Ever Seen It: Parents

In 1989 a 3 million dollar film was released in 94 theaters, grossing a total of 870,000 dollars in the 5 months that it was in theaters. Available now to watch on Hulu, You Tube and iTunes (for .99 cents), this low budget film has received many a poor review. What is it about Halloween that we will sit through the worst of films (Saw VI?) for anything (like an $8.50 ticket)?
So I watched it.
The film is about a young boy, who may have some mental dementia (he seems to be obsessed with blood and gore), who believes his parents are cannibals (The film was released in Germany as "Daddy ist ein Kaniballe"). He attends school where the teachers and students all believe him to have mental issues. (What parents would ever eat human meat?) The boy follows his father to his job, where the father works testing chemicals on various subjects, including a The social worker (who is very much a child herself) ultimately believes the child and follows him to his household.
The film was unique, if anything. With a Harold and Maude feel to it, the boy's fantasies about death and dying are intriguing, given that they are premonitions into the acts of the parents. The acting, especially on the boys part, is very subtle – almost disturbingly so. That might be partly why the story seems to do so well for how low-budget the film actually was. Unfortunately, it wasn't what audiences were looking for in 1989, and it may not be first of choice now 20 years later. Nothing really stood out in the film, but it is worth a watch if you find yourself longing for a silly film on all Hallow's Eve.

Revisited: Armageddon

I have not seen Michael Bay’s 1998 film since theatres with my cousin and aunt as a naïve and wide-eyed child. The past few years have had me plagued with a curious desire to rewatch the movie that I remember as epic and amazing. Imagine my disappointment. Granted, the past 11 years have seen my film education multiply infinitely but regardless of such fact, this film, er movie, would fail miserably.

In the vein of Bay’s previous film, The Rock, it is a hard-hitting and implausible adventure. However, this time the entire world is on the line and the only people to save it are an amalgamated list of A and B stars who all suffer from bad acting. Not that much more should be expected. And much akin to Bay’s feature length epic-music video set on Alcatraz, it is a nauseating and flamboyantly disorganized experiment in what David Bordwell might call hyper-intensified continuity. If the camera doesn't move that we hardly see the cut long enough to decipher such. And if nothing is exploding or ticking down or going wrong, or even if it is, then it will likely be basked in a cold blue or green light. And if the shot isn’t of the entire city being wiped out by a meteor chunk than its someone’s cringing faces as something else goes wrong. This movie’s pace slows not, even for tender moments between father and daughter as he is about to save the world from the inevitable Texas sized meteor.

I really hate to call Bay an auteur because it suggests an artistically and tonally motivated appearance of his oeuvre, but fast cuts, flying cameras, silhouetted helicopters, and ridiculous plots are evident in practically all his films. I can’t wait to see what the next Untitled Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay project entails. But lets reflect on the one hint of possible quality of this film; the belief that we as humans have the ability to save ourselves from extra-cosmic events far beyond the scale of our strengths. Giant meteor? Nuke it. The film almost tries to deal with the inevitability of death and human place among the stars but falls to the commercial explosions, action, and patriotism. It’s surprising that the bomb wasn't painted as an American Flag.

What’s wrong with this movie? Its like watching an exhausting and poorly constructed trailer for over two hours and coming away with even less of a message than could be packed into a two minute teaser. The biggest event of mankind is played off like another Roland Emmerich movie. I should clarify that I was not disappointed with this movie; I certainly didn't want to like it. So if anything it should be complete satisfaction. At least in a way.

One Thousand, Eighty

The theater can be a wonderful thing: bright and thundering sound, the shared experience, and the large screen, with perfectly clear images flashing before our eyes. The attempt to bring that experience to the home with the home theater is rapidly evolving. We've moved from the "tube" (cathode ray tube) televisions, to the flat screen tv with "full 1080" resolution. That means that there are 1080 pixels, or RGB (red, green and blue) dots lining the side of the tv vertically, and 1920 pixels stretching across the bottom. That's a lot of pixels! 2,073,600 to be exact. While there's a bit more than that on the theater screen (up to 4K (4096×2160 (8,847,360 pixels) which is 4.26 times as many pixels) in some digital cinemas (the same resolution at which the RED camera captures raw footage)), you've got to admit that the 1080 resolution is pretty impressive.
I recently purchased myself a Samsung Blu-Ray player, capable of this 1080 output, to go along with my apartment's 720p Panasonic Viera, 50 inch plasma television. Using Netflix, I've been able to rent several blu-ray discs and watch some very decent movies on beautiful 1080p. The result is amazing. There truly is a visible difference between DVD resolution and Blu-ray resolution, something that I feel brings out the filmic qualities of the movies. These movies that were shot on film deserve to be presented in something less digitized (or compressed) than a DVD, especially when viewed on a 50" television.
Whether it's the fact that the television is plasma, or simply that it's a high resolution image being displayed through a slightly lower resolution television (1080 movie played on a 720 tv), or just the fact that it's a high-definition image, I feel that the smoothness, or the filmic quality of the movie is preserved when I watch films like the one I watched last night: Patriot Games (starring Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan (the role previously played by Alec Baldwin in The Hunt For Red October) released in 1992, directed by Phillip Noyce). Truly HD film transfers are one step closer to that wondrous experience of going to the theaters and viewing beautiful films (even when their digitized)

Trailers Re-worked

Trailers are fun. Re-edited trailers are even more fun. And aside from being great practice in editing they help highlight the importance of stylistic expectations and music in developing genres and tones. The Shining recut has been incredibly popular and a host of rather poorly realized attempts plague the Internet. Here are some good ones I have encountered.

It’s quite interesting to see how our expectations play against the final delivery of the trailer. What once was casual and carefree becomes sinister and daunting. Enjoy.

