The Filmgoer's Project

Anonymous, Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 and more on DVD Tomorrow

2012-02-06T19:26:00.000-08:00

I honestly could have picked a still-frame from any of the Twilight films

and no one would have noticed.

We have an eclectic array of DVD/Blu-ray releases tomorrow, from a film calling bullshit on Shakespeare to everyone calling bullshit on glittery vampires.

Anonymous

One of the films leftover from 2011 that I still really want to see. I love a good conspiracy film, but mixed with a period piece based on historical figures? I know, "From the director of Godzilla and 2012" doesn't exactly sell to some people (although I love me some Godzilla), but Roland Emmerich does have a good eye for spectacle. I will definitely be renting this one.

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas

I enjoyed the first two. Not exactly stimulating the intellect, but not as dumb as others may think. I may not necessarily be renting this one right away, but I'm sure I'll catch it sooner or later.

Project Nim

I could be a smart-ass and make some stupid joke about this film mixed with Rise of the Planet of the Apes, but I'll refrain from doing so. This is just a fascinating and well-made documentary. Some truly sad moments, too, but well worth a look.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1

Never heard of this film. Wonder if anyone will even bother buying it.

And a couple oldies but goodies getting re-releases:

Lady and the Tramp (1955)

Casino Royale (1967)

So what are you planning to rent or buy this week?

Anatomy of a Scene - The Night of the Hunter

2012-02-04T07:02:00.000-08:00

It's a hard world for little things.

There's a very specific show of brilliance in The Night of the Hunter. Not even referring to the multiple accidental metaphors you can come up with for this show of good and evil (Lillian Gish versus Robert Mitchum) which we'll get to in a minute, but just in this scene - it's one of the most creatively coy things, certainly for its time, and that I've ever seen.

Charles Laughton, who did not direct another feature after this debut, has an understanding of lighting/shadows. And maybe more to the point, lighting shadows. If we pay attention to the silhouette of Robert Mitchum's odious preacher, set outside ready to attack his prey (pray?), there are three things going on at the same time, based only on the lighting behind Mitchum. a) he's almost indistinguishable from the rest of the set, b) the way he's standing places him directly under the floor of the house (good ol' line-of-sight), and c) he is, basically, hunting. As the king of the jungle, it's almost as if he has his prey trapped in a corner.

And he might be a little aware, but just not give a damn, that Lillian Gish is about to protect her cubs. She sits, shotgun calmly in hand, by the window, staring at Mitchum through the night. They are aware of each other, and they know that this is the end of the road for one of them. The lion will either eat, or the mice will trick it over the edge of a cliff.

There are many ways to take this scene, even without taking the rest of the movie into consideration - one, there is the obvious "hunter/prey" analogy that makes perfect sense. Mitchum is hunting Gish and her children. There is, of course, much deeper meaning probably hidden in this film, though slightly out of context with the rest of the film. It's interesting to note that Lillian Gish was one of the "silent queens" back before 'talking pictures' were introduced to the world (for a more profound study of that effect, see last year's The Artist). With the silent era ending officially in the mid 30's, some stars went with it. Remember Sunset Boulevard? Think that. Remember Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? Precisely. Gish came out without a scratch, and continued to be a lauded actress. You could see this scene, with the hymn in tact, as a sort of... "this is one for my boys" moment in the new foundation of film. Peace on the battle lines, almost like accepting defeat, but with mutual respect between both armies.

Want some? Get some.

The inclusion of the hymn, however, in this scene, is the key to the rest of the film. Mitchum's character comes to town posing as a preacher (well, he is actually a preacher, just an asshole in tandem) and begins to lurk and seep into every facet of the town's inner-workings. Including the inner-workings of a young girl named Pearl. See, the Reverent Powell (Mitchum) was to hang for a robbery he committed with a man named Ben (Peter Graves). He escaped prison with only a Bible verse muttered in Ben's sleep as a clue to the hidden location of the money. Powell marries Harper's widow and threatens his children, before they flee with the money to a safe house for stray children, where Rachel Cooper (Gish), the God-fearing stray-kid second mom. The scene posted above is the lead-in to the climax of the film.

Reverend Powell walks around town singing the Showalter hymnal, but leaving out the words "on Jesus", which Ms. Cooper gladly fills in. The scene is meant to be a pretty solid example of invoking the Spirit to protect the children at all costs from "the hunter" who "walks the night, seeking whom he may devour". Sound familiar? "You will know them by their works" Yeah?

Gish's last lines of the film, spoken directly into the camera, are a clear indicator that, while there may be all sorts of allusions you can make in regards to the scene above, it's very clear, however, that this is a story of good versus evil. Evil evil, too. Not that... Disney evil. This is the real stuff. Ms. Cooper protects her children, informing the audience that "children are man at his strongest. They abide. They abide and endure."

In Loving Memory

2012-02-03T19:31:00.000-08:00

He's one of "the faces". You've seen him, and you know you know him from... somewhere. But you'll be damned if you know from where. He began his career in the late fifties, and has worked consistently until his death, today, at 81 years old. May he rest in complete peace.

He left us today after a battle with pancreatic cancer. It's always sad to see someone you've known, even at a far, for so long go as a result, but we can't say he hasn't lived a full life.

Born August 28th, in New York City, in 1930, to Sicilian immigrant workers, Biagio Anthony Gazzara fell in love with acting at an early age after seeing Laurette Taylor in The Glass Menagerie. He later studied with Erwin Piscator.

The beginning of his "face"-dom began on Broadway, originating the lead roles in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and A Hatful of Rain, for which he was nominated for a Tony award. Before that, though, Ben was a member of the Actor's Studio in New York, helping assemble an improvised theatrical version of Calder Willingham's novel End as a Man. That play brought him to Broadway, and later to the world of film in 1957's The Strange One (a slightly different, but uniquely faithful film version of End as a Man), with Gazzara in the same role. Though the film wasn't a financial success, he had earned the respect of the critics the film reached. And in 1959, he would have a supporting role in Anatomy of a Murder, and the rest would be filmic history.

In the 1960's, Gazzara bounced back and forth between television and cinema, starring in Italian films, struggling TV shows, and slightly underknown Hollywood productions. The Passionate Thief and Conquered City, his Italian-made films in 1960 and 1962 would come to garner more notoriety toward the 70's (even to now) than The Young Doctors and Convicts 4. Heard of them? Well, you should - especially those four as a unit. Gazzara was a compassionate actor, and almost the definition of gentle toward his co-workers. It was most likely his gentility that won him the heart of Audrey Hepburn, despite their committed (though admittedly very troubled) marriages.

His work with directors John Cassavetes and Peter Bogdanovich would gain him more critical acclaim and "street cred", I guess you could call it, in the 70's than any of his previous works, starring in three films with Cassavetes (Husbands, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, and Opening Night) and two with Bogdanovich (Saint Jack, and They All Laughed - with Audrey Hepburn). And, I'm telling you, if you've never seen Bloodline - you're missing the hell out on something amazing.

From the 80's until his passing, he bounced around from acclaimed director to mixed openings to little-known directors to... God knows what else. Working with the Coen brothers on The Big Lebowski in 1998, working with Spike Lee in Summer of Sam and Lars von Trier in Dogville (1999 and 2003), even in the the 80's he went from Tales of Ordinary Madness to Roadhouse, bookending the decade, so to speak. Go figure, right?

It wasn't until 2003 that I saw Dogville and thought - wait. I know him. That's... *beep*. Him. He was in... Lebowski. And... THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE! That's Cosmo!

Rest in peace, sir. You will be truly missed.

Welcome to Our Private Screening Room.

2012-02-03T07:08:00.000-08:00

In an effort to stay true to the mission statement of The Filmgoer's Project (watch anything and everything all the time), we here at the site are opening the doors to our Screening Room to showcase the older, and slightly under-seen classic films (yeah, modern films count, too).

The benefit of the Creative Commons "Share Alike" license and the beauty of the Public Domain is that there are films that can be shown in public for no charge. Not even the "innovators" of SOPA or PIPA can say anything to me for showing an original cut of George Romero's Night of the Living Dead or Nina Paley's gorgeous-beyond-words Sita Sings the Blues. What this means for you is that because of this, I'm opening a showcase for these films you might not have the chance to see.

There will be a Video-On-Demand section, in association with Distrify to get word out on some independent films that might be overlooked, and there will be the regular screening room, showing movies in the Public Domain and those under the CCSA licensing.

The Filmgoer's Project strongly encourages everyone to take an hour or two and just watch whatever it is you come across. Let it ruminate in your mind, think about it, and watching something. Every film can be connected to another, even if it's just by a memory. This is what we stand for.

Groundhog Day

2012-02-02T20:44:00.000-08:00

★★★½

"I'm going to go home and Bud Dwyer myself over and over and over..."

