Blockbusted

[Note: This was originally posted on another of my blogs on 9/1/10. In the interest of organization and consolidation, I've moved it here.)

In my regular travels across the vast internet wilderness, I came across a story on /Film that's worth noting. It's not that there's anything particularly enlightening about it or that it's even very surprising somehow. Blockbuster video is closing up shop and filing for bankruptcy in September.

This might seem like a story which would be more at home in my movie blog, but there's a little more to it than just "giant movie rental chain goes belly up". It would probably seem to make more sense for someone like me, a rabid movie fan, to be saddened by the death knell of an outlet through which people might be able to see more movies. David Chen, one of the regular contributors to /Film, certainly seems to be. I'm not. At all.

When I was growing up, and the obsession with film was just starting to take root, we had two video stores in town. One was in the local supermarket shopping center, and it was the first video store my family had a membership with. I was a bike riding fool as a kid, so I was constantly peddling from one end of town to the other. Whether it was to go fishing, swimming, play ball somewhere, trying to find the place which would allow my bike and I the most air and the greatest speed, I wasn't confined to a very small area. On the other side of town from where my mother and stepfather bought our first house, there was another video store, and having the first twinges of obsession with film, I would occasionally stop in there, curious to see if a video store was a video store was a video store. In more ways than not, I was a typical middle class kid at that age, and in that time.

It was called Ultimate video, and it sat on the corner of Main St. and Railroad Avenue, a stone's throw from the local little league field. Ultimate Video was proof that not all video stores were created equal. It was a relatively tiny little place, but compared to the store at the other end of town, it was a veritable treasure trove. The shelves were packed full of video's whose covers ranged from bizarre to exotic to almost mind numbingly boring. It didn't take but a few visits for me to realize Ultimate Video was indeed ultimate, and far superior to the video store my parents had decided to sign up with. It became a source of constant irritation. When we had the good fortune to be able to go and rent some videos, I knew I was missing something. The Other Video store (which is invariably how adults referred to it) was further away (by a whole mile and a half), and to them, one video store was the same as the next.

For those first few years, I made due. I found what I could in that initial place, and at least got a movie fix once in a while. But, when my parents moved us to the other side of town (the side Ultimate Video  was on), it finally happened. We got a membership at Ultimate Video and the pain of having to browse the less worthy shelves of that crappy store was finally ended. That first store, the name of which I can't even remember anymore, went belly up not long after. People were figuring out that Ultimate Video had the real goods. From that point forward, I spent many hours perusing the shelves of that tiny little video haven. Going to rent a movie became an event that took me a few hours. When I say tiny, I mean it too. It was probably twenty-five by thirty-five, but there were so many shelves packed in there, it was like a little maze. I'd walk through those aisles, whose top shelf I had a hard time reaching at first, and scrutinize the cover of every single video. Does anyone else remember being completely awestruck by the glowing eyes on the cover of Dead Pit? It was a terrible movie, but that cover was a genius marketing move. If something seemed like it might be a candidate for the day or evenings viewing experience, I'd pick it up, read the plot summary on the back, study the frames from the film, and set it back, making a mental note. I spent so much time in that place as a kid, I'd occasionally just grab a stack of video's waiting to go back on the shelves and put them out. I knew where they all went, and I was in there so often, the proprietor trusted me enough to know I wasn't heading for the door with a stack full of her videos.

She got to know my mom pretty well too, because I'd come in pick a video and if it was R rated, she'd have to make the call. At first, I'd be standing there phone number in hand, but it wasn't long at all before it was just written down on our membership card, and not long after that, the owner memorized it. She'd call, tell my mom what it was I was trying to rent, give her a basic idea of what it was about and why it was rated R (this was about the time PG-13 was making it's debut, so for a while, I had to go through the same process with those), and my mom would give her the yay or nay vote. Luckily for me, before video was at my disposal, I'd developed a pretty voracious reading habit. Being an only child, and a latch key kid, meant lots of time to yourself, and even my dog would get tired at some point, so I needed something to keep me busy. I had made the jump from strictly kids fare to Stephen King, Shakespeare, H.G. Wells, Mark Twain and so on pretty young, so my parents weren't too restrictive in what movies they'd let me see. Occasionally, something was just a little too much, but I knew the line, and I wasn't interested in putting anyone through the hassle of having to call my mom about a video I knew I wasn't going to be allowed to see (I Spit On Your Grave and Faces Of Death taunted me from those shelves). That reading habit had already started me on an interest in all things horror. I waited impatiently for the newest Stephen King novel to make it to paperback in those days. Paperbacks were cheaper, and they either fit in my pocket or in my waist band in the small of my back. It didn't take me long to figure out that I had to read the first few chapters before I could start carrying that way. Little boy sweat tended to smear the print pretty horrifically at some point, and the covers and first few pages would end up disintegrating. Poe and Lovecraft would satiate my hunger for horror while waiting for Stephen King's next page turner. If those paperbacks were my introduction, my elementary and high school of horror, science fiction and all other forms of narrative geekery, Ultimate Video was my undergrad. It was the kind of business that recognized itself as part of a middle class community, and the owners did their best to live up to that responsibility.

They certainly did a service for me. I was just a regular middle class kid, and without the likes of places like Ultimate Video (and The Record Stop, the areas independent record store), there are so many things I either never would have been exposed to at all or it would have been so much later, that they may not have made as much of an impact on me. Prior to these kinds of businesses existing, you couldn't see a lot of these films in the suburbs, you had to live in a major metropolitan area, and catch them in the theaters. The same was true for music. If you didn't live in a major city, there were many things you just didn't get exposed to and which remained too obscure for far too long. These kinds of businesses opened up a whole new worlds for middle class kids, adolescents and adults who were looking for something a little different from what the local multiplex was playing of the local radio station was promoting.

I wasn't necessarily interested in what the newest videos were. There were plenty of weeks during which whatever was newly released just wasn't interesting to me. Sure, I could sit through and relatively enjoy some big, loud, dumb action movie, just like any other boy, but I had already figured out it's better to see something a little older and well done than something new that just wasn't any good. In my mid-teens, the point finally came at which I'd seen basically every catalog title they had in stock that I had even a remote interest in, but by that point, the video boom was in full swing and there were video places everywhere, and of the record stores which carried lesser known music started selling video titles that were a little outside the mainstream. At that point, Ultimate Video would order stuff for me if I asked for it, and on one or two occasions, they didn't even make me buy it, they just put it in with their rental catalog.

Unfortunately, the video boom also brought the huge rental chains, Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video and the like. The first time I walked into a Blockbuster, I was initially wowed. It was so big and the aisles were wide enough to walk past someone else without having to press yourself against the shelves, and it seemed like there was just an endless supply of movies. And in the first year or so they were coming to prominence, they had a decent selection. It still wasn't quite as good as Ultimate Video, especially if you were a horror fan, but it wasn't too bad, and if I couldn't find a horror flick I wanted to see, I could find something in another section. But then, over time, the selection started to get worse and worse. There was less and less room in the store devoted to catalog titles, and more and more devoted to new titles. There would be ninety copies of the Meg Ryan romantic comedy they'd given a new name and cover, but when a fellow horror aficionado was finally convinced he could not go another day without seeing Cannibal Holocaust, it was nowhere to be found. It wasn't that it was already rented and just not in stock. They didn't even carry it. When I asked about it, I was told there were some titles they didn't carry because of their content. And that kind of thing started to happen more and more often. It wasn't necessarily always content that kept things off of Blockbusters shelves either. It was the kind of corporate decision making that decided a title wasn't going to have enough demand to be worth carrying. I get that, every business has that right, but I can't for the life of me figure out how those decisions were actually made. There were plenty of things on that "New Release" wall that even I had never heard of, and I spent more time than anyone I knew reading magazines (because there was no internet at the time), newspapers and the occasional film zine from some small press in New York City), just to know what was going to be coming out. It wasn't lost on me that most of those movies had titles like "Silk Desires", and were purported to be "thrillers" about two people caught in a web of intrigue, often involving an affair, a missing person, an insurance scam or some such nonsense. They were the softest core porn really. They were porn without the porn. Lots of fuzzy angles, the occasional moan, and silhouetted nakedness. It was like porn for the kind of hardcore "Moral Majority" type who decided tonight was going to be sin central, but you know, without the actual sinning.

There lots of those, and things like "Hood Riders", because Menace II Society and Boys In The Hood had just gained popularity and acclaim, and retailers of all varieties were starting to try and seem like they were "urban friendly", but getting a copy of School Daze, before Do The Right Thing hit, was impossible. All of that stuff was in abundance, but when I read about a film called Salo by Palo Pasolini, a disturbingly violent and sexually graphic, but intellectually unparalleled cinematic meditation on the realities of fascism and totalitarianism, it was nowhere to be found, and by that point, the Blockbuster's of the world had put the Ultimate Video's of the world out of business. The American middle class had turned Blockbuster into the nine hundred pound gorilla of the video rental industry. When I asked the guy behind the counter, whom I knew to be the manager, if he could possibly order a copy for me, it seemed as if I had asked him to build me a space shuttle behind the store and use some kind of alchemy to turn popcorn butter into rocket fuel. When I finally decided there might be more to The Seventh Seal than a bunch of pretentious film student posturing, I couldn't find a copy of that either, and it's widely considered one of the two or three greatest films of all time. It's not that obscure a title, at all. It's something you can see referenced in the pages of any newspapers film reviews, as long as it's a paper written on more than a seventh grade reading level (unlike the Richmond Times Dispatch). And three quarters of the people working in the stores had never even heard of these things. 