Ever Seen It: Troll 2

Yes, I watched Troll 2. Yes, it was pretty bad. Yes, you should watch it for free on Hulu. And no, you should not expect a polished piece of cinematic history that will inspire independent filmmaking and youngster film students for generations. But you should expect hoards of deliciously bad special effects, misplaced sound, and quite possibly the worst attempt at making a creature this side of The Killer Shrews.

For those of you who don’t know, Troll 2 is an unrelated plagiarism of an entirely different film and makes no explicit or even implicit reference to the namesake Troll film that, unlike number 2, actually contains a troll. This film is a perfect example of attempting to capitalize on something that had only minor success hoping that it fares better than absolutely no success. But we are smarter than this and in only one viewing, or even a montage, this piece of trash is instantly dethroned as nothing more than cheap, very cheap, entertainment. I suppose the poster could have hinted to that fact. The film is helmed by Italian schlockster Claudio Fragasso under the pseudonym Drake Floyd clearly suggesting that the film might not be such a proud achievement and its tagline, One Was Not Enough, strikes a comically ironic note.

The only redeeming factor, besides the endless amounts of green goo and human plants, comes in the form of Michael Stephenson. As the young Joshua he is the only one savvy to the goblin agenda cleverly disguised within the town Nilbog. Aided by apparitions of his dead grandfather and using his natural ability to scream he and his bad acting family defeat the plastic faced midgets to hilarious result. Stephenson has since directed a documentary about the cult phenomenon of the film. Tis a great example of how the Internet can, like nothing else, making something so bad into something so revered.

Do not forget, I beg you, Troll 2 is a bad movie. No, it’s not up there with Plan 9 From Outer Space but considering they probably put more effort into it than Ed Wood it’s not surprising. Lest I forget, the acting in this movie is horrendous and plays like a Troma film sucked dry of any drop of talent. Of course, credit where credit is due, they think they are acting well. And while it doesn't help that their scripted actions involved no improvisational freedom, much of what happens makes no sense. Let’s only hope that the pending Troll remake bears no resemblance to its unrelated follower.

Two See, or Not Two See

I ventured to the theaters to see films 35 times in the year 2008. It intrigued me today to think of the movies which became repeated views. The question I asked myself was: do I tend to see movies a second time when I view them at home, or is the theater the one and only time I see most movies. The conclusion is not as shocking as I had led myself to believe.
Just out of memory, I could name 9 movies that I never saw again after the initial theatrical view. But upon returning to my stack of saved ticket stubs, I found an intriguingly large number of one-time views.

Here are the movie I saw in 2008:
Juno (1/19)
Cloverfield (1/26)
Michael Clayton (2/02)
Jumper (2/16)
Vantage Point (2/27)
Horton Hears A Who (3/27)
The Bank Job (3/28)
21 (4/04)
Iron Man (5/03)
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (5/17)
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (5/22)
Get Smart (6/22)
The Incredible Hulk (6/24)
Wanted (6/28)
Hankcock (7/01)
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (7/15)
WALL•E (7/16)
The Dark Knight (7/18)
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (8/02)
Swing Vote (8/04)
Pineapple Express (8/09)
Tropic Thunder (8/14)
Burn After Reading (9/12)
Eagle Eye (9/26)
Quantum of Solace (11/14)
Australia (11/29)
The Day The Earth Stood Still (12/12)
Yes Man (12/22)
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button (12/26)
Valkyrie (12/28)
The Spirit (12/29)

The red movies are those I saw only once. The blue, of course, are those I saw twice if not more times (in fact, the Dark Knight I watched 3 more times in the theater, and 3 times since then on DVD and Blu-ray. WALL•E I saw 4 more times on DVD.) Is this saying that those red movies are all terrible? Is is saying the blue ones were great? Not at all. Many of the red ones were wonderful, one of the blue ones was awful.
It is very surprising to me that there are only nine movies which have had repeated views since their theatrical release. Of note are those which I absolutely loved and yet remain red: Iron Man and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. It's been a long time since I've seen those movies, and they were very well made, so why have I not seen them again? Why, instead, do I chose to re-watch movies such as The Day The Earth Stood Still and Horton Hears a Who, when there are more decent films to watch? These questions I cannot answer. I only know that I long for new movies daily, but enjoy revisiting those which were wonderful.

Weekend Retreat

Amidst filming a short film for class my weekend still saw the inclusion of two classic films. Kubrick’s bold 1964 military satire Dr. Strangelove is the late director’s final black and white film and boasts an intelligence noticeably absent in Tony Scott’s sophomore feature of 1986, Top Gun. The latter is a glamorized and dramatic jet fighter commercial. Kubrick is an incontrovertibly established filmmaker whose oeuvre consistently probed under the surface and in the case of Strangelove seems a bit too relevant with the questions it asks about a species who can easily and unintentionally bring about its own demise. (Let me add here the eleventh hour inclusion of Michael Bay’s almost unwatchable Armageddon, of which a watched half, as another film who toys with the theme of extinction but appropriately skips over the issue in favor of big explosions and bad dialogue.) This is perhaps his scariest film, in which ordering a nuclear strike is much easier than calling it off and the main issues and the decisions that affect the entire world are made by a round table of isolated madmen. Top Gun is only less scary in its romanticized view of midair combat and bravura showmanship with cocky attention seekers behind the controls of $30 million war machines.

