Sunday, December 26, 2010

Marcus: The Fighter (2010)

          Oh, David O. Russell, you certainly know how to direct a film. He does, you know. If you've seen "I Heart Huckabees" or "Three Kings" then you should agree. I just saw "The Fighter", Russell's take on the old standby of a genre, the boxing film, and now witnessing his masterful directorial skills has given me what us completely heterosexual men call a "man crush" and an "urge to have sex with him". Russell stands out as he always seems to have stood out, rather than taking the old formula and renaming it, he takes it, gives it a little spit shine, moves a few parts around, adds a few new parts, takes out some old pieces, and serves it all up with the best work from a collective cast you've seen all year.
          I'll focus mainly on the work of the actors, but first I need to commend Russell himself. He presents parts of the movie in a very meta-documentary fashion, with the camera following a film crew following Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his family rather than just follow them around on the shaky handicam itself, a style that seems to have taken a predominately cliched seat in the film and television world as of late. It's particularly effective once the action moves to the ring and the camera takes on the unique scratchy and unusually bright filter that is unique to televised pay-per-view, it's simple but just perfect, like a great bowl of soup. Like clam chowder. Like a great big bowl of New England clam chowder.
          This movie takes place in New England (nailed the transition!). Lowell, Massachusetts to be exact, and everything about that fact is embraced and presented in the most beautifully poignant ways that a economically defunct small town can be presented. The setting we are introduced to in the opening credit sequence are about as gritty and real as a non-simulated plate of grits (now that's gritty and real... fuck all of you). The neighborhood in which our protagonist lives is one of obvious poverty and suffers from a huge case of being located in Massachusetts. Micky's family, who provide more than sufficient antagonism for him through the course of the movie is the biggest bundle of white trash you'll see outside of a KKK yard sale.
          It's made clear right away that the family is dysfunctional. Not only do the eight sisters (that's an estimation, if I had to look at them long enough to count them my genitals would shrivel until they resembled a mummy's uvula) have difficulty explaining who came from which father, but their hair alone gives some indication of the early nineties hellhole from which they had emerged. Melissa Leo plays the matriarchal tycoon of the family. Given the jumbled accounts of her past (she had half of her brood by one man and then remarried to the man who would soon father Micky and the other half of the family... or something) she clearly either had a condom allergy, or was a bit of a whore. She also plays a royal class bitch better than any actress I've seen in a long time. It's a phenomenal performance, but to say it stands out in this movie is like saying Peter stood out amongst the disciples, or that George stood out amongst the Beatles. She's a team player in a group that is all talent and who all lend a small part to a project that is made better as a result, it's their collective effort and unique contributions that make the final result so memorable (Ringo was the goofy one, Judas was the betrayish one).
          That being said, let's move on to the real meat of this movie, the three people who make "The Fighter" what it is, Mark Wahlberg, Amy Adams, and Christian "Motherfucking" Bale.
          Mark Wahlberg plays Micky Ward, the fighter who has never really broken into the big leagues and as of yet has not managed to follow in the shadow of his big brother, who's claim to fame is once knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a fight. The problem is that Micky's family is the worst. Not the worst family, the worst thing ever. They are comically disfunctional, with all the sisters siding with the mom, the mom favoring the older brother, Dicky, over Micky, and Micky's father constantly trying and failing to get a voice of authority in the family over the mother. After a documentary about crack addiction centers its focus around his brother and destroys his family's reputation, Micky decides to fight and push himself out of the small times with a possible shot at a title belt. He, like his father, is repressed by his bitch of a mother, might as well start calling her Alice now to put a name to the evil, evil face.
          Amy Adams plays Charlene, Micky's girlfriend who has twice the sass of a Tyler Perry movie and triple the appeal. She's the only one who supports Micky unselfishly and she defends him the only way she knows how, with a no-nonsense, sharp-witted bitchy attitude. She's badass who actually has one of the better fight scenes in the movie. Her confrontation with Dicky Eklund is the most emotionally powerful scenes of this past year in cinema.
          And with the mention of Dicky Eklund I find myself unable to put it off any longer, I must talk about the shining diamond of a presence in this film that is Christian "Motherfucking" Bale. He plays Dicky Eklund, Micky's older brother. Micky idolizes him, which poses the central problem in the film, being that Micky finds it almost impossible to cut his brother out of his life even after Dicky collapses under rampant drug use. Bale masterfully portrays a character who means well and wants to stay loyal and helpful to his family, but can't help but let his own selfish needs interfere. The thick Bostonian accent and wide, glassy-eyed stare are the icing on this orgasm cake of a performance, and in case I haven't made it clear yet, my money's on him for the Oscar this year for Best Supporting Actor. To portray an antagonist who desperately means well, but can't shake his own demons.
          The great thing about "The Fighter" is that the main fight isn't Micky Ward's struggle to the top, but rather the struggle to avoid his dysfunctional family from keeping him down while not wanting to compromise his love for them. "The Fighter" is a true cinematic triumph this year and sure to become a classic. I implore you to seek out and watch this film, I promise you won't want it to end.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Alex: True Grit (2010)

          True Girt is another example of why movie trailers are not to be trusted. Everything about the True Grit trailer pointed to it being the best film of the year. COEN BROTHERS. WESTERN. JEFF BRIDGES. MATT DAMON. ADORABLE GIRL. JOHNY FUCKING CASH. My friends and I, whose opinions appear in this very space, were positively a tizzy about the movie and the sheer brilliance that was going to be shoved down our eyeholes. Sadly this was not to be.
          The movie focuses on Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a 14-year-old girl looking to avenge the death of her father. The story begins with Ross arriving in a rural western town to settle the affairs of her family, and to begin her personal vendetta against her father’s murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Ross is a fast-talking, intelligent girl able to outwit the adults who insist she is too young to go out into the country hunt a man wanted across the states and territories of what was at the time the Southwest. To help in her quest she enlists U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) a ruthless old man and drunkard. In town she meets Texas Ranger Laboeuf (Matt Damon) who is looking to bring Cheney to justice for a crime he committed in Texas. The three set out into the impossibly vast country looking for the criminal.
          And if you’ve seen any movie, ever, you should be able to piece together what happens next. The three bicker. Laboeuf leaves. He gets in trouble and Ross and Cogburn save him. Cogburn reveals that he really is an old drunk. Laboeuf leaves again. Every scene telegraphs what is about to happen and the entire script fits into the simplest plot the Coen Brothers have ever put to film. There is no discussion of morality or depth to the story like in the duo’s previous western, No Country for Old Men. The three heroes set off to catch the bad guy, and then, 90 minutes later, they do.
          The simple nature of the plot, however, does not make the movie bad. Bridges and Damon give excellent performances and Steinfeld stands with them unflinchingly. The dialogue is the best you will hear this year outside of the Social Network. The threesome throw complex zingers at one another for the duration of the movie and the chemistry between them, particularly Bridges and Steinfeld, is entertaining to watch. The Coen Brothers captured the setting with respect and admiration of the vastness of the West. Other westerns and Red Dead Redemption glorify sleeping out under the stars and getting everywhere by horse back, but True Grit accurately captures the anxiety that stems from the fact that the only law in the country is the gun you have and your ability to shoot it straight. The compete isolation that the characters feel after they left town is shown by the actors and captured the directors. I find that world absolutely terrifying, but that’s only because I’m a wimp. I would not last a day in the Wild West.
          Sam said it best on facebook. “True Grit is a very good movie, a great Western, and a mediocre Coen Brothers film.” If you want to spend your 10 bucks on an enjoyable movie with great performances go see True Grit. But the fact is that, even though it could have been, and even though I wanted it to be, True Grit is not the best film of the year.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Sam: Black Swan (2010)

