I know it has been a long time since we posted a show, but Ryan is just now recovering from Cowboys and Aliens. I think you will find that this show was worth the wait. Where else are you going to find out about Dream Home? Ebert? Not likely. You also get a little ape action too. This is a fine show with which to say "goodbye" to the summer. Enjoy
Starring: Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo Directed by: Terry George
Nearly a year ago, I went to the National Underground Railroad Freedom Museum in downtown Cincinnati to seen an exhibit on terrorism and the US. There were other exhibits as well, including one on the types of human trafficking and slavery existing in the world today – including a section on the actions we all can take to help stop the problem. Writing letters, being very careful to not buy good from companies that use slave labor and making donations to
certain rescue organizations were among the suggestions. My quarrel with the exhibit is that they didn’t really address the underlying problem. Until the willingness of people to exploit other human beings for profit ceases to exist, it will continue in one form or another.
I'm not saying it's fruitless to make donations, be mindful of where companies source their labor, or even hope that someday there will be no human trafficking. The moral of the story is people can control how they treat others if they have enough courage to be a good person when it's easier to turn the other way.
Hotel Rwanda focuses on Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), a successful and charming hotel manager. His job focuses on making guests feel as though they are in an "oasis" of calm and civility, even though there is serious political unrest. Fine single malt Scotch, Cuban Cohiba cigars, attentive staff and loads of Heineken are the tools he plies to ensure his beverage supplier and ranking United Nations guests are compliant and happy under his watch. His political status as a Hutu keeps him in good social standing, particularly as the Hutu are in conflict with a rebel militia from the Tutsi party. An old grudge over political power during the Belgian colonial years has not gone away, and the Hutu are spoiling for a reason to skirmish.
That reason comes sooner rather than later with the assassination of the Hutu president. Paul's Tutsi wife Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo) and neighbors are immediately at risk; he barely manages to bribe a group of Hutu soldiers with enough personal belongings and money from the hotel safe into leaving them alive at the hotel he manages. Chaos continues to break out around the city as Hutu militants capture and kill 'Tutsi cockroaches' under the guise of searching for rebels – but really out of sheer hatred.
Paul remains responsible for entertaining UN peacekeepers, journalists and European travelers, charged with keeping up the façade of civility while innocent people are being beaten and killed in their homes less than a mile away. Even video footage of the atrocities and arrival of UN soldiers is no relief to the Rwandan refugees. Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte) angrily informs Paul that global racism dictates only the European-born will be rescued – the black African refugees will be left to fend for themselves.
Drawing on his intelligence and creativity, Paul manages to sidestep an attempted Hutu raid and rallies those compatriots with sufficient connections and resources to find ways out of the country. All the while he continues to take in displaced people and negotiate with both the UN soldiers and Tutsi militia. Though his life is often in danger and political status evolves into 'traitor,' Paul refuses to turn his back on the displaced Rwandans.
Inspiring isn't really a robust enough word to describe this film. Simply, it showcases humanity at its best and worst. Best in Paul, who isn’t a completely selfless crusader. He's a regular guy who doesn't intend to become a hero…he just keeps choosing to open his heart and use the power and resources to which he has access to do good. Don Cheadle does a phenomenal job of portraying a conflicted man – one who has worked very hard to build his reputation and provide notable UN guests with the best personalized treatment, only to be labeled a traitor and refused help by the dignitaries he served because his skin color and nationality were not the right kind. He struggles to summon the resources to protect so many refugees, but neither can he turn away in good conscience. Worst are the militants willing to indiscriminately kill people because of their ethnic background, even though they cannot really get the revenge they seek for injustices of the past.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
If you
Don't put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
Written and Directed by: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Drew sent me “The Lives of Others” for his new project called Play It Forward. I’m really excited about this project (even though it’s been a while since he sent me the movie - sorry!) and can’t wait to start reading other reviews as they come in. I’m looking at you lil’molly!
“The Lives of Others” is a German film set in 1984 East Berlin. So, picture a grey, depressed city with an ominous sense of dread in the air. The Stasi, or State Secret Police, keep everything under strict surveillance and have a professed mission “to know everything.” Not pleasant. The movie focuses on three characters, a Stasi policeman, a famous playwright, and the playwright’s girlfriend - a famous actress.
I loved the way the settings and color match the mood and personalities of the characters in this movie. Wiesler, the Stasi policeman is a stoic, methodical, and diligent character. The film reflects his personality by always surrounding him with a simple, monochromatic setting. He’s like a machine. Dreyman, the playwright, and Christa-Maria, his actress girlfriend, are the complete opposite. They’re artists and lovers who are trusting and playful. Their lives are portrayed with warm brown and tan colors. As the characters become more affected by one another, these colors and settings begin to mix more and more.
The plot: Wiesler becomes suspicious of Dreyman and is told to monitor his apartment. He listens and records Dreyman’s life, looking for any evidence of disloyalty. However, as he listens, he begins to feel more empathy for Dreyman’s situation. One of Dreyman’s friends, a blacklisted director, commits suicide which prompts Dreyman to voice his growing unease about East Germany in an article published in the West under a pseudonym. Of course, the Stasi aren’t happy about this article and make every effort to try and find out who wrote it. Wiesler, having become more aware of his own loneliness and unhappiness is forced to either hide what he knows about Dreyman, or turn him in.
I was struck by the evolution of Wiesler’s character throughout the film. After the blacklisted director kills himself, there’s an amazing scene where Dreyman is playing a piece of piano music that the director had given him shortly before his death. The piece, called “Sonata for a Good Man,” beautifully captures the despair and sadness of the moment. Wiesler, becomes visibly affected by it and begins to cry while Dreyman says to his girlfriend, “Can anyone who has heard this music, I mean truly heard it, really be a bad person?” That, and other poignant moments in the film show Wiesler as he awakens to the world around him, his ideals challenged. I don’t want to write too much more about the story because it’s a thriller, and let’s just say, it has a great ending.
I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who loves a dramatic, historical movie, with amazing character development. The visuals and sound design are also incredible. The second time I watched this film, I plugged in my good headphones and was really impressed by the precision of the sound and soundtrack.
