GenReview

GenReview Has Moved (For Now)

2010-08-28T12:31:00.000-07:00

This blog has moved to WordPress for the time being, as a trial of sorts to see how it performs there. So anyone who reads this blog (does anyone? no, I joke), should check out the link below. Let me know your thoughts, or remain silent, because that can do the job as well, but we will see how well it works moving over. On the plus side, the WordPress version features a new look and a reinvigorated rating style (out of ten now, instead of four, and it also features a new category: Impact). All the comments from here have moved, so its like nothing changed... I think. Thanks all.

http://thegenreview.wordpress.com/

Inception

2010-07-31T01:46:00.000-07:00

It has taken me awhile to dissect Inception, a film so layered and complex, that I wasn't even sure how I was going to write about it. There is so much to analyze, to mull over, and to generally appreciate (or not), that the task seemed daunting. But the time has come, and I think Christopher Nolan has crafted himself one hell of a film, one that I hope will continue to be deconstructed and discussed for years to come.

Inception is a film about dreams, at least on the surface, but it is also about the nature of reality and what one perceives as reality. Is there really any difference? The plot is complicated, to put it mildly, and because the reality vs. perception argument fuels the film, from an audiences point of view at least, you have to question everything you are given and everything you see, because none of it may be "real." Nolan delves into his characters subconsciouses, going deeper and deeper into dream worlds that it is hard to maintain a grip on reality. There are some truly meta ideas hidden within Inception, which, instead of drawing the viewer out of the film, allows them to question their own perception of reality, drawing them deeper into the film. This was the most interesting aspect of the film, and ties into most conversations regarding the film when friends will discuss it, even if they are unaware.

But that is just a bunch of rambling on why I enjoyed Inception, though there are certainly many other reasons. Nolan's directing, combined with the editing and filming of the film, is utterly perfect, and there are a number of scenes that stand out above the rest. There is none better than the hallway fight scene between Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and a nameless, faceless gunman, as the two struggle for dominance in the hallway whose gravity is constantly shifting, sending the two up and down walls and onto ceilings, all in crisp, clear shots. It's a stunning technical achievement to be sure, but it's also damned exciting to watch.

Along with Nolan, his cast does a wonderful job, especially Leonardo DiCaprio. The film rides on his shoulders and he carries it without any strain, which helps the audience watch Cobb in a way that is cold and observational, but still allows for sympathy. And the players around him populate a world that is exciting and mysterious, which would be less impactful if the cast was any less stellar. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy are the two supporting members that really need to be watched, as they stand tall in a story packed with ideas and characters constantly threatening to be more interesting than anything that came before it.

The praise can continue, and end, with the script, which Nolan has been working on for nearly a decade. It took the success of The Dark Knight to get Inception made, because at its core, Inception is a heady, sci-fi, actioner that manages to fit into both in an epic and thoughtful category, which challenges audiences but still excites them. Nolan proves you can combine intelligent story-telling with stunning action, but this isn't his only example. It wouldn't mean much to present the story here, even in synopsis form, because it is better to know as little as possible about Inception prior to seeing it, and it would be exceedingly difficult to do it in a manner that didn't appear convoluted and exhausting. Suffice it to say, Inception is well worth your time.

Genre - Action (4)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

[Rec] 2

2010-07-12T02:18:00.000-07:00

Where [Rec] was the Alien of hand-held, first-person horror, [Rec] 2 follows more closely with the action-heavy Aliens. Both sequels, while respecting their horror roots, amp up the intensity and focus on the action, relegating scares to a close second. [Rec] and Alien are horror films through and through, wanting to scare you more than excite you, and their sequels are really action films that maintain a thrilling and frightening atmosphere. There are more similarities than this (the fact the follow-ups focus on military teams the most obvious, something fellow action-horror sequel 28 Weeks Later does to the original 28 Days Later), but the similarities are more homage than rip-off. What is important is [Rec] 2 is a damn fine sequel and film in its own right.

The film begins just minutes after where the first finished, with a small SWAT team moving in to infiltrate the apartment building quarantined to control the deadly virus that killed nearly everyone off in [Rec]. They are joined by a doctor/priest who seems to know more than they do about the going-ons of the virus, as well as some random kids who appear towards the middle of the film. In all honesty, [Rec] 2 is not a character driven film, instead, directors Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza keep their eye on action and deliver thrill after thrill. This may be the films major fault, though it isn't really a detractor at all, mostly because we don't have time to care that we don't really care or no about these people we are watching. [Rec] 2 compliments [Rec], where the first film spent more time building dread and letting the audience get to know some of the characters, the second film tries to advance the plot, aka the mystery, surrounding the virus.

Which leads us to the second biggest change from [Rec] to [Rec] 2. What began as a film featuring a virus changing people into living zombies, we are now treated to (spoiler?!... not really) a supernatural action-thriller. The virus is more than just a bad case of rabies, it now has ties to some freaky demonic stuff. It could have been a silly and ridiculous premise, but Balaguero and Plaza pull it off, keeping the developments coming and employing a few tricks to expand the universe and environment they set up in the first film. Luckily, the addition of the supernatural element juxtaposed nicely with [Rec], which hinted at some of these developments, so whether the directing duo planned this from the beginning or not is up for debate, they do manage to make it work.

The actors all do a decent job of seeming real, but because they aren't all that important, at least on a personal basis, the focus should be applied to the camera work. [Rec] 2 simply makes filming what is happening important and essential to the story, so it doesn't feel forced to have a camera around all the time. And, in another Aliens homage, the SWAT team uses helmet cams, which allow the main cameraman to tap in to these feeds at will. It allows for more to happen and to be seen, while still maintaining the first-person narrative. So credit once again to the directors.

[Rec] 2 is exactly what you want from a sequel, especially one stemming from the horror genre, and it gets so much right in its limited runtime that any faults are hard to notice/complain about. It feels like a cap to the story, keeping everything contained in two films, but should there be a third, it seems that it will dramatically change what we are used to for this series. Let's hope this finishes it, where it can remain on top.

Genre - Horror (3.5)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (2)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Predators

2010-07-09T03:06:00.000-07:00

The opening of Predators may be my favorite part. Thrust into the middle of action, free falling through the sky, disoriented... like Adrian Brody's character, we have no idea what is happening. And that disorientation, that confusion, lasts the running time of the film. That's not to say that Predators is confusing, or even all that complicated, but the story itself leaves so much open to interpretation (or presents potential future franchise entries plot lines) that you, the audience, kind of have to roll with the punches and accept what you are being shown.

