From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Oct 2 00:25:19 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Oct 2 00:25:21 2008 Subject: Review: Ghost Town (2008) Message-ID: GHOST TOWN (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: A dentist who died for seven minutes on the operating table finds that he now can see dead people. Half of Manhattan has favors they want of him and making matters worse, it is the dead half. Ricky Gervais, popular star of BBC TV's "The Office", plays the man who doesn't like living people and now has also to deal with the dead. He is asked by a dead husband to break up his wife's relationship with a new fiance. The first half has some very good writing, but the film loses its center and wanders in its second half. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 GHOST TOWN is a supernatural comedy-drama for which the comedy elements, mostly connected with the premise, are pointed and work. The dramatic elements are a little unfocussed. This makes for a film with a great first act, and good but faulty second act and a weak conclusion. The film was co-written and directed by David Koepp. Koepp has been connected with some major fantasy films, usually as a writer. Koepp's writing can be found in JURASSIC PARK, THE SHADOW, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, STIR OF ECHOES, SPIDER-MAN, WAR OF THE WORLDS (Spielberg version), ZATHURA, and INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. Those are fairly major fantasy films. Here he tells a romantic story seemingly based on the premises of GHOST and especially THE SIXTH SENSE. Like Cole Sear of THE SIXTH SENSE, Bertram Pincus (Ricky Gervais) sees dead people. It is the after-effect of dying on an operating table for nearly seven minutes before being revived. Bertram sees the dead like Sear does, but there are not just a few unquiet spirits like we saw in THE SIXTH SENSE. This is Manhattan and there are throngs of the dead who have been waiting around for some living person to get the power to hear them. Each has a mission before he or she moves onto the next existence. Bertram just has to do one or two little things for each of them. Bertram could spend the rest of his life performing important services for the unquiet dead. Complicating matters is the fact that Bertram is just not someone who does a lot of favors. In fact, Bertram is a self-obsessed jerk who would just rather not be around people. He chose being a dentist as a profession because sticking cotton or metal into a patient's mouth generally ends conversations. He has a hard enough time putting up with the living people in his life, and he is less than happy about being the key man for so many dead people. They hound him and they follow him around. The novelty of this situation somewhat compensates for the overuse of the old gag of someone trying to cover up the fact that he is talking to someone that nobody else sees. That one got old along with the "Topper" films. Chief among Bertram's haunters is Frank Harley (Greg Kinnear). On the day that Frank's wife Gwen (Tea Leoni) discovered Frank was leading a double life, both lives came to an end. Frank wants to make sure that the Gwen does not marry a certain creep, but being dead his options are limited. He stalks and hounds Bertram hoping to use him to save his wife. Not too surprisingly Bertram finds he has an interest in her himself. In the second half the film loses impetus and direction. We have three main characters, one living, one dead, one lost a little in between. But none of these characters seems to know what he or she wants. Instead, the tension comes from not knowing if Gwen will find out that Bertram is seeing her dead ex-husband (literally seeing him). Fans of Ricky Gervais--and some people who do not care for him-- know him as the boorish office manager in the BBC comedy series "The Office." Koepp gets a somewhat more restrained performance from him for most of GHOST TOWN'S runtime. There are moments when his TV persona does seem to creep back on him. This is a film that takes the idea of THE SIXTH SENSE and makes a passable comedy out of it by examining what it would mean to an average man to have the power. As long as we are getting clever ideas about what it would mean to see the dead, the GHOST TOWN is a lot of fun. When it tries to become more serious the film falters and loses its center. Still I rate it a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Oct 2 00:25:26 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Oct 2 00:25:29 2008 Subject: Misc: Sword and Sandal Films Message-ID: Sword and Sandal Films (film comment by Mark R. Leeper) Whatever happened to old Steve Reeves movies? Turner Classic Movies was running three "pepla" together. It gave me a sort of nostalgic feel. This is a genre of film that seems all but forgotten. I do not see books written about them. You do not see revival houses playing the films. I am a little surprised that Turner saw fit to show them. How many people today even know much about the sub-genre of historical fantasy called "pepla," or in the singular "peplum"? Taken literally, a peplum is a sort of clothing worn in ancient Greece and Rome. It is draped over the shoulder and then wrapped around the loins. In ancient Rome a peplum was a robe of state. In Italy the films are also known as "fusto" films. "Fusto" means muscleman. In this country we tended to call these films by the English name "Sword and Sandal" films. When applied to films it is a genre of film set in (usually) classical historic times with a muscle-man hero. Today there are just a few rare little revivals. But back when I was a teenager there was a lot of pepla on Saturday night television. I think the local station called their program "Medallion Theatre." The pepla were a sort of film we associate with 1960s Italy. Actually most were made in the years from 1958 to 1968, and they were made in the hundreds. But pepla actually go back well into the silent era of filmmaking. CABIRIA (1914) was probably the first true peplum film. It had a muscleman hero named Maciste. Most of these films were not seen outside of Italy until the late 1950s. What really got the ball rolling was Joseph E. Levine finding the film HERCULES in Italy. He dubbed it into English and released it in the United States. It had cost him next to nothing and he made a financial killing. It was not his first coup of that sort, by the way. He had previously bought the American rights to show a big-budget Japanese film called GOJIRA and which he re-cut and released as GODZILLA, KING OF THE MONSTERS. Hoping that lightning would strike twice he tried to repeat the trick with Hercules. And surely enough he made another killing at the box-office. HERCULES and the shortly following HERCULES UNCHAINED were the first real hits of this genre in this country. They played separately, I believe, but when the appeal died down they played together on a double feature. How anybody could stand to sit through two of these films back to back is still a mystery to me. The films tend to be these terribly uninvolving stories of not very high quality. It does not help that they are so poorly dubbed into English. The plots are mostly incoherent and usually just end up with the muscleman hero being imprisoned by a tyrant and then the hero gets angry and tears apart the kingdom. He does things like pulling trees out of the ground by the roots and bopping the tyrant with them. He then gets the girl, but he never seems to get very close because these huge inflated biceps and pectorals seem to get in the way. When pepla proved profitable as an international product the Italian film industry started grinding them out one after another. We got a lot of the dubbed peplums over here. Only a few did I ever see playing in theaters. Perhaps they played in drive-ins. However, most went directly to television where stations could show them on programs like my Medallion Theater. Many seemed to start American body builders. Hercules was played variously by Steve Reeves, Mark Forest, and Gordon Scott. Other heroes would be named for famous strongmen of myth, history, and folklore like Samson, Goliath, Colossus, and Atlas. Then there were some with a hero known mostly only in Italy called Maciste, the fellow from CABIRIA. Americans did not know Maciste, so frequently he got other names in the translation. He might get a name like Colossus or the Son of Samson. But if you saw the titles, he was really Maciste. Initially only Joseph E. Levine could legally release a peplum about a strongman named Hercules. But eventually it must have been decided that he did not own the name and there were several Hercules films among the pepla. For example, there was that classic HERCULES AGAINST THE MOON MEN. I know what you are thinking. That sounds to you like a silly idea for a film. The truth was, no, it was not Hercules fighting actual men from the moon. That would be ridiculous. It was Maciste fighting actual men from the moon. In waves the Italian film industry would pick a genre that they thought would be popular and they would just make dozens of films in that genre until the market was worn out. When there was no more demand for muscleman films they moved on to other genres. I seem to remember some spy films that were a sort of an imitation of James Bond films. In 1977 and 1978 they re-geared and made a lot of space opera films. They had been making them since the early 1960s, but STAR WARS gave them a real boost. However, what they eventually made their big genre started in 1964 with A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS. That film basically killed the pepla film and directors like Sergio Leone and Mario Bava who had been making beefcake films switched to making Westerns or horror films. But somewhere out there are moldering a bunch of really bad but fitfully fun films. I am hoping that Turner Classic Movies brings more of them back. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Mon Oct 6 16:58:24 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Mon Oct 6 16:58:27 2008 Subject: Review: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008) Message-ID: <9qOdnUoTgrO2B3vVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@earthlink.com> NICK AND NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** Michael Cera may be very popular, but he is a one-note actor. With his always sad, distance smile, you feel sorry for his characters before you even know their stories. His limitations work when opposite strong female leads, as when he played opposite Ellen Page in what I think was the best film of last year, JUNO. He becomes a nice foil for his co-stars' emotions. But, in NICK AND NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST, Cera is asked to carry the show equally with his female lead, Kat Dennings as Norah. His performance constantly falls flat, and hers isn't much better. A romantic teen comedy, NICK AND NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST did nothing for me. I didn't laugh. I didn't even smile. I just never cared. And cinematographically, the film is much uglier than any television series watched at home for free on your HDTV. Why filmmakers expect viewers to pay twenty bucks for a pair of tickets and then provide them with something so dingy is a mystery to me, but many movies these days are making that mistake. By Peter Sollett, whose last film was the equally disappointing RAISING VICTOR VARGAS, NICK AND NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST happens one night in New York City. Nick and Norah spend most of the night driving around, as they try to find Caroline (Ari Graynor), Norah's very drunk best friend who is lost somewhere. Nick drives a yellow Yugo -- which frequently doesn't go -- and many New Yorkers decide his car must be a cab. Caroline, a constant gum chewer, does not like to lose her gum. When she spits her gum on a wall or throws it up into a puke-filled toilet in a very dirty, public restroom, she always retrieves it and puts it back into her mouth, as the audience groans loudly. Caroline and Norah are such best friends that they swap this same piece of gum. Yes, it is just as disgusting as it sounds. Actually, it is even worse. And there are other such moments in the movie, including one with a cell phone floating in vomit. In a story you've heard a hundred times before, Nick pines for his ex-girlfriend Tris (Alexis Dziena), who never loved him and still mentally abuses him. Although Norah has a boyfriend, she and Nick spent most of the movie not realizing the obvious that they were they were made for each other. Of course, by the time the night is over and the film ends, they will come to know what we know and will finally be together -- all very predictable. Much of the story is filled with music references. Nick is the only straight guy in a gay band. Actually all of his friends are gay. His main skill in life appears to be his ability to create really good mix CDs. Norah, who goes to the same Catholic, uniformed high school that Tris does, knows of Nick from the great mix CDs he prepared for Tris as a way to woo her. A recurring subplot has all of the kids in the story searching for an elusive band called "Where's Fluffy" or just "Fluffy" for short. The band is playing at some secret location in the city. This is very apropos since the movie is nothing but fluff. And, not very enjoyable fluff. NICK AND NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST runs 1:30. It is rated PG-13 for "mature thematic material including teen drinking, sexuality, language and crude behavior" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, October 3, 2008. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Mon Oct 6 17:00:05 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Mon Oct 6 17:00:07 2008 Subject: Review: Flash of Genius (2008) Message-ID: <0dSdnaPsyMFJOXvVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@earthlink.com> FLASH OF GENIUS A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** 1/2 FLASH OF GENIUS, a wonderfully old-fashioned film, tells a heart-warming David and Goliath tale. It's an amazing and touching true story that will have you on the edge of your seat and may even cause you to shed a tear or two. If more movies were like this one, audiences might not feel so cheated on their way out. With a very good first half and an absolutely mesmerizing second half, the movie is thoroughly and consistently entertaining. Starring a never better Greg Kinnear as Dr. Bob Kearns, an Electrical Engineering professor and a hard working inventor, the film follows this father of six as he defends his patents, which were ruthlessly ignored by all of the big car companies. The story takes some twists and turns you may guess and even more that aren't quite so predictable. When we first meet Dr. Kearns, he is a despondent, disheveled and downright delusional guy on a bus who thinks he is going to Washington to see the Vice President. In response to a call from his loyal and loving wife, Phyllis (Lauren Graham from "The Gilmore Girls"), state troopers stop the bus in order to retrieve poor Dr. Kearns, who lost his mind because of the strain he is under. We then cut to three years earlier, when Dr. Kearns and his family are at church. On the way home in the car, he first gets his idea for his famous invention, the "blinking eye." Haven't heard of it, you say? Perhaps you know it better as the "intermittent wiper," a gadget that sounds a whole lot simpler to develop than it was, since the big three car companies could not figure out how to make it work. Dr. Kearns, who was legally blind in one-eye, due to a wedding night accident, was acutely aware of the function of the eye and the eyelid. He modeled his design for a non-continuous wiper by making it work in sporadic blinks as the eyelid does to clear off the eyeball. This American inventor and something of a genius put his entire family to work helping him. But his breakthrough in getting it built came from his long-time friendship with Gil Privick (Dermot Mulroney). The company that the wealthy Gil worked for had ties to all of the automobile manufacturers. In no time, Gil arranged a meeting for Dr. Kearns with Ford and soon a deal was cut. Dr. Kearns was very leery of giving his prototype to Ford, even though Ford insisted that the government, for safety reasons, had to be given a working model. As Dr. Kearns was gearing up a factory to build the units Ford wanted, Ford suddenly announced that they were no longer interested. Dr. Kearns was crushed, but it was nothing like what he felt like over a year later, when he saw the new Mustang, which boasted an intermittent wiper, built exactly to Dr. Kearns's design, for which he held five patents. Most of the movie concerns Dr. Kearns long battle against Ford, who alternately ignored him, buried him in paperwork or offered him various sums of cash to go away. A man obsessed, not with money but with the pride of design, he offered many times to settle with Ford if they would take out a one-page ad in the local paper admitting that they stole his design and had done everything since then to harass him in order to make him go away. A man willing to risk it all, Dr. Kearns lost his mind and his family in the process of his long legal battle. It is almost impossible not to feel very sorry for him. As he gets sucked into a never ending black hole, you'll be rooting for him the whole time, even if it appears that he may not get what he wants and that, if he does, it might have to be given to him posthumously. Gil never gets it. It's "just a windshield wiper," he tells his increasingly obsessed and beginning to be paranoid old friend. But with full clarity of mind and complete conviction, Dr. Kearns explains to Gil that "to me, it's the Mona Lisa." FLASH OF GENIUS runs 1:59. It is rated PG-13 for "brief strong language" and would be acceptable for all ages. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, October 3, 2008. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Oct 7 11:27:14 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Oct 7 11:27:19 2008 Subject: Review: Five Moments of Infidelity (2006) Message-ID: <74451771-307d-490a-89cf-d47a2e2175ef@64g2000hsu.googlegroups.com> FIVE MOMENTS OF INFIDELITY (2006) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars and a half It is always gratifying to know that all major cities, countries and continents around the world share the same problems with relationships, including the city of Melbourne in Australia. The means by which someone cheats is hinted at in "Five Moments of Infidelity," though the film aims to be more than a parable of infidelity. In the opening scene, we see Narelle (Sally McDonald) in bed with another man, Billy (Kirk Westwood). Nothing too shocking about that yet our initial impression is that these two are lovebirds, signalling the beginning of a new relationship. We find out that Narelle, a secretary, is indeed in love with the new man in her life, though he turns out to be a womanizer and "loves" her but is not in love, despite allowing her access to his apartment. Then there is the gay couple, Danny (Jason Chong) and Mitchel (Joshua Cameron), who love to party and have seemingly agreed to having an "open" relationship. Danny, however, is not keen on it - maybe he loves the idea of pursuing another man but not necessarily to have sex with and destroy what he has (presumably, fidelity also springs from having to live in the same roof). Jacinta (Holly Sinclair) is the innocent teenager who hates her alcoholic mother (Annie Jones). This conflicted, dysfunctional family unit is something out of an episode of "East Enders," and perhaps the harshest in this string of infidelity episodes. The father (Brett Swain) has the toughest time putting up with a series of shouting matches between mother and daughter so, yes, a psychiatrist is needed for this family. Paging Dr. Phil! Hard-working Anthony (Alex Papps) and his long-suffering wife, Vicki (Amanda Douge), have a tougher time making love - he is so stressed and blames work. Vicki has had enough of masturbating in the shower - she pursues a man and actively seeks some human contact. Who can blame her for being simply horny. Last but not least is the strange dynamic between another hard-working man, Hayden (John Sheedy), and his terminally annoying and annoyed and downright fed-up American girlfriend, Brittney (Charmaine Gorman). She hates when he goes to parties by himself, hates it when he doesn't call or show up at a more convenient time, yet sometimes she doesn't mind and loves him. It is not unreasonable to expect Hayden to seek interests elsewhere since this woman is always having a crying fit and can drive someone quite mad. First-time writer-director Kate Gorman weaves these infidelity tales with ease. There is almost never a wasted moment - every scene feels true to the characters' dilemnas. Some characters, such as Vicki and Hayden, feel more realistically portrayed than others but generally Gorman does an admirable job of handling this Altmanesque narrative. In fact, some of the characters' denouements are left open-ended, making one wonder what will happen next in their lives. Though these episodes often smacks of British melodrama, on the order of East Enders, it is at times quite sharply written and directed. And the dysfunctional family unit has its own issues of faith and fidelity to family - it is the most emotionally wrenching tale of them all with the tragic, memorable beauty of the lost soul, Jacinta. My feeling on "Five Moments of Infidelity" is that it has a groove, and either you are in harmony with it or you are not. The characters have a measure of depth to their personalities and they do grow on you, even the gay couple who are given less screen time than anyone else. Sometimes working hard at your job and bringing flowers for your loved ones or significant others is not enough to repair the emotional work one must put out. "Five Moments of Infidelity" shows how hard it is have a relationship that works. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Oct 7 11:27:19 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Oct 7 11:27:22 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Ace In the Hole (1951) Message-ID: ACE IN THE HOLE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: ACE IN THE HOLE from 1951 is Billy Wilder's take on human selfishness and callousness makes for one of the most angry and cynical films ever made. Kirk Douglas stars as a newsman who manipulates people to develop an unfortunate accident into a national news story at the expense of all who cross his path. There is a lot of bitterness and a lot of truth in this film. Rating: high +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10 Billy Wilder was one of our great directors of film noir going back to 1944's DOUBLE INDEMNITY. His trademark evolved to a combination of human comedy and cynicism. These days he may be best known for lighter comedy films like SOME LIKE IT HOT, but he was transitioning in the early 1950s. At that time his films, such as SUNSET BLVD, were heavier on the dark themes and lighter on the comedy. Later films like THE FORTUNE COOKIE had less social message and more comedy. For my taste the darker and grittier films are his best. My choice for his number one film (yes, better than SOME LIKE IT HOT) is ACE IN THE HOLE. This may be his most biting look at humanity. The film was a failure on its first release in 1951. It was later re-released as THE BIG CARNIVAL (which is the title it played under on television as well), and again it flopped. But today it is respected as one of Wilder's best. The film was a formidable convergence of Wilder and Kirk Douglas, who himself made several razor-sharp, bitter films in the early Fifties. This was only his second of those films, the first being CHAMPION. Here Douglas plays Chuck Tatum, a former big-city reporter who has been fired from eleven of the biggest newspapers in the country mostly for drinking and philandering. Now his car has broken down in Albuquerque and he is forced to get a job on a tiny local newspaper. He is keeping an eye open for a story he can ride back to a big time newspaper, but after a year that eye is a little bleary. The magic story seems never to come along. Then on his way to cover a rattlesnake hunt he stops at an isolated gas station and finds the owner has been in a cave collapse in the rock cliff Indian burial ground behind the little gas station/lunch-bar. Tatum sees his chance to make this a national news story with real human interest in the victim and his rescue. All he needs is to get some local cooperation. And Tatum knows exactly how to play everyone from local officials to roadside gawkers. As he works the movie audience gets a course in how the media manipulates local officials and their own readership. As the rescue attempts become a national news sensation, Tatum knows just how to play the locals, the big city reporters, and the victim's less than grieving wife. She is not sure if she wants out or Tatum. But Tatum's biggest love is Tatum. This is not a film for the timid. The view is one of humanity rushing in to take advantage of the accident with so little regard for the victim. They have little more concern for man at the center of the misfortune as insects do as they crawl over a carcass. Tourists argue over who was the first to arrive at the accident site. Trains leave off visitors who run to the quickly assembled traveling carnival with its Ferris wheel and cotton candy. Wilder's writing is dark and funny. Douglas's dialog is sharp and pulls no punches: Tatum: Mr. Boot, I was passing through Albuquerque; had breakfast here. I read your paper and thought you might be interested in my reaction. Boot: Indeed I am. Tatum: Well, to be honest, it made me throw up. I don't mean to tell you I was expecting the New York Times, but even for Albuquerque, this is pretty Albuquerque. Boot: Alright, here's your nickel back. Tatum takes an almost sexual pleasure in telling one of the older writers on the newspaper how he could build her murder into a great news story. "I could do wonders with your dismembered body," he says purring like a big cat. Seeing this film is a strong affecting experience. I rate it a high +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 9/10. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From dnb at dca.net Wed Oct 8 11:26:06 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Wed Oct 8 11:26:08 2008 Subject: Review: Burn After Reading (2008) Message-ID: <200810072259.m97MxZ706831@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> BURN AFTER READING A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth *** (out of ****) There are elements of several decent Coen Brothers movies in the new Coen Brothers movie "Burn After Reading" (or "BrĂ>>lure Après Lecture" to Coen a phase), what with Frances McDormand's ditzy Linda Litzke (memoirs of pregnant Police Chief Marge Gunderson in "Fargo") and her relationship with her Hardbodies Fitness Center co-worker Chad Feldheimer (reminiscent of that between H.I. and Ed McDunnough in "Raising Arizona") not to mention a few lackluster ones--bureaucratic boardroom bunglings at the Federal level mirror their "'Hudsucker'" shenanigans rubbing corporeal shoulders with George Clooney's ever-present trademark smirk (shades of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" and "'Cruelty" of the intolerable kind). Yet on a different level the new one plays like a darkly comic take on "Michael Clayton" (Clooney once more, butting heads and other body parts with a tempestuous Tilda Swinton in both outings) or a teaser for a yet unrealized Steven Soderbergh "Ocean" project with Clooney and William Bradley Pitt (Feldheimer herein) already payrolled. And then there's John Malkovich who, beyond simply being John Malkovich (of course), lends this comedy-drama a certain bald-pated, F-bomb-laden *je ne sais quoi*. Osbourne "Ozzie" Cox (Being John) is a CIA agent with a level 3 security clearance and a drinking problem, the latter of which prompts his early "retirement" as "Burn After Reading" opens. Outraged by his unjust dismissal, Ozzie decides to write a tell-all book, much to the amusement of his wife Katie (Swinton), who herself is having a tryst with Clooney's Harry Pfarrer, a former Treasury man. Before long Ozzie's former secretary has misplaced a critical data disc at the local gym and its discovery (by the iffy Chad) initiates a typically Coen-centric blackmail plot (ala "Fargo") since blonding Linda really needs the money for bombshell boobs. While the writing isn't quite as tight or as funny as it might have been--writing, directing, and producing duties are this time credited to *both* brothers--the strength of this slow "Burn'" comes via its fully-realized characterizations--its performers certainly work overtime! McDormand's Linda is, essentially, a riff on Marge G. but it's an honest one, punctuated by this Internet dater's passionate belief in bettering her body for the good of mankind. Pitt's boyish Chad is a self-deprecating stab at his pretty-boy persona, deliciously delivered. Even Clooney's annoying smugness is downplayed considerably here; Harry obsesses (at least early on in the script before the Coens lose his estimable way) about what he puts in his mouth and floor coverings with equal appreciation. Richard Jenkins ("The Visitor," "High Country") contributes another worthwhile performance as Linda and Chad's meek Hardbodies boss who ultimately falls afoul of Malkovich's furious hatchetman and both David Rasche and J. K. Simmons (Spidey's J. Jonah Jameson) lend consistently droll plot assists as government suits whose "intelligence is relative." Sandwiched between its Google Earth-inspired opening and closing shots the entertaining "Burn After Reading" is a pleasant return to the silliness of the Coens' earlier pictures from the stiltedness of their latter-day offerings. It's "a bright American farce." -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From dnb at dca.net Wed Oct 8 11:26:12 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Wed Oct 8 11:26:15 2008 Subject: Review: The Wackness (2008) Message-ID: <200810072112.m97LCJ713534@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> THE WACKNESS A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth *** (out of ****) "I see the dopeness in everything, and you just see the wackness." --Olivia Thirlby to Josh Peck in "The Wackness." Part drug pusher's dream vacation, part buddy movie, part coming-of-age like story, "The Wackness" is as wacky as it is wonderful, a sepia-toned love letter to NYC punctuated by blazing hip-hop and two winning performances in Josh Peck and Ben Kingsley. For Peck and Kingsley make for an oddly engaging couple in Jonathan Levine's audacious comedy about sex, drugs, and unexpected friendships. New York, Summer, 1994. The thermometer tops one hundred as Luke Shapiro (Peck), big time drug dealer and small time reluctant virgin, graduates high school and sets his sights on college. Also on his radar, at first peripherally, pedantically, is Stephanie (Olivia Thirlby), stepdaughter of his shrink, Dr. Jeffery Squires, M.D. (Kingsley), whom Luke has been seeing, "for depression." To pay his way, and to help stave off his parents' (with whom he lives) imminent eviction, Luke sells Method Man-supplied weed out of an ice cream vendor's cart that reads "F ESH & DEL CIOUS ICES." High-billed Olsen twin Mary-Kate (as a free-spirited, summer of love-styled hippie) has two brief scenes (sans sib) as does doe-eyed Jane Adams as Elanor, a spacey regular on Luke's route. And sultry Famke Janssen plays Squires' sultry yet dissatisfied wife. Staunch support from the typically fine Thirlby aside--she's picked some very interesting assignments to date, hasn't she?--this is Peck's and Kingley's picture from the opening scene in Squires' dingy, hazy office where dust motes intermingle with reefer smoke. Imagine Casey Affleck grafted onto Adam Sandler--cuddly and goofball but with a real presence: that's Peck in this film. As for Kingsley it's as if Harvey Keitel swallowed up Peter Dinklage whole and then spat him back out again a soliloquy at a time. Peck's and Kingley's back and forth repartee is invariably priceless but there's more to "The Wackness" than the expected bong-o belly laughs (the film finds it has more in common with "Juno" than, say, "Harold & Kumar," and not simply because of Thirlby's grounding presence). Writer/director Levine takes some real chances, both with his characters and his stylistic approach to the medium, but comes out on top almost every time. As he did in "You Kill Me" (alongside TĂ(c)a Leoni), Kingsley once again proves a total team player. He looks great--neat goatee; shaggy, unkempt hair; sniffer as pronounced as the Central Park skyline; all topped off with Stallone's pork pie hat--and delivers up a performance that's both ridiculous and tender, scary yet lovable. Peck matches him joint for joint, with Levine's screenplay taking him some daring places, emotionally. For all its neat aural and visual assaults (including pot shots at that son'bitch Giuliani) the film works best when it's simply Peck and Kingsley trading talk (and grass). It's then that something natural and credible emerges. "The Wackness," an assured and engaging male bonding picture punctuated by one man's--all men's--innate drive to score, dwarfs other stoner comedies with its intelligence, boys-gone-wild humor, and surprising compassion. It's anything but dopey. -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Oct 14 11:54:12 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Oct 14 11:54:30 2008 Subject: Review: We are Wizards (2008) Message-ID: WE ARE WIZARDS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: The growing phenomenon of fandom of the Harry Potter books and films is examined in several of its manifestations in this documentary. From four-year-old "Wizard Rock" punk rock stars to the Warner Brothers battle to close down the web sites of fans of their own films director Josh Koury looks at the multiple threads of the Potter fandom movement. He goes back and forth among the threads, but he could have used a few more thread and his camera was not always on the most interesting material. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10 Somewhere in another part of the forest, where Muggles like me do not see it, there has grown a huge fandom for Harry Potter. I mean, if you think that "Star Wars" had a big fan base, it was Yoda-sized compared to Potter fandom. If you thought "Star Trek" had an active fandom, they were Hortas compared to Potter fandom. WE ARE WIZARDS examines the growing phenomenon of Harry Potter fandom, but sadly not nearly with the breadth that we might have hoped for. WE ARE WIZARDS is a new documentary that examines eight or nine threads of the Harry Potter phenomenon and follows people who are major figures in the subculture of fans. The inspiration for WE ARE WIZARDS could have been Roger Nygard's TREKKIES. That film was an examination of many of the various breeds of Star Trek Fandom. But Nygard's film had a lot more scope and covered a lot more threads of its movement. This film is more diffuse and follows three or four Harry Potter rock bands, some people who maintain fan web sites, a religious zealot who is convinced that kids reading fantasy stories about wizards will destroy the fabric of the country, etc. They form a mosaic of the fandom that has come out of J. K. Rowling's books and people reacting to it. One Harry Potter rock group is the Hungarian Horntails. They are made up of two children: Darius Wilkins, age seven at the time the film was made; and Holden Wilkins, age four. These two kids seems to be rock stars in spite of the fact that at this age they can do little more than scream songs like "Dragon Rock Rules" while Darius runs his hand over a guitar making sound but not music. The lyrics for that song seem to be just yelling the title phrase into the microphones over and over again. It is remarkable that they are rock stars at such a young age and have a large following, but it may say more about their fans than it does about them themselves. Examples of their music can be found at Another thread has self-appointed religious advocate and cult expert Caryl Matrisciana warning of the extreme dangers of children being seduced into the dark world of the occult by Harry Potter. Matrisciana made an anti-Potter film on what she calls "the dangers and realities of witchcraft." She does not specify here exactly what specific dangers she sees, but she seems to imply that witchcraft really exists and that letting children read the Potter books gives them over to what she calls "the dark world of vampires, lizards, serpents,..." Her world is more frightening than theirs is. Director Josh Koury shows us other wizard rock bands including Harry and the Potters which offers not one but two Harry Potters, on a younger Potter and one an older one. Other groups are Draco and the Malfoys, and The Whomping Willows. And we meet Heather Lawver who ran Potter fandom website until Warner Brothers lived up to their name and threatened fans not to use copyright material, which is just about everything about Potter. Lawver responded by organizing an international boycott of Warner Brothers Potter materials. There is probably much more material that Koury does not show us that would be more of interest than some of what he does. For reasons known best to him he chooses to have us see Darius and Holden playing like most children do and sometimes arguing in the backseat of their car. He cannot have been that surprised that the brothers behave like other children of their age even if they are rock stars. Why Koury thinks the audience needs to see it is a mystery. A little Wizard Rock seems to go a long way, and not unexpectedly did not do a lot for my Puccini-loving ears. Koury far too much seems to have just let the camera run on his subjects. There is no story to the film as there is with a documentary such as HOOP DREAMS. Instead we just see people doing their thing. And their thing too frequently fails to seem noteworthy. I came away from the film wanting to tell cult-expert Caryl Matrisciana that just because these kids say they are wizards does not mean that there is really anything magical about them. And I think I would like to tell the kids the same thing. I rate WE ARE WIZARDS low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From Faust668 at msn.com Sun Oct 19 11:53:39 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Sun Oct 19 11:53:56 2008 Subject: Retrospective: The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964) Message-ID: INCREDIBLY STRANGE CREATURES WHO STOPPED LIVING AND BECAME MIXED-UP ZOMBIES!!? (1964) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two stars and a half So we have a carnival where the palm reader throws acid in your face, especially at pizza owners! The palm reader is Estrella (Brett O'Hara) and her assistant smokes cigars and looks uglier than Rondo Hatton! We have some older teenagers, possibly leftover extras from "Rebel Without a Cause" and one of whom is a foreigner, who enjoy going to this carnival quite possibly because there are showgirls on the order of Bettie Page who sing and striptease! What we have here is a mess called "The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies," which is the most surreal, wacky and nonsensical movie I've seen in some time (complete with the wackiest title of all time). The lead role belongs to the director himself, Ray Dennis Steckler (also using the alias Cash Flagg), who plays Jerry, a teen troublemaker who like to frequent the carnival (who wouldn't with all those peep shows and bad comics?) It turns out that Estrella, the palm reader, has thrown acid on one customer after another and has kept them in some sort of underground dungeon. They aren't exactly zombies, just some angry customers I would imagine with largely disfigured heads. Jerry is hypnotized into killing people at Estrella's command - he goes around wearing a blue hooded sweatshirt and brandishing a knife. He bears an uncanny resemblance to Charles Whitman, the infamous rifleman who stood on top of the University of Texas and shot several students. The reason this movie has achieved cult status is because it makes no sense and contains more musical numbers than suspense. The benefits are that it is technically proficient and astoundingly photographed, considering one of the cinematographers is Laszlo Kovacs (although a lot of scenes are badly staged). Other than that, it is quite a strange experience that can't be put in any real category. Not quite horror, not quite a suspense film, and not much of anything else other than a colorful blend of gaudy music numbers and some loose serial-killer subplot. There is an erratic energy to it that keeps you glued to the screen - it is a freak of nature. Describing what it is all about is another story. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Mon Oct 20 00:02:03 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Mon Oct 20 00:02:16 2008 Subject: Review: Hell's Gate (2007) Message-ID: HELL'S GATE (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two stars and a half A few weeks ago I saw "Lucky Number Slevin," which had style to spare but no story to tell. "Hell's Gate" is just the opposite - it has some style to spare but it also has a story with a surprising twist. Kevin Kinney (Brian Faherty) is an ex-con and former stock broker who is in desperate need for cash. He owes money to the mob but his past friends refuse to give him a nickle. Kinney's loose cannon pal and former cell-mate, Ben Deardon (Jeremy Cohen), has a meeting with a certain British gentleman named Mr. Nobody (Teddy Alexandro-Evans) who has a profitable job for them - to kidnap a billionaire's daughter (Chelsea Miller)! For Kevin, this is a long way from Wall Street but he reluctantly takes the job. The kidnapping is successful, thanks to good old chloroform. Unfortunately, the two ex-cons and the billionaire's daughter, tied to a chair, have to stay in some hideout until Mr. Nobody comes back from delivering a ransom note! Are these protagonists doomed? Will Mr. Nobody actually double-cross them and kill them? Inevitably. The comparisons to Tarantino's edgy, postmodernist crime flicks are also inevitable. There is a pungent discussion on the singers Jewel and Alanis Morrisette and their respective love songs. I also caught a reference to Man From U.N.C.L.E. And the movie zigzags from flashbacks to flashforwards to intertitles. The idea of two ex-cons with a hostage inside a building can find its roots as far back as John Ford, concluding with John Carpenter and Quentin Tarantino. I could say that, folks, the thrill is gone. We have seen interminable gangster/ crime flicks and, more often than not, there is little variety among them. Still, I have to give debuting writer-director John Cecil for trying to make this more than just passable. The script can be weak but there are some inspired moments. Notably the opening scene, where Kevin is confessing about a past girlfriend, could be set in a psychiatrist's office or at a police station (we find out later the actual location). I also liked how these two criminals have no idea how to conduct themselves with a hostage, or how to properly prepare a ransom note (the hard-edged guys in "Reservoir Dogs" could eat them for breakfast). Since this is an independent production and I understand limitations in terms of budget and cutting corners, I will say that two actors could've been better cast. Teddy Alexandro-Evans as the mysterious Mr. Nobody lacks charisma and hardly seems threatening, even with a calm demeanor. Chelsea Miller doesn't lend her part any real weight and is summarily unsympathetic and unlikable - sure, it is hard not to wince seeing a woman beaten down by two thugs but I barely cared. The stars of the film are Brian Faherty, the straight shooter who wants a change from his current lifestyle, and Jeremy Cohen as the cokehead who is far more dangerous than anticipated. Both of these roles reminded me of Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn's characters in the fantastic "The Falcon and the Snowman" - characters as two polar opposites who may be both doomed in this kidnapping scenario (they even wear the same clothes that seem to come from a vintage 70's shop). Though it has nothing new or refreshing to say about the so-called "honor among thieves" crossed with a kidnapping/hostage tale, "Hell's Gate" still zips along with a clever ending and two ex-cons who are unable to escape the inevitable. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Mon Oct 20 10:39:52 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Mon Oct 20 10:40:00 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Rat Pfink a Boo Boo (1966) Message-ID: <6a4ff5ee-1a46-4ab6-a23b-365f9c1ad405@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com> RAT PFINK A BOO BOO (1966) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: One star In what is clearly an even funnier title than Ray Dennis Steckler's most infamous film, "The Incredible Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies," "Rat Pfink a Boo Boo" has got to be the most ridiculous piece of trash ever recorded on celluloid. It is so amateurishly and shoddily made that you would swear it was a parody, but the director has insisted that that was not the case from the getgo. The first few scenes have a 50's cheap melodrama vibe where we witness an anonymous woman being pursued by three thieves out for a thrill. One of the thieves carries a chain, another carries a hammer, and another gives a wicked, nonstop laugh. They kill the girl, take her purse, and that is about it. So far, it is silly but it has some measure of momentum (though the perky musical score doesn't help matters). Then we are shown what looks like documentary footage of a rock singer named Lonnie Lord's (Vin Saxon), who signs autographs and carries a guitar with him wherever he goes, in the hopes of playing for anybody, anywhere, at anytime. This includes barbecues where the chef wears an Oscar Myer apron! And on the beach where a full band seems to perform when he sings, yet nobody is around for the instrumentation we hear on the soundtrack (the whole film was post- dubbed and it shows). Moving along to the bare minimum of a story, Lonnie's girlfriend CB Beaumont (Carolyn Brandt) is being harassed on the phone by someone who calls three times, asks for her name, and then hangs up. Who is it? It turns out it is one of those hooligans from the opening sequence who are looking for a thrill and search her name randomly in a phone book! In the next scene, she is kidnapped by those hooligans! They hopefully had a stop in between at the Korova Milkbar. Before things can get any worse, Lonnie and his girlfriend's gardener partner team up and dress up in costume as Rat Phink and Boo Boo, a carbon copy of Batman and Robin! I am serious! Apparently, director Steckler didn't like the first 40 minutes of footage he shot, which was supposed to be a gritty crime film, so he chose to make it into a superhero film! Ouch! And we also get a Harold Lloyd lookalike and a gorilla named Kogar played by Kogar! We also hear songs like "You Is a Rat Fink" (my favorite) "Runnin' Wild," "I Stand Alone," and "Go Go Party," which are the the only semi-dazzling highlights. It isn' t that the film is bad as much as it has nothing to offer. At least Steckler's first film, "The Incredible Strange Creatures, etc." had a nervous energy and real style. This film looks to have been made by eight-year-olds in their own backyard! Maybe that was the point but there are funnier bad movies than this one. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From dnb at dca.net Wed Oct 22 13:52:47 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Wed Oct 22 13:52:50 2008 Subject: Review: Morning Light (2008) Message-ID: <200810212125.m9LLP7416081@viper.oldcity.dca.net> MORNING LIGHT A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth *1/2 (out of ****) "'Light" is right. If the Disney competitive sailing documentary "Morning Light" strives for any kind of depth or perspective then it seriously misses the boat. A bland and generic real-life drama minus the drama, this earnest film chronicles the blood, sweat, and tears of a gangplank of 15 rookie sailors, 11 of whom are eventually chosen to compete in the grueling 10-day, 2300-mile "TransPac," an across-the-Pacific (hence the name) race from Long Beach, California to the finish line at Diamond Head, Hawaii aboard their 52-foot sloop, the "Morning Light." Paul Crowder's and Mark Monroe's film piles on cinematic cliche upon cinematic cliche with its uninspired selection of talking heads, speeded-up footage, brisk montages, slow-mo scenes, boneheaded ballads, and everything in between. If these college kids had anything interesting or observant to say about the intense training, the selection process, or the harrowing race itself (ten days on the open sea where no rescue helicopter can reach you), the flat filmmaking might have seemed less like the sore thumb it is. But they don't. Not one of them. Instead they mostly spout the kind of inanities that would make a star athlete blush. That's unfortunate because the six months spent preparing for the race is no cakewalk and these young sportspersons deserve better recognition for their efforts (even if nobody bothered to coach them in the public speaking department). Not that there aren't any surprises in the film. 22-year-old Baltimore native Steve Manson is chosen from a pool (literally) of eager tryouts even though he struggles to swim two lengths and tread water for five minutes. Having already been selected for the crew, Genny Tulloch, also 22, breaks her arm snowboarding during some much-needed R&R yet still gets picked for the final 11. And Graham Brant-Zawadzki (22 too), already chosen for the race proper, graciously gives up his spot to a fellow crewman after skipper Jeremy Wilmot has second thoughts. Admittedly there's something intrinsically captivating about the raw, unrelenting power of the ocean battering a sailboat about as a handful of hopefuls hang on for dear life even if it's delivered in a pat and perfunctory way. The grainy night footage of the crew tacking, hauling kite, and spewing overboard brings that feeling home with even greater intensity. But there's nothing here we haven't seen before, better, or more beautifully put together. The film begs to be tightened, sent back to the cutting room to exorcise superfluous scenes and commentary that adds little to the cinematic experience. But in terms of their own personal motivations, it's probably best to let the crew speak for themselves: Chris Clark -- "You really have to love the sport to get everything out of it that it has to offer." Kit Will -- "I had no doubt that this race would push all of us to the extreme of our abilities." Chris Welch -- "All of my sailing experiences encouraged me to keep striving for the best opportunities." Graham Brant-Zawadzki -- "It takes so long to get good." Light indeed. -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From dnb at dca.net Wed Oct 22 13:54:29 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Wed Oct 22 13:54:32 2008 Subject: Review: How to Lose Friends & Alienate People (2008) Message-ID: <200810212119.m9LLJw413863@viper.oldcity.dca.net> HOW TO LOSE FRIENDS & ALIENATE PEOPLE A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth *1/2 (out of ****) It must be a lot easier to star in a bad comedy than to write a good one. That's what Simon Pegg has opted to do in "How to Lose Friends & Alienate People," a film that bears the prophetic tagline "Brace yourself, America." It's Simon Pegg Gone Hollywood, or The Great Pegg Sell-Out of 2008, a film that confirms what his previous picture "Run, Fatboy, Run" woefully hinted at, that you can lead a Pegg across water but that relocation alone doesn't necessarily keep him funny. Pegg was brilliant both in front of and (as co-writer) behind the camera in his first two homegrown forays, the sublime "Shaun of the Dead" and the buddy cop comedy "Hot Fuzz." But then the lure of America beckoned... Pegg managed, albeit barely, to rise above "'Fatboy'"'s material but he's unable to do so here, largely because the material is so obvious, so clichĂ(c)d. Cue the opening first-person narration, with its "no, that good-looking bloke's not me. *That's* me," and the inevitable "but things havenâeTMt always been this way..." flashback. Then there's the "rube in the Big Apple" sequence that makes absolutely no sense given that Pegg's character is a British journalist of some years who's no doubt actually *been* in the West End let alone heard of it. And the cute little animal that comes to a sticky end? A prerequisite of these pictures, apparently. And the prostitute that turns out to be a man? Ditto. And let's not forget the montage of West Coast sights and sounds--LAX (?), Sepulveda Blvd. (??), a Hyatt hotel (???)