At 2 hours 17 minutes, it’s not an quick watch, but The Lives of Others is a beautiful portrait of humanity in a dark period of recent history.
-Chad Jewsbury Chicago, IL
Starring: Lee Evans, Rachael Stirling Directed by: John Simpson
Freeze Frame is the story of a man accused, wrongfully, he contends, of a triple murder. The case is dismissed due to lack of evidence, so the accused, Sean Veil, does what any rational person would do. He starts to tape himself 24 hours a day to assure if he is ever again accused of such a crime, he will have the evidence with which to exonerate himself.
He has cameras in his bedroom, his foyer, outside his door, cameras in the room where he monitors the cameras, even cameras in the loo. When he leaves the house he straps a giant camera to his chest. Questions like, “What in the hell does he do when he goes to work?” aren’t really bothered with.
Eventually Detective Louis Emeric and Forensic Profiler Saul Seger, the duo responsible for accusing Veil of the original crime, make another appearance at Veil’s house. They want to know where he was on a specific date in the middle of October five years ago. They have found a dead body and believe Veil to be the culprit yet again.
Lucky for Veil, he keeps tapes of all day every day in a giant vault, all he will have to do is retrieve the night in question. But, lo and behold, when he goes to collect them the night in question has disappeared. Veil escapes the police through a trap door and spends the rest of the film trying to clear his name.
Lee Evans does a fantastic job as Veil, a neurotic, tightly wound paranoid who keeps you guessing about his innocence until the final frame. The direction is solid, and nicely balances a mix of film and “documented” footage.
That’s about where the niceties of this particular film end. The supporting cast are mostly a mediocre lot, although I’m unsure how much is their fault and how much is poor scripting. The main portion of the plot, Veil’s 24-hour surveillance of himself, which seems engaging and original, quickly turns in to more of an afterthought. It starts as a way to examine the psyche of our (anti?) hero, only to quickly devolve into a vehicle by which the characters in the film can explain things they would never usually have any way to explain.
The plot spends so much time focusing on Veil and so little time focusing on either of the crimes that, by the time it comes to reveal whodunit, the filmmakers have to resort to one of the worst story devices in order to clarify the convoluted plot: Just have somebody sit down and explain it for no apparent reason.
I was pretty engrossed in this film for the better part of an hour, despite some plotting that seemed a little forced. Then, when the final act comes , the explanation is illogical, the acting is wooden, and the dialogue is forced and stilted, but mostly because it was written that way and not because the actors aren’t trying their damndest. It is most unfortunate as an intriguing premise and a great lead performance are wasted.
Written by Ryan Venson
Starring: Irène Jacob, Jean-Louis Trintignant Directed by: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Of the Trois Couleurs trilogy, I do believe Krzysztof Kieslowski saved the best for last.
Red is powerful because it is understated and deliberate. Normally red signifies power, fire, passion…bold forces that impetuously sweep through with sound and fury (such as Dominique from White). The main storyline in Red actually unfolds very simply.
Valentine (Irène Jacobs) meets an older man (Jean-Louis Trintignant) with a seemingly indifferent outlook on everything after she accidentally hits his dog with her car. He tells her to keep the dog, but it ends up running away from her in the park and leading her back to him. The bond that develops between Valentine and this man – a former judge – is very subtle. It develops over time, like a Polaroid photo, rather than emerging in a flash.
Red explores other types of relationships – shades of romantic, familial – but primarily at a distance. Valentine's boyfriend is traveling abroad, so their only connection is through a phone calls. The Judge listens in on his neighbors' calls, which contain both conversations with illicit lovers as well as conversations between a young couple who are very important to the storyline as well without even knowing it.
Even more than the other two films in this trilogy, Red really stood out as artistically spectacular, particularly in visual composition:
I wonder if this movie would have been as good if I hadn't seen the other two. I certainly wouldn't have found the ending quite as entertaining, but I can't say for sure if the context is really necessary.
Overall, I would like to thank Daniel Ferreiro for insisting that I watch these films. Even if I did not love Blue, I certainly did like White quite a bit and absolutely loved Red.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
If you:
Don't put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
Here’s the kind of thing that makes my blood boil. Netflix raising its rates.
Well, not that, in and of itself. Rather the never ending tirade of assholes airing their grievances in a number of the most asinine ways. Whenever I read thousands of negative comments, an extraordinary amount of negative backlash, and, worst of all, “writers” questioning the “reason” Netflix would raise prices, I want to stab a baby. Make that three babies. And a kitten. It confuses me when a concept as simple as this one is met with a fury of utter disbelief.
To the population who just can't understand: The “reason” Netflix raised its prices is SIMPLE ECONOMICS. Seriously, I was taught (and, I suppose, learned) simple economic principle in high school, albeit by one of the three most worthless teachers I have ever had in my life (she was a HOME economics teacher teaching regular economics, and was still number three after Mr. Green who taught my zoology class and based an ENTIRE SEMESTER of grades on one “vocabulary list,” and Mr. Clark, the basketball coach who taught my SENIOR LEVEL history class….and no, this isn’t based on an episode of the Simpsons……you know, the one where the teachers go on strike because Bart pits Mrs. Krabappel against Skinner because he doesn’t want to go to school but then Marge ends up being one of the replacement teachers which, of course, is no better, so then Bart has to trick Krabappel and Skinner again in order to bury the hatchet and get the regular teachers back in to the classroom. You know, that episode.)
I have yet to find a single article on all of the internet which explains it as such, and if one of the three people who reads this piece can find any such article, please forward it to me so I can immediately amend what I have written here.
Here’s the deal folks. According to Netflix’s (man, say that possessive out loud. Sounds terrible.) website, they have just over 23 million customers in the US and Canada alone (http://ir.netflix.com/). Let’s just say the number is exactly 23 million. For the sake of a whole number.