          “The Wrestler” was crap. It was a simple comeback movie used to be the comeback for a star (who should have stayed in obscurity) that relied on a very cheap archetype. It tugged on heartstrings in ways it knew would engender positive critic response. So, when I say Darren Aronofsky has made the best film of his career, it means he only marginally beat out “Requiem for a Dream” considering his only other films included “The Wrestler”, “The Fountain”, and “Pi”. He is hardly a seasoned director. However, in a time when people are taking risks in film for the sole purpose of seaming bold and artistically superior, Aronofsky takes a major risk that ends up being so fulfilling.
          The story is so. An ingénue ballerina (Brilliant and Bulimic Natalie Portman) finally lands the role of her dreams as the Swan Queen (both white and evil black) in her company’s production of a re-envisioned Swan Lake. She soon meets a new ballerina from San Francisco who seems to be both friend and foe. She the embarks on a quest imparted on her by the ballet's director (Vincent Cassel) to become "Perfect". The pressure continues to build on Portman’s character Nina and it starts to manifest itself in slight mental slippages and finger rippages.She begins to feel intense physical and mental changes that seem to parallel the story of Swan Lake. She becomes both the black and white swan. Eventually, the story culminates with a desperate move on Nina’s behalf to keep Lily (Mila Kunis) from taking her role in the ballet’s premier.
          So, where did Aronofsky go right? Well, as I mentioned before, Aronofsky takes a huge risk. He does this by setting his film in a world of mirrors. In fact, the ballet’s rehearsal rooms are covered wall to wall in mirrors. This presents the problem of not letting the camera be seen in the constant reflection. Even outside of the Lincoln Center location Aronofsky surrounds the actors with mirrors that seem to offer a visual of Nina’s confined dark side. He manages to never let the audience glimpse the camera, which poses the initial difficulty of whether he will use innovative camera placement or CGI reflections. Aronofsky uses both methods in very appropriate manners depending on each scenario and ends up with an almost two-hour film with a mirror in every single scene (no exaggeration). I applaud him for it.
          The writing is not at a loss either. There is incredibly subtlety in the language, although some blatant and utterly laughable lines slip through the delicately weaved vale of dialogue. For example, the scene where Nina and her mother briefly argue about who was the more promising ballerina and Nina’s mother just slightly hints that Nina was an accident, revealing a whole layer of the mother’s character. But at other times, the provocative nature becomes simply too much and you are forced to watch silently well holding in gut-laughs (“Show me your black swan, Nina” and “Did you suck his cock?”). Other than that, the story was well put together and excellently spiced with ballet techno-babble (I still don’t know what a Coda is), and the ending didn’t rely on a canned twist that we’ve seen thousands of times before. I only wish more thrillers were so concise and elegant.
          The acting is one thing that truly stood out in this film. Although I could sit here and type out a long winded paragraph on how great Natalie Portman was in this, I would rather like to focus on the supporting cast and say only this: Natalie Portman is able to act because of how smart she is. She truly understands human emotion and full psychological immersion. She is Nina. However, the film ultimately sparkles with the help of an impeccable supporting cast. Barbara Hershey as Nina’s mother is one of the best older female roles since the mother from “Carrie”. She is appropriately loving and creepy with a hint of abusive and neurotic. If anyone is to blame for this films critical success, it is the brilliant Ms. Hershey. Vincent Cassel never disappoints and this film is no exception. Mila Kunis is finally embraced as a full on sex symbol and thusly emerges as one of the sexiest Femme Fatales to grace the silver screen. Finally, there’s Winona Ryder. She’s excellent but gets so little screen time she never really gets noticed. If only someone would give her a leading role.
          Some may consider the film disturbing. Well, that's because it is. I mean there are some pretty disgusting visuals that include a woman stabbing herself in the face and Natalie Portman's feet becoming webbed. Also, her toenail cracks clean in half. This doesn't retrospectively hurt the film and only improves the dark motif of transformation. Also, the awesome lesbian sex scene makes up for all of it.
Ultimately, this uber creepy thriller makes you leave the theater checking your fingers for hangnails, hoping to god you won’t find one. And that’s exactly what this kind of movie should do. This beautiful psycho thriller simply puts you in the dark, underground world of ballerinas and gives you irrational fears (like your kneecaps inverting) because of how astonishingly real it seems, despite some heavily outlandish content. Aronofsky took his gritty side of film making and put it to some good use. Instead of being unnecessary like “The Wrestler” (which could have been easily polished into a Hollywood cookie cutter piece) he used basic but uncomfortably close shots and a cheap camera to ensnare the audience in what would otherwise be a run-of-the-mill, twist-based bowl of swan excrement. One final statement: This movie may have almost been "perfect" but I much rather preferred the ballet scene in "Top Secret!"

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Introducing: Diane

          A couple weeks ago we said hello to Emily as she became the newest writer for Any Old Film. But then, in a truly Shyamalanian twist she never showed up. It was like she didn't even exist. Or was dead. No word yet on whether or not she still plans on writing anything... or apologizing for being a lying liar who might possibly be dead in a dumpster somewhere.
          In the meantime, we can bid a hearty welcome to our newest newcomer, Diane. Diane approached me with some review ideas already in hand and I just couldn't turn them down. I know she'll produce some great material and I can't wait to read it. In fact, you can expect her first review to be put up sometime next week. Diane, welcome aboard, I can't tell you how glad we are to have you, and like with all the other newcomers, I have to warn you to stay away from Sam, we keep him on a short leash... literally. It's so he doesn't bite anyone, so just stay away from his corner.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Marcus: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

          I've read all the Harry Potter books and seen the movies but I want to say right away that I'm not a fan. It's not that I dislike the series, I'm simply impartial. I read each book exactly once, and I can't even remember Richard Harris' face without looking up a picture from the first two movies (he was the original Dumbledore). I don't own any Harry Potter fan gear or merchandise, and I will lose almost every game of Harry Potter Trivial Pursuit that I take part in. I've merely gone with the flow on this cultural phenomenon, I haven't studied the minutiae of the mythos, and I have no regrets about this. I also believe this allows me to write a review that is relatively unbiased, let's see how it goes.
          "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is quite different from all the other movies in the franchise. An important thing to remember about making any movie is knowing what the intended audience is going to like. For example, fans of Transformers love action, explosions, cool CGI effects, and shitty writing. Twilight fans are much easier to please because they don't even need the action, explosions, or cool CGI effects. Harry Potter fans love the whimsical magic, the diverse characters, the escapist fantasies and momentary release from the realms of reality. It's fun to imagine a world like that of Harry Potter, where you're free to turn invisible or dissaparate on a whim or totally do it with a Death Eater.
          My point is that, what I think Harry Potter fans are less inclined to, and paradoxically what I think this movie succeeds best at, is technical mastery of cinematography. The camera work in this movie is superb. The settings are gorgeous, and I mean the natural settings, not even including the ones with giant chambers and impossibly constructed ramshackle shacks. The outdoor shots could be assembled into a well compiled montage of reasons to visit Britain, even at its gloomiest. At this point, I won't be surprised if the movie gets an Oscar for cinematography, or at least a nomination. But the real shame about this is I feel the effort will be lost on most fans. Obviously they expect a good movie, but the work here goes so far beyond simply showing the spells and creatures and villains, and yet I feel the appreciation will be lost amongst many, for the major issue I will now address.
          In comparison to all the Harry Potter movies that have come before it, Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is really uneventful. It's a shame because some people may say it's boring, but there's a distinction to be made. It's an interesting movie, a lot of important events happen. But a lot, and I do mean A LOT of the movie is made up of glorious scenery shots and pans and blocks of heavy dialogue with minimal action that just aren't what the Potter fan base is all about. The books were great because they allowed so much freedom of imagination, to picture for ourselves the world as we wanted. Now that we're being shown the world, there's nothing else for us to imagine, and because this movie is really lacking in action packed fight scenes, especially throughout the middle, all we can do is sit and watch them talk in tents or shacks or old houses. They're filling in the pictures, essentially doing for us what was the best part of reading the books.
          The thing I do appreciate is that they do a bloody good job with the visuals, the setting, the locations, the mood. But no matter how well it's done, people are always going to prefer the image they originally had in their heads. That being the case, a lot of the movie can come off slow, which again is necessary to set up the cinematic orgasm that is sure to be Part 2. But I feel that this movie could never be a total hit because it doesn't have action, and it needs to compensate for that with other visuals. It's tough for me to say because this movie is executed so well, and I know it's going to be hugely successful, and that many people would disagree with this opinion. But it's reasons like this I will always be a "the book was better guy," because no matter how close a movie comes in quality (and Harry Potter gets about as close as they come), you do the fans a disservice by asserting your visual imaginings over theirs, and that's never a good thing.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Marcus: Starship Troopers (1997)

