Departed)

BEST DIRECTOR: Darren Aronofsky (The Fountain)

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: Clint Mansell (The Fountain)

MOST OVERRATED FILM: United 93
Runner-Up: V For Vendetta

WORST FILM: United 93

BEST FILM: The Fountain
Runner-Up: Borat

MOST ANTICIPATED FILM OF 2007: Grindhouse
Runner-Up: 300

BRIEF THOUGHTS: The Fountain

2006-12-14T04:24:00.000-06:00

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz
Plot: In this romantic sci-fi epic that spans 1000 years, a man fights to find the secret of eternal life to save the woman he loves as a Mayan conquistador, present-day scientist, and futuristic space explorer.
Thoughts: I had been waiting for this movie to be released for the past 1.5-2 years. It was by far my most highly anticipated film of the year, and part of me was certain that it wouldn't live up to my expectations. However, I am pleased to report that it not only lived up to them, it surpassed them. To try and go in-depth about this film would be impossible. There's simply too much there. I believe this film is in many ways the 2001 of my generation. Like that film, it focuses on a lot of heavy abstract themes, emphasizes visuals over dialogue and has an ending that will leave you feeling like you're high on acid. However, here's what I can definitely say about it:

1) This is a love-or-hate film. When critics saw it at the Venice Film Festival, it was booed. When the public saw it the next day, it received a 10-minute standing ovation. Most people have it on either their list of Best Films of the Year or their list of Worst Films of the Year.
2) This is a film that requires more from the viewer than simply sitting back and letting it explain itself to you. If you do not go into it expecting to have to think about a lot of things, and if you're not willing to probably not understand the details of what's happening, you probably won't like this movie.
3) This is one of the most gorgeous looking films I have ever seen, if not the most gorgeous.
4) This is the best film of 2006, and ahead of its time. I believe like 2001 and Blade Runner before it, although it has been met with mixed responses upon its initial release, in time it will be viewed as a masterpiece that redefined the science fiction genre in film.

ESSAY: Fincher's "Formula"

2006-12-14T04:12:00.000-06:00

Coming To Terms With Morality: Examining the cinematic themes of auteur David Fincher

David Fincher is known for his dark, often very violent films. Although he has only directed five feature films to date, he has managed to establish himself as one of the industry’s foremost auteurs stylistically and thematically. Though his films deal with everything from a man-eating alien creature to serial killers to underground boxing clubs, they all examine similar themes. Woven throughout his films is a specific pattern of elements that he uses to present a moral statement about society. The formula consists of: two opposing moral ideals that conflict with each other, an anti-hero used to demonstrate moral ambiguity, and the sacrifice of the anti-hero meant to advocate a third moral alternative. This essay will focus on how Fincher explores these concepts in the three of his films: Se7en, The Game, and Fight Club.

Fincher’s first “blockbuster” film was Se7en in 1995. The film helped inspire a resurgence in the detective-noir genre, but was controversial due to its shocking and gory subject matter. The film follows two detectives, Somerset and Mills, as they track down a serial killer called John Doe who murders his victims in accordance with the Se7en deadly sins. This film is a prime example of how Fincher always presents two opposing moral ideals in his films.

Somerset and Mills serve as representations of two conflicting points of view. Somerset’s years of experience have made him jaded and cynical. He feels that humanity is for the most part morally corrupt, and apathetic towards each other and their own actions. As he points out, rape victims are encouraged to yell “Fire” rather than “Help” since only the former will result in people coming to their aid. As a detective, he is merely picking up the pieces and recording the evil deeds of humanity. He is also highly intelligent, and criticized as such. Whereas most policemen spend their time focusing on their work or playing poker, Somerset is “cultured” (as evidenced by the pen he brings with him to work, along with his gun) and familiar with classic works of literature.

Mills is the polar opposite of Somerset. He is young and naïve, confident that his work has a noble purpose. He views himself as a champion of the people, campaigning for them and helping to bring justice to the wrongfully harmed. Unlike Somerset, he thinks that mankind is on the whole morally good, and worth trying to help out. He knows nothing of Chaucer or Dante, going as far to refer to the latter as a “poetry-writing faggot.” He acts off his feelings rather than intellectually, feeding off his emotions and his desires.

