Enter the Void (2009)

     In a pulsating phantasmagoria of acid-tripped title cards, Noe introduces his latest feature atop a pulse-pounding electronic heartbeat hyped on amphetamines.  There is no doubt that many, many narcotics are to come.  If the endless neon lights of Tokyo side streets weren’t clue enough the POV DMT hit seals the deal.  This is a drug movie.  One that resists the ethical considerations surrounding their use and instead gets strung out on life, death, and sex.  There are no moral debates to the aforementioned topics, unlike Irreversible; Noe doesn’t delve into ethical implications.  Rather, he inhales the intoxicating fumes of Dimethyltryptamine and trips through death in the labyrinthine Tokyo streets.  The viewer must be willing, or equally intoxicated, to join the ride.
    Our point of view is through the eyes of Oscar, a twentysomething American living in Tokyo.  He is also a heavy drug user, a literal motherf*cker, and a prospective spiritualist.  He takes a few hits of DMT, the same chemical released when one is about to die, and disappears into a psychedelic stream…  From the hands of his friend, Alex, comes The Tibetan Book of the Dead.  It tells of the afterlife.  They discuss this existence, explained by the book, as a cycle where the spirit is absorbed into light sources to higher and higher levels.  The concepts are nominally intangible yet conceptually akin to someone accustomed to different plains of consciousness.  As the pair walks the carnival-like streets to The Void we experience every footstep, every blink, nearly every sensory input Oscar receives.  He enters the neon bar, black lights illuminating the darkness like a synthetic Pandora.  Seconds later he is in the bathroom frantically dumping pills into the ground level Japanese toilet.  He hurriedly scrapes them from amongst the cigarette butts and unclean tile.  A bullet rips through his chest; his fingers fumble in the warm blood.  Oscar dies on the disgusting bathroom floor, the only cinematic locale to rival Trainspotting. 
    The remaining two hours are a beautiful nightmare, one in which he watches over his stripper sister; seeing both conception and abortion of her baby.  He drifts through walls, passing countless, rooms, stairways, and endless partitions.  There is a renowned sense of freedom not even possible during the heaviest trips.  He cycles, passing through glowing orbs in the environment before starting again with the events that carry on after his death.  More walls, more lights, more sounds textures and luminescent voids.  Until finally, as dreamed of before death, he floats through a hotel filled with friends.  He glides above room after room of copulating couples and passionate threesomes; a sexual cornucopia that fuses Eyes Wide Shut and 2001 A Space Odyssey into a relentless foray until he becomes, almost perfectly, the starchild.
    Gasper Noe’s style is very much intact.  The opening title cards, perhaps seizure inducing, introduce the strobing, neon color space in which the entire film exists.  Oscar’s room is illuminated heavily by blinking advertisements from outside, shifting from green to purple to red and yellow.  White, it seems, does not exist.  Nearly every shot is from behind his eyes.  The single exception may be his initial DMT hit that slowly floats above even him; but it is still clearly his point of view.  We are treated to the unreal trip sequences as otherworldly shapes intertwine and morph between colors, sometimes resembling dendrites or caterpillars or mind-tunnels to other dimensions.  Present too, in amplified color swirling accents, is raw, uncensored, pornographic exploits.  Where Irreversible teetered between violence and sex, Enter the Void dissolves the former for heavy doses of the latter.
    The film may be the new ultimate trip, clearly influenced by Kubrickian obsessions.  It, too, runs a little long for the conventional viewer yet is fully motivated by its content.  And more than many filmmakers today, Noe has created an experience, one fraught with visual and audible stimulus and intending an experience beyond the typical drama.  In this case, a psychedelic melodrama.

Valhalla Rising (2009)

    Nicolas Winding Refn strips his world down to the bare essentials; Earth and Death.  In the mist of the Scottish Highlands is caged a mute, one-eyed animal.  The beast is taken out for regular bouts of carnage, both in the vein of jugular tearing and skull-bashing.  The collar and leash that confine his movements are but minor disadvantages with mortal benefits.  One-Eye’s graying beard and neatly contained crop of lengthy hair quickly become matted in the mud of his battleground.  The only reward he receives for his kill count is a ladle of watery soup from the hands of a young, androgynously blond-haired boy.
    This child becomes his mouth; speaking more in a single word than the mute does from start to finish.  One-Eye talks with his eyes and with his body.  His red-saturated hallucinatory premonitions provide his escape.  In a matter of seconds he breaks his collar and slays his captors, making habitual use of a diving leg smash and finishing his opponent whence they have fallen to the earth.  The mute ties his final captor, as if to crucify, to a large rock only to disembowel the living man.  He continues through the thin air being tailed by the child.
    The unlikely, almost affectionately paired duo arrives at the aftermath of crusading Christian Vikings.  The small village’s men are slaughtered, the naked women chained, the huts burned.  One-Eye and the boy join the Vikings as they return to Jerusalem; a journey guided by God through the fog covered waters of the ocean.  Their faith in God will surely return them to the Holy Land.
    The river they abruptly find themselves in, and the land they soon set foot on, is surely more Hell than Heaven.  The first Viking is killed by an obsidian arrowhead of unknown origin; the first sign of primal inhabitants.  The open-air burials on raised scaffolding display withered and decaying bodies.  The forests have no end.  The mud is thick.  Their world is a wicked hallucination.  The Christians continue to delude themselves with visions of grandeur in building their New Jerusalem devoid of women or food.
    Valhalla Rising finds Refn at his most meditative and, despite my unrelenting adoration for Bronson (2009), perhaps his most masterful.  The savage brutality and violent masculinity is echoed yet is stripped of its societal incarnations and individual motivations.  Here, it is survival at its purest.  It is no small fact that One-Eye is both caged and collared and tied to a post like a dog.  He is fed from a bowl without spoon and used only for fighting.  And he doesn't talk. Unlike the violent nature of Bronson, One-Eye’s violence is not spurred on by challenging authority and immortalizing identity but by prolonging the physical life. 
    It is a life born from the earth and never separated from it.  His cage, the only time he is ever inside, is an extension of a massive boulder.  His battleground is but a textured and dirty mess of mud.  The rock cairn he erects on the edge of the water where he commits his final cleansing comes tandem with the bloodstained premonitions of his body beaten to death on a rocky outcrop.  While he bathes his body for the last time, the final Christian leader does the same, only to be penetrated by three arrows that leave his body floating in the dark water.
    It is unclear just what One-Eye has sacrificed in the final chapter.  Nor is it certain that he didn't lead the Christians astray, as he was accused.  It is certain that no New Jerusalem is to be formed in the primordial land. 
    Refn’s Death Trip is written in six chapters that suggest an easy reading but do not provide a concrete solution.  The child is all that remains after One-Eye is beaten by natives covered in dry mud who would undoubtedly admire their victim’s martial talents, enduringness, and affection for dirt.  The Christian faith is darkly portrayed and leaves very little reason to believe in God.  It is not surprising that Refn has exhausted himself with a pair of violent films soaked in masculinity and seeks explorations entirely surrounded my women.  Likewise, it should be noted that the film at hand demands multiple viewings.

