I know everybody is filled with fingernail-biting anticipation to hear me and Drew's favorite films of 2011, so I have placed two pics here on the page as a sort of podcast teaser. One represents a top five film for me, and one represents a top five film for Drew. I don't want to give away which is which, so I supposed you will just have to listen in...
Directed by: Armando Iannucci Starring: Tom Hollander,Peter Capaldi, James Gandolfini
As the United States has ended its involvement in Iraq, a film about the international political machinations behind war seems an appropriate choice. In the Loop starts with a verbal gaffe by British Minister for International Development Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) during a radio interview. When asked about the likelihood of military involvement in the Middle East, he replies war is 'unforeseeable' rather than regurgitating a slightly more equivocating party line. Despite the acquisition of a new aide, Toby (Chris Addision) and heavily profane warnings from communications manager Malcom (Peter Capaldi) to keep his mouth shut unless he can stick to the party script, things go from bad to worse.
Simon's clumsy attempts to seem more important than the minor career politician he is and to correct his previous mis-statement with vague metaphors actually thrust him into the spotlight as a war hawk. Unwittingly, Simon has become tangled up in a bit of a power struggle between two US Assistant Secretaries.
Rather than figuring out how to extract Simon from international dilemmas and local constituents making a laughingstock of him in the press, Toby stirs the political pot behind the scenes with information leaks. The layers of maneuvering on all fronts – among the aides, between the pro- and anti-war groups, within the party – are ultimately like a multi-tiered concoction of cake and filling: sickening overall, though some parts are highly enjoyable.
Perhaps if it would have been more A Modest Proposal and less plausible, I would have enjoyed this movie more overall. Also, I didn't really like any of the characters. Regardless of their motives and stance on the war, they were all a bunch of manipulative, self-centered turds in one way or another. Plus, it was too long I did not find the ending satisfactory at all. I like my movies idealistic and have to say I far more enjoyed the ending of She's The Man (which I inadvertently started watching on TBS and was inexplicably compelled to sit through the whole thing).
If you:
Put it in the queue!
However, if you:
Don't put it in the queue.
In an attemp at not wasting so much time during the regular show, I decided to start recording shows that just run a few minutes about one movie. Senna was the first movie I watched for this little experiment. I know that a documentary about F1 racer may not seem like your thing, but just give me 5 minutes to try and change your mind.
Directed by: Woody Allen Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams
Even before I read The Great Gatsby, I wanted to live in the 1920s. Beads, jazz, bobs, long cigarette holders, the Charleston, speakeasies…it all sounded like great fun. Then once I found out about all the American expats living it up in Paris…the artistic/intellectual community of that era is the Elysian Fields for any wannabe author of the next Great America Novel.
Judging by Midnight in Paris, I am not alone in that regard. Gil (Owen Wilson) is a successful screenwriter longing for a more 'authentic' writing career. In Paris with his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents, he longs to ramble around the city in the rain with very romantic notions of what it was like in the golden age of the 1920s where authors and artists partied and mingled in a French mecca of creativity. Inez is definitely not on the same wavelength, preferring wine tasting, gallery tours and late nights of dancing with her pseudo-intellectual American friend Paul (Martin Sheen) and his lady friend Carol (Nina Arianda).
One night Gil is off on a late-night walk, resting on some stone steps when an old-time car pulls up. The jovial passengers offer him a lift, and Gil is spirited off to a fine party where the women are dressed like flappers, Cole Porter is playing the piano, and Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald invite him to pal around for the evening, ultimately leaving him at a café to chat with Hemingway (Corey Stoll). Amidst talk of courage, grace and war, Hemingway refuses to read and comment on the gobsmacked Gil's novel in progress but suggests Gertrude Stein could provide a more fair opinion on it. Hurrying off to get his manuscript, Gil wanders back into his world.
Determined to get back to the roaring twenties again, Gil is in a hurried daze, tolerating Paul's blathering and Inez's putdowns only because he is whiling away the hours until the evening. Paul particularly mocks Gil's infatuation with 1920s Paris as he says living in the past and nostalgia is all a big romantic fallacy. Gil tries to share this fantastic journey with Inez, but she refuses to wait with him for the car, and Gil again travels into the partied past alone to take his manuscript to Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates). While there, he meets Picasso's beguiling young mistress Adriana (Marion Cotillard) and she loves the first sentence of his novel. Gil is charmed, particularly because this woman who has been the mistress of many famous artists is willing to engage in idle chatter with him.
Over the next few days, Gil rewrites the first few chapters based on Stein's feedback, evaluates the gulf between his ideals and Inez's, and attempts to woo Adriana in the 1920s (despite competition from Hemingway). I won't spoil the unfolding of the plot, but it does end with Gil taking an evening stroll in the rain with a lovely young woman.
Overall, this movie is absolute paradise for anyone who revels in literary/artistic references (there is even a nod to a film I previously reviewed, Luis Buñuel's The Exterminating Angel). I also found the film even more fantastic after I had a few glasses of wine (everyone in the movie was drinking; I felt silly not joining in). And with a Hemingway-ian sentiment, I should have disliked this movie because I didn't think of it first.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
However, if you:
Don't put it in the queue!
I am thrilled that Midnight in Paris is at least getting nominated for Oscars, even if it won't win. I also think Adrien Brody should have been nominated for his short, but fantastic portrayal of Salvador Dali, but I don't get to make those decisions. Just press play to enjoy this little review.
Directed by: Asif Kapadia
I can appreciate fast cars, great driving, and a story well told. So I'm not sure why I waited for Daniel Ferreiro to recommend Senna twice before I watched it.
Primarily comprised of footage from the 1980s and early 90s, this documentary introduced me to one of the Formula One greats – a driver named Ayrton Senna. Footage from Senna's early days competing in karting races, in-car cameras from F1 races and telecasts give the viewer a taste of the excitement surrounding this young driver.
I have seen a fair amount of documentaries, and this by far was one of the most compelling I've seen. The way the audio and video segments were carefully chosen and seamlessly woven together allow Senna to tell his own story. You see his competitive drive on the track, his frustration at FIA politics and the ease he feels at home in Brazil enjoying boating and waterskiing when not racing. The voices of friends, family, teammates, team owners, reporters work as narration, not as disruptive and boring 'talking heads.'
The film winds you up during the races with the buzz of the cars circling the track, spitting sparks and whizzing by at ridiculous speed, the announcers' shouts as Senna pulls into the lead with a risky yet rewarding move, the elation the win from a cockpit view. It shows you the boyishly mischevious side of Senna, flirting with female reporters and celebrities who flirt right back with this handsome F1 world champion. You feel the tension of Senna's rivalry with Alain Proust and his incredible drive to win as well as the stress of situations surrounding his last Grand Prix.
Senna gives so many insights into the true personality of this man – more than just a phenomenal driver, a hero to the Brazilian people, a compassionate person, a religious man, a heartthrob, an outspoken advocate for safety and fairness in F1, a son, a brother, but also a person with hopes and dreams beyond his racing career. All these pieces make the conclusion even more poignant.
I enjoyed this film so much that I barely realized there are some segments with subtitles. So highly recommended that I'm going to give you ample reasons to put this one in the queue and move it up to #1.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
However if you,
Don't put it in the queue.
Starring: Evan Glodell, Jessie Wiseman, Tyler Dawson Directed by: Evan Glodell
Every synopsis I have read of Bellflower misrepresents the film. I know I started a recent review with a similar device, the review of “Survival Wilderness for Girls,” but it is true for both films. Maybe this is just becoming more prevalent in an era where a short online synopsis might convince you to order a movie through a number of readily available online streaming options (Cinema Now, Vudu, Netflix, PPV, Amazon, etc.), but I can’t remember a time when more films where misrepresented through synopsis and trailers than in the last few years.
IMDB’s synopsis reads like this:
Two friends spend all their free time building flame-throwers and weapons of mass destruction in hopes that a global apocalypse will occur and clear the runway for their imaginary gang "Mother Medusa".
While this is true, it is a pretty small portion of the film. Heck, when I sat down to watch the film I thought it was going to take place in a future poised on the brink of annihilation. However, Bellflower actually takes place in modern day California. And is actually a love story. Or a bromance. Or a mixture of both. And, yeah, there is a flamethrower thrown in for good measure.
Woodrow (Evan Glodell) and Aiden (Tyler Dawson) are two friends who are building a flamethrower together. This isn’t to illustrate how weird they are, or mentally unstable. It’s just something to pass the time.
At a bar one night Woodrow is taken with Milly (Jessie Wiseman), who hands him a beat-down in a particularly voracious cricket-eating competition. They make plans for a date, deciding spontaneously to drive to small hole-in-the-wall diner in Texas, where Woodrow is punched in the nose, and also trades his car (whose dashboard is rigged to tap whisky from somewhere in the motor block) for a motorcycle.
These scenes take up about the first 40-45 minutes of the film, and they are dull. None of the actors cast in the film are adept at acting, although some might garner themselves a “passable” critique. Particularly problematic is Glodell, the writer and director of the film, who is also cast as the lead. Many lines are delivered in a stiff manner, and his awkward , self-aware giggle will have you pulling out your hair by minute 20.
There was a point during this time period I considered turning the film off. The one saving grace was its approach stylistically. I was aware the supposed budget of the film was $17,000 which, when translated to film budget, is almost literally nothing. I have seen films with four times the budget with four times less style (like this piece of festering feces: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469683/, which, even at 75 minutes long, was probably the greatest waste of time in my life).
So I continued to watch. And at about minute 50, give or take, an event occurs which causes a fist fight, possible brain damage, arson and self-deprecation.
And the rest of the film is captivating. It is finished in abruptly edited scenes and fevered, intoxicating visuals. I’m not sure it excuses Glodell’s first half exercise in acting futility, but as the film is finished in an explosion of carnage and outrage, it is obvious he chose the overt “aw-gee-shucks” nature of the first half of the film to juxtapose the anger in the second half.
There is an ending monologue from Aiden which finishes the film perfectly. It ties together everything in the film, from the violence perpetrated throughout, to relationships gone wrong, to the ramifications of poor decisions, and to the emotions associated therein, all with a “Road Warrior”-like apocalypse metaphor. I really feel with a little tightening-up, this could have been a great film. As-is, it’s set to be a piece of faulted cult cinema by a promising talent in the field.
Written by Ryan Venson [embed width="500" height="856"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrqM2Y74_lw[/embed]
This should have been up sooner, but you know how it is this time of year. Every free minute has to be spent catching up on nominated Oscar films. Plus if you think these shows are already too long, you should hear them before I edit out that random chatter and beer breaks. Just wait until we do the best/worst of 2011 episode...it might be 5 hours long. I will probably spend at least 2 hours talking about how much I hated Bridesmaids. For now, you will just have to enjoy this show.
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, Robert De Niro Directed by: Neil Burger
Continuous improvement seems to be pretty much the only thing important to what we perceive as success: more profits, more efficiency, more productivity. It is easy for the average person to get frustrated and perhaps somewhat disheartened by this manifesto. Should we have already done more by now? Shouldn't we be doing more? Surely using this planner, that app, multitasking, delegating better, working smarter…something should unlock our ability to do more, right?
If you are a typical adult and you haven't ever gone through this inner monologue, you must be:
Limitless speaks to our (or at least my) desire to see what's really inside the mind and understand what we could truly be capable of doing if nothing held us back. Eddie Mora (Bradley Cooper) has a book contract and serious writer's block. His crappy apartment is a mess, his girlfriend is fed up with him, and he looks like a bum.
On top of being unceremoniously dumped and past his authorial deadline with nothing to show for it, he runs into Vernon (Johnny Whitworth), his shady ex-brother-in-law. Vernon buys him a drink, listens to his troubles, then slips him a tablet in a little plastic bag, "on the house." Skeptical at first of this experimental drug that will allegedly unlock all his brain's power (not just that standard 20 percent), Eddie hesitates considerably before taking it.
But when it kicks in, the results are amazing. The subconscious serves up long-buried facts, his mental facilities go into overdrive, and he completes more than enough of his novel to placate and energize his editor.
One brush with this type of power isn't enough – of course Eddie wants more, which requires more of the drug. So he goes to see Vernon again, and Vernon promptly sends him out to run a couple errands. When Eddie gets back, Vernon has been murdered and his apartment tossed. Fortunately the baddies did not find the stash, but Eddie does.
What does he do with this seemingly limitless energy and intelligence? Finish his novel? Learn a bunch of foreign languages? Figure out an algorithm that allows him to make millions in a couple days of stock trading? Realize you know kung fu via all those Bruce Lee movies you watched in days of yore? Party with a bunch of gorgeous Italian women? Go cliff diving? Race around in a purple Maserati?
All this and more, friends, all this and more.
Of course, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Though Newton's Third Law doesn't completely describe the rest of the film, and I was not able to conjure up the name of this law with just the power of Diet Coke or my 20 percent brain alone (I had to use Google Search), the binds Eddie finds himself in as he struggles with the drug's side effects kept me on the edge of my seat. I highly enjoyed this movie, even though watching it made me feel like an underperforming buffoon.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
However, if you:
Don't put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
Starring: David Hyde Pierce, Clayne Crawford Directed by: Nick Tomnay
John (Clayne Crawford) finds himself in a serious pickle after he ends up injured and identified after a robbing a bank. Ditching his car – which has been described on the radio – he ends up wandering through a semi-ritzy neighborhood looking to weasel his way into shelter for the night. After one foiled attempt, he finds a postcard from Julia in Australia to Warwick (David Hyde Pierce). Posing as a recent friend of Julia's just in from Australia with a sob story about losing his luggage, he wrangles entry into the house, where Warwick is preparing for a dinner party.