--that craps out after half a dozen quick-cut images, like they ran out of ideas, money, or both midway through the shoot. Although based on the memoirs of one Toby Young and his scandal-sheet experiences at "Vanity Fair" magazine, "How to Lose Friends & Alienate People" borrows generously and shamelessly from other cultural fish-out-of-water comedies, the kind in which our hapless protagonist (here a "Post Modern Review"-er named Sydney) dreams of the good life only to realize, once he secures it, that the life he could have had all along offers a great deal more. HTLF&IP is not only poorly written but amateurishly directed (the first thing director Robert Weide should have done was fire Peter Straughan the screenwriter for producing what is, in the words of Jeff Bridges's "'Devil Wears Prada"-styled publishing mogul Clayton Harding, "simply not good enough"). Directing 26 episodes of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" clearly wasn't experience enough to transition Weide to the motion picture world--the film is jaw-droppingly banal on almost every level, highlighted by underwritten characters (like Kirsten Dunst's under-impressed editor) and acting of the stiffest kind (Danny Huston, playing her superior, is particularly guilty of woodenness). In fact, "Transformers"' Megan Fox, as a vapid, up-and-coming starlet, is one of the few performers who doesn't embarrass herself. Pegg tries his best of course, with a pig, in a wig, I hope they paid him a *lot* for this gig, but it's a losing battle. Judging from his recent choice of projects this likeable fool has yet to win friends or influence the right people in Tinseltown. Perhaps someone should let him in on the secret of succeeding in the business without really trying. -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From dnb at dca.net Wed Oct 22 13:56:35 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Wed Oct 22 13:56:37 2008 Subject: Review: Mister Foe (2007) Message-ID: <200810212113.m9LLDQ410207@viper.oldcity.dca.net> MISTER FOE A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth **1/2 (out of ****) Hallam Foe likes to watch. Through binoculars, through the city's cracked clock face, through a flat's rooftop skylight--this post-pubescent voyeur likes to witness, unobserved, the comings and goings of his unsuspecting neighbors. Following the tragic death of his mother (the coroner ruled it a suicidal drowning but Hallam suspects otherwise, foul play on the part of his conniving yet not unattractive step-mother), the angst-ridden teenager has taken to his tree house, built for him by his Pa, to watch young lovers making out below, or to spy on his father and new wife themselves, their intimate moments unsuspectingly paraded across Hallam's viewfinder. High atop his treetop sanctuary Hallam whiles away his dismal, depressing days, a poster-sized blow-up of his mother's face peering down approvingly at the young man who daubs his face and chest with scarlet lipstick, an emboldened warrior preparing for the hunt. A confusing, erotic run-in with his stepmom forces Hallam to flee the crumbling ancestral estate to the unfamiliar confines of the big city, where his youthful charm and ebullience quickly secure him work as a kitchen porter in a swank Glasgow hotel. Attracted to the hotel's personnel manager (who just so happens to bear a striking resemblance to his dearly departed mother), Hallam begins to stalk Kate Breck after hours, following her home, climbing her drainpipe, and watching her, undetected, from his rooftop retreat. Sometimes she's alone, other times she's physically engaged with another, and Hallam's Freudian peeping Tom doesn't miss a thing. In time Hallam will come to form more than a mere platonic relationship with his pretty professional employer before returning to the country to settle a familial score. David MacKenzie's "Mister Foe" is another bleak, dreary, but not uninteresting Scottish drama tinged with sexual paranoia/excitement. Like MacKenzie's previous film, "Young Adam," which starred Ewan McGregor and Tilda Swinton in varying positions, "Mister Foe"'s protagonists couple at random, almost as if to simply get out of the rain. The film is based on Peter Jinks's novel "Hallam Foe"; apparently Magnolia Pictures didn't think American audiences were quite sophisticated enough to handle that title. As Hallam, Jamie Bell (best known Stateside for his role as the working class ballet dancer "Billy Elliot") projects the right amount of innocence and unchecked sexuality his character needs. He's brittle and forceful yet naive to the world around him, a symptom of his sheltered upbringing. Kate, played by Sophia Myles ("Tristan + Isolde"'s Isolde), is herself self-assured and confident but her relationship with a married co-worker preys on Hallam, prompting action. Ciaran Hinds and Claire Forlani play the parental units efficiently and effectively. There's nothing particularly new or exceptional about "Mister Foe," an earthy coming-of-age drama with pretensions of something grander, but Bell and Myles are worth watching, even fully clothed. But it says something about your film's overall tone when not one but two bit players are credited as "Grumpy Glaswegian." -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From JckNapier at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 00:34:48 2008 From: JckNapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Mon Oct 27 00:34:51 2008 Subject: Review: Burn After Reading (2008) Message-ID: Burn After Reading 2008 095 minutes rated R by Scott Mendelson Burn After Reading is so lightweight, so airy and devoid of potency, that is almost an apology of sorts for the deadly serious myth making that was No Country For Old Men. This is not unprecedented for the Joel and Ethan Coen. Back in 1998, they followed up the award-winning and acclaimed Fargo, a black comedy that none the less had dramatic potency, with the wacky comedy The Big Lebowski. Now there is nothing wrong with being light and fancy free, but the almost intentional irrelevance of this new picture renders it a success only as an acting treat. The chief pleasure in that area is John Malkovich, who has a blast hamming it up as a disgruntled former CIA agent who has misplaced a CD containing his memoirs (yes, that CD is the McGuffin). Malkovich only does comedy every so often (Being John Malkovich, Johnny English, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy), so it's always a treat when he plays for laughs. His resentful, bitchy, and overtly ornery would-be spy dominates the first third of the picture and it's the main reason why the film's first act is its strongest. Also having fun is Brad Pitt, who basically playing a work-a-day idiot and looking about twenty-years younger in the process (some of that Benjamin Button makeup still lingering?). George Clooney shows up here and there, as do Tilda Swinton, J.K. Simmons, and Richard Jenkins. They all seem to consider this a relaxing vacation with good friends. If the film has an emotional beat, it belongs to Francis McDormand. As an employee of a health club who is desperate to get extensive plastic surgery, she sees the discovery of said disc as a way to get respect and love, completely oblivious to the fact that her boss (a mournful Jenkins) would happily give her both. Whether or not a character who looks like McDormand thinks so little of her appearance is intended as social commentary is irrelevant. She is the only character who moves beyond the level of low-key cartoon. Still, even if the plot is barely there, the pacing is slow, and the climax attempts meaning that is unearned, the film works as ninety- minutes spent with terrific actors all having fun sending up their images. It is one of the more undisciplined films in the Coen Brothers archive (Fargo aside, they work best when they restrain themselves or are adapting a previous movie or a novel), but it is still intelligent and witty and an enjoyable time at the movies. Grade: B- From JckNapier at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 00:35:54 2008 From: JckNapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Mon Oct 27 00:35:56 2008 Subject: Review: Righteous Kill (2008) Message-ID: <5eb9d671-2963-42ea-a92e-6b7eabc81e41@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com> Righteous Kill 2008 101 minutes rated R by Scott Mendelson Gene Siskel used to have a saying, 'is this film better than a documentary showing the filmmakers having lunch?' When you have a cast that teams Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, and you then fill out that cast with Donnie Wahlberg, John Leguizamo, Brian Dennehy, Curtis Jackson, and Carlo Gugino, that bar becomes that much higher. Yet Righteous Kill isn't just less entertaining than those actors having lunch, it's less entertaining that watching those actors sleep. The plot - Pacino and De Niro are veteran cops who end up investigating a series of vigilante murders of known criminals who have been turned loose by the justice system. As the case unfolds, De Niro ends up becoming a prime suspect. Guess how it ends! (Yep, you're correct). The primary draw of this one is of course watching De Niro and Pacino act together for longer than six minutes. Ironically, even in this one, they are kept apart for most of the picture. Yes, they have several scenes together, but the plot keeps sending them on their separate ways to investigate this or that aspect of the incredibly clich?d case. They really only have two of three extended dramatic scenes, and only a conversation about Underdog and drug use has any spark. What's most shocking is how cheap the film looks. The production values are sparse, and the entire film is shot in extreme close-up, as if to hide the shoddy sets and lack of money. Make no mistake, this feels like a mediocre direct-to-DVD film and had only one of the two titans appeared as opposed to both, that's exactly what would have happened. None of the supporting cast really registers; even the usually entertaining Donne Wahlberg is neutered by the banality of it all. It is kinda funny that he is partnered with John Leguizamo, as the two squared off last year as cop and Iraq-veteran/bank robber in Spike TV's miniseries The Kill Point (terrific first 2/3, atrocious final two episodes). Most disturbing is the arc for Carla Guguino, who's sexually aggressive character is physically violated and then mentally castrated as she is forced to stand aside and let the men do their manly work to avenge her honor. But what of our star attractions? De Niro has never looked more tired and ornery. He sulks from scene to scene, basically doing the cliched De Niro tics that have been so often parodied. In a decade filled with lazy performances, this may go down as his laziest. At least Al Pacino looks like he's having a little fun mocking his stereotypical character bits. He does get a couple fun 'hoo-haa' speeches, and frankly he's just more fun to watch than the bored and low-key Robert De Niro. This is not either of their best work. Righteous Kill has a boring story that feels like something from 1987, mediocre acting from actors who all have done much better, phoned in performances from two living legends, and production values that render the film cheap and sometimes confusing. Had Robert De Niro and Al Pacino not teamed up for this one, it never would have seen a theater screen. I saw it in a theater, so consider my $6 a public service. Grade: D From JckNapier at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 00:37:16 2008 From: JckNapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Mon Oct 27 00:37:19 2008 Subject: Review: Quarantine (2008) Message-ID: <1572d234-2c02-429e-a885-fc62247c8fc3@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com> Quarantine 2008 089 minutes Rated R (bloody violent and disturbing content, terror and language) by Scott Mendelson It is somewhat ironic that a week before seeing this film, my wife and I found ourselves walking through the Quarantine maze at Knott's Scary Farm (Knotts Berry Farm does an annual October makeover, where all of their rides become insanely intricate haunted houses... quite impressive). I say ironic for two reasons. A) The film Quarantine is probably the closest thing I've seen on film to the experience of walking through a haunted house attraction. B) The maze is quite a bit scarier on a pure visceral level than the film itself. Not to say the film is bad. It's actually surprisingly affective in the opening acts, setting up a frighteningly plausible scenario and plausible slice-of-life characters. Only in the last twenty-minutes or so does the film become an unwieldy fright fest, with incomprehensible action and an almost complete lack of pay off. Some plot - Angela Vidal and Scott Percival are reporter and camera man from a local news network, sent to do a puff piece on the local fire department. After a quick get-to-know ya interview segment or two, the department gets called on an actual emergency and the reporters tag along. When they get to the apartment building in peril, they quickly discover that the emergency is note fire-related, although