(Almost) Review: "The Hangover Part III"

Have you ever just given up on a movie? I know you have. One time, I popped a DVD of Anchorman into my player for family night, and turned it off about 20 minutes in. It was a chore to watch what we watched. Now, that particular movie aged well, as I gave it a second shot some years later and loved it. Typically, however, once I've made the decision to turn off or walk out, that's it. The movie has lost me forever.

I can stick through just about anything. Heck, Orson Welles' The Trial - unwatchable for some of my friends - is a personal favorite of mine. But it was only a few months ago that I first walked out of a theater midway through a screening, completely bored. It was Taken 2. What could've been a fun Liam Neeson-sploitation flick was just a joyless affair, churned out with the sole purpose of making money based on the success of the previous film. I went to the bathroom after the first half hour, and never returned.

It's sad, because even money hungry sequels are capable of delivering something entertaining. Take Ghostbusters 2: not needed whatsoever, but did a fine job of continuing the story and gave audiences something to come back for. The cast/crew weren't phoning it in and the filmmaker wasn't filled with contempt for his fans. It was a fun movie that I would pay to see, even now.

I wouldn't even scoff at a discounted DVD of The Hangover Part III. It really isn't worth any attention whatsoever.

Honestly, I was surprised that I gave up on this threequel. I haven't seen the other two, but based on director Todd Phillips' previous work, as well as the three leads, I was expecting something at least mildly funny. Breaking from the formula of the previous two, Part III finds the wolfpack in a most dire spot. On a road trip to bring Allen to a mental hospital, they get stopped by a ruthless gangster. He wants them to find their old party acquaintance Mr. Chow and bring him in. Wackiness ensues. The end.

Well, it was the end for me, anyways. One hour was more than enough. In that time, I witnessed Ken Jeong pretending to be a dog, Zach Galifianakis saying silly things and everyone else just trying to get this over with. I felt sorry for them. I bet they wanted to escape, like in The Purple Rose of Cairo. 

It's hard to explain exactly what is wrong with this film except to say that it is NOT FUNNY. And, for a comedy to not be funny, that is unforgivable. But, why is it not funny? And, isn't that subjective anyways? Yes, what makes me laugh won't necessarily make you laugh. However, some things are universal. The rhythm and flow, the atmosphere and tone, acting and demeanor - it all speaks louder than a sight gag. Taking all of that into account, Part III is a depressing cash grab that should've been relegated to a fake trailer. 

I provided an image of a promotional poster for the movie. It features a Giraffe. Why? Well, in the trailer, Allen buys a Giraffe, and accidentally knocks its head clean off while driving. It appears at the beginning of the movie only. Now, I'm willing to bet that the writers whipped the script up as quickly as possible, and the marketing team stretched what little they had into an advertising strategy. This represents what the movie is: A poorly conceived and executed ad campaign for itself. 

From what I understand, the first movie was lighthearted, but the second film was pretty dark. It was also the same story, essentially. Did Todd Phillips pull a prank on all of us? He made two sequels to an unexpected success that were dark, uncomfortable and sad. Despite this, they are making money based on bad "jokes" and name recognition alone. And, of course, he'll be given more money to produce something else. Is Todd doing something extremely meta by intentionally making the same movie (Part II) and smearing poo on walls and calling it funny (Part III)? His documentary Hated in the Nation was about infamous punk rocker and performance artist GG Allin (google him) - perhaps these sequels are something like an art piece.

Or, maybe a studio handed him a check, and he said "Whatevs". I can respect that attitude towards making a story and presenting it to an audience, until I have to watch it, of course. Then, it's up to me if I want to make a discreet exit. Respect that choice, please Hollywood. After all, you still have my money. And, you haven't lost me forever. Yet.

@NOFS Review: "Upstream Color"

It feels a little awkward to compare a one of a kind film to anything else. Somehow, by putting it side by side with a similar movie - maybe one that is highly regarded - you are putting your knowledge of cinema and ability to express that knowledge on the line. An argument can be made about almost anything, but can you be convincing? Basically, you’ll either be thought of in a scholarly manner, or looked at as a weirdo from Room 237.

With that, I will now make the following case: Upstream Color is the successor to Inland Empire.

