The Projection Booth

2009-11-25T16:28:00.000-08:00

The Men Who Stare At Goats (2009)
Dir: Grant Heslov
Cast: George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey, Stephen Lang, and Stephen Root

Seemingly intent on pleasing even those members of the audience who would otherwise be offended by its implicit lampooning of the American military complex, trademark wartime idiocy and all comparable areas of interest, The Men Who Stare At Goats comes to us as the latest political satire to have inadvertently sliced off its own pair. Concerning a military unit (the "New Army") developed post-Vietnam with the intention of creating psychic-enabled super-soldiers (referred to as Jedi Warriors, thus making the very decision to cast Ewan McGregor as the surrogate straight man some kind of desperate joke), the film follows McGregor's Bob Wilton as he decides to take his journalism career to Iraq during the dawn of the War on Terror, hoping to salvage his ego in the midst of an impromptu marital incineration. Fate, it would seem, brings him to Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a New Army veteran traveling to Iraq for his own, often misleading, purposes. What follows is part road movie comedy, part new age existentialism with a forcibly ponderous tone that strikes all the wrong notes (the opening credits assure us that "more of this is true than you would believe", but even this seems less intent on actual enlightenment via humor than a mere conditioner for the detached, altogether "safe" black comedy to follow). A bit of research on the original book - unread by myself - suggests that whatever changes were made en route to the screen were surely for the worse. Either way, one must stand in a sort of awe at the skill it must have taken to waste the talents of Clooney, McGregor, Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey in the same film, let alone the same scene.

2009-11-24T04:26:00.000-08:00

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
Dir: F. Gary Gray
Cast: Gerard Butler, Jamie Foxx, Leslie Bibb, Colm Meaney, Bruce McGill, Regina Hall, Viola Davis, Emerald-Angel Young and Annie Corley

While preferably to the typical Saw entry by about a five-to-one ratio, Law Abiding Citizen still isn't any good. Drab and borderline lethargic from virtually any cinematic standpoint (only the climactic image, which involves a character in a locked cell, offers something in the way of lyrical creativity), the most fascinating aspect of this modest train wreck is that anyone decided to give so embarrassingly nonsensical a script the green light. At the outset, Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is the titular character: a loving husband and father who, after the tragic murder of his family, can only find comfort in the thought that the guilty will receive their due punishment at the hands of the state. Alas, when D.A. Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) strikes a deal with the assailant in exchange for testimony on a much bigger fish, Shelton snaps and spends the next handful of years planning his revenge. So commences a string of murders beginning with the systematic torture and dismemberment of the sicko who killed Shelton's family, the intended and heavy-handed lesson being that the constitutional rights of known (but not convicted) killers should be seen as subservient to the lives of the innocent still in harm's way, with Shelton ultimately offering himself up for theoretical sacrifice in something of an inversion to Seven's harrowing climax. Even without taking into consideration the relatively black and white outlook on justice herein, Law Abiding Citizen is about the last argument one would want to seriously represent such a cause; as a moral thesis, it amounts to little more than heavy-lifting lip service, while the flaunting of so much purported violence (Shelton sends a videotape of the aforementioned dismemberment to Rice's home, etc.) confirms the film's interest in physical brutality over moral scrutiny. Seemingly able to orchestrate violent events from behind bars in a blatant manipulation of the legal system (made only to subsequently call out its flaws), Shelton's serpentine plot against the government is only sparsely made believable; at least Christopher Nolan's Joker seemed capable of pulling all the strings necessary to put the squeeze on an entire city, even if the particulars were never laid out in the open. As braindead entertainment, Citizen proves to be camp of the inadvertent kind; as philosophy, it's pure mistrial.

2009-11-23T05:27:00.000-08:00

Surrogates (2009)
Dir: Jonathan Mostow
Cast: Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, Rosamund Pike, Boris Kodjoe, James Francis Ginty, James Cromwell and Ving Rhames

Star Trek might be the year's sci-fi rage, and while a fine space opera it may be, that it holds the upper hand amidst the competition only highlights how the exquisite work of Jonothan Mostow seems fated to go unappreciated in its time. With the WWII fable U-571 the only blemish on his resume (and that particular film's only flaw being the fact that it isn't great), his genre craftsmanship - while never as rapturously perfect as his predecessors (John Carpenter, James Cameron, Blade Runner-era Ridley Scott) - is nevertheless far and away from the typical studio worker. Surrogates joins Spielberg's sci-fi contributions and Michael Winterbottom's Code 46 as one of the defining dystopic visions of the decade, eschewing special effects glamour for a well-worn world in which the decidedly alien is an accepted given. The deliberate banality employed in the presentation of progressive robotic technologies renders the scenario with exponentially greater moral scrutiny and, concurrently, a creepy disconnection from human reality. As unfolds via an opening newsreel montage, the near future holds for us the development and mass social acceptance of surrogates: synthetic, humanoid robots used by the populace for their daily goings-on while their living flesh-and-blood selves pilot them from home; small groups of naturalist humans have quartered themselves off from the larger world and maintain an uneasy peace treaty (the plot centers around a terrorist weapon capable of destroying a surrogate in such a way that the host, too, is terminated; unlike those plugged into The Matrix, these things are supposed to be safeguarded here). Mostow's big budget B-movie draws exquisite everyman performances from the cast (in addition to eerie, necessarily artless performances as their characters' respective surrogates); Bruce Willis, as a cop not entirely unlike Blade Runner's Harrison Ford, is as flesh-and-blood empathetic as any role he's helmed since Die Hard. Scaled as if to suggest a budget even smaller than the actual, Surrogates seems less like a 21st Century would-be blockbuster than a lost 80's relic only just rediscovered. Either way, we're lucky to have it.

