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.

Out Of The Ether 3/8/10

What's new in the movie world? Well, there are a few things hitting the intrawebz this last week that seem worthy of passing on. The Academy Awards were broadcast last night, everyone and their brother are going to be writing about that, and some of them are probably going to be able to score interviews with winners, etc. So, I'm skipping that. If I can find the time, I might throw a separate post together which will just be about the Oscars, the winners and non-winners, and so on.

There is some other big news though. There's a new Iron man 2 trailer out and........... it looks bad ass. I'm more excited about this sequel now than I was prior to the original, and these days, I don't really get very excited for sequels. CHECK IT OUT!!!!!

In other news related to both sequels and trailers, there's a new trailer for George A. Romeo's Survival Of The Dead. I'm unfortunately underwhelmed. Severely underwhelmed would be the description. I might have high expectations from the man who created the modern zombie film, especially when it comes to zombie films, this is true. At the same time, Land Of The Dead was worse than just not good enough for Romero to have made. it was not good enough for Paul W. S. Anderson to have made, and I liked Resident Evil. Diary Of The Dead was a vast improvement over Land, but it certainly had it's flaws, especially in comparison to The Zombie Diaries, a film whose concept is almost exactly the same and was made a year earlier, but released a year later. If you can handle the disappointment, your bag of lifeless guts of zombie movie is here.

A late edition is the trailer for the Tron Legacy trailer. I haven't even watched it yet, and I'm excited. I loved Tron as a kid. I'm really interested to see what's going to come of this. Check it out here.

 I didn't realize how sequel intensive this edition of Out Of The Ether was going to be until now. But, since we're already at it, here's some more. Zombieland 2 is going to be 3D, but the good 3D. It's going to be filmed in 3D, with 3D projection in mind, not as post production. If you're not sure what I mean, the difference between the two is the difference between My Bloody Valentine 3D and Avatar 3D. One of them looks like the gimmick it is (which I enjoyed thoroughly) and the other looks like another storytelling tool to help create the illusion of an existning world. Of all the 3D projects I've heard or read whispers of lately, I think this one is most appropriate. Zombieland was the perfect kind of over the top, funny, silly to do some really fun things with a 3D image. I'll be looking for all the news I can grab on this one, and I'll pass it along to you all. Bloody Disgusting has the full story.

Here's one I have no clue what to think of, and figured maybe someone out there might be able to sway me one way or the other. The Green Lantern is apparently going to be 3D as well. There's some part of me that recognizes some potential for very cool things with Power Ring and 3D, and flight in 3D is pretty freaking cool, but this might just get silly too. Sucker Punch the film 300 and Watchmen's Zack Snyder is working on will be 3D as well. Whatever you have to say about Snyder's film, he definitely has a great visual style, so he might really make this cool. I'm interested in his Legends Of The Guardians kids fantasy film as well. The story is over at /film (accompanied by some very cool fan art).

Sequels and comic book movies, lots of both this week. For a number of years there's been word of Sam Raimi trying to put together a new film version of The  Shadow. I can't think of any Raimi film I've ever seen that I completely disliked (with the exception of Spiderman 3 which I consider a Sony Studios film), so the idea was always pretty cool. News now is that Raimi won't be directing, but will produce and hand the directing responsibilities off to David Slade, director of Hard Candy and 30 Days Of Night. I like this idea. Hard Candy was a gut punch of a little movie and 30 Days Of Night gave us bad ass vampires in a way we hadn't seen in a long time. Check out the details over at /film.

One of the films which got some good word of mouth at Sundance and sounds pretty interesting is Splice, starring Sarah Polley and Adrian Brody and directed by Cube genius, Vincenzo Natali. Warner Bros. is apparently planning a June release for this bad boy, which is about gene splicing and it's consequences. I'm interested. Find out if you are.

In news of the "What was that you just said?" Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov (director of the visually interesting, narratively handicapped Daywatch, Nightwatch and the recent 9), are going to co-direct Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer. The source material is a book written by Seth Grahame-Smith, who had success with "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" as well.. This could be an absolute blast, but it could be a steaming pile of annoying as well. Two directors who's visual senses are beyond reproach but can sometimes be light on character or story might drive this into the ground. Bloody Disgusting dishes it up for you.

The last bit of news I've got today relates to the Fright Night remake I've been hearing threats of for a few years already. /film has a story suggesting the newest version trying to make it to theaters has been written by Marti Noxon of Buffy The Vampire Slayer (the T.V series) and directed by Craig Gillespie, of Lars And The Real Girl. I have to say that if they're going to do a remake of this film (which I watched religiously as a teenager) this sounds like a good combination. Noxon's humor would capture the essence of the original, and Gillespie has certainly shown an affinity for creating characters he cares about and portraying them as believably human and sympathetic, even in unusual situations.

Moon (2009, directed by Duncan Jones)

Some of the most thought provoking, powerfully human, beautiful, entertaining, haunting, and heart breaking works of fiction I've ever seen on film or read have been science fiction stories. 

