@Twitter #Thoughts: "Dredd"

I wasn't able to include Dredd in my Best of 2012 list, but, if it means anything now, I should have seen it much sooner. Here are my live tweets of my first viewing of this awesome flick:

Review: "Pain & Gain"

A movie might be based on real events, but the director doesn’t have to treat it what happened as gospel. A good example would be Tony Scott’s Domino, based on the real life Domino Harvey. The story is completely fictional (if you can follow it) but the filmmakers weren’t interested in telling a straight bio pic, opting instead to express her balls out personality through a fantastical tale. They didn’t get the truth of what happened, but rather the truth of her. And, for me, this is of most importance.

Now, a filmmaker doesn’t have to treat a person’s story as the final word, but a level of respect for the subjects involved doesn’t hurt. Unfortunately for the real life people behind Pain & Gain, Michael Bay is their storyteller.

The criminal acts of Daniel Lugo remind me of something straight out of a TV documentary; a bizarre and sordid series of events, featuring greedy sociopaths out for their dreams at all costs. Daniel was a con man, using charisma and quick thinking to gut people of as much money as he could get from them. Any opportunity to get a head, he took. He was also obsessed with fitness, working at a gym as a trainer. This guy, in a way, is the ultimate embodiment of American Capitalism. He gets two gym regulars to join him on a poorly thought out kidnapping of a wealthy man, which, despite their best “efforts”, actually nets them some coin. But, instead of stopping there, they get the itch to go again...

Throughout the movie, it’s made clear that what we are watching actually happened (a title scroll appears a few times, at very odd moments). However, I’m sure that some things were changed up to fit with the vision of the movie. But, I’m not really concerned with that. What got me most was the tone. The trailers billed this as if Daniel was gonna be some kind of anti hero, taking away from a guy that doesn’t deserve it. While the movie is mostly from the perspective of the criminals (occasionally shifting to narration from other characters), there really aren’t any reasons to like these guys at all. They are truly despicable people, caring only about themselves. To feature them as protagonists (and having well liked actors play them) is a pretty bold move.

And Michael Bay is a pretty bold guy. He presents the story with his usual blend of superficial humor - like what you would expect from Crank, but on a more juvenile level - which completely messed with the head of the audience. The crowd I watched this with did not know how to react. Do we laugh when they fail to kill a drunk Tony Shalhoub? Is "Ha Ha! The priest has the hots for The Rock!" an appropriate response in a movie where a couple is dismembered and stuffed into barrels? It was really fun experiencing something so conflicting.

So, with a movie based on real events, told with the criminals as the leads and in a darkly comedic style, does Michael Bay care about the victims or not? More importantly, should a filmmaker care? Martin Scorsese’s Casino featured a real life hitman, staging the very hit he did in real life. It was an almost abhorrent casting choice, but it plays out quickly and ugly - probably how it actually happened. Hannibal Lecter is shown as being intelligent and charismatic, but will also kill if given the chance. The exploits of Lugo and his meathead friends are awful and disturbing, but expressed with an almost “can you believe this happened” kind if chuckle. Bay couldn't care less about whose feelings he's hurting, as long as he's amused. And that amuses me.

A director doesn’t HAVE to care about the real life participants or show respect, but it would be nice. Michael Bay, however, is probably not a nice guy. Wrecking balls as robot testicles shows what he thinks of his audience, and Pain & Gain shows that he’s willing to prank them with something odd and confounding. And, you know what, I relate to that. Maybe I shouldn’t treat this movie as the gospel of Michael Bay, but...

4/5 *s

Review: "GreasePaint"

I have great respect for pro wrestlers. Ever since 2000, when my older brother took me and others to a Monday Night RAW TV event, I’ve read books, watched old tapes and absorbed as much information as I could on the subject. We’re watching guys and gals perform daring feats of strength and courage, tell a story with their body language and be charismatic enough to connect with people; silent film acting is alive and well, people! I could basically sum it up with “The Wrestlergot it right. All of it.” Seriously. Mad props to these performers.

Clowns, on the other hand...

No, I don’t dislike clowns - I’m just indifferent towards them. Once, my parents took me to a circus. During the show, a clown came through the crowd, to pick a kid to join him. When he came to me, I just shrugged, shook my head and let out a half hearted “eh”. It wasn’t anything personal; clowns just never connected with me. Sure, watching Bozo on TV was fun, but mostly to see if one of those kids would eventually win the ball toss game.

