Director: Jake SchreierGenre: ComedySource: USA (2012)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B+
There's a lot of sweetness to Robot & Frank, and at times I thought it would get a little too sentimental. Instead, thanks to Frank Langella's stand-out performance as the titular Frank, the film finds a sweet spot between bitterness and tenderness. The relationship Frank develops with the robot--voiced in deadpan fashion by Peter Sarsgaard, is both quirky and relatable. Much the same way lonely pet owners ascribe consciousness and personality to their naive animal companions, so too does Frank grow from aloofness to heartfelt friendship for his programmable friend. Add to that the heist plans--and the inherent comedy of seeing a robot in a jacket--and you've got something to sink your teeth into here.
Beyond those crowd pleasing elements, though, Robot & Frank has something meaningful to say about memory and dementia, and to anyone who has lost a relative to battles with Alzheimer's or memory loss, the film has even greater resonance. Does the loss of memory, it asks, invalidate the experience? Or is there still value and meaning in what we have forgotten? The film doesn't claim to have all the answers, but it does provide with some nice fodder.
Not everything works. Frank Langella, Susan Sarandon, and James Marsden all acquit themselves nicely, but Liv Tyler seems to be just playing Liv Tyler, and Jeremy Strong (as obnoxious hipster neighbor Jake) feels too much like a cartoon character to fit in the film's world.
Still, it's a nice piece of science fiction that seems to favor character development and emotional resonance over whiz-bang technology, and that's a nice thing to see. If this is what the future of robots has in store, I'm all for it.
Director: Dong-hun ChoiGenre: ActionSource: South Korea (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: C+
After the darkness of my last two Korean picks, I opted for something that looked a little lighter and frothier. The Thieves fits the bill there. A kind of Korean Ocean's 11 (though I couldn't comment on the fame on any of the actors myself), The Thieves is a kind of fun heist flick that ramps up the stakes as it develops. That at times it feels hampered by bad script writing and hammy acting might have more to do with the quality of the subtitles than anything else, but it did leave me a little flat in that regard.
Still, with its double-crosses and triple-crosses and increasingly dangerous criminal elements, the film is pretty entertaining. The culminating action sequence (fought in and on the sides of a large apartment complex) is exciting and clever, almost achieving a Jackie Chan meets American action frantic aesthetic. (Yes, I am aware Chan is not Korean. I'm talking about the feel of the stunts as characters run along walls, dive through windows, and make acrobatic leaps through space). It's pretty exhilarating stuff, and if the comedy reached the same levels of fun as the action, this would definitely be kicked up a grade or two for me.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hokey and underdeveloped in terms of character, which is unfortunate. It almost had the makings of a great heist movie. Instead, it's just a pretty good one. I'd recommend it to action fans or people looking to get a taste of Korean cinema, but so far this is the weakest of the films I've watched this month.
Note: A weird Netflix fluke meant that when I tried to watch it streaming through my PS3 I could not get subtitles, so I watched the whole thing on my iPad instead. Would it have done more for me if I'd seen it on a larger screen? I have no way of knowing...
Director: Brian De PalmaGenre: ThrillerSource: USA (1981)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Criterion Blu-ray
Grade: A-
A strong little conspiracy thriller made a little more unique due to a rock solid cast, De Palma's trademark visual flair, and a fascination with the art of filmmaking, Blow Out was another blind Criterion buy (as most of them are for me) that left me pretty satisfied.
The film opens with a B-movie slasher as a deranged killer walks through a girl's dorm room looking for a victim. It's cheesy, ineffective, and aurally overblown, capped off with the killer pulling open the shower to the weak and comic screen of a truly talentless actress.
Cut to John Travolta, as Jack Terry, laughing at the mixing board as the director looks on in disgust. "That's a terrible scream," they agree.
Jack's quest to find more authentic sound effects--wind his director "hasn't heard before"--leads him to a bridge at night--a bridge which becomes the point of impact for a presidential candidate's deadly drive into a lake. Jack witnesses--and records on audio--the entire car accident, but he starts to wonder if he might have heard something more.