There's something about science fiction that seems to be more well suited to adeptly capture so many elements of what it is to be and the experience of being human than any other genre of fiction. I may have a soft spot in my heart for horror films, a kind of gooey, giddy, unfettered, sloppy teenage romance with horror films that's continued into my adult years, but good science fiction gets my admiration and respect. Added to that, film seems as if it were almost specifically created for science fiction story telling. Few genres are served as perfectly by a visual medium.

I feel that way because of films like Moon. Directed by Duncan Jones and starring Sam Rockwell, this is excellent science fiction. I'd wager it will be considered a classic, and part of the cannon of "must see" science fiction films. It's hard to say much about Moon without spoiling the experience for people who haven't  seen it. I'd absolutely suggest that if you haven't seen Moon you go into it knowing as little as possible about it. That being said, I knew more about it than I probably should have, and obviously, I still think it was a great film. I'm giving you the choice by not revealing anything that would take away from the impact of the film. If you want to know more of the actual story than that, you'll have to look elsewhere.

What I can tell you about the story is that Sam Bell is the sole technician in an almost completely automated operation extracting an element from the surface of the moon that has solved Earth's energy problems. Sam has been at this base on the moon, attending the machines, collecting the element (Helium-3) when cannisters on the harvesters are full and sending it back to Earth. When we meet him, Sam has apparently been on the moon, alone, for three years. In two weeks his contract will be up, and he'll be able to go home. Unfortunately, while heading out to collect a full cannister of Helium-3 from one of the harvesters, Sam has an accident, at which point, things get interesting, really, really interesting.

To some of you, that might sound like the kind of geektastic, hard core science fiction stuff that makes certain varieties of science fiction so very unattractive to most adults. I understand that, but what that synopsis doesn't tell you is that those details are the set up for the story. The real story is what happens from the accident on, and it is a very completely human story, more about Sam Bell than the moon, some made up element, harvesting on the moon or any of that. It's about Sam, our ideas about identity, what it is to be human, how it is we relate to ourselves and each other and it does all of it with authentic heart, subtle intelligence, and exquisite film making.

Moon is able to take on some big, heady, adult themes and make them personal in way that gets them away from being purely intellectual exercises. I enjoyed Richard Kelly's The Box, but I recognize that one of it's problems is the fact that it's intellectual nature doesn't make for the kind of compelling film making that a general non science fiction geek can identify with. Moon is an utterly compelling piece of film making, in the most human storytelling tradition.

You can not discount the importance of Sam Rockwell's performance to the success of this film. Rockwell has literally ninety eight or ninety nine percent of the screen time in the film. Other than a few minutes of video feed coming from Earth, and Kevin Spacey as the disembodied voice of Gerty, the robot/automation which has been Sam's only companion over the past three years. There just isn't another human being for the audience to start taking this journey with or sympathizing with, it's that simple. The thing is, Rockwell is absolutely phenomenal. I posted something earlier today on Facebook about having watched this last night, and that I couldn't stop thinking about it today, and a friend commented that the he would probably not have enjoyed the film if anyone else had been in Rockwell's role. I think that's a good call because not only can I not think of any other actor possibly having played this role, I can't think of an actor I would have sympathized or empathized with more than Rockwell. That authentic and honest heart in this movie is half to seventy five percent Rockwell's performance. I'd have to give credit for the remaining percentage would be due to the storytelling choices Duncan Jones makes, but there isn't enough praise available to me for Rockwell's performance. It is just so honest and so real and so understandable, it's completely disarming. I'm honestly disappointed Rockwell wasn't nominated for an Academy Award. This is the kind of role which the Academy usually trips over itself to give away awards to and I honestly think Rockwell is the victim of the Oscars trying to answer a very large and very loud community that has been increasingly critical of it. Too bad Rockwell is better in this role than most of those past Oscar bait nominations could have dreamed of being.

It's fairly obvious that a great deal of time, effort and care were put into this film. The production design is wonderful. The inside of the moon station is believably functional, and well designed because it continues to be interesting even though we spend the majority with it and it never gets boring or overwhelms the story or character. And the special effects are awesome. Not necessarily in the big, splashy, "look at how cool my special effects are" kind of way, but just in their subtle beauty and the fact that they all do have a very palpable reality and weight to them. All of it works together and is so deeply integrated that it makes me excited to see what Duncan Jones will do in the future. One of the problems that often comes up in sci-fi films or films that involve effects is that they don't seem to be a part of or integrated in the world the film exists in. Moon succeeds at avoiding that pit fall so well, I honestly didn't think about the effects until I was thinking about writing this. The fact that I was watched a film set in a near future, in a moon base, and didn't think about the effects at all, is a huge testament to the effects department, specifically because Moon is not the kind of film who's effects you should be thinking about. It should never be taking attention away from the character work in a film like this and it never does, while still being beautiful and interesting.