Fincher chooses not to side with either character, but rather argues that the answer to the question of morality lies in a balance between the two. In the film, this balance comes in the form of the killer, John Doe. Doe is in many ways an anti-hero; his actions are villainous, yet the audience is encouraged to think about, and perhaps even sympathize with, his reasoning behind them. Like Somerset, he claims that mankind is morally corrupt, a fallen creation in the eyes of God: “What fun we have dancing and fucking / Not a care in the world / Not knowing that we are nothing / We are not what was intended.” It is through Doe that Fincher directly states his point of view: “…that's the point. We see a deadly sin on every street corner, in every home, and we tolerate it. We tolerate it because it's common, it's trivial.”

Thus, Se7en is not meant to merely exist as a typical noir film, but rather as Fincher’s appeal to his viewers to think about their own morality. Its graphic images are John Doe’s metaphorical “sledgehammer”, serving to “get their strict attention” so he can make his point. The “faceless and nameless” city in Se7en is a dark, dirty place in which people are desensitized to the violence around them. Even Mills acknowledges this, claiming that John Doe’s murders will only be a “movie of the week” to the inhabitants of the city. Like Somerset, Fincher implicitly agrees that mankind is generally apathetic towards the morally wrong and that we don’t treat it as important. This is evident in many cases throughout the film, such as when Mills can’t remember the name of the officer who was shot, or when the officer at the beginning of the film tells Somerset, “ ‘Did the kid see it?’ Who gives a fuck? He's dead, his wife killed him. Anything else has nothing to do with us.”

However, Fincher also seems to agree with Mills that mankind should not be killed for their mistakes, but they are worth trying to save. Although he doesn’t condone the brutal killings of John Doe, he proposes that we as a society should pay attention to Doe’s “sermon,” and stop tolerating the evil that exists around us. It is fitting that Fincher’s villain is named “John Doe” – he is the symbolic Everyman, and as he points out, he does nothing that we the audience might not also do in certain situations. His self-sacrifice at the film’s finale is Fincher’s plea that we try to sacrifice the sinful nature and apathy that exists inside us and reach towards something better. This is best summed up by Somerset’s final lines: “Ernest Hemingway once wrote, ‘The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.’ I agree with the second part.” Fincher promotes a third way between the moral extremes of his two detectives, arguing that although humanity is indeed morally corrupt, they can potentially be saved.

These thematic elements are also present in Fincher’s next film, The Game. The 1997 film starred Michael Douglas as Nicholas Van Orten, a wealthy businessman who, on the urgings of his brother, signs up for a service known as Consumer Recreation Services. The company is supposed to provide Nicholas with a unique life experience called a “game” that will change his life. Nicholas gets more than he bargained for in the form of shootings, being framed for murder, and being left for dead in Mexico.

Nicholas’ “game” is similar to John Doe’s murders in that it is Fincher’s plea for moral purity. Like John Doe, Nicholas is an anti-hero. Although we sympathize with his point of view (he is being assaulted in various ways) we also find his actions distasteful. He is greedy and cold, refusing to let anyone be emotionally close to him. As his brother puts it, “You know what [fun] is… you’ve seen other people have it.” In many ways, Nicholas is like wealthy lawyer Eli Gould in Se7en, who “dedicated his life to making money by lying with every breath.” Like Gould, Nicholas is also forced to come to terms with his own moral depravity, this time through psychological and emotional torture rather than physical.

The opposite extreme in the case of The Game is not another character, but rather the “game” itself. It is presented as being something dangerous and daring, and by the end it is clear that The Game has allowed Nicholas to see the error of his ways and helped him find meaning. However, although Nicholas’ cold-hearted disposition is frowned upon, so is the company responsible for his “game.” Like John Doe, they achieve their point through exaggerated and harmful means. In order to help Nicholas come to terms with his moral flaws, they take extreme measures. It may all be part of a fake “game”, but it is harmful nonetheless.