Like Hitchcock, De Palma is a filmmaker who seems to lay filmic themes into his movies, and nowhere is that more obvious than here. Jack is in the movie business, and his professional life and personal drama--as the politician's death may be more than meets the eye (or ear)--get more and more mixed up as the film goes on. Yes he may be on to a huge political assassination, but he's also supposed to be finishing this cheap slasher, and the two storylines continue to get intertwined. The movies and real life intersect in unexpected ways, De Palma seems to suggest, and it's when films touch something authentic that they become most powerful.
Cue the final scenes of Jack's shaken, sweaty face . . .
John Lithgow, Dennis Franz, and John Travolta all work nicely in their prescribed roles, but I have to admit Nancy Allen took a while to grow on me. Playing an airhead with a breathy ungrounded voice, her Sally never felt quite authentic to me. Maybe that would change on a second viewing, but she seemed to be the weakest piece of the movie this time through.
What does work is De Palma's visual stylings, as split screen and visual overlays connected through sound end up being really effective in showing us the traditional thriller elements in new ways. And yes, that focus on film sound here seems fitting given the way this feels in many ways like the sort of film Hitchcock might have made if he had lived longer. He, too, was obsessed with sound--from the musical dissonance of Rear Window to the totally diegetic sound of The Birds, and so something of Blow Out feels of a piece with Hitch's whole aesthetic.
I look forward to digging into the special features on the Criterion blu-ray soon. I think this is a film I enjoyed one time through but could grow to love with a little more time.
I try not to allow Neil Gaiman's personal whiffs (Amanda Palmer, ugh) to interfere with how much I love his writing.
Because holy cow I do love his writing!
American Gods and Anansi Boys remain two of my favorite contemporary fantasy novels, but Stardust may now join them on the "Gaiman books I love" list. I'm a sucker for the "dark fairy tale meets everyday youth" genre--like John Connolly's The Book of Lost Things, for example--and Stardust is an excellent addition to the list. Set in the mid nineteenth century, the tale of Tristan Thorn, a young man who leaves his hometown of Wall and passes into the land of Faerie to retrieve a fallen star for the woman he loves, is exactly the kind of story I think I would read aloud to my children (though there is, I believe, one word that might need censoring for the young) if I had them. It's got villains who are scary, but not nightmare inducing, heroes who are common, and therefore somewhat relatable, and both male and female characters worth looking up to. If nothing else, it's the kind of book I can imagine reading aloud with my wife, because we do that sort of thing sometimes.
Stardust is a sort of sweet and slightly more modern version of something like Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan, and I think that's exactly what Gaiman is going for. It's funny, it's full of magic, it's heartfelt. It may not have the dark edge that Gaiman's more adult work has, but that's not really the point. It's a love story, at its heart, but it has the same sort of cleverness that Gaiman is known for. It's a frothy bit of nothing that feels like an old friend by the time you close its cover.
And that's a pretty great accomplishment.
Grade: A-
Director: Richard CurtisGenre: Comedy DramaSource: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Island Cinema
Grade: B-
Domnhall Gleeson--who first came onto my radar in last year's Anna Karenina and has a unique look and an imminently likable persona--channels his inner Hugh Grant to great effect in this little sentimental comedy. It's schmaltzy, and cheesy, and predictable, and fairly devoid of real stakes or drama, but it also happens to be sweet and good-hearted, and sometimes that goes a long way to making a sappy little nothing into a nice time at the theater.
Marketed as a romantic comedy, About Time isn't so much about getting the girl as it is about getting your own life. Curtis--whose Love Actually remains a Christmas favorite at my house, though I certainly understand why his treacly, heart-on-your-sleeve sensibilities don't work for everyone--is more interested in family relationships than strictly romantic ones. Yes there is boyfriend/girlfriend and husband/wife sentiment here, but there is also sibling love, and extended family love, and a whole lot of parent/child love. In other words, it's a film that will make you miss your dad (I suppose, of course, expecting you had a fairly all right sort of dad to begin with) and want to spend more time with your kids. (I assume, not having any myself).
The film doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about the intricacies or implications of time travel (pretty much suggesting that it just works and don't think about it), and if that bothers you then you probably aren't suited to the film in the first place. Instead Curtis makes clever, likable people go through small, relatable challenges to remind us that, for most of us middle-class well-adjusted types, life isn't so bad if we'll just let ourselves enjoy it. Of course, if you are not a middle-class well-adjusted type, your mileage may vary.
