Buried (2010)

            The simplicity of this film’s plot is equaled only by its absurdity; a guy wakes up in a coffin buried beneath the earth and spends the rest of the movie trying to get out.  For many, the premise is immediately laughable and quickly extinguished.  Can one really expect to carry and audience for and hour and a half stuck in a single, solitary, claustrophobic location?  And what’s more, will anyone care to try?

            From a production standpoint this film is genius; one on-screen actor, one location, how they sank $3 million into it its beyond me.  I could have filmed the entire thing in my backyard.  From a writing standpoint it would be a great experiment in MacGyver-esque problem solving with extreme limitations and very few opportunities.  From an acting standpoint it's the chance for an intense and varied one-man-show; you have to carry the whole movie.  And from an audience standpoint, especially one with increasingly critical eyes, it's a chance to see just how well the publicity stunt comes off.  (Why didn’t Criss Angel star?)

            This film could not have existed before the digital age (except of course the period when coffins had a pulley system with an above ground bell because people were afraid of being buried alive, estimated running time- 2 minutes).  A guy wakes up buried; he panics, and then dies.  The importance of a cell phone is beyond words as a literal and physical lifeline.  Is this a plot necessity or a comment on our culture’s incessant need and craving for the devices?  A plot necessity of course!  Before time and air run out (built-in suspense) our protagonist, Paul, must find out where he is and how someone can get him out.  Turns out he is in Iraq and being held ransom by terrorists.  I haven’t decided if this is efficient terrorist stratagem or not.  You don’t need to hide a body because you already did yet neither does your opponent.  Luckily, he finds a few various tools, which nearly all give light.  With these, we are able to share the confined experience as he fumbles endlessly with phone calls to the outside world he (SPOILER ALERT) will never see again. 

            The film is immediately gimmicky and makes no point in going anywhere else.  It can’t.  Yet for mindlessly simple set-up it manages, despite expectations, to hold on for nearly the entirety of hits running-time.  The visuals are varied enough between the different colored light sources and changes in composition that the eyes are not instantly tired.  If anything, the film could have developed its claustrophobic intents a bit stronger by resisting long pullouts.  Without a doubt the concept is flawed from the beginning but if we lend the freedom, it manages it well.  That is until a snake finds he way in and out of his pants and he proceeds to attempt setting it on fire inside of a tiny box.  I don’t know if he realized he was also in this tiny box.  Regardless, these extreme moments are few and if anything the film should be commended on its success at fulfilling what it set out to do.

            That is, bury a man, and follow him for the hour and a half (SPOILER ALERT) leading up to his death.  We can argue all day about plot holes and inconsistencies, not limited to talking on the phone upside down.  But this would miss the few points that the film tries to make or the comments it offers on our culture.  There are so many pressures from uncounted sources that we literally feel trapped and we don’t know how we got there.  Or, that one must literally think-outside-the-box to save his life.  Or that studios are always confining artistic freedom within an acceptable box to the point that it crushes the artist.  Or that the War in Iraq was such a waste; we were literally burying people alive.  Or…

Little Fockers (2010)

    This movie was a piece of shit.  Ok, now that that’s out of the way, let me acknowledge my embarrassment at discussing such a film.  Let me also acknowledge my embarrassment at having seen such a film, let alone on Christmas Day.  I shamefully joined the ranks of wide-waisted Americans sitting smugly for two hours as the cream-of-the-crap rolled by in trailers. Each of which, in its own terms, appropriately introduced this serial shitstorm.  It should be clearly noted that the only reason this writing exists is to express my dismay that the theater was full, the crowds were fat and jolly, and no one seemed to care that their hard-earned dollars were thrown away on complete and utter bull-plop.
    The fact that this is the third of three installments (so far…) is ample indication of the current cinematic state.  It is, both to filmdom and audience alike, insulting and degrading.  One would think, or at least hope, that certain entries of the Cinematic Canon would be untouchable, The Godfather and Jaws come to mind.  But I guess the presence of legendary Robert DeNiro is permission enough to desecrate any former artistic enterprise.  And I would have thought that his career was solid enough not to descend to such depths.  But alas, and this certainly isn’t new, cinema is doomed.  I, and ten of my family members, cast our vote for the studios to continue pumping out juvenile sequels to films that were both overrated and unwarranted.
    The existence of this movie says more than the film itself.  The grandparents come back, trouble ensues, genital jokes, who gives a flying fudge.  Certainly not anyone watching.  The credits roll as characters continue interacting on-screen.  The audience is nonetheless oblivious to this fact.  Instead, they respond to the credit-roll by evacuating the theater as if they just woke up from a long winters nap.  No one really cares what just happened, nor should they.
    It’s embarrassing to be infatuated with movies when most of what people flock to is comparable to what my dog leaves in the backyard.  It’s hard to tell just who the little f*ckers are; the people who keep making the films or the people that keep seeing them.  I sincerely hope this story ends in a trilogy but I might be the only one.  At least Jessica Alba was in it.

