The Eighth Samurai

The Eighth Samurai Awards!

2012-02-07T08:55:00.003-05:00

I know I ranted a little bit about certain films/persons not receiving the proper credit where credit was due, so I have resorted this...

THE EIGHTH SAMURAI AWARDS!

I haven't given out my own awards since January of 2010, but I feel that I need to at least for my own soul's sake praise those that need praising. My full list of nominees is coming out soon. I just need to catch up on a few titles (War Horse, Pina, The Iron Lady, My Week With Marilyn, Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots, A Separation, A Better Life, Warrior, Real Steel, Jane Eyre, Anonymous, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, just to name a few).

So stay tuned for the full list of nominees. Give until February 18th/19th to finalize the list. Please feel free to send recommendations or concerns via email (withrow.dan@gmail.com) or Twitter (@DanWithrow).

For starters, any thoughts on the name of the award? I'm thinking Samurai will work. Discuss.

Extremely Personal & Incredibly Emotional

2012-01-27T08:16:00.008-05:00

The Holocaust. World War II. Genocide in Africa. Communist Berlin. L.A. Riots.

All events in human history that are shrouded with controversy and emotion. We all have seen images that speak volumes of an event or series of events. The same can be said for the events that occurred on September 11th. The images of the towers burning, the crash sites in Washington and Pennsylvania, the raising of the American Flag at Ground Zero, as well as the war and after effects of the terrorist attacks. All stir up great feeling, both patriotic and mournful. Events like this are gold for cinema.

At least for the most part. One has to be careful when tackling a subject that people feel so strongly about. The lives of a nation were changed in just a few hours. It's hard to believe it was over ten years ago, but the images and emotions feel as fresh as yesterday. It's a blessing and a curse for a film to feed off of those emotions. Is it cheap, or is it necessary?

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close tells the story of a family living in New York City post 9/11. Oskar and his mother Linda (Thomas Horn and Sandra Bullock respectively) are still coping with the loss of Thomas (Tom Hanks), Oskar's father and Linda's husband. He was the glue that kept the family together, and not that he is gone there is a giant void in both their lives. When Oskar stumbles upon a key, he sees is as one final contact with his father, one final game the two can play. What does the key fit? Where will it take him?

Oskar is a unique child, both in his abilities and inabilities. He was once thought to have Asperger syndrome, a form of autism, though his tests were inconclusive. Regardless, he is a special boy with an imagination as lofty as lofty as his determination to find the elusive key hole for his father. With the help of his grandmother, grandmother's renter (Oscar nominee Max von Sydow), and the entire city of New York, Oskar journeys out into the unknown, hoping to come across the owner of the said key hole, but more so to find out where his father's final game will take him.

This film should come with a warning along with the MPAA's rating. THIS FILM WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR EMOTIONS. It's really not fair at times. A boy with Aspergers loses his father on 9/11 who is played by Tom Hanks, whom EVERYONE loves. The child's mother is played by Sandra Bullock, another of America's sweethearts, throw that on top of a very intense story about love, loss, and self discovery, you've got one heavy emotional cocktail.

I do think this film hits below the belt a few times, but overall I was impressed with the story. It wasn't so much about finding closure for the death of his father, this was a story about a city still reeling from a tragic event. This boy risks a lot going out into the city, greeting strangers to find out if they knew his father or not, only to discover that there is a good in every person, including himself. He was bringing comfort to their lives, be it a shoulder to cry on or a voice to laugh with, he was there.

Horn, Bullock, and Hanks offer up pretty solid performances. Sydow, who received an Oscar nod for the voiceless Renter, gives a nice performance, but I don't know if it was more worthy than say Albert Brooks in Drive or Andy Serkis in The Adventures of Tin Tin. Regardless it's still a great character and offers another angle to the story of Oskar and his father. Horn and Bullock really lock horns in this film, spewing some shocking revelations.

Director Stephen Daldry has a knack for tackling some tough issues. His last two films, both of which garnered Best Picture nods (The Reader and The Hours), ventured into the Holocaust and suicide. Where these films differ is with the characters. They both had very deep, complex characters, which in Extremely Loud the characters are more confused that anything else, or we can't understand as in Oskar's case. Daldry isn't shy to hold punches, but his punches here seemed a little too harsh and more consistent. It wasn't totally abusive but it came close.

It's a tough movie to get through for some more than others, but for those who can handle the subject matter they have the most to gain from watching.

The nominees are...

2012-01-24T15:34:00.004-05:00

I would like to preface by saying that I respect all that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does. For the past 84 years that have given out awards to some of the most well deserving individuals and film productions ever, and in doing so held film to a higher standard than the rest of the world. Film is art, and art is beautiful. I'd also like to say that it's not easy to pick the best from a year's crop of films. Some get left behind, never seen, or just plain forgotten either due to a poor release date or a similar film eclipsing it.

That said, I must disagree with some of the nominations, more so lack there of, for certain films. You can all find the complete list of nominees anywhere really (imdb.com has great coverage) so I won't bore you with reciting who was selected. I do have a few problems with what went down this year.

Let's start off with my favorite movie of the year. Drive. The performances, the soundtrack, the action, the photography, and the direction. All flawless. The film did fairly well at the box office, too, so there is no reason for people not to be aware of its existence. It even won over at Cannes for Refn's direction, something that should garnered more attention. Yet here we are with Drive receiving one nomination for Best Achievement in Sound Editing. Just one nod! Hell even the Hollywood Foreign Press acknowledged the film with a nod to Albert Brooks for Best Supporting Actor. But no, the Academy has neglected to include this outstanding picture in any of the major categories.

Gosling, who starred in the film, was snubbed again for his other two performances in The Ides of March and Crazy, Stupid, Love, both worthy of some recognition, but alas, nada. Even more shocking was Michael Fassbender's exclusion from the acting categories. The man who appeared in several of the year's highly acclaimed films like X-Men: First Class, A Dangerous Method, Jane Eyre, and his best film to date, Shame. His fearless portrayal of a man suffering from sex addiction was both incredible and horrifying to watch. How did they miss him?

A large portion of the films I would consider the year's best were left out. Tyrannosaur, We Need to Talk About Kevin, The Skin I Live In (how was this not even selected by Spain to enter the competition???), Another Earth, Senna, Carnage, 50/50, The Mill and the Cross, J. Edgar, and Melancholia all were forgotten completely, while films like Bridesmaids, Extremely Loud, Incredible Close, W/E, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Real Steel, Rio, and The Muppets all get included. A few of those received horrible reviews from both critics and the general public.

I know I am partial to the films that aren't exactly main stream and people do want to see films they have seen or at least could see take the podium, but why can't the smaller films get a shot. I don't know, I think I'm just ranting and getting all of my frustration over Drive and Shame getting the shaft, but this happens far too often where a less deserving film for many reasons gets recognized.

In closing, I offer one last lament about the nominations. Why can't the Academy find a better solution to picking original songs? Two nominations this year? Are you honestly telling me that there were only two songs worthy of the nod? Give me a break. The best song of the year by far, at least in this reviewer's eyes, was "Lay Your Head Down" from Albert Nobbs. It reminded me of a song that won a few years back from Lord of the Rings called "Into the West," a really nice song just like the one from Albert, both kind of like lullabies. More perplexing is how the Golden Globes can nominate FIVE, count 'em FIVE, different songs, and not ONE of those can get a nomination. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's a shame. They are neglecting to recognize so many creative talents in that field. Get your act together guys, look around!

Well, I hope I haven't gone on for too long. After a week or so I'll get more into calculating the winners (basically flipping a coin) and getting back with my predictions. Those, along with my top movie list of 2011, shall be coming some time in early February (I hope).

A Tortured Soul

2012-01-23T10:38:00.001-05:00

I've said it before, but it is so nice to have a movie exceed your expectations, both in the quality of the work and in what you were expecting. Albert Nobbs is that and so much more.

Albert Nobbs is a labor of love. Glenn Close, who stars in the titular role, has been connected with this material for nearly 20 years, playing the same role on stage in 1982. For years she tried to get the production to the big screen, and after a long wait her efforts have put forth a brilliant film. Directed by Rodrigo Garcia (In Treatment), this film tells the story of Albert, an Irish waiter at a hotel. The trouble is she has been portraying herself as a man for 30 years. She has become encased in her mindset of Albert Nobbs that she doesn't know her true self anymore. She must do whatever it takes to get by, even if it means keeping her secret to the grave.

She befriends a local painter, Hubert Page (Janet McTeer), only Hubert isn't all that he says he is either. With Hubert's friendship, Albert sees that what he needs is a wife. He attempts to court another maid at the hotel, Helen (by Mia Wasikowska), only she has taken a shine to Joe (Aaron Johnson), the new handyman. It's sometimes painful to see the lengths that Albert goes to for Helen, but Albert it so pure in his thinking and kind of heart that we want him to get the girl no matter what.

What makes Albert Nobbs so special is Close's performance. Close truly fits the part. There is something in her eyes that makes you really believe that the woman in Albert is only what he keeps hidden under his clothes. All the rest is a man. Close makes us believe that Albert sees himself as a man only just a little different. We see a fragile man who will stop at nothing to get what he wants, even if it means sucking up to the harsh and vulgar members of high society.

The supporting cast around Close is fantastic as well. McTeer really shines as Albert's only true friend. I would look for both Close and McTeer to be in contention come this Oscar night. Wasikowska and Johnson look great for their respective parts, playing them with honesty. Another accent to the cast is Brendan Gleeson as the local doctor. He adds a touch of sensibility to the entitled of the day. He likes a good, stiff drink (or three) and finds himself comfortable in the company of those considered lower than him.

Gleeson's character brings up a great quality to the film. I am astonished at how much of a commentary of 19th century life is put into the film. I would say most of the first act is setting up the world they live in and periodic references and characters enter the second and third acts to remind us of the time period this story is taking place. Albert Nobbs is in fact a reflection of what it was like to live back then. In order to make a decent living one had to be a man, otherwise find someone to live off of.

It's a heartbreaking story that will really hit home. Albert on the surface is a simple man, but underneath lies a wealth of feeling, confusion, and love. The film ends with the beautiful song "Lay Your Head Down" with lyrics by Close herself, music by Brian Byrne, and sung by Sinead O'Connor. It reminded me of "Into the West" by Annie Lennox, the Oscar winning song fromLord of the Rings: Return of the King. This song from Albert is somber, sweet, and plays like a lullaby. I think it's safe to say that is exactly what it is; a lullaby for Albert, a character whose life has been so strenuous and tiresome.

The more I think about it the more I love this film. Great performances, great characters, and a perfect time period to be placed in. The song is the icing on the cake (and probably has the best shot at winning come Oscar night). It looks like Meryl Streep is all but a lock for Best Actress, but we shall see what happens. Who knows, maybe Albert will gain momentum coming down the homestretch. I hope it does.

We need to talk about this movie

2012-01-19T08:08:00.007-05:00

I've always said that 'I don't care if I have a boy or a girl, as long as they are healthy.' After watching Lynne Ramsay's We Need to Talk About Kevin, I just want a child that doesn't despise me.

We Need to Talk About Kevin stars Tilda Swinton as Eva, a woman who is currently living alone, isolated, and cast out from society. We don't know why she is looked down upon so much by her fellow neighbors. She wakes up to find her house and car covered in red paint. Perfect strangers walk up to her and abuse her. Her entire daily routine is spent on edge, waiting for the next attack.

We soon find out through a series of flashbacks that she wasn't always like this. She used to have a family. With her husband Franklin (John C. Reilly) they have a child, Kevin. From birth their relationship is not quite right. It was a difficult birth, leaving her sort of numb to the fact that she just brought a child into the world. As a baby Kevin cries constantly when he is around his mother. As the years go by Kevin is slow to develop into a normal boy. His speaking and bathroom training are late, but worst of all he can't stand his mother.

This deep seeded hatred snowballs into a horrifying nightmare. Even when Eva has another child, a baby girl, her life doesn't get any easier. Kevin is still at odds with her day in and day out. It's almost uncomfortable, but because Ramsay takes us in and out of the past and present, we never get the full story in one dose, leaving us on edge and trying to figure out what went wrong that put Eva in such a horrible situation in present day.

Ramsay, who wowed critics with her eye opening debut feature Ratcatcher in 1999, delves deeper into the psyche of a child. Ratcatcher examines a seemingly normal child living in extraordinary circumstances. Here with Kevin Ramsay takes an extraordinary child and puts him in normal circumstances. Kevin is from an upper middle class family living in a quaint suburb. Though we don't go deep inside Kevin, we still witness the battle of nature vs. nurture, a prevalent theme in Ratcatcher.

Swinton gives a truly inspired performance. You can see the look of sheer horror, embarrassment, and utter puzzlement as the events unfold in real time and in flashback. At any given scene with her son you wonder if she'll be attacked, made a fool, or actually get through to him. As the film rolls along we slowly realize that the games Kevin is playing with his mother are leading up to a jaw-dropping revelation that people will be talking about for years to come.

I don't think I've seen a film quite like this. It's almost too disturbing to put into words. The nonlinear story telling method keeps you guessing until the very end. Rather than just telling the story in chronological order, which still would have been a good payoff, we are shown glimpses of the aftermath from the climactic event, teasing us and luring us in further and further, deeper and deeper, until the film explodes in one, cathartic scene.

For the faint of heart, or for those of you who get weirded out by this kind of movie, be warned. This movie doesn't let up. Kevin will ware you down until there is nothing left. 2011 might be the year of the feel bad movie.

FIlm is life and life is film

2012-01-17T11:09:00.009-05:00

Martin Scorsese is a cinephile first, filmmaker second. His efforts to preserve film have saved countless classics from sure decay and destruction. His documentaries share with us his love and passion for film, history, and art. His narrative work shows a man with a deep understanding and appreciation for film.

So why would he want to make a family film like Hugo? That was my question when I first saw the trailer for this wonderful film. And it's in 3D! Who would have figured that the man who redefined the gangster genre would be doing a PG movie in 3D? Well, after seeing it, I completely understand why, and I applaud Mr. Scorsese for taking such a bold risk.

Hugo tells the story of Hugo (Asa Butterfield), a boy orphaned after the sudden death of this father, a clockmaker and avid tinkerer. Hugo lives in a train station in Paris where he takes care of the clocks. His daily routine consists of stealing food, dodging the station agent (Sacha Baron Cohen), and finding parts to finish his father's automaton. One day he is caught by the toy shop owner (Sir Ben Kingsley) stealing from his store. He manages to stay out of trouble and befriends the shop owner's granddaughter (Chloe Moretz).

The two form a friendship and embark on a journey that takes them all over the train station and the outside, too. The two discover secrets about one another, but more importantly about Chloe's grandfather Georges. They hold the key to Georges' happiness, not to mention unlocking a message from Hugo's father.

Had I done a little research or read the book prior to viewing the film, I would have totally understood why Scorsese made this. The story ties in with one of cinema's great pioneers, Georges Melies, whose films were thought to have been lost in time but luckily several prints still exist. His films harken back to a time in cinema when the actual process of making films was still experimental and very much full of fantasy and wonder.

The film is well made, utilizing the 3D technology without too many of the cliched 3D gimmicks that come along with most films of this nature. It adds more detail to the setting that makes it really pop of the screen. Is it completely necessary to use it for this film? Not completely, but I 100 percent approve of Scorsese using it here.

For Scorsese this film is a love story. Not involving the characters but one between himself and cinema. You can see this love in many of his works like Raging Bull, New York, New York, and Cape Fear just to name a few. He understands the struggle artists have getting a film made. In his short film Key to Reserva, he uses a partial script by Hitchcock that was never put on celluloid by the great director and films it in the same style as Hitch would have. It's incredible to watch. I've never seen such dedication and love put into such a small piece of film. You can tell that he really wanted to do Hitchcock justice.

Hugo is a film that is made from the heart, is about following your heart, and inspires us to never give up, much like Scorsese has done his whole career. Film critic Roger Ebert put it best by saying "Hugo is unlike any other film Martin Scorsese has ever made, and yet possibly the closest to his heart."

The race is on

2012-01-16T03:03:00.005-05:00

The Golden Globes have come and gone, and that means it's Oscar season! What I love about the Golden Globes is what I hate about them. I never know who or what is going to win. I attribute it to not seeing all of the films and because there have only been a handful of awards, mostly from critics.

After looking over the winners there are a few films that have really shot up to the top and a few that have quietly been left behind. Much like last year we have two films that are the heavy favorites to win Best Picture next month. The Descendants and The Artist. Both films took home top prizes in best motion picture (drama and musical/comedy respectively) and best actor (George Clooney and Jean Dujardin). It's a pretty safe bet that the Oscar will go to one of these winners from in there respective category, but let's look at some of the other potential races.

In the best actress, Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady) and Michelle Williams (My Week With Marilyn) are the women to beat, leaving Glenn Close fighting for her life. Streep is the heavy favorite, seeing as more and more people will get a chance to see her in theaters this coming month. It's her race to lose. Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese both made cases for their films (Midnight in Paris and Hugo), winning in writing and directing respectively. Allen looks like the favorite to win original screenplay, though The Artist could play spoiler. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see The Descendants pick up a win for adapted screenplay.

As far as directing, I think it's wide open. Scorsese has a history of losing (his one win coming with The Departed a few years back), but his film has really taken on steam winning the National Board of Review's top prize. Can it continue to impress? I don't know. Payne, Allen, Hazanavicious, and Clooney already have nods from the Globes and the Oscars usually through in one or two picks of their own. I wouldn't be surprised to see Allen or Clooney dropped and replaced by Spielberg, Fincher, Malick, or Refn. They all posted strong films.

Another film that gained ground was The Help. I think it will do well at other award shows, like SAG, but I think it could take home a few come February. Certainly in Supporting Actress and Original Song. I still think it has some tough competition, but it could carry some momentum into Oscar night.

There are a few films that I'm just not sure about. Bridesmaids, J. Edgar, The Tree of Life, Drive, Shame, Moneyball, are just a few of the films that might get snubbed or left out of certain categories. The comedies especially have it hard. It's a shame that comedy is held to such a strict standard. Films like 50/50, The Guard, Young Adult, and Carnage are going to have some difficulty staying afloat. They will be lucky to just get one nod. Luckily this year was a pretty stand out year for comedy, unlike last year which saw The Tourist getting several nominations at the Globes. You can do better Hollywood Foreign Press.

Anything goes come January 24th. The Artist has a slight advantage, much like The King's Speech. It's release date was much later than The Descendants, making it fresher in voter's minds. I'm just not sure if voters are ready to give the top prize(s) to a silent film. Will they look at it as a gimmick or as a truly great film. Time will tell.

Sex on the brain

2012-01-12T08:15:00.009-05:00

(Warning: The following review contains certain words and topics that might offend certain readers. View discretion is advised).

We all have secrets that we are not proud of. Most of the time it's a guilty pleasure or a handful of little idiosyncrasies that we develop over the course of our lives. Sometimes those secrets, those oddities about ourselves, they take on a life of their own. They can divide a person. In recent years there has been a lot of talk about whether or not sex, the act of fornicating, was an actual addiction. People say it's just men abusing their power of women, especially when brought into the light of day by celebrities and athletes claiming to suffer from this sickness. After watching Steve McQueen's Shame I haven't a doubt in my mind that this sickness is real, or at least could be.

Shame, the real feel bad movie of the year, is only McQueen's second feature film to date. His first film, Hunger, focused on a man who made his life very public when he went on a hunger strike during the 1981 Irish Hunger Strikes. In Shame, McQueen dissects the very personal and often shocking sexual addiction of Brandon Sullivan (Michael Fassbender). Brandon is a well off business man. He has an apartment in New York where he leads a seemingly good life, but hides a dark secret that is on the verge of destroying him. His sex addiction has gone out of control. To make this even more difficult, his sister drops in unexpected and crashes at his place (played by Carey Mulligan). Her lifestyle begins to interfere with his addiction, forcing him to take drastic measures.

Every waking moment is spent towards achieving one goal: orgasm. We see him smile, laugh, engage socially, but when he is alone he is focused, like a junkie going through the routine of drug addiction. Brandon's tools aren't lighters, spoons, and rubber ties. He uses prostitutes, Internet pornography, magazines, or his imagination. Even at work his mind wanders off, either at a passing coworker or something he has looked up on his computer. This is far from a private matter. His addiction is slipping into the open and he knows it. We assume he is aware of his problem. At the beginning of the film we see Brandon lying naked in bed, the sheet pulled over his private area. He lies motionless, only staring at the ceiling above, breathing in and out as if he knows that today is going to be a long day. We know he's not thinking about work. He has one thing and one thing only. Sex.

Most people associate sex with pleasure. I'm sure Brandon has at one time or another had a pleasurable experience during intercourse, but he is long past that stage. During a scene on the subway he spots a woman. She's an attractive woman. She's alone. Vulnerable. She eyes Brandon staring back at her. The two have chemistry. In silence they are mentally engaging each other. His stare never wavers, he just scans her up and down. Suddenly her face changes. She gets up, showing the audience her wedding band. We can feel her shame for flirting with Brandon. He gets up and stands behind her. He follows her out of the train only to lose her in the crowd. His disappointment isn't so much in relation to not getting to know her, but that he will have to continue his search for sex elsewhere.

Brandon is a tragic character. His only connection with people is linked with sex. How will this person help or interfere with me reaching my goal of orgasm? Brandon's limit's knows no bounds. Fassbender, who also appeared in McQueen's Hunger, gives a fascinating performance. It is fearless both in the sense that it is a physically challenging role and that he accomplishes the role with such honesty. He could have played it like some debonair businessman just looking to score. Fassbender knows that his character is truly disturbed. He knows that if people found out about his condition he would be ostracized. He also knows that he needs help and won't get it. All of these factors come into play and create an incredible performance. Much like Gosling pulled off in Drive, Fassbender uses his eyes and body language to express how he feels.

Pain is a word often associated with addiction. We see videos of addicts going through withdrawals in health class. They kick, scream, shake, vomit. Evidence of a sickness in the body. Fassbender's character also shows great pain and uneasiness. During times of sheer euphoria, at least for a normal person, Fassbender gives us pain and suffering. He can't help what he's doing but he needs it to stay normal.

Along with Fassbender is Mulligan, another one of today's rising stars. Her character is rebellious, dependent, and loving. She wants nothing more than to find someone to care for her and to spend time with her brother. Her brother is too involved with his addiction and her taste in men and willingness to fall in love with them brings her down even more. She plays a girl on the edge of a breakdown and really shines on screen. Like Fassbender, she gives her all for the role, exposing her true colors.

In just two films McQueen has established himself as a major player in the art house scene. Both films are festival favorites with critical praise, but the general public isn't ready for his heavy storytelling. With hope (and some financial backing) he will continue to make the films he wants to make and hopefully garner enough praise here in the states to win over more of the public. It's going to be hard if he keeps getting NC-17 ratings.

Skin deep

2012-01-09T01:26:00.006-05:00

Almodóvar has made a living telling jaw-dropping stories. Stories that are so bizarre and unconventional it's hard to look away. His characters have deep, emotional and psychological issues, often dealing with sexual identity, and express themselves not just with invigorating dialogue but with intense, powerful actions. His latest creation, The Skin I Live In, is everything I just described and more, as well as being his best work in almost ten years.

The Skin I Live In (La piel que habito) is an emotionally draining yet highly enjoyable romp into a quasi new genre for Almodóvar. On the outside this has all the markings of a science fiction thriller, but the science involved really isn't the meat and potatoes of the film. It's a drama/romance steeped in mystery and intrigue, masquerading in sci/fi clothing. It stars Antonio Banderas, who reunites with Almodóvar after working with him over 20 years ago. Banderas plays a doctor whose controversial foray into developing new, stronger human skin forces him to test his new substance on a human patient in secret. Her name is Vera Cruz (Elena Anaya), and we are aware that Vera is, or at least was, being held captive inside Banderas' home.

There is also the housekeeper, played by one of Almodóvar stand by actresses, Marisa Paredes. She has known Banderas since he was a child. She is well aware of all his secrets, even ones that he isn't aware of. Her main goal is to protect him from the dangers of his work. Vera because of the reconstruction he has done to Vera's skin, he has made her similar to the wife that he lost, a concern for Paredes. Can he separate his feelings from his work, or will he succumb to desire and fall in far deeper than he could possibly imagine?

Almodóvar doesn't just give us generic characters in an average plot. No, no, no. He is not the person to put ordinary people in extraordinary situations. He takes extraordinary people and puts them in unimaginable circumstances. He has always done that and will continue to do that, and for that we thank him. Like M. Night Shyamalan, only less predictable, Almodóvar always keeps us on our toes. Just when we think we know where he's going, he jerks us in the other direction, and then jerks us back again. He does so cleanly and efficiently what others would make a mess of.

