Since you cannot comment on this page, click on the heading link and comment on the original post.
Chronicle
Directed by Josh Trank, Written by Max Landis, Starring Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan, Michael Kelly and Ashley Hinshaw
Fandango Synopsis - Andrew is a socially awkward, introverted teen whose main form of escape and expression is a video camera. But things begin to change when Andrew, his cousin Matt and popular classmate Steve discover a mysterious substance that leaves them with incredible powers. As their abilities become more powerful, the teens’ lives spin out of control when their darker sides begin to emerge. Andrew’s camera captures the unfolding events.
My Thoughts - I had zero intention to watch CHRONICLE until I saw the positive reviews it was getting. The synopsis seemed like a retread of a bunch of films I’d already seen and for some reason the title always made me think of that sure pile of trash, IMMORTALS from last year. Anyways I caught the film a few weeks after it opened in a relatively empty theater on a weekday afternoon and thought it was a mixed bag, but far better than I’d anticipated.
I found CHRONICLE to be more an impressive film than an engaging film. I admired it more than I enjoyed it. I think the special effects were pretty phenomenal when taking the small (15 mil?) budget into consideration. There were a few clunky CGI moments (moving the cars), but on the whole it was usually equal to or better than many of the big budget CGI films I have seen.
Besides the CGI, I bought the three main actors who were all unknowns to me. I didn’t like or care for any of these guys, which falls on the screenwriter, but I think these actors did decent jobs. I also think the found footage style, while sometimes over explained, worked well for the film.
Of course, this film by first time director Josh Trank had plenty of problems that kept it from being a truly satisfying experience. As I mentioned, I never moved beyond admiring it. I was analyzing it in a very detached and technical way, because it never found a way to make the audience invest in these characters. I never bought the fractured, abusive father/son relationship. The father didn’t feel like a real character just as the rest of the cast outside the main three seemed like High School caricatures.
I was actually OK with not ever really knowing what the source of the powers were, but I didn’t buy that these guys wouldn’t try to find more answers. They thought about it for about five minutes and then just moved on as if it wasn’t a big deal. The bloody noses didn’t seem to worry them and oddly never amounted to anything in the film. I guess we are just supposed to pretend it meant nothing.
You are expected to accept the moronic decisions of these powered individuals and I had a hard time just going with it. Why the hell would the main kid, Alex wear the fireman’s suit and hold up gas stations? Is there anyone who wouldn’t understand the importance of covering your face? With their abilities, getting cash would never be a problem, but to get to the big, shitty explosion of a finale, he needed to do stupid things.
The finale was awful. The escalation to the finale was far too quick and the finale itself was a long, silly bore. It kind of felt like an homage to the pretty laughable fight between Anakin and Obi-Wan at the end to Star Wars Episode 3.
CHRONICLE was a pleasant surprise in many ways, because I expected so little. It had elements that reminded me of a film I adore, PRIMER and other elements taken straight from many of the superhero films of recent years. What I like most about the film is the feeling I got coming away from it that people can make films of this scale on such small budgets. It will allow inventive filmmakers to get their big ideas on the screen without bending over for the production companies and asking for 100 million dollar budgets.
There is stuff to like in CHRONICLE and I think many will enjoy it, but overall I wasn’t willing to not ask the obvious questions and was never close to invested in these characters or their story. The rushed over the top ending may have been the difference between a full recommendation or not. The film impressed at times and I admired it in many ways, but I still think it was mediocre. I think everyone would be better off catching up with 2011 releases that are still trickling into theaters than seeing CHRONICLE. Now, if you have already seen them all, I think your chances are probably better with CHRONICLE than most of the 2012 releases out there.
My Rating : 6/10
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, Written by Scott M. Gimple, Seth Hoffman and David S. Goyer, Starring Nicolas Cage, Violante Placido, Ciaran Hinds, Idris Elba and Fergus Riordan
Fandango Synopsis - While hiding out in Eastern Europe, Johnny Blaze must once again become the Ghost Rider when members of a secret church hire him to save a boy from Satan.
My Thoughts - How much of my time is worth spending on telling everyone what they already know and was obvious before anyone had even seen it, that GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE is a terrible film?
I saw the original GHOST RIDER and found it laughably bad. I have no real interest in the character in other mediums and have never allowed myself to be subjected to the directors Neveldine and Taylor’s CRANK films. And NEVER will. After watching so many serious, often fantastic films while catching up on 2011 films, I thought I could use a cleanser and I’d see this film that was almost a sure disaster. I still held a tiny hope that Nic Cage would be bonkers enough that I could possibly find something enjoyable here.
I didn’t find something enjoyable and the theater experience was also unbearable. The sound was way low early on and the theater about 110 degrees. The guy with six small children behind me was bad, but the drunk, bald, goateed older man in the leather jacket with his young daughter and wife sitting next to me was much worse. He was cracking open cans and loudly talking about everything (“huh, he got a new motorcycle”), which led to me finally moving up a few rows next to a mid-fifties woman throwing her hands in the air and pumping her fists in glee at every “bad-ass” thing the Ghost Rider did. Still, she was preferable to goatee guy.
So, the positives of this film amount to one great, bizarre five minute interrogation scene, in which Cage is seeking info from some guy in a gambling den. This was the bonkers Cage I came for as he tried to hold off morphing into the Ghost Rider and get his information. Sadly, other than a Cage line or two later in the film, there was nothing else enjoyable.
The rest of the film was trash. It varied from loud, annoying trash to boring convoluted trash. There was a lot of story going on having to do with the Devil, evil monks, drunk monks, the Devil’s “baby momma” (as the film embarassingly puts it) and the Devil’s half human son. None of this shit makes sense and you surely don’t care about any of it. Trust me, even if it sounds “fun”, it isn’t.
The directors’ sensibilities are as bad as I’ve ever seen. It’s some of the worst filmmaking I’ve seen and usually exactly what I wouldn’t want to see in a film. Their sense of humor is juvenile, broad and never close to funny. Everything is in super speed, grimy and from a low angle.
There are some genuine good actors in the film (Hinds, Elba), but they are just collecting a paycheck and adding nothing. It could have been a chance for Cage to completely go wild, but the silly plot and the loud, boring action took over too often. The problem is, when Ghost Rider is on screen, Cage cannot be.
Obviously no one should go see GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE. It isn’t the fun, campy B movie you may hope for, but instead an embarrassment. Of course, this isn’t a surprise. If you want your fix of Cage going nuts in a bad, but entertaining film, see BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL NEW ORLEANS (many argue it’s a good film) or if you want nutso Cage in a very good film, go watch Scorsese’s BRINGING OUT THE DEAD.
My Rating: 2/10
The Secret World of Arrietty
Directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi, Written by Hayao Miyazaki and Keiko Niwa, Starring Bridgit Mendler, Will Arnett, Amy Poehler, Carol Burnett and David Henrie
Fandango Synopsis - Arrietty, a tiny, but tenacious 14-year-old, lives with her parents in the recesses of a suburban garden home, unbeknownst to the homeowner and her housekeeper. Like all little people, Arrietty remains hidden from view, except during occasional covert ventures beyond the floorboards to “borrow” scrap supplies like sugar cubes from her human hosts. But when 12-year-old Shawn, a human boy who comes to stay in the home, discovers his mysterious housemate one evening, a secret friendship blossoms. If discovered, their relationship could drive Arrietty’s family from the home and straight into danger.
My Thoughts - 2011 was a year in which I could only be coaxed to the theater to see a single animated film, RANGO, which was good, but everything else looked pretty bad or never hit any theaters. It was disappointing, because I like animated films. I hope that isn’t the case this year and I hope THE SECRET WORLD OF ARRIETTY isn’t my last of 2012. I can say, even if I see ten more animated films this year, it wouldn’t be a big surprise if ARRIETTY ends up being the best.
This is director Hiromasa Yonebayashi’s first time at the helm after being an animator on a number of the legendary Hayao Miyazaki’s most acclaimed films (Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, Howl’s Moving Castle, Ponyo) and he offers up an enjoyable film with THE SECRET WORLD OF ARRIETTY. Miyazaki is credited with the screenplay.
I love good hand drawn animation and it’s very traditional and beautiful in this film. It lacks some of the surreal, breathtaking qualities of some of Miyazaki’s films, even the most recent, PONYO, but I think that may have much to do with the story being adapted from an English novel. Either way, it’s miles better than the computer animated crap used in nearly every animated film these days. Pixar does computer animation better than anyone and it still doesn’t compare to this.
I liked the story. I loved the early scenes of Arrietty learning the ropes as a Borrower from her father. The perfect planning needed in order to complete as simple a task as obtaining a sugar cube was fascinating to watch. I actually liked most everything with the kind, but tough, no-nonsense father. The father was great, while the mother, voiced by Amy Poehler was unbearable. She was too spastic and excitable, but the big problem was that listening to Poehler voice the character the way she did was like death. Poehler was easily the worst thing in the film, which made me wish I had seen the Brit version that featured Olivia Colman in that role instead.
I love these Studio Ghibli films and other animated films that seem to be part of that family, because they put solid story and gorgeous animation first and almost never rely on lame childish humor or big nonsensical action set pieces. They don’t fear that taking their time and telling a story will bore their audience. It’s similar to the way HUGO told a good children’s story without the jokes and action last year.