In the past year few years, we've had a few very good science fiction films. The Star Trek reboot was well done, exciting and fun. But, it was definitely more popcorn and action film than real, adult science fiction film. District 9 was the perfect middle ground film. It was exciting and fun, action packed, but also had a real story with great character development, an awesome character, great effects and the whole nine yards. Moon follows in the path of earlier classic science fiction like Blade Runner, the original Solaris and 2001: A Space Odyssey. But, Moon as much as it is in keeping with the thoughtful, honest nature of those films, it is much warmer and more heart felt and warm.

I can't recommend this highly enough.

Out Of The Ether 2/27/10

It's been a little while since I've posted an edition of Out Of The Ether. What with the holidays, my birthday, the attack of the repeated snow storms in sunny, warm Virginia, I haven't really made time to collect any movie news. And frankly, there hasn't been all that much worth talking about until recently. SO, now that there is, I pass it on to you.

It seems excitement for the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is growing, especially with the performance by Jackie Earle Haley in Shutter Island. In case you didn't already know, Haley is putting on the fedora and glove and having a go at playing Freddy Krueger. The movie's due out in April, and the newest one sheet can be found here.

In other Scorsese related news, AICN is reporting that the master has decided his next film is going to be an adaptation of a 533 page children's book named The Invention Of Hugo Cabret. I'm not familiar with the book, so if you are, get in touch and let me know what this means to you. 

This is a month old already, but I'm looking forward to it, so I'm passing it on. There's been word circling round the netz about a zombie flick set in Africa for a good while. Bloody Disgusting has the trailers..... HELL YES! 

Yet again there are rumors of a Vampire Hunter D live action film. If you've never heard of it, Vampire Hunter D is an influential anime about a character aptly named D, who is a vampire hunter in a world over run by supernatural creatures. The mix of Japanese sensibilities and gothic literary characters/ folklore was interesting and made for a pretty cool anime. It was one of the first I saw. Now there's news of another anime starring the titular D and a live action film based around the original film. Details are all here.

There were a number of films screened at Sundance Film Festival which sound interesting as well. I've grabbed up some reviews and synopsis on those for you all.

Frozen is the latest from Hatchet writer/director Adam Greene. If you hated Hatchet, this is apparently a very different film, so it seems like it would be worth a shot. If you loved Hatchet, this is apparently not Hatchet 1.5. It's in limited release right now. 

7 Days has been getting the kind of mixed reviews I look for. The only negative reviews are complaining that it's "too violent" and referring to it as "torture porn". The positive reviews happen to be more literate, and are actually talking about the movie as a whole. Needless to say, I'm interested.

One film generating an extremely strong word of mouth is Buried. There have been articles and podcasts all over the place talking about this film, and nobody has yet to say anything less than glowing about it. I've heard a few instances of this being the film people at the festival were pestering and badgering others at the festival to go see. Considering the hardened insider cynicism that's infected Sundance, that's saying something. I'm interested in this one, and apparently Lionsgate has bought the distribution rights and plans to release it sooner rather than later.

The Australian underworld sounds to have taken a good working over in Animal Kingdom. This is something I'd like to catch as well, though I doubt any of the local Richmond theaters are going to be showing it.

For something a little less sensational and a little more realistic and probably closer to home, there's been a lot of good word on The Company Men. From what I've been reading and hearing, apparently a very good film, on the more somber and serious side, but everyone is unsure of the box office possibilities for a film like this.

Then there's The Killer Inside Me. This years most controversial Sundance submission apparently had one woman stomping out of a screening and yelling that the film maker had no right to make the film. Michael Winterbottom, the films director has been taking heat since it's first screening. It apparently caused quite a stir at the European Film Market as well. There's a story on one of the commentary tracks for Se7en about two older women "who looked like school teachers" according to David Fincher, walking passed him and saying to each other, "The people who made that movie should be shot." I take these things generally as a good sign.

Lastly, there have been some great reviews floating around for A Prophet, apparently a French film about an Arabic man youth who ends up in the French prison system and begins his criminal education. Always an interesting subject, as far as I'm concerned anyway. Here's a review from the New York Times as well.

I think that about covers it for this edition of Out Of The Ether. I hope you've found something of interest here. If not, try again next time.

Vinyan (2008, directed by Fabrice Du Welz)

There was a time in the late seventies and early eighties during which jungle horror flicks were all the rage. Most of those were cannibal films though. Of course, Cannibal Holocaust was released during that period of time, as was Cannibal Ferox. The larger percentage of those films came out of Europe, mainly Italy.

So it's interesting to see a new jungle horror film come out of Europe again. It's not Italy this time though, it's France, which has really been establishing a strong horror tradition over the last few years. The "French New Wave Horror" is a phrase people who follow the horror genre have gotten used to seeing and hearing. If you're a horror fan, and you've been missing out on what the French have been doing for the last five or so years, you owe it to yourself to catch up.

Vinyan strays somewhat from the formula we have come to expect from this new wave of French horror films. It's not a gorefest, and there's very little violence. So, if you've been skipping the latest crop of French horror films because they are too violent and bloody, this might be better for you.

What I can't tell you is that less violence or less blood make this film any less disturbing. It's not going to make you squirm in disgust the way something like Inside or Martyrs did, but it is disturbing all the same.

