Just a few weeks ago, I attended a meeting of local New Orleans cinema presenters and aficionados. It was fun, getting to meet those I've interviewed in the past in person. Many ideas were suggested, but the one that has carried over onto an email chain has been the creation of a twitter hashtag - #cineNOLA.
We've been pushing it pretty aggressively, mostly on posts that promote film events in town. In an effort to continue the conversation beyond the 140 character twitter limit, I took it upon myself to produce a new podcast, debuting here on the blog.
This first episode features reviews of Pro Wrestlers vs. Zombie, Curio Shop: A Post Apocalyptic Acid Western, an editorial and a rundown of some events for the week. This is a work in progress - please leave a comment if you have any suggestions for future episodes. Thanks, and enjoy!
If you liked this podcast, feel free to visit patreon.com/neauxreelidea for information on how you can support my efforts!
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Monday, February 10, 2014
Review: "Tennessee Queer"
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I’ve heard and used this phrase more times than I care to count, but, much like its meaning, it never gets tired despite the more it’s used. And yet, the lessons that can be learned from it often go in one ear and out the other. Repeating a phrase over and over to people who are constantly repeating the same actions over generations makes me ask; Is an uphill battle worth fighting? With a sense of humanity and an optimistic radiance, Tennessee Queer says yes.
The strong willed aspect is best expressed through the character of Jason Potts. He’s from a town in Tennessee called Smyth, where high schoolers have a decades old ritual called “Smear the Queer”. It’s a place he has since moved on from, living now in New York with his loving boyfriend. Oh, Jason is gay, by the way. This fact is never presented in an over the top fashion or outrageously stereotypical manner - it’s all very casual and, dare I offend someone, normal. Is sexual preference blindness a thing? During a visit home, he’s confronted with a family intervention, moderated by a church pastor. I was kinda programmed to expect prejudice to appear here, but that gets subverted quickly; the family just wants Jason to move back to town. They support and love him? Yes. Twice my expectations of cliches were squashed in favor of something much richer. The family tries to impress upon Jason how the town has changed, but they do so with some caution, which he catches on to. Before heading back to New York, Jason proposes to the city council a gay pride parade, mostly in jest and to mess with their heads. To his surprise, the parade is a go, and he’s now in charge. What felt like a backfired burden at first becomes a chance to provide the youth of his hometown an example of courage, and to show the people of Smyth that they’ve been worried over nothing.
On the flipside, we have the main antagonist, an opportunistic conservative councilman who once bullied Jason (and who I wrongly suspected had unrequited feelings for him). He is, more or less, a bumbling foil for our fingers to point at. An amalgamation of all the regressive and despicably unintelligent politicians that constantly get voted into office. Is he a victim of his environment, merely trying to, in his mind, protect the soul of his town? Is he a person we can feel for? It certainly doesn’t seem so.
This councilman only exists to have awkward moments at gay bars and be made fun of. It’s part deserved and part disappointing. We need to take the piss out of this kind of behavior, sure, but can’t we do so in a less cartoonish way? On second thought, CAN we do so in a less cartoonish way? Is there a false equivalency I’m trying to draw? No matter - while he represents the dying breed of old thought, the parade protesters in this movie represent the heart underneath the hate; the possibility of open minds, shown in a beautiful climax.
Movies like Tennessee Queer are hard to come by. It’s a story that is confident in its stance, knows what’s right and understands that baby steps can be giant leaps forward. Sure, change is slow, but it happens all the same. More and more.
4 / 5 *s
Tennessee Queer will be screening at The Prytania on February 10th at 7:30PM. Visit tennesseequeer.popslice.com/screenings for information on future events.
If you enjoyed this and other reviews, feel free to visit patreon.com/neauxreelidea.
If you enjoyed this and other reviews, feel free to visit patreon.com/neauxreelidea.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Review: "Life Itself"
In his review of the 3D re-release of Titanic, film critic Roger Ebert wrote:
This is a line that I not only agree with wholeheartedly, but something I have taken as advice when criticizing
a movie. In college, a good friend of mine would often ask me to define what art is, and if it can be confined to just a few mediums. The answer lies in the mind of the beholder - anything can be considered art, from brick laying to murder (my college friend suggested that last one). To expand further, an art form should not and cannot be confined to a strict standard. Sure, there are basics in storytelling and expression through film, but they can be creatively manipulated and re-imagined in all sorts of ways. Basically, movies are not to be examined as one would a diamond. A movie can be more than one thing.