And that trend continued. Fewer catalog titles, more new releases, and straight to video "niche market" titles became the regular business model for rental chains.

Blockbuster was not a business which saw itself as part of a middle class community. Without a middle class, they would never have reached the level of success they did, but being a part of and enriching that community was not something Blockbuster was interested in. They were interested, first, foremost and only in squeezing every dollar they could out of that middle class. It's something we've seen plenty of in our lifetimes. Companies are built on a customer base that is middle class, but it's only interest is in taking what it can get, and they claim their only responsibility is to their profit margin and their shareholders. To the community that makes them successful, they are only responsible for providing a product that consumer community will buy or can be convinced to buy. It doesn't have to be a quality product, it just has to be something they can sell and we will buy.

Then, the digital revolution truly began.

I was actually working in a record store when Napster made the front page of almost every newspaper in the country (except, of course, The Richmond Times Dispatch). Music was being shared across the internet, for free, by hundreds of thousands of college students everywhere. This wasn't news to me, I'd already had more than one person scoff at the twenty dollar per CD price tag and mumble about downloading it from Napster. Personally, I wasn't doing the whole download thing. I not like the way the music industry conducted a lot of it's business, but at least the people creating the content should be getting paid enough to keep creating content. Napster and it's users were basically screwing the people whose music they were fans of, which didn't make much sense to me. The music industry was very quickly in complete chaos. Those of us working in the stores were hoping they'd at least be smart enough to get on top of things and start offering music for sale, online. Then came the Metallica suit, in which the band sued the users sharing their music. We all saw the writing on the wall. Suing the fans is the most idiotic possible way to stop digital piracy. You're punishing your fans, for what amounts to cents on the dollar for you. The fans knew enough to know the overwhelming majority of profit for music sales went to the record companies and the artists make the money on merchandise and tours. Well, there were some attempts, most of which were pretty laughable because either the digital security measures were so draconian users couldn't actually play the music on all of their different machines or the pricing was ridiculous. I was somehow not shocked that people weren't going to pay fifteen or twenty bucks for music that didn't come with a package of any kind. There was no hard disc copy, no liner notes, no cover art, none of it. It was just the music, which is worth having and why you buy music in the first place, but without the rest of it, and with the modern consumer being savvy enough to know how much of the cost is in the production of a physical product etc., people knew they were getting screwed. The music industry had spent too much time fighting the future, and trying to keep it from coming, and in many ways had gotten left behind, and still hasn't caught up. Now, Apple almost entirely controls the market, because the record companies spent their resources trying to keep the digital revolution from happening, instead of trying to figure out how to capitalize on it.

The exact same thing has happened to the movie industry, and especially the rental industry. Because they've gotten locked into a business model which has been extremely profitable, but which hasn't served the consumer very well, and they have been more willing to try and fight the inevitable than expend the energy to develop some new ideas, they've gotten caught with their pants down. The major film studios are in the process of bringing exactly the same kind of suit, against end users (fans) that Metallica did. They've run into a bit of a rough patch with that suit though, because none of the internet service providers have enough people on staff who can bring them the names which match the IP addresses they've nailed down. Three to five people on staff, finding IP addresses for a company like Verizon, who typically have to track down twenty to one hundred a month for criminal investigations, are suddenly saddled with a list of thousands, and they just aren't able to do it. It's not looking good for the studios on that front either.

And for the likes of Blockbuster, this has been a long time coming. They too fought the digital revolution for longer than was wise, and by the time they started doing their own rental through the mail and download content, it was way too late, Redbox had already eclipsed the new release market for the casual movie fan, and for the serious film obsessive like me, Netflix streaming capabilities and the mail to home rentals is like having forty Ultimate Video's in my living room.

I have a deep sympathy for the employees of Blockbuster who are going to lose their jobs. But the thing is, this is something that's happening in many different American industries. The inability to even consider attempting to change the model of a business because they are so anchored to the idea that this is the only way they can profit, is not good for anyone, at all. This is really no different than what happened with the American auto industry, except Blockbuster isn't a big enough part of the economic picture and American identity to get rescued. Things are changing, quickly now, and for those businesses who are incapable of trying to develop REAL INNOVATION it's going to be the end of the road. Right now, there's a significant push back against the green movement and the idea of climate change, but that's not going to hold up forever. At some point, hopefully sooner than later, people are going to realize it is an actual reality, and the only fantasy and conspiracy perpetrated upon them has been by those who keep denying it. There are businesses out there who are capitalizing on the future that's coming and putting themselves in the kind of position to be the industry leaders of the future. The question is whether or not there will be qualified Americans for them to hire.

The same thing is happening to the middle class in many ways. It's been the middle class who have made so many of these companies and industries incredibly profitable. People are clamoring to bring the jobs back that have been sent overseas. Well, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you folks, but it's not going to happen. Those jobs are never coming back, and we're going to have to figure out a new way of structuring our economy, which means developing a new way of creating and sustaining middle class existences. As globalization was becoming a reality, the question of how the American labor force was going to compete against labor forces which can successfully live on two to five dollars a day was put to many of the people who were singing the praises of globalization. The answer was always education. The American Educational system is a complete mess, and the answer they have for you? It's not stop stripping funding from public schools that gave us a middle class which made us the most powerful economic, military and political force in the world. It's start privatizing it. That's been the same answer we've heard to just about every problem we've faced, even when those problems have their basis in the private market failing to provide what people need. And what happens when those private educational industry face the same kind of unstoppable future that the auto industry, music industry and film industry have faced and they refuse to change because their past models have been so profitable? What do Americans do then?

In 2006, America was graduating fifty-thousand engineers each year. Fifteen years prior, we'd been graduating sixty thousand engineers every year. In 2006, China was graduating over three hundred thousand engineers. Fifteen years prior, fifteen thousand. And what are we talking about right now? A community center in Manhattan. This is no different than Blockbuster trying to close it's eyes and act like Netflix and Redbox don't exist. We are not making the changes to the way we do things that are going to prepare us for the future that is coming. We are not realizing and taking into account that what it took to be, become and stay middle class is changing at an exponential rate. Middle class wages have been frozen, to the point of falling behind inflation, for thirty years. We can't afford to ignore these problems if we're going to continue to be and have a middle class. If we do, we're going to have ended up exactly like Blockbuster video, for exactly the same reason.

Blockbuster video was once the largest most powerful rental chain in the country and the world. The American auto industry was once the largest and most powerful auto industry in the world. The Unidted States once had the largest and wealthiest middle class in the world. One was recently rescued from utter destruction by the federal government (a government take over that saved their asses from being owned by China). Blockbuster won't exist in another few months. And the middle class is facing a dilemma. The model which created the middle class is no longer working. We are watching the world change around us, and we can become the leading edge of that change or we can get left behind. Are we going to keep on the path we've been on these last few decades or are we going to be the one's leading the world into the scientific and technological age? Are we going to be providing the kinds of services which make those advances as efficient as possible or are we going to be watching India, China, Korea, Japan and others beat us to it? Blockbuster and the auto industry refused to accept the realities of the changing world. America was once an economic and political powerhouse the likes of which the world has probably never seen, specifically because it had a thriving working and middle class. If those middle and working class people don't start waking up to the realities that just wanting things to go back to the way they were and not trying to start developing some new approaches to the changes of a changing world, we may very well end up in much the same place as the auto industry and Blockbuster video.

The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

The White Ribbon is a rumination on ritualized punishment by master film maker Michael Haneke. The film revolves around the residents of a small Austrian village just prior to World War I. Following a series of events both routine and unusually horrific, the peaceful life they've become used to is turned upside down. 

To say that The White Ribbon is an understated film is understated. It's obviously the work of a master film maker specifically for that reason. It takes someone confident enough in an ability they understand to be superior to craft a film as patient, studious and methodical as this film is. In every way, this should probably be a very boring film. This is not a flashy film, with exciting action and events happening every second.

The narrative is built like a mystery, a nearly perfect mystery, and the subtlety of it's construction is only possibly overshadowed by the performances, the dialog, the  script and the cinematography. It's shot in black and white, and so beautiful that there could be a few paragraphs worth of hyperbolic language to describe. I could seriously go on for a very long time about the photography in this film. This alone would be reason to see this film. 