It's about a couple who lost their son in the tsunami in Asia, six months prior to when the film begins. Visiting the home of a friend who is holding a fund raiser for some kind of aid foundation or charity (it's not completely clear what they do, but it's not all that important either), they're shown a video of an area in Burma which was hard hit by the tsunami. During the video, Emanuelle Beart's character, Jeanne, is convinced she sees their son walking away from the camera in the background of one of the shots. Though not completely sure his wife isn't losing her mind, Rufus Sewell's character, her husband Paul, agrees to go and look for their son.

To get to Burma from Thailand where they live, they unfortunately have to employ the aid of human traffickers. This makes for an extremely uncomfortable situation. And off they head from Thailand to the jungles of Burma, looking for a child who may or may not be alive.

Rufus Sewell gives a great performance here. As a husband, not sure of his wife's continued sanity, and at the same time, hoping beyond reason that maybe she might be right and he might find his son, there are some really heartbreaking and hard to watch scenes of him just trying, begging his wife to see reality or just trying to decide what to do. Sewell seems to only end up with roles as villains in the States, but he proves here, beyond the shadow of any doubt that he could be a leading man and carry a film on his own.

Emanuelle Beart, is also amazing here. I never doubted for one second that she actually believed her son was  alive. It wasn't a matter of being dishonest with herself about the possibilities, but an absolute certainty that he was alive. Whether or not she is losing her grip on reality, you'll have to watch and decide for yourself, but there isn't a false moment in her performance.

If you don't believe that relationship, and the dynamic between these two people, the film goes nowhere, is terribly boring and doesn't matter to you at all. Luckily for Fabrice Du Welz, you do believe it, every step of the way. Du Welz does a really great job of establishing the mood around these characters, which creates something interesting. At the center, there's this story which is really about these two people, who have lost a child, are trying to cope with it and do what they think is right, and hold on to each other. But, because of everything the story and the director surrounds them with, it becomes something very different from the films we've seen before that follow a very similar storyline. From the opening credit sequence  Du Welz establishes an unusual, creepy, alien kind of feel, that follows these two characters throughout the film. There's some really interesting cinematography here, interesting use of color and deep darks against bright lights. Filming on location in Thailand also helps to make this film really live. There are some sequences in the beginning of the film which couldn't work if they'd been using a European city as a double for Thailand, and sets would have just looked ridiculous. And the jungle photography is gorgeous. I don't care how strange and weird or unusual this film portrays the events in the jungle. I still want to go to the jungle to see anything as incredibly beautiful as the location looks here.

Vinyan is an interesting film. It starts out as what seems to be an interesting, intelligent thriller. It's well written, it's characters are well drawn and feel very real and you are interested in and want to follow them. Then, it turns into something else along the way, which I found equally interesting. I have no doubt there are folks out there who would not find this enjoyable. They feel cheated when films take a hard turn the way this one does. I've seen it done poorly in some films, but here it's done well and it changes the tone of the film, but it cuts even more directly to what's at the heart of the film, these two people, trying to understand how to deal with the pain of having lost a child. What it becomes is surreal and hallucinatory in an interesting way. The symbolism is probably a little thick for mainstream American audiences, but I think there's a part of the genre/horror community who would enjoy the kind of uncomfortable, unsettled feeling it produces, even if some of the symbolism escapes them. I have a feeling some of it escaped me, but I still enjoyed it.

Deadgirl (2008)

With the popularity of things like "Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection From The Living Dead" by Max Brooks being a big success in the dying publishing industry, the success of Shaun Of The Dead, the overtly ridiculous nature of Planet Terror, the strangely entertaining Fido, it seems the zombie sub-genre has really run it's course. When you throw in the outrageous absurdity of a film like Black Sheep, you could come to the conclusion that there was nothing new under the vaguely cloud covered bright white moon.

You'd have been wrong. I certainly was. I thought The Zombie Diaries (which it might be time to watch again and write a review for) was a decent film, with a good strong premise, but it's been a while since I've seen something from the zombie genre which wasn't tongue in cheek, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, aren't we hip kind of comedy film making. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the films I mentioned above, but I always consider where the genre originated and wonder if anyone is ever going to be able to make a zombie film with an eye on what worked so well and was so great about Night Of The Living Dead (which I'll refer to as NOTLD for the rest of this piece). I can't say Deadgirl is on par with NOTLD, because it's not, but it does set it's sights on some of the elements of that film which the zombie genre has been ignoring for a long time.

I'm not sure what to think of that fact that Deadgirl hasn't generated more controversy. Have we reached so cynical an age that something as disturbing and subversive as this can't catch the ire of some loud, ready to be angry group of people? Or is it possibly that an idea like the one Deadgirl tackles is no longer quite so taboo and topics like masculinity, sexuality, and the way in group/out group systems work in American culture aren't really that controversial anymore? I'm going to guess that this film wasn't seen by enough people to generate controversy, and wouldn't be controversial to those who would have sought it out (like myself). Either way, Deadgirl really deserved more controversy than it received.

