Film School Rejects » Movie Review

Review: Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire

Robert Levin — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:06:39 +0000

In Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire, director Lee Daniels pulls off an improbable feat. Within a grim world in which the worst of human behavior frequently manifests itself, Daniels and screenwriter Geoffrey Fletcher (using Sapphire’s source material) have created an authentic testament to the enduring powers of hope and the human spirit’s capacity to overcome. They’ve done so thanks to a fiercely intelligent performance by newcomer Gabourey ‘Gabby’ Sidibe, a compassionate eye for the circumstances surrounding their protagonist’s upbringing and a narrative that depicts misery but refuses to wallow in it.

Teenager Clareece “Precious” Jones (Sidibe) has suffered tremendously in her life. Twice impregnated by her father, terribly abused by her monstrous mother (Mo’Nique) and subject to unending harassment for being overweight, it’s a wonder she finds the strength to wake up each morning. Yet, she does. And when a kind teacher at school recommends an alternative educational program for her, she enrolls and finds there the opportunity to escape the bonds of her tormented upbringing.

The story unfolds in the everyday reality of the Harlem, circa 1987, that Precious inhabits and within her complex headspace, into which she disappears at the worst moments. Daniels renders the former in withdrawn, gritty visual tones that contrast with the richer colors of her fantasies of glamour and superstardom. The choice, and the regular transitions between the two universes, adds a depth to the picture that sets it apart from other depictions of urban malaise.

Understanding Precious the person is the key to understanding Precious the movie and the likely reason it’s proved such an unqualified success, both on the film festival circuit and at the box office. There’s developed a standard form for cinematic depictions of life in a city’s mean neighborhoods that — in its addiction to a formula of gun violence, hot rides, half dressed women and hip-hop infused soundtracks — has transformed a serious subject into a stultifying, chic cliché. In this picture, Daniels forgoes such accouterments, instead turning his focus to an individual that’d ordinarily exist on the periphery of such fare, as the butt of jokes.

It’s not hyperbole to suggest that the very act of taking Precious, a 350 pound black girl, seriously enough to center a film on her is one of great courage. Movies about women are frequently preoccupied by superficial beauty, emphasizing the so-called desirable appearance promulgated by our consumerist popular culture. Yet, this picture never condescends to Precious or her miserable situation. She’s not there to be laughed at, and though the dramatics between her and her mother are taken to a spectacularly heightened place, they’re rooted in the truths of the traumas of abuse.

At its core, Precious tells the story of a girl we’ve been trained to ignore. She seems to have nothing going for her, having faced an impossibly difficult, joyless life. Yet, Sidibe lets us in and reveals something very different. The actress imbues the character with dignity and strength. She holds herself high, keeps her cool and masters the art of reacting silently, communicating much while saying little. She shows us an individual who refuses to be broken, a person capable of acts of remarkable goodness and caring, dedicated to making a better life for herself and her children. Beaten down by her circumstances but never defeated, Precious needs someone, or something, to unlock her gifts and set her free. When that happens, when she derives a small sliver of happiness from her mountain of despair, the triumph feels earned, in a powerful way.

The Upside: The movie regards its unusual protagonist with enormous sympathy and insight. Lead actress Gabourey Sidibe is terrific, and director Lee Daniels has real vision.

The Downside: Occasionally, the grim circumstances of main character Precious’ life are so extreme they enter the realm of the absurd.

On the Side: Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry have both lent their support to the film as executive producers, and, through Friday, Box Office Mojo’s statistics had the film’s box office take at almost $14 million, an amazing haul.

Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon

Neil Miller — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:48:12 +0000

I was always taught that if you’re going to do something, you might as well do it right. And in my mind, there isn’t a more apt application for such a life theory than in the adaptation of popular novels into films. When you think about these popular literary franchise — many of whom have rabid fan bases — it is hard to imagine making a movie (or in this case, two) out of them that are subpar. As we’ve seen with the Harry Potter franchise, the key is to take the story from the books and build upon it. Find good actors, dazzle the fan base with great special effects and make the film’s accessible enough so that folks outside the fan base will be drawn in, and ultimately drawn into the world of the books as well. It’s a reverse method of getting people to read more — make the movies interesting enough, and folks will go after the rest of the story.

Not so with the Twilight franchise, at least not up to this point. With the release of New Moon, the second in a line of four films to be released by Summit Entertainment, the Twilight franchise has succeeded in doing only one thing: appeasing its built-in fan base. Which is sad, because such a rabid fan base deserves something better — something that will reach out to the rest of the world and invite others to see what they see. Sadly, this is not that case — and while its easy to say that some people just won’t “get” this operatic tale of love seen through the eyes of a teen girl, I would rather blame lazy filmmaking.

New Moon picks up where the first Twilight film left off, with Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson) locked in a heated, yet abstinent, love affair. But after a freak accident at Bella’s birthday party puts her life in danger, Edward leaves her in hopes of giving her a chance at a normal life — one that doesn’t involve brooding over a vampire. Left with emptiness in her heart, Bella weeps for Edward for several months, eventually emerging slightly from her depression to forge a new friendship with the constantly shirtless Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), a now-meaty friend who is going through a few odd changes himself. As Bella digs deeper into Jacob’s life, she soon finds out that he isn’t all that he seems either.

From there, we find out about the true nature of Jacob and his tribe and — spoiler alert — their sweet ancestry of being werewolves. At this point, director Chris Weitz sets in and delivers two of the few shining achievements of New Moon. One is the development of Jacob as a character, aided by a solid performance from Taylor Lautner. After a movie and a third of watching Bella with Edward, it is almost sweet to see her engaging with someone who might have some depth to them, even if he does turn into a giant wolf from time to time. As well, Weitz delivers a wolf-on-wolf action sequence during Bella’s discovery of the wolf pack that is quite awesome, and reminiscent of his crowning achievement in The Golden Compass, the epic polar bear fight scene. It was the only point in the film when New Moon was exciting, and not bogged down with slo-mo action or brooding, hollow shells of romantic archetypes.

The rest of the movie is about as moving and engaging as watching a 24-hour golf marathon on television, in French. Sure, there is something there if you’re really interested in it and you speak the language, but to anyone sitting on the outside it is just another surface-level romantic melodrama that is poorly paced. On top of that, the Twilight films (can’t speak for the books) give us two main characters who are increasingly difficult to like, let alone adore (let alone root for). Bella is a whiny, weak-willed character whose sole preoccupation is finding a man through which she can define herself, and Edward is a creepy 109-year old vampire who is trolling the high school halls for young girls.

On top of that, Robert Pattinson’s performance is excruciatingly stale. I get it, he’s playing a vampire who is supposed to be without emotion. But he’s also playing the exception to the rule, the vampire who falls madly in love with this beautiful human girl and will do anything and everything to keep her safe. There should be something beneath the surface, something added to Edward to make him feel like the exception — and in Pattinson’s incredibly hollow performance, we see none of that. The same can be said for Kristen Stewart, who delivers once again a performance that makes Bella feel like a caricature of an overly dramatic, perpetually confused teen. If she is to become an icon for young girls everywhere, then I weep for an entire generation.

Beyond character problems and failure to craft an engaging, purposefully paced narrative, New Moon mostly suffers from an insider baseball complex, in which the only folks who can truly engage in the story are those who have intimate previous knowledge of these characters, whether it’s from the first Twilight film or Stephenie Meyer’s series of books. This fact cripples the film’s ability to reach out beyond its core audience, leaving many an audience member confused, bewildered and downright bored.

But as someone who has seen both films and read enough of the books to know what it going on, I can tell you that the most disheartening thing about this film is that while its fan base will be satisfied with it — especially the hanging ending that feels tacked on — they really aren’t getting their fandom’s worth with these movies. There is a story within Stephenie Meyer’s books that could make for a good movie, and a method by which these movies could be accessible and engaging. It just seems as if Summit and their respective creative teams can’t find it. That said, thanks to the nature of the story (the added action of the werewolves and the rush to find Edward in Italy), director Chris Weitz has lucked out — and in turn he has found himself the director of a movie that, while not good in the least, is at least more engaging than Catherine Hardwicke’s first film. Should this trend continue, the infinitely more capable director David Slade may actually give us something worth watching with the next installment, Eclipse.

The Upside: It plays to the fans, and does have a few action scenes (mostly with the wolves) that are pretty fun to watch.

The Downside: Poorly structured, poorly paced, poorly executed CGI in places and characters that are unlikeable, despite the fact that we should be rooting for them. An inaccessible mess.

On the Side: Each member of the wolf pack had to have papers proving their Native decent. Spencer is Lakota (Sioux), Pelletier is Cree-Metis, Meraz is Purepecha (Tarasco), Gordon is Hualapai, and Houseman, who was discovered at an open casting call, is Cree.

Kevin Carr’s Weekly Report Card for 11.20.09

Kevin Carr — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:04:22 +0000

NEW MOON

Studio: Summit Entertainment

Rated: PG-13 for some violence and action.

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Ashley Greene and Jackson Rathbone

Directed by: Chris Weitz

What it’s about: The not-so-epic Twilight saga continues with Bella bellyaching about how much she wants to become a vampire. Edward realizes that if he sticks around, he (or someone in his family) will kill and eat her, so he leaves to find himself. Bella falls into a depression until the hunky Jacob Black becomes her BFF but, surprise surprise, he’s actually a werewolf. And Bella wants to know what this all means for her.

What I liked: The second half. Seriously, once the claws come out with the wolf pack and we later get to see the Volturi (i.e., the awesome Italian vampires), things really pick up. The film turns into less of a teenage angst fest and looks more like a vampire movie. Particularly with the Volturi, Michael Sheen mops the floor with the rest of the cast in terms of acting. Too bad he wasn’t in the entire movie.