Happy Groundhog Day, filmgoers. Normally, this day wouldn't be complete without a viewing of this film. Much like on Friday the 13th, I do my best to watch Friday the 13th, and how on Christmas, I always watch A Christmas Story, and on Thanksgiving, I watch The Godfather (trilogy), I always wind up watching Groundhog Day, on Groundhog Day. And it proves a theory of mine - a year is long enough to wait and see a movie, and have it be like a brand new movie each time you watch it. The little moments you forget over the course of busy and stressful days, which I'm sure we'd hate to live forever and over and over, and the people you even forget are in it. Which is one of the benefits of being a critic, I think - you get so much knowledge crammed in on a daily basis, that some stuff is bound to escape. What year something came out, a supporting characters name, or who played that one guy who only had two lines and is now a respected Oscar nominee.

Ten bucks if you can point out Michael Shannon to me.

For those of you not familiar with this film, ~~shame on you~~ let's roll down the basics:

Phil (an excellent Bill Murray), is a local weatherman in the good ol' PA. February 2nd rolls around, and for the third year in a row, he has to go let the locals know whether or not Punxsutawny Phil - the groundhog king - sees his shadow, promising six more weeks of winter. On hand, are his producer Rita (an adorable Andie McDowell) and his cameraman Larry (Chris Elliot). In the beginning of the film, the personalities are fairly broad - Rita is bright-eyed and bushy tailed, truly wanting to make good news. Larry is the funny, side-kick cameraman, a couple of one-liners here and there. And Phil, well... he's a jerk. A funny guy, and definitely someone you'd spend time with for a drink, if only to hear what he says next, but he's not a nice guy. He's self-centered, and all around loathsome under his 'celebrity' personality.

The crew is stuck in Punx, PA as the result of a blizzard - undersold by Phil in the previous day's forecast - that shuts the whole town down. Phil's forced to stay in his quaint bed and breakfast, but... once the morning comes, and it's 6AM, and Sonny Bono tells you to put your little hand in his on the radio, he knows - as the audience is clued in - that he's living the same day over again. As some sort of cosmic "Hey. You. We're talking to you.", he's forced to learn the rules of purgatory and straighten himself out, lest he keep his calendar on the same day forever.

The benefit of a film like this is that it always seems to pop up when you need a reminder of how people should act. Toward the end of the film, the obvious might seem to occur - characters learn their lessons and lives are redeemed, putting everything right and moving on with itself. Spoiler? whatever. That's formula - and it's effective, mostly in the hands of the actors. Bill Murray, funny and surprisingly deep as always, lends himself to his fullest, showing such an understanding of the character and the situation that he's at times unrecognizable. It's among his finest work, dramatic or otherwise. Andie McDowell and Chris Elliot deliver the expected sturdy support. Elliot is a hard actor to cast, but he's normally gentle in smaller roles, when he's not expected to improvise and exploit the grosser sides of the human body (here's lookin' at you, Scary Movie 2). McDowell, on the other hand, has rarely been better than she is, here. Undergoing her own subtle changes throughout the same day, growing as a character while not really having the chance to grow on her own, but through the growth of Phil. Which is a mark of the excellent screenplay, and direction from Harold Ramis (Stripes, Ghostbusters, etc.). Ramis is one of the finest directors Hollywood has produced, and has produced and directed some of the classic modern comedies.

Groundhog Day has become sort of a... benchmark film. Not groundbreaking, though certainly nothing to scoff at, it has a huge following, and is one of those movies you seem to forget about until you hear someone mention it or you run across it on TV. That's what a good film does - it gets under your skin in a way that doesn't leave, and is 'triggered' in a way by other senses. Ramis had crafted one of his masterpieces in a career full of genius films. And Bill Murray's performance, for my money, is a shining example of how comedy can't exist with drama. Even Saturday Night Live knows that, and it might be because of him.

In Theaters This Weekend

2012-02-02T18:52:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to lie. I may have just shit myself looking at this poster.

February continues to be a studio dumping ground for films they want to get rid of or make a quick buck on. Luckily for us movie-goers, this first weekend of February offers some pretty promising titles (and some not-so-promising ones, too).

Chronicle. PG-13.

A found-footage film dealing with kids that discover they are superheroes (or supervillains)? Count me in. The advertising for the film has been solid so far. Just enough to pull you in, but yet not enough to spoil the film. Reviews so far are also solid (Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5 stars out of 4), so this is clearly a film to check out.

The Innkeepers. Rated R.

I watched this not too long ago on OnDemand, and it's a pretty decent little horror film featuring Sara Paxton in an oddly Macaulay Culkin-esque performance. I can't help but feel some of its potential was a bit wasted, but it's still an involving and creepy ghost yarn.

Big Miracle. Rated PG.

I have seen exactly one advertisement for this film and I'm pretty sure it caused maple syrup to leak out of my TV. There are no words for how corny this film looks but that's ok. I'm sure families will enjoy it and Japanese fisherman will hate it. I, however, will not be seeing this film. Ever.

W.E. Rated R.

Speaking of films I will never be seeing. No, seriously. Madonna directed it.

The Woman in Black. Rated PG-13.

In what will surely be number one at the box office this week, Daniel Radcliffe's first "big" film post-Harry Potter looks like a winner. In it, he plays a young lawyer who travels to a village that is being terrorized by a ghost. Spoiler alert: The ghost is a woman in black.

So what will you be seeing this weekend?

Academy Award nominee Kenneth Branagh talks about My Week with Marilyn

2012-01-30T16:54:00.000-08:00

(special thanks to ArcLight Cinemas and The Mission Control for the footage)

It's always great to watch Q&A's like this - where it isn't all business. I like watching actors and directors have a chance to sit back and just be goofy for a few minutes.

And you gotta love all the Harry Potter appreciation.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

2012-01-28T08:13:00.000-08:00

★★★★

There's a Tom Petty joke here. I refuse to make it.

It's worth noting, because of the above picture, that Tom Cruise performed all of his stunts in this film. As well as the other three Mission: Impossible films. Sure, there are bits of CGI (though, seamless) and I'm sure a large team of medics and nets and other things around to make sure he's alive at the end of the day. But, that's really the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, it really is the tallest building in the world, and that really is Tom Cruise off of its side. Thousands of feet in the air.

And that's not even the most impressive set piece in the film.

You don't necessarily have to see the first three M:I films to get this one and enjoy it, but, it can't hurt. Here's a brief recap of them just in case you missed them:

Mission: Impossible - they make the hero from the TV show the bad guy in the film.
Mission: Impossible 2 - they do some stuff with motorcycles and Thandie Newton.
Mission: Impossible 3 - There's an actual story involving Ethan Hunt (Cruise) and his now late wife, involving her death and a couple other intricate missions. Probably the only important story of the three, even if it's not the best film at that point. Up until now, the first adventure remained the most startlingly well made of the series.

But, with the inclusion of Ghost Protocol into the canon, those three seem a mite irrelevant in the world of filmmaking. The film is directed by Brad Bird. And yes, you know that name - he's mainly directed films for Pixar. The Incredibles and Ratatouille, notably. And, as action oriented as those films are, it would make sense that he make the swing to live action, right? The transition is almost as seamless as the CGI in the film, of which - I understand - there isn't very much of, where we think it would be.

I've read in a couple different places that this Mission is much more of a character piece than the first three. I was a bit skeptical going in that a four-quel to a massive action franchise would shift gears so suddenly, but it seems that Fast & Furious struck a chord with action filmmakers. You can take the same characters, and same plot structure, and give them personalities to benefit the action. After all, if we don't care about Ethan Hunt, how can we care about his life that hangs in the balance as he does a hundred foot vertical nose dive in a car, knowing he's about to smash into concrete, with no way of escape?

I noted that the Dubai Dangle (which is what I'm calling it) isn't the most impressive set piece in the film. That hundred foot vertical drop? That's it. And that's toward the end of an extremely well choreographed fight sequence that goes on for about ten minutes, amid all other sorts of espionage wonder. Second only to that scene is an unusually creepy - for this sort of film, anyway - cat and mouse game in the middle of a sandstorm, calling back to the glory days of Brian De Palma (the first film's director).

The film's story seems fairly simple, at a glance. There are nuclear launch codes that are changing hands, and the team has to track them down and get them. Except that the team is no longer government sanctioned, because of a large and explosive accident, and there are only four of them left. Ethan Hunt (Cruise), Jane (Paula Patton), Benji (Simon Pegg), and now Brandt (Jeremy Renner). To be fair, Brandt got dragged into the middle of it. He wasn't even supposed to be there. We find out later exactly why it is that he's useful. The film follows the Law of Economy of Characters* to a tee.

Don't be fooled by trailers or by the previous films, even if you aren't a fan. There are moments in this film that are jaw-droppingly well done, even if Bird and Co. might have missed the opportunity to give the audience some pretty classy cinematography here and there, the film stands well enough on its own, and as part of the series.

* = The Law of Economy of Characters - about 90% of the time, you'll never be introduced to a character unless they have some form of importance to the film, big or small.

