Release Date: October 27, 2006 I walked into the theaters to see Babel not knowing anything about the indie film. I only knew that it starred Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett and Gael Garcia Bernal, but knew nothing of the plot. So that you have a better idea about this amazing and emotional film, I’ll do my best to give you some insight before entering the theater. In some ways Babel reminded me of last year’s Best Picture winner, Crash, mainly because it has one of those interlocking plots where seemingly unrelated people become intertwined as the narrative unfolds. Babel focuses on three stories, set in Morocco, Japan and Mexico. The story begins with a tragedy striking a grieving married couple (Pitt and Blanchett) on vacation in Morocco; two young boys being given a rifle; a Mexican Nanny forced to take care of two white children on her Son’s wedding day and a deaf Japanese girl trying to fit in with society. I felt tense throughout the film because of the sometimes uncomfortable and emotional stories, which kept escalating on screen. Escalation is a good descriptor for the overall storyline of the film and the power of cause and effect, since the three separate stories demonstrate how one little action can set a chain of events in motion and effect people outside of your own life. My tension was only heightened due to the fact that the dialogue was minimal and instead replaced by the steady drumbeat of exotic percussion music, [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

One of our own Rejects has created a short and displayed it on YouTube. In an effort to give the guy a helping hand we’ve decided to review it here, but as per Robert’s request, we need to be honest and treat it like any other film. Fortunately, I don’t have to be too cruel. The piece, shy of five minutes long, is nicely done with some strong aspects which don’t get overwhelmed by the weak points. The film is short enough that I don’t believe a recap is necessary so let’s proceed to the dissection. First of all, the director and DP do a fine job of minimizing the damage done from working with lower grade equipment. It’s obvious we’re not watching the latest in technology, but the lighting is chosen to make the most of what they had. Particularly the opening sequence makes the lower quality images work well. The shot selection is generally good, again especially in the opening sequence. Depth is used in the shots while good cutaways and angles keep the eye interested in watching. Generally good also describes the editing. Perhaps the best aspect of the short is the writing of the narration, which captures the feel and the style of a noir film. One feels as if one is hearing a 1940′s detective novel being read aloud. The narrator himself is just shy of adequate. He does not do a poor job, but narration is difficult even for the best of actors, as [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Release Date: October 30, 2006 Mission: Impossible III was a disappointment at the box office, failing to reach the level of either of the two prior entries. The DVD release looks to rectify the monetary situation. I wish that the movie had done better, it is actually quite good. The movie opens with such an intensity and ferocity that was rather unexpected, even on the small screen it is highly effective in setting the stage for the rest of the movie. It gives us a quick introduction to both sides of our story and hints at what is to come. It solidifies Philip Seymour Hoffman as an absolutely sadistic bad guy, and re introduces us to a much more focused Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt than was seen in the last film. This opening, and subsequent action helps to personalize it, to make it more than just a spy flick. That personal touch is in no doubt the responsibility of director, and co-writer, JJ Abrams. Before making his big screen directorial debut here, he had been making quite the name for himself as the mastermind behind Felicity, Alias, and the current ratings juggernaut Lost. He brings aspects of all that experience to this movie. M:I:III has been criticized for feeling like a television episode, but I think it is more the opposite. Abrams may have never directed for the big screen, but he brought a big screen look and feel to the small screen, so it stands to reason that [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

This Halloween is not offering up much in the way of killer releases. I can’t say that anything looks like an absolute must have, but every week offers up something that will be worth looking into. I was a little hesitant about selecting this week’s pick, but I have ended up probably going against better judgment with my choice. This week’s pick is the Umberto Lenzi directed gutmuncher Cannibal Ferox. I was hesitant in making this choice based on my decidedly negative reaction to Cannibal Holocaust. That film severely messed up my head for a week or so. That is one seriously disturbing movie, and quite possibly the most disturbing thing that I have ever seen on film. It is that experience that caused me to pause when selecting this week’s pick. It is interesting, for some reason I am drawn to other, similar, films despite the negative effect they may have on me. Cannibal Ferox’s director, Umberto Lenzi, was