Welcome back to Junkfood Cinema; Truck Turner isn’t just what we call Brian when Tacos-On-Wheels runs out of Baja sauce. Welcome back suckas, to the Internet’s freshest bad movie column; this month featuring a funky twist. This is Blaxploitation History Month: Sequel Edition. Every week in February, we’ll be rolling out another super bad blaxploitation sequel that’s so whack we can’t help but dig it. We’ll lay down some cold-blooded mockery on said film, going upside its head with its own numerous faults, but then will jump back, kiss ourselves, and get hip to all the reasons we think these movies are dy-no-mite. To top it off, we’ll serve you with a badass, and bad for you, snack food item themed to the movie.

Today’s jive turkey: The Human Tornado.

What Makes It Bad?

The Human Tornado is the sequel to Dolemite. How that sentence isn’t scribbled on some Mayan temple wall next to references of fallen empires and circling comets is beyond me. But as it is 2012, it seemed all-the-more appropriate to crack the seal on this doomsday capsule. Dolemite, as you recall (because your therapy clearly isn’t working), is the story (read: slapped-together case of visual Tourettes) of a lovable pimp sent to prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Upon release, he takes his revenge through a series of half-finished scenes, costume changes, and lyrical freestyle sessions in which he proceeds to tie us all up and mercilessly rap us…rap us right in the ears. But clearly, this is a man whose ineffable charm and epic heroic qualities could not be contained in just one movie. Enter The Human Tornado…exit your will to live.

The movie kicks off with one of the most spastic, nonsensical title sequences history of spastic, nonsensical title sequences; a history encompassing nearly 300 years if I’m not lying. Every person credited is bestowed their own individual font style and color; choking up the screen with silly and giving the distinct impression that The Human Tornado is set on the rough Streets of Sesame. The film sees the flabtastic hero Dolemite working as a nightclub comedian by evening and an expensive manwhore by day. True to the spirit of what really sets the Dolemite franchise apart from, you know, real movies, the “writer” of The Human Tornado both celebrates the familiar ways in which Rudy Ray Moore was ill-equipped for stardom and creates entirely new mediums to further explore his untalentedness. Turns out he’s just as inept at stand-up comedy as he is at being naked. So he’s hired by the desperate(ly unattractive) wife of the local sheriff for clumsy, well-feed sexulations. The sheriff, whose racial sensitivity makes Buford T. Justice look Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, is alerted that a party of non-whites is occurring and rallies a posse of plain-clothes clansmen to break it up. He finds his hatchet-faced beloved in bed with a far-more-nude-than-any-of-us-needed-to-see Dolemite and shoots her in the upper face. Dolemite is of course framed for the shooting, and blamed (arguably rightfully) for the guy he totally does shoot, and must go on the run; hijacking a flamboyantly gay man’s car and heading to California to meet up with his old ally Queen Bee. You know, hero stuff.

This represents the closest The Human Tornado ever comes to having a plot. Let me be clear, I’ve seen plenty of non-movies in my time, films that abandon the tedious, mainstream constraint of a narrative throughline in favor of a pastiche of formless visual ejaculations. The first film is a great example of this, in particular the moment wherein the film grinds to halt in order to give Rudy Ray Moore a pulpit from which to deliver his hip-hop sermon from the Book of Jo-Mama. What I’ve never seen is several non-films crammed within one singular non-film. The Human Tornado plays out less like a movie and more like a variety show, featuring extended sequences of Broadway dancers, lounge singers, comedians, and Central American nunchuckers; no part of that sentence is a joke. It was as if the director thought, “if we load up the movie with people who are good at things that have nothing to do with the film, subconsciously the audience will be fooled into thinking we’re good at making movies!” There is also a subplot about an old witch woman who operates a torture chamber in which two unfortunate ladies find themselves trapped. Apparently the filmmakers were very concerned that the one demographic this franchise had not yet catered to was burgeoning serial killers.  Poking its head through the thicket of nonsense is some shoehorned story about Dolemite taking down the mob, but only because the writer was required by blaxploitation law to include it.

The showcasing of people who are all very skilled at things that don’t belong in this movie is aligned with scenes of things that make no sense regardless of context; all them proving that The Human Tornado is sexually charged…or rather should be charged under a number of sex crimes statutes. The police chief in L.A., where Dolemite is hiding out, calls in his “best man” to track him down. When he calls this “best man,” the detective in question is engaged in what appears to be the rape of a female officer. He pauses to take the call before returning to his twisted application of law enforcedsex. And then of course, there’s the scene in which we see Dolemite seduce a woman, watch as she gets undressed, and then get down to some real dirty exercise. No that’s not a euphemism, they actually get very nude and take in a few reps with the Nordic track apparatus hanging above the bed. In addition to illustrating the writer’s unresolved body issues, scientists now credit this scene with the discovery of the cure for sex addiction.

But the weirdest thing in the movie, and high in the running for the single weirdest eyeball intrusion to which I’ve ever subjected myself, is the point at which The Human Tornado splits off into this tangential dream sequence/sex-terrogation scene. It’s downright arthouse, and by that I mean it’s initiated by hideous ART and looks like it takes place in a carnival funHOUSE. Dolemite arrives at the home of the mob boss’ wife with the intention of humping some information out of her as to the location of the missing girls (the ones being imprisoned in the torture chamber of JiggaSaw. He masquerades as an artist and shows her a velvet painting of an interracial couple embracing. As he anticipates, this of course sends her into an uncontrollable sexual frenzy that causes her to not only bang Dolemite, but all the while fantasize about a circus stage in which she lies on three giant wooden blocks that spell out the word bed as a bevvy of black Adonises file out of a trunk marked “toy box.” I really do wish I was making this up because it means I wouldn’t have had to actually witness it on screen. I’m not going to touch the sociopolitical implications of a white woman keeping several black men in a box, but these men then take turns hurling themselves wang-first down a slide and onto the eager woman’s naked body. It’s either the most avant-garde or absolute worst porn you’ve ever seen depending on how drunk/horny/self-loathing you feel.

Why I Love It!

The Human Tornado‘s function as a film is clear to me now, to make Dolemite look like Citizen Goddamn Kane. The filmmakers must have taken stock of the bad sound and even worse martial arts of Dolemite, because they strive to fashion ways to correct both issues…failing spectacularly at doing so. To correct the nearly inaudible line delivery of Dolemite, they decided to ADR nearly every single line of dialogue in The Human Tornado and lay it over footage shot like a home movie. What this leads to is a film that seems like a documentary about mentally disturbed people. We get scenes like the one wherein Dolemite comes out of a shoe store, clearly not moving his lips, and the ADR has him saying, “great new shoes for my feet…now I can get me something sweet to eat.” It happens all through the movie and reminds me of those segments on Mr. Rodgers’ Neighborhood where he would tour a cheese factory or get a root canal and would then narrate his own adventure after-the-fact. I know it’s been said by every respected film historian you’ve ever read, but I’ll go ahead and reiterate that The Human Tornado is even more hysterical to watch if you image that he’s one of Mr. Rodgers’ neighbors. “I’m comin’ for ya, Mr. MuthaFUCKin’ McFeeley.”

As to the martial arts in The Human Tornado, it isn’t so much that the fight sequences are “better”as much as they are “considerably sped up so you don’t notice how bad they are.” Rudy Ray Moore didn’t get any more skillful at throwing a punch and making it look remotely believable so they just had him do it slower and then went back and hit the fast-forward button in the editing booth. This not-so-brilliant cheat ends up defining the whole damn movie; the “speed” with which Dolemite “strikes” is what “earns” him the nickname the “human” tornado. The result is that we, the audience, are left to conclude that that he learned his ancient fighting style from revered kung-fu master Benny Hill. Despite Human Tornado‘s best efforts to make its fight scenes unwatchable, they are actually a lot of fun; aided in no small way by Rudy Ray Moore’s combat grunts…or rather his impressions of Bruce Lee possessed by the demon Pazuzu. I also find it hilarious that, realizing that they still had that mixing board anyway, the editors actually pause the film, rewind it, and replay certain scenes. My favorite of these being the one wherein they replay a stunt in which Rudy Ray Moore jumps head-first down a hill. During the replay, he espouses in voice-over, “y’all don’t believe I jumped, so watch this good shit!” Unfortunately we see the shot again from the same obscuring distance, providing no further evidence that the person jumping is actually Rudy Ray Moore.

Once again, a blaxploitation movie as bad as The Human Tornado finds one level on which to excel: the theme song. It’s basically just a constant restating of the film’s title over and over, with a few absrud lyrics mumbled in between, but if you’re going to be the personification of a natural disaster, there are only like four of five better choices than the tornado. I’m sorry, but if you listen to the opening song here and don’t aspire to be a human tornado yourself, or at the very least a “bad motor scooter,” I’m not sure we can be friends anymore. Also, listen very closely for the line in the song that sounds an awful lot like Rudy Ray declaring himself to be a “notarizer.” He actually says that he’s been “known to rise up,” but it took me several viewings to realize he wasn’t actually letting me know he was available to sign off on these alterations to my will. I’m leaving everything to the Dolemite Foundation for Talent-Challenged Actors.

Junkfood Pairing: Texas Tornado Cake

As I currently live in Texas, and this movie is called The Human Tornado, my first choice for the junkfood pairing was of course creme brulee, but then I remembered that I’m still not quite sure what creme brulee is so instead I fell back on the slightly less on-the-nose Texas Tornado Cake. Sorry, I know it makes no sense. As Rudy Ray would say, “spin this cake around inside your mouth, before Dolemite makes you laugh so hard you spit it out…th.”

Rot your teeth with more Junkfood Cinema

It’s been a while since we’ve published an edition of Better Know a Reject, our sometimes series that focuses on the personalities behind the wonderful content you read every day here on FSR, but that doesn’t mean we can’t just start up again. And as we begin a new year and get ready to celebrate the sixth birthday of this site, we can’t help but bring it all back around to the people who make it all go ’round. Our hope is to do one or two of these every month, just a little something to help you connect with the brilliant minds who entertain and enlighten you with their unending passion for the world of film.

This time around we’re Q’ing and A’ing with Reel Sex columnist Gwen Reyes, who just celebrated her one year anniversary of writing for FSR on February 9th. My, how time flies when you’re having fun and talking about sexy things. Gwen became known to us through her work on the now defunct Gordon and the Whale and her personally owned site Reel Vixen, the latter of which continues to deliver amazing conversations with a female perspective from not just Ms. Reyes, but other names you’ll recognize from the pages of FSR. She’s multi-talented, incredibly bright and a key component to the success of this very site (apparently you guys like reading about sex — who knew!). So cuddle up and lets have some pillow talk with our resident sexpert.

Why did you want to write for Film School Rejects, as opposed to some other, more respectable publication?

Other than having the opportunity to surround myself with writers far more talented and loquacious than me, I really wanted the chance to write about how much I like watching the dirty movies many people consider art. The quirk, attention to detail, and love of films on FSR astounds me daily, and I have made it a goal to break bread and wine bottles with each Reject who’ll have me.

What is your first movie memory?

It’s a toss-up between the introduction of the creepy butterfly in The Last Unicorn and an amputation scene in Glory. My parents didn’t trust babysitters, so they often took my brother and me to a late movie, slip me some Benadryl, and it was night-night for Gwen. Unfortunately, I had this terribly annoying habit of waking up in the middle of the most random moments, including a horrific scene in a movie I have yet to see the whole way through. That might also explain my pension for the little pink allergy pill and discomfort around Civil War re-enactors.

What unique qualities will readers of Film School Rejects find in your writing? What do you bring to the table?

I think my most unique quality is coming up with different cutesy alternative phrases for vagina (lady pocket, lady bits, tenders) and sex (sexy sex time, grind it out, startin’ fires). Come to think of it, I guess I should work on some for man meat, huh? Don’t want the men to feel underrepresented.

I also like really dirty jokes, but I’m terrible at writing them.

If you had to defend yourself, would you rather have Freddy’s claws, Bond’s pistol, or Rosebud the sled?

While Freddy’s claws and Bond’s pistol would ensure I’d never have to touch the person to defend myself, one only works in nightmares and the other I’d have to drink a lot of vodka to operate properly (I mean, okay, yes that really isn’t a problem for me). I’d chose Rosebud because that guarantees I lived the life I’ve set out for myself—become a reclusive, eccentric billionaire unable to connect to any living person. Owning Rosebud also means I could come back to life, after nearly dying of old age, due to the new organs I purchased with my billions, and once again proving that money is the most important tool in warfare—at least that’s what the government has been saying during tax time for years. ROOOOSSSEEEEE BUD

If you were forced to choose only one movie to recommend to everyone you ever meet for the rest of your life, what movie would that be, and why?

Wow, that’s a lot of pressure. I mean, in essence I’m shaping young minds with whatever I suggest. (I may or may not think that highly of my own opinion). There are so many great movies that should be mandatory in anyone’s personal film growth, but then there are some really terrible movies people need to watch to know life is in fact not that fucked up. Mental stimulation versus guilty pleasure—which angle do I take?