As for the rest of this film, there are some significant improvements on last year’s Twilight, the main elements being the make-up and the special effects. The vampires don’t just look like they’re padded down with baby powder, and the werewolves are pretty cool, even if they are blindingly obvious CGI models.

What I didn’t: The first half. Jesus Christ on a freaking crutch, could that Bella Swan be more pathetic. If I had been watching this movie on television, I would have turned it off in the first hour. In the beginning, she constantly nags Edward to make her a vampire. Then she cuts her finger and holds it up in front of the vampires, innocently saying, “It’s just a little blood.” Then she hits depression mode the likes of which has never been seen in a film, complete with alienating her friends, staying bedridden for months on end and waking up screaming about how much it hurts her heart. I found myself wishing a 60s-era Connery James Bond would walk in and smack her around a bit just to get on with the show.

With that said, if you’re going to have a lesser half of a film, better make it the first half. But still, I’d find myself so much more into the Twilight saga if we just got rid of Bella and Edward stopped being such a douche. Team Jacob all the way, people!

Who is gonna like this movie: Twi-hards, Twi-moms and their dates who want to get laid.

PLANET 51

Studio: TriStar Pictures

Rated: PG for mild sci-fi action and some suggestive humor.

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Jessica Biel, Justin Long, Gary Oldman and Seann William Scott

Directed by: Jorge Blanco

What it’s about: An alien world that inexplicably emulates 1950s America is wrapped up in paranoia about an invasion of brain-sucking extraterrestrial are shocked when an American astronaut lands in their back yard… and the hilarity ensues (or at least it should, in a perfect world).

What I liked: The concept is actually pretty funny, even though the film completely botches it. The animation is decent, although the bulbous aliens don’t quite work from a design concept level. But hey, they’re worlds better than the talking termites in Delgo.

Oh, and my kids really liked it, which is really the target market, after all.

What I didn’t: To make a good movie, you need a good plot and good characters. Planet 51 delivers neither of these. There’s a randomness to the entire film, throwing jokes at the screen that never quite stick. Dwayne Johnson slathers on the cheese in a role that makes me long for the January release of The Tooth Fairy.

The story is a real stretch. I get the idea to turn 50s paranoia on its ear, but even in the context of an animated movie, it’s a real stretch. Apparently the astronaut doesn’t realize that the planet has life because the roving robot sent as a scout only collected rocks. Yeah… that barely works even for a cartoon.

And speaking of the roving robot, when it decides to bond with one of the aliens, it looks like it’s humping him to death. That’s an awkward moment with your kids in an animated movie.

Who is gonna like this movie: Kids… and that’s about it.

THE BLIND SIDE

Studio: Warner Bros.

Rated: PG-13 for one scene involving brief violence, drug and sexual references.

Starring: Sandra Bullock, Kathy Bates, Tim McGraw, Ray McKinnon and Quinton Aaron

Directed by: John Lee Hancock

What it’s about: Michael Oher is a homeless teen in Memphis who is taken in by a wealthy white family. They eventually adopt him and help him bring his grades up enough that he can play football. This is the true story of Oher, who is now a player for the Baltimore Ravens.

What I liked: It might seem like a back-handed compliment to say that I didn’t hate this movie, but it’s an accurate statement. This movie was something I was dreading from the moment I saw that trailers, but the film itself isn’t as melodramatic as the trailers lead on. It is an inspirational story, and it’s a feel-good movie. For the most part, it manages to achieve this without being too schmaltzy.

The acting is pretty good, with Sandra Bullock pulling off the rich, southern mom. Too bad she kinda steals the show from Oher’s character.

What I didn’t: There’s no doubt about it… The Blind Side is a button pusher. Sometimes, these buttons are pushed a little too deliberately and it becomes a little shameless in this respect. Some of the scenes of Bullock’s sassiness are over the top and less than believable, but who am I to judge Hollywood’s retelling of a true story.

If you’re hoping for a big football movie, you’ll be disappointed. The story hits certain elements of football, but that’s only about 25 percent of the film. But that doesn’t stop it from giving some gratuitous ego boosts to known college coaches and recruiters.

Who is gonna like this movie: Inspirational sports movie junkies.

PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL “PUSH” BY SAPPHIRE

Studio: Lionsgate

Rated: R for child abuse including sexual assault, and pervasive language.

Starring: Gabourey ‘Gabby’ Sidibe, Mo’Nique, Paula Patton, Mariah Carey, Sherri Shepherd and Lenny Kravitz

Directed by: Lee Daniels

What it’s about: Clarisse “Precious” Jones is an overweight, illiterate teenager in 1987 Harlem who is pregnant with her father’s child. She is kicked out of school for being pregnant and, against the advice of her caustic mother, joins a tutoring program so she can get her GED.

What I liked: This movie does have a good message and it will inspire its viewers. We’ve all heard the critics in this country stampeding to the chance to give the movie a glowing review. It’s good, but it’s a victim of its own hype at times.

The stand-out parts of this movie come from the performances of Gabourey ‘Gabby’ Sidibe as the title character. Other roles are given more hype right now, but let’s not take away Sidibe’s work on the movie. She does a great job in her role, and she deserves her accolades.

Mariah Carey has been given some kudos for her underplayed role as a social worker, but it is Mo’Nique who shines as the evil mother that allows abuse to happen to her daughter.

What I didn’t: Our illustrious executive editor Neil Miller has referred to this movie as “poverty porn,” and he’s absolutely right. There’s more social issues in this movie than a very special episode of any given 80s sit-com. About two-thirds through the movie, another social issue bomb is dropped on Precious, and I literally rolled my eyes. All we need now is for Somali pirates to be written into the film, and we’d have it all covered.

One other problem with this movie… where were all the psychic warriors? I thought this was Push!

Who is gonna like this movie: Anyone who has ever considered joining an Oprah book club.

Review: The Messenger

Robert Levin — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:56:27 +0000

The Messenger understands a fundamental truth of warfare: It always has two fronts, and many of the most important battles are fought without weapons and explosions. The picture takes place during the Iraq War, but the conflict it depicts is not between men with guns, or governments with agendas. First-time director Oren Moverman, a veteran screenwriter who wrote this one with Alessandro Camon, looks beyond the headlines in his depiction of the conflict and finds its core not in deserts thousands of miles away, but in the quiet streets and quaint living rooms that dot the American home front.

His protagonists have been given what’s deemed by many to be the worst job in the U.S. Army. Staff sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) and Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) are casualty notification officers, charged with reporting deaths overseas to next of kin. They’re the men every military family member doesn’t want to see, the nameless figures that pull up in a flash, report the worst of news and are gone. It’s a grim duty, and it’s one that has to this point been largely ignored by popular depictions of American military life.

Moverman understands the deep, powerful struggle that must accompany such constant grappling with death. He and Camon create characters with disparate methods for handling their job — Stone keeps his distance, Montgomery gets involved with a widow (Samantha Morton) and her stepson. What the men share, and what the filmmaker so powerfully evokes, is a profound helplessness, a sense of total inadequacy born out of the realization that there’s nothing they can do to prevent their endless round of tragic house calls. Stone disguises it with a blustery, comical demeanor and Montgomery broods in silence, but it’s there and over the course of the picture it slowly eats away at whatever shred of dignity they’ve retained.

The employment of a vérité approach spurred by the liberal use of handheld cameras lets the actors inhabit their characters with a rare totality of being. By frequently bringing things in close, emphasizing their stiff physicality, relying on periodic improvisation and valuing the lost art of the monologue, the filmmaker transforms the picture from an observational portrait into a work that truly lives and breathes alongside Montgomery and Stone. Moverman emphasizes their development over the advancement of a superficial plot. He trusts his terrific lead actors to imbue both the dialogue heavy scenes and the quieter moments with the fullness necessary to sustain audience interest. Harrelson, Foster and Morton reward his gamble.

Much has been written about the current conflict’s unsuitability as a film subject. Audiences, it’s said, want escapism from cinema and nothing more. The Messenger, which so successfully harkens back to a very different era of empathetic character driven storytelling, ought to challenge that thesis.

To Montgomery, Stone and their ilk politics don’t matter. Men and women live and die by the metaphoric sword somewhere else. In many respects, they face the most challenging burden of all. Left to sit and wait for bad news from abroad, there’s little to do but stew in their own guilt and helplessness, hoping like hell to make the best of a bad situation they can’t control. Army protocol, which teaches them to keep everything to themselves and avoid reaching out as humans to the fathers, mothers, sons and daughters they contact, only makes things worse.

However, The Messenger is more than the downbeat story of miserable people living miserable lives. In the deep friendships that form over the course of the picture, in the union of three hearts brought together by shared pain, it serves as a genuinely hopeful account of the small personal victories that can happen in a very different sort of combat: That between the heart and what Shakespeare called “the grief that does not speak.”

The Upside: The acting and directing are terrific; the screenplay is intelligent and deeply moving.

The Downside: Occasional slowness. That’s about it.

On the Side: Woody Harrelson has said in multiple interviews that the process of making this movie gave him a deeper appreciation of the sacrifices soldiers make than he’d ever had before.

Kevin Carr’s Weekly Report Card for 11.13.09

Kevin Carr — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:50:39 +0000

2012

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Rated: PG-13 for intense disaster sequences and some language.