Now, let’s say the most popular Netflix choice is having one DVD out while also being able to have unlimited streaming. How about 60% of the 23 million, or approximately 14 million, hold this particular option? I have no idea what the numbers actually are, but for the sake of this exercise it is fair enough. The price was $10 a month, and now they have raised their rates 60%, to a staggering $16 a month.
First I would say not too long ago we were all renting videos from a video store, where prices were probably somewhere around $4 for new arrivals and $2 for older videos. If you were renting one new arrival and one old film a week, you were spending $24 a month, and that doesn’t include TV shows, which often had to be rented by the disc, or any late fees you might accrue, or films “rented out,” or movies simply not available in the inventory. If that seems more efficient to you, I suggest you high tail it to the nearest Blockbuster or simply use movies on demand.
Secondly I would argue $6 a month is $72 a year or, even at the middling sum I am paid, not even a full day’s work. Stretched over the course of a YEAR. If you can’t find a way to squirrel away an extra $6 a month, maybe you shouldn’t have Netflix at all.
Here are some other numbers for you to give a little thought.
Using the 14 million customers posited earlier under the $10 a month plan, the amount Netflix would be raking from those customers alone would be $140,000,000. At an increase to $16 a customer, in order to match that amount, Netflix simply has to retain approximately 63% of its customers. That means it could afford to lose about 5,250,000. For those of you who have trouble deciphering numerical characters, that’s over FIVE MILLION CUSTOMERS. They could completely LOSE that amount and still be exactly where they are right now.
So let’s say ONE MILLION people are so upset about having to pay an additional $6 a month they completely quit the service. One MILLION people. Just think about how many that is for a minute, and then let me assure you one million people are not simply going to quit using Netflix over $6 a month. But, just for the sake of everybody crying in their beers, let’s say a million. Now they have a lowly 13 million customers at $16 a month. That’s $208,000,000 a month. That’s an increase of SIXTY-EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS, and that’s if they LOSE ONE MILLION CUSTOMERS.
For everybody trying to figure out a “reason” or claiming they are slapping their customers in the face just for the sake of it or one of the other ridiculous notions I have read over the course of the last few weeks on the interwebz, I have to simply say that most of you, at least are getting it right; it’s mostly greed. You are looking for some deeper meaning where there is none. But please also remember people, this is one of the main downfalls of the economy. You want Netflix to charge you nothing, but you also want them to be able to pay for streaming rights, movies for the library, AND employ the masses at a liveable wage. Don’t ask for too much, eh.
Why in the hell are you looking for a deeper reasoning in the rising cost of an entertainment sundry? It’s a business, it’s Capitalism, it’s the very, very, very, very, very, easiest, simplest idea of economics, the most basic economic principle to comprehend. It’s supply and demand people. I assure you, if Netflix raises their prices and lose eight million customers, the price will come down. If not, then it won’t. It’s that simple. They are trying to maximize profit, trying to reach the equilibrium pricing for their product. That’s what you do, as a business.
They aren’t going to shed a tear at the loss of a handful of customers who in absolutely no way effect their bottom line. It’s want vs. need. It’s a luxury. Of course you don’t WANT to pay more, but such is Capitalism. You’re simply fooling yourself in to thinking these pointless diatribes on your favorite social networking site actually mean something to Netflix, or losing a customer….or a couple thousand….impacts them in any meaningful way. Maybe it makes you feel better to voice your opinion (as it does me) but maybe it should be done in a more respectful, knowledgeable voice. Also, if you think you are actually effecting anything, dear friend, you are incorrect.
So go ahead, punish yourself. Fool yourself in to thinking Blockbuster streaming is just as good, or the $6 extra a month just “isn’t worth it.” Complain for the sake of complaining. That’s fine for you. Me? I think it’s still a pretty fair price, so I’m going to go stream the next episode of “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century” directly to my 42” HD television wirelessly via my Sony Blu-Ray player. Just because I can.
Biddi biddi biddi biddi Buck. Biddi biddi biddi.
Written by Ryan Venson
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Not having read many of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, I normally picture the eccentric and brilliant sleuth as an introspective, pipe smoking, violin playing guy who doesn't do much else than solve crimes in his deerstalker hat and hang out in his study.
Certainly I was among those who saw trailers of Sherlock Holmes featuring action sequences, including the hero himself using carefully calculated ninja skills, taking out the bad guys, diving out of windows being in near proximity to explosions. I approached the movie with caution – interested, but unsure it would really deliver.
The most surprising part of the movie was the acting. Robert Downey Jr. was completely amazing as a Sherlock Holmes who is physically as well as mentally sharp, a complete disaster that can pull himself together to be a charmer in short order, and all with a wonderfully dry sense of humor. Basically, he adapted Sherlock Holmes to be Robert Downey Jr.
Jude Law undergoes a more impressive transformation playing Watson. This is the first movie I can think of where he hasn't been a womanizing dandy – he's somewhat romantically awkward as Watson, Holmes' partner in crime-solving adventures.
The storyline is a bit mediocre, or at least very typical of ye old late 19th century/early 20th century British literature. (For the record, I have been on quite an Agatha Christie kick lately, and she also uses some similar devices). Immediately as the movie starts, Holmes and Watson capture a fellow who fancies himself a sorcerer and is about to offer up a female sacrifice. He is carted off to jail, hanged and buried…and then busts out of his tomb. Literally.
With the seemingly supernatural Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) on the loose and threatening to take over the world, the game is afoot. The film is stuffed with a secret society, a mysterious and not quite trustworthy former flame (Rachel McAdams) of Sherlock's who returns to both confound the detecting process and offer some clues, and evidence that makes no sense until Sherlock explains it.
Visually, the movie is interesting. My favorite scenes are those illustrating Sherlock as he is in the middle of an action sequence, and the audience is treated to a snapshot of his thinking through the next four or five hits necessary to knock out or 'neutralize' the target. Similarly, scenes when he analyzes a person – such as Watson's lady friend – are hilarious. The action sequences are believable – Sherlock has some chops, but within reasonable limits.
In short, I am very much looking forward to the sequel.\
If you:
Put it in the queue!