Before I go too much further, I want to get something out of the way. At some point in the future, someone, possibly even someone I know (most likely considering I think they're the only one's reading these reviews), is going to see Deadgirl and it is going to punch them, as hard as it can in their soft spot. They are going to be seriously disturbed, probably a little angry, and feel disgusting, in need of a shower. Then, they are going to remember that I wrote something favorable about this movie, and they are going to wonder what in hell I could possibly have liked about this movie. One part of that answer is that I know it's going to elicit that reaction from some people, and I like movies that can do that. And damn it, you should be disturbed by what you're seeing, it's good that it is disturbing, and a lot of people miss that kind of detail with films like this one.

Think about it this way, you've heard the old urban legend about the woman being raped in the alley, and hundreds of residents being able to hear her screams and no one calling the police or anything, right? The fact that there is a woman being raped, is disturbing enough by itself, but when you add on top of that the fact that no one was willing to help, and the outrage is doubled. You're outraged at the lack of outrage, and should be. Deadgirl works the same way. You should be disturbed by these characters. You should be disturbed by these events, and you should be both disturbed and outraged by their lack of either in the face of all of it.

Deadgirl has a very understated social consciousness to it that was one of the things that has helped make NOTLD a classic and which has also made it one of the most influential horror films of all time. I'm not saying this is going to be some kind of classic film, but it is nice to have a horror film who's creators were reaching for a big idea, and a big goal. This film reaches out to ideas about sexuality, masculinity, group association, growing up, brutality, and barbarism. An interesting result is that I don't necessarily know who to recommend this film to. People who enjoy literate, thoughtful films are likely to find this a little too disturbing and taboo. At the same time, there's not really enough blood in here to satisfy the gore fans. I think that if you enjoyed and appreciated the kind of territory David Lynch and David Cronenberg explored in their early careers, you might enjoy this.

I do think the "spiritual sibling" to this film would be Ginger Snaps. Deadgirl is very much about the growing up, maturing,  and so on, but it's main characters are male, and hence, it's from a much more male perspective, in every conceivable way. Some of you out there are probably rolling your eyes because you're thinking that ninety-nine percent of the films we see are from a male perspective, and you'd be right, except this doesn't necessarily glorify it or make it look all that good or anything. It's confusing and strange and brutal, many things growing up male actually are. This isn't necessarily an indictment either. It's not necessarily a "men suck" kind of movie, specifically because it's much more complicated than that.

It is a movie about two seventeen year old guys who, while skipping school and trashing a long abandoned asylum, come upon something extremely unusual in the basement. The title tells you everything you need to know about that. From there, it gets really weird. 

Shiloh Fernandez does a damn good job as Ricky, the films protagonist, specifically because there are times when you completely sympathize with him, and there are times where you absolutely do not sympathize with him, and can't possibly justify his actions or inaction. He's believable, and he does a good job selling the lack of certainty in his character. If he can't make you believe that his character is in the process of questioning some of the fundamental truths he would have automatically claimed at the beginning of the film, it doesn't work. He sells that very well. He also bares a somewhat spooky resemblance to a very young Joaquin Pheonix.

Noah Segan does a great job as J.T. as well. His character as antagonist and Ricky's best friend is probably the most well written in the film and he handles all the duties assigned with ease. I expect to see him popping up more regularly on television and in some larger films. It's a strong performance in the kind of character Hollywood really loves.

I haven't seen the original cut of the film, I picked up the "Directors Cut" on DVD at Best Buy for $14.99. This cut of the film had one particular scene of relatively extreme gore, and the rest of the film had some off screen violence with some blood being thrown on someone on screen, but it's pretty tame in the gore and violence department, which is probably good. The inclusion of too much gratuitous violence (which I'm not opposed to on principle) would have sent this film directly into cheap exploitation territory instead of kind of sleazy art house horror where it actually lands.

The lack of effects also helps to cover up the films budget. This had to have been a relatively low budget film, but it comes across well because you never really consider that very much while you're watching it. The characters are well written enough and the story well thought through enough that it keeps your attention, during a zombie movie, by focusing on story and character. That is unusual. In the majority of zombie films, you don't want to focus on story and character, because both were put together in much less time than it took to develop and prepare the effects in the film. The only thing more preposterous than the walking dead in most of those films is that the people the films center on are actually supposed to be living. In films like those you can forgive it. I give the film makers credit for never getting near that here.

Deadgirl is a film that deserves credit for reaching for the heights it does, even if it doesn't perfectly achieve them. There are moments when it loses it's tone or it's just slightly off and kind of ridiculous, but we're talking about a film which centers on a person whose corpse won't die. In itself, that's ridiculous, and hard to make into something which will be taken completely seriously for ninety-minutes. All in all, this is a film which deserves some love because it tries something different, succeeds more than it fails and is interesting to watch, and to consider after. Not for the faint of heart though, not at all. I'm looking forward to the future work from directors Marcel Sarmiento and Gadi Harel, apparently both graduates of the Troma school of film making. It will be interesting to see what else they come up with away from Uncle Loyd's influence.