This is difficult for me, as David Lynch’s Inland Empire is one of my all time favorite films. On the surface, it is a 3 hour trial of confounding and crazy scenes; beneath all of that, it is an “Alice in Wonderland” meets Sunset Boulevard style odyssey. Lynch started his career by taking 5 years to shoot a black and white film, and may have concluded it by taking several years to shoot with Sony PD150’s. Everything has come full circle.

Along with coming full circle is the end. And, with every end comes a new beginning. Shane Carruth’s sophomore feature Upstream Color might not be as long as Lynch’s digital opus, but it’s a bit more absorbing. Oh, and just as confusing.

The tagline “A woman in trouble” was used to promote Empire, but the same could be said of Color. A young woman is drugged with a parasite, and hypnotized into giving all of her money to a thief. Coming out of her stupor, she forms a relationship with a man that may have also been infected. At the same time, a farmer who makes noize albums puts these extracted parasites into pigs, and observes the memories of former victims. The woman finds that her thoughts and feelings are shared somehow, and looks to solve this mystery.

The female leads in this and Empire share some things in common: both are in the movie industry, both get brainwashed, both experience the emotions of others and both confront their respective villains with a gun. The journey in Color might not be like at the end of a certain rabbit hole, but the stars do go through an Alice type adventure.

Everything is meticulously shot and designed, and executed in a very free flowing manner; scenes that don’t appear to make sense at first, feel as if they must soon afterwards because of the construction. There is a wonderful sequence where the farmer cuts from walking amongst pigs to walking around a married couple. The husband is cold to his wife, and the farmer sees the man’s regret when the wife becomes ill. All without leaving the farm. This is more than just a Body Snatchersadaptation, folks.

I think that Inland Empire was more than an expression of wacky ideas - it was a challenge for someone to one up it. An open invitation to grab the torch, if you will. It took some years, but Upstream Color did it. Where Empire was a horror showing a traditional hero tale, Color is a sci fi that depicts connections between people, environments and emotions. Both are similar in their creative obtuseness, but only Color can be said to have loftier goals. Success has been achieved.

Don’t be afraid to put yourself out there with movie discussions, but do be careful and elaborate as much as possible. Now, I pass this next case onto you: Shane Carruth is the successor to David Lynch.

5/5 *s

The New Orleans Film Society will be presenting Upstream Color from May 19th - 21st at Chalmette Movies. Click here for more information.

@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: "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

Review: "Cleanflix"

There is a great website with a great community of video editors called FanEdit.org. They encourage the re-imagining, re-organizing and re-editing of popular movies and TV shows - like, for example, a Grindhouse style version of "Star Wars".

To avoid any legal troubles, the site makes it clear that edits using sources not legally obtained will not be allowed. Of course, they mean torrents and bootlegs, but even software that rips video off of DVD's can be attacked. If I pay $20 for a Julia Roberts film, I should be able to remove her from it, right?

We own it, so why can't we change it?

Hollywood and major music labels are so far behind the times. As proof, all you have to do is watch "Cleanflix". In this documentary, we witness the rise and fall of video stores in Utah (and a few other states) that offered rentals for movies that have been edited for family viewing. If you wanted to see "Titanic" minus Kate Winslets' nude body, they had a copy.

I remember reading about Ted Turner wanting to colorize "King Kong", and I'm very familiar with George Lucas constantly changing "Star Wars" while holding back the theatrical versions. There is a difference between those actions and the ones in "Cleanflix". It's called demand. People actually wanted slightly censored versions of popular movies, and they were willing to pay money for them. They weren't owners of those properties like Turner and Lucas, meaning that the original films with their original intent would remain intact for other people to view.

The customers just wanted another option, is all. It's interesting how this battle could be boiled down to self censoring repressive customers vs. oppressive rights holders and artists. Which side does one take, huh? The store owners just wanted to sell a product. No ideological agenda necessary for them, just the joy of providing a service and giving people movies (even if watered down). The legal challenges from California and the religious beliefs of the local community would take such a toll on this niche market that chain stores would close and owners would struggle and crumble under the pressure of it all. That such drama could come from video rentals is amazing.

