THOUGHTS ON THE MASTER AND PARANORMAN

THE MASTER - There are a couple of things that struck me very odd about P.T. Anderson's decision to shoot this film in glorious 65mm.  For one, there are very few landscape shots, with most of the film consisting of close-ups of various characters faces in cramped rooms and cabins.  And for another, that this would be the film in which P.T. would choose (?) to jettison his usual, Academy Award winning Director of Photography Robert Elswit (whose work you can currently see laying fallow in the latest Bourne nonsense), in favor of Coppola's new favorite Mihai Malaimare Jr.

That being said; the movie is beautiful.  And the score, by There Will Be Blood alum Jonny Greenwood, is just as haunting and memorable.  

It's extremely difficult to talk about the themes of this film without outright spoiling it, no matter what one's interpretation of the story is.  I will say this. . .  The film is about man's quest for true independence; the ways in which he can become the master of his own environment; and the ways in which he has to negotiate with a higher power in order to achieve that goal. . .  I'm happy with that cryptic summary.  

It does have many, many shades of Scientology to it, and many parallels to the life of L. Ron Hubbard, but I don't believe that the film is actually ABOUT that.  It's about the broader archetypes that this story allows Anderson to explore.

It isn't going to be for all tastes, but if you like intimate character dramas, particularly ones revolving around extremely flawed characters, this is definitely worth a watch.

REVIEW - 7 (LOVE)

PARANORMAN - Quite a bit more melancholy, and significantly darker than I expect a family film to be.  Not just in terms of gore and inappropriate sexual innuendo (though it has that as well), but in how it deals with some very heavy themes about death, revenge, and forgiveness.  This film has something to say beyond just the standard, pat, "Can't we all just get along?".  Bravo.

The horror film references are numerous, but never obtrusive or distracting.  (This is where I jab Quentin Tarantino in the ribs with my elbow.)  The voice cast is excellent, and cast against type.  (You have Anna Kendrick as a dumb blonde, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse as a bully.)  The stop motion animation is a delight.

A warning to parents;  of the handful of family monster films coming out over the next few months, this one is the most likely to actually scare the shit out of them.  I was fucking scared in a couple scenes, and I don't puss out easily.  They made this thing a little too well at times!

REVIEW - 7 (LOVE)

CO-REVIEW: THE BOURNE LEGACY

THE BOURNE LEGACY
USA 2012
Directed by Tony Gilroy
Written by Tony Gilroy and Dan Gilroy
Starring Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Stacy Keach

SYNOPSIS:  The fourth film in the in-name-only adaptation of Robert Ludlum's BOURNE novels (Ok; the first fifteen minutes of the first film were taken from the books.), now sans Jason Bourne. Agent Aaron Cross (Renner) has to fight to survive when the government decides to purge the program, killing off all operatives, as well as non-essential employees who know too much.  Along for the ride is Dr. Marta Shearing (Weisz), a scientist on the government's hit list.

THOUGHTS:

PHIL:  Let me start out by saying that I didn't particularly care for the previous three films (also written, but not directed, by Gilroy), and Anna hasn't seen any of them.  So neither of us were coming into this as fans of the series.

I like the concept of the franchise - a more gritty, brutal, almost cinema verite style of spy thriller.  But I was never gripped by either the simplistic storyline (Seriously; the first three films could've easily been condensed into one.), nor Matt Damon's leaden performance.  Their sense of self-seriousness made them unintentionally laughable at times, and boring at others.  Some pretty sweet action photography and choreography, but nothing too compelling.

So it came as a pleasant surprise when this latest film decided to emphasize a theme that has been present, though understated, since the start of the series; an analysis of the banality of conspiracy.  Closer in tone to the paranoid thrillers of the seventies, such as THE PARALLAX VIEW and THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, than the James Bond style shenanigans of the original films, we follow a series of average looking conspirators in average looking rooms, as they calmly talk about "eliminating assets".  The "assets" in question are people, but you get no impression from their tone or demeanor that they talking about taking multiple lives.

ANNA: So, I hated this. I hated it with a lot of rage. Philip says, "Well, honey, it wasn't made with you in mind as the audience," and to that I say, "That is exactly what's wrong with it!" It's perfectly okay for the lives, property and food of hundreds of 'expendables', i.e. people of color and women, to be completely destroyed so that one super-enhanced white dude can...not lose his new chemically-induced level of intelligence created by Science(TM)? As long as it's a film for the Status Quo!

Rachel Weisz has begun to sicken me with her role choices as well. "Oh, she's a brunette who wears glasses and is a scientist! She is a Strong Woman and thus I will be a credit to the human race for portraying her with my Middle American Accent." Or maybe she'll be running around aimlessly crushed by trauma into deep ineffectuality such that she has to be literally tossed around like a brainless prop by the Super Enhanced White Dude so that he can get his fix. She'll also fall maddeningly in love with him because she has to care for him while he falters, that ever so irresistible power-struggle charm.

There's not even a throw-away line to make this even a mote satisfying as a dystopic view on the hindered emotions of our over-medicalized society, or even how the Super Enhanced White Dudes are being used by the government to improve society, or ensure freedom. Arduous scenes with tensely-postured suited white dudes asking "what the hell is going on?!" in front of files and fancy computer screens while referring to some kind of monetary or outcome loss does not a compelling drama make. Why do I care about what's happening here?

PHIL:  Again, I'm not really selling it here, but I think that's kind of the point; no one really cares about what's happening.  The main character even says in the film "Don't you ever just not care?".  I take it as a commentary on the atrocities we hear about in little snippets on mainstream news, slid in between stories of celebrity breakups and political sex scandals.  Stories about assassinations, destabilized third world countries, war crimes;  all things that the American TV audience has become completely desensitized to.