So once again, Fincher argues for a third, better alternative. This comes once again in his motif of an anti-hero’s self-sacrifice, this time when Nicholas leaps off a building, after supposedly killing his brother and realizing the full extent of his emotional apathy. In doing so, he sacrifices his sinful nature, and emerges a new creation afterwards. Fincher again asks his viewers to confront their moral shortcomings and aim to be better people. He does not approve of the extreme measures that are taken to do so, but does agree that the outcome is worth striving for.

These same themes were perhaps portrayed most concretely in Fight Club. In the film, the nameless Narrator finds himself a victim of the same consumerism and emotional apathy that is present in Fincher’s other films. However, in this film, the protagonist is not forced to come to terms with his impure morality by an external force, but rather chooses to confront it with the aid of Tyler Durden, a free-spirited nihilist who organizes an underground “fight club” in which men pummel themselves with their bare fists in order to feel alive.

The two opposing forces in this film are the Narrator and Tyler. The Narrator is spiritually dead. He hates his job, lives alone, and even attends self-help groups in order to feel something other than indifference. It could be said that he is a poorer version of Nicholas Van Orton – someone who is emotionally cold and indifferent. He is, as he puts it, “single-serving” and a slave to selfishness and materialism. Tyler, on the other hand, is very much alive. He has a clear vision and ideology, and with Fight Club he helps other men find meaning and comfort through violence. As he states, he is everything the Narrator wants to be – “All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.” This opposition becomes a metaphor for morality when Fincher reveals that Tyler and the Narrator are two distinct personalities of the same individual. This represents the opposing moral natures that Fincher argues we find within ourselves, a positive and a negative.

The Fight Club that Tyler starts is presented as something positive. The acts of violence allow members to feel pain, which is better than the world around them that encourages them to feel nothing. Fighting becomes a spiritual experience, and violence is a metaphor for meaning. The narrator even goes as far as to compare it to a religious ceremony: “The hysterical shouting was in tongues, like at a Pentecostal Church.” After Fight Club, the men consider themselves “enlightened.” However, in Fight Club Fincher’s anti-hero is Tyler. Although he is portrayed as being alive and “free”, he is also presented as someone who is destructive and manipulative. Eventually, Fight Club evolves into “Project Mayhem”, in which members actively try to destroy the materialistic society around them. Although they do not resort to murder, they aren’t above cutting off the testicles of anyone who might stand in their way. After finding their masculinity in Fight Club, they take it to a new level of violence and destruction, even despite the resistance of the Narrator.

Fincher argues that although we should aim to escape from the bondage of materialism and spiritual apathy, we should not respond with violence towards the system. He also undermines Tyler by implying he is hypocritical. Although he is anti-consumerism, Tyler is often seen wearing stylish and expensive outfits. Furthermore, one symptom of Project Mayhem is that Fight Clubs become a national phenomenon – the disenfranchised becomes a franchise itself. By the end of the film, the protagonist has become disillusioned by Tyler’s actions and philosophy. He tells his alter-ego, “Tyler, I'm grateful to you; for everything that you've done for me. But this is too much. I don't want this.” In order to prevent further destruction, he shoots himself in the head, ridding himself of his second personality. In doing so, he arrives at a third, better spiritual state than his previous two extremes. He now realizes that although it is necessary to sacrifice the nature inside us that is kept prisoner by the superficiality of society, it is also necessary to sacrifice that which wants to respond with violence.

David Fincher takes on projects that all share a similar thematic formula. Se7en, The Game and Fight Club all focus on two opposing moral ideals. They also all contain an anti-hero who is sacrificed as a means of promoting a third alternative. As an auteur, Fincher uses his films to make the audience realize their own moral shortcomings and show them that in a world of moral ambiguity there are better paths to follow than the two extremes.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Superman Returns

2006-12-14T04:00:00.000-06:00

Director: Bryan Singer
Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey
Plot: Superman comes back to Earth after spending a few years in space looking for his home planet Krypton, only to find that Lois Lane is married and Lex Luthor is still at large.
Thoughts: Kevin Spacey is the man, and the best part of this film. Brandon Routh looks a lot like Christopher Reeves, and his acting is good. Also, although many people have criticized Kate Bosworth's performance as Lois, I thought she did fine. The plot has some strong points and some weak points. There's some good action scenes, but a lot of the movie is spent developing the Lois/Superman relationship. This isn't a bad thing, but I hope more of the inevitable sequel is dedicated to developing Lex Luthor, whose plan this time around just seemed kinda dumb. Overall, a good film, but certainly not worth the $200+ million that it cost to make.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: The Alibi/Lies and Alibis

