The film itself gets off to a wonderful start, setting up the early stages of the End Of The World, under the observing eye of Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) who is named Science Advisor to the President (Danny Glover). Helmsley has to quickly convince Carl Anheuser, the President’s Chief of Staff (Oliver Platt) of his findings. Once the data is confirmed, plans are set into motion to help save humanity, animals of the earth and varied cultural treasures. The only catch is, the world-wide public is kept in the dark about the threat of doom and gloom with the exception of world leaders and the extreme rich upper class, also from varied parts of the globe. During the course of the film, Helmsley will question such things, and even a crazy, burned out ham radio operator (Woody Harrelson) brings the cover up into focus.

Oh, silly me. That’s NOT what the film is really about at all. Sure, it starts out that way, but see, we got a problem. This is supposed to be a disaster film. Emmerich reminds the viewer of that, introducing us to failed sci-fi author turned limo driver Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and his kids. The ex-wife’s live in snooty surgeon boyfriend too. Another batch of characters surrounding a crude Russian businessman (Zlatko Burić) will be so interconnected to the Curtis party it is almost offensive to the storytelling. I don’t mind it that Curtis is the limo driver for the businessman. I do mind if the businessman’s cliched mistress knows the surgeon. I do mind that the mistress and her pet dog are the indirect cause of the third act mayhem. I do mind that Curtis is an expert driver (eat your heart out, Frank Martin) and I really do mind if someone says they are an inexperienced pilot, yet they fly a plane during a mess and not so much as scratch paint not once… but twice.

The FX are indeed impressive. However, there are some characters whose only purpose is to *have* the special FX included in the scene. Story-wise, there are two separate characters who have reasonable answers to a problem. The joke is that some objects were not really that important after all, and the actions of characters near the end of the film that caused more problems could have been avoided. These plot points are put up simply to show more visual FX and more attempts at cliffhanger material, nothing more. What gets frustrating is that the FX are constantly in a state of flux. Several gags go on too long or are simply repeated.

Over and over.
And Over again.
One character, after being the sole survivor of a disaster wakes up and is promptly killed by some leftovers from Emmerich’s previous picture. The point of the scene is to show another visual joke -which also renders the character’s last words in vain.

I’m not quite sure why characters are dumbed down, or why some dialog was on the nose, (”Nothing will separate us”-while the ground cracks open behind him) and why the most interesting and involving character, Helmsley -remember him?- is humbled to the background, and only comes forward when his projections were off by months, days and hours. See- the film’s mayhem takes place in the summer of 2012 not in the end of the 2012 year, as the Mayan calendar warned. This entire disaster picture is based around that, right? Why get that wrong?

One other thing. All the goats, giraffes and elephants are fine. But I sure as hell wanted that dog to die. A thousand people can fall off a cliff, buildings crash down on hapless citizens. The mutt has more importance. Just for that, characters died. Yes, I’m serious.

At two hours and forty some minutes which seemed like six hours and ten, so did my watch.

**************

2012
Starring: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Danny Glover

Directed by: Roland Emmerich

The best thing, the thing that will bring me back to this film time and again, is its amazing soundtrack. I absolutely love the music of this decade and this film has loads of it. Fifty-nine songs ranging from Cat Stevens to The Who to The Moody Blues, Leonard Cohen, The Turtles, Cream and the list, like the beat, goes on. The portrayal of rock and roll rebellion and free love depicted in this film is, like almost everything else, a parody of itself. It’s what guys like me who have only heard stories of lasciviousness and debauchery think that the 60s looked like. On the other hand, I’m positive that this is what the 60’s sounded like. And watching the vast amount of montages of people rocking while listening to the radio makes me smile. There were a lot of montages. A lot.

This is writer/director Richard Curtis’s second film behind the camera. I loved his first effort, Love Actually, and this has some of the same tricks and traits that one did. Multiple pictures dotting the screen, although this time instead of people hugging at Heathrow it was album covers ranging from the 60’s to now. He again had an atypical wedding and he again had a huge ensemble cast. Though it’s hard to pull off that Altman sensibility with so many storylines, he handled them all very well. Towards the end of the film, when things start to get hairy for our rock-n-rollers, it gets a bit clunky. That might be because they took out a half hour of footage from the film between releasing it in Britain and now releasing it here, across the pond. There were things that were not explained and kind of glossed over. They weren’t important, but it would have been nice to know why. Oh, and speaking of why, will someone please tell me why the Brits wear papier-mâché crowns on Christmas? Why have cooler heads and younger generations not phased this out? But I digress…

In the end, this film is about as rock and roll as an oven mitt with Paul McCartney’s photo on it (I’m sure there’s one out there). The government is a caricature. The plot is so episodic it could have been a mini series. It’s the cast who delivers in the good times and the bad, and the music tearing into our hearts and reminding us what great music can do, that make this film work (I almost said float, but that would have been cheesy, wouldn’t it?). The film is what it sets out to be – a fun and comic reminder of so-called simpler days, when you can get over someone sleeping with your wife with a game of chicken, a kind word and an “aww shucks” shrug. Sometimes it’s nice to fall into the plushness of a stylized and idealized world just to get away from it all.