Ode to Yesteryear: Exploitation Double Feature

    More and more modern filmmakers are professing their love for films of the past by referencing and recreating them.  This is especially true of the grindhouse and exploitation films that seem to have been popularized by Tarantino and Rodriguez and whose references run wide and deep.  These serve as a quasi-in-joke to those familiar with the particular genres, films, actors, techniques, and clichés.
    Scott Sanders revives the blaxploitation film in full force.  Black Dynamite stars and is co-written by Michael Jai White, ripped beyond belief and fully aware of his surroundings.  Sander’s film pays homage to the low-budget inner-city exploitations by adopting the epitome of ridiculous plot points and technical elements.  Dynamite’s brother is killed sending the titular character on a sex-filled, Kung-Fu revenge rampage.  The story convolutes into Dynamite saving nearly everybody; the most extreme being the heroin addicted orphans.  He confronts friend and foe alike, demanding to be listened to and letting his fists do a majority of the talking.  There is really no limit this film doesn't push content-wise and feels like they packed three hours of story into half that. 
    Stylistically the film is nearly indiscernible from those it emulates, Shaft, Superfly, Sweet Sweetback, etc.  If weren’t for the obvious parody it would fit right in.  Dynamite is distracted by the boom mic as it hovers inches from his forehead.  Most scenes end with him declaring his superiority while brandishing his handgun and nunchaku.  The music feels right out of the seventies; the chase scenes make spatial continuity seem irrelevant.  In all respects, the film makes fun of everything that was blaxploitation and does so in such a jabbing manner that it surpasses its source.  One could not parody the genre more, short of casting white people in black face.
    On the other end of the spectrum is Ti West’s homage to classic splatter films of the 70’s and 80’s.  The House of the Devil is so pitch perfect and content and delivery that it could have easily been made 25 years before and no one would know the difference.  In contrast to Dynamite, West plays it serious.  The slow burn of horror is cautious in delivery, carefully withholding information for characters and audience alike.  We know when the young babysitter takes a job at a giant house owned by a creepy man that she will have a hell of a night.
    Filmed on 16mm and shot mostly at night, West’s film carefully controls the audience’s intake.  Much of the picture relies on methodical introduction of uncertainty; it scares us more with what we don’t see.  At the same time it shocks us abruptly; no scare tactic is off limits.  When it finally climaxes there is but 15 minutes left; 15 minutes that make up for all the blood lacking in the first 75.  We can only hope, given the expectedly unexpected ending, that the sequel is around the corner.

Both films highly recommended. 

The Girlfriend Experience (2009)