Clowning and wrestling are a LOT alike, as shown in the documentary GreasePaint. Directed by Daniel Espeut, an old high school wrestling teammate of mine (how’s that for coming full circle?), the story of the Thurmond Family and their circus acts gave me much to consider. Long road trips, performing the same act multiple times towns after town, precise timing, storytelling and showmanship aren’t solely the trials and tribulations of squared circle warriors.

Joey Thurmond, the patriarch of this family of performers, actually did some wrestling himself. He even had an all too familiar incident with the notorious Vader, who powerbombed him with full force and then some. It’s clear that no matter the risks (and there are always risks) Joe loves the roar of a crowd and the high of sharing his talent and joy with others. So, why not make it a full time career? Why not get the family involved?

The man is very dedicated to his craft, going so far as to renovate a large truck into working living quarters for when his family is on the road. That alone says a lot about his passion. When he talks about his sons decision to stop performing alongside him, he speaks about it in the context of losing a performing partner, not a child. He tears up, but is just unable to say what he’s feeling. That speaks volumes as well.

Bounced checks, worry over the dangers of a new trick, frustration about the timing of a gag... no matter. This is what NoJoe loves to do, and despite all of the drama, he’ll push on - red nose and all. It would be inappropriate to compare him to Randy “The Ram” from The Wrestler, but those two do share something; a need to perform. Most don’t understand this (being in front of an audience scares some to death), but it is a wonderfully freeing thing, to put all of yourself out there, and in that manner. I wish I could be as brave.

Much like the occasional rained out park that circus workers must deal with, this movie has some lulls. It’s all edited together rather well, but there are scenes that feel redundant and unnecessary. It’s really a small gripe, and actually, thinking about it some more, might put the audience in the feeling of monotony that some of the players feel when on the road. During those moments, I certainly felt that way.

I can’t say that clowning resonates with me as much as pro wrestling does, but I certainly do respect it more. What is the difference between those that wear bright tights and those that put paint on their faces? Nothing, really. The accolades, the heartache, the broken bones, the drama and the compulsion to perform all follow these professions. When you go to a circus or a wrestling event, be sure to react a bit, and let them know you’re there. They’ll appreciate that.

3/5 *s

Review: "Trailer War"

During my days as an aspiring videographer and editor, I dreamt up many ideas for movie projects: Shag Wars- a Star Warsand Austin Powerscombo; Desk Jumper- about a miniature man who base jumps from a school desk to the carpet below; 3 Punks, a Monster and a .45 –pretty self explanatory. But my favorite idea was for a feature film made up entirely of movie trailers, to be called Trailer: The Motion Picture. It would start with a few ads (restaurants, doctor offices, etc), the silence is golden / emergency exit cards, then move into the trailers. And the ending? The feature presentation card, of course.

In the middle of releasing the Tarantino / Rodriguez double feature Grindhouse, Eli Roth mentioned that he would love to make a movie along the lines of the one I had thought of years before. So far, the latest word on that project is a blurb on a wikipedia entry, but I'm optimistic – especially with groups like Drafthouse Films in operation.

You see, the folks at the Alamo Drafthouse theater love movies. They also understand the geeky joy fans get from watching incredibly eccentric movie trailers; the kind that turn out better than the movie they're promoting. In one 2-3 minute burst, we get action, suspense, romance, drama and horror. “COME SEE OUR F###ING FILM! YOU WILL LOVE IT!” And so, in a gift to all of humanity, Drafthouse Films released on DVD, Blu Ray and digital download a collection of some of the most scratched up, obscure and very real trailers ever made.

Now, unlike my original feature idea, Trailer War is not really a movie. Aside from the Drafthouse Films logo, there are no opening or end credits, no main title card, no “Coming Attractions”, none of that – just trailers, one by one. And honestly, it feels a little daunting to watch. As excited as I was to see it, I found it to be a challenge to sit through. This must be what film festival judges go through; being bombarded with movie after movie, story after story. A sensory overload, essentially.

The trailer for Trailer War sums up this feeling with the editing at the end; an explosive, quick cut of crazy moments that almost put you in a trance. In fact, watching this “movie” is a lot like going to a hypnotist, only I'm not sure what this doctor is trying to implant or extract from my head. A second opinion might be needed for my problem. Watching the digital download version, I didn't have the option of skipping trailers, only to fast forward (which I didn't do). If I were to watch this on a disc (with a commentary track featuring the great Joe Dante) I'd probably like this much more.