While my weekend had not aimed to be saturated far more than necessary in combat it proved an interesting reflection on the duality of war films. On the one hand we have the natural and cinematic inquisition to probe into an unfamiliar and brutal environment. Compare this to the detriments of hand-to-hand, gun-to-gun, or bomb to bomb combat that becomes engaging, exciting, and at times fun. And while some films point out the inherent irony of killing our own species others highlight the fun in challenging another human to the high stakes game of training and skill. The problem is that the two conflict with one another; when something becomes action-packed gunfire, explosions, escapes, and headshots it is immediately fun and engaging. We are promoting our own demise as entertainment: a natural progression to snuff film. Conversely, we could reflect on the dangers of fighting amongst ourselves fueled by greed of possession and intolerance of ideas. The existence of a war-glamorizing film immediately challenges the psychological debate posed by other films whose intent falls more along the lines of, say, questioning the ethics of war when both sides are really the same side.
So does this mean that a carefully delivered and socially conscious Strangelove discredits a flashy Top Gun in terms of cinematic appeal? Hardly. They are both visual and thematic escapist fare that may diverge in terms of depth and content but the fact of the matter is they are both still movies. They are movies with different statements, goals, and quite assuredly different longevity.

Upcoming Feature. The Wolfman

It’s about time that a remake I am actually excited for is headed our way. If you have ever seen the original 1941 version with Lon Chaney, Jr. you know that it is pretty good. It is reworked here with an aptly placed Benicio Del Toro taking Chaney’s spot and Anthony Hopkins looking the coolest he has ever looked. I am not sure how they are altering the story but the cinematography looks stellar, and how couldn’t it be with the DP of The Secret of the Ooze on board. Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving round out the leads in what looks like a satisfyingly dramatic retelling of Universal’s classic monster movie.

Joe Johnston directs, the man who so graciously brought us Jumanji, and October Sky. Further, the effects don't look half bad so check out the trailers. It doesn’t come out until February so we still have a while to wait. While the reviews I have read were raving they certainly explicate its gore. Either way, I’m pumped.

Movie? Film?

Denotatively, the only difference between film and movie is the former’s restriction to actually being captured on celluloid, movies have the freedom of being digital. Connotatively, however, the separation betwixt the two words can mean the difference between good and bad, elitist and average, snobbish and modest. And while a majority of the population, myself at times, uses the words interchangeably, they exist as distinct entries of the cinematic lexicon.

You rarely hear action film, its usually action movie with the expectation that characters will fall victim to decapitations, fireballs, shattering glass, and one-liners. On the same hand, European art films are always, well, European art films. The connotative difference between film and movie is hardly important, depending on who one is conversing with, but they suggest a sharp difference in reference to the motion picture one is speaking of. I had a friend say to me once that Batman Begins was a movie and The Dark Knight was a film. While the point here is not for me to argue for or against such statement it brings an interesting point to mind. Both films did quite well at the box office. However, the latter came out on top by more than $300,000. Does this mean that people are more interested in films than movies? Hardly.

We have not taken into account the multitude of other factors; familiarity with former film, increased advertisement, Heath Ledger’s Death. And there is no doubt that this is still an action movie despite the fact that it might have a plot. All this aside, and the standing notion that The Dark Knight is a film as compared to Batman Begins as a movie, lots of people went to see this film. Does this mean that audiences are now more interested in content over spectacle? I should think (and partly hope) not. Movies are still escapist fare where we can see splattering alien guts and toppling sky scrapers and slow-motion gunfights. That’s the fun of the movies; a fun that should not be lost by forcing films to have a literary drive.

Now, many if not most of my favorite motion pictures would be classified as films. And I by no mean aim to define films or movies as better than the other but simply intend to point out the connotative difference, a difference that is reflected in how audiences view and discuss movies, I mean films, I mean motion pictures. It will likely take the right kind of person; the kind who likes films, not movies, to point out the difference when we consider it as almost entirely connotative, but is it important that we make such a distinction?

Film Studies

“Auteurism shifted attention from the “what” (story, theme) to the “how” (style, technique), showing that style itself had personal, ideological and even metaphysical reverberations. It facilitated film’s entry into literature departments and played a major role in the academic legitimation of cinema studies.”

So writes Robert Stam in The Cult of the Auteur from his book Film Theory: An Introduction. Should I thus thank Andrew Sarris, who introduced the auteur theory to the US, for the fact that I watch two movies every Monday, in class? Can we attribute the inclusion of a film studies program at universities to one particular person and event? Doubtful. I can still, however, praise the insight and ability of an idea to have an important effect on the life of those interested in film studies, of which there are many. And it would be naïve to think that film would not have attained the status it has. Film itself is no different, it has changed only in how we look at it and certainly with time we would have come to realize its literary and academic legitimacy.
Now, I could sit here all day and argue about why films are better than books, or vice versa if need be. It seems to have become a matter of the esteemed and elite to suggest that the filmic adaptation pales in comparison to the written source. Some people fail to recognize it is not a matter of better or worse but of difference. Literature has its strengths that film cannot match but for each of these there are just as many that film can capture and that the written word cannot even begin to explain. This is mind; it was only a matter of time that film studies be legitimized. Perhaps it has not reached the level of literary interpretation, it would be arrogant to suggest such a young art could do so, but it is getting there. At the same time, however, it is changing day to day as technology runs rampant and the story, as well as how it is told, has changed.
Like it or not, films are here to stay. And if you are reading this, you’ll probably be hearing a lot more about them and about the ideas expressed above.

Upcoming Feature: Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

Werner Herzog, the German director who has taken on such feats as Fitzcarraldo (1982), and Grizzly Man (2005), has a new release on the way. If it comes as any surprise, as it shouldn’t, it is a remake of the 1992 Abel Ferrara film Bad Lieutenant. The original is a risqué film of drugs, sex, and violence contrasted sharply with the main character’s struggle with Christ and grace. It is a controversial film about a cop who is, as the title explains, bad.