Rare Exports (2010)

     A new holiday traditions begins this year.  It is not the feel-good-beyond-belief classicism of Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life or the immortal childhood classics like Home Alone and A Christmas Story.  And it is by no means the brass commercialism of the fat, jolly Santa.  This Finnish export re-imagines the entire fairy tale behind St. Nick in a dark and rebellious tone that is, ironically, more in tune with the absurdity of an old man sneaking into houses during the midnight hours.  Somehow, this always gets overlooked.
     On the Russian side of the Russian/Finnish border stands an imposing mountain.  Only the greedy American businessman, looking very Scrooge-like, knows it to be the giant tomb of a frozen Santa.  He leads the excavation and subsequent robbing of earth’s most important grave.  In the meantime, schoolboys Juuso and Pietari witness the explosive activities.  Soon thereafter the local reindeer population, their fathers’ main source of income, is slaughtered by what Pietari knows to be the escaped Father Christmas.  Juuso and the rest of the town’s children disappear leaving Pietari to fear for his life in the wake of late night study sessions on the truly sinister origins of Santa as sadistic child-boiler.  A short time later, Pietari’s father captures old Kris Kringle in a punji pit designed for wolves and baited with a severed pig’s head.
     The old man is like no other cinematic interpretation of Father Christmas imagined thus far.  His old decrepit body is scrawny and malnourished.  He is bleeding from the stomach having been pierced by a punji stake.  His withered body is adorned with a wispy, dirty beard and the eyes bore deep.  The most animated his body becomes is when his nostrils twitch and Pietari’s smell drifts through his nose.  His hangs from a chain and is wrapped in plastic bags above the cold cement floor.  His captors munch gingerbread and look on in amazement at the evil-eyed old man
     The absurdity in this movie knows no end.  From the epic and moving score to Pietari dangling heroically from a helicopter; there are things not even the veteran cinephile has ever seen.  This genre mixing Xmas horror has an all male cast a la The Thing and a Santa logo suspiciously similar to District 9.  It mixes sweeping vistas with a grizzly slaughterhouse and explosive actions sequences with midnight movie madness.  It can only be presumed that this sure-to-be cult hit will find its place on the Christmas dinner table for years to come.  Highly recommended for its deliciously entertaining escapist fare and critique on the hyper-commercialization of modern Santa.

Review: The Social Network

The Social Network
dir. David Fincher
run time: 2 hours
Columbia Pictures
rating: 5 of 5 stars

     David Fincher started out small, doing commercials, music videos, the types of things most directors start out doing: a way to get their name into the world, attached to some brilliant works. He got his feature debut on Alien 3 (1992), and has since produced some of the most brilliant thrillers of today: The Game (1997), Fight Club (1999), Se7en (1995). He is well known for the use of unique, digitally enhanced camera movement, taking the audience to different rooms through walls, over ceilings, next to objects – places where cameras generally can't go. But since Panic Room (2002), Fincher has appeared to change pace, taking on more serious movies such as Zodiac (2007), which is based on the story of the investigators of the Zodiac serial killers. He was also the director behind The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008), which received mixed reviews.

     While his unique camera moves have since diminished, and his highly fictionalized crime thrillers have been replaced by "based on true story" films, his works remain uniquely him, something quite apparent in his most recent film The Social Network (2010), starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, and Armie Hammer. This film only once indulges in that unique camera move, and then hardly noticeable, but the story, although a drama, is set up as a thriller.
     From the beginning of the movie the fast-paced editing, the speedy and realistic dialogue, and the inter-cutting between present and past make for a relentless blast of information, emotion, and drama. The intensity of the movie is enough to make one jittery afterward, sending the mind traveling a million miles a second. The story of Mark Zuckerberg's (Jesse Eisenberg) creation starts at the end of his relationship with his girlfriend, where she tells him he tries too hard be something he is not. After the break-up, Zuckerberg breaks some school rules to create a "Hot or Not" website that catches the attention the Winklevoss twins (both played by Armie Hammer) on Harvard's rowing team, an exclusive group Zuckerberg obsesses about throughout the film. The twins approach him with an idea for a new dating website, which includes that same exclusivity that Zuckerberg so obsesses over.