Roger Ebert spent his career as a film critic observing and picking apart cinema, explaining why and how, from his point of view, what kind of thing or things a particular movie was. His body of work was elegant, evocative and accessible, enlightening many a reader. This I knew. What I didn't know was that Roger was initially assigned to be a film critic. Fate?
In Life Itself, the documentary on Ebert's life and times (which premiered at Sundance just prior to the writing of this review), we learn that the most well known film critic in America is, like the movies he loves and hates, more than just one thing. It's silly thinking such a thing; that it's a surprise to discover a famous person was about more than what we knew them for. That they are people after all. Why keep that wall up between reality and fiction? In between a few hospital stays near the end of his life, the movie unfolds almost from Roger's mind, as if during rehab and doctor visits, he is going over memories painstakingly, to try and make sense of it all. Much like in a film about a biographer visiting their elderly subject. Almost beat for beat, it follows this pattern. To not only have a biopic made ABOUT you, but to also STAR as you, I can only imagine ONE question you might ask yourself; was it a life WORTH TELLING?
We get the fullest scope of the man as possible. From being a barfly to being a grandfather, from losing the ability to speak to strengthening the ability to communicate. Two moments showcased gave, for me, the clearest picture of all.
In the first one, we are witness to an extended reel of footage. It's of Roger and Gene Siskel, recording promos for their groundbreaking television show. In it, they spew more passive aggressiveness and verbally claw into one another more than I thought was possible. Throughout their partnership, Gene would often push Roger's buttons. There indeed was truth to their on screen dual persona of opposites. On TV, they'd argue back and forth on a movie's merits, and would continue debating once the cameras stopped. To order lunch, a coin toss would have to be conducted.
In the second moment, it's another extended reel of footage of the two men recording TV promos. This time, they are joyfully playing with one another, throwing good natured barbs back and forth, and sharing many a smile. At the end, something unexpected happened - it's revealed to be part of the same antagonistic promo shoot. In what was probably considered just mundane b roll to the television crew, Roger's personality and humanity are exposed. I get the strong sense of learning and growth from his relationship with Gene, one that I and many others can relate to. Like Roger, I've treated people both unfairly and friendly, and wished to have done things better. 20/20 perspective never comes during, but after. Damn.
I just read that Chaz Ebert, Roger's wife, spoke after the Sundance premiere. She said that he would often say a good movie leaves an audience member as a much truer person. I agree absolutely with that. The advice on using the word "flaw" when reviewing a movie still stands, and really can be applied to, well, life itself. Hopefully, I'll learn exactly how to apply that one day. It's true.
5/5 *s
If you enjoyed this review, as well as my others on this blog and across the internet, please visit patreon.com/criticalno and consider supporting my work.
"James Cameron's film is not perfect. It has some flaws, but I hate the way film critics employ that word "flaw," as if they are jewelers with loupes screwed into their eye sockets, performing a valuation."
a movie. In college, a good friend of mine would often ask me to define what art is, and if it can be confined to just a few mediums. The answer lies in the mind of the beholder - anything can be considered art, from brick laying to murder (my college friend suggested that last one). To expand further, an art form should not and cannot be confined to a strict standard. Sure, there are basics in storytelling and expression through film, but they can be creatively manipulated and re-imagined in all sorts of ways. Basically, movies are not to be examined as one would a diamond. A movie can be more than one thing.
Roger Ebert spent his career as a film critic observing and picking apart cinema, explaining why and how, from his point of view, what kind of thing or things a particular movie was. His body of work was elegant, evocative and accessible, enlightening many a reader. This I knew. What I didn't know was that Roger was initially assigned to be a film critic. Fate?