So much of Predators draws from the original Arnie starring Predator, but I never felt like it was ever too much. Sure, Brody slathering himself in mud was stretching homage a bit far, though it did show that he could pull of badass without seeming all too silly. Predators is as basic as your monster movies get, with a random assortment of strangers getting picked off one by one, which is exactly what Predator did and to much acclaim, at least from genre fans. Neither film really draws their characters all that well, so we are left with fairly basic people, some of whom deserve far more backstory and explanation than we will ever receive. It's hard to get to know these people, but they aren't unlikable assholes for supposedly being unlikable, hardcore assholes. Personally, I wanted more on the Japanese Yakuza character, but his mystery certainly works enough for the purposes of this film.

There is plenty of violence and action and blood to satisfy, and the familiar beats may satisfy fans who might have been ready to write this off after a lacking sequel and two atrocious (or so I hear) AVP films. Nimrod Antal does a good job visually, directing a fine B-movie that can at least stand proud next to the original inspiration. Predators is a fun, fast sci-fi actioner that showcases some serious predator mayhem. This is what Avatar might have been like if the alien species there weren't a bunch of tall, blue-skinned, environmental pussies (I kid! Really).

Genre - Action (3)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (3)

Stand By Me

2010-06-15T18:19:00.001-07:00

There are certain movies that hit the fun and turmoil of growing up squarely on the head, never delving too deep down the mopey well, but knowing it has something to say on the process of transitioning out of childhood. Stand By Me is one of those films, because it balances the deeper insights with some humorous, crazy stuff. And to know the film was based off a Stephen King story... well, it may not be surprising over twenty years since its release, but it shows that the man has something to say, that he can do more than genre fare.

Rob Reiner's film is a wonderful adaptation of the source material, treating it with respect, but embracing the filmic nature of the medium. He sheds light on Gordie, sure, but he also remembers there are three other characters that need development, and we get them subtly throughout. Chris, Teddy, and Vern are all wonderful characters, and because they are all so important to Gordie's growth, it is important that we understand why. Stand By Me is based of Stephen King's The Body, and it is that body, as much as the four of them, that is responsible for their coming-of-age.

The script is tight and draws heavily from the novella it is based upon, and leads to classic moments like the Barf-o-rama, the leech attack, and Kiefer Sutherland's unnerving performance as Ace, among others. As the gang travel to find the dead body of a boy hit by a train in the woods, they face a number of trials that proves to test them, alluding to a far more dangerous adult world than they might have known. Which is hard to say, with each of them with their own fair share of troubled childhoods.

In terms of acting, the young kids hold the movie together well, so adults watching can focus more on the story of the process of growing up, and less on the fact that some of the actors are not holding up their end. Luckily, everyone does an incredible job, credit due to River Phoenix, Kiefer Sutherland, and the whiny, chunky Jerry O'Connell. Not to say Corey Feldman and Wil Wheaton don't do a good job, but they are slightly out-shined. And they can all handle the comedy as well as the drama, be it the hijinks of guarding their camp at night or the somberness of finding the body itself. Also, there is the whole thing with the deer, which is as stereotypically deep as the film goes, and because it is brief, the scene is welcome.

Genre - Drama (4)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (4)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

Tucker & Dale vs Evil

2010-05-31T11:54:00.000-07:00

Tucker & Dale Vs Evil isn't the first horror film to employ comedy to set it apart, and it isn't the first to use that comedic base to satirize and turn the genre on its ear. But it is certainly one of the more fun examples, taking a well-worn concept and transforming it into something new and exciting. The hillbilly killer convention of the horror genre is so universal and tired, as is the cabin-in-the-woods subgenre that has its place in T&DvE, but Eli Craig, the writer and director, has turned the perspective around, making those frightening, redneck hillbillies the heroes of the film and the teens they should be hunting...well, they are still douchebags.

So Tucker and Dale, the titular rednecks, are really just a couple of sweethearts from the country, wanting to spend time at their newly purchased "vacation" home, to spend some time drinking beer and fishing. That would have been easy enough if a group of teens hadn't set up camp nearby, fearing the two men and assuming the worst. T&DvE is a film that is really about assumptions and prejudice, about human nature and its ability to judge others who are different from us, without ever attempting communication in order to understand those very people. Which sounds a lot deeper for a comedy than this one actually is, but it's important to know that it is, indeed, there.

Eli Craig's script and direction are solid throughout, giving us exactly what we'd expect to see, only presenting it in a different light. The set-ups are largely the same as you'd find in a typical horror film, with chainsaws, wood chippers, sharp sticks, and ineffectual cops enough to have even an amateur horror fan know what is being parodied. But this isn't a Funny Games dissection of the genre, so it embraces the blood, the gore, and the silliness you hope to find. With the teens essentially their own enemy in this film, because they are the ones who must do all the evil, the endless ways they are dispatched bring something fresh to a time when watching teens die isn't as fun as it used to be.

The real champions here are stars Tyler Labine and Alan Tudyk, who a handful will recognize from cult shows not enough people watched. They fill their hillbilly roles with a grace you wouldn't expect to find, and their ability to handle comedy is astounding. Tyler Labine, who seems as nice a guy in person as his character is onscreen, has a small love plot with one of the teen leads, and where that should normally fail, he pulls it off with aplomb, making it seem natural and real. The teens are really pretty one-note, but that is to be expected, so it doesn't really hurt anything, because they aren't the ones we are supposed to care about. Labine and Tudyk really make the whole film worth it, and I can only hope this sees wider distribution in the future.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (3)

Action: GenReview Awards

2010-04-18T15:31:00.000-07:00

Best Picture: Watchmen

I wasn't sure if it would work, but Watchmen stayed true to the graphic novel and was also an action-packed movie. Plus, we get to watch Jackie Earle Haley kick all sorts of ass playing Rorschach.

Best Screenplay: Crank 2: High Voltage

There have been few action films as intentionally ridiculous as this. Some action films have indeed been more ridiculous, but they weren't trying to be, so they lose.

Best Actor: Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes)

Like Tony Stark, Downey Jr. makes Sherlock Holmes a flawed and fascinating character. His charm cannot be denied, so stop trying. He really makes the movie.

Best Production: Avatar

Here, Avatar gets exactly what it deserves, which is credit for its amazing technical achievements. Despite being a live-action Pocahontas, Avatar really rocks the graphics, so well down James Cameron.

Best Director: Zack Snyder (Watchmen)

He may love slow motion, but Zack Snyder also likes making movies. He respects the source material of his adapted works, and has a genuine love for making film a truly spectacle medium.