That being established, there are some a m a z i n g trailers here. Some might recognize Mitchelland Dungeon Master, but it's the unknown ones that stuck out to me. Stunt Rockand Star Crashperked me up, Sister Street Fighterhad me clapping, Who Saw Her Diegot burned into my brain and Force Fourand Fiveleft me laughing hysterically. There are a few lulls, but by the time Thunder Copsappears...

My parents told me once that, as a toddler, I preferred watching commercials instead of shows. I guess that explains my interest in making a movie that is a glorified advertisement. It might only speak to some, but those who get it will love it. The ultimate film buff movie is also the ultimate film buff test. If you take a date to Trailer War, and they don't like it, don't go for a second night out. But do see where this evening ends; you might get the date equivalent of Thunder Cops.   

3/5 *s

Review: "Birdemic 2: The Resurrection"

There’s something charming about certain kinds of “bad” movies. For me, I can say that they remind me of my middle school days, when I’d run around the neighborhood, making short films on my palmcorder and S-VHS camera. I cringe whenever I view this old footage - it is just horrible. However, there is an earnestness that comes through clearly; a wanting to make a movie because you love movies, skills be damned.

Birdemic: Shock and Terror was made and put out into the world with the kind of passion that some mainstream directors lack. Through word of mouth, midnight screenings and an excellent Rifftrax commentary, the movie became a cult success. And, like with most successful films, plans for a sequel came out.

Would the same charm that people loved carry over?

Made with a sense of self awareness, Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is exactly the kind of sequel I was expecting. Set in Hollywood - a few years after the events of the original - we almost get the same exact structure: A man and woman fall in love and enjoy great career success along the way. This time, the man is a filmmaker and the woman a struggling actress. Rod (the previous lead) returns, with girlfriend Natalie, to be a financial backer of his friends movie. But, when blood rains from the heavens, birds rise from the tar pits to attack humanity!

Like before, there are no character arcs, no twists, and no real explanation for anything happening. Permission may have been given to shoot in and around better locations and all, but it’s almost the same exact movie. Seriously. The opening, the restaurant scene, the girl getting a gig, the guy getting money, the dancing, the hotel, etc.

Why mess with what worked before, the director must’ve stated.

And if he said that, he’s right. The fans that came out in droves for the original are responsible for the sequel even being made. Knowing what they liked before, director James Nguyen delivers everything with a wink, a smile and a thank you. One line of dialogue in particular, delivered by the boy Rod and Natalie saved in the original, has me convinced of the jokey nature of the production: “I wish my sister were here to see this; she died after eating the fish Rod made.”

Combined with the callbacks and references, this is ultimate fan service. I can’t say that I connected with this the same way I did with the original, but that’s ok. Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is a loving sentiment to a devoted audience. Nguyen may not be good at making movies, but he’s good at showing that he loves movies. A scene where a moviegoing crowd is attacked by birds was shot with real fans in a real theater. I flashbacked to Gremlins 2 at that moment, and remarked to myself how much fun they were all having.

Has the charm returned? Well... it’s more like a twinkle.

All over again, I found myself cringing at the bad line reads and poor edits and shots. But, if I had made this movie as a wide eyed middle schooler, I would be very proud of myself, and look back on that time with fondness. It’s still bad, though.

1/5 *s

Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is coming to NOLA’s Prytania Theatre on April 20th at 10PM, with a special Q&A afterwards. Be there, or download the movie from Chill.com!

Review: "Oblivion"

I have great affection for David Lynch’s Dune. It’s a movie that barely explains itself, but keeps throwing stuff at you anyways. Sure, The Original Star Wars Trilogy didn’t feel the need to spell everything out either, but it would at least establish and ground things to make the audience comfortable. Dune, on the other hand, expects you to have done some reading beforehand. Despite that problem, I really dig the flick. It’s a classic sci fi adventure with a weirdo modern (at the time) edge. It has a real “you just had to be there to understand” feel to it, and, knowing that I can never go back and “understand”, makes me love it even more.

The latest Tom Cruise movie Oblivion works well as a classic sci fi adventure, but without the special “you had to be there” feel. Actually, it’s really up to you if you want to go at all.

By no means is Oblivion bad; it’s a sleek looking and slickly told tale, constructed in a satisfying and easy to digest manner. At no time did I feel confused or out of place. It’s the kind of movie that makes you slurp an icee with glee and look forward to playing with your Wii when you get home (in fact, the ship Tom uses looks to be controlled by a Wii remote).