2009-10-18T08:22:00.001-07:00

Halloween II (2009)
Dir: Rob Zombie
Cast: Scout Taylor-Compton, Tyler Mane, Malcolm McDowell, Danielle Harris, Brad Dourif, Sheri Moon Zombie, Chase Wright Vanek and Bea Grant

The good news about Rob Zombie’s Halloween II (a sequel to the remake, not a remake of the sequel) is that it amplifies the strengths of its predecessor, a film I lightly panned upon first release, but have since come to appreciate more even despite its shortcomings. The bad news, then, is that those shortcomings have also been amplified. Like the original Halloween II, Zombie’s film picks up the torch just after the conclusion of its predecessors October 31st bloodbath, here to detail the escape of the Michael Myers as his seemingly deceased body is transported from the scene of the crime. Approximately one year later, Laurie (Michael’s little sister, still unaware of her familial roots) is still trying to cope with the loss of her adoptive parents, while Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) is distastefully promoting his published account of the Myers killings. As the monstrously sized Myers (Tyler Mane) continues to leave a trial of human destruction, these two threads find themselves on a collision course that culminates on (you guessed it) Halloween night. First, the good: this film might be the most artfully rendered slasher sequel ever made, each slaughter portrayed with a revelatory intensity that suggests far more carnage than is shown outright, the jagged camerawork and muddled visuals evoking an existential meeting between predator and prey. As one overzealous fan of Dr. Loomis states it, Myers "eats at the core of the victims soul”.

Alas, Zombie’s dark poetry only goes so far without more substantive justification, as the dreamlike images of Myer’s mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) and his childhood self (Chase Wright Vanek, replacing Daeg Faerch) don’t pry deeper into his pitiless, carnivorous psyche so much as they flaunt said perversions (a ravishing sequence shot in the vein of silent-era German expressionism ultimately proves the tip of a nonexistent psychological iceberg). Similarly unsubstantiated is the subplot of Loomis’ controversial book, which has garnered him death threats for the purported exploitation of Myers victims (of which Loomis had already nearly joined the ranks); save for the doctor’s own course personality and the flaunted gullibility of a media-saturated audience, this narrative thread ceases exploration at the surface level. Maybe that’s the point – that we’re droll cattle unwittingly lining up for the slaughter – but even if one is to embrace it from so nihilistic a standpoint doesn’t better the flat execution (all potential for satire croaks upon the utterance of an Austin Powers riff that’s been gathering dust for over a decade). The emotional anchor provided by the always-great Brad Dourif proves something of a saving grace during the final act, but it's not enough to correct the entirety of the preceding aimlessness. Let’s hope that Zombie’s next project cuts the filler and jettisons him back to Devil’s Rejects levels of greatness.

Dead Snow (2009): B

2009-10-17T13:42:00.000-07:00

With the possible exception of Planet Terror, Dead Snow might be the dorkiest zombie film ever made, and I say that in praise, not detriment. While the pre-credits opening – a hilariously self-aware, subversive chase scene scored to “In the Hall of the Mountain King” – stands as an easy comedic high point, that the rest of the movie holds up in comparison further underscores the overall stability and sly invention of the genre-riffing glee that is to follow. One of the few existing members of the Nazi zombie subgenre, this otherwise traditional tale revels in both the archetypal and schematic even as its violent means of dispatching both villains and protagonists proves more unpredictable than not. A group of medical students – played by an able cast, wisely straight-faced against the surrounding absurdity – finds themselves under attack during a weekend getaway at an isolated cabin deep in the snow covered mountains of Norway. Though well-equipped with movie-centric knowledge on how to survive such a confrontation – provided via a cinephiliac character whose T-shirt of choice proves an ominous bit of foreshadowing (all that’s missing is a baby) – they prove too heavily outnumbered by the squadron of the undead (which still operates according to rank, a humorous touch sadly not maximized to further effect) to simply stay put. Modestly ambitious and highly successfully within its chosen territory, Dead Snow proves to be one of the punchiest horror flicks in recent memory and one of the more capable within its low-budget constraints; the silent, lifeless landscapes make for a chilling tension-builder between each over-the-top set piece, while a memorable third-act shot of a character trapped beneath the snow is more nightmarishly claustrophobic than anything in The Descent. For the title of Best Zombie Comedy of 2009, Zombieland has a worthy competitor.

I Want to Hear More Music About Pie!

2009-10-15T10:44:00.000-07:00

Family Guy - Disney Style - The best home videos are here

Until I've found some time to commit my thoughts of late to the screen, here's the inarguable online video of the week. Now I may actually have to watch Family Guy again. Also, reviews for the effective but ultimately underwhelming Paranormal Activity and the latest season of NBC's The Office.

New Content, More En Route

2009-10-09T10:55:00.000-07:00

In the meantime, here are links to my recent publications, which I've roundly failed to keep posted here. Now that the internet is at my household fingertips (cue hallelujahs on high), more routine updates can be expected (which is to say, more than once a month). My plan is to dish out a little something on everything I see, whether in the form of a quickie capsules for less deserving titles (see below for an example) or stream-of-consciousness updates on whatever shit is on my mind. Upcoming theatrical experiences I'm hopeful will transpire include District 9, Paranormal Activity, A Serious Man, Surrogates and the Toy Story 3D double feature. Be on the lookout.