Banderas isn't just a talented doctor, he's a talented doctor bent on righting wrongs, revenging his family, and filling that empty void in his life. The same goes for Vera and Paredes. They both fit archetypical characters from the thriller genre, but there is so much more going on under the surface. Almodóvar's characters are like icebergs. What you see is only a tiny percent of what they are truly made up of.

Like so many of Almodóvar's previous films, especially those made in the last decade or so, this film has such a clean look to it. What I mean is the camera shots are well placed, level, and you can easily follow the action. We're not floating around the room or rumbling inside of a car. He and José Luis Alcaine (they've worked together several times before) utilize the beauty of their talent, the beauty of their setting, and juxtapose it with the ugliness of what is going on. There is kidnapping, murder, jealousy, lust, and science experiments, yet somehow they make it all look so chic. The use of color, a prominent feature in many of Almodóvar's films, is highlighted brilliantly here.

It's unlike any Almodóvar film I've ever seen, but at the same time it's like wearing your favorite shirt. It just feels so right, so comfortable. The material has changed but the elements are all there. He continues to shine with age and pushes the envelope further and further. He's a rebel, a genius, and a visionary, and one of the most talented artists working today.

Bacon

2012-01-06T08:33:00.009-05:00

Bacon.

It's all about bacon.

Have you ever seen that KFC commercial where they talk about making their KFC Famous Bowl (TM) even better than ever? They put it so eloquently...

"We put bacon on it."

What a genius idea! What if everything could be made better just by simply putting bacon on it? Wouldn't the world be a better place?

Not quite.

Truth is KFC hasn't exactly reinvented the wheel. Bacon has been, and probably will be until the end of time, a favorite food for all Americans. I myself have been mystified by it's delicious, breakfasty overtones and surprisingly multipurpose cooking qualities. It's not rare to find that an essential ingredient to a particular dish is none other than that famed, cured meat.

Thanks to the wonders of Google, you can easily find the origins of this salty delight. It dates back well into the 12th century (though the word more commonly referred to all pig products). There are even pigs bred specifically for the cultivation of delicious bacon (the Yorkshire and Tamworth varieties especially). Over the years bacon has single-handedly transformed the culinary landscape, proving it is not just an item found next to pancakes and scrambled eggs, but a feature in appetizers, burgers, doughnuts, and even ice cream (thank you Denny's).

This "Bacon Mania," which is apparently worthy of its own Wikipedia page, is inescapable in the states. We are bombarded with advertisements promising not just tasty meals, but those glorious strips of porky goodness. I dare you to ask next person you see if they like bacon. Go on, I double-dog dare you. If they say 'no,' ask them if they truly don't like it or if they merely avoid it to try and eat healthier. Let's be honest, no one can eat just one piece of bacon. Those who do cry on the inside every time.

Now a better question. Why on earth have I gone on about bacon?

While lying in bed last night unable to fall asleep, I discovered an alarming trend. I had just finished watching Ridley Scott's 1979 classic Alien, a rich, innovative film that gave new depth and scope to the science fiction genre. I got to thinking; what if someone tried to reboot this film? Ridley Scott is not one to shy away from a director's cut (his recent cut of Blade Runner is fantastic!), but would he allow or, God forbid, be involved with a remake of such a classic film?

After shaking off that horrible thought I recalled other films that have been remade and touched up. Spielberg and Lucas have both gone back to add special effects, deleted scenes, and have (worst of all in my opinion) continued their franchises with ungodly effects, poorly constructed characters, and substandard plot elements. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost admiration for these two gentlemen, and they are not the worst offenders by far, but they must be held accountable to some extent.

But let's not stop there. What about the Michael Bay's of the world? Those filmmakers who make films just dripping with eye candy. The entire Transformer franchise is comprised of loud, gaudy explosions, clunking metal machines wielding swords, and sexy models showing off their skinny jeans. These testosterone infused romps offer very little in terms of artistic value, and worst of all they aren't that entertaining.

These remakes, reboots, and flashy CGI reliant films all have one thing in common. Bacon.

That't right. Bacon.

Remember our friends at KFC? Well it appears that Hollywood uses the same concept. And like KFC they add bacon to a lack luster container of mediocre material (sorry KFC, but your so called "Famous Bowl" just isn't that enjoyable. It's like you dumped a bunch of menu items into a bowl and covered it with gravy, cheese, and bacon. Come on guys, stick to straight chicken and biscuits). When you add bacon (CG effects, violence, explosions) to bad material (remade material, campy action flicks), or worse to GREAT material (classic films), you get a disaster.

At first we see the bacon. How many of you have seen a trailer that just makes your jaw drop either from excitement of disbelief? Well, that's bacon you're looking at. It's the good stuff that the studios know people will eat up because people LOVE bacon. Here are just some of the things studios use for bacon:

Explosions, familiar characters, popular book franchises, teen idols, money making directors, 3D and/or IMAX films, popular films from the 80s, superheroes, fashion models, action stars, CGI, slow motion action scenes, chiseled abs, bikinis, aerial camera shots, drugs, sex, popular music, cute animals, exotic locations, fast cars, shiny cars, chase scenes, helicopters, surprise cameos from top bill actors, guest directors, explosions knocking back actors, club scenes with black lights, alcohol, assault rifles, open mouth kisses, professional wrestlers, and the list goes on and on and on...

Let's face it, the bacon is out there. It's all over the place. Now I'm not saying bacon is bad. It should just be consumed in small doses. Any doctor or nutritional expert will tell you that. Bacon, when cooked properly and eaten moderately won't harm you. It's when you consume it in large quantities on a frequent basis that it can be detrimental. That same principle goes for movies. You can have a film that has a touch of "cinematic bacon," and still have it work. It's nice to see every once and a while. Take a film like Moon. That could have been totally green screen with computer effects galore and no real sense of a realistic space. Instead director Duncan Jones mixed in some quality computer effects with models, fabulous sets, and a great performance from Sam Rockwell. He let the story dictate what he needed to be done, not the desire for "bacon."

Then there is Green Lantern. A film where they can't even create a suit for Ryan Reynolds to wear in real life. They had to modify it with computer graphics. The suit along with all of the other Lantern fighters, villains, flashbacks, and fight scenes are entirely made up of computer graphics and special effects. There is very little story to follow because all we have to do is watch a video game play itself out for us. Then there is Ryan Reynolds shirtless, beautiful woman falling for him, and A-list cameos from Tim Robbins and Angela Bassett. The amount of bacon is overwhelming.

Bacon isn't going away anytime soon. The onslaught of 3D films isn't letting up, with documentaries now entering the third dimension (Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams and Wender's Pina). Heck, even films that use bacon make bacon. It's a major win for the studios. Bacon begets bacon. Cinema will always be polluted by bacon, clogging up our mental arteries and blocking us from healthier stimuli. Still, bacon is bacon. Like it or not we all want at least a little bit of it now and again. It is still possible to see a movie that has some bacon and not be too overwhelmed. The aforementioned 3D documentaries are great examples. There are people out there willing to try new things with new technologies that are special, engaging, and not overwhelming. Disney and Pixar have done wonders with CG animated films, making actual stories instead of vehicles for movie stars. Bacon can be used in a positive light.

The saying, "bring home the bacon," has been linked to a phrases from centuries ago where a couple would be awarded meat upon marriage . Bacon has been and always will be a reward to some degree. We want it, we need it, but we must control our urges. The more we crave it the more we are going to get. Hollywood isn't stupid. They know what kind of movies sell best and they are taking advantage of that to the fullest. It's up to us to stand up and say, "Please hold the bacon." As painful as it is to say, it must be done, or we run the verge of drowning in bacon, and I don't mean that literally, because actually drowning in bacon sounds like a reasonable way to go out if you ask me. Stop the insanity of over the top storytelling and get back to what really matters. Good plot, good characters, interesting conflicts, and original endings.

Hush, hush and stuff

2011-12-27T11:43:00.007-05:00

British spy movies have a unique quality to them. It's like going to a party but only being allowed to look in through the window. You see really cool stuff happening but all you hear are a few whispers. James Bond is the exception, but then again James Bond has become very Americanized, especially post Roger Moore. A good, solid British spy thriller is quiet, methodical, and often complex.

Tomas Alfredson (Let the Right One in) brings John le Carré's novel Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy to the big screen for the first time (it has already been adapted for a TV miniseries). It's a cool, slow burning whodunnit (more like who-is-it) placed in the heat of the Cold War. The heads of the British MI6 division have decided to shake things up a bit. The two most powerful members of "the circus" (basically the main people in charge) have decided to "retire. Control, played by John Hurt, and Mr. Smiley, played by Gary Oldman (still looking for his first Oscar nod), are the two veterans who leave, leaving the group in an awkward state.

Control suspects a mole. In fact that is the entire reason for the shake up and botched assignment overseas. After a series of events, Mr. Smiley heads up an investigation into finding out who the mole in the circus could be. With the help of a member from the circus (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley's search for the mole takes him back into the past. A past that at first glance was glamourous for MI6, but after sifting through the "glitz and glam" of espionage, Smiley uncovers secrets kept hidden for years. It is up to Smiley to find the mole before all is lost to the Soviets.

It's easy to get lost in this film, in both good and bad ways. Espionage is secretive and most importantly not supposed to be seen. When spies investigate other spies, it's almost as if nothing at all is happening, when in fact lives are at risk. So in a sense part of the fun is getting deeply involved and disoriented, but when it goes on for 2+ hours it can get a little tiresome.

One problem with the film is the way in which we find out information. Because there is no newcomer to the group or an outside investigator involved, we have to sift through spy lingo to uncover what is going on. Granted some of it is straight forward, but in the beginning the names, places, and actions start to get muddled. Not to mention that everyone speaks at a relatively even keel or softer in addition to the British accent. All in all it makes for a troubling conversation.

Aside from that obstacle the film is very well done. There are no vibrant colors, no fast movements, no outrageous camera angles. The colors are muted and almost dusty looking. The film has a very old look to it. Not like an old film would look, but like the things in the film look old. From the hair styles to the doors on the homes. It looks like everything was taken out of a vault on put on screen. It really helped to add to the feeling of the film.

The action is somewhat stagnant, but I mean that in as nice a way as possible. There are no large scale assaults or shoot outs. Imagine if we lived in a world where every other day there was a shoot out in the streets of London with spies and criminal masterminds sending in waves of their goons? The news would certainly be a lot more entertaining, but it's just not realistic. This is as realistic a spy movie as you will get. It's more a battle of wits than braun or weapons. There are a lot of talking heads but the heads that are talking are very interesting.

It's not quite the film I expected, due to the wading through of spy language. Other than that it's really an interesting story with great characters and real world implications. I'm intrigued to see how it does come award season.

Through the eyes of a child

2011-12-22T07:53:00.012-05:00

Last night I had the pleasure of watching Lasse Hallstrom's My Life as a Dog, a touching drama told through the eyes of a boy whose life is turning upside down. I was blown away by the honesty of the material. It actually brought back a lot of memories, both good and bad, from my childhood; the awkwardness of growing up, discovering sex and not knowing what to make of it, enjoying the simple things and using your imagination. We tend to want to grow up too fast but when it's time to actually grow up, we do everything we can to slow down. Funny how life can be so cruel.

I got to thinking of how other films treat growing up, specifically through the eyes of a child. Not a teenager, but through the eyes of a child. I found that American films tend to glorify the lives of children, never really telling it like it is. I'm not saying that being a child is horrible and full of numbing experiences, but it's not a sepia toned flashback either. Foreign language films have a knack for putting children in unconventional situations (at least for Americans) and not holding back or cutting away from things we might not expect to see.

So I've compiled a short list of some films (both English and non English language) that portray youth with a certain honesty and dignity (in alphabetical order).

The 400 Blows (Francois Truffaut, 1959)

There are few films as moving as Truffaut's feature debut. In recent years it has become a film I go back to over and over again. It's star, Jean-Pierre Leaud, plays a boy whose life is filled with mishaps, miscommunications, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Granted, he does mirror his surroundings, growing up in Paris during the 60s, but part of it is being misunderstood, like so many children are. He wants to be loved, he wants to fit in, and he wants some freedom. There are moments where you just want reach out and tell him it's all going to be alright, but we can't do that. Not because he's in a movie, but because we don't know for sure if everything will be alright, and this boy has been lied to long enough.

Amarcord (Federico Fellini, 1973)

Fellini always had a way of glorifying any and all situations he puts his characters into, but there is something about Amarcord that is different. Fellini uses so much of his childhood here, and not just what happened historically, but he uses several different perspectives. He shows what he saw and interpreted as a child, what the adults saw, and what he sees now looking back on it all. Many of his films depict life as a circus, and this is one of his biggest productions of that kind. There is a lot of truth and honesty here and a childlike exuberance seldom seen on screen.

The Children are Watching Us (Vittorio De Sica, 1944)

De Sica was a master storyteller for all ages. Umberto D follows an elderly man, The Bicycle Thief follows a middle aged man, and here we follow a four year old boy. He is the victim of bad parenting and the bad feelings that can sprout from within. He is at an age where things are still sugar coated. Evil hasn't quite sprouted it's head yet, but this boy soon finds out that there is much to learn about the real world and the world around him. The last few moments of the film are so heartbreaking that to tell you wouldn't be fair. Loss of innocence plays a major role in most movies about childhood, and this film is no different.

A Christmas Story (Bob Clark, 1983)

It's funny, it's truthful, and it's timeless. Clark's one of a kind adaptation of Jean Shepherd's uproarious novel In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash focuses specifically on Christmas for Ralphie Parker and his family, but it speaks of so much more on a much wider scale. Ralphie isn't an unusual kid. What makes him special is his voice-over, done by Shepherd himself. No child speaks like this. No sir. But what does make this child special is that we have the ability to see what he was going through with the knowledge and understanding of an adult. We can look at embarrassing and sometimes scary moments and see the humor in them. For a kid, swearing in front of an adult is a cardinal sin, and Ralphie doing it is no exception. We, however, see the pain Ralphie goes through of putting soap in his mouth but hear older Ralphie retell it with nostalgia and sunny optimism, letting us know this is just a bump in the road. That's what so many of our childhood "events" boil down to. Minor bumps in the road of life.

Come and See (Elem Klimov, 1985)

There are some events, however, that are more than just bumps. They are bridges that have been blown up and we need to take a dark, dangerous path to get around and back on the path we set out on. Such is the life of the protagonist of this film. He experiences first hand the horrors and life altering events of WWII. The images are strong for us, but also somewhat familiar. We have seen photos and grainy films of the violence from WWII, but imagine how a young boy from Belarus would react (technically USSR). The virtually untold story about the Belarusian strife during WWII will have a profound affect on you. That affect is amplified when told from the perspective of a child. There are certain images you can erase, but this film is full of some that will stay for a long time.

Forbidden Games (René Clément, 1952)

I don't remember when I first learned about death. I do know how awkward it can be talking to a child about death for the first time. I'm not quite sure how to approach my own children when the time comes, but at least they wont' have to find it out all on their own. The children in Clement's deeply moving film is another example of how war truly has a tremendous impact on children. In Come and See we see war directly effect children, going as far as making them a part of it. Here we see what happens to children indirectly impacted by it. When a girl loses her family in a Nazi air raid, she finds comfort in a farm boy. The two confront death from a unique perspective, one that we adults haven't experienced in a long time.

Grave of the Fireflies (Isao Takahata, 1988)

There is something about children in war that makes for a great films. This Japanese-animated film shows with unflinching realism how children handle the chaos of war. This is one tough film to watch. Seita and Setsuka lose their parents during the bombings of Japan and must survive off of those family members remaining, eventually trying to make it on their own. Seita changes from older brother to parent and guardian of Setsuka virtually overnight. This is a great illustration of how blood is truly thicker than water. Even during a horrible event like WWII you can still find love and kindness flourishing.

My Life as a Dog (Lasse Hallstrom, 1985)

It's not easy being a kid, especially when you are on your own. Ingemar is sent away when her mother's illness becomes more and more serious. He lives with his boyish uncle and aunt and attempts to survive growing up. Hallstrom tackles a lot of issues like sexuality, love, friendship, and identity. His camera captures all, not shying away from even the most awkward moments like wetting the bed or spying on a naked woman. The best part is the periodic narrative from the main character. It's one thing to see what a child does on screen, but it's another thing to hear what they are thinking.

The Sandlot (David M. Evans, 1993)

I wish I could have grown up in this neighborhood as a kid. The antics they get into were the ones we dreamed of getting into. Chewing tobacco on carnival rides, kissing the hot life guard, getting chased by enormous dogs, sleep overs in tree houses, just to name a few. The narration is sort of cheesy, obviously trying to replicate the magic of A Christmas Story, but the cast of kids makes up for it. They are witty, full of life, well developed, and each represents some aspect of ourselves or our friends.

Stand by Me (Rob Reiner, 1986)

From the master of modern horror comes a coming of age tale (go figure, right?). Based on a work by Stephen King, Stand by Me is a story about four boys who go on an adventure. Much like The Sandlot, this story takes place in a time period long gone. A time when kids could roam the streets in the morning and wander back at supper without their parents batting an eyelash. Not all was innocent like in The Sandlot. This is the dark side of childhood. The boys go out to find a dead body left in the woods. They don't just encounter danger but their inner demons. Problems at home and personal imperfections rise up in conversation and from outside forces. Their lives will forever be changed from this trip, and the same goes for the audience. What an incredible film.

The Tin Drum (Volker Schlondorff, 1979)

At times beautiful and at other times nightmarish, this one of a kind story tells of a boy who refuses to grow up, sort of like Peter Pan. This boy doesn't want to grow up because he wants to stay a child, rather he doesn't want to be an adult. So that's exactly what he does. At the age of three he decides to stop growing up. Physically that is. He encounters several people who want to use him and he of them. It's at times unsettling simply because depicting children in adult roles can get controversial, and this film has plenty of that (especially with sex), but it offers a unique perspective. Can a child willingly become an adult at such a young age? Is there something to say for personal experience as well as what is socially acceptable? You be the judge.

Happy Holidays from Sweden!

2011-12-21T09:03:00.005-05:00

When the first trailer came out for David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, it claimed that this it was going to be the "feel bad" movie of the year. It also said it was coming out around Christmastime. "Feel bad" and Christmastime are two phrases seldom connected. Interesting marketing strategy.

When you think about it though, it kind of makes sense. This week we have The Adventures of Tin Tin, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, War Horse, We Bought a Zoo, and Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close all coming out, not to mention the gauntlet of Christmas specials and movies airing on TV all week. So why not release something that isn't for the kids and softies out there.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a nice, uplifting film as much as the next guy, but I also like some variety. Unlike others out there I can handle the dark, disturbing, and unpleasant films. I don't go clambering to see something like this all the time, but when you have one of the industries top directors in Fincher, one of the biggest actors (Daniel Craig), one of the best actors of all time (Christopher Plummer), a score by Trent Reznor (who won an Oscar for his work on Fincher's The Social Network), AND one of the best selling novels in recent years being brought to the US, I'd say there's a fair shot this turns out to be a great film.

And my assumptions were correct. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is certainly one of the more depressing films of the year, but also one of the most enthralling, hard to turn away from films of the year. It follows Mikael Blomkvist (Craig), a journalist who has just lost everything, and Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a researcher/computer hacker whose life has been nothing but hardship and misunderstanding since her adolescent years. The two converge on a case surrounding one of the more prominent and dirty families in all of Sweden, the Vangers.

Henrik Vanger (Plummer) hires Mikael to investigate the disappearance of his niece. He encounters many problems, the biggest being the disappearance happened 40 years ago. When his research starts getting interesting and more dangerous, he calls upon Lisbeth, who did the background check on Mikael for the Vangers. Together the two try to solve the case, digging up hidden truths, dirty secrets, and encountering some detestable characters along the way. They don't know if they're getting close or farther from the truth, but as the heat turns up, it seems like the answer is rapidly approaching, or is it their impending demise?

What stands out most about this film from the original Swedish version of a few years ago is the mood. Yes, both films cover some disturbing material, but the original version looks like it was filmed in the real world. Fincher, however, creates an entirely different world. It looks, feels, and almost smells dirty. There is hardly a white light found in the film. Even the snow is turned grey by the overcast skies. You get the feeling that there is no hope for these characters.

There is really only one area where the film lacks. Pacing. There is so much information to translate to the audience. It's the job of the editor and the writer to make sure that the audience doesn't skip a beat. There is montage after montage, intercuts, and Swedish writing thrown about that it's hard to keep track of what exactly a character is doing. We get the gist of it all, but there were moments when I was lagging behind just enough to notice.

Other than that I thought the film was a fine adaptation for American audiences. I wasn't sure how the sexual violence would be handled, but Fincher doesn't hold back, much like the Swedish film. Is it important that we see this violence? I hate to say it but yes. We need to like Lisbeth so much that we completely disregard her outward appearance and see her as a survivor. She's extremely talented and fearless. Mara brings Lisbeth to life much like Noomi Rapace brought her to life, only Mara is a letter more brazen and less moody than Noomi, but both are effective with what they do. Craig too gives a solid performance. I was worried that they would try to toughen his character up (seeing as Craig is currently James Bond), but they didn't. They make him likable only because he seems normal and one who stands up for what he believes in.

It's a slimy, complex, fast-moving thriller that is sure to turn some heads at times but in the end you'll be holding your breath and hoping for the best. You might go into the movie clean, but you'll come out dirty.

Impossible, you say?

2011-12-17T00:26:00.007-05:00

I'd be lying if I said I went to see Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol because I was excited to see the movie. I went to see the extended trailer for The Dark Knight Rises. Now, I was a big fan of the first Mission Impossible from the 90s. It was one of my favorite movies growing up. The second installment, well, not so much. Almost ruined the franchise. The third was a step in the right direction, but I still wasn't sold on having a fourth film made.

While the TDKR trailer was the highlight of the night, I will admit that I was VERY surprised by how much I enjoyed this film.

Very surprised.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a fun, exciting, and one of the coolest films of the year. It has guns, gadgets, explosions, sex appeal (for men and women), stunning locations, one of the best stunt performances by an actor of all time, and a finale that is so ludicrous it's hard to dislike.

Tom Cruise is back as Ethan Hunt, IMF's top agent. After breaking out of a Russian prison, he and his team (Paula Patton and Simon Pegg) are sent into the Moscow Kremlin to search for nuclear launch codes. When their plans are botched by another party (codename: Cobalt), an explosion in the building points all fingers at the US. Hunt and his team are deemed terrorists, though the Secretary of State gives them some "incentive" to continue their mission and find Cobalt before the launch codes are used.

Hunt, Jane (Patton), Benji (Pegg), and newly acquired Brandt (Jeremy Renner) search the globe for Cobalt, intercepting messages, causing chaos, etc. There's a lot of running around (this is a Tom Cruise movie, right?) and a lot of jaw dropping stunts (honestly jaw dropping) to help keep you engaged. The climax of the film is so intense you will really start to believe that this mission is without a doubt impossible. Just when you think things will work out, the stakes get higher.

I guess I forgot how impossible the missions really are. I was skeptical when they said "nuclear launch codes," at the beginning of the film. That might work for a cold war era James Bond movie, but this far off from that era makes it sound a little corny. After a while though I bought into it. The REAL winner of this film is the action.

Nothing goes to waste. There isn't a punch, kick, or jump that is thrown in just because it looks cool. Every fight, every sprint, and every explosion happens for a reason. To aid the action is a fantastic effort by stunt choreographers, performers, and yes, Tom Cruise himself. After watching some behind the scenes featurettes, I can assure you that what you see is pretty unbelievable. I thought Tom was sorta crazy for a number of reasons, but this film puts him over the edge (only this time in a "Oh my God did he just do that/that was totally awesome!" sort of crazy).

The locations are fantastic, the action intense, and the drama over the top. I thought I was going to have a hard time buying into the impossibility of the mission, but I totally bought it. There were a few moments when I honestly thought, "How are they going to get out of this?" You'll have to see it for yourself. It's outstanding. Quite possibly the most exciting film of the year other than Rango.

Âiwaiwa!

2011-12-16T08:32:00.005-05:00

What will your legacy be? For some it's their children, a building, an organization, or a piece of art. Matt King is struggling to find out what his legacy will be and what the legacy of his comatose wife will be. The stakes are high, but hey, they're in Hawaii!

Alexander Payne bursts back onto the big screen in his book to film adaptation of The Descendants. It stars George Clooney as Matt King, a man whose family history is sort of the history of Hawaii. When a new law is passed that forces him and his remaining family to pass on their large chunk of shoreline real estate, King is faced with a major decision. To make things worse his wife is in a coma following a boating accident. The outlook isn't good, but things get even more complicated when the bombshell of an affair she had is revealed.