          New review, here we go. And wouldn't you know it, I'm at a loss.
          I'm not at a loss because I don't know what movie to review, as the title would indicate, nor am I at a loss because I don't have anything to say about the movie. It's just that, in the end, I'm not sure how I feel about "Starship Troopers." Is it good? Is it bad? Is it a masterfully crafted silly piece of drivel? Is it a poorly executed attempt at a modern masterpiece? The answer to these is the same answer to the question of why am I writing this review with my head covered in baby powder: I can never definitively say.
          Let's start by noting that the film was nominated for an Academy award for best visual effects. It lost to "Titanic," but what the hell didn't lose to "Titanic"? And the film does have some great effects ranging from vast and epic to personal and detailed. The film does a great job showing shots of both huge vistas of exploding starships and close-ups of a dude getting his brain sucked out of his head. That's what I respect so much about this movie, it seems to make excellent use of its budget and I really believe the setting and visuals.
          But at the same time, and here's where my inner conflict starts to occur, I still find it cheesy. I don't think there is any real reason to feel that way. The movie is dark, violent, gritty. But I still feel like, I don't know, it's goofy somehow. I think it stems from the choice of casting. You've got Casper the friendly Van Dien as Johnny Rico, the infantryman quickly rising through the ranks, and who's so soft spoken that even when he's shouting threats at you, you feel he's going to end by asking you if you'd like a glass of warm milk to help you get to sleep. Then you've got Denise Richards as Carmen Ibanez, who's supposed to be, like, totally smart or something, and, like, eligible to become a pilot, which is, like, totally a big deal. Then, what better actor to top off the leading cast of an interstellar war movie than musical theater/comedy phenom Neil Patrick Harris as Carl Jenkins. He's the braniac, the military intelligence officer, the one making the tough calls, though far removed from the field of battle. These three have vowed to always stay friends even though their jobs could leave them stationed billions of miles away from each other (which of course doesn't happen) which is sweetly naive, especially when the first message Carmen sends Johnny is a video saying she's breaking up with him.
          Michael Ironside is in it too, which is totally badass. He has a metal arm, which just exponentiates my last statement. But keep in mind, he's a supporting character in a movie where nearly every supporting character dies (What I'm trying to say is, he dies, but his death is also pretty badass).
          So here's the problem: usually I can weigh the pros and cons of a movie and still come out knowing whether or not I like it. In this case, I can say I enjoyed "Starship Troopers" but I don't know if it's in a mocking way or because it's legitimately awesome. It's all very confusing. I think it wanted to make something like "Aliens," but ended up more like "Mars Attacks!"
          So much inner turmoil... I need to go write in my journal, or make a magazine cutout collage or something.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Introducing: Emily

          We have a new contributor joining us here at Any Old Film. From now on expect to see some articles from another hilarious person, Emily. All of us who already write for this site are good friends with Emily and we know her addition to the team will not only make us stronger as a whole, but more diverse because up until now we've just been a band of four stinky dudes (seriously guys? I don't believe that none of you know where that stench is coming from and I swear I'll fight to my last breath discovering its horrendous source). We thank Emily for agreeing to join our cause here of voicing opinions while celebrating the world of cinema (even the movies we hate... Especially the movies we hate). Emily, welcome aboard, we know you'll be a great asset, we just hope you can stand the smell (WHERE THE HELL IS IT COMING FROM?!).

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Marcus: Nosferatu: A Symphony Of Horror (1922)

Once a movie is by and large accepted as a classic, there is not much that it can do to reverse that decision. Sure, some movies don’t age as well as others, they lose their relevance or they make references to parts of an era that are long gone and forgotten. Keep in mind, though, that the film industry’s really only been around for about a hundred years, but in that time we’ve amassed quite a library of films that would be considered historically or aesthetically important. But there becomes a point where, no matter how groundbreaking a film is, no matter how revolutionary or insightful or heart-stoppingly wonderful a piece of cinema it is, it just becomes so dated that it affects how you watch it. You pop in The Godfather and it’s always going to have that strong message of the mixing of corruption and family and whatever else that movie’s about, but when you watch a “classic” that is clearly past its prime, the mere quality of its oldness becomes a noticeable factor in and of itself.
Enter “Nosferatu,” directed by a man named F.W. Murnau (the F.W. stands for Friedrich Wilhelm, but apparently even he thought it was too German to keep calling himself by his full name). You’ve probably never heard of F.W. because he’s been dead for quite some time. In fact, everyone involved with this movie is dead, many of them were dead by the time World War II broke out, and all of them were dead by the 70’s. Many of their children are probably dead as well. I know I’m painting a grim portrait, but it’s just to show you how absolutely old this movie is.
“Nosferatu” is consistently ranked among the top 100 films ever made by any magazine or institution who claims to give a damn about cinema, and to say the movie was a revolution for its time is completely true. F.W. Murnau not only wanted to show action, he wanted to show where it was happening. Setting plays a huge part in “Nosferatu” where it rarely did in films preceding it. Murnau sets up some artistically beautiful shots in his film, a method which at the time, really was groundbreaking.
So it was ahead of its time, but remember, its time was 1922. It’s gotten to the point where the technology available to make it (or lack thereof) is so prominent, it takes away from the experience. The film is so grainy and skippy and jumpy, it’s like a first date on the beach. And the actors! Oh the actors with their overacting! These are people who began their careers without the medium of film, so they learned the craft of stage acting and only stage acting. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great way to perform when you have audience members half a mile away, but on film every action comes off as grandiose and every emotion is so overwrought. It’s not so much a Charlie Chaplin type of exaggeration, it’s more of a starved for attention exaggeration. Granted, these actors had to convey the language through their actions, because hey, silent film’s a bitch like that.
Still, none of this explains why when the film does cut to a block of text (a narration by an unseen character, or a page from a book, for example), it stays there for a full minute. It’s three sentences, honestly, I know the illiteracy rate was higher back then, but the people who could read should have been able to do so at more than a word a lifetime. It seems like we’re staring at these short, short pages of text for well longer than is required. And at one point it repeats! A second character reads from a book that had already been read, and yet the page comes up again, for the same amount of time as before. It’s the definition of redundant. I mean that the action demonstrates redundancy in its purest form, the page that was read twice didn’t actually have the definition of redundancy on it.
I can also appreciate the fact that this was made in a time where they must have still been experimenting with the concept of a film having a soundtrack. There is what I think can technically be called music playing, but it’s like someone let a toddler loose in a room with a piano and a one-string bass. There’s almost no point where the music adds to the scene at hand, nor does it correlate to the actions that are taking place on screen. It’s all just wandering notes. I like that there’s some sound, I just wish it wasn’t random sound. For a film that has the word "Symphony" in its subtitle, you'd expect the music not to suck so much.
Ok… ok deep breath. I’m getting too worked up about stuff that was really out of the foresight of the creators, it was no fault of their’s that the film wouldn’t live up to future standards. What’s important to remember is that for its time this was as good as it got. I need to focus on the positive. And boy oh boy is there one giant nose nugget of positive yet to pick.
Despite what I said about the acting, it does not apply to the antagonist of the film, Count Orlok (it’s actually supposed to be Dracula, but they couldn’t get the rights to that so shhhhh) played by a gentleman named Max Schreck (different spelling from the Christopher Walken character in Batman Returns, but allegedly the inspiration for it). Now, I know nothing about Max Schreck or his other work, but I can assume that he is either the greatest actor to have ever lived, or completely and utterly psychotic. If Bela Lugosi romanticized the vampire, that’s only because Max Schreck first presented the notion of a vampire as being creepy as Satan’s grundle. And really, when you’re perceived as being as creepy as Lucifer’s taint, you can really only go up from there. I’m confident that the image of Max Schreck as Orlok will haunt me for a good ten months, and even after it’s done haunting me, it’ll still be there, oh yes, he’ll be lurking down there in my mind with his wide, bulgy eyes with dark circles and his inhuman thinness and his… his long fingernails and weird turban thing he sometimes wears and his crooked, pointy teeth, and the way he walks without bending a single joint in his body and the way he always turns around to look behind him, with the eyes looking first, and then the rest of his head… so slooooowwwwly.
What I’m trying to say is that, despite its age, “Nosferatu” will still give you a good scare, or at least creep you out, and you should definitely give it a chance, but prepare to have the image of Orlok tattooed in your dreams for a while afterwards, probably accompanied by some shitty music.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Marcus: Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