2006-12-14T03:51:00.000-06:00

Director: Matt Checkowski, Kurt Mattila
Starring: Steve Coogan, Rebecca Romijn, Sam Elliot
Plot: A man who runs a business that provides alibis for weather adulterers suddenly finds his life turned upside down by murder, blackmail, and hitmen.
Thoughts: It's directed by a NC State graphic design graduate who did many of the cooler special effect sequences of Minority Report. It's an interesting premise, and there are some somewhat engaging plot twists to be found. However, overall it's just a mediocre affair. Still, kudos to anyone from NC State who directs a movie. If anyone can figure out why it was marketed as a different title (The Alibi) from the final title (Lies and Alibis), please let me know.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Apocalypto

2006-12-14T03:34:00.000-06:00

Director: Mel Gibson
Starring: No one you've ever heard of.
Plot: After his village is burned and everyone is taken captive, a tribal warrior tries to escape the clutches of the Mayans in order to return to his family. Also, he has to kill all the Jews! (obligatory Mel Gibson joke)
Thoughts: I like Mel Gibson. The guy isn't afraid to go against the Hollywood studio system and make movies the way he wants to make them, ancient dialects and all. This is definitely his most standard and straightforward film to date - it's not as epic as Braveheart, and not as in-your-face as The Passion of the Christ. Still, there's battles, and blood, and Mayan sacrifices, and a 45-minute chase sequence. Ain't nothing wrong with that! The only major flaw is an extremely ridiculous scene near the end that pretty much ruins the main subplot due to its sheer unbelievability, but still, this is a good film.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest

2006-12-14T03:19:00.000-06:00

Director: Gore Verbinski
Starring: The main group from the first one.
Plot: This squid-man named Davey Jones comes to claim the soul of Jack Sparrow. Meanwhile, Will Turner and his new bride are after Jack so that they can trade this funky compass for their freedom after getting arrested for some reason.
Thoughts: An okay film. The first half is all over the place, and at times hard to follow. It's basically: so this guy needs to get this artifact so he can bargain with that guy, and this guy is trying to get that artifact so he can bargain with this guy, and in order to get those artifacts they have to get this other thing so they can bargain for it. A lot of the plot threads are extremely thin. For example, I still have no idea how the heck Jack Sparrow ends up on an island of cannibals in the first hour of the film and comes to be known as a god. There's a lot of stuff in the beginning of the film that could have been cut, especially considering it times in 2.5 hours in length. Thankfully, it manages to find its footing and the second half is very good. Jack Sparrow isn't quite as interesting a character as he was in the first one, but the special effects are much improved (check out Davey Jones' beard, yo!). It also ends on a couple of plot twists that really make me want to see the third one, so I guess on that note it can be considered a successful film. Did it deserve to earn over a billion dollars worldwide? Definitely not. But then again, neither did Titanic.

BRIEF THOUGHTS: Existenz

2006-12-14T03:01:00.000-06:00

Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Jude Law, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe
Plot: It's about this futuristic society where people plug these weird slimy things into their nervous systems as a means of playing video games that take place in your mind. Or something. This game designer almost gets assassinated so this dude has to protect her, and somehow or another they end up playing said video games. Wait, what?
Thoughts: The first half of this film is completely retarded. It's an interesting idea that's poorly implemented through vague implications about what's happening, poor acting, and some really bad props (the game machine things - see picture below). Granted, a lot of this might be intentional due to reasons that are explained later in the film, but still, it's dumb. Once they start playing the game, though, things start to get interesting. There are plenty of twists and turns to make for a fun ride, and as a whole, the game seems really cool. Plus, the ending is really superb and probably makes up for the poor beginning.