     The film then cuts to the present, where we learn Zuckerberg is in legal negotiations with the twins as well as with his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) about his creation "Facebook." The story unfolds from there revealing the shallowness of Zuckerberg, and the downfall of anything good that he may have had going for him.
      What comes as a large surprise, is the quality of the acting in The Social Network. Eisenberg plays the soulless Zuckerberg with a jittery, almost absent presence throughout the film. The character is a genius and knows it, using every opportunity that arises to demerit those around him. Garfield, on the other hand, plays the friend whose life is all but ruined by his relationship with Zuckerberg. This character is the only decent person in the movie, and Garfield pulls it off well. Few scenes are overacted, and none feel unreal. Even the performance as Sean Parker by Mr. Timberlake is exceptional. He plays the unbearable jerk, if you will, who steps in to be lauded by Zuckerberg and separate him from his best friend Eduardo. The other characters are, quite possibly, just as amazing; form Armie Hammer's two roles, as distinct as separate people, to Rashida Jones' quirky performance as Marylin Deply, no-one breaks the quality of this film's acting.
     As much as Aaron Sorkin's script, and Kurt Baxter and Angus Wall's editing do for the film, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross's music gives considerable contribution. The diegetic techno music, as well as the non-diegetic score for the film are a herald of emotions that enhance the acting, the dialog and the editing in ways one would not expect such music to do.
    As Fincher has proven time and again, he knows how to choose a director of photography. Like Benjamin Button, and Fight Club before it, the cinematography in The Social Network is pristine, ominous, and quite appropriate. The often green or magenta lighting, along with the lower saturation, and super shallow depth-of-field contribute to the drama of the film, the intensity of the story. The opening sequence, just still shots of Eisenberg as he runs across campus, lets one know that the film is going to be a beautiful one. And by the time the rowing race comes, with its use of tilt-shift photography to make it all look like a miniature (as though the race is insignificant compared to the worth of Facebook), it is hard to ignore the beauty of the film.
     The implementation of techniques used in thrillers, the astounding screenwriting, the fast-paced editing, the low-saturation lighting and pristine composition, the unique score, and the absolutely mind-blowing acting make The Social Network one the year's best films, and likely to be praised as Fincher's best work to date.

I'm Still Here (2010)

    The existence of Casey Affleck’s pseudo-documentary about the disintegration of real life celebrity Joaquin Phoenix bears more significance than the content of the film itself.  Despite consistent efforts to suggest that the public at large was uncertain about Phoenix’s abrupt career change, only the most gullible of all would have believed what is now being called an elaborate hoax.  For many it has come as a big surprise the Affleck announced the documentary as false.
    The piece itself is inherently self-conscious.  It includes snippets of Phoenix’s public appearances as the Unabomber that seemed to mark the arrival of aspiring R&B artist JP.  The star constantly refers to the film as it is being made, and it addresses all the questions that the public had while it was being made.  In a world of post-modern media, plagued by reality television and Jackass inspired stunts, this film fits in, and is doubtless inspired by both.  Phoenix, as both star and character, is aware of what is happening both in and out of the film.  The character is conscious of the perhaps poor decisions precluding and following his acting status.  Naturally, he numbs his woes in cocaine and hookers.
    I don’t mean to suggest that no thought went into a film with such obvious immaturity.  The fact of the matter is, however, that this creative team had a chance to come up with something absolutely fascinating.  And those that have the desire will admire the Borat-inspired renegade.  And certainly Phoenix’s near self-loathing and acknowledgment thereof is neither anything to shake a stick at, nor something that other actors would be very willing to commit themselves to.
    Thus the concept and execution of the film is intriguing; very meta in story and natural in capture.  It is a plausible if not believable story of the collapse of a figure so steadfastly projected in the public eye that everything they do becomes significant.  Our celebrity culture celebrates just such acts of celebrity as pretending to be yourself for a documentary about your own collapse.  Social commentary or self-promotion?  I will say that I have confidence in both creative minds to be conscious of just what they were doing.
    When you get to the film itself, though, it seems rather drab.  Phoenix is overweight, verbally abusive, mentally jumbled.  His new pastime is getting high, whining in self-importance, and trying to get P. Diddy to produce his album.  Not the biggest of deals.  So when we examine the arena surrounding the film, that it is shrouded in uncertain truth (and inherently autobiographical to some extent), that it is real or not real, that we cannot pin down and define it easily, the whole project takes on more significance.  Unfortunately for the duo, Banksy’s Exit Through the Gift Shop does it so much better.