In the middle of a mid-life crisis, the Lieutenant finds himself caught in a Gambling trap, trying to find money for drugs, while the biggest case he’s had comes at him with the power of God. A Nun is raped, and comes to the Lieutenant for help, throwing him into a head spin, second-guessing his poor life decisions, and literally seeing Christ before him.
Herzog's Film, set for release on December 4th, stars Nicolas Cage, and changes the circumstances. Instead of a nun's rape being the main case, the Lieutenant has an immigrant murder case to solve. The plot is a bit more up to date, immigration being a rather large issue these days, but it seems that the main point of the original is lost.
Not knowing enough about the actual plot, this movie will most likely come up in later blogs, or simply as an update. Keep checking back for more details.
Don't forget to check out the trailer at Apple!

Review: Whip It.

Oversized titles cram the screen triumphantly announcing the arrival of Drew Barrymore as director. And if we can believe her IMDB biography that she is charming, free-spirited, and above talented then certainly her debut feature will be some amalgamation of the three.

Ellen Page has become the go to girl for awkwardly shy yet confident. Unfortunately, her role in Jason Reitman’s Juno (2007) overshadowed her much better performance in David Slade’s Hard Candy (2005). None-the-less, she reprises the witty in over-her-head teenage highschooler but instead of pregnancy she faces the challenge of harnessing the free-spirited and daring person her mom doesn't want her to be. Anyway, after getting involved with a group of roller derby Hurl Scouts she distances herself from the beauty pageant circuit her mother so proudly involves her in. If Page were placed on a scale of Beauty to Awkward she would certainly be more towards the latter. Of course, this is the point when she arrives at the first pageant with blue hair before saving herself with an Amelia Earheart answer. Naturally, her discovered talent of rollerskating doesn't fit in with her mom’s scheme and, big surprise, the important pageant and derby final are on the same night. Thus, the big dilemma that sets up the third act amidst a host of other problems that read like a cliché high school to-do list.

The Hurl Scouts are coached by no other than the third Wilson brother coming straight out of a Wes Anderson film who, along with ringmaster Jimmy Fallon, remains one of the few tolerable characters. It is the scenes involving either one of the two of these characters, taking place mainly at the derby jams, that are the most interesting and entertaining. The rest of the film feels like a been-there-done-that expose on teens trying to act older than their age by displaying juvenile giddiness towards newfound experiences with the unexpected realization that bad choices have, shock, repercussions. The punishing authority themselves, who inevitably show up to squash the event, must have been scripted by a sixteen year old.

One of the only films in a long time to have held the audience during at least part of the final credits owing to the inclusion of various on-set shenanigans, many of them coming from the director herself. The fun of making this film is evident in these last moments and the audience is partly involved. Unfortunately, we are not involved for much of the film when predictable teenage interactions find the main characters playing dumb but finally tie everything up like a new pair of roller-skates. I am not sure exactly what I expected but ended up with Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist (2009) on skates.

Revisited: Goodfellas

The Mafia has been done over and over since the early days of gangster B-films to their re-emergence of legitimate and respectable A-films. And while Coppola’s trilogy (or rather the first two installments) has been the beloved hallmark on the organization it is a far cry from valid portrayal of the mob. Insert NYU graduate Martin Scorsese who grew up on the streets of Queens and watched Wiseguys conduct business from his window.

Goodfellas is not the epic poetry Scorsese identifies The Godfather as, nor is it supposed to be. Rather, it is a day to day of hanging out with a group of organized criminals as they exploit, murder, and dine. Naturally, at least for Scorsese, the film never slows, nor should it. Spanning three decades, dozens of characters float in and out, and many get killed in the process. Fluid and unceasing cameras sweep through the streets and nightclubs where the occupants conduct their business. And as is expected; business is good. On the surface the film appears as a testament to the rich and locally famous. Underneath, much akin to the seedy underbelly of any big city crime ring, lies the dark and savage brutality of guys who would sell out men who had been partners in crime for years. When everyone is looking out for themselves, no one is safe. Scorsese interjects the usual bouts of blatant blood-letting, often revisiting kills a second time and in the process revealing newfound information about its source.

Scorsese has dealt with the subject before. See Mean Streets (1973). He also returns to it rather quickly in Casino (1995) and more recently with The Departed (2006). So is this subject a cop out for a director who has now established himself as purveyor of Mafia films or rather is its reemergence better explained by his proximity and familiarity there of? Roger Ebert identifies Goodfellas as the best film of 1990. The Departed finally won him a directing Oscar after 5 nominations.

The first time I saw Goodfellas, some 4 years ago, I loved it. Having watched it 3 times since has not changed my opinion. The film’s broad scope combined with realism established through mise-en-scen­e achieves, to a great degree, a solid interpretation of Nicholas Pileggi’s source book. Working with the author, Scorsese adapted Wiseguys by bringing the most important elements to the screen and in doing so creating an epic-scale introspection into one of societies more interesting demographics. This film is easy to pass over for those not interested in a ‘fuck’ count of almost 300 or those who don’t want to see Samual L. Jackson’s head get shot and splatter across a bed or those who don’t want to see the greedy success of criminals praised with a two and a half hour “staged documentary.” But for the open-minded socially aware learners and thinkers, Scorsese’s film has rich text and honest entertainment.

