audioBoo Reviews: "The Raid 2", "The Final Member" and "Oldboy"

At the moment, #cineNOLA Weekly is on hiatus. In the interim, here is a new series, using audioBoo, that will focus on movies I missed in theaters, didn't get to write about previously, or classics I'd like to talk about. Enjoy!

Visit my patreon page for more information on how you can support this blog.

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.

Review: "Life Itself"

In his review of the 3D re-release of Titanic, film critic Roger Ebert wrote:

"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."

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.

Review: "World War Z"

In This is the End (which I quite liked), Emma Watson remarks to her celebrity friends that she believes the disaster that has hit Hollywood is a zombie apocalypse. Now, it turns out to be the rapture in that movie, and not a single zombie is actually seen. But This is the End does share some common ground with that horror genre. The setting is a tight space (a house), and the characters pose an equal threat to each other when compared to what is happening outside.

Traditionally, the zombies are merely a catalyst for getting the characters together, and presenting the real threat - humans. We bicker, fight, make selfish choices and even kill one another. The looming danger outside only heightens the true danger inside. Commentary through horror. If only we had just gotten along.

Brad Pitt's World War Z is a sort of mix between 28 Days Later and Outbreak, with less insight into humanity and politics and more money spent on... action? Star power? CG zombies?

The story is about an ex U.N. investigator that has been tasked with assisting in finding the origin of (and possible cure for) a plague that is quickly turning the world into ravenous beasts. The word zombie is spoken here and there, and with a sense of "you've got to be kidding me" from those talking about it. We are thrown into a mysterious worldwide disaster with grave consequences and palpable tension. Refugee camps, walled up cities and command centers in the ocean. That's the contingency plan, folks. We're screwed.

The actors all do a fine job of getting us invested in these events, showing exhaustion and uncertainty very well. It's fun and suspenseful watching people quietly move around the undead by using greased up bicycles. It's terrifying having to calm down your children, while they cry for their blanket in the midst of a crisis. And it's hilarious when we see several closeups of a zombie biting down on his teeth like a squirrel.

Wait... what?

Indeed. Emotional intensity is undercut by unintentional hilarity and overdone action set pieces. Over shadowing moments that reflect the good and bad people do in panic mode are silly chases and conveniently placed sequences meant to stop your heart. There is a scene early on when Brad Pitt's wife is almost raped in a grocery store aisle. Not by zombies, but by regular men. Everyone is scrambling for food, water and medicine, and here are these scumbags, causing a problem where there doesn't need to be one. The opening of this movie is filled with things like this. Later, just after a city is destroyed in a pulse pounding rampage, a zombie attack happens on a plane. Why? Because it would be exciting to have an attack happen on a plane.

Oh, and the zombie actors were either instructed or given permission to bang their heads against walls with funny sounding foley attached.

I'd be willing to bet these were problems that came from the troubled production, and the editors did what they could to have it all make sense. It does, but the tone feels off. The movie tries too hard at pleasing every person in the audience - an effort that ends up a detriment. The irony of it all is that if they had left the original ending alone, the end result would've been a captivating cliffhanger and a ballsy move. Instead, they chose to play it safe. Such a shame.

The only commentary I took from World War Z is that when pushed into a corner, people will do what they can to survive. I'm not talking about the characters, but the behind the scenes people. Trapped in an office, feeling the walls closing in, they only made the situation worse. If only they had just gotten along.

2/5 *s

Bad Dude Status: "Jack Reacher"

Beyond that internet meme from Duke Nukem, the title of Bad Dude is something reserved for the most awesome of heroes. Not boy scouts and not anyone with any respect for our “code of law”. These guys are willing to make a boy scout cry if necessary. They have their own law. And if you fall within their jurisdiction...