one of those responsible for the rise of the Italian cannibal film when he released Man from Deep River. That was 9 years prior to this film, which is considered a close relative, although inferior, to Cannibal Holocaust. The two films have similar plots featuring anthropologists traveling into the Amazon in search of cannibals. Ferox has them meet up with unscrupulous drug dealers who are having some problems with the local cannibal tribe. I have read that this film, again like Holocaust, features actual animal deaths. That is something that [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Saw III was the biggest movie of the weekend, trapping the young within its bloody grip. After the breakout hit that was the original film, the Saw franchise is turning into an October tradition. I wonder if they will be able to churn one out for next year to keep the trend going? It is the perfect movie to go see with a bunch of bloodthirsty friends looking for a good time without having to resort to the real thing. This years entry takes us further into the mental recesses of the predatory Jigsaw, as he further succumbs to his cancerous growth. This go around takes us into his desire to complete the training of his protege, and for the most part it works. It is an interesting film in how it tries to give us a story that weaves trough the bloody tricks. Not perfect by any stretch, but good enough to be worth seeing on the big screen. Only one other film cracked into the top ten, Running with Scissors. It entered at number 10, up from its debut at number 29. I have yet to make up my mind on whether or not I like the movie, but it does offer a couple of intriguing elements, in particular, Annette Benning’s indulgent performance. See it at your own risk. When it comes to the box office, no conversation would be complete without mentioning Martin Scorsese’s latest. The Departed is quickly becoming the biggest hit of Marty’s career, and [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Last night I had the privilege of attending the Barbecue the festival puts on that’s notorious for its great food and free-flowing beer/wine/spirits (a common theme, no?). It’s one the few outdoor events, and it was nice to get outside before soldiering through day four indoors with panels and films. So far I’ve been fairly lucky in the panels and films I’ve chosen. I should point out that I’ve been noted as giving “good reviews” for movies. The reason for this? Because I go to movies I’m interested in seeing, so it gives me a natural bias of at least digging the subject matter. However, much like the Mexican presidential election of 2000, I’ve proven I’m not an infallible oligarchy shadow-government run by a single party (or a sunshiny movie reviewer). You will see what I mean by my write-ups of the movies of the evening: A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints and Snoop Dogg’s Hood of Horror (review coming soon!)

Release Date: October 20, 2006 Clint Eastwood, at age 76, may be in the middle of the high period of his career. His splendid Mystic River was followed up by the Oscar winning Million Dollar Baby, and several others of his recent films have been quite good as well as varied in genre and style. With Flags of our Fathers Clint Eastwood has crafted a WWII movie which has some conservatives crying treason. For my part I admire his goals but wish I had enjoyed the movie more. Everyone has seen the famous picture of the soldiers on Iwo Jima struggling to erect a United States flag, but few know the story behind it. Flags of our Fathers tells the story of the picture as it was taken, as it became a famous image overnight, and what happened to the young men involved. All further details are more appropriately left for the viewer’s discovery. As I said, I admire what Eastwood attempts to do with this movie, and that is simply this: to be honest and to set the record straight. War’s first casualty is the truth, and WWII was no exception. To deny this or to believe that somehow one’s own nation has a pristine track record is to engage in self deception. Though many have decried Mr. Eastwood’s latest opus, I don’t believe that he is any less patriotic for refusing to be fooled by his government. But the movie is a frustrating one. It is frustrating because [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

The horror genre is similar to comedy in at least one important respect: what appeals to one viewer another may find boring. There are different styles of horror, just like there are different styles of comedy, and the horror film was never made that could successfully terrorize any audience. Some are frightened by images, others by what is not seen. Many find supernatural creatures to be frightening while some merely laugh, scared instead by real people doing terrible things. In short, what is true for all movies, namely that their worth as a work of art is subjective, is triply true for horror films. There are still some basic rules to follow, rules which all good movies of any genre follow more or less closely, but in getting down to the actual frightening of an audience there are often several options and many of them just won’t work.  