2012 Academy Award Nominations - Full List

2012-01-24T06:56:00.000-08:00

'Always a bridesmaid, never a bride' my foot. - Peter O'Toole

It's not often that you can have diarrhea in a sink and get an Oscar nomination out of it. But, Melissa McCarthy proves that it is indeed possible, with her heart-on-her-sleeve, hilariously unashamed performance in Bridesmaids. It was a pleasure to hear Kristen Wiig's name called to, when the film caught a surprise nomination in Best Original Screenplay.

I haven't made any official or un-official predictions about anything this year, except that J Edgar would probably suck (and I was right. there's a review coming this week). But, I'm thrilled that Gary Oldman has finally gotten his due, getting his first nomination ever for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (look for a review of that this week, as well).

Best Picture

The Artist

The Descendants

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

The Help

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

The Tree of Life

War Horse

Best Director

Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris

Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist

Terrence Malick - The Tree of Life

Martin Scorsese - Hugo

Alexander Payne - The Descendants

Best Actor

Damien Bichir - A Better Life

George Clooney - The Descendants

Juan Dujardin - The Artist

Gary Oldman - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Brad Pitt - Moneyball

Best Actress

Glenn Close - Albert Nobbs

Viola Davis - The Help

Rooney Mara - The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady

Michelle Williams - My Week with Marilyn

Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh - My Week with Marilyn

Jonah Hill - Moneyball

Nick Nolte - Warrior

Christopher Plummer - Beginners

Max von Sydow - Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Best Supporting Actress

Berenice Bejo - The Artist

Jessica Chastain - The Help

Melissa McCarthy - Bridesmaids

Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs

Octavia Spencer - The Help

Best Original Screenplay

Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris

JC Chandor - Margin Call

Asghar Farhadi - A Separation

Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist

Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumulo - Bridesmaids

Best Adapted Screenplay

Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, and Stan Chervin - Moneyball

George Clooney, Beau Willimon, and Grant Heslov - The Ides of March

John Logan - Hugo

Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash - The Descendants

Bridget O'Conner and Peter Straughan - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Best Foreign Language Film

Bullhead

Footnote

In Darkness

Monsiuer Lazhar

A Separation

Best Animated Feature

A Cat in Paris

Chico & Rita

Kung Fu Panda 2

Puss in Boots

Rango

Best Art Direction

The Artist

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

War Horse

Best Cinematography

The Artist

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

The Tree of Life

War Horse

Best Costuming

Anonymous

The Artist

Hugo

Jane Eyre

W.E.

Best Documentary Feature

Hell and Back Again

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

Pina

Undefeated

Best Documentary Short Subject

The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of a Civil Rights Movement

God is the Bigger Elvis

Incident in New Baghdad

Saving Face

The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

Best Editing

The Artist

The Descendants

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Moneyball

Best Make-Up

Albert Nobbs

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

The Iron Lady

Best Original Score

The Adventures of Tin Tin

The Artist

Hugo

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

War Horse

Best Original Song

"Man or Muppet" from The Muppets

"Real in Rio" from Rio

Best Sound Editing

Drive

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

War Horse

Best Sound Mixing

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Hugo

Moneyball

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

War Horse

Best Visual Effects

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

Hugo

Real Steel

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Best Animated Short Film

Dimanche/Sunday

The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

La Luna

A Morning Stroll

Wild Life

Best Live Action Short Film

Pentecost

Raju

The Shore

Time Freak

Tuba Atlantic

That's all well and good, sure. But... who's winning? Well, if we tune in on February 26th, on ABC, Billy Crystal will lead us to the answers!

Check back in later today for thoughts on the nominees and guesses on the winners.

In Anticipation of SOPA and PIPA...

2012-01-18T11:33:00.000-08:00

If you're wondering where there hasn't been an update recently, I can explain that... in a few ways.

One, I'm in the process of translating this blog into a fully functional .com, and that eats up most of my days. Two, all good lists come in threes. And three, this is what would happen to the website, and this blog, is SOPA and PIPA are passed. The Filmgoer's Project would cease to be, in all forms.

How, well... let's look at it this way. Formally, this website cannot endorse the act of piracy. And when I say piracy, I mean stream movies and moving images in an effort to view without payment. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this. But, it's bad business to tell you that 90% of the reviews on this blog have come from viewing pirated films, and that I've made a living for myself - quite a nice living, actually - using moving images, .gifs, and .jpgs or .pngs that I've found online as the result of a free, and accessible internet.

Note - I am in no way endorsing the pirating of motion pictures or television programs. I am, however, endorsing a free and accessible internet. Wikipedia has closed its doors today, as a protest, and as a note to show what the SOPA and PIPA acts would do. Google has done the same.

And as I have readers all over the world, big and small, and quite a few that are employed at the studios whose films I critique, I wish to offer this as a thought -

When I built this site, I did so with Awards Daily in mind. And The Film Experience. And Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun Times pages. I use Tumblr, I use Google Images, IMDb, YouTube, Wikipedia, and a slew of other internet resources on a daily basis to run this website, to build the impending .com, and to keep true to the original mission statement of what The Filmgoer's Project actually is -

The Filmgoer's Project, which really should be looked at as The Filmgoers' Project, is meant to encourage people to watch everything they can, at all times, and to look at art in a new way. It's meant to educate people about the more technical and inspirational side of a craft that even Hollywood assumes we take for granted. And it's been doing that, gaining a steady viewership since its birth in November 2010. And I want to thank the multitude of people who come to this site daily, looking to learn and enjoy themselves.

However, this is what would change with the implementation of the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act -

1. YouTube would be limited, if not made to be paid for. So, In Theaters This Weekend would change dramatically.
2. Google Images would crash. So, no more cool pictures and funny captions before articles.
3. Wikipedia would cease to be, as would IMDb (as we know it) and hundreds of other informational websites that were made be people who were either bored, encouraged, or pissed off.

Would you pay for Wikipedia, in addition to your car bill, mortgage, and phone bills? What about Google? Or IMDb? What about Awards Daily? Or, rather, would you pay to read The Filmgoer's Project?

I wouldn't. Not because I don't value those websites and contribute to them as often as possible, regardless of the partnerships I've had with Google and Amazon and Ebay and Fandango and again - a slew of websites that would be hurt by these laws. It's because I shouldn't fucking have to.

And now, here's a picture of a stapler -

Alyce

2011-12-09T06:47:00.000-08:00

★★★½

O ye of little sanity

I liken this film to Mary Bronstein's psychological comedy Yeast (2008). Note, Alyce is nowhere near comedic (okay, well... parts of it are funny). Alyce, directed by Jay Lee, depicts the psychology behind the psychological breakdown of a psychopath. You won't find it in a theater near you anytime soon, nor will you be able to find it on DVD shelves in the near future. But you will hear about it, through word of mouth, and it will birth a star of Jane Dornfeld. You'll hear its name whispered in festival circuits, and you'll see a trailer next year and say to yourself "Oh, wait - I know that from somewhere." And then it will be a hit.

Much like Yeast, SXSW, and the inimitable Greta Gerwig.

Beyond the stretched Yeast comparison, the obvious (and by obvious I mean 'if you don't see it without even looking, you're an idiot) comparison is to Through the Looking Glass and Alice in Wonderland. How so? Well, let's take a look at the basic plots for both -

Alice in Wonderland (not that awful Tim Burton movie) - a young woman suffers an emotional outburst and is thrown down a 'rabbit hole', meeting colorful characters, overcoming her fears and unique problems along the way.

Alyce - a young woman 'accidentally' murders her best friend during a fit of clarity, and while trying to deal with the guilt and discover who she's become in the midst of her self-inflicted tragedy, meeting colorful characters, overcoming her guilt and fear, and discovering that the path of reckless sex and drugs has only brought her further down to Hell and out of the 'rabbit hole' she was intended for.

Right?

Alyce (played with incredible skill by Jade Dornfeld) after a night of ironic celebration, accidentally (or...) shoves her best friend Carroll (get it?) off of the roof of their apartment building. She's overcome with grief. The above plot description states the exact premise of the film - Alyce, dealing with what she's done, realizes her psychopathy and turns to rough and anonymous sex, drugs and drug dealers, and mind-numbing violence to solve her problems. Eventually, she solves her problems, proving that Grindhouse cinema is nowhere close to dead, and revenge films - when done properly - are nothing short of pure art.

This isn't so much a review as it is a plea for awareness. So, as a film critic, I'm going to break a critical rule, just as I did in 2008 when Yeast premiered on the festival circuit. Without condoning pirating in anyway, I'm telling anyone who has a love for perfect performances, for horror movies that push the limits of conventional pop-art, for films that take Jungian archetypes and traditional storytelling and flip them upside down... seek this film out.

In fact, as an incentive, if you see it, and want to review it, I'll post it here. And you can consider yourself published. Best review wins a Christmas prize. How's that?