In Life Itself, the documentary on Ebert's life and times (which premiered at Sundance just prior to the writing of this review), we learn that the most well known film critic in America is, like the movies he loves and hates, more than just one thing. It's silly thinking such a thing; that it's a surprise to discover a famous person was about more than what we knew them for. That they are people after all. Why keep that wall up between reality and fiction? In between a few hospital stays near the end of his life, the movie unfolds almost from Roger's mind, as if during rehab and doctor visits, he is going over memories painstakingly, to try and make sense of it all. Much like in a film about a biographer visiting their elderly subject. Almost beat for beat, it follows this pattern. To not only have a biopic made ABOUT you, but to also STAR as you, I can only imagine ONE question you might ask yourself; was it a life WORTH TELLING?
We get the fullest scope of the man as possible. From being a barfly to being a grandfather, from losing the ability to speak to strengthening the ability to communicate. Two moments showcased gave, for me, the clearest picture of all.
In the first one, we are witness to an extended reel of footage. It's of Roger and Gene Siskel, recording promos for their groundbreaking television show. In it, they spew more passive aggressiveness and verbally claw into one another more than I thought was possible. Throughout their partnership, Gene would often push Roger's buttons. There indeed was truth to their on screen dual persona of opposites. On TV, they'd argue back and forth on a movie's merits, and would continue debating once the cameras stopped. To order lunch, a coin toss would have to be conducted.
In the second moment, it's another extended reel of footage of the two men recording TV promos. This time, they are joyfully playing with one another, throwing good natured barbs back and forth, and sharing many a smile. At the end, something unexpected happened - it's revealed to be part of the same antagonistic promo shoot. In what was probably considered just mundane b roll to the television crew, Roger's personality and humanity are exposed. I get the strong sense of learning and growth from his relationship with Gene, one that I and many others can relate to. Like Roger, I've treated people both unfairly and friendly, and wished to have done things better. 20/20 perspective never comes during, but after. Damn.
I just read that Chaz Ebert, Roger's wife, spoke after the Sundance premiere. She said that he would often say a good movie leaves an audience member as a much truer person. I agree absolutely with that. The advice on using the word "flaw" when reviewing a movie still stands, and really can be applied to, well, life itself. Hopefully, I'll learn exactly how to apply that one day. It's true.
5/5 *s
If you enjoyed this review, as well as my others on this blog and across the internet, please visit patreon.com/criticalno and consider supporting my work.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Review: "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit"
There is much I can (and have already) said about America's post 9/11 attitude towards global politics. Despite term limits and all, Dick Cheney's empirical plan for perpetual war appears to still be in effect, and worst of all, wholeheartedly believed in and endorsed by a populace frightened over another attack. Through all of the preemptive bravado and violent rhetoric (and bombs), there was a sliver of time when fighting felt, gasp, like the right thing to do.
In Hollywood's latest prequel/continuation/reboot/re imagining, this gung ho spirit is infectiously presented and executed.
Jack Ryan - portrayed previously by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck, now Chris Pine - was one of many young men and women to witness the 9/11 attacks, and decide to enlist as soon as possible. Some time later, he is injured in combat, and sent to rehab. His feelings toward this hospital stint are painted on his body; he was told to rehab, but all he heard was he'd be unable to serve his country. Every painful walking attempt is filled with defeat and anger.
At the right moment, CIA official Kevin Costner offers him a new way to help... as a covert analyst. I don't recall the details of Ryan's job in previous adaptations, but in this contemporary setting, being "covert" says so much. He's told not to tell anyone of his position, which places him as a data decoder (or analyst) in a financial firm, but what does it matter? Couldn't he work for a contracted think tank, or in an actual agency facility? Why play this game? Are we doing it for defense, or self fulfilling purpose?
Just brush these questions and concerns away, as the movie doesn't care, and may even be an unaware victim of this psychological syndrome.
For example: Jack uncovers a terrorist plot that he is 100% sure of (and correct about) by having read a series of transaction data. Normally, this information would just be pondered over as some kind of business world conspiracy, and lead to something bigger. Instead, it's taken by Jack's boss as spot on. Is it sweet or sickening witnessing such naivety? Even our villain, Russian Kenneth Branagh, has his intellect hijacked by an unquestioning and idealistically loyal sense of nationalism.
A deeper statement about the state of the War on Terror, by showing how blindfolded all the players are, would've been a brilliant turn. But that's not what is happening. What we have is the origin story of a clean cut American, almost boy scout even, who uncovers information and foils plans with effortless efficiency and wide eyed pride, in a scenario with no double crosses, trickery or ulterior motives. Maybe Branagh (who directed this) thought he was making another Marvel film - this time, Captain America.