REVIEW: Stranger Than Fiction

2006-11-10T00:39:00.000-06:00

Strangely profound and poignant Fiction

We’re all familiar with the idea that we’re all part of something bigger than ourselves, that life is a giant story being told by something out there. But what if that were literally true? And what if it wasn’t a cosmic force or supernatural being, but just someone like you and me?

That’s the question that Stranger Than Question tries to answer, and the result is one of the best feel-good films of the year. The protagonist is Harold Crick (Will Ferrell), an obsessive-compulsive IRS agent who wakes up one morning to discover that a woman’s voice is following him and narrating his every move. At first the voice is merely an annoyance, but when it starts talking about his imminent death he embarks on a quest to discover the truth and hopefully change his fate. At the same time, a respected author (Emma Thompson) is in the middle of writing her new book, “Death and Taxes”, whose protagonist happens to be an IRS agent named Harold Crick. It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s going on.

All of the actors give strong performances, particularly Ferrell and Thompson. Although Ferrell has already shown he can handle more serious material through films like Melinda and Melinda, his depiction of Harold Crick demonstrates his true range as an actor. Rather than going over-the-top with Harold’s confusion, he steps back and utilizes subtle expressions and nuances to communicate his character’s unhappiness with the hand he’s been dealt. This clashes perfectly with Thompson’s sharp, unsettling performance as a woman who ironically at times appears crazier than voice-hearing Harold.

Even more impressive than the acting, however, is how the film juggles multiple plotlines and themes without getting bogged down in complexity or hubris. It forces the viewer to come to terms with his or her own mortality and asks heavy questions about destiny, free will and the nature of the artist as creator. Yet, surprisingly, this never detracts from the core of the storyline – if anything, the film is even more touching and poignant because of it.

This was a risky film to make. The structure could easily have seemed superficial, and the character development clichéd and trite. However, Forcster has crafted his film with all the care and attention to detail his author gives to her novel, and the result is a film that manages to deal with profound and complex themes without alienating its audience. If there’s anything to complain about, it’s that in making a risky film Forcster forgets to take risks, often avoiding the more thought-provoking plot twist for a less demanding one. However, that doesn’t make Stranger Than Fiction any less satisfying a work of cinema.

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: Slither

2006-10-31T23:41:00.000-06:00

Aliens, zombies and worms, oh my!

An alien being crash lands on Earth. A man is attacked by a creature that parasitically begins to transform him into something inhuman. Slimy red slugs begin crawling everywhere, with one goal: to leap into your mouth and thereby infect you.

And all of this may have something to do with sex.

That’s the premise behind James Gunn’s latest horror-comedy Slither, which stars Nathan Fillion and Michael Rooker. The plot follows a married couple as the potentially unfaithful husband (Rooker) is body snatched by a creature from another world intent on infecting mankind. It isn’t long before Sheriff Pardy (Fillion) from the small town of Wheelsy is in over his head. What follows is bloody, funny, and downright entertaining.

In the vein of The Evil Dead and Eight Legged Freaks, the film pays homage to horror films of old while also poking fun at the genre itself. The acting has that slight overdramatic feel to it. The blood flies everywhere. The plot twists are shallow and unbelievable. But these are what make the film shine!

Sure, it’s not perfect. The beginning is slow and the ending is painfully anti-climactic. But once Slither gets moving, it doesn’t stop until it’s touched on every major horror element the classics are made of. Zombies? Animal attacks? Gratuitous nudity? It’s all here, in one 96-minute package, ready for your viewing pleasure.

Gunn has written a fantastic script, complete with witty dialogue and the perfect campy mood. But even more impressive is his directing. Besides the verbal swordplay, there are also plenty of visual gags. The interesting thing is that most of these physical jokes, though innocent on the surface, hint at a larger – dare I say it – point layers down.

Perhaps it’s the exaggerated monologues about the sanctity of marriage. Or the tongue-in-cheek shots of penetrating tubes and phallic-shaped slugs. Or maybe I’m just a pervert. But it seems clear that, for the intellectual viewer, Gunn’s script might actually be more intelligent than it first appears, working entirely as a metaphor for infidelity and the corruption of marriage.