Starring: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson and Danny Glover

Directed by: Roland Emmerich

What it’s about: The Mayans predicted it, and now Woody Harrelson is calling out for Armageddon. Some think the end of the world will come on December 21, 2012, and Roland Emmerich has now made a movie about it. John Cusack, Amanda Peet and Chiwetel Ejiofor try to escape crumbling freeways, giant tsunamis and disastrous volcanoes.

What I liked: There are certain directors that make utter crap, but I love none-the-less. Along with Brett Ratner, Paul W.S. Anderson and Renny Harlin, Roland Emmerich is one of these. Let’s face it, no one destroys the world like this guy, and he reminds us with 2012 that he is the master of disaster.

Like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, the reason to see 2012 is for the special effects. Emmerich has five years of digital effects progress on his last disaster epic, The Day After Tomorrow, and every bit of it is on the screen. It’s just an orgy of destruction and, as morbid as it is to watch, it’s a hell of a lot of fun.

What I didn’t: As much of a glutton Emmerich is for his disaster footage, he’s also a glutton for his own characters and dialogue. This comes through in the running time, which tops off at more than 2 1/2 hours. There’s really no excuse for this much exposition because no one is going to remember this film for the characters or what they say.

The characters are utterly forgettable, with the exception of Woody Harrelson who is like Art Bell on crack. Sadly, he’s only in a small part of this movie. The rest of the relatively decent cast is left to deliver melodramatic dialogue in the down time between the shit-your-pants awesome action.

This movie is silly, yes, but fun. It would have been better with a more gutsy editor.

Who is gonna like this movie: Disaster movie fanatics and CGI hounds.

FANTASTIC MR. FOX

Studio: Fox Searchlight

Rated: PG for action, smoking and slang humor.

Starring: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray and Wally Wolodarsky

Directed by: Wes Anderson

What it’s about: Wes Anderson brings Roald Dahl’s classic novel to life with the brave choice of stop-motion animation. George Clooney stars as Mr. Fox, a bird hunter who settles down as a writer, husband and father. Craving the golden days, Mr. Fox sets his sights on the farms of Boggis, Bunce and Bean to steal their food and cider, incurring the farmers’ wrath. Mr. Fox hides his family but makes a brave attempt to fight back.

What I liked: I dearly love Wes Anderson’s movies, and this movie did not disappoint as well. Having read the book as a child, I didn’t remember much of the story, but as the film played out, it all came back to me. Roald Dahl has a great grasp of the quirk, and Anderson gives his own take on that. It’s a perfect blend of the two artists’ styles.

The voice cast is great, and this is where we see much of Anderson’s odd style. The choice of stop-motion animation was great because it gives a rustic alternative to the now-standard CGI flick.

Our illustrious executive editor Neil Miller has said that this is probably Wes Anderson’s most mainstream film, and he’s absolutely right. Using the animation makes the film more accessible to the mainstream and kids as well. It’s still on the fringe, but that’s part of its charm.

What I didn’t: The only real problem with this movie is that it takes a few minutes to get used to. The animation is rough but charming, and the voice cast isn’t necessarily what you’d expect. Give it ten minutes, and you should love it.

Who is gonna like this movie: Kids and fans of Wes Anderson and Roald Dahl.

Review: 2012

Rob Hunter — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:29:07 +0000

You know how movies with ticking bombs almost always have the climactic scene where the good guys work feverishly to disarm the explosives before they detonate? They’re sweating and frantic, the music is pumping, the countdown clock is only a second or two away from zero, and… they deactivate the bomb right before it would have exploded. Timer stops at 00:00:01. Everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The end.

Roland Emmerich’s 2012 is twenty-seven of those scenes stretched across two and a half hours.

It’s 2009 (that’s right, it’s now!), and a young Indian scientist notifies his American counterpart that evil neutrinos from the Sun are heating up the Earth’s core at an alarming rate. Dr. Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) rushes back to Washington and warns his superiors that the world is heading towards an unavoidable, Emmerichian event that will “cause life as we know it to cease to exist.” As the Earth gets hotter, the crust will begin to liquefy and eventually the landmasses will start shifting around the globe like a game of seven-continent Monty. The president’s head science geek, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), takes Helmsley under his wing and… we jump ahead to 2012 where Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is running late for work. He’ll spend the next two hours running late for everything, and all the while death will be nipping at his heels.

And I don’t use the phrase “nipping at his heels” flippantly either… Curtis moves from one set-piece to the next just barely escaping death each time. If you’ve watched the trailer then you’ve already seen some of his close calls. He outruns cracks in the Earth with his limo, he outruns fireballs with his Winnebago, he outruns an enormous fire-filled explosion on foot, he outruns deadly smoke clouds, collapsing buildings, and falling subway trains (?) with a plane… always by inches, always by seconds. Each. And. Every. Time. And he’s not alone either. All of the characters marked as survivors (always easily identifiable in an Emmerich disaster film) continuously escape death’s computer animated talons with barely a moment to spare. It’s exciting the first dozen times or so, but eventually the suspense grows tedious and the scenes become as pedestrian as a shot of someone getting up to change the TV channel.

Almost as common and egregious as the nick-of-time escapes are the sheer number of coincidences required to bring the story together. Curtis wrote a science fiction book a long time ago that only a few hundred people have ever read (we know this because it gets repeated four times), so now he drives limousines for a living. One of his biggest fans is Dr. Helmsley, something we discover when the two meet by chance in Yellowstone National Park while Curtis is camping with his kids and Helmsley is there monitoring the world’s largest inactive volcano for activity! The doctor’s entourage includes armed soldiers which piques Curtis’ curiosity, but the government isn’t very forthcoming with more information. Luckily, Yellowstone also happens to be home to radio host/conspiracy theorist Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) who meets Curtis and happily fills in all of the blanks! He even offers a map to humanity’s only chance for survival, a map that leads to the same mysterious destination Helmsley is bound for. But how will Curtis get there? Hmm, maybe it has something to do with his most recent limo client, a wealthy Russian with plans to be among the .01% of humanity who survive this cataclysm. What are the odds…?

Emmerich is perhaps best-known for his subtle handling of character emotions and relationships. That was a pretty bold lie wasn’t it? You probably read it with a much straighter face than I wrote it too. But seriously, these characters wear their plastic emotions on their sleeves and pant legs to an extraordinary degree. They make heartfelt speeches at the drop of a building about the value and definition of humanity, and every single one of them makes a tearful phone call to a doomed love one (unless they themselves are the doomed one). Each time it’s played for maximum emotional effect and each time it falls flat. And for some reason it’s also only the dads who seem to care enough to make this last minute call. There’s a father who drifted apart from his son, a father who stopped speaking to his son because he married a (very hot) Japanese woman, a father who raised his daughter single-handedly after his wife passed away… I don’t recall a single mother calling her child to say goodbye. That may or may not say something about German women, I don’t know.

But let’s be honest, this is a Roland Emmerich film so does any of this really matter (or surprise anyone)? You don’t come to his films for the character development and nuance, you come for destruction on an epic scale. And 2012 does not disappoint on that front. Emmerich destroys more buildings, vehicles, and landmarks here than he has in all of his previous films, and he does it beautifully. Emmerich lets his camera (and our eyes) linger on the utter decimation for extended periods of time too. He doesn’t use close crops or Michael Bay-style editing to appease the ADD crowd and instead trusts in the work of his digital artists. One shot flies over a neighborhood as streets open up and swallow houses, cars, and people alike, and it’s a definite ‘wow’ scene. And there are actually several more like it, all equally impressive. The downside is that you often have too much to look at. I know, it’s a weak complaint, but some of the wide shots actually give you too much to take in making the overall effect feel muted.

Emmerich also kills more people onscreen in 2012 than probably every other film released this year combined. Unnamed humans are crushed, burned, drowned, trampled, blown up, run over, washed away, swallowed up by the Earth… the scene where the plane narrowly avoids two collapsing buildings by flying between them has upset some people for it’s supposed 9/11 connotations, and that was just from the trailer. The film pushes the visual connection even further as Emmerich zooms closer to one of the towers and shows people clinging for their life and falling to their deaths. There’s an argument to be made about films like these deserving an R-rating simply due to the sheer amount of death and carnage depicted onscreen, or maybe that should just be reserved for movies that use dirty words.

There are no shortage of recognizable faces amongst the death, destruction, and melodrama. Cusack is obviously the biggest name, and I can’t help but picture him standing in his agent’s office laughing at the script for 2012 he’s holding in one hand while keeping a curious eye on his potential paycheck in the other. Aside from the others already mentioned, Cusack is joined in his quest to save humanity by George Segal (Carbon Copy) as a seafaring jazz singer, Thandie Newton (Mission: Impossible II) as the U.S. President’s daughter, Stephen McHattie (Pontypool) as a futuristic ship’s captain, Danny Glover (Gone Fishin’) as Thandie Newton’s father, Amanda Peet (”Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip”) as Curtis’ ex-wife, and Beverly Elliot (Walking Tall) as Cruise Ship Lady #3.

2012 is exactly what you think it is, and either you enjoy Emmerich’s particular brand of mass slaughter or you don’t. The dialogue is as lactose-filled as a sedan-sized cheese wheel, the science is wonky, the logic is absent, the characters are one dimensional, their fates are predictable, the film is probably thirty minutes too long… and it still manages to look pretty damn amazing from beginning to end. The CGI work here is often stunning, occasionally breathtaking, and constantly offering impressive visuals to leave you slack-jawed. High praise? Not really, but for a brainless, effects-driven blockbuster film you could definitely do somewhat worse than 2012.