And I don't think Gilroy is trying to portray anyone as a hero here. Bourne was the only proactive, altruistic character in the series (who was, admittedly, mostly driven by revenge), but his efforts to expose the government conspiracies are actually the direct cause of all the conflict in this film.  The "Bourne legacy" is that Cross and Shearing end up on the run for their lives.  Norton and Keach, as the main heavies, aren't getting sadistic glee out of killing people.  They're just doing their jobs, and covering their asses.

I will give the film a demerit for all of the references to the other films; it's like they felt a strong need to justify a Bourne-less film.  Guys, if you're gonna tell a new story, just tell a new story.  But what worked for me is how well Gilroy is able to milk the tension. There is a shooting in a lab, and an attempted forced "suicide", which are both highly unsettling scenes that had a much stronger emotional impact on me than any action scene in the previous films.  They're almost Polanski-esqe in their surreality.  

Overall, it's easily my favorite installment of the series, which isn't saying a WHOLE lot.  Imperfect, but I loved many of the things that were attempted here, some of which ended up being pulled off admirably.

ANNA:  Yeah, I think I could experience people just doing their jobs and covering their asses (while harming others to do so) in my every day life, so I'm not sure I need to see a movie with that as the theme. It doesn't elevate beyond that; there's no spiritual resonance or even any good kills. The movie is as desensitized as the commentary they may or may not be making.

I will agree; the lab shooting was pretty tight and I felt a flicker of hope that at least I'd get a good, fun, suspenseful action movie out of it. And although it may be directly associated with recently watching his performance in Big Love, I knew Zeljko Ivanek had an intense creepiness about him from the beginning. 

ANNA RATING:  -1 (Fuck Off!)
PHIL RATING:  5 (Like)

FIVE FAVORITE TONY SCOTT FILMS (PLUS A RETROSPECTIVE)

If there are two films that Tony Scott will be remembered for, it's TOP GUN and TRUE ROMANCE; respectively, a box-office megahit with popcorn for brains, and a low-budget grunge-noir flop that gained a massive cult following.  He never made a film that is critically regarded as highly as some of his brother Ridley Scott's best films, such as ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER.  But in between and around Tony's two cultural tent-poles, he was busy crafting some solid reliable pieces of entertainment; some of which have created a more lasting impression than most would originally imagine.

Here's a brief rundown of Tony's entire career, with some thoughts.  (In the last couple years, I did what I dubbed "Scott Fest"; a massive marathon of the Scott family's entire catalog, so these are all pretty fresh in my mind.)

THE HUNGER (1983) - From the opening performance by Bauhaus of their song "Bela Lugosi's Dead", this film would forever link the fashionable undead with the burgeoning goth community.  Fully embracing the alternative-sexuality subtext always lingering slightly beneath the surface of most vampire films (see DRACULA'S DAUGHTER), the story functions as a metaphorical tale of learning how to love at the fringes of society.  It's not without flaws (I find the ending pretty subpar, if not wholly nonsensical), but as both time capsule and performance piece (both in terms of acting and direction) it's well worth a watch.

TOP GUN (1986) - I'll be honest;  I'm not really a big fan of this film.  I mostly find it to be a huge bore.  But it's hard to deny it its place in pop culture.  Like many of Tony Scott's films, it pushes the drama just up to the very brink of outright self-parody, which makes me imagine him chuckling silently to himself while filming some of the more "intense" scenes.  Is the man a bit of a Paul Verhoeven, simply "taking the piss" with his target audience?

BEVERLY HILLS COP II - Has none of the charm of the original, Martin Brest directed film, but 500% more flash.  Plot aside, if the point was to make Brigitte Nielsen look great in a tight dress while stepping out of an astronomically expensive car, mission accomplished.  This also is where we start to see the beginnings of Tony's "mean" side;  the kills are much harder-edged than one would expect from a piece of mainstream fluff entertainment.

REVENGE (1990) - And then he gets REALLY mean.  In a plot that seems like a response to Top Gun, we follow a retired fighter pilot (Kevin Costner) who ends up becoming an Ugly American in Mexico.  This does not turn out well for him.  Melodramatic and meandering, but just dirty and hot in all the right ways.

DAYS OF THUNDER (1990) - And in the same year, we have a NASCAR film that is better than it has any right to be.  With a script by Robert Towne, and beautiful photography by Ward Russell, this is full-throttle entertainment (Sorry!) even if you've never seen an Indy 500 in your life.

THE LAST BOY SCOUT (1991) - You can watch it as the pinnacle of testosterone-fueled excess, or as an appreciative parody of such excess, but either way this is the most over-the-top version of an "80's Action Film" that you're ever likely to see.  Writer Shane Black's decidedly un-PC script isn't for all tastes, and you'll know which camp you fall into within the first five minutes of the film.  So grimy that you might need a shower afterwards.

TRUE ROMANCE (1993) - A Tarantino script produced before he was TARANTINO, this is a loving post-modern, pop-cultural take on BADLANDS (It even rips off the music!) and BONNIE AND CLYDE.  Amazing ensemble cast.  I would argue that the scene between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken is the best filmed Tarantino-written scene ever.  Tony's favorite of his own films, and most film nerds favorite of his as well.

CRIMSON TIDE (1995) - After a string of bombs, Tony went back to his blockbuster roots.  Strongly arguable as being the second-best submarine film of all time, he manipulates a solid cast of character actors, led by his muse Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman.  While TOP GUN and other Simpson/Bruckheimer productions were entirely pro-military, sabre-rattling pieces, this is a piece of mainstream entertainment that has the gall to question the decision making abilities of those left in charge of the trigger.  Intense and thrilling.

THE FAN (1996) - Crap.