Borderland (2007, directed by Zev Berman)

I'm not sure who Zev Berman is, but he stole my idea. Five or so years ago, maybe a little more, I read a story about a town in Mexico called Matamoros. It was a news article about a group of kids visiting a Texas town near the border for spring break. They decide to take a trip across the border to Mexico and, like hundreds of thousands of kids before them, look for an even more decadent experience. Well, one of them disappeared. In the months that followed, as Americans of different varieties, F.B.I etc. get involved it eventually comes out that this missing American got snapped up by a drug dealing, human sacrificing cult. Corruption, on a terrifying level was also at work, because everyone within tens of miles of the groups headquarters was terrified of ending up under the knife, machete, what have you. Seriously. I'm really not joking. It did happen.

I read that article all those years back and immediately started my own screenplay. I never finished that screenplay, so I'm not saying Zev Berman stole my actual screenplay, I'm not even actually saying the guy stole my idea. This has all been a round about way of telling you that the essential facts of this story are actually true.And that I kicked myself for not finishing the screenplay.

Borderland is the dramatization of that story. Because of the fact that this film was picked up by the After Dark Horrorfest, and in the three years or so it's existed, After Dark has only really picked up two or three good films, I really had very low expectations. If you're not familiar, After Dark is a traveling film festival, essentially a distribution banner for horror films. Each year, they choose eight films which haven't been picked up by anyone else, get them into limited distribution in theaters and then into the DVD/Blu Ray market. It's been at least three years so far, and they really have only gotten their hands on two or three films which could claw their way to being called decent and not horribly, laughably bad. It's become kind of like seeing Micheal Pare' is starring in a movie. Borderland has helped to convince me I should still give these films a shot, in case one of the future releases is this good.

It's relatively obvious Borderland was made with the kind of money most Hollywood films spend in food services. It becomes another example in a long list of those which prove Hollywood, really doesn't have a very good handle on what to do with their money, because we've probably seen a few hundred thousand films trying to do what Borderland does, with twice or three times as much money, and fail. It plays well, throughout, and it manages to create and keep building on a sense of urgency that drives the narrative forward, and provides a few small surprises along the way. It also has the kind of tension and suspense which  many of it's big budget brethren just can't nail down very well. It's a very well done film.

Borderlands is a graphic film, with some scenes of relatively extreme violence. The interesting thing about the film, and the violence in it, is the degree of fetishism it actually contains. One of the complaints levied against horror films for a long time has been that the violence is too fetishistic and that makes it too appealing. This, actually, makes it even less appealing. This is tough and ugly, as it should be. Especially considering the "true to life" nature of the subject matter, this is something I think works in the film's favor.

Unfortunately, IMDB doesn't have anything listed as being directed by Zev Berman after this film. He managed to put together a good small budget film, and attract some decent talent. Sean Astin turns up in the middle of the film in a role you would never have imagined, but that he seems absolutely perfectly fit for. It's not a huge part, but what is there, he does a really good job with. The same can be said for Rider Strong, formerly of Boy Meets World fame, and will be familiar to horror fans from Cabin Fever. The other two  male leads don't seem to have been in anything I recognize or have seen, and they do a decent job. The real find here is in Martha Higareda  who is great as Valeria, a bar tender the trio meet their first night in old Mexico. It's a good performance from someone unknown to American audiences. She's also a classically elegant beauty that combined with this performance is more than you often find in the "it girl", who ever it happens to be this week.

In short, Borderlands was definitely worth seeing. I caught it through Fearnet on demand on our Verizon Fios, and I liked it enough that I'll probably pick a copy up at some point in the near future. Best Buy apparently sells it for $9.99 on DVD, which I think is a good value for this film.

Shutter Island (Martin Scorcese, 2010)

Martin Scorcese is Martin Scorcese, we all know this. I don't have to go into the fact that he's one of the most popular and influential film makers in the mediums history. I don't have to go into the fact that he's produced some of the greatest films in American cinema's history. I don't have to go into it, but I certain enjoy going into it.

Dennis Lehane has had other books he's written adapted for film. One by Clint Eastwood, who made the heart wrenching and deeply affecting Mystic River, and also by Ben Affleck, whose directorial debut ended up being the superb Gone Baby Gone.

Following the release of Scorsese's The Departed, I'd read that he was going to film an adaptation of Lehane's Shutter Island, I thought it could be extremely interesting. It seemed like a really great pairing of great director and great writer/material.

Shutter Island feels very much like an homage to the classic mysteries Hollywood used to make. That's not a bad thing. Bringing those classic ideas of storytelling and it's elements into modern film making can really be something wonderful. L.A. Confidential, and Brick are two great films, completely different from each other, but both employed classic, old school Hollywood film elements perfectly. Shutter Island really seems like his homage to films like Double Indemnity, Dial "M" For Murder, and even the classic Hitchcock mystery.

The thing that sticks out to me the afternoon after having seen Shutter Island, is that Martin Scorcese seems to be having more fun with making films as he's started to get older. There is something about this film and The Departed that just seem to be lighter and more fun, even though the themes are still darker and more adult, they aren't quite as dour and melancholic as say, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, or even Gangs Of New York. There is an energy here that really comes through as infectious and entirely enjoyable.

If you're not aware already, Shutter Island begins with Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo playing U.S. Marshall's charged with investigating the disappearance of a patient from a federal asylum for the criminally insane. The asylum happens to be on an island, Shutter Island, shockingly. Ben Kingsley plays the doctor in charge of helping DiCaprio and Ruffalo get all the cooperation they need. Max Von Sydow shows up twenty or so minutes in, playing Kingsley's superior, which was a great surprise for me. If we as film fanatics were to begin canonizing film saints, I'd be rooting for Max Von Sydow as the first. I'm not a "hey, I need to collect every single one of this actors films in every format it's ever been released" kinds of guys, but I would go buy a ticket to any film, simply because Max Von Sydow is in it. Anyway, that's the mystery the film begins with, and the what takes us into the strange and unsettling world of Shutter Island. Being that the film is a mystery, I'm not going to say too much about the plot because half the fun is figuring it out along the way.


I was going to say this might be the closest thing we'll ever get to a Scorsese horror movie, but Cape Fear was pretty close as well. Interestingly enough, even though there are some heavy, and potentially distressingly disturbing elements here, he manages to play them just right so the film isn't wallowing in those things, it's just presenting them to you as part of the story. This could have been a much darker, much more bleak, nihilistic kind of film, and in other hands that's just how it may have ended up, but it's balanced perfectly.

This is a tightly wound story, all the elements of which are played perfectly in their time and tone. It goes for the gusto in all the right places and is more subtle and reflective in the few places that are really necessary. It seems one of the positive things about being American cinema's premier auteur is that when you ask someone if they want to be in your movie, no matter who they are, they say yes. This cast is stacked with top notch talent, not just A list actors, but really talented people who are at their best. Leonardo Dicaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, and Max Von Sydow are all wonderful to watch as men in the midst of a mental chess game, each pair suspicious of the other. That's to be expected though, even Ruffalo , who for whatever reason hasn't had his real movie star, break out role yet, is an extremely talented actor you can count on putting in a strong performance. You can count on any of these actors carrying an entire film by themselves, here, they get to play together. It's great.

It also has a full cast of supporting characters and actors who are intensely interesting to watch and who put in some really great performances. Ted Levine (formerly Buffalo Bill in Silence Of The Lambs, currently on the television show Monk) shows up as The Warden, and with a few lines proves he's one of the most underused and under rated actors in Hollywood. Emily Mortimer and the incredible Patricia Clarkson show up in small but pivotal roles and knock it out of the park. Elias Koteas puts in a quick appearance as an especially creepy individual. Michelle Williams once again proves some serious acting chops as DiCaprio's wife, and Jackie Earle Haley continues his streak of strong performances in slightly odd roles. You're going to recognize many of the people in this film, and having seen it through to the end, I think that's something Scorsese chose to do purposely.

The editing and direction aren't quite are more conventional here than most Scorsese films, which for the material, and as an homage to an earlier era of film, works extremely well. There are some more stylistic moments, but given the story and character elements involved, they are perfectly rational, sensible and probably couldn't be accomplished in any other way. It's not done in the same style as a Goodfellas or The Departed with very stylistic cinematography and editing or even Raging Bull which almost took realism to an extreme. This is what a Martin Scorsese fever dream would be like if it followed the central narrative of an old school, classic mystery film. It's beautiful to look at, shot and lit in that kind of classic Hollywood beautiful way. When it's released to the home video/theater (what do we even call that nowadays?), I'll definitely be picking this one up on BluRay. This is the kind of film I want in Hi-Def.

This is the rare film I can recommend to basically everyone. If you have even a passing interest in film, you're going to enjoy this movie. If you have a real passion for film, you're going to enjoy this movie. If acting is the thing that brings you to a theater, it's here. If directing is the thing you look to see, it's here. This is great movie making and vintage Scorsese, at a time in his career when he really seems to be in love with what he's doing. Go see it. If you're going to the movies at any point in the near future, this is the one. If you're sitting at home watching crappy TV after work one night this week. Do yourself a favor and at least go get some of the real deal, gourmet good entertainment for yourself. What I'm saying is, don't miss Shutter Island.

Bronson (Nicholas Winding Refn, 2008)

That's not Charles Bronson the star of the Death Wish films, as you can see. This movie really has nothing to do with him, except that it's subject changed his name to Charles Bronson in the midst of a life which has seen him dubbed England's most violent criminal.

Bronson is a film about kicking ass. That is to say the character is interested in nothing other than fighting with prison guards. Seriously, that's it. The film itself is interested in nothing other than kicking ass in the level of quality with which it's made and the way in which it presents this extreme character. Both succeed.