Oh alright, I’m not curing cancer here. I’m a writer for a reason, since I barely passed my science classes. I’d go with Love, Actually. It is not only full of well written, compelling characters, including a chubby girl winning the heart of the English Prime Minister (what could be a better fantasy??) it also serves as my quintessential Christmas movie. Just like the internet, I don’t remember life before Love, Actually but I sure as hell cannot live without it now.

What is your number one passion outside the world of movies?

When I’m not watching movies, writing about movies, or falling asleep old-lady style during movies, I find myself studying the impressive display of beards around me. Maybe it’s because I can’t grow one, or maybe it’s because I delight so much in the acrobatics of a well planned out facial muff, but I love beard spotting. They never go out of fashion, it’s an automatic identifier of a mountain man, and if grown by the right guy, I can keep my lipstick and keys in there.

What do you love about movies?

I love escaping into worlds that are beyond me, full of tall romantic men, heists that ALWAYS end with the criminals getting away with millions, jokes that never fall flat, sexy Dodge Chargers, and the incredible discovery of gravity technology on space ships. Movies celebrate the creative and remain a lasting art form that I hope to share with my future children fathered by Gerard Butler and Jon Hamm.

Check out our previous installments of Better Know a Reject:

• Nathan Adams

I interview a lot of people — it’s part and parcel to the job of entertainment journalism. It’s not generally my favorite thing, as I’m almost always more interested in writing about my film experience and discussing said experience with the screenwriters, whom I rarely find myself in a room with. More often than not I’m visiting an actor who has spent the better part of the day repeating themselves and building up a frothy disdain for the questions I’m trying to avoid, but eventually going to have to ask. There has been very little, if any, gravity to my interview experience. They’re mostly non-events.

…until last week.

I had no expectation that I would be sitting across from the step-father of a brutally murdered child when I arrived in Santa Barbara on the twenty sixth. To be honest I could think of few things I’d want less, and yet I was the one that requested his time on a whim as I watched Mark Byers shuffle painfully through the lobby of the Hotel Santa Barbara. The festival’s publicist caught him as he stepped onto State Street, and five minutes later we were together — and my video camera was pointed at him.

Mark Byers is fifty two,  and six foot five inches tall — he towered over me as we walked together into the hotel’s hospitality room, but he seemed somewhat frail. He has a nagging back injury, and looks perpetually tired. Mark Byers hasn’t lived an easy life; he has a string of past criminal charges ranging from theft, drug abuse, and threats of violence.

When Mark’s step-son Christopher was murdered on a summer evening in 1993 along with Stevie Branch and Michael Moore in West Memphis, Arkansas, it stood to reason that he was immediately looked upon as a suspect. Anyone familiar with the case of the West Memphis Three, and the subsequent Paradise Lost documentaries via HBO knows that Mark was somewhat theatrical. Many of his reactions and interviews were fodder for a hungry media that needed a character to follow, and even if unknowingly, Byers fed the press. Now, just like then — Mark Byers has maintained his innocence. He never pursued a lawyer’s defense, and remained an open book for any evidenciary pursuits in the state of Arkansas.

Mark Byers, for all of his criminal past and somewhat odd behavior, has been repeatedly vindicated. Additionally, he has been one of the strongest supporters of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley — the three men that spent eighteen years in prison for the murders of the three boys, and the focus of Peter Jackson and director Amy Berg’s documentary, West of Memphis. Much of his support is derived from the strong, exonerating DNA evidence that not only helped remove the West Memphis Three from the short list of suspects in the murder, but additionally scratched him from said list.

What the DNA and new physical evidence have suggested, is a rather damning connection to the murders of Christopher, Michael, and Stevie to the latter’s step-father, Terry Hobbs.

I’m a writer — while I like to follow logical conclusions with as much supporting evidence as I can in taking a position, I’m not going to pretend I know enough about the science behind the findings in this case to make definitive statements. If this were another story, I might even share what my personal leanings are in greater detail. This isn’t really an opinion piece, however — it’s a long, drawn out intro to a video interview that was difficult for me to participate in. I will say that I felt genuine pain in Mark Byers, and he had my sympathy. In the video I think it’s likely obvious that full impartiality wasn’t the place I was going — but to be fair, I had no idea where that was until I began speaking.

Below, Mark Byers talks to me about condemnation, forgiveness, pursuit of justice — and a very final, overwhelmingly cruel truth.

This week, Fat Guy Kevin Carr dresses up in his Jedi robes and grabs his lightsaber, heading to the theater to see the 3D re-release of Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. While there, he faces a sea of estrogen as ladies of all type swarm into the multiplex to see Channing Tatum’s abs multiflex. After using his lightsaber to break through the wall of pre-Valentine’s Day ladies, he faces more obstacles with twentysomething dudes heading out to see Safe House and obnoxious families to see Journey 2: The Mysterious Island. Fortunately for Kevin, he is able to dispatch everyone with his Rock-inspired “pec pop of love.” It was an early Valentine’s Day massacre.

Want to hear what Kevin has to say on the Fat Guys at the Movies podcast? Click here to listen as Kevin is joined by Drive-In Horrorshowdirector Michael Neel to chat about this week’s big releases.

STAR WARS: EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE 3D
Studio: 20th Century Fox

Rated: PG for sci-fi action/violence

Starring: Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Jake Lloyd and Ian McDiarmid

Directed by: George Lucas

What it’s about: Whether you consider him “man” or “devil” (to paraphrase Edgar Allan Poe), George Lucas retrofits his first Star Wars prequel with a 3D treatment. Jedi Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi are dispatched to settle a trade dispute and end up rescuing the Queen of Naboo and picking up the Force prodigy Anakin Skywalker along the way.

What makes the grade: Let me preface this by confessing that I am an unabashed Star Wars fan, to the point that I even like all three sequels. I know there’s tons of foibles in this movie in particular, but for someone who grew up with the movies and appreciated as both a child and adult, I am quite forgiving.

Still, looking past its flaws, there are some awesome moments in The Phantom Menace, particularly the action sequences, including the dive through Naboo’s core, the pod race and the final climactic battle sequence that remains one of the greatest three-ways ever committed to film or video.

The 3D conversion looks great here, pulling depth out of even relatively flat shots. Considering Lucas couldn’t go back and shoot the movie in 3D, this is one hell of a treatment, matching the expertise put into Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II. And damn, if that pod race doesn’t look even better in 3D.

What fails: Let’s face it, people. This is 99% the same movie that came out thirteen years ago. So aside from replacing the weird-looking 1999 Yoda puppet, everything else is there, for better or for worse. Jar Jar Binks is still annoying (though my kids loved him), Jake Lloyd still can’t act in three dimensions, the dialogue is cringe-worthy and the plot never quite finds a good momentum. But that didn’t stop me from enjoying the hell out of the film again.

Who is gonna like this movie: Anyone who wants to see The Phantom Menace again, which contrary to what you might believe from the rants on the blogosphere, is quite a few people.

THE VOW
Studio: Screen Gems

Rated: PG-13 for an accident scene, sexual content, partial nudity and some language

Starring: Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum, Sam Neill, Scott Speedman and Jessica Lange

Directed by: Michael Sucsy

What it’s about: Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum play a Paige and Leo, a young, married couple who are in a terrible car crash. Paige suffers brain damage, and when she wakes up, she cannot remember her husband at all. He spends the next months helping her fall back in love with him and to remember why she made significant changes in her life before.

What makes the grade: Rachel McAdams is about the only decent thing in this movie. She’s beautiful and charismatic. Her charm helps guys like me stomach movies like The Notebook. Too bad she’s paired up with Channing Tatum in this film.

On a side note, the film’s background is quite interesting as it is inspired by a true story. All the dramatic nonsense we see isn’t part of the inspiration, but there was indeed a couple who suffered a similar injury with similar amnesia issues. Look up the story, which is more inspirational than this film even attempts to be.

What fails: The Vow demonstrates how vain Hollywood is, in the sense that it presents an inspiring story but has to slather on cliches because the industry thinks that will make it better. Here, it just gets in the way.

As if not remembering your husband isn’t enough, The Vow shoe-horns in the fact that Paige had a falling out with her family, was basically a different person (a more shallow and dreadful person, I might add) and still was carrying a torch for her asshole boyfriend. This all-too-convenient storyline is nearly impossible to swallow.

Add to this the fact that Channing Tatum may be a good-looking man, but he’s a blithering idiot of an actor on-screen. Anything meatier than G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra leaves him with this embarrassing deer-in-the-headlights look. Even with a script, he’s unable to articulate himself and remind his co-star’s character that she changed for a reason. I really couldn’t care less whether this couple got back together or not.

Who is gonna like this movie: Ladies, and guys who are dragged to the movie (who will probably hate it but lie about it just to get laid).

SAFE HOUSE
Studio: Universal

Rated: R for strong violence throughout and some language

Starring: Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds, Vera Farmiga, Brendan Gleeson and Sam Shephard

Directed by: Daniel Espinosa

What it’s about: Denzel Washington plays Tobin Frost, an ex-CIA agent who is an expert at psychological manipulation. Since leaving the CIA, he’s gone rogue and sold many American secrets. After a botched job in South Africa, he lands in a CIA safe house where Ryan Reynold’s character must try to keep him under control and bring him in for questioning.

What makes the grade: Yeah, Denzel Washington is a badass even at his age. He plays the stoic gray character well, and he manages his own in the action sequences. Even Ryan Reynolds is able to look competent as a CIA agent. If you’re a fan of one or both of these guys and don’t mind the many problems with the film (see below), you can enjoy yourself with a Saturday viewing.

What fails: The most noticeable problem with this film is the overdone, grainy and palsied camerawork, even during otherwise steady scenes. This makes the movie a nauseating view on the big screen, but probably preserving its longevity on cable and home video.

But in the end, the plot is convoluted yet entirely predictable. With the action impossible to focus on, that leaves us with the characters. Unfortunately, there’s no real depth to them, and when we finally break through the hard-ass exterior of each, the revelations we get are confusing and boring. It’s a film of all flash and no substance.

Who is gonna like this movie: Fans of Denzel and people who want to see a flashy, gritty action movie that is on the par with last month’s Contraband.

JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND
Studio: New Line Cinema

Rated: PG for some mild adventure action, and brief mild language

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Michael Caine, Josh Hutcherson, Vanessa Hudgens and Kristin Davis

Directed by: Brad Peyton

What it’s about: Josh Hutcherson returns as Sean, a “Vernian,” which is someone who believes that the subjects of Jules Verne’s books were real places. Along with his step-father (Dwayne Johnson), he embarks on a journey to find the Mysterious Island where his grandfather has been living.

What makes the grade: I’ll be honest with you… this movie is dumb, stupid and ridiculous. The characters are barely two-dimensional, the dialogue is worse than what we have in The Phantom Menace and the story makes very little sense. However, the film moves fast enough through the set-up that we get to the island before you really have a chance to question all this.

When we finally get to the island, this becomes a wacky family adventure with wild, oversized animals and references to fun elements like an erupting volcano of gold and a search for Captain Nemo’s submarine. There’s not a shred of science in this movie, but the film doesn’t make the pretense that it’s trying to do that.

Instead, this movie brought back feelings of what it was like to watch old Saturday morning shows like The Land of the Lost and Danger Island, only with much better special effects. Once I got to that place, mentally and emotionally, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. And it helped that I brought my kids with me to enjoy it.

What fails: While for the most part the visual effects work, there’s still a few moments that rip off other movies (including several Avatar-esque moments and even a line stolen from High School Musical that is dropped by none other than Vanessa Hudgens). It’s full of plot and character holes, often making giant leaps of logic and continuity.

Still, I enjoyed the Saturday morning adventure feel of it.

Who is gonna like this movie: Kids – particularly boys – and their families.

Valentine’s Day is just around the corner, so you might have expected something here dedicated to the merchandise of romantic films. But until you can get an official When Harry Met Sally orgasm sandwich, there’s very little overlap in terms of those films and the collectible world. Unless we’re talking Twilight. And I can assure you right now, we bloody well aren’t talking Twilight.

So instead, this week’s column is once again dedicated to the finest things in collecting life, including a further addition to the Mr. Potato Head film co-licensed products. You can’t see it, but I can assure you that the excitement radiating from my every orifice is tangible.

There’s also even more Lego – almost a weekly addition to this column you’ll note, but a wholly justified one in this case - and a book that would make Crime & Punishment blush for being so rubbish. It might also be the most expensive book I have ever recommended people buy, but who cares really – the only way out of recession is through frivolous, short-sighted spending. Probably.