ENEMY OF THE STATE (1998) - A film that anticipates the post-9/11 climate to a frightening degree, we have the strange situation in which an action films heavies include such actors as Jack Black, Seth Green, and Jamie Kennedy.  The nerds shall inherit the earth.

SPY GAME (2001) - . . .  sucks.

MAN ON FIRE (2004) - This is where Tony truly found his "voice", I think.  Overbearing, overheated.  Bombastic while also being slightly subliminal.  He pushed style to its absolute limit, beyond which no other directors have dared to go.  (Probably for good reason.)  One of Denzel's best performances.  Bleak, oppressive, and nihilistically purging.

DOMINO (2005) - The madness of TRUE ROMANCE mixed with the style of MAN ON FIRE.  Again, is this parody?  Tony loves endings that involve mexican standoffs with the mafia, it seems.

DEJA VU (2006) - Despite a script that makes zero sense (But what time travel story does?), Denzel's performance and the general fun of the whole piece make this an entertaining ride.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 (2009) - Totally pointless remake, but I actually like some of the twists they placed on the story.  With a stronger actor than John Travolta, this could've been a pretty solid character piece.  Meh.

UNSTOPPABLE (2010) - Have not seen!  Guess I'll have to get on that.


So, my personal top five faves would be -

1.  Man On Fire
2.  The Last Boy Scout
3.  True Romance
4.  Crimson Tide
5.  The Hunger

Ciao, Tony!

TV REVIEW: SHERLOCK SEASON TWO

SHERLOCK: SEASON TWO
UK 2012
Created By: Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman

SYNOPSIS:  The further adventures of the modern-day Holmes, as he outwits villainy in three feature-length, loose adaptations of the classic stories A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, and THE FINAL PROBLEM.  Having at last met his arch-nemesis Moriarty face-to-face at the end of Season One, Sherlock (Cumberbatch) and Watson (Freeman) steel themselves for their final (?), climactic confrontation.

THOUGHTS:

The question that first comes to mind before watching this show is, "What is the purpose of Sherlock Holmes in a world with surveillance cameras, Google, and DNA tests?"  We live in a world where you can find out anything you want to know, from anywhere and at any time, so what is the purpose of a man who is simply a fount of knowledge?  

The answer to that question is at the heart of what a modern day Sherlock should represent.  In a modern world overflowing with information, we still have need of a person able to filter that information to useful purpose.  Someone who can connect the dots, even if required to do it in a lateral fashion.

So the modern Sherlock is, for all intents and purposes, much the same as his original incarnation.  A brilliant deducer, observer, and gamesman; who also happens to be egotistical, abrasive, and generally difficult to know.  Much the same, Watson is very much Watson (also, oddly enough, still an Afghan war vet), Mrs. Hudson is still nosey, etc.  The elements are all there, but removed from a slavish devotion to cannon, it acts comfortably as both a modern reboot, and as a loving meta-commentary on the original tales.  In short, you can enjoy it whether you're a fan of the stories, or have never read one before.

If you haven't seen Season One, it isn't entirely necessary for you to do so before watching these.  You've probably absorbed enough of the foundational mythology of Sherlock Holmes through cultural osmosis to get the general gist of what's going down.  However, there are lots of little character moments and in-jokes that will be completely lost on you, so, given the extremely short length of both seasons, I would highly recommend starting from the beginning.

Of the three "features" in Season Two, I found A SCANDAL IN BELGRAVIA to be the strongest, dealing with Sherlock's pseudo-romance with the generally villainous Irene Adler (Lara Pulver).  It was written by series creator Steven Moffat, who also wrote the equally strong series pilot A STUDY IN PINK.  THE HOUNDS OF BASKERVILLE is a somewhat lackluster (by Sherlock standards) adaptation of what is perhaps Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous tale.  And finally there is THE REICHENBACH FALL, Sherlock's ultimate battle with a distinctly Joker-like Moriarty (Andrew Scott).  It was an entertaining installment, with a killer ending, but perhaps felt a touch anti-climactic after all the buildup over the last two seasons.  Perhaps they can find a way to, um, keep it going?  (Fingers crossed.)

If you've yet to jump on this show, I would say it's worth a watch even if you aren't usually into mystery/suspense type shows.  The strength of the performances, as well as the writing, elevates this above your usual police procedural.  In spite of its relocation to the modern age, this is the best adaptation of Holmes that we've had in some time.

REVIEW:  7 (LOVE)

CO-REVIEW: BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
USA 2012
Directed by Benh Zeitlin
Written by Benh Zeitlin and Lucy Alibar
Starring Quvenzhane Wallis, Dwight Henry

SYNOPSIS:  In a poor-man's post-apocalypse (in every sense of the word), a six-year-old girl named Hushpuppy (Wallis) lives in a walled-up, flooded out area known as "The Bathtub".  Her only protector is her physically and emotionally abusive, alcoholic father Wink (Henry).  But she may have to learn to fend for herself when her father falls ill, the big floods come, and gigantic, ravenous creatures known as aurochs come sniffing for human prey.

THOUGHTS:

PHIL - It's a pretty film, to be sure.  That's my strongest recommendation for it.  If you're as shallow as I am when it comes to photography, that alone might get you through this.  But while I found the premise interesting, and think that it would have made for a fantastic short film, the plot felt way too padded out.  Some great moments, but I found myself pretty bored through most of this.

ANNA - I'm generally a fan of post-apocalyptic analysis of contemporary social justice AND up for anything that has a child protagonist, so this movie is right up my alley. Wallis gives a strong performance as Hushpuppy, and I enjoyed that the film delved lightly enough into the magical realism that is really just a child's imagination. I struggled a bit with the performances of most of the adults - mostly unconvincing for film; perhaps their overdrawn characterizations come from the story's origin as a theatrical play? 