This is a film for children to grow up with. There has been a lot of debate on children’s films lately being good for children. This one, I feel, is. There are a few things in this film parents need to be attentive to before bringing their children. One is the action (since a fox gets his tail shot off in one scene plus there is lots more action with guns and bombs). Another is the characters use of the word “cuss” as a euphemism for any curse word such as “Oh my cuss!” and “What the cuss!” and Mr. Fox even calls a terrible plan a “clustercuss.” Other then that it is very “kid-friendly” and moves fast, very fast. The kiddies won’t be bored easy as the colorful pictures and information come at them from talking animals quickly and furiously. There is humor and content here for adults also. The animals talk about Real Estate problems and how the locations of their trees or dens have affected their asking price. At another point, Mr. Fox is trying to jimmy a door and asks to use someone’s credit card. The mole gives him a Platinum Card and he and Fox go into a discussion of how Mole was able to get a Platinum card and Mole’s credit rating. Plus it would not be an Anderson, or a Baumbach, film without characters wondering about existentialism or being dysfunctional in some way. These things will definitely go over the children’s heads but it means that there is something to entertain everyone.

My only two complains are this. I know that famous names sell tickets, even if you only hear their voices, but listening to George Clooney’s and Bill Murray’s voices come out of animated puppets took me out of the film. They are just too familiar. The same thing happened to me as I was watching Where the Wild Things Are. There’s something about sitting there and saying “That sounds just like Danny Ocean or Dr. Peter Venkman.” I bet the actors who once made a living out of just doing voices are very upset at this new turn of events. I blame Robin Williams and Aladdin. The other thing is that the figurines that are being animated have hair and fur on them which often move radically and wildly apart from anything happening to the characters on screen due to them being repositioned for every frame. Also, since there are often very tight shots of the characters faces and we get to see every detail, the figurines can often come across as weird and creepy though I know the filmmakers don’t intend them to.

Apart from that, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. This is darn good writing that stays very true to Dahl’s original vision while mixing, but not compromising, Anderson’s flair and sensibilities. It is full of likable characters, especially Jason Schwartzman voiced Ash, Mr. Fox’s son who is trying to prove himself and find his own way of being fantastic. It is full of detail and jokes that will entertain all audiences and, I feel, children who see it now will continue to love it as they grow older and as all of the other jokes start to make more sense to them.

Jack Lucas is a successful radio talk show host, but his life is turned upside down when an insensitve unthinking comment he makes on air turns out to be the catalyst for a horriffic crime, as a depressed listener carries out a deadly shooting in a bar. Three years later, Jack’s life has spiralled. He’s consumed by guilt and is on the verge of comitting suicide. At the point when he seems ready to die, he is saved from a tragedy by homeless mad man Parry. At first, Jack only sees Parry as a crazy person that he can’t wait to get away from. However, when he finds out how Parry’s madness began, Jack feels responsible and decides to make it his mission to help Parry out in whatever way he can.

Parry had lived a normal life as a College Professor before his wife was shot down and killed right in front of him. After the incident happened, he went into a catatonic state. When he came out of that, his memory was not fully intact, probably because he found it too painful to remember. He became obsessed with the legend of The Fisher King and he sees the world as a medieval play. At the point in his life when he meets Jack, he believes he is on a quest to find the holy grail.

There is a lot of mirroring in The Fisher King. The film itself mirrors elements of The Fisher King legend, which Parry recounts in one scene. The Fisher King lost the holy grail and was dying. He was blinded by greed and corruption. Just as The Fisher King was approaching death and had almost given up entirely, a fool entered his palace and took some water to the king. The cup he used turned out to be the holy grail, and so the innocent fool restored the king’s sight and saved his kingdom. At times Parry appears to be the fool of the story, as he saves Jack when he is down on his luck. There are ocassions though when it is Jack who seems to be the fool character in the story. He shows kindness to Parry and helps him recover from what has been ailing him.