The Upside: As you’d expect from Emmerich… the effects and devastation are awe-inspiring, the laughs are frequent and often unintentional, and the dog lives

The Downside: As you’d also expect from Emmerich… the dialogue is aurally abusive, the emotional manipulation is blatant and flagrant, the adherence to real-world physics is non-existent, the screenplay consists of coincidence followed by CGI event followed by coincidence followed by CGI event and so on, and the dog lives

On the Side: Of all the unanswered questions you’re left with at the end of 2012, none are more mysterious than the reasoning behind Cusack’s character name. Jackson Curtis? You know what that spells backwards? 50 Cent. Craaaazy!

Watch the 2012 trailer below:

Review: Pirate Radio

Dr. Cole Abaius — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:11:26 +0000

If you know me personally, or read anything I write, you know that I worship the 1960s and the music of the time. I grew up behind the seat belt of my dad’s Chevy Silverado, driving around town with the Oldies station blaring out songs about Brown Sugar tasting so good, My Guitar Gently weeping, and People Trying to put down my father’s generation. I fell in love with grinding guitars, amps that never worked quite right, and the homemade sound of just trying to be louder and more soulful than the guys who were just on stage.

As if it were really hard to impress me when a soundtrack includes some of the coolest Rock ‘n’ Roll of the mid-60s, Pirate Radio (aka The Boat That Rocked) goes far beyond the Whiter Shade of Pale in order to build an irreverent story that captures the (romanticized) spirit of the time and become one of the funniest comedies of the year.

With Britain still refusing to play Rock on the airwaves, the explosion of American and British bands finds a home out at sea where free-spirited jockeys spread the peace, love, sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll.

It’s difficult to talk about the film without just doing an overview of the characters because each and every one fits together like a puzzle piece coming together to form a very fuzzy image. There’s The Count (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), the lone American who seems like an optimistic cowboy version of Hoffman’s character back in Almost Famous; Doctor Dave (Nick Frost), the big and beautiful sex-obsessed prankster; Quentin (Bill Nighy), the calmly insane captain and business man behind the whole endeavor; Simon (Chris O’Dowd), the unsure puppy dog looking for true love; Young Carl (Tom Sturridge), who’s sent to the ship in a foolish attempt to set him on the straight and narrow; Thick Kevin (Tom Brooke), who is not smart; Felicity (Katherine Parkinson), the sweet, lone woman who we’re constantly reminded is a lesbian; Midnight Mark (Tom Wisdom), the sexiest man who barely says anything even on the air; Bob (Ralph Brown), the Deadhead, bearded wastoid; and Gavin (Rhys Ifans) the savior of them all as the most famous DJ at the time. Not to mention a few side characters on the boat that deliver the news or run the equipment. And the slew of girls that are delivered by ferry bi-monthly.

That list long enough? Luckily, writer/director Richard Curtis tosses them all in a room together to create the sort of frenetic, Animal House-esque energy of people truly not giving a shit. They get their jobs done because they are in love with music, and their down time is spent working out differences large and small with childish solutions mixed with some genuine compassion. Of course, they broadcast it all as a sort of proto-reality show where a nation of devoted listeners jam out all night and live vicariously on a ship of fools – experiencing the sex and fun while riding the radio waves.

To put it simply: this film is a hell of a lot of fun.

And, in a year that hasn’t had a ton of great comedies (except a few), it’s a welcome change of pace that really hits the laugh lines hard, refusing to give into dramatics even while disaster is striking.

In fact, the buzzkill moments that could have been involve Sir Alistair Dormandy (Kenneth Branagh), the MP who is trying to outlaw the pirates throughout the entire film. He’s a polished, mustache-ringing Snidely Whiplash of government who is played for laughs and finds himself at the butt-end of the joke in almost every scene. Especially when he’s getting the upper hand. The fact that his scenes are some of the funniest in the movie despite the noted lack of chaos in them is a testament to Curtis creating a character that is just a few inches deeper than a cliche – a man who we can sympathize with mildly, but hate with the flippant hand wave of apathy. He’s not a villain so much as someone you really just want to piss off so we can have our music.

The film is perfectly balanced – one story about a man threatening to kill fun, and the story those scenes cut to where a group of rebels live it up on a boat. There’s also love, family issues, and a certain amount of coming-of-age (exactly the kinds that you’d expect from Richard Curtis, actually), and they all fill in the gaps that otherwise would have sunk the ship as a meaningless display of frivolity without an anchor. Luckily, Curtis has made a kind of movie that hasn’t been seen in a long time – a film that is happy to build serious and sweet moments, and equally happy to knock them right off the pedestal in a clever way. It’s called comedy, and it’s nice to have it back.

If there is a rough patch, it’s that some of the sequences don’t quite gel in context with one another. At least, not without really digging into the mindset of free love and truly living care free. It’s granted some leeway for solving hard problems with a wink and smile, but Curtis does get away with too much of it in one or two sections that almost seem unnecessary.

Despite the cast being overstuffed, everyone works together, sharing the spotlight and laugh lines in equal measure. There are no punchline hogs here, no stars attempting to out-scenery-chew, no dominant figures. Several characters are given more to work with, but ultimately, some of the funniest stuff come from characters I had difficulty remembering the names for. People with only 10 lines or so.

Over all, the film is undeniably hilarious. It’s dry, but not inaccessible, with a story that’s only heartfelt when it has to be, a cast that’s brilliant when they need to be, and a writer/director that guides the whole thing toward side-splitting success.

Not to mention ear-drum-splitting success.

The Upside: Great characters, great directing, great story, and a classic-style comedy. And that damned perfect soundtrack.

The Downside: A few moments that seem unnecessary, and a few dramatic solutions that don’t perfectly fly.

On the Side: Jack Davenport plays a man called Twatt in it, and apparently Dormandy’s secretary was originally meant to be called Ms. Clit.

Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Robert Levin — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:10:00 +0000

Fantastic Mr. Fox marks the first time Wes Anderson, that connoisseur of whimsy, has worked with animation. If the switch required an adjustment it’s hard to tell. From the use of slow-motion to Alexandre Desplat’s jaunty soundtrack the world of this stop-motion adaptation of Roald Dahl’s children’s classic looks and feels a lot like the offbeat ones of The Darjeeling Limited, The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore.

It’s no small achievement that it does so while telling the story of a fox named Mr. Fox (George Clooney) who lives with his wife Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) and son Ash (Jason Schwartzman) in a tree and turns to espionage in a quest to combat three evil farmers. In the wrong hands, Dahl’s work could be prone to the strenuous prettifying and overt moralizing that are so often byproducts of family productions. Anderson goes the opposite direction, applying a deadpan tenor to the author’s mischievous spirit.

His movie functions as a classically structured nostalgic adventure, a full-fledged depiction of a unique community and an affectionate exploration of manliness and alienation. The film falls short when it comes to provoking sufficient pathos — the lightheartedness and other characteristic Anderson affectations occasionally make things feel too processed. Yet, it’s consistently a lot of fun to watch and entirely unlike any of its counterparts.

The animation forgoes frills for a rudimentary style comparable to that employed on King Kong and other pioneering stop-motion works. No attempt’s been made to disguise the process — fur flickers, mouths move quickly and not always in sync with what’s being said and there’s a lack of fluidity to the changes in shots. The filmmaker evidently treasures the sensibilities of animation that dared to be animation and not a close, computer generated approximation of reality.

At the same time, Anderson took his voice cast to real locations and asked them to interact with one another, in a break from the individualized recording studio tradition. That effect, when combined with the casual anthromorphic qualities bestowed upon Mr. Fox and the other animals, imbues the picture with a realistic feel that adds texture to the characters and their dilemmas. Their big, expressive eyes, and Anderson’s emphasis of them, transform the foxes and the other animals from manufactured creations to soulful beings. Their animalistic side only shows when they hurriedly devour their food, bite the necks of live chickens or get in the occasional growling, scratching fight. Mostly, one gets the sense throughout that Clooney, Streep and the rest of the ensemble are acting, not just giving voice to someone else’s vision.

The flick turns, as do all Anderson films, on various forms of anxiety — particularly Mr. Fox’s existential crisis as he faces old age and Ash’s teenage jealousy of dashing cousin Kristofferson (Eric Anderson) — and the tribulations of a lacking parent-child relationship. Yet the filmmaker saves time for fun, with large yellow letters announcing the various stages of Mr. Fox’s various schemes. The battle between the underdog animals and Boggis, Bunce and Bean, the mean farmers sick of the foxes stealing their chickens, unfolds with a quirky carefree spirit that recalls the tenor of an older age of animation. It’s never taken particularly seriously — Mr. Fox is usually armed with a quip of some sort and his accomplices tend to be rather dimwitted, though there is opposing them a darkly lit, jailbird rat voiced by Willem Dafoe that adds some much needed menace.

Still another reason to see Fantastic Mr. Fox is to marvel at its vision of a yellow and orange hued world of warm cottages, sweeping landscapes and long, sterile underground industrial corridors. It’s a compact, completely fleshed out universe, enhanced immeasurably by careful lighting and a wealth of background details. It feels like the perfect place for Wes Anderson characters to inhabit.

The movie stands out in large part because the filmmaker has so successfully applied his trademark style and sensibility to this new form. Anderson’s success raises the intriguing question of how well other live-action directors might invigorate animation by staying true to their interests and never succumbing to the technology involved. He’s shown the way. It’s time for someone else to assume the mantle.

The Upside: The movie functions exactly like a live-action film for adults; Wes Anderson hasn’t compromised his vision for animation.

The Downside: Like many of Anderson’s films, it’s occasionally too mannered and self-consciously whimsical.

On the Side: The movie is one of the 20 eligible for the five Best Animated Feature slots at the upcoming Academy Awards and it’ll likely snag a nomination.