Now, most stores have been replaced by kiosks and on demand services. It's funny watching someone outside of a grocery, trying to rent a movie while blocking out the glare from the sun to see the screen. Digital downloads are more my thing, but some come encoded to avoid "piracy". What if I wanted to make an amusing youtube clip? To those that break on through and make re-purposed videos, I salute you.

4/5 *s

Review: "Southland Tales"

[The original script] was more about making fun of Hollywood. But now it's about, I hope, creating a piece of science fiction that's about a really important problem we're facing, about civil liberties and homeland security and needing to sustain both those things and balance them.

a tapestry of ideas all related to some of the biggest issues that I think we're facing right now . . . alternative fuel or the increasing obsession with celebrity and how celebrity now intertwines with politics.

[Southland Tales] will only be a musical in a post-modern sense of the word in that it is a hybrid of several genres. There will be some dancing and singing, but it will be incorporated into the story in very logical scenarios as well as fantasy dream environments.

                                                                                               - Richard Kelly

The director of "Donnie Darko" certainly can't be called someone with a lack of vision. But, what exactly are his eyes trained on? And, is he seeing the world through a kaleidoscope?

Southland Tales (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When I first read the synopsis for "Southland Tales", I got really excited with what could've potentially been the best comedy since "Dr. Strangelove". Basically, the epicenter of the end of days is Hollywood and our hero is an amnesiac action star trying to get a screenplay that he co wrote with a porn star made. This could've been SO much fun.

Instead, what I (and the studio) got was the equivalent of witnessing a first year film student burning money in a trashcan for over 2 hours.

I should note that even though I own this movie on DVD, I am not re watching it for this review. Instead, I'll be going on memory - sad, frustrated, disappointed memory:

A few years after a nuclear attack on Texas, the U.S. has become a full blown police state, keeping it's citizens under constant surveillance. Yet, this invasion of privacy is unable to track the most famous movie star in the world (who walks around in broad daylight), who has been shacked up with a porn star, who has ties with an underground organization bent on overthrowing the government, who also has vague ties with a mad scientist that has created a new energy, which may also be responsible for a rip in the fabric of space time, which threatens to...

...convolute everything. Man, was it hard to sit through this. Kelly crafted such an awesome story in "Donnie Darko", I thought he could pull it off in his second time out. That film - though with a smaller budget - similarly dealt with very unique personalities part of a larger story. Both stories are about mysterious situations and how the characters weave in and out of them. But, where DD succeeded, ST failed miserably. It lacked a certain focus, and seemed to confuse ambiguity with brilliance.

You know the phrase "your eyes are bigger than your stomach" in reference to a kid who can't finish his meal? That sums up this production. The ambitions are grand - taking on such political and even religious themes - but it's handled as if it'll just work itself out in the end. With a budget under $20 million and some higher profile stars to deal with, I suspect that Kelly was too busy carrying everything on his shoulders, that he let some important things fall to the wayside. What a shame.

This is the only explanation that makes sense to me. His feature after this one was "The Box", which was pretty entertaining and weird. And "Domino" - which he only wrote - was constructed very well despite it's big story. So, Kelly is certainly capable of excellent work, he just was in over his head a bit.

I've read in interviews that he's quite proud of "Southland Tales". No, for real. Hopefully, it's because he learned something from the experience. If not, then he's just lying to us and himself.

This review was requested by a friend on my blog's facebook page (look to the right of this page). If you have anything you'd like me to watch and criticize, feel free to suggest something. And if Richard Kelly happens to be reading this, please take no offense - I honestly can't wait for your next movie.

1/5 *'s

Napoleonic Optimism

I forget exactly how I first came across Abel Gance's "Napoleon", but I do remember how I fell in love with it; by reading Kevin Brownlow's book. He chronicles the pre production, production and exhibition of, in my opinion, one of the greatest cinematic achievements ever - an opinion I formed from the book alone! The innovation in the project alone is breathtaking.

Thought lost for decades, Mr. Browlow slowly and painstakingly put together as close of a restoration as possible (now clocking in at almost 6 hours!) - a restoration that was screened just a week or so ago in this country. Being unable to attend - even suggesting to the promoters that the screening be streamed online - I started, as I had when I first finished the book, dreaming about an appropriate home video release.