The theme of blindness plays throughout the film. Parry’s memory loss blinds him from the past, but it the past that is preventing him from seeing reality as it really is. Jack is so blinded by his arrogance and conceit that he doesn’t see what is right in front of him. He behaves awfully to his girlfriend Anne, when all she has shown him is love and comfort.

The film effectively juxtaposes shots of reality with fantasy shots which show what Parry sees in his mind. Many of the fantasy shots involve a red knight on a horse. The red knight represents Parry’s hidden memories. Every time he begins to remember something from his past, the red knight appears and Parry freaks out, sometimes uncontrollably. The red knight is never shown very clearly and is usually shrouded with a hazy red colour. This reflect’s Parry’s unclear memories and the redness represents the tragedy that he is trying to forget about.

The Fisher King effectively uses close-ups to emphasise the state of mind of the characters. In early scenes with Parry, the close-ups are used fast and seem to reflect Parry’s paranoid and hyper state. In scenes with Parry, the camera often gets uncomfortably close to him and this creates a tense atmosphere.  If it’s uncomfortable to look at Parry, what must it be like to be inside his head? Extreme close-ups are also used early on in the movie to reflect Jack’s feelings of claustraphobia and his idea that his life has spun out of control and that the world is closing in around him. The more Jack gets to know Parry, the less close-up are used in his shots. This is because Parry provides him with a sense of calmness and gives his life some meaning which it had previously been lacking.

Robin Williams is fantastic as Parry, and his tendency to over-act really comes in useful. Parry is eccentric, hyperactive, and paranoid, and Williams does this brilliantly. He manages to play Parry with just the right amount of craziness, but he also shows his sensitive and serious side, which hints at the person he was before tragedy struck.  New York is an effective setting for The Fisher King. The hustle and bustle of the city helps emphasise Parry’s tormented and Paranoid mind.

You may find the film shocking and hard to watch, as the sometimes unsteady camera work and the  juxtaposition of fantasy and reality shots make for uncomfortable viewing.  The Fisher King is not meant to be a comfortable movie though, so you shouldn’t let this put you off.  There is a sense of real tragedy throughout the movie and in parts it can be upsetting, but it successfully draws you in and really makes you sympathise with the characters. By the end you’re wishing for a happy ending for all of them.

Dir: Terry Gilliam

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Robin Williams, Mercedes Ruehl

Since the film is more of a dark procedural crime thriller, it draws the viewer in early, and there are hints that this very well could have ‘Omen’ like qualities to it. Like everything else, that angle becomes a letdown as well.

*******
Horsemen
Directed By: Jonas Åkerlund
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Ziyi Zhang, Clifton Collins Jr. and Lou Taylor Pucci

Or at least one half of the Blair Witch crew. It is rather curious that the DVD marketing of Moon makes almost no mention of that overrated cinema miracle from ten years ago. Instead, it invokes the name of The Evil Dead- only because the flick is “presented” by Sam Raimi and Robert Tapert’s Ghost House Underground banner. They have no other connection to the film. More importantly, see the cool looking zombie? Enjoy that and the film’s premise…while you can. In fact, there’s some good bonus features on the DVD that shows you what these pale, vampiric Chinese zombies look like and some general info on the legend of which the film gets the general premise from. As such, the story has lots of potential .
I repeat: enjoy it while you can, for if you watch the film itself, you’ll see very quickly that Sánchez hasn’t really grown as a filmmaker. As a couple (Amy Smart and Tim Chiou) are visiting China to meet with some relatives, they speculate with a guide (Dennis Chan) the meaning of the recent celebration regarding the myth of dead rising on the seventh lunar month during a full moon. They get lost at night, the guide goes missing, buildings appear locked up, and Yul and Melissa are stranded in an unknown part of China. That myth, of course, has something to it as pale skinned corpses run about the farmlands, devouring the ’sacrifices’ left for them, be it chickens, dogs, rabbits and of course, any pool soul caught outside. The horror buff in us anticipates good things to come. But as the film progresses, three things started to test me. Then they frustrated me. Then it was an annoyance. As these three things continued, more and more, I hated the film I was watching.

Ten years ago, the Blair Witch team lit faces with flashlights under the chin and highlighted surroundings with other flashlights. Ten years later, technolgy has advanced. The main light sources are not flashlights or a car’s headlights. The full moon itself does not light a path, instead, it’s… the light blue hue of a CELL PHONE. So the character(s) more or less see next to nothing unless an object, person or pale zombie is right in front of them. That goes double for the viewer. Ten years ago, Witch also had a lot of shaky hand held camerawork, but that was before the shakycam filmmaking fad took off. One decade later, the hand held camera shakes so much and has many tight shots, it is next to impossible to get a bearing on where the two main characters are half the time. It’s almost as if the person with the camera had to take a bathroom break and was holding it in agonizing pain. I know that’s a crass thing to say, but the damned thing looks so rushed an amatuer, either the cameraman was ready for a privy break or the dude was having heatstroke. Worse, unless the zombies are jumping around the car (lit by cell phone and interior car light) they are tough to get a glimpse of. All that makeup. All those dedicated extras. All for nothing. Then there’s that third thing.