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

    The film’s credits read like a who’s who of (in)famous street artists and for anyone who has paid attention to the resounding noise this scene has made, the names will be very familiar.  They are captured in direct contact with the artists themselves, both in casual conversation as well as law-defying theatrics.  The opening images create a montage of reckless abandon, a society seemingly falling apart, yet one full of life.  For the viewer, it is an inspiring and exciting parade of juvenile delinquents brandishing their cityscapes with more life than the last million passersby.  Street artists escape authorities, install work, ooze creativity, and give the public a free show of body of works more developed than many others.  The opening sequence of internet clips and home footage is enough to inspire a heated debate about the legitimacy of graffiti vandalism, immediately offset by its vast commercialism and the branding of street art culture.  Hence this film.
    We rather quickly find Banksy himself addressing the camera, cloaked in anonymity (he is, after all, a Criminal), and reporting on the nature of his film.  We are introduced to Thierry, an obsessive and compulsive videographer whose camera remains open more than his eyes, who has a house full of thousands of tapes, and who just happens to have an artistic cousin that goes by Space Invader.  Thus our un-reluctant cameraman arrives conveniently at the near-birth of the street art movement and seems the perfect accomplice to document the temporary, illegal, and most culturally responsive of all art forms.  If you haven’t seen this film, stop reading.

Review: Scott Pilgrim vs The World

     British born director of Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007) Edgar Wright makes another impact in cinema history with his latest movie Scott Pilgrim vs The World. Based on Scott Pilgrim by Bryan Lee O'Malley, the story revolves around a 22-year-old Scott Pilgrim as he grieves over his ex-girlfriend, and pretends to enjoy his time with his new girlfriend, a 17-year-old Knives Chao, a young girl obsessed with everything Scott Pilgrim.
     Scott is in a band, which is currently trying to make a name for itself. Knives is their most loyal (and probably only) fan, as they head into a Battle of the Bands. Scott's life with Knives seems to be going well, until (as a dream foretells) he runs into the girl of his dreams: Ramona Flowers. He stalks her a bit before he can convince her to go on a date with him. Soon after, he decides to break up with Knives.
     Unfortunately, dating Ramona comes with a few... seven to be exact... minor problems. He must "defeat" Ramona's seven deadly exes. This is where this movie really stands alone. For the duration of the movie so far, there have been a few instances of "extra" reality: drawings and video-game-like pop-ups on the screen add something... extra to the action. But the moment the first ex shows up, All reality seems to slip away, as Scott flies around, punching and getting punched without actually getting hurt. Essentially, the film turns into a video game with earned points flying out of the other characters, and evil exes, or their minions turning into coins when destroyed.
     Scott fights the evil exes in various ways: by wit, by strength, by music, and by martial arts. It's truly an amazing and unique image, and it's really up to the viewer whether it's a good thing. It can, at times, be distracting, and since it steps so far out of reality, one may sometimes wonder what is actually happening. It's a worthwhile experience for anyone who enjoys comic books, video games, or just something new and fresh in a film.

     With 5 movies under his belt since Juno, Michael Cera, seemingly type-cast in roles of heartbroken nerds, makes a slight leap from his usual character. Although this new character is as charming and witty as the others, it does step out of the norm with the flashy and quirky action hero qualities he exudes by the end of the film. Anna Kendrick (Up In The Air, 2009) plays a minor role as Scott's sister and adds a fun twist to the nerd lifestyle with the older but caring sibling. Other roles as the exes include Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, and Jason Schwartzman. While I wasn't particularly fond of most of their acting, it worked in the whole scheme of the movie.
     The visuals were striking, the score was brilliantly composed, and the sound design for the movie was quite perfect. The video game aspect of the movie is pulled off at every turn of the road. Surprisingly, the film turns out to be a fun one, enjoyable as well as exciting and intriguing.
The movie comes out this Friday, August 13, 2010.

Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

     If there was one review that I whole-heartedly agree with, it would be Manohla Dargis' Before the Sword Fights, Cue the Harem Girls. The film, directed by Mike Newell in his second film since Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005), is a "high concept" video game with money behind it. Jerry Bruckheimer, who produced the film, has a clear hand in everything from content to form. The characters, the comedy, and the action all feel like a failing attempt at Pirates of the Caribbean (Gore Verbinski, 2003, 2006, 2007).

     Unfortunately, as Dargis points out, the film takes a political stance against America's current involvement with Iraq, using weapons (of mass destruction?) as an excuse to attack an otherwise innocent city. The weapons are, of course, never found, and a deeper plot is exploited throughout the run of the film. Continuing on the same line, Alfred Molina's character begins complaining about taxation and the bad effect it has on small businesses. Reallly, the film could have done without any of it. (but what would have been left, then?)
     Generally, the film's strengths lie in the visuals (John Seale) and the music (by Harry Gregson-Williams) which generally hold one's attention. The action sequences are fairly well-pulled off, and Dastan's (Jake Gyllenhaal) acrobatics, in a very video-game-like way, are enough to leave one dizzy, but entertained. But despite his ability to pull off these moves, Gyllenhaal fails to impress with his acting skills, especially with his "British" accent. The other actors are equally as bland, Ben Kingsly seemingly type-cast as the same character in every movie, and Molina giving an intriguing, if not so unique, character to laugh at.
     Overall, there's not much here. Just another film pumped out from Hollywood to entertain (or at least to attempt to).