I just can’t say that it’s memorable. Is a cult following for this movie possible? Eh.

Tom Cruise plays yet another character named Jack, a technician assigned to maintaining the drones that protect mining machines on what is left of Earth. He must do this while fighting off the occasional Scav, the last of the aliens that invaded the planet years prior. Nearing the end of his mission, an old ship crash lands, revealing a woman Jack knows from his dreams. This leads him to a discovery that will determine the fate of humanity.

After the screening, I remarked to a friend that the story felt like the first in a franchise series, meant perhaps for a trilogy or something. Being a single film just feels off, as there are just lots of interesting things happening that deserve to be explored further. It really should’ve been an hour longer at least (seriously), giving us more to chew on. Morgan Freeman ends up expositing everything in a two minute sequence, clarifying for me that the producers just want you to shovel popcorn in your face while Tom Cruise shoots his gun.

To be fair, that isn’t too bad of a thing, as it actually works here. The visuals are top notch, Tom Cruise is at his most Tom Cruise and the action is fun. As a sci fi movie, it could’ve gone into philosophical territory regarding free will and blissful ignorance vs. knowing the truth, but opts instead for being adventurous on a superficial level. Disappointing, but hey - it works.

Dune, for all of its perceived faults, aimed for being something more than just space drama. It didn’t quite hit the mark, but the ambition was there. Oblivion is more than happy just sticking to what has worked before. It’s like the film equivalent of that guy who spends most of his life just chillin’, playing music and not making waves. Bless his heart, but please don’t follow in his footsteps.

3/5 *s

Review: "To the Wonder"

Within my circle of facebook friends, Trash Humpers is one of the most disliked films. Two local theater programmers, while appreciative of Harmony Korine’s body of work, absolutely despise his found footage flick. Every once in a while, the movie will come up in a comment thread, and I’ll try my best to defend it. Well, I’ll defend my view of it, anyways.

Anti-Cinema is what I like to call it. Something that feels more like a statement against what we currently accept as the moviegoing experience. Basically, a movie that is executed and presented in a manner that challenges the audience to a staring contest; some people are up for it, but many will blink and walk away.

“How come the movie isn’t telling me what’s happening?” It is - you’ve just been used to seeing things one way (or in three dimensions).

Enter the Void has a camera that floats around like a wandering spirit, in and out of buildings and memories. Trash Humpers is the movie equivalent of some juveniles lighting things on fire and recording their own exploits. To the Wonder... is love unfolded in a whisper. That might come off as pretentious, but it’s kind of true. Very little dialogue is actually spoken on screen, and when it is, it’s usually under breath. The majority of the narration is in another language and, again, low in volume. Clearly, Terrence Malick doesn’t really want you to concentrate on what the characters are saying.

“So, what is it about?”

An American man falls in love with a European woman, and brings her to the U.S. Over time, their love changes, and they move apart; he into the arms of a woman from his youth, her back to Europe. She comes back, and the two try to recapture that flame.

The early scenes of affection and flirtation are shown with a fluid playfulness, as if the camera wants to capture every bit of the action without being seen by the characters. Later moments of turmoil and conflict are well framed and composed, with the placement of objects, animals, sound, etc telling us what we need to know without saying anything. And really, why speak when you’re so good at showing?

I wasn’t sure about Malick’s religious beliefs before hand, but I now get the impression that he might subscribe to the writings of Jakob Bohme, who suggested that God created life in an effort to understand and justify its own existence. Basically, we are the result of an existential crisis. Throughout the movie, the woman kneels before her man, seeing him as her rock, her source of strength. He says little to nothing (not even in whisper), and seems exhausted and frustrated, not knowing what he really wants. At the same time, there is a local priest - whom towns people look towards for strength and guidance - going through a conflict with his love of God. He feels as if he has been ignored and left alone; much like the woman. Is there real strength to feed off of, when all sources are full of doubt themselves?

In the end, love is shown as being something that can transform individuals and couples; no matter the outcome of a relationship, you have the opportunity to become a better, wiser, and stronger person. We had the strength all along, it turns out.

To the Wonder makes a big statement without saying much. In the current gimmicky atmosphere of moviegoing, stripping a story down to its barest bones is going against the grain. Does Malick go against his own grain? Here he does. The last time was life itself, and now love. What’s up next for the man? I don’t know, but I can bet it will stare into you. Will you blink or stare back?

5/5 *s

Review: "Where Y'at? (hello.)"