I’m constantly puzzled as to why a newlywed couple who are so much in love can quickly turn on each other when faced with bigger problems and worse threats. I’m curious as to why, out of the blue, the bickering brings up race and culture differences. Granted, the lover’s spat is for only part of the movie, but when the film’s visual style gets on my nerves, then the characters themselves suck my blood dry, there’s only so much I can take. I almost gave up on this darned thing, then, abracadabra, while escaping the wrath of the demons, our couple stumble into a bright candle-lit temple in the middle of a graveyard, where the villagers are holding some sort of ritualistic vigil. The scene sticks out, for it is not just a place where I don’t have to squint to see what’s going on. It’s a place where the demon dead don’t eat anyone, much less mob rush anyone. Just when the eyes stop being challenged, Sánchez puts that jittery camera and his actors back outside, then in a weird cave, where it is not only tough telling one demon zombie from another, but why the characters never bump their heads. More low lighting. More shaky cam. More tight shots. More. More. More.

Enough.

*********
Seventh Moon
Directed By: Eduardo Sánchez
Starring: Amy Smart, Dennis Chan and Tim Chiou

Of course the powers-that-be are bringing this film out now in the summer of the age of the vampire. Anything that sucks blood and sleeps in a coffin gets a film nowadays. However, these vampires have their own set of rules (don’t they all?). In this world, there are regular vampires – those who do not kill the humans they feast off of – and the vampaneze – those who do. These bloodsuckers have very sharp fingernails, can exhale a gas that puts people to sleep and have spit that will heal their wounds. On top of that they can run very fast, or what they call flitting. They hold their breath while they flit, or they should, although exactly why they must do so is not really explained.

There are two areas that I thought the film excelled in. The makeup department did an amazing job. The Wolfman, in particular, was brilliantly done and deserving of a much more frightening film. Also the sound department delivered on great sound. To make the audience cringe when a character gets hit or falls or runs into something requires awesome sound design. They made me feel the connections when blows were dealt out. Oh, I’d also like to add that Willem Dafoe does an excellent Vincent Price impersonation. Plus, in this film someone actually says that he wants to “rule the world”; a phrase I have not heard uttered since I last saw Pinky and the Brain. Sadly, these are the only bright spots in the film. The CGI – and there is lots of it – is very obvious and, in terms of quality, par for the course. The action scenes hide the lack of action hero quality in their stars by keeping the cameras very close to the actors and cutting quickly so you don’t really know what’s going on. When that doesn’t work, they speed up the film as if something which is boring and awkward at normal speed will suddenly be amazing to watch when it’s twice as fast.

John C. Reilly is a great actor, one of the best at work today. He is not, however, known for playing guys who are commanding or forceful or threatening, all of which are asked of him here. Instead, he looks and feels out of place and ends up chewing some major scenery. Many well known faces parade through this film; Salma Hayek, Orlando Jones, Patrick Fugit, Ken Watanabe, Kristen Schaal, Jane Krakowski and on and on; most are given just barely enough to do to justify signing on for this film. Perhaps there will be more for them in the sequels. That being said, the person I feel worse for is Chris Massoglia. The screenwriters didn’t even give him a chance. His Darren Shan is such a passive hero that things happen to him or around him and he just kinda mopes about it. When he’s not moping, he’s whining and when he’s not whining, he’s complaining. Half way through the film I didn’t understand why Mr. Crepsley was even bothering with Darren at all. It wasn’t until the very end that Darren started to show the slightest of backbones. Again, if the movie gods give this film a good opening weekend and if the thirst for vampires and their ilk does not dissipate, let’s hope there’s more of that backbone for him in the sequel.