Fortunately, those likable people are led out by the always enjoyable Bill Nighy, the often cute Rachel McAdams, and the previously mentioned Gleeson. The three all have nice chemistry, and as the film progresses they take on the feel as a somewhat comfortable and lived-in family.
I don't begrudge anyone for whom the film just suffers from an overdose of self-satisfied sentimentalism, but I have to admit I found it quite likable. Again I come back to that word likable. I think that's the defining adjective of this film for me. It's not mind-blowing or even great, but it's a pleasant enough way to spend an evening and reflect positively on one's own life and reminding yourself that your own life--even if not quite as perfect as the characters here--is also overall quite likable.
Director: Cameron CroweGenre: DocumentarySource: USA (2011)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: A-
I can't help but think your response to this documentary will be heavily based on how strongly you feel about Pearl Jam and their music. Having just attended a concert and re-immersed myself in their music in the weeks leading up to the show, Crowe's love letter documentary was a pretty great capper.
Crowe spends a lot of time looking at the band's early days and early incarnations (Mother Love Bone, Mookie Blaylock, etc.) as well as their impact. If he is wide-eyed and adoring at times (not really exploring much the backlash the band has faced or the lows as much as the highs), you can't really blame him. This is a film from a fan, after all, and if nothing else his interview does prompt the band members to open up and wax philosophical a few times.
Still, the film is really about what makes Pearl Jam speak to some people, and in that regard it's a rousing success. Lots of concert footage, lots of greatest hits tracks--and yes, some deep cuts also--make this a pretty good compilation of all the great work the band has done, even as it explores some of the deeper sources for that work.
Like most films about artists, this is about enthusiasm rather than real critical examination, but that doesn't make it any less worthwhile. Watching Eddie climb on the rigging, hearing the Spinal-Tap-esque tale of the drummers, seeing how these guys have grown apart and grown together--it's heart-filled and ultimately optimistic stuff. It celebrates the stuff that makes Pearl Jam stand out to fans--different set lists every night, the seeming humility of the band members, the desire to do things their own way.
Plus, there's track after track of incredible music.
As a fan, it's pretty great to see. Makes me want to track down tickets to another concert.
Director: Alan TaylorGenre: Sci-Fi/ SuperheroSource: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: B
Two Thor movies in (plus numerous cameo appearances) and Chris Hemsworth hasn't made him any more interesting--he's a God, he's cocky, he's in love, he's a fish-out-of-water (lather, rinse, repeat), but it doesn't really matter, because you probably didn't come to the movie for Thor. You came to the movie for Loki.
And Loki is interesting. And Loki is fun.
Thor: The Dark World gave me the same general viewing experience as the first Thor film. First, eye rolling at the deep mythology, then entertainment when a few interesting supporting characters show up, followed by eventual delight and pleasure in the adventure on screen and the clever quips that keep on coming--thanks, once again, to Loki, as well as a handful of others.
Is there character development? Not really. Is their anything really at stake. Again, not really. The downside of this giant Marvel universe is that we know the status quo will remain mostly the same so that we can get to the next big Avengers movie where "everything will change." It's the downside of the success of the franchise, I guess. Maybe you could kill off a supporting character or two to give one of the heroes some emotional depth, but really change things? Really have a dark chapter (like, say, The Empire Strikes Back, for example)? Not too likely.
Still, this is fun popcorn. Christopher Eccleston (unrecognizable in all that make up) is a fine, but almost entirely forgettable villain, but his character allows for some nice big battle sequences, and who cars anyway, because it's really Loki that we care about as antagonist to Thor anyway.
And Loki is here. So it works.
Director: Jeong-beom Lee
Genre: ThrillerSource: South Korea (2010)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: A
Having just watched The Chaser earlier in the week, it's hard for me not to compare the two. So many similar elements: the loner hero (or anti-hero) at its heart, the mother involved in shady dealings who is put in harm's way, the daughter who becomes an innocent victim of the mother's lifestyle, the quest to save one or both of the damsels in distress, the occasionally shocking violence perpetrated over the course of the film. But while I have a feeling The Chaser might be the more complex filt man it's m--more moral ambiguities, fewer clear cut good guys, despite a plethora of bad guys, etc.--I think The Man from Nowhere was the more entertaining to watch. It's a little bit more Hollywood-glossy, with a more tragic and heroic figure at its hear, so it's also not quite as bleak, and it's a lot more stylish, with plenty of heroic moments, strong fight choreography, and flair.