Q) What is Hollywood South?

A) The southern (specifically Gulf of Mexico) region of the U.S., which hosts a good amount of Hollywood film and television productions, because of very attractive tax incentives.

It’s tough out there for up and coming independent filmmakers, especially in New Orleans. Sure, there are tools like social networking and crowd funding that are paramount for artists, but there is no guarantee that any of that will work. And if they do, the benefits aren’t enough to qualify for the same privileges that bigger productions enjoy.

If you’re from Hollywood, they’ll roll out the red carpet. If you’re local, they’ll hire you to be a roller. Despite this, there are people and organizations in the area that are working around the clock to sponsor home grown talent, from festivals and lectures to collaborative projects. Collaborative - what a great word.

TimeCode:NOLA’s Where Y’at? (hello.) is a feature film made up of 15 shorts, each inspired by a city street corner. Think of it as New York, I Love You, but more independent. It’s an excellent introduction to some great talent, filled with DIY spirit and a “look at us!” attitude. Framed around a man eating peanuts on a park bench, telling anecdotes to anybody that’ll listen, the shorts run the gambit from comedic and silly to dramatic and romantic.

Ursulines and Decatur, Directed by Sam Cespedes, might be my favorite of the bunch. It tells the story of a young street musician with a crush on a young street artist. Little is actually said, but what shows through most is the beauty of love from afar and the music you hear when your heart flutters. It ought to be shown at visitor centers to give tourists a taste of the culture.

Another favorite is Dumaine and N. Derbigny, Directed by Corey Fortune. The most abstract and daring short of the movie, it presents a young man’s regret of bad choices (either previous or to come) in a challenging manner. Fragments of a crime, prior to and afterwards, are shown in a fragmented way. This non linear approach makes me feel the lead conflict in a sharp way. And the Garrison Keillor bit was a nice touch, too.

Then, there’s Franklin and Dauphine, Directed by Geoff Douville. A quick documentary on a dispute over a recognizable bar sign, this segment blends a “you have to live here to know” story with pictures and a slightly satirical and mostly fond narration. If you ever see the name Melvin in concrete, just know there is something interesting behind it.

The crew that TimeCode:NOLA brought together proves that not only do we have the people to support our own productions, but the talent to make them shine. If things go well, Hollywood may one day invest in a studio backlot for the area, and conceive of projects WITH us, instead of just outsourcing them TO us.

Q) What do we want Hollywood South to mean?

A) A place where local filmmakers think up, execute and put out movies. A NEW Hollywood.

4/5 *s

Where Y'at? (hello.) will be screening at the New Orleans Old U.S. Mint on Sunday, April 14th, as part of French Quarter Fest. Click here for more information.

Review: "Room 237"

On my DVD shelf sit two movies that I consider among the best I’ve ever seen: Pi and JFK. Both movies deal with lead characters obsessed with their current problems and slowly (but surely) becoming paranoid, seeing conspiracy in everything. Both are less about “the truth” or “the answer” and more about how one can lose oneself in the pursuit of their obsessions. Growing up with OCD, I certainly understand.

Room 237 joins in on the action, except it switches dramatized people and fictional characters for real ones - making what is shown more interesting and (believe it or not) more frustrating to watch. Not really a documentary and not really a “movie”, Room 237 is more like an essay in a style similar to F for Fake. Made up of a series of interviews from film buffs and scholars, we get a frame by frame deconstruction of the messages and meanings behind Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining.

The level of obsession and heightened attention to detail is extraordinary. It reminds of the the early cuts of the 9/11 conspiracy hit Loose Change, or even the lectures by “Truthers” posted on youtube. The smallest and most mundane moments are picked up on and used as evidence of a larger story. The disappearing chair, the window that shouldn’t exist, the light coming out of the plane before hitting the towe...wait - wrong movie.

A zenith of reaching is hit when it is suggested that Kubrick helped fake the moon landing, and used The Shining as his way of telling the public. Yes, the kid where’s an Apollo 11 sweater, and there are some coincidences here and there, but it’s still too vague of a conclusion to come to. It’s very laughable, but only after some groaning.

I suppose these conversations are just a testament to Kubrick’s timeless and universal production, and shouldn’t be seen as anything harmful. Indeed, there is a charm to all of this; the affection people have for art and their joyful obsession for it. But, well, hearing it for over 90 minutes just kinda pisses me off. It’s like going to a party with a friend, separating, and getting into a drawn out discussion with a weirdo stranger. You’ll be thinking “Where’s my ride?” very soon.