1. The Dark Knight Spud

It was inevitable, given Hasbro’s existing co-licensed Mr. Potato Head lines, that someone would get the idea to release a Batman tie-in, and now PPW, who also have previous with the world’s favorite potato (but not with the same quality as Hasbro it has to be said) have done just that. The design is good, but as a dedicated follower of everything Potato Head related, I can’t help but wish it was Hasbro and not PPW who were in charge of this line.

My only other real issue is the name – I have every movie-themed Mr. Potato Head in my collection and there are a number with ingenious pun-heavy names like Tony Starch and  R2-Potatoo. Adding “Spud” to the end of the film seems slightly lazy in that respect. Why not Batato-Man?

Pre-order one now for $17.99, and you can expect to receive your spud in June.

2. The Lord of the Rings Lego

Okay, so I’m addicted to Lego. But who can blame me? As toys go, it’s about the manliest endeavor one can turn ones hand to combining actual fun with real construction world concerns like surveying, material inventory and meticulous planning. I like to go really balls deep, and have had several stern letters back from the government in response to my planning applications, but you can’t just approach these things frivolously.

Anyway, the latest addition to Lego’s link-up with the world of film is their forthcoming Lord of the Rings series, which once again is likely to attract a hell of a lot of attention when they start to appear in June. The first series will feature the Fellowship of the ring, and the second collects some of the film series’ villains, including Gollum and a Ringwraith – all wonderfully, charmingly designed of course. The Hobbit will get its own Lego series around the film’s release in December.

Bookmark this page for your Lego needs.

3. Star Wars: The Blueprints

Arguably the greatest book I’ve ever clapped eyes on (alongside the Art of Pixar, which is far cheaper and just as wonderful incidentally), and a genuine collectible thanks to the limited print run and the sheer quality of the content. $500 is a lot of money for a book, especially in a world that will soon all be governed by apps and mobile technology, but The Blueprints is a tangible piece of cinema history, brilliantly animated and wonderfully comprehensive. And in the future when electricity is rationed by our alien overlords, you can laugh at those trying to read their e-books with no battery power as you flick through your copy, which will probably be the most valuable thing left in the post-apocalyptic world.

Buy one here.

T-Shirt of the Week

The Pythons are back. Sort of, even if they’re obstinate about calling their upcoming project a Monty Python film. I say we all gleefully ignore that and then criticize the film for being nothing like Life of Brian. That’s how I approach all films these days anyway. Buy it here.

Hide your pocketbook before you enter the Merch Hunter archives.

You heard me – I’m dumping practically everything I can think of at you, and no doubt I’ll still miss a few. In fact, there’s one I am intentionally leaving out just so I can watch the angry comments and laugh like a Disney villain. Honestly, though – after having my memory jarred by all the comments on my first installment of 14 of the Most Impressive Monologues in Movie History, I couldn’t not make another one of these. So here are, once more, some movie monologues out there that really stick out from the rest.

22. James Downey just heard the dumbest answer ever in Billy Madison

I really need to get around to memorizing this speech for future arguments. As far as monologues go it’s pretty short, but James Downey really sells it with his deadpan and awe-struck performance. It’s this great moment of a character being too mystified by someone’s stupidity to be offended by it in any way.

21. Brad Pitt wants his scalps in Inglorious Basterds

I remember my excitement when I heard that Brad Pitt was going to be in a Quentin Tarantino-directed film about fighting Nazis – but honestly I was hoping he’d play a more complex character when it came to dialogue…I was really hoping to hear Brad Pitt ramble off the fast and unnatural dialogue one comes to expect from this director, but instead we got something arguably better. Brad Pitt as a simple and hardened killing machine. His signature speech from the film chugs along at a moderate pace as he pretty much spells exactly what the audience can expect to see for the rest of the film. It’s a much better use of Brad Pitt and Tarantino writing then the couch-infesting stoner he played in True Romance – although that was also awesome.

20. Marisa Tomei makes you imagine you’re a deer in My Cousin Vinny

This is another short one – in fact I’m not even sure if you can count it as a monologue but I had to include it because of how wonderful the performance is. I know a lot of people were pissed that Tomei won Best Supporting Actress – and maybe it’s because I’m too lazy to educate myself on who else was nominated – but her role in this film did seem award winning to me. It’s a silly character, but she pulled it off flawlessly.

19. Rutget Hauer reflects on his memories in Blade Runner

It’s a very bizarre monologue, at least in the way that Hauer performs it. He’s spent the entire film trying to live, and then at this last moment when he can at least watch this puny human die he instead carries out a new, and much more effective plan. Even though he dies, he doesn’t lose and he knows it – which is what I love about that smirk. He’s saddened by his own mortality but his semblance of humanity is also vindicated by it – at least combined with his final and only act of heroics toward a non-replicant.

18. Warren Beatty talks obscenity in Bulworth

I would like to say that this is the best thing that Warren Beatty has ever done, but I’m not sure that’s exactly the case – it might just be my favorite thing he’s ever done. The film, which was also written and directed by the actor, seems like a combination of an aging man’s desire to get out some political frustrations and also get to hang out with young actresses – although considering his hot wife the latter may not be a huge priority. Anyway, I love this monologue because his core point that any verbal obscenity can’t compare to the type of shit that goes down in Washington can be shared by any American out there despite their political affiliation – it’s a message that is, unfortunately, timeless.

17. Jeff Cohen spills his guts in The Goonies

What’s not to love? Chunk’s confession has to be one of the most honest confessions in film history as he takes us step by step through his life’s sins. I love the cathartic shame that seems to come with each story – as if he felt bad about these deeds before he even did them. Then of course there is Robert Davi’s growing smile throughout, finally ending with “I’m beginning to like this kid!” Poor Chunk.

16. Al Pacino is a fan of man in The Devil’s Advocate

This is one of those performances that an actor like Al Pacino can never take back. If I ever met the actual Devil I would find him only as convincing as he is similar looking to Al Pacino, thanks to this role. It was only a matter of time for someone in Hollywood to have figured this one out, you know? And of course, his satanic presence in this film pretty much comes to its glorious peak at this demonic pro-mankind rant. And you know what? He kind of has a point. I can’t possibly deny that the 20th century was entirely Al Pacino’s.

The Mayans, the wise race of ancients who created hot cocoa, set December 21st, 2012 as the end date of their Calendar, which the intelligent and logical amongst us know signifies the day the world will end, presumably at 12:21:12am, Mountain Time. From now until zero date, we will explore the 50 films you need to watch before the entire world perishes. We don’t have much time, so be content, be prepared, be entertained.

The Film: Idiocracy (2006)

The Plot: Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson), a private in the United States Army, is the quintessential average joe. He’s not smart, but he’s not dumb. He’s not handsome or ugly, physically gifted or deficient. He is, by all accounts, the exactly average American. As such, he’s selected to be a guinea pig in a top secret hibernation experiment for one year. However, when the commanding officer of the experiment is busted for running a prostitution ring, Joe and fellow guinea pig prostitute Rita (Maya Rudolph) awaken 500 years in the future where America is really, really dum. (Get it, I spelled dumb wrong on purpose?)

The Review: Idiocracy, from writer/director Mike Judge is scathingly hilarious. It’s one of my all time favorite comedies, one of the few movies that makes me laugh out loud on a frequent basis. It perfectly balances smart observational humor with the occasional nut shot. It’s the only time I haven’t wanted to punch Dax Shephard in the face (okay, second, he’s alright in Zathura.)

It feels almost elitist to like Idiocracy as much as I do, since I see it somewhat as a realistic roadmap to the future, a future where the ambiguously named Fuddruckers could eventually become Buttfuckers. A time when politics has sold out so completely and marketing has overwhelmed us to the point that the Presidency of the United States is presented by Pepsi and plants are watered with sports drinks, which obviously kill them. The film explains how the world gets really stupid – dumb people breed at a higher rate than smart people, eventually outpacing them by a large margin and breeding a nation of idiots. What does it say about me that this came off as a warning?

In the future, the completely average Joe is, by their standards, a genius with an abnormally large brain. The fact that he can express himself in complete sentences means that he’s viewed as someone who “talks like a fag” and his “shit’s all retarded.” As the new supreme intellect of the land, he soon finds himself appointed to a seat in the government under former wrestler President Camacho (Terry Crews) and burdened with solving the agricultural crisis.

Idiocracy is a hilariously bleak look at a potential future gone full retard. While I doubt the nation will fall to such levels, it does raise some salient points about our culture. The number one show in the future is OW! My Balls, which bears a striking similarity to Jackass or Ridiculousness. Advertisments are everywhere – much like today – and there is very little in the way of class. News and World Report has been replaced by Hot Naked Chicks & World Report and it’s acceptable that a restaurant is called Buttfuckers. Considering today you can watch the Naked News and billboards in Los Angeles have giant condoms on them, how far are we really from this future?

This film is 85% utter hilarity and 15% scary prediction. Luke Wilson is spot on on as the average guy and everyone cast to play a moron is perfect. One aspect that I really respect in terms of story telling is that Wilson’s Joe never really changes – he never gets smarter and doesn’t really change much, and I find that utterly realistic. If you look at most movies the protagonist usually undergoes some radical change, like an architect becoming the world’s most effect vigilante overnight. Not here. Average Joe Bauers stays true to himself and his mediocre intellect, but manages to solve the problems regardless.

But why spend 84 minutes watching this film when you only have 453,367 minutes left to live?

First and foremost, the film is hilarious. You’ll have a great time and forget that you’re going to die in a raging global inferno for almost an hour and a half. Second, after watching this movie and seeing the direction humanity could travel, you’ll welcome the thought of a cleansing fireball erasing our stupid and idiotic existence off the face of the Earth.

As we approach Valentine’s Day (yes, it’s just a few days away) I think it’s only fitting that the topic of romance come into play in anticipation of the day meant to celebrate all things feelings. I’m not sure about you, but I have actually never celebrated Valentine’s Day with a loved one not related to me. Instead I spend the day (or week) loading up on conversational hearts, Reese Peanut Butter cups, and a collection of melodramas so depressing I become skeptical that love can actually end in anything but death. Regardless of my tendency to eat my feelings while crying over the tragic love found in Douglas Sirk films, I do enjoy happy love stories and tend to pair the sadder movies with some of my must-have romances. In honor of the big V-Day, I’d like to share my favorite 14 romantic scenes and also open it up the floor to hear your suggestions as well.

Here are my concluding seven romantic scenes to last week’s first half of this list. Bring out the smelling salts; you might need them after all these swoons.

7. The Princess Bride

“Is this a kissing book?” Um, yes young Fred Savage, it is indeed a kissing book. Well, I mean, there is more to The Princess Bride than kissing (like action, adventure, Andre the Giant. You get the picture.), but what most people remember so vividly from The Princess Bride is the everlasting love between Buttercup (Robin Wright) and her farm boy, Westley (Carey Elwes). After the young couple finally professes their feelings, Westley chooses to head to sea to make his fortune. He promises to return to his Buttercup, but is tragically lost before he can fulfill this last wish. Years go by, Buttercup tries to make her sad heart feel again, but no amount of wishing can help her. Despite her broken heart and headstrong resistance to love, Buttercup agrees to marry Prince Humperdinck (Chris Sarandon) to help save her tiny village from destitution. Before she sets out, however, she is kidnapped by a shady pirate determined to keep her from marrying the Prince. Turns out (as you can see above) the shady pirate is actually her long lost Wesley who has never stopped, even for one moment, loving his darling Buttercup. Just as she wished.

6. An Officer and a Gentleman

While there are so many iconic romantic moments we could have highlighted here, such as the boombox scene in Say Anything or Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) scooping up Scarlet O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) and storming up the stairs to ravage her (rape-fantasy much?) in Gone With the Wind, I find a completely different sweeping a lady off her feet scene even more sensual than anything Golden Hollywood could muster. As far as classic love images go, nothing can beat the final moments of An Officer and A Gentleman when recent Naval Officer graduate (and all-around Mayor of Charmville) Zack Mayo (Richard Gere) honors his lady love Paula (Debra Winger), the woman who helped him get through the arduous emotional drain that is Flight School, by marching into her factory, passionately kissing her, and finally picking her up in his brawny arms and determinedly walking right on out of there. You don’t even have to know anything else about the film to know that this scene perfectly wraps up the hardships both halves of the couple had to go through to get this happy ending.

5. North & South

I have a little secret for all you Downton Abbey fanatics. Stop what you are doing right now (well, first finish reading this list) and add North & South (the one with the ampersand, not the one starring Patrick Swayze) to your Instant Queue. This 2004 BBC adaptation of the Elizabeth Gaskell novel by the same name is the ultimate in dizzy-spell inducing romances. The star-crossed lovers Margaret Hale (Daniela Denby-Ashe) and John Thornton (Richard Armitage) meet-smoldery at Thornton’s factory and spend four hours battling their personal feelings and inner demons. This is some delicious period acting, my friends. I’m fanning myself just thinking about it, honestly.