I plan on, through a series of blog entries, explaining why some characters are bad dudes, why some are not. Maybe doing this will reveal something wonderful and/or sickening about us as an audience. To help me out will be fellow critic and purveyor of the exploitative, The Cine-Masochist! Enjoy:

My first RedBox rental - something I had been putting off for a long while - was the Tom Cruise production of the Tom Cruise starring Jack Reacher. The poster spoke to a very primal side of me: a serious looking man in front of a cityscape with the American flag superimposed over it. The ad team could’ve easily put some explosions on it, or a gun in Tom’s hand, but no need. He IS the weapon. He IS the danger. He is so much these things, that the title needs to only be his name. Damn. 

Is Jack Reacher a Bad Dude?

First off, who is he? In the movie, Jack has a ghost like mystique about him. He’s a drifter, only appearing when he’s been called upon. He wears only one set of clothes per mission (that he gets at Goodwill) and “borrows” cars when he needs them. I don’t think he has an I.D. in his wallet, or a wallet at all (please correct me if I’m wrong). All he needs are his abilities. He is THAT confident, and you should be THAT scared.

The kind of villains he’s up against are quite villainous. We have a military sniper and a man known only as “Prisoner Human Being”, played by the one and only Werner Herzog. When someone fails him, he offers a choice of either being shot or proving to have the will to survive. How? By chewing off your own finger. Normally, they just prefer to be shot. “Always the bullet. I don’t understand” he says. It’s been said that you can judge your hero by the nature of the villain. In this case, our hero better have his stuff together.

Beyond being a loner and up against a stone cold baddie, Jack can walk the walk and, almost more importantly, talk the talk. When needing to interrogate a witness, a desk clerk asks to be shown some I.D. Jack has a counter offer to “show” him the back of an ambulance. When backed into a corner, Jack says, over the phone, “I mean to beat you to death and drink your blood from a boot.” And not in an angry manner, but an “as a matter of fact” way.

When he drives a car, he makes sure the engine purrs like a kitten. When he fights, he makes sure to leave a mark and an impression. When he shoots, he rarely misses. And when he misses, he’ll make you suffer.

Jack Reacher can be seen as nothing but a vanity project; an effort by an A-list actor to claim dominance and pound his chest. Yes, this is that. Everything in this is only meant to supplement Tom and his bad assery. It might be the most blatant example of it in his whole catalog, and should probably be disliked because of that. Only if it didn’t work. Watching a character whose only development is that he can wreck anyone and anything is just so entertaining. There really isn’t anything being said about the act of vengeance, the concept of justice or anything that could illuminate an audience. It’s got atmosphere, tension, danger and moxy without bothering to worry about pathos. Ironically, that one thing that could’ve put this movie over the top would’ve held it back some. And nobody holds Jack back.

So, does Jack Reacher in Jack Reacher achieve Bad Dude status? Here's CM:

First off, thank you for having me in mind, Bill!

And in regards to Jack Reacher? Yeah! HELL YEAH! definitely a Bad Dude.

This is a character that reflects on the days of old, the action heroes of the 80's and early 90's that were brutal, cunning and got the job done. This no nonsense approach has really been making a resurgence lately, with films like Dredd, Jack Reacher and of course, The Expendables. I think audiences are craving this in the action films they go see, proving that characters like Jason Bourne, just...don't quite cut it as bad ass action heroes.

I mean hell, look at the Daniel Craig Bond films! Even James Bond has been pumped with a dose of Bad Dude status. He's big and strong, and absolutely wrecks people's shit. Action fans want that escapism, they want to root for this larger than life Bad Dude, and Jack Reacher gives them that.

I hope that makes sense, and again, thanks for having me!

Status - ACHIEVED 

Review: "Man of Steel"

For me, one of the most striking images after 9/11 was on a local news report. The reporters did a regular feature on paintings and drawings made by Elementary School kids, based on current events. One child, after witnessing the terrorist attacks on New York, drew a crayon colored picture of Superman, stopping one of the planes from crashing into one of the towers, having arrived just in the nick of time. Sad that there is no real superhero in our world, but hopeful because potential for good exist within all of us. This meant more to me than President Bush standing on top of rubble, calling for payback.