    Soderbergh’s films are pretty hit and miss as a whole but migrate towards the positive end of the spectrum.  It is not immediately apparent just where on the scale this film sits.  The 2009 experimental drama received mixed critical reviews and, not surprisingly, didn’t fare too well at the box office.  Upon reflection, though, it becomes quite apparent that this is a far cry from the super independent experiment Soderbergh conducted back in 2005.  Bubble was mostly unwatchable and while it may have achieved something for the filmmaker personally, did nothing for his audience.
    The Girlfriend Experience is much easier to justify from a spectator standpoint.  Shot with the wunderkind of cameras, the RedOne, it juxtaposes a handheld, overexposed subjectivity reminiscent of Ocean’s 12 with a carefully composed, architecturally sound interior world of glass and steel.  These frames are much more interesting, much emptier emotionally.  The inhospitality of these environments, all hard lines with sharply defined edges, may mirror the attachment absent in the main character.  The apartment even, lit smoothly and beautifully with what should be a warm red glow, remains cold in a wide and unceasing master shot.  The closest we ever get to two characters actually connecting in the classic shot/ reverse shot is between the escort and a reporter, secluding themselves to window seats in a restaurant.  Just as the viewer remains physically distant from all characters so do the characters fail to connect themselves.
    Chelsea fashions herself a high-class escort providing paid-for emotional attachment to her clients while at the same time maintaining a relationship with her boyfriend.  We rarely see their connection, rather, we see them living out their independent lives that occasionally cross and eventually disintegrate.  All human interactions in the film, as there is really no other kind here, retain as sense of everyday realism.  Their world is not exceedingly cinematic; Chelsea’s profession is not exploited like most other films would likely handle it.  (The fact that Sasha Grey’s name promotes the movie is another story.)  The conversations, especially if one is expecting more, come off as mundane, yet appropriately so.  The closest we come is a john promising a career-building week in Dubai full of cocaine, rich Indian businessmen, and skyscraping hotels; the type of location most prostitute movies would inhabit.  Naturally, the reviewer turns out an insulting review of her services.
    Soderbergh’s film is a languid exploration approaching urban ennui.  Nearly all of her rich clients report on their crumbling economic status, spending much of their paid for time talking rather than…  Yet we never see anyone do much of anything.  The exception being the gym, where mindless minions perfect their bodies, presumably for sex with whomever.  There exists a bleakness to the world; the sun never seems to shine.  The only sense of energy comes from street musicians who provide a contrastingly upbeat soundtrack for spurts of time only to be cut out abruptly.  Experiment is certainly the right word for the film and its success is debatable.  Yet in its completion it strikes the right chord, at least for me at the time.  So what more can be said about a film that feels like something more must be said?  Just that, that it is easy to consider this film more meaningful than it is.  Or perhaps it is that meaningful, you’ll have to decide for yourself.

J.J. Abrams Double Feature

    From the very moment the finale of the Lost pilot episode finished, I found myself hooked. Its sheer magnitude and quality blew me away: how could a television show look so much like a film? The answer was not just money (the episode costing over 11 million dollars), but also the genius behind the camera. Director J.J. Abrams proved himself that day I watched Lost, and it was not until 2006 that I realized just how genius this man truly is. Mission Impossible III looked promising in trailers, and despite the troubles Cruise was having with my comrades, I ventured to the theaters to watch what I quickly realized it was a masterpiece. 

     The quick cutting was not new. The spy tools weren't new. What was new was the non-stop action, the beautifully crafted story, and the sheer beauty of the film. To anyone unfamiliar with the IMF concept, it's a fun, engaging and entirely engrossing film, and to anyone who knows IMF like the back of their hands, the film is fun, engaging and engrossing, while feeling fresh: Ethan Hunt pumped with adrenaline and revitalized. 

     Now in retirement, Ethan Hunt, IMF (Impossible Mission(s) Force) agent, is engaged to a beautiful, loving women. When he is called to perform one more mission to save one of his trainees, he finds himself entangled in a web of lies and deciet that lead him to Rome, Berlin, Tokyo and Shanghai in search of "the rabbits foot." 

     The film is J.J. Abrams' first feature film, one that no one can deny is edgy and exciting. The use of color to set the mood is used so well that you could watch the raw footage without sound and get the right emotion. The use of exposure and lighting only enhances the color, and makes the appropriate things pop on screen. Music, provided by Michael Giacchino (and based on Lalo Shifrin's original theme from the tv show) builds on the emotion even further. And finally, the editing brings it all together.

     Even further, the direction given the actors and the acting itself is superb. Tom Cruise may play the only character he knows how to, but it Abrams makes it fit, makes it work as part of the story, the drama. The co-stars keep up with Cruise's ego with their own impeccable acting, and it all comes together to make the best Mission impossible (and one of the best Cruise) films yet.

     Three years later, Abrams' Star Trek is released in theaters. It is his second film, and an attempt by studios to revitalize the Star Trek franchise. Like the six year period between Mission Impossible II and Mission Impossible III, the seven year break Star Trek took from producing another film was a well-needed one. Although the series had made the switch from the first Generation to the Next Generation, the films quickly lost value, and Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) earned a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics.
     Like M:i:III, Star Trek (2009) brought new life to the series. Something fresh, bold and exciting. Although many Trekkers might say that the film isn't a true Star Trek film, since the storyline and characters don't follow the original plot. Even though this is true, the story maintains that everything that has happened since the beginning of Star Trek remains true, we've simply traveled back in time to create an "alternate reality."
     This reality is fun, fast and action-packed. There's really a non-stop flow of action and adrenaline pumping through the film at all times. It's all at once new and familiar, with enough suspense to hold your breath and attention through the entire film.
     Abrams' use of color is still present, each planet popping, every deck on the Enterprise blindingly colorful. The lighting has that familiar play with exposure, with something new added: Lens flares. Some might get sick with all the light flashing in their eyes, but it makes the entire world of Star Trek seem more brilliant and bright. Of course Giacchino's score expounds upon the film's brilliance again, pulling the film together after it's beautiful editing cut it apart.

    Abrams has continually wowed me both at the theater (as director and producer) and on the TV (Lost, Fringe), and I don't doubt that I'll once again be amazed with his upcoming feature Super 8 due to be released in 2011.

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day (2009)

       Troy Duffy returns to the streets of Boston with a sequel to his 1999 cult hit despite such a follow-up being both unnecessary and unwarranted.  And in the places that many found acceptably over the top and gratuitously stylish are hinted at and returned to unsubtly and ineffectively.  I have not found a reason for the widespread appeal, at least for the target demographic, of the first film because I do not share the enthusiasm.  Regardless, it is obvious with this film that many of the marks set by the first are erroneously duplicated to banal result and its presence more taints than supports its predecessor.