If you:
Don't put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
Many years ago, my buddy Ash and I went to the video store in an attempt to find something we hadn’t seen yet. What we settled on was Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie. Making Comedy Central available was not a big priority in my small town, so I had never watched an episode of the television show, and had no idea what I what to expect. MST3K: The Movie made me laugh harder than I could remember, and it instantly became one of my favorite “go to” movies. For those of you who don’t know what the show is; it is basically a man and two puppet robots that watch terrible movies and make fun of them. Simple and brilliant. Sadly, like most television shows, MST3K had to come to an end. And while there are almost 200 two hour long episodes, I found that after a few years I wanted something new. Luckily I wasn’t the only person who felt this way, and where there is demand, supply usually follows. What was born was Rifftrax. Rifftrax is made up of several of the people who made fun of movies on MST3K, and is essentially the same formula of making fun of movies. What makes Rifftrax different is that they are no longer bound, mostly because of copyrights, to just watch bad older movies. The cast takes on current and classic blockbusters like the Star Wars films and the Harry Potter series. They sidestep copyright laws by just recording a commentary that listeners can download and play along with the film. It is kind of like the whole Dark Side of the Moon/Wizard of Oz thing, but much cooler, and fewer velvet black light posters.
On occasion Rifftrax will also do live events that are streamed into theaters around the country. I have been fortunate enough to attend a few of these screenings, and they do not disappoint. Most recently I went to see them make fun of a movie that I used to watch all the time as a child, Jack the Giant Killer. This certainly isn’t as famous as many of the movies used by Rifftrax, but it still holds a special place in my heart. It turns out the movie wasn’t as good as I remember it being when I was 7 years old, but it provided perfect fodder for the Rifftrax crew. Explaining the show would be too difficult, so just watch the clip below, and visit Rifftrax.com when you get a chance. They even show you which movies are available on Netflix streaming in case you don’t own every movie they riff about.
I do appreciate that my last post was about how much I hate people talking during movies, and then follow it up with a post about how much I love certain people talking during certain movies.
This isn’t really the problem, however. Once the guests retire to the parlor to chat, play the piano, sing and generally socialize, they can’t seem to make their way out of the room. Several attempt, but then get sidetracked as soon as they approach the threshold.While I was watching White, I tried to pay more attention to the color symbolism, etc. than I did in Blue. I do not really think this played a strong factor in my enjoyment of the film. However, I did like White much better because it was a comedy (albeit a dark one at that).
Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski) is having a really bad day. He has a summons to appear at court, gets splattered by an errant pigeon on his way to the courtroom, and then his wife divorces him for failure to consummate the marriage. Struggling through the proceedings with a translator because the Polish Karol does not speak strong French, shamed by his ex-wife (who says she doesn’t love him anymore because he couldn’t get it up after they were married) and denied his request for more time, Karol is – no pun intended – screwed.
His ex-wife Dominique (Julie Delpy) has the apartment, the salon they co-own, and the money he had in the bank. Left only with a moderately-sized trunk of his belongings and completely unrequited love for his ex-wife, Karol starts sleeping in the subway and playing Polish folk tunes via a comb-turned-harmonica for coins. Mikolaj, (Janusz Gajos) recognizes the tune and approaches Karol with an offer to take him back to Poland as well as a strange job proposition.
Eventually accepting both, Karol gets back to Poland through unusual means, then has another absurd turn of luck ending in his being beaten rather badly by thieves. His fortune improves as he is able to stagger back to the family salon and begin to re-build his life.
Driven by his enduring love for the seemingly underserving Dominique (richly symbolized by objects he brought back from Paris), Karol builds a new life and fully embodies ‘revolutionary ideals’ as his bad fortune reverses itself in post-Communist Poland.
Karol is likeable (though pathetic at times) and the ending is weird, but at least there is continuous action. According to Wikipedia, this is considered the weakest of the trilogy, but I thought it was pretty entertaining and still better than Blue.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
If you:
Don’t put it in the queue. (And if you identify with the third reason, you should also probably take a break from watching movies starring Michael Cera.)
Written by Jennifer Venson
Not long ago, a video clip from the Alamo Drafthouse began making its way around the internet. This PSA, which plays before the feature presentation, played the audio and showed a transcript from an angry voicemail that an irate customer left for the theater. Apparently the moviegoer was more than a little upset about being kicked out of the theater for texting. This film was a hit with almost anyone who watched it, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper spent several minutes praising the clip, while making fun of the woman. Have things really gotten so bad at the movies as to justify theaters not only kicking out patrons, but ridiculing their complaints nightly? Yes, they have.
I go to the movies more than the average American*, so I have more opportunities to have people disrupt my films. But while Ryan and I used to complain about the occasional disturbance, we now find ourselves surprised when the crowd manages to behave. I don’t remember when things got so turned around, but I do remember some of the better examples of people behaving badly.
1. There is no explaining my buddy David’s man-crush on Tommy Lee Jones. It was his sick infatuation that led us to the Rules of Engagement. David and I noticed early on that things were going to go south in this particular viewing, when the gaggle of preteens came wondering in during the trailers. Certainly when I think of a military legal drama, I think preteens. Much to our surprise they immediately 
began to start talking, running around, and swapping seats during the movie. This was in my young, non-confrontational days, so I just sat there and tried to continue to watch the movie, but it was easy to find the people who were slowly getting fed up with the constant chatter from the back rows. There was a middle aged man, maybe 50, who was just down the row from David and I. Every few minutes he would turn around and glare at the kids several row back. The older gentlemen did this for the first half of the movie before leaving in search of an usher. Miraculously the kids were asked to leave the theater, and I settled in to enjoy Tommy Lee Jones eating up screen time. Of course the guy who got the kids kicked out decided to fill the void that he created. Anytime Tommy Lee Jones would ask a question in the movie, the older man would yell the answer back at the screen. This continued for the rest of the film. At least being an ass has nothing to do with age.