Adventureland, Goodbye Solo & Sunshine Cleaning (Suite101)
Aliens in the Attic (Slant Magazine)
Boy Interrupted (Slant Magazine)
G-Force (Suite101)
Gogol Bordello Non-Stop (Slant Magazine)
In Search of Beethoven (Slant Magazine)
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles Season 2 (Slant Magazine)
Toy Story (Slant Magazine)
Travels with Hiroshi Shimizu: Eclipse Series 15 (Slant Magazine)
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (Suite101)
Tyler Perry's I Can Do Bad All By Myself (Slant Magazine)

Year One (2009): D-

2009-10-09T10:20:00.000-07:00

While one typically expects awful movie experiences to incur only wrath for their creators, the inexcusable Year One stands apart in that the only thing that can be mustered up for the whole sorry enterprise is pity. Maybe Harold Ramis - the sly genius behind 1993's still-overlooked masterpiece Groundhog Day (you probably know him better as Ghostbuster's Dr. Egon Spengler) - needed a paycheck badly, or had simply reached the bottom of his creative well. Whatever the actual case, watching this prehistoric would-be comedy (imagine a braindead SNL take on Mel Gibson's Apocalypto), my first urge was to track down the writer-director and give him a much-needed hug, for so banal and unfeeling is this thrown-together shack of tiresomely contrasting comedic archetypes (though funny in manner, Jack Black and Michael Cera can only do so much with so little) and juvenile biblical anecdotes (if you're not laughing by the time Cain and Able start throwing "suck" around, you can be sure that your time could be better spent) that nothing less than an impassioned declaration from Ramis himself could convince this mind that the man gave more than the slightest damn about this project from conception onward. Black's an inept hunter and Cera an unpopular gatherer; when the former eats of the forbidden fruit and incurs the wrath of the village, both leave the in hope of a better life. The cast hardly seems aware they're in a comedy, lollygagging about as if but waiting for a promised bailout. Already vanishing from our collective memory, let's hope this is but a temporary dark patch for creative forces clearly capable of more, which is to say, anything whatsoever.

Save The Sarah Connor Chronicles

2009-09-29T12:07:00.000-07:00

Fall Behind, Spring Ahead

2009-08-26T07:09:00.000-07:00

This past month has been a journey, to put it lightly. The light is visible at the end of the tunnel, however, and once out of it, it shouldn't require a bend-over-backwards amount of stretching on my part to update this place on at least a semi-frequent basis (seriously, if you want to truly appreciate the internet, go without it in your place of residence for five months). Some additions and updates are in the works, including a "Support The Projection Booth" option for those who find themselves interested (I won't be prying for donations, which makes me feel uncomfortable; more on that later). Until next time...

War of the Words: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (a preview)

2009-07-24T11:56:00.000-07:00

A preview to an ongoing e-mail exchange between myself and Jordan Pedersen regarding Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Or as he brilliantly encapsulates it, TransRevFall. In case it isn't clear from the text below, I've done a whopper of a 180 on this thing. Yes, critics can be "wrong" (although I don't think that word doesn't really applies as long as it's an honest mistake). To my own incredible surprise, I'm happy to have taken a second look at Bay's latest monstrosity - something I can now say is a good thing.

To the director, I owe an apology - my review was knee-jerk, mob-happy and more than a little harsh. Even asinine. We've not always fared well, but if this is the direction you're going in, keep going. Of the discussion, more to come, soon.

"...treating something like this as if it were the be-all end-all of anything (death of cinema, lowering of culture, etc.) only empowers the greed associated with it even more (which is to say, the industry outside of the picture). I didn't remember until just recently, but my basic defense of Transformers 1 was to point out that it was essentially a live-action Saturday morning cartoon. Silly. Nonsense. Stupid. Of course. Better Bay work here than in things closer to real life (I took a look at Bad Boys II again recently - it's still awful, but I can stomach his visuals a bit better after two rounds of Irreversible), and RotF is nothing if not an incredible distillation of his macho-splosion insanity. I'm not sure what classic Transformers fans feel about the direction he's taken things, but as for a total abandonment of serious pretenses, I love the whole race of robots complete-with-curmudgeony-old-war-heroes-thing. Why waste spleen?

A bit of introspection is necessary, I think. I wouldn't say I was wrong with my review of the film so much as incredibly misguided. Yes, I hated the film when I saw it opening day. Hated. And I'd be lying to myself if I said that the negative reviews I read beforehand weren't some kind of influence (ditto the 2012 preview - Christ I hated Emmerich's exploitation of disaster), one I now wish I had been without (is it too strong to compare RotF to Rodney King?). But probably no more than a day after posting it at The House Next Door, I started to feel that twinge of uncertainity - seeing the film again last night, I was certain I'd preemptively closed the door on the film too soon (cue Anton Ego's climactic Ratatouille confession).

I still take offense, though, to the idea that liking any "fun" film, Bay-made or not, mandates turning off one's brain. Hardly. That's where this ridiculous pastiche of pop mayhem is most enjoyable - the key, I think, is to not take it so effing seriously. Sure, there's stupidity within - the twins, the totally unnecessary sideplot of government antagonism, etc. - but I think that's more of a mirror than a reinforcement thereof. My only real complaint after a second viewing was overlength, but even that might be more a matter of my having attended a 10:15 pm showing than any actual flaws in the movie. It's a ridiculous drug of pure savage excess, like something William Hurt would've taken in Altered States. And I want it again."