they'll soon wish it was. The entirety of the film is shot as if it were the running video footage from Percival's camera. For the record, this remake of a 2007 Spanish horror film ('REC') is much cleaner and less grainy than Cloverfield and far less disorienting than The Blair Witch Project. But we still have that 'something horrible happened just off screen' bit along with the swirling camera that occasionally denies us key plot details or major moments. There are surprisingly few cheap jolts, so the ones that are there are brutally effective. The biggest advantage that the film has is a cast made up of veteran character actors and television performers. Our favorite grizzled Croatian Rade Serbedzija plays the landlord. Steve Harris, best known as defense attorney Eugene Young on The Practice, plays the cameraman (while his face is rarely seen, his voice lends a gravity to the proceedings). Fleshing out the cast is Greg Germann (from Ally McBeal), Dana Ramirwz from Heroes, film character actor Jay Hernandez, and Dennis O'Hare (longtime Law And Order fans will recognize him as guest-starring as four different characters in four of the best episodes of the series' run). These veterans help flesh out what would otherwise be stock horror film characters. Everyone is intelligent, no one is particularly heroic, and they all just feel like real people trapped in an inexplicable situation (even Steve Harris is allowed to break down a little after committing a violent act of self defense). Alas, after an hour of solid character interplay and potent shocks, the film turns into a somewhat substandard 'run from the monster' clich?. Because of the video-based narrative, much of what unfolds in the last act is difficult to follow and thus hard to appreciate. And, truth be told, there really is no climax as none of the characters have any real arcs. In the end, the film reveals its true intentions. Regardless of the high caliber of acting and the subtlety of the writing, the film is merely a haunted house ride. That's no sin, but the film at first appears striving for something greater, so its descent into ordinariness is all the more unfortunate. As far as that lack of pay off, the film basically just ends arbitrarily, with only the barest hint of explanation as to what just occurred. So much of what came before is rendered thematically meaningless and our investment in the characters is rendered moot. So, in the end, Quarantine is worth seeing for its solid first two acts, some terrific acting by some favorite character actors, and a several solid spook-show scares. But it has no real reason for its existence and its final irrelevance renders the experience rather hollow. GRADE: C+ . . . . . . . . NOTE - SPOILER!!! Shame on Screen Gems for spoiling a major climactic moment of the film, both as a button for the trailer and commercials, and on the poster art. I more or less knew ahead of time, and thus was annoyed. My wife had no idea and was downright furious as she slowly realized how the film was going to end because she hadn't seen 'that scene' yet. Not since the trailer to Cast Away have I seen such blatant spoiling, made all the worse because most moviegoers won't know that a major element has been revealed until they're already into the movie. From JckNapier at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 00:39:03 2008 From: JckNapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Mon Oct 27 00:39:05 2008 Subject: Review: Batman: Gotham Knight (2008) Message-ID: <5a55f032-f270-49af-84fd-c90d306f10d7@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com> Batman: Gotham Knight 2008 75 minutes rated PG-13 by Scott Mendelson At its core, Batman Gotham Knight is an anime-styled series, with six 12-minute short cartoons dealing with Batman in the world established in Batman Begins. All six stories are underwhelming in the story department and even the art leaves a little to be desired. The animation is more conventionally realistic than Batman: The Animated Series or The Batman, but the caped crusader himself never looks terribly imposing or convincing. The stories do have the thinnest of connecting tissue, but really they work better when viewed as six separate stand-alone tales. And the voice work leaves much to be desired. Yes, Kevin Conroy was dubbed in at the last second as Bruce Wayne and Batman, but it's downright awkward hearing this fifty-three year old voice actor voice a twenty-seven year old Bruce Wayne, especially when Conroy employs his more arching, over-the-top, and older sounding Batman voice that he started using on Justice League (it's far less effective than his subtler readings from Batman: The Animated Series). Dare I say it, but if they wanted continuity from the animated worlds, they should have gone with Rino Romano, who plays Bruce Wayne on The Batman at the same age as he is presented here (Romano may never be Conroy in his prime, but he steadily improved as the show ran its bumpy course). To be fair, Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker suffered the opposite problem when they were forced to replace Stockard Channing with a much younger Angie Harmon as the voice of fifty-something Barbara Gordon. Harmon did what she could, but she just sounded too young. The other voice work fails to stand out, despite the use of various voice veterans in the Andrea Romano catalog (Rob Paulson, Cory Burton, George Newbern, Kevin Michael Richardson, etc). Jim Meskimen lacks the gravitas to measure up to previous incarnations of Jim Gordon, be it Gary Oldman, Bob Hastings, or Mitch Pileggi. Much of the voice over suffers from a stilted, unnatural delivery, which seems partially the fault of the stilted visuals. The animation seems to not be completely animated (something like every other frame) and it most resembles the three-season Spawn cartoon that HBO aired back in 1994. As for the much advertised PG-13 rating, it's purely for the dark and gloomy atmosphere and character models. There is periodic bleeding and occasional fisticuffs, but nothing that wouldn't be out of place in the PG-rated Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm. And this certainly isn't 1/4 as disturbing as Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker (truth be told, I'll be shocked if Heath Ledger does anything approaching as horrifying as what happens in that direct-to-video shocker). Oh, and Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker was rated PG-13 when it was released in its original uncut form in 2004, so the sticker on the Batman: Gotham Knight DVD claiming that its 'the first ever PG-13 rated Batman animated movie' is blatantly false. Now, onto the actual stories... 1) Have I Got A Story - Very similar the much-heralded Batman: TAS episode 'Legends Of The Dark Knight'. In that episode, two kids told their differing views of Batman, which in turn were presented as different versions of the character over the years (the first segment was modeled after Bill Finger and Dick Sprang of the 1940s and the second was a riff on Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns). At the conclusion, they encounter the real Batman who is a little bit of both versions. This is the same exact concept, except it's closer to the 1973 Batman comic story 'You Shoulda Seen Him'. In this version, the kids tell more surreal versions of Batman (one imagines a Man-Bat, for example) and yes, they eventually encounter the real thing. It's a good idea, but it's easily the third best version of this story, a fact highlighted by the fact that the episode Legends Of The Dark Knight is included on the two-disc DVD and Blu Ray special editions of this title. (I would have preferred 'Almost Got Im', but that's me). Grade: C 2) Crossfire - Detectives Crispus Allen and Anna Ramirez (not Renee Montoya, no absolutely NOT Renee Montoya) get caught in a gang war while transferring a prisoner to the Narrows. This one, written by Greg Rucka, deals with Allen's resentment of Batman and his issues with trusting a freelance vigilante. Fair enough, but the dialogue is simplistic and Ramirez is forced to play the role of helpless hostage at the climax for no particular reason (since Allen is the one who doubts Batman, shouldn't he be the one in peril?). For what it's worth, this one gives us a preview of just what happened to the Narrows after Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow released their toxin at the climax of Batman Begins. Anna Ramirez is apparently featured in The Dark Knight, and I have no idea why she wasn't named after her comic book counterpart. Grade: C 3) Field Test - Bruce Wayne tests a new bullet deflection technology with mixed results. This is one of the best segments, with solid dialogue, good interplay between Bruce Wayne and Lucious Fox, and a slightly surprising and suspenseful climax. Grade - B+ 4) In Darkness Dwells - Batman encounters Killer Croc in the sewers and gets doused by Scarecrow's fear gas. An entertaining action-filled episode, but it fails to have much of a pay-off. Grade: B- 5) Working Through The Pain - As Batman struggles to find safety after being seriously wounded, we see flashbacks that show how Bruce Wayne learned to control pain and pain management. An interesting piece of Bruce Wayne's past, but no more than that. Grade: C+ 6) Deadshot - The best episode is saved for last. Written by Alan Burnett (one of the pioneers of Batman: The Animated Series, along with Bruce Timm, Eric Radomski, and Paul Dini), this tale contrasts the sheer obsessive professionalism of Batman alongside master assassin Floyd Lawton (aka - Deadshot). This briefly deals with Wayne's fear of guns and provides a terrific action climax. Batman is at his most bad-ass in this segment. Grade: A- Overall, Batman Gotham Knights fails to engage even half as well as lesser episodes of Batman: The Animated Series (or The Batman for that matter). The writing is often simplistic and the action is so stylized that it never gets your adrenaline pumping. In the realm of recent direct-to-DVD DC cartoons, this is far short of silly but fun Superman: Doomsday, the flawed but ambitious New Frontier, and is about even with The Batman Vs Dracula. It is, however, far superior to Superman: Brainiac Attacks (the low-water mark for anything related to DC animation in the last twenty-years). If you're a Batman junkie, it might be worth a purchase just for the documentaries and bonus Batman: TAS episodes included. Otherwise, either rent it or skip it. Overall Grade: C+ Note - The Extras are actually superior to the feature itself. Included is a crowded cast and crew commentary, and two documentaries running about 35 minutes each. One of them focuses on villains in the Batman canon and the other deals with Batman co-creator Bob Kane. We also have the mentioned four bonus episodes of Batman: The Animated Series (Heart Of Ice, I Am The Night, Over The Edge, and Legends Of The Dark Knight) and a ten-minute preview of the next direct-to-DVD DC comics film, Wonder Woman. It also looks better than this feature. From JckNapier at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 00:40:04 2008 From: JckNapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Mon Oct 27 00:40:07 2008 Subject: Review: Slumdog Millionaire (2008) Message-ID: <35c9f6b1-77ac-4abf-bae1-92f62ef642a4@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com> Slumdog Millionaire 2008 120 minutes rated R (language, adult situations, violence) by Scott Mendelson There has been an ongoing debate for the last several years about the very concept of knowledge. With the advances of the internet and billions of people literally having any piece of information at their fingertips, what is the real benefit of knowledge? Why teach children facts when they can look them up in five seconds on Wikipedia or Google? Why devour trivia books (such as Uncle John's Bathroom Reader) when any random fact is available upon request? While there will always be such people as myself who take pride in knowing as much as possible about as much as possible (I'm not a 'know-it-all', I'm a 'want to know-it-all'), what practical purpose remains for storing facts, dates, names, and events when the answer key to the world is sitting at your fingertips? Loveleen Tandan and Danny Boyle's delightful fable Slumdog Millionaire suggests that our lives can be considered a sum of our knowledge. The more we do, the more we experience, then the more we know. Hence, the more we know, the richer our lives have been and can be. The film concerns a single life, up to the age of eighteen, told against the backdrop of an event that could transform that life forever. The plot - Jamil Malik (Skins' Dev Patel) has lived a tough and brutal life as an impoverished child in Mumbai, India. But now, through luck and perhaps intent, he sits in the winner's circle of the Indian version of 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?'