Haneke has managed to create a film which is tightly wound and has a more consistent rhythm than a metronome by keeping things as subtle as he does and by using a decidedly uncinematic cast. That's not to say the performances aren't good, because they are, every single one of them is superb, but none of these actors look like they just stepped off a back lot somewhere in Hollywood or spend long hours devoted to the iconography of the physical image that we cultivate in most of our cinema and television. They aren't your classic Hollywood "pretty people," and whether we want to believe that or not, it makes a difference in how far we're willing to go in suspending our disbelief. When people are so attractive, so perfectly coiffed that it's abnormal, and looks like an effect they're attempting to achieve, we know it, and we don't believe it as willingly as we do people who look like they belong in an early twentieth century Austrian farming community. All of those elements come together to give the film a steady, quiet rhythm that keep it from becoming a boring, slow, preachy snoozefest, and make it engaging, suspenseful, interesting, and ultimately, an example of the power of quality, no frills film making. 

There's a cliche it's really easy to get tired of hearing or reading when you're a film enthusiast. Film makers, actors, producers, everyone invovled in film making and just about every single variety of storytelling in general use it. They say, "I was willing to do it to serve the story,""we really didn't want to do anything but serve the story." It's always about "serving the story." It's something said on a near constant basis, even when it couldn't be further from the truth. With The White Ribbon though, it's absolutely the truth. There is nothing in this movie that doesn't somehow serve the story. There's no extraneous bits and pieces or unecessary scenes, characters, dialog, nothing. It's all actuall there to serve the story, and that is what makes this such an incredible film. The story here has some interesting things to say about the nature of punishment and oppressive social, religious and economic conditions, and suggests some even more interesting things about the role those may have ultimately played in the beginnings and future acceptance of fascism. The source of that punishment and oppression is different in this film, but because of it's lack of sensationalistic tone, it's easy to see the through line from a life like the one depicted in the film, and accepting the kind of oppression fascism would eventually bring. 


The White Ribbon is an artistic accomplishment by a master film maker, which should be seen by anyone with even a passing interest in film on more than a pure entertainment level. I caught it on Netflix Watch Instantly and it's available on DVD. 

Bits and Pieces 11/22/10

Netflix is starting to offer a subscription option for streaming only. DVD isn't dead and gone yet, but this could be yet another example of the move in that direction. The New York Times had a piece on it.

With Black Friday coming, Amazon has a load of deals for film geeks of every stripe. /Film has a good list and a whole set of links. 

Harry over at Ain't It Cool News has compiled his usual list of noteworthy weekly releases. A Criterion Edition of Night of the Hunter is probably my favorite pick of the week. For anyone out there who hasn't seen it, Robert Mitchum's performance was the precursor to and foundation for basically every famous, fan favorite movie villain that's followed, from Norman Bates to Hannibal Lecter. Mitchum's performance is both so charismatic and so creepy that whether you really like his character or you really hate him, you feel badly about it. It's impressive, a great movie worth checking out and paying Criterion price for the quality image and extras.

Neil Blomkamp, writer/director of the awesomely impressive District 9 seems to have a new project going on. There's a viral video showing up in this months iPad edition of Wired Magazine. Bloody Disgusting has gotten their paws on a copy, which is worth checking out. I don't know what it is, but it looks interesting, and considering how superb his first outing was, chances are I'll give this a shot.

/Film has a few other stories worth noting. Disney has apparently signed a deal with Gore Verbinski (director of the Pirates of the Caribbean series and the American version of The Ring) to finance a Verbinski directed version The Lone Ranger, with Johnny Depp attached to star. Good old Johnny boy seems to make quite an impression on his directors. Is this the beginning of another collaborative relationship along the lines of Burton/Depp? I guess we'll see. Johnny Depp is definitely a talented actor, but The Lone Ranger? I also have to ask, do we really need another Lone Ranger? We can hope it will be good. This may be of limited interest to most people, but Gael Garcie Bernal (who perfectly played a pre-revolutionary Che Guevera in The Motorcycle Diaries) is attached to play boxer Roberto Duran. If you're a casual boxing fan, like I am, Duran's story is an interesting one. Even if you know or care nothing about boxing, it could make for very good cinema. Also, Warner Brothers is doing something extremely unseemly. They are in the process of developing a reboot of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, without the creator of all of the original characters, and who was the creative engine behind the popular television series that fans are still dying to see a film based on. Joss Whedon certainly isn't hurting for work, as he's been tapped to write and direct The Avengers (possibly the biggest cinematic undertaking in the medium's history), but he did respond to Warner Brother's running off with his baby. Does anyone remember the last time someone tackled this property without Whedon to keep it balanced? It was a big, steaming, stinking pile of turd. Good luck with that Warner Brothers, for all of our sakes.

And then there is this... a surprising find and important find. One of the original 35mm prints of King Kong has been found. There's some speculation that this found gem may include the lost "spider pit" scene. Ain't It Cool News has a good piece on it, and so does Dread Central. 

Zombie Strippers (2008, Jay Lee)

This thing is a piece of trash. Seriously, it's utter trash. It's quite possibly the smartest, most sly, intelligent piece of trash I've ever seen. Zombie Strippers is trash, completely, totally and absolutely purposely. The history of film is filled to the brim with examples of film makers who had aspirations for creating real art, something really different, new, intelligent and only ended up with trash. Boom!, for example. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to reach new heights, great art has been created in the attempt to do so. This thing, goes in a completely different direction. It wraps itself in the veneer of trash while hiding some pretty intelligent well crafted social commentary, having fun with all of it the whole time.

It's a parody of both high art cinema and B-movie exploitation flicks and something of a ham handed social satire at the same time. The plot is completely ridiculous. A government created virus escapes from a top secret facility in a future created by the dissolution of Congress by an all powerful George W. Bush. Morality has been the central legislation, along with many, never ending wars. Exposed flesh has been outlawed completely, so stripping is obviously illegal.

When the virus escapes, in the form of a soldier who's been bitten by a zombie, it ends up at an underground, illegal strip club. Said soldier attacks the establishments star, who becomes an uber stripper. The crowd at this illegal establishment develop an appetite for nothing but zombie strippers. Living strippers just don't cut it anymore, because zombie strippers are sexier.

Of course, it all goes south from there, with lots of nudity, lots of gore, and strangely enough, a script practically carpet bombed with references to every major philosophical movement in history. In your face doesn't quite describe it's style. Considering the fact that the modern zombie film is steeped in philosophic allegory, possibly more than any other genre of film, as a fan I found that part of it entertaining. Writer/director Jay Lee is obviously a fan of the zombie genre, and the philosophical underpinnings which have been at it's heart since it made the jump into the modern age and the cultural lexicon with Night of the Living Dead.

It would be an overstatement to suggest this is not a film for everyone. It would also be an overstatement to say it's nothing but a mindless piece of trash, because it wears it's mindless trashiness too proudly on it's sleeve, with a wink and a nod. The best probable audience for this film is probably an extremely small one, philosophy loving fans of zombie movies. Chances are this will end up being exactly what it's intent seems to suggest, a cult oddity passed along from serious genre fan to genre fan for a number of years and generations. All in all a fun film that takes nothing seriously, including itself. It's not bad if your looking to waste some time with something fun, and mindless enough to be laughable, but not insultingly stupid either. Not a classic, but not a dud either.

Lake Mungo (2008, Joel Anderson)

There have been a number of films in the last few years which are built around convincing the audience that they are true stories. Lake Mungo is built around the same idea.

Lake Mungo doesn't approach it's story from the "found footage" perspective, but instead is essentially presenting itself as a documentary chronicling events after they've occurred. This isn't trying to be Paranormal Activity or The Blair Witch. And it's probably in part because of that difference that the film works pretty well.

The story in this little Australian fright flick is about a family whose daughter drowned while they were on vacation together. The mystery though, isn't about whether there was some kind of foul play, the central question or tension to the film is the fact that they start experiencing the kinds of things that are usually associated with a haunting. They tell of sounds in the house, coming from the girl's bedroom, etc.

I don't want to give anything away beyond that, but I can tell you that on a number of occasions during the film, I was definitely surprised by the direction the story was taking. In being able to pull that off, they do a wonderful of giving you some connection to the way this family must have felt as these events were taking place. The best word I can use to describe the construction of the story, and the cinematic presentation of that story is elegant. This isn't something that's trying to make you jump out of your skin.Though there are some really creepy visuals in the film, it's intent seemed to be more to give you a consistent feeling of unease, and to creep you out once you've gone home and you have to turn out your lights at the end of the night. It's a very subtle, subdued film that succeeds in creating an atmosphere that induces the fear of the unknown in a more cerebral way that most horror films today don't have the patience or skill to even attempt.

It's not for everyone, and when it was released by After Dark Films as one of their Eight Films To Die For in their yearly traveling Horrorfest, it got mixed reviews, and was more or less passed over. I can definitely understand the horror community not being thrilled by it because it does eschew the kind of shock and gratuity most horror fans have become accustomed to.

I'm not going to recommend you try and watch this immediately (though it is on Netflix, Watch Instantly), but the next time you're looking for something to watch that is well made, isn't too heavy and some creepy fun Lake Mungo would do well. This is a good one to add to the Halloween viewing list as well.

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010, Tod Williams)

The original Paranormal Activity was a phenomenon. Partly helped by an innovative marketing campaign, the efficient, highly effective low budget horror film scared the living daylights out of millions.