PHIL - Yeah, I'm not one to give a low-budget or independent film a pass for poor acting.  If you don't have the budget for explosions or CGI aliens, isn't performance the main thing you should be focusing on?  I'm all for sci-fi/fantasy as allegory (most of the best works are really about the here and now, not the far future), but I felt like this was a little too on-the-nose with the Katrina thing, without having anything particularly interesting or insightful to say about it.  The more direct you are, the more it just comes off as a polemic, without having its own story to tell.

ANNA - Even with some of the issues, I'll probably be listing this among my top ten 2012 films, just for the character of Hushpuppy. B+ is too low but it's not quite an A- either. 

PHIL - B++, then?  I wouldn't begrudge someone liking this film - It's different enough, and I get why it strikes such a strong chord with some people.  It just didn't really speak to me, and I feel like it was resting too comfortably on concept to really take and expand the story to where it needs to go.

PHIL REVIEW:  3 (AMUSED BY)
ANNA REVIEW:  6 (LIKE)

Movie Review: PROMETHEUS

PROMETHEUS
US 2012
Directed by Ridley Scott
Written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof
Starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Idris Elba, Charlize Theron


SYNOPSIS:  In this prequel, of sorts, to Sir Ridley's 1979 sci-fi/horror masterpiece ALIEN, we follow a team of archaeologists, biologists, and geologists in the late twenty-first century on their quest to discover the origins of mankind. . .  IN SPACE!!!   Dun dun dun.  Things go awry.


THOUGHTS:  What I love about this film is exactly what most people are going to hate about it.  It's tonally inconsistent.  Supposedly intelligent characters do lots of stupid and reckless things (a classic "Idiot Plot").  And instead of casting an old man as an old man, we get Guy Pearce in extremely goofy make-up for no particular reason.


And I get why these things are disconcerting; as a general rule, we, as people, love symmetry.  Disjointed elements seem to add clutter and distraction.  I think the people who will really get behind this film are ones that aren't bothered by a bit of mess.


While it does, as mentioned, serve as prequel to Alien, you need to get that archetype out of your head before stepping into the theater.  There are scares, and there are gooey monsters, but this has a wholly different rhythm and feel to it.  In terms of Scott's resume, it's much closer in tone to the dreamlike nature of LEGEND or BLADE RUNNER; another reason why the characters seemingly contradictory behavior didn't irk me.


The dreamlike quality is further enhanced by the spectacular use of 3D.  I would highly recommend seeing this film in that format, and even further, to see it in IMAX.  The 3D is never obtrusive, it looks as gorgeous as any well-shot 2D film (Courtesy of masterful DP Dariusz Wolski, who previously shot DARK CITY.  I guess he's a fan of giant head statues.), and apart from the credits, I noticed no "ghosting" whatsoever.  I'm not a pushover for this kind of thing, but this was some quality work; probably the best I've ever seen.





Anybody else love the movie EXPLORERS?  It's a movie about a group of kids who begin telepathically communicating with an alien race.  The film seems to build towards a transcendental intergalactic meet and greet, but the kids come to find out that the aliens are just as much beer-swilling coach potatoes as we are.  This movie kind of feels like Ridley Scott's remake of Explorers.  Or maybe STAR TREK 5.  I'm not really selling this, am I?


Here's some other random stuff that I really dug:  Michael Fassbender as the mercurial robot David.  Rafe Spall and Sean Harris as the Scooby Doo and Shaggy characters.  Idris Elba as the Stephen Stills loving captain.  Squirmy, tentacly (Fuck you; it's a word.), vagina monsters.  Big, oafish, Jason Vorrhees wannabes.  The delivery of the line, "I was watching your dreams."


Love it or hate it, I'd say it's worth seeing this in the theater for the mere experience of the whole thing.  Event films don't often feel this BIG, and it's best to grab hold of it in a big way.


REVIEW:  8 (LOVE)

Movie Review: THE WOMAN IN BLACK

THE WOMAN IN BLACK
UK 2012
Directed by James Watkins
Written by Jane Goldman
Based on the novel "The Woman In Black" by Susan Hill
Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer


SYNOPSIS:  In the early 20th century, recently widowed solicitor Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is called upon to handle the estate of a Mrs. Alice Drablow, who lived in the isolated and uber-creepy Eel Marsh House.  No locals will assist him in his task, and most try to shoo him out of town, with the exception of a Mr. Sam Daily (Hinds) and his wife Elisabeth (McTeer), who have also had a tragic death in their family.  But after Arthur witnesses a mysterious woman, draped in black, walking the grounds of the abandoned manor, he begins to understand why the villagers have been so desperate to keep him away.


THOUGHTS:  It's the first of the modern Hammer Films to actually feel like one of their older classics, despite the lack of anachronistic haircuts and cardboard sets.  It's a old-school, "things that go bump in the night" type of haunted house story, and if you're brave (or foolish) enough to watch it alone in the dark, it's guaranteed to scare the willies out of you.  (To which my poor wife can attest!)


Fast paced in parts, which can be the mortal enemy of suspense, but the expedience here is mostly to trim the fat.  Not a great deal of time is wasted on the typical "Doth my eyes deceive me?" dilemma that protagonists in these films ponder; Arthur sees something supernatural, and knows it's supernatural.  Moving on.


Radcliffe doesn't have the most expressive face, which is problematic in a film where he's expected to show a broad range of terror, but he rises admirably to the task with the tools given to him.  His character has a rational, reasoned, and brave response to the strange goings on, so as he is confronted with abject horror, the tightening of his jaw seems a grab at tenuously holding on to his fragile sanity.