Ewan McGregor Double Feature

            The possibility that Roman Polanski might not make another film renders The Ghost Writer an important piece of the director’s work.  The fact that it is so classically suspenseful and darkly tonal makes it worth just as much discussion.  It also stars Ewan McGregor, which marks its only obvious connection to Trainspotting.  Dark in its subject and humor, it is much more energetic and youthful and a more fitting entry for the early stages of McGregor’s body of work.

            Renton and his droogs are chemical pounding twenty-somethings whose only interest is scoring hits and having fun.  It is nearly impossible not to have just as much fun watching their convoluted antics render the situations more horrifying and delightful.  But there is more than mindless indulgences of chemical companionship and street-level scores.  However sickening and gross, they seem intent on not learning from their mistakes.  The death of a baby only serves as motivation to shoot up.  Even today, and perhaps because of its longevity, the film feels as edgy as modern fare and much more calculated.

            Calculated would be a proper word to describe Polanksi’s moody and dreary thriller.  The sun exists not in this East Coast intrigue and, having been filmed mostly in a studio, we should not be surprised.  Unlike the grimy street feel of Boyle’s film, Polanksi remains enclosed in a smoothly lit if still entirely inhospitable environment.  This is not to say it feel like a story world, it is just gritty-less in comparison.  And this is as it should be.  The story follows a clean-cut ghostwriter who steps into his predecessor’s shoes to pen the prime minister’s life story.  And as the trailer clearly tells us, nothing is as simple as it seems.

            In a squared cement house situated next to the ocean, the writer recomposes the 600+ pages of explication laid down by the work before him.  And as he delves deeper into his subjects career, and associates with his wife, finds the story not so clear-cut.  The usual twists and turns play out in a cold, largely shadowed arena.  The film remains evenly paced and taut from start to finish and concludes in a typically un-American simplicity. 

            Taken back-to-back, the films span almost the entirety of McGregor’s career and both are valued entries.  As is obvious by his casting, they represent age-defining entries as portraits of both his youth and maturity.  The no holds barred energy of his youth mark descriptive foil to his matured and composed aging.  And if anything, his endured diversity proves he has much work ahead of him.

Review: Iron Man 2

IRON MAN 2
dir. Jon Favreau
Paramount Pictures
Rating: 3.5 out of 5

     Marvel Comics is making its way through the collection of Stan Lee's most famous comics and turning them into some of the best action movies around. With the success of X-Men (Bryan Singer, 2000) the company has teamed up with Paramount, Columbia, Universal and 20th Century Fox distribution companies to bring us some of the biggest names in movies all decade: Spider-Man, Hulk, and Iron Man. Other companies followed suit in a frenzied attempt to bring their comics, cartoons, and video games to the big screen in hopes of winning big. But with such a limited variety of superheroes, and Marvel Comic's ever growing greed for money combined with the audiences thirst for more superheroes, it becomes inevitable that every superhero has his sequel (and often third installment) and Iron Man is no exception.
     As Tony Stark declares "I am Iron Man," the crowd cheers and the curtains fall, end of Act I. Two years later, the audience is hurtled back into the world of Mr. Stark and his iron suit for Act II, where they find that not all is well for someone who calls himself a superhero. The government wants the "Iron Man weapon" turned over to the military so that an ordinary civilian isn't the one keeping the world in peace (which has apparently happened in the past couple years). Also in the past couple years, Stark Industries has built a city of peace, technologically advanced, and the site of the Stark Expo, where all of the greatest inventions are displayed before hundreds of people. Of course not only heroes want to show off their goodies at the show.
     Like all great superhero sequels, the film must show a darker side of what it means to have to save everyone's lives. In Spider-Man, Peter Parker began to lose his power and decided to give up the suit for a while. In The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne learns that being the Batman isn't always a reward. But many of these tales are very dark, and bring an eerie side to the joviality of superhero-hood. Iron Man attempts to step just to the right of being that dark sequel and shows the audience a mixture of generic superhero sequels and something a little less gloomy. Favreau himself said in an interview through SuperheroHype.com that they were going for something a little less dark this time around, "We didn't want to make it an exploration of the darkness of the human soul, but we definitely showed Tony's dark side a bit in our words."