If you’re looking for escapist entertainment at its near finest, Slither is worth checking out. It’s also recommended for people who appreciate a little thought behind the all the slime and guts.

The big-budget B-movie is back, at least for now. And if this film is any indication, hopefully they’re here to stay. It’s far from perfect, but in the end, Slither is just plain fun.

Rating: 7/10 stars

REVIEW: United 93

2006-10-31T17:19:00.000-06:00

Forgetting the falsehood behind the truth

French author and Nobel Prize winner Andre Gide once said, “Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.” In a time in which perceptions of reality collide and truth is fleeting, cinema and art are constantly critiquing the world and age we live in. It isn’t unusual for films to tackle real issues, but what is unusual is for a film to have captured “the Truth”, with a capital T. Ever since the first interviews were made and the first trailers released, it became clear United 93 was claiming to present the real, undeniable truth behind the events of 9/11, and all of the emotional baggage that entails.

Though occasionally there was controversy, until now it was generally acceptable for directors to utilize artistic license in their portrayal of real events. Cinema was viewed as a subjective presentation of the truth, not the truth itself. When filmmakers claimed to uncover what really happened, it was still mutually understood that while it may be possible to present part of the truth, truth is too abstract to be viewed objectively. In The Untouchables, Brian DePalma focused on only four “untouchables” as opposed to the actual ten. Mel Gibson used specific events from Catholic theology in his recent presentation of the crucifixion of Christ. In Pearl Harbor, entire subplots of character development were fictionalized. Even Oliver Stone in his conspiracy-ridden film JFK ended with a text acknowledging that important government documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy would not be made available to the public until 2017.

Whereas those films focused on events that had occurred at least decades previously, the events of September 11 took place less than five years before the production of United 93. Perhaps in tackling the story of Flight 93 so soon, the studios and Paul Greengrass found themselves in a creative trap. When a country is still facing the political and global ramifications of the largest terrorist attack in its history, the issue is still controversial and the emotions still fresh. Any portrayal of events that strays away from the “reality” of what occurred runs the risk of being considered offensive, or even defamatory. Artistic license must be pushed aside in the search for “the truth”, if such a portrayal is to be well-received.

After all, a film that strives solely to present reality cannot be judged like other films. Three main criteria must be used. The first is the least important, and contributes to the second: realism. Does the film portray the events realistically? If a film is solely striving to present truth, the conventional areas of judgment – acting, directing, cinematography – are only small brushes in a larger picture. And it is in these small details that Greengrass succeeds, and succeeds well. His cast is made up of real flight attendants, actual FAA personnel, and unknown actors. The effect is that the people portrayed are just as much strangers to the audience as the people in reality. Dialogue is largely improvised, and taken from actual interviews with family members of the deceased. The cinematography has a shaking and jarring “home video” feel to it, creating the sense that one is actually on the plane with them. All these elements combine to make United 93 feel less cinematic and more real than most films based on real events.

The second criterion one must examine in regards to a film that claims to provide an authentic rendition of events (and nothing more) is authenticity itself. Is it indeed factually accurate? Is this how things really happened that day?

The answer, simply put, is yes. There are certain things we know to be true: We know that two planes were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center. We know that a third plane flew into the Pentagon. We know that a fourth, United flight 93, crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers attempted to overthrow the hijackers. And we know that all these events made everyone involved very surprised, very afraid, and very confused. All of this is presented in United 93. For all appearances, United 93 is as “true” as a third-party account can be.

It is with the third and final criterion, the criterion by which all films should be and usually are judged, that the film ultimately fails: artistic value. Is the film entertaining and informative? Is it a relevant and perceptive presentation of events?

Hardly.

In his quest for critical and ideological security, Greengrass has forgotten that cinema is not reality, but only an observation of it. The essence of reality can be captured, but reality itself can only happen once. In the case of United 93, the reality happened five years ago. In order for a film to be relevant, it must make reality even more real, in a sense, than it was before the events portrayed. And this is where United 93 falls apart – it has the appearance of truth, and the facts of truth, but in the end, cinema is more than truth. As Fellini put it, “A created thing is never invented and it is never true: it is always and ever itself.” United 93 succeeds so well in achieving its goal of being truthful that the result is too close to reality to serve any purpose as a work of art.