Upcoming Reviews and Changes

2011-12-08T17:41:00.000-08:00

Hello, all five of you who read this blog! :D

I know I said there'd be posted reviews and other things today, but... well, there's not. I'll be working on them tonight. Here's what's on the docket for the next few days -

Reviews and more: We Need To Talk About Kevin, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Parts I & II, a piece on why the Sherlock BBC series needs to be a feature film, a thorough coverage of the awards season so far (that's gonna be a three piece series, otherwise the article would take a day and a half to read), DVD and theatrical releases, Life in a Day, Rampart, The Ides of March, a beautiful horror film called Alyce, Meek's Cutoff, Tucker and Dale vs Evil, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

And I promise by January, we'll have the oft aforementioned podcast off the ground and running.

Stay tuned! Take care!

OH. The URL will be changing soon to " thefilmgoersproject.com " We'll be official.

Paranormal Activity 2

2011-12-05T05:09:00.000-08:00

★★½

Worst game of Hide and Seek ever.

The most positive thing about the Paranormal Activity series is that there isn't a shred of visible f/x in any of the shots. They're a technical marvel, even if the rest of the film might not be up to par with certain standards. The acting has declined since the first installment, but all of the actors accomplish their requirements. Be there, get scared. And they do, for three films. Of course, they do it best in the first. Much like the invisible special effects, Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat manage to deliver two performances full of life and naturalism without being actors in any sense of the word.

Here, the family portrayed seems a bit rehearsed, which takes away from the naturalism of the film, thus diminishing the intended emotional effect and taking the audience to a bit of a more safe place than probably hoped for.

but that's just me.

I know people who love this film. I know people who hate this film. I'm in the middle camp, though I'd happily watch it again. In fact, I'll probably pop all three in and have a marathon. The quality has diminished, sure, but the films are still great examples of special effects genius and good storytelling. And a great way to spend six hours, if you turn off the lights and suspend your disbelief, like you've never seen them before. The first film still scares the pants off of me.

Our set-up in this chapter takes place only a few weeks before the first film. Per usual, there are no credits - merely a thank you from the production team behind the "documentary". Like the last, this film is presented in the style of "found footage", passing itself off as the ultimate "based on a true story". The Blair Witch Project cemented the idea that this could be done. And it proved effective for the first film as well. I should stop myself - I could go on and on with comparisons to the first part, and even the third (though it takes the formula in a bit of a new direction). I think it's fair, though, as it's what's called a "parallel sequel", essentially taking place during the first film, as the ending proves is evident.

Filled with unnamed actors, the most famous of which would probably be Molly Ephraim, who plays the teenage daughter Ali, despite being almost 24 during the time of filming. Her work is excellent, and by far the best of the cast. She exudes the naturalistic candor the rest of the cast was aiming for, with what looks like little effort. If given the right roles, she'll be a big star.

The story is fairly simple - Kristi (Sprague Grayden) and her husband Daniel (Brian Boland) experience a random "break in", during which only a box of her sister Katie's videotapes are stolen. So, in a fit of plot point, Daniel installs a 24-hour security surveillance system in their home, catching the action in every room of the house. Except the bathrooms, the screenplay notes. Sorry, guys - Molly might be 24, but her character's apparently 15. gofigure.

You have the usual set of events - the characters play with a Ouija Board and there's the - as Roger Ebert so beautifully illustrated - the horror movie cliche of the foreigner that nobody listens to. There's a neat Spielbergian approach to the handling of their newborn kid (if you watch closely, you can catch several directorial nods) and the dog. But, despite the average acting, the film manages to crawl out of its cliched plot points and become something truly frightening in the last half hour. There are moments of directorial brilliance; the best shot in the film involves a sudden eruption of the kitchen cabinets that is perfectly timed.

Despite what you might think of horror films in the new millennium (there's a fairly valid argument that nothing good has happened to the genre in years), the Paranormal Activity series represents something fairly exciting - it's a bit of a rebirth of creativity. Doing what Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 failed to, PA2 (and PA3, to a larger extent) manages to take the clever idea of the original film, duplicate it, and improve some important aspects of it, engaging the audience in a new way, despite essentially showing them the same thing. What sets this apart, negatively, from the first film is the acting. And it's a far cry. What it improves? the original story, which is damn strong, and the effects. Which is what people see these movies for in the first place.

Jack and Jill

2011-12-03T16:04:00.000-08:00

★★

Poor guy didn't know it was Adam Sandler.

If you've seen Funny People, then you get the joke they were making the entire time. This is the type of film they were - in foresight - making fun of Adam Sandler for making. Of course, Jack and Jill isn't without comedic merit. Most of Sandler's films, no matter how bad a few of them are, have a few moments that make me laugh out loud. This one is no exception - the highlight of the film, outside of the entirety of Al Pacino's performance as himself, is the Thanksgiving dinner with a homeless man. The film is worth seeing for those two things alone.

Unfortunately, one hilariously scripted moment and a brilliantly uninhibited extended cameo don't a quality film make. Two stars, for the above reasons, as they're that good. Two missing stars for the overbearing presence of everything else.

When your film relies on diarrhea jokes and racist stereotypes, you might think you have a problem. Consider the too-subtle-for-everyone black-as-damn-night All About Steve for a minute - if you remember the extremist character that Sandra Bullock played, you'll see connections with the first hour or so of this film, and you'll probably see what Sandler was trying to do. There are moments that hint at darker-than-hell comedy, but are usually put aside pokes at Latinos and celebrity cameos. It's hinted that Jill (... adam sandler) has severe social anxiety and is cluster-B style Passive Aggressive. Of course, that's only hinted at. What we're spoon-fed, instead of being left to infer on our own like an intelligent audience, is that she's really just ~~Adam Sandler in a dress~~ a lonely woman who doesn't spend enough time with her twin brother Jack (... adam sandler). What could have been Tatie Danielle style genius is left in the dust for Eddie Murphy/Norbit/Klump style flatulence. Yes, the film has funny moments. I laughed quite a few times. But, it's important to understand the fine distinction between intelligently written comedy and cheap laughs. This is a film of cheap laughs.

If you aren't familiar with the story, as we've been forced to watch the trailer over and over again (thanks, Colombia marketing team), Jack is an ad-executive from the Bronx, living in LA with his wife (Katie Holmes) and two children. One of whom is adopted. and has a tape fetish that goes unexplained for the entire film. Jack doesn't like his twin sister (and there's the set-up, folks) who comes to stay with him once a year for Thanksgiving. Except this time, she elongates her stay until after New Years. Meanwhile, Jack is trying to secure Al Pacino (Al Pacino, channeling Skynet) for a Dunkin Donuts commercial, hocking the new Dunkaccino. yeah. Al falls in love with Jill, Jill doesn't love Al, Jack hates both of them, but learns to love Jill spoilers and they all live happily ever after.

Oh and David Spade has a cameo. As a woman.

I'm having a hard time understanding Sandler's choices for the film. Yes, it's very easy to look at it and just call it a goofy comedy made purely for everyone to have fun. But, he's done that before to much better results. His Grown Ups from 2008 wound up being extremely touching and surprisingly well-acted. Even Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison, which are completely ridiculous, have moments that live on past the films. Sandler is a credible dramatic actor, and a gifted stand-up comic. So, looking at his decisions for Jack and Jill, one has to wonder where he went so wrong. Almost as if he lost a bet. Or took plot ideas from a Twitter potluck. You can do much better than this, Adam.

Paranormal Activity 3

2011-12-03T05:24:00.000-08:00

★★

*insert tasteless Polanski joke here*

Cards on the table - I'm a fan of this series. Not this film, particularly, but as a whole trilogy, I can gloss over the poor points of this film and look at all three as a whole. Consider the first three Saw films, left solely on their own, without the additional parts 4-29. or however many there are now. With the addition of part 4, the first three films' stories are negated and make almost no sense. With only 1-3, it's a perfect, multi-faceted trilogy about several interesting themes. My hope is that the Paranormal Activity trilogy is left on its own and not given additional, needless sequels.

More after the cut--

I suppose the above might sound like praise, and the two stars I gave to the film might be confusing. Well, let's go ahead and clear that up now - most everything before the last twenty or so minutes of the film is useless. Bad acting, mostly, undermines the clever idea for the film. Here's a recap of what we know from the series so far.

There's a demon hellbent on ruining the lives of sisters Katie and Kristi. Why? Well, in Paranormal Activity 2, we're told. I think the directors of these films are insistent on one-upping the depression factor of the endings in each film. There's a cold-blooded, demon-possessed murder at the end of the first, several cold-blooded (and genuinely sad) demon-possessed murders at the end of the second, along with a trilogy-defying cliff-hanger that explains the first film. And here, there is an ending that trumps the first two, calling to mind The Last Exorcism and Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby, in the best ways. It's an ending that got under my skin and made me upset. And proves, that if played in order, the story arc of these films rivals as one of the most depressing character pieces caught on camera. And given the brutality of this installment's story, and the cleverness that went into making it, it's a shame that the screenplay couldn't live up to its own expectations.