You see, Superman is about doing the right thing, even in the face of unimaginable horror. He doesn't give in to senseless rage, nor does he use his powers for selfish reasons. Well... except for when he turned back time to save Lois Lane. And does breaking a man's neck count as rage if done to save a group of people?

It's hard making such decisions, especially when you can do almost anything. But, that's part of what makes the character so compelling. In his latest film adaptation Man of Steel, we get an origin story laden with this.

Before he was Clark Kent, he was named Kal-El, the first and last naturally born child of the planet Krypton. Knowing the destruction of that world was imminent, his parents launched him into space, sending the craft to Earth. There, he is raised by a kind hearted Kansas couple. He spends his youth struggling to do what comes naturally to him (saving the day) and trying to keep his abilities a secret (what his Earth parents want). Eventually, after years of drifting from place to place, he discovers a relic of his home world and learns his true destiny, just when we need him the most.

At first glance, this movie is merely a feast for the eyes. From Russell Crowe riding a dragon to a New York like Metropolis falling apart building by building, the level of visual candy and destruction is absolutely overwhelming. Punches, kicks, sonic booms and explosions are louder than in any superhero film I've seen recently. Leaving the theater, it felt like Director Zack Snyder out did his own style to the point of detriment. "A Superman movie for a new era" this was called. Fine, but what does it say of this era? Bigger is not necessarily better. They tried a slow moving drama with Superman Returns, and people complained that it lacked action. Well dummy, now you got it.

At second glance and after conversations with colleagues, I realized the enormous visuals distracted me from what was under the surface. Themes of self discovery, doubt and making difficult choices are strewn throughout. Clark spends many years learning just who he is exactly. He finally uncovers the truth (and his suit), and goes home to tell his mother, still confused as to what should happen next, but momentarily happy to have some answers. When General Zod, a Kryptonian with ties to his birth family, threatens Earth, Clark is given the reality check of a lifetime. Sometimes, the only way to get someone out of an existential rut is to shake them out of it.

From there, Clark puts on the suit, tries things out for the first time, and learns along the way just what he is made of. We don't get many scenes of dialogue expositing lessons learned, but we do get to see them as they happen. At one moment, he is forced to do an act he'll hopefully never have to do again, and gets emotional afterwards (you'll know it when you see it). He didn't do something as grand as turning back time, but it was just as jaw dropping to witness, and may haunt him for some time. This Superman is not yet whole as an individual, but is finally ready for the next phase of his life. Is the world ready?

Thrown headfirst into the dilemma of fighting against people of his past, to protect the people of his present, Clark's internal problems have become external, for everyone to see. He experiences one nightmare, only to wake into a real one. Using all of his powers to their fullest capabilities for the first time, he wings the situation, learning as he goes. Sure, it all comes naturally to him, and he is no longer holding back, but you get the sense that he may be uncertain (and possibly afraid) as how to win the day. Where Captain America is confident and steadfast, this Superman is powerful yet doubtful. He flies through the air with heavy emotion on his face, like someone rushing to complete multiple food orders (maybe more dramatic than that). He WANTS to save everyone, but doesn't really know HOW. It's the coming of age story of a lifetime, when you think about it. It's not going to be easy Supes, but just know we're all behind you.

In preparing this review, I doubted not only my rating of this movie, but also that of Star Trek Into Darkness, which I think shares something in common - both are big, loud, and on the surface deviate from the source material. It might appear that spectacle trumps smarts, but brain and brawn work side by side in both (to varying degrees). Still, what I would give for a 1970's style sci fi flick. We can handle it, Hollywood! Give me a depthful crayola drawing over a shallow photo op any day.  

4/5 - 5/5 *s, depending on how I feel at a given time.

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.