The only truth portrayed in United 93 is the truth that is already known. The details are left on the sidelines. Nothing new is learned, not even the passengers’ names. They are just as flat and one-dimensional as they were when we first heard about them on the news. No commentary is given about their actions, and so while we’re told what happened, we aren’t told why it matters. As a whole, the film only goes through the motions, inspiring the same feelings of sadness and pity that we already felt, and nothing more. Watching it is the equivalent of emotional masturbation, serving only as a means to be engulfed in the tragedy without the poignancy and artistry to make it worthwhile. If a film is not entertaining, educational, or emotionally and spiritually enlightening, what is its purpose?

If we leave cynicism aside, there is only one answer: homage. This is Greengrass’ tribute to the victims of 9/11, as the dedication at the end of the film explains. Nothing more. Films based on real life are nothing new. However, what dooms United 93 as work of cinema is not an unauthentic portrayal of events, but the lack thereof, and a commitment to remain so close to reality that nothing beneficial is gained. As a work of cinema and art, United 93 is only as fulfilling as reality will allow it to be. One can only be thankful that the passengers of Flight 93 are no longer around to see how, in the pursuit of realism, their actions have been cheapened and their souls forgotten.

Rating: 2/10

REVIEW: Borat

2006-10-31T17:03:00.000-06:00

New Cultural Learnings are humorous, insightful

Television sketches rarely make good films. If there’s anything the myriad of SNL-inspired movies have taught us, it’s that five-minute skits don’t switch mediums very smoothly - Wayne’s World being the sole exception. The latest in the attempts to translate an idea across media forms is Borat, a film based on a series of sketches shown on Da Ali G Show. Surprisingly, not only does the concept fit snugly into a longer timeframe, but it also happens to be uproariously funny.

The film follows Borat Sagdiyev, a television journalist from Kazakhstan who is assigned to report on the United States, believing this will enrich the people of his home country. With documentary film crew in tow, he goes from coast to coast interviewing people from a variety of backgrounds and worldviews. It isn’t long before Borat is making a fool of himself and saying things most people would deem inappropriate at least, and inflammatory at worst.

Borat comes from a backwards country, and combined with the fact that he isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, his naïve assumptions about American culture leave more than a few shocked and insulted. Lucky for us, Borat’s lack of cultural etiquette results in some of the most delightfully hilarious bigotry in recent cinema.

Indeed, perhaps the best thing about Borat is that it is tolerant in its portrayal of intolerance – there is something to offend everyone. Homosexuals, women, Jews and Christians are only a few of the groups that come under the scrutiny of Borat’s insensitivity. And yet, the Kazakhstani reporter is so charmingly child-like in his ignorance we can’t help but smile and support him in his pursuit of knowledge and acceptance. Not since last year’s The 40-Year Old Virgin has a comic lead exuded such an atmosphere of innocence and genuine sweetness.

The film moves along at a brisk pace, and crams a lot of laughs into its 82-minute run time. Though a few jokes aren’t quite as humorous as others, you’ll still be chuckling hard enough from the last wisecrack to care. There’s an unrestrained randomness to all the quips and jabs, and part of the fun is trying to guess what outrageous claims our dear journalist will make next.

After all, there’s a purpose to all the political incorrectness. What makes Borat such an effective comedy is that it goes beyond simply telling jokes, and emerges as a biting and relevant social satire that reveals the hypocrisy behind prejudice and discrimination. Borat views women as inferior, yet spends the entire film in pursuit of one. He is uncomfortable around gays, but his actions often contain blatant homosexual undertones. His nationalism borders on fanatical, yet he holds the United States in the highest esteem. And is it mere coincidence that the character of Borat is exaggeratedly paranoid in his anti-Semitism, yet actor Sacha Baron Cohen is Jewish? There’s a message at work behind the scenes for those willing to look for it, but this film is funny enough to satisfy those that just want to sit back and enjoy the cultural learnings.

When all is said and done, Borat is the best comedy of the year. As a certain journalist might put it: Niiiice!

Rating: 9/10