Sci-Fi/Fantasy: GenReview Awards

2010-04-18T15:16:00.001-07:00

Best Picture: District 9

What sci-fi films should be. District 9 made aliens and not-entirely-subtle racial discrimination issues fun again. It's got enough going on to hold the interests of those seeking only action, but it is also layered enough to appeal to those higher-minded sci-fi types.

Best Screenplay: Where the Wild Things Are

Because it made a 20-sentence book into a feature-length, heart-filled movie, that's why.

Best Actor: Sam Rockwell (Moon)

He was essentially the only actor and he played a number of different versions of himself. The man has some serious acting chops and he made Moon a delight. Or badass, whichever fits better.

Best Production: Star Trek

Here we have a reboot that pays respect to the original series, yet sets of in a new direction for a new generation. Everybody wins, and the special effects were pretty stunning. Stellar (of the star variety, but it works both ways) battles have been sorely missed.

Best Director: J. J. Abrams (Star Trek)

The man can do television and film in equal measures. J. J. Abrams makes space exciting again, as well as Star Trek. So thanks.

Comedy: GenReview Awards

2010-04-18T14:57:00.000-07:00

Best Picture: A Serious Man

This exploration into a Jewish man's crumbling life is hilarious, even if that sounds cruel. The Coen Brothers based this loosely on their own father, and because Larry Gopnik doesn't really do anything to deserve the trouble that seems to seek him out, it allows us to sympathize him, while still laughing.

Best Screenplay: In the Loop

In the Loop is a political comedy that takes the concept of chaos and runs with it. It's an equally hilarious and twisting mess that is never fully understood by either the audience or the characters. But that feels real, doesn't it?

Best Actor: Zack Galifianakis (The Hangover)

Another surprise comedy in the sense that it didn't suck as much as it probably should have. And Zack Galifianakis deserves a lot of the credit, proving himself an actor that can be consistently funny and still pulls his own weight.

Best Production: (500) Days of Summer

If only for the scene where actual events play out against what is desired, showing how sad and miserable love can be. But it also shows how much love truly means, so there's that too. Also deserving for the post-coital dance number.

Best Director: Sam Mendes (Away We Go)

Here is an experienced director keeping a comedy from getting too heavy and bogged down in melodramatic pregnancy gunk. Mendes moves the story along briskly, letting the laughs develop organically rather than forcing them down the audience's throat.

Horror: GenrReview Awards

2010-04-18T14:53:00.001-07:00

Best Picture: The House of the Devil

This one came out of left field, but it did so with style. There were higher profile horror films this last year, but The House of the Devil was far and ahead the best of them, despite not being all that well known.

Best Screenplay: Drag Me to Hell

Sam Raimi is back. Or so it seems. He went back to the horror well after spending nearly a decade on Spider-Man, and his love and appreciation of the genre is still there. He packs Drag Me to Hell with tons of jump scares, humor, and gross-out gags. If only we can get more like this from Raimi.

Best Actor: Stephen McHattie (Pontypool)

McHattie carries this small, Canadian thriller, set entirely in a remote radio station in the Great White North. It's an eerie film and McHattie's gravely voice would not only make an excellent radio host, but also serves the horror genre well.

Best Production: Last House on the Left

This is home invasion flick turned on its ear. The film has subject matter most mainstream horror wouldn't touch, but Last House on the Left handles it well and delivers some exciting scenes that seemed to appeal to a broad audience... or as broad as horror audiences get.

Best Director: Ti West (The House of the Devil)

Ti West's breakthrough belongs to the 80's and I couldn't mean that as more of a compliment. It's a slow builder and the payoff is exciting, making The House of the Devil an atmospheric thriller. Truly fantastic work.

Drama: GenReview Awards

2010-04-18T14:00:00.000-07:00

Best Picture: Inglourious Basterds

Tarantino long ago promised a WWII-era film and he finally delivered. While there are plenty of the directors key trademarks, Inglourious Basterds proves to be thrilling and exciting. It may very well be one of his best films.

Best Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds

Again. Because he's a damn good writer and made WWII fresh and new, even if he had to twist a few of the facts.

Best Actor: Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)

There was no one better than Waltz this year. Call him a supporting actor, or just plain ol' actor, but Waltz delivered an amazing performance, playing a clever, heartless Nazi known as the Jew Hunter.

Best Production: Up In the Air

Jason Reitman managed to make a dramatic comedy seem less formulaic than the typical dramatic comedy. Sure, the beats are all there, but the film is funny and the story is engaging enough to separate it from the usual. It also is shot beautifully, so being easy on the eyes doesn't hurt.

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)

The Hurt Locker was a great film, and while Inglourious Basterds did outshine the Iraq War drama, it does deserve some credit. Bigelow did a great job directing, and despite the argument that she won awards because she is a woman, it's hard to argue she didn't earn it.

Kick-Ass

2010-04-17T14:56:00.000-07:00

Already there is controversy surrounding Kick-Ass, complaints about the excessive and sometimes brutal violence, about young Chloe Moretz's foul-mouthed character Hit Girl, and even possibly about the less-than-family-friendly superhero deconstruction. And because Kick-Ass is meant to drive this kind of conversation and disgust, I think it will work in its favor. Controversy sells, and I think most audiences will understand that Kick-Ass is doing something more with its violence than simply being gratuitous.

Based on the graphic novel of the same name, Kick-Ass comes from the creator of Wanted, and while I haven't it, the film failed to impress me as it did others (but from what I hear, the graphic novel featured a much darker and interesting story than its silver screen adaptation). Like Wanted, I haven't read Kick-Ass, but the violence and profanity wasn't toned down in Matthew Vaughn's adaptation, at least in any imaginable way. Kick-Ass sets out to deconstruct and mock some of the cliches that often plague superhero stories. The film is funny, examining a world where a few "ordinary" people try to become superheroes, resulting in some truly entertaining scenes. And the violence, as excessive as it can be, works because to be a hero, or more appropriately a vigilante, would require that level of violence. It's not gratuitous for the sake of being gratuitous. These people are sick, in the sense that they are damaged enough to dress up and hurt people, for the greater good or not.

As for Moretz's role, which is upsetting all manner of uptight, overprotective parent groups, she does a great job and sells the hard-edged little girl perfectly. Even Nicolas Cage, who hasn't had the best streak of late, does some wonderful things as Big Daddy. Those two, along with Aaron Johnson's Kick-Ass, make a great trio. The introduction of Hit Girl, Big Daddy's warehouse massacre, and the debut appearance of Kick-Ass are all excellent scenes to showcase each actors strength.