It all depends on the audience. For what it’s worth, here is my personal Top Fifteen list of movies which scare, startle or just creep you out. They are not listed according to their excellence as a movie, but in how well they manage to scare or unsettle. Just in time for Halloween. 15. Rosemary’s BabyA supremely well crafted work by Roman Polanski, it never manages to be out-and-out scary. But it does get quite creepy, and if you watch it at night you are likely to lie in bed afterwards feeling uncomfortable. 14. TesisA little known first opus by Spanish director [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Release Date: October 27, 2006 Catch a Fire is a real life story of standing up for what is right, even if the cost is great. It is a brave film in this day and age, especially in America. It is a story that, while aimed directly at doing the right thing no matter he cost, falls on the side of pro-terrorism. It is a fascinating dichotomy. On one hand you want to be the one who is doing the right thing, standing up and fighting against oppression, I am sure that all of you would agree that is thr right thing to do. On the other hand, the tactics employed are terrorist acts. Considering all that has happened over the past five years. Patrick Chamusso (Derek Luke) is a man who has kept his head down and worked hard. He has a good job as a foreman at a large oil refinery, lovely wife and children, and coaches the local children’s soccer team. He is not a man without problems, he had an affair which resulted in a son with another woman. The affair is over, but he still is involved with his son’s life, and it is this relationship that casts suspicion upon him. One day there is an explosion at the refinery, a decidedly terrorist act. This was a time when apartheid was in effect, a white government keeping the black population down. The government regime carried out kidnappings, torture and murder all in order to keep [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Release Date: October 13, 2006 This directorial debut from Dito Montiel, AGTRYS as its come to be known in our short-attention spanned culture, is two movies slammed into one. The first is the early life of Dito (Shia LeBeouf) as he grows up on the mean streets of Astoria in the 1980′s. The second is a return trip home faced by an older Dito (Robert Downey, Jr.) after learning that his father has fallen ill. This tactic has worked for many films, but with AGTRYS, the end result feels like an epic novel that’s been crushed into a two-hour film, since, that’s exactly what it is. AGTRYS adds almost nothing to the already bloated corpus of 1980′s street movies. Hyper-sexuality, drugs, and gang activity dot the piece as if they weren’t cliches. Unfortunately, despite Shia LeBeouf’s impressive skills, his Dito is about as tough as most of the costume-themed gangs in “The Warriors”. More unfortunately, Montiel peppers his fictional-movie-based-off-real-memoirs with characters talking to the camera. That’s right. Talking to the camera. The only thing more hokey would have involved the classic Zack Morris “Time out” before the monologue. This is a movie mostly about coming to terms with your surroundings and understanding how you got there. There are some good performances coming from Chazz Palminteri and Diane Wiest, who play Dito’s parents, but for the most part, it’s young actors still trying to figure out their craft. As leading men, Shia LeBeouf does his best in a role that shouldn’t [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Release Date: TBA If it looks like this review belongs in the vault or merits mention on an episode of “I Love the 90′s”, trust me, it doesn’t. The general populous is well aware of Payback, the black and blue Mel Gibson film that gave everyone something to see him in before Lethal Weapon 19 came out. It was the tawdry tale of Porter (Mel Gibson) who survives two bullets from his wife (Deborah Unger) and partner (Gregg Henry) only to seek revenge and his share of a $140,000 heist. Just for fun, and in preparation for seeing Payback – Straight Up, I decided to watch the original version of Payback. I do not suggest doing this. To clarify, Straight Up isn’t a sequel or a remake – although some might consider it a remake since it’s so different from the first version – it is a director’s cut of the original done by the original director. Still confused? Me too. In 1998, Brian Helgeland (writer of L.A. Confidential) was fired from Payback after initial photography had taken place. A raw chunk of the movie was re-shot, the studio hired Kris Kristofferson to play Bronson, and the result was a movie that made a ton of money that nobody really liked. Flash forward to 2005 when Helgeland discovers the old footage in a Paramount basement, discusses re cutting the film with the new executives there, and the result is a great movie that will probably do decent DVD sales. In [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Release Date: January 5, 2007 Dustin Hoffman. Alan Rickman. Have I sold you on the movie yet? As if going to see two brilliant actors together in one movie isn’t enough incentive, throw in the fact that it’s directed by Tom Tykwer (Run, Lola, Run) and has a cast of capable, rising stars telling the story of a young man romantically obsessed with scent who turns murderous in a quest to change the world. Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (Ben Whishaw) has a gift. He has a better sense of smell than most hunting dogs, and he puts this skill to good use by seeking out the great perfumer Baldini (Dustin Hoffman) in an effort to become a master scent-maker himself. His talent is raw, but his young mind is captured by the scent of a beautiful woman, and he sets out to recreate this natural intoxicant for the whole world to experience. Set in 18th century France, everything in this world is romantic and passionate. But Jean-Baptiste’s artistic passion turns dark as he begins murdering young girls on his quest for beauty. Perfume is a film about many things – a Frankenstein-esque tale of a man’s talents overcoming his mental processes, a story of darkness and beauty, and a question of whether evil produces anything good. It is an excellent mix of amazing cinematography and direction wherein the deep, dirt world of the French gutter is brought to life alongside the fantasy world that envelopes those lucky enough to sample young Jean-Baptiste’s [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Release Date: October 27, 2006 As soon as the first one was a hit, a sequel was fast tracked. A year later the sequel opened and was an even bigger hit, and a third was immediately set into motion. Here we are, three years, three Saw movies. Arguably the father of the current trend of torture flicks like Hostel (and its upcoming sequel) and Wolf Creek. The Saw movies are a pretty interesting beast. They offer visceral excitement, but they also try to take a step beyond into something a little more thought provoking. Just how successful any of these films are at stimulating anything outside of the visceral level is up for debate, but it is nice to see the attempt being made. They sort of remind me of the Nightmare on Elm Street films, that was the one long running series that I thought at least made the attempt at having a story. Before going any further I must get a little something off of my chest. There is something that has bugged me about each of the movies in the series. That thing is the modus operandi of our ringleader of torture. I was never all that happy about the way his methods changed from person to person. I completely understand and like the way that he would change his little mechanical contraptions from person to person, but they always had that fact in common with each other. The problem, lies in why do some victims have [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Release Date: October 6, 2006 Ask me about English royalty and you will get a blank look from me. Ask me what I know about Queen Elizabeth II, or Prince Charles, or the late Princess Diana, or Tony Blair and you will likely get a shoulder shrug and a mumbled ” I dunno” out of me. In other words, I am the ideal candidate to see The Queen. Or not. The movie takes a look inside Buckingham palace as the nation, and the world, look on waiting for some sort of reaction to the death of Princess Diana in August of 1997. It is a blend of archival, news footage and newly filmed footage all put together with the intent of giving us a look inside as those behind the walls deal with their own personal reactions weighed against what they believe is expected of people in their position. I would be lying if I said that the material was a little dry. At the same time, it was also intriguing to see this clash of the modern world with the centuries old traditions of royalty that have developed. It is the sign of a changing world where what the people expect does not fall in line with the old ways that the Royal Family follows. For such a drastic change to happen, there are a lot of pains that must be struggled with, those old traditions are a hard habit to break, especially if that is all that you [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Release Date: October 20, 2006 Is Marie Antoinette a train wreck or a misunderstood classic? Or perhaps it is something altogether different. Time will tell just where in film history this will fit, even if it is allowed entry. I wasn’t sure what to expect, actually, I expected the worst based on the criticism I have heard levied against it. What I saw was an intriguing tone poem of a movie made by a director is toeing the line between eccentric genius and pretentious self indulgence. The resulting film falls somewhere in between the two extremes. Sofia Coppola took a interesting take with the material. It is always dangerous to tread in the waters of history, particularly if you don’t plan on playing by the rules. Marie Antoinette did not play by the rules in her lifetime and Sofia Coppola does not play by the rules when it comes to her life on film. Marie Antoinette is an mish-mash of little bits of historical fact and a whole lot of feeling. I am not terribly good when it comes to history, and I know very little about the real Marie Antoinette, and after watching this filmed version I am not anywhere closer to understanding her. However, I get a distinct feeling of what she may have been like. This is a film of emotion and image, much more than it is a historical document of a life. We get the outline of her life. A young woman from Austria sent [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Halloween is nearly upon us, which means it is Hollywood’s last chance to get a scary movie into theaters before the