            A copycat killer emerges thirsty for blood in Boston church and commits a crime with intended effect of rousting the Saints out of hiding in the Irish countryside where they are camouflaged in years of uncharted facial hair growth.  The plan inevitably works as they arrive stateside to clear their name, commit some more gratuitous violence, and take on a misplaced and annoying-as-can-be sidekick whilst evading the FBI and law enforcement alike.  The supporting cast of cheesy cops is so sophomorically written and pathetically conceived that it is difficult to decide whether dialogue or delivery is worse.  It is matters not, however, as either way their placement is surely and clearly aimed but poorly and inaccurately fired. 

The Bad Lieutenant (2009)

            Nicolas Cage carries this movie to such rewarding effect that his is the most exciting thing to watch, and that is a big task for a film filled with enough other visceral thrills that replacing him would have produced a decent enough film itself.  His drug-riddled body supported by his wide stance and sagging shoulders create the most pitiful of characters he has portrayed and, incontrovertibly, the one he was designed for. 

            The context is post-Katrina New Orleans where the dilapidated environment and overcast skies are clearly depressing the local population.  Yet Herzog’s film doesn't simply build a helicopter fly-by of a bunch of shitty buildings then equate these to people’s feelings.  Rather, the humans, so affected by their environment, think and act for themselves amidst the socially crumbling landscape.  A la Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo, Herzog’s characters are victims of their extreme surroundings and if Kinski wasn't twice testament, Cage undoubtedly is.  A cop, basically trying to do the right thing, has developed various drug addicttions as a side effect to his stressful job.

            It has always been my assertion that a film’s opening frames should be one of the most appropriate and pleasing.  This film begins with a snake swimming through the water, revealed to be a flooded jail with one prisoner still locked in his cell.  Two creatures, both out of their element.  Cage enters, soon to splash into the dirty water, another creature that has not found its place.  The final shot finds him, beaten, depraved, f-ed up,

Sin Nombre

 Cary Fukunaga, the writer and director of 2009's Sin Nombre (which approximately means "Nameless"), pours our his heart in this hour and a half long story. The movie, with some rather decent actors, revolves around a boy whose heart has been broken, and a girl whose life is about to change. As the girl gets ready to head north of the border (from Mexico to the U.S.A.) she enlists the help of her long lost father, and her uncle. Meanwhile the boy, whose life is split between the gang he fights for and the girl he loves,  makes a mistake that puts a death sentence on his head. Deciding to make a run for it, he finds himself in the company of the girl and her father and uncle.
 The film is an impressively beautiful look into the life of a gang member, employing cinematography and mise en scene to enhance the disparities of life within and without the gang. Shots are reminiscent of 2007's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford during the train sequences. Massive, single-source lights spill over the crowded rooftops of the train in dense mists, creating a sense of awe and wonder in a gloomy and despairing vista. The train is representative of hope and the future, but its danger looms over everything. There are indeed as many shots of setting suns and distant horizons, as there are of dark places and grimy conditions.
 It may be difficult for me to judge the acting, due to the fact that they are speaking in a different language, but from what I can tell, things seem to be top notch (if not, then just a few notches below). The film is quite well-pulled-off: from beginning to end one feels immersed in the interweaving stories, as much as the intense landscapes and several chase sequences. It's a full movie: love, hope, fear, danger, action, romance all combine in one rather amazing film.

I Love Sarah Jane (2008)

            It is not immediately apparent that this Australian short is a zombie film.  More than anything, says director Spencer Susser, it is about the power of love to blind its bearer to anything else going on in the world.  Made in order to support a pitch for a feature, the film stars Mia Wasikowska as the only girl still alive in the wake of a zombie outbreak.  In fact, only the kids have survived.  The sole adult is the girl’s father, tied up in the backyard, who becomes subject for the kids’ torturous experiments.

            The film is simple and clocks in at 14 minutes yet seems to pass in even less.  The gray and dismal apocalyptic world is rather featureless save for the overturned cars and scattered bodies.  And as a whole, the film casts and almost demure tone as the lead boy shyly approaches the girl of his dreams whose zombie handling skills rivals that of any of the gang.

            Susser had his hand in Spider on the camera or electrical crew and his first feature, Hesher, has a commendable cast.  He is likely a director to keep in mind.  The film can be found on Wholphin number 10, or apparently YouTube.

Sci-Fi Now and Then

            It came to my attention upon exiting the theater on 13 August 2009 that this year had fared quite well for mainstream science fiction.  J.J. Abram’s re-imagining of Star Trek started the year off with a bang that resounded for the remainder of the twelvemonth.  Midsummer, Duncan Jones’s Moon was rewarded two viewings and was an understated, underappreciated, and impressive debut feature.  The surreal atmosphere and fantastic-as-usual Clint Mansell score helped the film be the only science fiction entry that gave District 9 a run for its money.  The fact that Neill Blomkamp’s film received Oscar nods was fulfilling at least.  The fourth Terminator film was refreshingly fun even if overdone in a few select parts.  There was also Avatar.  Thus 2009 was a pretty well rounded year for science fiction, many of which made a big impression at the box office and award ceremonies (monies- never gets old). 