It's this flag saluting spirit and appealing idealism that saves this otherwise generic and awfully simple film from being another January throwaway. In fact, it might be a perfect example of the "shut your brain off and enjoy" movie. This approach also describes how best to view current global politics - if you want to live stress and care free, that is. For your family, your community and your country.
3/5 *s
If you enjoyed this review (and/or the previous ones, as well as podcasts), consider supporting my work on Patreon.com/neauxreelidea.
In Hollywood's latest prequel/continuation/reboot/re imagining, this gung ho spirit is infectiously presented and executed.
Jack Ryan - portrayed previously by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck, now Chris Pine - was one of many young men and women to witness the 9/11 attacks, and decide to enlist as soon as possible. Some time later, he is injured in combat, and sent to rehab. His feelings toward this hospital stint are painted on his body; he was told to rehab, but all he heard was he'd be unable to serve his country. Every painful walking attempt is filled with defeat and anger.
At the right moment, CIA official Kevin Costner offers him a new way to help... as a covert analyst. I don't recall the details of Ryan's job in previous adaptations, but in this contemporary setting, being "covert" says so much. He's told not to tell anyone of his position, which places him as a data decoder (or analyst) in a financial firm, but what does it matter? Couldn't he work for a contracted think tank, or in an actual agency facility? Why play this game? Are we doing it for defense, or self fulfilling purpose?
Just brush these questions and concerns away, as the movie doesn't care, and may even be an unaware victim of this psychological syndrome.
A deeper statement about the state of the War on Terror, by showing how blindfolded all the players are, would've been a brilliant turn. But that's not what is happening. What we have is the origin story of a clean cut American, almost boy scout even, who uncovers information and foils plans with effortless efficiency and wide eyed pride, in a scenario with no double crosses, trickery or ulterior motives. Maybe Branagh (who directed this) thought he was making another Marvel film - this time, Captain America.
It's this flag saluting spirit and appealing idealism that saves this otherwise generic and awfully simple film from being another January throwaway. In fact, it might be a perfect example of the "shut your brain off and enjoy" movie. This approach also describes how best to view current global politics - if you want to live stress and care free, that is. For your family, your community and your country.
3/5 *s
If you enjoyed this review (and/or the previous ones, as well as podcasts), consider supporting my work on Patreon.com/neauxreelidea.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Hit & Miss Review: "Pacific Rim" and "R.I.P.D."
This past month has seen some high profile movies do very poorly at the box office. Lack of interest from the audience, poor marketing and horrible word of mouth aside, I feel the urge to discuss two of them - one that deserved to be shunned and one that didn't. If either or both are still playing at a theater near you, hopefully my quick words will sway you in the right direction:
The Hit
Considering the success of the (ugh) Transformers series, I'm honestly shocked at the reception for Guillermo del Toro's latest. The premise of giant alien monsters being fought by human piloted giant robots is one that we've all probably thought up, most likely during our childhoods. I can remember playing out epic scale fantasies in my room, even imagining camera angles and special effects. Yes, other kids were going on their first dates while people like me and Mr. del Toro were thinking up monster battles.
And when a movie like Pacific Rim finally comes along? You go see Grown Ups 2. Shame.
On the wikipedia page for the movie, it's mentioned that del Toro wanted to capture the same sense of awe that Goya's The Colossus instills. The painting is absolutely breathtaking, and when the fights do happen between the bots and monsters, I get chills.
The huge creatures and machines, contrasted against building and people, put me in the same kind of anxiety I get when driving next to a skyscraper. When fighting, we get a sense of weight and depth - real world rules applied to insane scenarios. People and cities are in genuine peril, creating genuine heroes out of the pilots and crewmen. Unlike in some recent superhero films, there is no time for brooding emotions or doubt; you must get the job done, or people will die. Simple and to the point.
Pacific Rim is a fresh reminder of all the fun that cinema can and should be. It's story is simple, it's effects are complex and it's mission to entertain is 100% fulfilled. Well, for those that saw it, anyways. If it doesn't have Adam Sandler in it, why bother, right? Pfft.