Watch the Fantastic Mr. Fox trailer below:

Review: The Box

Dr. Cole Abaius — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:16:42 +0000

I can’t imagine that adapting a short story that’s already been adapted into an episode of “The Twilight Zone,” and attempting to extend it into a feature length is an easy task. Especially when the original story has that built-in single-note ethical spin that seemed perfect for Serling and company to weave into their morality tales. There was a chance that Richard Kelly could have built a huge framework for The Box around a single ominous punchline. A chance. But to no avail.

A mysterious stranger named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) delivers a box to the doorstep of Norma and Arthur Lewis (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) and gives them the opportunity to push a button that will kill someone they don’t know and earn them a tax-free million.

The central premise of the film is a fairly fascinating moral question of how much another person’s life is worth and what lengths you’d go to set your finances in order. But that heavy lifting was really done when author Richard Matheson wrote the story in the first place. In fact, most of the heavy lifting of this film comes not from Richard Kelly, but from either the source material or the original episode. Adding onto the pile, Kelly creates a longer narrative about a middle class couple that spends too much money, drives a really, really nice car, and can’t afford to send their child to private school anymore on discount.

If it seems like I have little sympathy for their situation, you probably won’t either.

And really, without that sympathy – without a true question of what depths one would have to go to before they take someone else’s life – the rest of the story falls pretty flat.

It also falls flat because the acting from Cameron Diaz is about as good as a regional theater actress stumbling her way through a Tennessee Williams play. Her southern accent is atrocious and she delivers almost every line with a incredible lack of emotion. On the other end of the spectrum is Frank Langella who places a quiet, business-like creepiness (even if his CGI scarring helps him sometimes and hurts him in others) onto the table next his diabolical box. Marsden is also a stand out, a great actor in a good role who is only hampered occasionally from some flowery dialog that even he seems to get sick at the sound of.

I also feel compelled to mention the score because of just how incredibly beautiful it is. It’s strange and experimental, beautiful and haunting, but it doesn’t belong anywhere this movie. Even as transcendent as it is, it plunks down into inappropriate times during scenes that almost give a Ba-Bum-Bum! quality to some of the dramatics.

On the whole, the moments before the button-pushing question is answered aren’t played to much intensity. Neither is the rest of the film. It’s also a mess in the same way that plagues all of Kelly’s work and it could use a keen editing knife to help it make more sense. However, unlike Donnie Darko, Kelly seems desperate to overexplain and infantalize his audience. He comes off as if he believes he’s the first person to ever understand his primer on Sartre – the directorial version of the kid waving his hand in the back of your philosophy class just a little too desperate to prove he knows the answer. He achieves this hand-waving through far too many scenes of exposition for things which come naturally out of the context (and even repeats some of the exposition or has random characters enter a scene solely to ask a question that will lead to more exposition and then dip back off-camera only to be seen as “NASA Worker #2″ or “Reporter in back of room” in the credits).

Without those moments, and with some far better acting from the lead, the movie could have been a great, strange entry. Instead, it ends up being fairly tedious with some weird moments that work sincerely and others that really add nothing to the story or the characters (like an abandoned chance at salvation, and a moment where a character is in one place and then another through the magic of editing).

While it seems natural for any movie or story with a moral question at its center to leave audiences discussing the conundrum afterwards, my friends and I stood around in the lobby instead questioning whether or not we should have bothered going to see The Box in the first place.

The Upside: Some good performances from Marsden and Langella, and several scenes that are really rewarding.

The Downside: A muddled story that doesn’t line up, a score that doesn’t line up, and a director who can’t be esoteric without attempting to let you know what he means.

On the Side: Richard Matheson is still alive, so he can watch it!

Review: ‘The Fourth Kind’ Should’ve Been Narrated By Robert Stack

Brian Salisbury — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:20:50 +0000

With the Saw films firmly on the ice flow of sequels toward apocalypse, the question I keep coming back to is, “where are horror films going to go from here?” Saw, and its subsequent imitators, satisfied the bloodlust of modern horror audiences for a time, but the cycle of desensitization continues and if horror films are no longer striving to gross out the public, it is once again time for them to break new ground. It appears that horror is now targeting the fourth wall to achieve that purpose and The Fourth Kind champions the concept.

It strikes me as appropriate that this film should be released on the heels of the sensational Paranormal Activity. Both are movies that attempt to breakdown that invisible barrier of disbelief that detaches an audience from the terror on screen. Both claim to be based on a true story which, again, eliminates that safety net of it being “just a movie”. But The Fourth Kind takes even that idea to the next level by actually incorporating video and audio recordings from the actual incident into the fictionalized account starring Milla Jovovich and Will Patton. They are working so hard to blur the line between fiction and reality that there are literally moments when the line in the split screen dividing the two segments wanders to and fro. I have to admit, at first I scoffed at this concept. When Milla comes out at the beginning and informs us what we are about to see is both real and very disturbing, I thought I smelled the distinct aroma of a William Castle gimmick. To me, it felt like someone had finally found a way to adapt a segment of “Unsolved Mysteries” into a film. I actually kept waiting for the disembodied spirit of Robert Stack to pop up and narrate the events while standing next to a creepy streetlight.

But the fact is that the images in The Fourth Kind are among the most disturbing that I have ever seen. The film is about a psychologist who is convinced that several of her patients have been victims of alien abduction. They all report eerily similar symptoms and they are all having trouble sleeping though they don’t know why. Under hypnosis, they become shockingly unstable and exhibit a level of panic and fear like I have never seen. It’s actually in the hypnosis scenes, where we get to see the footage of the “actual” patients where the freakiest shit occurs. It was kind of like Paranormal Activity meets Signs, so do with that what you will. All I know is that, even as I sit and remember these moments, the hairs on my arms are standing at attention. I found it inescapably haunting and chilling like few other horror films can deliver.

I fear that people are going to get bogged down in the debate over how much of the footage is actually genuine and, indeed, if this entire story is fabricated. Personally, I think it’s completely inconsequential to the experience of the film. I honestly don’t believe the footage we are seeing is authentic, there are lines of dialogue that completely negate that, but that didn’t prevent me from sitting slack-jawed and bug-eyed at what I was seeing. In fact, I think one of the big problems with this film is how staunchly it proclaims to be real. The movie tries so hard to convince you it is legit, but then shoots down its own credibility with bad dialogue and a hoaky credit sequence featuring actual yokels calling 911 to report UFO’s. Riveting, if stupid. I think the film would have done better to tone down their assertions and let the audience decide how much they want to believe (even though the last line Milla speaks is “what you choose to believe is up to you). No Milla, don’t pretend you are giving us a choice after cramming picture-in-picture “evidence” down our throats.

The Fourth Kind is a solid film with some great scares and horrifying images. If the story is true, then it definitely deserved to be told. If this is all in the name of meta-horror, then we can still appreciate the artistry that went into crafting such a badass film. If nothing else, this will make you realize that anal probes are not the scariest part of alien abduction. Cue the “X-Files” theme.

The Upside: Really disturbing images that will prompt the perfect level of fright.

The Downside: Really should have just been a fake documentary; the facile assertion that it is a true story will be its downfall.

On the Side: The film’s producers went so far as to insert references to Dr. Tyler, who never existed, into websites such as the “Alaska Psychiatric Journal”. This film out Blair Witches The Blair Witch Project.

A Christmas Carol: ‘Twas a Spiritless Affair, Indeed

Brian Salisbury — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:03:11 +0000

Movies have supremely warped my conception of time. No longer do I judge the fragments of the year in terms of trite notions of spring, summer, fall and winter. Instead my calendar is notated with marketing strategies of major studios. For example, the beginning of the year is award season, followed by a dumping ground, followed by the blockbusters, another dumping ground, horrorween, and finally holiday season. Having just hurdled horrorween relatively unscathed, we find ourselves staring down the barrel of a number of films ready to bank on the inescapable jubilance of the next two months. For me, this is the cinematic season that garners the highest level of concern. The thing is there are very few holiday films that I watch on a regular basis that were released after 1987. Elf would be an exception to that block given that I find it to be a pitch perfect holiday film that captures the child-like wonder of the season and is destined to be a classic. But for every Elf or Love Actually we’ve gotten over the last decade, we’ve had to suffer through a dozen Christmas with the Cranks and a smattering of Jingle All the Way’s. So when I found out that Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol was getting yet another film adaptation, I cringed. However when I heard it was going to be an animated, 3-D spectacle directed by Robert Zemeckis, my interest was officially piqued.

I am not going to waste time describing the plot of this film because if you don’t know it by now, I have serious cause to doubt your status as a citizen of Earth; you goddamned toaster! Sufficed to say, there are elements in this particular adaptation that are more faithful to Dickens’ classic unseen in most versions. Jim Carrey steps into the role of Ebenezer Scrooge while the supporting cast is stacked with some truly fine actors: Robin Wright-Penn, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, and Gary Oldman. Oh, and Carey Elwes is also in this. I am also not going to judge the optical quality of the 3-D because I believe the theater in which I saw it did not offer the best environment for full appreciation. I just don’t think it would be an objective analysis.

Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol is a mess. I’m sorry to write those words. It’s a rehashing of something we’ve seen time and time again…for the most part. As I mentioned before, there are elements included that offer a more honest interpretation of Dickens, but while that is respectable, it also destroys the pacing and flow of the film. I applaud Zemeckis (who also adapted the story for the screen) for including the more horrific elements of what was essential a Victorian-era ghost story. But why then temper that with an over-the-top abandon of intelligence by making your inexplicably shrunken Scrooge surf an icicle down a roof? When the film is faithful, it is equal parts boring and incomprehensible. When it deviates from the book and tries to add something fresh, it is mind-numbingly ridiculous. I can understand adding a measure of whimsy in order to market this as a family film, but the horrific elements will assuredly incite tears and nightmares from younger audience members anyway. I know this to be true, because I witnessed children in the theater seek refuge on the laps and inside the jackets of their parents.