One thing I have to defend this film for is its collection of what several critics refer to as "Gotcha! moments" (I think Roger Ebert coined the phrase). Generally, it's a frowned-upon practice in horror movies - quickly scare the audience with a loud bang or something jumping out at a character. It's a cheap move and indicative of boring direction. But, here - consider: the only reason the demon in the film doesn't just go ahead and accomplish its goal with all its spiritual and demonic power is because it wants to terrorize the family, to feed on their fear and get stronger. What better way to do that then creep them out, and then quickly scare them with a loud bang or throwing something? It makes perfect sense to me.

In this film, we meet Kristi and Katie as little children, knowing already their unfortunate futures. They live with their mother Julie and her boyfriend Dennis, who has a severe bromance with his friend Randall. The film opens with an extended scene from part two, which sets up that this film is caught on video tape. What we don't know is what happens between the end of this film and the beginning of the second. Which I would gladly watch, but that's the only way I'd anticipate a sequel for these films. Or if there's one that explains Katie's fate more fully. So, if the producers are reading this - you have two options: explain the remainder of the childhood for Katie and Kristi, or tell us where Katie is. Be clever and find a way to do it.

Julie, in this film, doesn't seem so bothered by the weird happenings of the film until they start to effect her personally. Dennis is the inquisitive one, always asking about Kristi's "invisible friend" Toby. So much so that he sets up 24-hour video surveillance around the house, including one ingenious set-up - a camera set up on an oscillating fan, capturing (in a deliberately slow pace) all the action between the living room and the kitchen. The cleverness of this set piece is that it allows the tension to built between scary moments. It's a tech nod to the game the children play at the end of The Orphanage (you'll catch that, if you've seen it, in the scene with the babysitter) and beautifully done. The two shots involve excellent special effects without the obvious presence of special effects - the best things these films have going for them. A sheet covered figure stalking a babysitter, like a ghost, and the curious disappearance of furniture. Of course, the furniture returns, in the film's best moment.

What keeps this film from greatness is the acting. It's slickly made, directed, written, filmed and framed, but the performances - even from the kids - don't seem genuine. What kept me involved in the first Paranormal Activity were the flawless performances. And there were brilliant moments of acting in the second, though a far cry from what Katie Featherston pulled off in part one. Here, it's like they're rehearsed, which takes away from the fun-factor of watching these people go through these terrible moments for the first time. If there's any hint of rehearsal, how can we be expected to believe them when they "don't see it coming"? If audiences can keep pretending they haven't seen things like this before, the actors should be able to, as well.

In Theaters This Weekend

2011-12-02T23:58:00.000-08:00

Apparently Mr. Brooks taught us nothing as a nation.

Wouldn't you think that when a comedian does his absolute damnedest to venture into dramatic territory, and fails miserably along with the rest of the film, that he should just stick to his usual stuff for a bit? Well, in general, I wouldn't agree with that. But that might be the case for Dane Cook, as his last foray into the serious side of serial killing tanked harder Gigli. Now, he's back in the fray with Answers to Nothing (I know, right?) - a Crash/Magnolia/Short Cuts hodge podge of random people connected by a specific event. We'll see.

Rolling into theaters this weekend, a handful of films that might surprise you. Shame, starring Michael Fassbender, about a man with a chronic sexual addiction and an inability to feel pleasure. Answers to Nothing, which we've covered. Pastorela, in which a man who usually plays the Devil in the Church's Christmas play is replaced by the new priest, and fights to get his role back. Sleeping Beauty, which isn't anywhere close to what you think it is. And, Autoreiji - a Chinese crime film, in the style of Woo.

More after the cut--

Lots to cover, non? Might as well get down to it.

Shame. NC-17.

Every couple of years, you run across a film that might seem to be the film that will define that year. 2010 had The Social Network and Toy Story 3, 2007 had No Country for Old Men, and 2011 has Shame - an internally charged, emotional boiler about sexual addiction at its worst, when one derives no pleasure from it. Michael Fassbender's performance seems to be one for the books, and I'm always a sucker for a well crafted trailer, even if the film offers so much it could completely disappoint, though. I don't see that happening, however. Go see this. People will talk about it for a long time.

Answers to Nothing. R.

See what I mean by "We'll see"? It has the all the makings of something that demands to be direct-to-DVD, but the trailer is put together to suggest something worthy of a theatrical run. Of course, let's be honest - "worthy of a theatrical run" doesn't mean too much, right? From Justin to Kelly got one. Sometimes people just get it way the hell wrong. Sometimes that might be because they cast Dane Cook in a serious heavy role. Opposite two of the best working actresses today (Barbra Hershey and Elizabeth Mitchell, who looks brilliant). I'll watch it. Multi-narrative films like this are my favorite style of film, so my interest will always be piqued. But, my expectations are almost non-existent. I'm just hoping Cook does a good job.

Sleeping Beauty. Not Rated.

Not at all like the Sleeping Beauty the rest of us know, right? I'll be honest - I'm not entirely sure what the film is about. Based on the trailer, a young woman (Emily Browning of Sucker Punch fame) is seduced into joining a secret mission, probably governmental, and trained to seduce, sleep with, and get dirt on, various people she's instructed to. Which would be the recipe for a brilliant thriller. Something Adrian Lynn would kill a man to direct. But, based on other things that I've seen/read about the film, it might be more like the dirtier and skankier version of An Education that none of us wanted to see. Maybe it's one or the other, maybe it's both. Maybe Jane Campion probably should review the film she's producing and put her quote in the trailer. Maybe I'm old fashioned. *shrug*

Autoreiji. R.

There are bits of Woo in this film's style. Also, shades of Scorsese's ironic comedic timing. And a little bit of Miike, too. Shades of Wasabi. Infernal Affairs. Really, I could go on all day. The film seems to be a love letter of sorts to all the films before it that probably helped inspire its off-the-wall brand of violence and vengeance. The story might be self-explanatory - an older Yakuza member is tossed out because he messed up. So, after dedicating so much of his life to them, older Yakuza member who got tossed out because he messed up actually comes back to mess some people up. So, it's a little like Payback, too. Oh, hell - just watch it and see if it's close enough to original to get away with it. Autoreiji means "outrage" in Chinese.

so probably not.

Pastorela. R.

I... hahahahahaha what? I have no idea what I just watched, but oh my God. I'm first in line.

That's it! Tell me what you're going to see this weekend in the Facebook comment box below! Like the article and share it with your friends, too. Enjoy the weekend!

Carnage

2011-11-28T22:43:00.000-08:00

★★★

"Wait. Roman's guilty of what?!"

There isn't very much you can dissect about a 75 minute film, that takes place almost entirely in a single room, with only four actors. Sure, there will be unavoidable comparisons to Yasmina Reza's play, God of Carnage, and there will be comparisons between the casts. Stage-to-screen adaptations seem to pull thespians out of the woodwork to defend Broadway. But, much credit is due to the screen in this adaptation, mostly for borrowing someone's toy without breaking it. At the very least, Roman Polanski plays well with others.

~~allegedly.~~

While researching the film before my viewing of it, I ran across the review written in The Hollywood Reporter, here. Interesting read from Todd McCarthy. He posits, in the opening paragraph, that Polanski is at his best in tight spaces, citing Knife in the Water and Repulsion as examples. Generally, I would agree. He seems to operate with his actors more comfortably when he has them confined to one or two areas. The more uncomfortable the characters are, the more he shines, oddly enough.

Carnage imagines what might happen when the adults behave like children. There's a schoolyard incident where one boy ~~armed with~~ carrying a stick strikes another boy in the face, a few times, knocking out a couple of teeth. The parents of the victim are Michael (John C. Reilly) and Penelope (Jodie Foster). The parents of the aggressor are Alan (Christoph Waltz) and Nancy (Kate Winslet). From simple formula, we assume these people won't get along. At first, Alan and Nancy couldn't be more ready to leave. Coaxed into staying with coffee, espresso, peach cobbler, and subtle jabs at the dignity of their child, they sit and get drawn in. It's not like they want to be there. A number of times, they almost get in the elevator but get talked into coming back inside. From this, we get deeper and deeper into the mindset of each parent, not just as a unit, but as individuals surviving within that unit.

In situations like this, the director isn't entirely necessary. There isn't much of a mark outside of the framing that they can leave, nor is there much of a need to. It's almost a "name" thing. But, in certain situations, you'll get a director like Polanski who not only leaves his mark on even the smallest of details, but on each actor as well, who seem to be almost reinvented in his eyes, through his lens. We don't associate any of these four actors with drunken, loud mouthed, vulgar people. Okay, well maybe vulgar for John C. Reilly. (he spread his butt-cheeks as Mike Honcho, after all). But, mostly, there's a sense of demure that goes with these actors. All Oscar-veterans, all students of theater, all have decades of experience.

Alan is a lawyer, Nancy is an investment broker. Penelope co-wrote a text book once, and Michael sells doorknobs and decorative fixtures. There's stuffy, and there's suburban hippie. And never the two shall meet. Once the booze comes out, though... and after Nancy gets physically sick and vomits all over priceless books of Penelope's... and after Alan won't quit answering his cell phone... and once Michael opens his mouth and says what's really on his mind... well, all Hell breaks loose and the adults quickly become mirrors of their children. McCarthy refers to this in his review as "Virginia Woolf" syndrome, the inability to maintain composure with other characters in a small space once alcohol comes out. I like that. I'm gonna use it.

Martha Marcy May Marlene

2011-11-28T21:29:00.000-08:00

★★★★

"Mary-Kate... Ashley... hold still."

Meet Martha, as she's known to her family. Or, Marcy May, as she's known by the people she lives with. Or, Marlene, as she's known to whomever might call. To be fair, all of the women answer the phone by 'Marlene'. That's how they're directed to. Directed by whom?

His name is Patrick. He runs a farm.

From the film's opening few minutes, it's easy to tell that something is wrong here. We can't ever put our fingers on it, collectively, but we know that something feels wrong. To call it a cult, as some critcs have, would be doing a disservice to the film. It's meant to be ambiguous. Yes, there are cult-ish qualities, so that would be the easy way out. But, it's not like anyone is drinking their Kool-Aid out of a sock or anything. It's more of a group than anything else. Of course, this is a group that is seduced by an older man, driving them to sexual depravity and violent home invasions in the name of nirvana. To enter the group, if you're a woman, you're drugged and made to sleep with Patrick (a magnetic John Hawkes), regardless of your virginity. One can only assume that the new boys are made to rob the homes, as this seems to be something they all do.

Patrick lures the newcomers in with promises of happiness to those who have been abandoned. He fills their heads with things all people should be told - that they're loved, that they're important, that they're needed. But does so only to get under their skin, hooking into their brains and not letting them go. Men like him are sent to prison for a reason. He is a man guilty of countless rapes, countless murders and robberies, but he wouldn't ever suggest it. He might just seem like a loving father figure to a group of lonely kids. That's his power. After raping the unconscious women, he convinces them that they wanted the sex and that it was the best thing that could happen to them. In one scene, after ordering the death of a complete stranger, Patrick explains it was showing him pure love by allowing him to reach God.

Early in the film, Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) escapes the farm, only to be followed by one of Patrick's "men". Or, "sons". I guess. Whatever. She's found at a diner and the boy, Watts (Brady Corbet) does his best to convince her to come back. Leaving, thinking she will, Martha instead calls her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) to come and pick her up at a bus stop. It has been about two years since they've seen each other or spoken. Naturally, Lucy hurries, thinking Martha's been hurt. She's taken to live with her sister and he husband Ted (Hugh Dancy). Moving only three hours from the farm, Martha is taken from rural upstate New York to a lake-side cottage where her past begins to meld with her future, causing alarm and concern from Lucy and Ted. She tells no one what's wrong, but let's everyone know that she needs serious help.

There's a sense of doom that hangs over the entire film. Even in the lighter moments, which there thankfully are, there's a predatory sense that follows the camera. Almost like Martha herself is being followed, which is subtly implied throughout the film. Even in the film's ambiguous and divisive ending, it's hinted. Is she being hunted, or is she being paranoid?

Elizabeth Olsen's performance is the definition of "throwback". I used this word once when describing Sandra Bullock's performance in The Blind Side as a throwback to the way people approached acting in the 40's and 50's. I maintain that I was correct. This performance, however, is a throwback to the golden age. Think 1972, and how sharp the new form of acting was then. Remember when method became a thing, and it was all about quiet torture right behind the eyes. That's Olsen's Martha, Marcy May, and Marlene. She recalls a beauty from the days of Garbo, and the subtle turmoil from the glory days of Pacino. It's a perfect performance, and the stuff that "Best Actress" is made of.

A Dangerous Method

2011-11-28T20:09:00.000-08:00

★★★½

If you're still thinking about your mother, not even Freud can help you.

The birth of modern psychoanalysis. The world as we've come to understand it, from two of the sharpest minds to have ever graced the field - Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Knowing this, one can only assume that the unstoppable force (Jung) would not meld with the immovable object (Freud), especially when a woman (Sabina Speilrein) comes between them.

It shouldn't be a surprise that a film about psychiatry would be full of long stretches of dialogue, should it? Of course, for a David Cronenberg film - if his career is indicative of anything - it might be surprising. Though, since 2005, he's apparently traded in the industrial fare for a more human style of filmmaking. His career hasn't suffered, surely, but it's interesting and certainly surprising (in effect) to see where he goes next. A proposed sequel to Eastern Promises might be on the way. And for a filmmaker as strong as Cronenberg, it could be the right territory.

The film opens in the early 20th century, with a young woman being hauled away in a horse drawn carriage. Though, for her, it seems to be more of a horse drawn cell. She's placed in the psychiatric care of Dr. Jung (Michael Fassbender). The woman, Sabina (Keira Knightley), might not need much care were it not for the society around her. Still, Jung brings out in her the patient he never knew he wanted - a cunning young woman suffering from the abuse of her father, and driven by a desire for humiliating sex. Her major fixation - being spanked.

Of course, with a patient that looks like Keira Knightley baiting you to have sex with her and spank her with a belt... you're going to have a hard time focusing on the actual job. Jung would eventually cure her and she would become one of the first female psychoanalysts. If you know anything about history, this isn't a spoiler. And beside, spoilers are superseded by fact. By the way, Aaron Ralston lost an arm in 127 Hours. Point being - Sabina and Jung enter into an elicit and graphic affair, leading Jung to seek the council of Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen), off of whom he basis his treatment for Sabina. Freud's (then) modern theories about human sexuality being at the root for most mental distresses was cutting edge medical hypothesis, but Jung found fault with his diagnoses. Over this disagreement, an intense friendship is formed and both parties would come to know the best and worse of each other, through Jung's affair with Sabina.

It would be easy to say that the film talks too much, sure. But, isn't this the case with most films about psychiatrists? If Jung had transformed into a fly halfway through, wouldn't you be like "..."? And if Sabina and Freud sword-fought during their first meeting... actually, that would have been all right. I would watch that.

Thing is, despite the apparent complaints that the film is too dialogue heavy, it shouldn't be that much of a complaint when the film boasts one of the best screenplays of its year. It might not make it into the Oscars' categories, but consider the source material - three psychiatrists battling wits, two among the most famous men of all time. Freud's theories about penises and mothers are woven into the dialogue beautifully, as are Jung's eventual archetypal theories. The film does an excellent job weaving between the two men, building the tension around Sabina.

Keira Knightley's performance is something to behold. There's a phrase among actors called "dropping in", where an actor so immerses themselves in a role that even without the help of make-up or costuming, they become unrecognizable. Here, Knightley completely drops into the role of Sabina. It's always flattering to admire the way a character moves rather than how an actor might move as the character - it's a testament to their incredible skill. Her quirks and ticks that comprise her character are second only to the mental cues she displays even by simply breathing as Sabina - she's completely in character. Her scenes with Fassbender are magnetic, not even just because of her. Fassbender's quiet reptilian performance as Jung is remarkable. Physically almost unrecognizable, however, is Mortensen as Sigmund Freud. He's got the beard, he's got the gut, but most importantly, he's got the guile. He, through his subtle mannerisms, embodies not just our current idea of Freud, but the man who Freud might actually have been. Both he and Keira Knightley are perfect in their roles.

30 Minutes or Less, Our Idiot Brother, and More on DVD Tomorrow

2011-11-28T18:42:00.000-08:00

The boys from The Town laugh at you.

It's been a long while since I've done one of these. I'd apologize, but I don't feel like it.

Here goes!

Hitting DVD shelves tomorrow, five releases that will most certainly not define the year as we know it. 30 Minutes or Less, One Day, Another Earth, Our Idiot Brother, and Tucker & Dale vs Evil. How many of these did you see? Really, me either.

30 Minutes or Less

I wasn't too inclined to view it at first, but my interest has been piqued. The trailer is amusing enough, and as it's from the creative team behind the ferociously funny Zombieland, I'm sure I'll be amused. That, and Danny McBride gets my money, always. Will it be another Zombieland? Reviews have indicated a resounding "nope", but even the negative reviews had positive things to say. Check back here for my own thoughts on it soon.

Our Idiot Brother

There's a certain "wtf" that usually goes along with releases like this. Nobody really bothers to say anything about them, no one will claim it's their favorite movie of the year, but not one soul will hate it. It's there, it's got Paul Rudd in it, so we live with it, because we love him. And, from what I can tell by the trailer, the film itself actually has a fair bit of heart. Will it be the kind of film to make you go "Aw!"? Probably not. But, it might be worth checking out simply for the Rudd factor.

One Day

You ever watch a trailer that doesn't seem to have much to it, but you know that when you see the film, your reaction will be solidified on either end of the spectrum? You'll either love it, or hate it. You'll probably cry if you love it, or you'll spend the whole film plotting your own suicide. This is one of those trailers. Check for a review soon, and find out whether I've plotted my suicide or wept openly. I have a deep love for Anne Hathaway, balanced with a deep regret for Jim Sturgess' career. So, honestly, it could go either way.

Another Earth

And then there are trailers where you feel like jumping out of your skin for joy. Like this one. Imagine what your reaction would be if you walked outside one morning to enjoy your coffee, and saw an image of the planet Earth in the sky. Hovering right above your house. Only to find out that it's not just a mirror... but another Earth, with another you, in another life. Imagine the walking dream (or nightmare) that would induce. And there you have this film, centered around a young woman who made a terrible mistake and has the chance to help herself, or someone else, start over. And all I can say is... wow.

Tucker & Dale vs Evil

Ahahahahaha yesssss. Yes! My first time seeing this trailer was right before embedding it into this blog post. And I can't stop laughing. Much like Another Earth, I'm so thankful that there are two startlingly clever and original ideas coming to DVD tomorrow. I don't care if this flops on sales, I'm picking it up. And cheers to Alan Tudyk for holding on strong to his career. Firefly did him well.

Enjoy your week, filmgoers! Go pick up a movie. Let me know below what you're looking forward to!

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part I

2011-11-24T02:53:00.000-08:00

★★★½

"I have to put what where? No, no, this doesn't add up at all!"

It's 5:30 in the morning on Thanksgiving, and after four solid days of Twilight viewing, I have something to genuinely be thankful for. Let's recap here: Twilight, eh. New Moon, not too bad at all. Eclipse, pretty good. And now, with the first part of the Breaking Dawn conclusion, I have to say...

Damn.

I'll step up and say most of this is due to the fact that director Bill Condon is one of the best alive, and he'll be the best thing to ever happen to love-lorn teenage vampire romances. He has a unique understanding of human sympathy that flows underneath his films, seemingly making it easier for the audience to connect to even the strangest stories. Consider Kinsey, if you will. And one thing that usually sets his films back from greatness, however, is that he knows he's that good. The cocksure sensibilities, while impressive to a tee, make his films as a whole just a half step back from where they should be. Here, though, knowing that he has a better handle on this than David Slade, Chris Weitz, or... ~~catherine hardwicke~~. cough. He takes key moments from the first Twilight that might have stuck out like a sore thumb, and embeds them, recreating them in a way that makes the first film seem better than it actually is. He's gifted, that one. I tell ya'

The film begins, well... let me rephrase that. The first hour of the film involves a lesson in Pacing and Editing 101. Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is about to marry Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and finally realize her shortly lived life's long wish - become just like him. Given that this is a series about holding onto your virginity until marriage, and... thinly veiled Mormonism, but never mind, you would think that the honeymoon would be something to see! We watch Bella get her make-up done, stress over her shoes, and be girly. We watch Edward be a nervous wreck and get ready for a bachelor party. There's the walk down the isle with the none-too-pleased pop Charlie (Billy Burke) toward all of Edward's 'relatives', including his 'dad' Carlisle (Peter Facinelli). There's the toasts, the cake, the dinner, and then we get to the honeymoon. And it feels like no time has gone by at all. And by the time the film actually gets underway and gives us the first major piece of plot, we're one hour into it and entranced by Condon's American gothic recreation of Rachel Getting Married.

We know from the previous films that the Vulturi (the oddly Romanian cast of vampire royalty) is closing in on the Cullen clan, hoping to get to them before Edward can turn Bella. And that Jacob's pack of Teen Wolves are still on the prowl. Things become far too tense for normalcy and sanity, however, when Bella discovers that she's pregnant. And it's Carlisle's. Kidding. Obviously it's Edward's. But the problem is that it shouldn't be happening. The Teen Wolves finally decide that enough is enough and they're going to end this feud once and for all - no more Cullens, no more problem. I'm sure even the Vulturi wouldn't mind that.

If we take the easy, languid, and ironically sharp pacing of the first hour, and match it with the last hour, it's a bit of emotional whiplash. There's a strong breeze in hour one during the wedding, and we're treated to a mandible-induced C-section during the final hour. Somehow, the whiplash is tolerable and makes for an enjoyable viewing experience. The actors have finally gotten into character and no one seems false, especially Kristen Stewart, whose physical transformation for the role was startling.

The only thing we don't get to see up close and personal is the deflowering of Bella that's been hanging over our heads since 2008. Of course, what with the live birth and all, the film probably wouldn't be suited for teenagers had they kept that in. Still, though - we see the aftermath. No, not the pregnancy (though I'm sure there's a moral in there somewhere, folks). I mean the bedroom, which is practically torn in half. Bed broken, curtains mussed, Charlie Sheen in the corner crying... For two teenage virgins, ... again, all I have to say is...

Damn.

50/50

2011-11-23T22:59:00.000-08:00

★★★★

"Bald. No... landing strip."

Laughter is the best medicine. Unless you have a rare and serious form of spinal cancer and your chances of survival could be either heads or tails, in which case, chemo is probably your best bet. Still, though, if you don't manage to have a sense of humor about it, you're in for a very tough ride. Cancer, by all means, is no joke. My grandmother was recently taken by breast cancer, and I've had others I know and love struggle with it in the past. Thankfully 50/50 knows all the right ways to make the ride as smooth as possible, managing to snuggle up right next to the viewer and tell them "it's all right to laugh. he is, you should, too."

By all definitions, it's an impressive film.

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) works for public radio. In Seattle, no less. He's as unassuming as a likable protagonist can be - charming demeanor, easy going, beautiful girlfriend by the name of Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard). His best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen), ... not so unassuming. He's out to get girls, get drunk, and bring the noise. It's fascinating how the friendship works, but it does. What doesn't seem to work, once you get past the surface, is Adam's relationship with Rachel. It's one of those relationships that works merely because they are polite to each other. There's no sex life to speak of, and both seem to keep their distance. The film is based on the true events of the script's writer Will Reiser. Reiser was diagnosed with cancer; Rogen's friendship with him and their relationship during the diagnosis/treatment process is the basis for the story.

This could certainly fall into the category of "quirky indie comedy with loads of heart", much in the same way that Little Miss Sunshine and Juno do. But there's an air of honesty floating around the screenplay - probably because it actually happened to the writer - that sets it apart from those films. Despite the fact that Little Miss Sunshine and Juno are good films, expertly written, it's the mere fact that 50/50 is a true story that sets it apart. To me, there's indie, and then there's independent. This, dear readers, qualifies independent.

I think the most important thing you could say about a movie like this is that the characters follow their laws of economy. Everyone has something important to do. Even that one nurse whom I wasn't sure would have a line, even though she hovered around Adam in the OR for a minute. Every character is put to excellent use, and not one felt out of place. Adam forms a relationship truly special with his therapist, played expertly by Anna Kendrick, proving that her Oscar nomination was not a fluke. Their bond is tangible, which is important in 'illness dramas'. It's the perfect foil to every other relationship in the film. Adam's relationship with his girlfriend, and his mother (Angelica Huston) and his Alzheimer's stricken father. It seems that it's the people he meets after his illness who speak to him the most. Notice the strength of the friendship he forms with his other chemo-friends.

Of course, I'd be remiss to not mention Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance in more detail than "he plays Adam." The little kid from 3rd Rock From the Sun has grown into one of the best actors of his generation. He has more tonal control and more range in his soft-spoken demeanor than most people had back in the golden age of cinema back in the 70's. If he doesn't land an Oscar nomination for this (and I rarely rally like this), then something is being said about the Oscars. Seriously.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

2011-11-23T09:36:00.000-08:00

★★★

Oh, just hit it already.

As virginity parables go, The Twilight Saga is probably two steps below The Virgin Suicides and about three steps above your average PAX special, putting it smack in the middle of a smoldering "ehhh." To the series' credit, however, the films have steadily taken leaps forward in quality since the firing of Catherine Hardwicke after the near tragedy of the first film. For those of you who have seen Red Riding Hood or Thirteen, imagine what Eclipse would look like if directed by her. Now imagine what Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince would look like if directed by Chris Columbus. See my point?

David Slade isn't a household name. He's a name known among cinephiles, certainly. Perhaps, because of this film, he'll be a name known among teenage girls. Actually, no, I don't wish that kind of attention on him. Regardless of his notability, he appears to be a director with a lot of people to impress. There are moments in Eclipse where you can almost hear him thinking "yes. yesss. YESSSS." during the editing process. Most great movies have scenes that flow so easily, you can almost picture the director stepping back and letting the magic happen on its own, maybe reaching for a silent fist bump from the key grip next to him. David Slade strikes me as the kind of director who "woo hoo's" and high five the next few people he sees. He's talented, but a little boisterous at times. Yes, boisterous. In a film where 50% of the dialogue is mumbled and broken, and there are long stretches of scenes in fields, and because this film isn't Bright Star, there are actually boisterous attempts at directing. I enjoyed Eclipse quite a bit, though. I'll be the first to admit it.