            It came to my attention more recently, in looking over old movie lists and scanning my library, that 1982 was also a prolific years for good science fiction films.  The second Star Trek saw Kirk and Spock battle Khan.  Computer technology and Jeff Bridges were immortalized in Tron.  Ridley Scott’s Philip K. Dick adaptation in the form of Blade Runner has ceased to

The Fourth Kind

Olatunde Osunsanmi’s The Fourth Kind was marketed with the archival footage validity that suggested its truth superior to that of Blair Witch or others of the sort. Finding itself released shortly after Paranormal Activity may not have been detrimental to its not too dissimilar delivery. And where the much over hyped subjective footage fest becomes a dull bore , Osunsamni’s film only fares slightly better.

The immediate reaction to the conclusion of this film, or rather in its midst, is one of feeling cheated. The supposedly real archival footage of psychologist Abigail Tyler comes off as a cheap attempt at purported actuality. As it happens, she looks too much like an alien to pass as someone supposedly abducted by one. The lighting is so blatantly ambient and practical that it becomes an oversaturated but dull contrast to the rest of the film. The diegetic narrative is saturated with yellows and blue and makes the mistake of introducing its characters by naming the actors that portray them. A quick search of the film reveals that none of the supposed footage is real, nor was it even filmed in Nome, Alaska, nor did the psychologist actually exist.

For a film named as it is, clearly referring to alien activity, the beings themselves are notably absent save for a few shadows and noisy audio. To call this a science fiction film almost mislabels it. With a few major events to the contrary, one could almost read this film as entirely psychological, the events pertaining to nothing more than the mind and its creations.

The Results!

     It was a night of anticipation, a year in the making. The 82nd Annual Academy Awards were last night, March 7, 2010, the night when moviegoers and moviemakers alike sit down to watch the best of the best win the trophies: the Oscars! With ten best picture nominations and a female and an African American in the running for best director, tonight was a night of firsts. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin hosted the event, their opening number being a bash of all the nominees in the highest categories, but did little else the rest of the night.
     It was a three and a half hour tribute to films and the people that make them, a length that was more than unnecessary, being filled for the most part by clips of the nominated best picture films. Unlike most years, this year had only two musical numbers, one being the opening song, sung by Neil Patrick Harris, and the other being a dance set to the nominated best original scores. Overall, the show turned out to be a bit bland.
     An attempt to spruce it up was a tribute to the late John Hughes, and a second tribute the remaining deceased film-makers and actors (a blatant pass over Ms. Fawcett, with a tribute to Michael Jackson). There was also a tribute to the Horror genre... a collage of clips from movies, presented by Twilight's Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner. ("even an unexplained homage to the horror film, a genre that is very much alive." -Alessandra Stanley, The New York Times).
     The awards saw some surprises, such as The Hurt Locker's numerous wins, and some non-sruprises, including the win for best supporting actor and actress. The oddest part of the night, however, was the ending. Due to the lengthiness of the show, and the fact that the best picture award is always given at the end of the night, Tom Hanks walked on stage, opened the envelope and read the winner. There was no, "and here are the nominees for..." It was a rushed ending to allow the producers and director a chance to give their thanks, and no time for Martin and Baldwin to wrap up the evening.
     The complete list of wins by movie is as follows:

•The Hurt Locker:
-Best Picture
-Best Director
-Best Sound Mixing
-Best Sound Editing
-Best Original Screenplay
-Best Editing

•Avatar:
-Best Cinematography
-Best Art Direction
-Best Visual Effects

•Crazy Heart
-Best Lead Actor: Jeff Bridges
-Best Original Song: "The Weary Kind" by Ryan Bingham and T-Bone Burnett









•UP
-Best Animated Feature
-Best Original Score

•Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
-Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique
-Best Adapted Screenplay

•The Blind Side
-Best Lead Actress: Sandra Bullock

•Inglorious Basterds
-Best Supporting Actor:  Christoph Waltz










•The Young Victoria
-Best Costume Design

•Star Trek
-Best Makeup










•El secreto de sus ojos
-Best Foreign Language Film









•The Cove
-Best Documentary Feature








•Music by Prudence
-Best Documentary Short

•Logorama
-Best Animated Short

•The New Tenants
-Best Live Short


"The Hurt Locker" Wins Big at Oscars by Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes

The Drama of How The Race Is Won by Melena Ryzik

Supersizing The Show (Austerity Is So 2009) by Alessandra Stanley

A Serious Man (2009)

     Now in their fifties, Joel and Ethan Coen have ventured through their career with high hopes, pumping out a movie a year for the past three years, and earning many an Oscar. Two years ago, No Country for Old Men won them the awards for best picture, best director(s) and best screenplay. Now, with A Serious Man, their up for it again, best picture and best screenplay.