2. If you listen to the podcast “Coming Off the Reels”, you may have heard this story before. Early on, I was not very excited about X-Men: First Class, but as early reviews were overwhelmingly positive, I figured it was something that needed to be seen. Ryan and I arrived early, so it is was just a roll of the dice as to who would eventually sit around us. Snake Eyes! A couple in their late teens sat behind us, a twentysomething couple in front of us. The couple behind us were talking during the trailers, which while I don’t like, I understand that some people don’t care about previews like I do. It was when the couple continued to talk well into the movie that I started to lose my patience. About 30 minutes into the movie, I finally turned around and asked them to be quiet. In their defense, the movie was pretty loud, so I suppose they might have thought I said, “Please speak louder than the characters in the movie.” So as I am sitting there thinking about sucker punching a couple of teenagers, the woman in front of me decides that this would be a good time to check 
her texts and her voicemail. That was pretty much it for me, and I decided to try and find an employee who could maybe pop their head in and take a look from time to time. Being that it was an afternoon show, the staffing was pretty light, and no help could be found. I begrudgingly returned to my seat, defeated. After the next random outburst from the couple behind us, Ryan asked if we could just move seats. We ended up in the back row, but at least it seemed quieter. A few minutes go by and we hear an odd noise. Ryan and I look at each other and both share a deflated laugh as we realize that the people in front of us have brought their newborn to the theater. I don’t know much about kids, but I am pretty sure that babies who don’t even have the strength to hold up their own heads love crazy loud comic book movies. At least the mother would take the baby out each time that it started fussing, but that too was a distraction. Still, X-Men: First Class was pretty good movie and I can’t wait to watch it again…alone.
3. There is so much about this story that still feels weird to me. First, this was at a showing of Mystery Men. Yeah, some people actually paid money to see this one. Secondly, the showing of this movie was packed…Mystery Men! Even then I thought it was odd that so many people showed up, and I ended up having to sit in the back row again. A few rows in front of me was a group of teens, our usual suspects, and in front of them was an older man who kind of reminded me of Santa Clause…if Santa spent most of his life working in a coal mine. The kids talked and carried on, but what was really getting to Santa was that the kids kept putting their feet up on his seat, taking them off, and then putting them back up again. This went on for a while until Santa got up, moved to a seat behind the teenagers and sat there quietly…waiting. The next time the kids started to misbehave, Santa sprang into action. Saint Nick began kicking the back of the teen’s seats so hard that they were falling to the floor. Each time Santa’s foot found its mark he would shout “HOW…DO YOU…LIKE IT? HOW…DO YOU…LIKE IT?” Then Santa stood, kicked the seat one last time for good measure, and left. It was Mystery Men, so he really didn’t miss much.
The thing is, with the exception of the recently watched X-Men movie, I don’t remember much about the other two films mentioned above, and that is unusual for me. However, I vividly remember the people who ruined the movies.
Anyone who knows me, know how much I love going to the movies. In a time when the world seems to be getting worse every day, movies are a beautiful escape. Instead, I am forced to contend with a growing number of people who think you can act the same way at the movies as you do at bars. You pay your $10 cover, and come on in and talk to your friends, try and hook up with someone, make a fool of yourself, without caring if you are destroying the experience for someone else. Hmm, maybe if theaters had the same bouncers who work outside of nightclubs, I could get a little silence.
In the end, I will still pay my money and take my chances that people will shut up when the lights go out. If theaters want to make more of my money they could add a set of shows, maybe on Sunday morning, and tell people that during these shows, silence will be strictly enforced. I promise I will get up and go every week. Until then I would love to hear other stories of terrible trips to the movies. We can start a kind of support group. Together we can overcome, or at least find that Santa guy and have him start some shit.
*According to a survey done by the MPAA in 2007, the average American goes to the movies less than six times a year. I average closer to 35-40 visits to the movies each year.
Written by Drew Martin
Blockbuster season is upon us, and we invited Amanda Trice to sit in with us to discuss one of the biggest of the summer. Stalwart leading man Brad Pitt plays the lead in “Tree of Life.” Pitt plays O’Brien, an inventor and thrill seeker. He and his estranged wife, played by Jessica Chastain, get themselves in to a number of ill-advised predicaments in this rom/com/thriller which can only be described as Inspector Gadget meets Mission Impossible. In the middle there’s some sort of hokeyness about our place in the universe, and how we deal with loss, and the nature of God, but that portion of the film is fleeting. Mostly it’s about Brad Pitt fighting dinosaurs.
Starring: Jack Rebney Directed by: Ben Steinbauer
Some of my reviews have been criticized – and fairly so – for not really analyzing symbolism and such in movies. I don't tend to enjoy artsy films with hidden meanings, metaphorical stories within stories, allegories, allusions. The main reason I never pursued a graduate degree in comparative literature is that I didn't see the point of re-reading and re-analyzing The Scarlet Letter, Beowulf and select stories from The Canterbury Tales again.
So it may surprise you this review is for a documentary about an Everyman character. Of course, he's no Young Goodman Brown. No, this is Jack Rebney. Far from Puritan in his vocabulary, this proficiently-swearing symbol of frustration became a viral video icon even before YouTube was a glimmer in the Interwebs.
A reel of outtakes from a corporate Winnebego sales video made Rebney a star. It's a ~5 minute video with clips of Rebney swearing about forgetting his lines, swearing about the heat, swatting at (and swearing at) flies disrupting the shoot. It is a tapestry of profanity only the truly crabby at heart can weave together, intermingled with sheer irritation stemming from a difficult task. Most of us have had days like this, and am personally very happy mine have never been caught on tape.
Unfortunately for Rebney, this film made it to the corporate office and led to the end of his career at Winnebego. Director Ben Steinbauer decided to seek out the man – now an internet celebrity – and see where life has taken him.
Steinbauer approaches the topic with pop-culture laden curiosity. Citing examples of other Internet celebrities – particularly those who didn't want the notoriety and experienced significant humiliation because of it, such as Star Wars Kid – he wants to know what became of Rebney. The man himself is difficult to track down, finally discovered as the caretaker living in the mountains in northern California. At first he is the picture of calm – a far cry from his video persona. Just a peaceable old man living in the mountains, enjoying the solitude.
