Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie

2012, Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim -- threatre

If you don't know Tim and Eric, this isn't the place to start.  Your best bet is to hit up youtube, check out a couple of sketches from their series Tim and Eric's Awesome Show, Great Job! and see how that catches your fancy.  The duo are single-handedly (double-handedly?) responsible for a whole new sub-genre of absurdist in comedy, largely based around editing room tricks and a retro-80's cable-access aesthetic.  They're experts in the lingering pause and reveling in, well, not precisely gross-out comedy but certainly the unattractive and freakish sides of their brain.  The results can make you laugh, feel unsettled, or nauseated, sometimes all at once.  I don't see a lot of middle ground in people's reactions to Tim and Eric.  They're either going to appreciate it or turn it off.

Awesome Show has impacted the comedy word rather dramatically, a Monty Python for its day without being anything like Monty Python, moving further and further inward from the fringes, and that influence will continue to grow and extend as the up-and-coming comedians start to wield more influence in the world of comedy.  It'll certainly be interesting to see what the average comedy film looks like in 20 years.  I imagine it won't look much like this, though. 

Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie isn't quite what I was expecting, but then I guess it was my own fault for anticipating anything from the duo.  At this stage I can't even recall what it was I thought it would be.  Perhaps I was just expecting it to be dirtier, and not in a bawdy sense, just that it's far more polished and looks far better than their usual 80's shot-on-videotape aesthetic (though there is some of that too, it's just used sparingly).  Though they abandon the visual flourish, they hardly abandon the 80's motif as the basic premise of the film screams 80's comedy, where there's a ridiculous conceit (or two) to overcome in order to buy into the characters and their motivation.

In this case Tim and Eric were given a billion dollars to make a motion picture, and what they deliver is a 3-minute production starring a Johnny Depp lookalike strutting around in a suit made of diamonds.  The financiers (including Robert Loggia and William Atherton) obviously aren't all that pleased and they give the duo the opportunity to repay them their billion dollars or they will pay... with their lives.  The opportunity to redeem themselves arises in the form of a late-night infomercial promising a billion dollars to anyone who can resuscitate a direly dwindling shopping mall, seemingly abandoned (at least by shoppers) and overrun by the hobos and wolves.  This all leads to awkward relationships formed between Tim, Eric and the motley crew of renters in the mall, including the owner's nephew, a pasty, sickly, snot-nosed John C. Reilly, (the owner, by the way, played by Will Ferrell), a caustic sword store owner (Will Forte) and the kiosk owner whom Eric has a sever crush on.  It's, in 80's tradition, a setting where all sorts of comedic situations can arise and off-beat personalities can appear, which leads to much humour, more weirdness, and plenty of gross situations (there's a diarrhea bath sequence that is, yeah, perhaps even more disgusting than it sounds).

Sketch comedy doesn't have a great track record transitioning to the big screen.  Monty Python has a couple under their belt, Saturday Night Live has exponentially more failures than successes, even groundbreaking acts like Mr. Show, Tenacious D, and the Kids In The Hall couldn't pull out successful features (though Brain Candy has shown some longevity, while  Run Ronnie Run and The Pick of Destiny are best forgotten).  Where Monty Python and the Holy Grail has made (and continues to make) as many Monty Python fans (probably more) than their Flying Circus tv programme, few films have drawn new audiences to sketch comedy troupes.  Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie is yet another that plays to the converted.  It's certainly more accessible than Awesome Show, Great Job!,  but just barely.  The funniest parts (of which there are many) all play to the audience that is attuned to their type of humour.  At the same time there's a lot of comedy that dies on the table.  Unsuccessful jokes would be buried in the rapid fire pace of Awesome Show, but here they just kind of flop around awkwardly like a dying fish.  A cameo from Zach Galifianakis, in particular, reaps little comedy reward, despite really, really trying.

As you may surmise the film features a slew of Tim and Eric's high profile friends, but on the flip side much of the cast is filled out by amateur or cable access performers of the sort that you'd see frequently on their television show.  It's telling then that these unassuming, awkward performances yield more laughs than most of the major players.  In some respects it's the script versus the riff, and when Tim and Eric follow their instincts things work out somewhat better than when they let their friends cut loose.  But then there is the diarrhea bath, so, you know, maybe not.

I didn't hate the Billion Dollar Movie but I wasn't impressed, and more damningly, I wasn't surprised by it (at least not in the good way).  To be honest, I had a good time, but it's not one I felt an immediate desire to repeat.

3 short paragraphs: Cedar Rapids

2011, Miguel Arteta -- Netflix

The main character of Cedar Rapids, Tim Lippe (Ed Helms), is a bit of a drip, a stunted man-child who has never ventured outside of his small farming town.  Unlike most comedies of the Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell variety where the stunted man-child is the butt of the joke, here we're ask to sympathize with Lippe as we come to know his somewhat tragic past and understand how it is that he came to fear the world outside his small town and find himself still wide eyed and naive.  Despite his emotional underdevelopment, Lippe isn't incompetent or a buffoon, as were so used to seeing in this sub-genre of comedy, as he holds down a job as an insurance agent, and exceeds quite well at it.  When his co-worker unexpectedly dies in a freak sexual accident, Lippe is forced by his boss (and surrogate father figure) to go to a regional awards conference and lobby for his agency's third straight award.

Leaving behind his lover/ex-high school teacher/surrogate mother (played by a game Sigourney Weaver), Lippe hesitantly ventures to the conference where he's quickly adopted by a motley trio, including the resident loudmouth whom his boss warned him away from (John C. Reilly) and an adventurous, spirited woman (Anne Heche) who Tim is destined to sleep with the moment he sets eyes on her.  What naturally occurs is Tim Lippe's coming-of-age in rapid fashion.  The more people he encounters, the more his peurile worldview is chipped away at, until eventually it just crumbles.  Over the course of a weekend Lippe's parental figures disown him, his faith in honesty, fair play, and equality are rocked, and he is forced, for the first time, to address his own sense of self.

Cedar Rapids is, in many respects, a smaller-scale Up In The Air, where the main character has a set way of life and people from outside break through and change it.  The romance between Helms and Heche mirrors that of Clooney and Farmiga, but it's actually handled with far greater maturity here, despite Lippe's immature reaction after sobering up.  This isn't a raucous comedy, but a character-driven one, though there are still some good laughs to be had.  It's genuine and engaging with likeable characters, even the abrasive Reilly, who quickly establishes himself as unfiltered but trustworthy.  There are no cheats here, and characters aren't sacrificed for the sake of plot or comedy, which may not make it as appealing as other man-child comedies, but it does distinguish itself in that regard.

3 short paragraphs: Rio

2011, Carlos Saldanha -- Netflix

For a few days after watching Rio for the first time, my daughter kept asking to watch "the bird movie".  I would divert her attention to something else, usually Pixar related or something a bit shorter.  Rio isn't a terrible movie, but it's also not an exceptionally engaging one either.  The central character, Blu, a rare blue macaw, was poached as a hatchling in Brazil, and smuggled into Minnesota where he's accidentally ejected from a van and rescued by a young girl, Linda.  Decades later he's a fully domesticated animal,, though never having learned to fly, and sharing a near-symbiotic relationship with Linda.  A Brazilian zoologist approaches Linda about bringing Blu to Rio de Janiero in order to mate with Jewel, an equally rare female blue macaw, in hopes of preserving their species.  Though hesitant (as she's a bit of a shut-in) Linda agrees, but Blu and Jewel don't exactly hit it off, and are targeted by poachers who steal them from their sanctuary.  The separation anxiety between Linda and Blu is palpable, but as Blu and Jewel escape, chained to each other, Blu also experiences nature versus nurture anxiety.

The components should all be there for a solid animated feature, having some deep emotional and psychological underpinnings, and an adventure with some weight for the characters, but it just never clicks.  Part of it may be Jesse Eisenberg as Blu.  Yes, he's the quintessential neurotic performer, perhaps the best since Woody Allen, but he's also not terribly appealing, and Blu isn't particularly charming or funny. Invariably, at times it feels like a nerd-winning-over-the-hot-chick kind of 80's teen comedy, the kind which always focuses on the guy and provides little characterization for the girl, treating them more as a prize at the end of their trials and tribulations, but even then the romantic aspect is barely present.  More than Blu's need to return to Linda, it's Linda's almost crippling dependency on Blu that has the biggest impact, but Linda, like every other character that is not Blu, gets the short-shift story-wise.  This is Blu's story, but it seems following almost any other character would be more interesting.

Ultimately, the adventure Blu and Jewel go on is underwhelming, in part due to the nature/nurture conflict Blu experiences.  It's a "leaving the nest" allegory, with Blu falling in love and invariably leaving home, that doesn't clearly identify itself as such until the finale.  The characters they meet along the way are the expected comic relief types, voiced by George Lopez, Jamie Foxx, and Tracey Morgan, amongst others, all contributing little to the character, and somewhat inessential to the main conflict.  Surprisingly, the climax at Carnival actually does the big party parade a disservice, looking far too spare and less spectacular than the real thing.  There's a workable, likeable story within, but somehow Rio fumbles it all into yet another generic CGI kiddie pic by trying to be too many things at once.

3 Short Paragraphs: Rango

2011, Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean: 1, 2 and 3) -- Netflix

(kent wanders into the desert here)

OK, first up, today as I looked up the movie on IMDB I realized that Gore Verbinski was not a gray haired man in his 70s.  What alternate reality was this old man a movie director?  But I imagine in both realities he directs exciting and well written movies starring Johnny Depp.  Yeah, I am a fan.  Pirates and Depp.  So, anyway, this time round Gore is doing a not-quite-for-kids animated movie about a chameleon who gets mixed up in an old west style evil land baron story.  Yes, cartoon style talking animals living as humans do but in the world that humans still live in.  But the logic of the situation is not the point, any more than the fact that Sponge Bob lives under the sea but still goes to the beach is the point of that cartoon.

This is brilliance.  This is a chameleon who acts out his own one man plays inside a terrarium that is populated by a dead cockroach, a headless Barbie and a wind-up fish.  That is, until a bump on the road sends him flying into the desert.  And into a story not quite of his own creation.  You see, in the desert  there is a town full of the afore mentioned talking animals.  They have trouble not only with red tailed hawks but the town's mayor (and his scaley cronies) and apparent water robbers.  Rango, self named, is chosen by the townsfolk to recover the water and save the town.  He gets to become the hero he has been faking all his life.

If you thought that because it is a computer animated movie it was for your kids, you sure thunk it wrong. This might have some slapstick and some funny talking animals but really, are the kids going to catch the film references? Are they going to snicker over the armadillo playing Don Quixote?  They definitely won't recognize the Sergio Leone style but they might recognize the grizzled old Spirit of the Desert.  Hint hint, I think you can guess which human the spirit is modeled after, even if he is voiced by Timothy Olyphant.  Along with the lovely "cinematography" and composition, these references made me love this movie.  I love in-jokes, comments to the audience drawing upon your love of cinema with a nudge nudge wink wink.  And of course, the story is tight and well told.  And with that, you can consider this as "almost" the third time Depp has played Hunter S Thompson. Cuz this movie sure is a trip.

3 Short Paragraphs: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

2011, Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Iron Giant) -- cinema

(p.s. Kent reviews here)

Colons!  Dashes!  Implied sequel numbers!  I think the title to this blog post might make a grammatarian choke on the proper punctuation.  But it doesn't matter because this franchise is about explosions and amazing stunts and a grimacing Tom Cruise.  I honestly was very very excited that Brad Bird was onboard with this film.  The franchise was already a live action cartoon doing wild stuff better left for a world with not so well defined physics.  I also loved that Brad always worked with very tight scripts, very well put together stories.  I am not completely sure I got that from this movie.

True to form, the movie starts with a prologue that is tense, sprinkled with a bit of gadget magic and the thread of a spy story to come. Hey that is the guy from Lost !  Damn, that assassin is hot !  Léa Seydoux not Josh Holloway but I will leave it up to Kent to disagree with me there.  The failure in the opening leads the new team to break Ethan Hunt out of a Russian jail in order to lead the team against the international terrorist bad guy who got their team member killed in the first place. They immediately go to Moscow, sneak (masked, of course) into the Kremlin and steal something.  Their plot is interrupted by the bad guy's plot and they are framed for blowing up that lovely Kremlin building and all the lovely tourists visiting it.  It was actually my favourite segment of the movie as it set up the new team nicely and also put something tangible on the movie's map. Few movies will choose to make an actual impact on the world they play in worrying that they will have to include it into the continuity of following movies.   I guess this is the last time Russia will be the focus of the franchise.

The movie then continues with the team chasing after the bad guy to clear their name and put things to right.  And you will notice I am not capitalizing it like I normally do.  It's because the bad guy was just so boring.  He was doing a James Bond style bad guy plot of blowing up the world (Why? Because I can !!  *maniacal laugh*) but he, left to himself, was incredibly boring.  There was just nothing to him... They chase him to Dubai with a great location shot of the big building (where Ethan gets to climb something, of course) and a wonderful sand storm chase.  They chase him to Mumbai where we get a location shot at a party and a ... well, a carpark and a TV studio?!?!  We should care more about the plot, the actual reason for anything happening, than about the next location where the flawless action scenes will be shot.  But we so often don't so the producers don't so the director cannot so we get a mission I will probably not accept next time.

3 Short Paragraphs: Lethal Weapon

1987, Richard Donner (Ladyhawke, Superman, Scrooged) -- download

Every Xmas we watch Die Hard as one of our favourite Xmas movies. This... er, last year during the 31 Days of Xmas we sought out some more of those action movies that we associate with Xmas not because of their Xmas related plots but their release date and the time the movie is set.  But in the end, the plan failed and we didn't end up watching the yippy kay yay motherfucker.  Still, Lethal Weapon is a pretty good second choice for that topic.

To me Lethal Weapon is not the preeminent Buddy Cop movie but the beginning of a string of Damaged Rogue Copy movies*.  No longer is the Rogue Cop just a guy who makes his own way, breaking rules and solving crimes outside of the box.  The Damaged Rogue Cop has something in his past that is crawling to the surface; Riggs (Mel Gibson) still suffering the death of his wife.  He is unstable and not the best choice as a partner, thus being stuck with the aging Murtaugh (Danny Glover). But he is also skilled in hand to had combat and has a keen sense of taking charge, setting aside the bullshit.  Murtaugh wants to be an enlightened late 80s guy but really, he shines in how deep a family man he is.  And they are perfect for each other, with family tempering the madness behind Riggs wide eyes and action replacing Murtaugh's age-of-50 caution.

It is so very 80s. The bad guys are a scary gathering of extremely skilled ex-soldiers now mercenaries bringing in drugs from contacts during their days in Vietnam. Riggs and Murtaugh are both Vietnam vets, something that time itself is bleeding out of fiction. When will the dark days of Iraq become the replacement for damaged ex-soldiers?  While I am not surprised that two cops don't so much as solve a crime as blunder through the solution, as we still see that in cop movies focused on action, I was somewhat surprised at how not-so-scary-afterall the bad guys were. Just soldiers dealing drugs? Bad guys with automatic weapons? I guess we are now just so blase when it comes to drug dealers willing to shoot cops. They are no longer the shock they once were. But despite these stand out factors, the movie's constant movement and ballet of violence is still quite fun.

* As usual, once I make a statement like that I cannot remember a single other example of such movies.

The Adventures of Tintin

2011, Steven Spielberg & Peter Jackson -- theatre

For all my many, many, many years of reading many, many, many comic books, I've honestly never read a Tintin book before, and, in fact, his signature redheaded cowlick and tiny white Scottie were about all I knew of the character beyond the name.  But, as any comics fan -- even an ignorant one -- should be able to tell you, that name carries weight... internationally recognize, legendary even.  But what Tintin is all about, well, you have to read it to understand, and I certainly didn't.

Coming into this mo-cap animated feature from blockbuster filmmakers Spielberg and Jackson I had little idea of what to expect.  I long made up my mind that Tintin was just some kid, who, Johnny Quest-style, was dragged around the world on adventure after adventure in the early 1900's.  Moments into the film I learned he wasn't a kid, but an independent teen, an adventure journalist of some repute, and that age difference between what I thought and actuality makes for all the difference.  Instead of being a kids movie it's actually a straight-up adventure movie.

You'd think I'd know better, given the horribly stereotyped reputation comics get as "kids stuff", but I still consider most animated pictures to be kids movies.  I suspect it's because the Hollywood studio system has largely only delivered family-friendly animated pictures, and far too frequently cloying or juvenile ones at that.  The cost of a fully CGI-animated picture is not altogether cheap and these days it seems only blockbusters and kids movies (and films based on popular teen book series) make money, so it's a risky gambit to make a fully animated film that isn't meant for a younger audience (it's doubtful we'll ever see a high-quality hard-R fully-CGI movie).  Given that, naturally it would take two of the biggest names in film making and one of the most popular characters in the world, and now here's an animated movie that's not only not family friendly (not in the traditional, politically correct sense anyway) but, in fact, one that made me feel a little uncomfortable watching it with my ten year old (and he'd already seen it).

Within the first ten minutes of the picture, a man is gunned down on Tintin's doorstep, and a few minutes later Tintin is clubbed on the head and taken prisoner.  It's really quite shocking when you're expecting kid gloves.  These incidents all revolve around Tintin's acquisition of a model replica of the Unicorn, a forgotten pirate ship that was said to have sank after a fierce battle with untold fortunes in its bellows.  The replica, one of three passed on to descendants of the pirate captain, contains a secret message within, and that's what the bad guys are after, but through dumb luck it eludes them so they take Tintin instead.  In escaping his captors, proving himself a rather ingenious little fellow, Tintin encounters Captain Haddock, a serious drunkard who may be the last descendant of the Unicorn's captain, and the key to discovering the wreckage's whereabouts.  So naturally the bad guys are willing to chase Haddock and Tintin (and his little dog too) around the globe, with seemingly endless gunplay, and it's all rather glorious.

Tintin is the product of another time, when seeing the other side of the world wasn't just a mouse click away and when high adventure was part of the entertainment lexicon.  These days, adventure gets lost under big budget action, science-fiction, fantasy and superhero genres, to the point that the audience (and too often the filmmakers) doesn't understand its rhythms, and either the films are unsuccessful or messy hybrids.

Tintin succeeds where others fail because of the obvious passion its filmmakers for the source material and the genre in which it plays (this from a co-creator of Indiana Jones, after all).  As well, the animated format allows for just enough detachment from reality that the more absurd action doesn't play so, well, absurdly.  The film is expertly paced, which is something not enough big-budget films are, building into action set pieces rather than relentlessly piling them one atop the other.

The script from Steven Moffatt, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish is fantastic, with a full understanding of what it means to build a fun story and characters (from the guys behind The Office, Extras, Spaced, Scott Pilgrim and Attack the Block, you know they do), not getting too steeped into melodrama or overly slapstick or corny about the humour (given their repertoire, it better not be corny).  It doesn't play dumb for the audience, for instance Haddock's drinking is right out there on the table, played for laughs much of the time, but also addressed without getting too maudlin about it.

The motion capture technique is used effectively with the animation style... it approaches the uncanny valley line but never quite crosses it, sticking with the Herge-inspired stylization and while there's the occasional feeling of surreality, it's more likely to do with the 3-D integration than the animation.

The cast is superb, though seriously Y-chromosome-centric.  Jamie Bell is note perfect for Tintin, with Andy Serkis providing yet another dynamite behind-the-veil performance as Haddock.  Daniel Craig makes for a surprisingly effective villain, and the supporting cast all come out ready to play.  Spielberg is, without a doubt, a great director, and he's able to elicit some exceptionally solid performances out of his actors in this most unusual form of cinematography.  The score from legendary Spielberg accomplice John Williams is hands down his best in over a decade.  Williams sheds much of his tell-tale style, opting for a bit more of a restrained yet playful feel and it both stands out and perfectly compliments the tone of the film.



To be perfectly frank, as I was saying about modern audiences not appreciating the adventure genre, I freely admit to being guilty of that (hell, I've never really cared all that much for Indiana Jones).  I'm much fonder of action and sci fi, but this was downright impressive.  It may not have converted me, but it's sticking with me in a way few other of its kind have.  Who knows, I may even pick up a Tintin comic one of these days.

3 Short Paragraphs: Fright Night

2011, Craig Gillespie (United States of Tara) -- download

You saw the original, right?  Kid notices that the house next door (a big scary house, of course) has a vampire in it.  He's a horror movie buff who loves a horror movie weekly TV show, called Fright Night.  It is hosted by Peter Vincent, an Elvira analog that was a Van Helsing instead of a slutty vampire.  Personally, it would have been funnier if a sexy faux-vampire was conned into hunting a real vampire. The vampire turns the kid's best friend when he cannot be convinced to just forget what he knows and thus the kid is forced to become a real Van Helsing, along the now convinced TV show host.  It was classic 80s, somewhat funny, somewhat tense and fully entertaining.

This time we are in the suburbs and instead of a big scary house, we have a scarier cookie cutter bunch of houses.  Big empty cloned suburban houses may not be as soulless as the massive renovated McMansions of Toronto but they are a close second, third, fourth...  And really, who knows their neighbours let alone notices when some go missing?  And all the dissatisfied house wives and single moms are more than willing to ignore the creepiness of Colin Farrell if he flatters them a little.  But what kid next door is not going to be suspicious of him?  The best and most enjoyable update is (Doctor Who) David Tennant as a Criss Angel analog, a Las Vegas magician who has a vampire hunter background, not as  fabricated as he lets on.

The movie does a good job of keeping up the humor mixed with tense situations.  Farrell is a truly frightening vampire, dangerous and not at all sparkly.  The scene where he allows Charley (the kid) to attempt to help one of Jerry's (Farrell) victims is completely chilling.  Christopher Mintz-Plasse as the new Evil Ed is just perfect, the nerdy kid given vampire strength and vampire morals or lack thereof.  But really, I have to go back to how much fun I had watching David Tennant as Vincent, in his faux beard and faux leather and faux attitude, almost always drunk but armed by real knowledge of real vampires, for all the good it has done him.  He hides behind his own fabricated history doing terrible (but obviously successful) magic tricks with... well, slutty vampires.  So, there WERE fake slutty vampires afterall.

3 Short Paragraphs: Young Adult

2011, Jason Reitman (Juno, Thankyou For Smoking) -- download

So, in high school were you in the Popular Crowd or the Geeks? Or perhaps a Jock or a Metal Head? Did it leave such an impression on your life that everything since has been a shadow?  No, me neither.  I was less a geek and more just invisible.  Once high school was done, high school was done.  I rarely look back and I have never been to a reunion. The funny thing is that I cannot even imagine there were a few so popular, so unpopular that they are ever wrapped up in the past.  But it does make for good drama.

Young Adult is a Diablo Cody story so expected to have quick dialog and a current feel to it. But surprisingly, it was just unadorned and well written. It is straight forward and not shirking in what it wants to say.  The past is the past and the past is ... done?  You see, Mavis was the high school sweetheart, the beautiful girl who all the guys wanted and many of the girls hated. She wanted nothing but to be out of her small Minneapolis suburb  and in the big city.  And she got that, a successful writer for a popular series of high school based young adult novels. Alas, life isn't so perfect --- divorced, constantly drunk and (like all writers in movies) behind on her latest book.  There is also a bit more heaviness to her life, given the way she reacts to an email from her high school beau announcing the birth of his son. So, into her mini she goes, with her mini dog and mega attitude, to return home and ... well, we aren't quite sure what but it won't be pretty.

Pretty.  Well, for gawd's sake it's Charlize Theron so even at her worst she is just gorgeous.  Even in sweats and Ugs, she shines.  But as the story progresses, my does that shine show tarnish.  You see, Mavis is pretty messed up.  Sure, she believes she can drag her old beau away from his wife and child.  That's not it.  Sure, she gets drunk every evening with the high school geek who was gay-bashed, even though he was not gay.  That's not it.  Sure she pulls at her hair creating an ugly bald spot. But what makes her completely broken is that she doesn't understand an iota that this is not how people act.  She is so strong in her belief of being entitled to Buddy Slade that she doesn't care what others think, not even what he thinks. She thinks it is her right.  Will she ever learn?  Will she every get it ?  I sorely doubt it. We spend the entire movie just feeling sorry for her and me, for one, not so enamoured of her good looks once we get to know her. Despite good council from her only friend (??) Matt and the truth being tossed in her face, she just soldiers on with ill conceived plan until it implodes.

3 Short Paragraphs: Conan the Barbarian

2011, Marcus Nispel (Pathfinder) -- download

Up front; I am a Conan fan.  I read all the RE Howard books, plenty of the followup books by later authors, most of the comics, loved the movies and even watched the terrible terrible TV series.  I know the character well but really, I am not that bothered by reinterpretations.  New is new and old is old but when I heard Jason Momoa (Stargate Atlantis) was going to be the new Conan, I was somewhat intrigued.  Rather than a muscle bound meathead like Arnie, he could be a lean tight warrior with the growl down pat.  Then the pre-reviews came out (terrible terrible; unneeded changes from the sources) and the post-reviews came out (TERRIBLE TERRIBLE bad acting, confusing story and just plain too bloody) and I was only ready to see it as a so-bad-it-is-good movie.  Alas, life interfered and I didn't make it to the theatre.

Now, I have to also say that I just watched it for the second time.  Was the first time fuzzy because of a fever (probably) or fuzzy because of a typical sleepy friday night combined with beer (most likely) ? Either way, another viewing was required.  I remember I liked it, was curious as to what people disliked about it so much but not much else, let alone enough to tell a story of my viewing. So, second time through and guess what?  I liked it even more.  I wouldn't go so far as saying it's a GOOD movie but really, was the Arnie one?  Is ANY swords & sandals movie good ?  No, but they can be fun and exciting and thrilling.  I just wish the director was that much better to string together the revenge story with the mythos that was Conan, instead of a string of barely connected battles.  The battles are well fought and pump the heart of this D&D player and while I will own this movie, I will not consider it good by any means.

The story is a reworking of a familiar Conan origin story -- born on a battlefield and raised by his father in a northern barbarian tribe where swords and blood are life.  If you don't know pulp swords & sorcery, would you know what fantastic barbarians are or would you just imagine them as vikings or mongols? So, Conan's youth is interrupted by a raiding band of soldiers seeking the last remaining shard of a magic mask, a mask that give godlike powers to the (invader) K'Lar Zim. But strangely, the Big Bad has more depth -- his wife, a sorcerous bent on her own path of domination, was killed at the hands of leaders who opposed her. K'lar's goal is not only godhood but to resurrect his wife. By his side is his daughter who also has her own path to power, a little creepier in her witch powers and her desire to be her dad's ... main focus in life. Conan is brought back into the story when he learns K'Lar is the man who killed his father and tribe. By not only cutting down each of K'Lar's henchmen (each unique; disappointed we never see the death of the female archer) but also stealing away the Pure Blood (not virgin, just pureblood line from ancient necromancers) he catches K'Lar's attention. It all ends up leading to a final battle inside a ruined city lining a volcano. Not the best place for a city, but as Marmy said, maybe the necromancers were into geothermal energy.  Of course, bad guy killed, witch killed and mask destroyed again. And Conan gets the girl. But I still wonder, why was K'Lar dragging a boat from place to place?

3 Short Paragraphs: Ashes of Time Redux

2009, Kar Wai Wong

At the risk of sounding racist, the biggest problem I had with the film was my inability to tell the characters apart early on.  The fact of the matter is, in period pieces like this (and I don't just mean Asian period films, I have the same problem with British period dramas too), people dress in a similar fashion and have unfamiliar faces and names, the nuances of which my eyes and ears aren't acutely attuned to at first, so there is a period of the running time where I'm focused more on trying to figure out who they're referring to in a scene then what the actual scene is about or the meaning of their words.  With Ashes of Time Redux, it was almost fatal, as I was about ready to give up on the film, until suddenly it started to click around a half hour in once the third story started, and I began to discern who was Ou-yang and who was Huang and how a seemingly disconnected opening scene may actual related to the story at hand.

The film is sprawling, and yet very intimate.  It's an interconnected series of stories centered around Ou-yang Feng, a mercenary swordsman who also acts as intermediary, a contractor for the desperate on both the buying and selling side of vigilante justice.  I won't go into the nuance of each of the tales as much of the film's pleasure is the slow reveal of the connective threads (as well it's difficult to clearly recall the details accurately a month after viewing), but it the film's rewards only increase as it progresses.

At the end of the film (and one of the delights of watching it on Netflix) I immediately went back to the beginning of the picture to get a clearer understanding of how the opening non-sequitur fit in, and then jumped quickly to key points in the film to get greater clarity and understanding of all the connections.  This is a film worth watching numerous times, and not just for it's intriguing narrative structure.  As is typical from a Kar-Wai film, it's a beautiful film, though no where near as lavish or clean as, say, In The Mood For Love, but then it's a film reconstructed from his longer 1994 version.  Here Kar-Wai is more interested in mood and emotion instead of action and direct storytelling despite adapting the character from the Condor Heroes wuxia trilogy, and he builds every scene around feeling, relying on characters emoting, more than any actions or words.  There's not necessarily a central theme -- loyalty, love and honor all play a role -- but there's definitely a consistency to the tone of the picture, making it unmistakably a Kar-Wai film.

3 short paragraphs: Black Panther, The Animated Series

Netflix

While DC and their parent company Warner Brothers are invested in original direct-to-video animated movies based on stories from their comics, Marvel has instead been investing in the next level of motion comics, where the actual art is taken from the page and animated. While the visuals retain the authenticity of the original illustrative style (whereas the DC animation approximates and simplifies the style) and equally maintains more of the nuance, story and serialized feel of the source (where the DC animated projects are a more compressed storytelling) the main advantage the DC movies have had is their much higher profile voice talent... not to get into a debate about working voice actors and the on-screen talent overtaking their profession... The point is there's a level of investment and perceived quality when named actors take on these niche projects, playing superheroes for an audience consisting mostly of fanboys (and girls), a sense that the people behind the scenes care more about quality more than economy.

Black Panther: The Animated Series is a hybrid between the DC and Marvel way of doing things. Co-produced by BET, it's still motion comic-styled, but BET arranged for a high level of voice talent to be involved. Djimon Hounsou, Carl Lumbly, Kerry Washington, Alfre Woodard, Phil Morris and Jill Scott star in this 12-part series based on the first story arc from writer (and BET president) Reginald Hudlin's Black Panther run from about a half-decade back (each episode clocks in around 10 - 12 minutes). The story is loaded with plenty of exposition and flashbacks alike, but it never lacks in forward momentum. Hudlin's script is dense with caracter, backstory, and setting details, establishing the nation of Wakanda, it's culture, history, hierarchies and rituals and how it defines the character of Black Panther himself. The Panther isn't so much an individual as it is a role held by a member of the nation's royal family, he who is the Panther is the King, but available for anyone to contest on an annual basis. The story opens with a change in power as T'challa defeats his uncle T'chaka and becomes the new monarch. The precious resources of Wakanda are notorious and in a post-9-11 world the US government makes a play to align themselves with the fiercely independent nation.

The politics are a bit oversimplified, but it's kind of delightful to see an American-created series that portrays America and it's foreign policy as serious and dangerously self-indulgent (and, in a slight miscalculation, racist). Throughout the series Hudlin injects thought provoking commentary on the nature of American society, race relations, culture, all while telling an action-packed, entertaining adventure set in the Marvel universe (Captain America, the X-Men, and numerous Marvel U villains make appearances). The animation is stiff and clunky as all motion comics are, but seeing John Romita Jr.'s art animated is actually quite a treat, and really highlights how dynamic it is in a manner which I've never really appreciated in the comics. I remember enjoying reading the story in the comics and, despite my general dislike of motion comics, enjoyed it equally in the translation.

3 short paragraphs: Love and Other Drugs

2011, Edward Zwick -- Netflix

I like a good chick flick, or a good romantic comedy.  No they're not the same thing.  Chick flicks tend to be overly sentimental and are conceived and marketed with a female audience solely in mind.  Romantic comedies are just that, romantic and comedic.  Where the chick flick tends to be marked with a level of fantasy and unreality, the romantic comedy tries to stay grounded in reality, if not always logic or emotions.  Love and Other Drugs is largely a romantic comedy with a dash of chick flick, and it makes for an interesting, if not altogether successful, concoction.

Set in late-1990s Pittsburgh, Jake Gyllenhaal is a hyper-sexual quasi-loser who lands in a career as a pharmaceutical salesman for (extreme product placement) Phizer.  During his pitching process at doctors offices he has the antithesis of the meet-cute with Anne Hathaway, here playing an artist coping with the onset of Parkinson's disease.  After a relentless chase the two hook up, but it's Hathaway who maintains her cool, keeps her distance, and Gyllenhaal is put on the chase.  Cue frequent nudity, oddly tasteful and never leering.  Hathaway has been burned in the past, while Gyllenhaal has never opened up, and as the two start spending actual quality time together, they form a bond, one that's threatened by the usual tropes of miscommunication, but mostly stemming from Hathaway's concerns about her own future, sparing herself the inevitable heartbreak.

While the film follows many of the conventions of the romcom, complete with the big break-up and the inevitable reunion (preceded by the "race against time" sequence, which here wasn't any sort of race at all), it still fleshes its characters and their motivations out in a more thorough manner.  There's not a lot of ancillary characters gumming up the works here, though somehow the film is still overlong at 112 minutes.  Gyllenhaal and Hathaway, reuniting on screen for a second time (last time Hathaway played Gyllenhaals beard in Brokeback Mountain), have a tremendous amount of chemistry.  Their passion is as believable as their warmth and compassion for one another.  Hathaway sells the onset of the disease mostly with subtlety, while Gyllenhaal's coming-of-age story progresses in obvious, but satisfying ways.  It's not perfect, and the Phizer plugs get egregious, but otherwise the story pulls together well.  It's a nice time.

(note: in choosing the poster image, I was amazed to discover that they really only went with one poster design for all the marketing of this film... kind of shocking actually)

3 short paragraphs: Cargo

2009, Ivan Engler & Ralph Etter -- Netflix

Cargo is a recent entry in the "quiet space thriller" genre and a part of the climb of Deutscheland cinema out of the art-school ghetto and into populist entertainment.  Its story is a slow-burning sci-fi set about 250 years in the future.  The Earth has been relatively vacated, deemed uninhabitable, while most of the remaining population lives aboard industrial city satellites, orbiting the planet.  There's a sense of a status quo, office jobs and the like, but also of tremendous poverty.  The bright hope is RHEA, the "new Earth", but only for the rich, and the lucky who win the lottery.  There are lengthy multi-year export missions that transport cargo to gateway space stations being built along the path to RHEA, during which only one crew member is active at a time, the rest hibernating in a stasis pod of sorts.  The only real threat to the mission is mechanical failure or sabatoge, as an extremist group called the Luddites try to convince the offworlders that Earth is inhabitable again and that an organic lifestyle is preferable to a caged one.

The film's central figure is a doctor looking to earn enough to make her way to her sister on RHEA.  It's mid-way through her cargo ships' 8-year voyage, whilst she's on duty, that things start going wrong.  Upon investigating she discovers many things going wrong with the ship and awakens the rest of the crew.  But suspected sabotage is not the only thing amiss on this ship, as the doctor discerns that their mission isn't exactly what it appears to be.

Like Pandorum which I wrote about a few weeks back, films like these live in the shadows of the classic claustrophobic space films like 2001, Solaris, and Alien.  Cargo sticks more to the sci-fi elements, rejecting almost any sense of the fantastical, more Silent Running, less Mission to Mars.  It sticks to its dirty, gritty, tired, run-down aesthetic and show a crew of people who have all but abandoned hope for humanity.  The only bright spot is RHEA, but it's so far out of reach for almost everyone that it acts more as an insult than a dream or aspiration.  Its foundation is the grim future of humanity if one takes the extremist leaps of global warming and the like, but its hope, though minute, is that there's a strong enough desire to recoup what we've lost.  It's a more dire, far less whimsical version of WALL-E in this regard, but equally finds its own distractions in its mystery to not be so overtly a message movie.  The effects are largely acceptable, though never exceptional, and the sets are effective, if underwhelming, but fitting for the tone of the picture.   Not an original story by any means, but well told and well put together to be engaging viewing for fans of the genre.  Otherwise, Cargo is likely too dull and lifeless (and subtitled) for the layman.

3 Short Paragraphs: White Christmas

1954, Michael Curtiz (Angels With Dirty Faces, Casablanca) -- download

Remember when I was attempting to do a 31 Days of Xmas?  There are still a few that I did watch, in my queue, that I will review purely on their merit of worth-watching.  We had intended on watching a good handful of the classics, some in our own collection and some that we have caught here and there over years of TV watching.  Too bad I cannot say I have seen anything but It's A Wonderful Life on the big screen.  We should see more older movies on bigger screens as it gives you a wonderful presentation of what life was like when they put their all into a film production, including the film stock.

So, White Christmas is the one I always wanted to see for the first time.  I always mix it up with Holiday Inn and with good reason.  It was originally intended to be another reuniting of Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire, who had done Holiday Inn and Blue Skies together previously.  Fred said no, so they ended up with Danny Kaye.  The title song White Christmas was also previously used in Holiday Inn which goes to show that Hollywood catering to it's audiences happened in the "good old days" as well. I only mixed up the movies because of the set pieces used in each: a sing & dancing duo, an inn in a rural snowy state and mixed up love stories.  Surprisingly the plots are not whatsoever similar.

So, Bing and Danny Kaye are old army buddies, who start the movie doing a musical number for the guys in their company. Later, after the war they try their hand at a musical act and are an unqualified success.  Fast track to them being big-time Broadway producers.  We get to know them and their somewhat lonely life through a great round of dialogue between shows, this is sparkling dialogue that I don't often associate with movies from the 40s or 50s, crisp and chuckle worthy.  It continues as Danny Kaye manipulates his buddy into falling for a girl in order to get into her sister's knickers.  The two couple play off each other being drawn together again at the failing inn in Vermont, that turns out to be run by their old general from the war. The rest of the movie has the big-time producers putting on an Xmas eve show to benefit the general with all the songs popping up, very appropriately for me as I normally hate the spontaneous songs of musicals, as they develop the show. It ends with the song being sung again and the unseasonal green Vermont winter is replaced by heavy snowfall, which will attract skiers and save the Inn. Very charming movie!

Rango

2011, Gore Verbinski -- Netflix

It seems that ever since Toy Story theatres and home video have been flooded with digitally animated movies, and in almost every case, if it's not a Pixar film, the films have to work extra hard at drawing any serious attention to themselves.  Box office is one thing, where Shrek, Ice Age, and Kung Fu Panda seem to do quite all right for themselves, but critical acclaim and any sort of recognition for going beyond toilet and body humour seems fleeting.  What Pixar set the standard for was not just the craft of digital animation, but world building, character development and storytelling that seems geared for adults while still appealing to children, rather than the other way around.  Pixar, and most of their creative team, realize that sometimes adults have a hard time letting go of "reality" and that animation is an effective way to bring out the inner child, to experience a sense of awe, wonder, and discovery again.  Most other digital animation houses are more concerned about bankroll, cashing in off the child demographic, abandoning good, character-driven storytelling for an easy punchline.  It's to the point that if it doesn't say Pixar, then I'm generally not interested.  Which is why I skipped Rango upon its arrival in theatres.

Well, that and my kid didn't seem to express much of an interest in seeing it.  Until months later.  Thankfully it had arrived on Netflix in a surprisingly quick turnaround.  I was sold almost immediately. The film opens with a gecko, voiced by Johnny Depp, reciting a play with a headless Barbi torso, a toy fish, and a dead cockroach as his costars inside his small terrarium, currently in mid-transport in the back of a station wagon.  A moment of agitation on the highway is all it takes, and in a beautifully executed slow-motion sequence, the gecko's entire life is shattered on the road.  What results is the search for not only a new life, but a new identity.  Christening himself Rango, he comes into a small desert town whose water supply is fading, with the town following behind it.  With an egregious land baron, a family of thieving moles, and plenty of trouble, Rango accidentally talks and walks (or stumbles) his way into the role of sheriff of the town.  Of course, he's ill equipped for the role, and things continually get worse for him.

With inspiration from Don Quixote, countless westerns, and Chinatown, Rango is a rich film, story wise, centered by a character who has lived his entire life in isolation, with television and film as his only guide towards understanding others (as well as nature).  It is largely a classically-styled western, with drinking, smoking, violence and all the expected scenery and tropes cropping up throughout.  It caused a bit of a fuss upon initial release because it doesn't really hold back from the genre's trappings, but in some respects the western in the 40's and 50's was seen as a kid's genre, despite all the gunplay and booze.  If it's deemed a kids movie at all, it should be done so with that consideration.

Of every film I've seen directed by him, I've acknowledged Verbinski's wonderful visual sensibility.  He has long had an innovative style, with a great understanding of color, shadow, composition, movement, and the like.  I wonder if the extensive use of CGI in the Pirates of the Caribbean films prepared him for directing a full-on animated picture, because it's wonderful to watch.  There are many dreamlike sequences throughout the film, but each has their own texture, their own level of reality.  Rango's fever dream in the desert is drastically different than his dreamlike encounter with the Spirit of the West.  In this and many other respects it's quite handily Verbinski's best film (and an Oscar worthy one to boot), and of all the non-Pixar animated films of the past 15 or so years, I would say this is the best of them, though it still doesn't approach storytelling from the same direction.

3 Short Paragraphs: Colombiana

2011, Olivier Megaton (Transporter 3) -- download

And then there is the movie about a killer where they don't even try to make you sympathize with her but expect you to nonetheless.  Colombiana is a sexy, slick revenge flick with an even skinnier Zoe Saldana as Cataleya, a hired killer who learned the skill so she could someday kill the men who killed her family.  Sounds like something sympathetic, right?  No, because her father was in the employ of a drug lord in Bogota.  Sure, nobody deserves to have their family murdered in front of them but, y'know, you lie down with dogs... Anywayz, she gets away, smuggles herself to the US to hookup with her uncle, a hitman and fixer.  Nice family you have there Cataleya.  She gives her uncle no choice but to train her to become a killer, all so she can take vengeance at a later date.  The problem with such dramatic choices is that the target might just die while you are growing up and learning the needed skills.  "Oh dear, Drug Lord was killed in a battle with another drug lord, guess I will stop learning how to be an assassin and work at the local UPS store."

Anywayz, Drug Lord doesn't die early and Cataleya (I just like saying her name in my head every time I type it) becomes a slinky, sexy killer in a catsuit.  I admit, watching her sneak into the police station in the ultra controlled fashion made me forgive the fact she is so skinny she wouldn't have the muscle mass to perform said actions.  It was sexy.  This is the first kill we see and actually not one for hire. She has been slowly killing off anyone involved with her family's murder (they are all in the US now) and leaving a trademark sign of a cataleya flower.  The FBI are hunting her and her uncle is pissed she is doing pro bono work.

Cataleya never really comes sympathetic.  Sexy to the nines but never really a likeable character.  I guess it's all about audience.  Intended viewers just want to see her slink around in her underwear, shoot bad guys between the eyes and have sex without emotional ties.  Now given that this is probably the Luc Besson / Robert Mark Kamen dregs from their failed attempt to bring Mathilda (Leon sequel) to the screen, I should like it more.  Why do I find the idea of a grown up Natalie Portman character becoming an assassin like her pseudo-uncle much more than this vehicle?  I guess because the whole Leon story is about the tragic nature of what the little girl experiences and that as the plot of a sequel would be even more tragic.  In this we are supposed to ignore sympathies and just enjoy her killer actions.  Stylishly, I did.  Plot-wise, I didn't.

3 Short Paragraphs: Killer Elite

2011, Gary McKendry -- download

This was not the movie I expected it to be from the trailers.  In those trailers I saw another Statham staple, a guns and kungfu extravaganza with humor and weird characters. Clive Owen's mustache was the expected weird character.  What I didn't know is that it took place in the 80s, explaining the cheesy stache.  Also, it was more of a political thriller than a kungfu-y romp.  Even the guns were not as prevalent as I expected.  It was deceivingly thoughtful even if the politics of the piece took more of a backdrop to the killer vs killer focus.

So, we have Statham and DeNiro as hired guns, maybe "company men" but more likely just freelancers. Statham has a change of heart after shooting a father in front of his child and decides to retire, much to DeNiro's chagrin.  He returns to rural Australia to reconnect with a farmer's field and Chuck's girlfriend (Yvonne Strahovski) but is immediately dragged back into the fray via a shaikh who has kidnapped DeNiro and wants to force Statham to assassinate a bunch of SAS soldiers who killed his sons during the Dhofar Rebellion in Oman.  Deep breath.  That is the background to a story of scheduled hits, foul ups and retribution.  The political aspect of a bunch of ex-SAS power brokers from the Dhofar Rebellion, calling themselves the Feather Men, is disappointingly downplayed to up-play the fights between Owen and Statham.

The movie is shot with a dirty, grungy sensibility like I view all euro movies from the 70s and 80s.  The characters are rough and mean and tough.  Their actions are uncouth, not a single 007 tux wearing killer elite in the bunch. Dominic Purcell's Davies is lifted completely from his Prison Break persona into a vivid sod of a killer referred to as The Welshman but making me think of a drunken Newfoundlander with his constant references to "me son".  Owen is himself, cool and controlled but scary in his anger.  Of course, who else would Statham be but himself or nobody would see the movie.  It solidifies that these are not nice guys, not the ones to root for and that their lives are most deservedly shortened.

3 Short Paragraphs: Haywire

2011, Steven Soderbergh (Contagion, the Ocean's movies, Traffic) -- cinema

When I walked out of the theatre I mentioned, "I always like compact movies." I wasn't just referring to the shoebox cinema I was just in but the nature of the movie.  To me, a compact movie has a very tight focus and doesn't stray from it with multiple plotlines, a big cast and flashy scenes.  The story is all we need to see. For example, in this movie, she is an agent working for a security company, a specialist security company that does spy-like work.  She is betrayed. She seeks revenge.  That is it. But it's more than enough.