One would think that horror is derived from the overall mood and tone of a scenario. The story must ooze terror in order for the audience to be immersed in it. Surely you couldn’t scare someone by sticking to the bare bones, the most banal rules that constitute the foundation of horror movie scare tactics. One would think that, but as the Paranormal Activity franchise shows one (for the second time now), one would be wrong and one should pay attention because THERE IS A DOOR OPENING ON ITS OWN VOLITION BEHIND ONE!
Yes, apparently scary movies no longer need to take place somewhere scary, or have the atmosphere of scariness about them. Really all you need is what I like to call the “Boo” factor. I call it this because “boo” is the appropriate thing to shout both as someone trying to deliver a sudden scare and as a disappointed audience member watching this movie.
Let’s face it, relying solely on sudden scares is almost as bad as Eli Roth’s “Gore = Scary” approach that I’ve discussed before. You can’t assume that one element, whether it be gore or sudden “boo” moments are going to carry the premise of a horror movie on its own. There’s a difference between showing a silent empty room for a minute and a half then having a door slam off camera and showing a deformed silhouette approach a sleeping girl who’s staying the night in a haunted castle. Both build tension, but one doesn’t technically do anything except make you wait for what you’re certain will eventually happen. If sudden loud smashes and bangs in the middle of the night is all it takes to entertain you, then move to Detroit.
Let’s look at it another way. Look around you right now. Are you near a door or manhole cover? I guarantee that if I suddenly burst through it right now and shouted, “Free cheesecake!” I’d make your heart jump, if only for a split second, because you wouldn’t have been expecting that. Our brains are hard wired with the fight or flight defense mechanism to make us pump out adrenaline when something surprises us. But with every split second of panic that such a moment causes, there’s the several seconds of realization immediately afterwards where you say, oh, it’s just free cheesecake, nothing scary actually happened. Most of “Paranormal Activity 2” is basically tricking you into thinking you’re scared when really it’s just playing on your basic human reflexes.
Now to be fair, there are some moments of the film that are truly disquieting. The setting may be the extremely modernized household of the extremely affluent Rey family, and is in no way scary in and of itself. But this fact is quickly erased when we see that most of the events take place at night! Ooooooooh… at niiiiiiight! And the climactic scene takes place in the basement, which could be correctly described as cluttered! Ooooooooh… cluuuuuuterrrrred! Messssssyyyyyy! Boogady boogady boo! Ok so the setting isn’t all that scary, despite the darkness and clutter, but it is admittedly unnerving in its simplicity. For one, the central problem of the film is that the evil spirit is after the newborn baby, a terrifying notion for any new parent. Again, it’s the film playing off human instincts, the parental instinct, but even the sight of the little tyke’s mobile spinning by itself or seeing him being slowly dragged across the length of his crib even set my hairs on end.
And to give credit where credit is due, I will admit there were some “boo” scenes that made me shit my pants, but I think I can attribute that more to the experimentation with my daily dosage of Metamucil. The scene that got me most was one that starts out so unassuming because it’s in the middle of the day. The mother is enjoying her coffee alone in the kitchen and she hears a small creaking noise like a particularly rotund person alighting upon a wicker fiddleback (Or a fatty sitting on a chair). But I reassured myself that nothing bad was going to happen because it was the middle of the day and all the bad things happen at n-
But I didn’t finish this thought because then all the kitchen cabinets exploded open and my testicles flew up and lodged in my sinuses, on the way knocking my heart into a comatose rest. So I applaud “Paranormal Activity 2” for that truly unexpected moment, and assure you that I will be expecting full compensation for my dry cleaning bill that week.
There is an attempt at a back-story, but that’s just an excuse to make sure this movie didn’t just become an hour and a half of those prank mazes on the internet where a scary face pops up when you’re almost done.
The overall effect of “Paranormal Activity 2” is strong but basic. It’s a very innovative in how it presents the story (as was the first film). We are observing from a set of security cameras. We are in no way immersed in the story, in fact, we’re about as removed as you can get. The movie tries to pull us in with the handicam approach, like we’re the ones stuck in the house, but it never really effectively sinks in. We’re far removed from what we’re seeing, and as such can only be scared by loud noises that a film should be above having to resort to so much. You will get scared watching this movie, but after you’ve calmed down, you’ll realize you were not impressed by it because it is frightening only in the dictionary definition of the word.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Sam: Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes! (1978)

           Many things inspire films. For some, inspiration comes from an event in one’s life that needs to be expressed for cathartic relief. For others, inspiration comes from dendrites connecting what you see to various emotions. In the case of “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” inspiration came from looking around a prop room and grabbing the first five things filmmakers John De Bello and Costa Dillon saw. Now if I have set this up as a negative review, do not be fooled. I have never seen a finer film then this cult classic. So, now for the plot.
           Giant man-eating tomatoes. Done.
           There’s no love story, there’s very little back-story, there’s no STORY, and random elements are constantly thrown in. For instance, in one scene a man assassinates various people and is eaten by the giant, killer fruits. Was he ever introduced before? No. Was he significant to the demise of the killer tomatoes? Not in the least. His presence in the film was a total non sequitur. Eventually, some similar characters begin to reoccur from scene to scene and it becomes clear that there is some group of people trying to stop the tomato invasion. However, overall, there is about as little in the plot department as there is going on in John Bobbitt’s pants. What is most shocking is that this was actually based on an earlier student film by John De Bello of even poorer quality.
           I truly, to this day, wonder if there was any acting being done in the film. If so, it must just be so good that its subtlety shot right over my head. The person who comes closest to actually mimicking human emotion is supporting actor George Wilson. If you were thinking of the secondary character from the novel The Great Gatsby then you would be absolutely correct; it is, in fact, a fictional character from the 1920’s who steps up to play this role.
           In terms of directing and general production, the movie was made on $90,000 and what is essentially a super 8 camera. The special effects are either worse than a film by Ed D. Wood Jr. or completely nonexistent. The director made a bold choice by using the “point the camera at the actors and yell action” method. The sets are…just real places, absolutely nothing fabricated. And, to top all this off, there’s a musical number in the middle of the bloody film. WHOSE CREATIVE DECISION WAS THAT? One character sings a song directly to the camera and then it is never referenced later. I would like to think this is what a film by Temple Grandin would be like. I apologize to Ms. Grandin for that remark; she could make a far better film.
           So, if I rant so much about the major flaring cracks of this film, why did I say it wasn’t bad? There is certain point where a film can amass such a huge cult that regardless of the quality, it’s an instant classic. That’s exactly what this film is. It’s cheap, terrible, and such a treat to watch. I have never been happier watching a movie, partially because I had just shot up. But even though I was chock-full o’heroin, the mind numbing campyness of the damn thing made it far too enjoyable for a film made on $90,000. Suck it Avatar! To most accurately sum up the film, it gave me the ultimate feeling of schadenfreude. This is to say the film was like watching someone fail for eighty-seven minutes and knowing I could never do anything so poorly. Finally, the film teaches us that there is cheap art and that something doesn’t have to be good to be…good. What rings most true is that lycopene kills.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Marcus: Invasion (2006)