Kick-Ass may stir up some controversy, and some won't bother seeing it, but I can imagine, as was my experience in the theater, that the film will play well with crowds. It's fun and the lightness of the film will make it one easy to come back to.

Genre - Action (3.5)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (4)

Triangle

2010-04-14T13:46:00.000-07:00

There is a shot in Triangle that perfectly sums up the film, yet is so damn good that I wouldn't dare ruin it for anyone. Sadly, it would work as an amazing selling point, but those who venture into Triangle will certainly know what I'm referring to once they see said scene. Luckily, there are others scenes and aspects to discuss, which will hopefully push people to see the film.

Triangle is written and directed by Christopher Smith, most likely "known" for his horror/comedy Severance. That film was a pleasure to watch and had fun with its slightly touched upon meta humor. The characters know enough about the ideas behind horror films (though never actually referenced, to avoid Scream comparisons, that it makes watching it so much fun; it keeps you guessing. But Triangle isn't like that, and while not an out-and-out horror film, it has its fair share of thrills, which tend to be more psychological than anything. Smith, and here I'll say *spoiler alert* for those hoping to go in blind, plays with the idea of time travel/time looping to move our main character through the story. It's cleverly done, and because it is complex and layered, Triangle has you unraveling the story after it's over.

Smith does a fantastic job writing and directing, building tension slowly and keeping the majority of the thrills psychological, so it never delves too much into cliched slasher material. Due to the nature of the film, and as mentioned at the beginning of this review, there are some really incredible shots. Too bad this low-budget flick didn't see a wider release, but I'm sure it will find its audience on DVD. Triangle twists and turns, not waiting simply for the end to wow viewers. And once the final twist is revealed, it sends you reeling, trying to understand exactly what has happened and how.

The acting is good, yet the majority falls onto the shoulders of lead star Melissa George. She does a great job, filling a variety of roles and emotions. You can certainly admire just how much she had to do for this film and it really pays off. And her co-stars all do what they need to to make her plight more real, more gripping.

If the film has any faults, it's probably in the time shifts, though from my viewpoint everything worked out well. I haven't figured everything out yet, so I'll keep the possibility open. But this is a little horror flick that subverts the usual fare, which was welcome enough. I thoroughly enjoyed Triangle and hope that it will find an audience further down the line.

Genre - Horror (3.25)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (3)

Directing (4)

Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-04-07T16:05:00.000-07:00

Do we need to thank Snakes on a Plane for Hot Tub Time Machine existing? It seems ridiculous to ask, yet SOAP grew from Internet buzz and love, the title grabbing attention before we even knew what the movie was about (well, kinda...I mean, it didn't take much brainpower to figure it out). Hot Tub Time Machine also grabbed peoples attention, yet the film wasn't overhyped or talked about to death months before its release like SOAP. Did it all work out? For the most part, I would say it did.

The premise was simple and the film embraced what it was from the start, which made the whole thing easier to swallow. Hot Tub Time Machine, as a title, conveys exactly the kind of movie it is. There is a time machine in the form of a hot tub, and our characters go back through time in it. And because it is a comedy, the fun can move forward without slowing, trying to make sense of its plot, which is rather thin and exists only for the jokes. And there are plenty of them.

Delving into the writing, we get a solid mixture of crude humor and 80s references, which was a nice balance, maintained nicely the whole way through. The script moves at its own, crazy little pace, as it moves from point to point without slowing, some hitting the larger "plot," others just for fun. Hot Tub Time Machine handles its time traveling fine, as it never really gets into the science of it, which is smart. The coked out explanation of the time travel is summed up nicely by Craig Robinson's character. And because his face is covered in the fine, white powder, you can accept what he has to say because it really isn't all that important how the time travel functions. It's a device, just go with it, and watch Primer if you want the real deal.

The cast all rocked their parts, and I really enjoyed Craig Robinson and John Cusack, who proved he can still be quite funny. Rob Corddry and Clark Duke also kept the funny going, and this odd mixture managed to make the film funny throughout. Plus the blend of old and new really made the movie a lot more interesting than jam packing it with actors we see in every major comedy these days.

Hot Tub Time Machine won't appeal to everyone, but those looking to turn of their brains and enjoy some quality comedy will be in luck. Now expect to see more Internet sensations finding their way to the big screen, and if they all manage to be as successful as Hot Tub Time Machine, we should be all right.

Genre - Comedy (3.25)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (3)

Alice In Wonderland

2010-03-22T17:24:00.000-07:00

Tim Burton has never been a filmmaker that has had me excited when a new film of his is about to be released. For some, Burton is an off-the-wall filmmaker, with traces of artsy, independent flair to get them feeling like they're experiencing something just profound enough. Not too much though. Others recognize the artist in him, the one with the touches of gothic style, who isn't so much a fake, but rather a filmmaker that has sold out. That's how I tend to view Burton, realizing his potential and knowing how great an artist he can be. Just look to Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood for shining examples.

But with Alice in Wonderland, Burton has made a film that is too similarly tied to his abysmal Charlie and the Chocolate Factory than his earlier classics. Which is a shame, because Alice could have been his ticket back to "artistic" success. Instead, anyone who saw the Disney version of Alice in Wonderland will essentially see the same film, only with an older Alice, darker images, and unnecessary 3D effects. The script offers nothing new to keep those familiar with the story interested, except maybe the inclusion Lewis Carrol's Jabberwocky. And to have Alice, now much older than when she first visited Wonderland, forget everything she knew about that world by blaming it on a dream only serves to make the film that much more like the Disney version. All this would be less egregious if Alice could simply recall the only dream she has ever had (the one about her first trip to Wonderland), instead of failing to recognize a single thing about Wonderland the moment she arrives.

Setting aside the screenwriting, which is the source of most of my complaints, let us turn over to the technical side. As to Burton's directing, there isn't much to say other than it looks nice. But there isn't anything particularly stunning about his work, nor any scenes that stand above the rest. Which, and this does tie back to the script issue, is likely due to everything in the story happening so damned conveniently that emotional weight is devoid in nearly every scene. It's hard to get into a film when everything is predictable and easy. But back to the technical stuff, like the 3D. This film was converted after the film had been shot, and the difference is noticeable. Blurry images, simple depth-of-field, and other problems detract from the 3D doing anything useful. Then again, I'm not the worlds biggest 3D advocate.

We can touch on the acting, which really amounts to how Johnny Depp performed. His Mad Hatter was an interesting character, and he did much better with it than he did with Willy Wonka. I did see hints of a darker, meaner Hatter, but we never really quite get there. Everyone does decent work, but nobody is all that stunning. The most interesting characters were those that were animated, like the March Hare and the Dormouse.

I'm still waiting for Burton's return to form, and hopefully I won't have to wait too long for it. His earlier work was his best, and I don't think it's crazy to want more of that. So Alice might not be it, and it may not be anything more than average, but at least it isn't terrible. Just lose the blockbuster urge and return to simpler times. That's my advice.

Genre - Fantasy (2)

Screenplay (2)

Acting (2)

Production (2)

Directing (2)

The House Of The Devil

2010-03-02T19:29:00.000-08:00

The House of the Devil had me excited, more to see if Ti West's experiment succeeded, and less about the actual film. And I use the term experiment loosely, because the film doesn't feel all that experimental, but has qualities that differentiate it from other films of its time. While West certainly succeeds with his experiment, he has also succeeded in crafting a highly enjoyable and terrifying film, which, above all else, is the most important aspect.

At this point, those unfamiliar with The House of the Devil will be wondering what this aforementioned experiment is. Ti West, writer and director of some horror films you've likely never heard of (I haven't), has created an authentic 1980s horror film. Now, I don't mean he imitated or copied or drew inspiration from 1980s horror films, but has actually created one nearly two decades after the 80s. From the camera angles, the grainy video quality, the credit font, the pacing, the score, and just about everything else, The House of the Devil is a pitch perfect 80s film. In fact, it's better than many of the films from the actual decade. So experiment may be an appropriate term, because The House of the Devil doesn't feel like a movie made in 2009, but feels like something that came from the era of Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street.

The story concerns itself with satanic cults, and the depraved and awful things they can do to innocent people, especially young, virgin college girls. But the film is actually more about Samantha, a young woman who is meant to "babysit" some elderly woman, stuck alone in a huge house in the middle of nowhere. West uses this time to build tension, slowly, which lends itself to some truly stomach clenching moments. Instead of jump scares - though there are a few - West builds upon a growing sense of dread, having the audience fear for Samantha's life, whose only foul was being desperate.

The acting is consistently solid, and the performance by Tom Noonan is quite good. He has a presence, and while he may not seem, at first, to fit, his role may be more essential because of this. And while Noonan deserves much of the credit, West managed to write characters with unique voices that seemed to be layered enough to be interesting. His script has us caring what happens to Samantha and her friend Megan. That is not an easy task, probably because it is so rare in current horror films. The teens in present day horror are all mean-spirited and obnoxious, so their deaths don't mean as much to viewers as characters we care about.

The House of the Devil is tense in all the best ways. It is a horror film that doesn't rely on jump scare tactics or excessive gore to sell the fear. This is a beautifully crafted film that belongs to another decade, but audiences now will have the pleasure of seeing it in this era, before it has a chance to age and gain a cult following. The House of the Devil is a stylistic throwback that anyone who experienced horror films in the 80s should see, but so should horror fans of the present. It's truly worth it.

Genre - Horror (3.5)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

Shutter Island

2010-02-25T00:19:00.000-08:00

It's wonderful to see a horror film treated with so much respect, especially by a director as well-known and prolific as Martin Scorsese. And make no mistake, Shutter Island is a horror film, and a well-made one at that, which likely explains the mixed critical reactions. The mystery and thriller aspects to Shutter Island combine with the horror elements, creating a unique blend, but the film's horror roots cannot be ignored, and I'm glad Scorsese didn't shy away.

Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, author of Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, Shutter Island is an altogether different beast from previous works. Sure, the location is similar, but the tone is darker, the tension higher, and genre twisted. I say genre twisted, because Lehane is a writer with mystery backgrounds, which is prevalent in Shutter Island, but certainly not limited to. The film is no different, and perhaps more atmospheric than the novel it was adapted from. Scorsese embraces the horror, the paranoia, and audiences are treated to a glimpse into a genre they usually hold in disdain. This is a horror movie that takes it's time with the characters, lets the mood build and culminate in a final, game-changing twist. By the time of the big reveal, we've come to know these characters, whether they're wholly truthful or not.

As I've already mentioned, Scorsese treats Shutter Island with respect, framing scenes much like those of horror films, utilizing shadows, paranoia, jump scares, loud noises, and the score to create tension and fear. Combine that with the setting - a mental institution - and the apparent brutality of the doctors and their procedures, and you definitely have the workings of a horror flick...or thriller if you will. Shutter Island is a beauty, and whether you enjoy the story or not, it's hard to argue the film isn't gorgeous. Scorcese is a talented director, and Shutter Island proves this.

His cast is wonderful, from Leonardo DiCaprio to Mark Ruffalo to Ben Kingsley. Each of them brings their character to life, and I argue Kingsley does the most terrific job. I don't usually fawn over Kingsley's work, but he captivated me every time he was on screen, and I wanted more of him. But everyone does a fantastic job, especially in light of the twist ending, when you realize there is more to each character than you would have thought. And while the role is limited, Jackie Earle Hayley plays wonderful creeps, and his performance as a deeply trouble and violent patient resonated long after he appeared.

Shutter Island exceeded my expectations, which I'm glad to report. For a Lehane adaptation, it ranks close with Ben Affleck's Gone Baby Gone, and stretches far beyond Clint Eastwood's Mystic River. Judge for yourself, but this is a film worth seeing.

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (4)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

Food, Inc.

2010-02-24T15:42:00.000-08:00

I love watching films that make my blood boil. I love it even more when those films happens to be documentaries. There is just something about real situations, however skewed an issue may be presented, that gets to me. Michael Moore is a figure whose work can be polarizing, yet each topic he's investigated has resinated with me. Health care, gun control, the Bush administration's incompetence. Food, Inc. is no different. This is a film that examines the current state of our food industry, how food is "made" and how the animals, and the crops we grow, are treated and mass-produced. And I'll be damned if it didn't get me angry.

For the record, I'm an unapologetic lover of all things meat, someone who has never given the briefest thought to vegetarianism and will suck down the flesh of animals until the day I die. But that doesn't mean I want those animals, with the flesh I so cravingly want, treated poorly. Wrangling chickens, throwing them into tiny crates, kicking them, this is not how a living being should be treated. The same goes for cows and pigs. Food, Inc. delves into the world of livestock "farming," showing just how broken the system is. It's no wonder we know so little about the food we buy, with the companies working so hard to hide it from us. Robert Kenner, the man behind Food, Inc. does everything he can to expose the industry for all its faults, hoping a more transparent system will emerge.