Let’s talk performances, and by extension the animation of the characters themselves. Jim Carrey gives what is easily one of his worst performances to date. Don’t get me wrong, I really like Carrey in both his goofball and more pensive material, but he struggles in this. His voice work rings of an “In Living Color” sketch featuring a bad Scrooge impression. He delivers jokes in the quieter moments with so little skill that they fall completely flat and there was a thunderous silence in the auditorium each and every time. Judging by his lack of timing, you would think he had never before delivered a joke on screen; troubling considering the actor. I reject the notion that he was shackled by the old English text because the jokes that he fails to land are divorced from the archaic dialogues and are intended to juxtapose them. On the other hand, Gary Oldman’s performance is excellent. He brings a warm, unflappable optimism to Bob Cratchet and his relationship with Tiny Tim is heart-breaking. In a film in which I had no emotional investment, Gary Oldman’s performance made me want to cry. I would also be remiss if I failed to mention the spot-on casting of Bob Hoskins as Fessiwig; that rotund little madman is about as energetic as it gets.

I will say that most of the characters look fantastic; the special effects employed are phenomenal and there are moments wherein the line between animation and using live actors gets a little blurry. But unfortunately that artistry did not trickle down to many of the background characters. There is one scene in particular in which this is most jarring. During the big dance number at the Fessiwig party, all of the ancillary characters look as if they are wearing pig masks. Their faces are all overly rounded and the features are completely washed out. It is strikingly flimsy animation. And while I won’t judge the visual quality of the 3-D, I have to say that it is among the most gimmicky 3-D this side of My Bloody Valentine. Things that would not naturally be in the foreground are thrust into our faces in a desperate grab for reaction. 3-D does not have to be a gimmick in animated films and can instead add depth and scale to the story, a la Up, so there really is no excuse for the way it’s used in A Christmas Carol.

A lot of the elements added from the original text will come off as nothing short of bizarre. The ghost of Christmas present makes some portentous warning about trusting men of the cloth and has scary child zombies under his robes. Meanwhile the ghost of Christmas past, a candle, does this weird little dance where he shimmies his head back and forth for no reason at all. I don’t know if it was supposed to be funny or what, but again the audience was dead silent afterwards. Now, I am not sure exactly how much of that is from the original work, but most of the moments you will see that will have you scratching your head are from the Dickens classic; minus Jim Carrey’s ice surfing of course. These moments not only befuddle the audience but also suck the wind out of the pacing. They are like little speed bumps that jump up whenever the movie gets rolling.

But worse than that, the inclusion of the long-lost aspects of the story into the film forces well-known, often crucial points to be glossed over. It’s kind of Newtonian in that the classic bits and the relics cannot occupy the same space. The most offensive truncation is Scrooge’s tragic love story. The plot of the film literally fades from the first time they meet to their tearful goodbye. In the actual story, when they first meet, Scrooge is a jovial, caring lad with dreams and ambitions. When they part ways, he has become consumed with money and greed causing a rift between them. Zemeckis’ version offers no A to B progression for this. Suddenly the bright-faced, happy lad is a young miser counting money and railing about how he would rather die than be poor; quite a storytelling leap if you ask me.

All in all, A Christmas Carol offers some things we haven’t seen before, but at the expense of congruity and pacing. The animation is gorgeous in some areas and unforgivably lacking in others. I think my overall biggest beef with this adaptation is that it in no way got me into the Christmas spirit. I felt nothing, apart from a few brilliant moments from Oldman, and that is an enormous fault to assign to a film based on the novel that perfectly gives voice to the power of the season. This version feels mostly old hat with a few misguided attempts to reinvigorate the story. Parents will not want to take kids to this because of the more frightening material (with the added issue of it being right in their children’s faces) and adults will take one look at the trailer and write the film off as kiddy fare.

Kevin Carr’s Weekly Report Card for 11.06.09

Kevin Carr — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:34:36 +0000

A CHRISTMAS CAROL

Studio: Disney

Rated: PG for scary sequences and images.

Starring: Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins and Robin Wright Penn

Directed by: Robert Zemeckis

What it’s about: If you don’t know this by now, you should be barred from the holiday season worldwide.

What I liked: By this time, you should know exactly what to expect when you get a Robert Zemeckis motion-capture film. Like The Polar Express and Beowulf, A Christmas Carol is heavy on the effects and virtual camerawork and relatively weak on the character and plot.

We’ve seen this story adapted so many times in so many forms – from feature films to re-tellings on our favorite 80s sit com – that there is almost no unique way to approach it. The uniqueness of this version is that the full-blown CGI extravaganza hasn’t been done yet. In this sense, it does work. The visuals are pretty cool and the IMAX 3D experience is a sight and worth it for no other reason that you won’t be able to recreate it at home.

What I didn’t: There are a lot of reasons to dump on this movie. If you don’t like Jim Carrey’s cartoonish acting, you’ll not like it in this movie. (Although I will admit that he is directed down in a good chunk of the film.) Also, because the movie is shot with motion capture technology, it allows Carrey to play all forms of Scrooge as well as the three Ghosts. Likewise, Gary Oldman plays several roles, including Bob Cratchit and Jacob Marley. Again, the coolness factor in this respect tends to overpower the story.

Movies like The Polar Express are famous for making CGI humans that are permanently camped in the uncanny valley. The human emulations have gotten better in this film, but they’re still in that valley. Most of the work has been done to make Carrey’s characters look more realistic while Gary Oldman just gives me the willies throughout.

A lot of people will say this version is completely unnecessary, and also pretty terrifying for a young child to watch, and they wouldn’t be wrong.

Who is gonna like this movie: Families… as long as they aren’t easily scared.

THE FOURTH KIND

Studio: Universal

Rated: PG-13 for violent/disturbing images, some terror, thematic elements and brief sexuality.

Starring: Milla Jovovich, Elias Koteas, Will Patton, Hakeem Kae-Kazim and Corey Johnson

Directed by: Olatunde Osunsanmi

What it’s about: Milla Jovovich plays Dr. Abigail Tyler, a psychologist from Nome, Alaska, who is investigating sleep disorders. After putting her patients under hypnosis, she discovers that these cases are possibly reflections from UFO abductions. The more she digs, the more she learns about the terrifying reality of abduction cases, which eventually hit close to home.

What I liked: I will admit that The Fourth Kind does capture a certain level of suspense and atmosphere. It’s pretty damned intense in some scenes, and the set-up is intriguing if not entirely thought out.

What I didn’t: The Fourth Kind really pushes the whole “based on actual case studies,” to a fault. It really rams this concept down your throat, going as far to presenting the video footage alongside the reenactments. Yet every time something interesting is happening, the case studies footage gets distorted so we can’t really see anything. Hmmmm… isn’t that convenient.

I like a solid alien abduction movie, although there are very few of them that have been made. This one just tries too hard. The set-up is interesting, having actress Milla Jovovich walk right up to the camera in an early scene and swear that everything’s real. But this hook is the only thing keeping the movie alive. All the other elements that make a movie good – characters, story, plot, empathy, heart and soul – are noticeably absent.

Maybe if rookie director Olatunde Osunsanmi had spent more time crafting a decent story instead of reminding the audience that these are “actual case studies,” we would have a better film.

Who is gonna like this movie: People who though Paranormal Activity was a documentary.

THE BOX

Studio: Warner Bros.

Rated: PG-13 for thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images.

Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, Basil Hoffman and Gillian Jacobs

Directed by: Richard Kelly

What it’s about: In 1976, a mysterious stranger shows up on a couple’s doorstep with an offer. They are given a box with a red button on it. If they push the button, someone they don’t know somewhere in the world will die, and they will be given a million dollars. The couple struggles with whether or not to push the button, which has greater ramifications on their lives – and the lives of everyone around them – than they ever would have thought.

What I liked: First off, let me say that this movie is not for everyone. It’s waaaaaay out there, and that’s saying something even for Richard Kelly fans.

The movie has a brilliant set-up, courtesy of writer Richard Matheson’s original short story. (If you don’t know who Richard Matheson is, he wrote about a third of the original Twilight Zone teleplays.) So, it’s not surprising that the film has a whole Twilight Zone feel to it. About half-way through the film, it starts to go bat-shit crazy, which might alienate some of the audience, but Kelly is fearless about this.

Ultimately, The Box is a bizarre morality tale that sets up a very slick atmospheric feel. It should make you think about what you would do in a similar situation, and it delivers a story that really isn’t like anything else out there right now… for better or for worse.

Kelly manages to capture the feeling of 1970s with the cinematography, production design, wardrobe and sound design. In a strange way, it feels more like a movie that was shot 30 years ago rather than in the modern era, and that’s really pretty neat in my book.

What I didn’t: I’ll admit this movie is not without its faults. Cameron Diaz is a beacon of bad acting in this movie, slathering on a southern accent so thick, you’d swear she was pretending to be from the deep south. Were it not for Frank Langella and James Marsden to temper her, the movie would crumble from an acting standpoint.

There are several moments in the film that drag, which seems to be a trademark of director Richard Kelly, but they only show up once in a while.

Some folks will take issue with the story and its Twilight Zone elements, but I was okay with them. The film kept me interested throughout, and that’s pretty rare for a movie to do nowadays.