I don’t always find it necessary to be inserting strong messages and themes into children’s films, but I liked the simple, decent ones ARRIETTY was putting forth. It’s demonstrating that you don’t always have to fear what you don’t understand, that you cannot judge an entire group of people based on the actions of others within the group and stuff in that vein. These are teachings that it would be hard to argue against.
THE SECRET LIFE OF ARRIETTY is no doubt a good film. It’s really everything that most of today’s American animated films aren’t. It got a little long for me, but is worth seeing and could easily end up nominated for an Animated Feature Oscar in 2012. For comparisons sake, I think ARRIETTY is about equally good to PONYO from a few years ago, but slightly less childish.
My Rating : 7/10
Detachment
Directed by Tony Kaye, Written by Carl Lund, Starring Adrien Brody, Sami Gayle, Betty Kaye, James Caan and Lucy Liu
Fandango Synopsis - Henry Barthes is a substitute teacher who shuns emotional connections, and never stays long enough in one district to bond with his students or colleagues. Troubled and lost, Henry lands at a public school where an apathetic student body and disinterested parents have created a frustrated, burned-out group of teachers and administrators. Inadvertently, Henry becomes a role model to his disaffected students and bonds with a teenage runaway who is just as lost as he is.
My Thoughts - I’ve just put the 2011 year in film behind me and started to dig into films from the new year. I am thrilled to be able to say that I have already found a special one. Tony Kaye’s DETACHMENT is the first great film of 2012.
If enough people find this film, it could and should be considered one of the peaks of Adrien Brody’s career. There is a big, impressive cast that mostly just play bit parts with a few scenes, but Adrien Brody is the constant. He is the lead and is fantastic. He plays a good man and one of the few teachers who isn’t burnt out to the point of complete ineffectiveness. He cares and wants to help people, but his unwillingness to commit due to a fear of loss is always a hindrance. He wants to do the right things, the noble things, but that fear, due to tragic life experiences, keeps him from going as far as he needs to to make a difference. Brody is a major presence on screen in DETACHMENT and I am so happy to see him in another great film.
Beyond Brody, we are given a lot of actors giving really strong small performances, mostly as part of the faculty that help make this film as good as it is. James Caan is funny and better than I’d seen in forever. Lucy Liu has a great scene with Caan. Christinia Hendricks isn’t bad. Marcia Gay Harden is good as the burnt out Principal being threatened from above and Tim Blake Nelson is the saddest character in the film.
DETACHMENT is an uncomfortably truthful film. It’s a very real, sometimes rough film, but is beautifully made. This is just Tony Kaye’s second released feature film, (First being AMERICAN HISTORY X) but he is a real artist and a treasure. It’s likely different for everyone, but when watching DETACHMENT, I felt elements that reminded be of such great films as 25TH HOUR, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and HALF NELSON. It isn’t derivative of any of these in the least, but working in the same truthful, challenging realm.
While it’s telling Brody’s story, the film is using his character as a way to dig into the real issue of failing, poor, inner city schools. It’s shining a light on them and saying “yes, these schools exist and ignoring them will not make them go away”.
The school in the film is a disaster. The teachers have been put into a seemingly impossible situation. For the most part the students are way behind and don’t have any desire to learn. Their parents are almost entirely apathetic, unengaged and angry, expecting the teachers to work miracles, not taking any responsibility for their children themselves and blaming the system when it inevitably all goes wrong.
The students run the place and have beaten most of the teachers into submission. They are mostly broken beings. They have no control, no support, cannot connect and end up disillusioned altogether. All of this also coincides with the ill-advised “No Child Left Behind Act”, which serves as punishment to the struggling schools by limiting funding. There is no way out for these schools and students and no one cares. The film illustrates all of this better than anything I’ve ever seen.
There are a couple of subplots with Brody’s character that vary in effectiveness, but serve to teach his character a lesson in the value of becoming fully engaged. The disastrous result of one relationship impacts the way he will deal with those in need in the future. I liked all of Brody’s story a good deal, but feel the films biggest strength was the overall, wide view into the school.
DETACHMENT is a great film that everyone should seek out. It can be heartbreaking at times, but the things represented in the film are happening all over this country and shouldn’t be ignored. DETACHMENT isn’t offering solutions, but does a wonderful job of telling an interesting story, while highlighting some big, real problems.
My Rating : 8/10
Return
Directed and Written by Liza Johnson, Starring Linda Cardellini, Michael Shannon and John Slattery
IMDB Synopsis - A soldier returns to her family, friends, and old job after a tour of duty, though she finds herself struggling to find her place in her everyday life.
My Thoughts - I wish I could find something in RETURN that would spark an impassioned response from me, but there is nothing about the film to make me feel strongly in any way.
RETURN is by no means a bad film, but it does nothing new or particularly interesting on any level. I admit I’m a bad target audience for a film about a soldier, hell I thought THE HURT LOCKER was bad, but I’d be surprised if anyone was too excited about what this film brings. My draw to it was a mix of me being willing to see anything Michael Shannon is a part of and hearing FREAKS AND GEEKS alum, Linda Cardellini was quite good.
The story in RETURN is somber, real and probably all too common. The toll of going to war and the time away from their family can take on a person and their relationships seem always on the verge of catastrophic. The problem is I felt like I’ve been there and done that with this film. You can tell a story like this and make a great film, but there has to be a slightly different angle taken or the characters need to more interesting or better dialogue or visually inventive etc etc etc. RETURN decides to tell a story we’ve mostly seen before in a very conventional way.
Linda Cardellini is good in the lead as Kelli, a kind of ghost upon her return from the war. Things have changed some since she had left and the way she views things has been altered as well. Her character is at least interesting in that they don’t make her entirely sympathetic nor a villain. She is making some mistakes, but doesn’t really deserve the treatment her husband is giving her. I’ll spend forty hours with her before I’d spend another ninety minutes with Jeremy Renner’s annoying, Frat Boy HURT LOCKER character.
Michael Shannon’s role as Mike is limited as he isn’t given a whole lot to do, but he does a nice job. He brings an affable and playful quality to his blue collar characters that I think shines through from his own personality. It’s great that he works so much and has small roles in many films, but it’s hard not to want him to have more screen time.
One of my bigger problems with RETURN was how quickly the Kelli/Mike relationship deteriorated and how little communication there was between the two. Her actions weren’t so outrageous to warrant his leaving her and the time wasn’t spent showing why and how it all happened. It isn’t that I don’t believe it could have happened as it did, but it’s that I think there was far more to mine there to make a better film.
The one thing I really liked that RETURN touched on and had never given any thought, was all the people trying to play Oprah to the returning soldiers. On a number of occasions people (family, friends, counselor) would try to get Kelli to open up, tell her “war horror stories”, so that she will feel better. You get the sense, as her character does, that the motives of these questions are as much about their urge to feed their morbid curiosity as it is their maybe misguided attempt to help her.
It’s hard to finish RETURN and not wish you had gotten more from it. It doesn’t having glaring negatives, therefore it’s hard to truly dislike. It’s best quality is it’s sincerity. I just wish it had been more interesting. I can’t imagine many being too taken with RETURN, so would advise you watch something else.
My Rating : 5/10
Being Flynn
Directed and Written by Paul Weitz, Starring Paul Dano, Robert De Niro, Julianne Moore and Olivia Thirlby
Fandango Synopsis - Nick Flynn is a young writer in the midst of trying to define himself. Though he misses his late mother, his father, Jonathan has been out of his life for 18 years. However, when Jonathan is in danger of losing his job and apartment, he reaches out to Nick. Overwhelmed, Nick nonetheless prepares to welcome his father back into his life, but Jonathan quickly disappears again. When Nick later finds the man at a homeless shelter, he has a big decision to make.
My Thoughts - BEING FLYNN is a very good film that offers a lot to admire, but for me the big takeaway has to do with Robert De Niro and his performance. Mr. De Niro is my favorite actor and it isn’t even very close. He’s been a part of many of my favorite films and his dedicated, often intense performances are always driving forces behind them. It’s been a while since his last truly great performance and many may argue it’s been just as long since he’s challenged himself. I feel he’s done some good work and made some interesting choices along the way, but his turn as Paul Dano’s character Nick Flynn’s father, Jonathan Flynn is something more. This was a fully invested, major performance by a still masterful and important actor.
De Niro really went for it in this role. He played it big. His character was boisterous, egotistical and delusional of his importance and standing in the world. He was also a very proud man who only wanted assistance if he believed he had worked his “magic” to get it, which led to him often enduring a rougher life than he need. It was fun to watch De Niro on screen and it makes me excited for some of the stuff he has coming up.
Paul Dano was very good in a less showy role as the films protagonist, Nick Flynn. Dano is an actor that’s often unfairly dismissed due to him being overmatched on screen by Daniel Day-Lewis in Paul Thomas Anderson’s THERE WILL BE BLOOD. It’s silly because no one could fare particularly well opposite what was one of the all-time best powerhouse performances. I’m also not even sold that Dano was a weak link in that film. Either way, he’s an actor I like, who makes interesting role choices seemingly not driven by paycheck size.