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

2009-07-15T17:08:00.000-07:00

Harry Potter films - such as they must exist, given their tentpole status for Warner Brothers - seem to require certain concessions from everyone outside the core target of Fans of the Books. Rather than attempting immersion on purely cinematic levels, a consideration of these films seems fair only when hinged on such "under the circumstances" attributes; only the bold Alfonso Cuaron totally broke free from studio oversight (or at least felt like he did) in Prisoner of Azkaban, the third film. Now three films worth of aesthetic recoil later, The Half-Blood Prince comes to us encumbered by similar issues of narrative balance as the majority of its predecessors - what matters to making this a good film versus what matters in selling this to a zealot-like audience? Personally, I prefer coming to these films as I always have - fan of the books, but with only faint memories of reading them (I've only read the first more than once). Tellingly, the best of the films have been those that made me feel least like I was re-reading their source material on the screen, and so I found Prince's almost whispy, broad-stroke handling of the plot more satisfying in the manner of pure cinema than that of a tedious connecting of the dots. Not every decision made in streamlining this story was wise, however - the climax is foreshadowed for virtually the entire film, first breathtakingly subtle (in an opening pre-title scene with Harry and Dumbledore) , but only to go directly into thuddening blatancy. Visual and verbal wit reignsas the specials of the day, however (yes, this is how some high schoolers talk); thoughtfully expressive compositions, in their vast, almost embracing depth, suggest a silent film made today, while the effects are less annoyingly "ooh-ahh-special" than I'd come to anticipate - instead, they're more texturally banal so as to ground the proceedings in a believable habitat in which magic is a simple fact of life (as opposed to box office pandering). Were the film more consistently awe-inspiring (a madhouse chase through a wheat field suggests the Days of Heaven climax by way of Lynch), or the cast but a sliver more emotionally game (while quite honed and precise in their ever-deepening displays, these veterans nevertheless seem a little tired, even if such is otherwise appropriate given the long-term status of their characters' plights), and this might have been the most sterling Potter entry to date. Such as it is at first glance, it comes damn close.

Michael Bay Presents

2009-07-06T21:05:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Roger, for bringing this clip to my attention. As I'm mounting a review of The Rock (proof that Michael Bay can be talented when he wants to), it's a much-needed bit of hilarity in the wake of Transformers 2.

Public Enemies (2009)

2009-07-03T12:04:00.001-07:00

If Miami Vice was Michael Mann's freestyle celebration of identity and the need for spiritual release, Public Enemies is that work's paralleling, appropriately somber meditation on mortality - a harrowing rattle from its opening scenes of shackled prisoners marching in unison through the subsequent, episodic exploits in which legendary gangster John Dillinger and his cohorts fall to the determined lawmen in pursuit. Comparable to Heat's cop/criminal plot structure in surface details only, Enemies' primary characters aren't defined so much by existential hang-ups as they are by hunger for life. "I want it all, right now" tells Dillinger (Johnny Depp) after wooing lower class beauty Billie Frechette (Marion Cottilard); Christian Bale, effectively correcting his egotistical turn in Terminator Salvation, siphers off any trace of movie star charisma with exquisite understatedness as FBI agent Melvin Purvis, head of the team assigned to capture Dillinger. Though less ravishing than Vice, Public Enemies again finds Mann forging new ground in the digital arts; heavy grain emphasizes an anti-romantic view of material typically overshadowed by its own cinematic mythology, a subversive choice that comes full circle when Dillinger attends a Clarke Gable gangster film on the night of his death. Public Enemies diminishes one's expected visceral distance - every gunshot and bloodstain bears the heft of an unfolding present tense, none more cage-rattling than the chilling image of Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) firing erratically as bullets riddle his chest, collapsing only to exhale a final, frosty breath.

The On-Line Review Presents: The 50 Greatest Films

2009-07-02T17:15:00.000-07:00

Iain Stott of The On-Line Review is asking critics and film-lovers to compile lists of their choices for the "fifty greatest films". For my own purposes, I made this as much of a balance as possible between personal favorites and - as near as anyone can objectively tell such a thing - the actual "best" films I've seen. Many that I weren't able to include damn near broke my heart; apologies, in no particular order, to James Cameron, Charlie Chaplin, Sergio Leone, Luis Buñuel, Dario Argento, Michael Mann, Milos Forman, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Jonathan Demme, F.W. Murnau, Quentin Tarantino, Abbas Kiarostami, James Whale, Harold Ramis, Sophia Coppola, Hiroshi Shimizu, Peter Jackson, and many more. I'd rather not have anyone think of this as a definitive selection, but rather an in-the-moment representation of the works that I consider most important and influential to myself (even then, I'd probably have had to include another 50 just to cover all the essentials). Below is my photo essay top ten, followed by 40 unranked honorable mentions.