The film itself, which not only covers how animals are "made" into food, but also examines the wild and crazy world of corn, is well-structured and beautifully shot. Interviews are done with farmers who provide their animals to the big name companies, figures far more sympathetic than you might believe. There are also interviews with farmers doing things the old-fashioned way, what with grass-fed beef and outdoors and dignity. Viewers are treated to a glimpse of how things used to be, how things can be, if only we work to change how things are done now. Kenner lets the words and images of the people he interviews say it all, relying less on showmanship and entertainment.

Food, Inc. may not inspire an instantaneous change in viewers, but it should cause some critical thinking. There is hope for a new system, one with less hormones and cruelty and corn, but it is up to the consumers of the world to demand that change. Let Food, Inc. get under your skin, let it anger you, because that is exactly what is needed.

Genre - Documentary (4)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (-)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

In The Loop

2010-02-16T00:25:00.000-08:00

In Burn After Reading, at the films finale, we discover that everything preceding it was a smorgasbord of chaos. The film is essentially one big joke, the end being the punch line. Some audiences were put off by this, while others appreciated what the Coen's were trying to say. I, for one, thought the film was excellent, and felt the ending lifted my spirits towards the movie, as opposed to leaving me feeling cheated. In the Loop is not Burn After Reading by any means, but the two do share a theme of political chaos, which lends each a certain hilarity that, I think, some will understand and others won't, which is a shame.

The chaos factor runs heavy throughout In the Loop's running time, and as everything becomes more and more tangled and confused, the more laughs there seem to be. The film portrays the political game as something so enormous and twisting, that is impossible to have everyone working within the system on the same page, saying the same things, doing what they are supposed to do. Which is likely fair, as governments, especially those of the featured Great Britain and United States, tend to be so sprawling in their reach that it's a wonder anything gets done properly at all. In the Loop doesn't follow so much a coherent story (though there is one), but instead follows characters caught in a machine, unable to escape, simply trying to survive. The politics are about war - whether going to or avoiding - yet every character in the film, all of them players in government or military, has their own opinion and thought of where their country stands. It's confusing and becomes much harder to follow the deeper it goes, but that is what makes the film so funny.

The writers, and there are a number of them, including director Armando Iannucci, do a brilliant job linking everything together, having the chaos build upon itself without it becoming too burdensome for the audience. The dialogue is quick and snappy, even when it is men and women screaming and swearing at each other. Peter Capaldi, Tom Hollander, and James Gandolfini each play their characters perfectly, some of them hapless idiots, other barking orders at anyone below their pay grade. While In the Loop is based off the British television series The Thick of It, the story seems to stand on its own, only a few characters crossing over, with most of the television cast playing different roles in the film.

Iannucci shot the film in a handheld, documentary style, with a considerable amount of improvisation by the actors, making the film feel more real. Again, this enhances the humor, if only because audiences can see the bits of truth about the inner-workings of government through this style.

This is a film definitely worth watching, a recommendation for those who find humor in politics, or in the everyday, chaotic bullshit of life. I'm glad the writers, who live and work in the U.K., spared no one in their skewering, giving both the U.S. and U.K. their dues. It's about time someone did.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (3)

The Book of Eli

2010-02-10T17:26:00.001-08:00

It seems as if there are more good ideas out there than good writing. You'd like to believe the two could go hand in hand, yet this isn't always (read: rarely) the case. Some writers are gifted with devising brilliant ideas, but when pen needs to be put to paper, there is a failure in communication. The brain does not supply the proper words, the words that would flesh a brilliant idea into a brilliant script, leaving a good idea ruined. The same goes for good writers, who know the craft inside and out, yet have trouble finding anything decent to write about. I don't know what the case was with The Book of Eli, but there was certainly a breakdown somewhere in there.

The Hughes Brothers latest film, their first since 2001's From Hell, starts out promising, but by the end credits, you can't help but feel a little disappointed. We meet the title character, Eli, played by the always great Denzel Washington, who is a loner, a man that keeps to himself and likes it that way. When post-apocalyptic thugs try and steal from him, though, he slices them to pieces without so much as breaking a sweat. It's an incredible sight to behold, especially if you are a fan of quick, brutal violence...and why shouldn't you be? Yeah, why not, movie watcher? So begins a great idea, having a man protect something as simple as a book, gifted with ninja fighting skills and seems invulnerable to bullets. But then they had to go and fuck it all up at the end, with one of the dullest, most stretched out twists cinema has ever seen. Shyamalan wouldn't have let that shit happen (ignore The Happening. Or The Village. Or Signs.). This was an idea that had promise, but was poorly executed.

For the most part, the writing works until the ending. We get some interesting hints as to why the "apocalypse" happened, and some cool fight scenes. There is a tonally odd, but entertaining, shootout near the films finale that had me hopeful, but that was actually the last of anything good about The Book of Eli. After that, we get mini-twists hard not to see coming, and a lot of empty, pointless filler. The actors do what they can, and are the best part of the movie as a whole. Washington does a solid job leading, and Gary Oldman is a wonderful villain, even when all the villain wants is a book. Mila Kunis isn't given a lot to do, but she performs admirably for what she is given.

So in the end, what you have is just another post-apocalyptic movie that promises more than it delivers. Not to say The Book of Eli is a complete waste of your time, but not something you need to rush to see. Or watch all but that last five or ten minutes and call it good. No, that's not an actual suggestion, but I wish the Hughes Brothers thought about that while filming, or editing, the film. But what are you going to do? Wait for the next post-apocalyptic movie to hit theaters. Sounds good to me.

Genre - Action (2.25)

Screenplay - 2

Acting - 3

Production - 2

Directing - 2

Avatar

2010-01-20T17:49:00.000-08:00

I've been wrestling with Avatar for quite some time. Long before the movie was released, before a trailer had been seen, I had heard Avatar would change things, perhaps the movie industry as a whole. Then the trailers were released, and then the movie itself, as well as reviews and award shows nominations and wins. Suffice it to say, the hype on this behemoth of a movie was big. Like really big. And, in order to manage my expectations, I tried to ignore the hype, to keep a rational mind. So how did it shape up to the hype? To my expectations? Well that's rather complicated.

I have a feeling that this review may read more like a criticism of Avatar than a praising of it. But the grading Avatar get will likely not reflect what is said here. More on all that later. First and foremost, Avatar is nothing more than a big budget, popcorn sci-fi flick. In terms of story, that is exactly what James Cameron's latest is. And it's a big film, akin to a Michael Bay movie, only better shot, acted, and received. But both those men love big movies. This is not a criticism, only a reminder that something we enjoy isn't always something that is truly great. On the page, Avatar is nothing remarkable. It is a fun science fiction story. But when you examine the film from a technical level, that's really where it shines.