Paranormal Activity 2 releases today, and Paramount is hoping those millions want more. Judging by my local Bow Tie cinema, and it's midnight screening on Thursday, audiences most definitely do want more.

If you enjoyed the first film, the chances are very good that you'll enjoy the second film. I enjoyed the first film, and I can say without any hint of hyperbole that I think the second film may be the best horror sequel to be released in the last ten years (though I have to qualify that by saying that I haven't seen the sequel to the original [Rec.] which horror fans have unanimously applauded). There's nothing here that re-invents the wheel here, but the film does take the elements of the original that worked, does them at least as well, sometimes better, and it dispenses with some of the elements of the original film which didn't work so well and adds to the story in an inventive way that actually adds to the first film.

The other reason I'd go so far as to say this is one of the best horror sequels in the last ten years (and is destined to find it's way onto the list of greatest horror sequels of all time) is that it adds a new dimension to the story of the original. This isn't just a rehashing of the original film with a new set of characters. It's taking the story and mythology set up in the original film, and adding depth and breadth to it. Anyone coming to this film having not seen the first, is not going to be lost (though it would spoil the originals ending), they'd be going into the original with more information about the characters and essentially be given a deeper understanding of the over all story. Somehow screen writer Micheal Perry and director Tod Williams have pulled off the rather amazing feat of making these films co-exist as completely separate works that stand on their own, but also making each more rich due to the others existence. The entirety of the Hollywood studio system could learn something from the group of people who were responsible for the creative decisions behind this film. THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD BE APPROACHING SEQUELS, NO MATTER WHAT GENRE.

I saw the original film in a theater full of college students in Georgetown a few weeks before it was finally given a nationwide release. It is one of the most memorable theater going experiences I've ever had. That audience completely bought it, and was being wildly, gleefully terrified. I saw almost exactly the same reaction during the sequel. People were screaming, jumping, covering their faces, yelling at the screen, and just about losing it as the film and it's creators cranked up the tension. The suspenseful elements that worked in the first film are here, and played perfectly. As in the first film, everything begins innocuously and becomes increasingly sinister, unsettling and heart stopping as the film progresses. As I said, they didn't reinvent the wheel here, but they use the elements established in the original film so well, I can't fault them for it in any way. In a crowd full of people, at midnight, veteran film fanatic and horror film aficionado that I am, my heart was pounding, I was jumping and exclaiming "AAAHH". It scared the hell out of me, and I loved every second of it. Three quarters of the way through, I had to put my drink down to make sure the person sitting next to me wasn't going to end up wearing it.

Jump scares like those, which were used to such good effect in both films, are usually just a cheap device in most horror films. In this film, they're used to establish the fact that these characters are in actual peril. It's not some fake out moment or quick shot of a blunt or bladed object moving at the screen and audience with great speed. They are used to specifically to increase the suspense, and the third act of the film is almost nothing but nail biting, hair pulling, fist squeezing suspense.


On the level of pure film enthusiast, setting aside my own personal affection for horror films, when I look at this film in the context of story, performances, etc., this is definitely a better film than the first. I wouldn't necessarily have thought this after seeing the first film, but now that I've seen the second, I can see that the concentration on and the amount of time spent only with two characters wasn't the best possible use of the story and the basic conceit and purpose of the film. Paranormal Activity 2 succeeds where it's predecessor failed by giving the audience six speaking roles total, and four central characters (five if you include the dog). It seems to move much more smoothly because no character or plot point is too belabored, and just the additional number of characters creates a different dynamic which is probably inherently more interesting. As much as I enjoyed the fact that the original did focus on just two characters, and was very much about the toll the events were taking on their relationship, the additional family members in this film gives rise to the ability of the story and the film makers to explore a bit more territory. And the actors in this film do a really great job. This kind of "found footage" film depends to such a great extent on the ability of the actors to convince you that they aren't actually acting and that what you are watching is just regular people, addressing whatever situation the film happens to put them in, this cast has done a great job. The only new cast member I know is Sprague Grayden. She's had a number of roles in some of the more popular television shows in the last ten years, and I've seen her in a few small roles in other films, but she does a damn good job of selling her role in this film. I'd give more praise to the other actors in the film, but none of them are listed on IMDB. The only reason I'm able to identify Grayden is because I recognized her from her television work.

Another really strong aspect of this film, and why I believe this is one of the best models for a sequel that I've ever seen, is that when it does call back to some moment or piece of information in the first film, it doesn't just do so in order to say to the audience, "Hey, remember how much you liked that movie, well don't forget this is the sequel to that movie you liked so much (wink, wink)." When there are call backs to the first film, they actually provide some kind of information that strengthens the first films narrative structure, give it more meaning and explain some pieces of information that were missing. It's in this way that the film not only stands on it's own, but adds new realism and relevance to the mythology of both films. In that regard, it's actually an imaginative and pretty amazing piece of writing. It intertwines both stories in a way that is organic, sensible, surprising and believable (as believable as any narrative dealing with the super natural can be anyway). It's a really great thing to see a film, so much at home with itself in being a horror film isn't necessarily trying to make it's innovations in the scare department (although there actually are one or two of those), but more so in the story and writing.

This does seem to be the end of the story. There wasn't anything in the film or the ending of the film that gave it the same kind of "wide open" ending that is so often the case when a studio or film maker is specifically making a film with a sequel in mind. In fact, it seems to wrap up both films pretty well. There could conceivably be a sequel in developing a narrative for what you don't know when the film ends, what exactly happens to two of the characters or where it is they go at the end of the film, but it would be more of a stretch than even developing a sequel from the ending of the first film. Given what the film makers were able to come up with and were able to do with this film, I wouldn't completely put it past them, but I can say it did seem like this was supposed to be the end of the story. There were no major plot elements left open, no real mysteries to be solved, or answers to be discovered that would change or add anything to the first and second films. I can't conceive of a better way to end the Paranormal Activity saga. Of course, if the film pulls in a huge profit, another sequel will quickly be on track, but it's not something this film seems to suggest or guarantee. This should be the end for the franchise as far as I'm concerned, but if the film makers were able to create another sequel which actually does succeed in broadening the story and mythology as well as this one has, I'd go see it.

Whether or not there will be a third film doesn't change the fact that if you enjoyed the first film, at all, you should go and see the second film in as crowded a theater as you can find, as soon as possible.

UPDATE:
Reaction to Paranormal Activity 2 is overwhelmingly positive in critical and audience reaction. I've read a few reviews since writing my own that bring up a few critical points that I think are valid and are worth noting and that I didn't include because of my own enthusiasm for the sheer fun of the theater experience. The first act has some pacing issues. It's a little on the slow side, which I expected, because the original used it's first act to start laying the groundwork for the suspense in the second two acts. The problem with the first act in this film isn't necessarily the fact that it's slow, but that it's uneven. There are times when it seems to intend on picking up the pace and moving along into the next two acts pretty quickly, and then it slows down again, giving some more exposition, character development etc. It doesn't hurt the effectiveness of the film as a whole, because the second and third act are so strong, in part because of the character and exposition it slows down to provide, but it is there, and it is something audience members who can't wait to get to the scares are going to notice.

The other criticism I've read that does have some validity (though it's something I tend to forgive, given the nature of a "found footage" narrative) is that there are one or two points during the film where to some of the audience it might seem unrealistic that one character picks up a camera. I say "it might seem to some audience members" because it's not something specifically explained, but given what we've already been told about one character specifically, and their perspective on the events that are unfolding, it does make sense for that character.

Another negative criticism I'm reading tends to be in comment sections and really doesn't relate so much to the success of THIS film, as it does to a dissatisfaction with the direction the film makers chose to take with the story. To me, that's not particularly a fair kind of criticism. These film makers, made this film. Is it effective in it's aims or is it not? If this isn't the movie you would have wanted to see, not the story you think should have been told, go make the movie you would have wanted to see, and then let the audience tell you which is more effective.

The other criticisms I'm reading seem to be coming from two specific perspectives. The first really comes down to the fact that this film doesn't have the kind of excitement behind it that the first one did, that it doesn't feel "new" and "fresh." Well, it is a sequel, and the first one wasn't really all that new either. Cinema verite has been around for decades, and there have been plenty of "found footage" films in the last two decades. Paranormal Activity felt new and exciting because Oren Peli found a new way to work that into the film and the story, and make it believable. This film, because it's a sequel, is somewhat bound by the rules of the mythology as they were established in the original. That's a criticism of sequels, in general, not this particular film. The second set of criticisms I think are unfounded seem to basically be coming from people who are just too cool to get excited about the film in part because getting genuinely scared during a film is something they don't think is "cool" and in part because of a genuine enjoyment in hating and picking apart everything that is "mainstream." That's got nothing to do with the actual film this set of film makers decided to make. These film makers were fortunate enough to have a major studio financing and marketing their film. Maybe that's something some people don't think is a good thing. Personally, I think it's completely neutral. It can be a good thing, it can be a bad thing. It depends on the film. I honestly can't imagine that this film cost anymore than an independent film that happened to have found a good financing opportunity. I can't find the actual figures on the cost of the film, but I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that it was much cheaper to make than your average Hollywood production, and it suffers from neither being under financed or from having too much money available and throwing it into digital effects (something too many films suffer from in today's day and age).