The film is very pretty to look at, making great use of location photography.  It was shot by the sparsely active DP Tim Maurice-Jones, whose previous work you're most likely to have seen in the films Lock Stock And Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.


I've giving it a slight demerit for the ending.  It doesn't ruin the film, but the final scene should have either been done differently, or much better.  It has the stench of a reshoot about it, quite frankly.  All in all, though. . .


REVIEW:  6 (LIKE)

Movie Review: THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT

THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT
USA 2012
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Written by Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel
Starring Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Rhys Ifans


SYNOPSIS:  Shortly after becoming engaged in San Francisco, Tom and Violet (Segel and Blunt) put their impending nuptials on hold after she enters into a post-doctorate program at the University of Michigan.  In addition to this waylaying his burgeoning culinary career, numerous other complications and insecurities cause these two lovebirds to continue to save, then lose, the date.


THOUGHTS:  This isn't necessarily laugh a minute stuff.  There are some traditional gags here and there, but for the most part this is comedy that comes from character work, and from the uncomfortable familiarity of a scenario you may have lived through.  


The character work is done quite well, feels honest, and will play best to an audience closer to thirty.  This is the film that takes place after the "meet cute, then fall in love" film ends.  It also lacks a certain dismissive cynicism in tone that seems to be a prerequisite of all comedies aimed at teens and early twenty year olds.


I enjoyed that, unlike many Hollywood movies, it didn't portray the Great Lakes region as simply a wooden wasteland.  The residents of Ann Arbor in the film are intelligent and culturally diverse, despite their not living in Manhattan.  Sure, it does show that "going native" is synonymous with deer hunting, but that doesn't feel terribly dishonest.  Other than there supposedly being a redneck bar on Main Street, there weren't too many incongruous elements; it felt like my town.


The "too good for this" Director of Photography Javier Aguirresarobe (The Others, Talk To Her) takes a break from his recent string of vampire movies to add just the right hint of gravitas to the lighting scheme, perfectly matching Stoller and Segel's morose undercurrent in the script.

It takes its sweet time getting where it's going, and you're either along for the ride or not.  I, for one, found myself unexpectedly enchanted.


RATING:  7 (LOVE)

Movie Review: THE INNKEEPERS

THE INNKEEPERS
USA 2012
Directed and Written by Ti West
Starring Sara Paxton, Pat Healy, Kelly McGillis


SYNOPSIS:  In its final weekend of operation, the skeleton crew at the Yankee Pedlar Inn decide to pass the time by investigating the hotel's haunted history, little expecting to actually rustle up some truly dark spirits.


THOUGHTS:  There's quite a bit about this concept that I enjoy.  I love classic, traditionally styled ghost stories, with doors creaking slowly open of their own accord.  I like that it's a slow build, allowing for a lot of humor in the early chapters, in an attempt to disarm you for the final barrage of scares.  And I really like Sara Paxton as the main protagonist, who is attractive in the way that all lead actors tend to be, but is such a charmingly goofy nerd that you feel a genuine concern for her plight.


Even though quite a few of the early jump scenes are "joke" or fake-out scares, director West shows a lot of the same restraint with drawing out the suspense as he did in his previous film, THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL.  The atmosphere is perfect for this kind of film, and it pays homage to many of the classics of the genre.

Where the film is going to make or break it for you is in your response to the climax.  The ending of House Of The Devil was a huge letdown for me, and much the same applies here.  Maybe it was that after a fairly jokey film, I didn't feel so much disarmed as I was bemused by the sudden stab at gravitas.


But, to each their own, and more often than not you'll have wildly divergent reactions to stuff like this.  My friend who watched this was scared shitless by it, so it might float your boat more effectively than it did mine.  While not finding it particularly terrifying, I would classify it as extremely charming.


RATING:  5 (LIKE)

Movie Review: THE AVENGERS

THE AVENGERS
USA 2012
Directed and Written by Joss Whedon
Adapted from The Avengers comic book by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby
Starring Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston


SYNOPSIS:  The protagonists of the IRON MAN, HULK, THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA franchises must band together to face a foe too powerful for any one of them to conquer alone.  


THOUGHTS:  


PROS
-Mark Ruffalo is great as Bruce Banner  


-I enjoyed Black Widow and Hawkeye's co-arc  


-It has my favorite post-credits sequence of all the Marvel Studios films.  (The one after ALL the credits are done.)


-The effects are generally well done  


-The Hulk is scary  


-Harry Dean Stanton


CONS
-The dialogue seems to consist entirely of one-liners.  Also, characters are often saying things that seem completely out of character (e.g. "Aren't the stars and stripes a little old fashioned?" - Captain America)


-The villains.  Tom Hiddleston does a good job as Loki, but the film is constantly undermining him as an actual threat with goofy humor, and by making him a simple pawn in another villain's game.  The Chitauri are barely developed at all; they might as well be robots.


-Joss Whedon doesn't have an eye for direction, and he essentially wasted DP Seamus McGarvey.


-Captain America's costume.  It oddly seems more retro than the one from the 40's, and just isn't shot well.


-It plays out like a "VS" film, with the conflicts between the heroes feeling extremely contrived.  

I don't think it's a bad film by any means, and I also don't think that the other Marvel films are necessarily masterpieces, but this one was kind of a let-down for me.  Who knows; maybe it'll grow on me.  But for the time being. . .


RATING:  5 (LIKE)

Movie Review: THE CABIN IN THE WOODS

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS
USA 2012
Directed by Drew Goddard
Written by Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon
Starring Kristen Connolly, Fran Kranz, Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford, Chris Hemsworth


SYNOPSIS:  It's THE EVIL DEAD meets THE TRUMAN SHOW!  As a group of nubile teen monster-bait head unsuspectingly into the woods towards their certain doom, a pair of office drones (Jenkins and Whitford) keep track of the proceedings via high-tech video surveillance, while simultaneously moving all of the horrific set-pieces into position.  Who these men work for, and what their motivation is, is initially shrouded in mystery.