. As he awaits the final question that will award him 20 million rupees, he is arrested and detained by Mumbai police on suspicion of cheating. Doctors, lawyers, and scientists have never won as much money on this show, so how could a poor kid from the slums possibly know so much? With his life possibly hanging in the balance, Malik tells his interrogator the story of his life up to that point, with highlighting key events that will explain how be came to know the answers to the questions thus far. That's all you get, and that's all you want going in. The film is a simple one, and the life of Malik sometimes flirts with cliche. But the movie succeeds as a sum of its parts, and its slow-building power becomes intoxicating. The film looks absolutely gorgeous, with widescreen vistas of India contrasting with sharp, intrusive closeups during interrogation scenes. The scenes set on the game show itself are both electric and claustrophobic, with Boyle doing his best to approximate the feeling of being on that once legendary show. The acting is uniformly excellent, but it never stands out never overpowers the narrative. Each of the leads is played by three different actors as they age, and each young actor blends seamlessly with the one following or proceeding. Of the case, only Anil Kapoor stands out. He has fun playing the game show host, a seemingly jovial man of shifting motives and complicated feelings about having his spotlight stolen by this genuinely interesting young man. And, unlike several other Danny Boyle pictures, the film actually has a compelling third act and an emotionally involving climax. No spoilers, but the film does not go sliding off the rails in the manner of 28 Days Later, Sunshine, and The Beach. Granted, he was loosely adapting Vikas Swarup's novel Q&A, but I was genuinely fearful that Boyle would once again drop the third-act ball. No worries, the last act is, if anything, superior to its somewhat dragging initial first act set-up. In the end, Boyle and Tandan have made an enchanting story about the power of knowledge, knowledge gained from experiences and gained from life itself. The film sneaks up on the audience, slowly building emotional investment until the moviegoers are playing along with Malik and holding their breaths at the end. It is easily one of the more charming and original movies of this year and is absolutely perfect family entertainment for anyone over the age of ten. It is a celebration of not just the usual triumph of the human spirit, but a celebration of the human experience. For it's not just what you know, it's how you came to know it. Grade: B+ From JckNapier at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 00:42:06 2008 From: JckNapier at gmail.com (Scott Mendelson) Date: Mon Oct 27 00:42:08 2008 Subject: Review: Saw V (2008) Message-ID: Saw V 2008 089 minutes rated R (sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture, language and brief nudity) by Scott Mendelson What we see right off the bat in Saw V is a series trying to regain its footing by pulling back. After the completely absurd Saw IV, they have nowhere to go but a little more down to earth. This is easily the smallest-scale of the sequels, and it has the feeling of a massively scaled down budget. That does creates a problem as many scenes are simply a couple characters walking through a hallway, or one character sneaking into a building. It's not a good film, and it almost has a whiff of 'direct-to-DVD' to it, but I did appreciate the buttoned-down tone and it's an overall improvement from Saw IV. There will be no plot synopsis, other than to say that the film again picks up right at the end of the previous film, and that the surviving characters all return. First of all, I can't imagine anyone deciding to see a Saw picture based on the story. The fans are either already invested in the long-running John Kramer mythology, or they don't care a whit about plot. Second, one thing I have appreciated about the series is that, because of the complete lack of preview screenings, and the spoiler-free marketing campaigns, the Saw films are among the few major movies that I can go into relatively blind. I'll give you the same courtesy. >From the very start, the opening trap has a logic and near- plausibility that has eluded this film since the end of part II. The violence and gore-level has been severely dialed down, with less total violence and gore than any Saw film since the original. There is certainly nothing to match the hideous body-piercing curtain-raiser of Saw III, or the scalping device in Saw IV. The traps are far less elaborate, and far less painful. Similar to part II, the deaths are quick and brutal, rather than drawn out and excruciating. One almost wonders if the filmmakers were annoyed at the series being called 'torture porn' simply because it contained gruesome violence. The problem with the film is the problem that has plagued the series since the get-go. First of all, the Jigsaw philosophy of 'I don't kill people because I put them into positions to kill themselves' has always been abhorrent and naive. I always appreciated the second film as the lone picture to actively call out the foolishness of this thinking. Yes, John is confronted by failure in Saw III, but he continues to rant and rave about 'helping people cherish life' in the next two sequels as well, and on some level we're supposed to be intrigued by his ideas. Second of all, the Saw sequels have had an obsession with going back to previous entries and showing us a 'behind the scenes' view of the previous traps and plot developments. A solid third of the picture is made up of flashbacks (both new footage and old) to previous scenes from the previous films (even Danny Glover appears in old footage.. you can guess which actor does not). I can't speak to everyone who is a fan of this series, but I couldn't care less about seeing how John Kramer set up that gun-rigged to the door gag from Saw II. Of course, without those pointless scenes, there is now no way to bring Tobin Bell into the story, so the filmmakers are in a bit of a bind. Good acting versus story progression. The biggest problem, most apparent in the third film, is the idea that John Kramer wants to teach his victims a grand moral. Fair enough, but if John succeeds in that, then the audience doesn't get to see what it came for - ghoulish traps successfully ensnaring their victims. Conversely, if the audience is invested in the character arcs of the victims, such as Saw III's genuinely compelling story of Angus Macfadyen learning to forgive the people who played a hand in his son's death, we don't root for the traps. We sit there in disappointment as MacFadyen's Jeff fails again and again in making the right moral choice in time to save those in peril. Maybe the filmmakers realized this, because the last two films have severely dialed down the seriousness of the moral flaw. The last film hilariously was about punishing a cop who cared too much, who saw the good in people too easily (don't want THAT in a cop, do we?). This one is more or less about not trusting your instincts. So, in five films, we've gone to teaching junkies and murderers to appreciate their lives to going after cops who care too much and follow their instincts. I predict in Saw VI that Jigsaw will be punishing people for titling pinball machines, loving their children too much, and driving in the carpool lane with unaccompanied. Point being, if you've followed the series this far, you are already aware of these issues and don't care. Me, I just go for Tobin Bell and because it's a quasi-anniversary tradition celebrating the first date with my eventual wife (we met on 10/28/05 and our first date was Saw II - her choice). While far less grand, the film is a better picture than Saw IV. And although it's far less ambitious, it's better written and acted than the overwrought and absurd Saw I. It's not nearly as good as Saw II or Saw III, but it's a step back from the abyss. It combines the teamwork aspect of Saw I, with the group of people trapped in a house bit from Saw II. Like Saw II, the scenes of group imperilment are more about funhouse horror traps than prolonged misery and suffering. I'm not sure where the Saw franchise can go from here (although a major plot point is left deliberately unresolved), but as long as Tobin Bell is getting his annual acting showcase, then I'll be happy to support the grizzled character actor who ruined the ending of Saw 1, since I recognized him as the cancer patient and did the math. Although casting Michael Emerson (who had just won an Emmy for portraying a serial killer on The Practice) as the assistant didn't help either. Grades for all Saw pictures: Saw: C- Saw II: B Saw III: B Saw IV: D Saw V: C From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Oct 30 13:44:47 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Oct 30 13:44:50 2008 Subject: Review: Religulous (2008) Message-ID: RELIGULOUS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Humorist Bill Maher's look at the irrationality that is the basis of most religions may not have a lot that people will find new and surprising, but at least Mr. Maher's arguments against religious irrationality seem to be on the side of the angels. I did not find the film laugh-out-loud funny, but there is undeniable wit behind it all. This is a film that is funny and disquieting. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 I remember seeing the film CONTACT. Jodie Foster was playing Dr. Eleanor Arroway. In the plot she admits that she is an atheist. Voices in the audience actually booed her. Had she said she was a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Muslim, a Mormon, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Scientologist, I don't think the audience would have been bothered at all. But the truth is that there really is a lot of hatred in the United States for people who have openly rejected a religious view of the universe. People would prefer someone with almost any religious view to someone with none. Someone who looks at the world rationally is a sort of a threat to people who believe that they actually drink the blood of a man dead two millennia, or that there is a deep cosmic significance to the color of hairs in a calf's tail or that the words of God were found on gold plates buried in the ground. I mean who really cares if someone who believes in drinking urine finds what you believe is silly? But if it is someone who seems to be rational comes to different conclusions, to many people that constitutes a threat. In RELIGULOUS, Bill Maher sets out to document the diversity and some of what certainly seems insanity in many Western religions. His approach is a little scattershot, but never dull. I have to say that in spite of superficial similarities to Michael Moore documentaries, I have much more respect for Maher's approach. He does not rely on Moore's attention-getting stunts, but just uses cool and logical argument. I would say that for me certainly he has a good deal more credibility. On the other hand finding irrationality and folly in other people's religious belief is not the most difficult or ambitious of goals. But so many films present a religious point of view, from Pat O'Brien playing the wonderful all-knowing priest to James Cagney, to Ben-Hur finding peace in a world of sin. A good film with the opposing point of view has been long overdue. Maher travels to the Vatican, Jerusalem, Amsterdam, and across the United States to places like a shack turned into a church for truckers. He interviews religious zealots and counters their arguments and more importantly asks good questions. (One not quite fair tactic is to counter arguments being made in titles at the bottom of the screen rather than directly to the interviewee's face.) Maher's thesis is that there is a neurological basis for religious belief and that it is an extremely dangerous misfortune to people that they developed the means to destroy themselves before curing themselves of these neurological delusions. Larry Charles who directed the tremendously self-indulgent BORAT, here is far more restrained. The humor that comes from serious thought lasts longer than humor from embarrassing people with nude wrestling matches. Voltaire said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Bill Maher is saying much the same thing. RELIGULOUS is a thoughtful and intelligent pleasure. I rate RELIGULOUS a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From modemac at gmail.com Thu Oct 30 13:46:07 2008 From: modemac at gmail.com (Eric Walker) Date: Thu Oct 30 13:46:09 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Frankenstein (1931) Message-ID: Many of the great motion pictures of the 1930s have faded away in the memories of the public, either because they are simply not watched anymore (how many readers here have seen "Grand Hotel?"), or because the films themselves have not stood up well to the tests of time. Fans of the recent "Indiana Jones"-inspired remakes of "The Mummy" may have trouble watching the original classic Universal monster movie: even though Boris Karloff gives a wonderfully haunting performance as the ancient Egyptian sorcerer Imhotep come to life, it still suffers from the now-dated production values of that time - especially the long periods of painful silence that render portions of the film dead and lifeless, because Universal (and the Hollywood studios as a whole) had not yet learned how to place a musical score over a "talking picture." But there was one motion picture released in 1931 that rose above this, and became a landmark of film horror that still shines today: "Frankenstein," directed by the legendary James Whale. Of the many Universal horror films made during the Golden Age of Hollywood (including classic silent horror films such as "The Phantom of the Opera"), "Frankenstein" and its sequel "Bride of Frankenstein" still stand tall as icons of the cinema, not just of horror but cinema history itself. Other famous movie monsters were immortalized on the movie lot, including Dracula, the Wolf Man, and the Invisible Man (the 1933 version by Whale made a star of Claude Rains), but it is Frankenstein that we first think of when we think of Universal horror movies...and, especially, when we think of Whale the director. While he directed a number of pictures for Universal throughout the 1930s, this movie (and even more so in its sequel, "Bride of Frankenstein") bears his particular stamp: exquisite sets, each scene full of energy and excitement, campy but not quite over-the-top performances by wonderfully talented actors, and a keen, morbid sense of humor that sets his movies apart from other horror films of the day. The humor in these films is very subtle and largely symbolic: while a casual viewer certainly appreciates Victor Frankenstein's obsession (and macabre taste) as he and Fritz the dwarf dig up a freshly-buried body, it is on further viewings that we notice that the pair are tossing the dirt from the grave onto a conveniently-placed gargoyle of the Grim Reaper...in effect, they are throwing dirt in the face of Death himself. One remarkable aspect of the 1931 film is rarely mentioned: the expert use of sound to enhance the greatest moments of the story. Hollywood was still going through the painful transition from silent to sound when "Frankenstein" was released. Tod Browning's smash hit "Dracula" is badly dated because of this - as it is little more than a filming of the stage play, there are long periods of complete silence during important scenes, such as the close-ups of Bela Lugosi giving the audience Dracula's hypnotic stare. "Frankenstein," on the other hand, uses background sound to enhance the great visuals: as the Monster is brought to life, thunder crashes and booms throughout Victor Frankenstein's lab, nearly drowning out his voice as he cries out, "Now what I know what it feels like to be God!" (In fact, that particular line was censored from many prints over the years, and this is covered up by having the thunder overwhelm his words completely.) Likewise, one of the great images of the movie is the scene when the peasant father carries his dead daughter into town, interrupting the celebration of Victor's wedding. The sight of him walking into the town square, his lifeless little girl cradled in his arms, while the wedding bells chime and ring loudly gives great, tragic feeling to this moment. And of course, there is the climactic chase and the burning of the mill, with the shouts of the hysterical mob ("Burn the mill!") and the roar of the flames as the Monster meets his (apparent) demise. These are all moments of true cinema, and these scenes still impact the viewer today with a power rarely matched, or even approached, by the many remakes and sequels to "Frankenstein." In so many ways, "Frankenstein" is cited as a textbook example of many moments in cinema history - from the art direction (German Expressionism took hold in the Universal films of the 1930s, and this can be seen in the elaborately designed Frankenstein lab, with lines in the floorboards and stone walls criss-crossing the frame) to censorship. Of the all the horror films that came from Hollywood in the 1930s, the censorship imposed on "Frankenstein" is well-known - even to the point that Universal chairman Carl Laemmle had Whale add that teaser to the beginning, in which Edward Van Sloan walks out from behind the "curtain" and warns the audience that the story they were about to see would horrify them, and if they still wanted to watch..."well...we warned you!" Two crucial scenes from the movie are legendary for having been lost, then recovered decades later: the moment in which Dr. Waldman injects the Monster with a syringe; and the scene where the Monster playfully tosses the young girl into the lake, only to flee in terror when she drowns. The cutting out of this scene actually made the Monster seem malevolent and evil, instead of innocent: in the excised prints, the audience saw the Monster reach for the little girl, and then the camera cuts away. Some interpretations of this scene actually suggested that the Monster was assaulting or molesting her, when the full scene shows that he was simply playing a game with her. And then we come to the unforgettable, sympathetic portrayal of the Monster by Boris Karloff. It was this movie that made Karloff a film star with a single-word name - just as we know Arnold Schwarzenegger as "Ahnold," and Humphrey Bogart as Bogie, so too do we know the name of Karloff. And the praise given to Karloff for his role is well- deserved: it was his role that gave the Monster a soul, one that made us care for him and feel sorry for him. However, the other major players in the cast shine as well, and here we can give Whale credit for guiding them. His best films (including this one) let his actors give wonderfully hammy, over-the-top performances; yet not so campy as to be ridiculously unbelievable. Victor Frankenstein (Colin Clive) chews his lines and spits out, "Crazy, am I? We'll see whether I'm crazy or not!" We enjoy Dr. Waldman (Van Sloan) rolling his R's as he says, "You have created a monster and it will DESTROY you!," and especially the cartoony Baron Frankenstein's deep voice as he declares "Anything the Burgermeister has to say can't possibly be of the slightest importance!"; and yet we still take them seriously, so that we know that the Baron cares deeply for his son, and he is in earnest when he gives the toast that lays the curse upon his family name for generations (and multiple movie sequels) to come: "...a son to the house of Frankenstein!" "Frankenstein" is one of many Hollywood movies that took enormous creative liberties with its script: while key scenes from the book remain in the film (especially when the Monster is brought to life), nearly the entire story after the Monster comes to life is entirely different from Mary Shelly's original story. I've never read any of the stage productions of "Frankenstein" that were performed throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries - and they were numerous - but I would suspect that much of the basic plot is probably borrowed more from the stage plays than the novel. But the great visual images are unquestionably the work of James Whale, and it is his contribution to the film that makes it a true classic of the cinema. Four years after "Frankenstein," Universal was finally able to convince Whale to do a sequel to the movie...and this resulted in one of those rare miracles of motion pictures, the unforgettable "Bride of Frankenstein." Rare indeed is the sequel that equals or surpasses the original, especially when the original is a classic that towers in the cinema world. Fortunately for us all, "Frankenstein" is one such classic. If you're a novice to the great black-and-white classics of the silver screen, and you want to see one movie that is not only deserving of its reputation as a classic, but also remains powerfully moving, exciting, and entertaining even to the jaded audiences of today, then this is the movie for you. Once you've seen the original "Frankenstein," you'll know that - with one single exception - ALL of the many remakes and sequels pale in comparison. -- The High Weirdness Project http://www.modemac.com From zoeb at bytenoise.co.uk Thu Oct 30 13:47:06 2008 From: zoeb at bytenoise.co.uk (Zoe Blade) Date: Thu Oct 30 13:47:08 2008 Subject: Review: Shoot 'Em Up (2007) Message-ID: Film: Shoot 'Em Up Year: 2007 Summary: Stylised violence, so exaggerated it's funny. I have to admit I was put off even by the title of Shoot 'Em Up. It sounds like it should be the perfect example of all that's wrong with over-the-top, testosterone inspired action films. In many ways, that's exactly what it is. Pretty much any obstacle in the hero's path can be, and is, overcome with a bullet. Writer and director Michael Davis seems to be trying to outdo Quentin Tarantino at his own game, namely stylised violence, and he may actually have done it. There must have been some point during the rewriting of this screenplay when Davis realised he'd made it so violent and so far fetched, that he just said "screw it, let's go with it." This is what I imagine to be the turning point, when the film got so bad that it grew a sense of humour and became good. I'll use some concrete examples to give you some idea of the extent to which the laws of physics and good sense have been thrown out of the window for the sake of seeing how much the story can be exaggerated. There's one point very early on in the film where the hero kills a baddie armed with nothing more than a carrot. In another early scene, the hero needs to make a roundabout spin. He does this by shooting its handles repeatedly. If you're the kind of person who absolutely must suspend her or his disbelief in order to enjoy a film, you'll likely find this tale absurd. If you hate macho violence - and even a macho interpretation of the obligatory love subplot by yet another male writer who seems to equate prostitution with love - then you may find it appalling. If you have a sense of humour, though, you might just make it through and even find this film enjoyable as it walks a fine line between action film and outright spoof. It's so funny, it surely has to be on purpose. From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Oct 30 13:50:22 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Oct 30 13:50:23 2008 Subject: Review: How About You (2008) Message-ID: HOW ABOUT YOU (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: There is room for a simple, feel-good story in the holiday season and HOW ABOUT YOU fills the bill nicely. This Irish film has a ne'er-do-well misfit left in charge of a residence home over Christmas with four cantankerous oldsters. A good ensemble cast brings this adaptation of a Maeve Binchy short story to its amiable if predictable end. Anthony Byrne directs a delightful Irish comedy-drama that takes a bittersweet look at aging and dying. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Ellie (played by Hayley Atwell) has made a bit of a mess-up of her personal and professional life. She is now trying to lend a reluctant helping hand to her equally reluctant sister Kate (Orla Brady). Kate runs The Woodlands, a residence home for the elderly. It is going about as well as anything ever goes for Ellie. A collection of difficult residents seems to dislike Ellie just about as much as she hates them. This hostile, belligerent, group, dubbed "the Hardcore", includes once-popular actress (Vanessa Redgrave), a retired High Court judge (Joss Ackland), and two sisters (Imelda Staunton and Brenda Fricker). Ellie forms one friendship, not with one of the hardcore but with cancer-plagued Alice (Joan O'Hara), who is the one positive resident. Each has been something of a free spirit and Ellie would like to give Alice some hashish to ease her pain. When Kate must go away on family business she is forced to leave Ellie illegally running The Woodlands with its four hardcore cases over the December holidays. After a shaky start the five people who cannot get along with each other prove they might have an unexpected chemistry. In other hands this story could have been cloying, but the veteran cast gives a strong performance. Director Anthony Byrne has a really good cast to work with and they give him really engaging performances. One probably could not find a better set of actors for this story than Redgrave, Ackland, Staunton, and Fricker. Perhaps they change a little too quickly in Jean Pasley's script (which rather than a hundred minutes could have been two hours without overstaying its welcome), but they bring real humanity to their characters. And they are characters rather than caricatures. They seem childlike in both the better and worse senses of that word. Joss Ackland is particularly enjoyable in the one major male role in the film. Ackland is one of the great solid British actors, rarely a lead, but a very strong supporting actor. A little gimmicky in the writing are the repeated placements of either the song or its title in the script. Since thematically the song seems to have little to do with the storyline, its use is a bit excessive. The story is reminiscent of other films including a good dose of Henry Cass's THE LAST HOLIDAY (1950) and more recent films on the subject of eldercare like THE SAVAGES and AWAY FROM HER. The films stands as a reminder for the holiday season that good acting can transform a simple story into a moving experience with a broad range of emotions. I would rate HOW ABOUT YOU a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. After you see the film, just try to get the song "How About You" out of your head. The film is dedicated to Joan O'Hara who played the likable dying Alice and who herself died not long after the film completed. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper