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: "Evil Dead"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Almost a miracle before my eyes, this movie rocked.  

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

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

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

5/5 *s

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

He Said, I Said Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

 

The first images we see are of the bat symbol being formed out of cracks in ice. No, it's not a hint at a Mr. Freeze appearance, but a summation of the story to come; about people on 'thin ice', falling through, but ready to rise to the surface. And, if anybody can rise when needed, it's Batman.

Yes, I very much liked "The Dark Knight Rises". Let's see what fellow #TeamNOLAFilm guest Mike Scott thinks:

By the time the film finally gets down to business in its soaring third act, it does, indeed, rise to the occasion, as Nolan crafts a fitting and exhilarating ending to what will be remembered as one of the best trilogies in Hollywood history.

For the most part, I agree. I didn't get to see this in IMAX, but I suspect I would've been blown away by the final 30 minutes of footage. I'm not sure how this stacks up with a Trilogy like, for instance, The Original "Star Wars" Trilogy, but this series is certainly up there.

For much of the bloated two hours that precede that final act, however, this "Dark Knight" doesn't rise as much as it flounders and frustrates, in what would appear to be a case of a filmmaker prioritizing ego over efficiency, and engaging in generally muddled storytelling.

...you mean you DIDN'T FULLY LIKE IT!?

No worries. After my first viewing, I too felt that the first act was paced wrong, and featured more characters and details than needed, which kinda pulled me out of the story. But, come the second viewing, everything cleared up. Not exactly sure why, but issues like editing choices, pacing and even amount of characters seemed to fit better and didn't bother me at all. I suggest giving it another shot.

That should by no means be seen as an indictment of the rich emotional layers Nolan has woven into the story since embarking on it with 2005's "Batman Begins." In his hands, this trilogy has become far more than your standard summertime blockbuster. This is Batman as metaphor, with Nolan elevating superhero myth-building to an art form rather than using it as a cheesy, breezy vehicle for, say, a tights-wearing Adam West or a nipplesuit-wearing George Clooney.

Indeed. For me, whatever negative the film has are vastly outweighed by the positives, which would be the characters and their conflicts. We get to see - and more importantly feel - the emotional turmoil facing Bruce and those around him. What I love about this movie in particular is how the turmoil brought upon Gotham by Bane can be partially blamed on Bruce and Commissioner Gordon; what started as a tragic lie to protect the city became the foundation for it's near demise. Their actions from the previous film have major consequences, and it's great to see them acknowledge and deal with it head on. 

Aint nothing wrong with good old' Adam West, btw.

As successful and bar-raising as "Dark Knight" was, and as hot a property as Nolan has become, I would suspect few people have earned the right to bluntly inform him during production when they thought he might be approaching that fine line separating art and self-indulgence.

Back to the ego thing, huh?

The big action sequences and grand scope was what helped this film differentiate itself from the previous movie, and the shadow of Heath Ledger's Joker; how do you top that? By putting a major city under siege. By giving us something rarely seen in a big Hollywood Superhero flick. Nolan is no Michael "Hey - let's put an explosion here and a racist joke here, and repeat for an hour" Bay, but perhaps it's a good thing that his series is over now. Maybe the reboot will be a smaller story involving Batman just fighting a crime syndicate, or something. Because the only way to top "The Dark Knight Rises" would be for Batman to fight Predator (which would be cool, I have to admit).

Nolan is a visionary filmmaker, and his smart, stylish and brooding treatment of the comics-inspired tale -- particularly in the film's third-act payoff -- transcends the genre.
The preceding two-thirds of the film feel bloated and often self-indulgent.

The final chapter in the Nolanverse Batman series is a thrilling, emotional and even thought provoking spectacle. Don't miss the forest for the trees by letting the small problems hinder your experience.

5/5 *'s

Only the 2nd on these reviews, and I'm really starting to like it. Maybe one day, Mike and I could do one for NOLA.com :)

Review: "Steve Chong Finds Out That Suicide Is A Bad Idea"

An existential crisis always makes for some good drama. We've all been there, I think; Why am I here? What's the point? What do I do now? Sometimes, this kind of deep thinking can lead to an even deeper sadness (especially if you realize how insignificant most of this is), which inevitably leads to a final question - Why shouldn't I end it all?

Steve Chong is asking that final question. With a string of bad luck (from dropping a plate of lasagna to getting fired) and a rather flat and distant attitude towards most people, suicide seems to make some sense to him. But, at the last minute, he decides to hold off for at least one more weekend - a hangout with his three pals at a lake house - to maybe find the answer he's been looking for.

I can relate a bit to Steve's problems. No, I've never considered suicide (nor do I strangely own a gun) but I am pretty shy and have suffered from depression. Medicine helps, but I've learned that the best way to break out of your shell is to act - to go out and do what you're too timid to do (exposure therapy, it's called). Steve's three friends, who discover his intentions during a night of drinking, slowly try to break down his wall and get him to live a bit.

But, what I can't relate to is Steve's attitude towards changing. He wants a reason not to kill himself, but doesn't seem willing to change. For example, when presented with an opportunity to loosen up with a girl he likes - a situation set up by his friends - he essentially blows off her attempts at a deep conversation. Someone once asked me if I enjoyed being depressed and stressed out. I don't, but maybe Steve just can't help it - maybe this is who he is, and he's just frustrated, when he should just accept himself. His friends already have.