And for that matter, why isn't Abel Gance's epic "Napoleon" on Criterion? http://j.mp/dpmzad
— Roger Ebert (@ebertchicago) May 27, 2010

Some years ago, it was almost impossible to think that a Criterion DVD of "Napoleon" would be released, considering the legal trouble between Francis Ford Coppola - who assisted with a version in the early 80's - and Brownlow over their respective cuts. But, considering the recent screening event being green lit by both parties, I think we may be closer than ever to watching a complete set of the film at home. Consider also the following from an interview with Brownlow on in70mm.com:

ML: In other words, there has been a rapprochement between all parties. 

KB: Yes, well the idea is that the Coppola version will be upgraded with our material and eventually we hope that our version will be on DVD. 

ML: On Bluray ?

KB: Yes.
ML: Hopefully this will be with the Carl Davies score. Has there been a compromise with the Carmine Coppola score?

KB: No! That will always be on their version.

ML: But they have given permission to release both versions?

KB: I think that the idea is that both versions will be available but, God, it is taking a long time.

And this little nugget from a NYTimes article:

"Mr. Harris agreed with the characterization of the festival screenings as a kind of a test run for the digital restoration, which suggests that he and Zoetrope (Coppola) have plans for future exploitation, including, maybe, a DVD and Blu-ray."

Sure, I've read a few articles where Brownlow suggests - and flat out says - that no DVD release is planned, but I refuse to accept that as the final answer. I think that the ultimate goal here ought to be in bringing the film to the attention of as many movie lovers as possible. If money is an issue, would a kickstarter like campaign be too naive?

I'm not trying to suggest that viewing the film - especially the grand triptych finale - on a TV would be the same as seeing it in a theater with a live orchestral performance; because it's not. And I understand that there is still some footage that has yet to be recovered. But, if "Metropolis" - a film that equally deserves theatrical presentation and also has some footage missing - can get a home video release and thus be enjoyed by just about anybody...

Will a Blu Ray/DVD release of "Napoleon" ever happen? I'd like to think so.

No Such Thing As Too Many Critics

Image via Wikipedia

Ever since I realized that watching movies could be a career, I've wanted to be a professional film critic. Sure, I had other ideas for jobs growing up - actor, teacher, pro wrestling writer, filmmaker, videographer, editor and Superman - but film critic was always at the top.

In 6th grade, I entered a "Wag the Dog" review into a student writing contest. In 7th grade, my class wrote essays on our best friends. Everybody else chose a person, while I chose cinema itself. Every summer, I'd visit my cousins and when we'd watch movies, they would call me Siskel. And now, I have my own blog and rate movies by the beer through MovieBoozer. I think I can say that I've reached amateur status, but...

"How do you get a full-time job doing this? Damned if I know!" - Dan Kimmel

In order to become the professional critic I know I can be, I need to get paid for my opinions. In order to get paid for my opinions, I need to get hired. And in the current economic climate, no move to get hired is too bold.

To any publishers and editors that may be reading this, I offer not only my thanks, but a list of things I can do for you as a critic:

1. Review movies.

Of course, as a critic, my primary function would be to rate films. But, it's one thing to simply add a star rating to the latest Katherine Heigl snore fest, it's another to properly articulate why it should be avoided. With keen eyes and ears for detail, I notice things - tone, awkward dialogue and line reads, camera work, production news, etc - that will help any reader make a decision regarding a ticket purchase. And, with a little personality, I can make sure they will return to read another review. 

2. Local and National movie events.

Through social networking, independent theatres and film organizations are able to promote special events and screenings. I can preview such events, as well as cover them. Twitter, for example, has provided critic's the opportunity to cover film festivals and screenings live for readers who may not be able to attend. Using a laptop or smartphone, I can cover an event as it's happening. If the event is a televised awards show (Academy Awards, Golden Globes), I can provide up to the minute commentary, and converse with other readers.

3. Editorials.

I've written entries on special topics, from proposing a film screening to offering my take on a movie news story. As a critic, I can write pieces expressing my views on a local film production, how a news story might affect readers, DVD / movie streaming picks and even do recurring articles on movie history in a particular area. There is an unlimited amount of specialty content that I can provide.