Here are some reviews from other sites, that cover the film good and bad.


Ain't It Cool (Capone)- minor spoilers for storyline, nothing major that ruins the film experience though

Ain't It Cool (Massawyrm)- No spoilers, and a negative review that adds credence to the my argument that most of the people who have something negative to say about this film, aren't actually reviewing this film. They're talking about the overall approach of the franchise or something they don't like about "found footage" movies, in general. Though, there I do agree that people are more likely to remember the experience of seeing the film than they are to remember the film, I personally think that once in a while it's good to have a film that is ALL ABOUT THE THEATER EXPERIENCE.

Bloody Disgusting


Collider

Hitflix

Roger Ebert

Klute (1971, Alan J. Pakula)

It might be hard for some people to imagine, but I grew up in an age before the internet. That's right, you didn't always have any information you could possibly be seeking right at your fingertips, and you certainly didn't have websites dishing out all the news on upcoming films and so forth. In those days, you had to do things like read magazines and books to find out about the things you were interested in. You'd pick up a magazine or a book and pour yourself over it, searching for tidbits of information about some hidden gem you'd never heard of before. New or old didn't make much of a difference because if you were gong to go through that kind of trouble to find something you might like, you took the recommendations you could find.

I made a habit of trying to read interviews with musicians, writers and directors whose work I enjoyed, sometimes actors as well, but that was much less frequent. If they threw out the name of a film, band, album, that they liked, I'd try and get my hands on it.

It was more or less the same principle that led me to see Klute. When it was originally released as part of New Lines Cinema's Platinum Series on DVD, I watched Se7en more times than I can count, and I watched all of the extras, and listened to all of the commentaries on multiple occasions. In the course of one commentary, they somehow got on the subject of films somehow being personally important to you, even if they weren't "important films" in the much larger sense. David Fincher, the director of Se7en mentioned that Klute had been just such a film for him.

David Fincher has since made a slew of films that I've either really loved or really enjoyed. So, I've been meaning to see the film. I didn't want to rush out and buy it though, because I've got to be honest, I've seen some really bad Jane Fonda movies, and I've seen some really bad Donald Sutherland movies, and I was a little skeptical. I wanted to see the film before I even considered picking it up on DVD. I was also not really very excited by the synopsis and the general plot of the film, which I just kept thinking I've seen done so many times before (though sometimes very well) that I could skip this.

Finally, thanks to the film geek miracle that is Netflix, I just finished it via the "Watch Instantly" feature. I wish I'd seen it sooner. DJ (my girlfriend, for those of you who might not know), went to bed and I figured now might be a good time to sit down and give it a look. Having been somewhat skeptical, I didn't want to subject someone else to a crappy movie just because I'm a David Fincher fan.

Here's the quick synopsis: Donald Sutherland is Klute. He's been hired as a private detective to try and find someone who'd been a friend of his, and who disappeared in New York City. Jane Fonda is a call girl to whom the police and the F.B.I seem to think this friend had a connection. Klute leaves rural Pennsylvania (he's hired by the corporation the missing man had been working for at the time) and goes first to try and find out if Jane Fonda has any information. From there on, it's a bit of a mystery, a bit of a thriller and a bit of a character study.

All of the exposition for the film is laid out in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, and from that point forward there is almost no exposition in the dialogue. For a thriller/mystery, that's pretty impressive. Most of the thrillers I've ever seen, new and old, just can't seem to lay off the exposition. They are explaining every step of the way what is happening, what the latest evidence is, blah, blah, blah. There was so little of it after the opening of the film and the set up that I never even noticed it. That's something I can applaud just about any film for.

Also, it was a film at least as interested, if not more so, in it's characters as it was in the thriller/mystery aspect of the story. The character development never feels trite either. It never feels forced or cliche. In another unusual turn, Jane Fonda's role is the one which is most well written and is a full, three dimensional character. She won an Oscar for the role, and I see why, but the fact that she's really the centerpiece of the film and the character was given that much depth definitely gave her something good to work with. Jane Fonda's character is a prostitute, but she's much more a real person than 99.9% of the other films I've ever seen who have female prostitutes as characters. She's screwed up, but she's very human, which is what makes the character so strong. There's not a whole lot of black and white when it comes to her character. Instead, like real people, there's a whole lot of gray areas, a few of which she's navigating with some difficulty. Her characters internal struggle was extremely interesting to me, and given the subject matter of the film, it really shouldn't have been. I was specifically skeptical of the description of the film because I didn't want to see yet another "hooker with a heart of gold, saved by the lucky man" kind of story. She doesn't have a heart of gold, but she's not a bad person or despicable or helpless or stupid. She's just struggling, mostly with herself, and it's handled really well within the film.

Sutherland's Klute, is basically the fulcrum of the film. Klute is the one who shows up and because of what he's doing, everything else in the film happens. He's really superb here. Because his role character isn't as fully developed as Fonda's, everything you get about Klute is in the way Sutherland reacts or doesn't react to things (and it's an awesomely quiet performance, so when he's not reacting to things, it's almost better). It's great that Klute isn't some brash, trash talking detective, like the thousands of other films out there which would be stocked next to it on the shelves. Sutherland gives you a sense of Klutes resolve and determination more by what he doesn't even acknowledge than by anything else. He's just incredibly interesting to watch in this film. You rarely see actors purposely approach roles this way, and he pulls it off beautifully.

The director, Alan J. Pakula, seems to have hit his apex with this film. I'm not even going to get into what else he's directed because other than Sophie's Choice, which is pretty highly acclaimed (though not generally something I'm interested in), his other films seem to have been star vehicles that were pretty standard thrillers. But with this, he does an absolutely perfect job of balancing the tension of the thriller with the character aspects of the script. The story never seems muddled, rushed or slow. Everything is perfectly clear, even with the lack of exposition, and the visual style of the movie isn't awe inspiring, but it's more than adequate. There are one or two scenes in particular from which Se7en seems to have been very directly influenced, and for a geek like me that's always fun to be able recognize.

This isn't classic film work, don't get me wrong. In more ways than not, this should be an extremely cliche, run of the mill thriller. Apart from the performances and the character work in the film, the fact that it pulls off not being cliche and run of the mill is exactly what I enjoy and respect about it. I can see so many different ways that within five minutes I could have been thinking to myself, I've seen this film one hundred times before, and once I started watching it, I never felt that way.

This might not be for everyone. It's certainly a little on the darker side in many ways, and it's not perfect, but it is something worth seeing. It does delve into some of the less glamorous aspects of a life in prostitution, though not in an overtly graphic way. Especially if you have a soft spot in your heart for American films from the Seventies, you shouldn't miss this one. It's also worth seeing because of the degree to which it proves you can take something which could in so many ways be boring, empty headed, run of the mill material and turn it into something more than that. Give Klute a chance at your first opportunity.

Toy Story 3 and the magic of Pixar

If you're somewhat familiar with this blog, and what it's been covering so far, you might be  shocked to see that I'm writing about an animated "kids" movie, from a studio that specializes in animated "kids" movies. This is not your average cult, exploitation, horror, science fiction, fare.


What it is though, is a near perfect example of almost everything about movies that has made them the most enduring artistic love and obsession in my life. Sure, I love music, literature, and fine art, but when it comes to question about what I would bring with me on a desert island, I'd forgo those things in favor of a few of my favorite films.


I went to see Toy Story 3 last night. I walked out with the kind of wonderful emotional confusion that can be the result of tangling with the rare beast that is a truly GREAT movie. I'm using great in the sense of having a secure and well deserved place in film history that will insure future generations of film geeks, film students, directors, writers, animators and actors, most important of all, your everyday, average film goer will look at with reverence and gratitude. This is the kind of film that sets the standard for what people are talking about when they describe a film as "classic". This isn't great in a Felini, Godard, Welles sense, but in an It's A Wonderful Life, Wizard Of OZ sense. This film, and the two previous entries in the trilogy are going to become the kinds of films that are part of family rituals, with people sitting down together to watch them as a kind of special event that helps signify and bolster the bonds they have and are even still building on.

The story is fairly simple, and I'm not going to get into too many details, because I basically went into it blind, knowing nothing about it. Andy, the kid Woody and Buzz have been serving as loyal toys, is now seventeen and headed off to college. The toys are all very worried about what's going to happen to them. Are they going to the attic, the trash, maybe even college with Andy if they're lucky? The answer to that question is what compromises the film's plot. And although it still contains the kind of humor, action and fun which helped to make the two previous films so great, this one is much more a meditation on very adult themes. Loss, death, moving on, letting go are all the things at the heart of this movie. Some of the critics have described it as a much "darker" film than the others, and that's true in a sense, but in another sense it's not really true at all.