How many of you have ever had an epiphany before? Have you ever had a revelation that what you were experiencing at that very moment was glorious, beautiful, magnificent, and that forever after you would remember that snapshot in time with relish? Have you ever been a part of something so immaculate that you reacted with an almost religious awe and a sense of appreciation for even being allowed to exist in the same moment and place as that which transfixed you? Well what do you suppose the opposite of that feeling is? Imagine that with a nice drizzling of week old placenta, and you get a sense of what it’s like to watch “Invasion.”
I almost feel like by talking about this B-movie will make myself physically sick, and I’m not just talking nausea, I mean a full blown malignant brain tumor type of sickness. It’s almost like acknowledging this film’s existence causes its death stench to cling to you and haunt you into the grave. Even as I recall it now my heart is beginning to shudder and slow down like a chubby kid 15 steps into a footrace.
The plot is as follows. A meteor with an alien parasite crashes into a rural California valley. A farmer calls it in to the cops, and when an officer is dispatched to the scene, the now infected farmer infects the cop, then the cop keeps driving and finds a prom couple making out and infects the dude, then the girl escapes in the cop car. She contacts the police station over the radio, then for the next hour she’s driving around deserted dirt roads trying to find an exit from the park that isn’t blocked by infected boyfriends, which is hard because apparently there’s only one, which doesn’t stop her from trying twice. And I’m not exaggerating about driving around for an hour straight. Mercifully, the film’s only about an hour and twenty minutes, so it ends pretty soon after that, but it’s still too long by the mere fact that it exists.
Now some of you might say, “But Marcus, surely it can’t be that bad, ‘My Dinner with Andre’ was almost two hours and featured nothing but two guys in a conversation while eating.” And to that I say, first of all kudos for knowing about “My Dinner With Andre,” and secondly, there’s a difference between a single scene movie that’s made up of interesting dialogue and one that’s a girl screaming “Please help me” into a radio for an hour. Oh, and did I mention the entire duration of “Invasion” is seen from the dashboard camera of the cop car? Did I mention that? Because it fucking is! So not only is it an hour of a girl driving around in a car, coming into contact with other people for a total of about 30 seconds, but you never even fucking see the girl! It’s just empty dirt road! I don’t think there was ever a better visual representation of the parallel between the script and the final product, sheer vapid emptiness. I think this review so far is longer than the script. It’s probably also better. That’s the one thing I’ll say about this movie that is in any way positive. Its existence proves that any of you aspiring directors out there can make a viable film. It doesn’t matter how blurry or shaky the camera is, or if the acting’s any good, because this movie proves not only that, but apparently it doesn’t even matter if you fucking point the camera at anything. And I know that none of you would be stupid enough to do that, so automatically you’d have something better than this filmmaking equivalent of a colonic cyst.
I don’t know if the film was trying to be uniquely realistic or just stingy. The whole thing is one continuous shot there are minimal lighting effects, save the car headlights, there’s no acting since the “actors” are barely ever in front of the camera, and I’ve seen better special effects in the recording Thomas Edison made of Fred Ott’s sneeze. Fred Ott’s sneeze was recorded January 7, 1894, literally one of the first motion pictures ever recorded. That’s right, the special effects in “Invasion” actually predate the invention of films, they are that bad.
Anyways, the end result is a movie that’s just as unique as any hipster (here’s a hint, if you’re part of a group that can be identified by what you wear and take interest in, you’re not a unique individual, you’re part of a club). But even that’s unfair to hipsters; sorry, hipsters (but not really, you plaid shirt, tight jeans, and thick-framed glasses wearing vintage trinket lovers). “Invasion” really doesn’t know what it’s trying to accomplish, and doesn’t even make an effort.
I’ll bring up one more terrible thing about the movie and end it there because, as I guessed, typing this has given me diarrhea. The film is bookended by two scenes featuring a woman who is about to hike into the valley, which has now been quarantined for 3 days. The movie informs us that the army nuked the whole valley the same night the invasion was reported, which we see in the last seconds that the cop car camera is running (how’d they recover the footage anyways?). So this woman, who’s been paying careful enough attention to know the army’s restricted entrance to this rural, Podunk little town, but not enough attention to know it was nuked 2 days ago, is about to begin her hike when an infected army official grabs her and kills her off camera, graciously saving her from the horrible slow decay of death by nuclear fallout. Oh yeah, and these two scenes were shot with a “night vision” filter and yet the lady’s wearing sunglasses and casting a shadow… so I retract my previous hipster comparison. This movie is more like a retired boxer (with, let’s say 40 concussions or so) who’s taken up writing novels than a teenager who’s struggling to define herself, but really needs to take her floral print sundress, bulky camera, and ukulele, and just get the fuck out of the photography section of the bookstore.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Marcus: Shutter (2004)

         I’ll start by asking a question that, despite how common it seems to be brought up, is never given a satisfying enough answer for me to leave it alone. What the hell is it exactly that makes Asian horror movie ghosts so terrifying? In the past decade, we’ve been treated to a plethora of frightful ghosts and ghouls from the now well-established Japanese horror (or “J-horror”) film industry. They always seem to follow the same strict guidelines, too. Asian horror movie ghosts are almost always women or children who were severely wronged in some way during their life and their death was one final nail in the coffin (I won’t ask you to pardon the pun because that pun was fucking awful). They always appear decrepit, with a pale blue complexion usually blocked by cascades of unkempt hair. And they’re usually associated with water. It’s a weird visual, I know, to have the appearance of a ghost foreshadowed with things starting to drip or when the sight of an overflowing sink fills you with pant-shitting levels of terror, but you can’t deny it’s effectiveness (for an example of any of these, see “Dark Water,” “The Eye,” “Ringu,” or any of the, like, 12 “Ju-On” films).
          Keep in mind that I’m referring strictly to the original Japanese versions of these movies. All of these films have been remade into an American adaptation that are partially an attempt to integrate the two cultures and partially laziness on Hollywood’s part, and to be completely honest with you, I bullshitted the former point. In recent years the Asian film industry seems to have tapped into a vein that all people share, a vein that contains our fears and what it is that causes them. Any attempt on Hollywood’s behalf to Americanize these films is left with a bitter aftertaste because the end result is unoriginal and usually really fucking stupid by comparison.
            Which brings me to my thoughts on another great example of Asian filmmaking, “Shutter,” which was remade in 2008 as that movie that none of you saw because, again, American unoriginality. Shutter is a Thai film that, to put it simply, is a great horror film. You just watch it and say, “Wow, why can’t every scary movie hold itself to those expectations?”
            The basic premise is that a photographer, Tun, and his girlfriend, Jane hit a girl with their car on the way home from a celebration with friends. Rather than check to see if she’s all right, Tun urges Jane to drive away. From that point on Tun begins to notice that either his photography skills have gotten drastically shittier, or his pictures are beginning to be haunted by smudged images of the dead girl.
            Tormented by nightmares and a mysterious sore neck, Tun enlists Jane’s help in figuring out just what the hell is going on once he learns that all his friends from that party at the beginning of the film have committed suicide. We find out that Tun and his friends had a much more sinister role to play in the dead girl’s past than what was originally thought. We also find out what was causing Tun’s neck pain; surprisingly, that’s the freakiest part.
            Where “Shutter” works so effectively is in the pacing. It’s an element of filmmaking that is so crucial and yet all too often overlooked, which is a shame because it leads to a lot of crap movies, but also serves the purpose of weeding out the bad directors as a sort of Darwinian code of cinema. “Shutter” balances the scares with great emotional scenes and good dialogue that is important for moving along the story. But don’t worry, it’s not all boring dialogue, for you fans of cheap thrills, it has plenty of scares. Holy shit does it have some scares. This is where the pacing really stands out. Some of the scares are what you’d expect, the building tension, the crescendo of music, the false climax, the labored silence, then BOO! There are plenty of those, and they’re great. But then there are moments that are barely even fair to the watcher, where you don’t even realize what you were seeing was scary until it’s already over. Those types of spooks are the ones that really get me. They throw me out of my comfort zone, and usually quite effectively. An example: Tun is developing photos in the dark room in his apartment when who we expect to be Jane walks in and stands next to him. We can only assume it’s her because the camera is angled so we can only see her torso and Tun begins talking to her while still focusing on his work. Then the phone rings and he steps outside to answer it. “Hello, Tun, it’s Jane.” WHAT THE FUCK!? I literally had to pause the movie to let my fit of goose bumps pass. I know it’s not that remarkable a trick, but the way the previous scene led into this one, and considering how quickly it happened, there was no sense that something ominous was about to take place. It was masterfully executed.
            That’s all the examples I’m going to give for this movie to demonstrate its greatness. Normally I’d have no qualms about ruining the plot, but I feel I should give you a chance to see it for yourself and truly appreciate it. That way you’ll learn first hand how it came to pass that your humble movie reviewer crapped his pants in the name of Asian cinema.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Marcus: There Will Be Blood (2007)