Well, as you can imagine with all this smolder and emotional control it certainly comes as a surprise to Margaret (not us though, we’ve been taking bets!) when Thornton proposes marriage halfway through the film. She refuses him in the most brutal way, choosing to point out his flaws and inconsideration to the workers in his own factory. He falters, almost begging for Margaret to listen to reason, but finally takes one final look at her with sad, puppy eyes and walks away. Taking with him every viewer’s held breath. Oh Thornton, you are just too heartbreaking for your own good.

4. You’ve Got Mail

I think almost every romance lover reading this has spent at least one weekend a month watching the edited for TV version of You’ve Got Mail, guaranteeing the 1998 romantic comedy a place on the guilty pleasure shelf. A charming time capsule to a generation when online dating was still exciting and not completely dominated by investment bankers, horny misanthropes, or creepers, the love affair between Joe Fox (Tom Hanks) and Kathleen Kelly (Meg Ryan) blossoms naturally with the aid of email and instant messaging. Joe has kept a huge secret from Kathleen, that he is the anonymous man she’s been falling steadily in love with throughout the film, but right before they part ways for the online couple to finally meet he lets her know just how much he wishes she could love him. Joe recognizes the pain he caused her, chooses to accept blame, and now wants to share with Kathleen an imaginary world where the two of them could have been perfectly happy, leaving Kathleen much to think about as she waits in the Riverside park for her true prince’s identity to be revealed.

You know, I know, we all know Steven Soderbergh doesn’t do anything by the book. Say what you will about his film making prowess, he’s always looking at a different way of getting a shot, laying out a scene, or structuring an entire feature film. Why should it be any less abnormal when Soderbergh lays down a commentary track. Such is the case with this commentary for The Limey.

Knowing full well before actually hearing it that this commentary track is little more than director Soderbergh and screenwriter Lem Dobbs going at each other about film making as a whole and how this collaboration worked out, I’m not expecting cute anecdotes from the set or a play-by-play of the events transpiring on screen. How cute can Terence Stamp really be anyway? Instead, what is expected is a 90-minute barrage of verbal jousting and back-and-forth between a director and an apparently malcontent screenwriter. Sounds like a right robin time, innit?

The Limey (1999)

Commentators: Steven Soderbergh (director), Lem Dobbs (writer), a general sense of aggravation:

• Like the introduction to Peter Fonda’s character, Jerry Valentine, the first 60 seconds of The Limey‘s commentary track is a preview of what we’re going to get over the course of the next 90 minutes. The first thing we hear is an engineer saying, “We are rolling.” followed by what can only be described as a montage of anger from Steven Soderbergh and Lem Dobbs. Dobbs notes he made sure his screenplay only had “one instance of Cockney, rhyming slang”, Soderbergh says something “grounded the movie to a halt”, and Dobbs is heard being particularly angry with someone at Variety. The recording shuts off and starts back up. The engineer says, “We are rolling.” a second time, and the commentary begins.
• Dobbs refers to screenwriting as a “hopeless profession”. He says both Robert Town and Alain Robbe-Grillet were each disappointed with Chinatown and Last Year at Marienbad, respectively and how the directors on each those films ruined their screenplays. “If the screenwriters on Last Year at Marienbad and Chinatown can complain about what directors did, then what do you expect?”
• Soderbergh mentions he thinks “this one turned out better than the first one”. He’s referring to collaborations with Dobbs, who had previously written Kafka, which Soderbergh directed. Dobbs jokes that about the third time being the charm and that he’d give Soderbergh another chance. That third chance would, in 2011, end up being Haywire. You be the judge if that was, in fact, “the charm”.
• At 1:45, Soderbergh asks the engineer how they’re doing. The engineer says, “Perfect. We’re gonna pick up from there. We’ll punch back in.” The recording then shuts off followed by a third “We are rolling”.
• Dobbs tells how any screenplay could have been picked up and done completely different by another director. He mentions he had tried to get The Limey made a few years prior. He had given an earlier draft of the screenplay – what Dobbs calls “the original, naive, adolescent version” – to Robert Aldrich’s secretary to pass on to the aging director. “I still think to this day if one thing had led to another and he had read it and liked it and called me and somehow the movie had gotten made it would have added years to his life. It would have resurrected his critical reputation,” says the screenwriter. Aldrich never got back to him and, instead, made what Dobbs considers “horrible movies”. He thinks Aldrich would have taken a more straightforward, B-movie approach to the film.
• Every time Soderbergh showed a version of his film to Dobbs, the screenwriter told the director he wasn’t going far enough with the “fragmented” way Soderbergh chose to tell the straightforward story. Dobbs understands why Soderbergh did it this way. While the screenwriter notes some feel The Limey is derived from 1967′s Point Blank, he thinks it takes notes from many films of the ’60s as well as certain experimental films. Soderbergh notes he was looking for a way to make the delivery of information to the audience less traditional. Dobbs believes the fragmented nature to be more a literary device than cinematically stylish.
• “I’ve always thought one of the great cliches of film making that you hear people say constantly that I don’t think is true is that, unlike novels, in films you can’t show thinking, which I think is a total lie.” Dobbs says this before mentioning he wanted Soderbergh to get more shots of Terence Stamp being “meditative”. He notes this reflective nature he wanted the director to capture more of is one of the upsides in casting an experienced actor like Stamp.
• The scene where Stamp gets the gun was originally set at a gun show. Dobbs notes they tried to get this scene in the film, but the production was turned down from filming at any gun show they tried to get into. Dobbs feels the way it plays out now, with Stamp’s Wilson buying a gun from some kids at a school, plays on Wilson’s reactions to American society and how available gun are in our country.
• Soderbergh points out how distinctive Stamp’s gait is, how the actor kind of lopes along. Dobbs mentions driving in L.A. one day recently and seeing someone with white hair walking in front of a sun-lit wall. He could tell from the person’s walk that it was Stamp.
• Soderbergh points out how noticeably brighter it is outside than it is inside in the early scene at the warehouse. He notes some directors or cinematographers wouldn’t like this, that they’d attempt to balance it and make it seem more natural. Luckily his cinematographer, Ed Lachman, had been raised on New Wave films and understood what Soderbergh was going for. “I think it’s an aesthetic. If it’s organic to the material, it has an energy that you can’t get when everything is sort of polished and set.”
• Dobbs talks of the newspapers that printed images of British boxer Henry Cooper the day after he fought Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali. Cooper was shown beaten and bloodied. Dobbs thinks that Wilson represents this same type of English gentleman who isn’t afraid to get bloody if need be. “There’s this kind of feeling of blood mingled with a kind of nice guy who you’d probably leave in charge of your kids. If you didn’t have a babysitter, I think you’d entrust your children to the Terence Stamp character in The Limey.”
• It was scripted for the camera to stay outside the warehouse when Wilson goes back in with his gun. Soderbergh brings this up, to which Dobbs gets angered noting how much credit the director got particularly for this choice. It’s here where Dobbs brings up “that motherfucker from Variety”. Dobbs does then thank Soderbergh for directing it exactly like it was scripted.
• 14:25 – Dobbs says something about the image of a ’60s icon, I’m assuming Peter Fonda. The word “icon” echoes as Dobbs and Soderbergh begin talking about Fonda. This section on the commentary track is crazy. The audio gets doubled off and on, it speeds up, snippets are edited back and forth and sometimes repeated. It’s only for a minute, as Fonda’s Terry Valentine is being introduced, but it takes a few passes through to get the gist of what’s being said.
• Early in the production, Soderbergh told Barry Newman, who plays Valentine’s security consultant, Avery, that his character is sort of an ex-wife to Valentine who still hangs around. This brings out a sense of jealousy from the Avery character and explains why he picks at Valentine off and on.
• Soderbergh brings up the French and British New Wave films of the ’60s and early ’70s. He likes the freedom those films give the film makers, how they weren’t confined by traditional stories or traditional ways of telling stories. He thinks this sense of freedom is still present in film making today, mostly because of the independent wave of American films that came in the ’90s, but admires how mainstream it was in the ’60s and ’70s. Soderbergh notes how the most interesting films 25 years ago were also the most financially successful, but that doesn’t seem to be the case any more.
• Dobbs asks Soderbergh about casting. The writer remembers talking with the director about actors they liked from the ’60s who they hadn’t seen much of recently. He pulls out a scrap of paper that includes a list of actresses he and Soderbergh talked about for the role of Elaine, which is played in the film by Lesley Ann Warren. Some of the names on the list are Lauren Hutton, Sally Field, and Goldie Hawn. “I think it’s always fun to see if there’s someone out there who you haven’t been exposed to in a while,” says Soderbergh. He does add it works if you do it in a way that’s not too self conscious. That may or may not be a dig at Quentin Tarantino. You be the judge.
• Soderbergh always appreciated non-linear storytelling. He remembers being introduced to it as a teenager with the New Wave films from France and the UK, and, up to that point, he only understood movies to tell a story from beginning to middle to end. “Even though Citizen Kane is one of the more non-linear movies that you can think of, it doesn’t feel like it, but it is.”
• One of the subtexts Dobbs was going for with The Limey was the working class going up against capitalism. The American Express billboard and Luis Guzman’s character’s Che Guevara t-shirt are instances of this that were originally in Dobbs’ screenplay. “Oh, it was a political movie?” asks Soderbergh. Dobbs says it was more so than it is now. Evidently Soderbergh cut a lot of this out including Wilson speaking about his “employer” in London and how Fonda’s character is sort of an “employer” in America. Wilson would speak about his boss as sort of a father figure. Soderbergh felt the movie worked better leaving Wilson’s London life in the dark.
• The lack of detail for many of the characters is Dobbs’ main bone of contention with what Soderbergh did with his script. “When I read reviews that say ‘style over substance’ I blame you. I can’t actually say they’re wrong,” says Dobbs. He does mention there are luckily few reviews that say this about The Limey. He does say the reviews that make him angry are those that blame him for the film being “underwritten”. He then asks Soderbergh if he’d like to discuss his problem with human relationships. “Yeah, this is a great time and place,” responds Soderbergh. The director explains how he sees The Limey as a genre film, how the “spine of the film” was about Wilson and his daughter, and how he didn’t want to detour much away from that.
• “This is an example of screenwriting and what happens to screenwriters,” says Dobbs before noting a specific moment in the film he doesn’t like. Dobbs imagined Jenny’s picture in Valentine’s house as one picture in a group of them, probably down a long hallway. Soderbergh has it as the only picture at the top of the stairs. Dobbs sees the picture by itself, almost something Valentine keeps where it is as guilt, as the difference between what screenwriters feel is real and what production designers and directors think looks good. He also sees it as “how, as Lawrence Kasdan, I think, once said and as every screenwriter has said, a screenplay can be filmed sometimes word-for-word the way you write it and still be completely not what you have in mind”. Soderbergh casually mentions it wasn’t a location in which a long hallway of pictures would work.
• Soderbergh wasn’t completely sold on Peter Fonda the first time Dobbs mentioned him for the Valentine part. As Soderbergh remembers, he didn’t think “two stoics would work”. The director only knew Fonda from his screen persona. After having lunch with Fonda, Soderbergh realized how charismatic he was and acquiesced to the decision.
•  ”It’s your fetishistic nature, and you want it to be very clear that there’s a side street, but you don’t want any back-story for the human relationships or characters, but, Goddammit, people are gonna know there’s a second way down that hill,” says Dobbs during the scene where Avery is chasing Wilson and Luis Guzman’s Eduardo. Soderbergh responds, “Yeah, I like knowing where people are. I don’t care who they are. I just want to know where they are.”
• Valentine’s line “I learned how to skate when I was a little boy” was an ad-lib from Fonda. Right after the take Fonda explained to Soderbergh that his parents hired Norwegian figure skater Sonja Henie to train him how to ice skate. Evidently the training was a complete failure.
• “Now why didn’t Amelia Heinle notice that big gap at the top of the stairs with the missing picture?” asks Dobbs, referring back to the picture of Jenny, which is now gone. “She was looking at her feet,” responds Soderbergh, “like I told her to.”
• Again Dobbs digs into something Soderbergh cut from the screenplay that would have given character back story. The two hitmen played by Joe Dellesandro and Nicky Katt are uncle and nephew. A scene at the sister/mother’s house was cut at the script stage. Dobbs also notes later how he and Soderbergh talked about the film having a theme of family, something Soderbergh backed away from during production. “Now we know why the writer’s guild is always going on strike,” quips Soderbergh to the clearly aggravated Dobbs. The director also mentions later how he does still feel The Limey still hits that theme of family.
• Soderbergh is not bothered by bad reviews. He says as much after Dobbs mentions his films have certain problems that, if addressed, could win over some of the bad reviews. Soderbergh also notes he’d rather have a character be underwritten than one who is overly explained. He notes he tends to “err on the side of less”. Dobbs agrees that less is more, but that Soderbergh’s execution is wanting.
• The exchange between Soderbergh and Dobbs over the Cockney rhyming is priceless. Dobbs notes he only had one instance of this in the screenplay but feels Soderbergh and Stamp both fell in love with it and added more moments of it in the film. “There are two more,” responds Soderbergh. “There are three in the entire 90 minutes.” “It’s too much,” says Dobbs. Soderbergh just lets out a “Jesus”. Dobbs says, “David Lean used to say, ‘Never pop out of the same hole twice.’.” Soderbergh responds, “Yeah, he was noted for his short films.”
• Soderbergh asks Dobbs when he is going to direct a film. Dobbs says that if Soderbergh would get it right, he wouldn’t have to.
• Soderbergh feels he cut the film to play to its strengths, how that’s all a director can do once they get the shot footage into the editing room. He was most interested in Wilson’s character and notes that the longer he spent with the relationship between Wilson and his daughter, the stronger it got in the film. When he would cut away from that relationship, he felt it became diluted and cut into its strength.
• Terence Stamp’s character name in Poor Cow was Dave, not Dave Wilson as many critics and even the production notes on The Limey have stated. Wilson was a name Dobbs devised for the film. “It proves an old Hollywood adage, which is ‘Whatever you put out in the production notes, you’ll read back in the reviews.’,” he says. Dobbs and Soderbergh disagree on whether or not Stamp’s character in The Limey is, in fact, the same character he plays in Poor Cow. Dobbs does mention he imagined Wilson’s first name as Henry in the early stages of the screenplay, named after Henry Cooper. See item #12 above.
• Dobbs and Soderbergh agree mistakes in films can work. A single shot of Peter Fonda that zooms out and quickly pans left is what Soderbergh refers to as “the mistake”. Dobbs mentions how cinematographer Conrad Hall said in an interview that he finds mistakes in his films – lens flares in Cool Hand Luke is the one example given – beautiful. Dobbs also notes how he thinks one of the greatest shots in cinema, John Wayne’s introduction in Stagecoach, is out of focus. Soderbergh states that he’s become less interested in correcting mistakes as his film making years go by.
• The story Valentine tells his girlfriend, Adhara, about hitting a deer is a true story in Peter Fonda’s book. The scene was shot two different ways, once with Fonda’s story and the other with him telling the story Dobbs had written. Soderbergh notes how Fonda seems much more energetic in the take with his own story. “Yeah, I’ve always said that there’s nothing more boring than being trapped in a room with a well-known raconteur,” says Dobbs. “This is the danger, though. If you do these audio tracks you turn into one of those people,” responds Soderbergh.
•  ”For all the complaining I’ve done thus far, it’s nothing compared to the complaining I’m about to do,” warns Dobbs before discussing the cut scene where Ann-Margret plays Valentine’s ex-wife, who delivers a monologue of a tirade against Valentine. Dobbs understands why Soderbergh cut it. Evidently nothing was right about it. Dobbs mentions how the “movie Gods” were against the production of that scene, but he feels it was a very important scene to the overall film, that she served as the “audience identification” character. He also liked how it was Valentine retreating to the past to get away from someone who is coming after him for something he did in the past. Soderbergh felt it grounded the movie to a halt. “But that was your direction of it,” responds Dobbs. “Uh, no. I don’t think so,” says Soderbergh. “I directed the hell out of it.”
• Dobbs notes how much he hates the little scene between Valentine’s men where they’re talking about the sliding scale. He feels it’s more Tarantino or Barry Levinson and doesn’t fit into The Limey. “But, see, I’m trying to develop character here,” says Soderbergh. Dobbs makes sure we all know he didn’t write that scene.
• “When you have somebody like Terence it really does help, because you fill in a lot. He just has this certain kind of face and he is a certain age now that, when he looks a certain way, you fill in a back story,” says Soderbergh explaining how Stamp’s performance helps build any back story that might have been cut from the screenplay.
• Dobbs discusses indie film and how it seems like the industry’s attempt at doing something artistic. He doesn’t see that there is any room for low budget films that still tell straightforward movies. He doesn’t know why there aren’t any good B movies any more or why everything that goes straight to DVD is horrible. “Why isn’t there a Kiss Me Deadly that’s been a straight to video movie?”
• Soderbergh and Dobbs agree – thank God – on how much they like that The Limey is mostly about older characters. Soderbergh notes that it was an “uphill battle” with Artisan, since most of the characters were over 50. Both the director and the screenwriter agree that they miss that aspect in film. Dobbs likes how “tired” some of the characters are in The Limey and how that feels like some of the Westerns of old.
• Soderbergh mentions his desire to find the right structuring of a film during editing. He believes it’s in his interest in film grammar that causes him to do it. It’s while Soderbergh is saying this that his voice begins to loop in and out, doubling over itself, and laying on top of something else he’s saying about layers and puzzles. Some of Soderbergh’s commentary from earlier in the track comes in here, as well. It’s all about grammar, particularly non-linear storytelling. Dobbs comes in on this a bit, as well.
• Over the end credits, Dobbs notes how he is surprised that the entire song from Poor Cow, “Colours”, isn’t on The Limey‘s soundtrack. Soderbergh notes that, because it was a complete piece of film rather than an actual recording, they couldn’t afford the rights. Soderbergh mentions that if someone came to him in 20 years and asked to use footage from Sex, Lies, and Videotape, he’s not sure what he would say.
• Soderbergh mentions how quickly the production on The Limey was, nine months from initial meetings at Artisan to delivering the finished product. Dobbs notes that that’s how movies get made. If the right director comes along to make the right screenplay, then things move quickly. “You were hot that week,” he says to Soderbergh. Soderbergh laughs. At least they leave it on an upbeat note.