It does not seem like Steinbauer will have a very interesting documentary. Then Rebney contacts him and admits he did not give an accurate portrayal of his true character. As he and Steinbauer build rapport, he reveals his true semi-cranky self. However, he is not all bluster – he is an intelligent man with a great vocabulary, an affection for his dog, and a firm belief Dick Cheney has really screwed up the economy.
Though Steinbauer continually presses him to talk more about himself and share his views with his internet fans, Rebney hesitates. He cannot believe he has die-hard fans, and figures they must all be a bunch of buffoons. For a second time, the documentary nearly grinds to a halt.
Fortunately, Steinbauer invites Rebney to an event where he will meet his fans. Reluctantly he goes, assuming he will find a bunch of lowbrows who have nothing better to do than watch stupid videos on the internet – and no, he will not stand around signing autographs.
Winnebego Man is both hilarious and heartwarming, annoying (well, mostly Steinbauer is annoying) and inspiring, and most of all – something Everyman (or Everywoman) who has had a really, really bad day at work can enjoy.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
If you:
Don't put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
Starring: Juliette Binoche Directed by: Krzysztof Kieslowski
I watched Blue at the recommendation of my friend Daniel Ferreiro, who guaranteed I would love it. Still, I approached this movie with some hesitation as he and I do not always see eye-to-eye on films.
I can say that the movie was artfully made, with nice symbolic devices – the blue tint to the lighting in many scenes, the ‘fugue states’ the main character has throughout. However, I found much of the movie dreadfully boring. Very little happens throughout the first hour of the film, which made roughly 90 minute feel like so much longer.
Within the first ten minutes, a single-car accident kills the husband and young daughter of Julie (Juliette Binoche) as they travel to an event. Waking up in the hospital, Julie is listless and despondent. She attempts to distract a nurse and overdose on pills from the pharmacy, but cannot get the pills down. As she sits staring off into the distance, a female reporter bothers her for an interview, asking if Julie is truly the composer of her late husband’s celebrated pieces – as rumored.
As the servants and family friend Oliver (Benoît Régent) help clear out the house, Oliver finds a file folder with pictures of the composer and an unknown woman in an embrace. He doesn’t show Julie these photos.
Julie has the house cleared out of furniture and leaves the house behind to be sold as she cuts herself off from the world, destroying the manuscript with her husband’s last composition – designed to be played only once for the European Unification ceremony. Taking very few belongings – most importantly a chandelier made of blue crystals – she finds an apartment in Paris and attempts to cut herself off from the rest of the world.
And then for an hour, Julie wanders through life – swimming, making friends with an exotic dancer who lives in the same apartment building, visiting her senile mother, sitting in cafes…doing little to nothing. From time to time, she fades out of the world surrounding her, lost in the composition her husband had been writing.
Finally, everything starts falling into place in the last half hour. The mystery of the composer, the mistress…all is answered. In about a span of 15 minutes.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
However, if you
Don’t put it in the queue.
Written by: Jennifer Venson
After 10 years and 8 movies, the Harry Potter Saga has finally come to a close. Was the last installment everything we hoped it would be? Were the different arcs resolved as well as they were in the books? What parts of the movie made us cry? Why did Morgan sign on to be in Dolphin Tale? Come on Morgan! You were in The Shawshank Redemption! Now you are giving tailless dolphins prosthetic tails? And...Harry Connick Jr. is in it, and being in a movie with him has never helped anyone's career. Did you lose a bet? Yes, there are a great many questions that are posed in this weeks show. I can't promise that we will answer them all, but we certainly had fun making fun of Dolphin Tale.
Also joining us this week were Courtney Felix and Tyler Johnson.
Starring: Kurt Russell, Vanessa Ferlito, Zoe Bell, Rosario Dawson Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
“Death Proof” starts out quite differently. Instead of just throwing you in to the scrum, it starts out in a car with three lovely young ladies discussing their plans for the evening. Sticking close to the “heavily-worn print of a film” theme there are some terrible jumps interrupting large portions of dialogue, grainy footage, and even a little poor audio thrown in. After they talk about their plans for the evening they talk about their plans some more. Then a little more. And after that, a little more. Then they go to a bar and drink some margaritas. The film takes a while to get going.
The direction/cinematography incorporates a lot of color, but still distinctly 70s, sticking to the same formula as “Planet Terror.” Lots of orange/brown/red/with flecks of green. The sets are made to look like the 70s, with vintage posters everywhere, pinned on bar walls laden with faux-wood paneling. The clothes the characters are wearing are 70s-ish as well -- daisy dukes and ultra small t-shirts with the colored stripes around the neck and sleeves. The direction itself is actually very modern with a lot of interesting shots, reminding me something I often forget -- Tarantino is actually quite a good director.
There is, however, one small flaw in the film: Nothing ever happens. Ever. When it was released separately of “Planet Terror”, it was re-edited and given a 114 minute playing time. That’s pretty long, especially for an exploitation film. And it seems more like 314 minutes. Waiting for that big action sequence at the end of the “first act?” Well, you’re gonna have to wait 50 minutes, and the scene itself is going to last about a minute and a half. What a pay-off!
What’s weird is ““Death Proof”” itself plays like two separate films. The first film, clocking in at about 55 minutes long, is a sly, winking, well directed homage to exploitation, even if it is a little sluggish. The second film, which is also about 55 minutes long, is an extremely boring, overlong, overstuffed, simply mind-numbingly dull, modern piece of cinema dedicated to stunt people.
The second ““Death Proof”” act starts out the same way as the first, three lovely young ladies in a car, going to pick up a fourth. However, this is just modern cinema. It’s a bright, mid 2007 day, and gone are all the bad edits, scratchy film and interesting colors. The only thing tying this to the first portion of the film is Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell).
There’s a lengthy conversation about picking up a copy of “Italian Vogue” which is utterly and fascinatingly uninteresting. On the way to wherever they are going, the ladies spend six minutes in a car talking about sex, with the majority of the dialogue based around using the word “fuck” as an adjective, noun, verb, and pronoun. It’s kinda’ like when you used to watch “Smurfs” as a kid. “Hey fuck, could you go fuck me a fuck?”