It's not "dark" in the sense of being foreboding or depressing or anything like that. What it is, and what is one of the things that makes it such a truly great film is that it is earnest and sincere without ever being pandering or manipulative. Sure, those are probably darker themes than the first two films, but in a trilogy about a child's toys, trying to aid him in his journey, where else could you possibly expect this to go? And that's the kind of honesty which is so often lacking in much more high brow, lofty films which are supposed to actually be "dark" and "adult". It's essentially the difference between Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and A.I. I liked A.I., it's themes were very interesting and one's I often enjoy, and it was beautifully shot and performed, but it wasn't a GREAT movie, specifically because there were a number of points at which it was clearly being manipulative, and not honest. This film is honest, sincere, heartbreaking, joyful and beautiful. I don't really think of this as a "dark" movie at all, because there's no malice here. Everything any of these characters does, even the antagonist, is perfectly understandable given their situation. And the heartbreak of loss tends to be at the center of a number of those situations. As an adult, you've had those heartbreaks, and you've had those moments of letting go, you've been through those struggles, and very few of us are ever dealing with any of them in any way other than the best way we know how at that time. If you were a kid who was seven or eight years old when the first film in the trilogy was released, you're in your twenties now, and these films and these characters have been with you through a good deal of your life. Now at a time when really putting down childish things is going to start to play a vital role in your life, they're there, in a way that you can relate to as someone in their twenties.

It gives me a good deal of hope to know that a generation of kids is being communicated with in this honest and loving a fashion by at least one of the many companies who are communicating ideas and messages to them. There's a whole lot of love in these movies, and I find that extremely admirable and hopeful.

Because it does deal with the inevitable logical conclusion of a child growing up, and does so with this level of care and quality, it becomes the last chapter in the much larger story of the Toy Story franchise. Not only are all three of these films excellent as self contained narratives, with their own stories and their own strengths, when you see this third film, and come to understand where it stands with the stories and themes of the first two movies, it starts to become clear how brilliant it is on that level as well. These three films do tell a much larger story than any of them alone, and it's also as good a story as the singular narratives they each tell.

Here's where I start veering off into the kind of territory that is going to be blasphemy for the world of film geekery. In terms of sheer film making quality, and beauty of imagination, specifically because of how fantastic this last film in the trilogy is, I'd put the Toy Story trilogy up against Star Wars or any of the other great trilogies in film history, any day of the week. That might seem like a bold, shocking statement to a generation of people to whom the original Star Wars trilogy was the gold standard. But consider where this film comes from and it's overall lineage, and it starts to get less shocking.

Pixar Animation's first film was the wildly successful and deeply beloved Toy Story. It was the film that put them on the map with the general public. They'd done some animated shorts before, which had attracted enough attention for Disney to develop an interest in them, but it was Toy Story, Woody, Buzz, their kid, Andy, and the cast of other toys which made Pixar a powerhouse. Here's another fact to consider, Pixar has had 11 consecutive films open at number one in box office receipts. We all know ticket sales are certainly not a good indicator of quality, which is not what I'm suggesting. But, it does show that the movie going public, and not just the "family" crowd, have developed a pretty enthusiastic desire to see Pixar films, and a rock solid trust in the quality of film they're going to make. Take a look at some of the beloved titles on that roster and you start to get some idea as to why Pixar has been able to pull of that previously unthinkable feat. The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, WALL-E, Cars, Up, Ratatouille, A Bug's Life. Not all of them are great films, definitely, but there sure isn't a BAD film in the lot. Sure, maybe Cars and Monsters Inc. aren't top quality stuff, but that's because we're inevitable comparing them to films as great as the Toy Story films, WALL-E, Ratatouille, and Up. A middling quality Pixar film is bound to be one of the better films released in it's year (unless it's a really good year for film). A high quality Pixar film has come to be a thing of real beauty.

The rest of the Hollywood studios could certainly learn a thing or two from Pixar. It's possible that the complexity of computer animation makes it necessary, but one thing is certain, they take the time to make their films right. I've been reading stories about the coming of Toy Story 3 for about three years (though I could be wrong about that). A teaser trailer without any scenes from the movie was released last year with Up. It seems to take them an average of three or four years to go from the point that the studio actually decides it's going to make a film, to then delivering it to the theaters. In a number of cases, the directors or writers have been working on the ideas for years before that. Pixar has become a brand, but it's not the kind of brand marketing experts and companies have become so good at creating in the last twenty years. Pixar has become one of the most trusted brands in American business, by taking their time, getting it right and delivering the highest quality films they can. Luckily for us, the people at Pixar seem to be a good deal more conscious about what they're attaching that name to, and making sure it is the highest possible quality than basically every other studio producing feature length films today. They seem to be extremely weary of tarnishing the name Pixar by cranking out some piece of crap simply because the name itself is generating box office success. It's a good thing too, because it's easy to see when a film is too quickly patched together without any real care for the material, and the audience loses faith. How many other companies can really be described that way today, no matter what their product is? Not many.

What do you get when you take your time and get it right? Toy Story 3 is on track to have the biggest June box office performance of all time. It will beat Transformers 2, which people stopped watching thirty minutes after it began. That film, a mess of bigotry, stupidity and absolutely no real desire to communicate anything but "send me your money", is being dethroned by something so much more real it almost makes me want to shout.  Pixar doesn't do big, cutesy viral campaigns or e-mail lists for everyone who's ever bought anything Pixar. They don't have to do any of that. They deliver the goods, every time, and they get rewarded with customer loyalty. It's the kind of extremely simple premise which seems to have disappeared not only from the film industry (if it ever even existed there), but from American business in general.

We're living in times that in many ways are very cynical. I'm not lamenting that fact. I think these are times in which we should be cynical. At the same time, it's good not to forget why we should be cynical. We should be cynical because, in these times, we've become so sophisticated at manipulation through media, whether it's politics or business, that we're rarely ever getting anything that's sincere, honest, and made with the kind of quality that only the love of quality itself can produce. Everywhere we turn, there are people trying to convince us to accept the cheap (and I don't mean inexpensive), easy alternative. We're presented with a framework that suggests we can completely accept this kind of cynicism because the only other alternative we have is a doe eyed, ignorant naivete which doesn't take good account of reality. Toy Story 3 and Pixar, in it's history, are in their own way, small proof that this is a false choice. We can have, and handle a kind of honest sincerity that is available to us only because we take full account of reality. I've avoided saying things like this in my reviews, but I'm saying it now because I think it means something in the context of this film. It's the reason I think the Toy Story films are important films. Not just important to film history like Felini, Godard or Welles, as I alluded to before, but important culturally. We need to be reminded of these things, and that's one of the many ways storytelling has been so important to speaking to the better parts of human nature since cave men started drawing on walls to help them remember who they were and what their lives were actually about.

Splice (2010, Vincenzo Natali)

Science fiction has become so ubiquitous in contemporary film and fiction that we hardly recognize it as itself. The days of the kind of heady, science fiction that commented on society and culture hasn't been in vogue or even much to be found for a long time. Though there may have been a healthy bit of cheese to the science fiction films of the sixties and seventies, they were also the inspiration for so many great films and pieces of literature that followed, that their cultural importance has to be recognized.

So it is enjoyable to have such a good new example of this kind of science fiction in theaters. Splice, the new film by Vicenzo Natali (who also wrote and directed the cult favorite Cube), is a very, very good film. I don't know that I would call it a great film or that it will be placed on the mantle with the kinds of classic science fiction films which are its' ancestors, but it is a well written, beautifully shot and constructed, enjoyably subversive and somewhat shocking film.


Splice is the newest in a very long line of fictional stories that stretches all the way back to "Frankenstein". Instead of reanimating dead bodies though, our intrepid scientists in this film are played by Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley, and they are splicing human DNA with that of animal DNA to create a new organism. Of course, this new organism is the miracle humanity has been waiting for in combating all manner of disease, and the scientific team use the proteins and antibodies it's body creates to save millions from death. They are then held as heroes, but reviled by a secretive religious cult who attempt to destroy them and their creature. Battles ensue. The good guys win.

Everything in that last paragraph, except the parts about Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley starring and the DNA splicing are completely false. Our scientist protagonists do actually splice human DNA with a number of other animals DNA to create a new life form. It really doesn't go very well. The how and why of not going well is what makes Splice such an interesting and worth while film. The story line of the scientist overstepping his or her bounds in the midst of intoxication by the knowledge they've gathered is nothing at all new, as I said before. This film does take that story in some new directions though, and more fully explores some of it than other films or other mediums of fiction have. Those things do make it a thoroughly modern film in it's own way, but one which will resonate with audiences a long time in the future as well.

Adrien Brody is really the heart and soul of this film. Without his performance I don't think audiences would be willing to sign on and take the ride the film has in store for them. Luckily for Vincenzo Natali, and audience members, Brody is terrific, and the ride is certainly worth taking. One of the things that makes Splice somewhat different than most of the films that are within the same family is that is isn't really about the science at all. There are certainly some questions related to the moral implications of gene splicing, and specifically using human DNA in that effort, but they're shown through these two scientists relationship with each other and their relationships with the world around them. It is the characters, their relationships with each other and the creature they create that really drive this film and it's story. The effects are at times average, and others spectacular in their depiction of this living creature. I didn't feel at any point during the film that there was an attempt to put the effects front and center as the focus of the film. It's always about the characters and the story, and that was really refreshing to me. In fact, as the film moves forward, I honestly feel the effects became more and more subtle.

Natali delivers some moments in this film, story elements and scenes which are completely unexpected. It's gotten harder and harder to surprise me in the course of a film. That's to be expected when anyone watches as many movies as I do. There are lots of other people out there who are just as able to understand the normal rhythms and usual story elements at least as well as I do or better. There were a number of times while watching Splice that I was genuinely shocked because I in no way expected to see what was on the screen when I was walking into that theater. I will always give some credit to any film maker and writer who can accomplish that.

There are some pretty disturbing elements in this film. The things in the film which were disturbing and unsettling have nothing to do with blood and gore. There's actually very little gore in the film. What is disturbing about it, like everything else in the film and what makes it so good, is disturbing because in some way, it always comes back to story and character. I was sitting there squirming in my seat because what I was seeing on screen related back to some other piece of information I'd already been given. With the exception of the final sequence in the film, there's really not even any violence in this movie, and it's still pretty disturbing.

I do want to speak to the most often expressed complaint I've heard about the film. In a nutshell, people can't seem to get their minds around the idea that scientists this brilliant could possibly make the number of stupid decisions these two make in the course of the film. I understand that criticism, but at the same time, those decisions are never related back to a lack of intellect. These are obviously two people who are very talented and capable in their field of study and research. That's a literal no brainer. Not one mistake in this film is made out of sheer stupidity, and nothing in the film suggests that. It suggests at every turn that these mistakes are made because of personality failings these characters already have. The mistakes they make are made because they're either being arrogantly brash or they're being dishonest with themselves about their own intentions etc. The history of humanity, even very recently, is full of very intelligent, very capable people making the most elementary of mistakes for all these same reasons. In essence, these mistakes are made because these two people are immature and irresponsible, not because they are stupid. And again, immature and irresponsible are at no premium in the world we live in, no matter a person's intellectual ability.

That is one of the things I really do appreciate about this film. From the fifties forward, we've had a relatively steady diet of films part of whose overall perspective comes from a distrust of science and scientists. This is perfectly understandable to me, considering it was in the fifties that we as human beings, specifically scientists, cooked up the weapons which could literally destroy the world. It's important that the question "should we" is always addressed, along with "can we". But this film doesn't take that kind of perspective. It doesn't give us the kind of cookie cutter "bad scientist" who does something so incredibly irresponsible that none of us watching could possibly begin to see ourselves doing. These are people with very regular failings, like any regular person. Those failings also happen to be married to an incredible ability and talent that very few people have, and I think that's the kind of idea which is important to put forward and that we should be making a part of the narratives we tell each other, because they do eventually have some effect on our way of asking questions and having discussions.

Either way, Splice is an extremely well made film and it should be a boon for science fiction fans, horror fans and people who like to see people succeed outside the studio system. This film was bought for distribution after it was filmed. It was filmed and shot completely independently. It was able to draw the budget it did because of Natali's previous work, and honestly, it looks like it should have been a much more expensive film than it actually was. I can endorse Splice enthusiastically. Go check it out in theaters.

Clash Of The Titans (2010, Louis Leterrier)

"That Kraken was f**kin' big!"

That's basically all there is to be said about this movie. Really. The best thing about this movie is the jokes my friends were making about it once it was over. I'm not going to recount those to you, because I'm going to bet they won't be as funny now.

This is serious crap, and not the kind of crap that is so bad it's entertaining. Actually, to me, it's infuriating a small fortune was spent to make this horrendous pile of turd. The script was a horrible mess, the 3D wasn't really all that interesting, the effects were run of the mill (at best), and you spend an hour and thirty minutes basically being told Perseus is going to have to fight The Kraken, and he never actually fights The Kraken.

The drugs in Hollywood must really be top shelf, high grade stuff.

This film has only one redeeming quality. Gemma Arterton is ethereally beautiful. She's still not beautiful enough to have made this worth the time.

There's some choice xenophobia running around in there and the cadre of Greek Gods who do show up in the film are wasted. Go pick up a book about Greek mythology if you want to see how cool they actually are meant to be. Hell, they were cooler in the original film, stop motion animation and all.

C.G.I and cool looking creatures do not fix everything. In fact, they fix nothing. They should be used to enhance the story, something which doesn't really exist here.

Save your money. Watch this on Cable in a few years when TNT runs a marathon. This movie just plains sucks.

Hot Tub Time Machine (2010, directed by Steve Pink)

Don't think for one second that Hot Tub Time Machine isn't an asinine, juvenile, vulgar comedy, because that's exactly what it is. It doesn't inspire to be anything more than that. But in being asinine, juvenile, and vulgar, it succeeds with flying body fluids.

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking their is going to be some kind of heavy sci-fi explanation of how a hot tub can become a time machine, because there's not. Thankfully, Hot Tub Time Machine is smart enough not to insult anyone to that degree. The hot tub and the time machine are excuses for lots of eighties jokes, so that you're not just stuck with dick and fart jokes. Personally, I'm not offended by dick and fart jokes, especially when they succeed at being as funny as this movie is.

Rob Corddry steals the show as Lou, the loser friend with no moral standards, who screws your sister, and makes an ass of himself at every party. He's got some really great lines and he seems to really be reveling in getting the chance to plays someone as uninhibited as this character is. He's hilarious.

The rest of the cast deliver absolutely solid performances, John Cusack playing exactly the same kind of role he used to play in the eighties films this is an homage to. Crispin Glover gets one of the best running gags in the film as a bell hop of many talents. Clark Duke and Craig Robinson are really hilarious as well. Chevy Chase shows up in a few scenes as the "wise man" character who might know something about how the hot tub became a time machine, but he's really not at his best or the material doesn't suit him because he's forgettable.

The short story is that if you can enjoy good comedy that is purposely avoiding any kind of higher meaning and going for the crude but very funny joke, you'll enjoy this. This one's really well done all around and I'll be picking it up on DVD when it hits the shelves.

Where have all the original projects gone?

I have refrained from turning anything on this blog into a frothing at the mouth, hate spewing rant. I don't like reading websites or hearing podcasts which are little to nothing but people being so cool they don't have enthusiasm for anything except taking shots at people who are actually doing things and making movies. I love movies. I started this blog as a way to try and celebrate that, because other people celebrating their love for things like film and music, literature and so on, have added something really essential to my life. I have tried to take their example and write a whole lot more about what I like and what I'm excited about than what I don't and what think sucks.

I've even tried to be open minded on the deluge of remakes which have come out in the last few years. I've tried to look at them as much as their own, separate films, in todays cultural setting, as I possibly can. I've even enjoyed some of them, and been willing to say that out loud, which isn't always a popular position in todays film world. I've been hounded from DVD to BluRay in some movie forums for expressing those opinions, as is want to happen in forums anywhere on the internet. Even considering some of the films which have been remade (and poorly so) are part of the canon of truly formative film experiences in my life. Some of these films are responsible for the love affair I have with movies.

If you were to go back and look at the reviews I've posted, and the news I pass on, I think it would be pretty clear that I also try not to have a bias in toward whether a film is a major studio film or an independent film. A good movie is a good movie, a bad movie is a bad movie, you can make either with very little money or a mountain of money.

I don't like wasting my time with bad movies. Going to the movies and plunking down my hard earned cash only to be faced with something crappy, uninspired and which isn't entertaining, just sucks. I don't generally get angry about it. As a film geek, I know I'm going to have to see some really bad movies some times in order to be able to find some really good movies sometimes. Most of the time I'm going to sit through movies that are somewhat good and somewhat bad. A friend of mine explained it perfectly by saying, "You go looking for flecks of color, and sometimes you end up finding a nugget of gold.

What I'm trying to say is that I do my absolute best to be reasonable and fair with the films I see and read about. Someone put time and effort into them. Someone worked hard at getting them written, and then financed, and then from script to screen. It's more work than most people really consider, and most of the time, even in the worst film, somebody did some good work they should be proud of and feel good about. Even if it's set design, conceptual design, the chances someone did some good work they should be proud of are better than the chances that absolutely no one did anything at all decent.

I say all of this because I'm going to do something I wouldn't have possibly considered when the idea of starting to try and be more regular and disciplined with this blog occurred to me. I'm going to beg you, all of you, any of you who are reading this, whether you know me or not, do not, under any circumstances ever in your life pay to see the proposed remake of The Monster Squad.

If you have seen The Monster Squad, especially if you saw it as a kid, I'm going to bet you understand what I'm talking about. If you haven't seen it or you were a full grown adult when you saw it, you might not understand what I'm talking about.

The Monster Squad is one of those kids adventure films that gives kids a film that is really, actually, specifically for them. Yeah, there are a few jokes in there that are going to be over a kids head, but on the whole, it's a kids film, and even more rare, it's a good one. This isn't a movie made to cash in on "the family demographic", it's a kids movie. Fred Dekker somehow figured out how to make a movie so unabashedly for kids that when you're a kid watching it, you know it's for you. You know it's not for the adults, and it's a good movie, not just some crap thrown together, but a very good movie. It's an adventure that the kids have, together, without the adults and as a kid it was thrilling, heart warming, kind of scary, and all awesome.