     The dark side tends to be childish: Tony Stark's enemy is his competitor Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, who attempts to outdo the Iron Man by simply mimicking it, a failure waiting to happen. The childish anger that comes with the competition, however, is rather uninteresting. It's a cliche that many low budget action movies seem to suffer from. Instead of a competent and truly sinister opponent, characters in these less than intriguing films are blubbering idiots who mimic what the good guy does and just happens to succeed (but at the cost of himself more than the protagonist). The other villain, Whiplash played by Mickey Rourke, is much more competent, but seems held back. With a limited English vocabulary (his mother tongue is Russian), and "limited resources" he is unable to defeat the Iron Man by himself and requires help from someone with resources. If this character had been further developed, instead of Justin Hammer, the movie might had that "Dark Knight" beauty to it.

     All in all, the movie seemed to be a move away from reality into a more cartoon realm, especially with the inclusion of Samuel L. Jackson's character Nick Fury, the one-eyed man who leads the Avengers in the upcoming film The Avengers in which a group of superheroes from all the superhero movies come together to fight some bad guys. What worked for Spider-Man and Batman Begins more than most other comic-book-made-movies, was the strong foundation the films had in reality, Batman especially. These are everyday people who just happen to be able to help the community with their talents. The villains are also ordinary people who just tend to dislike the current situation they find themselves in and decide to change things by being evil. It is this strong foundation in reality (which I believe The Incredible Hulk (Louis Leterrier, 2008) lacked), that draws the audience to view the sequels. Iron Man 2 loses that tight grip that the first installment had, and lets characters like Nick Fury and Agent Romanoff take larger roles in the story.

     The film does, however, make very good use of its medium. Although rather Hollywood in style, the camera never misses an opportunity to show us what movie magic can do. Favreau frames his characters perfectly in cinescope 2.35:1 aspect ratio, with some of the best CG effects since the first Iron Man. But, was the CG used to enhance the story, or just there to be a spectacle?

Watch the trailer at Apple

Kick-Ass (2010)

            Where to even begin?  Kick-Ass has been a highly anticipated project around the Internet blogospheres and fan-boy kingdoms.  And it will come as little surprise that the final product is right up their alley as it mixes smart visuals, foul-mouths, caped crusaders, squirting blood, controlled fight scenes, hot girls, fan-boys, pop culture references, out-of-control fight scenes, and comedy into an almost inescapably entertaining and jaw-dropping 2 hours.  It is no exaggeration that even before the credits roll it would be a pleasure for the movie to restart itself.

            Matthew Vaughn heads back to the arena from which his debut feature, the fantastically stylish and awesome L4yer Cake, hails, and returns with an even more fantastically stylish and awesome film cut from the pages of a comic book.  Vaughn wrote the script concurrently with the comic writer Mark Millar, who pitched the idea.  In what is certainly a regretted mistake, Sony passed on the film forcing Vaughn to finance the film on his own.  It has since made back its $30 million budget in just over a week and word on the street is that it rocks.

            It would be a simple task, if unnecessary, to freeze frame the entire film and recompose to form an accompanying graphic novel.  Vaughn stations the frame about, making transitions weave in and out of one another and making their presence known only when they desire.  He lets the visual landscape provide

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

Alice Tops Avatar

     Friday night I, along with apparently tens of thousands of viewers, flocked to see Tim Burton's latest release Alice in Wonderland, an Adaptation of Lewis Carol's two works Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. Although I myself, along with other critics, found it rather slow and uneventful, a film of spectacle rather than events, the audience would have you believe otherwise.

     Domestically, the film produced an impressive $116.3 million (estimated) total over its opening weekend, a gross that places it in the 6th spot for all time opening weekends. When we take into account the fact that 70% of its gross can be attributed to 3D, we also find that it's the biggest 3D release ever, no doubt boosted by the audiences reception of Avatar in 3D. Speaking of Avatar (as it seems I'm always doing these days), Alice's records actually broke this all-time worldwide grosser's opening weekend for domestic and worldwide stats, raking in a total of $210 million, actually earning it 14th place in the all-time worldwide opening weekend slot. Alice also broke the record for biggest IMAX opening with $11.9 million, beating Avatar's $9.5 million.
     No doubt Avatar paved the way for such a feat to be possible. There were even talks of not allowing Alice to be released as wide as it was (not allowing it to take as many screens), because Avatar has been doing so well (already over $2.5 billion in just 80 days). Alice in Wonderland's release took 7,400 screens, approximately 2,500 of which were 3D (more than Avatar). So, although the industry and theaters nationwide were worried about removing Avatar from their playlist, Alice in Wonderland proved that it had the gusto to actually do better than Avatar, though it will most likely fizzle as fast as Spider-Man 3.

Weekend Report: Moviegoers Mad about 'Alice'
by Brandon Gray

Something Spectacular?