Review: Where The Wild Things Are

Last night, the lights dimmed, and the previews ended. We sat in the third row of the theater, staring straight up at the large screen. Each pixel was perfectly clear. Similar to the The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008) DVD, the title slates of the production companies were drawn over with white drawings (presumably made by Max, since his name appeared on all of them). Then without warning, the most shaky, action packed, eye-pounding action I've ever seen so close up at the start of a movie, blasted into my brain: Max making mischief. Just like the book! I thought to myself. Thankfully, this is not the last time I'll find myself thinking this during the night.
Where The Wild Things Are is a 90 minute feature directed by Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovitch (1999), and Adaptation (2002)) based on Maurice Sendak's 38 page children's book. The book is incredibly simple: Max is bad and sent to his room without dinner. A forest grows in his room, and Max finds a boat which he sails to the land of the Wild Things. They make him king, and the Wild Rompus Begins! Max eventually misses his home, and, smelling his dinner, sails back to his room where hot dinner is waiting for him. Not much of a movie, if you ask me. But, as Spike Jonze could only do, the book has been translated into a live-action film, dinner, boat, monsters and all.
A major plus for the film is Spike Jonze's impressive ability to make fake things feel real, no matter how fake they look. The monsters were actual people inside giant costumes, just the faces being computer animated. Max's escape to the Land of the Wild Things, is an impressive two-minute sequence of beautifully filmed sailing, that truly captures the imagination and presents the audience with a spectacle of a great sailor found in a tiny boy. The monster's huts, and their fortress are all wonderfully crafted and even more wonderfully destroyed. There is no doubt that this film is a true work of art: beautiful both in what's real, and what is not.
While the book deals mainly with the idea "There's no place like home," the film strays into the deeper realm of relationships and violence, leadership and fairness. Fairness is generally a theme found in children's movies, but relationships, violence, and leadership are not. Max's mother is divorced, raising two children, and attempting to maintain her job. She also has a new boyfriend, of whom Max is not fond (the attention toward Max has diminished). This divorce and boyfriend situation is nowhere to be found in the book, but adds a unique and acceptable twist to the simple plot. Carol, Max's favorite Wild Thing, has some relationship issues with KW (he's in love with her, but she generally wants to be somewhere else), and becomes rather upset when Max and KW hang out. To make things right, Max issues that they play war. Two teams of Wild Things (and Max) throw dirt clods at each other, attempting to "kill" the bad guys. When one player (Alexander) gets hurt, things start to go wrong. (Carol even rips off another Wild Things arm!) Max's bad leadership turns the Wild Things against him, and ultimately Max misses his mom and decides to go home. The imaginary part of the film ends abruptly, and Max quickly returns home for a cute dinner with his mom.
The film is funny, action packed, and short, but possibly is a bit too sad and scary for young children. It may, in fact, have more for adults than for children. Overall, though, Jonze's beautiful ability to capture the imaginary world are once again displayed in his wonderful adaptation of Maurice Sendak's book Where The Wild Things Are.

Upcoming Feature: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

If you were one of those children who grew up with movies like Willow (Ron Howard, 1988) and Time Bandits (Terry Gilliam, 1981), you're probably not alone. While I myself only recently saw both of these films, it's Terry Gilliam's unique style that will probably draw me to theaters to see his new movie The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (whenever it's wide release might be). The film stars the late Heath Ledger, whose absence in the film is filled in by Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell. Together, the cast, including Christopher Plummer who plays Parnassus, create a bizzare world of wonders that only Gilliam could achieve.
Gilliam's style, as seen in Jabberwocky (1977), Brazil (1985), Twelve Monkeys (1995) and Tideland (2005), is a raw, dark, gritty one. They are fantastical and funny, epic and dark. Unlike Willow which has a happy ending, Gilliam's films generally end with an underscore of tragedy. Another of his works, which didn't do all that well, and which I found rather dull, was The Brothers Grimm (2005), stars both Heath Ledger and Matt Damon. It is a rather poorly made film revolving around characters similar to those in the real Brother's Grimm stories. It has a more decently happy ending, which is not Gilliam's style, and may have led to the films ultimate downfall.
Imaginarium seems to be no excuse to this fantastic, epic, tragic story that will mess with your head. The story revolves around Dr. Parnassus, his daughter, and the man who attempts to help her escape fate. The immortal Dr. Parnassus, who makes a deal with the devil to make him immortal, needs help saving his daughter from being taken by Mr. Nick (the devil). For Dr. Parnassus is no longer immortal, having traded his immortality for youth to marry a fair maiden. The new deal was that when his child turns 16, he must turn (her) over to Mr. Nick. Parnassus asks for one more deal: whoever can seduce 5 souls first, will win control of the daughter. Parnassus also gives up his daughter's hand in marriage, that man who can help Parnassus save her. This, of course, is where Ledger (/Depp/Law/Farrell) comes in.

The film, set to have a limited release at Christmas, is already being released in various other parts of the world. Don't miss out on your chance to see it in theaters.

The Power of Sound

What is it that really draws us to the theater? Is it the oversized screen that gives us nausea? The frigid atmosphere that leaves you bundled up in your coat the entire movie (or the opposite thereof)? The obnoxious person behind you who laughs, rocks in his squeaky chair, and kicks your seat every other scene? The 10 dollars you have to spend on a ticket, and the 20 other dollars you have to spend on a dringk? It could be the wonderful idea of being one of the first people to see the movie... or the oportunity to sharing the movie with a room full of strangers with whom you can share in the laughs and tears of the film. It could be a combination of these factors, or the culmination of all of them. I, however, would like to propose this: It's the ability to actually feel the movie.
Sound is an awesome force. The deep waves undulating back and forth penetrate our beings literally allow us to feel the images presented on the screen. The giant foot of a tyrannosaur slams on the ground, causing ripples on the puddle, AND vibrating its audience's chests. It is this awesome force which I believe is one of the main draws of an audience to the screen. Many people now days have a surround sound system, with a sub-woofer and super tweeters, but nothing quite compares to the overbearing power of the booming speakers in the auditorium of the movie theater. Sure blu-ray players now praise their ability to give an audience 7.1 surround sound system, but this has been in theaters for years. Why bother adding two more speakers (in the recent transition from 5.1 to 7.1) if people didn't think sound was an important aspect of the movie experience.
People want to feel their movies, not just see them. The theater and its outstanding audio system are still a major draw to the general public (even if that number may be dwindling), because home theater systems just don't quite cut it. The feel of the movie just isn't there.