It's also not a movie that's going to suffer from being dated. A ten year old kid watching this movie now would find it just as thrilling and fun as ten year old kids did when it was released, because kids, have awesome imaginations that aren't crowded up with all the crap adults minds get crowded with. A kid today would enjoy this film just as much. A generation of movie fans cut their teeth on the famous movie monsters, cultural icons like Dracula, Frankensteins monster, The Wolfman, The Creature From The Black Lagoon, and The Mummy. That generation of movie fans are all grown up now, and many of us have continued our love of movies and gone back to see the films that inspired the characters in The Monster Squad.

At this point, some of the films I most enjoyed growing up John Carpenter's Halloween, Friday The 13th, A Texas Chainsaw Massacre, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes, Last House On The Left, When A Stranger Calls, have all been remade. I enjoyed the Chainsaw Massacre remake, and I think there's some chance something good could come of the upcoming Elm Street remake. With Jackie Earle Haley starring as Freddy, there's a chance to see something new done with the character, but still in keeping with the spirit of the original. As much as I am worried about ending up with another Friday the 13th or When A Stranger Calls, I'm still willing to acknowledge it this could end up working out and being decent or even good and enjoyable.

But, The Monster Squad, is something else altogether, and considering a remake of this film is nothing more than the most blatant and obvious grab for money because it's a "property" whose name people will recognize. Making The Monster Squad more slick or with CGI effects isn't going to make it any better or even any more accepted by it's target audience. It's target audience are kids who have been watching both the incredibly beautiful and ground breaking work of Pixar, and horrible Japanese animation like Dragonball Z.They react to the characters and the story and whether or not it's exciting for them. Lucky ones have gotten to see Miyazaki as well. And that's what Monster Squad was for a lot of kids, an adventure with a heart, for kids, one hundred percent for kids. A remake isn't going to do that, and you can guarantee it, especially one from the Micheal Bay's Platinum Dunes company. Even if they tried, they couldn't possibly pull something like this off. This is a company which has made it's fortune remaking the horror films The Monster Squad generation made successful the first time and turning them into slick, bloody, generalized schlock. 

So I entreat you, I beg you, do not, under any circumstances pay your money to see it if that remake does actually make it to theaters. I'm honestly thinking of starting an online petition against it to let Platinum Dunes know they're going too far. If you actually would sign something like that, leave me a comment here or at my Facebook page. If it seems like there would be some support, I'll do it and post a link here on the blog and on my Facebook page.

Don't worry, this isn't something you should expect to see from this blog or from me at all. I just couldn't let this one pass.

Out Of The Ether 3/15/10

Well all, it's time for the latest in movies news deemed worthy of your highness's.

First, a fond and heartfelt farewell to Peter Graves, who at the ripe old age of 83, has passed on to the great theater beyond. How much really needs to be said about the man who brought me the great Captain Clarence Oveur in Airplane. I don't know I can count the number of times I've seen the film, and would be even less capable of figuring out the number of times I've ever thought it funny to ask a friend if they had ever been in a Turkish prison, liked gladiator movies or had ever seen a grown man naked. He was also in this little television show called Mission Impossible, that spawned a kind of successful film franchise many years later (read: sarcasm). But to me, he'll always be Clarence Oveur who brought me and many others many hours of laughter. Thank you Mr. Graves, a more necessary thing has never been done. 

Let's talk news of the weird. Have you ever thought of an idea for a story or a movie you thought would be good, told someone about it or written it down and then some time later seen a film, television show or book which is eerily reminiscent of your idea? If you've any creative bone in your body that ever wants to express itself in some kind of storytelling, you've probably had that experience. It's extremely common. I say this, because apparently, someone feels somewhat slighted by their submission of a film treatment to Dimension, featuring a female character named Ren, and Dimensions subsequent release of Kill Bill, featuring Lucy Liu as O Ren Ishii. He's apparently filed a lawsuit against Dimension and Quentin Tarantino. It's not all that unusual to have someone who at some past date submitted an idea to sue a studio for a later film which bears some similarity. That in itself isn't something I'd have thought of passing on to you all. The rest of the story.... is definitely interesting, and pretty hilarious in a sad and pathetic sort of way. Included though, is word that Tarantino might be working on a documentary about former Dimension head honcho and all around Hollywood power broker, Harvey Weinstein.

Do you like football? How about Robert Deniro? How about a football movie starring Robert Deniro? Sounds like box office gold right? Well, someone else thought so too... ESPN films. Shocking,  I know. But, Deniro is apparently slated to play Vince Lombardi in........................................ wait for it..................................................................................................................................... Lombardi. I don't know what to think about this. One part of me thinks it would be very cool to see Deniro take on the role. On the other hand, it is ESPN films. Following the link in the title to see the rest of the details.

More biopic news, you say? Well, for you, anything. How about a J. Edgar Hoover biopic? Personally, I know as much about J. Edgar Hoover as I'd ever need, but since Clint Eastwood is signing on to direct, I'm suddenly interested. Now, all we need is Rudy Guiliani to star. We know he's got the wardrobe already, and noun, verb, communist is certainly within his grasp. Not very funny, I know. Give a guy a break.

Here's one to file under "????????" Someone over at Warner Brothers is apparently very worried about the impending end of the Harry Potter series. They're kicking all kinds of projects into gear which seem specifically tailored to replace Harry Potter and to take advantage of the success of Sherlock Holmes. The newest idea is apparently turning Leonardo da Vinci into an action hero. This is not a joke. I think this has the chance to be a successful and fun franchise, if they can get Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law to star in it, and then hell freezes over.

In news actually related to Robert Downey Jr. (when is it going to start being ok to refer to him strictly as RDJ?), he's apparently in talks to appear in the latest film from Children Of Men director Alphonso Cuaron. The upcoming 3D science fiction epic is currently being called Gravity. Check out the rest of the details behind this link. This is exciting news to me, and it almost doesn't matter who stars. I know there are people who don't like Children Of Men, but I think they might not actually be human. They are more likely the Mole Men John Hodgeman refers to in his book, More Information Than You Require. You're doing yourself a disservice if you don't listen to this in audiobook format.

Edward Norton is taking the ultimate risk as an actor, playing twins. I say this is the ultimate risk because it seems there are only two categories the "one actor playing twins" movies fall into, either extremely interesting and intelligent or painfully horrible. /film has a clip and Ain't It Cool has a review of this film, combined with a review of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Fearnet is reporting (via Variety) that Leonardo DiCaprio's company Appian Way has a gothic retelling of Little Red Riding Hood in development and that DiCaprio may have some interest in starring. The thing which makes this interesting to me, is that word is this version will be gong back to the early versions of the story which were passed down orally before the tale was committed to writing. It could be interesting. It could also be total crap. We can always hope.

South By Southwest (referred to as SXSW from here on out) is in full swing and there's lots of rumor and review coming out of it. One film making a big splash is simply titled Serbian Film  and is apparently grabbing all the controversy for it's shocking nature. This, of course. piques my interest. Quint over at AICN has a review that intensifies that interest. If it can get a reaction like that out of a hard core film geek like that, well, I'm going all in. The problem is, so far, no one has picked it up. Let's hope Magnet, Anchor Bay, Blue Underground or one of our other reliable genre home entertainment companies grabs it up. There's an equally interesting review over at Cinematical. And one more from Fearnet. Why am I giving you three different reviews for one film? Two reasons: the first being all of them were genuinely shocked by the film (no small feat). The second being they all have different reactions to the film. Anything that can be repeatedly referred to as the most shocking film of all time, the most disturbing film a hard core film geek has ever seen is at least interesting to consider or it should be.

There are two music documentaries I've been reading up on that sound like they might be some real fun. The first is about The Kashmere Stage Band. Apparently, they were a high school jazz band from Houston TX in the early seventies and ended up becoming a world  touring, world rocking funk band under the tutelage of a man they called "Prof." I'm a sucker for a good music documentary, because let's face it, a cool documentary, which just happens to have great music, is a better way to spend that time than many others most of us can think of. I've certainly wasted enough hours watching films which weren't very good, and didn't even have good music to give me a decent excuse. Thunder Soul sounds like something I'd travel to DC to catch.

The second of the music doc's I wanted to alert you all to follows The White Stripes Under Great White Northern Lights. Admittedly, I'm a fan of The White Stripes, so that helps. But, music documentaries following well known bands on tour (it sounds like quite an interesting tour, with bowling alleys and the whole  nine yards) often end up being self aggrandizing crap. The good concert documentary is the unusual one, and this one has gotten enough good word for me to think it might not just be for fans of The White Stripes, but fans of documentaries in general. Maybe being a fan of the band is an added gimme. There's some interesting yakkety yakking at the beginning of this review, I thought it was worth reading. If you don't you can skip through it and the review is all meat.

That's all for now. If I don't finally publish this edition, I'll just keep finding more stuff to add to it, and none of it will be relevant by the time you all read it.