After this thrilling scene, we are treated to another eight minutes of banal dialogue punctuated with fucks. No lie. It starts out with a three minute long story about falling in to a ditch, punctuated with eleven f-bombs and topped off with the zinger “I resemble that remark.”
“I resemble that remark?” Excuse my French, but what the fuck am I watching?! If I had never heard the joke I wouldn’t think it’s funny, but I have heard it about a thousand times, and this is the big pay-off of the segment. It was, during this scene, I did something I never do while watching a film. I fast-forwarded to the next scene. I’m not proud of it, but I think I am better off for it.
Look, I can’t complain about this portion of the film enough. This same formula is repeated for the next twenty minutes of film, without a single line of engaging dialogue. This isn’t an exaggeration. All of this seems like something Kevin Smith would write. Forty years from now. After a stroke-induced coma. It’s boring, it’s repetitive, it’s uninteresting, and it isn’t even vaguely humorous.
The whole crux of the “second act” is the last 15 minutes of film where an honest-to-god action piece takes place. Zoe Bell (a real-life stunt person playing herself) convinces Kim (Tracie Thoms) to drive her around at startlingly fast speeds while she hangs out strapped to the hood of a car by a pair of belts. This movie is so lazy it can’t even invent a reason to have an action scene besides stunt people, even when they aren’t performing stunts, like to do stupid shit that put their lives in danger.
Eventually Stuntman Mike, in his car, attacks the three girls, in their car. There are actual stunt people hanging off vehicles whilst cars bang violently in to one another. In a time and place where most action sequences revolve around CGI, this is a breath of fresh air.
For about two minutes. Then it turns in to an action sequence mirroring the repetitive dialogue sequences from earlier. The cars crash in to each other repeatedly. The girls scream ad nauseam. They finally get Zoe Bell off the hood of the car. They go after Stuntman Mike. Stuntman Mike screams ad nauseam. And the girls, believe it or not, repetitively use the words “fuck” and “motherfucker,” until you want to tear your ears off.
Maybe I would be less critical of this film if it wasn’t part of a “grindhouse” double feature, but when I think of a modern exploitation film I think of tongue-in-cheek violence, ironic humor and, most of all fun. This film doesn’t satisfy any of those criteria.
Written by Ryan Venson
Starring: Matthew Fox, Evangeline Lilly, Jorge Garcia, Terry O'Quinn, Josh Holloway I remember when Lost first aired. My dad faithfully watched at least the first season but when I asked him what was going on in the show, all I remember is him telling me there were polar bears on the island and weird stuff kept happening. Whatever.
So I never really got into the show. Until a few weeks ago.
Ryan really wanted me to start watching Lost. I balked for a while, but then sat down one Thursday evening after diinner and watched the pilot. Then another episode. Then another. With the instant gratification of Netflix, I watched the entire first season in eight days. Possibly with the exception of the first season of Castle, that’s the fastest I’ve ever watched a season of anything.
The premise is simple – after the Ocenania flight 815 crashes on its way from Sydney, Australia to Los Angeles, a group of survivors wake up and try to figure out what’s going on. The first one you meet is Jack (Matthew Fox), a doctor who serves as the de facto leader as he tries to sort out the dazed survivors as well or wounded. Throughout the first season (and at least the first six episodes of the second season) he always walks around looking worried to various degrees – as if he is constantly second-guessing his leadership capability.
Among the roughly 45 survivors, only a handful are truly important to the progression of the plot. Each one has some sort of personal burden or secret, artfully revealed through flashbacks woven into the episodes. Your main characters (aside from Jack) are:
The characters really make the show – without excellent casting, without interesting back stories this would just be a boring drama about people arguing in the jungle and on the beach. You have to care about the characters to want to keep watching. The weird elements in the show (polar bears, the whispering jungle, a strange door with no handle buried in the middle of nowhere) would not be enough to keep me watching – what does is figuring out how the characters are going to act and react to keep surviving. Also, there are a ton of coincidences baked into the plot – the characters are more connected than they know, and it’s fun to notice these links (some less subtle than others) as they emerge.
I highly recommend the first season. If you:
Put it in the queue!
I know this show is probably not for everyone. So if you:
Don’t put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
Starring: Rose McGowan, Freddy Rodríguez Directed by: Robert Rodriguez
When Grindhouse was released way back in 2007 I was intrigued but failed to catch it in theatres. It turned out not being overtly popular and had a fairly short run. Plus I always have trouble gearing myself up to sit in a movie theatre for over 3 hours to watch a film.
When it came out on video I was incensed at their decision to release it as two separate films, without the fake trailers everybody raved about (you can see them on youtube, however.) Lousy. That’s a George Lucas-type move.
Finally four years later Drew finally talked me in to watching his copies of the films. Free is free, after all, and I was still intrigued to see how the films stacked up to recent exploitation films, as well as where they fit in to the directors oeuvre.
First up, Robert Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror”.
“Planet Terror” starts out with a stripper, severed testicles, a gun fight and the release of an experimental bio-weapon in to the atmosphere. I can’t dream of a better way to start a film. The bio-weapon starts mutating people, making them in to flesh-hungry zombie-like creatures.
By and large that’s the plot of the film. There’s a bit of an explanation near the end of the film as to why Lt. Muldoon (Bruce Willis) released the gas on an unsuspecting population, but plot is about the least important aspect of this film. This is all about visuals and violence.
The film is shot to look like a 70s film, but still taking place in the present day. The color of the film, in particular, goes a long was to giving it a retro feel. Lots and lots of orange and green and brown, with dimly lit set pieces. In post-production the film was given various effects to make it look old. It’s very grainy, with 35mm scratches and lots of jumps to indicate missing lengths of film. In one particularly funny gag, the film suddenly stops, replaced by a few frames of apology from management. Seems as though they have lost an entire reel of film! When the film start back up you have lost an entire 10-15 minutes of film, and you are thrust back in to the action with little explanation as to what’s going on.