Dano does well in BEING FLYNN working opposite a master (De Niro) playing big. There is no competition between the two within scenes. This is Dano’s story and the films works because you want to go on this journey with him. You empathize with him in his crazy situation and want him to find some kind of stability.
The father son relationship that develops early in the film is strained and hugely complicated at best. The evolution and eventual steadying of it is tied closely to Nick Flynn’s maturation and realization that while he came from his mother and father, he is his own man. Amidst all his madness, Jonathan Flynn is able to offer one important piece of insight that helps Nick process his mother’s death and his own role in it. This was vital in allowing Nick to move on and get out of his self-loathing funk. From there Nick is able to gain understanding of who he is and is able to accept his father, understanding him to be a terribly flawed man that isn’t going to become a new man this late in life. Nick’s able to accept his father into his life, on his own terms and near the end of the film you see the first instance of Jonathan choosing to be a part of Nick’s life for reasons other than selfishness.
While the ending isn’t grim, it wasn’t some super sentimental bullshit that leaves its audience with a faux full heart. It’s a believable, real life conclusion that left me satisfied.
BEING FLYNN is a sometimes grimy, seedy and always realistically messy, human story that I took a lot from. I liked it very much and hope people can find it to check it out.
PS: It REALLY should have kept the fantastic original title, ANOTHER BULLSHIT NIGHT IN SUCK CITY.
My Rating : 7/10
Jeff, Who Lives at Home
Directed and Written by Jay and Mark Duplass, Starring Jason Segel, Ed Helms, Susan Sarandon and Judy Greer
Fandango Synopsis - When Jeff leaves his mother’s basement to buy wood glue at the store, he looks for signs from the universe to determine his path. However, a series of unexpected and amusing events leads him to cross paths with his family, especially his brother, in the strangest of circumstances and locations. If Jeff is very lucky and universally blessed, he will find the meaning of his life… and remember to buy the wood glue as well.
My Thoughts - I found JEFF, WHO LIVES AT HOME to be an enjoyable, funny and sometimes saccharine film. It’s very much what I’d consider a standard indie comedy, but I often like them and feel the pieces involved in this film were strong enough to make the film stand out some from the pack.
There’s a quirky, but really not too uncommon family dynamic made up of a mother played by Susan Sarandon and two sons, one who lives at home, played by Jason Segel and Ed Helms. I think all three were good in the film, with Sarandon playing the most real character of the three. There is a sadness in her that comes across more genuinely than anything Segel or Helms offer up in their more comedic roles.
Helms and Segel brought good chemistry and comedic timing. The conversations were often absurd, but felt pretty natural, likely sprinkled with plenty of good improvisation. Segel as a maddeningly moronic, but sweet character and Helms as an insecure asshole both brought plenty of laughs, particularly in the films first half.
I was surprised, but not put off by how dramatically thick the film got late, where the comedy almost completely disappeared. It was always silly, but these characters were dealing with real life problems and emotions. It isn’t just a farce and late in the film they dug deep into the drama, which worked for me other than a few moments when things got a little too sugary.
I liked this film all around and liked the writer/directors Mark and Jay Duplass’ last film CYRUS as well. They get talented actors willing to put themselves out there and play within the loose story structure put before them. Their films feel organic and the improvisational style makes individual scenes feel unpredictable and fresh. There is one GLARING problem with the Duplass’ though, they are awful with the camera. Their films look crap, filled with bad shots and constant, cheap, blurry digital zooms. Nearly every shot of a conversation starts a normal distance from the actors face and then you get a quick, blurry digital zoom that takes you far to close. It’s distracting every single time and looks terrible, so I don’t understand the intention at all. I’m not sure the Duplass’ have anything important to say, but I have fun with their films, which makes me hope they get someone behind the camera with a better eye or learn something as they grow as filmmakers.
JEFF, WHO LIVES AT HOME isn’t anything particularly new, but it’s a really good, pretty standard indie comedy with good actors, enough laughs and some heart. It’s worth seeing as long as you can get past the damn digital zooms!
My Rating : 7/10
21 Jump Street
Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, Written by Michael Bacall, Starring Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Brie Larson, Dave Franco and Rob Riggle
Fandango Synopsis - When cops Schmidt and Jenko join the secret Jump Street unit, they use their youthful appearances to go under cover as high-school students. They trade in their guns and badges for backpacks, and set out to shut down a dangerous drug ring. But, as time goes on, Schmidt and Jenko discover that high school is nothing like it was just a few years earlier — and, what’s more, they must again confront the teenage terror and anxiety they thought they had left behind.
My Thoughts - For whatever reasons, I generally don’t care for deeply analyzing comedy films. If there are real messages and they have things to say, I may be more interested, but when the films sole purpose seems to be to make the audience laugh, I generally just state whether the comedy worked or didn’t and don’t dig too much into the whys. I believe 21 JUMP STREET sets out with the sole purpose of making people laugh and I did, some.
I laughed at least a handful of times and found it funny many others. I think the comedy missed at least as much as it hit, but it’s still better than the usual studio comedy. At least when the jokes didn’t work I wasn’t cringing in embarrassment as is far too often the case.
I often feel that straight comedy doesn’t work well in the feature film format, but is better suited for TV or sketch, because comedy films almost always hit a lull at the end of the second and beginning of the third act when the plot must move forward and the jokes start drying up. That happens some here, but what I think 21 JUMP STREET has that few comedy films do is a concept that can legitimately fill a feature film. It isn’t one note, they have real character arcs and there is an actual story.
Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum were both good and bad, but tipping towards good. Their performances, like the whole film really is in the mediocre, but tilted towards good area. They both undoubtedly had their moments that made me laugh. The film did just enough for me to enjoy it and both Hill and Tatum the same. They both play unbelievable morons that you laugh at rather than with. Hill being the former “geek” working his way into the “cool” crowd and Tatum the former “cool” guy hanging with the “geeks”, covering similar ground as James Franco’s character did in the TV show FREAKS AND GEEKS. They were guys I could like within the context of this film, but couldn’t stand in real life.
I liked a number of the smaller performances, including Brie Larson as the girl Hill has a crush on and particularly Rob Riggle as the gym teacher. I thought Riggle’s interactions with Hill and Tatum were comedic high points.
Another high point in the film includes a major cameo that I won’t spoil for anyone who doesn’t know it’s coming. It’s a fantastic scene that ties into the present, but luckily not too overdone self referential thing the film had going on in regards to the original TV show.
21 JUMP STREET is a surprise to me just by being watchable. The idea seemed awful and Hill has been a part of a number of comedies I want nothing to do with, not to mention Tatum’s bad track record, but I had a small fascination with the film and I couldn’t pinpoint the reason. That small curiosity mixed with the oddly positive reviews were enough to get me into the $5, pre-noon matinee, which I’m glad for. It wasn’t a waste of my time or $5. I had a good enough time after entering with low expectations. I’m somewhere around a tepid recommendation for the film. If you want to see a straight comedy, I think it’s unlikely you’ll find something better playing currently. I think it’s somewhere around the quality level of DUE DATE from a few years ago.
My Rating : 6/10
4:44 Last Day on Earth
Directed and Written by Abel Ferrara, Starring Willem Dafoe and Shanyn Leigh
IMDB Synopsis - A look at how a painter and a successful actor spend their last day together before the world comes to an end.
My Thoughts - 4:44 LAST DAY ON EARTH is a much more grounded, realistic and practical look at the end of the world than something like last years more heralded MELANCHOLIA. Whether this is a good or bad thing is debatable, but while 4:44 is less ambitious and its peaks not as spectacular, I’m not sure it’s a lesser film as a whole.
4:44 primarily focuses on a couple played by Dafoe and Leigh, but through their communications, mostly on Skype, through television and a number of scenes of Dafoe overlooking the neighborhood while on the roof of his apartment building, you get a wider view of how people are dealing with the knowledge that they only have a few hours left to live. While there is some suicide, denial and angry questioning of the environmental mistakes that have led to the assured annihilation of humanity, things are mostly subdued, with people going about their life in pretty normal ways. It’s almost like it’s a night before a holiday where no one will have to work. I think many may find director Ferrara’s take on this material surprising and maybe frustrating, while while I didn’t find it all that entertaining or profound, I did buy it. I believe his vision of how it might go down under these circumstances may not be far off the mark. ( The film is a little vague on exactly how everyone will die and how it’s known exactly when, but I went with it )
Dafoe is good as he usually is. He made himself appear OK in the face of certain death when interacting with others, but there was a lot of hopelessness and suppressed fear within him that showed when no one was watching. He spent his time seeking comfort, whether it be by talking to his daughter on Skype or listening to the Dalai Lama’s philosophical words of wisdom on the TV. I think Dafoe’s character was a good illustration of how most of the city was probably feeling, cool on the outside and a mess on the inside.
Overall there wasn’t a lot to dislike, but there just wasn’t enough substance there for this to be a satisfying feature film. In its 80 minute running time it offered a view of what the mood may be in this dire situation, but it lacked anything that left an impression on me when the film ended. Also, when that green grass started to descend on the city, I had no emotional reaction, but instead thought maybe they should call the Ghostbusters.