It’s not an examination or explanation of film obsession and human psyche, but just an example of its existence. A nature documentary on silly movie buffs? Certainly, the species isn’t going extinct anytime soon. I know these people are around; just go to the IMDB message boards. It’s cool that a movie can be shown as a rubix cube and all, but watching people try to solve a rubix cube isn’t very fun. It’s actually a little depressing, and a bit condescending to the rest of us puzzle solvers.

Not on my DVD shelf is Wag the Dog, another movie I highly recommend. I can remember getting into an argument with my cousin over the image of a briefcase, on a table, under a light. He claimed it represented the fate of Dustin Hoffman’s character, while I stated that it represented a briefcase. I enjoy picking out hidden elements in movies, but I really don’t enjoy making myself sound stupid.

2/5 *s

He Didn't Care for "Superman Returns"

Just the other day, Roger Ebert announced the formation of Ebert Digital, a new venture “devoted to the creation of new digital products that build on the lifelong work of the world’s preeminent film critic.” This was planned to include a newly formatted RogerEbert.com, where the man himself would serve as editor, nurturing a handpicked slew of reviewers.

Since that announcement, the contact information for this project has been displayed in a tab on my browser. It’s there, waiting for me to use it.

I’m in a constant state of hesitation; would I get a response? If so, from who? And what will they say? I’d like to think that my writing is good enough... A couple of deep breaths are needed here. It’s just an email. Sure, it’s a big deal, asking to take part in a website run by the king of your craft, but it’s not the end of the world if nothing comes of it.

After all, this is the guy that didn’t like Superman Returns.

When I watched the Bryan Singer Superman film at my local theater’s midnight showing, I was over the moon with pure joy. Getting to see a character I had long related to finish an arc that had been started with two movies from decades ago, sent chills down my spine. I wrote a review where I said that “Superman represents the best in all of us, and all we can become” or something to that effect. I sent it in an email to the editor of a local paper, hoping to land a gig out of the blue. A lot of effort was put into that review, and I don’t believe I heard back.

This was a depressing time in my life; out of school, unemployed, crushed by a crush, etc. Luckily, I had on DVD the complete box set for The Critic to get me through. As a kid, I looked up to Jay Sherman (the cartoon critic), and thought that doing what he did would be a dream. In one episode, I was introduced to Siskel and Ebert. At first, I thought they were just characters, but I soon realized they were as real as that moustached afro guy from The Today Show (Gene Shalit).

This can be a real career? Seriously? I had kicked around many fantasies for work throughout the years (from Astronaut to Superman himself), but I always kept coming back to film criticism. It’s hard to describe, but it just fit with my sarcastic, observational and analytical nature. My cousins would even refer to me as Siskel simply because I would comment on the details of a movie we’d be watching. Maybe I should make a go of this...

...but what did Mr. Ebert think of Superman Returns? 2/4 *s.

He wrote “This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating” and “when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?”

Whoa, I thought. How could this be? This is the man that enjoyed 1 and 2 as much as I did - HE SHOULD HAVE LIKED THIS MOVIE TOO! I spent a good amount of time, sitting at my desk, thinking hard on this.

I read through my review, feeling like I got my point across. Then, I reread his, this time with a clearer mind. And I realized something; my view wasn’t as fully realized as his was. What I wrote was, more or less, just gushing about a character in general, no matter the movie surrounding him. What Ebert wrote was a descriptive and well elaborated expression of what he felt about the movie as a whole. He used examples from previous versions of the story. He provided observations that were spot on. And he didn’t let his fanboy-ness take over.

No wonder the editor of that local paper didn’t get back to me.

So, I spent the next couple of years going from dead end job to dead end job, reading as many reviews by as many critics as possible. How were other people writing about movies, and what could I do to better myself? After much prodding from my mom, friends and eventually myself, I started up this blog.

And here I am. My browser still has a tab open with Ebert Digital contact information. My gmail inbox is open, waiting on me to compose a message. If I had written something just a little earlier, I would’ve thanked Mr. Ebert for giving me the motivation to be a critic. For helping me understand how I could come up with a style that was effective and very much mine. And, like how Superman made us believe a man could fly, that he made me believe a pale, OCD kid could turn his wide eyed love of watching and talking about movies into a career.

I’d like to imagine at least an auto response would’ve appeared after hitting refresh.