THOUGHTS:  Kudos to the marketing department for holding back from revealing the final act in the trailers, which contains most of the film's best moments (which I similarly won't spoil here).  While they would undoubtedly have drawn in a much bigger audience, they would have also ruined the delightful surprise.  


On the Metatextual Horror Seriousness Scale, this lands somewhere between the genuine thrills of SCREAM and the outright parody of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.  Let's say it's kissing cousins with SHAUN OF THE DEAD.  But while SHAUN raised the stakes to balance out the comedy, similar attempts feel hollow here.  I had compassion for Shaun and Co, but the CABIN gang never escape the cliches that they are meant to embody, and thus I never felt invested in their plight (or, consequently, scared).

It is, however, bloody, fun, and clever, and that goes a good distance with me.  Similar to other "twist" films like THE GAME, I'm not sure that it would hold up on multiple viewings, but if you're a fan of teensploitation horror flicks, or just love to make fun of them, there's a good time to be had here.  A great date movie for somewhat anarchic couples.


RATING:  6 (LIKE)

Movie Review: THE RAID

THE RAID
Indonesia 2012
Directed and Written by Gareth Evans
Starring Iko Uwais, Donny Alamsyah, Ray Sahetapy,Yayan Ruhian


SYNOPSIS:   Rama (Uwais), a rookie cop in Jakarta, is part of a team that goes on a "raid" (Hey!) of an apartment building run by the ruthless crime boss, Tama (Sahetapy).  Things don't go as smoothly as planned, and as the police officers end up fighting for their lives against the machete and gun wielding slum residents, they learn that no ones motivations, whether cop or criminal, is precisely what it seems.


THOUGHTS:  There's been a lot of hyperbole thrown the way of this film; "The best action movie since Die Hard!" proclaims the State Theater in Ann Arbor, where I went to see it.  I can't go quite to that extreme (What?  Is Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon chopped liver?!), but I will say that it is one of the most mercilessly brutal films I've seen in some time.  As a showpiece for Pencak Silat, the martial art style native to Indonesia, the sustained violence reaches such apocalyptic intensity as to briefly skirt the edges of horror.

Besides the obvious martial arts influences, Wales-born director Gareth Evans shows a love of genre cinema circa late 70's and early 80's.  The vibe and pacing is a mixture of Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS, John Carpenter's ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, and the apartment raid sequence from the beginning of George Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD.  The pulsing synth score, a collaboration between Mike Shinoda and Joseph Trapanese for the American release, further emphasizes this link to the past.


The story, what there is of it, is the usual twisty nonsense, easily ignored beneath the deafening roar of shattering bones and splintering wood.  If you end up feeling compelled by it, more power to you, but like the center-stage building it serves no better purpose than to provide a flimsy framework for the bloody ballet at hand.


The film, quite simply, kicks ass; there is no more accurate way to describe it.  If onscreen violence is your catharsis, you'll find few films more purging than this.


RATING:  7 (LOVE)

Uh! Uh! Uh! SOPRANOS!!!

While THE SOPRANOS started out as a slightly better than average collection of gangster cliches with half-hearted artistic aspirations, it grew exponentially in quality with each subsequent season, culminating in a masterful finale with season six.  How good is it?  So good that it made THE WIRE sweat a little bit in its race to claim the title of "Greatest TV Show Of All Time".


The ending, as in the final scene, is highly divisive, but I for one loved it.  Without giving anything away, it's a cryptic and ambiguous ending that serves perfectly as everything for everyone, if you only allow it to.  I'll definitely be giving this series the marathon treatment at some point in the future, having been so long since I've seen any of the earlier seasons.


I've come to a strange realization - Paul Thomas Anderson, one of the 90's film directors that I was more indifferent to than most, is probably my current favorite of his graduating class.  Why?  Because he's the only one who grew up.  While Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson keep peddling their reductive metatexts, PT has been expanding his range and ambitions.


Had a conversation with Anna about what classifies a work of art as either Feminine or Masculine in nature.  No conclusions were made, nor evidence cross-referenced, but my current shorthand is this; Masculine narratives are ones in which problems are surmountable.

Gary Ross Is Adequate At Best

Gary Ross, the director and co-writer of the megahit THE HUNGER GAMES, is playing hardball with production company Lionsgate over his fee to return for the sequel, CATCHING FIRE.  Here's a free tip for Lionsgate:  The Hunger Games is entertaining in spite of, not because of, Gary Ross' direction.  I can't think of one single moment in the film where I said "Wow, that's a great shot!" or "This is paced really well".  The audience will be there no matter who directs it, so just get someone who knows where to point the camera, and the momentum of the story should carry it.


Watched the pilot for JUSTIFIED.  Cute, but it needs to get a lot better very quickly for me to continue with it.  Always good to see Peter Greene in something every few years.

Pollen Off The Charts

The start of the week finds me slightly debilitated by an onslaught of pollen that has clearly been genetically engineered by the government as a biochemical weapon against seasonal allergy sufferers, then "accidently" released into the atmosphere; a strain removed of all pain, remorse, or fear, that absolutely will not stop until I am dead, or at the very least, throughly annoyed.


To ease my pain, I've been reading George R.R. Martin's third book in his SONG OF ICE AND FIRE series, A STORM OF SWORDS (that does not roll off the tongue with ease).  As if the story weren't already moving as slow as molasses in a frozen tundra, Georgey-boy keeps introducing new characters into the mix, even though they all seem to fill very similar archetypes, e.g., a world-weary knight fallen on hard times who has a disturbing attraction to a pre-teen girl.  It's scratching my world-building itch, but as literature it leaves quite a bit to be desired.  I'm guessing this works, and will work, better as a TV show, which I cannot wait to see.