And here's why.

Brutality. Where the first two films took their time and acquainted us with the love Mexican-standoff between Bella (Kristen Stewart), Edward (Robert Pattinson), and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) and the will they or won't they motif that saddles the films to near dime-store paperback quality (which is a little ironic), this film genuinely sinks its teeth (!) into the brewing war. Victoria, now played by the brilliant Bryce Dallas Howard, has been assembling an army to avenge the murder of her mate Jake at the hands of the Cullen clan. But, to be fair, Jake had it coming. If it weren't for the fact that he tried to kill Edward's mate Bella, his pony-tail certainly called for some sort of violent backlash. In short, they whipped his hair back and forth.

The film opens with a silently impressive attack scene, in which the army's assembly begins. Victoria, faster than all hell, 'kills' a loner by the name of Riley. She bites him, convinces him that he's her ain true love, and further convinces him to raise an army of vampires for her. A domino effect which has a disastrous effect. Actually, no, not that disastrous - as the Vulturi (the coven of vampires akin to royalty in the Cullen universe) know exactly what's going on and allow it to happen anyway, responding with only an "oops!" attitude when they're found out.

Preparing for the battle, we find out more about the Cullen clan and how most of them were turned. Jasper (Jackson Rathbone) was a civil war soldier in Texas who went through a similar ordeal to the one presented in the film. Thus, he's the go-to vamp to train everyone to defeat the newborns. Vampires, apparently, are never stronger than in their first months of transformation, while both vampire and human blood courses through their veins. Logically, you'd think that might slow them down, but we need a movie. So, never mind. Vampires and werewolves find a way to live in harmony during this oncoming slaughter, fighting side by side to protect Bella. And she's literally the only reason why. Vampires and werewolves are natural enemies and since Bella's the reason for all this, and has both a vampire and a werewolf fighting for her attention, ... I have a hard time typing most of this with a straight face.

The only reason that I've come to enjoy these films as much as I have, and I'm being honest here, is because of the performances. Kristen Stewart, outside of this series, has proven herself to be a credible actress. If you haven't seen Speak or The Cake Eaters, you're missing out. And even Robert Pattinson has genuine talent. Water for Elephants and Remember Me are proof enough of that. The two leads are gifted in their more strongly-scripted moments. Taylor Lautner... well... yeah. And thankfully, the screenplay had figured out its pacing early enough to keep even the sleepy boyfriends interested, breaking the love story up with an actual story, and some brilliantly staged choreography in the fight scenes.

If it weren't for the weird inclusion that vampires are apparently breakable like ceramic figurines, it might be easier to swallow. But, of course, as violent as this film is, if they were breakable like actual people, we'd have a serious R rating on our hands. And even then, most likely not, as it's not like there's anyone having sex.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

2011-11-22T21:08:00.000-08:00

★★★

Clown Make-up by Calvin Klein

Yes, you read that right. Three stars. And no, that's not just because I don't know how to make a half star on my laptop. It's because it's a step up from the previous film, to which I gave two. In all honesty, as much hate as these films get, and they do get their fare share, they've been getting better and better. I have yet to see Breaking Dawn (that's on the docket for tomorrow), but if it's as good as Eclipse, than my theory stands.

Yes, I enjoyed Eclipse, too.

And no, I'm not a teenage girl.

bella's hot.

I'll go ahead and point out the main reason that New Moon stuck with me in the first place, and what has brought me back for multiple viewings - there's a montage after Edward leaves Bella (don't worry I'll explain the plot in a minute) where, in her deep depression, she sits at her bedroom window and watches the people outside. Months fly by, and seasons change, and Lykke Li's 'Possibility' plays heavily over the following few minutes. It's a scene of perfect direction and acting. Chris Weitz is a talented man.

Moving on. There's more to the movie than that one scene. Though, if that scene had just been the whole two hours of the film, there'd be a glowing four stars atop that picture. and, coincidentally, a different picture. But, never mind.

As for the basic run down of the plot, it's Bella's (Kristen Stewart) birthday. Of course, this means terrible things to her, because she's just getting older while Edward (Robert Pattinson) - eternally 17 - stays the same age. Even though he's 104. Damnation looks good on him, no? He brings her to the Cullen household to celebrate with his family, but an innocent paper cut sends his vampiric family into an uproar. In order to protect her from anything like this happening again, he leaves her. To not only be tended to by Jacob (Taylor Lautner, still searching for a tailor) and Veronica, whom you might remember is the ginger villain from the first film. We find out, through audience word of mouth and publicity strangleholds and trailers and Jacob himself, that he's a werewolf, and Bella has absolutely awful taste in men. Monsters, all of them.

If the theory holds true that women wind up marrying father figures, what on Earth does that say about her father? Who, in all honesty, seems as attentive as Edward himself. So, maybe that's the draw. Who knows? Certainly not the audience.

The most solid thing about New Moon is a bit abstract, so try and follow me. It isn't the scene I pointed out earlier, nor is it the fantastic supporting cast that the film has contracted (Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning are spectacular in their small roles). It's that it is leaps and bounds ahead in quality compared to the first. There's a prime measure of angst and the romance genuinely feels palpable. As opposed to the first one where most things are just implied and everyone looks as confused as the parents/boyfriends dragged to it.

I do have to point out again, however, that if you watch this film, and you're interested in the craft of filmmaking itself, pay particular attention to the Possibility montage. No matter your opinion of Twilight, or those who are connected with it, it's a masterful scene that probably deserves a better movie, despite how entertaining this one can be.

Twilight

2011-11-20T18:21:00.000-08:00

★★

The stars of Twilight thwart Stephanie Meyers' attempt to
take her story back.

Cards on the table - I'm a fan of the Twilight series. The books, the movies, the mass shrieking hysteria, all of it. I have a friend who chooses to pretend this piece of my personality doesn't exist, lest it cause a rift between our wonderful intellectual persons. But, friendship be damned, I get it.

I've heard this series referred to as several things. "The story of a girl's struggle to choose between bestiality and necrophilia", Interview with the Vampire: The D-Bag Chronicles, etc. I've also heard Edward Cullen referred to as Queen of the Damned. Which, I admit, is kind of funny. But, as far as the story goes, there's a deeper meaning. Shades of Mormonism are completely founded, and the entire saga can be boiled down to a message about keeping your virginity until marriage. No matter how hot Edward Cullen is.

And he is.

It'd be hard to talk about this film, pretending it hasn't become a bit of a cultural punchline. The boys at Mystery Science Theater 3000 even took a swing at it, to hilarious effect. But, I'll attempt to discuss this as the film that it is, and as if it stood on its own.

As adaptations go, it isn't the most deft book-to-film translation out there. It's no Kubrick v King, but to call it a fair handle would be a stretch. Some films take artistic license, and some films take it too far. This, sadly, falls in the latter category. I'll reiterate that I'm a fan, but I'll also mention that I'm a Kristen Stewart fan and hopefully you can see the connection. ~~I'm on Team Bella.~~

For those of you who aren't familiar with the story, outside of the Team Edward and Team Jacob fluff, here's the rundown. Bella (Kristen Stewart) moves to Forks, WA to live with her dad Charlie (Billy Burke). She runs into old childhood friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner) and meets a few new friends at school. Including the Cullen family. Most importantly, Edward (Robert Pattinson). He's a vampire, and he's immediately attracted to her, her to him, except that he's a vampire. So, he'll probably kill her if he stays too close and...

actually, boiled down to basic plot points, the story really is quite plain. It's all about the metaphor for Mormonism and virginity, I think. That's what has kept me interested over the last few years.

On a technical level, the film is fairly impressive. The atmosphere of Forks, WA - the overcast, perfect place for vampires to live as they can't go out into the sun, town - is handled quite well, with the film being shot in hazy blue and grey tones. Unfortunately, the screenplay and direction halt the entire production. Near clinically insane, Catherine Hardwicke admittedly didn't put much thought into the film as she didn't think it would become such a giant success. We can see why she got fired from the sequel, can't we?

The performances are something to behold. Whether that's a positive or a negative statement is up to you. I, however, stand completely divided on the subject. I love the way Pattinson and Stewart play Edward and Bella. But, the rest of the cast, immune to criticism is Billy Burke, hams it up beyond belief. Bella's high school friends, one of whom is played by now Oscar nominee Anna Kendrick, aren't believable in the slightest, and Taylor Lautner seems like he's on peyote for most of the production.

I think the most unfortunate thing about this film, as much as I enjoy it as a relaxer from time to time, is that even though the fans recognized that the production quality as it relates to the book is pretty damn bad, it was still a huge success. I could equate that complaint and stick it to the audiences, but I'm blaming Catherine Hardwicke for it. Mostly because I'm still not over Red Riding Hood yet. And my hatred for that film seems to consume me when this woman comes up. Oops.