It's a family crisis. He and his two daughters, Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), a teenager in reform school, and Scottie (Amara Miller), a young, rambunctious girl who is quickly making more enemies than friends, need to come together to help get through this ordeal. Matt needs to get in touch with family and friends to find some answers about what to do with his land, but also sneakily uncovering more about his wife's love affair. As he digs deeper, he uncovers more about himself than about anything else.

Alexander Payne is drawn to male characters struggling to find themselves. Broderick in Election, Nicholson in About Schmidt, Giamatti in Sideways, and now Clooney. They all have what appears to be a clear journey, only to find obstacle after obstacle in their way. Payne also finds himself at home in the world of adaptation. I have not read any of the books that his films are based on and I'm not so sure I would ever go after them, but Payne finds a way to present these stories about self discovery in such a unique, comic light, while keeping it grounded with a good heart.

This is by far his most touching and heartwarming film to date. It's not just the writing or the source material. It's the whole shebang. Acting, photography, the setting, and one kick-ass soundtrack.

Clooney leads with a strong performance, jilted betrayed husband with confused father. His face holding back the emotion as long as it can. This is by far one of Clooney's more personal performances (which is saying something. He tends to give his all in his work). He is backed up by arguably the best supporting actress of the year in Woodley. Not only does she look the part but she performs her character with a certain grace. She's a loud mouthed teenager (obvious influence on her younger sister) who isn't afraid to get involved even if it hurts. Beau Bridges and Robert Forster offer small but effective performances that add some backstory to CLooney and other characters, as well as moving along the plot.

The music, a collaboration of island vibes from a wide assortment of artists, helps add to the illusion we mainland people have about Hawaii. We see palm trees, flowered leis, and white, sandy beaches, when the reality is it is just like any other state in the union. They have to work, raise families, and get stuck in traffic just like everyone else. Still, there is something extraordinary about the setting. I've seen plenty of films with bizarre and unorthodox locations, but there is a strange quality to Hawaii. Perhaps it was the melodious tones of the ukulele or the crashing of the waves along the shore, but there is a sense that this place is special, therein making the characters even more interesting. How can people live normal lives in this paradise? The interesting location mirrors the characters. There are as many layers to the beauty of Hawaii as there are to Matt King's inner-workings.

The Descendants is touching, sometimes dark, and one of the best films of the year. It's a culmination of perfect parts meeting fascinating characters and a beautiful state. Enjoy.

House of cards

2011-12-12T12:11:00.004-05:00

New Year's Eve, the latest Hollywood embarrassment, features a cast that includes Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Ashton Kutcher, Michelle Pfeiffer, Jon Bon Jovi, Zac Efron, Jessica Biel, and countless others. Margin Call, the film debut of J.C. Chandor, features a cast that includes Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons, Demi Moore, Paul Bettany, Zachary Quinto, Stanley Tucci, Simon Baker, and a few others.

What's the biggest most glaring difference between them (other than one having a REALLY good script and the other just having a bunch of faces)? The latter of the films cost under four million dollars.

That's right. J.C. Chandor managed to assemble one of the best casts of the year, something you would only see for a movie like, say, New Year's Eve, or an HBO film like Too Big to Fail. How did he get all these top notch actors to agree to a movie like Margin Call, not to mention the first film for Chandor? I don't know how exactly, but I have a feeling it was the script, and what a script it is.

Margin Call is one way of examining the economic collapse in 2008. It doesn't name names or implicate certain companies, but what it does do is utilize what we know and force us to complete the picture. We follow a trading company's 24 hour meltdown. The head of risk management (Tucci) is let go from the company just as he stumbles upon an alarming trend in the company's earnings. He gives the data to one of his workers (Quinto) who in turn discovers the horrifying truth about the companies dealings.

The matter goes through a series of bosses (Spacey, Baker, Irons), causing the company to come to an emergency meeting to try and figure out what to do next. Like many of us "normal" citizens, we woke up one morning and found that the stock market had taken a historic hit. And like "normal" citizens it took a while to figure out what happened and is still to an extent being explained to us (thank you Inside Job, Capitalism: A Love Story). Chandor realized this when writing and knew that a lot of the people implicated didn't quite understand what exactly they were doing. So we along with a lot of these "high-up" people find out from workers like Quinto that the work they have been doing was morally wrong and they are now facing one of the biggest and most dangerous decisions in US history.

Chandor does an excellent job in explaining what happened without really saying for sure what happened. He puts into layman's terms the basics of what happened, but we never know exactly how the company did what the did and what they did it with (that was a mouthful). It all sounds kind of boring on paper, but when people who care about what they are talking about discuss it with passion, it becomes very interesting.

Now, I am not one to get caught up with politics or news of this sort (I try to keep up on current events, emphasis on try) but I must say this was the most eye-opening explanation of the economic crisis I have seen yet. It was engrossing, enlightening, gripping, and hard to believe. Granted this is a work of fiction, I can imagine that Mr. Chandor did lots of homework in preparing to discuss this subject.

I wouldn't say that there is a standout performance here (other than Chandor). This was really an ensemble effort. Each performance had to be as convincing and as strong as every other. If one link in the chain breaks off, everybody falls. If I had to pick someone that really stood apart from the rest I would give it to Spacey. I really felt that he nailed the part. We really see him change over the course of the film, yet in a way we're not sure if he ever really will change.

These characters live in a culture like that of Oliver Stone's Wall Street. They waste money, try to accumulate as much money, and leave morality on the side. The work that they do involved not just numbers on a computer screen but the lives of millions of people. Their loss is a much greater loss for the general population. I found myself enraged at how some of these people think and act, but when I really thought about, they don't know any better. They've been spoiled their whole lives. It's pitiful. I honestly feel sorry that these people can't see past making a dollar than owning up to their mistake. The cast does a fantastic job in conveying this feeling. You can see the internal struggle start to manifest externally.

This is probably going to be as good as it gets for fictionalizing the economic disaster or 2008. I can't see how someone could improve upon it without naming names and villainizing people and corporations. It's a disturbing film in some regards (when you look at what is actually happening), but it's a breath of fresh air as far as filmmaking. Wonderful debut by Chandor. Very excited to see where he goes.

Wrath

2011-12-12T09:05:00.003-05:00

There is a moment in Paddy Constantine's Tyrannosaur where the two main characters confront each other about a major problem they are facing. For the first time the male protagonist sees what he was, what he has failed to do, and what he must do to make things right. It is such a cathartic moment of clarity for him and his female friend, both clarity and horror, and a complete shock for the audience.

Peter Mullan stars in one of the year's best films. He plays a man, Joseph, who suffers from alcohol, loneliness, and worst of all rage. His temper hurts those around him and gets him into more trouble than he can chew. His only friend is dying, the daughter of which hates both him and her dying father. He drinks all day, staggers home at night, and fights anyone who does him wrong, or at least what he calls wrong.

One day he winds up hiding inside a woman's garment shop. She finds him irritable, vulnerable, and extremely volatile. The woman, Hannah (Olivia Colman), does what most of us wouldn't do. She let's him be, offers tea, and prays for him. This confuses Joseph. It's quite evident, but underneath all the testosterone and aggression you can almost see him trying to figure out why she helps.

We soon find out that she is the victim of someone similar to Joseph, only more cruel and abusive than just angry. Her husband James (Eddie Marsan) drinks as well but his temper and need for sex and authority drive him to do awful things to Hannah. Joseph and Hannah strike an unlikely friendship, attempting to find solace in the utter chaos that is life.

Mullan and Colman play off of each other so well. They both need help and want help but don't know how to ask others let alone help themselves. Mullan's character lost his wife to diabetes, though his aggression doesn't stem from that single incident. We don't know everything about him or Hannah but we know their characters have seen a lot and have had to deal with more than your average Joe. Their faces and their voices speak volumes of their back story.

Director Constantine makes his feature debut (he also wrote the script). He shows a gritty and morbid, Irish Landscape, where the beer flows, the skies are rarely bright and sunny, and the nights are filled with barking dogs, violent husbands, and tortured souls crying out. He has developed some really deep, disturbed characters that have significant baggage. The writing is authentic (I'd be curious to find out how much was improvised by Mullan and others, especially during tirades). There is a great deal of heart poured into this film.

There is a good amount of disturbing material here that some people might find offensive. As tough as these scenes and images are to take in I find that they are necessary to tell this type of story. Violence is not pretty, but when done with a certain grace and dedication it can really turn into something special, such is the case with Tyrannosaur.

Et tu, Clooney?

2011-12-09T21:47:00.005-05:00

Nobody's perfect.

There couldn't be a truer statement in politics. As much as we want to believe someone is perfect, they almost always come up short, either while in office or later on when a "tell-all" book is published or what not. Politicians on paper aim to make change. We all remember President Obama's campaign from '08. Change, believe, future, now, all key words that won the hearts of voters across the country. He spoke to us in a way that we had never heard before.

Now, I am not one to get sucked into politics. I honestly couldn't pass judgement on the Obama administration and I will not do so. What I can say is this; George Clooney's political drama The Ides of March gives a pretty fascinating "what if?" scenario for an eerily similar presidential campaign.

The Ides of March is a "grab you by the throat kind" of political drama. I don't want to call it a political thriller like The Manchurian Candidate, but it has certain elements that make you stand on edge (confrontations, secrets revealed, intense dialogue). It stars Ryan Gosling as Stephen Meyers, a young and talented man who is second in command on presidential hopeful Mike Morris' (George Clooney) campaign staff. When he has an unauthorized meeting with the opposing candidates campaign manager, all hell breaks loose as friendships are tested, news stories are released, and the worst thing a campaign can buy pokes its ugly head out; a scandal.

Along with Gosling and Clooney is Philip Seymour Hoffman as Clooney's head campaign manager, Paul Giamatti as the opposing manager, Marissa Tomei as the news reporter for the Times, and Evan Rachel Wood as the young intern who catches the eye of Gosling in more ways than one. A terrific ensemble cast that pulls off a terrific political drama in a political climate that is volatile and overflowing with unethical behavior.

Gosling continues his dominance on screen. Not just as a heartthrob but as a dramatic force. Not since Paul Newman flashed those baby blue eyes has there been an actor with such intensity without saying a word. There is an intense scene between Wood and Gosling where with just ONE look Gosling lets the audience know what he is thinking, what he wants to do, and what he has to do. This performance along with Drive make 2011 a really special year for the young actor.

Clooney pulls off the rare quadruple crown by acting, directing, writing, and producing. Though not as prominent on screen as Gosling, Clooney's presence is vital to the film, especially towards the end. In just his fourth film behind the camera, Clooney is building up a pretty decent resumé (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Good Night and Good Luck, Leatherheads). He calls on the help of Phedon Papamichael to photograph (he also photographs Clooney in Alexander Payne's Oscar hopeful The Descendants), who cleverly shows us what the people see and what is going on behind the scenes of politics (flipping back and forth nicely between the two). There is a scene where Clooney is giving a very enthusiastic speech in front of a large American flag, meanwhile Gosling and Hoffman are having an intense discussion on the reverse side. I saw Clooney on one side speaking of the light side of politics while on the other side, in front of an illuminated AND reversed American flag (used on soldiers uniforms in times of war), two men delving into the darkness of politics. They are the soldiers of war. Clooney is the poster child (literally).

There are so many reference to the Obama campaign that are hard to ignore like the advertisements, the political messages, the overall feeling of goodness. I don't think this is in any way shape or form a slant at Obama. No, no, no. I think they are trying to mimic the political climate and using images and ideas we have recently seen. I DO believe this is a huge slap in the face of politics and even a little jab at the current administration, saying that no matter how hard you try to do good if you want to succeed in Washington, you need to get dirty.

There are so many levels to dissect here. It's a story about survival, idealism, morality, politics, and a big reflection on the political machines that are in play in our nation's capital. What we see on TV is Clooney's character, Mike Morris. A clean-cut, righteous politician who wants nothing more than to change the ways of government. What we don't see are the nasty, backstabbing ways of politics, where one candidate's agenda doesn't mean squat when it comes to getting elected. There are others waiting to bring you down or raise you up.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and much like Roman politics there are friends waiting with open arms and knives at the ready.

Heroes are remembered, but Muppets never die...

2011-11-25T21:34:00.004-05:00

I'm in an interesting age bracket. Those born before me grew up watching The Muppet Show, The Muppet Movie, The Muppets Take Manhattan, etc. Those younger rarely got to know the Muppets at all, only as icons on hipster T-shirts and punk buttons you'd pick up at Hot Topic.

My age group, however, saw the Muppets on the tail end of their run. We had Muppet Babies, Muppet Show reruns, and a slew of movies like The Great Muppet Caper, Muppet Christmas Carol, Muppet Treasure Island, and Muppets from Space (one that should be left out). This fading away that I and so many others witnessed would really lend a hand to my reading of the Muppet's most recent attempt to garner an audience.

In Disney's major release for the holiday season, they went with an old stand by, the Muppets, in a film simply called The Muppets. It's a strange blend of humor, nostalgia, and satire. Here we meet Walter, who we know just by looking at him is a little bit different. He is, well, for lack of a better word, a Muppet. The only thing is he is a Muppet living in the real world, and not, I stress not, a member of the Muppet gang. At a very young age he fell under their spell, through television and video rentals. Walter's dream was to walk through the studio that his beloved Muppet's walked through. He gets his chance to meet them when his brother Gary (Jason Segel, who also co-wrote the script) takes his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to Los Angeles.

Walter finds out that the Muppets aren't as popular as they used to be. He finds only remnants of the glory days in a dusty studio, but winds up uncovering a sinister plot intending to bury the Muppet franchise for good. With so much at stake, Walter goes to great lengths to find his idols and bring them back together. With the help of Gary, Amy, Kermit, Fozzie, and the rest of the gang, Walter sets in motion a reunion scenario where if the Muppets put on one last show they can raise enough money to stop the maniacal Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) from ending the Muppet's hopes of survival.

It's almost like The Blues Brothers, where if "the band" gets back together all will be saved. The only difference is that for the audience it's like a reunion, too. We haven't seen the Muppets together save for a few commercials and music videos here and there. I would be lying if I said I didn't get goosebumps seeing Gonzo with his chickens, or the Swedish Chef and his man-hands. Without even trying this film grabs you right in the heart, squeezing every ounce of childhood you have left in there.

It is really evident that Segel took the task of acting and, more importantly, writing, very seriously. His heart really comes through. He didn't want to do an injustice to the franchise that gave him so much pleasure as a youngster. It's as if he wrote Walter as a Muppetization of himself (which really comes through during one particular musical number). He follows the Muppet formula of combining cultural references with the power of celebrity and the importance of silliness and childlike inhibition.

Has any of the magic left the Muppets? I don't think so. I must admit that some of the story points were a bit ridiculous, and sometimes a little too on the nose (yes, I am aware that it was trying to be, but doing it too much becomes tedious). I wasn't entering the film expecting completely revamped Muppet style. It was by the book, aimed appropriately at both children and adults, without ever stepping too far in either direction.

The BIG question remains...now what? The whole point of the movie is to show that the Muppet's have basically become an afterthought. A fond memory that quickly fades. Will this film attract a slew of Muppet followers? Will there be another film? Television show? Who knows. The movie ends optimistically, but how could it not? The thought of a world without the Muppets is scary. It's nice knowing that somewhere Kermit and the gang are waiting for their next queue. To light the lights, put on make up, and all that jazz.

So go treat yourself to a little taste of your childhood. It will do the soul good.

Federal Bureau of Image Control

2011-11-12T01:29:00.008-05:00

J. Edgar Hoover was a man of power. A man of prestige. He had built from the ground up the most powerful investigative agency in the world. J. Edgar was a patriot. A man of morals. Strong constitution.

At least that is the man the world saw.

In Clint Eastwood's latest biopic J. Edgar, we delve into the personal life of one of the most powerful and enigmatic figures of the 20th century. We are shown pieces of a man who was scared, confused, and extremely intelligent. He knew how to cater to the media, but his personal life was shrouded in secrecy. It could be argued that J. Edgar himself wasn't quite sure of who he was.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Hoover. We see him evolve from a young upstart in the US Justice Department to the head of the FBI. DiCaprio portrays a man of man faults, though not entirely through his own doing. He overcame a speech impediment, grew up virtually without a father, and had difficulty expressing himself socially and sexually. Through DiCaprio's performance, we see just that, a man with a head on his shoulders, only confiding in those few people he trusted.

In his inner circle was Helen Gandy (Naoimi Watts), his personal secretary and keeper of Hoover's private files. Her commitment to Hoover knew no bounds. His right hand man, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), was, on paper, not the right person to become Hoover's 2nd in command, but Hoover saw something in Tolson that made him feel comfortable. From what we see on film, Tolson was more than a friend, more than a partner. He had no title for Hoover. He was invaluable.

The center of Hoover's world, however, was his mother Annie (Judi Dench). A stern yet loving woman, she knew what Hoover needed to be successful. Her approval meant so much to him, and the thought of letting her down was unfathomable. That would wreak havoc on his private life throughout his life.

Hoover's appointment as head of the FBI would last for nearly half a decade. In that time he saw our country through several wars, the "red scare," gangsters, and a presidential assassination. To compile his ever major decision would make for a great documentary series, but to compress it all into a movie under 2 1/2 hours, Eastwood utilizes recent Oscar winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk) to pen the script. What Black does is paint a picture of Hoover not as the head of the FBI, but as a man whose image was so out of whack that he himself had trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.

The film constructed in a way that we are told the story of Hoover's life through Hoover's own words, not from a general point of view. What makes this so effective is that we aren't sure of how certain events actually transpired, making the story, and in effect history, somewhat clouded, much like the image of Hoover himself.

This image of Hoover has been dissected and speculated for years. Was he a homosexual? What secrets did he take to the grave? Was he involved in any conspiracies? These questions are touched upon, but never fully answered. What we are left with is a portrait of a man left unfinished, much like the painting of Washington we see several times throughout the film. Like the painting, Hoover is a man incomplete. That painting is a reminder to him that even though he is incomplete he can still make a difference.

Some of the strengths of the film are also its weaknesses. The story itself if fascinating, but it tends to drag on. It reminded me of The Good Shepherd. A really good story with great characters based on true events, just nothing extraordinary. The acting too is well done but, for me at least, I had a hard time not seeing Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover, especially with the makeup. Part of it, especially with DiCaprio, is his voice. He has such a unique way of speaking and he has trouble disguising it. His character also reminded me of his performance in The Aviator.

The acting on the whole, especially Hammer and Dench (I expect nods for both and DiCaprio as well), is well above average. Eastwood always manages to extract prime performances from his actors, including when he is acting. Eastwood also continues his work behind the scenes by composing the score, his seventh feature length scoring composition. Like his other composition, there's a heavy, moody, jazzy undertone. He doesn't overpower us with large orchestral compositions. Instead he utilizes strings, piano, and a few horns to accent the images.

J. Edgar isn't a surefire success, at least at the box office. I have no doubts that this will garner many nominations, although I'm not sure if it will win many awards. It's hard to gauge what the winners will be this year. So few award caliber films have been released, so the coming weeks should be very interesting. Don't count out this one, but don't bank on it either.

And the lesson is...

2011-11-01T21:31:00.005-04:00

38 movies. 31 days.

I've been told I watch too many movies, but I honestly believe there is no such thing. I've attempted marathons like this over the summer, spacing out a genre like science fiction or documentaries over the course of a season, but never before have I tried such a high concentration of one genre in such a short amount of time (the number of films I watched is actually a little less, if you include the horror films I was re-watching, like The Shining, Shaun of the Dead, and The Innocents, just to name a few).

So after all the screams had died down, the knives were put back in the kitchen, and the ghosts have moved on to the afterlife (or did they?), I'm left with a list of 38 films. Some good, some great, and a few on the extremes of masterwork and master flop. But I wasn't out to find the best horror film ever made (I'm still not sure who holds that title). I started this marathon with the intention of expanding my knowledge of my view on the horror genre.

One thing I learned, and probably the most surprising thing at that, is that a horror film can be disguised in several other genres. Science fiction, period film, comedy, crime drama, romance, and so forth. It seemed like every other film I watched was associated with another genre. When I think of horror, or rather when I used to think of horror, I envisioned monsters, psycho killers, and scary, little children, not mobsters, war generals, and astronomers.

This mixing and matching of genres led to a drastically different idea of what constitutes a horror movie. It's not about what is in the movie, but about how you feel. There's no written rule about what needs to be seen in a horror film, but there are rules for what needs to be felt. The audience needs to feel vulnerable, or else they will not be easily surprised. Extremes in light and sound help with this. They also need to be unsure. If you know for sure what is going on in the other room, it's not scary, unless you don't know what to do. It's even better when the unknown comes at you sooner. In The Haunting there is a door that bulges in towards the people in the room. What's on the other side of the door? Can they escape? What will happen next? All questions that are answered partially, but not fully. That's another way of unsettling your audience. If you tell them part of the truth, but leave the door open a little bit, it keeps the mind working.

In the case of a film like Frenzy, part of the horror comes from the images. Sometimes you really do need to shock the audience. This works for slasher/serial killer films. If you scare us, I mean truly scare us, it can do wonders to a person. That said there needs to be more. In Frenzy Hitchcock doesn't just show us the killer, he shows us what he does, and then he turns the tables on an innocent character, forcing us to cheer, boo, and yell when things don't go the right way. The end of Frenzy is such a roller coaster of emotion I get jazzed up just thinking about it. You don't know where the story is going to go or how it will end, but that's okay because getting there is too much fun.

When horror films start to bash us over the head with creepy images just for creepy images' sake, that is when they start to become stale. In The Last Exorcism you can scare us so many times with turning the lights off or having an unpredictable character stand still while we wait to see what happens. There needs to be variety or at least creativity. Consistency does not necessarily win the race.

The horror genre is not just there to scare us. Like all good films it is there to entertain. How it does so is more thrilling than other genres (or at list a different kind of thrill) and in my opinion, the horror genre has the most to gain and the most to lose. There isn't much room to be mediocre. Nobody wants to sit there in the dark and have a film try to scare them. They want to be scared, or at least thrilled.

There was much to be learned from watching these films, and I think I got the best out of them. Here's a quick list out of the ones I watched this month that I would recommend (in alphabetical order):

The Cat and the Canary

The Creature from the Black Lagoon

Cronos

Frenzy

Halloween (1978)

The Haunting

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)

Kwaidan

The Mummy (1932)

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Bonus - Evil Dead trilogy (I recommend this to those who can handle the campy horror genre)

And of course, some of my favorites that I have to recommend as well (also alphabetically):

Carnival of Souls

The Exorcist

Frankenstein

The Innocents

Jaws

Let the Right One In

Rosemary's Baby

The Shining

Suspiria

The Thing from Another World

Happy Halloween everyone!

Octoberfest #38

2011-10-31T23:46:00.006-04:00

Kwaidan (Masaki Kobayashi, 1965)

Well, here we are. It's been an incredible month, but it had to end at some point. After looking back at all of the films I watched, I neglected to watch ANY Japanese horror films. Rather than going after something modern (which I unfortunately didn't watch a lot of. I meant to get to a few more recent films like The Ward, Let Me In, and Red State), I felt that a Japanese horror film was a fitting way to end my marathon.

And what a better way than with Masaki Kobayashi's Kwaidan! Aside from being a great filmmaker (Harakiri is one of my favorite samurai films), he is also next on my Netflix queue with the epic three part, nearly ten hour epic The Human Condition (no, that is not the reason I watched Kwaidan, though it is a cool coincidence).

Kwaidan is a four part horror masterpiece. Yes, I said masterpiece. Four stories, each told with a certain flair. The stories differ not just in story but in style. Kobayashi uses some iconic Japanese art techniques to enhance the mood of each segment. There's a love story, a curse, a haunted past, and a fun short segment about Japanese literature.

The main takeaway is without a doubt the photography. The camera moves so smoothly through the locations, almost like a ghost itself floating along with the characters. The images the camera captures are breathtaking. It's rare to see such wide ranged color palette associated with spooky images. The makeup used for the actors picks up nicely on film. Each aspect of the film's production works so nicely with the stories. I was really taken aback by the production value. Outstanding all around.

I'm sad to end this marathon. I've really taken a liking to watching a horror movie or two every day. If I could do a genre every month I would in a heartbeat, but sometime later down the line hopefully I can do it. At least maybe next October I can pick up where I left off. So many more classics and contemporary horror films to see, so little time.

Octoberfest #37

2011-10-31T22:46:00.007-04:00

Night of the Demon (Jacques Tourneur, 1957)

Pretty scary looking, huh? Try running away from it at night.