The film relies on a lot of over-the-top violence to both entertain and humor the viewer. Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan) has a leg chewed off by a zombie and replaces it first with a table leg and later with a machine gun. Sheriff Hague (Michael Biehn) gets his neck nearly torn in two, and they patch him up with a neck tourniquet. Numb hands, severed limbs, pulsating face pustules and gore geysers galore, all play a part in the film. Some of it is retread from the films it’s paying homage to, but there is enough inventive here to keep the viewer on board throughout. In the end, this is exactly what I would expect, and what I wanted, from a film with “grindhouse” roots.
Written by Ryan Venson
There is a little something for everyone in this episode. We review a good movie, a bad movie, and a good movie about a bad movie. If only we could find a bad movie about a good movie...like a 6 hour finger puppet retelling of Citizen Kane... and all of the dialogue is written in haiku form...and the camera is always just slightly out of focus...and it stars Hillary Swank. Gives me chills just thinking about Hillary Swank continuing to star in movies. This episode does run a little long, almost an hour I believe, but when you are talking about Super 8 and Troll 2 it is impossible to be brief. Enjoy the show and please watch the amazing PSA from the Alamo Drafthouse. http://youtu.be/1L3eeC2lJZs
Written by Ryan Venson The thing about comic book adaptations of movies is they are almost always terrible. Companies aren’t trying to sell you an ongoing series, just an issue or two, and you are buying the issue based on a name instead of hoping for a quality product. You might see an adaptation of “Die Hard” or “Under Siege” and think, “Kick-ass!” only to open it and find out Jon Bogdanove did the pencils.
Fuck I hate Jon Bogdanove.
Considering how terrible the actual film “Predator 2” was, I couldn’t imagine the 2-issue comic being anything more than a festering pile of dung. Hippopotamus dung. And boy did what I get defy all expectations. I mean that statement seriously. No sarcasm intended. Really.
This is one of the, if not the, best comic book adaptation I have ever seen.
The adaptation sticks close to the root of the film, including all the important scene, dialogue and plot points. And, most surprisingly, the art doesn’t completely blow. Hey look, it’s the scene at the beginning of the film I was relentlessly mocking in my film portion of the review!
Although after he sneaks up on the dealers here he yells , “Surprise, Muchachos!” instead of “Hey assholes!”
Published by Dark Horse Comics, the mini-series doesn’t lack on gore and even throws in a couple expletives, but the film was simply expletive LACED. Let’s not forget this is the movie that gave us one of the finest pieces of dialogue ever to be uttered on the silver screen: After Harrigan (Danny Glover) is told he has to cooperate with special agent Keyes (Busey) in any further drug trafficking investigating, Harrigan replies, “Which means you’re cutting off my dick and shoving it up my ass.”
Simply elegant.
Here’s an entire page taken from issue one, penciled by Dan Barry with colors by Lurene Haines. Notice how much Glover actually looks like Glover. Pretty impressive. But the guy in the top left panel knocking on the door? That’s supposed to be GARY BUSEY. And the guy in the bottom left corner who looks like he’s about to be eaten by a giant Danny Glover head? That’s supposed to be BILL PAXTON.
Now, I can understand Paxton to some degree. He’s kind of an everyman. But Busey? This is Busey:
I mean, look at that guy! He’s a walking caricature! You have got to come harder than that Dan Barry! This guy looks 100% more like 1990 Corbin Bernsen than he does 1990 Gary Busey.
This reason I make a point to mention the colorist is because it nearly ruins the book. Seriously. The art is above average for a movie adaptation, and then the colorist comes in and slops it on. Look at the above panels. In panel three, Keyes’ face is pink and white with purple blotches. Did he just get in a fight? There are a number of panels throughout where it looks as
though Harrigan is wearing lipstick. There appears to be some kind of backwards shading. Look at the coats on these panels. Keyes’ coat is green, but why is there so much white in it? Same with all the clothes throughout. In some places it looks like the colorist had troubles staying “in the lines,” almost like those old paint with water books I was so fond of when I was five. Why can’t anything just be a solid color?
Paint with Water.......Go-Bots? I don't remember ANYBODY collecting Go-Bots. I collected He-Man and GI Joe and Thundercats, and lots of people collected Transformers and Star Wars figures, and maybe even some collected MASK or Sectaurs or something. But Go-Bots? NOBODY.
Back on subject.....it all works well enough despite my couple minor complaints and, in a bit of a surprise, a totally different team created the second issue, including Mark Bright pencils and Monika Livingston colors. Bright penciled a number of comics in the early 90s, including the stretch run of one of my favorite comics, Power Man & Iron Fist, so the art is on point, just different. The first issue took pains to look and feel realistic, but the second looks and feels much more like a comic. There’s totally nothing wrong with this shift in tone, especially as the pencils are still above average and the colors are infinitely better.
Here’s half a page, mirroring the scene I captured for the review of the film. It still looks enough like Glover, but look how much cooler he looks in a nice suit and without a hat. As a matter of fact, the comic sticks painfully close to the movie, but almost every scene seems better suited to be a comic book illustration. For instance, this scene where the
Predator rips out Lambert’s (Paxton) spine. More colorful, more exciting, more explicit than the film. I’m not sure if the correct onomatopoeia for spine-yanking is skriiiiich but, then, I have never torn somebody’s spine straight from their back. Yet.
And this scene, as Harrigan chases down the Predator even makes more sense. Instead of just falling down a hole in an elevator shaft for a giant wtf, he chases it in to a sewer, which is marginally less nonsensical. And look at panel six. The Alien skull!
In the end this adaptation hits all the important parts, large and small, of the film; it’s drawn well and is much more concise, and you don’t have to waste an hour and a half of your life for scenes where Glover yells at Busey or Busey yells at Glover or Maria Conchita Alonso grabs Paxton by the package and threatens to rip off his balls. A superior product to the film in almost every aspect.
I PAINTED THESE MYSELF!!