The "pawnshop ghost"--Tae-sik Cha--lives a life of solitude, his only friend a young girl named So-mi, whose mother and everyone else calls garbage. The two form a shaky friendship, but when So-mi and her mother are abducted for the mother's role in a drug heist, Tae-sik (whose mysterious past gives him a particular set of skills useful for this kind of thing) goes on a one-man war against the Chinese gang responsible. Sadistic killers, confused cops, organ harvesters, and Korean crime bosses all get involved, but Tae-sik continues on, as he realizes he really has nothing else to live for.
Revenge/redemption stories are nothing new for Korea, but they sure do them well. The film is helped a lot by Bin Won's performance as Tae-sik. He's stoic, but haunted, and Won allows the tragedy and desperation he feels in all his actions leak out through his eyes. That he's as effective in the fight sequences is another bonus. The film's cinematography is another strength. There are a lot of beautiful shots here--from rain soaked car chases to brightly lit criminal lairs to cramped and torturous spaces, but each scene and location has an element of clarity and even beauty to it. And when it gets into the fights--particularly the climactic knife fights toward the film's end--it's both terrible and awe-inducing to watch.
In the end, though other Korean revenge films might be better or more complex, The Man from Nowhere is perhaps the most enjoyable of the genre that I've seen. It has a bit of a sentimental heart at its core, and when dealing with such dark and disturbing subject matter, maybe that's not a bad thing.
Director: Peter WeirGenre: DramaSource: USA (1998)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: DVD
Grade: A
Was reality tv already this popular in 1998, or were Peter Weir and writer Andrew Niccol just ahead of their time? The story of a man whose world literally falls apart around him is one I love showing to my sophomore literature students as we're studying satire. It's old enough and obscure enough that few of them have seen it, it's compelling and powerful enough that most of them love it. And as satire--of reality tv, of religion, of our own obsessions with pop culture? It just works.
Jim Carrey--while occasionally hamming it up Jim-Carrey-style a bit too much--is here in one of his best roles as Truman Burbank (I mean, even the names in this film are so metaphorically rich), whose life seems perfect: perfect town, perfect friends, perfect wife (well, maybe not so perfect). But as in most utopia/dystopia stories, things are not all they appear to be. When the world around him starts to show some holes--lights falling from the skies, a backstage set where elevators are supposed to be--Truman begins to discover that maybe his life is not what he thinks it is.
There's little not to like here, and it does seem to get better every time I watch it. The film's climax is one of my favorites, and Truman's conversation with Christof in the final moments is poignant and powerful. Our lives, the film reminds us, may get messy and complicated, but at least they are ours. Now we have to step into the dark and make something out of them.
Really, this might be in my top twenty. Definitely top fifty. Gets me every time.
Director: Hong-jin NaGenre: ThrillerSource: South Korea (2008)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: A-
In a late attempt to catch up (at least a little) with Filmspotting's Korean Cinema marathon, I decided to make November Korean cinema month. I don't have access to all of the same films they do, but I'll do what I can, and find other examples to make up the difference.
I'm glad I got to start with The Chaser, though. Part serial killer thriller, part search-and-rescue mission, all high stakes suspense, the film was at times hard to watch, but always hard to look away from. Pimp Joong-ho is a former police officer whose cruelty to people is only surpassed by the nonchalance with which he treats them. People are only important in terms of what they mean to him. Disappearing prostitutes? They're screwing him over. Minion doesn't handle a situation right? He's an idiot that deserves to be threatened and slapped around. Someone might be selling his girls out from under him? They're robbing him of his rightful property. He doesn't care much for anyone, and seems just fine with that.
The disappearance of a third girl in a short period of time, however, changes all that. Joong-ho goes to find her, and eventually discovers something much bigger is going on. That something? Young-min Jee, who claims to have murdered 12 people, but won't reveal the details about where he did it. As Joong-ho tries to track down and save Mi-jin (the third girl) while Young-min sits in the police station watching the legal bureaucracy trip all over itself, the pimp has to face (at least a little) the cost of what his way of life means. After all, the disappeared Mi-jin did not live alone, so Joong-ho's emotional isolation might be threatened as his search accelerates.
The film is gripping, sprinkled with gut-wrenching violence (Young-min's hammer is terrifying every time it appears), a little bit of black comedy, and an increasing sense of desperation. But (spoiler alert) it's also a story about redemption and reformation. It's a fitting end to a film filled with Christian imagery (and perhaps there is an obtuse religious reason behind Young-min's crimes), Joong-ho ends the film slumped against the wall of a hospital against a structure that, due to angles and set design, looks suspiciously like a cross. At its heart, this is a film about learning that one's life cannot be only about oneself. Joong-ho's search for Mi-jin may have started with a self-centered interest, but it eventually takes him far past that into recognition that other people's lives have meaning--and meaning to him--far greater than he gave them credit for. Yun-seok Kim (as Joong-ho) is hugely compelling as a slightly doughy and increasingly desperate anti-hero, and he makes a great counterpoint to the endlessly creepy Jung-woo Ha as Young-min. The two are an effective match, and each of their encounters rises in stakes and intensity.
The Korean revenge genre is not for everyone, but The Chaser--if not as flashy or as melodramatic as the better-known Oldboy--is a great example of how the genre can create emotional weight. Really compelling.
Director: Gavin HoodGenre: Sci-FiSource: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: B-
Part of the reason I have come to really enjoy writing these film reviews--even though I'm mostly just writing for myself--is the opportunity it gives me to think a little more critically about my film-going experiences. Ender's Game is a film that, for better or for worse, wears its heart on its sleeve, and while it kept me engrossed throughout its running time, it is also rushed, poorly scripted, and overly simplistic. It works, and it's a compelling film, but it is not a great film, or possibly even a good one. It accomplishes all of those elements primarily through the seriousness with which it takes itself.
There are many elements that Ender's Game gets right. The universe constructed here, while somewhat bare bones, feels complex, and the visuals are a lot of fun. The battle school sequences in particular are invigorating, and I'm just disappointed we didn't get a little more. And though the film rushes forward too much at times--cramming way too many elements into its long two hours--its relentless momentum makes sense when viewed from the perspective of the military leaders who know what is really at stake here--taking time to stop and talk about feelings isn't an option, and so the characters don't. They just keep running forward into violence. The pace means that even late-movie revelations about the nature of the war seem to slide by as quickly as every other plot point, when we should be hitting new emotional notes.
And that's one of the film's weak spots. For a film about children, Ender's Game is surprisingly bleak. That's not bad, unless that's all there is. Harrison Ford's gruff barking and an excellent Asa Butterfield's dour expression seem to set the emotional tone for the movie, and they don't really change from beginning to end. The story of mankind's war against an alien race--and the fear that conflict provokes in a war-wearied populace--is brought to us through the eyes of Ender Wiggin, a "third" (meaning third child) who sees his destiny as making it to battle school where his older brother and sister failed. To do so means to excel at destroying his enemies, and Ender is nothing if not gifted in this regard. In fact, the film pounds home the internal conflict between aggression and empathy by making it not only Ender's stated conflict but by externalizing it in two sets of characters--Ender's compassionate sister and sadistic brother, as well as in the stern, warmongering Colonel and the caring psychologist Major who are in charge of his training. We get it. Compassion, violence, kindness, cruelty--these are choices each of us must make within ourselves. But writer/director Hood doesn't let us make those discoveries ourselves. Instead he constantly barrages us with characters who are either kind or cruel. Ender himself seems to be the only character with any sort of internal conflict.
And that's a problem. The film is so focused on pushing through all the elements of the novel--battle school, zero gravity games, command school, Ender's dreams, etc.--that they never slow down to give us any character depth for anyone besides Ender. And even his conflict is just presented as a flat binary. As I always tell my students in literary analysis: black and white isn't interesting--it's the grey that's worth exploring and talking about. Hood seems to have lost sight of that.