Best in Commentary

“I think in terms of The Limey maybe the definition of memory is that it’s a form of regret or a kind of questioning of your entire life. Memory is the path not taken.” – Dobbs

“I tell people, they say to me, ‘Do you like this movie,’ and I have to say, ‘As a completely disinterested, objective film goer, I think it’s a good movie.’ I think if I knew nothing more about it and had nothing to do with it, as a film goer, I would say, ‘That’s a good movie. I’d recommend it to my friends.’ As the screenwriter, I do think it’s crippled.” – Dobbs

“Yeah, but, see, the first one is the only one that matters.” – Soderbergh

Final Thoughts

It’s difficult to make a list of things learned from a commentary track when every sentence spoken by the commentators involved is a gem. The Soderbergh/Dobbs commentary for The Limey is the kind of track where you find yourself writing everything they say verbatim. There’s a lot of verbal sparring throughout. Soderbergh feels he made the best film he could and never has a negative word to say about Dobbs’ screenplay. Dobbs, on the other hand, clearly has issues with the way Soderbergh handled his script. They aren’t wrong issues. They are just his opinion, one of a screenwriter who saw his work being messed with. Dobbs is clearly a screenwriter who is proud of the work he does. So too is Soderbergh on the directing side.

It’s a brilliant, 90-minute piece of audio when two men as intelligent as these two have an equally intelligent debate over a work of art as great as The Limey. It’s so good, in fact, that no article about it can do the actual commentary justice. It needs to be experienced for yourself.

Get More Commentary. If you can handle it.

Echoing throughout the concrete of the subway between Stadtmitte and Potsdamer Platz is a young man slamming out a guitar chord like it owes him money and singing out “I want to see the movies of my dreams.” His droning twang sounds more like it was unearthed from the soil of North Carolina, but the Euro coins in his case and the writing on the wall prove he’s in Berlin.

His sentiment is a powerful and timely one as the red signs everywhere shout out the presence of the Berlin International Film Festival. Just a dozen feet above that young man’s head is the shuffle of mud-covered feet swishing through snow as more of it falls on the ground. An ice cream parlor is inexplicably still open and doing good business nearby.

It’s 21 degrees outside, but it feels like 8, and that creates a kind of energy. People are moving quickly to both to keep up with the lazy first day rush and to keep their bits from freezing off. Maybe that will make getting into a darkened (and heated) theater all the sweeter. At least that’s the hope on the largely movie-less, paper work-heavy start to the Berlinale.

Beyond the scattered preparations and disparate schedules cluttering the mental nodes and notebooks, there’s the spirit of the place. As the night and the temperatures fall together, it breathes hard and heavy with the anticipation of the opening film – a  period piece from Benoit Jacquot called Farewell, My Queen where Diane Kruger wants everyone to eat cake. Outside now, there’s a red carpet filled with women who haven’t even seen cake in years, all stuffed into dresses with sizes as low as the Celsius temperature. That they’re baring their arms and cleavage in such frigidity is a testament to the kind of noble stupidity that only keeping up appearances can inspire, and the bearded men they use for warmth waltz them from huddle to huddle of cameramen and forest to forest of black microphones. They’re waving and smiling as the odd mixture of black sludge that comes when dirt marries snow drops from their heels and clings to the carpet-covered ground. It collects there, turning the red more and brown, but the cameras don’t shift their gaze.

On a large screen, I’m watching celebrities I don’t recognize. It’s a jarring feeling. Everyone is clamoring for enough of their attention to get a good flash bulb broken, but I can’t place a face or a name.

I don’t know the people that everyone else knows.

There’s something both alarming and freeing about that. Alarming because I’m a stranger in a familiar land and freeing because it makes it just that much easier to find a darkened corner in a fancy hotel to contemplate and reflect on what I’ve just seen. My movie, the same movie, will start an hour after theirs a handful of subway stops away without any muddy red carpets or dancing bears. There will be no pomp or circumstance welcome, and that’s probably the way it should be. It will just be the movie, naked as it came, waiting to be loved, loathed, or something not as dramatic.

For me, it will be the first of many opportunities to see greatness. Like any film festival, Berlin is more casino than kino. In a hotel three blocks north of the Potsdamer Platz subway exit there are half a dozen movies playing every two hours hoping to get a distributor or an invitation to the next festival. An equal distance south, there’s an entire building of projects trying to secure the last bit of funding or impress a buyer. Tonight, I’ll take Marie Antoinette by the hand and walk into the next days where filmmakers trying to make a mark either grab audiences by the ears or fail to grab them at all.

Like any film festival, it’s the hope of the first day that will resonate like a foreign folk song off of underground German concrete walls. With any luck, the energy of Berlin will come from more than just the cold. There’s potential floating in the air, and just like that scruffy busker, I want to see the movies of my dreams.

Berlinale, let’s see what you’ve got.

About a year ago, I saw Ben Wheatley‘s Kill List at SXSW. I walked in to the theater unfamiliar with what the film was about and what exactly I was in for with my viewing experience. Wheatley’s dark, unpleasant, and funny hit man story was my favorite viewing experience of last year, and explaining why has been a real chore.

However, it isn’t a problem for Ben Wheatley, who was open to discussing the big spoiler topics, in particular the final minutes of the film. Much of my chat with the writer/director dealt with the ending, and the many theories it has spawned.

Here’s what Ben Wheatley had to say about seeking out interpretations, the wonky logic behind Minority Report, and tedious exposition in our [SPOILER] conversation:

Have you been hearing some interesting theories about the film?

You know, I’ve gotten to thinking about this a bit recently. I know I shouldn’t, but I look online at everything that’s written about it, which is the power of the Google alert, sadly. I think the theories that are popping up are mostly right. I haven’t seen one that made me think, “Oh God, they’re insane.” There’s a few details people quibble over, like who’s involved in the cult and whether Gal or Shel’s involved, and she’s not. The rest of the stuff seems pretty spot on, and I’m really happy about that. People are reading it [well], so it’s clear what we’re saying [with the film]. There’s not loads of people making up stuff. [Laughs]

[Laughs] I plan on doing that after this interview.

[Laughs] What you need is a piece of paper and write down one to six different words, and then just roll the dice and see where you go.

[Laughs] How about calling it an allegory for the Iraq war?

Yeah, that’s good, you can have that. [Laughs] That’s absolutely fine.

[Laughs] Good. You mentioned the theory about Shel being involved, but I don’t really see that, since she clearly loves him.

Yeah, I don’t think she’s involved. There’s a confusion over the laugh at the end, which makes people think she’s involved. I always read that as she’s going, “Oh God, you fucking idiot!” I saw someone Twittering the other day, “God, I can’t believe she couldn’t recognize her own husband without his clothes on!” [Laughs] Yeah, the last time I had my kid strapped on my back as a hunchback with a mask I couldn’t recognize my wife, either.

It happens.

[Laughs] It’s a common problem!

[Laughs] When it comes to Shel’s laugh, it’s like, how could she see something this insane happening?

Yeah, that’s exactly it — it’s an ironic laugh. It’s caused a whole matter of trouble of, “Oh, she’s involved!” She’s really a poor ‘ol gal and is innocent in all this.

Even though you don’t think that’s a logical takeaway, you must enjoy that people are digging this deep into the movie.

I love that people are interested enough to think about it, and that’s the biggest compliment of all. They’re taking time trying to unravel it, and that’s great. You know, there’s many films you see that you can barely remember as you’re leaving the cinema.