4. Interviews.

Through many a google search, I've been able to contact several independent filmmakers, in an effort to track down their hard to find films. I can continue to do this, as well as ask some questions that would give readers some insight into the filmmaking process.

If interested, please read my other posts on this blog, as well as my writings on MovieBoozer and Invade Nola.

Some people wanted to be astronauts, while I wanted to discuss "Apollo 18". Others wanted to own a dalmatian, while I wanted to rip apart the "101 Dalmatians" sequel. We critics are a rare breed.

MovieBoozer Redux: "In Time"

Sometimes, after completing a writing assignment, my thoughts on the subject continue. I recently posted a review for "In Time" on MovieBoozer , and while I'm happy with it, I feel like commenting a little more. Below is the original review, with some additions/changes:

Several weeks in, Occupy Wall Street is only getting stronger. The populist movement has taken hold of a country that has seen too much corruption, and not enough justice. Hollywood, always there to capitalize, has provided some escapist relief for the disenchanted. But does it matter if the relief provided has the subtlety of a hammer over the head?

“In Time” is set in either an alternate universe or a distant future, where science has found a way to shut off the aging gene once a person reaches 25. After that, a permanent clock on your arm is set, giving you one year left to live. If you want to live longer you must add more time - now the global currency - to your clock. Of course, with a free market in a world like that, not everyone can be immortal.

Our story follows Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who, after an encounter with a suicidal man, is given over a century of time. This, coupled with the death of his mother, the hooking up with an attractive heiress (Amanda Seyfried), and a pursuit by a relentless TimeKeeper (a cop, Cillian Murphy), starts Will off on a mission to upset a corrupt system that favors the few and exploits the many.

A Toast

The creative allegory of a society where time is literally money, where the rich are immortal and the poor live literally day to day, is not only strong, but fairly easy to grasp. Any American living paycheck to paycheck can immediately relate to this, and will definitely root for the Will Salas' forced wealth redistribution. And any help in getting the message out about income inequality and a corrupt financial system is only a good thing. 

Beer Two

I was ecstatic when I read that Andrew Niccol was going to write and direct this. His previous films Gattaca (Special Edition) and Lord of War both dealt with major issues without being too on the nose about it. For example, in the beginning of "Lord of War", we see Nicolas Cage, in a suit, standing amongst millions of bullets, wondering how He can sell more guns. On the nose, yes. But the rest of the movie deals more with his character than with the issue of international gun running.

With “In Time”, however, Andrew Niccol seems to have lost his touch. In almost every scene, characters talk about how it sucks that too many are left without while too few have all the power. No internal character study/conflict in the midst of the corruption, just Bonnie & Clyde/robin Hood style action against said corruption. And puns. There are LOTS of time puns.

Beer Three

Will and his girlfriend are on the run from a TimeKeeper, whose mission is to arrest them and restore order to this unfair system. In a few scenes, He makes reference to knowing Will's father. An interesting development could come from this; is there a secret about Will's father that might give more insight into his own character/struggle? Something that might give the movie more substance? Nope. Will's father is only briefly mentioned, and never brought up again.

Beer Four

At one point, Will breaks into a time bank by crashing a truck into it. Afterwards, during an investigation of the event, a TimeKeeper quips “They must’ve thought it was a drive thru”. Hardy har har.

Verdict

The accuracy of the films message doesn’t make up for the poor way it's expressed. This is unfortunate, especially coming from Andrew Niccol. Maybe the studio wanted a dumbed down action flick and were hoping the public wouldn't care? In the end, we at least get to see a regular Joe take down fat cats with force. Maybe that's all the public needs right now? That and major political reform, of course.  

Bonus Drinking Game

Take a Drink: For every pun about time (recommended).

Take a Drink: Whenever you wish for more subtlety.  

Take a Swig: If you were as disappointed as I was.