The computer graphics and the application of 3D is amazing. There is so much detail, the characters and environments of the Pandora world (where the film is set), is at times perfect, and at others, really, really good. And let me say right up front that 3D movies aren't really my thing. They seem too gimmicky, and too much focus is spent on this aspect, rather than telling a decent story. Avatar tries to blend these two aspects with a little more care than your average animation or horror movie might. The universe of the film is designed for 3D, and is not meant to showoff an effect every couple of scenes. The Na'vi, which are the native species of Pandora, become more life like when you see them emerge from the screen, as if you existed in their world. The trees and bushes and other assorted vegetation almost pull you in deeper, gently blowing into and out of the screen. Cameron knew what he was doing here.

But then we get to the story. Now, I know it sounds like I'm about to rip on the screenplay, or even the acting, but that's not what I'm here to do. If this were any other filmmaker's movie, and done in a more traditional, 2D style, Avatar may get praise for being a fun, entertaining waste of a couple hours. But that is a fair label, because it is exactly that. I had fun watching Avatar, from the very beginning to the very end. There are moments of intense action, when you may find yourself not breathing, or laughing at a joke, or all sorts of other emotional reactions you have when watching a good film. But the only reason these emotions are enhanced is because of the 3D. Sure, there is a lot of good world building, and some really inventive creatures and alien dialect to be found, but these alone do not a good movie make. I appreciate the story I was told in Avatar, but do not for one moment believe it will change my life, nor do I think it was the most original work of the year.

And a brief note on the acting. Sam Worthington does a terrific job, and I'd pat myself on the back for saying he will likely be the next great star, if not for so many people already having said it first. The rest of the actors each performed at various levels under the heading of "good," but I wasn't blown away by anybody else. It just had to be said.

At the end of the day, Avatar is a good watch, and something that should be seen in 3D. But I'm not yet sold on the need for 3D in movies, or at least not as a standard. Every once and awhile maybe, but not every movie needs it, and even a few really don't. Cameron's movie recently won a Golden Globe for Best Picture, an award I don't think it deserved. It's made a ton of money, changed the nature of 3D films, but that's about it. There are better movies and there are worse. Let's just not get too out of hand. If Avatar wins the Academy Award for Best Picture, I don't know if I'll be able to control myself. But I guess we'll have to wait and see how history views Avatar.

Genre - Science Fiction (3.25)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (4)

Directing (3)

Sherlock Holmes

2010-01-06T13:23:00.000-08:00

This is an example of how to appropriately reboot a franchise. Or kick start one. Sherlock Holmes is definitely presenting itself as the first entry into a franchise, but movies featuring the character of Sherlock Holmes in the past haven't really been intended as franchises, or at least never took off. But that's likely due to Robert Downey Jr. not being available. I mean, the man makes this movie. He made Iron Man awesome, so why not the same with one of the most well-known, albeit fictional, detectives in the world?

I'll start by saying how tentative I was about seeing this film at all. I've only ever read The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but that is the extent of my immediate Holmes knowledge. The rest comes from reading about the great detective, and what I've gleaned from the television series House. Having known of this connection prior to watching Sherlock Holmes, it becomes readily apparent how much the character House was modeled after Holmes. The crass, intellectual, and deductive personalities are traits both characters share (and an addiction to drugs, which the movie mostly sidesteps). But nothing listed above was reason for how cautious I was approaching Sherlock Holmes.

When I discovered Guy Ritchie was going to direct, I worried that he would turn Holmes into just another one of his gangster flicks he is most well-known for making. And early previews only seemed to make this all the more likely, featuring almost nothing but fighting, explosions, and wild, intense action; all of which is fair, figuring the Holmes character was known to be a master of fist-fighting and martial arts. There was nothing of the detective using his brilliance, or even what the mystery at the heart of the story would be. But I was wrong here. Ritchie surprised me, giving Holmes the dark universe he belongs to, but allowing him to be first a thinker, and a fighter second. And, lets be honest, there were some pretty incredible action scenes in the film, so I'm glad someone like Ritchie was able to capture it well.

But, aside from some pretty excellent casting, I think credit is due to the writing team. Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham, and Simon Kinberg all did a terrific job writing the Holmes character. The screenplay isn't perfect, and probably could have used a little cleaning, but the mystery twists and turns, allowing Holmes to uncover the truth in his usual deductive and abrasive way. Giving Downey Jr. the role was about as smart a decision one could make, because it fits him so perfectly. He does an amazing job playing pretentious, self-centered characters like Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark. Perhaps the sequel will give Holmes the chance to let loose and to face off against his archenemy Professor Moriarty in a battle of wits Vizzini would most certainly be jealous of.

Genre - Action (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

[Rec]

2009-12-13T12:50:00.000-08:00

The trend in horror to film from the perspective of a camera, as if the scenes unfolding before us were, in fact, real, is one that can divide audiences as much as excessive gore. Cloverfield worked because the story was interesting and the monster was fascinating. Also, the camera work wasn't entirely too hectic and thus motion sickness and vomiting wasn't an issue. The Blair Witch Project is the most famous example (and one I haven't seen at the time of writing), yet Paranormal Activity, and the ridiculous amount of money it has raked in, certainly can be called the most successful. But while the aforementioned films can be deemed good or bad almost entirely upon the camera work and scare factor, I think none in the genre is better than [Rec].

[Rec] is a Spanish horror flick from the minds of Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza. The plot, and setting, is fairly simple. Angela Vidal is a reporter doing a fluff news piece on a team of firefighters when a call comes in. When they arrive at the apartment complex where the call came from, they find no fire, but instead distressed tenants. That's when everything goes awry and the firefighters, the news team, and the tenants are sealed in the apartment to contain a virus that turns people into zombie like crazies. Like the rage infected Brit's from 28 Days Later, but in a more contained area. It's not so much the plot that makes [Rec] so interesting, but the way it is presented. Balaguero and Plaza keep the audience's perspective strictly inside the news camera, so the scares come from what you don't see (or what jumps in your face). And while some of the scares are of the cheaper variety, there is a building sense of dread throughout the film that makes it a truly effective horror film.