The Urge to Remake

I can honestly say that I have watched a movie and felt the urge to remake it. I have no doubt, however, that most of the urge can be attributed to the fact that so many remakes are emerging in the film world today. The desire to make a movie you love your own can be a powerful thing. Leave it to say the film I saw was Silent Running (Douglass Trumbull, 1972), a sad excuse for a sci-fi film, nothing I'd ever say I love. But I do have a strong sense of ownership of the story. The story was simple, yet elegant, and definitely worth telling. The execution may have sucked, but that is why I felt the urge to remake it.Many films emerging in the world today are sequels or remakes. In my previous post all about these movies, I named nine upcoming movies. Is Hollywood saying that people want to see these movies again? Or, are directors saying that these originals were no good, and need to be redone? Most likely not, since, as M pointed out in "Are Movies Getting Worse," it is rare that a remake exceeds the beauty the original was able to produce. Thus, it is purely a directors desire to make the movie his own (and generally Hollywood's expectation that the film will do well) that a remake is born.

Upcoming Feature. 2012.

I have not prayed since junior high but I pray tonight that Roland Emmerich’s “epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors” is the coolest movie I have ever seen. I cannot think of a more fitting film for our day and age than a plot-less thrill fest starring John Cusack. I will make sure I bring my barf bag along when I don’t attend the premier. And who knows, perhaps fortune will smile on the man who brought us an A-list of instant classics. 10,000 BC, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla. Need I continue? (Mad props to Independence Day.) The ultimate in movie promotion would be for the chronicled events to come true, as is prophesized: the final realization of life imitating art with Emmerich as the finest artistic craftsmen the world has seen. I hereby predict that 2012 will be the epitome of filmmaking prowess and testament to cinematic virtuosity. Emmerich, literally, has the hands of God and any and all things he touches turn to motion picture gold.

Now, I should not discount the credibility of this film just yet. The star studded cast and flawless visuals should carry this masterpiece to the Oscars and back, arms loaded. If you have not checked out the trailer yet, do so, music courtesy of The Shining. And when you’re done, don't miss five minutes of the film. The visuals here will knock your socks off, the arc of each character is present from the first frame, is this real or fake? To get of sense of how mind blowing this story is and how Emmerich and his team captured the verisimilitude of this event, see it without the subjective, eyewitness footage.

I feel that with this film American Cinema will reach the pinnacle of its artistic and socially-conscious success. Take every important and concerned documentary, fuse it with the richest and most beautiful art films, and inject it with the availability and universal acclaim of a child’s film, and what is the product? Roland Emmerich’s 2012. This film is not only a prophecy as to how the world will end, it is a prophecy as to the future of American movie making. This is a future concerned about the world, where everyone is lent a helping hand, and where no one is left on the top of a mountain to be killed by a tidal wave.

Not only will this film be a social and historical achievement but also, and theorists and critics would agree, it will be a technological achievement as well. Straying from the much overwrought digital drawing and graphics that afflict many modern films, Emmerich returns to the roots with good old-fashioned stunts and extras. A cast of tens of thousands of extras showed up to help, free of charge, with the film. Stunts took place in and around both New York and L.A. Extras hurled themselves from falling skyscrapers, jammed cars on collapsing highways, and dove headfirst into bottomless rifts. And the most wonderful evidence of this film as a true social force, the Mother Teresa of movies, the Ghandi of the silver screen, is the expected $2 billion dollars of profit will go to feed the poor. So, be American. Help others. Lend a hand by supporting local cinema and go spend that dollar on 2012 if it's the last thing you do.

Ever Seen It: *batteries not included

Steven Spielberg's blockbuster hit Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and his higher grossing hit E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982), may have sparked some affinity for Aliens in his world of imagination. For in 1985 he found a cute little story about robotic aliens that he liked so much, he decided to have it made into a theatrical release (instead of the TV show it was planned for). Two years later, *batteries not included was released under the direction of Matthew Robbins (who has a cameo roll in Close Encounters), starring Hume Cronyn (an actor probably best known for his television acting).
The film didn't do amazingly in theaters, grossing approximately 33,000,000 domestically and 32,000,000 in the rest of the world. This comes at little surprise to me. 1) The film's genre is terribly difficult to determine. It looks a great deal like a comedy, but the acting makes it a drama, yet it includes crazy alien robots... 2) The quality of the formal techniques is sub-par. The lighting is almost all high key, and too high key for that. 3) The story is simple, quick, predictable, and ludicrous. The building is going to be demolished to make way for a sky-scraper (which reminds me of Pixars 2009 movie UP), leaving the residents with nothing to do but hope for the best. When some aliens who can fix material objects show up, it only makes sense what will happen in the end (I won't spoil it though, if you can't figure it out). And 4) The actors aren't very well-known, and their acting isn't the greatest.
The film tends to drift into more theatrical performances. Of course, it doesn't help that the main actor is from television, nor that they are all no-name actors (besides Jessica Tandy who really gives a good performance). Many of the lines are cheesy, or simply wouldn't be said in those situations. And many of the situations wouldn't occur (I'm not talking about the robotic aliens...). The film had some unique aspects to it, but something about the execution of the story and the layout of the plot didn't suit the expectations Spielberg has left his audience with.
Generally though, I wasn't bored by the movie, nor was I overly enthralled. It has it's moments, be them heartwarming, silly, or just plain old corny, they were there. Recommendation? No need to see it, unless you enjoy watching cheesy effects and getting that sweet sense of nostalgia. (It is like watching Tron!)

Are Movies Getting Worse?