Review: "The Last Lullaby"

The following entry is cross posted from InvadeNola:

Ever find yourself digging through the discount DVD bin at Wal Mart in the middle of the night? You’re not really looking to buy something, and you’re really not looking for anything in particular – you’re just trying to fill the time. For some, a wide eyed walk around the local store is all that’s needed to burn that last bit of energy. For others…

The Last Lullaby is a story lead by two such people; two restless souls, troubled by sleepless nights and haunted pasts. When their paths inevitably cross, they will have to work together, not only to resolve their more immediate problem, but to ultimately get a good night’s sleep.

We are first introduced to our male lead, a nameless ex hitman who goes by whatever alias He can think of. Played by Tom Sizemore, Jack (his primary alias) lives a fairly comfortable life, but does so uncomfortably. Weathered and restless, Jack visits a convenience store where, by chance, He overhears a kidnapping plot. Out of sheer boredom, He rescues a woman, only to demand a ransom for her safe return. While He handles this situation with the expertise you’d expect, He seems to be going through the motions; punching a thug in the face is just like going to the store or watching Nick at Nite for this guy.

Months later, He is contacted by the woman’s father to perform a job; to eliminate a witness. He hesitantly accepts, and proceeds to go about his former routine. This is where He meets (well, observes) his target Sarah, played by Sasha Alexander. Probably breaking a golden rule, Jack makes his presence known to her, only to end up striking an immediate relationship.

Just as restless as Jack, Sarah also has an equally troubled past. Having witnessed the murder of her mother at a young age (the incident that has now made her a target), Sarah has been unable to sleep, or live, easy for years. Travelling from town to town, and picking up calm nerving habits like swimming or gun shooting, She has been unable to forget, and unable to, well, move on. In this way, she is Jack’s kindred spirit. Both need to drop their past, but have been unable to do so alone. Together, they will try again. Jack will protect Sarah from and eliminate for her the men who seek her silence, and Sarah will try to fill the void Jack has lived with for so long.

I first saw this movie a few years ago at the Prytania Theatre during the New Orleans Film Festival. It impressed me then, and impresses me now. For starters, the film has a very nice mood to it. Despite the loud gunshots and occasional blood, I found things to be relatively calm (exactly what Jack and Sarah are wanting). From the musical score, to the lighting/color scheme, to the use of quiet environments like small towns, swimming pools and empty roads, the film just has an all around soothing tone.

The casting/acting of Tom Sizemore is equally noteworthy. Seen mostly in direct to dvd titles in the last decade (including a short stint in self made porn), as well as being in and out of trouble with the law, Tom’s performance is a sort of reflection of his real life. Similar to Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler” and “Kill Shot”, the role of Jack – a weathered, lonely, tired yet sleepless assassin – was meant for an actor that not only looks like He’s lived a rough life, but has the experiences/memories to back it up. The way He walks, the way He talks, and the way He stares at you all tell a story on their own. Letting Tom play Jack is like giving a baseball to Nolan Ryan – Tom nailed it.

Filmed in Shreveport by hometown filmmaker Jeffrey Goodman, “The Last Lullaby” ought to be added to your Netflix queue as soon as possible. With a movie as surprisingly good as this, you have every reason to stay in bed. No need making that 2AM trip to Walgreens, as you can always buy an extra gallon of milk later. 

4/5 *'s

Contributions Part 1

Along with this blog, I've also been contributing articles for Invade Nola. Below are previews of those articles:

3 Underrated Movies You Could Be Watching On Netflix

If the recent announcement of increased fees for Netflix users wanting both DVD and streaming services hasn’t pushed you into a boycott, chances are you’re a major movie nerd. As a fellow movie nerd, I enjoy giving people viewing recommendations, and appreciate some being given to me (as long as the words Michael Bay aren’t involved, of course). Recently, I watched three films that, in one way or another, could be considered “underrated”, and I would consider “entertaining”. So, if you are looking for something to watch that may be outside of your comfort zone, I have a few recommendations that you may want to add to your queue (if you still have one) Continue Reading

N.O. Dollar Theatres

I was recently reminded of an old local tv commercial I once saw. In this commercial, a man rummages his home for loose change; under and in the couch, behind the fridge, in the laundry, etc. By the end of his search, holding a few bucks in change, He announces, “We’re goin’ to the movies tonight”. After reminiscing on this, I wondered; when was the last time anybody in the New Orleans area was able to go to the movies with a handful of pocket change? Continue Reading

Appropriately Underrated: Quick "Skyline" Thoughts

When the word underrated is tossed around, it implies that something has had its quality overlooked. Sometimes, however, that somethings' quality has been underrated on purpose.