My Rating : 5/10
Comic-Con: Episode IV - A Fan’s Hope
Comic-Con: Episode IV - A Fan’s Hope
A Documentary Directed by Morgan Spurlock
IMDB Synopsis - A behind-the-scenes look at the fans who gather by the thousands each year in San Diego, California to attend Comic-Con, the world’s largest comic book convention.
My Thoughts - Morgan Spurlock’s COMIC-CON: EPISODE IV - A FAN’S HOPE is a film for a very limited audience. Going in, as a comic book reader, moderate sci-fi and fantasy fan and occasional gamer, I thought I may be part of that audience. After viewing the film, it turns out I’m not.
COMIC-CON was mildly enjoyable at times, featuring a few pretty decent and watchable characters among the 10-15 featured (The Mile High Comics owner Chuck Rozanski and the garage costume designer Holly Conrad were the best), but I struggled to find a real point to the film. I don’t think it gives the viewer the experience of attending the Con as much as it just offers people telling you how awesome it is and how much it’s the one place they can feel accepted for who they are. (Tell that to the TWILIGHT fans who were vilified and ridiculed) Without spending any substantial period of time with any one character, as the film chooses to zip between a dozen or more, you never get to know any single one, which keeps the drama in all of their mini stories at a minimum. One guy we don’t know has his artwork shunned, while another we don’t know has his embraced. Who cares? If I knew more about these guys I might.
The film does give you a peek at some of the components and activities of Comic-Con some may not even realize exist, the costume Masquerade and the actual selling of comics being examples, but there isn’t anything substantial or all that interesting being explored. It really feels like a piece that should have been a television special, but not a feature film.
I think the lack of Morgan Spurlock in front of the camera was a big negative. He’s a likable guy who would have at least brought some humor or life to this Doc. Every Doc of his I have seen would be a lesser film without him being in it. No Spurlock is a bad thing, but that is only compounded by having to watch Eli Roth and Harry Knowles speaking about the con as some kind of filler between the stories. Who cares what a torture porn guy like Roth has to say about Comic-Con? As for Knowles, all I can say is the only thing that could make the giant, sagging, pale chunk of skin that makes up his fifth and sixth chins more disgusting to look at is for him to have a fire red beard that only covers that portion of his face/neck, which he does. The sight of that ghastly neck beard thing is nauseating.
Comic-Con is light and not really something to actively dislike, it just fails to accomplish much. While I don’t know what Spurlock’s objectives were for the film, with the producers involved including Harry Knowles, Joss Whedon and Stan Lee, it’s safe to say the film was intended in some ways to be an endorsement or even an advertisement for Comic-Con. It fails even in that respect, because I was less interested in attending Comic-Con after the film than before.
I think my thoughts on COMIC-CON: EPISODE IV - A FAN’S HOPE come off as more negative than I truly felt while viewing, but I was just so disappointed in its lack of direction, lack of ambition and general lack of energy. Morgan Spurlock is better than this and his films are better with him in front of the camera instead of just in the editing room. I think you can all find something more worthwhile to view than this film.
My Rating : 5/10
The Snowtown Murders
Directed by Justin Kurzel, Written by Shaun Grant, Starring Lucas Pittaway, Daniel Henshall and Louise Harris
Fandango Synopsis - Elizabeth Harvey is raising her three boys in Adelaide’s poor northern suburbs. After her latest boyfriend displays pedophilic tendencies she takes up with a new man, hoping for security but instead winds up welcoming an even more vicious predator into her home. John Bunting is the moral compass among a circle of friends who hold self-appointed neighborhood watch meetings at the kitchen table. Fueled by cigarettes and beer they cast judgments on those living around them. Bunting enlists his crew in acts of sadistic vigilantism on those he considers deviants takes Elizabeth’s son Jamie under his wing. In a mix of misdirected hero worship and terror, Jamie becomes an accomplice to a spree of torture and murder.
My Thoughts - If THE SNOWTOWN MURDERS wasn’t depicting mostly true events, I’m not sure if it’d be worth enduring as a film. I doubt I’d have watched it. The fact is that these events did happen and while the film is vile, extremely disturbing visually and psychologically and dealing with some evil individuals, it’s a story interesting enough to tell and a very good film as a whole.
There are a couple of components that make this more than a middle of the road film, one being Justin Kurzel’s directing. This is Kurzel’s first feature film, but when viewing you get no indication he is anything but an experienced, talented and confident director who knows exactly what he wants. The film obviously has a low budget and no stars in the cast, but there is nothing amateur about it. It’s most unnerving during a number of the murder scenes where Kurzel keeps you slightly back from the “action”, shooting it from another room with an often still camera. It feels uncomfortably real, as if you are there eavesdropping on the horrific events. Kurzel never shies away from the brutality, never cuts away, thus never giving the audience a chance to remove themselves from the acts and reassure themselves “it’s just a movie”.
The other special piece to THE SNOWTOWN MURDERS is Daniel Henshaw’s great performance as John Bunting, the man known as Australia’s worst serial killer. I can’t say whether it’s an accurate depiction, but it’s definitely a fucked portrait of this guy. Bunting comes across as this sweet, roly poly guy, always with a sunny, childlike smile on his face. He quickly enters this dysfunctional family’s picture, assumes the father role to the four boys and seems he could be the steadying force they desperately need. Then you start to get the glimpses of how disturbed Bunting is. He’s a master of psychological manipulation and a really evil man. His desire for intense eye contact may be his most offputting attribute of all. The odd thing is that he doesn’t come across as a master criminal at all, because he allows his pride to dictate his actions and he’s pretty sloppy about his “work”, just banking on no one caring enough about his victims to seek the answers to what happened.
THE SNOWTOWN MURDERS is a bleak bleak film without a single ray of hope. Jamie, played very well by Lucas Pittway is the protagonist of the story and the kid Bunting focuses most on, taking him under his wing. Bunting is grooming Jamie in his image by way of some intense psychological manipulation that is hard to watch. Jamie has no hope and not many options other than to follow Bunting’s lead. All of these characters are living and operating in a dirt poor area invested with crime and drugs. It’s exactly the the type of place people like to turn away from and pretend doesn’t exist. Bunting is able to take advantage of all of that. It’s a heartbreakingly sad situation and story.
It may be a product of me viewing this late at night or a choice by the filmmakers, but I wasn’t always clear on who they killed and who they didn’t. I also didn’t always know the motives, but that may be partly due to it being Jamie’s story rather than Bunting’s. In reading some information on the murders after viewing the film, I was able to gain a little more understanding of the big picture and the who’s and some why’s.
I’m not sure who exactly THE SNOWTOWN MURDERS is for, but I think it’s a very good film that I’d recommend if you think you can handle it. I really look forward to seeing what director Kurzel and actor Henshaw offer up going forward.
My Rating : 7/10
The Hunger Games
Directed by Gary Ross, Written by Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray, Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks
Fandango Synopsis - Every year in the ruins of what was once North America, the Capitol of the nation of Panem forces each of its twelve districts to send a teenage boy and girl to compete in the Hunger Games. A twisted punishment for a past uprising and an ongoing government intimidation tactic, The Hunger Games are a nationally televised event in which “Tributes” must fight with one another until one survivor remains. Sixteen year old Katniss Everdeen volunteers in her younger sister’s place to enter the games, and is forced to rely upon her sharp instincts as well as the mentorship of drunken former victor Haymitch Abernathy when she’s pitted against highly-trained Tributes who have prepared for these Games their entire lives. If she’s ever to return home to District 12, Katniss must make impossible choices in the arena that weigh survival against humanity and life against love.
My Thoughts - I have not read the book and don’t intend to. SORRY
THE HUNGER GAMES isn’t an awful film, but it’s far from a good one. Dystopian settings are a bit of a sweet spot with me, which only compounded my feeling that THE HUNGER GAMES was a major missed opportunity. There are potentially great stories that could be told in the fascinating world created for this film, but sadly they chose to spend almost all of the time on what’s essentially a pageant and a twenty four child fight to the death. Yes, there were moments within the competition that worked, but as a whole it was uninteresting.
The best portion of the film was the first twenty minutes set inside Katniss’ District 12. Even though you know the outcome (if you saw a trailer or read the book), the lottery scene is still the most suspenseful and emotional stuff in the film. I’d have welcomed a lot more time spent in District 12.
I thought Jennifer Lawrence was quite good as Miss Katniss Everdeen. I bought her completely in a role somewhat similar to her even better performance in WINTER’S BONE. (a better film as well) She’s a tough, capable girl, who due to situations at home has had to grow up too fast and shoulder a lot of responsibility. She has motherly qualities that show at home and throughout the “games”. She’s one of the few who is able to maintain a kind of moral compass even in the messed up circumstances that surround her. Katniss is a decent role model for girls as a strong young woman who thankfully wasn’t fetishized as is the case with the usual Hollywood heroine. What I liked most about the character was that she wasn’t made into some superwoman. She was no doubt capable and good with the bow, but she didn’t make every shot and she wasn’t tossing around guys twice her size. She was written as a believable character and Lawrence had more than enough talent to pull it off.
This is a fascinating world, so I wish more time had been taken to explain how things got to this point and how people operated within it on a daily basis outside of the Hunger Games themselves.