Is this review really necessary? If you’ve ever heard of the movie you know that no, this review is in fact not necessary and if you haven’t heard of the movie then you need to stop reading this right now and go fucking watch that shit immediately. In fact, if you haven’t seen the film yet I’m not even sure how you would be reading this because I DON’T LET IGNORANT FOOLS READ MY BLOG!!! (This happens to be the mantra of every blogger of all time)
“There Will Be Blood” is, to put it simply, epic. It represents that definition in every sense of the word (that word still being epic). The setting, the cinematography, but most importantly, and I can not stress this enough, the acting by Daniel Day Lewis, which is not so much powerful as it is a hydrogen bomb that would incinerate you were you next to it, but from far enough away the explosion sounds like a really authoritative voice that doesn’t put up with any bullshit. He plays Daniel Plainview, a self-proclaimed oilman who travels the western frontier establishing wells to add to his ever-expanding wealth, often resorting to very shrewd and even devious business tactics. Yet, as he gets richer, it becomes apparent that he doesn’t have any true source of happiness in his life. He gets rich only because he can’t stand to see others succeed, and he generally hates everyone, including himself.
It gets to the point where Daniel must abandon his own son, H.W. (as he later loudly confesses to a church multiple times) after an explosion causes H.W. to lose his hearing and frankly Daniel just doesn’t want to put up with his son’s shit anymore. This display, and many others like it show just how much of a sociopath Daniel truly is. The one thing about this film that makes me absolutely giddy is the number of monumental lines that are spoken by Plainview. Almost all of them are instantly quotable as they carry with them the power and assertiveness of someone with a God complex, but are still as completely bat-shit insane as the man speaking them. Of course, everyone knows about the milkshake line, but here are a couple of my favorites:

“Did you just tell me how to run my family? One night I’m going to come to you, inside of your house, wherever you’re sleeping, and I’m going to cut your throat.”

“I’m going to bury you underground, Eli.”

(And, one of my favorite lines from any movie) “I told you I was going to eat you! I told you I was going to eat you up!”

Like the character of Daniel Plainview, the movie itself seems to have a lot of confidence. You can tell that every shot, every line of dialogue, every element was captured so precisely by director Paul Thomas Anderson because he wants them all to serve a strong purpose. Of course, any movie would have to be confident to not have a line of dialogue appear until 15 minutes in. But even the first quarter hour is captivating, as we see the humble beginnings of Plainview and his emergence into the oil business.
And of course, far be it from me to not give credit where credit is due. There is another powerhouse performance given in “There Will Be Blood” by Paul Dano, who plays both Sunday brothers. He definitely holds his own against Daniel Day Lewis, especially when you consider he was originally only supposed to play Paul Sunday, whose time in the film constitutes but one short scene near the beginning. Dano was only given four days to prepare for the role of Eli, after the original actor left the production. Rumor has it that he left because Daniel Day Lewis’ tendency to stay in character even when not shooting was a little too intense for him. Kudos to Paul Dano, if that’s the case (or even if it’s not), for filling in the important role and turning in one hell of a performance as a crazed priest.
Now that I think about it, everyone in this film is crazy. Well, whatever, “There Will Be Blood” is a fantastic film, a powerful character study, and an instant classic. And to quote Daniel Plainview one more time, “I’m finished.”

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Alex: Moon (2009)

Most people associate science fiction with “Star Wars” “Star Trek” and other big budget studio tent poles that feature alien races and large space ships that blow the shit out of smaller, but still large space ships. They associate them with special effects, weak plots, and generally deride them as being everything that’s wrong with the modern movie going experience.
Fuck those people.
Science fiction (in movies I should clarify) is more then just big budget, effects driven summer blockbusters. They are capable of being plot and character driven films with strong dialogue and morals and other angles of appreciation that film school kids cream their pants over. They just happen to be set in the future, or in an alternate past, or in a society that in someway or another is different then ours. The best science fiction directors of sci-fi today will take our world and guess what technological innovations or apocalyptic events will happen and place their story in that scenario. When people state that science fiction can’t be taken seriously, they are criticizing the use of imagination (which might be why we get a Transformers trilogy but that’s neither here nor there).
People don’t like science fiction, and it’s a shame because it gave us three of the 00’s best movies. Alfonso Cuarón’s “Children of Men” Neill Blomkamp’s “District 9” and Duncan Jones’ “Moon”.
Moon tells the story of Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell), an astronaut serving out a three year contract on the moon for Lunar inc. an energy company harvesting Helium 3 on the dark side of the moon, and shipping it to Earth. Sam is the only employ on the base; save his trusty robot companion Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey). The first act of the film describes Sam’s days as he tries to retain some semblance of sanity. The communications satellite is down so he can’t receive live messages from his bosses and his wife Tess (Dominique McElligott) only recorded messages. Sam exercises, carves his hometown out of wood, and grows his hair long. Occasionally he will have to go out on a rover to a giant reaper that is harvesting the surface of the moon for energy. Sam collects it, brings it back to the base, and launches it back down to Earth. On one of these excursions Sam hallucinates and crashes into the energy collecting behemoth, losing consciousness.
He awakens back in the infirmary, where Gerty tells him he has lost consciousness, but that everything is all right. Weak and disoriented, Sam can barely walk, so Gerty forbids him from leaving the base. This frustrates him and he sabotages a gas line, which gives him an excuse to get back on the surface. He hops in a rover and goes to the site of the reaper. He finds the first rover in the crash, and Sam Bell still unconscious in it.
Two Sam Bells, more importantly TWO SAM ROCKWELLS! Be still my fluttering heart. This was only released in 2009 and didn’t really get a lot of attention in theaters so I will stop my discussion of the plot here, for those of you still interested in checking it out. (Its on Netflix on demand right now, so go demand it.) Rest assured though that the movie is very, very good with strong performances by Rockwell, who plays the two main characters. The pacing can be a little slow, but it helps the audience feel the stress that Sam feels as he goes about his everyday life on the moon and tries to unravel the secrets of the Lunar Inc. base. Every plot twist in the movie is delivered like a sucker punch to the audience as we start to sympathize with Sam (er both of him). The film breaks stereotypes of science fiction movies, by giving us a plot driven movie with depth. “Moon” is a great science fiction movie, and like I said before, one of my favorites from the 00’s.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Marcus: Quiz Show (1994)