     Inspired both by the book of Job and their personal lives growing up in a Jewish household, A Serious Man is a bold, intriguing look at the many misfortunes of Larry Gopnik (played by Michael Stuhlbarg), professor of physics at a Jewish college and father of two. His wife is leaving him, his children are "a mystery" to him, and his brother is in trouble with the law. To top it off, his neighbor seems to dislike him, one of his students bribes him for a good grade, and his other neighbor's husband is seemly never there - just one more temptation to let his life slip away. Still, he continually finds himself questioning why God would be doing all these things to him and maintains his faith.
     The film truly is quite dark, implying that there is not much that can go right for this man. Just as God allowed the devil to toy with Job, Larry cannot see God helping him through this rough period of life, and offers him no answers. He often has dreams that seem to give him an answer to his problems, then show him exactly why that's a bad solution. Oddly enough, the films title is first seen relating to his wife's lover, Sy Ableman as he calls himself "a serious man." Larry, when attempting to call himself such a person, finds he cannot do it, but instead claims "I've tried to be a serious man." (just an odd little tidbit I found interesting I guess.)
    Despite its dark nature, the film is rather comical, Michael Stuhlbarg's acting reminiscent of Jason Bateman as Michael Bluth from Arrested Development. It is a quirky "am I the only one who sees the lunacy of this situation" kind of acting, and he pulls it off quite well. The other acting in the film is equally impressive, something that probably comes from the impeccable ability of the Coen's to create an ensemble of characters unlike anything else, yet somehow entirely familiar.
     Story and acting aside, the film is a visually stunning one, editing and cinematography alike. Although each shot feels quite standard, there's something about them and the way their put together that adds new meaning to the story and the film as a whole. The choice of music and the new compositions by Carter Burwell flow into the dark theme of the movie that is both empathetic and anempathetic (music that seems to be as haunting as the image and story, and music that is so entirely oppositional that it enhances what we feel about what we are seeing).
     Really it is a rather mysterious and challenging film. The ending is dark and open-ended (especially for the son Danny). Questions are raised about why these terrible things happen to this man, but in the end I believe the following quote sums it up quite nicely (even though his dreams might try to tell him otherwise (is Larry just trying to be ignorant?)):

"The Uncertainty Principle: It proves we can't ever really know what's going on." -Larry Gobnik

The Blind Side (2009) (spoilers...)

    Up for two Oscars, including best picture and best actress in a leading role, John Lee Hancock's emotionally turbulent film The Blind Side is one of the best I've seen in several weeks. Not only is it a beautiful story, but the cinematography was decent and the acting was above par.

     The story is based on the real life events involving the Tuohy family and Michael Oher. The owners of 85 local restaurants, the Tuohy family generally has it all. Michael, whose past remains a mystery for most of the film, has little more than the clothes on his back. As Michael finds himself drifting between homes and families, one father gets him into a christian school where the Tuohy family attends. They notice Michael's hardships and decide to bring him into their home, giving them things he'd never had before. The experience changes Michael, Liegh Anne the mom, and Sean the dad as well.
    The largest problem with the film was that it was highly unfocused, plot-wise. Michael eventually gets to play football for his highschool, and quickly learns that the only high score that he got on his aptitude test (protective instincts) pays off. Now colleges become interested in Michael's talents, but he needs to improve his grades in order to be accepted into any of the schools. As the grades improve, in a lovely montage sequence, he's torn in deciding which college to choose. His new family is all for Ole Miss, and "gently" push him in that direction. This ultimately causes a scandal about why the Tuohy family brought Michael in in the first place.
    Really, the film does a good job of giving the audience all the important details, but since the opening scene is really one of the last ones, it is hard to not see the scandal as the main focus of the film. Unfortunately, if this is the focus, we only get to see a fifteen minute portion of the film dedicated to unraveling the mystery of the scandal. There's so much more to the story than just the scandal, especially since it is resolved so quickly and so simply. However, had the movie not opened with the scene about the scandal, it would have felt less focused. In all truthfulness, I believe I still would have liked the film, even if it didn't have a clear focus, because the film is really about the characters.

     Despite the hard topics the film discusses, it's levity was enough to bring last night's audience to laughter more often than I had expected. The audience filled the auditorium, an impressive feat since this was its fifteenth week in theaters (107 days). This is a film that truly deserves to be in the running for best motion picture of the year.

The Last Station (2009)

I could have told you absolutely nothing about the life and death of Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. For that matter, I could not have claimed to care. Yet Hoffman’s film, which deals precisely with the end of days for Russia first iconic writer, casts aside any prior knowledge or interest in the man. The film cares not for its viewer’s personal exposure to the writer and manages to make the film fascinating for both the educated and ignorant alike.

Towards the end of his life, appearing much like Charles Darwin, Tolstoy took to the woods. His commune, a populated and strict society, seems by today’s standards as another attempt at fair and equal living for all involved. Yet Tolstoy himself admits to not being a very good Tolstoyan, proof that an idea can be taken from its creator and mutated into something unrecognizable. The fact that he cared not makes his aged character more intriguing. His final days saw him turn his entire work over to the public against the pleading of his wife. (This constitutes the majority of the narrative.)

The strongest suite of the film, for someone unfamiliar with its historical accuracy, is (this feels so film school) the mise-en-scene. The costumes range from simple to rich, dirty to clean, lively to dull. The sets are beautifully furnished with aged and endured artifacts, each could certainly tell a story of its own. The vast and lush countryside meld into the warm and inviting forest that takes on an almost fairy tale perfection. Warm yellows, calm off-whites, and vivid greens dominate the film. Every environment, whether lit by flickering candles or filtering sunrays, is captured with such rich and inviting cinematography that the film ultimately becomes a foremost example of naturalist escapist fare. It would appear impossible not to die in peace when surrounded by such sights.

The Last Station is not a film I would have sought out for its content. Yet in its conclusion, it is hard not to want more of the musically heightened emotions, enchanting photography, and thought provoking themes of death and family. For someone so young, it is yet another point of support for my anticipation of old age. And for someone so surrounded by film, it is a refreshing and exciting discovery far from the expected and customary areas of exploration.

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

It’s very hard not to read this film as a parody. Yet nowhere outside the film’s title is there anything to suggest that this isn’t a horror film that takes itself seriously. But, if we can look to the ultimate entry in Raimi’s Evil Dead trilogy, we see the stage for supernatural horror comedy had been set years before.