Speaking of television. . .  Finished off DEADWOOD, which ends on bit of a low note (thematically, not quality-wise).  Much like the people up-in-arms about the ending to their precious MASS EFFECT series, the finale of DEADWOOD makes me want to bring criminal charges to the responsible parties (Though, unlike MASS EFFECT, the creators of DEADWOOD didn't know that their series was ending).  Major Dad makes for a powerful heavy in season three as prospector George Hearst, who crushes anyone getting between him and "the Color" (or, "Gold").


Started BOARDWALK EMPIRE and BIG LOVE.  Both entertaining, and both feature a lot of my boys; actors such as Harry Dean Stanton, Bruce Dern, Shea Whigham, and Michael Shannon.  But while Boardwalk comes off as an entertaining, violent romp, it does smack of "paint-by-numbers" gangster story, whereas Big Love has something a bit more unique and engaging.  I'm looking forward to continuing with both.

What I'm Into This Week

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN - If Richard Matheson's adaptation of his novel The Shrinking Man plays out much like an elongated Twilight Zone episode, it's most likely due to his having written a portion of that series strongest episodes.  This 1957 B-film has its share of visceral terrors, but you'll find yourself even more unsettled by its metaphysical implications.  Set in suburban everywhere, a man finds himself shrinking, a few inches at a time, with each passing day.  As his mortal horror grows in stark contrast to his diminution, he becomes a tyrant to his loving wife and brother.  The story of a middle-class white dude finding himself feeling tiny in the mid-fifties has its obvious psychoanalytical implications, but the author is fully aware of them, probing deeper into the concept of devolution as evolution.  Jack Arnold, the director of Creature From The Black Lagoon, utilizes still-impressive special effects to give the main character's plight a sense of both scope (a canyon-like living room) and claustrophobia (sleeping in a matchbox).  Speaking of phobias; if you happen to have a strong one regarding certain eight-legged household animals, this might be one film it would be best to steer clear of.

ROME - A couple years removed now, the HBO TV series, which ran from 2005-2007, can be placed in its proper historical context; as a precursor to Game Of Thrones.  This was the acclaimed network's first stab at "epic", and while it indulges HBO's base instincts to perhaps too large of a degree (i.e. boobies, blood, and bleeps), it has a life and energy that's intoxicating.  Rome is like the drunk friend you love to go to the bar with, but might be a little embarrassed to know.  I, for one, would love to see a third season for this.  Hey, if Arrested Development can do it. . .

What I'm Into This Week

JOHN CARTER - An impenetrable mess of a narrative, more boring than not, but its sense of scope is impressive.  An interesting failure.   

HBO - It's time to catch up on all the good tv I haven't watched in the last decade.  First, I'm finally finishing off Deadwood, which I had last left off about halfway through Season Two, and I'm also starting the final season of The Sopranos.  Tried No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency - Cute, but nah.

BREAKING BAD - I had dismissed this series after having seen the pilot, but my friend Greg convinced me to give it another chance.  Having finished the first season, I'm glad that I did.  Subtler than it initially seemed, this show about a high school teacher turned meth cooker has a number of compelling characters, all performed admirably.  

What I'm Into This Week

DOUBLE FEATURE: PARIAH AND SHAME - Two films that I love, about societal outcasts framed primarily by their sexual proclivities, which are almost diametrically opposed in their perspectives.  PARIAH tells the story of a black lesbian teenager, trying to balance her outed club scene life with her closeted, good christian family life.  It's a film that's aware of the cliches of the genre, and while it misguidedly embraces a few (Must all misunderstood teens become poets?), it actively avoids many others, most importantly the urge to paint any characters in broad strokes.  The fire-and-brimstone mother is unmistakably the heavy, yet she's given enough nuance that you may find her in your sympathies by the end of the film.  It's fun, charming, and full of heart. . .  I wouldn't use any of those words to describe SHAME.  The story of a rich white man dealing with his sex addiction, Shame is tense, baffling, and cold to the touch.  Michael Fassbender embodies the lead character, a man who barely has a handle on his life when his train wreck of a sister (Carrie Mulligan) decides to crash at his place, sending his world into tailspin.  But while this film, unlike Pariah, never directly mentions religion, it certainly feels very catholic in construction.  The road to hell, we learn, is paved by internet porn, which can lead to loose women, three-ways, or even *GASP* gay sex.  The film is a mystery wrapped in an enigma, and I've found myself remembering various scenes in a new light as days have passed. . . In brief, I cannot recommend these two films highly enough.  And see them in the theater if you have the opportunity, as they're both beautifully photographed.

BONE - Considered, generally, to be one of the greatest comic series of all time, I decided to finally give this a look.  I'm about halfway through the series at this point (it's all contained in one giant volume), and while I find it charming, it does suffer from what I'll call "Harry Potter Syndrome"; i.e. not really knowing what age group it's being written for at any given moment.  As such, we have a story that at times wants itself to be taken very seriously, and at other times is just silly, full of plot holes, and has highly ineffectual, non-threatening villains (who are also supposed to be really scary, depending on the whims of the author).  So. . .  a mixed bag.  I might do a follow-up to this if the rest of the book ends up blowing me away.  As it stands, this would be a good Baby's First Fantasy Epic for young readers.  