           I love Robert Redford for his apparent hatred of American mainstream society. I have no evidence to support that he harbors such feelings, and yet, after watching “Quiz Show” I have a sense that he must feel that way. In the film he states clearly and succinctly what it is about Americans that keep them tuning in to the empty, mindless shows on television, that being that they are inherently greedy and have short attention spans. This makes them prone to watching shows in which likeable, relatable people win lots of money. The film explores how networks exploit this to appeal to the masses and in the process end up corrupting themselves and lying to the public. It’s so great because it’s a message the public needs to hear, yet it’s wrapped up in a film they will never watch because it doesn’t appeal to those very weaknesses it addresses. Also, you get to see Martin Scorsese act a little, so it’s a shame that most people are missing out on that.
            “Quiz Show” is a specific reference to the popular game show of the fifties, “Twenty One” which came under fire for being rigged when several contestants came forward, testifying that they had been given the answers and coached on how to act on air. The scandal focused particularly on Herbert Stempel, who admitted to being fed answers and told to take a dive after many weeks of being a returning champion, to make room for a more likeable contestant, Charles Van Doren.
            In the movie, Herb Stempel is played John Turturro in a brilliantly uncharismatic, borderline crazy manner that comes together to make him an all together likeable guy. His main opponent is Charles Van Doren, played by Ralph Fiennes in a similarly uncharismatic fashion, yet one that seems to draw people to him. Fiennes’ role in particular drew my attention because of how conflicted the character is. On one hand, he willingly accepts the answers to the quiz show before the fact, all the while taking in thousands of undeserved dollars despite his guilt eating away at him because he is sworn to secrecy, and when he does finally come clean and testify, he is publically shunned and ruined, fired from both the job he was offered at NBC and the professor position he had at Columbia University. Ultimately the lesson we can get from watching his character is crime doesn’t pay, except when it does a whole lot but then leaves you as a traitor to the public’s trust and without a job.
            David Paymer, who wasn’t so much born as he was cast from a Greedy, Corrupt Jew Mold­TM played Dan Enright, the man who eventually took the fall for the game show fixing seeing as he was the producer, although it’s implied the scandal went even higher, reaching the President of NBC and the owner of the main sponsor, Geritol (played extra weasel-y by Martin Scorsese, a welcome addition to the already outstanding cast).
            Rob Morrow plays Dick Goodwin, the Congressional lawyer hired to investigate the possible corruption of “Twenty One.” In his quest to uncover the truth, Goodwin aims too high, hoping to bring down the television network itself and realizing too late that that would never happen, with the above mentioned Enright taking the bullet to protect NBC. Morrow’s performance of an ambitious young lawyer is captivating, and there is a huge emotional payoff at the end when we see the disappointment and shame he feels at inadvertently destroying the life of Van Doren and realizing his dreams of unmasking the corruption of television would never come true. Also, he sounds exactly like a sad Adam Sandler the whole movie through (you know that voice Sandler does when he’s not being silly or pissed off? I promise you it’s exactly like that).
            I think the most moving parts of this film, though, come from the scenes between Charles Van Doren and his father, Mark. Mark Van Doren is played perfectly by Paul Scofield as a loving, proud father who is dealing with his son’s newfound fame. He is a man who is astounded at the prospect that his son can achieve so much wealth and fame from so little effort. Uneasy about it at first, he soon comes to terms with it, and supports Charles as only a devoted father can. It’s so heartbreaking then, to see Charles fight and struggle to tell his dad that he’s been cheating. And when it finally happens it’s a sad but loving moment that continues as they attend the hearing together. The real heartbreaker comes after the testimony, when the press reveals to both father and son that the University they teach at together is going to ask for Charles’ resignation. They are both crushed and as a viewer I was too. Paul Scofield puts on the best face of hurt feelings and crushed spirit, you just feel all hope wither with him as he stumbles out of the court in disappointment.
            “Quiz Show” is a powerful testament to the power of television and the effect it holds on the public. My case in point, how many of you had ever heard of this huge scandal before? As the movie itself proves, the public forgets so easily. The film itself was one half interesting, arbitrary facts presented in and about the quiz show its contestants, the scandal, and the other half is big business vs. legislative politics. Even reading that last sentence, I realize how boring that will sound to the majority of the movie watching public. And yet I also know now from personally watching the film how powerfully and effectively it presents its case that so many people need desperately to hear.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Marcus: The Faculty (1998)

I feel I must admit right off the bat that the only reason I watched this was because I had heard Jon Stewart played a villain in it and was intrigued. I really had no idea what else to expect from the film, although I figured, heck, it’s a Robert Rodriguez movie, it ought to have plenty of action/horror with some dark tongue-in-cheek humor. A note to any who are interested, if you find yourself desperately trying to rationalize watching a movie by listing all the minutiae that could be good about it, but deep down you think it’ll be disappointing, it’s probably best to just let it go. Ultimately, the three minutes with Jon Stewart were delightful because I expected them to be, and the rest of the movie was cardboard. And not even cheese encrusted, bottom-of-the-pizza-box cardboard, just boring old dusty cardboard.
            How best to describe the plot of “The Faculty?” Well, think “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” meets “Dawson’s Creek” with a lot more drug abuse. Or better yet, why not let the movie explain itself for you? The screenplay was written by Kevin Williamson, the same guy who wrote the aforementioned “Dawson’s Creek” as well as “Scream.” And “The Faculty” doesn’t mind taking a page or ten out of the “Scream” book of tricks, because it ends up being just as painfully self aware. Most of the film, we’re treated to the socially awkward, outcast Goth girl (portrayed as glaringly archetypal as only the nineties can) regaling the rest of the survivors of the rules they must abide now that their teachers and the student body have been taken over by mysterious alien parasites. In doing this, the characters make way too many assumptions about the nature of these aliens. It’s all very well and good to draw the parallel to Body Snatchers, but after that it’s just guesswork. The Goth, Stokely, played by Clea DuVall’s massive, overhanging forehead, guesses that if they kill the leader, or queen of the parasites, then all of them will die. Well wouldn’t that be fucking convenient? First of all, who’s to say there is a queen at all? Secondly, why assume that with her death, all the offspring would die too? They were all surviving fine on their own buried deep in the brains of the staff and sudents. When Ripley killed the queen in “Aliens” that didn’t automatically make all her babies die, this isn’t a Borg-like hive mind we’re talking about here.
            The next big assumption comes right after my favorite scene in which the kids fight and kill the science teacher, Mr. Furlong, played by the infallible Jon Stewart. Up until this point, he had been trying to discover what the parasite was, and during his analysis of it, proved to know quite a lot for a high school biology teacher (When hypothesizing what the creature could be, he says, “A certain mesozoan only occurs in the kidney of certain octopuses or squids.” Really? Whatever you say, man). Anyways, after some time, he gets infected, and has a showdown with the students, who promptly stab a pen into his eye, killing him. Turns out the pen was filled with a homemade drug created by one of the survivors (Josh Hartnett plays the hyper-intelligent, lazy, drug-dealing layabout, and that’s terrible). That drug is a diuretic and thusly must have killed the water-loving parasite via dehydration. Good gravy! It’s the only explanation! Oh wait, no, here’s one, maybe he died because you SHOVED A FUCKING PEN IN HIS EYE! We later learn that these creatures can even survive after being decapitated, but these kids didn’t know that yet, therefore their conclusion was still a stupid one to jump to.
            My main quarrel with this movie is too much of its plot is automatically resolved just by the students mentioning a farfetched solution, which happens to be the right answer. I can understand that trick working at the climax of an action movie, where the hero daringly escapes from imminent doom, but to have six annoying kids do it constantly throughout the movie and have it work every time just doesn’t seem fair.
            Another thing that really bugged me was the scene in Josh Hartnett’s shed that directly rips off “The Thing.” In the scene, the kids all decide to take the diuretic to see which of them is infected, à la the blood testing scene from the aforementioned 80’s horror classic. What bothered me was the notion that the human’s had to do hard drugs in order to survive. I know most stories have their protagonist end up sacrificing something, whether that be subjecting themselves to physical harm, but the way this scene is portrayed just seems cheap, and it made me uncomfortable as such. Then again, this is coming from a guy who drinks less than a Mormon teetotaler, and the scene was shot by Robert Rodriguez, so I’m sure my reaction was exactly what he was going for.
            Besides that scene, I notice a lot of the movie is devoted to the kids trying to determine who the queen is, while I was glaring at them going, “Really? Is it really that mysterious to you?” Honestly, this is one of those twists where, once it’s revealed, there’s so little tension released you might as well be sitting on a deflated whoopee cushion. You can tell who the queen is a good 45 minutes before it’s revealed, which is sad because the film does absolutely nothing to hint at who it is, and yet the fact that you can figure it out and the characters can’t makes them seem all the more stupid.
            Overall, a big disappointment of a film, considering the star-studded cast. I mean where else can you find a movie where Jon Stewart gets stabbed in the face by Josh Hartnett, who then decapitates Famke Janssen in a car crash and… oh right, Selma Hayek plays the school nurse in it too. Oh, and Bebe Neuwirth is the principal, not to mention Elijah Wood being, like, the main protagonist and… holy fuck is that Usher?!