Who is gonna like this movie: People looking for a different brand of thriller.

Review: Disney’s A Christmas Carol

Rob Hunter — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:07:26 +0000

My feelings towards Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol have always been of two minds. I love the tale from the wit and greed-filled banter to the ghostly apparitions to the grand redemption at the end. The same goes for the multiple film and TV versions of the story. I’m partial to the George C. Scott version from the eighties, but Scrooged and The Muppet Christmas Carol tie for a close second. The problem I have with the story though is that very same magnificent redemption I mentioned as loving not three sentences ago. I’ve just never been convinced that Scrooge honestly changes for any reason other than selfish self-preservation. Sure he seems concerned about Tiny Tim’s imminent demise, but it’s his own untended gravestone that really pushes him towards turning over a new leaf isn’t it? Now thanks to Robert Zemeckis’ continuing desire to avoid telling original stories in favor of digitally manipulated versions of older ones, yet another adaptation of Dickens’ tale is hitting the screen… but can 3D animation make it any more convincing?

I shouldn’t have to summarize the story of A Christmas Carol for you heathens, but in the interest of proper film review format I will anyway. Ebenezer Scrooge is a cranky, miserly, and rudely practical old man living and working in Victorian-era London. His view on the Christmas holiday can be summed up in his sentiment that those who celebrate the day with merry and cheer should be boiled in their own pudding and “buried with a stake of holly through his heart.” He’s visited on Christmas Eve by the ghost of his dead business partner, Jacob Marley, who was equally as cheap and unlikable in life as Scrooge and who in death must drag around the chains he forged while still alive. Marley warns Scrooge of three more spirits coming to haunt him and advises the old man to heed their warnings lest he end up with an eternal fate like Marley’s.

Story-wise there’s very little to review or criticize here really. Dickens’ tale is a classic for a reason, and you’d have to go out of your way to really screw it up (cough, The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, cough). Zemeckis wisely keeps his rendition very close to previous versions with their very precise structure of character introduction, ghostly visitations, and then celebratory redemption. The scenes you recall from earlier versions are pretty much all recreated here in beautifully done animation. The characters look great, but it’s the details of the world around them that truly astound. From the bricks and cobblestones to the fabrics in clothes and curtains to the visible exhalations in the cold London air, Zemeckis and friends have created a fairly impressive world.

I’m no fan of Zemeckis’ previous 3D motion-captured films, The Polar Express and Beowulf, but A Christmas Carol has somewhat redeemed at least one aspect of the format for me. It helps that the original story itself is almost perfect (motivational veracity of Scrooge’s life change aside), but Zemeckis has improved the visual style of his ‘actors.’ Both Polar Express and Beowulf overlayed their herky-jerky mo-cap with plasticine characters that exuded more style than humanity. Christmas Carol keeps the stylized visuals but has now managed to imbue some of the characters’ faces with real warmth. They’re obviously still not going for photo-realism, but the quality of these CGI creations no longer keeps you at arm’s length emotionally.

But it’s not all good news… The major misstep Zemeckis makes here in regard to the 3D animated format is his need to up the “ride factor” of the movie. Scrooge gets pulled through the sky above London a few times, and while it looks absolutely briliant and delightful each time it is done strictly for the effect. Those flights of fancy are obvious enough, but Zemeckis crosses the imaginary line during Scrooge’s visit with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Scrooge is shrunken to mouse-size and chased through the streets by Death’s horse-drawn carriage. Why? The phantom reaches for Scrooge several times, just missing him at the last second, and it makes no sense. The whole set piece exists solely for cheap thrills and laughs. Pratfalls, sewer runs, rat shenanigans… it all stands apart from the rest of the story and it makes you imagine the Disney execs with a checklist featuring a minimum number of action scenes required.

It’s obviously difficult to gauge the acting on display in an animated film, even a mo-cap one, but it’s easy enough to praise Carrey’s work here in his multiple roles. He brings Scrooge to life, but he also inhabits the three Christmas ghosts that haunt him. While the final spectre is mute and without facial detail, the others (as well as Scrooge) are all distinctly different creations. Carrey does such a fine job with the cantankerous and fearful Scrooge that I almost wish he would have played the character in a live action film instead. His best work in the film however is with the first two ghosts. Carrey’s Christmas Past is perhaps the creepiest non-horror film ghost I’ve seen since Ghost Dad. His face is recreated as a candle flame, constantly smiling, potentially unstable, and he speaks with a pitched Irish whisper. It’s more than a little unsettling at times. His Christmas Present thunders with a strong Scottish voice full of cheer, joy, and the occasional bits of fierce anger. All are Carrey’s creations, but they still each manage to be unique.

Carrey’s multiple roles impress and make thematic sense as Scrooge is after all being haunted by his own life, but the others who tackle multiple characters aren’t always as successful or logical. Gary Oldman plays Bob Cratchit with a mix of innocence, joy, and devastation, and it all translates well to the screen. He also portrays the ghost of Marley and the (unrecognizable) voice of Tiny Tim, but since there’s no narrative reasoning behind this it seems more of a ploy than anything else. His characters were different enough that it was more of an oddity than a problem, but the same can’t be said for Bob Hoskins. He plays Scrooge’s long-dead first employer, Fezziwig, but then appears later in the film as the husband of Scrooge’s cleaning woman. It caused a brief bit of confusion while I tried to figure out why Fezziwig looked like a hobo (and why he was still alive at all). Colin Firth, Robin Wright Penn, and Cary Elwes round out the recognizable cast. (Especially Elwes who’s very round indeed.)

Will Disney’s A Christmas Carol worm it’s way into your hearts and homes and become as much of a holiday staple as rum balls and spotted dick are now? Possibly, but maybe not. It’s fun, occasionally frightening, and often beautiful, while at the same time staying true to Dickens’ classic tale, but it also never needed a 3D update. Kids will be the film’s biggest fans thanks to the multiple whiz-bang-wow scenes, and while adults won’t be bored they also won’t find any more heart or Christmas cheer than we’ve already seen from Albert Finney, Patrick Stewart, or even Bill Murray. Because as good as it looks it’s still artificial when compared to real flesh and blood actors portraying real joy and tear-filled emotions. Which should answer the question as to whether or not this new Scrooge’s redemption is any more believable…

The Upside: 3D effects are more about texture and depth than obvious thrusts towards the audience; ghosts are sufficiently spooky; animation is sharp, detailed, and stylized; has a few laughs

The Downside: segment where Scrooge shrinks seems designed purely to add more “ride” scenes and physical comedy; dual use of an obvious Bob Hoskins caused minor confusion

On the Side: A species of snail native to Fiji was named Ba humbugi upon it’s discovery in 1976.

Fantastic Fest Review: First Squad

Neil Miller — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:41:01 +0000

Over the years, I’ve been exposed to a lot of animated filmmaking. You could say that when it comes to feature-length animated works, I’m a connoisseur of sorts. And whether it is the CGI-driven stories of Pixar and Dreamworks or the 2D hand-drawn fairy tales of Walt Disney, I’m always jumping at the chance to see something new and different in the animated world. And that love for animation doesn’t end with the borders of the United States, but expands out into the rest of the world, reaching all the way to Japan and even as far as Denmark (as we saw earlier in Fantastic Fest when I reviewed Journey to Saturn).

Which brings me to the Russian/Japanese hybrid film First Squad. Writer by Russian scribes Alijosha Klimov and Misha Sprits and animated by the folks at Japan’s Studio 4ºC (the same studio that put out Batman: Gotham Knight last year), First Squad follows a young Russian girl with special telepathic powers named Nadaya, who was once a member of an elite squad of psychic warriors trained to fight the Nazis in World War II. But after a deadly attack leaves the rest of her squad dead and her without anywhere to go, she sets out on her own. That doesn’t last very long, as she’s quickly picked back up by the army and brought in for a very special mission. You see, the Nazis are in the process of bridging the gap between our world and that of the dead, and they intend to bring back Baron Von Wolff, an ancient knight whose power is unmatched in either realm. Von Wolff and his army of the dead would have no problem taking out the Soviets, thus ensuring Nazi victory on the Eastern front. To counter, the Soviets use Nadaya and a special dimensional travel machine to make contact with her old squad, now on the other side of death, and get them to stop Von Wolff before he can cross over into our world.

It’s a very unique and interesting concept for a film, which unfortunately gets bogged down in its own desire to create a method of narrative delivery that is completely unique. Allow me to explain. The film begins with some incredibly beautiful animation, mostly of news reel-style footage that leads in with the history behind the story, explaining what is happening on the Eastern front as Germany and the Soviet Union wage war. It melts quickly into some incredibly intense and visceral action. Then, the film begins to cut to live-action, documentary-style talking heads — Russian scientists and historians who give additional background information to support the animated story at hand. This wouldn’t be so much of a problem, if it wasn’t stretched throughout the film, causing the entire feature’s pacing to be painfully clunky. As well, the doc-style moments get lost in minutia, with one scientist taking several moments to explain what sedatives are — a little too much talk, with too little substance.

Between these boring, drab live-action moments though, is where First Squad shines. The animated portion of the story is deeply engaging, fast and furiously vibrant. The only downside to the onslaught of action is that, when set against the somber tone of the live-action, some of it comes off more like the banging of pots and pans in a once quiet room. It is a storytelling strategy that is intended to be jarring, but ultimately ends up being quite an annoyance. And that’s where First Squad ultimately loses its audience — in its inability to maintain a consistent tone. Or for that matter, ever decide what sort of story it wants to be. If it were recut as a strictly animated film, it could be a very entertaining, blistering 40-minute adventure. But as a 73-minute hybrid of many colors, it falls on its own sword in the same hard and fast manner that characterize its visceral action sequences.