The writing isn't much different from what you'd find in an average horror flick, but it certainly isn't worse. There is the set up, the screaming and yelling required of the characters, and the scary shit happening in between everything. But the acting, for the most part, works because the actors seem like real people trapped in an awful situation. Or maybe they are just unknown actors speaking a foreign language. Either way, the characters felt genuine, so feeling bad when everything came crashing down around them was easier than most horror movies allow. And, as is inherent in handheld cinema, characters are allowed to act "on," because there is a camera in their face. That gives a lot of leniency to the actors.

Not to sound too repetitive, but the real effectiveness of [Rec] comes from the camera work and directing style. Balaguero and Plaza have the audience at their mercy, letting them see what is in front of the camera and having them guess at what is just out of frame. A big death at the foot of the main stairway and the films climax are truly chilling scenes and prove how skillful the directors are at their craft. [Rec] is a horror film, and a scary one, that proves that some of the best thrillers are coming from outside the U.S. And you can be sure the American remakes won't nearly match the originals quality (which is true for [Rec]'s shot-for-shot remake Quarantine).

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Fantastic Mr. Fox

2009-12-06T13:02:00.000-08:00

You've got to appreciate a year where two high-profile kids movies come out that test the limits of what we typically call a kids movie, even if that number is sadly low. Where the Wild Things Are was Spike Jonze's effort, and in my opinion, he knocked it out of the park. Wes Anderson, who has as much, if not more, indie cred than Jonze, takes his chances with the Roald Dahl adaptation Fantastic Mr. Fox. He, like Jonze, wants nothing to do with straight-up, conventional storytelling. So what do you get? A stop-motion, bright (in all of Fall's wonderful colors) motion picture starring a fox voiced by George Clooney.

Anderson is best known for his deadpan comedies, such as The Royal Tenenbaums or Rushmore, but tackling this Roald Dahl story shows he has more to him than oddball indies. Sure, Fantastic Mr. Fox feels like an indie film, looks like one, feels like one - and is certainly of the oddball variety - but it isn't what you'd typically expect from Anderson. Viewed as a kids film, this one may push the limits on conventions even more so than WTWTA did from earlier in the year. Anderson's script, penned with friend and writer/director Noah Baumbach, whose The Squid and the Whale is one of my favorite films, is filled with a twisted sense of humor that comes out mostly in the quick-witted dialogue. For example, the film doesn't shy away from cussing, but, as it is geared towards children, the film opts to use the word cuss, in all its many forms, as a substitute for any language parents wouldn't want their kid hearing. I may be quick to use the word genius, but that was one of the most memorable, and enjoyable, aspects of the film.

The visual work is also quite stunning, but not in the same way as WTWTA (sorry for the many comparisons, but these two films are some of the most exciting children's stories to hit the screen outside of Pixar). This is an animated film, and is a throwback to an animation style not often seen anymore, which is sad. As much as CG has changed the movie industry, and is necessary for many films, practical effects still, and rightly so, have a place in cinema. To see the "imperfections," which would equate to the hairs on the characters moving or clothing getting crumpled, is almost magical. Not everyone will be a fan of this style of animation, but I challenge everyone to try and see past the unconventional (damn, there's that word again) nature and appreciate it as more an art form than anything.

All the voice work is perfectly matched, and by that I mean the actors fit their character. Clooney does a great job as Fox, Jason Schwartzman could only play Fox's son, and Bill Murry makes me wonder if Badger was written with him in mind. Obviously, it was. It's Anderson and Murry. Duh. With an animated film, voice work may be the most important detail. If the animation is good, but the voice actors don't seem to fit, then it almost renders the animation useless. Luckily, it all works out here.

In the end, Dahl's story, and dark sense of humor, isn't lost in translation (funny right? Bill Murry was in a movie titled that. Totally unintentional). Anderson respects the source material, and as a result, makes an enjoyable, funny, and gorgeous film to watch. Maybe this is a new trend in family films, which I am now dubbing those films that appeal to both the young and old crowd, where conventions can be tossed and real, interesting film making can replace it. I guess we have to wait and see.

Genre - Animated (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

Where The Wild Things Are

2009-11-22T18:21:00.001-08:00

Where the Wild Things Are is a sad, yet beautiful, reminder of how children's stories should be told. These stories should be about childhood, about growing up and all the emotions that are experienced in those early years of life, so that children and adults alike can relate to them. Which may make them dark and depressing, goofy and silly, confusing and wondrous, exciting and quiet, happy and full of life. Stories for and about children have been told utilizing these, and other, emotions since time began, and films for children did the same until recently, when some of the emotional spark has been lost to generic, dull, and easy feature films.

But Where the Wild Things Are stands out from the assembly line films, the cookie cutter stories, or, in other words, the average stuff. Writer/Director Spike Jonze, along with his co-writer Dave Eggers, have created not only a beautiful film to look at, but also a magical film to experience. We don't need to get too corny, but the visuals in WTWTA are truly stunning. After Max, the young boy central to the story, runs away from home and travels to an island full of wonderful things, is when Jonze really shows off his stuff. The Wild Things themselves are gorgeous to look at, credit mostly due to the fact that each of them are real. And by real I mean full body suits, with actual tangibility, and not simply some CGI rendering of a creature (though, smartly, the faces were rendered digitally). Carol, KW, Alexander, Douglas, Judith, Ira, and the Bull all become actual characters because of it. The world they live in, with the stick huts, the enormous fort they construct with Max, the desert past the forest and the beach past the desert, all make it seem like it is a place that actually exists.

It must be said that the visuals aren't the only things driving WTWTA. The writing is where the really powerful stuff lies. Jonze, and Eggers especially, truly know how to convey human emotion, and do so with amazing, and occasionally frightening, results. The joy in Max, and in all his Wild Thing friends, is shared by the viewer. As an audience member, you can't help but connect with them on some level. But for as much joy, there is equal sadness. Max finds himself in tears a number of times, whether it's because he feels hurt or because he caused another it, but this is something most of the children in the audience should recognize in themselves, and the adults can remember of themselves. But it is fear that Jonze and Eggers really nail. I found myself frightened by the intensity of the Wild Things, especially by Carol. I don't know the last time I felt that by something made for and about children. Carol has real pain and anger, and it makes him scary, which we, as a society, have seemed to want to censor from children. It's as if we think they cannot handle it, as if they didn't see it every day in each other or on the streets or in their homes.

Where the Wild Things Are is an excellent film, one that some will criticize as being too slow, or too scary, or not fun enough. It's a shame though, because Jonze has crafted himself an amazing film, one I believe will stand proud for decades, right along side the book it was adapted from.

Genre - Fantasy (4)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (4)