Drag Me to Hell moves to the modern context and switches to a female protagonist vying for a promotion at her trivial bank job. Her competition and boss, both male, are obtrusively ignorant and traditionally one-dimensional. Even her boyfriend, whose presence is interjected purely for narrative continuity, cannot even manage a convincing sympathy or concern for his girlfriends newly acquired curse. Per usual, then, the woman because the target for torture, a good deal of which manages to find its way into her mouth. Here is a short and incomplete list: a fly, mealworms, vomit, blood, handkerchief, and eyeballs. This film does manage to take extreme advantage of propelling disgusting content onto the face of its doomed heroine. Appropriately, the visceral and repulsive materials mark a sharp contrast to the neatly tidy and not unattractive actress whose screams come at almost consistent intervals throughout the entirety of the movie.

The opening titles suggest a classic horror film of decades past. Yet the clean cinematography marks a sharp contrast to the grainy (read: low budget) splatter fests of yesteryear. Throw in the distracting amounts of cheesy computer effects that make their presence known minutes into the film and it is marked as a modern piece of filmmaking. Thus it is hard to see Raimi’s film as anything but a gross exaggeration of the jaw-dropping horror fans flock to see. No one will question why the anvil was hanging on a pulley when the rope is then cut with an ice-skate and gravity forces the old gypsy’s eyes out of her head and onto the girl’s face.

Of course, I’d rather step down from my hypercritical pedestal for a moment and commend the film for the consistency with which it delivers scare tactics, a fact that certainly doesn't refute my preferred reading of the film. If I, or anyone, had a nickel for every time something popped out with intent to scare then we would have dollars, dollars. The film manages to take all these moments, many absurd, none scary, and keep the audience tense and expectant for much of the running time. The fact that on numerous occasions they involve vomitous, explosive bodily fluids and audibly enhanced grotesquery makes their infusion often satisfying. The film was not that entertaining, but for many (read: everyone I talked to) it was a successful and cinematically rewarding experience.

Posters 2009.

Here be some awesome movie posters from the year past.

http://www.instantshift.com/2010/

01/04/30-best-movie-posters-of-2009/

I think listal does the best yet they are simply a collection, not ranked. Although you can choose to see them many an order.

http://www.listal.com/list/melhores-posteres-de-2009

As is obvious, Moon had many phenomenal posters as did Antichrist and Inglourious Basterds.

And here are a ton of posters, many which I know I never saw.

http://www.impawards.com/2009/std.html

I don't know what The Forbidden Door is but I want to see it.

Enjoy.

Oscars! 2009

     Yesterday the Oscar nominations were released, this year introducing the 10-nominee roster for Best Picture. No surprise are the 9 nominations for Avatar including best picture and best visual effects among some of them. What is surprising, though, is that The Hurt Locker received just as many nominations, including best picture and best actor.
     The 10-spot roster for best picture includes the two aforementioned films, along with Precious, Inglorious Bastards,District 9, The Blind Side, An Education, A Serious Man, UP, and Jason Reitman's  Up In The Air.
     The inclusion of UP as a contender for the best Picture is a serious change of pace. Since the movie is also nominated for best Animated feature, I doubt it will be able to win both. In my opinion, the oscars may be making way for Fantastic Mr. Fox, or Coraline to win best Animated feature, and UP will just have to live with two nominations. (of course, I could be wrong... but it seems odd to include UP in both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature categories.)
     Unfortunately, Avatar is probably going to win a great number of its nominations, mainly because of its receipt at the box office. Having crossed the $2 billion mark (and beating Titanic's all-time world-wide record) and on the verge of crossing the $600 million mark (which it could possible surpass by the end of today), Avatar has a good chance of being the pick.
     In another arena, the best original score (another one of my favorite aspects of film following (next to box office counts)) has some good contenders with some of my favorite composers in the running. UP, the score by Michael Giacchino (Star Trek, Lost, Alias,Mission Impossible III, and several other Pixar films) is in the running with another animation Fantastic Mr. Fox by Alexandre Desplat (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Golden Compass, The Queen). Marco Beltrami (3:10 to Yuma, I, Robot, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines) composed for The Hurt Locker alongside Buck Sanders. Hans Zimmer, one of my most recent favorites, (Gladiator, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Dark Knight, The DaVinci Code, Thelma and Louise) composed for Sherlock Holmes this year. And of course,Avatar's composer James Horner (Titanic, Troy, A Beautiful Mind,Glory) takes his stab at the Oscar.

2009

   Last year seemed to me to be a year without a movie. I had no great anticipations for awesome films, and the films that I looked forward to flopped in my mind. There were, however, several surprises: films that either I knew nothing about, or that I poo-poohed after reading the title.
   All-in-all, I went to the theater 28 unique times to watch films, a few short of 2008's personal record of 35. And similar to a post created last year, I can say that I've seen several of the films more than once in theaters, and some of the films again when the came to blu-ray and dvd.
The complete list of 2009's films that I watched (both in theater or at home) follows, the blue being on blu-ray, the red being in the theater, and white on DVD:

Watchmen

Sunshine Cleaning

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Bella

Star Trek

Terminator Salvation

Angels and Demons

Up

Return to Tarawa

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Moon

Public Enemies

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Riff Raff

(500) Days of Summer

District 9

Inglorious Basterds

Zombieland

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

Coraline

Where the Wild Things Are

Paranormal Activity

The Men Who Stare At Goats

2012

Avatar

Up In The Air

Julie & Julia

The Road

Invictus

  The films that stood out among the others were Invictus, Up In The Air, Where the Wild Things Are, Up, Star Trek and Moon. Oddly, the movies that I found the most unique are the independent and drama films, not the action films. For me, a moviegoer who is big into action and adventure, This year was surprisingly better in the drama department. Although Star Trek stood out as one of my favorite films of the year, I can say that Public Enemies was not as good as The Road, nor was Avatar as moving as Where the Wild Things Are. They all have their own unique properties, no doubt, but for a person who owns 99% action films, 2009 was an odd year.
  Gran Torino, one of the years first films (with a limited release in December 2008, and a wide release in January 2009) is comparable to Clint Eastwood's Invictus, starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. There are some issues with poor acting on behalf of some minor characters, the editing was at times confusing in jumping from story to story, and the story itself was riddled with side-stories that helped explain what was happening, but didn't really further the story in any other way.
  This year's sci-fi films, including Star Trek, Watchmen, District 9, and Avatar were a slew of amazing effects put together with some great (and some not so great) stories. JJ Abrams Star Trek revival was a surprisingly fast-paced character and action-driven film, abundant with lens flares. Watchmen was nothing short of 2 Hours and 42 Minutes of story and character development, where the story and characters remained static (a feat worthy of recognition). And District 9 and Avatar, with their similar stories of learning to understand Alien cultures and live with the Aliens both used outstanding visuals to propel both a unique story (in the case of District 9) and a not so unique story.
  Moon and Where the Wild Things Are, two rather outstanding low-budget films, really stood out as some of the best films of the year. Both the cinematography and the acting went hand-in-hand with the beauty of the story and the visual effects for both films.
  George Clooney made his appearance in three mainstream films just in the last 2 months of 2009, in Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Men Who Stare At Goats, and Up In The Air. Unfortunatly I was unable to catch Fantastic Mr. Fox while it was still in the theaters, but I only heard good things from it. Also unfortunate was the lack I felt upon leaving the theater from The Men Who Stare At Goats. But Reitman really showed that he has what it takes in his third film Up In The Air, coming directly from Juno and Thank You For Smoking before it. And Clooney, of course, proves that he has the ability to be more than Ocean from Ocean's Eleven.
  Overall, 2009 was a new year with new movies, and a new appeal for my appetite. Action films have tried hard to maintain their Blockbuster appeal, and although Avatar is looking to be the highest grossing movie of all times (and in record time I might add), the Oscar will go somewhere else as usual this year.

Random Thoughts on Antichrist

The opening sequence of Lars von Trier’s Antichrist is purely cinematic. Extreme slow motion is set to an operatic backdrop rendering passionate intercourse and the death of a child both haunting and beautiful. The unnamed couple lose their only son to an open window during the distraction of sex in what is clearly a carefully orchestrated and conducted introduction to a film the strays greatly from this initial beauty. Trier focuses on the extreme reaction by the mother to the self-blaming death of her child. And while the film sets itself up as a familiar psychodrama of death and grief, we know from the title the more sinister intentions are in store.

After retreating to a cabin buried in the depths of a foreboding and uninviting woods, the therapist husband and distraught wife manage a cohabitation wrought with denied episodes of distraught sexuality and ominous visitations of animal suffering. In all attempt to help his wife heal, he only discovers her inability to care for the child during its life. Evil makes its presence known, if the title of the film didn’t demand it already. But Trier’s film is far from the torture porn and senseless violence of commercial fare. It is even farther from the immature and gawking sexual exploits of college targeted gross-outs. But to consider the film a simple horror film would be to discredit the intensity of its images. The sex and violence, and sexual violence demands more than a casual aside. It is extremely difficult to write of the film without ruining it, but simply put, it has not left my mind and will occupy an uncomfortable place for some time.

Lars von Trier suffered from depression during the making of the film. And if this is any indication of the nauseating and miserable tone achieved, then it comes as no surprise that the film has become both heavily praised and massively criticized. Perhaps it's the director at helm, but more likely the film would have found itself at the top and bottom of lists despite who designed it or when it was made.

The presence of nature is never wholly comforting yet consistently achieves a mesmerizing, at times hypnotic, effect. The distorted and melding landscape obscured by fog, growing in and out of itself, becomes a main player in the film. More than a motif, the roots and branches of the surrounding fauna seem inescapable. Whether they be dirt particles gently falling from the roots of a plant in water or the black branches that deliver blows to a baby bird as it falls to its death, the natural life-giving plants are firmly connected to both sex and death. Beneath the dark and dirty tree of life, he and she copulate in front of the hands reaching out from the roots. It is here, in a fox hole meant for protection, that he repeatedly beats a crow to death only to find its cawing marking its return to life. Much the same, the fox who so pathetically disembowels itself still manages a short and un-pained utterance. What makes this film’s connection to the natural world so interesting is that humans are thrust into its presence and are bombarded by its power at nearly ever moment.

Antichrist is the only film I ever recall being afraid to see. And while my imagined expectations outweighed the final product this in no way suggests said product was tame. The film is fierce in misogynistic viewpoints and blatant in its confusing sexual content. Perhaps the work of the devil demands violence, if so this film is the place. And while the few hours since viewing it have left me perplexed as to my reaction, I can only take this as benefit to the film for developing such intriguing and perplexing content of which I hesitantly want to explore.