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, Stanley Kubrick)

2. Ikiru (1952, Akira Kurosawa)

3. McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971, Robert Altman)

4. Citizen Kane (1941, Orson Welles)

5. Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964, Stanley Kubrick)

6. Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972, Werner Herzog)

7. The Searchers (1954, John Ford)

8. Assault on Precinct 13 (1976, John Carpenter)

9. Breaking the Waves (1996, Lars Von Trier)

10. Night of the Living Dead (1968, George A. Romero)

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001, Steven Spielberg)
All That Jazz (1979, Bob Fosse)
Apocalypse Now (1979, Francis Ford Coppola)
Bad Lieutenant (1992, Abel Ferrara)
Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott)
Brazil (1985, Terry Gilliam)
Broken Blossoms (1919, D.W. Griffith)
Chinatown (1974, Roman Polanski)
Come and See (1985, Elem Klimov)
Crash (1996, David Cronenberg)
The Crowd (1928, King Vidor)
Days of Heaven (1978, Terrence Malick)
Do the Right Thing (1989, Spike Lee)
Dumbo (1941, Ben Sharpsteen)
Faust (1926, F.W. Murnau)
Fight Club (1999, David Fincher)
The Fly (1986, David Cronenberg)
Fury (1936, Fritz Lang)
Go West (1925, Buster Keaton)
The Godfather: Part II (1974, Francis Ford Coppola)
GoodFellas (1990, Martin Scorsese)
Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990, Joe Dante)
In a Lonely Place (1950, Nicholas Ray)
In the Mood for Love (2000, Wong Kar-wai)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946, Frank Capra)
Jaws (1975, Steven Spielberg)
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988, Martin Scorsese)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962, David Lean)
Mulholland Dr. (2001, David Lynch)
Nashville (1975, Robert Altman)
Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Carl Theodor Dreyer)
Rear Window (1954, Alfred Hitchcock)
Scarface (1983, Brian De Palma)
Scenes from a Marriage (1973, Ingmar Bergman)
Seven Samurai (1954, Akira Kurosawa)
Showgirls (1995, Paul Verhoeven)
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927, F.W. Murnau)
Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948, John Huston)
Vampyr (1932, Carl Theodor Dreyer)

Click here to see my page at The On-Line Review

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-26T14:40:00.000-07:00

I’m sick of this notion that movie critics don’t like to have fun. Like any broad accusation, it's pure cop-out, especially when founded on the basis of but a handful of films, as is usually the case. Though a minority opinion in my circles, I liked the first Transformers. It was big, loud, and dumb in that manner that recalls the childhood ambition of instilling life in one’s toys. More importantly, it stayed just behind the line of headache-inducing excess that stands as the starting point of this new film. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is to its predecessor like a medieval torture chamber to a playground, but that won’t keep many from swallowing it hook, line and sinker, quickly and indiscriminately. I can only hope that my feelings here are the general consensus – not just for critics, but for human beings. Few elements of Fallen are completely odious unto themselves, but rolled together it becomes a wave of inescapable proportions – a literal tsunami of shit.

Click here to read the rest at The House Next Door.

On Things Fresh and Rotten

2009-06-25T15:00:00.000-07:00

Recently, some disputes (i.e. comments from people with nothing better to do) have arisen regarding some of my designations at Rotten Tomatoes. How dare I change my "fresh" status of Up to "rotten" - the nerve! I won't deny the satisfaction that comes from a much-commented upon post (34 and counting), and surely, being only one of five green splotches out of 200 does make one stand out. But whereas I left the screening of Up feeling a bit let down (deflated?), it wasn't until a few days later that the overall distaste became more apparent. It was at this point that I decided to let my less-than-pleased voice be heard. Admittedly, I prefer to leave reviews untouched once they've been published, but when so very little is required to tip the scales, methinks a short amount of hindsight should be allowed to creep its way in. (I hope to see Up again, and soon. It is not lightly I say the film disappointed me, and what was good was so good that I sincerely hope the rest of it goes down smoother next time.)

Which leads me to the thought of how ridiculously silly the whole fresh/rotten concept is when taken to the extreme, however necessary it may be to the marketability of criticism (even Roger Ebert, who patented the thumbs up/thumbs down system, has lamented the constrictions it imposes). Anyone to have even somewhat frequently visited this site beyond the recent past will surely have noticed the complete visual overhaul (thank you, Ryan), part of which includes the removal of assigned ratings on individual reviews. This has undoubtedly been the greatest of several anxiety-reducing reliefs I've enjoyed as a result of this process (for the record, though, I've retained high and low ratings on RT for the sake of my best- and worst-reviewed film pages, which I consider excellent resources). What better way to kill a discussion of the arts than to flatten a numeric or alphabetical key and call it a day?

Recently I met a girl who told me their boyfriend only saw those films with an 85% or higher Tomatometer score (best pronounced tohm-muh-tom-me-ter); it took every ounce of sociability in my being to not rag on that hideous bit of flawed logic. Sure, something that appeals to almost everybody stands a chance at actually being good, but even though I enjoy The King, the cliche is true: 50 million Elvis fans can be wrong. Such attitudes speak volumes about the diminished role of opinion diversity in today's culture, both for movies and at large. They also ignore the fact that a movie that everyone only kind of likes will easily score higher than a movie that divides audiences into categories of equal love and hate; so much for challenging ourselves or that adventurous virtue of trying new things. More often than not, I'd rather see what's sparked conflicting discussions than mere praise, and it's no surprise that some of my favorite films from recent years are all of rotten status, or nearly so.