He's not helped by actors--particularly some of the supporting children--who are not that great and can't help make some of the cheesy dialogue sound like, well, children reciting cheesy dialogue. Add to that a denouement that feels under-explained and a little simplistic, and it just doesn't fully gel, especially when given time to process. I did enjoy myself and get wrapped up in the film. It just hasn't stuck with me as much as I'd hoped.
Director: Brian De Palma
Genre: Horror
Source: USA (1976)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B
Having never seen Brian De Palma's 1976 horror classic, I was pleasantly surprised with the peaks the film hit--notably some incredibly striking imagery, a crackerjack climax, and a fully committed (in every sense of the phrase) performance by Sissy Spacek as the titular teenage . . . protagonist? Antagonist? Victim? Monster? Her layered performance--painful and shy, angry and needy, mousy and bold--is really the best part of the film and what gives it its heart. She plays a very different kind of outsider here than she did in Badlands, but I can see now why she was the go-to "unusual girl" of the mid to late 70s. Though I haven't seen the remake, it's a natural, empathetic, and all-consuming performance that I can't imagine Chloe Moritz topping. Spacek is just a natural actress, willing to expose herself emotionally for a nuanced role like this.
The film is at its best when De Palma unleashes his full visual flair. There's a reason that image of Carrie, drenched in blood, standing in front of a wall of fire, has become so iconic. It is haunting and powerful, and even though I'd seen it a hundred times before, it remained powerful and haunting. Spacek looks like a drowned kitten--pathetic and scrawny and weak--and yet she also embodies the full rage of teenage angst. The film is worth it for those few shots, in addition to a few other strong elements. Is Carrie the proto-school shooter that haunts our high school halls today? In her rage, she destroys both those who have sought to aid her and those who mock her, and De Palma plays a neat trick in the pig's blood humiliation scene by showing both people laughing and those same people standing in apparent horror. So is Carrie's perception of victimhood blown out of proportion? Or does she see the truth behind those cruel teenage eyes? I like that it's not quite clear--though we know at least one or two of those Carrie destroys really had been trying to help her.
Great imagery and thoughtful ambiguities aside, however, the film is really showing its age. It doesn't surprise me that, in a world in which "mean girl" bullying continues to gain new life on the Internet, the time seemed ripe for a Carrie reboot, and several of the elements of this film really do come off as cheesy and dated now. It's a little funny to me that Piper Laurie was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Her Bible-thumping mother is so over-the-top and histrionic that she comes off as little more than a caricature. Similarly, De Palma's tone is all over the place. Some scenes (tuxedo shopping, in particular) feel way out of place here--like they might fit better in an after school special or made-for-tv comedy.And Carrie's antagonists--Chris and Billy (a turning-it-up-to-11 John Travolta) are like mustache-twirling villains with little motivation other than Carrie got her in trouble. Which I guess is fine, but it's also really two-dimensional. It just doesn't always work. And though I haven't read King's original novel, so I don't know how much of it was changed for the film, I was also amazed with just how simple the plot was. There's not a whole lot of complication, and it zips from point A (Period! Bullied!) to point C (Bullied! Revenge!) really quickly.
In all, the film serves as a good reminder that high school can be hell. It invites empathy while also reminding us that even the wronged can do great wrong themselves, however seemingly worthwhile the reason. I'm not sure it fully deserves its classic status, but I see why it has such a devoted following, and when it works, it's great. I'm glad we saved it for Halloween.
Director: Jeff TremaineGenre: ComedySource: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Charlotte Studio Movie Grill
Grade: D+
I was prepared to really like this movie. Saw it with one of my closest friends as a warm up to seeing Pearl Jam live in concert. I was in a good mood, I was ready to be entertained, I knew the "real" show was coming later. I did laugh during the movie, to be sure, but as I thought about it more after the fact, I realized that mostly my entertainment was due to wanting to have a good time, not due to the quality of the movie itself. Old people saying demeaning things, kids saying offensive things, and poop/genitalia jokes can be funny, and there were a few moments of comedy. But mostly this was a disappointment. I wanted it to better than it actually was.
Part of that is due to the (I'm assuming) scripted narrative that overlays the "Candid Camera" style humor of Johnny Knoxville doing ridiculous things to unsuspecting bystanders. His age make-up (surprisingly good) and body language are pretty authentic, and it's interesting to see what effect such an offensive old coot has on people who don't know it's a joke (at least at first; the credits fortunately reveal the camera crew coming clean to several of the victims of Knoxville's gags, which is at least a nice reminder that practical jokes are not as fun if they're just mean-spirited). But the storyline of Bad Grandpa forging a relationship with his abandoned grandson is pretty flat, and whatever "growth" occurs is both not particularly believable or at all surprising. Even worse, the desire to connect these stunts and scenes with a narrative just makes the whole thing feel kind of hollow. In Jackass, the only narrative is "Here are a bunch of dumb idiot friends acting like fools." Here it becomes "Here are terrible people acting like jerks." It's harder to get behind, and it never strikes the right balance.
Even worse, the trailers for the film reveal most of the best gags. The bombing of the beauty pageant, for example, is really the film's ultimate prank, but you've seen all there is to see already if you've seen a preview, so whatever energy would have been there is sucked out. It's too bad, because it really is an absurdly offensive moment in all the right ways--mocking the child beauty pageants, the inappropriate sexualization of little girls, and the "pageant parents" responsible for both. It's a nice bit of satire that could have really been a nice surprise. Frankly, it's the scene that stands out most, so why include it in the preview?
Because there's not that much else to offer. Bad Grandpa is an interesting experiment that sits in a weird middle ground between narrative film and comic documentary, but it's just not very successful at either. Disappointing.
Pearl Jam, though. That show was awesome.
Director: Stuart GordonGenre: HorrorSource: USA (1985)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B+
This is the cheesy, fun, gory, crazy horror movie I have been looking for all through October. Stuart Gordon's HP Lovecraft update has the gory practical effects, over the top insanity, and serious hilarity (is that a thing?) of the best B-movies. I'd never really call it scary, but it's really not trying to be. Instead, it's trying to be shocking and audacious, and in that regard it succeeds. Demon cat, insane-o-Dad, the headless scientist, and the goofiest/weirdest sex scene around? Yep, it's all here.
The film has it's fair share of bad acting, particularly in the barely present talents of Bruce Abbott and a slew of naked zombie corpse extras, and if that's all there was to the story it would simply be another cheap 80s horror melodrama. But then there's Jeffrey Combs.
Ah, Jeffrey Combs. He approaches his role as Herbert West with a seriousness and intensity that makes me think someone told him this was a forgotten Shakespearean masterpiece. His fervor and seriousness stand in contrast to the B-movie shenanigans around him, and that is what makes it work. Everyone else is distracted by green potions and walking corpses and so much blood, but West will not be deterred from his scientific advancements, no matter the cost. He is gleeful in his Frankensteinian devotion to his craft, and if he seems like he comes from another movie, all the more reason he looks down on the puny small thinkers that surround him.
In the final tally, the movie was just too much fun not to laugh at--and with. A fun piece of Halloween horror schlock that I'm glad I finally got around to seeing. The only thing that would make it better would be to watch it late at night with a bunch of rowdy friends.
Maybe next Halloween.
Director: Paul Greengrass
Genre: Action
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: A-
Paul Greengrass--more than many directors--seems to excel at showing the drama of real life in what feels like a pseudo-documentary style. His handheld camera and the film's stark cinematography make us feel like we're there, for better or for worse. He knows how to film action with believable impact and a pace that moves as fast as real life, and so already Captain Phillips has a lot going for it to make it rise above the average action film. Add to that the "real life" story being told here of Somali pirates capturing an American shipping vessel, and you've got a pretty good recipe for tension. Now mix in a willingness to suspend some judgment of the pirates (not sympathizing with them exactly, but showing the conflict and pressures that drive them to this behavior with a soft enough touch to create some empathy--at least for leader Muse) and you've really got something worth sinking your teeth into.
All those qualities are solid, but it's the acting that helps Captain Phillips really rise above. Newcomer Barkhad Abdi as Muse is convincing, demanding, and times sympathetic, at times terrifying, at times pathetic. He plays Muse with confidence, and I hope he has more opportunities to show up in mainstream films, because I think he has real potential and a unique look. We don't have enough young black character actors (or black actors in general), and I think he brings a lot to the table, if this role is any indication.
But still, this is Tom Hanks's movie through and through. Hanks is one of those actors that, despite his fame and the often over-the-top roles he appears in, I cannot help but like. Here he plays Phillips almost casually. There does not initially seem to be much showboating in the role, as Phillips simply does his job and does it well. But as the pressure ratchets up, so does his intensity, and the final ten minutes of the film can only be described as harrowing--one of the most intense experiences in the theater I've had in some time, and one that genuinely brought tears to my eyes. When I teach my students catharsis next year, I will be talking about these final scenes. Greengrass's trick here is to keep us so involved in the story that we don't even realize how much tension we're holding in. And then he forces us to face it. It's pretty incredible.
Captain Phillips is not the best film of the year for me, and as I said, for most of the film it's just a really good action movie based in real life. Excellent work all around, though, kicks those final moments up to another level. Fiery, emotional, and fierce. I won't soon forget it, even if I don't think I could bring myself to watch it again.
Director: Ti WestGenre: HorrorSource: USA (2011)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: C-
Well, as a film, The Innkeepers is all right, I guess, but that's about all I can say for it. The "closing weekend in a possibly haunted hotel" idea is one I don't think I've seen before, but it still feels not very fresh. There have been other haunted hotel movies, some great, some not so great, but most of them still better than this one.
I think part of my problem with the film is that it feels cheap at times (not in terms of cost, but in terms of plot set-up and scares--why these particular people are at a hotel on its closing weekend in the first place never quite seems realistic), while at other times it's just plain boring. There are long stretches of nothing happening, and while that can be a useful tactic to up suspension, West doesn't seem to infuse those shots with dread the way other more talented directors would. We in the audience just feel--like the employees of the hotel--that we're just killing time until something interesting happens.
Also, I feel like the haunting is never really explained particularly well. "Don't go in the basement" the psychic warns, but why? Why are these spirits after one particular character? What's their motivation, and what do they want? Am I just so used to the tropes of the horror genre that I expect that if ghosts show up they want something? And does not giving us that mean West is doing something unique or just leaving me unsatisfied?
I don't know, I know I've watched worse horror movies this month, but I was just disappointed because I wanted to like it more. Average at best.
Director: Mark TonderaiGenre: HorrorSource: USA (2012)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: C
Like all somewhat average "slasher" movies (though admittedly, not a lot of slashing goes on), House at the End of the Street owes a lot to Psycho, though a glossed up, teen friendly riff on Hitchcock's classic. The film seems to have gotten a lot of vitriol from critics, but in conversation with my film classes I've found it to be generally effective for a teen audience with twists and turns that kept them guessing. I'll admit, it kept me guessing for a while as well. The film teases the idea that a particular character might not be dead as everyone thinks, but rather than dragging out this rather obvious twist, they answer it right away and get their shocks (and their surprises) in other more creative ways. And if the ending had to hammer home its points a few too many times, it still was pretty fun to watch.
That's mostly due to a cast that's really much better than is usually associated with films like this. Elisabeth Shue (now relegated from one of my teenage crushes to playing the mom in every movie) doesn't have much to do besides be inconsistently concerned and overly trusting. But, again, that's because this is a movie for teenagers, where parents are kind of dumb but ultimately love you. Really it's a movie about Jennifer Lawrence, and that's not a bad thing, because Jennifer Lawrence is a talented enough actress to make her kind of two-dimensional character interesting. I mean, it's no Winter's Bone, and it's a little weird to me that this is a movie she made after that fine little film, but I guess people have to work.
Max Thieriot is also solid as the "wounded boy with a dark past who nobody trusts because his sister murdered his family and so the house is driving down home prices." Again, a little two dimensional, but he is given a few interesting things to do as the film progresses.
Overall it's no masterpiece, but as far as PG-13 horror goes, this movie is enough down its own path (with nods to the past, as I mentioned) that you could do worse. It's not looking to shock with watered down gore; it's trying to create a sense of atmosphere and impending danger, and I'd say it mostly succeeds.
Director: Jake Schreier