The Upside: Animation is beautiful, action is visceral.

The Downside: The story is paralyzed by the infusion of live-action, doc-style interview footage.

On the Side: The human realm battles shown in this film are all based on real World War II battles and are choreographed exactly as they happened, with the exception of the army of deadites that ultimately show up.

Review: Thomas Jane’s Dark Country 3D

Robert Fure — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:58:13 +0000

October 6th, 2009 saw two very momentous occasions. Firstly, and most importantly, it was my birthday. Secondly, Thomas Jane’s first feature directorial effort (he’s listed as having directed Jonni Nitro, but even I’m clueless as to what that is) Dark Country was released on DVD. Our own Rob Hunter listed the film as a rental in his DVD recommendations but that didn’t stop me from heading out and purchasing it. Then, in a bit of good fortune, I promptly tossed it on the “to watch” pile and forgot about it for three weeks. I say good fortune because not watching the standard, 2D version of the film allowed me to walk into a small, one of a kind screening in late October, the first ever Annual Halloween screening of the film – in glorious 3 dimensions. So my first experience with the film would be as intended – in a theater, with the full effect of the 3D, not on some TV with a flat picture.

Cut to late October and I’m settled in at a Halloween screening, complete with decorations and, no joke, a string trio playing along. The film is introduced by Tom Jane and some characters in face paint as he takes a very Crypt Keeper like approach to the night, complete with “gaping chest wound” t-shirt and flashlights. After a brief intro, the glasses go on and the film comes up.

Dark Country is a Twilight Zone-esque thriller that follows a newly-wed couple Dick (Tom Jane) and Gina (Lauren German) as they drive out of Las Vegas in a vintage car, heading deep into the dark desert country with some steamy love between them and plenty of questions between them. In the dark night on the empty roads, things quickly go south when they come across a car wreck and a badly injured man in the road. Attempting to do the right thing, they load his bloody, disfigured body into the car and go off in search of a hospital. As one might expect, soon they’re lost and the bloodyfaced hitchhiker in the back reveals he’s got some murderous secrets of his own.

Walking into a film like this, I often don’t know what to expect or what I’m in store for. I’m no stranger to lower budget Tom Jane movies, like the not-great Mutant Chronicles or the totally-awesome Give ‘em Hell Malone of late, two different sides of the coin. One works, the other not as much. What makes Dark Country both smart and impressive is the budget – under $4million dollars. For that price, most movies only get the gift bags for their star actors, but Jane and crew get a coherent 3D motion picture up on the screen. I mention smart because when you’re working with little money, you can’t over extend yourself. Shooting for a sci-fi epic (a la Mutant Chronicles) you’re probably going to come up short. But if you’re smart, you find the right story with the right location and $4 million becomes just enough to put out the finished product. Indeed, when you hear about all the ingredients to this film, that it turns out as well as it did, it’s downright amazing. Firstly, you have Tom Jane, a hard-working guy taking his first crack at directing who decides to make it even more difficult on himself by jumping right into 3D. Secondly, toss in a low budget, the untested 3D technology, brand new (aka untested) equipment, night shoots, a short 25 day shooting schedule and the freaking New Mexican desert. The cards were seemingly stacked against the production, that was mired with freezing cold nights and equipment that didn’t always want to work correctly. In one story relayed by Jane after the film, a fancy shmancy piece of equipment meant to raise and lower the camera malfunctioned, stopping production. One for practical solutions, they replaced the machine with the simplest of tools – the human hand – then set the camera onto the road and let the car drive harmlessly over it. That’s how you stretch a budget.

About the movie itself – overall, I liked it. The film is by no means perfect and, personally, started off on the wrong foot for me. I wasn’t engaged in the first few minutes and was beginning to fear a long ride into mediocrity. Luckily, once Dick and Gina had moved into the car, the story quickly shifted gears, sunk in its hooks, and managed to be an enjoyable ride through the dark country. Not until writing down their names (Dick and Gina) did I realize that their names are in fact Dick and (va)Gina. I don’t say this in jest, but perhaps this was a very intentional choice to have them symbolize masculine and feminine sex. Perhaps a wayward thought – until you see the steamy scene in the car. Then the theory gains about a metric ton of weight behind it. We’ve seen terrible sex scenes in cars, like in The Chase when two people somehow engage in coitus while in the middle of a high speed car chase without crashing. The scene in Dark Country is not Dick in Gina (haha, I crack myself) sex, but it is one of the most effective and exciting sexual scenes I’ve seen on film in years. That is the moment when the film really has you and from then on in, it was a far better experience than the first minutes indicated.

Plot wise, the story has that Twilight Zone esque twist you know is coming from the very start. Many of you will probably be able to predict it correctly, but that said, it’s not a deal breaker. I’m a huge fan of The Twilight Zone and even when you know what’s coming, it’s still a fine drive to the finish.

The biggest divider of people who see this movie is going to be style. It’s a love it or leave it type deal, that most likely works far better in 3D than in 2D. Make no mistake, the look of the film is very intentional. Both Jane and Tim Bradstreet (famed artist, Dark Country unofficial production designer and Raw Studios honcho) talked at length about the look of the film, describing it as “intended for a comic book audience.” This is an accurate way to describe much of the film, from the color palate to the angles. Color wise, the film is silvery, channeling in bits of noir and vintage film, while in shot selection, Jane proves himself to be visually very deft with the camera. Certain angles (namely a low angle looking at Bloodyface and out the back of the rear window of the car) are rarely seen in movies, at least in my experience, but are fairly common in graphic novels.

There was a lot of attention paid to the sky with almost every scene having a brilliant, colorful night sky composited in. The photography was taken especially for the film by one of the nation’s only 3D nightsky photographers (a very limited position, one assumes), who spent days up in the hills taking shots of the night sky. To call the images breath-taking is an understatement, though some may be unable or unwilling to look past the fact that it’s a stylized nightsky, the kind you’d never see with the naked eye. I say, when you’re dealing with a stylized film, let’s do it – go all out. The sky worked for me.

Now, I haven’t fully watched the 2D version of the film, but from what I have seen the 3D element makes the entire picture look better. The compositing (green-screening), which is one of the main criticisms of the 2D version, looks far better in three dimensions than it does in two. Dark Country is also one of the first films to fully utilize 3D for image depth rather than gimmicks. In the entirety of the movie there are only two “gimmick” 3D shots, with everything else being about the expansion of the image rather than making you giggle. I have long championed the return of 3D as a valuable and viable tool for creating image depth rather than jump scares. (I saw my first RealD live action movie in 2006 and have supported the technology ever since) Dark Country goes miles down the road in proving that 3D is here and it isn’t a joke or a toy for a kid’s movie. For any photographers out there, you understand the real magic of photography is in the depth of field and focal lengths and 3D technology opens an entirely new window.

I would be remiss in not talking briefly about the acting, but I do want to keep it brief as I’ve gone on for some time now. Tom Jane has always been an effective actor, whether it’s in comedy or drama or Punishing, but lately it seems that his game is fully realized. Mainstream critics have come around to him and praise his performance in Hung, telling us what we already knew – the guy is good. In Country, he plays a more dramatic role and nails a wide variety of emotions. I feel like he turns in a fantastic performance here. Lauren German is also good, though after her ice-cube-masturbation scene (there, I said it) she could sit there with a blank expression on her face the rest of the time and I’d still praise her performance. Ron Perlman appears late in the game and he’s Ron Perlman – nuff said.

In conclusion, Dark Country is not a perfect film, but it’s a much better film in 3D. The story isn’t groundbreaking and again I’ll mention The Twilight Zone, but the acting is top notch from Jane, the style of the film is very much grounded in the comic world, and several scenes are over the top awesome. If nothing else, Jane has proven two things: The guy can direct and 3D is awesome. As I’m sure many of you are fans of Jane, Bradstreet, and Raw Studios (hey, we’re all nerds here), be on the lookout of “Raw Cola” early in the film.

During the Q&A after the film, Jane and Bradstreet mentioned a desire and intent to tour several cities with the film and show it in 3D. Hopefully this gets off the ground and gives people more opportunities to see the film the way it was meant to be. If we’re lucky in LA, they’ll also keep that “Annual” promise and continue to show the film every Halloween.

Final words? Definitely worth checking out in 3D.

You can purchase Dark Country on DVD at Amazon.com

Film School Rejects » Movie Review

Review: Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire

Related Reading:

Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon

Related Reading:

Kevin Carr’s Weekly Report Card for 11.20.09

NEW MOON

PLANET 51

THE BLIND SIDE

PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL “PUSH” BY SAPPHIRE

Related Reading:

Review: The Messenger

Related Reading:

Kevin Carr’s Weekly Report Card for 11.13.09

2012

FANTASTIC MR. FOX

Related Reading:

Review: 2012

Related Reading:

Review: Pirate Radio

Related Reading:

Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Related Reading:

Review: The Box

Related Reading:

Review: ‘The Fourth Kind’ Should’ve Been Narrated By Robert Stack

Related Reading:

A Christmas Carol: ‘Twas a Spiritless Affair, Indeed

Related Reading:

Kevin Carr’s Weekly Report Card for 11.06.09

A CHRISTMAS CAROL

THE FOURTH KIND

THE BOX

Related Reading:

Review: Disney’s A Christmas Carol

Related Reading:

Fantastic Fest Review: First Squad

Related Reading:

Review: Thomas Jane’s Dark Country 3D

Related Reading: