On Monday, my friend Chris posted our weekly podcast on his blog, and the theme of this week's podcast was horror movies on account of it being Halloween. So, if you are wanting some horror overload, click this link to head over to his site to check it out.
We take a look at some non-traditional horror movies to see if there is any gold to be found outside of the mainstream. The truth is, mainstream horror is pretty dismal these days, so our hope was to find out if there was still some good life in the genre. We looked at a few independent movies, and a few international films. Each of the movies are available on Netflix, so it may be a podcast worth checking out if you are a fan of the genre.
The movies we look at are the independent film Resolution, the horror-comedy Teeth, the Australian psychological horror The Snowtown Murders (a film I reviewed on this site), the Australian teen slasher/stylized horror flick The Loved Ones (a film that has made many lists for best horrors), and the very first Israeli horror film Rabies (which I also reviewed on this site).
If any of those may float your boat, give it a listen and maybe you will find a new favourite horror film.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Scott's Five Favourite Horror Films
It's Halloween today, and I was going to celebrate the sugar-fueled day by doing a horror movie review. It was particularly hard to come up with the right one to do, so I am going to do my five favourite horrors of all time. The thing with 'favourites' are they are not necessarily what you would call the best, but they are what captured your imagination the most. In this case, this list includes three that I would easily put on a list of 'bests' as well. The other thing with lists as such is that they are always shifting and changing as we go through different phases of life. Who knows, next year I may have five different films on this list. Now, it's time for me to dim the lights and point a flashlight up into my face as we get into this spooky list.
5 - 28 Days Later (2002)
This film is about a viral outbreak of a man-made virus that is designed to simulate pure rage. It was designed to put into primates so scientists could find a cure for it and perhaps create a pill that keeps humans from entering fits of rage. A bunch of no-good do-gooders enter the lab to free the chimps, and then starts the outbreak, as the virus is transmitted through fluids such as getting bit by an infected being. Twenty eight days after this event, we see Jim (Cilllian Murphy) wake up from a coma in a deserted hospital, and wandering the empty streets of London which is left in a state that implies a massive disaster has happened. He finally comes across a number of people asleep in a church, only to realize that they have become insane, bloodthirsty maniacs.
Very few films are actually able to instill a sense of uneasiness and fear in me, and 28 Days Later was able to put me, quite literally, on the edge of my seat. It was shot in a very smart style, and director Danny Boyle knew well how to let the environment create tension. The sequence of Cillian Murphy wandering around the ominously empty city of London is an all time classic, and allows the audience to get a feel of the emotions that Jim is going through as the world he knew now ceases to exist. The second half of the movie is quite a transition in tone, as it turns to focus more on the 'safety' that survivors of this event can have living with other survivors, and that perhaps the sane people are in the end more dangerous and deadly than the infected.
The Mark It Left On Cinema - this movie is essentially the reason why zombies have become such a fad lately. It took the genre and modernized it, allowing the concept to be more intriguing in today's world. It now had zombi-ism as a viral disease as opposed to the dead being re-animated and returning to life. It also made it so that zombies no longer just waddled around, but instead sprinted unrelenting towards their target. It is the reason we have The Walking Dead on AMC, and why there was such a big budget zombie movie in World War Z come out during this past summer. It brought life to a dead genre (pun totally intended) and caught the fears and imaginations of film makers and audiences, forever altering the genre.
Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars
4 - The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Set around the disappearance of three film students, the movie is done in the found footage style, while such movies are a dime a dozen now, this really took the format into the mainstream. It is about students who are filming a documentary on the local mythologies of a haunted woods near Burkittsville, Maryland and end up getting lost in the woods. The movie focuses on their frictions with each other over the situation, but also their personal journeys into weakened states of sanity. Each night they become the victims of a psychologically tormenting actions, and are unable to determine who their tormentors are or what their motives could be.
The beauty of this film is that it shows very little, and I am always a big fan of movies that give the audience enough credit to be able let their imaginations fill in the gaps. We get little bits and pieces here and there, with no real answer as to what is happening. The scenes are brief, but completely effective, as this movie left a lasting impression on me and came back to haunt me whenever I was sleeping in a tent. The end of the film (which may not stand up to today's standards of needing jump scares) was a dreadful, frantic, and riveting experience in the theatre. If one paid close attention to the different local mythologies being explained at the beginning of the film, the very last image is one that will stay with you for a long time.
The Mark It Left On Cinema - The Blair Witch Project left two huge imprints on the cinematic landscape. First of all, it popularized the found footage style. The full effects of it were not felt right away, but a few years afterward with movies such as Paranormal Activity, Quarantine, and Cloverfield. It also set a blueprint for a low-budget/high grossing model that is being successfully used by many people, most notably Blumhouse Productions (Insidious, Paranormal Activity), who extensively use this format to achieve an almost unrivaled profit to expense ratio. Sadly, it would have been great if the impact that it left was the 'less is more' philosophy when it comes to scary visuals.
Rating - 4 out of 4 stars
3 - Alien (1979)
In space no one can hear you scream. That is quite true for the crew of the Nostromo, a deep space freighter that comes across a transmission of unknown origin and wakes the crew from their slumber to investigate, as part of a clause in their contract. The crew of frieght haulers is forced to investigate the source of the transmission or else they basically forfeit their shares. What they find on the surface of the planet with the signal is a crashed space ship, and inside a cavern of organic sacks, one of which opens and lets out an organism that attaches itself to the face of one of the exploring, blue collar crew. When he is brought back to the ship, a gruesome discovery is made - the organism had implanted an embreo inside him, and eventually, birthed out of his stomach in an iconic scene, is the alien. The crew knows that they must capture this creature, but that endeavour starts to prove fruitless as the alien starts to hunt the members of the Nostromo.
When Ridley Scott made this film, patience was the driving force of the film. It is an incredibly slow build, with no aspect of the movie being rushed. We see extensive footage of the ship's interior, which allows us to start to create it as a real space in our minds, connecting us with the claustrophobic terror that is unravelling. The creature itself is something that we do not get good glimpses of until the end, but it's presence is teased with and tracked with motion trackers that give sporadic beeps at the creature's presence, and that allows the scenes to be completely enveloped with the tension, as neither the characters or audience actually knows where the creature is.
The Mark It Left On Cinema - This is one where I could write for days and days about. It was such an immersive environment that was created that so many people caught the bug, and influences can be seen in all sorts of movies. The creature itself became very iconic and has influenced many other alien creations. The sequel, Aliens, continued the influence with the addition of the futuristic military which set almost a template for the look of the marine of the future. Video games such as Halo and Star Craft took a lot of their concepts from the Alien franchise. Sigourney Weaver's character, Ellen Ripley, has also become a bit of an archetype for a strong female who rises to the occasion.
The left is Sargent Johnson from Halo and on the right is Sargent Apone from Aliens
Rating - 4 out of 4 stars
2 - Jaws (1975)
It is summer on Amity Island, and that means tourists, and that means tourist dollars. Unfortunately for the mayor of the small town, there is also a deadly great white shark patrolling the waters, looking for its next meal. Newly appointed police chief, Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) starts to piece together the death of a swimmer as a shark attack, but that would scare away tourists and their dollars (Amity has a very business oriented mayor). The attacks continue, and Brody calls in a marine biologist from the mainland, Hooper (Richard Dreyfus) who tries to help Brody in the efforts to gain control of the situation. Ultimately, the community resorts to hiring Quint (Robert Shaw), a surly bastard of the sea, if ever there was one. He promises that he can bring the fish in, but reluctantly has to accept both Brody and Hooper as crew mates as they head out to find the killer shark.
We seem to gravitate towards having a fear of the unknown, and the brilliance of this movie is the unknown that circles beneath us as we are vulnerably swimming in the ocean. Teeth appearing from the depths was the emotional hook that Spielberg used as a means for our unease and tension, and kept the tone unbalanced as nobody was safe from the appetite of the shark (it happily swallowed both dogs and children). This was not the core of the movie, though. We also had a great adventure and journey that Brody, Hooper, and Quint went on that brought about the sense of the unknown and the danger and isolation at sea. This movie is the ultimate proof that you can make a horror movie with a story so good that it transcends the genre to the point that many people forget that it actually is a horror film.
The Mark That It Left On The World - This film did more than just transform film. It birthed the modern format for the summer blockbuster. That's a heck of an imprint. It seemed to start an entire new genre, 'terror in the water' which is mainly full of numerous b-movies, but the titles that spawned off of Jaws are countless. This film also affected people personally as they entered the water. Some movies you can leave at the theatre, but the terror of those teeth appearing below you is one that swimmers could not shake. The biggest impact that the movie had was the view that society took of sharks. I have seen documentaries on the shark hunting that happened post-Jaws, with a severe drop in shark populations happening along the eastern seaboard of the United States. While some films affect the film industry, this film, quite sadly, ended up affecting an entire ecosystem.
Rating - 4 out of 4 stars
1 - Psycho (1960)
The movie follows Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), who works at a realtor's office, steals $40,000 and runs away. Money is tight and it could provide hope for a future and marriage with her boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin). While on the run, Marion pulls off the road at night to find shelter from the rain at the Bates Motel where she meets the owner, the socially nervous and quiet Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Perkins invites her to the parlor for some food, and they have a conversation that is seemingly surface levels, but there are some definite undertones in Bates that may say there is more to the man than we can see. Crane, after having fought her conscience and convictions, decides that she must return home with the money. Before she has the opportunity to, she is brutally stabbed to death in the shower, leaving a mystery to be solved when people realize she is missing.
What to say, what to say. I saw this film when I was a teenager and fell head over heels in love with it. It is a true, all-time great, and it achieves that by doing what almost every horror film after it forgets to do... focusing on the characters to the point that we really know who they are. A typical horror is all about the body count, racking them up with creative deaths. Psycho killed its leading lady after we spent a great deal of time getting to see her motivations, personality, and conflicts. When she dies, when know exactly who Marion Crane is, and that means something to us. It was not rushed, and took its time in getting to that tragic event. Throw into the mix the dynamic and haunting performance of Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, and you have a movie that changed the way horror was done. He was the most normal, unintimidating villain you could ever have, and there was something completely unsettling about that.
The Mark It Left On Cinema - One only needs to follow the progression of the slasher sub-genre of horrors to see what Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho brought about, as it essentially birthed that style of movie. The musical score or high pitched string instruments is something that has been used many times over in horror movies, and is still used to this day. It is a classic tale that is not only held in high regard amongst horror films, but is often viewed as one of the best films ever made. For me, the imprint that it leaves on me is seeing Norman Bates in his parlor, with a stuffed bird of prey in action right above him, a foreshadowing of his character, as he says calmly to Marion, 'we all go a little mad sometimes.'
Rating - 4 out of 4 stars
5 - 28 Days Later (2002)
This film is about a viral outbreak of a man-made virus that is designed to simulate pure rage. It was designed to put into primates so scientists could find a cure for it and perhaps create a pill that keeps humans from entering fits of rage. A bunch of no-good do-gooders enter the lab to free the chimps, and then starts the outbreak, as the virus is transmitted through fluids such as getting bit by an infected being. Twenty eight days after this event, we see Jim (Cilllian Murphy) wake up from a coma in a deserted hospital, and wandering the empty streets of London which is left in a state that implies a massive disaster has happened. He finally comes across a number of people asleep in a church, only to realize that they have become insane, bloodthirsty maniacs.
Very few films are actually able to instill a sense of uneasiness and fear in me, and 28 Days Later was able to put me, quite literally, on the edge of my seat. It was shot in a very smart style, and director Danny Boyle knew well how to let the environment create tension. The sequence of Cillian Murphy wandering around the ominously empty city of London is an all time classic, and allows the audience to get a feel of the emotions that Jim is going through as the world he knew now ceases to exist. The second half of the movie is quite a transition in tone, as it turns to focus more on the 'safety' that survivors of this event can have living with other survivors, and that perhaps the sane people are in the end more dangerous and deadly than the infected.
The Mark It Left On Cinema - this movie is essentially the reason why zombies have become such a fad lately. It took the genre and modernized it, allowing the concept to be more intriguing in today's world. It now had zombi-ism as a viral disease as opposed to the dead being re-animated and returning to life. It also made it so that zombies no longer just waddled around, but instead sprinted unrelenting towards their target. It is the reason we have The Walking Dead on AMC, and why there was such a big budget zombie movie in World War Z come out during this past summer. It brought life to a dead genre (pun totally intended) and caught the fears and imaginations of film makers and audiences, forever altering the genre.
Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars
4 - The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Set around the disappearance of three film students, the movie is done in the found footage style, while such movies are a dime a dozen now, this really took the format into the mainstream. It is about students who are filming a documentary on the local mythologies of a haunted woods near Burkittsville, Maryland and end up getting lost in the woods. The movie focuses on their frictions with each other over the situation, but also their personal journeys into weakened states of sanity. Each night they become the victims of a psychologically tormenting actions, and are unable to determine who their tormentors are or what their motives could be.
The beauty of this film is that it shows very little, and I am always a big fan of movies that give the audience enough credit to be able let their imaginations fill in the gaps. We get little bits and pieces here and there, with no real answer as to what is happening. The scenes are brief, but completely effective, as this movie left a lasting impression on me and came back to haunt me whenever I was sleeping in a tent. The end of the film (which may not stand up to today's standards of needing jump scares) was a dreadful, frantic, and riveting experience in the theatre. If one paid close attention to the different local mythologies being explained at the beginning of the film, the very last image is one that will stay with you for a long time.
The Mark It Left On Cinema - The Blair Witch Project left two huge imprints on the cinematic landscape. First of all, it popularized the found footage style. The full effects of it were not felt right away, but a few years afterward with movies such as Paranormal Activity, Quarantine, and Cloverfield. It also set a blueprint for a low-budget/high grossing model that is being successfully used by many people, most notably Blumhouse Productions (Insidious, Paranormal Activity), who extensively use this format to achieve an almost unrivaled profit to expense ratio. Sadly, it would have been great if the impact that it left was the 'less is more' philosophy when it comes to scary visuals.
Rating - 4 out of 4 stars
3 - Alien (1979)
In space no one can hear you scream. That is quite true for the crew of the Nostromo, a deep space freighter that comes across a transmission of unknown origin and wakes the crew from their slumber to investigate, as part of a clause in their contract. The crew of frieght haulers is forced to investigate the source of the transmission or else they basically forfeit their shares. What they find on the surface of the planet with the signal is a crashed space ship, and inside a cavern of organic sacks, one of which opens and lets out an organism that attaches itself to the face of one of the exploring, blue collar crew. When he is brought back to the ship, a gruesome discovery is made - the organism had implanted an embreo inside him, and eventually, birthed out of his stomach in an iconic scene, is the alien. The crew knows that they must capture this creature, but that endeavour starts to prove fruitless as the alien starts to hunt the members of the Nostromo.
When Ridley Scott made this film, patience was the driving force of the film. It is an incredibly slow build, with no aspect of the movie being rushed. We see extensive footage of the ship's interior, which allows us to start to create it as a real space in our minds, connecting us with the claustrophobic terror that is unravelling. The creature itself is something that we do not get good glimpses of until the end, but it's presence is teased with and tracked with motion trackers that give sporadic beeps at the creature's presence, and that allows the scenes to be completely enveloped with the tension, as neither the characters or audience actually knows where the creature is.
The Mark It Left On Cinema - This is one where I could write for days and days about. It was such an immersive environment that was created that so many people caught the bug, and influences can be seen in all sorts of movies. The creature itself became very iconic and has influenced many other alien creations. The sequel, Aliens, continued the influence with the addition of the futuristic military which set almost a template for the look of the marine of the future. Video games such as Halo and Star Craft took a lot of their concepts from the Alien franchise. Sigourney Weaver's character, Ellen Ripley, has also become a bit of an archetype for a strong female who rises to the occasion.
The left is Sargent Johnson from Halo and on the right is Sargent Apone from Aliens
Rating - 4 out of 4 stars
2 - Jaws (1975)
It is summer on Amity Island, and that means tourists, and that means tourist dollars. Unfortunately for the mayor of the small town, there is also a deadly great white shark patrolling the waters, looking for its next meal. Newly appointed police chief, Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) starts to piece together the death of a swimmer as a shark attack, but that would scare away tourists and their dollars (Amity has a very business oriented mayor). The attacks continue, and Brody calls in a marine biologist from the mainland, Hooper (Richard Dreyfus) who tries to help Brody in the efforts to gain control of the situation. Ultimately, the community resorts to hiring Quint (Robert Shaw), a surly bastard of the sea, if ever there was one. He promises that he can bring the fish in, but reluctantly has to accept both Brody and Hooper as crew mates as they head out to find the killer shark.
We seem to gravitate towards having a fear of the unknown, and the brilliance of this movie is the unknown that circles beneath us as we are vulnerably swimming in the ocean. Teeth appearing from the depths was the emotional hook that Spielberg used as a means for our unease and tension, and kept the tone unbalanced as nobody was safe from the appetite of the shark (it happily swallowed both dogs and children). This was not the core of the movie, though. We also had a great adventure and journey that Brody, Hooper, and Quint went on that brought about the sense of the unknown and the danger and isolation at sea. This movie is the ultimate proof that you can make a horror movie with a story so good that it transcends the genre to the point that many people forget that it actually is a horror film.
The Mark That It Left On The World - This film did more than just transform film. It birthed the modern format for the summer blockbuster. That's a heck of an imprint. It seemed to start an entire new genre, 'terror in the water' which is mainly full of numerous b-movies, but the titles that spawned off of Jaws are countless. This film also affected people personally as they entered the water. Some movies you can leave at the theatre, but the terror of those teeth appearing below you is one that swimmers could not shake. The biggest impact that the movie had was the view that society took of sharks. I have seen documentaries on the shark hunting that happened post-Jaws, with a severe drop in shark populations happening along the eastern seaboard of the United States. While some films affect the film industry, this film, quite sadly, ended up affecting an entire ecosystem.
Rating - 4 out of 4 stars
1 - Psycho (1960)
The movie follows Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), who works at a realtor's office, steals $40,000 and runs away. Money is tight and it could provide hope for a future and marriage with her boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin). While on the run, Marion pulls off the road at night to find shelter from the rain at the Bates Motel where she meets the owner, the socially nervous and quiet Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Perkins invites her to the parlor for some food, and they have a conversation that is seemingly surface levels, but there are some definite undertones in Bates that may say there is more to the man than we can see. Crane, after having fought her conscience and convictions, decides that she must return home with the money. Before she has the opportunity to, she is brutally stabbed to death in the shower, leaving a mystery to be solved when people realize she is missing.
What to say, what to say. I saw this film when I was a teenager and fell head over heels in love with it. It is a true, all-time great, and it achieves that by doing what almost every horror film after it forgets to do... focusing on the characters to the point that we really know who they are. A typical horror is all about the body count, racking them up with creative deaths. Psycho killed its leading lady after we spent a great deal of time getting to see her motivations, personality, and conflicts. When she dies, when know exactly who Marion Crane is, and that means something to us. It was not rushed, and took its time in getting to that tragic event. Throw into the mix the dynamic and haunting performance of Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, and you have a movie that changed the way horror was done. He was the most normal, unintimidating villain you could ever have, and there was something completely unsettling about that.
The Mark It Left On Cinema - One only needs to follow the progression of the slasher sub-genre of horrors to see what Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho brought about, as it essentially birthed that style of movie. The musical score or high pitched string instruments is something that has been used many times over in horror movies, and is still used to this day. It is a classic tale that is not only held in high regard amongst horror films, but is often viewed as one of the best films ever made. For me, the imprint that it leaves on me is seeing Norman Bates in his parlor, with a stuffed bird of prey in action right above him, a foreshadowing of his character, as he says calmly to Marion, 'we all go a little mad sometimes.'
Rating - 4 out of 4 stars
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Hannah's Pick: The King's Speech
I don't know how many other folk have attempted to write and publicly post a movie review, but sometimes it can be darn hard. You can sit and look at the computer screen for an hour and have no idea of where the review will take the reader, and that is because you have no idea where the film took you. You may write a line or two, and after five minutes of squintingly staring at the monitor with furrowed brow, you hit the backspace button until you are met once again with the all encompassing whiteness of a blank document, only to try and start the process over once again.
And then sometimes you see a film that offers so much that you can not imagine where to even start, and figuring out where to stop is even harder. Such a movie was The King's Speech.
There are times when I sit down to watch a movie and within the first five minutes I have a clear idea that I am seeing something special, a work of art that stands very far above its peers. Some years a movie wins the Academy Award for best picture and you debate the decision or can think of a slew of other masterful films that could have been acceptable choices as well. Well, in 2010 Tom Hooper's film The King's Speech was clearly the best of the pack, and is a movie that people will be enjoying for years and years from now.
The film is about the second son of King George V, The Duke of York (Colin Firth) who has a very problematic stammer which makes communication quite troublesome. While for you and I this would only equal occasional embarrassment, we get a feel for the gravity of this problem in the very first scene of the movie as he is making a speech in front of a full house at Wembley Stadium at the close of the British Empire Exhibition, and it is being broadcast around the world. This is the Prince Albert whom we first meet, in utter pain of his affliction, but unable to avoid his obligations as royalty.
We then find Prince Albert getting speech therapy and reaching his limits, determined to never go through the painful process of a therapy that never brings results. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) has visible pain for her husband, and continues a search for a speech therapist who can help the Prince. She is referred to a man from Australia with unconventional methods named Lionel Logue (Geoffry Rush) who says that he will take him on as a client, with no idea that it is a member of the royal family.
This is where the movie gets incredibly interesting, because Logue's methods are ones that he refuses to yield on, and they are ones that a royal would have never had to tolerate. Logue refuses to do the lessons in any location other than his extremely simple workspace, and insists that in the speech room he and his client are absolute equals. Prince Albert then has to slowly start letting his guard down, the wall of posture and perception that has been groomed into his whole life, giving up his royal qualities and entitlements in pursuit of a goal that has eluded all other attempts.
The interesting thing about how this movie is shot is that it primarily takes place indoors, and a lot of it is spent in small, elementary rooms. This is because the movie is not about The Duke of York as a royal, but one about Bertie, the name that only his family calls him. The small spaces and basic locations allow for a separation from the life that he was born into, and a canvas for a path of self discovery, an attempt to gain confidence in who he is as an individual first before the emphasis on his royal qualities. We see a slow disarming of the man as he slowly abandons his formalities and eventually begins speaking like an everyday person, except for the stammer.
As the film progresses, we find out that King George V (Michael Gambon) has passed away and the role is passed to the oldest son, the Prince of Wales (Guy Pearce) who is now head of the monarchy. His life, however, is surrounded with a scandalous relationship and there begins talk of the the Duke of York becoming King. This shifting in plot allows us to see further into Firth's character, who is pained by his life as royalty because of his speech impediment. The thought of becoming King is a nightmare to him as the symbol of the monarchy is no longer just to show up at public events, but with the invention of the radio, to speak to the people, enter their homes and bring them a sense of unity. The most important task of the King was something that the Duke fears the most.
It is almost two hours, and has almost no scenery. It is ninety percent dialogue in small rooms. That may not sound exciting or inviting, but it really is one of the greatest pleasures to watch. Because there are no distractions, we get to peer into the lives of characters who begin to seem real to us. We start to feel that we no longer know the Duke of York, but we know Bertie, a loving husband and father. The script is such that we are happily pulled from conversation to conversation, and getting a true sense of emotional connection not to just the people but to the situation of the royal family as a whole, and the impending war that they are facing with Germany.
A dialogue based movie would be nothing without great performers, and this film is full of them. Colin Firth gives us such a multi-dimensional performance, and allows the feelings of his character to transcend the screen and reach our hearts. Geoffry Rush plays the role of Logue impeccably, and is able to present a believable character who could disarm and draw out the real man hidden inside the Duke. The role that I found the most touching was Helena Bonham Carter's portrayal of Elizabeth, who is an energetic spitfire at times, but shows nothing but absolute support and devotion to her hurting husband. What spouse could want more than that, as we toil about in the agonizing absolutes of life, to have someone smile and instil a genuine confidence that allows us to see it through to the next day?
This is turning into a very lengthy review, and I have not even got to the style of framing the character's faces, putting the blank space behind their heads instead of in front of them. I have still not come to a conclusion as to why Tom Hooper did this, but part of me feels that it is because the characters are small members of the greater story and that style keeps them a little more noticeably off to the side. Small and large are almost themes of this film, so this style would allow the characters in close quarters to be seen as small and that gets contrasted when we get the few glimpses of them in their royal duties.
Do I recommend this film? Most definitely I do. It is a masterpiece, a film that shows you can have a simple plot, simple locations, and still create the most captivating film of the year. I have seen it twice now, and if Rachel was up for watching it again tonight, I would have no hesitation. Perhaps that is because of the unrelenting focus on the characters. We see the individuals in their natural light and feel like perhaps we have made a new friend or two. It is very fitting that for a movie that spends all of its time in doors and away from the royal life and it ends with Bertie finally stepping confidently into his role as King and standing before his cheering subjects in a very powerful and inspiring way, a book end to the disastrous speech he delivers at the beginning. We are witness to the metamorphosis of the character who became great by allowing himself to become an equal with a common man.
Rating - 4 out of 4 Stars
And then sometimes you see a film that offers so much that you can not imagine where to even start, and figuring out where to stop is even harder. Such a movie was The King's Speech.
There are times when I sit down to watch a movie and within the first five minutes I have a clear idea that I am seeing something special, a work of art that stands very far above its peers. Some years a movie wins the Academy Award for best picture and you debate the decision or can think of a slew of other masterful films that could have been acceptable choices as well. Well, in 2010 Tom Hooper's film The King's Speech was clearly the best of the pack, and is a movie that people will be enjoying for years and years from now.
The film is about the second son of King George V, The Duke of York (Colin Firth) who has a very problematic stammer which makes communication quite troublesome. While for you and I this would only equal occasional embarrassment, we get a feel for the gravity of this problem in the very first scene of the movie as he is making a speech in front of a full house at Wembley Stadium at the close of the British Empire Exhibition, and it is being broadcast around the world. This is the Prince Albert whom we first meet, in utter pain of his affliction, but unable to avoid his obligations as royalty.
We then find Prince Albert getting speech therapy and reaching his limits, determined to never go through the painful process of a therapy that never brings results. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) has visible pain for her husband, and continues a search for a speech therapist who can help the Prince. She is referred to a man from Australia with unconventional methods named Lionel Logue (Geoffry Rush) who says that he will take him on as a client, with no idea that it is a member of the royal family.
This is where the movie gets incredibly interesting, because Logue's methods are ones that he refuses to yield on, and they are ones that a royal would have never had to tolerate. Logue refuses to do the lessons in any location other than his extremely simple workspace, and insists that in the speech room he and his client are absolute equals. Prince Albert then has to slowly start letting his guard down, the wall of posture and perception that has been groomed into his whole life, giving up his royal qualities and entitlements in pursuit of a goal that has eluded all other attempts.
The interesting thing about how this movie is shot is that it primarily takes place indoors, and a lot of it is spent in small, elementary rooms. This is because the movie is not about The Duke of York as a royal, but one about Bertie, the name that only his family calls him. The small spaces and basic locations allow for a separation from the life that he was born into, and a canvas for a path of self discovery, an attempt to gain confidence in who he is as an individual first before the emphasis on his royal qualities. We see a slow disarming of the man as he slowly abandons his formalities and eventually begins speaking like an everyday person, except for the stammer.
As the film progresses, we find out that King George V (Michael Gambon) has passed away and the role is passed to the oldest son, the Prince of Wales (Guy Pearce) who is now head of the monarchy. His life, however, is surrounded with a scandalous relationship and there begins talk of the the Duke of York becoming King. This shifting in plot allows us to see further into Firth's character, who is pained by his life as royalty because of his speech impediment. The thought of becoming King is a nightmare to him as the symbol of the monarchy is no longer just to show up at public events, but with the invention of the radio, to speak to the people, enter their homes and bring them a sense of unity. The most important task of the King was something that the Duke fears the most.
It is almost two hours, and has almost no scenery. It is ninety percent dialogue in small rooms. That may not sound exciting or inviting, but it really is one of the greatest pleasures to watch. Because there are no distractions, we get to peer into the lives of characters who begin to seem real to us. We start to feel that we no longer know the Duke of York, but we know Bertie, a loving husband and father. The script is such that we are happily pulled from conversation to conversation, and getting a true sense of emotional connection not to just the people but to the situation of the royal family as a whole, and the impending war that they are facing with Germany.
A dialogue based movie would be nothing without great performers, and this film is full of them. Colin Firth gives us such a multi-dimensional performance, and allows the feelings of his character to transcend the screen and reach our hearts. Geoffry Rush plays the role of Logue impeccably, and is able to present a believable character who could disarm and draw out the real man hidden inside the Duke. The role that I found the most touching was Helena Bonham Carter's portrayal of Elizabeth, who is an energetic spitfire at times, but shows nothing but absolute support and devotion to her hurting husband. What spouse could want more than that, as we toil about in the agonizing absolutes of life, to have someone smile and instil a genuine confidence that allows us to see it through to the next day?
This is turning into a very lengthy review, and I have not even got to the style of framing the character's faces, putting the blank space behind their heads instead of in front of them. I have still not come to a conclusion as to why Tom Hooper did this, but part of me feels that it is because the characters are small members of the greater story and that style keeps them a little more noticeably off to the side. Small and large are almost themes of this film, so this style would allow the characters in close quarters to be seen as small and that gets contrasted when we get the few glimpses of them in their royal duties.
Do I recommend this film? Most definitely I do. It is a masterpiece, a film that shows you can have a simple plot, simple locations, and still create the most captivating film of the year. I have seen it twice now, and if Rachel was up for watching it again tonight, I would have no hesitation. Perhaps that is because of the unrelenting focus on the characters. We see the individuals in their natural light and feel like perhaps we have made a new friend or two. It is very fitting that for a movie that spends all of its time in doors and away from the royal life and it ends with Bertie finally stepping confidently into his role as King and standing before his cheering subjects in a very powerful and inspiring way, a book end to the disastrous speech he delivers at the beginning. We are witness to the metamorphosis of the character who became great by allowing himself to become an equal with a common man.
Rating - 4 out of 4 Stars
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Fun Size
To make a long story short, anxiety has gotten the better of me and has forced me to restructure a lot of my life. The last two weeks have been extremely hard, and with it seeming that things were going to get worse, I had to make some pretty drastic alterations to my day to day life. It ended up being a very long day of work and then talking to a bunch of different health professionals, and that sort of thing can tire even the most robust person out. Today's review is one that I wrote a little bit ago, and it is for a film called Fun Size and was produced by Nickelodeon Movies. Why is this movie (which can be found on Netflix) relevant? Well, really it is not. But the young boy in it co-stars in Bad Grandpa which came out this past weekend, so there is some weak level of relevance. Oh, and it's about Halloween, so there's the relevance.
If you were ever dreaming of a movie that was a cross
between Adventures in Babysitting and
Baby’s Day Out set around Halloween
with socially conscious teen-age girls who rely on the help of nerdy boys
(would could completely ruin their reputation if they be seen with such
scallywags), then you may believe that Fun
Size is the movie for you. And
basically it is, but solely because it fits that specific list of criteria that
few (if any) other movies fit into.
Fun Size is a story
of Wren (Victoria Justice) who has recently lost her father due to death (I
cannot quite remember how he died), has a mother who is robbing the cradle with
a fellow named Keevin (not a typo), with a little brother who no longer speaks
(a cliché device for a character if ever there was one), and a friend named
April played by Jane Levy. Wren hopes to
go to the Halloween party of ever so dreamy Aaron Riley, but her plans get put
on hold when her mother asks her to take her brother out to gather his Halloween
candies from the neighbours. Along the
way, she loses her brother and is tossed into situations of shenanigans on the
path to getting him back.
It may seem as though I am not giving a lot of respect to
the plot of the movie, and truth be told I am not. It is rather formulaic, and moves along at a
predictable pace with characters that are hard to have much feelings towards as
they seem mostly un-relatable. The movie
should be geared towards young folk, but disperses some sexual humour that
parents may find inappropriate such as a scene of a totally consensual yet
altogether awkward breast grabbing for a predetermined time of twenty
seconds. It is a standard case of
missing the mark for its intended audience.
The movie also happens in a world where people find a young child out on
their own and, instead of calling the police, involve them in their
miss-adventures of revenge or bring them into a night club for some dancing.
While a movie like this is usually fodder for scathing
comments (and perhaps it does deserve some), I would rather focus on some of
the positives that keep this movie from being a generic waste of time and/or
money. Fun Size does have a few moments and aspects of a good movie, and I
feel that it should get some recognition for those as most movies of similar
quality have mediocre qualities at best.
The casting may not be great across the board, but there
were some quality decisions that made for a few relatable or enjoyable
characters. Chelsea Handler did a good
job of playing Wren’s mother, who was at a crux in dealing with the full
emotional remains of her late husband’s passing. Jane Levy was great at a social status
obsessed friend, and she can be a bright spot in many a suffering movie. Most recently she brought some fun to Evil Dead as she battled the apocalypse
with one hand and a chainsaw, all while quitting the drugs cold turkey and
going through withdrawal. The best
casting was for the dual mothers of Roosevelt (the nerdy friend of Wren’s)
played by Kerri Kenney and Ana Gasteyer, who were both hilarious in witty
caricature roles.
There were also moments where the film seemed to rise above
the early standards it set for itself, and brought scenes of terrific
humour. There were around five times
where I was not only smiling, but laughing deep from my potato and egg filled
belly. It was in those moments that I
had a strong hope for what may lay around the next corner for our protagonist.
Unfortunately for the cast and crew of Fun Size, laughing five times at a movie and then forgetting most
of the premise the next day (such as how the father died) does not equal a
quality film. While it does have moments
of personality, charm, and wit, those moments are scattered throughout with
very little piecing them together. As
stated earlier, if you are looking for a movie that is a cross between Adventures in Babysitting and Baby’s Day Out set around Halloween with
socially conscious teen-age girls who rely on the help of nerdy boys, then Fun Size is the movie for you. If you are simply looking for a decent movie,
pick any film at random and the chances are good that it may be a better use of
your time.
Rating - 1.5 out of 4 stars
Monday, October 28, 2013
Sharknado - Yep, There is Such a Movie
I swear my body hates me. All was starting to look good with the exorcism of this hellish cold that I had last week, but it turns out that one can never count out a well motivated illness. It is a very frustrating thing, although I should be happy that I do not have a runny nose. That's always the worst. It keeps you up at night and the constant sniffly faces the afflicted make while trying to keep the situation in check just ends up annoying everyone. I am glad I am not one of 'those.' On the anxiety front, it sucks. It was an awful weekend which lead to me watching awful movies. Crappy movies are my comfort food. Chips as well... I like those a lot.
Today I am looking at the film Sharknado, which is about tornadoes full of sharks. It's not a spoiler, the name kind of implies it. It stars Beverly Hills: 90210 cast member Ian Ziering, who plays the lead role as Finley 'Fin' Shepard. That dastardly global warming as caused all sorts of sharks to hang out just off the coast of Los Angeles when a hurricane pops in for a visit, heaving the cluster of sharks through the air and onto the shore. As well, there is some flooding, so sharks end up on the streets and popping up through storm drains. Don't even think of hiding, these sharks are adept at being hurled through windows and attacking people. When such a catastrophe happens, who will save us?
Before I continue too far, I should mention that this movie was created by The Asylum Studios for the SyFy channel in the States and aired on the Space network in Canada. It became somewhat of an instant sensation as celebrities started tweeting about it, followed by a few hundred thousand others. Now, not all of those people were watching the movie during this Twitter storm that saw up to 5,000 tweets per minute, but who can stand idly by why a conversations about sharks in tornadoes happens? Sharknado quickly became The Asylum's most well known movie, and has since seen actual theatre time for limited engagements. Normally, their movies are all straight to video.
So, instead of trying to dissect the plot and talk about themes, I am more so going to look at if it lived up to the wide acclaim it got for being a great B-movie. Personally, I think the main talking point around this movie was simply the concept. We love chit chatting about the quirky things in life, and what could be quirkier than the premise of Sharknado. It is what caused many people to want to join the bandwagon without even changing the channel.
As far as the film itself goes, they really held nothing back. I remember reading an interview with Asylum executives who were talking about their normal special effect caps for movies (to keep the budget in check) but that they went way over their limit on this film. This decision was very smart, because it is the horrid special effects that carry half of the workload of this film as we are treated to sights we never thought we would ever see, such as John Heard bashing a land bound shark over the dome with his bar stool (while people were grabbing guns to arm themselves, Heard took his stool). Throughout the film, we are treated to more and more absurd visuals that can cause very infectious laughter.
The other half of the workload for this film is pretty much right on the back of Ian Ziering. He really commits to this role... seriously, he goes all in and that is what makes it fun. The philosophy of The Asylum is to take the movies seriously even though they are intentionally cheesy, and the former student of West Beverly Hills High School does just that. His determination to this film adds a great layer of entertainment and over dramatic moments (my favourite).
Eventually, this film falls into the same trap that most B-movies enter where it is not evenly entertaining throughout. Because the fun of these movies are those great scenes and moments that we laugh about and talk about with friends, it is hard for the movie to still be an equally entertaining throughout. What we get are spikes in entertainment and then drop offs. Don't get me wrong, the spikes in this movie rival most others and is a definite must see for fans of the cheese.
In the end, high expectations let me down. I suppose I was expecting the Schindler's List of bad movies, and the film could not live up to that. Really, the hype comes from the fact that it is a great concept that is fun to talk about, the Twitter hype train that rocketed it into media outlets like CNN, and the incredible moments of airborne sharks who make a plague of locusts look kind of tolerable. If you have not seen it yet, it is available for rent and still has replays on Space and Syfy. Check it out... think of it as education. Survivorman teaches us great survival skills, but Mr Stroud has never educated us on surviving a predatory storm. So dim the lights, grab a chainsaw, grab a bar stool, and learn how to protect your family in a worst case scenario.
Cheesy Movie Rating - 3 out of 4 stars
Today I am looking at the film Sharknado, which is about tornadoes full of sharks. It's not a spoiler, the name kind of implies it. It stars Beverly Hills: 90210 cast member Ian Ziering, who plays the lead role as Finley 'Fin' Shepard. That dastardly global warming as caused all sorts of sharks to hang out just off the coast of Los Angeles when a hurricane pops in for a visit, heaving the cluster of sharks through the air and onto the shore. As well, there is some flooding, so sharks end up on the streets and popping up through storm drains. Don't even think of hiding, these sharks are adept at being hurled through windows and attacking people. When such a catastrophe happens, who will save us?
Before I continue too far, I should mention that this movie was created by The Asylum Studios for the SyFy channel in the States and aired on the Space network in Canada. It became somewhat of an instant sensation as celebrities started tweeting about it, followed by a few hundred thousand others. Now, not all of those people were watching the movie during this Twitter storm that saw up to 5,000 tweets per minute, but who can stand idly by why a conversations about sharks in tornadoes happens? Sharknado quickly became The Asylum's most well known movie, and has since seen actual theatre time for limited engagements. Normally, their movies are all straight to video.
So, instead of trying to dissect the plot and talk about themes, I am more so going to look at if it lived up to the wide acclaim it got for being a great B-movie. Personally, I think the main talking point around this movie was simply the concept. We love chit chatting about the quirky things in life, and what could be quirkier than the premise of Sharknado. It is what caused many people to want to join the bandwagon without even changing the channel.
As far as the film itself goes, they really held nothing back. I remember reading an interview with Asylum executives who were talking about their normal special effect caps for movies (to keep the budget in check) but that they went way over their limit on this film. This decision was very smart, because it is the horrid special effects that carry half of the workload of this film as we are treated to sights we never thought we would ever see, such as John Heard bashing a land bound shark over the dome with his bar stool (while people were grabbing guns to arm themselves, Heard took his stool). Throughout the film, we are treated to more and more absurd visuals that can cause very infectious laughter.
The other half of the workload for this film is pretty much right on the back of Ian Ziering. He really commits to this role... seriously, he goes all in and that is what makes it fun. The philosophy of The Asylum is to take the movies seriously even though they are intentionally cheesy, and the former student of West Beverly Hills High School does just that. His determination to this film adds a great layer of entertainment and over dramatic moments (my favourite).
Eventually, this film falls into the same trap that most B-movies enter where it is not evenly entertaining throughout. Because the fun of these movies are those great scenes and moments that we laugh about and talk about with friends, it is hard for the movie to still be an equally entertaining throughout. What we get are spikes in entertainment and then drop offs. Don't get me wrong, the spikes in this movie rival most others and is a definite must see for fans of the cheese.
In the end, high expectations let me down. I suppose I was expecting the Schindler's List of bad movies, and the film could not live up to that. Really, the hype comes from the fact that it is a great concept that is fun to talk about, the Twitter hype train that rocketed it into media outlets like CNN, and the incredible moments of airborne sharks who make a plague of locusts look kind of tolerable. If you have not seen it yet, it is available for rent and still has replays on Space and Syfy. Check it out... think of it as education. Survivorman teaches us great survival skills, but Mr Stroud has never educated us on surviving a predatory storm. So dim the lights, grab a chainsaw, grab a bar stool, and learn how to protect your family in a worst case scenario.
Cheesy Movie Rating - 3 out of 4 stars
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Jack and Jill
I don't think I have reviewed enough comedies, so today I thought I would like to continue the trend by reviewing Jack and Jill (which is now on Netflix), a movie that claims comedy status, but really just floats around in the void of cinematic nothingness. If you are a fan of all things Adam Sandler and all things related to him, and do not like hearing negative criticisms of his projects, then now is a good time to stop reading and write me an email telling me what makes you tick, because I don't understand you. I do think he has a lot of talent, but it just not seem to push its way into his movies these days. As I type this review, I plan to talk about one good aspect of the film, and it has nothing to do with Mr Sandler.
The film is about Jack (Adam Sandler), who is a director of commercials. This is the perfect roll for an Adam Sandler film, as it allows 'seamless' product placement and name dropping, something which I think his films have an affinity towards. We get to, in totally organic and non-nauseating ways, have planted in our brains the brand names of Hooters, Dunkin Donuts (I lost count of how many times this one was mentioned and is a plot point), Pepto Bismol, Hilton, Sony, Price is Right, eHarmony, Match.com, Subway, Radio Shack, ShamWow, and Royal Caribbean Cruises (who actually get a full length commercial in the film). He needs to land Al Pacino for Dunkin Donuts, who want to put him in a Dunkin Donuts commercial, and if he fails to get Pacino he loses the Dunkin Donuts account, as threatened by the Dunkin Donuts people. He also has a sister named Jill (Adam Sandler), whom he plays in such a base and humourless way that I was left astonished at how this got greenlit. Possibly because his production company made it.
I may be the only person out there who did not find this film funny. If you are a fan of such witty humour that includes fart jokes, a bird named Poopsy, animal abuse jokes, laughing at girls with hairy armpits, sweaty sheets and other sweat stain styled humour, making fun of homeless people, ladies getting punched in the face by young boys, making fun of Mexican stereotypes (hey look, a Mexican gardener), making fun of people who are slightly larger than thin/fat people, concussions, crushing a pony, public fart jokes, Indian stereotypes, earwax jokes, urine jokes, making fun of how Mexicans name their children, illegal immigrant jokes (Mexican related), making fun of people with funny faces, elderly people getting hit in the face with shoes and/or bats, Mexicans love jalapenos, gassy stomachs, diarrhea and much louder farts than we have been acquainted with previously in the film, then this movie is a comic gold mine. For the rest of the population, it is a movie that makes fun of people, and those are the jokes.
Now, I did laugh a few times, and that was mostly around Al Pacino. He was an extremely good sport, and portrayed a pretty messed up version of himself. Not only did he go along with it, but he completely threw himself into the role and held nothing back, creating a performance that was entertaining to watch and had some fun in a movie that was otherwise void of humour (actually, I should admit there were two non-Pacino moments that I had a subtle laugh at). Johnny Depp has a small part as well, and does what he can to make it entertaining.
That's all I have. If you are looking for something insightful from me, then I need to have insightful content to review. It is a pretty mean spirited movie that thrives on stereotypes and toilet humour without energy or wit to make it work. There is nothing smart or touching about this film, although we do get many a moment when the sappy music starts up to let us know that we are supposed to be feeling emotions other than the self-loathing that we are cemented in on account of pressing the play button on this film. Life is about making the most of our time on this earth, so please spend an hour and a half doing that instead of watching this film.
Rating - 0.5 out of 4 stars
The film is about Jack (Adam Sandler), who is a director of commercials. This is the perfect roll for an Adam Sandler film, as it allows 'seamless' product placement and name dropping, something which I think his films have an affinity towards. We get to, in totally organic and non-nauseating ways, have planted in our brains the brand names of Hooters, Dunkin Donuts (I lost count of how many times this one was mentioned and is a plot point), Pepto Bismol, Hilton, Sony, Price is Right, eHarmony, Match.com, Subway, Radio Shack, ShamWow, and Royal Caribbean Cruises (who actually get a full length commercial in the film). He needs to land Al Pacino for Dunkin Donuts, who want to put him in a Dunkin Donuts commercial, and if he fails to get Pacino he loses the Dunkin Donuts account, as threatened by the Dunkin Donuts people. He also has a sister named Jill (Adam Sandler), whom he plays in such a base and humourless way that I was left astonished at how this got greenlit. Possibly because his production company made it.
I may be the only person out there who did not find this film funny. If you are a fan of such witty humour that includes fart jokes, a bird named Poopsy, animal abuse jokes, laughing at girls with hairy armpits, sweaty sheets and other sweat stain styled humour, making fun of homeless people, ladies getting punched in the face by young boys, making fun of Mexican stereotypes (hey look, a Mexican gardener), making fun of people who are slightly larger than thin/fat people, concussions, crushing a pony, public fart jokes, Indian stereotypes, earwax jokes, urine jokes, making fun of how Mexicans name their children, illegal immigrant jokes (Mexican related), making fun of people with funny faces, elderly people getting hit in the face with shoes and/or bats, Mexicans love jalapenos, gassy stomachs, diarrhea and much louder farts than we have been acquainted with previously in the film, then this movie is a comic gold mine. For the rest of the population, it is a movie that makes fun of people, and those are the jokes.
Now, I did laugh a few times, and that was mostly around Al Pacino. He was an extremely good sport, and portrayed a pretty messed up version of himself. Not only did he go along with it, but he completely threw himself into the role and held nothing back, creating a performance that was entertaining to watch and had some fun in a movie that was otherwise void of humour (actually, I should admit there were two non-Pacino moments that I had a subtle laugh at). Johnny Depp has a small part as well, and does what he can to make it entertaining.
That's all I have. If you are looking for something insightful from me, then I need to have insightful content to review. It is a pretty mean spirited movie that thrives on stereotypes and toilet humour without energy or wit to make it work. There is nothing smart or touching about this film, although we do get many a moment when the sappy music starts up to let us know that we are supposed to be feeling emotions other than the self-loathing that we are cemented in on account of pressing the play button on this film. Life is about making the most of our time on this earth, so please spend an hour and a half doing that instead of watching this film.
Rating - 0.5 out of 4 stars
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Mud
Well, right now I should be at my parent's house, eating some home-cooked cookin', but sickness has kept me at home eating BBQ flavoured chips - yep, I don't necessarily take care of myself when I am ill and my wife is out of the house. She is at my parent's home right now, visiting with them and our niece and nephew, who I always enjoy seeing. That means my proof-reader is not here, so my apologies on anything I may have missed. Today's movie is Mud, which came out in limited release back in late April, and is currently one of the highest rated films of the year on Rotten Tomatoes (98%) and is currently available to rent.
Mud is about a young boy who lives on a houseboat named Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and his friend Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) who live on southern waterways, and head on an adventure to an island to find a rumoured boat that is lodged high in a tree. After finding the vessle that had been relocated thanks to flooding, they find that someone has been living in it. As they are leaving the island, they meet the man from the boat, Mud (Matthew McConaughey) who is quite filthy and quite hungry. Ellis feels compelled to assist the man. As he brings him food and visits Mud, Ellis starts to get an understanding of the predicament that would cause a fellow to hide on a remote island and takes it on himself to assist Mud in connecting with his girlfriend, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon).
The main theme in the film is love, as Ellis' perception of the emotion and relational commitment are being challenged by the degrading marriage of his parents as well as his own exploration with it. His understanding of what love is and should be is what drives him to help assist Mud, whom is driven by love as well. It is when all the relationships around him have crumbled that he even starts to appropriately use the word.
Since I have mentioned that it is about love and that it stars Matthew McConaughey and Reese Witherspoon, it is important for me to inform you that it is not a romantic comedy, and these are not the typical rolls which we are used to seeing these two in. Mud is a very simple, yet still complex character who we see covered in dirt and seeming quite pathetic at times. The performance of McConaughey is phenomenal, and he brings out the powerful moments of pity, rage, caution, and protection. There is a little bit of Oscar talk around this roll (although his roll in Dallas Buyer's Club is getting a lot more conversation), and he shows a wide range of abilities as Mud.
The true acting performance in this film that needs noting is that of young Tye Sheridan. I am saying this right now, keep an eye on this young man because he may be a future heavyweight in film. It is the journey of Ellis that we follow, and Sheridan delivers his role in a way that grabs the audience and ultimately has us desiring a positive outcome for him. His future looks great, and he seems to choose quality films to be a part of. His only three movies are Mud, the Oscar nominated Terrence Malick film Tree of Life, and most recently a film that got decent talk around it at the Toronto International Film Festival, Joe, with Nicolas Cage. A lot of times young talent seems to be coming up through Disney properties, but this one is quite possibly going to be gunning for awards before too long.
With great performances in the forefront, we are also treated to great locations and backdrops that make us feel a connection to the life on the water that Ellis knows. We get a tactile feel of the blue collar life that Ellis lives within, which is contrasted when he is in town and interacts with others his age. The film shows poverty, but also a beauty in the landscape and a connection to the earth and water that the characters have.
In the end, I give this film a very hearty recommendation. It is a touching tale of the innocent, but naive, view of what love is. Sadly, it is that naive view that we should really be aspiring to, but young Ellis finds out that the reality of life's circumstances put a somber reality to what love ends up being. It is interesting, and it is touching, which is odd for a film that focuses on broken relationships. Maybe what causes it to work is that we have too good an understanding of broken relationships and care enough about Ellis and Mud to hope they end up with something better.
Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars
Mud is about a young boy who lives on a houseboat named Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and his friend Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) who live on southern waterways, and head on an adventure to an island to find a rumoured boat that is lodged high in a tree. After finding the vessle that had been relocated thanks to flooding, they find that someone has been living in it. As they are leaving the island, they meet the man from the boat, Mud (Matthew McConaughey) who is quite filthy and quite hungry. Ellis feels compelled to assist the man. As he brings him food and visits Mud, Ellis starts to get an understanding of the predicament that would cause a fellow to hide on a remote island and takes it on himself to assist Mud in connecting with his girlfriend, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon).
The main theme in the film is love, as Ellis' perception of the emotion and relational commitment are being challenged by the degrading marriage of his parents as well as his own exploration with it. His understanding of what love is and should be is what drives him to help assist Mud, whom is driven by love as well. It is when all the relationships around him have crumbled that he even starts to appropriately use the word.
Since I have mentioned that it is about love and that it stars Matthew McConaughey and Reese Witherspoon, it is important for me to inform you that it is not a romantic comedy, and these are not the typical rolls which we are used to seeing these two in. Mud is a very simple, yet still complex character who we see covered in dirt and seeming quite pathetic at times. The performance of McConaughey is phenomenal, and he brings out the powerful moments of pity, rage, caution, and protection. There is a little bit of Oscar talk around this roll (although his roll in Dallas Buyer's Club is getting a lot more conversation), and he shows a wide range of abilities as Mud.
The true acting performance in this film that needs noting is that of young Tye Sheridan. I am saying this right now, keep an eye on this young man because he may be a future heavyweight in film. It is the journey of Ellis that we follow, and Sheridan delivers his role in a way that grabs the audience and ultimately has us desiring a positive outcome for him. His future looks great, and he seems to choose quality films to be a part of. His only three movies are Mud, the Oscar nominated Terrence Malick film Tree of Life, and most recently a film that got decent talk around it at the Toronto International Film Festival, Joe, with Nicolas Cage. A lot of times young talent seems to be coming up through Disney properties, but this one is quite possibly going to be gunning for awards before too long.
With great performances in the forefront, we are also treated to great locations and backdrops that make us feel a connection to the life on the water that Ellis knows. We get a tactile feel of the blue collar life that Ellis lives within, which is contrasted when he is in town and interacts with others his age. The film shows poverty, but also a beauty in the landscape and a connection to the earth and water that the characters have.
In the end, I give this film a very hearty recommendation. It is a touching tale of the innocent, but naive, view of what love is. Sadly, it is that naive view that we should really be aspiring to, but young Ellis finds out that the reality of life's circumstances put a somber reality to what love ends up being. It is interesting, and it is touching, which is odd for a film that focuses on broken relationships. Maybe what causes it to work is that we have too good an understanding of broken relationships and care enough about Ellis and Mud to hope they end up with something better.
Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars
Friday, October 25, 2013
Everything Must Go
Today has mostly been spent in bed, feeling ill and talking to my wife in jagged sentences. My wife seems to have gotten a good giggle or two from my impaired speech abilities, so I guess it is all worth it. The nice thing is that there has been no stress or anxiety today, which is a bit of a blessing. I have been getting a bit better at being proactive and responding as quickly as possible to anything that could cause stress. Victory be for me, I should say... other than temporarily praying for the walls to collapse around me so I would be relieved of this headache. Perhaps a little bit of an over exaggeration. Anywho, enough about that and on to today's review, which is a movie called Everything Must Go.
This movie had been pitched to me as a comedic
drama, but really it is a character story that does have some elements of
comedy in it. It is the tale of a man
whose addiction to alcohol has cost him both his job and his marriage in the
same day, and the personal path that these developments send him down. We meet Nick Halsey (Will Ferrell) in a way
that seems to be a very typical narrated introduction, but then turns out to be
a link from the image of the man we see before us to only a few hours earlier
when his life was just about to unravel.
Nick has had a long career with his employer, and in with the good times
there were some bad ones, a long list of issues that arose from his problematic
drinking.
After losing his job, and turning to fermented
drink with wide open arms, he arrives at home to find all of his belongings
laid out on the front lawn and all the locks and security codes have been
changed. He chooses to spend the night
on the furniture on the lawn, drinking of course, when the police are called by
neighbours. As luck would have it for
Nick, his AA sponsor is a police detective who is able to get the fuzz off his
back and finds a loop hole that will allow Nick to keep the items on the lawn
for no longer than five consecutive days as long as it is declared a yard sale.
In this movie we saddle up and ride on a five day
journey with a man who loses everything except for his desire to drink. While everything that has happened to him can
be traced back to that nasty addiction, he clings on to the one thing that he
has left, reaching points of desperation such as begging, and trying to slurp
the last drops of beer from discarded cans lying about his front lawn.
One of the main strengths of this movie is the
actors, who are able not just to own their lines but present themselves as
actual living, breathing members of the world.
We are able to buy into their reality and existence thanks to a great
casting job and terrific performances. Ferrell
does a terrific job, but so does Christopher Jordan Wallace who plays Kenny, a
neighbourhood boy who buddies up with
Halsey. The chemistry between
Ferrell and Wallace is abundant, and it allows us to see a sympathetic and
vulnerable side to Halsey.
The subject matter is quite deep and will hit home
for a lot of people, and it is handled quite well by all involved. It does not delve too deep, but also does not
leave everything at surface level. You
get an understanding of the turmoil and cost that addiction brings with it, and
the impossible nature of the battle for sobriety. One day at a time is the saying for
Alcoholics Anonymous, but Ferrell’s character shows that such thinking is
impossible when one is looking both in the past and lamenting the present. Hope can never come from such perspectives,
and it is only when the focused is shifted to the present with a mind for the
future that things can get better.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Deane's Pick: Titanic II
Two days ago I mentioned a brush with pestilence, and I am unhappy to announce that today I am feeling like I should be the victim of a government quarantine. It is my own fault for volunteering to work over night last night when I was sick. When one is sick, one needs sleep, and I don't think my mother reads this blog so I can be open and honest about my complete lack of common sense in this situation. While laying in bed with depleted mental faculties, I figured it a good time to review a film that a friend of mine has requested, Titanic II.
Titanic II is brought to us by the only studio with balls enough to make an unofficial sequel to both the second highest grossing movie of all time, and, as well, to a well known actual tragedy. How many people would attempt to pull off a sequel to a real life disaster? A tall task for many, but just another day at work for The Asylum Studios, who made Titanic II and make a business out of doing such things. They are kings of the 'mockbuster.' a movie that emulates a Hollywood blockbuster (a good example would be their movie about giant robots called, Transmorphers) and tries to lure people to select their movies through the art of deception and confusion. They also make b-level creature features and adventure films.
Yes, I said 'b-level', and that is part of their business model. They aim to make movies that have that certain cheese factor that can bring entertainment that Hollywood dares seldom attempt. The theatre of the absurd is what they deal in, and they have honed their craft over the years. They have realized that the best way to pull this off is with a seriousness and sincerity that leaves people who see their films unaware that they are intentional schlock. A joke is sometimes at its greatest when it is hard to tell if it is even meant as a joke, and that is their approach - make b-movies that do not seem to be intentional, and pulling that off is actually a lot harder than it sounds.
Some people are purists and only want their b-movies to be ones where the production team was actually trying for a great film, and there is nothing wrong with that. I used to be one of those. If I detected that a cheesy movie was trying to be so intentionally I would instantly decide that I did not like it. When I watched Peter Jackson's Dead Alive, I was loving the low quality film until I noticed that it knew it was a comedy. I have long since reconciled and have a DVD copy of this all time classic. I have come to appreciate the art in creating the balance, having an audience unsure of what the intention is. This is why I love Batman (1966) because of its devotion to the theatre of the absurd, and walking the line that leaves people laughing at it and not with it (which was the actual aim, so really they are laughing with it, I suppose).
Anywho, I have digressed from talking about Titanic II. That's alright, because there is not a whole lot to talk about. I am not meaning that disparagingly. The concept of the film is that there is a ship made called Titanic II, and it is to commemorate the tragedy. When the ship leaves the dock, we follow... well, it does not really matter too much, and my brain is too weak. Ultimately, we have a seasoned Coast Guard Captain, a woman who works in Titanic II's infirmary (also the daughter of the seasoned Coast Guard Captain), and a billionaire playboy (former boyfriend of the woman who works in the infirmary, daughter of the seasoned Coast Guard Captain) who plays by his own rules and made the boat safe enough to barely pass inspection. That's what you want when honouring the memory of one of the worst sea tragedies.
The spin that Titanic II takes over James Cameron's version is that instead of the boat traveling across the ocean towards the ice, the ice travels across the ocean towards the boat. Up in the land of Greenland, where glacier researchers play, a glacier falls apart, creating awesome special effects, tragic special effects that kill glacier researchers, and a special effects tsunami that brings chunks of underwater ice towards the ship. One of the keys to having fun in an Asylum production is in the special effects, which are masterfully not good at all, embarrassing really, and can cause a great deal of giggling on the part of the viewer. They do not disappoint in Titanic II, as moments will cause some high level enjoyment for fans of such things. I do need to note that this is the second movie of theirs that I am aware of that has civilization attacked by dastardly glaciers. In Ice Age: 2012 (the mockbuster of 2012), a renegade formation of ice that played by its own rules, sped across North America and toppled all who were crazy enough to get in its way. First was by land, Titanic II was by sea, as tsunami was its weapon.
Another key to a good movie of this kind is a symbiotic relationship that forms between quality of actors and quality of script. You need talent that is decent enough to blend into the theatre of the absurd, but you also need a script that properly shows their limitations (unless they are really good and can make any line seem over dramatic. All hail the king, Adam West. I should also note that I saw an Asylum film where Ethan Suplee did a wonderful reading of his lines that would have people forget the fact that he is actually a good actor). Basic dialogue is needed for most of the movie, sprinkled with emotional moments that are elevated enough to reach heights the talents cannot hit. If the roles are cast properly, they will be unable to bring a charisma and presence which makes us not notice the basic, plain script (Morgan Freeman, for example, is the kind of person who could read the most boring thing and still be captivating. It is important that the actors/actresses not be captivating). As well, the moments of elevated emotion will be out of their reach and it will become very entertaining for the audience. Titanic II did have a decent blend of acting and script.
Unfortunately, there were times when the special effects were too few and far between, and those moments of emotional impact were not present enough to really keep a great pace to the film. It had its great moments, though, and that cannot be forgotten. There is enough here to provide rainy day entertainment to a fan of the flop. If you are not one to find the joy in cheesy movies, you need not watch. You will not enjoy, and you will think I am a moron for taking my time to talk about this film. At the core, it is all about entertainment, having a blast, and keeping a smile on the face of the viewer. The Asylum makes some dreadfully painful movies, but some of them hit the mark really well, and this one is a lot closer to hitting the mark than it is to being painful. It is no Captain Phillips, but even Tom Hanks would not be able to over come the hull-crushing devastation that low grade special effects tsunamis can bring.
Cheesy Movie Rating - 2.5 out of 4 stars
Titanic II is brought to us by the only studio with balls enough to make an unofficial sequel to both the second highest grossing movie of all time, and, as well, to a well known actual tragedy. How many people would attempt to pull off a sequel to a real life disaster? A tall task for many, but just another day at work for The Asylum Studios, who made Titanic II and make a business out of doing such things. They are kings of the 'mockbuster.' a movie that emulates a Hollywood blockbuster (a good example would be their movie about giant robots called, Transmorphers) and tries to lure people to select their movies through the art of deception and confusion. They also make b-level creature features and adventure films.
Yes, I said 'b-level', and that is part of their business model. They aim to make movies that have that certain cheese factor that can bring entertainment that Hollywood dares seldom attempt. The theatre of the absurd is what they deal in, and they have honed their craft over the years. They have realized that the best way to pull this off is with a seriousness and sincerity that leaves people who see their films unaware that they are intentional schlock. A joke is sometimes at its greatest when it is hard to tell if it is even meant as a joke, and that is their approach - make b-movies that do not seem to be intentional, and pulling that off is actually a lot harder than it sounds.
Some people are purists and only want their b-movies to be ones where the production team was actually trying for a great film, and there is nothing wrong with that. I used to be one of those. If I detected that a cheesy movie was trying to be so intentionally I would instantly decide that I did not like it. When I watched Peter Jackson's Dead Alive, I was loving the low quality film until I noticed that it knew it was a comedy. I have long since reconciled and have a DVD copy of this all time classic. I have come to appreciate the art in creating the balance, having an audience unsure of what the intention is. This is why I love Batman (1966) because of its devotion to the theatre of the absurd, and walking the line that leaves people laughing at it and not with it (which was the actual aim, so really they are laughing with it, I suppose).
Anywho, I have digressed from talking about Titanic II. That's alright, because there is not a whole lot to talk about. I am not meaning that disparagingly. The concept of the film is that there is a ship made called Titanic II, and it is to commemorate the tragedy. When the ship leaves the dock, we follow... well, it does not really matter too much, and my brain is too weak. Ultimately, we have a seasoned Coast Guard Captain, a woman who works in Titanic II's infirmary (also the daughter of the seasoned Coast Guard Captain), and a billionaire playboy (former boyfriend of the woman who works in the infirmary, daughter of the seasoned Coast Guard Captain) who plays by his own rules and made the boat safe enough to barely pass inspection. That's what you want when honouring the memory of one of the worst sea tragedies.
The spin that Titanic II takes over James Cameron's version is that instead of the boat traveling across the ocean towards the ice, the ice travels across the ocean towards the boat. Up in the land of Greenland, where glacier researchers play, a glacier falls apart, creating awesome special effects, tragic special effects that kill glacier researchers, and a special effects tsunami that brings chunks of underwater ice towards the ship. One of the keys to having fun in an Asylum production is in the special effects, which are masterfully not good at all, embarrassing really, and can cause a great deal of giggling on the part of the viewer. They do not disappoint in Titanic II, as moments will cause some high level enjoyment for fans of such things. I do need to note that this is the second movie of theirs that I am aware of that has civilization attacked by dastardly glaciers. In Ice Age: 2012 (the mockbuster of 2012), a renegade formation of ice that played by its own rules, sped across North America and toppled all who were crazy enough to get in its way. First was by land, Titanic II was by sea, as tsunami was its weapon.
Another key to a good movie of this kind is a symbiotic relationship that forms between quality of actors and quality of script. You need talent that is decent enough to blend into the theatre of the absurd, but you also need a script that properly shows their limitations (unless they are really good and can make any line seem over dramatic. All hail the king, Adam West. I should also note that I saw an Asylum film where Ethan Suplee did a wonderful reading of his lines that would have people forget the fact that he is actually a good actor). Basic dialogue is needed for most of the movie, sprinkled with emotional moments that are elevated enough to reach heights the talents cannot hit. If the roles are cast properly, they will be unable to bring a charisma and presence which makes us not notice the basic, plain script (Morgan Freeman, for example, is the kind of person who could read the most boring thing and still be captivating. It is important that the actors/actresses not be captivating). As well, the moments of elevated emotion will be out of their reach and it will become very entertaining for the audience. Titanic II did have a decent blend of acting and script.
Unfortunately, there were times when the special effects were too few and far between, and those moments of emotional impact were not present enough to really keep a great pace to the film. It had its great moments, though, and that cannot be forgotten. There is enough here to provide rainy day entertainment to a fan of the flop. If you are not one to find the joy in cheesy movies, you need not watch. You will not enjoy, and you will think I am a moron for taking my time to talk about this film. At the core, it is all about entertainment, having a blast, and keeping a smile on the face of the viewer. The Asylum makes some dreadfully painful movies, but some of them hit the mark really well, and this one is a lot closer to hitting the mark than it is to being painful. It is no Captain Phillips, but even Tom Hanks would not be able to over come the hull-crushing devastation that low grade special effects tsunamis can bring.
Cheesy Movie Rating - 2.5 out of 4 stars
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Hannah's Pick: Source Code
My amazing sister in-law, Hannah, recently passed a number of movies my way (most of which I had not yet seen) for me to check out and review. In honour of her support of my blog, Wednesdays will now be 'Hannah's Pick,' as I will go through her offerings until the well worn shopping bag they came in is empty. It is an earlier blog for me today, as I was sent home from work when I offered to come in for the night shift tonight and help out. I napped a full fifteen minutes already, but something tells me that may be all the sleep I get until sometime after 7am tomorrow. I will definitely be showing up for work double fisting the coffees.
Today's movie is Source Code, a film that I had heard good things about from friends and have been intrigued about for a while. My interest was sent into overdrive a few months ago when I saw Moon, a sci-fi flick that was the debut for writer/director Duncan Jones, who would then go on to direct Source Code. When watching Moon, a great appreciation grew for the story telling style of Jones, who is able to guide the audience through complex stories while keeping them simple enough to comprehend, and that allows us good emotional connection to the characters. If I talked positively about Sam Rockwell in yesterday's review of The Way, Way Back, just wait until I review Moon and you will hear me gush over this under-appreciated actor.
Source Code stars Jake Gyllenhaal who plays the role of helicopter pilot Captain Colter Stevens, who awakens on a train, in mid conversation with a woman he has never seen before (Christina, played by Michelle Monaghan). From this point on in the movie, we slowly get an unraveling plot as Captain Stevens tries to figure out his situation and the true depths of it. He quickly finds out that quantum physics has allowed a program to be created that will allow Stevens to re-live the last eight minutes of someone's life, and that he is being inserted into the final moments of the victim of a terrorist attack on a train in order to find the bomber's identity.
The acting in this film is really well done, and that seems to be something that Duncan Jones realizes is important when spinning an elaborate yarn. It is possible for an audience to suspend disbelief and dredge through the unknown when we feel a connection to the outcome of the characters. Gyllenhaal does a wonderful job showing the wide range of emotions his character goes through while constantly having to experience the same eight minutes only to perish in a terrible explosion each time. Michelle Monaghan is great in her role as the stranger in the train that Gyllenhaal continually meets in his efforts to find the bomber. As well, Oscar nominated actress Vera Farmiga delivers a terrific performance as Captain Goodwin, the face on a monitor who coaches Gyllenhaal between trips in the source code. Because she is just a face on a screen, she needs to be able to portray any thoughts, emotions, or inner turmoil through small, nuanced alterations in her face, a task which she is able to accomplish extremely convincingly.
Duncan Jones is really establishing himself as someone to watch, after only having directed two movies so far. One of the skills evident in Source Code is that he is able to layer in deeper themes into a movie that is also enjoyable on a mere visceral level. The film looks at living and existence, two terms that may seem to mean the same thing, but that are completely different. What is someone willing to live for, willing to exist for, and willing to die for. It is this theme that adds weight to the film, and is great fodder for conversations with friends over coffee. It is an aspect that is woven into the fabric of the movie, and is not overtly shoved in our faces and left us dizzy from being bashed over the head with it, as seems to be the method when some films attempt to include a 'deeper' meaning.
If you are a fan of science fiction, you will most likely love Source Code. If you claim that you are not a fan of science fiction (much like my wife) but enjoy thrillers, you will most likely love Source Code. In both this movie and Moon, Duncan Jones shows that the genre is not just about space ships and cyborgs, but is really just a canvas left destined for immersive imaginations. It is a place where all things are possible, and Source Code makes the most of it, inserting Captain Colter Stevens into mystery for eight minutes at a time, forcing him to repeatedly live with those who are about to die, a man immortal thrust into the continual mortality of the people on the train. Sound confusing? Duncan Jones does a better job at delivering the story and the message, and that's a good reason for you to watch it.
Rating - 3.5 stars out of 4
Today's movie is Source Code, a film that I had heard good things about from friends and have been intrigued about for a while. My interest was sent into overdrive a few months ago when I saw Moon, a sci-fi flick that was the debut for writer/director Duncan Jones, who would then go on to direct Source Code. When watching Moon, a great appreciation grew for the story telling style of Jones, who is able to guide the audience through complex stories while keeping them simple enough to comprehend, and that allows us good emotional connection to the characters. If I talked positively about Sam Rockwell in yesterday's review of The Way, Way Back, just wait until I review Moon and you will hear me gush over this under-appreciated actor.
Source Code stars Jake Gyllenhaal who plays the role of helicopter pilot Captain Colter Stevens, who awakens on a train, in mid conversation with a woman he has never seen before (Christina, played by Michelle Monaghan). From this point on in the movie, we slowly get an unraveling plot as Captain Stevens tries to figure out his situation and the true depths of it. He quickly finds out that quantum physics has allowed a program to be created that will allow Stevens to re-live the last eight minutes of someone's life, and that he is being inserted into the final moments of the victim of a terrorist attack on a train in order to find the bomber's identity.
The acting in this film is really well done, and that seems to be something that Duncan Jones realizes is important when spinning an elaborate yarn. It is possible for an audience to suspend disbelief and dredge through the unknown when we feel a connection to the outcome of the characters. Gyllenhaal does a wonderful job showing the wide range of emotions his character goes through while constantly having to experience the same eight minutes only to perish in a terrible explosion each time. Michelle Monaghan is great in her role as the stranger in the train that Gyllenhaal continually meets in his efforts to find the bomber. As well, Oscar nominated actress Vera Farmiga delivers a terrific performance as Captain Goodwin, the face on a monitor who coaches Gyllenhaal between trips in the source code. Because she is just a face on a screen, she needs to be able to portray any thoughts, emotions, or inner turmoil through small, nuanced alterations in her face, a task which she is able to accomplish extremely convincingly.
Duncan Jones is really establishing himself as someone to watch, after only having directed two movies so far. One of the skills evident in Source Code is that he is able to layer in deeper themes into a movie that is also enjoyable on a mere visceral level. The film looks at living and existence, two terms that may seem to mean the same thing, but that are completely different. What is someone willing to live for, willing to exist for, and willing to die for. It is this theme that adds weight to the film, and is great fodder for conversations with friends over coffee. It is an aspect that is woven into the fabric of the movie, and is not overtly shoved in our faces and left us dizzy from being bashed over the head with it, as seems to be the method when some films attempt to include a 'deeper' meaning.
If you are a fan of science fiction, you will most likely love Source Code. If you claim that you are not a fan of science fiction (much like my wife) but enjoy thrillers, you will most likely love Source Code. In both this movie and Moon, Duncan Jones shows that the genre is not just about space ships and cyborgs, but is really just a canvas left destined for immersive imaginations. It is a place where all things are possible, and Source Code makes the most of it, inserting Captain Colter Stevens into mystery for eight minutes at a time, forcing him to repeatedly live with those who are about to die, a man immortal thrust into the continual mortality of the people on the train. Sound confusing? Duncan Jones does a better job at delivering the story and the message, and that's a good reason for you to watch it.
Rating - 3.5 stars out of 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Scott Martin
- I'm smarter than a bat. I know this because I caught the little jerk bat that got in my apartment, before immediately and inadvertently bringing him back in. So maybe I'm not smarter than a bat.