Monday, October 11, 2010

Marcus: The Machinist (2004)

            One of the greatest things about cinema is its inherent tendency towards evolution or trendsetting. Old ideas are constantly being toyed with and recreated as something with an original twist, and occasionally we’re given something that is completely original. Whatever the case, the world of cinema has never found itself going stale, providing you know where to look for ingenuity.
            “The Machinist” is, and I guess it always will be, my absolute favorite movie, hands down. I’m sure there are plenty of other movies out there with buckets more originality and inventiveness going for it, but they don’t matter to me because in my eyes, “The Machinist” has all that I’m looking for in the right dose. Not only does the film feature action, mystery, great characters, amazing cinematography and a fantastic surprise revelation at the climax, but everything is told in one of the most well written scripts I’ve ever encountered. Every line of dialogue, every detail revealed is so relevant and important to the story that it borders on poetic execution. What I’m trying to say is, I like the movie. I like it a whole lot.
        First and foremost, neither I, nor anyone who sees this film can ignore the elephant in the room that is Christian Bale’s absolute commitment to his role. For those of you who don’t know the extent of Christian Bale’s work, it extends far past what many of you would consider a “silly” rasp in his voice when playing the new Batman. The man may be the single greatest method actor of our time. For “American Psycho” he dropped his British accent for the entire duration of filming and adopted a foreign American timbre. Not only that but he crafted his body into literally perfect physical condition. Here again for “The Machinist” he speaks with a perfect American accent, but not only did he get in shape for the role, he achieved a figure that would make Vogue magazine cover models get jealous. Christian Bale lost 62 pounds for this role, ending at a weight of 120 lbs. He was aiming for 99 but the producers stopped him because he was already losing control of his body. Seriously. For 4 months he lived off of a cup of coffee and either an apple or a can of tuna. You wish you had as much dedication as this guy. Then again, maybe not, considering the guy looks like a holocaust victim, and that’s without any special effects. I’m not exaggerating the loss of bodily control either. After a take, Christian would be so exhausted that he was prone to violent trembling and even passing out.
            So before we’ve even gotten to the actual movie, we see something worth praise. But why did Bale see it necessary to put his body through this rigorous regimen? Well, as I mentioned before, he is a method actor, meaning he strives to inhabit the role and its emotions by essentially “becoming” the character. And in this case, that character is Trevor Reznik, a malnourished, hallucinating insomniac who has been awake for over a year. Yeah, I’d say Christian Bale did pretty much all he could to “become” the role.
            The success of this movie is also do in no small part to the superb direction by Brad Anderson, who I think is an unsung genius of directing, having made some delightful, but underappreciated gems like “Transsiberian” and “Happy Accidents.” He spans many genres and his creativity seemingly knows no bounds. His cause is only bolstered by cinematographer Xavi Giménez, who had a hand in creating some of the creepiest, most surreal, and yet effective camera shots ever in film history. Their work together in this produces something that is utterly chilling and truly brilliant.
            The plot of the movie is more streamlined than a Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber, and if you think that was a long walk for an analogy, just Google a picture of it and you’ll agree I chose wisely. It’s quite a streamlined piece of aerospace engineering. Now that you’ve seen that my needlessly long simile and resultant defense thereof, let me elaborate. Every single line of dialogue feels needed and, in fact, is. The characters take part in conversations rife with hints or foreshadowing relating to the huge reveal that comes at the end of the film. I will not spoil it for you, but needless to say, when you learn it, it will hit you as hard as Trevor hit that boy in the accident he keeps denying ever happens (I may have gone a touch too literal on the analogy this time; like Trevor Reznik, please forget this ever happened… DAMMIT!).
            The story is great because the characters are all so believable despite the Gothically dark and horrible circumstances thrust upon them. It allows the viewer to accept what is happening to the characters without ever growing cynical towards the situation. The story builds and builds, until the tension becomes palpable and in the final minutes of the film, the twist is unveiled and all that we’ve experienced up until that point comes washing down on us in a cascade of realization. Never have I felt such justification (or perhaps even vindication) in my choice to watch a movie. And I feel that every time I watch this.
            My verdict is: watch “The Machinist,” if not for the outstanding performances, the creepy settings and music, the flawless writing, or the transcendental cinematography, then for all of them together, because by combining these elements you are left with something one rarely sees in cinema, a film that surpasses itself every time it’s watched.
            Oh, and by the way, after filming this, Christian Bale immediately began regaining his weight, plus an extra 40 pounds (of mostly muscle) to play the role most of us know him for, Bruce Wayne. Christian Bale laughs at you mortals and your Jenny Craig.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Marcus: Let The Right One In (2008)

            Just when I think I’ve become jaded to the point where no new movie can impress me, one comes along that does exactly that. It’s a natural cycle that I always seem to run through from year to year. On a similar note, I’m always blown away by the outstanding quality of most foreign films I come across, the amount of which being ashamedly much less than I’d like to admit. And as you may have guessed by now, I’m a sucker for a good horror film. And yet to call “Let The Right One In” merely a horror film is like calling Al Capone merely a troublemaker. This beautiful Swedish movie has so much going for it I’m surprised it doesn’t have it’s own entourage.
            The story focuses on Oskar, a lonely boy who doesn’t feel a true connection to anyone as his parents have had a divorce, and are emotionally distant, and he is regularly bullied at school. He eventually finds friendship, in Eli, a new girl in his apartment complex, who tries to keep her distance from him as she harbors a dark secret, that being she is a vampire.
            I’m going to now disarm a thought that I know has come to your mind by now. This movie is not like “Twilight.” True, the stories both focus around the growing romance between two kids who are tempting fate by being together because one of them is a vampire, they’re both based off of a book and both of these movies made me cringe but this is not like “Twilight,” ok? First of all, only one of these films actually tells the story of a vampire in love while still using the mythology that qualifies it as a vampire. Here is a list of basic vampire mythos that appears in “Let The Right One In”:

1. Vampires must drink the blood of humans to survive.
2. If a human survives a vampire bite, they too become a vampire.
3. Vampires are immortal.
4. Sunlight kills vampires.
5. Vampires must be invited into a building where they do not live or else they can not physically enter.
6. Vampires demonstrate superhuman abilities (e.g. flying, scaling walls, monstrous strength and agility).
7. Cats can sense when someone’s a vampire.
8. Vampires are fucking scary!

            The infamous Edward Cullen barely satisfies half of this list, especially when you consider that, while the sun affects him, it only does so to the same degree that the flattering figure of a shiny sequined blouse on a young, confused boy “affects” his sexuality. It certainly doesn’t pose any threat to him as it so badassly does in “Let The Right One In.”
            Some of you might think that “Let the Right One In” is just trying to copy “Twilight,” but this is also not true. Both movies came out in the same year and as for the original books, “Twilight” came out a year later. And finally, while both movies did make me cringe, one did so with its shitty dialogue and acting, while the other did so by depicting a child’s head being ripped off, a girl bleeding from her eyes and a half-mangled face effect better than the one on Two-Face in “The Dark Knight.”
            Some elements that stuck out to me in this film were the setting, and the performances. This film takes place outside of Stockholm in the early 80’s, and as such, I can confidently put “Outside Stockholm in the early 80’s” as #1 on my list of the bleakest places in the world. It accentuates the theme of loneliness perfectly, which is good, because there is a LOT of loneliness in this film. You see it in Oskar when he is driven from human contact by his distant parents and the bullies who beat him up at school. You see it in Eli, who, other than her guardian, must avoid all human contact as a necessity, except when she must feed. You even see it appear in the side plot that develops, wherein a woman who survived an attack by Eli becomes "sick" and no longer knows how to interact with those she knew, eventually deciding on suicide via HOLY SHIT SHE JUST BLEW UP! All of these lonely, lonely Swedes just seem all the more isolated when seen trudging through the thick, crunchy snow, with no noise but the howling wind and sad piano music. Tonally, the movie is perfect.
            The acting in this film is far stronger than it has any right to be, considering all the main characters are children and this is the film debut of the two leads. There’s no question that they are able to drive the plot and they make it more interesting to watch than most of the child stars you see in Hollywood could. One particular detail I loved was the casting of the bullies, because they aren’t your stereotypically, tough and obviously menacing bully. They look like regular kids, in fact, were this any other movie, they look like they’d all be Oskar’s friends, playing second banana to his antics. But they are ruthless and relentless and ultimately, cowardly.
It’s wonderful to see a movie that is written so elegantly that it can cover a wide range of material without becoming muddied and convoluted. I highly recommend this film to any and all who would see it. And if after seeing this movie you say to yourself, “that was like ‘Twilight,’” I want you to order yourself a piece of electronic equipment and swallow the silica gel packet that comes in the box with it.