Mallory is not the killer whose moral values I normally wrestle with in these killer movies.  I have a couple more to relate in the next few days, so you will be reminded of what I mean.  You can also peek back at the blurbs on The Baker, Knight and Day, and Killers should you be interested.  But in this one, we know she has the skills to be an assassin for hire but we get the impression that is not the job she choses.  The first we see her perform is a rescue and the next she is assigned is a baby-sitting job... protection?  Once the betrayal ballet is in full performance, we see she is more than capable of such jobs.

Mallory is played by Gina Carano, highlighted for her mixed martial arts career but probably more remembered for being an American Gladiator.  Thus she is familiar with hurting people with her body and it lends itself to the very tight, very compact, combat sequences. She is not a Jason Bourne superhero but uses the same moves over and over to disable as quickly as she can. Her hits have weight and power. They crunch. They make us cringe. But she is not perfect. When we see her race across rooftops in Dublin, we don't see amazing escapades of parkour but just a very-much-in-shape person climbing and jumping and not always making the best decision. That she is human, that she loves her dad (yay, Bill Paxton!) and that she makes sure her inadvertent hostage gets a new car makes us like this killer.

3 Short Paragraphs: Unstoppable

2010, Tony Scott (DejaVu, Domino, Man on Fire) -- Netflix

It's funny but when most people think of Tony Scott, the other Scott brother, they  think of his post-Man on Fire days, the distinct saturation factor and ... well, Denzel Washington.  But think back a little further and you will see a lot of the staples of the 80s and 90s, like True Romance, The Last Boy Scout and The Hunger. I would say his brother is known for the bigger films, the flashier films, like Gladiator or Black Hawk Down but Tony has been doing a lot more work over the long period.

This one's another Denzel vehicle but not a cop story. This time it's a working man hero thriller. You wouldn't think such a plot would allow for the signature Scott look, the cut scenes, grainy angle and saturated excitement and the pulse pounding tension.  But it does, with the speeding train taking on the role of the antagonist that he can dose with his visual cues.  So, the movie is not so much the train wreck it could have been, hyuck hyuck hyuck. Besides, as the poster shows, there is ACTION, like trains crashing into cars and people running on top of them and others JUMPING ON TO THEM. I have a feeling that poster is from the Quebec DVD box.

So, really, the plot is basically this: two doofuses (is Ethan Suplee doomed to idiot roles post-My Name is Earl ??) let a train get away from them. Not such a bad idea, or they wouldn't have hopped off while it was moving, but they left the throttle increasing and well, there is a nasty explosive chemical in some of the cars.  Thus begins a story how a seasoned veteren (do I have to tell you it's Denzel?) of driving trains from one yard to another, between actual use, matches wits with the brave & plucky union guy (Chris Pine) as well as the corporate establishment.  Huh? It's not a seasoned union guy?  Is the Hollywood establishment now anti-union after the Writers Guild strike a few years ago? Anywayz, the focus is age & wisdom over training & youth. Surprisingly, Scott gets some pretty decent acting out of the low key characters, especially Rosario Dawson as the ... train dispatcher?  Her entire role takes place in a control room where she is trying to understand the situation and save lives, not dollars. I have always liked all-dialogue roles; gives the actor a chance to work.  And of course, they save the train and all the little children.

Winter pilots: The River

Tuesdays at 9 -- ABC

The "found footage" movies have, in the dozen years since The Blair Witch Project, become a staple of the horror film industry.  There are a handful of these types of films release every year, whether the latest Paranormal Activity installment or some Exorcist rip-off, the style is basically considered a horror trope.  The idea of an ongoing horror-mystery set on the Amazon river told through found footage sounds like a pretty good one.  The unfamiliar terrain coupled with countless potential threats should be easy to translate into chills and scares.  Toss in a supernatural component and a mysterious disappearance, and The River looked to be the new Lost.  Yet, show creators Michael R. Perry and Orin Peli seem to have imbued in the show little of the sensibility of their Paranormal Activity work, in fact any attempt at building suspense or terror winds up being laughable.

I admit to being charmed by the show's concept.  Bruce Greenwood plays Emmet Cole, a quasi-Jaques Cousteau TV-explorer of sorts, who has been a fixture of television sets for over 30 years.  On a recent expedition in the Amazon, his boat disappeared, and through every effort was made, he, his ship, and his crew were nowhere to be found.  But shortly after they were declared dead, his wife and producer receive word of his distress signal, which leads them on a new search, his estranged son and camera crew in tow.  On the Amazon they find an uncharted arm of the river, not on any satellite map, a place the locals are wary and fearful of, as they claim it's soused in negative energy and dark spirits.

Like Alcatraz a few weeks ago, this 2-hour pilot is actually the first two episodes presented back-to-back.  By the end of the first episode, the plucky adventure team have found the missing boat and fought off a malicious, restless spirit, sacrificing a cameraman in the process.

The show handles the relationships between the team in an overt and clunky manner, with unnatural and expository dialogue that sounds like community theatre. The spiritual and supernatural elements are handled with equal tact, which is to say that they manifest themselves in obvious ways depriving the veiwer of any suspense and are resolved in ludicrous displays of overacting.  The characters seem not only keen to believe, but eager to believe in the mystical forces they're up against.  There's little attempt made to mask the paranormal things that are occurring and it would appear that each episode has a different event or two for the cast to deal with (again with remarkable ease and familiarity).  The result it a tremendous lack of suspense, creepiness or horror, which if the show isn't able to properly manufacture, then why bother.

The "found footage" angle is underplayed, as there is a camera crew documenting the search for Emmet Cole which is more in "documentary style", while the actual found footage is the occasional excerpt from past episodes of Emmet Cole's exploration show, or of the footage from immediately prior to his disappearance found on the boat.  The found footage and background story footage are probably the show's most interesting component, however they are underused, particularly in setting up larger character or plot point, only used in an immediate relevancy context.  The "documentary style", meanwhile, overreaches, using far too many camera angles to be believable, and, at times, the camera angles lie, in the sense that there's no way there's a camera there, at that time, capturing the events as it happens.  Unlike, say, Person of Interest, or Four Lions, both of which switch between different camera styles and filming techniques to tell their story, The River does so with little sense of art or logic.  Are we really supposed to believe that every cupboard on the ship has a camera in it?  As well, the shakycam element is annoying and distracting.

The bottom line is The River is full of failed potential, ridiculously inept in its execution, and there's little to actually enjoy in watching it.  Television is ready for a good ongoing found footage-style scripted horror, this just isn't going to be it.