Take a look at these statistics courtesy of Nathanial Johnston. Keep in mind, however, that this is no foolproof and flawless representation of the accepted film ratings. It is interesting though. And what Johnston only touches on, should these statistics be generally representative, is the reason for such an outcome.

Unsurprisingly, the old movies fare well. They are classics that people love to love and are likely to go back and recognize this. They are also films more likely to be seen only by those wishing to go back and watch them, i.e. an older generation who like them but is not too old to be technologically savvy. The recent films fare well too because of there presence in our culture. They are on everybody’s mind, they are cool to like, and they receive far more attention. But we must consider more than the films themselves.

Audiences are changing. They expect more, know more about what they expect, and have much more competition for the senses. As a culture saturated with media and technology to display it, we are consumed by its presence. But what effect does this have on our interpretation as to the quality of the movie? This is determined in part by our viewing experience. We have much vaster capabilities for viewing besides the simple theatre, but even here we have plenty of options. Ipods, home theatres, in car DVD players, airplanes, and countless other modes allow our consumption. Can we, however, presume this to be the main criteria for our satisfaction with a film? It certainly plays a big part.

We need to keep in mind, too, that while movies and styles have changed and the way the story is delivered has been subject to heavy experimentation, the stories remain. And the older stories have had much more time to soak into the culture and become engrained. And copied. It seems rarely that a remake of any sort fares as well as the original, even if for the fact that it isn’t something completely new. This separates old and new from the start; old films have stood the test of time and new films have yet to do the same. So can we assume that old films are better? Can we assume that current films will be seen as better when they are the old films and the old films are the really old films? I don't think old films are any better nor do I think new films are any better. We are comparing apples to oranges and most times that doesn't work.

Weekend Retreat

I took the time to watch several movies this weekend, starting with Kurt Wimmer's Equilibrium (2002). As if the world was not already filled with a plethora of dystopian societies, this Matrix-like film has a dead story. Set after World War III, the world leaders of Libria force all to take "intervals" (a small injection of a drug that stops all human emotion). There are, as always, resistors, those who refuse to take the interval and therefore commit a sense offense. This is where the law enforcers (Grammaton Clerics) come into play. They are trained to kill with the highest proficiency, and must remove all EC-10 materials (objects that promote emotion (such as memorabilia from before WWIII)). Of course one Cleric begins understand the problems with the society and begins to stop taking his Prozium (the emotion stopping drug).

Christian Bale's performance is stunningly appropriate for the film (an emotionless mess similar to many of his other films). Although the introduction of a female resistance fighter is a positive, Bale's interaction with her seems forced and unnatural. In fact, the entire inclusion of her character seems wasted. We only see her several times, even though she is integral in Bale's transformation. The stylized action is pathetic. There are some unique moments, but they are generally destroyed by lame sound effects and an overall lack of realistic parameters. Lastly, there are far too many plot twists and character twists that attempt to keep the audience guessing, but simply end up confusing. In general, the film was a disappointment from start to finish.

The second film was this year's Paul Blart: Mall Cop from director Steve Carr. This rushed story of an idiot, his family, their attempt to get him a new woman, and the woman he attempts to get, is bland and childish. As the "Mall Cop" aims to woo a beautiful mall vendor, robbers take over the mall, hoping to steal the 30,000,000 dollars at the various credit stations.
Despite the fairly simple plot, the movie a few interesting surprises. Kevin James' acting was less than exciting (he does much better in his role as Doug in King of Queens), and the supporting roles were even less amazing. The bad guys in the film remind me of a souped up version of the bad guys from Home Alone 3. With acrobatics, BMX bikes, and skateboards, these bad guys were the poorest addition to the movie next to the SWAT team leader. Also full of twists, this film came as another disappointment (even if I had low expectations to begin with) if still making me laugh quite a bit.

Finally, Henry Selick's 2009 movie Coraline filled the screen of my apartment (in HD, I might add) yesterday night. Dakota Fanning's unmistakable voice is the character of Coraline, a little girl whose parents pay less attention to her than she thinks they should. When the family rents out part of a large pink Victorian house, Coraline is less than amazed by it and her new neighbors. However, her interest is sparked when she finds a strange small door in the living room, through which she can visit a better world, with an "Other Mother" in her dreams. She falls in love with this new world until Mother forces her to stitch buttons into her eyes. Things go terribly wrong, and it is up to Coraline to save not only herself, but her friend's Grandmother's sister, two other ghosts, and eventually her parents.A lively movie, full of color, humor, and several scary sequences, Coraline is the best addition to my "viewed" collection this weekend. Fanning's voice acting is decent, but Teri Hatcher and Kieth David do exceptionally well. The movie has a decent plot, but seemed to drift toward a video game feel. Not as wonderfully made as Nightmare Before Christmas, the movie still holds it's own, and is a decent watch.

Another List

The September/October 2009 issue of Film Comment's Trivial Top 20 rated the Best Acting Performance by a Musical Artist. Their online exclusive expanded said list to a Top 50, check it out. How David Bowie in The Labyrinth didn’t make it on here eludes me. I am pleased to see Videodrome up near the top.

And if you haven’t checked out this issue, be sure to notice Kent Jones’s praise for Where the Wild Things Are.

Of Art and Industry

I feel guilty posting the video below for its propagation of the content held within but do so to discuss rather than flaunt. I by no means attempt to pick on Tarantino, a simple search would yield dozens of other examples. What’s interesting (read: questionable, deplorable) is both its content and the implications its contents draw.

One. The videographer here is as close as one could be to a leach without having slimy skin and a circular tooth-filled sucker. Their blatant and inhumane disregard for their subject is offensive. And even if Tarantino had stood still, smiling into the camera, Who Cares? The unfortunate answer is that someone, somewhere does care.