This documentary has very good production value for a documentary. Lately, it has felt and looked like documentaries have had severely low budgets. As if the filmmakers felt their point was so strong it would carry the all of emotional weight and that setting up a stationary camera with a few talking heads was the best they could do to get their point across. Here, they go far and above just using talking heads. There are lots of superfluous and well-constructed shots, cartoons and computer graphics added in to make a point and often also for a laugh. Alas, there is the rub and one of the major problems with the way this social commentary is set up. The tone is entertaining and often the humor is very tongue-in-cheek, which then takes some of the seriousness out of the problems they are discussing. When they are talking about and showing all the displaced people in New Orleans, it’s almost given to the audience as an aside when instead it should be pulling on our heartstrings. The filmmakers should know that the most effective way to get people up in arms, to make a change and a difference, is to have them feel pity or empathy for the victims. However they seem too caught up in their own cleverness to bother with those types of things. On top of that, their Saturday morning Beakman’s World approach at explaining complex theories and topics such as “Free Market” and “The Kyoto Protocol” do not work nor thoroughly explain the concepts enough for those uneducated about such things to follow what they are discussing.

There are four different corporations they spoof; DOW, Exxon, Haliburton and The New York Times. The connecting tissue between each of these escapades is often nothing but a fairly thin segue making them feel more like four different and distinct pranks instead of a point or a cause they are trying to push and follow through to the end. Every time they get in front of an audience they try a different tactic to garner a response; first horror, then tastelessness and finally ridicule. They want to shock their audience awake yet each time they get the same response, a gentle malaise followed by apathy. The cause of their failure is in the movie itself – what’s shocking to outsiders is normal to insiders. They seem be unable to grasp this and ultimately, the title The Yes Men Fix the World is a serious case of false advertisement. Their efforts, however valiant, do not have the effect on the people they intended because no matter how brightly you shine a light on the problem, changes will not be made if the corporations refuse to look or see no problem with what’s being done. Making a film about their antics and showing us, the consumers and sometimes the victims of corporate greed, what is really happening is apparently the next best thing to getting their point, however unfocused it many be, across.

Here’s how it works for me

I’m a movie fan living in a small town in The Netherlands. We have a cinema, but it’s only got three screens and tends to focus on family type movies. Generally, I go and see every movie I’m interested in they show there. I don’t mind the ticket prices at all and love the whole movie-going experience.

But the majority of movies I want to see aren’t show at my local cinema. The nearest megaplex theatre is about half an hour by car. Going to see a movie there means coming home late, causes pollution and just isn’t as much fun. At the same time, there are still many titles that get released on DVD in the US before, or at roughly the same time, as they open on the big screen here. That means a good ‘dvdrip’ copy of a movie is often available on Bittorrent by the time I want to see it.

Rental

In my opinion, DVD rentals make no sense anymore either. Why would I bother going to such a place, deal with the trouble of having to return the disc only to see ‘ancient’ movies. There are better alternatives available. If I fire up a torrent in the afternoon it’s a pretty safe bet that that recently released movie will be downloaded and ready to watch in the evening.

Convenience

If the movie industry is serious about dealing with piracy, they should make it more convenient to see movies. We’re the consumer here, we should be able to enjoy the product as we see fit. Don’t make us wait, don’t force us to drive anywhere if we prefer the comfort of our own home for that evening, and don’t treat us as criminals. Embrace new technology and use it to redefine the movie seeing experience. I’m pretty sure most of us wouldn’t mind a small admission fee once you do.

Marley Shelton’s performance is as stunning as her bleach blond hair. She is the ultimate avant-garde connoisseur, the perpetual fan to all the misanthropes who grace her gallery. To her, everything can be art, down to the stylish, but very artsy, clothes she wears. Her wardrobe, especially at the beginning of the film, was extremely and unbelievably noisy, so much so, I thought them to be incredibly distracting and that perhaps there was a problem with the sound mixing. It turns out they were making a point, but I still think they could have brought it down a little in the mix. The original score, done masterfully by David Lang, is full of atonal crazy music like Adrian’s and shows how it can be the sound of the city or the sound of a party or the sound of two brothers fighting. It is very creative how he incorporated the score into the sound design. One of Madeline’s most prized artists is Ray Barko – played by Vinnie Jones. He is a well selling artist, whose art consists of taxidermied animals posed in awkward positions. At his shows he prattles on about how, “the past doesn’t influence me, I influence it” and other such non-sequiturs that just add to the absurdity of the entire movie.

I must walk a fine line here. I understand that the film is a satire and that it takes what is real and pushes it just a little further to make it bizarre and therefore humorous. The problem is taking the real and pushing it a little farther – is art! There are people who would see the creations in this film and crave seeing or hearing more. I know these people! I know the artists who are just looking “to communicate, to express, to be loved.” I know the patrons that see a chandelier made from dead possums as something deep and profound. So to say that the art or the artists depicted are over the top and ridiculous…truth is, no they’re not. At times, they are bang on the money. Which is often sad to think about. But, as they say, “it’s so funny cause it’s so true.”