Currently a work in progress, this is a nice little independent film. I really liked how, unlike some other indy films I've seen, this one doesn't overly rely on obnoxious humor or the word "fuck" - everybody in it acts, talks and feels like real people. Real people, real problems - that's all I ever wanted from a movie.

More about the strengths of friendship than suicide itself, I recommend this be viewed once it hits the road.

3/5 *'s

* I noticed on the movie's IMDB page that one of the assigned keywords for it was "long title". This made me chuckle, as the title is pretty long and a bit spoiler-ish. Maybe shorten it a bit? Just something to consider.   

@NOFS Review: "The Innkeepers"

The Innkeepers (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Have you ever been tricked into watching an internet video that scares you out of your seat? You know the kind; the description suggests a shocking event (girl gets kidnapped, a car accident, something supernatural, etc), but when played, you get a quiet and somewhat boring setting. Then…BAM! A monster or ghost bursts into the frame, screeching something horrific that almost pops your ear drums. This practical joke just about works every time.

“The Innkeepers” plays this scenario out in its first few minutes. The joke is played on Claire, a young front desk clerk at an old hotel, by her coworker Luke. The pair are working the hotel’s final weekend before closing, and are bored as all hell – though it’s suggested that they’re bored even under normal circumstances. They perform the daily tasks with a sigh, just waiting to get back to the only interesting thing about work; finding evidence of the ghost that is rumored to haunt the hotel.

The two leads remind me very much of Dante and Randal from “Clerks”. No, they’re not as vulgar, but they are equally stuck in life. While Luke seems a bit content with his position (much like Randal), Claire begins to realize that she has no aspirations outside of the hotel – what will she do with herself after the place shuts down in a few days?

Almost as a way to find the answers to her own existence, Claire seeks out the ghost that too is stuck in the hotel. She doesn’t really have a goal in terms of freeing the spirit or anything like that; I think she just wants to know it’s there. Maybe to reassure herself that she’s not alone? Maybe to just have a cool story to tell? 

Much like the video that tricked Claire, the movie is more fun and whimsical than scary and creepy. Yes, there are a few scare moments, but, in the end, you’re left with a smile instead of a nightmare.

It’s funny to me how two thirds of “The Innkeepers” reminds me of a movie like “Waiting…” minus the toilet humor, but one thirds feels like the more suspenseful moments of “Shutter Island”. I can’t say this is a horror film, but it does have it’s moments – the real terror isn’t that there IS a ghost, but that there MIGHT be a ghost. That, and is working a dead end job better than working amongst the dead?

"The Innkeepers", presented by the New Orleans Film Society, will be playing at Chalmette Movies from March 25th to March 27th.  

3/5 *'s

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.

Why Did Roger Ebert Spoil "Super"?

SPOILER ALERT: I reveal a spoiler originally spoiled elsewhere.

For film buffs, the decision to read a spoiler can be a difficult temptation to overcome. With high ticket prices for movies, and even higher anticipation for popular movies, spoilers can provide certain audience members with the insight they need to decide whether or not they'll be catching a flick. But for most moviegoers, having a film's ending revealed unsolicited can ruin their theatre experience. Knowing this, reviewers do their best to avoid making any startling revelations.
Image by rexb via Flickr

In his review of "Super", Roger Ebert let slip the fate of the character played by Ellen Page. In the first two paragraphs. Filmmaker James Gunn immediately took to twitter, and started hashtag jokes at Ebert's expense. While a spoiler notice has since been attached to the review, I wonder - why did Ebert write the spoiler in the first place?

Personally, I disagree with his take on the movie. At the end of the review, He writes "'Super is a film ending in narrative anarchy, exercising a destructive impulse to no greater purpose than to mess with us." To me, this is a positive and is what makes the film great - it being emotionally intense and challenging (a nice way of saying that it "fucks" with you). Ebert is no stranger to emotionally challenging films, but maybe this one scene went too far in his mind. 

Image via Wikipedia

Ellen Page, as an actress, is easy to fall in love with. I can't say that I've disliked any of her performances, whether they're in low budgets like "Hard Candy" or big budgets like "Inception". And, judging from his reviews, I'd say that Ebert feels the same way. I think that when He witnessed what happened to Libby (Ellen Page) in "Super", He felt offended - how could they do such a thing to such an actress? He practically expresses this with SPOILER "when Ellen Page of 'Juno' stars in a movie, we don't much expect to see her brains dripping." END SPOILER This reminds me of the dust up He had with "Kick Ass" (another "real world" super hero flick) - how could they put that little girl in such extreme action scenes?

I don't want to suggest that He always disregards an entire movie because of one scene, but I have seen this happen before. I once showed "Storytelling" to two young women, and I'm convinced that if they hadn't witnessed a large black man having forceful sex with a little white woman, they would've liked the film more. I wonder if Ebert's thoughts on "Super" might change a little if that scene were excised or re-written. Seriously, that one scene could make all the difference (kind of a compliment to the film, that one scene could make such an impression).  

Of course, Ebert's revelation didn't completely ruin the movie, nor did it ruin my opinion of him. Personally, I usually agree with him maybe 80% of the time (though I'm not sure how to accurately determine that). In this one case of disagreement, I find something to agree with - Ellen Page is wonderful, and seeing her in such a sequence is a shock.

Should critic's be so chivalrous in their reviews? Spoiling a movie in an effort to warn others? I dunno. That's a topic for a blogger more articulate and better disciplined that myself. Certainly, some audiences don't mind knowing a little extra about what they're gonna spend their money on. Just be sure to attach a notice BEFORE posting the review. Might save yourself from a nasty hashtag or two.