Two. We are a culture who feed off of other’s popularity, who flock to the site of someone famous just to see them. The funny part is, if you hang around them enough you realize that they are, drum roll, Human. They are not Gods, they are not an urban legend creature, and they have two legs, two arms, and a head. And all the other body parts in most cases.

As is obvious, our film industry has created the star system, admittedly a hugely successful system at that. What the average person doesn't seem to realize is that behind the commercialized image, behind the screen personas, behind the glitz and glamour of’ The Movies’ are real people. Tarantino, Sean Penn, and even Madonna are real human beings the same as anyone else. They just happen to be famous. It is unfortunate that the paparazzi exist but likely that they always will. What is interesting, and just as unfortunate, is that they are becoming blurred with legitimate news photographers.

I hesitate to say they have their place, some press needs to exist for movies in order to help fuel the system. However, their modes are unsavory and embarrassing. As is obvious in this video, they can be like little kids sneaking a peak at someone famous, waiting for them to do something stupid that they can exploit. Granted, celebrities are in the public eye and many of them like this spot, but does that validate the frenzied atmosphere of hundreds of flashes going off all yielding the exact-same-picture?

It would certainly be too much to ask for the general public to respect the film industry as an art form. Although Hollywood would need to cover some ground to get there, perhaps someday our movies will all be films whose social and artistic value supersedes their inclusion of stars.

Tony Jaa's Top 5

If you have seen Ong-bak, or its follow-up, or any other films slated as the next Tony Jaa film then you certainly know who he is. And if there is one thing you should know about this site it is that we love lists. Best of lists, to see lists, favorites, etc. Here, courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes, is a Top 5 list from Jaa.

Ong-Bak- Not too much of a surprise since he stars and amazes everybody with his fighting.

Dark Knight- Sure, one of the biggest films to come out of the most prominent film making industry in the world.

Return of the Dragon- Certainly and available and apt inspiration from another martial arts superstar that made it big in foreign markets.

Drunken Master- Easily my favorite from the list. Classic, classic fighting.

Forrest Gump-?

Cinema and the Computer

Film, as it were, is a physical medium. Light creates an image on the film, and one can literally see that image when it is held to light. As M stated in a previous post, there exists a stark difference between film and its new counterpart video. Video is electronic signals scribed on tape, which, when held to light, procures no visible image. In my humble opinion, video should not be used in place of film. In the movie theater, one should be allowed to watch a film, not a video.
The video's place in this world is the internet. YouTube, Vimeo, Veoh and similar websites exist for the world to post their own creations for the world to see. There remains, however, a genre for different types of videos. There's a video blog, home videos, and FanFilms/Narratives. My largest problem with the online content of today lies within the separation of said genres. Many people use YouTube to post home videos and blogs, but lately it's been more about actual narrative videos. I feel these should be separated. Vimeo is a place to put up high-quality, narrative style videos in a social networking fashion. YouTube has only recently made the "High Quality" and "HD" capabilities to their videos, since so many people are posting their narrative videos, when Vimeo has been doing it for quite a while.
I don't want to visit YouTube to watch other people's poor (and sometimes decent) attempts at making narrative videos. The result is often that the videos are never viewed anyway, since the server is so bogged down with home videos and blogs.
The computer has made cinema less of a piece of art. Many young teenagers of today hope to become filmmakers, simply because they have access to a digital video camera and a generic editing software preinstalled on their computers. I say: leave the art to the professionals. Make your little videos for class, your class projects, but don't expect to make it into the business with those videos.

The Death of Cinema

It was the 31st of September 1983 when somewhere in the world cinema died. That is the Hollywood-centered narrative bookshop cinema died, according to Peter Greenaway, who in an interview with Andreas Kilb in 1989 stated, “I believe that the end has already arrived. Cinema is dying, in a social as well as in a technical sense. All the power, imagination, and scientific interest of the epoch has turned away from cinema." So there you have, it’s dead.

But how can something so alive be dead? How can something so engrained into our culture, something that one cannot go a day without reference to, be dead? How can a multibillion-dollar entertainment industry be dead? It can’t. And it takes a self-assured and ignorant sense of being to claim something so alive and relevant to be anything but.

Perhaps it is the state of being, or was. If cinema died twenty years ago, when I was two years old, what have I been doing with my life? Cinema is not a material function, its not like a warming pan that aside from being dangerous was rendered obsolete with something called heating. If anything, cinema is more alive than ever. What does it mean to be alive? Continuing in existence. A quick look around practically anywhere shows you that cinema is only growing, expanding, reaching into the far corners of the world and infecting everybody in its reach. If anything cinema is threatening to kill us.

In some ways it already has. We emulate and worship it, and demand to continue to do so. We expect to see certain things and are disappointed when we don't. Cinema has a firm and unloosening grasp on our culture. I would say it knows this but that seems impossible. But we know it and therefore cinema knows it. And if cinema is conscious, it is only conscious of the fact that it is us. So if it were dead, we would be dead. So maybe we are.

But step back for a second. We create cinema. We invented it, or at least discovered it. We brought it into this world and we can take it out. Cinema is not a self-perpetuating organic machine that self-replicates to endless degrees. The fact that it does indeed replicate is product of our intentions. We perpetuate its existence, its familiarity, its uniqueness, its life. We are the sole responsibility for its actions. It cannot act without us. And if it does act with apparent opposition to our desires then its because we unknowingly told it to.

At this point, cinema is something that keeps us alive. Film practically flows through the veins of theoretical ponderings and historical writings and popular culture. At this point we cannot avoid it. Something has been created that may never be destroyed. At this point it is too late to for it to die. The only contention, ending on a drearily apocalyptic note, is that we have the power to kill it.