Definitely. So far the tag for the film has been a “hitman horror movie,” but what about a “love story”? It’s a bit of a love triangle between Jay, his wife, and Gal.

[Laughs] Yeah, an awkward love triangle. On the commentary we had to sum it up, and we described it as the trials of a failing business and a nasty man who wins a hat [Laughs].

[Laughs] That’s perfect. With that love story, though, it paints these guys as very human, and not just as killers.

Yeah, totally. It’s the same approach we had with Down Terrace, where it’s pouring a load of social-realist stuff into genre. Like, who are these people and what do they do when they’re not doing their genre stuff? They’re real people who live, love, and have these lives. If they have all that stuff, you feel a lot more awful when things happen to them, rather than just going, “Oh, this is an interchangeable character with a thousand different hitmen. He can be any fucker. If he gets killed, you don’t care.” I think that’s what we were looking to do: make the audience identify with them as much as they could.

Obviously you see Jay commit horrible acts so was it a challenge finding an actor who could find that level of humanity?

The whole thing for this film was the parts were all written for the actors. You know, I was always going to use Neil Maskell. There was no casting involved with this film. I was always going to use Michael Smiley, MyAnna Buring and Emma Fryer, and they were in the front of my mind when I wrote the parts. I always knew Neil could do that stuff. I knew he was very versatile.

How long ago did you start writing the script?

Around the Christmas of 2009. We had the green-light around March of 2010.

That’s pretty fast. Do you write fairly quick?

Yeah, yeah. There was a couple of drafts after that, but we moved very fast after Down Terrace.

Were there a lot of changes made along the way?

There was a bit more to it. The stuff that came out was for pacing, really. There was another layer. Like, [there was] a fixer character before the client. It was all just points. You want to strip it right down. The first cut of the film was two hours, so there was a load of scenes that came out, which were mostly Jay and Gal mooching about, going to hotels, and stuff. We pulled it right back to the barest essentials.

The film’s especially lean in exposition, which, if I recall right, there’s not a whole lot of in the film.

Yeah, there’s a couple of tiny little investigation scenes into the cult, which involves Jay drinking whiskey and looking at a couple of photographs [Laughs]. That was about as far as we got towards traditional exposition.

Do you find exposition tough to write?

I just find it dull, you know? I think the only good exposition I can think of is Kyle Reese describing terminators to Sarah in the car chase, which is a crazy idea but he delivers it insanely well while in the middle of a car chase. Beyond that, I find exposition pretty tedious.

You usually get the worst of it in sci-fi.

Yeah, it’s like, “Who cares?” [Laughs]

I think a great recent example is Minority Report. The first twenty minutes sets up everything during an action scene.

Yeah, you gotta be moving fast while explaining stuff, otherwise it doesn’t work. If they’re sitting across from each other, it just falls out of their mouths. What I wanna know about Minority Report is the ins-and-outs between the distance of the precogs and where you could commit the crime, and if you could step over the line [Laughs].

[Laughs] Do they say how far they can see? I remember it only being for DC.

No, they don’t [Laughs]. They go to the pond and show the murder, and it’s just on the edge of a lake. What does the line look like? Can you jump across? [Laughs] Who knew the future had an actual physical boundary? It’s crazy. What kind of shape is this precog distance?  You can commit crimes in the desert, but you can’t commit crimes in a town!

[Laughs] In terms of explaining things, do you have an answer, for yourself, when it comes to the ending?

Yeah, for sure. We know exactly what it’s about, and all the evidence is definitely there for it. It’s not even that the answers aren’t there, the only thing missing is someone doing a summing up. I was going to say there’s no Scooby-Doo scene, but they all take their masks off at the end! [Laughs] There’s no summary of, “As you can see, the cult had been planning this all along.” You know, I don’t think anyone would thank me for that.

The way I see it is that the character’s so violent, that violence will always overrun his life.

Yeah, totally. He was totally open to all this shit. He wants to be alone, and he gets what he wants. In the end, he gets rid of everybody he loves. He’s just left there seething with anger with a bunch of maniacs. It’s kind of a “be careful what you wish for” [story].

Kill List is now in limited release and available on VOD.

Whether purposely sending a helicopter into the eye of a tornado or believing you are a real life fairy tale character, it seems that no matter what films oriented towards the younger generation may be about (or who my star in them), the music featured in these films is not only well done, it is also (maybe more surprisingly) impressive. This fact is proven most handily in animated films like How To Train Your Dragon (with a score composed by John Powell) and Rango (composed by Hans Zimmer) which had the kind of full-bodied, moving sound you would expect to hear in an Academy Award winning film rather than a movie aimed at kids. That’s probably why Powell got his first Oscar nomination for Dragon.

Granted Powell and Zimmer are accomplished composers in their own right and regardless of the genre they work in, their music is sure to be impressive, but lesser known composers working on these types of films also seem to create music that stands out.

This question has come up several times, as each kid-oriented film would be entertaining enough, but the music would always stand out the most. This question came to the forefront of again while I was watching Journey 2: The Mysterious Island this past week and could not deny that even though The Rock was riding a giant bee with Luis Guzmán holding on for dear life behind him, the music driving the action was decidedly impressive. Composer Andrew Lockington was the man behind the baton for this film (having also composed the score for Journey to the Center of the Earth) and even in these more outlandish and ridiculous scenes, Lockington’s music was anything but.

Actors can sometimes get accused of “phoning it in” or simply collecting a paycheck when they sign on to movies like these (poor Brendan Fraser seems to be making a career of it), but the music in these films seems to consistently rise to the occasion and end up as one of the film’s standout features.

And there may be something to this.

Each year the Academy nominates at least one song from a family oriented film for their Best Song category (granted it is looking more than a little thin this year) and it is hard to claim that the songs that make it to the big show do not deserve to be there (although the track from Rio may be pushing it a bit). Looking at the nominations from the past five years alone, the kid genre has gotten a nomination almost every year for songs from films like Cars, Enchanted, WALL-E, The Princess and the Frog, Toy Story 3 and Tangled with Toy Story 3 taking home the prize last year. Perhaps when it comes to music, letting go and not taking things so seriously works to a musician’s advantage and results in memorable work (rather than cringe worthy pec-popping scenes).

While the majority of these movies are animated or films that incorporate music into the story already (Enchanted and most recently, The Muppets), live action movies like Soul Surfer (Marco Beltrami), Spy Kids 4D: All the Time in the World (Carl Thiel and Robert Rodriguez) and Dolphin Tale (Mark Isham) also turned in scores that were not only impressive, but also helped to elevate each film’s plot. It seems the more genuine a score sounds, the better it plays within the context of a fun or madcap story that may not be taking itself too seriously. Granted the stories tackled in Soul Surfer and Dolphin Tale are nothing to scoff at (with each being a true story to boot), since these films are aimed at kids the overall tone is a bit more light-hearted, but the music never took that as an opportunity to play down to its audience.

It is hard to claim that watching kids take down evil spy villains or two teenagers navigate a mystical island while fighting off giant birds is not goofy, but it is just as hard to deny that the music playing along with these scenes is anything but sincere. Kids are probably not interested in watching films that tackle racism during the Civil Rights era or the seemingly incomprehensible meaning of life, but it is refreshing to see and hear that the music created for these more “serious” films is just as striking as the music created for the slightly less serious, more kid appropriate fare.

Tend to your Aural Fixation

Director Lucky McKee’s most recent film, The Woman, garnered a lot of critical praise at Sundance in 2011 but gained the most publicity when some old codger decided to have a freak out that was caught on tape where he said the film was degrading to women and demanded it be burned. Luckily for the sake of art and free speech, the negative was not burned and the film has indeed been released on DVD and Blu-ray.

The film follows the Cleek family and their zany adventures trying to ‘civilize’ a wild woman the patriarch finds in the woods. I put civilize in quotes back there because that’s how the film is officially described, but in my book giving someone a bath and making them wear clothes doesn’t actually amount to trying to civilize them. No, for that, one must teach them proper dining etiquette. Obviously, as this is branded a horror film, the titular woman chained up in the basement must cause some havoc, though she’s not the true villain in this story.

Kills

It takes awhile for us to get our first death, but we’re eventually treated to four of them, all clumped together.

Ills

Much like the kills, most of the ills come at the end of the film. As we’re dealing with cannibalism, we get a lot of biting and some eating of human flesh. Someone is cut in half, a heart is ripped out, but yeah, mostly just chomp-chomp-chomping here. Oh, with a side of rape. Can’t forget the rape and molestation, though it’s not shot graphically so grandma doesn’t have to leave the room.

Lust

First we see The Woman all dirty and nasty with her boobs out and it’s gross. Then later she gets a power washer bath and she cleans up nice, showing off some bare breasts and some bush.

Learning

Women are actually good for three things, and one of those things is eating people’s faces.

Review

The Woman threatened to lose it immediately during its too-long raised by wolves Woman in the woods opening. It feels completely unrelated to the rest of the film. When things get started for real, the film is actually hilarious. It’s not clear why people where so upset at the movie or how anyone could call it misogynistic. Sure, Chris Cleek (Sean Bridgers) and his son are total male assholes, but saying that makes the film misogynistic is like saying Saw is pro-murdering people in elaborate games. Chris is clearly the bad guy here.

Some people were apparently troubled or disturbed by the film, but Bridgers’ performance was over the top sunshine in an effort to show how normal this dark character tried to be. It was tough to take anything in the movie seriously, which means I may have had a drastically different experience from everyone else. The cinematography is bright and cheery – the film takes place mostly during daylight, and the musical choices are all pop songs. In trying to have a stark contrast between the images and the music, it sort of played like circus music over a massacre. Granted the film does manage to get a little gross here and there and abandon the pop music, but overall the film was darkly comic and not overly graphic, scary, or overtly demented.

Viewed through that lens, the movie isn’t bad, though the hype doesn’t make sense. It wasn’t offensive or shocking. I’d say I half-way enjoyed it. I don’t think Lucky McKee shoots violence and gore very well – there are plenty of opportunities to really hammer home the horror of the situation, though we never see it. That aspect of the film was underwhelming. Further, speaking of the violence, I’m not entirely certain how a piece of wood was used to chop someone in half, nor do I really understand the decision to have the 125lb Woman be able to toss another 100lb+ person through the air like a rag doll.

The Woman is best described as a Lucky McKee film. If you like his work, you’ll probably like this. If you don’t, you won’t. It features Angela Bettis as Belle Cleek, who has been in all of McKee’s films, and the movie, intentionally or not, bears his off kilter style. Again, I don’t really see the horror in this movie as it plays out in a fairly comedic way. McKee’s friend Sean Spillane wrote, composed, and performed a pretty awesome soundtrack for the film though, which should definitely be checked out.

When all is said and done, The Woman is not a great film. It’s a bit goofy at times, which may not have been intentional, and doesn’t handle the horror and violence in a way that would make a true impact. It does have some good moments within it and if you approach it with tempered expectations you might enjoy it. It’s also important that the film comes from the brain of Jack Ketchum, who wrote The Offspring, a semi-prequel to this flick. Ketchum is a dude that doesn’t mind having a ton of kids die in his stories, which I totally respect.

Anyway, I’m torn on this flick. I don’t get the hype or horror around it, but ultimately I enjoyed bits and pieces of it, even though it’s oddly comedic and goes awry in shooting the violence. The Blu-ray is presented well though, with a song from the soundtrack, deleted scenes, and a making of featurette.

On the eve of the Berlinale, Swedish director Daniel Espinosa joins us to talk about waterboarding Denzel Washington and the mind games of Safe House. Plus, we look forward to a few films to catch in Berlin, and it’s Matt Singer versus Alison Willmore in a Filmspotting: SVU showdown of Movie News Quizzing.

Download This Episode

On This Week’s Show:

Movie News Pop Quiz: [Beginning - 17:00] It’s Singer vs. Willmore, and we discuss Redbox‘s dominance of suburbia which they plan to take to the streaming world.

Our House: [17:00 - 33:30] Punk rock director Daniel Espinosa talks about cranking up the action in Safe House, the connection between Scandinavia and the US, and working with iconic cinematographer Oliver Wood.

Kino Berlin: [33:30 - End] In the final moments, I toss out a few movies we’ll be trying to see at the Berlin International Film Festival as we check out next year’s Oscar contenders when they make their world premiere.

Rate us on iTunes

On Next Week’s Show:

Sharing Berlin with the world.

Get In Touch With Us:

• Call Reject Radio: (512) 212-1301
• Email Reject Radio: radio@filmschoolrejects.com
• Reject Radio on Twitter: twitter.com/RejectRadio

Subscribe to Reject Radio:

Karen Cartwright imagines herself in a shimmering white dress, center stage, belting out that ultimate dreamer’s song, “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.” She stretches her hands above her head, ever so dramatically, because she’s really into this performance – she isn’t just singing these words, she’s feeling them. She closes her eyes. Oh, yeah. She’s all up inside this song and we immediately understand the subtext here: these lyrics have been etched into her heart since she was a small girl, head already full of big city hopes and dreams about makin’ it. A cell phone rings, jolting Karen back to reality. She’s in a small room – far from the spotlight- auditioning for some jaded folks who somehow can’t see that she’s from Iowa and that she has aspirations! How wide-eyed does a girl have to be before someone gives her a leading role in a Broadway musical, yo?