I mostly liked the terrifying depictions of the eccentric, out of touch with real humanity, upper class. They’re so easily manipulated by television as they’re emotionally glued to their Hunger Games “characters”, not even viewing them as human beings. I don’t think most of the individual upper class characters worked (Bentley and Banks’ characters were especially lame), but the cheesy absurdity of the TV presenters and the audience reactions were effective in holding the mirror up to our current society.
As I have kind of stated, I found the actual Hunger Games portion of the film to be very silly and pretty stupid really. (I can tell I share some of the author Suzanne Collins views on society, so it’s too bad she chose to present them through such a flimsy premise) Unfortunately, this “games” portion takes up about half of the films running time and the equally awful pageant and training parts another forty minutes or so. The logistics and planning of the Hunger Games as a live event seems impossible. The ever changing rules and the sponsor aspects were never well explained, while the idea that the whole county would be watching every moment, hour after hour, day after day was ridiculous. The shaky cam was bad, making all fights a directionless blur. Almost all the contestants were annoyingly generic archetypes and holy Fonze was the inclusion of the weird mutant dogs a TERRIBLE choice and completely out of nowhere. (They looked pretty awful too)
I know everyone has already seen it anyways, likely four times, but I think THE HUNGER GAMES dips below the mediocre level and really isn’t worth heading to the theater to see. I’ve got not interest in the blossoming love triangle going forward, but please wake me up for the civil unrest and uprising, because that’s a story that may be worth viewing.
My Rating : 5/10
God Bless America
Directed and Written by Bobcat Goldthwait, Starring Joel Murray and Tara Lynne Barr
Fandango Synopsis - Frank has had enough of the downward spiral of American culture, which he sees as overrun with cruelty, stupidity and intolerance. Divorced, recently fired, and possibly terminally ill, Frank truly has nothing left to live for. But instead of taking his own life, he buys a gun and decides to take out his frustration on the cruelest, stupidest, most intolerant people he can imagine—starting with some particularly odious reality television stars. Frank finds an unusual accomplice in a high-school student named Roxy, who shares his sense of rage and disenfranchisement, and together they embark on a nation-wide assault on our country’s dumbest, most irritating celebrities.
My Thoughts - GOD BLESS AMERICA is in a sense one long angry rant about what’s wrong with American society and it played for me just like a favorite song. (I’ll go with David Bowie’s BLACKOUT) It may not hit with everyone, but it’s a film very in sync with my feelings, which helped allow me to overlook the weaknesses it had and really enjoy it. Where it may have been pandering to me, it could be opening someone else’s eyes. I had a blast with this film.
Writer/Director Bobcat Goldthwait has something he wants to say with this film and he says it clearly and often. There are no nuanced attempts to weave social commentary into a story, but rather he chooses to put the commentary first and the story second. This isn’t usually a great approach when trying to make a good film, but his blunt, usually hilarious dialogue and shocking violence made for a unique and wonderful viewing experience. I had a lot of doubt as to whether this seemingly slight premise could stretch to even thirty minutes, but I enjoyed the film all the way through the finale and laughed more than I had during a new film in a long time. The first scene in the film featured a horrifying act that is meant to be funny. It’s a moment that gives the audience an idea of what they are in for and gives them an opportunity to opt out or go all in. I laughed very hard and was happy to go along. I also had a big smile on my face during the long homage to TAXI DRIVER. (My favorite film ever!)
I think it’s hard to accurately compare the film to many things, but for me it worked in the same way another social satire, SOUTH PARK does. The dialogue was often unnatural and at times became minutes long diatribes by the protagonist, played by Joel Murray. Again, these diatribes were nearly always DEAD ON and Murray actually delivered them well. The dialogue, I thought was similar to that in a Kevin Smith film. It’s clever and funny, but usually a little unrealistic and hard for an actor to deliver. The difference between Goldthwait’s dialogue and Smith’s is that Goldthwait’s isn’t toss away nonsense, but instead deft analyzation of where we are as a society. Both are funny, but Goldthwait’s is relevant.
Obviously it’s hard to give a great performance in this type of film, but I thought Joel Murray did a good job and became more convincing as the film continued. The whole film is a form of a fantasy, so it’s hard to dig too deeply into his psyche, but he did his best to make the character real. His indignation and genuine goodness came through clearly. I loved the choices made in the screenplay to buck conventions of the outlaw character and his female sidekick. This never turned into a Bonnie and Clyde or maybe more apt, a Clyde and Lolita situation. Yes, Murray was murdering people left and right, but he was an ordinary and very moral man.
Tara Lynne Barr was very good as his overly excited sidekick. She was more or less into the murder spree for the same reasons as Murray, but lacked much of his discretion. She was much more willing to blow people away for little annoyances, such as giving high fives or listening to country music. Some of the funniest scenes consisted of Murray and Barr jokingly ping ponging back and forth all the different types of people they should kill. (This all sounds much more morbid than it truly is. To understand any of the obviously black humor, you have to understand the tone of the film. It surely isn’t for everyone, but I have a dark sense of humor.)
While many will label GOD BLESS AMERICA as a film about killing awful faux celebrities that help drag society into the toilet, the truth is, as Goldthwait has said in interviews and the film makes very clear, often straight from Murray’s mouth, this is really a film about kindness. It’s a film crying out for us to stop being so damn cruel to each other. Like most comedies, the story is slight, but the message is fantastic and the dark humor biting. I really love that this film was made and think people need to check it out!
My Rating : 8/10
We’re Not Broke
A Documentary by Victoria Bruce and Karin Hayes
IMDB Synopsis - An exposé on how the government has allow U.S. corporations to avoid paying taxes and the growing wave of discontent that it has fostered.
My Thoughts - I was able to catch WE’RE NOT BROKE at the Wisconsin Film Festival where the crowd adored it. It had played already at the Sundance Film Festival in January and doesn’t yet have a set release date.
This is one of those talking head, make you angry documentaries, in the vein of the brilliant 2010 Best Doc Oscar winner, INSIDE JOB. It isn’t as good as INSIDE JOB, but it’s still well worth seeing. The biggest difference between the two is that WE’RE NOT BROKE doesn’t give the individuals fucking the country over any screen time to attempt to explain their positions, get grilled by a good interviewer and look like fools. I wish it did, but it took a different approach.
Most people who pay some attention to what’s happening in the US know that most of the multinational corporations that operate in this country pay very little or no taxes, yes this includes our beloved Apple, but this film does its best to explain how this happens and what great lengths the companies will go to in order to not pay their share. Obviously, it doesn’t shy away from the fact that the government enables all of this. (Of course it isn’t just one political party) It’s some pretty disgusting and embarrassing stuff, but true.
WE’RE NOT BROKE is very heavy on the info, which it needs to be in order to try and explain the situation, but it breaks things up by introducing some regular people who care deeply about this problem and take it upon themselves to try to change things or at least make people aware. It’s heartening to see regular people doing these things and some of the stuff is funny in a Michael Moore, publicity stunt kind of way, while some pretty futile. (screaming stuff in a mall food court? hah)
The Doc is well put together, effective and about a very important issue that probably isn’t flashy enough for a lot of people to pay attention. For many this isn’t an eye opening problem, as you may already know about it, but I’m glad it’s out there because for those who know nothing of the issue it may be that eye opening moment. WE’RE NOT BROKE is good and the type of Doc that always NEEDS to be made. Issue Docs are vitally important and I hope people check this out whenever it makes it their way.
My Rating : 7/10
The Hunter
Directed by Daniel Nettheim, Written by Alice Addison, Starring Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill, Drances O’Connor and Morgana Davies
Fandango Synopsis - A shadowy corporation sends a mercenary to Tasmania to track down a nearly extinct tiger whose genetic code holds the secret to a dangerous weapon.
My Thoughts - It’s a weak excuse, but the truth that my viewing of THE HUNTER may have been negatively effected by my chopped of viewing of it. I didn’t get the chance to sit down and watch it in one setting and after it finished, I didn’t feel it was worthy of a second, complete watch.
I saw THE HUNTER for the most part due to Willem Dafoe’s involvement and he was fine enough in his role. My expectations weren’t all that high, but I was still a little let down by the film as a whole. I’m not sure what it was trying to be. It had some thriller elements, but it never committed to them and was never thrilling. There weren’t any moments with me on the edge of my seat. It did a little better, but still didn’t spend enough developing the odd family dynamic that Dafoe found himself a part of. He was staying with a widowed mother way over her head while trying to raise her two children and Dafoe starting playing the role as man of the house. This role could only serve to sidetrack him from his task, yet he couldn’t turn away from them and they had a profound effect on him. I did like this stuff, but feel it was cut too short.
My biggest takeaway from the film was how sad it is that a creature as awesome as the Tazmanian Tiger no longer exists. My favorite scene in the film was Dafoe slamming a door in the face of a young girl after she tells him in a thick Australian accent “Bruce Springsteen Rocks!” It was the one laugh for me during the film, which wasn’t seeking many. I do also have to say, there were some lovely shots of what I assume is the genuine Australian countryside.
I had some problems with Dafoe’s character and his way of thinking. I thought it was silly for it to take the tragic events of the film for him to come to the conclusion that a company who wishes to kill the last Tasmanian Tiger is existence is evil and fucked up. I also don’t buy his decision during the films conclusion. It’s impossible to get into without spoiling everything, but I’m very much at odds with him and even if I did agree with him, I still don’t think it solves the problem he thinks it does.
Sam Neill was a big nothing and the CGI Tasmanian Tiger looked terrible too.
THE HUNTER just isn’t enough of anything to be a fulfilling film. It isn’t terrible, but left me wanting more. It surely isn’t as profound as I think it’s trying to be. There’s plenty of other films more worth your time.
My Rating : 5/10
The Raven
Directed by James McTeigue, Written by Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare, Starring John Cusack, Alice Eve, Luke Evans and Brendan Gleeson
Fandango Synopsis - The macabre and lurid tales of Edgar Allan Poe are vividly brought to life - and death – in this stylish, gothic thriller. When a madman begins committing horrific murders inspired by Poe’s darkest works, a young Baltimore detective joins forces with Poe in a quest to get inside the killer’s mind in order to stop him from making every one of Poe’s brutal stories a blood chilling reality. A deadly game of cat and mouse ensues, which escalates when Poe’s love becomes the next target.
My Thoughts - I haven’t given THE RAVEN a lot of deep thought after viewing it and I don’t really feel it warrants it, but I have agonized a bit over my rating of the film. How much of my enjoyment (yes I did indeed enjoy it) had to do with the fact that my expectations were low after the critics absolutely crushed it before its release? It’s hard to say, but the fact is that I had fun with THE RAVEN and feel it’s substantially better than the awful critical scores would lead you to believe. I’m not sure if there is any direct connection, but I had a similar feel coming out of THE RAVEN as I did another under appreciated film last spring, Robert Redford’s THE CONSPIRATOR. (available on Netflix Instant)
There are a number of things THE RAVEN had going for it and I’ll touch on some later, but really THE defining feature of the film for me was John Cusack’s portrayal of Edgar Allen Poe. Poe is very much a writer in a vein I should eat up, but oddly I don’t have a ton of experience with him. Plenty of his work currently sits unread on my bookshelf, so it will happen. The point is that I don’t know enough of the man or his work to judge the accuracy of Cusack’s take, but I really enjoyed the arrogant, witty, confrontational version he put forth. I liked spending time with the drunken, down and out Poe we get from the films open and was almost sad to see the actual plot kick in. It’s a character I’d have liked to have gotten more of before things got life and death serious. I’m mostly indifferent to Cusack, but from my experience this seemed a different kind of role for him. It’s a film which was probably made relatively cheaply, with a shaky, pretty preposterous plot that wouldn’t work at all without the engaging lead performance. Cusack is the difference between THE RAVEN being worth seeing and not.
THE RAVEN had other good elements including the gothic Baltimore setting, with the costume balls, cobblestone streets and horse carriages. It was all well enough done. Another virtue was the grim, gory brutality of the murders that were very fitting of a Poe story and the less than smiley conclusion. I don’t think it’d have been a good artistic choice to try and make this a PG-13 film, so I’m happy with the bloody R. The basic conceit of the film was to put Poe in a Poe story and while most (all?) would probably argue it’s more contrived and less heartbreaking than his actual stories, I think it feels like Poe, even if second rate. I felt there were some similarities to things like SLEEPY HOLLOW (but darker) and FROM HELL (but better) as well, to give you an idea what you are in for.
The other actors were pretty unremarkable, but nothing off-putting. I was a little worried about Luke Evans the first time he came on screen. Evans played a major role as Detective Fields, essentially Poe’s partner in solving the crimes. I had never seen the actor before and he immediately gave off the stiff, unnatural vibe that someone like Sam Worthington always does, but Evans got better and actually was better than mediocre.
Once the major Poe inspired serial killer plot really ramped up, yes it got pretty silly and unbelievable. The killer’s ability to control events, manipulate what Poe and the Detective would do and always be one step ahead was ridiculous. I recognized it right away and was mostly willing to go along with it while viewing. Most criminal mastermind stories go into pretty unbelievable territories, but I think THE RAVEN went a little too far, especially due to the film never giving you any reason to believe this killer should be capable of any of this. It was easier to fully buy into it in a film like SEVEN, with the performance by Spacey than it was here with a pretty unexplored bad guy.
The score was noticeably generic. I hate HATE lazy, boring scores. I’d rather they took some chances with it and if it ended up annoyingly distracting like the Chemical Brothers HANNAH score everyone else loved, so be it. The film doesn’t have a lot to make it stand out from the crowd, so taking a chance on the score could have been an opportunity to make an impact in a relatively cheap way. Oh well.
I think THE RAVEN is worth seeing and was happy with my matinee priced viewing. It has some plot believability problems, but they are mostly offset by the enjoyable Cusack performance. This isn’t a great time of year for films at the theater, which to me makes THE RAVEN more desirable and worthy of a full recommendation from me.
My Rating : 7/10
The Avengers
Directed and Written by Joss Whedon, Starring Robert Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston
IMDB Synopsis - Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D. brings together a team of super humans to form The Avengers to help save the Earth from Loki and his army.
My Thoughts - THE AVENGERS has been a highly anticipated film for many for years and I think it delivered what most of that salivating audience desired. Unfortunately, many of those excited for THE AVENGERS (surely not all) are the same people counting the days until they get to drop their $12 for the next TRANSFORMERS movie and what they want are big, disaster-filled action set pieces. They got what they wanted from THE AVENGERS, but sadly I did not. The film is a financial and critical success and has thrilled fans worldwide. It’s too bad it isn’t a good film.
THE AVENGERS isn’t ALL that bad, in fact “not too bad” is a great way of describing most aspects of the underwhelming blockbuster. The many humor attempts aren’t funny in almost all cases, but aren’t the cringe inducing embarrassing stuff you come to expect, therefore “not too bad”. I believe I laughed one or maybe two times.
I’m not much for big action sequences, so as I was already impatient with the film, once the final, sure to be extended, all out, city leveling action sequence began I was expecting to just zone out and count the minutes until the trash was done, but instead other than a few sad one-liners I was mildly engaged. I was surprised that the action was again, “not too bad”. Still, there wasn’t anything thrilling or any time as the viewer you feel anything of consequence is going to happen. Everything is formulaic and expected. The only difference with THE AVENGERS action is that it’s all bigger and with more players.
With so many heroes involved it’s expected that some will work much better than others. It’s an impressive cast assembled. Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk is the standout. He has a reluctance to join, but once involved you can see the fire inside, almost as if he had been just waiting for someone to seek him out. He’s a brilliant guy and he loves to use that brilliance. I thought Ruffalo usually brought the best out of the other actors in scenes they shared, specifically Downey whose Tony Stark character has gotten VERY old. As with their solo films, I liked Hemsworth as Thor and Evans as Captain America when they weren’t pointlessly battling each other. The hero’s group conversations were often the high points of the film, while the scenes of the heroes having all out battles within their own AVENGERS group were nonsense, just brainless catnip to a small subsection of viewers who get off on “who would win in a fight Iron Man or Thor?”. It’s a waste of time, not entertaining and does nothing to move the story forward.
Tom Hiddleston’s Loki was a huge part of what made last years THOR movie work. While Hiddleston’s performance is still good here, his character didn’t have the brilliant and snakelike qualities to always be a step ahead. He wasn’t the brilliant trickster here, but instead a pretty inept pawn of a mostly faceless master. It isn’t Hiddleston’s fault, but Loki is a weak villain this time around even if his costume is still fantastic. The allusions to Nazi Germany and Hitler during Loki’s Germaany stunt were heavy handed and uncomfortably in bad taste.
C’mon, who gives a shit about Johansson’s Black Widow or Jeremy Renner’s out of his depth and generic Hawkeye? I didn’t, so it’s too bad they wasted thirty minutes on them. Samuel L. Jackson was a big nothing in THE AVENGERS as well.
The last and maybe biggest problem were the nameless, faceless villains that were controlling Loki and made their appearance during the films final battle. Who are they? They are presented as token alien invaders with no intelligence or fighting ability. They can destroy buildings but have no chance against a regular guy with twenty arrows? It was like when I turn on my SNES and play Turtles in Time on level “Easy” just to feel better about myself. Not much fun to watch. It also appeared Whedon gave Michael Bay a call and asked if he had any unused footage from TRANSFORMERS 3 he could borrow, because the aliens had some mechanical snake machine things that looked to be straight out of the TRANSFORMERS 3 trailer. (no, I never saw that actual film)
For THE AVENGERS to be touted as “The Best Superhero Movie Ever” is silly and grossly inaccurate in my opinion. It’s not terrible, it’s just stuff we have seen before MANY times on a smaller scale and with a few less stars. If bigger and more is better, then THE AVENGERS is, but I don’t think it works that way. I didn’t have much fun with the film and actually don’t think it’s even anywhere near one of the 10 best superhero films I’ve seen. Everyone has already seen it, but I won’t be urging anyone else to do so. There are tons of great films throughout the year that need and are worthy of your support, so don’t toss your money to the overblown and dumb.
My Rating: 5/10
Dark Shadows
Directed by Tim Burton, Written by Seth Grahame-Smith, Starring Johnny Depp, Eva Green, Michelle Pfeiffer, Chloe Moretz and Helen Bonham-Carter
Fandango Synopsis - In 18th-century Maine, Barnabas Collins presides over the town of Collinsport. A rich and powerful playboy, Barnabas seals his own doom when he breaks the heart of a witch named Angelique. Angelique turns Barnabas into a vampire and buries him alive. Two centuries later, Barnabas escapes from his tomb and finds 1972 Collinsport a very different place. His once-grand estate has fallen into ruin, and the dysfunctional remnants of his family have fared little better.
My Thoughts - I am a big Tim Burton admirer and often when necessary, an apologist. People are quick to rip into his films as more of the same and almost self parodical. I always point out that just a few years ago the man released a gory, hard “R” rated musical in SWEENEY TODD, that just happened to be fantastic. I thought it was a ballsy choice, rather than safe as most would describe Burton at this point. A few years ago I gave some quick takes on Burton’s full filmography after giving them all another watch. That can be foundHERE.
I didn’t much care for his last effort, ALICE IN WONDERLAND and am very sad to say that I think DARK SHADOWS is pretty bad. The critical community has labeled it as the worst film in Burton’s career and I think I agree.
Not being a screenwriter, Burton depends heavily on choosing the right scribes for his films and thirty-six year old first time screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith seems to have been a bad gamble. He’s known for his novels “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” and “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”, neither of which I’ve read. DARK SHADOWS has plenty of problems but almost all of them can be attributed to a shite screenplay.
The film has a cheesy, goth/comic vibe that’s inviting to the audience and comfortable for Burton and his players. After the blah blah, same old gothic fairytale set up, the film dips right into Depp as a 200 year old vampire in a time he doesn’t understand thing, accompanied by a 70’s rock soundtrack. He’s surrounded by a quirky, pale, odd “family” within The Collinwood Mansion. Burton films always have interesting characters and as usual the film is gorgeously and intricately designed. The film looks great, the characters seem promising and the film is pretty fun for the first thirty minutes. Burton also mixes in some real horror moments and some surprising sexuality.
After all the introductions the plot sets in and that’s where the problems start. Most of the plot has to deal with Eva Green as a witch and spurned lover of Depp’s Barnabus’ that decides that if he won’t love her she’ll torture his family for eternity. She’s an ungodly annoying character, her story a bore and Green’s performance equally appalling. Every time she isn’t on screen the film seems likable enough and every time she is I was just wishing she wasn’t so something could be salvaged. She is a huge, essential piece to a crappy plot. I seem to have this feeling about a ton of films I dislike, but here again I wish I could have just spent time with the Collins family and left out the plot. I had the same feelings about John Cusack’s Edgar Allen Poe in THE RAVEN.
For some reason Burton’s odd films have drawn the mainstream to them in a way I would have never predicted twenty years ago. In recent films I see a tendency for him to try give that audience what they want or maybe more so, what they are comfortable with and are used to. That is evident here when this offbeat, family comedy concludes with a big, over the top, Mansion leveling brawl. Burton doesn’t do action well and this awful, out of place fight scene didn’t work at all. I don’t know if he feels that to justify asking for $150 Million he needs to put something like that in or if the screenwriters feel that way, but it doesn’t work for the sensibilities and abilities of Burton as a director. Burton films are very much about a look and a mood, not bombastic, sizzling action. Good Burton films are about the characters, not the plot. The Alice Cooper performance also felt out of place even if in theory it seems so in place here. It seemed that the only point was to have Alice Cooper in the film, which may be enough of a reason, I don’t know.
The performances weren’t impactful and memorable, but across the board with the exception of Green, the cast did just fine. Depp did a good job, as always, but this isn’t one of his iconic roles that I’ll remember. In some ways it is in fact just more of the same. (Boo not having Paul Reubens in the film)
The humor was all over the place. I definitely laughed a good deal, but there were a number of unnatural, embarassingly unfunny moments. (It was never as cringeworthy as the damn “funderwhack” dance Depp’s Madhatter does in the ALICE IN WONDERLAND film, ughhhhh) When the humor worked it was due to the oddities of the Collins family. Many of their inconsequential interactions were funny and enjoyable.
I always have high hopes for a Burton film and when the idea of him taking on this material came about I was excited, but overall DARK SHADOWS was a very disappointing film. The characters and setting were there, but someone felt obligated to tell a big story worthy of the $150 million dollar price tag. It starts enjoyable enough, but really becomes a boring, often embarrassing mess by the end. I’ll be in line for whatever Burton and Depp have in store for us after FRAKENWEENIE (I honestly think they have earned it at this point), but I’d love for Burton to make something more personal and a little less big. I think of ED WOOD as his Masterpiece. There is a lot of heart and a lot of saddness to his best work and I hope he has more of that in him. Burton’s not a hack and I believe he has more interesting things to offer going forward, but DARK SHADOWS isn’t worth seeing in the least.
My Rating : 4/10
In Darkness
A Polish Film Directed by Agnieszka Holland and Kasia Adamik, Written by David F. Shamoon, Starring Robert Więckiewicz, Benno Fürmann, Maria Schrader and Herbert Knaup
Fandango Synopsis - Leopold Socha a sewer worker and petty thief in Lvov, a German-occupied city in Poland, encounters a group of Jews trying to escape the liquidation of the ghetto, and hides them for money in the labyrinth of the town’s sewers beneath the bustling activity of the city above. What starts out as a straightforward and cynical business arrangement turns into something very unexpected, the unlikely alliance between Socha and the Jews, as the enterprise seeps deeper into Socha’s conscience.
My Thoughts - The Holocaust is very difficult material to give my thoughts on in regards to a film. Obviously, any and all true Holocaust survival stories are amazing and worth telling in some form or another, but in dealing with IN DARKNESS it’s all about how well the story is presented. The fact is, most filmgoers have seen many, many Holocaust survival stories of varying quality. It’s unfortunate to look at these stories in this way, but I have to ask whether it’s new or different in enough ways to have been worth viewing. IN DARKNESS has differences, storywise and stylistically, but it’s generally a slight variation of something I’ve seen many times. It’s a decent film, heartbreaking that these people had to endure this, but not all that impactful in film form.
IN DARKNESS has plenty going for it, maybe most importantly, sincerity. This is a serious, hopefully accurate portrayal of events. Luckily this doesn’t seem to get too much of the BS Hollywood luster of something like DEFIANCE from a few years back. There was sincerity in the storytelling and sincerity in the acting. I had a hard time differentiating many of the Jewish characters as they were all speaking a different language and almost all of their scenes were in near complete darkness, but there were no actors trying to be the star or do too much. Everyone in the cast worked for me. Robert Wieckiewicz wasn’t all that dynamic in the lead role, but I think he brought enough to carry the audience along. His evolution was believable and noble. The other big thing was the sewer location made for some unique challenges for the characters and also led to unique visual experience.
It was pretty standard stuff in regards to Holocaust survival films. It’s fittingly bleak, with characters showing immense courage and heart. The dark, ugly gray and black film is well shot other than a few early shaky cam moments.
There was a lack of a complete emotional connection to the characters that came from not being able to really get to know 10-12 in such a short time. I think it had much to do with me feeling as if I’m looking in from the outside and never getting fully invested or moved. Of course you want them to live, but I was never on the edge of my seat due to the tension or fighting back tears.
You never had a firm idea of what the time period was and how much time was passing. I’m not sure if it was a conscious decision by the filmmakers or not, but I thought it was a mistake. The actors weren’t changing all that much physically and no tabs were being kept on how the war progressed, so I didn’t know if they had been in the sewer for a month or five years. This decision would have made sense if the film had been from the perspective of the hiding Jews, but it was actually more so from the Sewer Man Leopold Socha’s. I REALLY don’t understand what was trying to be conveyed by all the sewer sex?! VERY ODD.
I’d have loved to have been deeply moved by IN DARKNESS, but it just wasn’t the case. It’s pretty well made, pretty well acted and telling an amazing story, but for better or worse there are A LOT of films very similar to this. The things that make it unique have a lot to do with why I didn’t feel viewing was a waste of time, but I don’t think it’s a must see in any way. IN DARKNESS was a Best Foreign Language Oscar Nominee a few months back from Poland and I have a hard time believing the world didn’t offer up 5 better film last year. IN DARKNESS is sincere and fine, but just not the special film that the subject matter deserves.
(I really had to pee during much of this 150 minute film. If my scattered thoughts are way off, blame my bladder)
My Rating : 6/10
The Dictator
Directed by Larry Charles, Written by Sacha Baron Cohen, Alec Berg, David Mandel and Jeff Schaffer, Starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Ben Kingsley and Anna Faris
Fandango Synopsis- The heroic story of a dictator who risks his life to ensure that democracy would never come to the country he so lovingly oppressed.
My Thoughts - I was initially very excited by the idea of Sacha Baron Cohen’s THE DICTATOR, but after seeing the rather underwhelming trailer and coming to the realization that out of necessity, due to his rising fame and notoriety, Cohen has had to abandon his usual faux-Doc, shock format, I began to really worry the film wasn’t going to work. My fears were unwarranted. THE DICTATOR was very very funny and Cohen was great as Admiral General Aladeen. It lacks plenty in terms of storytelling and plenty of jokes miss, but it made me laugh more than anything I’d seen in the theater in a long time.
As with most comedies, especially those of a generally farcical nature, I won’t be analyzing THE DICTATOR too deeply.
I’m not great at determining the whys and hows of humor that works and of course, it’s remarkably subjective. I generally feel the more specific and less broad, the funnier. Let’s just agree that if I think something’s funny, it is and if I don’t, it isn’t! (unless it goes over my head, in which case it could very well be my fault for not knowing enough)
THE DICTATOR severely lacks a story worth telling, but mostly by design as its limited plot points are there exclusively to set up the gags. The jokes and gags start immediately, come fast and don’t let up. (many hit too) Surprisingly the film doesn’t have that late 2nd / early 3rd act lull that almost all comedies do, which is a big part of why THE DICTATOR is more enjoyable than most.
The humor is usually crude and often sexist, racist and in poor taste, willing to go places very few other comedies are willing to go. (9/11, Terrorism) I respect Cohen’s fearless comedic nature a good deal. The comedy never became offensive to me as I’d have a hard time taking a satirical farce seriously. Apparently some have.
As an aside, my favorite moment of the film is the snapshot of Aladeen and an ashamed Arnold Schwarzenegger taken after Schwarzenegger had literally whored himself out to the Admiral General. Ver Nice!
There’s also some of what I’d say is intentionally bad humor or cases of Cohen beating weak jokes into the ground, which to me makes them funnier. (I often like intentionally awful humor almost as much as the brilliant stuff) Maybe I’m giving Cohen too much credit, but I believe he gets what’s funny, what’s not and what’s so not funny that it can become funny.
While THE DICTATOR is mostly ridiculous, there are times when what I figure to be Cohen’s politics and beliefs show through. The best example is when Cohen’s Aladeen character gives his very on the nose, ironic speech to the U.N. about why Dictatorships are great. He basically lists all the perks of the power that comes with being a Dictator, which match up identically with what the U.S. “Democratic” Government has already done and continues to do. This was Cohen’s soapbox or “Great Dictator” moment. (Go watch Chaplin’s THE GREAT DICTATOR if you haven’t seen it! Now!) I agree with Cohen and liked this scene a great deal.
I think THE DICTATOR is probably a one time watch, but it’s an enjoyable one time, so go see it instead of the blockbuster trash that’s currently hogging all the theater screens.
Rating : 7/10
Bernie
Directed by Richard Linklater, Written by Richard Linklater and Skip Hollandsworth, Starring Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine and Matthew McConaughey
Synopsis - In small town Texas, the local mortician strikes up a friendship with a wealthy widow, though when he kills her he goes to great lengths to create the illusion she’s still alive.
My Thoughts - BERNIE is a refreshingly odd film in a number of ways. The true crime story it’s based on is bizarre, so I liked that Linklater tried to do something different with it. It’s a black comedy in many ways, but does shift a bit when the murder takes place and goes into a weird psychological space.
What seems like at least a third of the film is filled with the townspeople of Carthage, Texas giving you their opinions and suspicions about Bernie Tiede in a faux talking heads Documentary style. These “interviews” are used to set up scenes, give background information, but also for humor. I didn’t find the film to often be laugh out loud funny, but the older crowd surrounding me cackled at every single quaint Texas idiom like “that dog don’t hunt” regarding Bernie possibly being gay or “that donkey’s in a ditch”. (There was an onslaught of these things, like 40 of them and the older crowd laughed every time) In the interviews, the townsfolk were speaking in past tense about the Bernie saga, but the rest of the film was Bernie’s story and unfolds in a more linear fashion. It was a good mix.
Looking over the films I’ve seen so far in 2012, I could easily make the case that Jack Black in BERNIE is right up there with any lead performance so far. I’ve never been much of a Jack Black fan and can’t stand most of his films. I have however been impressed with him when he’s went away from broad comedy, liked him in KING KONG and I feel he’s capable of being a very good dramatic actor, maybe similar to what Bill Murray has been able to do at times. Playing Bernie Tiede in this film is a perfect role for Black. Bernie is this seemingly sweet, genuine, good christian man, with some interests and mannerisms that after the fact have some questioning his sexuality. Black is given numerous chances to sing during church services, funerals, community theater performances etc and he’s great in these scenes. I’d expect Black to nail those scenes, but it becomes a full performance when things start souring and Bernie’s effervescence starts to crack. You finally see bits of a regular human showing through, he gets irritated and unhappy at times. No one can always be the Bernie that everyone knew and Black showed a lot late in the film juggling that public persona with some major guilt as he half-heartedly masked the crime.
The component of BERNIE that worked that most surprised me was the king of shirtless leaning, Matthew McConaughey. He was very good playing a headline hunting District Attorney who against the wishes of seemingly all of his constituents, is trying to put Bernie in prison for his crimes. Maybe Linklater is the guy to get the best out of McConaughey. Is he trying to become a real actor now? Just this year McConaughey will star in films directed by William Friedkin, Jeff Nichols, Steven Soderbergh and this one with Linklater. Who knows, maybe he’ll become an interesting actor later in his career. I hope so.
As I’d mentioned, the film gets really good in the last third as Bernie is cracking and then into his murder trial. There’s an odd psychological thing going on with the townspeople. This is a super religious community, but since they have seen so much good in Bernie and evil in the old woman he murdered, they are either unwilling to believe Bernie committed the crime, even with his confession, or even more messed up, they are mostly willing to overlook the fact that he shot an elderly woman in the back four times with a rifle. They are somehow able to wrestle with their faith and come out the other end believing they should side with Bernie. They seem to feel that all his good outweighs MURDER. Hypocrisy and delusion is rampant. The fact is that they like Bernie, so even if he shot an old woman, they want him around because he improved many people’s lives. I found all this stuff very interesting to think about.
BERNIE is a really enjoyable and different film. It’s exactly the type of good film that is hard to market and sadly never finds its audience. The crazy true story and Linklater’s unique approach and tone make it a film I think everyone should seek out. It’s hard to find, but at worst see it when it hits DVD.
My Rating : 7/10
Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie
Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie
Directed and Written by Tim Heidecker and Eric Warheim, Starring Tim Heidecker, Eric Warheim, John C Reilly, Twink Caplan and Will Ferrell
Fandango Synopsis - Tim and Eric are given a billion dollars to make a movie, but squander every dime … and the sinister Schlaaang corporation is pissed. Their lives at stake, the guys skip town in search of a way to pay the money back. When they happen upon a chance to rehabilitate a bankrupt mall full of vagrants, bizarre stores and a man-eating wolf that stalks the food court, they see dollar signs—a billion of them.
My Thoughts - My experience with Tim and Eric’s work is somewhat limited. I was a pretty avid Adult Swim watcher when their early animated show, “Tom Goes to the Mayor” was on and I dug it. It had a very odd premise that worked perfectly to fill the eleven minute episode running time. I thought it was a funny show. Otherwise I have only caught short glimpses of their various Tim and Eric shows on Cartoon Network and a few clips on Youtube. I’ve never been drawn to their stuff, but surely haven’t been turned off to it either. I just haven’t invested the time. For whatever reason I decided to bypass their show and see what outrageousness they’ve put together in their attempt to make a feature film.
I dropped the $3.99 to watch TIM AND ERIC’S BILLION DOLLAR MOVIE on Amazon Instant in hopes of some bad taste, offbeat humor and a lot of laughs. The biggest takeaway from the film for me was how remarkably unfunny it was. I was very open to whatever they threw at me, but I honestly didn’t laugh a single time. NOT ONCE. There were single moments I thought funny, like the Will Ferrell TOP GUN sequence, but never anything able to elicit a single laugh in a ninety minute comedy film. I was surprised and disappointed, obviously. The film does have a plot, but it’s nothing worthy of getting into, therefore the success of the film rests solely on whether it’s funny. It isn’t. There are many instances where a viewer may not “get” the humor of a film and fans of Tim and Eric may make that claim with me here, but I firmly believe in this case the humor wasn’t going over my head, I got it, but didn’t think it funny.
One of the other disappointments with TIM AND ERIC’S BILLION DOLLAR MOVIE is the waste of very funny people who took on relatively minimal roles. John C Reilly is ALWAYS funny and is an amazing comic actor, but his material here was trash. Zack Galifianakis brings nothing. Jeff Goldblum’s cameo was throwaway other than his name being Chef Goldblum. Will Ferrell had the best scene, but still wasn’t supplied with much other than awkwardly long and humorless scenes. Will Forte had a substantial role as the owner of the sword shop, but every appearance of his was embarrassingly bad.
I badly wanted to give this film a break because I love that Tim and Eric are have created a brand of comedy that is so unique and their own, but at least in this film it was never funny. I thought almost every “joke” in the film fell flat, but I was usually just more bored with it all than embarrassed, with Forte the exception, very cringeworthy. I was checking every few minutes how much more I had to endure throughout my viewing.
TIM AND ERIC’S BILLION DOLLAR MOVIE is an awful film. It’s a ninety minute endurance test for the audience as it has a blah plot and no laughs. I badly wanted to like it and was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt in many ways, but I ended up being bored out of my mind and really disliking the film. I will be very surprised if I see a worse film in 2012. I pity myself if I do. Don’t see this film, it’s garbage.
My Rating : 3/10
