3 Short Paragraphs: Super 8

2011, J.J. Abrams -- download

Once again we see a movie, that based solely on the marketing campaign, might be seen as a completely different movie.  In fact, in the normal hands of Hollywood this movie would have been a completely different flick.  We have the setup of a bunch of kids making their own film, for entry in a local contest.  While on set at the local rail station, they see a derailment of a military transport train.  The train was purposely derailed by a man who knew there was something else on the train's manifest.

In normal Hollywood, the movie would have been completely focused on what was on the train, the military response and the terror and chaos that happens. Oh, we have all of these in the movie but at it's heart, it is really about these kids. We are seeing the alien monster movie mostly from their perspective and are as much wrapped up in their lives as they are in the events happening in their small town. And these kids are such great characters! Not Goonies or Stand By Me exaggerations of childhood, they are toned down in reality. The leader is the fat kid and the leader is not the main character. The nice guy likes the pretty girl and the pretty girl actually responds to his kindness.  It makes all the heroic decisions these kids make all that more heroic.

The movie is also just shot plain beautifully.  Set in the 80s, I immediately noticed the elements that define a big Hollywood movie for me -- how they can dress a scene completely in the period. The movie doesn't focus on small tight shots where we can see the dressed up product of the period, we see wide glorious scenes of neighborhoods and businesses so complete in their transport back in time. We watched it on a great Blu-Ray rip so were able to enjoy the fine details we missed from the theatre.  While defining myself as a pseudo-film geek, I don't often pay attention to the cinematography of movies where it isn't completely meant to be obvious but in this one, I just kept enjoying so many of the full, lush scenes, understanding that this is where budget should go, not just in the few short scenes of CGI.

3 Short Paragraphs: Drive

2011, Nicolas Winding Refn (Valhalla Rising, Bronson) -- cinema

Refn is known for his crime movies, his movies of violence but with a flair of style, of ... art.  In Bronson we have a character who is inspired by the righteous violence of his taken name but has no real vengeance to be sought.  Thus he just takes on the violence seeking it in and out of prison. In Valhalla Rising we have a viking warrior taken prisoner but who becomes a symbol of supernatural violence to his captors. The latter is much more art and style than it is a violent action movie.

Drive introduces a very sedate, quiet character in Ryan Gosling's driver, known by little else but that name.  He is a stunt driver & a car mechanic but known in the criminal underground for his skill and code of conduct. He drives spectacularly but only for a set period of time, and then you are on your own. Screw things up and you are on your own. But really, this nothing but a set piece for the control of the character. Driver is completely withdrawn, an almost damaged feeling in his quiet, emotionless carriage. But when introduced to single mom Irene, and her son, he starts to slide out of his shell. Perhaps his shiny 80s driving jacket is his encasement of chrysalis? Unfortunately the metamorphosis we experience is not what he hoped for.

As Kent said, this movie stirred up some grumpiness in some mainstream viewers.  Blame the people responsible for the trailers again but this is not even trying to be Fast, Furious' artsy little brother. As I mentioned, the driving is just a setup for the character, a trapping to introduce us to his control.  It's not an action movie in the least, maybe a bit of a thriller but more about our characters in the stylish world that Refn has given us. The music, the angles and the lighting all add to the style Refn is creating. I rather loved the feel, almost as much as I was disappointed by Valhalla Rising and it's failed attempt to add art to sword & shields violence.

3 Short Paragraphs: How to Train Your Dragon

2010, Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders -- rewatch / Blu-Ray

When I first saw this movie in the theatre, I adored it.  I also knew it was going to be added to my collection of re-watchable animated movies.  But since acquiring the PS3, I have drifted to only buying things on Blu-Ray.  But I also normally refuse to buy movies full price so I spent the last year or so watching the re-sale bins at all the major sellers.  Finally, I found it in someone's bin and watched it that night.

Why do I love this movie?  It's not really about the dragon himself.  The Night Fury is beautiful in flight but really my soft spot is for the vikings.  These tough summabitches, who have established a way of life fighting off annoying dragons as if they were just the season's may flies, are both hilarious and inspiring.  I imagine they put no time at all into raiding the coasts of their nearest neighbours having to spend all that time on re-building their homes or ... well, making babies.  Cute movies don't mention the fact that people are eaten by the dragons, as much as the sheep, but really it has to happen. They are a tough, industrious folk with completely misplaced Scottish accents that just make me chuckle.

The movie is also very very dramatic.  The dragons, while comical in their cartoony look, are also pretty scary in what they can do. I very easily fall into the awe that they strike on the vikings of Berk. When things shift to the part of the story about the grand-daddy of all dragons, the sheer size of the beast is just staggering. I love watching the battle as the courageous vikings & dragons swoop and swipe at the nasty creature. The heights reached and the sheer destruction of the island they are on hits me on all the points where Michael Bay's movies never do.  I am not sure why it works so well for me but yeah, it must just be the D&D player in me.

The Muppets

2011, James Bobin -- Theatre

For people of a certain age, let's say those currently aged 30-39, the Muppets are iconic. The Muppet Show, which ran for 5 seasons from 1976-1981 (and in re-runs for years afterwords) and the Muppet Babies cartoon (which ran even longer from 1984-1991)were defining products of our generation. The Muppet movies, TV specials, and records/cassettes all contributed the overwhelming imprint Jim Henson's not-quite-puppets had on young minds around the world. Henson was a man of magic, and since Henson's death in 1990, it goes without saying, that a large part of that magic has been lost, much in the same way that the magic of childhood dissipates as one ages.

The awe and wonder of the Muppets has waned dramatically since their heyday in the early 1980's, to the point that children these days are only familiar with the characters by way of their parents keeping the nostalgia alive. Every Muppets endeavour over the past 20 years has been a product of nostalgia, even (or especially) the award winning Muppet Bohemian Rhapsody.



But if the numbers on that youtube video (over 23 million strong) speaks to anything at all, it is the potential for the Muppets to continue to attract and entertain an audience, even if it is an aging one.

The Walt Disney Company purchased the Muppets in 2004, and the cynicism of fans was palpable especially given the name shift from Jim Henson's The Muppets to Disney's The Muppets. The expectation was that the Muppets would be commoditized and commercialized as if it weren't a commercial commodity already. At the same time there was at least some hope that perhaps Disney could do something to make the Muppets relevant again.

As the years dragged on, with only the amusing (and successful) youtube video series and a few lackluster TV movies, it seemed there wasn't much to hope for if you were a fan of the Muppets, that you'd have to take what you could get and a full-on revival/restoration of your youth was out of the question.

In 2008, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the latest success in the Judd Apatow-produced lineup, emerged and was a fairly big success and its writer and star Jason Segal emerged from it with a surprising amount of clout. Within the film, Segal's character discussed, and realized, his dream of making a Muppet-style Broadway show out of Dracula. As Segal promoted the film he expressed both a deeply-felt love for the Muppets and a deep desire to make a new Muppets film.

With a successful sitcom (How I Met Your Mother) and another successful feature (I Love You Man) in his repertoire, as well as his earnest love for the Muppets, Segal was granted an audience with Disney to pitch a new Muppets film, which has led to the emergence of Disney's The Muppets in theatres this weekend.

With such passion, these kinds of projects can either be naturally successful or deeply misguided. I think most Muppets fans (of the 30-39 age group variety) could see the synergy between Segal, an accessible actor and a well-observed comedic writer, and the beloved characters of their youth. But the hesitation from some, given the nature of the work of most Apatow proteges, or even cynicism still stemming from the "Disney" acquisition is natural.

Segal as star and writer of the new Muppets feature, I am pleased to say, gets it. He understands that what this film needs to be is both a reintroduction to fans of old and an introduction to a new generation. It needs to be familiar without treading the same ground as films past, adhering to formula but without being too formulaic. It needs to be more comedically savvy for a modern audience without alienating children. It needs to acknowledge nostalgia without succumbing to it. It needs to be self-aware without being too arch. It needs to be both character-driven and comedy-driven. A film like this had a lot of demands upon it, and Segal adeptly rose to the challenge. It's not perfect, but it's still a pretty terrific and entertaining movie.

The Muppets is more mature than any Muppets film ever has been, yet is still exceedingly innocent and accessible in that maturity. The main players in the film are Gary (Segal), his girlfriend of 10 years Mary (Amy Adams), his brother Walter (the Muppet Walter), and Kermit, with all the other Muppets rounding out the supporting cast, and Chris Cooper as the villain of the piece.

Gary, Mary and Walter live in a small, stagnant small Pleasantville-esque town where style and etiquette haven't evolved much since the 1950's (even if gender politics and access to later-generation television programmes have) and where a song and dance sequence isn't out of the ordinary. Through a flashback montage sequence narrated by Walter, we learn how he discovered that he wasn't exactly normal and how he became one of the biggest Muppets fans ever, connecting deeply with them for obvious reasons.

Gary and Walter are as tight as brothers can be, which gets in the way of Gary and Mary's relationship, to the point that Walter somewhat shanghai's the couple's trip to LA leading them to a life-altering trip to the desolate, decrepit Muppets Studios where Walter hears the plans of an Oil Baron (Cooper) to tear it all down and dig. Naturally this leads them to seek out Kermit, who has become somewhat reclusive (though not in the overtly crazy variety) in his grown-over estate home. Upon hearing the fate of his studio, he decides to get the gang back together for a last-ditch effort to save their old home.

The meat of the film is not in the story, but in the character details, the parallels in the relationships of Kermit and Piggy and Gary and Mary, as well as Gary and Walter's familial bond. Everything, naturally turns out as it so obviously is orchestrated to, to a degree anyway, but the journey is no less affecting and effective.

The third act, consisting of a Muppet Show telethon revival hosted by a reluctant Jack Black, is the films nostalgic highlight, capturing much of the gleeful, whimsical magic of the original Muppet Show, but also adding in the behind-the-scenes walk-and-talk of a Larry Sanders Show or Sports Night (without being all that dramatic about it).

The original musical numbers, largely provided by Flight of the Conchords' Bret McKenzie, aren't perhaps as infectious as Paul Williams' classics, but they're both wry like Conchords tunes and accessible, with "Muppet or a Man" being perhaps the comedic highlight of the film (for some perhaps because of, or for me in spite of Jim Parson's involvement). I'll even go so far as to say it has Oscar-winning potential.

There are aspects of the film I'm less than impressed with, key among them being the short shrift given to most of the other major Muppets in favor of Walter, Gary and Mary. Walter, more than Segal or Kermit, is the film's center, and in introducing a new Muppet of such prominence, I would have hoped for something at least more visually distinctive, more marketable. I just don't see Walter being a big part of the Muppet pantheon in the future. He's at best Scooter-level, but even then not likely to be as popular. I'm also disappointed for the film not breaking out a "Trololo Man" homage for the big finale, which would have been absolutely perfect. There are other smaller elements, like some awkward cameos (also some great cameos, what would a Muppets movie be without cameos? Zach Galifianakis as a hobo anyone?), and Chris Cooper's rap (which may be parodying this video, and if it's not let's just pretend it is), but the entertainment and warmth of the overall film makes up for the few gaffs

Yet, despite this, Segal's greatest accomplishment with the film isn't in bringing the Muppets back to big screen in a big way, but in bringing the Muppets back in the hearts and minds of the audience. Only the most jaded Muppets fan won't feel the swelling warmth as the Muppets come together, as the telethon builds, and the film's sweeping climax (Yes, that means you Frank Oz). Yes, certain key Muppets players weren't involved in this film but at the same time, this is the first step in "Disney's The Muppets" (even though I still long for it to be called Jim Henson's The Muppets for infinity), the Muppets for a new generation as well as the old generation. (The whole cynicism around the "big company" acquiring the rights to the Muppets and turning them into something else is even addressed head on in the film... Meet the Moopets, everyone).

The film puts the best case together for a Muppets Show revival, a Saturday Night Live for the entire family, one that entertains on all levels. There's likely a long list of celebrities that would clamor to appear on it. That is, of course, if the Muppets is successful (but that won't likely be decided until it hits the aftermarket. It did respectable numbers this weekend but was still overshadowed by Twilight, though if it has strong legs throughout the holiday season it may be a solid hit).

Disney, to its credit, promoted the film smartly, with a healthy build-up using parody trailers emulating hit films rather than relying upon peoples' fondness for Kermit and co. They also kept rather quiet that there was a ridiculously entertaining Toy Story short before the film, another property which has proven increasingly enduring and endearing (but I'll have more on that soon).

3 short paragraphs: Backwash

2010, Danny Leiner - Netflix

It's quite remarkable the amount of original product there is available on the web, and not just shit youtube videos of teenagers practicing their backyard wrestling moves, or 50-year-old casino owners trying their hand at rap videos, but honest to god talented individuals putting a lot of time and effort into creative endeavours for very little money. From Crackle comes Backwash, the brainchild of actor/Aaron Sorkin regular Josh Malina, and directed by Harold and Kumar's Danny Leiner.

It's a 13-part series (currently available on youtube in piecemeal (for Americans only) or on Netflix (for Canadians) as a 90-minute feature that attempts to revive post-Vaudevillian the Marx Brother's style of verbal witticism (and its cadence) alongside the Three Stooges-style of physical comedy. Malina is the Groucho stand-in, Michael Panes taking on the dull-witted, clumsy Curly-type, and Michael Ian Black rounding out the trio with a knowingly over-the-top flamboyance. The three are on the lamb after they perpetrate an accidental bank robbery, so it's a total road trip scenario. Loaded with absurdity and fast, wry patter it's generally amusing, but it's perpetrating a style of comedy I've never taken to.

Each of the thirteen acts is bookended by a minor celebrity intro/outro, Masterpiece Theatre style. John Hamm, Sara Silverman, John Cho, Michael Vartan, amongst others, actually provide the highlight for the series, generally acting as if they're cashing in a favour and subverting the series itself. Though generally entertaining, like a most web series (or most TV shows in general) it's forgettable.

3 short paragraphs: Skyline

2010, The Strause Brothers

The thoroughly enjoyable podcast "How Did This Get Made" first talked trash about this film a few month's back, and then had the chance to interview the film's producer (at the end of their "Wicker Man" episode). Without repeating everything they say there, let's first start with this is a terrible film.

An alien invasion happens shortly after an L.A. penthouse house party in a totally underpopulated apartment building. The stragglers from the party and their hosts are awoken with not just a massive hangover, but the threat of mass alien abduction. They witness huge clouds manifest underneath massive hovering ships, then thousands upon thousands of people hoovered upwards into the sky.

The film's protagonists (used loosely) spend a lot of time arguing amongst each other about whether to leave the building or just hide, eventually settling upon a plan to leave, being unable to do so, and returning to the same apartment. This happens at least twice, losing members along the way each time. It's very silly. There's poor characterization, almost nonexistent story, and the invariable sequel set-up. It does, however, look terrific. It's essentially a special effects showpiece and it's impressive (and actually watchable) in this regard, there's just a lot of laughable script getting in the way. In some respects it's a companion piece to the equally (and IMO unfortunately) maligned Battle: L.A..

8-Mile

2002, Curtis Hanson - DVD

While having dinner with the neighbours a few months back, we got on the topic of films and somehow onto the subject of 8-Mile. I had explained that, despite whatever accolades it may have received, I could not get past the Eminem barrier, since I've always found him to be unlikeable, unsympathetic, and, frankly, I don't like his flow. He was -- alongside Biggie, Tupac, Snoop and Dre -- a herald of the hip hopocalypse which saw "gangsta" and "hardcore" rap push consciousness hip-hop out of the limelight, and the mainstream rap world has largely since devolved into lowest common denominator music glorifying money, drugs, crime and sex over anything resembling actual moral integrity or values. Long story short, my neighbour told me to give "8-Mile" a shot, saying she was honestly surprised by it, and appreciated both the examination of a decaying Detroit and the rap-battle underground. Thrusting a copy of the film in my hands, I promised I would watch it, and here we are.

8-Mile was the third in a trilogy of unsuspecting, yet higher profile "thinking" films from director Curtis Hanson. In the 5 years prior to deciding to work with Eminem on a quasi-biographical film, he had adapted James Ellroy's L.A. Confidential to screen followed by an adaptation of Michael Chabon's Wonder Boys, both of which were well received critically... plus I liked them both quite a bit as well, so I knew if 8-Mile would have a saving grace it was that it was in the Hanson's hands.

In watching the film, I tried to be as objective as possible, letting any of my past preconceptions of Eminem: rapper/obnoxious personality slide away and instead take in "Marshall Mathers: actor", and to his credit he wasn't all bad, a little stiff at times but he surprisingly held the film. However I don't think he brought enough of an emotional core to the film, thus matching the film's rusted and gray, washed out visual aesthetic.

The rhythms of the story, based on the old "Great White Hope" formula, so it's rather contrived but a well-weathered trope to still be engaging in the hands of a good filmmaker. To Hanson's credit he does what he can with what he has, which is a middling script, a non-actor as a lead and a Detroit backdrop. The latter is the most potent element of the film, the unheralded supporting player, a depressed shithole populated by ex-cons and gangs of 20-somethings looking for any way out. In another movie, the "way out" would be boxing, or basketball, or football, or a math scholarship, or whatever maguffin the characters all chase. Here it's a recording contract, a chance to be heard. Here it's winning a rap battle and proving that you are worthy of freedom.

Eminem's Rabbit (that's his character's name) seems almost singularly focussed on himself despite having a drunk mother, a neglected little sister, and a pack of well-meaning but ill prepared for the future friends. He receives a love interest by way of Brittany Murphy (RIP), who apparently is on her way to model in New York, which I assume means either stripping or American Apparel ads by her usual disheveled crack whore appearance. They have a torrid romance which consists of sex behind some factory machinery and an unexpected drop in at his mom's trailer.

His mother, meanwhile, is a mean, mean drunk, sleeping with a kid Rabbit knew from high school in hopes that when his accident settlement money comes in he'll taker her with him to an easier life. Her story ends with her hitting it big at Bingo, showing that a little luck is all it takes for life to turn around and is the hoariest cliche of them all.

The rap battles are quite entertaining, though at no point do I actually believe Eminem is the best of the best. They hype it up so much in the film that there's really no way he can be, right? Well, yeah, but the film still tries to make you believe that the kid is by far the brightest star in the city and it's almost insulting in doing so.

The only positive element is the ending (and no, not because it ends) but because it ends on the message (although it's in stark contracts to his mother's reversal of fortune) that life doesn't just hand you a victory, but you have to earn it. And to succeed, you have to work hard for it. So, that's something at least.

Ultimately, it was as I expected, well made, passably engaging, but not great.

3 Short Paragraphs: Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone

2001, Chris Columbus -- rewatch; download

Yes, Philopher's Stone, not Sorceror's Stone.  The name change for the US book, carried through with the movie, never made much sense to me. I guess it comes down as simple as, "Why would a philosopher do magic?"  At least when we found downloads, we got the non-american version.  We are watching the movies again because we missed the last three in the theatres so decided to catch up in full.  And I am also preparing to read the books for the first time, now that things are fully completely over.

In some ways this is my favourite movie of the bunch, basically because it is the one that introduces the muggle in me to the universe but also because it's one of the few in the story that is so wrapped up in its English setting.  The whole gist of the first story is not only to introduce us to the Harry Potter vs Voldemort mythology but also to the world of magic.  We get the idea of how the magic coincides in our world but is hidden from us and are tossed a few of the trappings in their world like wands and brooms and magic spells.  Add to that the very british idea of living at your school, bureaucratic ministries and the Edwardian & Victorian aspects to everything wizardly and I just loved rewatching this movie as much as I did the first time.

Hagrid was once again my favourite character, the gigantic groundskeeper and specialist in all things monstrous. Like the big bear of a uncle that we all wanted growing up, he dotes on Harry and speaks plainly to him like no other adult ever did before.   I am also rather fond of Dumbledore, the not quite doddering Gandalf-Merlin analog who always seems to carry an innocent air of knowing completely what is going on around him.  The last and possibly best character is Hogwarts itself but really, she isn't seen in her full glory until the third instalment.

3 Short Paragraphs: Sea of Love

1989, Harold Becker (Mercury Rising, Malice, City Hall) -- Netflix

I am not sure why we watched this again but I think it had something to do with the mistaken memory that it took place partially in New Orleans. We were still on our Treme kick so an old movie with John Goodman and Ellen Barkin would be appropriate.  But the New Orleans movie with them is actually The Big Easy.  But Goodman was a cop in both so I can see where the memories merged.  Strangely enough I also remember Barkin being extremely sexy in this movie with her natural snarl.  But now, I don't really know what my young self was thinking.  I didn't like big hair then and I still don't like it.

This is one of those sexy thrillers that cropped up all over the late 80s and early 90s where the roguish cop gets mixed up with the sexy suspect and/or potential victim.  Al Pacino plays the drunken divorced unconventional (any other standard tropes I should add?) cop who gets assigned to a case regarding the classified ads.  I am surprised Craig's List hasn't already had a movie made about it leading to a serial murder.  Maybe already done on a TV crime show?  The movie alternates between him picking up clues in the old fashioned cop way, by gut feeling and a little leg work but ignoring all the CSI shit.  Oh it's there but it's barely supporting the cops.  I am glad for a little change from the tropes of today that are all about The Magic of Science or The Magic of the Insightful Cop.  He doesn't look at a scene and pull out all the needed variables like a nouveau Sherlock, he just reads the scene and tries different solutions till he hits the right one.  From what I hear, that is Real Police, as The Wire would say.

It's fun looking back at John Goodman and realizing how much you like him throughout the years.  Even when he only has a small sidekick role he carries a lot of (don't say it) weight to it.  It's also a lot of fun to watch a movie from two decades ago and notice all the things they have to do differently which the kids of today would marvel at the inconvenience.  But when it comes right down to it, the most noticeable and prevalent are (the lack of) cell phones and the internet.  But then again, people are still seen doing research via microfiche. In the end, while being distracted by all the nostalgia and uncomfortable not-so-sexy sexiness, we still guessed who the killer was in less than 20 minutes but I don't think it was the same bad guy from The Big Easy.

3 Short Paragraphs: Fall 2011 (pt 10)

Why do I get the suspicion that Grimm was devised earlier on as the Dylan Dog series hoping the movie would be a big genre hit. Alas, that movie didn't so so well. Grimm is a monster of the week show about a mystical family who is tasked with policing the evil creatures of the world. As is the usual for such fictions, he is already an adult and doesn't know about his legacy but suddenly through unfortunate circumstances the role is thrust upon him.  The connection with the faerie tale tellers of old is tenuous so it will have to establish something else if it is to last.  I doubt it will.

Once Upon a Time is the other faerie tale story of the season, this time being much more blatant.  The Evil Queen casts a curse that tosses all of the faerie tale kingdom into our world but without their memories of who they were. They live in this picture book perfect town in America but still playing the roles they had in the stories. The Evil Queen is the Evil Mayor, Snow White is a lovely school teacher, Rumplestiltskin is a pawnbroker, etc.  One might make comparisons to Fables, the comic book series from Bill Willingham and one wouldn't be far off the mark. But other than curiosity, I am not sure what would keep me watching it for it is very standard TV story telling.

Hell On Wheels comes out of the blue on AMC as an old west story following the creation of the cross country railway. It is going to be a story of the hardships, corruption and rough life of making the railway reach the west coast.  It focuses the plot on Bohannon, a southern soldier on a path of revenge against the northern soldiers who took away his family.  The first episode is grim as expected, introducing the main characters and the world they are in. It was capable and well designed but I guess I was hoping something would jump out at me.  I will watch for a few more to see if it grabs my attention.

3 Short Paragraphs: Fall 2011 (pt 9)

OK, this really seems to be the season of redefining what Men are supposed to be. We had the abysmal How To Be a Gentleman which I am pretty sure got pulled before episode 4 aired but now we have two other sitcoms, each with their own approach on it. In the standard running is Last Man Standing, the latest vehicle from the 90s Man's Man, Tim Allen.  This time round he is the director of catalog marketing for an outdoors-men store, sort of the MEC of hunting & fishing.  His job of traveling around with a camera crew taking delicious shots for the catalog comes to a halt when they decide to focus on the website. So he is now stuck at home with his 3 daughters while his wife returns to a big promotion. This is actually a kind hearted show where the big bravado of Tim's character is meant to be stymied and tempered by the women in his life. And despite his Male Buffoonery, he is still a nice guy at heart. I liked it but still railed at the 1% nature of his lifestyle.

Meanwhile, with Man Up!, we have the other format of sitcom where we have three manchilds who feel they need to be more Real Man. They replace machismo with first person shooters and spend most of their time being ruled by women. This show insults everyone, from the men who think they are standing up to their wives & girlfriends to the women who are walking all over their men to the kids who show less machismo than they do. It is one of those shows where we really are not supposed to like the main characters but I didn't find them funny enough to laugh at.

Enlightened is completely another spectrum of people who annoy the fuck out of me.  It's about Laura Dern who goes batshit insane after sleeping with her boss and then being turned down for a promotion. There could have been more to it but that is all we are shown. Suddenly its months later and she is experiencing New Age-y bliss at a retreat in Hawaii swimming with sea turtles and collecting shells.  She returns to LA to take back her job and renew relationships. This shows shares my annoyance with people like her who think that just because THEY figured out their issues, everyone else should just fall in line and hug it out. She exchanges one batshit for another as everyone proves to not give an iota that she went to Hawaii and swam with a turtle. I am sure the show is about how she becomes tempered in her emotions but she annoyed me so much in the first episode, I will never give her another chance.

Bonus premiere!! And while not purely in the Fall 2011 release schedule, as it started in the summer, I watched it now so why not mention?  This is wacky.  Pure wacky. A man who really wants to committ suicide because his life is drab meets his next door neighbor and her dog.  Well, dog to everyone else because Ryan sees him as a man in a dog suit.  The american remake of an Australian comedy series starring the same dog as the original completely side steps the questions you might have. Like why doesn't Ryan mention this to anyone or does the owner notice that one of Wilfred's toys is a bong?  Let's skip the questions and just play into the wackiness as Wilfred helps Ryan through his issues while doing typical dog things and typical guys in a dog suit things as well.

3 Short Paragraphs: Ironclad

2011, Jonathan English -- download

OK, the setup for this movie is a spotlight on a small but famous point of English history.  In the early 1200s King John (yeah that King John) was forced to sign the Magna Carta, to give some rights to the people he taxed the hell out of to fund the crusades led by his brother Richard.  Please, someone with more of a grasp on English history, add some reality in the comments.  The little window we get is just after the signing, John raises a Danish army and begins an invasion of his own country. The way is blocked by small Rochester Castle, key to the road to London.  And our main characters hole up in there to start a siege movie.

James Purefoy is Marshal, a Templar knight who is a little run-down from his time in the Crusades.  He is returning to the Church for one final act before he becomes a free man. Unfortunately he gets caught up in Albany's (Brian Cox) attempt to stop John and his mercenaries from taking Rochester.  Albany adds Marshal to his old gang, which in a quick montage he gathers together again ala a heist movie, knowing that Marshal's brutal skill will be required here. And thus begins a movie that if seen on PBS as part of a saturday night movie fare would have lit my young self up. Unfortunately, while I still gravitate to these swords and shields fare, I now recognize the unbalanced natures of most.  I read that English suffered immense budget problems on this movie leaving him his two main actors (Purefoy and Giamatti) and very condensed battle scenes so I have to commend him for that skill but it did not capture me.

Ironclad is a bloody movie, as mentioned in the tagline "blood. will. run." on some movie posters. With the mass CGI battle scenes unavailable, English went for the blood & guts splat and chop.  Men are dismembered and literally cut in half by two-handed swords. This was the heart of the movie as our grizzled knight shows us exactly what has him brooding. But all the real dramatic license goes to Paul Giamatti and his angry role as John who is completely pissed that England would take away his God-given right to rule exactly as he sees fit.  He doesn't play John completely as a petulant child nor as a brilliant misguided leader but the fact it is not one note tells us how Giamatti is carrying it so well.

3 Short Paragraphs: The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec

2010, Luc Besson (La Femme Nikita, Leon, The 5th Element) -- download

This movie is based on a 70s french comic book series from Jacque Tardi, a contemporary of Mobius.  In a time when Barbarella was the height of female comic stars, Tardi wanted to do something for female empowerment without the heightened sexuality. The stories are about a female fiction writer and investigative journalist who gets mixed up in mystical mayhem with a wink-wink-nod-nod to historical events.  From pterodactyls to egyptian mummies to demonic cults, she does have a knack for finding the weird.

Luc Besson, who these days is normally playing producer for things like The Transporter and Banlieue 13, directs this cheerful flick that most will dub as being Amelie meets Indiana Jones but that is a little disingenuous as I am sure there was more tomb robbing going before Indie.  As for the Jean-Pierre Jeunet comparison, that is a little more apt as the crazy characters and whimsy the movie carries makes us smile like Jeunet does. Besson just has fun with this movie, drawing a thousand connections between characters, delivering CGI and exaggerated makeup in droves but without depending on it to attract the viewers.

The heroine Adele is trying to revive her sister from a coma that came about during a feverish game of tennis and an unfortunate encounter with a hatpin. Of course, where else would you look but in the skills of the mummy of a doctor that served Ramses II ?  Add to that a friend who can revive the dead with psychic capabilities and an unhatched egg of a pterodactyl and she causes quite the stir in early 20th century Paris.  Louise Bourgoin as Adele is absolutely enchanting and I admit that fully as I would have probably been as smitten as Zborowski was upon meeting this confident, adventurous woman that it seems only Paris can create.  Le sigh.

3 Short Paragraphs: Contagion

2011, Steven Soderbergh -- cinema

Ever since I read The Stand by Stephen King I have been fascinated with the idea of plagues. Fascinated might be too strong a reaction, probably more like thrilled by the fear it instills in me. Like zombies, the idea of something that we truly have little control over doing such harm scares me. Add to that the idea of human nature making things worse and it unnerves me even more. But the failing in most disease ridden fiction is that they never go far enough. Few are like King's novel in that the sickness is just a prop for the end of the world. Most are about the fear humans will encounter and the brave souls who will do what needs to be done to end the plague, but without losing their humanity. Most isolate the outbreak and have the cure found after only a few dozen or maybe even a few hundred succumb.

Contagion was almost an emotionless depiction of a disease that ravages the world, starting with the literal first case and ending with the vaccine.  It's clinical in its depiction, reserved in its drama. but it is also relentless sparing few, even award winning actors.  At its start the fear is heightened by the speed of the disease, the quick road from cough to death. This is no story about the rush to a cure but more the rush to containment and, when that fails, the slow plod to stability.

The movie draws more upon what we have been experiencing for the last few years, than from fiction like I mentioned.  SARS, bird flu, etc. are all things we have seen happen around us whether on the news or across the street, as I did when SARS was in the pubic view.  The combination of heightened nervousness and placid apathy is there as cities depopulate, governments impose draconian measures and sensationalists cash in. Is it completely realistic?  I am not sure as no matter what we have really experienced, we have never seen hundreds of people dying around us. The movie ends with an explanation settling in a fear that no matter how much we sanitize, something could just ... happen.

3 Short Paragraphs: Cinderella Man

2005, Ron Howard -- Netflix

Click click click click the Netflix, saturday morning and I am in the mood to watch a movie and have nothing downloaded.  Hey, this one was filmed here in Toronto and I like Russel Crowe so why not.  I also enjoy period pieces for their costuming and the creative ways they hide the 21st century amidst the dated set dressing. I also walked past the set a couple of times so I thought it worth seeing.

Ron Howard is one of those capable directors with a stable full of accomplished, popular movies. But one wonders whether the fact that because they have the full brunt of Hollywood behind them is the reason they are accomplished.  Sometimes the machine can make decent results despite the lack of skill on the creator's part. I am not saying that this is Ron Howard, as he is the man who did Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind but sometimes I wonder.  And considering how many people hate Spielberg as much as like him, it's a valid wondering.

And this movie leaves me wondering again.  It was decent, it was capable, a good story with good acting about a boxer in the Depression era who loses it all but gains it all back.  But nothing was outstanding, nothing made me feel the era or the people or even cheer for the Braddock like the generation did.  That is the thing that has always bugged me about the Depression, it is depicted as if everyone lost their job and their money, when there were plenty of people who had the money to bet on boxing matches and drive around in fancy cars. Disparity of wealth is always there no matter how romantically tragic the circumstances. And this movie was definitely about the romance of the situation, about a man too proud to ask for help when everything was gone but who becomes an icon of the working class who he was part of. Compelling yes, but not a KO.  Ba-dump bump.

We Agree: The Divide

(read David's take)

2011, Xavier Gens -- cinema

I cannot honestly recall the last time I entered a movie with no preconceptions about it at all. I have usually seen a trailer, a review, a poster, a commercial or heard someone talking about a film before I've managed to see it. More often than not, I anticipate seeing a film (or, in some cases, dread it). So it's kind of refreshing to come into a movie I know nothing about, have no familiarity with and get to watch a film unfold with no expectations.

The Divide could have been that movie, if not for the fact that I watched it at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival where the film was preceded by a quick interview session with cast members and the director of the film. It was only about four or five minutes of somewhat labored questions and answers (before a veritable packed house at the Toronto Underground no less) but it was enough to thrust me into viewing the immediate film with what was spoiled for me before hand (and also putting upon it expectations after revealing it set off a bidding war at SXSW from distributors).... but close enough you know.

The Divide, as David described in his review, opens with a bang -- chaos -- and the gathering of our cast in a bunker beneath an apartment building. David described it beautifully about watching a group of people who don't like each other much to start with continue even more darkly down that path. It's an ugly, brutal, and punishing movie, but it's also far better than it had any right to be.

Director Xavier Gens lenses his film beautifully, making excellent use of his confined quarters and equally excellent use of his cast. It's not a powerhouse group, and there's no clear star (though Lauren German as Eva is clearly the focal point, but she's a relatively pacifist character, reacting more than acting), instead rounded out with a motley crew consisting of 80's SF stalwart Michael Behn, Heroes star Milo Ventimiglia, Law & Order: Criminal Intent's Courtney B. Vance, and Rosanna Arquette as the familiar faces, while Michael Eklund provides the CanCon (the film was shot in Winnipeg) and Iván González some european flavour.

After the filming, the director and cast noted that even though the film was scripted, they largely improvised around that framework. Gens gave the actors the freedom to develop their characters withing the context of the story, and it leads to some surprising, and for the most part, damn strong work (Behn is at times the weak link, getting laughs with a hammy performance where I don't think they were actually intended). Gens did create an actor's film and Eklund is the easy standout, though González puts in a brilliant turn as the percolating-yet-powerless lesser half to Eva). Ventimiglia does get downright despicable and commits to the character, showing his teeth early on, then provided a moment of redemption (in an excellent sequence where he leaves the confines of the bunker into a maze of plastic tunnels erected, I guess, by the government for... some purpose), but ultimately succumbs to his darker instincts.

There's a lot to admire about this film. Chief among them are the little details Gens pays attention to, such as the effects of radiation poisoning on the characters over the few weeks they're trapped, and the general degradation of the living conditions. As well, Gens' sense of light and shadow, the color pallet used throughout, the practical special effects all lend a certain natural beauty to the grim setting. It's an incredibly good looking film.

Alas, it's also an utterly predictable film. The rhythms of the character development have all been seen before in apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic films time and time again. From 28 Days Later, to the novel Blindness (never saw the movie), to the Walking Dead comics (I don't watch the show), they all exemplify the decline of civility, of kindness and compassion for the primal urge to not just survive but conquer. When the women get raped and people are killed over a can of peaches, it's bleak, sure, but it's also what's expected, as if it's the only option. Yes, the film is hard to watch because of where its characters go, but it's also hard to watch because we've seen characters go there so many times before, and it's not all that surprising.

The decision to make Eve the audience surrogate, the observer, the watcher, was an interesting one, as it thrusts upon the viewer the role of sympathizer for her. But Eve, though never physically confrontational and often conciliatory, is also a terrible manipulator, which I guess is reflected both in her relationship with the other characters and with the audience. She's certainly not innocent (I think, really, González's Sam is about as close to remaining innocent as they come by the film's end).

So, as David put it, Gans did take a novel approach to the apocalyptic story, but there's nothing new as a result. It's not a bad film (perhaps overlong and tedious at times, but generally quite watchable) but given the genre potential it just doesn't contribute enough to outright recommend it.



*note, "The Fallout" was the film's original title.

31 Days of Horror: Dead End

2003, Jean-Baptiste Andrea, Fabrice Canepa -- Netflix

The final movie of the month turned out to be a last minute decision.  First choice was Inside (À l'intérieur) a movie about a pregnant woman and an unfortunate car accident.  It started with the sub-titles not working so we downloaded a couple of different alternates.  They were all off-sync so we moved onto the next choice, Biophage, a zombie movie with some repute on the horror websites. No matter what we tried, it no longer wanted to work on our media share and it would take an hour or so to reconvert.  Again, abandoned.  So, onto Netflix to see what we could find.

Normally in long car drive movies, our family meets an untimely death at the hands of monsters or not so pleasant rural folk.  You might think this movie is one of those but if you stick with it, you will be ... surprised.  Pleasantly or not is up to you.  I rather liked the bend in the road that led to the Dead End.

The Harringtons are one of those families on their way to grandma's for Christmas, bickering and snarking at each other because dad has decided to take the off-the-beaten-path road.  It's a grand old road, scene from above (pun intended), with not a single town or side road or even other driver.  At least until they almost run another driver off the road.  The funny thing is that other than being completely shaken awake, they don't worry about the fact they don't see any signs of the other driver.  Funny thing about that...

Fall into straight-to-video horror tropes: son's a stoner, dad's an overbearing dick, daughter is an uptight professional and her BF is annoyingly perfect.  Oh yeah, mom is a martyr. And one by one they are dealt with but not by ghosts or monsters or even the creepy rural folk but really by... the road.  The road that goes ever on, no side roads, no towns, no gas stations, no nuttin' just miles and miles of trees and dark foggy exterior. Oh and the occasional spooky lady in white who eats the face off the son, a baby carriage that blocks the car's path and an old hearse that carries off each of the family members as they are dealt with, not by any choice of theirs. But it really is the road itself that is the star of the movie, reminding of those long nightly trips we did in NS driving friends back home from town to town along old country roads devoid of anything but our collective imaginations.

It was a fun movie but not really what I was looking for on actually Halloween night. But at least it was unarguably an actual horror movie.