“Oh, my...” - Captain James T. Kirk, Star Trek: Generations

Review: "Evil Dead"

It doesn’t take much to impress me, but it does take a lot to scare me - when it comes to movies, I mean. At my most recent outing, a colleague teased me a bit about my lack of interest in watching horror flicks. Then, just prior to the movie starting, a security woman yells at us all, “If we catch you with an electronic device, you WILL be escorted out by the police!” For me, real instances like this are much scarier than anything that flickers on a screen.

After being bombarded for years by trailers and DVD’s for movies that offer nothing but jump scares and familiar killers, I’m kinda lukewarm towards this genre. Reviewers like The Cine-Masochist make me feel a bit picky and unfair, but it’s just how I feel.

That being said, I should re-state that it doesn’t take much to impress me. All I need is something fairly clever, easy to follow and very fun to watch; if the cast and crew are having a blast, so am I (Troma is great at this).

And watching a demon vomit vibrant, non CGI blood on a woman, only to be chainsawed in half later on, is indeed “a blast” and “fun to watch”.

The new Evil Dead (based on the original Sam Raimi classic - a kind of remake/reinterpretation) begins with the quickest of expository sequences I’ve seen in a long time: Five friends go to a cabin from their youth to help one of them kick drugs, brother and sister have problems, friend and friend have problems and all sorts of groovy weapons are established. Got it? Good. This movie knows what the audience came to see, and is just as antsy to get there as we are.

The book of the dead is found, read aloud, and the drug addicted friend becomes possessed by a demon, setting off a chain of events that could lead to hell on Earth beyond the woods. In one scene, the two men in the group discuss how to end this nightmare. One of them suggests they kill the drug addicted one, as the book suggests to do. When asked if it’ll work, we get one of the best lines EVER, “I don’t know; this isn’t a science book!”

I haven’t watched the first two original Sam Raimi films, so I will just compare this to a movie that gave me equal feelings, Marvel’s The Avengers. Both had high expectations amongst fans, relatively unproven directors (Joss Whedon had only done TV and smaller scale flicks) and the perfect storm of elements to turn them into train wrecks.

Almost a miracle before my eyes, this movie rocked.  

Like with last summer’s superhero blockbuster, Evil Dead gets it all right. It’s a simple story, with enough character depth and conflict to break the first dimension. Smart cinematography and placement of objects in a shot gave weight to what could’ve been flat. The editing was smooth and aware of genre expectations, playing with the typical jump scare beats we’ve all gotten used to. And the effects - 99% practical - made the happenings much more vibrant and very unforgettable. I bet the producers had a tight grip on this one...

I also got the impression that the movie wasn’t just another part of a familiar franchise, but a statement on how modern horror can and should learn from past horror. There is an opening shot that might as well have been taken directly from The Shining - an upside down then right side up shot of a car driving down a long and remote road. Then, of course, there was all the blood. Remember that bleeding elevator sequence? How about a movie featuring fountains of crimson rain? There are not only great effects workers out there, but also genuine fans of thrills and chills, dying to make a movie like the ones they grew up on. Maybe Evil Dead will start a trend.

There was a little kid who, after the screening, stared at the poster for the movie with a huge smile on his face. “The Most Terrifying Film You Will Ever Experience.” it said. I wanted to take a photo with him in front of that, as we were both feeling the same thing; cinematic bliss. Though, the fact that his parents let him go see this shocked me more than the movie itself... Yep, I’m still not scared. But, I am impressed. Very.

5/5 *s

@MoviePass Reviews: "Disabled but Able to Rock" and "Spring Breakers"

Since the MoviePass blog is being phased out in favor of a Tumblr page (where my reviews will be shared), I decided it might be a good idea to post, in full, two exclusive reviews from that old site:


Disabled but Able to Rock

I mention this quite a bit, but when watching a movie, the thing that stays with me most is not necessarily the story or characters, but the framing and meaning of certain shots. The films of Stanley Kubrick are classic examples of photography with purpose (there’s even conspiracy theories surrounding the hidden messages in “The Shining”). The placement of characters in relation to one another, items in the background and foreground, lighting and color – all enhance the story beyond what’s being said.

But meaningful cinematography isn’t exclusive to narrative features.

Disabled but Able to Rock is a look at the larger than life Danger Woman AKA Betsy Goodrich – part comic book character, part performance artist, part singer and part activist. The fact that she is an autistic super heroine with the power of karaoke might be what draws attention, but it’s her moxie, incredibly infectious positivity and independent spirit that makes her memorable. The crew that followed her life for a number of years captured some wonderful moments and asked fine questions during interviews with friends and family, but what provided the most insight – for me anyways – was what they captured in two scenes.

The first moment comes during an interview conducted by a reporter. At a DragonCon event, Betsy as Danger Woman is being interviewed by a reporter (not a member of the documentary crew). When his camera is on him, he perks up and begins a line of questioning. When Betsy answers, and the cameraman is off of him, his face goes sour. It’s almost as if he has a problem interviewing someone like her. You know, someone “like that”.

This is a perfect representation of Danger Woman’s key function; exposing ignorance. Betsy certainly enjoys singing and performing for the fun of it, but she also says many times that she fights against what she calls Disable-Phobia. Her performances force what she calls normals to give a reaction. These reactions range from delight to annoyance, from joy to mocking. All genuine and raw. It’s almost like what Sacha Baron Cohen has done in his movies – getting real emotions out of others and making them public. The costume Betsy wears and the songs she sings are loud as hell, and impossible to turn away from. What she does is like a creative version of shouting into a megaphone while standing on a soap box. Activism-tainment, folks. It’s in your face and challenging.

The second moment takes place in a more personal setting. We get to see Betsy’s home life, where she lives with her mother and also disabled brother. The camera pans across the living room, cluttered like a house from Hoarders. The kitchen is cruddy and the bathroom is disgusting. But then, down a very dark hallway, there is a brightly lit room. They stay on this view for a good while.

The meaning of that should be obvious. Betsy faces obstacles such as a depressing home life, the passing of a guardian, loneliness and restrictions put on her by others. Despite all of that, she remains cheery. Her attitude never dips. Optimism about what the next day will bring and courage to live the life she wants just radiates from her… like a brightly lit room at the end of a dark hallway. After presenting a legal challenge against her relatives in an effort to maintain her rights, one of her cousins remarks that he wishes his regular ed. kids were as brave as her. The path might be dark and creepy, but the destination is glowing and rewarding.

I pulled all of that from just two shots. Aren’t wonderfully framed scenes great?

5/5 *s

Below is the movie, in full. Watch, enjoy and be sure to leave a tip via the Vimeo page.

Disabled But Able To Rock! The Danger Woman Story from Blake Myers on Vimeo.

Spring Breakers

In my opinion, few movies can reach the greatness that is Alec Baldwin’s “motivational” speech in Glengarry Glen Ross. His character stripping down the other salesmen while shoving his own greatness in their faces is what is known, among my circle of friends, as a “walk out like a hero” moment; you walk in, give someone the business, and walk out as if nothing happened.

Scenes like that are what I live for.

In Spring Breakers, we get a roughly 90 minute long musical montage that has the spirit of someone who has taken that scene to heart. It is amazing that it exists.

Four young women want a spring break experience like nobody has ever had. To break out of their college monotony, they rob a diner with toy guns and raise the funds needed. Upon arrival, the revelling becomes an insightful journey of self discovery – one that they never want to end.

After partying a bit too hard, they are bailed from jail by a drug dealer / rapper named Alien (James Franco in a memorable performance), who acts as a sort of guru, showing them how he doesn’t just experience spring break, but lives it 24/7. He is the dark embodiment of their wantings, and introduces them into a world of guns, drugs, thievery and sex. Everything is for the taking, if you want it. But, do the girls really have it in them to go all the way?

David Mamet’s epic story of balls on the table manliness exposes the twisted nature of Darwin style capitalism, showing truly how nice guys (or the desperate ones) finish last. Harmony Korine’s tale of youthful debauchery at any cost shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Or, maybe get worse… The girls who reach their limits are weeded out and sent home for comforting, while the girls who stick around are rewarded with unlimited excess, and go forth with all they have learned.

Pop songs contrasted against young adults indulging in anything and everything, from booze to violence. Alien enjoying showing off his cache of weapons and styling products, suggesting that he only has these things for the purpose of showing off. The words spring break are repeated, over and over, as not only like a haunting mantra, but as a reminder of all these characters want, and feel they need. This IS America. Yesterday, today and maybe even tomorrow.

Spring Breakers is Glengarry Glen Ross’ soul mate, and that speech by Alec Baldwin is its philosophy. While its non linear structure might not be for everyone, those who do give it a shot will get an experience that will stay for a while. Are you willing to go all the way?

Movies like that are what I live for.

5/5 *s