What I'm Into This Week

30 ROCK EPISODE "LEAP DAY" - 30 ROCK is a show that hit its peak at the end of its fourth season, countering the exhaustion brought on by overly familiar characters and scenarios with the introduction of just a hint of genuine pathos.  By the start of the following season, it had retreated back to tried, true and safe.  Last week's episode, "Leap Day", does nothing to bring shades of depth back to the show, but it does manage to be the funniest episode since that time.  It's a pitch-perfect parody of every "holiday special" cliche ever aired, and a welcome return to form. . .  And if you ever see an old man in a blue suit, bursting out of the middle of the ocean - take the time to say "howdy".  It might just be worth your while.

THE OSCARS - I thought it went ok.  Did you?  Based only off of the venomous reviews the event received, you'd think it was the biggest bomb since Fat Man.  Awards aside (The Artist is a film that we'll all forget about in about. . .  now.), I found the show itself to be much zippier than usual, with all of the traditional, horrible song performances removed.  (I thought the Cirque du Soleil was pretty classy, and Crystal's song was both expected and funnier than expected.)  Frankly, some of the complaints sound ageist and anti-art.  Thas coo, man.  If you find the Academy a bit too pretentious, I think Nickelodeon still puts on the Kids Choice Awards every year

WRCJ 90.9FM DETROIT - The best way to start my day, and to wind down in the evening.  "Classy Days, Jazzy Nights", as they say.  Best mixed with either a bowl of hot oatmeal, or a good book.

IKIRU - Director Akira Kurosawa is best remembered for his tales of swordplay and samurai, but he did make a handful of successful films set in the twentieth century.  This one is the best.  Almost the answer to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, we follow the story of a man who has wasted his life, and comes to that realization only after he's diagnosed with terminal cancer.  Much more uplifting than one might expect based on the premise, this film is rich with texture and subtle nuance, both visual and thematic.  A true masterpiece.

GEARS OF WAR 3: HORDE MODE - I don't get to play this nearly as often as I would like to.  There are several shooter games with highly entertaining "survival" modes, in which you and a handful of your friends (or complete strangers) take on wave after wave of increasingly horrifying beasties, but this one ups the brutality to a whole new level.  Nothing quite beats the rush of coming back from the brink of oblivion and sawing a demon from the depths of space into two bloody chunks.  Good for teaching children about teamwork and stress management!

A Modest Proposal for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences

We now have up to ten Best Picture nominees in a year, in part due to "Dark Knightgate" (i.e. The Dark Knight not being nominated for Best Picture, despite being a highly popular choice).  So now, in deference to the whims of the masses (or what is believed are said whims), we are allowed to include in that hallowed list such films as DISTRICT 9  and INCEPTION.


But what does that really solve?  You now have a list of ten, sure - but you still usually only have two viable contenders, one underdog. . .  and now SEVEN other films that have no chance in hell.


How about we split the difference?  TWO Best Pictures - One for ART, and one for ENTERTAINMENT.


It's a variation on something the Oscars have already done in the past, and not too dissimilar from the way the Golden Globes and many other awards shows are currently arranged.  Dissolve the condescending Best Animated Film and Best Foreign Film awards, and just make all those potential nominees eligible for the top prizes (I would also be an advocate of only allowing foreign films that have been screened on US soil to be eligible).


I feel that by splitting the films by aspiration, you satisfy two disaffected groups: The people who think the Academy Awards are too "pretentious"; and the cinephiles who think that the Awards play it safe and pandering.  Ideally, the divide would help negate the pull of those wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road films that so often seem to run off with the little golden man, satisfying no one.


Sure, the decision of what constitutes "Art" and "Entertainment" is arbitrary, but isn't the whole concept of an awards show for an artistic medium fairly arbitrary anyway?  Would the not-nominated DRIVE (Hey, there's an open spot for nomination!  Academy?  Hello?!) have been classified under Art or Entertainment?  I honestly don't know, but that would be exactly the sort of thing that would spark some interesting water cooler debates.


Oh, and let's add a Best Ensemble Cast award, huh?  Just sayin'.


Thoughts?

What I'm Into This Week

THE STAR WARS TRILOGY - Watched the Star Wars films for the first time in about five years.  (The original, unfucked with versions, via the special features discs off the 2006 DVD release.)  It's thrilling to rediscover one of your first loves.  The pacing and economy of storytelling on display are impressive.  These films move, yet never feel rushed; there's just no fat on them.  No redundant scenes with Frodo and Sam deciding whether or not the journey has been worth it.  Jedi remains the weakest of the three, but y'know; during the multipronged end battle, I know exactly where everyone is relative to each other, and exactly what they're doing.  I don't know if I could make that claim about any single action scene I've seen in the last decade, much less multiple/simultaneous action scenes in said films.  Star Wars can still take on any sci-fi/fantasy upstarts well into the 21st century.  The king stay the king.

SPRECHER SODA - Particularly their Puma Kola, which combines vanilla, cinnamon and honey flavors.  Fire-brewed in Milwaukee, just a (gigantic) stone's throw away.  I used to scoff at caffeine-free beverages, but as I'm attempting to ease off my habit, these colas have provided a methadone to my madness.  Check 'em out!

PITTSBURGH: A NEW PORTRAIT - A richly detailed book, taking a look at the birth, death, and rebirth of the Steel City, through the lenses of culture, architecture, and innovation.  Some incredible photos and drawings from all eras.  A perfect read for Washington's birthday!

JOHN BYRNE'S RUN ON THE FANTASTIC FOUR - This is five years worth of work from one of comic's most influential artists, during the peak years of his power; the early eighties.  Byrne won't be remembered as a great wordsmith, but he has a brain for outlandish stories and the pen to back them up with.  This is immediately following his rightly legendary collaboration with Chris Claremont on the Uncanny X-Men, just to put the timeframe in perspective.  Great fun so far.  (I've only read about a year's worth at this point).