Anymore, it means more to simply like or dislike something than to express why one feels the way they do - a surface-bound approach that is superficial at best, aggressively regressive at worst (as Medfly Quarantine's Ryan Kelly aptly puts it, "this ADD wave of film criticism"). Just look at what pigeonhole-obsessed modes of thought have done to our political health: if you're not with us, you're against us, red state/blue state, rightwing nutjob or baby-killing liberal. It's a form of logic I can't stand because it forgoes progress for pride and perpetuates the notion that it's better to "be right" in the moment than to work together in order to approach a long-term solution. Quotes Roger Ebert, "It is not enough to like a film. One must like it for the right reasons." The same applies to all aspects and walks of life. Of course, I will still use Rotten Tomatoes, as both a critic and user; the problem here is not the tool, but how it has been wielded. Some might be happy with the red and green offered by that titular fruit. I want the whole god damn rainbow.

Land of the Lost (2009)

2009-06-22T01:00:00.000-07:00

His Soul is Still Dancing

2009-06-21T12:23:00.000-07:00

Because, for this teaser, there's no such thing as too much circulation.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

2009-06-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

As of this writing, The Shawshank Redemption rests loftily at the top spot of IMDb’s user-voted Top 250 list (previously number two, the film only graduated to the top spot when asinine Dark Knight enthusiasts deemed The Godfather an enemy to be overcome and systematically voted it down). Saying this makes it the greatest of all films would imply that McDonald’s is the greatest of all restaurants; clearly, popularity means zilch in the long run. This isn’t to say that Shawshank is comprised entirely of empty calories, though its audience-pleasing profundities tend to lean towards the processed side of things. Frank Darabont, in his feature length debut, undoubtedly proved a skilled and keen filmmaker (he served as both writer and director, and in fact accepted a lower pay cut in order to shoot his own script). His biggest flaw, ironically, is a relative lack of confidence. A little of his dramatic affections go a long way, and too often does The Shawshank Redemption bend over backwards to elicit emotion when such is already tangible – the effect being not unlike that of an overripe fruit. Shawshank's best moments are its least-exemplified; more abundant, unfortunately, are those that seem poised to vacuum the tears straight from your ducts.

Though clearly knowledgeable of classic American cinema, Darabont’s approximation of 40s prison drama mistakes easily encapsulated emotions for stylistic sincerity. Dramatically, Morgan Freeman’s inmate character Red occupies a supporting position, but it’s fitting that the actor’s career-defining role landing him an Oscar nomination for leading actor. He’s the vertebrae of the film, its moral compass and dramatic guide, and this proves a double edged sword indicative of the film’s greater strengths and weaknesses. Even in his most capable of hands (it’s unlikely anyone else was more fitting for the part), Freeman’s narration proves equally scintillating and stultifying; otherwise touching moments become examples of overwrought blatancy, passing the line from heartfelt pontification to mushy, borderline-condescending drivel. Rather than simply expressing emotion, the film demands Red spell out the hows and whys, and so intent is Darabont’s script on crossing every T and dotting every I that only a handful of the intended emotional waves escape unscathed; even these are diminished significantly by the muted effect had on their fellows. The sincerity behind it all only serves to make the plasticine coating that much more lamentable.

If Shawshank fears anything getting lost in translation between the screen and the audience, an even greater source of paranoia is anything in the way of long-term unpleasantness. Suffice to say, this view of prison life is downright romantic, with the harsher elements – the monotonous passage of time, endless months spent in solitude, abusive guards, beatings, rape, etc. – largely averted from the audience and sequestered off from the whole. No moment may be more telling than the convenient zoom out/pan away from Andy’s first attack at the hands of the “sisters” (in the DVD commentary, Darabont admits to the desired effect of a “Victorian woman averting her gaze”). Shawshank only implies the anguish that should be at its core, skewing closer to whitewashed fantasy than calloused, hard life trauma; ultimately, there’s less to have been overcome than intended.

It’s no surprise that the film’s greatest scene is also its simplest: Red and Dufresne’s wallside chat prior to the latter’s escape relies wholly on the not-insubstantial skill and charisma of the actors. Composed entirely of close-ups and an establishing long shot in which the outer prison wall serves to bisect the frame, it proves one of the few instances in which the film conveys true spiritual isolation without knocking it over the edge, sledgehammer style. In contrast is the climactic, largely masterful escape scene: an aerial shot of Andy basking the cleansing rain serves as an unholy exclamation point to an otherwise gritty and wholly earned bit of sentiment – a choice handed down from numerous preceding elements of similar excess (antagonist characterizations, Brooks' post-prison side story, et. al.). In a way, The Shawshank Redemption has more to love than hate, and might’ve been close to great had it simply toned it all down a few notches. Such as it is, though, it rarely rises above the overbearing, obnoxious and trite.

Under Our Skin (2009)

2009-06-19T11:00:00.001-07:00

The best thing I can say about Under Our Skin is that I never for a moment doubted the sincerity of its intentions. Director Andy Abrahams Wilson comes to the material - the much-overlooked (and largely deliberately ignored) epidemic of Lyme disease - with personal experience in the matter (his sister was diagnosed). His stake shows in the film's unflinching intimacy with its subjects, which is to say, perhaps altogether too much. So unwaveringly focused is Under Our Skin on human suffering that it only intermittently rises above the worth of pure information; the film intends to elicit empathy via a series of paralleling biographies illustrating various patients' battles with the disease, but instead - perhaps expecting audience callousness - achieves overkill (the incessantly somnambulistic score alone trumps the sorrow on display with trite, arty manipulation). The effect is that of a dramatic stranglehold, inadvertently weighing down the doc's aspirations to civic change; by the time it touches on the hows and whys of Lyme's silent spread, the film (and audience) is far too drained to work up the appropriate levels of anger in response to the government and medical corruption at work. The disease - similar in symptoms to syphilis and AIDS, among others - remains largely a mystery, and the medical community remains fiercely divided over both its overall severity and the effectiveness of varying methods of treatment; numerous doctors have lost their licenses over the attempted treatment of Lyme patients (some even persist in suggesting that most incarnations of the disease don't really exist; a Simpsons clip illustrates how society has swept the danger under the rug). Suffice to say, many who stand against further research bear financial conflicts of interest (many of those representing the self-declared authority on Lyme bear ties to stricken insurance companies), having sacrificed public safety and quality of life in the name of private sector profit. Only in its investigation into these downright evil motives does Under Our Skin take on the necessary role of activist, and for the sake of those sorrowful faces (and, undoubtedly, many more to come), I wish it had gone further and deeper.

More information on Lyme disease can be found at the links provided here.

Screening Log: Dirty Harry, Godzilla vs. Hedorah, Godzilla vs. Gigan and The Limits of Control

2009-06-18T16:46:00.000-07:00

Seeing classics like Dirty Harry makes me wish that I’d been born earlier, to have been able to call it out from day one on its complete lack of merit. Even if you’re able to look past its flimsy support of fascism (more on that later), this is as sloppily constructed a genre film as those that are unfortunately typical to today’s multiplexes. The film’s lone must-see benefit is its pivotal status in the ascent of Clint Eastwood to stardom, yet even as an isolated element, it’s hard to conceive that such an awkward performance ever came to hold such sway in the culture. Harry Callahan’s signature “Do you feel lucky?” line works neither as a roll-of-the-dice gamble (as initially suggested in the film’s early bank robbery shoot-out) or tried-and-true, grizzled menace (as we come to know it through repetition). Here, Eastwood lacks nihilistic sincerity, and his my-way-or-the-highway bravado comes off as cheap posturing in a film desperate to seem like the authority on justice, nay, morality. Frankly, the guy’s an idiot (Callahan, not Eastwood), and so is any filmmaker that expects even reasonably intelligent audiences to believe that a hard-boiled San Francisco officer would lack even a rudimentary understanding of civil rights as pertaining to the acquisition of evidence – a inanity upon which the propagandistic plot hinges. Then again, little in Dirty Harry aims above the barely cognizant; the central villain – who goes by the pseudo-ominous moniker Scorpio (Andrew Robinson) – is a hilarious amalgamation of the 70s counterculture – good (sports a peace symbol), bad (deliberately gives cops a bad name) and ugly (rapist, sniper, kidnapper of children, etc.) – upon which viewers can project all their negative feelings about dem der longhair hippie sonovabitches. Dirty Harry – as Callahan is known, for always taking the ugliest of jobs – might embody some ultra-fascist fantasy, but the straw-man arguments made here skew closer to us-versus-them conservative idiocy.

Godzilla vs. Hedorah (aka Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster) was always my least favorite of the numerous monster-mashing sequels as a child; rewatching it these years later, there’s something reassuring in having my then-budding tastes confirmed. Though more stylistically distinct than most of its counterparts – dabbling in 70s psychedelics, surreal animated divergences, and jazzy introductions for the titular lizard – this entry is also among the most lifeless of the series, a not insubstantial designation given the central conflict of two high-rise monsters duking it out with life on Earth as we know it hanging in the balance. The opening images of untold tons of garbage collected in the ocean sets an appropriately queasy tone; soon, multiple tadpole-like Hedorah monsters are born of the mineral waste, laying waste to ships at sea before merging together into a creature capable of coming ashore and, eventually, flight (the parallels to basic evolutionary theory are amusing, but, alas, go relatively untapped). Enter Godzilla to save the day, here cast as something of a wrestling icon; the glove, suffice to say, doesn’t fit, thanks in no small part to the lacking fight choreography on display. The image of the massive smog beast sucking fumes off of pollutant factory pipes proves almost indelible, but little else registers in this awkwardly overt forerunner to An Inconvenient Truth’s cautionary environmental warnings.

It especially pales in comparison to the similarly themed Godzilla vs. Gigan (aka Godzilla on Monster Island, released stateside in 1977), itself among the most efficient and exciting of the series since the 1954 original; in it, cockroach-like aliens attempt to wipe out humanity so as to clear the Earth for themselves, their home planet now a lifeless wasteland after years of abuse. Jun Fukuda’s imaginative set pieces dwarf the poorly staged, drawn-out confrontations between Godzilla and Hedorah; mounting tensions between the monsters and military have an almost musical rhythm, while the montages of assembling infantry (comprised of both real military vehicles and blatant model stand-ins) building up to the monster’s attack exemplify the childlike wonder implicit in the latter-day Godzilla. As a newcomer, Gigan isn’t as creatively conceived a villain as the film would have you think (outside of close encounters, the buzz-saw in his belly seems a remarkably useless weapon), and Ghidorah has always struck me as somewhat flippant, with little to no apparent coordination or cooperation between the three heads. Nevertheless, such is of little consequence given Godzilla and the spiky Anguirus’ cheeky, one-two displays of badassitude. Inner eight-year-old, you may now commence having a blast.

The Limits of Control may be the best movie I haven’t enjoyed in recent memory. Seen under just about the least conducive of circumstances, Jim Jarmusch’s polarizing exercise in stylized minimalism struck me as accomplished, intoxicating, and ultimately, infuriating; was it the film that got under my skin, or was it the horrendous day I’d been having up until that point? Had it been screening in any New York City theater besides the Angelika Film Center (a location at which, I am now convinced, no quality cinematic experience can be had), I’d have resubmitted myself to it’s super-cool suave for another go around, but until the DVD release, I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Following the hyper-methodical activities of a character known only as Lone Man (Isaach De Bankolé), The Limits of Control seems to exist neither in complete reality or complete fantasy, what with its own audio/visual signifiers occasionally spilling over the lines we rely on to define our realities. Many reviews spilled on plot details not actually revealed until well into the picture (thus, I found, diminishing the impact of their reveal), proving how few among our critical establishment can actually discern between those films in which hard story is primary versus secondary; perhaps more worryingly, how many even care to? Here, repetition takes on an ethereal quality, though I’m not entirely convinced that the oft-repeated philosophies and sound bytes work any better when taken as emotional manipulators instead of intellectual stimulators. More so than any 2009 release to date, I anxiously await a second viewing.

Terminator: Salvation

2009-06-16T17:51:00.000-07:00

Let’s cut to the chase: is McG to blame for the semi-smoldering wreck that is Terminator Salvation? For whatever it’s worth, not in the eyes of this died-in-the-wool fan of the series—not enough, that is, to warrant making him a scapegoat for the entire mess. Surely this is, at the very least, a problematic film. I’ve half a mind to call it an outright bad one, and I’ll admit bias enough that it might simply be beyond my critical lexicon to put the words “bad” and “Terminator” next to one another in the same sentence. (You see, Cameron’s original is half the reason, if not more, that I am the way I am now, and yes, count me as a fan of Jonathan Mostow’s Rise of the Machines.) Don’t think I’m blind, though—there are parts of Salvation that "bad" would be too good a descriptor for, and some of the sins committed here are unforgivable. But like a rodeo performer up against an angry bull, I find myself tipping my hat to McG for his sheer willingness to take on this wild beast of a movie. He gives it his all, though I can’t imagine anyone’s "all" being nearly enough to repair the damaged goods that went into this production.

Click here to read the rest at The House Next Door.

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

2009-06-11T17:27:00.000-07:00

Drag Me to Hell isn’t a masterpiece, but if one considers only horror films designated PG-13 by the MPAA, it certainly stands near – if not at – the top of the pile. A throwback of sorts to director Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead trilogy (particularly during a late, altogether showstopping sequence in which the film’s villainous spirit inhabits the bodies of several living characters), the film is appropriately nasty and unrelenting, torturing its main protagonist (and, likewise, the audience) with nerve-racking setpieces as traditional in conception (the use of shadow recalls Murnau’s Nosferatu) as they are expert in execution. With the possibility of a promotion on the line (as well as the approval of her boyfriend’s elitist parents), Christine (Alison Lohman) denies an elderly woman's (Lorna Raver) request for a third mortgage extension, despite her apparent physical ailments and last-minute resort to begging. One unforgettable parking garage encounter with the psychotic senior later, she finds herself the recipient of nightmarish experiences soon revealed to be the product of a curse laid upon her by the vindictive gypsy woman. In a time where the majority of horror films attempt impossible contrivances to elicit scares, Drag Me to Hell is a refreshing reset to simple button pushing, with Raimi’s orchestration of hellfire images, gag-inducing traumas, ominous noises and malevolent forces walking a fine line between the cheeky and the cruel; whatever the film might lack in subtlety it mostly makes up for with punchy flair, and there’s a genuine sense of spiritual turmoil encoded in the tastefully CG-enhanced compositions. A pity, though, that the film’s ultimately ironic resolution is too overtly alluded to beforehand, thus diminishing its fiery wallop, or that the financial subtext of literally selling one’s soul never bubbles up in more deliciously subversive manners. Less than perfect, Drag Me to Hell nevertheless stands as the latest in a line of occasional, much-needed reminders that the horror genre – Roths, Bousmans and other offenders notwithstanding – isn’t going completely downhill anytime soon.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop (2009)

2009-06-11T17:18:00.000-07:00

Thumbing noses at its very premise, the bulk of critics (and more than a few viewers) slammed I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry for the very offenses that unpretentiously progressive production sought to extinguish. (It’s no surprise that the bulk of that film’s biggest critical supporters are of the homosexual persuasion.) Following in the same vein as that gem is the similarly modest common-man comedy Paul Blart: Mall Cop, in which the titular, loveable sadsack – a single, overweight dad whose wife, having obtained citizenship through their marriage, left after giving birth to their child – finds himself in something of a Die Hard retread when thieves hold up the local shopping mall where he’s been employed as a security guard for the past decade. Though its channeling of archetypes proves less than perfectly quotidian, Paul Blart still has more to love than hate. Kevin James’ everyman deserves stronger material; rarely does the bantering dialogue proves as charming as the rapid-fire physical gags (Blart’s almost symbiotic command of his scooter has a sublime visual poignancy), which skew closer to silent film existentialism than the anti-fat stereotyping the film is regularly accused of – something that only occasionally, and misguidedly, manifested itself to these eyes. Unfortunately, whereas Chuck and Larry catapulted its premise to gonzo heights (no small thanks to Ving Rhames) and thus became something greater than the sum of its parts, Mall Cop all too quickly succumbs to genre routine, forgoing true subversion for mere surface parody. Like the opening scene, in which Blart passes out from lack of blood sugar just inches before the finish line in a career-defining fitness test, it’s only almost the making of a comedy classic.