“Skyline” follows a group of characters that could've been extras in any of the “Fast and Furious” films, who wake up after a penthouse party and are forced to pretend that the city is being harvested by aliens. The rest of the movie features highlights such as Donald Faison producing a gun from nowhere, and Eric Balfour DEMANDING that the survivors go to the roof, despite the fact that the idea has been nixed several times.

When I first saw Balfour's character screaming at the sky in the trailer, I laughed myself to the conclusion that this would suck. I only ended up watching this on Netflix after I took a writing assignment for InvadeNola. And from what I understand, I am not alone in my thoughts regarding the movie.

The only two positives that I can think of are also negatives. One - Paul Walker was not in it. This is a positive for the obvious reason, and a negative because this is exactly the kind of movie that I'd expect him to be cast in(especially the first 15 minutes). Two - The special effects. The alien ships and the disaster they cause are quite impressive visually. Unfortunately, they are not used to serve the story. The whole movie comes off, to me, as an advertisement to get business for a visual effects company("look at what our computers can do!").

Indeed, this is underrated, and for good reason. But, I would still recommend this be viewed - Eric Balfour's tearful screaming will induce such wonderful laughter.

Salo-Thon on Storify

Recently, Oogie Rah and I held a live tweetathon of one of the most controversial films of all time. Mostly observations and riffing, it has all been compiled using Storify. Enjoy:

For Your Consideration

In the midst of preparing this blog, I came across an old essay I wrote a few years ago, but for some reason left it unpublished. So, in lieu of a first "official" entry, I give to you what I consider to be a prologue of sorts for this blog:

Phone calls. Handshakes. Gift Baskets. Screener copies. "Good" reviews.

Almost like clockwork, awards season brings with it a wave of wanting. "For Your Consideration" notices plague websites, blogs, insider magazines, newspapers and so on. But, out of all the people fighting for a chance to at least be rumored to be getting an Oscar nomination, only a select few will actually go all the way.

I, for one, am not well known or important enough to be bribed with decorative soaps and expensive chocolate(or straight up cash, which I prefer), but I DO have a keyboard. And with that alone, I would like to formally ask for the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences to consider, for the Best Supporting Actor category...Joe Fleishaker.
 

Image via Wikipedia

 Call it a longshot, call it a darkhorse, I call it deserving. Though, it might be more deserving for Troma Studios than anyone, but since there is no Best Casting award...Not to say that Joe's performance in Troma's Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead (3-Disc Collector's Edition) doesn't warrant recognition - it is one of the single funniest performances I've ever seen on film.

And Director Lloyd Kaufman knows funny. "I like fat people more than I like thin people, things are always a lot more funnier when they happen to fat people" He has said, and if there is ONE thing that Joe Fleishaker IS, it's a funny fat man.

Look at the brief scene under consideration: Jared(Joe Fleishaker) has pain in his stomach(hunger and intestinal problem). Refusing to let his food wait, He takes his tray with him to the toilet. While eating, He shits out(what we assume is) a baby chicken zombie, which promptly flies back up into his ass, causing poor Jared to not only shit like an Rhinoceros, but to stop eating.

When I first watched this, I felt myself almost tear up in excitement and laughter at this mass exodus of excrement, as I had once as a kid tried to set up a similar special effect for a video. The scene is believable enough in it's disgusting propulsion of poop, but what sends it over the top is Joe Fleishaker's screams of confusion, fear, pain and then joy - it is revealed that the shitting was so powerful, He shit himself skinny!

Ok, so maybe this is, indeed, a longshot for an Oscar nomination, or even to be rumored in the running for a nomination. But to all the voters out there, keep this in mind; is there ANY movie in the past year that has featured a scene as funny as or one that so exemplifies Americans image issues and relationship with fast food(and Americans in general) than an obese man literally shitting himself inside out, then running away in joy, leaving a poor fast food worker to clean it all up? For Your Consideration...

A short entry, yes. I hope it serves well as a preview. 
Image via Wikipedia