American Idol is all about regular people with unexpected talent, yearning for stardom. (Well, it used to be. Now, according to the most recent promos, it’s all about kids falling off of stages.) Katherine McPhee is an American Idol runner-up, so I guess she’s suited for this Karen part on Smash, NBC’s much-hyped drama about the creation of a musical based on the life of Marilyn Monroe. McPhee’s Karen has a fresh-faced charm about her, the kind of girl you’d maybe instinctively root for, and the character’s Midwestern origins are, I believe, supposed to make her that much more appealing. The people in that region of the U.S. dream harder than the rest of us, right?

So much about Smash works: creator Theresa Rebeck knows how to write for an ensemble (unlike Glee’s Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk, and Ian Brennan); the original songs give me the chills (“Let Me Be Your Star,” specifically); there’s a fun, believable tension between Jack Davenport who plays the Marilyn musical’s surly director and actual Broadway actor Christian Borle, here, playing one of the musical’s writers. But this “small town girl tackles The Big Apple” thread is just too easy. Really, it’s so predictable and tropey that I’m forced to assume that Karen who, in the pilot episode, auditions for the role of Marilyn and gets a callback after an appropriately beautiful rendition of Christina Aguilera’s “Beautiful,” isn’t going to wind up with the part. Otherwise the character is just horribly conceived. Right now, everything about her, from her unassuming origins, to her too-perfect boyfriend, to her parents who don’t totally support her, to her gumption in the face of repeated rejection, seems ripped straight from some “Idiot’s Guide to Emotionally Manipulating Audiences with Stock Characters” or, I don’t know, The Devil Wears Prada. It’s still early days for Smash, but starting off so prosaic seems an odd choice when you consider that musical TV shows are so polarizing – corniness being one of the usual criticisms.

More interesting than Karen, but still not totally original for anyone who has seen A Chorus Line, is Ivy Lynn (Megan Hilty), a curvy, blonde, seasoned actress, desperate for a lead part and Karen’s main competition for the Marilyn role. Ivy is brassy, her singing voice is stout, she’s sexy where Karen is cute. She’s a villain, if only because she poses a threat to the lovely, small town girl and her dreams. But what about Ivy’s dreams? When she phones home, excited about her Marilyn callback, her mother doesn’t seem to give a crap and steers the conversation to news about a relative who’s attending night school. All the exuberance in Ivy’s body drains as she feigns interest in whatever the hell her mom is talking about. Ivy’s had some success and Karen hasn’t, but Ivy’s the tragic figure, the one we should care about.

Rebeck has created this complex character in Ivy – the character’s confidence is a mask for her true frailty – and it seems like she’s being presented as someone we should see as a viable contender, not just for the role of Marilyn but for our affections. Yet, we’re never really able to root for her because Karen, her competitor, doesn’t have any faults. When womanizing director Derek summons Karen to his apartment and tells her to show him that she can be Marilyn (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more), she puts on one of his button-down shirts, sings “Happy Birthday, Mr. President,” but, of course, doesn’t sleep with him. It isn’t that I’d prefer her to succumb to this kind of casting couch situation (especially since her boyfriend is a total dream) but it’s simply one more example of why, as a viewer, you can’t help but want her to win. Things shouldn’t be so clean-cut, they can’t be.

If we’re talking symbolism, then Karen is supposed to represent Marilyn Monroe during her dark-haired, relatively innocent Norma Jeane days, while Ivy Lynn, who’s name is somewhat reminiscent of the icon’s, is Marilyn in her “candle in the wind” period. But even the young Marilyn wasn’t the unabashed, one-note Pollyanna that Karen is. How is she the real underdog?

Sometimes, choosing the right movie for the weekly DVD drinking game is a tough decision. Other times, it comes as naturally as breathing. This week, we breathe in the Christmas goodness of the latest Harold & Kumar movie and enjoy its raunchy silliness. Yeah, we know Christmas was a couple months ago, but who says you need to have tinsel on your tree to watch this movie?

These guys may not be known for following the rules, but here’s a slate of rules you’ll enjoy following while you watch the film. Just don’t try anything too strong, or you might end up like Thomas Lennon’s on-screen child. And no one wants that, do they?

And now, to cover our butts… This game is only for people over the age of 21. Please drink responsibly, and please slow down if you discover you’ve become claymated.

TAKE A DRINK WHEN…

• Someone smokes or drinks
• A new Christmas song plays
• Someone is hit with something
• Someone speaks in a foreign language

TAKE A DRINK WHEN YOU SEE…

• Drugs
• The WaffleBot
• A 3D gimmick shot
• A fantasy sequence

TAKE A DRINK WHEN SOMEONE SAYS…

• “tree”
• “Christmas”
• “Harold” or “Kumar”
• a swear word

CHUG YOUR DRINK WHEN…

• NPH makes his glorious return to the series

Click here for more Drinking Games

Welcome back to This Week in DVD! Some great, good and sadly deficient releases await you including The Sunset Limited, Knuckle, season two of Rocko’s Modern Life, the second to last Twilight film and more!

As always, if you see something you like, click on the image to buy it.

Project NIM

In the early 1970s a douchey professor at Columbia University set out on an experiment involving cross species communication by taking a young chimpanzee from its mother shortly after birth and placing it with a human family to be raised as one of their children. This documentary from director James Marsh is ostensibly about that chimp named Nim, but the people who pass in and out of his life are just as much the subjects here. Their motivations, actions and attitudes offer a smorgasbord of typical human behaviors that none of us should be proud of regardless of where you land on the issue of animal ethics, and the result is an oddly fascinating glimpse at the human psyche as interpreted by our closest living relative.

Rocko’s Modern Life: Season Two

Pitch: “I’m nauseous. I’m nauseous…”

Why Buy? Rocko is a wallaby with a handful of friends, a loyal dog and a proclivity for wacky adventures. This mid-nineties series from Nickelodeon’s heyday is a mix of crude and stylish animation that brings to life some truly hilarious and witty dialogue and happenings. This is one of those rare kids shows that offers just as much laughter and joy for adults, and it should come as no surprise that two of the main writers went on to create the equally awesome Phineas and Ferb for Disney. And am I the only one who thinks of Shout! Factory as the Criterion Collection for people who like fun? They continue to impress with their ability to pluck otherwise unavailable classics from the past and return them to life on DVD.

The Sunset Limited

Pitch: “Who would want this nightmare but for fear of the next…”

Why Buy? Samuel L Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones give brilliantly nuanced and heartfelt performances in what is essentially one ninety-minute conversation (and battle of wills) about whether or not life is something worth living. It’s been a while since I’ve truly enjoyed either actor in a movie, but this adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s play has renewed both of them in my eyes. No matter your opinion on faith, god, humanity and mankind the final result will leave you thinking, wondering and admiring these two actors at the top of their game. And thanks to dialogue snippets like “the lingering scent of divinity” it may also be my favorite of McCarthy’s works too.

3

Pitch: “Who ordered the German threesome?” – overheard during Cole Abaius’ trip to Berlinale…

Why Rent? A couple find themselves in the doldrums of their relationship and both begin affairs, but unbeknownst to anyone involved both of them are sleeping with the same man. Tom Tykwer’s latest film is an interesting, humorous, and often sad drama about love lost and found, life and death, and what it means to be whole both inside and out. The topic and presentation are both of a very adult nature as the sex is frequent and fairly explicit, but the core lessons here are universal in regard to how we relate to each other. The second act has a bit of a slowdown, but the film overall is a refreshing and engaging look at modern love.

5 Star Day

Pitch: “Convincing chemistry between its attractive leads and fine thesping” – Variety…

Why Rent? A college student (Cam Gigandet) loses his job, girlfriend and apartment on his birthday and decides to test the theory of astrology by finding and interviewing the three people born at the exact same time and place as he was. Life lessons galore ensue! This really should have been a terrible movie. That plot, the lead actor and that terrible DVD cover art made me predict that all signs pointed to crap. And yet, the story surprises by never quite going where you expect. And Gigandet doesn’t necessarily display “fine thesping” but he’s surprisingly charming and subdued.

Knuckle

Pitch: Makes up for TLC’s obnoxious My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding show…

Why Rent? Ian Palmer didn’t plan on spending more than a decade documenting the ongoing feud between two rival families of Irish “travelers” but that’s exactly what ended up happening. This documentary follows various family members through the years as the meet, brawl and move on to nurse their wounds and pride. Or in some cases ice their bloody and raw knuckles. These aren’t the kind of people you really find yourself drawn to, but they’re an engaging and charismatic lot all the same. What drives real people to basically become living, breathing Hatfield & McCoys? Not even they know apparently.

The Phantom of the Opera At the Royal Albert Hall

Pitch: Anyone else remember Phantom of the Mall? No? Just me? Okay, moving on…

Why Rent? Andrew Lloyd Webber’s most famous (arguably) stage production received a special 25th anniversary presentation at London’s Royal Albert Hall, but in honor of the occasion producer Cameron Mackintosh made a few tweaks. I’m not a big musical fan, but this is easily one of my three favorites (along with Wicked and Les Miserables), and while watching a disc cannot really compare to the live experience this is still a sumptuously beautiful production. Crank the volume up andyou can’t help but get swept into the emotion of the story and songs. Yes, I’m serious.

The Rebound

Pitch: It’s Michael Douglas’ wife and the fourth guy from The Hangover movies! You should give it a chance anyway…

Why Rent? A middle aged woman (Catherine Zeta-Jones) leaves her cheating husband and moves to the big city where she discovers self worth and a nice guy almost half her age (Justin Bartha). As middling romantic comedies go this one is not too shabby. Glowing endorsement! Zeta-Jones and Bartha do good, relaxed work here and manage solid charisma and chemistry. They both manage to earn some laughs too with their delivery of writer/director Bart FreundLich’s script. Recommended for fans of either actor or the thrill of decent direct to DVD releases.

Yakuza Weapon

Pitch: The most powerful and visually appealing weapon in the movie is a very sexy, naked and comatose Japanese woman…

Why Rent? The son of a Yakuza boss returns home to claim his seat at the head of the crime family, but not everyone welcomes him back. From my full review: “It’s not quite interested enough to seriously dissect the manly action hero dynamic, but it pokes more than a few jabs at it including the ex-girlfriend character, Nayoko, who throws a boat at him out of feminine rage. Yes, a boat. She’s the only one able to beat his ass, which makes it a romantic gesture when Shozo has to save her from the bad guy who kidnaps her, dresses her up like schoolgirl, and then threatens her with a motorized dildo. So if nothing else I’ve described has quite sold you on the movie…”

Stormhouse

Pitch: More of a light sprinkle really…

Why Avoid? A female ghost mumblerer heads to a military base to study the supernatural entity they have incarcerated there. Surprise! It gets out. The idea here is pretty sound, but the execution is frustratingly bad. I realize there’s a global recession going on, but if you’re going to maintain a base containing a dangerous creature you might want to turn on some goddamn lights. Not only is the incessant darkness dangerous to your soldiers, but it’s also a bland and annoying watch for viewers. Of course, the creature effects consisting of lights and sound effects don’t help either. Not scary, not interesting, and not worth your time. Skip it and watch Storm Warning instead.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1

Pitch: Cruel of me to tease you with this I know. It doesn’t actually release until Friday night at midnight…

Why Avoid? The penultimate film in the Twilight Saga sees the pale Edward (Robert Pattinson) and the weak-willed Bella (Kristen Stewart) wed, screw and welcome their toothy spawn into the world. There’s also a puppy dog following them around. It may be difficult to tell, but I’m no fan of the Twilight series. Even if it wasn’t insulting to girls, which it is at every opportunity, the story alternates between two modes… boring and stupid. The teen angst is overly melodramatic, the lessons and morality are ignorant, and the action is dull. And good god how does a billion dollar franchise end up with such amateur-looking CGI effects? Skip it and watch Breaking Away instead.

A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas

Pitch: It’s a sad state of affairs when not even a shower scene with hot, naked nuns can make a movie worth recommending…

Why Avoid? The third (and probably final) film in the Harold & Kumar franchise sees the two best friends as virtual strangers. Harold has grown up and become an adult while Kumar is still an immature and unfunny asshole. Then stuff happens and they reunite. I’m a fan of the first two movies, but aside from the nude nun-filled shower scene and Neil Patrick Harris this one is mostly a laugh and thrill free dud. Sadly, even Harris’ “character” jumps the shark in a scene where attempts to sexually assault a woman in a fairly rough manner. It crosses a line from funny to simply crude, and that pretty much sums up the film as a whole. Skip it and watch one of the first two instead.

