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

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.

Ever Seen It: Coma (1978)

     Many people may be able to recognize his name, but many fewer are actually able to give an example of his work. Michael Crichton, author of such books as Jurassic Park, Sphere, Congo, Disclosure, and Timeline (to name a few), is known even less for his directorship. Director of the films Westworld (1973), The Great Train Robbery (1979), and Looker (1981) Crichton's slew of films may not be the most renowned, but are decent nonetheless. Coma, his 1978 adaptation of the book of the same name by Robin Cook, is definitely in the style of his other contributions to the world of cinema.
     Young doctor Susan Wheeler's best friend comes out of surgery in a coma. Nothing overly suspiscious about this, save for the fact that it was a routine surgery that went off with nothing more than a slight loss of blood pressure in the patient. Susan believes it to be more than just a mistake and decides to search deeper into the issue to determine the true reason behind the coma. What she discovers is shocking and horrid, and the worst part is: nobody believes her.
     At least, it is supposed to be shocking and horrid... unfortunately, this high-suspense action/drama is riddled with sidetracks and elongated chase sequences that provide the audience with little excitement. Where the true heart of the film lies within the shock received from paranoia, the chase sequences last too long. The audience is provided with a respite from pure paranoia and given the opportunity to prove the conspiracies, but then they are forced to watch poor Susan get chased for over ten minutes.
     The film comes down to the last fifteen minutes of the story, finally providing the audience with answers they most likely guessed after the first fifteen, but with at least one forgiving and relieving detail (that I won't discuss here due to its spoileristic qualities).  All-in-all, Chrichton's film is a bit bland, a bit predictable, but still intriguing. The acting, although decent, can be as bland as the plot of the story, especially from the supporting actors and extras.

Snooping in the O.R. by Vincent Canby

Shotgun Stories (2007)

I required a much-anticipated second viewing before fully addressing this film with more depth than a sentence or two. To my satisfaction, this occasion outmatched its predecessor and firmly solidified the film as one of my favorites. And it could be for its simplicity, the static camera and location filming, or it could be for its complexity, the social implications of moral and personal motivations, but is probably for their fusion.

In a small Arkansas town, the death of a father refuels hatred between seven sons. The two sets of half brothers, one set estranged from their mother, one encasing her, were raised to hate the other. And in a cold yet decidedly personal conflagration of emotion the sides are forever damaged. Michael Shannon, plays Son, who with his younger brothers Boy and Guy, carve out a meek existence in a sedated and un-stimulating small town. With the death of their father, and words exchanged at his funeral, their brotherly rivals demand that the feud end. If the threat wasn't clear enough, blood will have to be spilled to do so.

The camera in this film is an observant bystander; it could almost act as another unseen sibling. It watches the interactions with formal documentation, identifying the players involved and letting their actions determine outcomes. There is nothing flashy in the delivery; even the title could be considered a misnomer by suggesting a prevalence of shotguns. The trailer itself is much more action oriented than the film remains, although for a trailer there is still very little. The film relies on a brooding and unrelenting anger, a deep seeded and growing bond of hatred. Nichol’s film is so stylistically understated that it could easily be confused with something drab and unrewarding. Rather, its execution becomes flawless, not relying on commercial tactics to build its much more developed climax.

For a film about family, it is truly scary. At the same time, its devotion, for a lack of a better word, is inspiring. The rounded characters do not exist as cut outs of small town yokels, but exist in a much more fully formed state than much of what we see today. It is difficult not to notice the aggression fermenting under the mellow, if stern, facades. A town, so depressed and uninspiring, has bred people whose complexity and intensity make up for their un-motivating surroundings. We are not to be distracted by an abundance of environmental stimulators with such a precarious status of social networks.

Shotgun Stories is a fascinating portrait of small town life. It is disarming and alarming in its content and discerning and concerning in its depth. The film broods over anger and the perpetuation of rage. And it does not, for one minute, suggest that the world is an un-navigable or inhospitable place to be.

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.

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

Some Sites to See

If you thinking of linking these sites ain't be stinking.

Highest movie body counts

All those continuity errors in one place

Ridiculous survival tactics

Want to remake something? Try here

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.

Short Films

No needless exposition from your humble narrator, just short films.