5/5 *s
The Miss
Considering the success of the Men in Black series, I'm not surprised that Hollywood took a chance on a movie about afterlife cops. I AM surprised, however, that lead actor Ryan Reynolds was also an executive producer of this film, putting on him a level of responsibility for the final product, with emphasis on product.
With a story about a dead cop getting recruited for an organization of deceased policemen called the Rest In Peace Department - who arrest and erase non compliant souls called "dead-os" - R.I.P.D. should've been a fun mix of Beetlejuice and the Will Smith / Tommy Lee Jones buddy cop alien movies mentioned above. Instead, and perhaps not surprisingly, it's just a mess. A mess that asks for a 3D surcharge.
Lame jokes at inappropriate times, twists that felt obvious and unnecessary, a most formulaic formula and an "I could care less" atmosphere, the movie screams like an assembly line production. The powers that be took the source material, watched a MIB II (I'm guessing), and said "Let's mesh them together! Money!" They got a noname director (sorry) who wouldn't ruffle any feathers, demanded that this be a "movie for everyone" and wrote a check.
Poor Ryan Reynolds; he pulled another Green Lantern. Just let him do a Deadpool film already.
The film ends with Mary Louise Parker putting the end of Jeff Bridges' beard in her mouth and biting it. It
was the last visual I caught before feeling the dry heaves. Earlier today, I debated buying American cheese product, but I won't debate rewatching THIS product. The answer will be a no.
1/5 *s
The Hit
Considering the success of the (ugh) Transformers series, I'm honestly shocked at the reception for Guillermo del Toro's latest. The premise of giant alien monsters being fought by human piloted giant robots is one that we've all probably thought up, most likely during our childhoods. I can remember playing out epic scale fantasies in my room, even imagining camera angles and special effects. Yes, other kids were going on their first dates while people like me and Mr. del Toro were thinking up monster battles.And when a movie like Pacific Rim finally comes along? You go see Grown Ups 2. Shame.
On the wikipedia page for the movie, it's mentioned that del Toro wanted to capture the same sense of awe that Goya's The Colossus instills. The painting is absolutely breathtaking, and when the fights do happen between the bots and monsters, I get chills.
The huge creatures and machines, contrasted against building and people, put me in the same kind of anxiety I get when driving next to a skyscraper. When fighting, we get a sense of weight and depth - real world rules applied to insane scenarios. People and cities are in genuine peril, creating genuine heroes out of the pilots and crewmen. Unlike in some recent superhero films, there is no time for brooding emotions or doubt; you must get the job done, or people will die. Simple and to the point.
Pacific Rim is a fresh reminder of all the fun that cinema can and should be. It's story is simple, it's effects are complex and it's mission to entertain is 100% fulfilled. Well, for those that saw it, anyways. If it doesn't have Adam Sandler in it, why bother, right? Pfft.
5/5 *s
The Miss
Considering the success of the Men in Black series, I'm not surprised that Hollywood took a chance on a movie about afterlife cops. I AM surprised, however, that lead actor Ryan Reynolds was also an executive producer of this film, putting on him a level of responsibility for the final product, with emphasis on product.
With a story about a dead cop getting recruited for an organization of deceased policemen called the Rest In Peace Department - who arrest and erase non compliant souls called "dead-os" - R.I.P.D. should've been a fun mix of Beetlejuice and the Will Smith / Tommy Lee Jones buddy cop alien movies mentioned above. Instead, and perhaps not surprisingly, it's just a mess. A mess that asks for a 3D surcharge.Lame jokes at inappropriate times, twists that felt obvious and unnecessary, a most formulaic formula and an "I could care less" atmosphere, the movie screams like an assembly line production. The powers that be took the source material, watched a MIB II (I'm guessing), and said "Let's mesh them together! Money!" They got a noname director (sorry) who wouldn't ruffle any feathers, demanded that this be a "movie for everyone" and wrote a check.
Poor Ryan Reynolds; he pulled another Green Lantern. Just let him do a Deadpool film already.
The film ends with Mary Louise Parker putting the end of Jeff Bridges' beard in her mouth and biting it. It was the last visual I caught before feeling the dry heaves. Earlier today, I debated buying American cheese product, but I won't debate rewatching THIS product. The answer will be a no.
1/5 *s
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)