That's what happens in this classic from Jacques Tourneur (not a stranger to this countdown). Dana Andrews stars as a professor out to debunk a demonic cult leader a task his colleague couldn't finish due to his untimely death. When the leader tells the professor that he will die in a few short days, it's up to the professor to determine whether or not there is any credibility to the leader's prophecy, or else he may too come to an early demise.

The best thing about this film, at least for me, was setting. The studio did a really good job in finding the right locations for the film. They used mostly actual locations, both interiors and exteriors, and a nice mix of familiar places (The British Museum) and a mansion in the English countryside. Along with the nice locales is really solid camera work. The black and white cinematography is complimented nicely with great lighting and shot composition, something I didn't quite plan on seeing in this film.

The casting was also a positive, though not as nice as the set locations. I liked all of the complimentary characters, especially Nial MacGinnis as the cult leader. My only problem was with Andrews. I never really felt a change in his character. Not even a minor one, which he does have towards the end of the film. He was a little too rugged for me, but he did a good job early playing it cool.

When I watch a film like this, the first thing I do is try to watch it as entertainment, but when I see something like the set locations or the something else along those lines, its a surprise, and that is why I love watching sci/fi and horror films from the 50s and 60s, because every once and a while you get a nice surprise, just like this one.

Octoberfest #36

2011-10-31T22:46:00.005-04:00

Isle of the Dead (Mark Robson, 1945)

I don't think I'll ever get used to Karloff in a non monster role. Perhaps it's because his face is so interesting, like Lon Chaney. When they play more dramatic roles, which they do very well, I can't get past the eyes, the lines on their face, and in Karloff's case, his voice.

In Isle of the Dead Karloff plays a Greek general marooned on an island where a fatal plague is on the verge of spreading to the mainland. To make matters worse there is the rumor that it could be caused by an old legend, a murderous spirit that yearns to kill. Karloff has his suspicions, but the other members of the group on the island have their own ideas as well. It's an interesting mystery with a nice ending, using a suspenseful chase to its benefit.

Karloff plays as straight a character as I have seen, straighter than in Corridors of Blood. Here he must use reason to figure out what is going on. He is a man of science, reluctant to give in to the old world beliefs, but as time goes on and things become more and more unclear, we see a change in Karloff. More like a panic.

Isle of the Dead is another Val Lewton production, and possibly his least scary. Though when you compare it to Cat People, or The Leopard Man, it's hard to top. This was an interesting story that could have used a little more thrills, but in the end it's a unique story, something I applaud with this genre.

Octoberfest #35

2011-10-30T23:58:00.006-04:00

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (Fritz Lang, 1933)

I couldn't resist getting in one more German film during the marathon. I've had good luck so far, so one more couldn't hurt, right?

Absolutely correct!

Though this really isn't a horror film through and through (more of a crime mystery), there are some fantastic horror elements placed here. The Testament of Dr. Mabuse is about a criminal mastermind whose influence on others stretches beyond the padded walls of his asylum walls. Is it possible for a man to project his thoughts onto others, or are there more devious devices at work?

Director Fritz Lang, arguably one of the most talented filmmakers to work in Germany (and possibly America), has such a way of creating suspense, both in his scenarios and characters. He creates some really intense situations, like being locked in a room where there is a bomb, but there is no visible sign of a bomb anywhere. With a scene like that we don't just stay in the room. Lang does what countless directors have mimicked since, by cutting away to an equally intense scene, heightening the suspense with every cut, until he pops the balloon, easing the tension before he builds it up again.

When the film started I was curious where the horror aspect would fit in. Soon I realized that there was so much more to this crime drama. Lang doesn't overwhelm us with the horror elements, but uses them sparingly, and at the right time. He shows us a quick glimpse of something scary or supernatural, then quickly brings us back to the story. A true master in complete control of his craft and his material.

Octoberfest #34

2011-10-30T23:34:00.003-04:00

It Came from Outer Space (Jack Arnold, 1953)

The future can be a scary place, the same sentiments I expressed when I watched Invasion of the Body Snatcher a few weeks back. Funny how the two science fiction films I picked were extremely close in subject matter. Both Invasion and this film, It Came from Outer Space, deal with stolen identities, as well as attempting to scare audiences.

This is about a crash landing in the Arizona desert. At first glance it looks like a meteor strike, but when strange occurrences start appearing in town, one scientist believes that there are visitors from another world walking about, stealing the identities of some of the townspeople, disguising themselves to walk amongst the humans. Are they up to no good, or do they mean us no harm?

The film presents an interesting idea. Were aliens to crash into Earth, would we help them, or would we persecute, study, and potentially harm and destroy them? Most sci/fi and monster movies present aliens as something to be fearful of, but this film paints a slightly different portrait. It comes down to trust. Do they actually mean us no harm, or are they trying to trick us? It's an intriguing idea and one seldom seen in films of this caliber.

A few years ago I started watching a lot of old science fiction from the 50s and 60s. A few of the titles that stick on are Forbidden Planet, The Giant Gila Monster, and This Island Earth. What I love so much about the genre is how much freedom the writers and directors had. They could more or less make whatever they wanted. A film like It Came from Outer Space falls right in line with the others I watched, but at the same time each films stands out in its own way. They all have the pros and cons (some have more of one than the other) and they all have pride. That's what sets them apart from most genres. The cast and crew all believe these films are important, and I agree with them.

Octoberfest #33

2011-10-30T14:41:00.005-04:00

The Uninvited (Lewis Allen, 1944)

A horror film doesn't have to be scary full tilt, full time, but it helps if you jazz up those scenes and maybe make them a little more prevalent. That's how I felt about The Uninvited.

A brother and sister purchase a seaside home in the country. Things appear to be great, but when the previous owners granddaughter enters the picture, the haunted history of the house starts to creep into the real world, including a nightly wailing heard just before dawn. Is the house haunted? Are there spirits with unsettled business? TIme will tell.

Nominated for Best Cinematography (losing to Laura), The Uninvited does a lot of things right, but not necessarily in the right amounts. For starters, the setting was an ideal location for the story. I loved the house on the cliff, surrounded by open air, cooling winds, and isolation, a key element for a good horror film. What I didn't like, or rather didn't understand, was why this pair of brother and sister would buy a house together. It seemed like an odd fit, especially when they both are single. Odd.

Another element that was working was the dialogue. There were a lot of good one-liners from Milland that helped ease the tension, although it seemed like there wasn't much tension until the end. Even then I thought the story was a little too light. I wanted some more chills and thrills to scare them out of the house. The only real danger posed was on the girl. No one else was ever really in any harm.

The best part of the film was the haunting, which I wanted more of, but there was a good use of the haunting in the house when it was on screen. Those scenes where the haunting was getting more intense were well put together. There was a clever use of darkness and shadow, another key ingredient to a good horror film, especially one in black and white. All in all it's a nice film with some good takeaways, but could have been a little bit stronger.

Octoberfest #32

2011-10-29T23:45:00.004-04:00

Horror of Dracula (Terence Fisher, 1958)

The Hammer Studio produced some of the iconic horror films of the 50s and 60s, the most famous of which featuring Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Lee, who unfortunately will be remembered as Count Dooku by today's youth, made a name for himself by portraying some classic monsters like Frankenstein's Creature, the Mummy, and his most popular role, Count Dracula.

I started with his first film as the Count, entitled Horror of Dracula. It's more or less a retelling of Bram Stoker's famed novel Dracula, but here the Hammer Studio gives us more than just a classic story. They vamp it up with more blood sucking, more stake slamming, and more screaming. John Harker has come to the Count castle to catalog his library, but his intention is to slay the Count so his reign of terror will end. When things don't go as planned, it's up to Dr. Van Helsing to find a way to stop the Count before all who are implicated become the walking dead.

Lee's Dracula is menacing. He hardly says a word, only a few lines in the beginning, and the rest is done with glaring, flashing fangs, and looming over the other characters. Lee's 6' 5" stature makes him the ideal monster. Cushing plays Van Helsing as a calm, collected, and ready to do anything to stop Dracula. They work very well opposite each other (although they have very little screen time together). I look forward to seeing them in a couple of other Hammer horror films, where Frankenstein and the Mummy are given the Hammer treatment.

What makes this film stand alone, away from the Lugosi Dracula, is how Dracula is presented as a true menace, as something that could genuinely harm you. In part because of Lee's appearance and also in part by the way he is treated. He's not the charismatic and hypnotizing Lugosi version, but a powerful, imposing fright of a vampire, a true vampire. It's a lot of fun to watch.

Octoberfest #31

2011-10-29T17:49:00.004-04:00

The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, 1999)

One of the most successful films in cinema history, grossing nearly $250 million dollars with a budget well under $1 million dollars. It's a technique that many films today are using, including two films I watched in this marathon (The Last Exorcism and [REC]), only this was the one that said it is a commercially viable concept.

The Blair Witch Project was toted as a true story, similar to Cannibal Holocaust. A group of filmmakers venture out to document or debunk the myth surrounding a local legend in the countryside of Maryland. Once they get out into the thick of things, they soon realize that someone, or maybe something, is playing with them, leaving piles of rocks around their camp sites, breaking branches, and laughing at them. When they decide to leave, they must survive themselves, the woods, and the Blair Witch if they want to make it, but as we know from the opening title card, they don't make it.

I wasn't sure if I would like this one, but I figured this month would be the best time to watch it, and it's also a piece of cinema history. What I did like about it was the authenticity of the actors. I can sympathize with the difficulties of working in tight quarters on a film set and getting chirpy with one another. It's a grueling experience. The language, the frustrations, all hit home for me. What I didn't like was lack of scares (except for the end). I just wanted something a little more scarier. Nothing big, no masks or cheesy costumes. Just something that I could see.

That said, I thought they did a good job NOT going in that direction. It's really a survival story, or an "attempt at survival" story. The locations were great, the camera work wasn't that distracting, and there were times where I was worried, actually worried about what would happen next. The final few shots of the film are some of the most thought-provoking images I've seen this month. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what happened, and that's not common in a horror film. The ending is usually pretty clear, where the bad guys die or they live, but here we don't even know who we are dealing with. Very open ended.

I can see where people would find this film boring, stating "nothing happens." Well, nothing major happens, at least when compared to other horror films. What does happen are subtle changes that makes the situation seem feasible, and a slow build up to a climactic finish. This is one film that the general movie going public will soon forget.

Octoberfest #30

2011-10-29T03:52:00.007-04:00

Frenzy (Alfred Hitchcock, 1972)

Wow. Just when you think you have seen all that Alfred Hitchcock has to offer, he wows you away with a film called Frenzy. How in the world is this not considered one of his best? I was more entertained and enthralled than most of the Hitchcock films I have seen, and that is satin something.

This film is raw. It doesn't tiptoe around its subject matter. Instead it dives head first into the Thames and comes up gasping for air. It starts with the discovery of a body floating along the Thames. It's another victim of the neck-tie killer. The same day Dick Blaney loses his job at a pub, forcing him to call on an old friend as well as his ex-wife. As if matters can't get any worse, they do. After being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, Dick finds himself in the primary target of the ongoing investigation. Will he get caught?

This isn't Hitchcock's first forray into mistake identity. In fact, the majority of his films deal with similar concepts, including an earlier film starring Henry Fonda called The Wrong Man. What sets Freny apart from other Hitchcock films is the gritty nature of the images. There is nudity, sex (both wanted and unwanted), and murder. Hitchcock prior work with murder is a almost elegant. This felt more like scenes from Psycho, very dark.

The murders in particular are really, really clever and really, really sinister. The first is so surprising and unsettling that those images stay with you throughout. I was on edge the whole time. Each kill has it's own tone, unlike most killer films today. The Saw movies might appear to be unique at first glance, but on the whole they are all the same. Here we get a taste of everything, from in your face to behind closed doors.

There is a touch of comedy here, too. There is a pretty clear jab at the British. Hitchcock pokes fun at the nonchalant attitude towards the macabre. I particularly enjoyed the conversations with the chief inspector of the investigation and his wife, who refuses to make a substantial meal for her husband, instead trying out French cuisine. He does such a good job hiding his disdain, trying to discuss the case while he eats pigs hoof or fish soup, meanwhile his wife asks about the murders, as if asking about the weather. It's really fun to listen to.

I can't stress enough how much I enjoyed this one. Such a surprise from the director who made a living off of surprises. Go figure. Never underestimate the master.

Octoberfest #29

2011-10-28T04:01:00.005-04:00

Army of Darkness (Sam Raimi, 1992)

If you asked me a year ago, maybe even a month ago, if I was interested in watching the Evil Dead trilogy, I probably would have said no. When I started this marathon, I figured I would watch the first one, struggle to get through it, and move on.

Well, that's all changed.

Having just watched Army of Darkness, the third and final installment in the trilogy, I can honestly say that I thoroughly enjoyed almost every minute.

I've never seen a series of films change so much from start to finish. The first film was pretty quirky, but the actors were playing it pretty straight given the material. The second film really went off the deep end, completely disregarding what happened in the first film, and just cranking up the ridiculous storyline and outrageous effects. The final film really went all out. It follows where the second film ended (unlike the second film taking a u-turn after the first film), placing our hero, Ash, in the 1300s, a prisoner put to death. When he narrowly escapes, he convinces the people that he is not who they think he is, and that he needs to get back to his time period. Before that happens, he must find the Book of the Dead and fend off a horde of undead soldiers.

Boy does he ever. Army of Darkness was SO off the deep end that I had no trouble just kicking back and enjoying. Some films I try to figure out what's going on, but here there is nothing to it. Ash is just going to get beaten up a little bit, there will be some pretty horrific looking creatures, and director Sam Raimi will show it in such a unique and inventive way that you can't help but laugh.

As each film progressed, it seemed like Raimi got more and more comfortable with the camera and the dialogue. He really found a way to connect with the audience through Ash. He says a lot of the things we are thinking and disregards everyone around him. He's snarky, he's fearless, and he's got a "boom-stick."

The ending was so farfetched I couldn't help but applaud. It ends on such a random note that you can't help but laugh and tip your hat. There is no better way to end such an outlandish series. The Evil Dead movies are not for everyone (like so many films on this list), but I think if you can cut lose and lighten up a little bit, you can easily find something to take from them. It's not everyday you can let your imagination fly like Raimi does with these films. He makes you feel young again. I can see my younger self having similar adventures in my backyard, just without the witty one-liners.

Octoberfest #28

2011-10-27T02:48:00.004-04:00

The Unknown (Tod Browning, 1927)

Tod Browning, who we last encountered with Freaks at the start of our marathon, apparently enjoyed the idea of "freaks" and people with certain talents deemed as side show attractions. Here he gets to work with one of the most malleable and committed actors of all time. Mr. Lon Chaney.

In The Unknown, Chaney plays Alonzo the Armless, a circus performer who wows audiences by throwing knives and shooting rifles at his assistant Nanon (a young Joan Crawford), only he uses his feet. Behind the scenes Alonzo tries to woo Nanon into his "arms" so she will be his forever, but he has a secret. Alonzo is criminal who actually has arms and uses them to steal. When things start to fall apart, Alonzo must take drastic actions if he wants to ward off the would be suitor Malabar, a strongman in the troupe.

What a strange and oddball story! The highlight is without a doubt Chaney. His face is so unique. Dark lines on his face, that cold, dead stare, and a smile that can be both sincere and sinister. He has one of the most interesting faces in cinema. Aside from his face his character goes through a tremendous transformation, which we get to see through Chaney's performance.

Both this and Freaks have their own "charm" and both were actually met with opposition. Apparently people in the 20s and 30s were not ready to face people with deformities on the big screen, but were perfectly fine heckling them and paying to seem them in person at fairs and circuses like the ones depicted in these films. They are unique in that they have so much humanity and heart but are lumped together with other horror films. It's just something that goes with the territory I guess.

Octoberfest #27

2011-10-26T16:09:00.002-04:00

The Haunting (Robert Wise, 1963)

Now this is what I'm talking about! What an excellent film to add to marathon. Unlike with [REC], I wasn't that upset with watching the recent remake before watching this. The story was fresh enough to have an understanding of what was going on, but at least here the original had a few surprises up its sleeve.

Robert Wise's The Haunting is a titillating story about a professor who looks to find answers to alleged paranormal activities occurring in a New England mansion. He recruits many, but only three show up for the experiment. Not including himself is Luke, a relative to the owners of the house. he tries to play off the spooks as nothing to worry about. Theo, a woman with extra sensory perception, attempts to use her gift to weed out the weaknesses of the third participant, Eleanor, who is trying to escape her dreaded home life in the hopes of finding solace in Hill House, but only finds tormented spirits targeting her before everyone else.

The films works on so many levels. Filmed in Panavision, Wise uses outstanding sets, utilizing shadows, doorways, corridors, and elaborately decorated rooms filled with statues, cherubs, and other antiques. The house itself is a character, interacting with the characters. The spooks and frights that fill the house make them selves quite known, but not through sight, but all of the other senses. Pounding on the walls, conjuring up powerful aromas and cold spots, and touching the guests without being seen. The mind can play tricks on a person, and that is what the professor sets out to do, to distinguish between actual haunts and human error.

We mostly stay with Eleanor. Her narrations (really the only drawback in my opinion) take us deep into her conscious, illuminating on certain subjects and drawing us deeper and deeper into her psyche. Her experiences and the experiences of the others come together to make one wicked and chilling film. From start to finish this one doesn't ease off the gas.

The biggest difference I found with this version and the 1999 remake (other than parts of the story) was how the remake took scenes from the original and injected steroids into them. A subtle scare in the original becomes a monumental undertaking. It just went too far. That's why this 1963 film works so well. It goes just far enough, letting your imagination run wild. Rather than throwing a ghost at us or really jazzing up the scene with special effects, it places the haunt in a separate room or on the other side of the door, letting us invent our own scary image. It's much more effective that way. Not everybody is scared of the same things, but we all know what we are scared of. By placing our own image in the scene Wise let's us scare ourselves into buying into what is happening. Great stuff!

Octoberfest #26

2011-10-26T12:53:00.004-04:00

[REC] (Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza, 2007)

I really wish I could go back in time and un-watch Quarantine. I wasn't all over it when I saw it, and I'm even more against it now that I have seen the much more enjoyable and original film, [REC].

It's a "shaky cam" production where we see through the lens of a news crew capturing the events that transpire following a local fire station. When the station gets called, the crew hops in the truck and heads for an apartment building where a woman is believed to have locked herself in her apartment, only to find out that the woman is stark raving mad, biting anyone who goes near her. As the situation worsens, it becomes clear that there is a virus spreading in the building, causing people to become ravenous. The building is quarantined, and the camera rolls on, capturing each and every horrifying event.

To start, I have a problem with "shaky cam." I understand it makes the film appear to be based on actual events. Fine. What I don't like is when the camera rolls on when a normal person wouldn't have the camera. Granted there are moments when you would drop the camera and run, but there are instances when the camera is put to good use, either by using the camera's light, replaying events, or night vision. It works when it makes sense, and for the most part, this movie makes good use of it.

Where this original version surpasses the American remake is not just because in it's originality, but the tension. With the American version, perhaps due to the advertising, it looks like a 28 Days Later ripoff, with aggressive tenants blood for blood's sake. Here I felt like the people were actually sick, suffering from this virus. The parts where we are meant to jump are few and far between, allowing the real horror of the images and the situation to come forth. Granted both versions of the film are similar, I just feel that this version seemed more authentic, like a labor of love instead of some cheesy spoof.

Some remakes are okay. For instance, Kurosawa had a few of his films adapted into English films, but those were done with a certain respect and appreciation for the material. The Magnificent Seven took Seven Samurai and gave it a western backdrop. I'm even okay with Michael Haneke reshooting his 1997 film Funny Games with an American cast. At least it's his material so he can do what he wants with it. What I'm not okay with is a film like Quarantine cashing in on the success of [REC]. They didn't challenge the film, only made a remake without adding any of their own imagination. For those interested in the film, watch [REC] first (preferably just this one). You will thank me later.

Octoberfest #25

2011-10-25T18:15:00.003-04:00

The Curse of the Cat People (Gunther von Fritsch and Robert Wise, 1944)

I figured it was time to give Val Lewton another viewing, this time with his sequel to his 1942 classic Cat People, a film that brought a new scare to the horror genre: the unseen monster. This time he brought on two new directors, including a young but very talented Robert Wise, who would work with Lewton again on The Body Snatcher, and would later go to make some of the most timeless treasures in cinema history, including The Day the Earth Stood Still, West Side Story, and The Sound of Music.

Here we have sort of an Evil Dead II situation, where the prequel to the film isn't that important to understanding what is going on. Amy is a lovely child, only she doesn't seem to get along with any of friends. She would rather daydream and let her imagination run wild. When the ex-wife of her father begins appearing to her (who is Irena, the protagonist of the previous film), her parents become worried that she will forever lose touch with the real world and continue to talk to "imaginary friends." She also befriends an old woman whose housekeeper claims that she is the woman's daughter, but the woman does not believe her.

There are a lot of things going on here that really could have been put into another movie, maybe even two. It's another example of a drama cloaked in a title that fits a horror film, or just has enough elements to get lumped together with the horror genre. The title really isn't befitting the story, nor is the association with the previous film. There is hardly any reference to the occurrences from the first film, and what little reference is made is of no importance to this film. I'm guessing the writers and/or studio wanted to get more people to come see the film. It was almost distracting for me to try and tie in this story with the former, but after a while I just ignored it and went along with the story.

It's cute more than scary. There are some creepy undertones, heightened by music or playing with light and shadow, but overall it's a story about innocence, overcoming the past, and accepting that some children aren't ready to grow up. There were times when I wanted the suspense to continue to grow, but the air was let out of the balloon too early. Sometimes you just got to let it pop.

The film's major fault is the association with the previous film. A sequel would have been nice, but this is a poor attempt at making one. Aside from that it's a nice film with solid performances and good photography.

Octoberfest #24

2011-10-25T01:25:00.005-04:00

The Cat and the Canary (Paul Leni, 1927)

For the second part of my Paul Leni double feature I chose The Cat and the Canary. Unlike The Man Who Laughs I really didn't have much to go on for this one, only that it was the same director and like the other film and several other classic horror films was released by Universal, a true champion of horror.

This one really won me over. From the get go Leni let's us know that there is something not quite right going on in the old house owned by the deceased Cyrus West. We see a pair of hands place an envelope in a safe, but whose hands are they? Soon guests arrive to the old mansion to hear the will of the deceased read aloud, as was his wish. As details are revealed so are secrets, desires, and a mysterious coincidence of a lunatic acting as a cat running away to the mansion from a nearby asylum.

Crazy I know, but that's the fun. It's part horror and part comedy. Misdirection, sight gags, and excellent photography litter this one. It's equal parts Clue and Murder on the Orient Express. The camera work in particular is exceptional, moving in and around the mansion, capturing every shadow just right. The horror aspects are classic German cinema, but the comedy is almost like Harold Lloyd or Buster Keaton, characters being in just the right place at the right time for a gag. Very clever.

Perhaps it was that I really had zero expectations going in (more often than not the best way to watch a film) but I must say that this was highly entertaining considering it's nearly 85 years old. A film like this I usually appreciate more than I enjoy, but the great artists of the silent era find a way to keep luring in more and more fans.

Octoberfest #23

2011-10-25T01:15:00.003-04:00

The Man Who Laughs (Paul Leni, 1928)

You've got to give credit to the Germans. They really know how to make a good silent film. The harsh angles, incredible use of shadows, and remarkable characters make these some of the most unforgettable films of all time. Up until recently I had only been aware of masters like F.W. Murnau, Fritz Lang, and G.W. Pabst, but after tonight with a double feature of Paul Leni, I can add him to the list.

I started with arguably his most famous work, The Man Who Laughs, based on Victor Hugo's The Laughing Man. It's a story about a boy, Gwynplaine, who is horribly disfigured as punishment for his father's treachery to the king. He grows up to become a sideshow act, known as the laughing clown, due to his face having a permanent smile. He longs for a life where people do not laugh or judge him by his face alone, finding comfort in his blind show companion Dea, who sees him for who he truly is.

It's not a typical horror story. The horror is in the man's existence. To only be capable of showing one expression is a horrible fate, and to have that expression be laughter is unbearable. That's where the horror lies. The horror of never being able to express different emotions.

Conrad Veidt, who appeared in the essential German expressionist film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, as well as working with Leni previously in Waxworks, carries the film with a sterling performance. At first glance it's his devilish grin that gets you, but after a while it's his eyes that speak volumes of the character. Forever trapped behind that grin is a man tormented daily by passersby on the street, only being able to escape with a person who cannot see him. Veidt's real performance is seen above his grin. You know exactly how he feels with frown or a wince, it's all there.

Like I said, it's not a conventional horror, in fact I have a hard time putting it in with horror, but one thing that I have learned this month is that horror does not have to scare you like Freddie or Jason, but it can mess with you head like Gwynplaine.

Octoberfest #22

2011-10-22T22:09:00.002-04:00

Evil Dead II (Sam Raimi, 1987)

Most sequels are pretty easy to understand. The first film ends before the second film begins or as it begins. That's usually standard protocol.

Sam Raimi does not believe in this protocol.

Evil Dead II takes off, well, it just takes off. There is hardly a moment to breathe. You're either jumping out of your seat or laughing too hard from the sheer ridiculousness that is going on. We begin with our friend Ash, who is bringing a girl up to a remote cabin (sound familiar). Well right off the bat, the evil begins to hunt Ash and his lady. Rather than building up plot or even a general idea for characters, Raimi figures people are coming to see this film not for the story, but for the blood, monsters, laughs, and Ash. So within five minutes or so, we get all of that.

It doesn't stop for 84 minutes. I can't say I've ever seen a film quite like this. Do I love it or hate it? On the one hand, nothing really happens that is new from the first one. Ash fights off evil, Raimi uses every camera trick he can muster up, and he throws a bunch of grotesque, disfigured monsters at us, hoping to move the story along. On the other hand, the film is hysterical. In the first film, there were a lot of blood spatters, even a few spews. Here, there are gallons spilled onto the characters. It is practically coming out of the walls and the floors (not practically, literally). There is red, blue, black, and even some nice green blood/slime to be thrown about.

Is there a story? Sort of. Is there character development? No, more like character dismemberment. Do I hate it? Well, no. There was no time for me to really analyze anything wrong or too over the top because there really isn't a moment to do so. It's sort of like a bloody blur, that is right up until the end, when Raimi throws a "what the hell" ending at us, and we are left rolling in the aisles as Ash is stranded in what looks to be the most confusing and outlandish end location in film history.

On a more serious note, there is a lot to credit Raimi with. He basically makes the same movie twice only this time he has so much more to work with as far as a budget and confidence from his actors. His camera moves are bold and really pay off. It's like he took a book of camera shots and special effects and tried to force everyone in as many times as he could, only he makes it work! He uses mirrors, trucks, booms, cranes, green screen, puppetry, sound effects, tracking shots, POV, and the list goes on and on and on. I almost have a headache thinking of the prep work and set up that each shot must have taken.

Do I expect much more from the final chapter in the series? I expect the same exact thing, only Bruce is five years older, and Raimi has five years to hone his craft and plan for what I am predicting is a bloody, gory, laugh riot of a sequel with Army of Darkness.

Octoberfest #21

2011-10-22T01:21:00.005-04:00

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (John S. Robertson, 1920)

It's difficult nowadays for a viewer to watch a silent, horror film and find it scary. If you ask me there is really only one that accomplishes that (F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu). It was a different time where moving images were relatively new and audiences hadn't been adjusted to seeing scary images on the big screen. When watching a silent, horror film, I try to keep in mind what audiences back then would have felt seeing these images for the first time, and then judging how effective those images are/would have been.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a classic both on screen and in literature, tells the story of a doctor who thanks to some advice, has decided to delve into his dark, demented side. He concocts a potion that will let his evil side come to the surface, and then go back down when he has the potion again. When his life starts spinning out of control, it's a fight to the finish to see who will have complete control over the good doctor, is it Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?

This film has some startling images to take in, like the hideous transformation from Jekyll to Hyde and of course Hyde's evil doings, both easy to write about when compared to putting it on screen. For 1920 this film wasn't exactly pushing the envelope like other films of its day were, but it wasn't slouching either. The biggest thing the film has going for it is John Barrymore, who with a few contortions of the face he is able to help us distinguish between Jekyll and Hyde (although makeup and other effects would be used after the initial transformation). It's not just how he looks, but how he conducts himself. He sort of reminded me of Dr. Caligari, with those menacing eyes and "up to no good" smile.

The sets used in the film as also really well done. There is great depth in some scenes and each location has it's own characteristics. I was a little disappointed with the photography, though it's hard to compare it some say something by Murnau, Griffith, or even Chaplin or Keaton, but I wanted something other than just a fixed camera with cuts around the room. There are a lot of films that move the camera about in the 20s, but when it's employed it makes a world of difference (even just mounting it to a vehicle).

But looking back this film isn't about the film really but about the story. It's filmed in a straightforward, no nonsense kind of way. Simple effects go a long way, and the real breakthrough is Barrymore, not the camera. The camera just allows us to see him clearly, working at his craft. It's a quick joyride with a few surprises along the way (one bedroom scene in particular was eye popping, as well as some fits of violence).

Octoberfest #20

2011-10-21T02:13:00.006-04:00

The Wicker Man (1973, Robin Hardy)

This is one film I don't plan on watching the remake of, though I had decided that well before watching the original (check out the trailer, or better yet search for Nicolas Cage screaming on Youtube, great stuff). It's hailed as one of the best horror films and British films of all time, a rare appointment for a horror/thriller like this one.

A mainland policeman, Sergeant Howie, ventures into to a remote village of the British Isles to investigate the disappearance of a girl. What he finds isn't so much a mystery as it is a nightmare. A staunch Christian himself, Howie finds the rituals and practices of the people on the island to be repulsive and sacrilegious. Fornication in cemeteries, improper teachings in schools, and naked dance are a just few examples of the peculiar behavior. When it looks like the people are hiding a secret in regards to the missing child, he stops at nothing to get to the bottom of the mystery, even compromising his own safety.

Quirky is one way to describe this movie. There is a lot of music, both being sung onscreen and off, and a lot of interesting characters. I was sort of reminded of John Boorman's crazy sci/fi flick Zardoz in that the story is so odd and the characters are so believable that it's hard to believe. Luckily we are alone in seeing how ridiculous people are acting. Howie is right there with us calling people out and trying to set things straight. A number of the practices in this film come from Pagan beliefs and historical accounts or rituals, making this story all the more stranger.

It's well made and like many of the horror movies I've watched, the ending is spectacular. That's one thing that sets most horror films apart from others. It's one thing to just kill the villain or the hero in the end, but it's another thing to turn everything on it's head and really make the audience drop their jaws. Many mediocre films accomplish this and really turn the film around for the better (Phantasm comes to mind). A good horror films wants to make the viewer look wide eyed as the credits start to roll. The Wicker Man does just that and more.

Octoberfest #19

2011-10-18T02:58:00.004-04:00

Dawn of the Dead (Zack Snyder, 2004)

Having seen the original Dawn of the Dead recently, why not try the remake. I had some good luck with the last remake I watched, so I figured another one couldn't hurt. On the plus side I have heard a lot of praise for this, so I couldn't resist, especially with the original still fresh in my mind.

Zack Snyder's retooling of George A. Romero's zombie classic of the same name is a pretty decent film. It does a lot of things differently. In fact just about the majority of the film is a departure from the original. The similarities are basically that there is a zombie apocalypse going on and the survivors we are following are in a mall. There is very little build up unlike the original, and the zombies are a lot more, and I mean a lot more intense. I feel like most people could have survived the zombies in the first film, or would have at least stood a better chance. Snyder takes a more modern approach to zombies, similar to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, arguably my favorite zombie flick.

This time around Snyder gives us more blood, more gore, more background for the characters (not to mention more characters), and more scares. It's not just drop the music and launch a zombie at you. It's pretty darn scary when the zombie is in plain sight running full speed at a character. Granted there are a lot of jumps in this one, but they are well placed and cleverly used.

Snyder focuses on the horror of a zombie apocalypse unlike Romero, who takes it on as an examination of western culture and commercialism. Snyder never really delves that deep into the story, but merely puts on a good horror show. He really didn't have to put the movie in a mall, but did so because of the original (I'm guessing) and when you think about it, the mall is a pretty good place to getaway from zombies.

It's a total departure from the original, but that's not a bad thing in the least. They tackle different issues and approach the subject of zombies from different angles. It's a lot of fun and if you can handle the blood I think you'll really enjoy it.

Octoberfest #18

2011-10-18T02:54:00.004-04:00

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Philip Kaufman, 1978)

I had seen the original 1956 version of the same name and really had my doubts about a remake, let alone two (2007's The Invasion). I figured I'd give this one a try, after all, the cast and crew are a pretty distinguished bunch (Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Jeff Goldblum, Veronica Carwright, Leonard Nimoy, dir. Philip Kaufman, D.P. Michael Chapman).

Blown away is one way of describing my reacting to Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I couldn't believe how involved I got with the story. Bizarre, unbelievable, and totally enthralling. The story begins with a wonderful opening credit montage explaining (to some degree) how an alien life form finds it's way to Earth, in particular San Francisco. It takes the form of a small flower and latches onto a plant. When two workers at the department of public health start noticing that people aren't quite who they used to be, as if replaced by another identical being, things start to develop that lead them to believe they are being invaded.

The films works on many levels. It's all about build up. Slowly but surely gaining momentum to reach an exciting and climactic finish. With excellent photography, convincing performances, and a wonderful score (which due to the strenuous schedule of creating the score would be the composer first and only foray into film scoring) Invasion becomes a thrilling and at times shocking film full of surprises.

Science fiction lends itself so well to the horror genre. The future can be both an enlightening and frightening concept. In this film, although the time is the present, we are introduced to an alien life form, which is always classified as science fiction (why is it aliens are tied in with science? This aliens in particular are primitive enough). Regardless they are harmless enough, only the idea of being replaced is a somewhat alarming concept. It raises some interesting philosophical questions, like what constitutes a happy life, the idea of reincarnation, etc.

This one really got to me. There are some startling visuals and some pretty freaky scenes here. Not to mention the ending which is unforgettable. So far this might be the pick of the marathon. Hope the rest of the films can hold up to this one.

Octoberfest #17

2011-10-17T00:01:00.005-04:00

White Zombie (Victor Halperin, 1932)

Bela Lugosi, like Boris Karloff, was known for that "look." That kind that when he stared back at you from the big screen he wasn't just staring back, but he was actually seeing you. I find Karloff a more well rounded actor than Lugosi, but he never quite had the stare that Lugosi had.

In White Zombie, one of the first feature length films about zombies, a couple travels to Haiti after being told it was the place they should be married. That man who recommended they marry in Haiti is the man who is holding the wedding for him. His mansion is large and decadent, but there is more at play. We soon find out that his intentions for bringing the couple to his residence are more sinister. With the help of a man named 'Murder' Legendre (played by Lugosi), the sinister plan unfolds into a nightmare full of, you guessed it, zombies.

It's predictable, simple, and campy fun, but there is something more than that at play. Yes, the acting is poor. Yes, the script could have had some work done, but what this film has that others don't is Lugosi. His presence, much like Karloff, is palpable. He conquers the screen, both in a positive and negative way. His gaze is borderline supernatural. His eyes just stare right back at you. That said it's hard to take him seriously, although would you take someone seriously with a name like 'Murder' Legendre? I didn't think so.

All in all a nice piece of cinema. There are some pretty cool effects used and a lot of emphasis on facial expressions, the eyes in particular. The zombies aren't terrifying in the sense that they are going to kill you, but more so in that their existence is horrifying to imagine. Being a zombie looks awful.

Octoberfest #16

2011-10-15T02:02:00.006-04:00

I Walked with a Zombie (Jacques Tourneur, 1943)

If someone today tried to mix zombies with a classic novel like, let's say Jane Eyre, it would be met with laughs upon laughs upon laughs. Not so back in 1943. Val Lewton saw potential in an article he read and decided to give it a classic twist. The result is one of the best zombie movies of early cinema.

A Canadian nurse accepts a job in the West Indies to care of the wife of a wealthy plantation owner. Upon arrival, she is dazzled by the splendor of the island where she is staying, only her first encounter with her patient is an odd one. The woman is suffering from bizarre symptoms that make her appear lifeless, sedentary, and emotionless. Over time she gets to know the people of the island, even seeing their somewhat startling rituals of voodoo culture, and naturally she falls in love with her patients husband. Together they must fight off emotion and keep a level head as things go from bad to bizarre in this thriller.

Lewton and Tourneur paint a startling image of voodooism, something that most westerners have heard only from magazines, books, and urban legends. In a shocking scene involving a voodoo ceremony, we see bodies convulsing, others entranced, and an intensity seldom seen in movies of this kind. The atmosphere these two men have created is enhanced by their use of light and shadow, turning a tropical island into a potential nightmare.

To my surprise Lewton, Tourneur, and the cast keep from going off the deep end, which would be reasonable given the themes and plot elements. Nothing is blown out of proportion, there is not need for ultra-violence or gore. It's straight storytelling with an elegant touch of suspense, precisely placed at key moments.

This is a rare film involving zombies. Prior to George A. Romero's reign as the "zombie king" there was only so much done with zombies. Here is a respectable storyline that allows our imaginations to wander, but not too far off.

Octoberfest #15

2011-10-14T14:48:00.002-04:00

Faust (F.W. Murnau, 1926)

German film pioneer F.W. Murnau produced some of the silent era's greatest works, including possibly the greatest work of horror captured on film, Nosferatu. His dramas too are some of the best even to this day (Sunrise:A Song of Two Humans, The Last Laugh). So why not give the German director another go with his take on Goethe's classic play, Doctor Faustus,

Murnau's adaptation entitled Faust tells the story of Faust, a scholar who is struggling to find a cure for the plague. When not even his prayers to God can help him, he turns to make a deal with the devil. In doing so he makes a pact to have the dark lord as his servant until his death, allowing him to do whatever he pleases. Things change when he meets a Christian girl and he starts to change his mind, but the devil won't let him get this one that easily.

The film has some fantastic images, including some spectacular shots of miniature landscapes, a tactic still employed today (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc.) and some really great overlapping techniques with the layering of images. Murnau is brilliant with blending dreams with reality. My biggest problem with the film (and I'm not blaming the film or Murnau for this one) is that I was expecting a closer adaptation to the play. I read the play a few times in college and really enjoyed it. I didn't expect so many changes with the story especially with the ending.

I almost hesitate to put this film on the list for this month's horror fest, but much like Freaks, it's a classic that always gets put in with the lot. It's really a fantastic film that I'm sure I will appreciate more next time, but I was sort of blindsided by the story. The visuals and advancements in film editing and special effects are really a spectacle. Murnau was such a talented filmmaker and was taken away from us too soon. I can only imagine what he would have done had he gone deeper into the sound era. His works remain timeless and his influence continues to inspire.

Octoberfest #14

2011-10-13T17:49:00.005-04:00

Cronos (Guillermo del Toro, 1992)

Cronos is one heck of a movie. It's about an device (Cronos device) that allows the user to live forever. When an antiques dealer stumbles upon the device and accidentally uses it, he is confronted with two harsh realities; that the device will have certain "side-effects," and that there are other people out there who know about it and will do anything to get it. Jesus, the antiques dealer, quickly realizes that though he feels younger, he also has an urge to drink human blood (not vampire style, but actually drink the blood). Along with his granddaughter, they try to keep the device a secret, but a wealthy, dying man won't stop pushing until he has the device for his own.

After the first half hour when the course of the movie had been decided, I really wasn't sure where it was going to go or how far it would go. I wasn't sure if it would be more gore-y than story, but soon found out that it was all story. Jesus' life becomes more and more complicated as secrets of the device are revealed, and his determination to save his own life as well as his granddaughter's becomes more important. It's a great story with superb visuals.

Having seen a handful of Guillermo del Toro's work, the most intriguing aspect of his films by far is the use of children. A lot of filmmakers make children to be victims, misunderstood, frightened, etc. Toro makes his young characters more or less on the same level as his older characters. More importantly, his children are nor ignorant, but instead they understand what is going on around them. Aurora, the granddaughter, doesn't say much, in fact very little, but she never second guesses her grandfather and knows that he will protect her and make sure everything will turn out for the best. Like the children in The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth, the children take on more mature roles and the adults understand that.

Cronos might be a little too far off the deep end for some, but I strongly feel that this film is something special. It has heart, a few frights, and some comedy, too. A strong cast and tight story keep this one afloat, not to mention the outstanding visuals and camera work by Toro's righthand man behind the camera, Guillermo Navarro (who has also worked with Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino, Davis Guggenheim, and Bill Condon).

Octoberfest #13

2011-10-13T13:22:00.003-04:00

The Last Exorcism (Daniel Stamm, 2010)

I figured it was time to watch a more modern horror film, and what better place to start than with a shaky-cam, documentary style horror film.

The Last Exorcism attempts to cash in on the Paranormal Activity money-train with a new spin. This time a "documentary crew" follows a preacher as he goes out to debunk exorcisms, only to come face to face with true evil. Or does he? The film actually does a decent job at presenting a crisis in faith and that for some people seeing will always mean believing.

My biggest problem with the film is the documentary style filmmaking. It sort of reminded me of Catfish, which put me in a bad mood, but I let it slide. There are some aspects that just don't make sense. For reasons I can't get into, when you have a movie that is supposed to be a handheld, guerrilla style, sort of happening right now kind of movie, it's hard to throw in the production values of a standard narrative film. Camera cuts, music insertion, and strategically placed camera shots.

That's where films like Cloverfield, Paranormal Activity, and Quarentine succeed. The camera is in the right place at the right time, and sometimes it's not. Sometimes we come in too early, too late, or nothing comes at all. That is what keeps the audience on our toes. With a film like Paranormal Activity, we have a reason for camera cuts and a general sense of editing, as the footage we are seeing has been assembled after the fact. Here with The Last Exorcism, I don't know who is playing this footage for us, how we are seeing it, and what has happened because of it. There needs to be a story other than just here's some scary footage that we think you might like because it looks like real life.

As hard as it was to get this out of my head, there were a few suspenseful scenes. With someone who is possessed (at least in movies) there is always that unpredictable feeling in the scene. We don't know if we are going to see the real person or the demon. Stamm did a good job in balancing that out for us. I wish there was more of a horror story and less in between filler, but that's what we got.

I also wasn't a huge fan of the main character. He seemed so fake, and he was playing a sort of con man to begin with, so I really wasn't buying into him. When it came time to get down to business he was useless. I wanted someone with a more clear story arc.

It's not a bad watch, at least for renting or Netflix streaming. It's better to watch in the dark if you want to get the full effect. There are other exorcist movies out there that do a better job.

Octoberfest #12

2011-10-12T00:55:00.008-04:00

The Last House on the Left (Wes Craven, 1972)

Banned in many countries well into the 2000s, Wes Craven's nightmare in suburbia The Last House on the Left will send chills down your spine, and actually make you cheer when someone gets attacked by a chainsaw.

Inspired by Ingmar Bergman's classic The Virgin Spring, two girls become the entertainment for a group of no-goodnicks on the lamb. They take the girls into the country to have some "fun," only to have their car break down, forcing them to go ahead with their plans in the woods off of the road. I won't go into the details but things get bloody fast and before we know it, the story gets turned on its head.

Wes Craven has made a career on showing us the disturbing, the gory, and the unthinkable. In his first feature he tells the world that he is not afraid to go anywhere. He would later continue that declaration with films like The Hills Have Eyes, The Serpent and the Rainbow, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and the Scream series (we don't have to include Music of the Heart, a film about inner-city students who learn to play the violin with the help of Meryl Streep). In this film he thrusts us right into a terrible situation. Shortly after the movie begins he puts the two girls right into a horrifying situation. What was scarier for me was when one of the girls realizes what is going on, basically saying what we all are thinking, and then the nightmare begins.

It's a terrifying concept and an incredible revenge movie. I've never felt so compelled to cheer for a villain being killed off. There isn't complete closure for the film, at least in a real world standpoint, but for the audience the film ends with a big sigh of relief. It's the kind of film that makes you think, "what would I do in that situation?" At times it's all too real, but that's what lets you put yourself in the characters shoes (if you can bare it). No ghosts, goblins, or monsters. Just people. Unpredictable people who take pleasure in causing pain.

The one thing I thought was kind of odd as the placement of music, but in a way it kind of added another level of creepiness. The last thing you need in a situation like this is some out of place 70s music, but when it counts most, Craven gives us the "pleasure" of listening to the characters screams, squirming, and suffering. This one will leave you uneasy for a little bit, but for those who can take it I think you might get something out of it.

Octoberfest #11

2011-10-12T00:31:00.003-04:00

The Mummy (Karl Freund, 1932)

The eyes. Boris Karloff had eyes that could see right through you. You might not act like you are scared, but when Boris stares back at you, there is no escape. It was one of the many traits that made Karloff a crowd favorite.

The Mummy tells the story of a curse. Long ago in the land of Ancient Egypt, a man was mummified for his wrongdoings, only he was mummified in a horrible way. Centuries later, a group of archeologists discover his corpse and set a chain of events that would take ten years to play out. After the first expedition freed the mummy, he would later resurface as a more mortal looking being, trying to regain what he lost thousands of years before.

As compared to the other classic monster movies (Frankenstein, Dracula, The Invisible Man, The Wolf Man, The Creature from the Black Lagoon) The Mummy stands on it's own. All of the films have their own unique qualities that make them so popular, particularly in the different "monsters." Imhotep is unique in that he is welcomed at first. We know that it's the mummy that escaped all those years ago, but when the other archeologists welcome him, we can't help but wave our arms about to warn them of the impending doom. It's always scarier knowing the characters are in danger when they haven't a clue.

The power of the film obviously lies with Karloff's performance, but this is common for most Karloff films. He made his big splash as Frankenstein's Monster in James Whale's 1931 classic Frankenstein. It would be the role that would pave the way for his career. He would later play many monsters and villains in his life, but he would always be remembered for his first two major roles in these classic horror films. He would also try some dramatic roles, like in the original Scarface, but he always went back to horror and suspense.

His eyes, voice, and ability to play a number of creepy characters all with a flair of their own, made Karloff an icon of horror cinema (although I'll always hold a special place in my heart for his narration to the animated classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas!). In his 50+ year career on screen, Karloff helped shape the monster horror genre to what it is today.

Octoberfest #10

2011-10-11T02:00:00.004-04:00

The Creature from the Black Lagoon (Jack Arnold, 1954)

Perhaps I've been bitten by the "creature feature" bug, but after watching The Invisible Man I simply couldn't resist this one. By far one of the most recognizable and surely most unique of movie monsters, probably due to the fact that its name is so long and unforgettable, though it's not even his name (heck, I called him creature from the black lagoon in my previous post. Lesson learned). I loaded up my Netflix, and watched The Creature from the Black Lagoon.

A group of scientists search for a rare fossil in the Amazon. They find themselves in an area called the "Black Lagoon," an area locals fear. They tell stories of a man that lives in the water. The scientists move on regardless, searching the water for clues to their fossil. What the stumble across is a creature of unnatural strength and cunning.

The creature that the title refers to is Gill Man, part man and part fish. It's one of the best creature costumes of the 50s, and perhaps all time. Not just because it looks cool, but the suit itself is quite intricate. Head is well constructed, inflating and deflating as the Gill Man breathes. The wardrobe department did a fine job in creating two suits for the creature, one for land use, a more bulky and intimidating suit, almost like a suit of armor, and the second for the water, a more flexible suit that allowed the actor to move around as naturally as possible.

As ridiculous as the title sounds I was amazed at how much I bought into the idea of the creature. It acts like a real animal of this type would. Underwater it moves freely like a fish, but when on land it's a little more like Frankenstein's monster. The attention to detail like bulging eyes and gasping for air out of water are complimented by the lack of bubble coming from the creature underwater, like a creature with gills would do underwater.

I'm thinking I might round out the series of creature features with Karl Freund's 1932 classic The Mummy, starring Boris Karloff as Imhotep. I hate to say it, but the way these past few films are going, I think I'm really going to like The Mummy.

Octoberfest #9

2011-10-10T01:40:00.003-04:00

The Invisible Man (James Whale, 1933)

There are a handful of classic movie monsters that are recognizable to the general public. Frankenstein's monster, Count Dracula, Imhotep (The Mummy), Wolf Man, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and The Invisible Man. Seeing as I have only seen half of these movies (Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolfman) I figure now is the time to catch up.

I started with The Invisible Man, directed by James Whale who made headlines with Frankenstein in 1931, and introducing audiences to Boris Karlof, but that's another story. In 1933 The Invisible Man was released, utilizing state of the art special effects to make actor Claude Rains disappear. The story by H.G. Wells tells the tale of a mad doctor whose hell bent on finding an antidote for his discovery of invisibility. While taking refuge at a village inn, he finds peace and quiet hard to come by, forcing him to show the world what true power is.

The doctor becomes drunk with power, pushing aside all attempts to find a cure for his invisible condition, and instead eyes world domination. His colleagues and local authorities are not too keen on his plans, and do everything they can to try and stop the mad man. How do you fight an enemy you can't see? That's what The Invisible Man aims at finding out.

The special effects work marvelously, even compared to todays standards. There are a number of camera tricks, wires, and early "green screen" effects used to create a believable invisible man. Rains voice helps bring the mad man to life, while Whale films him in such a way that he pops off the screen, even when bandaged and covered up.

It's a short film with a runtime of just over 70 minutes, but every minute squeezes as much suspense as cinematically possible. Another member of the National Film Registry (the third one I've watch during this horror fest) and deservedly so. It's a fantastic film that puts other attempts at the story to shame.

Octoberfest #8

2011-10-09T01:51:00.002-04:00

The Leopard Man (Jacques Tourneur, 1943)

There really is something to be said for "less is more." Val Lewton's classic collection of horror movies is a proof of that. The producer and writer was responsible for one of the greatest horror films of all time, Cat People, a title that at first makes you buckle over with laughter, but after watching it, you understand the importance of the film. Without showing you monster, like most horror films do, we get shadows, doors creaking, cracks of thunder, all coming together to create...

atmosphere.

Quite possibly the most important part of a scary movie. You might have the creepiest monster in the dingiest setting, but if you don't get the audience in the right mood before you get there, you're out of luck. With his 1943 production of The Leopard Man, Lewton and director Jacques Tourneur continue what the started with Cat People and create scares by building up suspense, much like inflating a balloon until it is about to burst and then...POP!

The story is simple. After a night club act goes wrong, a leopard is on the loose. After a girl is murdered by the leopard, the search is on for the beast. As more bodies turn up suspicion arises from the performer's manager (Dennis O'Keefe) that perhaps this isn't just a leopard, but perhaps a man acting as one. Time is running out as panic and death slowly creep in on this small, New Mexico town.

It's a pretty straight forward story. It's not a masterpiece but it gets the job done. Given the story and the cheesy title, this movie does more than just perpetuate B-movie stereotypes. Clever camera work and pitch-perfect suspense makes The Leopard Man a very nice film. You'll be surprised how many horror films today use the same tactics that Lewton and his team employed here and in other works.

Octoberfest #7

2011-10-08T02:38:00.005-04:00

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (John McNaughton, 1986)

Rarely do films in the horror genre have a firm dose of reality. Horror is a concept that we (fortunately) don't have to face every day (unless you watch the news). When a film depicts true horror that actually (or allegedly) took place it's the idea that it did happen that scares you. When Freddy cuts up a teenager, we don't really think anything of it. But when someone like Henry Lee Lucas breaks the neck of his victim, we get chills.

Henry: Portait of a Serial Killer is a low-budget horror based on the killings of Henry Lee Lucas, played superbly by Michael Rooker. Henry is a drifter, who has settled in Chicago for a time. His roommate Otis has his sister stay over, all the while Henry goes on killing when he can. Overtime Otis becomes an accomplice and the two begin more elaborate killings.

For me it was Rooker's performance that frightened me the most (and one particular scene where the two men watch a tape from one of their "outings"). Rooker's face looks like it is hiding a million secrets, and he is doing everything to fight off his violent nature. It's only when he sees Otis' sister that he relaxes, even for just a brief moment. Each kill is done as if he were taking the trash out to the curb. Nonchalantly walking into someone's house or picking up a hitchhiker, and then returning home for dinner, with not a blank stare, but just a normal glaze, as if the day was routine.

This movie has offended and dazzled people for more than 20 years. It's a chilling story that will stay with you all the way home. How can people like Henry Lee Lucas exist? It's too horrifying to be true, but that's what make this story so unique and keeps scaring viewers to this day.

Octoberfest #6

2011-10-07T02:22:00.003-04:00

Dawn of the Dead (George A. Romero, 1978)

George A. Romero doesn't just make movies about zombies. In the two films of his that I've seen, Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead (the latter is pictured above), the majority of the action isn't solely about zombies. It's about people trying to work together to defeat zombies. They must overcome differences, ideals, beliefs, and whatever the zombies throw at them to overcome adversity.

Dawn of the Dead picks up where the Night left off. Zombies have moved into larger cities, forcing the citizens of America to go into hiding. Patrols of zombie fighters are formed while other gangs hellbent on stealing rove the landscape. We are trapped with four survivors, two soldiers, a pilot, and his girl. After taking a helicopter out of the city they had landed at an indoor shopping mall (a somewhat new concept for a building, boy times have changed). The mall is filled with zombies, who for some odd reason seem to flock to the mall because it's a habit ingrained into their prior human selves. The only difference between the survivors and the zombies are brains and bullets.

It's a story that allows Romero to explore some interesting territories, and one that would be further explored in other apocalyptic films (28 Days Later, The Quiet Earth, Zombieland). Romero presents his characters with an opportunity to live virtually with everything they want. They have an entire mall at their fingertips, and that means they can do whatever they want. They are able to restore some normalcy. They get haircuts, "shop" for clothes, have fancy dinners, or just have the ability to sit down and have a drink with worrying. When you really think about it, zombie movies aren't about zombies, they're about people trying to survive, trying to get back to the way it was.

But as we all know, when your world is overrun with zombies...there is no turning back. Romero knows how to create a zombie apocalypse, and that's with guns, knives, and lots of blood and guts. What I liked about this film was how he kept throwing challenges at the characters. Simple tasks become difficult and often life threatening. Granted, I felt like the characters were at times too cocky and sometimes brainless, but I still had a lot of fun.

I'm intrigued to watch Zack Snyder's (300, Watchmen) 2004 remake, as I'm sure he will try to be true to the original as much as he can. He did wonders with his adaptations of graphic novels, paying much attention to the artists detailed animations, so I can only assume that he will have much respect for Romero. Expect in the coming weeks for a mini review of the film.

Octoberfest #5

2011-10-06T00:41:00.004-04:00

Halloween (John Carpenter, 1978)

A simple piano solo can send shivers down a person's spine. That's what John Carpenter's Halloween does to you. It's ominous melody is high on my all time musical score list (and it was composed by Carpenter himself!) and it's accompanied by one of the all time best horror films of all time.

This is the slasher film that got the ball rolling for others like Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream, and the countless ripoffs, spinoffs, and parodies. Carpenter created (or is responsible, depending on which side of the fence you are on) so many essential slasher stand-bys, like the point of view stalker angle, the defenseless yet surviving heroine, and of course, what slasher films would would be lost without; dangerous sex.

Many critics have claimed that the film is one big advocate of abstinence, though Carpenter has claimed it is not, one can't help but notice the association between sex and death. I look at it like this; there isn't a better situation to kill a teenager or twenty-something. Their guard is let down, they are focused on one thing, and it is easy to sneak up on them. I have no problem with using that situation, just sometimes it can get a little repetitive.

As far as scares go, like most horror films that were made before I was born, there aren't a lot of them. There are a few good ones hidden, but overall this was more of an entertaining film for me. I don't scare easily, but I do appreciate attempts to scare, and the more creative the better. Just as important as being scared is, he one doing the scaring is just as crucial. Michael Myers (not Austin Powers. He is pictured above) is the killer, a recent escapee from the mental hospital. Right away we know that he can't speak, he is relentless, and he is pure evil (his doctor's words, not mine). Myers is a great killer because he is so precise and doesn't say a word, similar to how Jason would be in the Friday the 13th series.

With all of this killing one would think that there would be a lot of blood, right? Wrong. One interesting characteristic that isn't common amongst other slashers is the lack of blood. There are no gushing wounds or streaks of blood along the walls. Any stab wounds at all are cleverly done off screen. The only blood we see is just the remainder on the killer's knife and few scrapes here and there. It's not the blood that is important. It's the terror.

Halloween is a piece of history that can still deliver some frights. There is a reason it is included on so many lists, including Empire Top 500 films, AFI Top 100 Thrills, and it is also a part of the prestigious National Film Registry (alongside previously watched Freaks). I'm intrigued to see how well others did with the sequels, but I think for now I'll stick with the original.

Octoberfest #4

2011-10-05T00:32:00.003-04:00

Freaks (Tod Browning, 1932)

The famous "Gooble gobble, we accept her, one of us," scene of Tod Browning's 1932 cult classic Freaks is one of the strangest and most captivating scenes in movie history. The film itself isn't so much a horror film. There are more dramatic elements than anything else, but given the time period it was made and released, audiences were not ready for what they were about to see.

The film centers around a circus. In particular this show is home to what society at the time deemed "freaks," people with deformities and unusual talents that would be considered side-show attractions. Within this tight-knit group of "freaks" is a sort of code to live by. There are families, friendships, romances, and quarreling. When a "non-freak" attempts to extort a member of the group for all he is worth, the tension mounts.

The reason this film gets lumped into the horror genre is for two reasons, the first being what I already mentioned about audiences being unable to handle characters, seeing as there are no prosthetics or camera tricks used. The cast was selected because of their uniqueness. The second, especially for me, is the climax of the film. The final scene resulting in a sort of chase/hunt in the rain and mud borders on unsettling. Even if the cast wasn't deformed or handicapped the scene would still be thrilling. Dwarfs, people missing limbs, misshapen heads, their all here and they are all coming towards the camera. I can only imagine how people felt back in the 30s.

It's runtime of just over an hour makes it a quick watch, but it's one you'll soon forget. Never before and probably since has a cast of such diversity in appearance and ability been assembled. The film itself is a "freak" amongst its film peers. Freaks stands out and will continue to do so for all time. That is why it as been inducted into the National Film Registry.

Octoberfest #3

2011-10-04T02:45:00.003-04:00

The Evil Dead (Sam Raimi, 1981)

Before Sam Raimi became the master of super hero movies in the 2000s(The Spider-Man trilogy), he was the master of campy horror. His Evil Dead series garnered an enormous cult following, catapulting Bruce Campbell and his character Ash into halls of horror lore, alongside Freddie Krueger, Jason, and Mike Myers.

The series starts with The Evil Dead, the first in the trilogy. I have put this film off because cult films like this that have such a strong following tend to ostracize more moviegoers than they pull in. But I'm down for just about anything. If I can sit through Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom, I think I can handle 80 minutes of Sam Raimi horror.

The Evil Dead starts off like a typical horror film, actually almost identical to the last one I watch. A group of friends are traveling to a cabin in the woods. There they discover that the house was the site of a archeological discovery gone awry. An ancient book is found in the basement that causes the nature surrounding the house to go haywire. Pretty soon members of the party fall victim to the evil, and that's when the fun starts.

There's lots of blood, lots of handheld camera, and lots of fun. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this one. I wasn't terrified or anything, but there were a few creepy images thrown in here. Those with weak stomachs might want to steer clear, especially for the final showdown. Lots of blood, skin ripping, and exploding body parts.

It's rare that I say this, but, I'm very looking forward to watching the sequels (The Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness). The Evil Dead is a wild ride that will surely please horror seekers.

Octoberfest #2

2011-10-03T17:30:00.005-04:00

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974)

I take pride in the amount of classic and talked about films I have seen, but I've always wondered why I haven't seen this one. It's one of those films that I see at the store and say, "I should watch that one of these days," and then go on my way to pick up a Kurosawa or Woody Allen.

I figured my month long horror fest was as good a time as any to watch The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, a movie that sent audiences running out of the theaters during its initial release. It follows a group of young adults traveling through Texas to revisit one of their grandfather's old stomping grounds. They come across a deranged hitchhiker, a crumbling, old house, and Leatherface, the man who will eventually lead to the group's nightmarish trip through Texas to come to a frightening halt.

I was surprised at how non-conventional the film was, considering how flimsy the plot was even for this genre. Hooper's use of the camera was genuinely well done, steering clear of clichéd horror devices, and using more advanced techniques for showing the "monster" and building up suspense. The set dressings were fantastic and the really scary moments weren't just the "Boo! I gotcha" shots. The situations the characters are put in are honestly frightening. The dinner scene towards the end of the film was so uncomfortable and horrifying I was afraid of what would happen next. The chase scenes are also well put together and utilize the surroundings perfectly.

Overall an above average slasher film. I can only imagine how the remake a few years back revamped and charged the film with some ultra violence and grotesque imagery, and I am too afraid to look. Not because I think I'll be scared, but because I don't want to be disappointed.

Octoberfest #1

2011-10-02T23:34:00.002-04:00

The Masque of the Red Death (Roger Corman, 1964)

Edgar Allen Poe, Vincent Price, Roger Corman. I expect to see these three intertwine again this month either all together, in pairs, or separately. I found this film on the top 500 horror films according to IMDB voters. It came in at number 100 but that didn't really have much say in my watching it. I was intrigued by comments and reviews around the internet, calling it one of Corman and Price's best.

They were right.

Corman, known for B-grade horror type films, directs a lavishly decorated period piece based on some stories by Poe. It drips with vivid colors and satanic symbolism. It tells the story of a prince who steals a few of the townspeople just as "the red death" enters the town. He keeps his party guests inside his castle to shield them from the death the lurks in the surrounding area. The prince, a sinister man whose allegiance is with Satan, plays games with his guests and his prisoners, testing their faith and forcing them to show their real colors.

For a film that I didn't really know much about going into I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of filmmaking. Price was, well, what more can you expect from Vincent Price? There is no other like Vincent Price. His cult following is unlike any other. His fans are loyal and well represented, like Tim Burton, who actually made a short film narrated by Price about a boy who thinks he is Vincent Price. To me, Price is somewhat of a novelty. I don't love him but I certainly don't hate him. It depends on the material. This film was right in his wheel house.

I'm off to a good start for my Month of horror. Not sure where to go next. Do I stay classic or move into more contemporary works? Time will tell.

Turn out the lights...if you dare

2011-10-02T02:04:00.004-04:00

October is here. That means pumpkins, candy, and scary movies.

I must admit that the latter is something that I've lacked in the past few years. The horror genre for me has always been one to mock and jab at. Low budgets, gallons of blood, and sexually charged college kids are just a few of the clichéd elements that come to mind when I think about horror films.

So this month I have decided to give the genre a try by (attempting) to watch some of the most popular, campy, and acclaimed horror films around. Now I have a few favorites, like Nosferatu, Suspiria, The Shining, just to name a few.

So where to begin? A question I have posed on this blog several times. The first and most important criteria (aside from being a horror film) is for the film to be new for me. Second, I want the movies to either have a cult following or praise from critics/awards circles. I'm not looking to watch just any film that has a zombie or vampire. I want something with substance that has been around for a while, or has at least created enough buzz to get noticed.

The good thing about horror movies is that there are a TON of films to choose from out there. It can be somewhat overwhelming, but I think I have enough resources to make the right decisions.

Here's just a few of the titles I'll be watching this month. The goal is 31 movies, but I'd like to shoot for 40, maybe more. We shall see!

1. Evil Dead

2. The Blair Witch Project

3. Village of the Damned

4. Wicker Man (the original)

5. Freaks

6. Frenzy

7. Halloween (the original)

8. Dawn of the Dead (both original and remake)

9. The Invisible Man

10. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original)

So Happy Halloween and happy haunting! Drop me a line if you have any suggestions.

Check please!

2011-09-28T04:21:00.003-04:00

For the past few weeks I have found myself spending more and more of my online time away from my usual hangouts (IMDB, Facebook, ESPN, Criterion) and instead enjoying what the folks over at icheckmovies.com have been putting together.

icheckmovies.com is an incredibly addictive site that cinephiles will go absolutely crazy for. It's part database, part competition, part networking. The basics of the site allow a user to create a profile, and basically check off movies they have seen. No ratings (although you can mark a movie as a favorite or dislike should the mood strike you), just an opportunity to see what movies you have seen in regards to lists from institutes, critics, IMDB, and a wide variety of awards and honors.

For instance, I started the site by uploading my votes via my ratings URL from IMDB (very convenient), then I proceeded to investigate as to what lists I have seen the majority of (I am one film shy of completing AFI's 100 years 100 movies list, damn you D.W. Griffith's Intolerance! So long!) and then proceeded to basically pave the path of movies I would watch over the next few nights.

You can get awards, comment on a movies page, go directly to a film's IMDB page, and create a profile, all the while you can make friends with others who share similar interests, or try to become the ultimate movie watcher. I am currently ranked #399 out of over 60,000 users, but what I get out of all this is another outlet for my passion and especially to get ideas for movies that I need to see.

A great list that I just finished was the 50 Greatest Cartoons of all time as voted on by thousands of artists in the industry. I had seen a fair share of the films (What's Opera, Doc?, Popeye the Sailor Meets Sinbad the Sailor, Steamboat Willie) but there were several that I had no idea existed (The Big Snit, Gerald McBoing-Boing, Minnie the Moocher, and The Man Who Planted Trees). There were Looney Toons, Disney, Tom and Jerry, Betty Boop, and several independent releases. It took me a little while (bout half of a Sunday) but it was worth it. There were some really unique and almost mind-blowing cartoons. I'm attempting to do the same with the IMDB top 50 rated shorts list.

Certain lists are constantly changing, like the IMDB lists, as movies are constantly being voted on and their ratings rise and fall. Others are constant, like Best Picture Nominees (only adding new ones every year) or AFI 100 Years 100 Thrills. There are a ton of lists to go through with a lot of movies.

icheckmovies.com is a lot of fun. It's free and you just might find something that could open your eyes. Something like Harold Lloyd's Safety Last!, Buster Keaton's Sherlock Jr., or Nicholas Roeg's Don't Look Now. Three films I've held off on watching, but seeing how many people and institutes have praised them I gave in. Excellent films.

I hope to hear from some of you. Let me know what you think of the site.

More than a game

2011-09-23T20:20:00.008-04:00

Ben Franklin said, "in this world nothing can be certain, except death and taxes." You probably could have added baseball scouting, too, at least what scouting used to be. Today's game of baseball is made up of statistics that to the average person mean very little. WHIP and OBP might be acronyms to some, but to team owners and even fantasy owners they are letters to live by. Until recently baseball was a game that was run the same way it had been for over 100 years. One man believed he could change that.

His name was Billy Beane. The book and now the movie is called Moneyball.

Moneyball tells the story of the 2002 season of the Oakland Athletics, a team that rose to notoriety because of its low payroll and unorthodox player selection. Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), a former player turned general manage, grows tired with the ancient, inefficient ways of the game he has committed his entire life to. When a transaction goes awry he stumbles across Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a Yale, economics graduate who believes he has a system to rating players based on numbers.

Billy and Peter begin trading, signing, and grooming the team based on data, not scouting, something that other members of the team are not fond of, including Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the team's manager. Billy and Peter's system defies current baseball logic, but when the club starts to win games with players like Scott Hatteberg (Chris Pratt), David Justice (Stephen Bishop), and Chad Bradford (Casey Bond), the eyes of the country turn to Oakland, where only seeing is believing.

What happened in Oakland back in '02 was incredible. It shouldn't have happened if you ask the right people, and other people will tell you it means nothing. Well, it did mean something it has changed the way people think about the game for good. You couldn't just go out and look at a kid to see if he would be a star or not. There were more stats to consider than home runs, strikeouts, and batting average. The game was expanding and becoming more and more a battle of logic.

The film's structure is centered mostly on Billy Beane, but the most exciting parts for me were about the system. Writer Aaron Sorkin, who a few months back accepted a slew of awards for his screenplay The Social Network, tosses out jargon that baseball fanatics go crazy for. For the general audience, that's where Billy helps out. Peter explains the system and has to break it down more for Beane (i.e. the audience) so everybody on screen and in the seats is on the same page.

Pitt's portrayal of Beane won me over. He completely caught me off guard. I know Pitt can act but I remember him for performances that were very complex on the outside. Aldo Raine (Inglourious Basterds) with his pronounces chin, squinty eyes, and thick accent. Benjamin Button (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) who grew younger as he got older. Jeffrey Goines (12 Monkeys) who couldn't sit still let alone focus on one subject in a conversation. Yes, he was nominated for all these performances, but in a performance like this there is something bubbling under the surface. All of his characters to an extent have something going on underneath, only this character, Billy Beane, is so normal and calm on the outside, yet when he is alone we can see pain and frustration.

His supporting cast of Hill, Hoffman, and the slew of ball players and colleagues, help turn this baseball team into the world of Oakland Athletics. Hill and Hoffman especially play perfect compliments to Pitt's sunny exterior. Hill is quiet, timid, and very smart. Hoffman is cold, weathered, and stubborn. Pitt is able to play off of both temperaments and make their scenes together pop off the screen.

The one thing that this movie has going for it is the lack of actual action on the diamond. There are some great scenes of actual baseball, one at bat by Hatteberg in particular struck a chord with me, but for the most part the action is behind the scenes. There is enough for a sports junkie to get their fix and enough drama and with Beane and his family to entice any average viewer into the theater. I can't think of many target groups that wouldn't find it interesting, except for children, due to language and complexity of some of the dialogue. All in all this is one movie that will please a lot of people, and more importantly a lot of different people, sort of like The Blind Side, only the movie is actually really good.

Shut up and drive

2011-09-17T00:59:00.008-04:00

Calm, cool, collected. There are a ton of characters who fall under this description, but there are only a handful that stand out above the rest. Rick Blaine in Casablanca. Jef Costello in Le Samourai. Jack from The American. These characters are methodical. They don't lose control easily, but if they do you would never know.

It's safe to say that the Driver from Drive can be added to that prestigious list.

Drive is the cool, smart, festival favorite of the year helmed by Nicolas Winding Refn (Bronson, Valhalla Rising, Pusher). Based on the book by the same name, Drive follows the Driver, played by Ryan Gosling in a tour de force. He's a nameless, mechanic who does a few jobs on the side. Sometimes he's a stunt driver for Hollywood movies. Other times he's a getaway driver. Regardless the setting he works with efficiency and composure.

His handler Shannon, played by a fantastic Bryan Cranston, extorts his talents at the shop and with other jobs, but the driver doesn't mind. Shannon is a guy with the best of intentions just trying to get luck back on his side. His problem is associating with gangsters, played by Albert Brooks in a surprisingly nasty performance and Ron Perlman, his nasty partner in crime.

The driver, with his tough exterior and cold stare, has one soft spot; his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son Benicio. Her husband is currently doing a stretch in prison and the driver takes it upon himself to keep her safe, even when things start to get really ugly.

Drive is a samurai type story set in Los Angeles. The driver has morals that he stands by. He doesn't take advantage of people, he isn't concerned with material things, and if you wrong him you better run. Gosling plays the role with a certain grace rarely seen on the big screen. He speaks with his facial expressions. A glance, a twitch resembling a smile. When he does speak you listen. His words are selected carefully. No small talk, just enough to get his point across. He does the rest of the talking with his hands.

The rest of the cast does an excellent job. Mulligan continues to shine as well as Breaking Bad's Cranston. Cranston especially had a certain quality about him. The way he carried himself made me feel like he knew exactly who he was playing and what he had been through. It was interesting seeing Brooks in a tough guy role, seeing as he seems to nab the slightly neurotic and always comical characters (Finding Nemo, The In-Laws, Defending Your Life), and Perlman continues his string of rugged performances.

Refn's style carries over from his previous films, an impressive feat considering he's used three different cinematographers on his four major films. There's violence when there needs to be, there's an excellent musical selection, and there's fantastic camera work. The angles, the cutaways, all perfect. He manages his action scenes with extreme care. We get an excellent dose of action with character decision and reaction. He doesn't bog us down with a heavy musical score or a plethora of shaky cam cuts. We get nice, smooth shots, showing us the craft of the chase.

This film is going to be a slow mover for some viewers. If you're looking for a high octane thrill ride, I would either prepare for a bit of a wait, or go see something else. There's a lot of waiting, but if you can handle the wait it is well worth it. It's more violent and more intense than The American, which might have been the most underrated movie last year, but it shares in that less is more quality.

A big win for both Gosling's career and Refn. With his last string of movies Gosling has really stepped up his game. He's more than just a face. This role allowed him to look good and kick some ass, all without taking his shirt off, something a standard Hollywood action flick would require. Expect this film to maintain it's headway heading into award season. I'm basically guaranteeing at least Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor nods, with the possibility of supporting actor nods for Cranston and Brooks. Who knows, it could be a double nod year for Gosling who's co-starring with Clooney in Clooney's The Ides of March.

An education of sorts

2011-09-14T10:59:00.005-04:00

There are few things I enjoy doing more than watching a new film. One of those things might be introducing one to someone. It's like giving someone a present. You know what's inside the box, but they have to unwrap it to find out.

With compliance from my girlfriend (although after this experiment she might break up with me), she has agreed to let me show her two movies every week, one classic, one contemporary, in an attempt to broaden her horizons ever so slightly, and to give her a glimpse at what I see when I watch a movie.

There are some ground rules. I will try to pick films that I genuinely think she will enjoy. Already I have eliminated almost all of David Lynch's work (with the exception of The Straight Story) and most likely foreign films from the 60s and 70s, although I think we'll dabble with one or two just to test the waters. Silent films are also on the bubble, but I think I can find one or two that will make her smile (enter Sunrise and The General). I will also pick films that she has already seen. This will hopefully cause her to view a film from a different angle.

Just to clarify, I'm not putting a specific time frame for a classic film, as there are several films from the 90s that are without a doubt classics (Pulp Fiction, Fargo, The Matrix, Saving Private Ryan), and I might go as far as saying a handful films from the EARLY 2000s could be considered classic (Gladiator, Almost Famous, Mulholland Dr.), but for the most part as you enter the late 90s, things will be lumped into contemporary.

This experiment isn't just to appease me. Since we both are recent graduates it allows us to have some sort of routine. I'm not giving her writing assignments (though I'm flirting with reading assignments), just a friendly conversation post-film will suffice.

Now one thing remains...

Where to begin???

I wanted to start with a statement film. A real BANG! So this past Monday, just two days ago, we watched the first film of her "education." Carol Reed's The Third Man, one of the best film-noirs and ranked among the best British films of all time. Her reaction...not what I expected. She gave it a 7/10, a good score, but I thought she would really dig herself into it. She did like the music, that classic zither score, which I thought would be too much of a distraction. So if there is anything to take away, she likes a clever score. At least we got something out of it.

For the second film I have chosen Exit Through the Gift Shop. This is in part because I recently just bought a book containing Banksy's art and commentary, but also because it's a different story from the streets. The Third Man is a more conventional narrative, scouring the streets of Vienna trying find answers. Exit Through the Gift Shop takes to the streets and shows us an underground scene of Graffiti art, as told through the lens of an obsessed man.

I know, it's a stretch, but I've heard worse descriptions and comparisons in college so give me a break. Seeing as The Third Man didn't go over as well as I'd hoped, I figured I'd give this a shot, and she enjoyed it. Banksy's humor and the outrageous stunts he pulls, as well as the ridiculous man named Thierry Guetta went over well.

As for next week's assignment I'm unsure of where to go. I think from now on I'd like to have a theme to the week, so I'm thinking Casablanca to start followed by Shopgirl. Who knows. Could work. I'm open to suggestions so please feel free to comment with your help.

The summer that was episode III: Now what?

2011-09-12T03:01:00.007-04:00

As the autumn winds come rolling in, I sit here, pondering my next move. Not just what movie I'll put in next (I'm leaning towards John Cassavettes' A Woman Under the Influence, or maybe Paul Leni's The Man Who Laughs, there's really no way of knowing). For the first time in my life there isn't a clear blueprint laid in front of me. There isn't a road I can take that has a clear path. It's littered with trees, winding curves, dense fog, and deer xing's. Maybe even a mudslide.

(The Coliseum. Needless to say Gladiator quotes were flying)

All I know for certain is that this past summer, the summer that was, was one of the most life changing I've been through. For those who do not know, I recently took a month long trip through most of Western Europe. It was a nine city tour in twenty-three days with stops in London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Venice, and Rome. I've seen the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, the Berlin Wall, and the Coliseum. I've stood on the ground where tens of thousands of Jews lost their lives at Sachsenhausen concentration camp, looked down from Palatine Hill onto the Roman Forum, and fed the pigeons on the steps of St. Paul's Cathedral. I've eaten French toast, Belgian waffles, and pizzas in their countries of origin. I've prayed in front of the wood of Christ's nativity manger and walked through the bookcase into Anne Frank's annex. I've seen the sun set over the Grand Canal in Venice and watched it rise again over the Alps.

(writing down some thoughts in front of Maneken Pis in Brussels)

It's a strange feeling to have accomplished so many things in just under a month. Yet now months after the fact I sit here, the soft glow of my laptop bathing me in a bluish, white light, unsure of my next move. I would give my arm to go back to Europe. To see the buildings, taste the food, feel the electricity. I would give anything just to feel like a privileged man, walking about a foreign land like an ambassador, my backpack full of clothes, gifts, and a pair of size-15 dress shoes.

(REAL French toast)

I know that I will go back to Europe. It won't be tomorrow or the next day. Hell it might not be until my honeymoon or when I decide my kids are ready to handle a trip like that. But being in Europe made me feel like I still had something left to do, be it getting from one train to the next or going to find some melon gelato. When I landed back on American soil I was overwhelmed with a feeling of accomplishment, like I had just finished my final exams all over again. Then I felt empty. I knew that with this trip over and done with, I only had a few months of summer before fall came and I would have to decide what kind of real person I must be.

(Famous lions of Trafalgar Sqaure. London, UK)

Well, here's where I'm at. I'm currently looking for a job as a throws coach for Boston area colleges. Now that the sport I have given my all to for nearly a decade is behind me, I feel it is time to give back. Meanwhile I look forward to working on my screenplays and perhaps a short film here and there, documentary and narrative.

At least this is what I've come up with to tell people. For those who have not graduate college yet, you need to come up with something to tell people once you graduate. You will not be spared of this question. It's not malicious, but people who have graduated or are in the real world will want to know. They were asked to. Just watch The Graduate. You'll understand.

In all honesty I'm not sure what is going to happen in the coming years, months, weeks, days. All I know for sure as of this moment is that when I finish typing this entry, I'm going to upload a few pictures to spruce it up a bit, read it over for basic grammar (maybe), go the bathroom, brush my teeth, put my two aging dogs in their bed, and then fall asleep myself. After that, it's up in the air. I don't know if I'll dream, if I'll sleep in, if I'll have breakfast, I just don't know.

And you know what, that's okay by me. I have the support of a wonderful family and a loving girlfriend (at least until they hound me to get a move on). But I'm taking my time, getting things done at my pace, and I get to watch a movie every other night or so. It's a good deal. Today I woke up before noon (win), had some left overs for lunch, watched football, went outside for a catch, worked on the previous blog, cooked ribs on the grill (they were spectacular by the way), lit a fire and roasted marshmallows with my lady in my fire pit, and came inside to watch John Cassavettes Faces, a really gritty, very 60s drama about sex, love, and how the two just don't mix. All in all it was a good day.

To my fellow graduates of 2011, I give you this piece of advice: relax. If you don't have a job right now you are not alone. I would start thinking about it as I am. I'm fortunate that I have a few nibbles out there, but who knows what will happen. Nobody has a crystal ball or an 8-ball really, or at least one that is THAT reliable. Although if you DO have any of those please let me and everyone else know. It's not fair that you have been hogging it all along.

So relax, sit back, watch a movie, and do what is best for you and yours. There's a lot of living out there, and I don't see a shortage coming any time soon (although if you watch the documentary Collapse...you might think otherwise).

Here's to the summer that was and the fall that will be. May we all find jobs, prosper, and pray that the fifth installment of the Pirates franchise falls through.

The summer that was episode II: The Directors

2011-09-10T00:23:00.010-04:00

Now, for those keeping score, yes, I included three films by Gus Van Sant in my bottom ten. And yes, they were three of the worst movies I watched this summer. I made it a goal at the start of the summer to finish watching all of Van Sant's movies up until this point, ending with the soon to be release of Restless. Having seen all of Van Sant's work, there is, no surprise, a lot of homosexual hints and themes, much like Almodovar. Both filmmakers are out of the closet, and both incorporate their sexual orientation with characters they write and situations. I knew that well before I started my Van Sant quest.

I started with his earliest feature, Mala Noche, A raw, gritty tale that deals with the definition of love and companionship. Though I wasn't totally in favor of the film, I admired his boldness for storytelling and unflinching, natural situations. It's a model for his next two films. Drugstore Cowboys and My Own Private Idaho. His next film, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, well, there's a reason it's number one on my bottom list for the summer. It's too wacky, there's a lack of real, likable characters, and overall, just a bad idea for a film.

That's a common trait with his "bad" movies. They're not poorly made, at least technically. They're just bad ideas. Roger Ebert approached him at a film festival and asked him why he remade Psycho, to which Van Sant replied, "So that no one else would have to." In his review of Gerry, Ebert goes on to describe Van Sant as "an adult removing dangerous toys from the reach of reckless kids." I couldn't agree more. He made three, what I would consider, bad movies. Cowgirls, Psycho, and Gerry. They were all well made, just bad ideas. A hitchhiker with large thumbs, a remake of Hitchcock's classic of the same name, and two men who wander in the Utah desert, talking in an almost "bro code."

What I did learn is how much diversity there is in the stories and genres he tackles. There is a modern adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry plays in My Own Private Idaho, a quasi-documentary/dark comedy with To Die For, and the story of a reclusive author who mentors an inner city student in Finding Forrester. He is loyal to his material/subject, as apparent in Milk, Last Days, and Psycho, and he's also inventive in his storytelling, like the hypnotic and deeply moving Elephant. He doesn't fit a mold, he is an ever changing filmmaker. From the incredibly successful (Good Will Hunting) to the hardly noticed (Paranoid Park). All of his films, regardless if you like them or not, have integrity, heart, and are made with the best of intentions.

I wasn't happy with just following one filmmaker. Another filmmaker who has a film coming out this fall/winter, Dark Horse (recently among the contenders for the Venice Film Festival's Golden Lion), is Todd Solondz. If you're not familiar with his work, a word to the wise; he's got a taste for the ultra dark. His films tackle really heavy issues, including but not limited to child molestation, prostitution, masturbation, murder, etc. If it's dark, Solondz probably found something more disturbing.

I was first introduced to his work a few years back when I rented Happiness, a deeply disturbed and demented story interweaving the lives of many characters all searching for some form of happiness, be it moral or immoral. I gave it some time to sink in (a few years). I went back and started with his first major feature film, Welcome to the Dollhouse, an incredible film about a middle child pushed to the limit as far as getting attention from her family.

One taboo that Solondz forces us to deal with is putting children in dangerous situations. Stephen King does it with many of his stories, but those are circumstances. These situations are mentally and physically dangerous. A girl forcing herself to sleep with older men because she wants to have a baby in Palindromes. A boy having a sleepover with his pedophiliac father at home in Happiness. Very uncomfortable for us, but for the characters it's like any other day.

Out of Solondz's darkness comes a sort of tainted light. His most twisted scenes or scenarios are shown through an almost comical light. It's strange. He never totally gets too bogged down with the seriousness of a situation. He's always looking for the comedy in tragedy and the tragedy in comedy. He forces us to come out of our comfort zone and live in the skin of these characters. See what they see and how they react. It's almost surreal to see a character act in the opposite way that you think they should. It gives way for some excellent conversation.

Another filmmaker that I dabbled in was Chantal Akerman. I first got a taste of this Belgian filmmaker at school with Les rendez-vous d'Anna. I didn't quite get into it, but I really fell for the unique storytelling and incredible visuals. Five months and five films later, I think I've had my fill of Akerman for now, though I'd be willing to try some 0f her more recent work. She is not afraid, in fact I'd go so far as to say she prefers, to show us the monotony of life, the unimportance of an action, and how we project our own feelings onto an image.

Three of her films (La Chambre, Hotel Monterey, and News from Home) are virtually silent, the latter having street sounds and voice over narration. All we can do is analyze action, if there is:L w any, and the We put our own stories, our own thoughts, our wishes onto the screen, sometimes out of frustration. I can't say I've ever experienced anything like it before.

Her boldest work (at least from what I've seen) is Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. For those who get bored from a movie like, say, Gandhi or The English Patient, perhaps you should steer clear of this one. Even if you like those movies (like me) you might want to be careful of Jeanne Dielman. For the first hour, I was confused. Utterly confused. The entire film takes place over the course of three days. With a run time of just over 200 minutes, we see a lot, but what we see is the in between things. The titular character is a single mother working to support her son. Unbeknownst to him she moonlights as a prostitute. It sounds like a really interesting and potentially explosive story.

All we see is mundane tasks like preparing dinner, doing laundry, shopping, and looking after a neighbor's baby. When a John comes over, the film cuts right as the bedroom door closes to the door opening again. It shows what a average film would overlook and hides what it would showcase. Again, Akerman forces us to paste our own thoughts and perspective onto a scene. What is going through Jeanne's head as she stares blankly over the meal she prepares? Why doesn't she show a single emotion? Is she happy? What would I say to her? Akerman, at least in the films I've seen of hers, allows you to write your own story.

The summer that was episode I: The Lists

2011-09-07T11:58:00.006-04:00

Pools are covered, potato salad has been replaced with apple pies. Autumn is rapidly closing in.

The dog days of summer are coming to an end meaning that blockbuster season is over. Allow me to be the first to say...

THANK THE LORD!!!!

What a horrendous summer it was at the megaplex! I did most of my movie watching from the comfort of my own home thanks to our dear old friend Netflix. I did go out and catch a few that caught my eye, but compared to summers past when I took in upwards of 20 films, this summer I managed to clock in less than half. Though most of the films I did pay money to see were enjoyable, I couldn't come away totally clean. Here's the top...well, I guess this isn't really a "top" list since I only saw nine. We'll call it "the order from top to bottom of the movies I saw in theaters this summer" (ugh).

The Tree of Life (10/10)

Far and away the best film of the summer. Terrence Malick's suburban allegory is certainly not a film any Tom, Dick, or Harry can go see, but for those who can get lost in its haunting imagery and thought provoking story, they will not be disappointed. Regardless of what Sean Penn has said about the film not being up to snuff when compared to the screenplay, this movie deserves all the praise it gets. Going into the fall, this is the top dog to beat.

Another Earth (9/10)

Propably the coolest concept for a film this summer, maybe in the past few years. This indie sci/fi drama hybrid blends together all the right elements of tragedy, science fiction, and romance to make a really interesting and cerebral film. The special effects are simple and to the point, letting us absorb more of the story than the technical aspects. The end is a big payoff, leaving the door open for questions, arguments, and a lot of post-movie watching discussion.

The Trip (8/10)

Impersonations have never been funnier than in this romp through the English countryside with Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon. Michael Winterbottom's follow up to Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story pits the stars against one another in a battle of wits (sort of speak). Coogan and Brydon are on top of their game with this much improvised and extremely intelligent pseudo comedy/mockumentary.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams (8/10)

Werner Herzog. The name brings a flood of images. The monkeys swarming Aguirre's raft, a giant steamboat being pulled up hill, the cold, alien world under the Antarctic ice. He bombards us with another ocular overload. Here he takes us into the famous Chauvet caves of Southern France where the earliest examples of cave paintings are preserved. This rare look at the spectacular paintings might be the last for a long time, and should not be passed up.

Horrible Bosses (8/10)

Jason Bateman is the actor people are more familiar with, Jason Sudeikis is someone more people are getting to know, and Charlie Day is someone a select group of people know, much like the Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis Hangover formula, only it's not The Hangover. The cast overall is outstanding. It succeeds in casting actors out of their element (Jennifer Aniston as a sex-craved dentist and Colin Farrell as a balding, drug addict). It's a really funny movie that will most likely fade away in a year or two, but will hopefully boost the careers of Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis as they make their way to the top (much like Helms and Galifianakis).

Cowboys & Aliens (7/10)

This movie was the biggest risk of the summer. James Bond (Daniel Craig) and Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) going toe to toe in a movie which gives away most of the plot in the title. Still, for a movie called Cowboys & Aliens it's a pretty decent watch. It's not a masterpiece and certainly not Favreau's best work, but it got the job done to a certain degree. The opening is pretty nice and after watching I was intrigued to check out the source material of the same name. I have yet to do so, but it's on my list.

Beginners (7/10)

Ewan McGreggor plays the depressed 30-something in this indie black comedy about a man trying to cope with the loss of this father (Christopher Plummer) who in his wanning months reveals that he is and has been a homosexual. This could have been so much more, were it not for the somewhat deadpan and almost annoying portrayal of McGreggor's character. I also would have loved the film to have been in the present, without the large amount of flashbacks. I wanted to see McGreggor with his father in real time, not in memories.

Winnie the Pooh (6/10)

It's awfully hard to make a sequel nearly 40 years after the first film. In animation it's a little more plausible due to the fact that the characters don't age, but the voices sure change a lot. That was my first gripe with the movie, but I forgave it. It's a really cute movie that has a lot of cute musical numbers, but overall I wasn't entirely enthralled. I was hoping for something a little more cutting edge as far as animation standards, but instead we get a glossy, borderline direct to Disney DVD film.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (3/10)

I really had no intention of seeing this movie AT ALL. But, when you're home with nothing to do on a weeknight in the early stages of summer, you sometimes to bold, brash things. Those of you who still hang onto the olden days of the first POTC film, LET GO! The honeymoon is over! It ended after the first film. I am embarrassed to admit that I have been suckered into purchasing tickets for all three sequels, but I say with conviction that I will NOT attend the fifth sequel. This movie was an embarrassment to the Disney World ride I love, and I wish Jerry Bruckheimer and Johnny Depp would part ways and go on to bigger and better things.

Well, there's thoughts on the megaplex films this summer. Here's a quick rundown of the top movies I watched in the comfort of my own home.

The Top 20

1. Caché (pictured above)

2. Last Night

3. Our Hospitality

4. Dear Zachary

5. Somewhere

6. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

7. The Hill

8. Finding Forrester

9. The Claim

10. Eight Men Out

11. The Naked Kiss

12. Jeanne Dielman 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 BruxellesTo Die For

13. Hearts & Minds

14. Storytelling

15. The Bridge

16. Palindromes

17. Win Win

18. I Stand Alone

19. Death of a Salesman

20. The Devil's Backbone

And the Bottom 10 (starting with the worst film I watched this summer):

1. Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (pictured above)

2. The Day of the Triffids

3. Flesh for Frankenstein

4. Road House

5. Gerry

6. Gog

7. Alexander

8. Dogville

9. Hail Mary

10. Psycho

As far as things I learned, I have come to realize the genius that is Michael Haneke (director of Caché, top of my list), how to scare an audience with the story and not just images (The Devil's Backbone), and to never judge a director by his earliest work (Robert Altman's The Delinquents, Gus Van Sant's Mala Noche, Chantal Akerman's Hotel Monterey).

Tune in for another installment shortly...

News Brief

2011-08-02T01:29:00.004-04:00

The autumn winds are rolling in (at least in New England) and that means what was a dreaded summer slate of movies has just about been put to bed. Granted I was abroad for a month I must say that this summer has offered very little as far as summer releases. I'm still catching up on a few that I missed AND I did catch a few gems in theaters, but for the most part I stuck with Netflix streaming and DVDs to keep me occupied.

Compared to summer's past this was by far my least amount of new films watched. That said, I still managed 70 new ones. I'll have the good and the bad hopefully later today (seeing as it's past midnight). The one thing I did manage to do this summer was watch the films of Gus Van Sant. Quite a collection of films he made. A few masterpieces along with a few bombshells. They can't all be Christopher Nolans and Wes Andersons. Oh well.

On a quick note I'm contemplating starting up some video blogs. If you're reading this I'd enjoy your input (opinions and ideas are both welcome). Blog y'all later!

Fluff and stuff

2011-07-30T01:14:00.002-04:00

Disney has the best of intentions when the make a movie. They try to please a wide variety of audience members while pushing the envelope from a technical standpoint. They write cute songs timed perfectly with colorful and dazzling animations. Yet, there is something quite not right these days, this time in the Hundred Acre Wood.

Disney Animation Studio's (DAS) 51st animated feature Winnie the Pooh takes us back into the stories of A.A. Milne. There a donkey named Eeyore, Kanga, and Little Roo. There's Rabbit, and Piglet, and there's Owl, but most of all Winnie the Pooh (there is also Tigger, but he is not apart of the song). In this installment, Eeyore has lost his tail and it's up to the gang to either find his old tail or fashion a replacement one.

Like the previous installment by DAS back in 1977, the stories are simple, much like the minds of their characters. The one genius thing about the Winnie the Pooh stories are how the minds of the characters imitate the minds of the child, Christopher Robin. After all, the characters are all imagined in the mind of Christopher, so it makes sense that they have the same thought process. Even the wisest of characters, Owl, who uses big words and impresses the others, is as outlandish and nonsensical as Tigger. It's not to say that these characters are unintelligent. Like a child they are still learning. They are gullible, easily excited, fearless in the face of real danger and scared in the face of imagined danger.

1977's The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh was a breakthrough not just in animation but in style. The physics of the film are still untouchable today. The way the characters act out certain scenes inside the book, walking across sentences, leaping from page to page, etc. It's still a joy to watch today. This new version uses a very similar format both in the physical storytelling and in the story arc. There is nothing incredibly different in this film compared to its predecessor, only the voices have changed and the animation is glossier.

For children who have not been exposed to the original film, I suppose this would be a nice film to grow up with. It's cute, innocent, and has a good moral backbone. The animation is up to snuff with Disney standards. It has a beautiful palette and a really nice finish. The characters haven't changed, only the quality of the animation, and for that I thank Disney.

For those who grew up with the 1977 original, this might be a sour grape in the bunch of DAS features. There is too much music, not enough action, and almost follows the old format to a "T." One aspect that Disney is not at fault at is the voice acting. Having grown up listening to Sterling Holloway as the voice of Pooh Bear, I knew going in that this wouldn't be the same. The same goes for the rest of the characters, and I applaud Jim Cummings filling in as both Pooh and Tigger. An arduous task to say the least and he does so with style. Still, I miss the old voices and will always associate those stories to the voices. New audiences will have no problem whatsoever.

The music. The original film had one big number (Heffalumps and Woozles) with a few minor songs thrown about ("Little Black Raincloud," "The rain, rain, rain came down" to name a few). This film seemed weighted down by some of the musical numbers. There are two larger numbers and what seemed like a lot of little ones thrown about. Part of the problem is that the film has such a short run time (barely over an hour) so the numbers are close together, taking away from the action of the story. Some are forced in there when a few lines of dialogue could have helped. It shows that there really wasn't that much of a story to begin with. Not to bash on the music too much, but I am not a huge Zooey Deschannel fan to begin with (at least on the mic) so that didn't help. Sorry Zooey.

Other than these problems the main thing I had wrong with the film was how eerily similar the format was to the original. From the songs to the jokes I was disappointed with the unoriginality of it all. That's not to say the entire film is a rip off, but I wanted to see something new, rather than the same format.

Regardless, it's a decent effort and another sign that Disney hasn't completely given up on making animated features the old fashioned way, though I was surprised by how little advertisement was put into the film's release. Did they forget or just run out of money after all of the Cars 2 ads? Children will enjoy, especially the young ones. This will be a nice DVD to pull out for a car ride or a rainy day. It's hard for a film like this to compete with the 3-D juggernauts of Cars 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2, but I commend DAS in their effort and pray that their next releases is something to write home about. It looks like the next few releases might be computer animated like Tangled and Bolt, so who knows what could happen. Disney's roots are embedded in ink and paint, but how much longer will the magic last? It will be a sad day when the ink wells dry up at Disney.

Once upon a time in the west...

2011-07-29T22:45:00.003-04:00

Certain movie titles just don't lie. Snakes on a Plane. Batman Begins. Ghandi. You know exactly what you're getting into when you see a movie with a title like this.

This weekend another film debuts to join the club of "on the nose film titles." Cowboys & Aliens.

Based on the graphic novel of the same name, Cowboys & Aliens takes us back to a post-Civil War west, similar to the west evoked in the glory days of westerns, or for you readers out there who didn't receive a healthy dose of John Wayne and John Ford, think Unforgiven. We meet a man with no memory (Daniel Craig), who we later find out is Jake Lonergan, wanted for armed robbery and murder. He doesn't know his name, where he came from, our how he ended up in the middle of the desert with a large metal cuff on his wrist. He wanders into a nearby town where he winds up getting into more trouble. He gets the attention of the sheriff and the wealthiest man in town, Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). Ford knows Jake as the man who robbed his train. He wants to hang him up, but he won't get his wish.

The town is bombarded by a wave of alien spacecraft, the kind the throw bombs and suck up victims with lights and ropes. Six-shooters and Winchester rifles do nothing but make noise. It is here that we find out the purpose of the metal cuff on Jake's arm.

If you've seen the trailer you can pretty much guess what the film is about. One man, wanted for murder, is the key to the town's survival against the alien invaders, as well as the key to getting back the abducted townsfolk. Simple enough. That's what I expected and that is what I received. The only part I didn't account for was how entertained I was.

I have a tendency to look past the surface of the screen, at the dialogue, camera shot selection, lighting effects, etc. Here I was more concerned about whether or not a Cowboys & Aliens toy gun like the one Craig uses would be available in time for Christmas. The movie is fairly simple but the concept is, to put it bluntly, really cool!

Think about it for a second. Put yourself in the wild west of the 1870s. You're exiting a saloon and are about to mount your trusty steed. Then on the horizon a line of lights appear. Unlike anything you've seen before. Suddenly you are surrounded by lights, sounds, and explosions the likes of which you never dreamed of. The weapon you carry in your holster has been made useless. All you can do is try to survive. It's kind of frightening. These characters didn't even think about creatures from another world. They have enough issues with the Natives of the country.

Favreau doesn a fantastic job in recreating the old west and throwing it into the middle of this utterly preposterous situation. The clothing, sets, and weapons harken back to the days of Wyatt Earp and the O.K. Corral. Taking a genre as familiar as the west and placing it in the context of a science fiction story makes too much sense. Most science fiction stories have roots in the west. A hero versus a villain. The threat of outsiders. Foreign landscapes. Big shoot outs. The storylines cross over so much that they were bound to collide some day.

The two leads of the film, Craig and Ford, or James Bond and Indiana Jones, work hand in hand, feeding off each other's sharpness. Craig has a cold, icy stare, like you don't know what he is going to do next, but he knows exactly (perfectly describes his character). Ford plays angry better than most. His scowl is legendary, and puts it to plenty of good use here. The supporting cast of Sam Rockwell, Keith Carradine, Olivia Wilde, and Adam Beach do a fine job. Nothing outstanding (except for maybe Rockwell), but still a decent job.

It's not a perfect film even if it is a summer blockbuster. There were a few moments where I shook my head and asked why, but for the majority I was entertained. Action junkies will certainly get their money's worth, and best of all it comes at a 2-D price. No glasses required and no extra fee (though the price still stings a bit). It's War of the Worlds meets The Searchers. Not the best match, but one that you can handle. Enjoy.

Six characters in search of meaning

2011-07-20T01:01:00.008-04:00

A tree is a symbol of strength, wisdom, perseverance, and purity. It's appearance is simple; leaves, branches, trunk. Inside and underneath the earth's surface is a thriving ecosystem living on top of a vast network of roots. Some trees survive for hundreds and hundreds of years. Others are cut down prematurely, sold for fuel or decorations. A tree protects us, provides for us, inspires and in the end becomes our final resting place. I could go on about trees or anything for that matter, the point is that it isn't until you take a moment to understand and analyze something that you find out it's true identity. It's true purpose.

In Terrence Malick's latest film The Tree of Life, we are presented with a meditative examination of memories and the importance they play in our understanding of a particular event. Our focus is on a middle-American family that experiences the unexpected death of a child. Flashes of what appear to be random events flood the screen, both past and present. We see images of family members grieving intertwined with scenes of joy.There is no particular order, only images that we try desperately to identify, organize, and make sense of.

Then we go back.

Way back.

We see the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets with vivid, spellbinding imagery. Think 2001: A Space Odyssey, only a little more straightforward (only a little bit more). Then life begins to erupt on Earth. Creatures rise out of the sea. A lush, vibrant environment covers the earth. Beasts roam the landscape.

Then we are in 1950s Texas. The O'Brien family begins with a baby. Jack (the grown-up version is played by Sean Penn). He grows up and so does the family. Soon there are three boys. Strapping, young lads who want nothing more than to be boys. They mother, portrayed Jessica Chastain in a breakthrough performance, nurtures the children into accepting that the only way to get through life is with love and kindness. Their father, played by Brad Pitt who continues to churn out the Oscar-bait, runs his house a little differently than his wife. He believes in God, music, manners, and toughness. To call him unjust is too harsh. Stern is more acceptable.

Days are filled with rolling through fields of tall grass and riding their bikes alongside DDT spraying trucks. All the while the father operates an industrial factory to support his family. He is a man full of ambition but lacks the right tools and the right connections to make it in the world. His quick temper and demand for discipline keeps the children on edge when he is around, and free-spirited when he isn't looking.

Like I said before about the tree, in order to understand something you must investigate further. In regards to the death of the child, in order to understand the death you can't just look at the circumstances leading up to the death, you have to go back. Back before the child was born. Back before the oceans ever crashed against the shore. To understand the importance of a life and the reason for death you have to see how nature has operated since time began. To see that a life doesn't boil down to just one incident. Dwelling on death will only lead to despair. It's all of the moments prior to that matter. All of the laughs, all of the tears. That's what a life is about. Life can be unpredictable and downright cruel, but it's more fulfilling when you are thankful for the time you have.

That's how I read the film. It seems like Malick isn't just focusing on the life and death of a person, but on the life and death of an era, the importance of family, sibling relationships, and self discovery. He does so with some of the best cinematography in recent memory. Thanks to Malick's direction, Emmanuel Lubezki, who's worked with Alfonso Cuaron, the Coen Brothers, Tim Burton, Mike Nichols, and now Malick for a second time, was able to capture life from a variety of angles. We weave in and out of characters, float amongst them, with them, and are taken to strange, beautiful places. It has an almost documentary/guerrilla style that takes us into the film. He also uses a lot of natural lighting, giving the film a quality seldom seen on the big screen today.

Accompanying the images is a beautiful score by Alexandre Desplat (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fantastic Mr. Fox) and softly spoken narration from various characters in the film. All together it creates an incredibly moving experience that might take a while to fully comprehend, but when it hits you, WHAM! It hits you.

There isn't another movie out there like it. The obvious comparison is to Kubrick's 2001, but the two are on totally different wavelengths. Both incredibly powerful with what they are discussing, but discussing different things. Some will find this movie boring. Other's confusing. But those of you that can connect with just one aspect of the film will be overwhelmed with satisfaction. You won't find the meaning in the film. You have to look inside to put your own meaning behind the images. Therein lies the true power of The Tree of Life.

When life hands you lemons...wrestle

2011-07-03T11:22:00.006-04:00

Desperate times. That's one way of describing the current economic condition. Mike Flaherty would absolutely agree with me on that. Desperate times often do call for desperate measures. That is the subject of Thomas McCarthy's indie comedy Win Win.

Mike Flaherty, played by Paul Giamatti, is a lawyer in New Jersey whose private practice has seen better days. Just to add to his depression, the high school wrestling team he coaches is in search of its first win on the season. His life is spiraling downward, and he doesn't have the heart to tell his wife (Amy Ryan) and child of the current situation.

And then a glimmer of hope shines through. An elderly man he is representing (a wealthy elderly man played by Rocky's Burt Young) is about to be put into an assisted living home mandated by the state unless he has a full time guardian. The guardian will be payed $1500 a month. Seeing this as a chance to make some extra cash, Mike becomes the guardian, but places the man in a home anyways.

Another miracle lands on his doorstep. Well, technically the elderly man's doorstep. It's his grandson, Kyle, who has come to stay with him. Mike takes Kyle in and agrees to help him out for a while until he goes back home. After attending one of Mike's practices, Kyle gets the itch to start wrestling. Turns out Kyle is one of the purest wrestlers Mike has ever seen, considering he hasn't wrestled in several years. Mike's luck is starting to turn around.

As I am sure you can tell, there are complications, involving the old man, Kyle, and later on Kyle's mother. What makes Win Win just a win for the audience is how intricate the story is woven around these characters. It's a very tight script with real characters. Kyle, played by Alex Shaffer, gives a very real portrayal of an American teenager. Subdued, a bit strange, and misunderstood. He's not over the top in either direction. Everyone calls him such a nice boy, but comments on his hair and clothes like he's an alien. He is a nice boy and does have strange hair, but he's more than just sweet and strange. There's a lot going on under the surface.

Giamatti gives another great underdog performance. Nothing like performance in Sideways, but still very good. This character's life isn't completely falling apart, but much like the noisy furnace at his law practice, something is looming on the horizon and it might blow up. Giamatti is the king of the cold stare. It looks like he's been through just about everything you can think of. Divorce, war, children, death, success, and is now on the brink of a mid life crisis. He's so good at speaking with his eyes.

He isn't alone in this movie with fellow Oscar nominees Amy Ryan and Burt Young, Jeffrey Tambor, Melanie Lynskey, and Bobby Cannavale, who plays a similar character that writer/director Thomas McCarthy used in one of his earlier films, The Station Agent (rent/buy if you haven't already seen it). They are all strong, quirky supporting characters that aid in Giamatti's performance, giving him much to play off of.

It's a small movie that will most likely get left behind come award season, but with a little bit of luck and some positive word of mouth from viewers like you, Win Win might not get left behind. Everybody wins!

Disney's most violent film EVER! (perhaps their biggest waste of money, too!)

2011-05-30T01:21:00.006-04:00

Some films leave a bad taste in your mouth (sometimes due to bad popcorn). After watching the latest installment of the Pirates' franchise, bad taste is an understatement.

The one word I kept repeating as I watched Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was, "Why?" Why haven't they explained the disappearance of the characters from the previous films? Why are mermaids a complete ripoff of sirens? Why was this movie made???

All questions aside, let's go through the brief synopsis. The film opens with the Spanish discovering a book that leads to the fountain of youth. Jump to London, we find Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and his first mate Gibbs (Kevin McNally) in a tight bind (per usual). In an attempt to acquire a new ship, he runs into an old flame, Angelica (Penélope Cruz). Without giving away too much, Sparrow and Angelica wind up on Captain Blackbeard's boat (Ian McShane), who is also in search of the fountain.

Meanwhile, Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush), under orders of the King of England, is on a mission to beat the Spanish to the fountain. Though his pirate roots run deep, he uses the English for his own personal gain, the reason for which is revealed later.

To be honest, there isn't much to the story without revealing some marginally important plot points like relationships being revealed and character histories. Here's what you need to know, there are three main parties rushing towards the fountain of youth. They all cross each other's paths from time to time, and they each have their own motives for reaching the fountain. To use the fountain's powers they must perform a ritual that requires two silver cups from Ponce de Leon, a tear from a mermaid, and a human sacrifice.

Let's start with what works, as that list is the shortest. The special effects are decent. Nothing new from the previous films, just decent. Depp hasn't lost a step with Captain Jack, though he hasn't learned any new tricks. Not a good thing, not a bad thing. The same goes for Rush. To be honest, that's all I have to say as far as compliments go, and those weren't really compliments. More like aspects of the film that I didn't strongly dislike.

I'll begin with the action. Over the top is one way to describe it. Boring is another. I think it's best to call it pointless. There are chases and sword fights that seem to go on and on when there was really no need for it. There is a part where two opposing characters are about to face off, swords in hand, fire in their eyes. Just before they face off with their bands of troops behind them, Jack Sparrow steps in, noting that it is only the two men who have the conflict. A valid argument, but the men fight anyways. The fight is eerily similar to the one that took place at the end of the first Pirates movie. How interesting.

The story? Flawed. It comes off as if it were written to be made into a video game. There are small quests, puzzles, and sword fights galore. Every bit of which is predictable as the one before it. Accompanying this story is a cast of new characters, also predictable and uninteresting. For the fourth straight movie we meet a new pirate captain, one that is supposedly unbeatable, infamous for past battles. The writers are running out of pirate lore to exploit. Who is next? Captain Hook? Sandwich? Morgan?

Now, in regards to the title of my blog. This is by far the most violent Disney film ever. I'm not just talking about a few bad guys meeting their untimely end via a distant explosion. For those interested in preserving the shock, skip this paragraph. A MAN IS STRIPPED OF HIS FLESH! Yeah. Don't be fooled by the Disney logo at the beginning. There is some pretty wild stuff here. It's one thing to show living (sort of dead) pirates. It's a horse of a different color when a live pirate gets the arch of the covenant treatment. There are several others attacked by sea creatures while others just get capped. On the whole a lot of death.

So who is behind this? The blame could lie on Rob Marshall, whose previous work is primarily show-stopping musical pieces like Chicago and Nine. As easy as it is to blame him I don't think he has much to do with it. It has an almost identical look to the other films, which begs the question who has the bigger influence, Rob Marshall (Gore Verbinski for the previous three films) or producer Jerry Bruckheimer? I'm better on Bruck. This is his baby and I'm sure he has the final say.

Back to my original question of "why?" In short, the answer is money. The previous two sequels made a large, and I mean large, sum of cash. Although I highly doubt this one will be as successful, I'm sure they will get their money's worth and then some. Money aside I honestly can't see why this film was made. It completely abandons several key characters from the previous films and in the end, I'm sorry to say, takes us nowhere. It is a zero gain. At least in the other films there was some sort of terror or element that could potentially lead to the end of the world. Not here. Sorry. Nada.

Save you money for something worth while. And do not, DO NOT, see this in 3D. I saw this in standard definition and it was fine. With the money you spend on 3D you can have a couple of months worth of Netflix movies. That is a much better deal.

The end is nigh!

2011-05-28T02:52:00.005-04:00

The apocalypse, end of days, armageddon, or whatever you want to call it, is nothing new to cinema. Science fiction has claimed it as an essential plot element while most other genres tend to steer clear of this idea (though fantasy could be lumped into this, though it tends to be the destruction of another world).

Stepping back from these films and applying this situation to a real life scenario, what would you do if you knew the world was going to end? Would you, along with a team of scientists, battle your way through asteroids, turbulent storms, or even diving into the center of the earth, to attempt to save the planet at the last second? Would you join the resistance and fight off alien invaders, factions of terrorists, or zombies? My guess is that we, the unlucky majority, would most likely have to face facts that the world is going to end.

What a bummer, right?

In all seriousness though, I want you to take a minute and think about what you would do if you had, let's say, six hours left on this planet. Would you visit loved ones? Listen to that perfect album? Have sex? Eat your favorite meal? Would you kill yourself?

These questions and more are presented in the astonishingly honest and thought provoking Canadian film Last Night. Don McKellar writes, directs, and stars in this turn of the century mind bender. The film premiered at Cannes in '98, perfect timing as what many people feared would be the end of days was a little over a year away. McKellar is one of many characters whose paths intertwine along the way.

McKellar plays Patrick Wheeler, a man who wishes to spend his final hours on Earth alone in his apartment listening to music, much to the dismay of his mother. His plans are interrupted when Sandra (Sandra Oh) runs into him and asks for help in trying to contact her husband. The two end up on a search to find a car so she may be reunited before the world ends.

Meanwhile, Craig is accomplishing his final wish to completely fulfill his sexual fantasies, a feet that has taken him nearly two months to complete. Donna (Tracy Wright) is a lonely office worker whose boss (David Cronenberg) doesn't seem interested in spending time with her, albeit on the last day of human existence. Others come and go, running into one another, all trying to fulfill different goals before time runs out forever.

We are never told why the world is coming to an end. This isn't science fiction in the classic sense of the term where the impending doom is the main point of the story. The doom acts as a device with which we are able to dissect the characters and see their inner workings, desires, and dark secrets. It's like we are joining a conversation that has been going on for months if not years, and this is just the tail end of it. Rather than re-explaining the scenario all over again, we assume that the world is coming to an end and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Each character presents a different take on the end of days. Some want to be alone, others want to feel loved. We see violence, joyous anticipation, acceptance, hope, hopelessness, and confusion. Even the smallest characters like a woman who sits on a bus with her daughter waiting for a driver that will never come. That small role shows how some people have handled this harsh reality. One man approaches another with a shot gun, attempting to put the fear of God in him, only to be met by someone who is no longer afraid of death and has completely accepted his fate.

That's what I loved so much about the film. I was constantly thinking about how I would react in this situation, and the characters were acting out my thoughts almost like a test run. I was able to place myself in the situation and see how I would react. It was quite extraordinary. I'm not advocating that we should all be prepared for the end like some nut-job on the radio in NYC (rapture my ass!), but it is a fascinating conversation to have with yourself if not others. It helps you see what is important in life.

Well, now that you have had some time to think, I strongly recommend you go out and watch this movie. It's hard to come by, but if you or someone you know has a Netflix account it is available to stream. I don't think you will be disappointed.

I sense a disturbance in the force, and it's not James Cameron...

2011-05-20T14:23:00.006-04:00

Courtesy Google Images

Just for kicks, I checked out the list of the all-time highest grossing movies worldwide (not adjusted for inflation). The results were shocking to say the least, and proof that Hollywoodis trending towards reboots and sequels.

Of the top 25 all-time highest grossing films only five, count 'em FIVE, were not reboots or sequels. Those five films: Avatar, Titanic, Jurassic Park, Finding Nemo, and Inception. The other twenty films consisted of the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, both Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, six Harry Potter films (based on books 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and part 1 of 7. I wonder where part 2 will end up???), two Star Wars prequels (episodes 1 and 3), one Batman sequel, the Alice and Wonderland reboot, as well as Transformers, Shrek, Toy Story, Ice Age, and Spider-man sequels.

In the top 100 there are only six films made before 1990, and of those films half are sequels, including two Star Wars sequels (episodes 5 and 6) and the third Indiana Jones film.

The list becomes slightly more reasonable with more original films, though one film to note is Gone With the Wind, the film with the highest ticket sales in box office history, still hangs in there at #113.

After analyzing all of this, it just goes to show that people are still afraid to leave their comfort zons when going to the theatre. They don't like connecting with a new slew of characters. It's like ordering a meatball sub regardless of what sub shop you go to. Why can't people go out and try something new?

I believe another part of the reason is the rising ticket prices. Why pay $11 bucks or more when you're not sure if you're going to like the film? I'm not saying that I only see original works. I enjoy my fair share of sequels (not so much reboots), but judging the amount of money people are spending on seeing the same thing over and over, I am worried.

It's funny how the top two grossing films are original works (Avatar and Titanic), AND both are directed by James Cameron. Though they both rely heavily on CGI and groundbreaking special effects, there is something to be said for a person who consistently comes up with original ideas. I would be surprised if the average moviegoer could tell me who directed the Harry Potter films, or the Spider-Man's, Shreks, and Pirate's.

It's odd how people make fun of Cameron for being unoriginal and for relying too heavily on CGI, when in actuality he's one of the more original moviemakers out there. He's made one sequel, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, which oddly enough is regarded as one of the best sequels ever made. His other films, like The Terminator, The Abyss, and True Lies, are all really well thought out and technically advanced ahead of their time.

So I raise my glass to James Cameron, a man who continues to push the envelope. Though he is slated for a follow up to the soon to be Avatar franchise, I don't think he will do anything short of wowing audiences, and perhaps grossing over 3 billion dollars in the process.

I hope filmmakers out there can take a page from Mr. Cameron. Take your time to work on a film, preferably an original one. Pretty soon we're just going to be watching the same films rebooted and reloaded every 15 to 20 years, and quite frankly, I'm not okay with that. Why can't more people be like Cameron? or Scorsese? or Fincher? or Boyle? or Anderson (both Wes and Paul Thomas)? I know the money is good (damn good), but you're turning the general public into zombies, begging for the same thing over and over again. There is a reason Cameron left the Terminator franchise. Case in point, Rise of the Machines and Salvation.

So I beg you, whoever you are, to go to the theatre this summer and at least consider seeing something new. Go to your smaller, independent theaters if you have to. If you really need your 3D fix, go see Werner Herzog's 3D documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams, which has received rave reviews. Wanna laugh? Wait for Woody Allen's latest. Midnight and Paris. Want your sci/fi fix? Try Another Earth, an indie-sci/fi that looks at what would happen if we found another planet identical to ours. Looking for that epic, delving into your soul film? Why not take in Terrence Malick's long-awaited The Tree of Life. Go out there people. Find something new and give it a try. If you really complain hard enough, maybe you'll get your money back. I'd settle for a free popcorn.

Days of Summer

2011-05-01T20:20:00.004-04:00

The month of May brings new life. Flowers bloom, trees change from gray to green, and cinema turns over a new leaf. Though at first slow, the summer blockbuster season is nearly upon us.

The first of the onslaught comes from the land of Asgard. The last of the Avenger prequels, Thor, is set to unleash the power of the gods on the big screen this Friday, May 6th. It stars Auzzie native Chris Hemsworth as the titular character. Along with a cast that includes Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, and Kenneth Brannagh behind the camera, there is not telling what will ensue.

That said, I really have no idea what to expect from Thor. I'm not even sure I want to see it. I said the same thing about Iron Man, but I at least knew that Robert Downey Jr. had some acting chops. This seems a little too farfetched, but who knows. Stranger things have happened. I trust Branagh but seeing as I know very little about Thor and his background, I just don't know if the story will be enough to entice me.

A week later on May 13th, Priest, based on the graphic novel of the same name, plans to draw fans, although with little known about the story, mass audiences might be repelled from it's edgy storyline about a rogue priest who kills vampires. Paul Bettany stars as the lead character. He takes on Christianity once again after last years angel attacking holocaust, Legion. He also played Silas in Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code, a murdering monk working for a secret order of the church. I'm not sure if he is saying anything about his beliefs, but it's odd that he takes these roles (he also played Darwin in Creation).

Three other comic book superheroes come to the big screen, this time from the world of DC comics. X-Men: First Class hits theaters June 1st, Ryan Reynolds stars in Green Lantern (June 17th) and Chris Evans tries on another super skin as he suits up for Captain America: The First Avenger (July 22). There's no telling how well or how poorly these two will do, but seeing as Reynolds is one of the "it" actors of the moment, I think Green Lantern will do better.

It looks like this will be another summer for sequels, remakes, and big CGI epics.

Pirates of the Carribean: On Strange Tides (May 20th), The Hangover Part II, Kung Fu Panda 2 (both on May 26th), Super 8 (June 10th), Cars 2 (June 24th), Transformers: Dark of the Moon (July 1st), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II (July 15), Cowboys and Aliens, The Smurfs (July 29th), Rise of the Planet of the Apes (August 5th), and Conan the Barbarian (August 19th).

The movies I am looking forward to see might not bring home the bacon (The Beaver, Another Earth, Winnie the Pooh), but I'm hoping that one of those blockbusters I on the list will do something more than explode some buildings, battle aliens, and use crude, hit me over the head, I get it, you don't remember last night humor. Let's hope.

All of the lights...

2011-04-24T02:41:00.006-04:00

(image from an Easter Vigil service, similar to what I attended)

Inspiration comes from many outlets, much like for this post. Friday night I had the good fortune of watching an early classic from Italian director Luchino Visconti. Le notti bianche (White Nights, 1957) is an interpretation of a short story by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The film stars Maria Schell and Marcello Mastroianni as two strangers that meet by chance. Their subsequent meetings examine what true happiness means and what the human spirit is capable of withstanding. It's a great story with wonderful acting and some really top of the line production design.

At the time, perhaps because it was later in the evening, I didn't have a lot of time to reflect on the film, though I knew right away that this one was special. It is the first film by Visconti that I have seen, though I have had my eye on The Leopard for some time now (the Criterion Collection also just released Senso, an earlier Visconti work). Regardless, I put off further analysis of the film until I had some time to do so.

What I didn't expect came the following evening at an Easter Vigil mass at St. Denis' Parish in Westwood, MA. The lights were turned off to start. Following a ceremony outside where the priest lit the paschal candle, we followed inside and everyone lit their own candle from the larger one. Slowly, the dark church hall slowly grew lighter and lighter, until the entire interior was flickering with the soft glow of candlelight. It was breathtaking. As the Exsultet was sung (by my father to note) in front of the congregation, I couldn't help but notice how beautiful everything looked. Each face was colored a muted orange, focused intently on the words being transmitted.

Now at home, I had some time to reflect on the lighting of not just the church, but of the film from the previous night. During the final evening between Mastroianni and Schell, the lights on the set float around the stage off screen. It's as if the city around them is on fire, or search lights try to find an escaped convict. It drives up the intensity of the scene without taking away from the action.

Other scenes from the film used lighting as a key element. During the scene at the dance hall, a spot light, unseen from the camera, follows various dancers around the room, showing their faces as the music fills their bodies. Schell, who awaits the return of her lover, is swept off her feet by Mastroianni, who is attempting to woo her. Both of their faces are elated, but both have different motives. It is important that we see both their faces during this scene.

There are so many important elements to this film, but because of the events that took place in the church, I had to just focus some attention onto this aspect. Lighting plays such a key role in making movies. It can make or break a shot, sometimes a film. Some directors like Terrence Malick wait for the perfect moment when the light is just right (watch Days of Heaven). Others create their own lighting like Christopher Nolan in Inception, where if you watch the special features, you'll see that he used monstrous flags (black canvas) to block out the sun. He used these flags to follow the path of the sun during the shoot, a rather remarkable feet considering the scale of the production.

Depending on who you talk to, you'll hear that lighting is the most important part of a film. Others will say the writing, the sound, music, acting, or editing. I personally do consider lighting to be one of the more important aspects. Regardless, you must pay diligent attention to all aspects. If one part fails the rest goes with it. If a film, like Le notti bianche, has good lighting, chances are the other parts are in good, working order as well (which they are).