Also out this week, but I haven’t seen the movie/TV show and review material was unavailable:

Anonymous
Fireflies In the Garden
Machete Joe
Poolboy: Drowning Out the Fury
The Reunion
Supershark

Read More: This Week in DVD

What are you buying on DVD this week?

If you’re anything like me you probably would take a good psychological scarring over some dick in a mask jumping out at you any day of the week – at least when it comes to horror films. Nowadays it seems like the best is behind us when it comes to the genre, and what’s left is less a collection of disturbing concepts and more so the movie equivalent of a carnival spook house. That being said – I do like carnival spook houses – a fleeting scare is good when it’s done right. Sure, in the end these scares don’t hold a candle to say, the end of Rosemary’s Baby, but we can’t deny them either. So that’s what this list is: me sucking it up and admitting that the dick in the mask totally got me.

I should tell you that I don’t wish to demerit these films for having jump scares in them; most of them have plenty of psychological scarring as well… take number ten, for example.

10. The Thing – Chest Attack

Yikes. That’s like… the last thing you want someone’s chest to do.

First off, let me just say that Rob Bottin is amazing. He’s the special effects artist you have to thank for having the image of a mans severed head crawling around like a spider burned forever in your nightmares.

What I love about this scare is that the characters are already in a bad situation trying to save the guy’s life – and then in the blink of an eye it’s a total 360 and suddenly they are making sure he never moves ever again. It’s horrifying the first time you watch it too because you’re not really expecting a scare, let alone expecting the scare to be so… unusual. And before you can recover you are treated to a barrage of carnage so bizarre and disturbing that you’ve completely forgotten about the jump that introduced it all. The Thing is truly a spectacle of amazing practical effects, disturbing grotesque, and glorious man beards.

9. Se7en – Sloth

I can’t tell if it’s the jump that gets me here or what the jump reveals – that the tattered corpse tied to a bed isn’t a corpse but rather what remains of a guy who is currently having a very bad year. The whole scene leading up to it is bad enough when it is explained just what happened to this guy, and we realize that it is probably the worst murder of the film… But then finding out that the job isn’t even finished is down right bananas – a word I don’t easily throw around, mind you.

There’s no way to see this coming because well… why the hell would we? This isn’t a movie where corpses just come to life willy-nilly, as far as we know the rules in their world are the same as the rules to ours. Even with the cop getting way too close to the guy (who must smell awful mind you) making the situation perfect for a scare, it just doesn’t seem like that kind of film. Never would we suspect the idea that someone who looks like that guy does could possibly be alive in any capacity – which is exactly what this scare is betting on.

8. The Decent – Night Vision Creature

You know, I loved this scare but I wasn’t actually surprised by it… the reason why is because some ass decided to stick it in every preview for this film when it was coming out, making everyone who saw it thoroughly ready for the best scare moment of the entire film. I hate that – it’s like when they stuck the ending shot to Quarantine on all the movie previews and posters… did no one stop and say “Hey guys… maybe it’s not a good idea to reveal the end of our movie in all our ads…” That kind of seems like advertising 101.

Anyway – it was only years later when I watched this with a friend who hadn’t seen the previews did I witness just how good the scare is. Firstly – if they didn’t set it up so quickly you’d see it coming, but you don’t have time to realize that. Secondly they actually give you a second to see the creature without indicating it with any scare chords or anything. It’s this nice silent moment that lasts barely a second where your heart drops into your stomach, then a boom of sound and action. It’s not the most original thing in the world, but it’s very solid and perfectly timed.

7. Signs – The Pantry

I’ll probably get some shit for this one – and I wouldn’t blame anyone for it either. I’m not a huge fan of this film but I do think it has its moments – I just wish it didn’t try to be more than what it was… which goes for all of M. Night Shyamalan films, actually.

There are several moments in this film that got me – another that comes to mind is the alien arm in the basement, and also the TV reflection part… but this one really did it for me because it relied on no external sounds or music. It was that lack of scare chords that oddly enough made me jump. It felt, well… alien – off in pacing. There’s this tension buildup of trying to see what’s on the other side of this door, and then when he walks away and comes back you expect at the least a second buildup, if only for a moment. But instead we instantly get the scare without any warning and any indication in the sounds – just the natural clicking of the claws of the hand and it’s over.

6. Psycho – Meeting Mother

Psycho is a really hard film to put into perspective. Most people know the ending of the film before they’ve even seen it – that alone puts the movie at a complete disadvantage to modern audiences. So far I’ve only met one person who didn’t know the end – and when finding that out I promptly sat them down to watch it, only to have someone walk into the room and spoil the ending half way through. You can imagine my anger.

Now – obviously there is another scene I could mention here, a scene that did have audiences jumping their seats because not only was it unexpected in a fleeting sense but also because no movie had really ever just killed off their star that suddenly before. However I really think this scene is scarier as a jump, firstly because we see the killer coming in the shower scene, and secondly because this one has two reveals right after another. The initial reveal of mother’s corpse is slow but also a huge blow to the audience, and then before they can put it all together we are hit with the classic Psycho chords and our first and only sight of Norman in all his drag glory – his face deranged and desperate as he is held back from stabbing this woman to death.

It’s just so much in so little time.

Brokeback Mountain had the highest opening weekend per screen average in 2005, and it went from opening in only five theaters to playing wide all over the world by the end of its run. Then, when award season rolled around, it garnered all sorts of acclaim, getting awards for best picture from multiple outlets, Oscars for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director, and it even got recognition from GLAAD for being the year’s most outstanding film. Pretty much it was embraced by everyone as being groundbreaking and important, and it saved Ang Lee’s butt after he pissed everyone off by making The Hulk.

Weekend came out just this last September, but you might not remember it because not many people ended up checking it out. By the time it left theaters it had only made a domestic gross of  $484,592. Ouch. And while this movie also got some love from GLAAD, it was ignored by all of the mainstream awards shows like the Oscars and the Golden Globes. A cultural phenomenon it wasn’t.

What do they have in common?

Both of these movies depict the blossoming of a romantic relationship between two men, and they explore a few different ways one can react to realizing that you’re into other dudes. Some are insistent on being open and honest about their orientations while others wish to remain private about their personal matters. Some are completely comfortable with their sexuality while others struggle with a sense of society-instilled self loathing. And while Brokeback Mountain depicts the coming together of a couple in an environment that is completely unfriendly toward homosexuality and Weekend takes place in a more open, contemporary place, they both give us a look at the quiet moments, where we watch two people just giddy to be in love. And isn’t that just precious?

Why is Brokeback Mountain overrated?

This movie is full of gorgeous landscape photography and its Gustavo Santaolalla-composed score is so beautiful that it could have played over scenes of Jake Gyllenhaal eating a bowl of Cheerios and it would have still been heartbreaking and melancholy. So it isn’t all bad. But I have to say, in general, I really don’t like it. First off, the casting is a huge problem. Having two actors as famous as Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger play these characters was super distracting. The talk became more about how far they would go in being intimate with each other on screen than it was about the themes or crafting of the film. At every moment you’re aware that you’re watching two movie stars making big career moves and it makes it near impossible to treat their characters like real people. And both of these kids were so baby-faced when this movie came out that they look really ridiculous later on in the film when they’re asked to age a few decades. Greying temples, fright wigs, and ridiculous mustaches abound, making the third act play more like a comedy sketch than anything else. Also, what’s with Ledger playing his character like Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade? This is the weird performance he got so much attention for?

The bad doesn’t stop with the casting though. The biggest problem I have with this one is that it has nothing to say, no story to tell, other than an attempt to tug on our heartstrings with manufactured melodrama. Who are these characters other than suppressed desires? What are they striving for when they don’t even want to work toward a life where they could openly live together? What this movie amounts to is over two hours of watching a couple of fish out of water flopping around on the ground and dying. There’s nothing at stake, everything is shrouded in doom from the beginning. So what are we supposed to get out of it other than schadenfreude? And don’t even get me started on the third act where things take a melodramatic life-and-death turn out of nowhere. That’s when I really started rolling my eyes. What Lee and his writers don’t seem to understand is that there is enough inherent drama in any relationship to make for an interesting movie. All of the end of the world teeth-gnashing and chest-pounding that happens here wasn’t necessary to make this a worthwhile story.

And you know what else wasn’t necessary? The film’s 134 minute runtime. A half hour in, and nobody had even done anything remotely gay and I was left asking myself if this was just going to be a really boring movie about camping. With none of the characters having any goals, and there being no end to their struggles in sight, the last hour crawled by pretty slowly. It doesn’t help that the pacing is all messed up either. This story, inexplicably, takes place over the course of several decades, so we have to deal with constant jumps forward in time. Every time something semi-important happens, instead of lingering in the aftermath of the characters’ actions and dealing fully with their consequences, we get whisked away years ahead in the timeline, wiping away any dramatic tension that might have been built. The scope of this thing always keeps us at arm’s length. For a movie that’s just about two people falling in love, why wasn’t this a much more intimate tale?

Why is Weekend underpraised?

For a start, the acting is really good, and the casting is way more appropriate than the casting in Brokeback. The lead actors, Tom Cullen and Chris New, are relative newcomers, so they don’t bring any baggage to their roles. You’re never painfully aware that these are two very famous, very straight people who are just pretending to be gay, so you can focus on who the characters are and what they’re going through rather than wondering how far they’re going to be willing to go in their love scenes, and what the public reaction is going to be. Are these actors really gay men? I have no idea, but most importantly, the question didn’t cross my mind once while I was watching the film. What matters is that they both do a great job. Cullen is so good at letting vulnerability play across his face that I’m sure he has a big future playing dramatic roles. And New really impressed me playing a character who has a bunch of excitement and, perhaps, anger bubbling beneath his surface. I could see him pulling off a whole gamut of roles in coming years.

There’s actually some substance to the dialogue here as well. Cullen and New’s characters talk about more than just, “Aw hell, I wish I wasn’t so gay,” miserable bullshit. Through the course of a single weekend these characters have conversations that cover the nature of friendships and the struggle to grow as a person when you’re stuck in a static situation. They cover universal stuff like infidelity, heartbreak, and the awkwardness of your first sexual experiences, as well as gay specific topics like coming out, gay marriage, and the challenges of being friends with straight folk. This is a movie about people rather than a movie about award shows.

There’s a lot of gay sex that happens in this movie, and I’ll be honest, it made me kind of uncomfortable. While I consider myself to be a person who ranks pretty low on the sliding scale of bigotry, I still can’t sit and watch two men get hot and heavy without cringing a little. I think that’s good though. The gay sex in Brokeback is so Hollywood and homogenized that it hardly registers. This movie puts you front and center, in the middle of the intimate moments, and it forces you to confront any lingering uncomfortable feelings you may have about gayness. As a straight person who has never had a really close one-on-one relationship with a gay man, this movie felt like a look at a way of life that I’m not very familiar with. And what good are movies if not to broaden the lens with which we look at the human condition? Weekend is the sort of moviegoing experience that can be most enriching. Sure, it’s nice to use cinema as escapism, but every once in a while shouldn’t we watch a movie that corners and confronts us? That’s the sort of thing that makes us grow as people.

Evening the odds.

When stuff starts going down in Brokeback Mountain the characters go straight into anal sex. I mean, right in; hard. The first time? And all of the sex seems to be so rooted in aggression. When these guys aren’t forcefully smashing their faces together and squeezing each other’s necks in the most painful make out sessions I’ve ever seen they’re wrestling around on the ground and slapping each other in the mouth. I’ve never met gay guys that so closely resemble professional wrestlers in real life, and while I’m sure some exist, why was watching these two guys hit each other with metaphoric steel chairs considered such a poignant moment for gay/straight relations? The guys from Weekend look and feel like gay guys I’ve really known. Their lives look like how a new, budding young gay person’s life will eventually look. So doesn’t that make Weekend a much more important film for everyone to see?

Luckily for you, reading more Over/Under won’t cause you tremendous heartbreak

Why Watch? In 1988, Pixar’s Tin Toy won the Oscar for Best Animated Short. The studio’s history after that is well known, but one of the shorts that it beat out for gold was just about as symbolic as you could ask for. Technological Threat, from Brian Jennings and Bill Kroyer, was a blend of rudimentary computer animation and hand-drawn traditional that told the story of computers taking over all the artist jobs. It predicted the future the very year that it started coming to pass.

The movie itself is an homage to Tex Avery-style cartoons, with dogs in suits trying desperately to draw while burdened by exhaustion, sneezing fits, and a need to stay hydrated. The robots, of course, don’t face the same problems, and as the room fills up with them, one dog fights back.

Of course, unlike the story, there was no beating the tide of computer animation, making this a bizarre historical object and a hand-drawn crystal ball. Plus, it was nice of them to thank Brad Bird in the credits.

What will it cost? Only 4 minutes.

Skip Work. You’ve Got Time For More Short Films.