     Jame's Cameron's Avatar (2009) is no doubt a spectacle. The people have flocked to witness the vast new world of Pandora, and the enchanting creatures that inhabit it. There are, of course other films in cinema's history that have more to offer visually than dramatically or intellectually, and it is my opinion that Tim Burton's latest film Alice in Wonderland fits this bill.
     Despite the fact that it's based on a beloved story with characters and lines as classic as any other book, this adaptation didn't wow me. Although I cannot speak on the subject of whether it was a decent adaptation or not, seeing as how I haven't read the books, nor recall watching the full 1951 animation, I can speak on about the film as a unique entity.
     The emphasis, it would appear, was on the spectacle, elaborating sequences of jungle trudges and shape shifting, rather than focusing on the film's main character Alice. As New York Times critic Manohla Dargis points out, Alice seems to be a mindless wanderer through the Underworld, as much a visitor to the story as the audience. But I find it rather difficult to identify with a character who neither knows who she is, nor has a major role in figuring it out. She is a character who undergoes changes that are merely shallow, vapid ones, and we never truly get to see under the surface.

     No, I'm afraid we are forced instead to stare at the CG version of Underworld. In fact, I'm not sure I can consider this film any more of a live-action film as I do Avatar. Everything was animated, from the Red Queen's sidekick to the earth Alice walks on, to Alice herself (for portions of the film). I found myself disappointed in the amount of CG necessary, and in the verisimilitude of the world. I would much rather have seen constructed sets with a moderate amount of amazing CG, than a moderate amount of reality mixed into an unsatisfying world of CG.
      So, unfortunately, I cannot say that the main focus of the film, the spectacle, was up to my standards, and therefore the film was not up to my standards. It was, however, a delightful film full of quaint characters, even if it was rather dull. It seemed to move quickly, and at an hour and forty eight minutes running time, it was not a rather large waste of my time. Don't let me discourage you though, there were plenty of people at the theater who seemed to enjoy and appreciate Alice in Wonderland.


What's A Nice Girl Doing In This Hole? by Manohla Dargis


Alice In Wonderland film website

Shutter Island

Originally a David Fincher/ Brad Pitt project, both moved on to other things before Scorsese acquired the project, based on Dennis Lehane’s 2003 novel of the same name. The success of both Gone Baby Gone and Mystic River may have something to do with the adaptation of Lehane’s novel to the big screen. Thus far the critical reception has been a bit mixed.

Having read the novel in preparation for the film, originally scheduled as an October 2009 release, it seemed to me a rather average book for such an esteemed director to work with. Of course, if there is one director who has, through a long and commanding career, earned the right to do whatever he wants, then Scorsese would certainly be it. So as an adaptation to a page turning and layered novel, Scorsese’s adaptation is a perfect match; both book and film arriving in similar fashion.

The film is dark and moody, contained entirely to the Alcatraz-like mental hospital with occasional flashbacks to inviting external environments. A strong sense of deceit and uncertainty is developed immediately and the wonder of a massively foreboding asylum instructs an ominous reaction. Scorsese’s usual intensified style fits right at home with the psychological material found on Lehane’s pages. The stylish cinematography and cinematically dramatic sequences don’t aid in any sense of realism; a fitting mode of discourse for a story set largely in the architecture of the mind. And if you couldn’t gather from the trailers, there is much more going on here than what we see on the surface.

The film is not a word for word adaptation yet the overall plot is intact. As such, the book was moderately predictable with major twists and turn being expected. The precise details, on the other hand, were not glaringly easy to fill in. Here lies my main disappointment with the film; the absence of any obvious Scorseseian influence. Aside from the intensified continuity of constantly moving cameras and endless close-ups and abrupt moments of violence, this film could have been made by any number of Hollywood regulars. And perhaps it should have. This is not to say that Scorsese did not do an adequate job crafting an enjoyable albeit too long psychological horror film.

From the opening shot of a ship materializing from behind heavy fog, we know everything will be hard to see. Yet this is not only from the haze and destructive weather battering the island but, more prominently, from the secrecy surrounding the menacing stature of the compound. The environment may be one of the strongest developed aspects of the film. The island could be a haven of perfectly manicured lawns, an oasis of healing separated from the frantic mainland society. At the same time, it could be, and is, an escapeless and savage test of both mental facilities and physical abilities. The lavish decadence of the warden’s quarters contrast the cold, dungeon-like appearance of bare iron and moist walls found in Ward C. The brutal destructiveness of nature is an apt metaphor for the storm raging in the mind.

Shutter Island may be my least favorite Scorsese film if only for the reason that it doesn’t feel like a Scorsese film. I will not claim to have seen, or particularly liked, all of his films. Yet his newest feels the most contrived, as if he made for a bunch of horror film fans expecting the man to jump out of the shadows. Although, even the simple strike of a match manages to scare numerous audience members whose heightened tension was evident. But I feel like the arrival of a new film by one of the biggest directors is a moment to look forward to, and I want something more than another horror film.