Bronson is the story of a man born Micheal Peterson, who at nineteen commits an armed robbery and is sentenced to seven years in prison. As of the release of the film, he'd spent 34 years in prison, 30 of which were spent in solitary confinement. According to the film, he's never actually killed anyone. He attempted to kill a fellow inmate in an asylum though, because he wanted to get back to prison, where he could fight guards. When his victim lives, he's remanded to an asylum for the criminally insane, where he proceeds to start a prison riot. The film focuses on this man, his actions and  his drive for recognition, which is to say, he states at the beginning of the film, "I've always wanted to be famous" and that's about all the explanation you're going to get for why this guy is as completely set on fighting everything, but especially prison guards.

Because Bronson himself is the story, there isn't a very straightforward narrative here. It's also being told to us from his perspective, so to say the narrator is somewhat unreliable, is an understatement. But, there's no blame here, no self pity, none of it. Bronson is recalling these incidents or this tale, as if he would have changed none of it.  The only time it seems he's asking for or trying to get any pity or empathy from the audience is the point in the film in which he's locked in an asylum, being heavily sedated constantly, and unable to be in prison, fighting with guards, as he'd like to be. And in a way, you do pity him. Seeing this guy being reduced to a drooling pile of goo is what I imagine it would have been like to see Churchill rendered mute. Churchill had a gift for words, not only speeches, but in the many other phrases and exchanges which have become part of legend and folk lore. In the film, Bronson seems in the same way to have been made specifically with fighting prison guards in mind.

And that's part of what makes this film interesting. It's suggesting or Bronson was suggesting in writing the book it was based on, that he is a kind of artist whose canvass is violence and publicity. The way he and the film are portrayed, it seems kind of true. And if you can consider it, a feature length, well funded motion picture has been made about the man dubbed England's most violent prisoner, before his death. There does seem to be a certain PT Barnum sense of publicity to this guy.

Being treated to performances like the one Tom Hardy put in portraying Bronson is an extremely rare experience. Hardy's portrayal creates a character who is thoroughly charismatic, and potently disturbing. There's some strange combination here which bespeaks Woody Harrelson's Mickey Knox, Robert Deniro's Travis Bickle, Eric Bana's Mark "Chopper" Read, Denzell Washington's Alonzo Harris and Heath Ledger's Joker. Bronson is a madman, an anti-social maniac anyone in their right mind would be terrified of face to face, but in so many places during the film, you find yourself rooting for him, and hoping that he either gets the nothing he wants or straightens up enough to have some kind of life and do something with the boundless energy and charisma we see. There have been whispers of Tom Hardy playing "Max" in the next Mad Max film, and now I understand why. Though I'm not sure he'll ever come across a part this good again, Hardy is an amazingly talented young actor. Reams of hyperbole have been heaped on this performance since the films release, and in one of those rare cases, it's almost not enough.

Technically, it's a spectacular film. I've read and heard some other reviews and opinions about the film which fault it for being a little too stylistic, but given the subject matter, specifically Bronson himself, that seems to be exactly what it should be. There seems to be a growing tide of film loving and critical folks who find some fault with the kind of stylistic visual tone this film has, which I don't completely understand. If thematically, contextually, and so on, it gets in the way of the story or it overwhelms the characters, that's a problem. But, just because it's become something we're seeing in films more often than we did in the past, doesn't mean it's time to throw on your hipster ascot and make with the hate. It works here, to good effect, in part because the film is coming to you or being told through Bronson's perspective, and that would be an extremely stylized perspective. Scenes of Bronson on a stage, narrating events, while wearing old time vaudevillian harlequin make up, to the roar of a loving crowd, make perfect sense in the context of this character, because he is a completely bug nuts, out of his mind, showman. I could have watched those scenes alone for a long time. Whether or not you agree with director Nicholas Winding Refn's choice to make the films as visually stylistic as it is, you can't say it isn't done well. The regular shifting from deep, strong, vibrant colors, to the institutional blues, greens and grays works well, especially because there's enough texture to every shot that even bathed those institutional colors each composition looks interesting. In the short period of the film covering the 69 days (the point at which he changed his name to Charles "Charlie" Bronson, in order to sound tougher in the underground bare knuckle fighting circuit) Bronson was at one point free from prison, the art direction and costuming are excellent, providing a real sense of time and place. Technically, it's a beautiful film.

Bronson is an extremely entertaining film. It belongs right along side Natural Born Killers, Chopper, and in a kind of strange reversed sense, Fight Club. It's subversive, in an intelligently belligerent way that would have only been entertaining for a short period of time, had it's star and resulting main character not been so magnetic and charismatic you can't take your eyes off him for a second. The lines it draws between criminal and celebrity in keeping with the themes of Natural Born Killers and Chopper. The ideas about identity, violence and masculinity follow very much in line with the ideas in Fight Club, in a strange sort of way. One thing I do have to warn perspective viewers about (because we're weird about this stuff here), there is a lot of male nudity in the film. Bronson doesn't just enjoy fighting guards, he gets bare ass naked to do it, so they can't grab his clothes, and often smothers himself in paint or whatever else he can to approximate grease. If you can't see anything but cock when there is an adult male on film, you need to grow up, and you need to skip this film.  I enjoyed Bronson thoroughly, and I'm going to be going back to check out the films I think are it's thematic and characteristic brethren again specifically because of it.