big day. This weekend brings what may be, arguably, the biggest scary movie of the year, hopefully it will deliver the goods. That is the only big release of the week. There is one independent film hitting this weekend in a semi-wide release, and I hope it does well because I like the trailer. Catch a Fire. (2006, 98 minutes, PG-13, drama, trailer) This movie looks very good, except for Tim Robbins accent. This is the true story of Patrick Chamusso (Derek Luke), a man with a wonderful family and a good job. Trouble starts when he is arrested on suspicion of sabotage, which results in the torture of his family. Upon release, his priorities are reoriented and he joins the resistance against apartheid. It was directed by Phillip Noyce, who was also behind Clear and Present Danger and Patriot Games. The look of the film reminds me of The Constant Gardener, hopefully the quality will be similar. Death of a President. (2006, 90 minutes, R, drama) This one is sure to stir up a hornets nest. It debuted at the Toronto film festival in a flurry of controversy, where it was picked up by Newmarket, a distributor that is no stranger to controversy as they distributed The Passion of the Christ a few years back. This film is a historical what if, postulating what would happen if President [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Last week’s Over/Under was… non-existent. Alright, so I took an impromptu vacation from the Weekly Over/Under. My apologies. But even though we did not officially post an Over/Under last week, I know that you all participated in spirit. This week I am back like Die Hard – with a Vengence – and I am ready to rock your world with Box Office analysis and other randomness. Before we swing into this week’s challenge, though, let’s look at last week’s Top 5 at the Box Office (via IMDB): 1. The Prestige – $14.8 million2. The Departed – $13.5 million3. Flags of Our Fathers – $10.2 million4. Open Season – $8.16 million5. Flicka – $7.7 million Thoughts: Both The Prestige and Flags of Our Fathers had strong opening weekends, but they barely held off the Tour de Force (that’s an overused critic term) that is The Departed. If Marty Scorsese doesn’t claim Oscar’s glory with this one, then he can still rest easy with the fact that it has already grossed over $75 million at the box office. Not too shabby. Now let’s take a look at the current standings through two weeks of October: Neil Miller – 2-0Brian Gibson – 2-0Chris Beaumont – 1-1BobbyQuickDraw – 1-1Cole Abaius – 1-0-1 (We still can’t figure out if he voted Over or Under on The Marine…)Matt Alexander – 1-0Bruno – 1-0 If you remember, 2 weeks ago we were betting on The Marine going over the $8 million mark. It was a close one, [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

The thing that won’t be advertised on the Austin Film Festival website is how much you have to gear up for the entire event if you plan to make it out alive. For some, it will be a fun trip to one or two movies; for others it will be a constant flow of panels, films and late night parties that make it tough to finish writing assignments at home. Today I went to panels on television show runners and writing biopics, but the real news is the Writing for R Rated Comedies panel that I had a front row seat for. The panel featured Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter, David Wain – all from Stella fame – Steve Faber, Bob Fisher – who co-wrote Wedding Crashers – and Jake Kasdan whose film The TV Set was playing at the festival. It was a strong panel, although not greatly informative since most of the panelists kept breaking into one-liners and riffs. On the plus side, I got to speak with Michael Ian Black for half an hour afterwards about his work in television, movies and print – specifically his recent work for Cracked Magazine and past McSweeney’s successes. Even more good news to get excited about: The TBA movie for the last night of the festival has been announced as Nightmare Detective. As a huge fan of Japanese cinema, it’s exciting to see such a cool film being played in America before its remade into a watered down version. Nightmare [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Do you ever wonder who the heck all of these writers are that grace the fair pages of Film School Rejects? Alright, well maybe you don’t, but we are sure that some people actually do – therefore we have put together our brand new Author Profiles page!

That Clint Eastwood, he’s like Stephen Spielberg, but with a gun. Eastwood’s journey in Hollywood has taken him from a six-shooter toting, all star actor to a Director who always draws the quickest come Oscar time. Over the past few years he has unleashed such wonders as Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby and this years Blockbuster war memorial Flags of Our Fathers. He directs, produces and even composes the scores, and yet he still finds time for a round or two of golf. Is there anything this guy can’t do? Well yes, there is something he can’t do. Just like Yahoo can never be Google, Clint Eastwood will never magically become Stephen Spielberg. And though his film, Flags of Our Fathers makes a noble attempt, and has Spielberg as a producer, it will never be Saving Private Ryan. But what is the sense in not trying, especially if you are Clint Eastwood.