Smokin' Aces 2

Further proof that successful box office ventures are only validated by making a horrific, straight-to-video sequel. The victim this time is Joe Carnahan’s Smokin’ Aces, which ranks right near the top of my list of guilty pleasures. The surprise, in contrast to the ultimate insult of S. Darko, is that Carnahan was involved as executive producer, thus slightly legitimizing something that should not exist.

Carnahan’s original film features a huge cast of criminals, hit men, and government officials all converging at a Lake Tahoe hotel for an exciting round of carnage. The film is flashy, stylish, inventive, entertaining, and doesn’t spend too much time developing needless exposition. This is not to say it is plotless, but action and effects overshadow the developments. Its sequel, in sharp contrast, rips off nearly every aspect of the original and succeeds in none of them. Be it the bold, frame stealing titles, the use of elevators, the brutal Tremors, or the inclusion of many, many guns, 2 makes everything look like a giant, cheaply conceived joke. Unfortunately, a few characters are reincarnated from the original, the rest simply being ripped off. Director P.J. Pesce is uncertain how to handle the action scenes that comprise much of the film. Any sense of environmental orientation is absent with guns firing every which way yet still managing to hit their targets. The explosions feel only half-rendered. The blood is noticeably excessive in comparison to its predecessor. And all the characters that were cool are now laughable. The timeless bad-assery of Tom Berenger should have added a solid foundation of awesome but he too was degraded to straight to DVD pathos.

Smokin’ Aces is a high-rolling exercise in excess, from the penthouse shoot-out to Mafia affiliated target. It is clear, even beyond the promise of a million dollar reward, that lot’s of people are rolling in money and nearly everyone is inspired by greed. Yet for Smokin’ Aces 2, the high rise hotel is replaced by a badly lit club on a fake looking street and the wheelchair bound hit is practically buried alive from the start in a cavernous bunker. The film immediately loses any high-gloss connection to the film it tries so pathetically to emulate. Unsurprisingly, and rather fortunately, Clint Mansell’s score is noticeably absent.

In conclusion, the first film is not a great movie, but is endlessly fun and entertaining. The second film is a bad excuse for a movie that is endless in its exploits and fun only as a point of reference to the first. I’d ask people to stop making bad movies but they wouldn’t listen.

The Thing (1982) Prequel

Let me say right from the start that it could be worse; they could be trying to remake John Carpenter’s classic, nearly flawless, fantastic masterpiece, itself a remake of the decent The Thing from Another World (1951) based on John W. Campbell Jr.’s story “Who Goes There?”. So since it is not worse, we’ll at least give it a bad. Word on the street is that the prequel, following the Norwegian scientists, begins filming in Toronto in March of this year.

Now we are all aware of the massive recycling program going on in today’s film industry. And if the slew of remakes (too many to name here), reboots (too many to name here) and sequels (too many to name here) aren’t enough, then certainly this prequel is. It stars Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton. So if you have seen Carpenter’s film, you know the absence of any female characters added a heightened sense of tense discomfort, which, regardless, this film will likely fail to replicate.

If you have forgotten, the film includes Keith David and Wilford Brimley, and of course Carpenter regular and owner of the silver screen’s most badass beard- Kurt Russell. The creature effects are ridiculous and amazing the Carpenter does a fantastic job at creating a tense, claustrophobic paranoia as the characters come to realize the creature could be anyone or anything. I cannot stress enough how much this film would have to live up to for anyone to like it save for the teenyboppers that have not seen either of the other films. The fact that it is a companion film gives it a little room but the filmmakers should know they are treading on dangerous ground.

Matthijs Van Heijningen is directing, and no, that name should not sound familiar. MTV’s movie blog (not a regular source) suggests he could be the next Zack Snyder. Uh oh.

Upcoming Feature: Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightening Thief

If it wasn't obvious from the fact that it shares the same director, and the fact that the name is very similar, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The lightening Thief appears to be, from first glance, a movie as similar to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone as it can get. Christopher Columbus' style is emanating even in the trailer for his upcoming child's feature, also based on a book (by Rick Riordan).
The movie is based on the story of a boy who doesn't realize that he has the power of the Olympian gods of old, who have returned to help him fight those that would seek to kill him. The young boy must quickly learn the ways of the gods and find his place and his power to defeat the growing evil around him.
Sound somewhat familiar? I told you so...
Watch this trailer:

Notice anything interesting about the castle of the gods?


Starring Logan Lerman (3:10 to Yuma and Gamer), as well as Kevin McKidd, Uma Thurman, Pierce Brosnan, and Sean Bean, the film is set to open in theaters February 12, 2010.

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.

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.