While John is sitting in Warwick's house, sipping red wine and stringing together lies about his acquaintance with Julia, he hears another radio broadcast about his crime and the search for his whereabouts. Fear making him belligerent, John grabs a knife and gets belligerent, revealing the truth about his identity and willingness to kill. Warwick acts frightened and calls one of the guests to cancel the party. And then John blacks out. When he wakes up, he is the prisoner and four other dinner guests have joined Warwick's party.
What follows is an extremely strange – yet carefully structured – evening at Warwick's house. There are even some flashbacks of John's bank robbery woven in to add context and set up the ending. Throw in a nosy neighbor whose interference in the festivities is only avoided by quick thinking and the use of a rubber swamp creature mask, and you have a very weird yet completely enjoyable film. The only 'meh' I have about the film is the flashback sequences aren't integrated well. They really don't work as either clues or character insights until very late in the movie.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
If you:
Don’t put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
Starring: Jeanette Brox, Megan Henning, Ali Humiston, James Morrison Directed by: Eli B. Despres, Kim Roberts
A lot of times, when I’m looking for a movie to view, I will go to Rottentomatoes.com and use their DVD finder. You can pick a genre, percentage of freshness, decade, number of reviews, MPAA rating, etc. It’s a pretty thorough system, really (though not without flaws). And then I will wade laboriously through the choices, clicking, researching, and eventually adding way too many in my Netflix queue.
During the month of October, when I am looking for horror films, I usually set the bar fairly low. Horror is a widely disregarded genre after all, and often times fairly so.
It was during one of these searches I found “Wilderness Survival for Girls.” Sitting at 50% with only six reviews, there was no real meat to speak of. The starring actresses were all nobodies, even seven full years after the film’s release (2004). The directors had gone on to direct only documentaries, and the synopses all read like standard, “traumatized girls out for revenge” plots. Here are the Rottentomatoes and Netflix rundowns:
RT -- The thriller “Wilderness Survival for Girls” concerns a trio of high school girls who end up keeping a stranger captive in the woods
Netflix - -Three high school girls come to terms with their fears and discover their capacity for cruelty when a menacing stranger stumbles in to their cabin during an overnight camping trip deep in the woods.
I instantly thought of something like “I Spit on Your Grave,” which is not really my cup of tea. But after reading reviews describing it as “brainier” and an interesting “psychological thriller,” I added it to the queue.
At the beginning of the film I thought it might instantly be undone by cheap filming, bad acting, amateurish direction and stereotyped characters. However, as the film progresses and the leads are given more dialogue, the leads really settle into their respective parts. Some of their personality traits are still exaggerated, but not to a point where they seem satirical.
The film itself is super low-budget. The ending in particular, which takes place in the dead of night and in the middle of nowhere is, unfortunately, so painfully underproduced you can hardly tell what’s going on. It’s safe to say the directors aren’t young Finchers or Boyles. Here the idea is more important than the style.
Wilderness Survival for Girls is about three friends, Ruth, Deborah and Kate, in a remote cabin. A male stranger, Ed, does stumble in to their cabin one night. And, in accordance with a crime that happened in the woods some years earlier, the girls believe Ed might be the perpetrator. They take him captive, although he claims to simply be a homeless man who has been crashing at the unused cabin for years.
But that’s not really what the movie is about.
The movie is about the relationship between the three girls. It’s about their uncertainty as they graduate from high school and move on to, or, in the case of Kate, not move on to college. In particular it’s also about the realization of their sexuality and their uncertainty about men. These latter two ideas are often reflected and explored through interactions with Ed, their hostage.
There are some tense moments in the film, so the movie does parade as a thriller. Still, the movie, as I viewed it, was almost pure allegory, with Ed being a plot device. An important part of the film, but if you wanted, you could write him off as not even real, simply a personification of each girl’s acute discomfort towards the opposite sex.
I believe the filmmakers wanted to make a coming of age story, but wanted to tone down the melodrama. Holding a bum hostage in the wilderness is certainly a different backdrop for the emotions explored here.
Some people might think making an argument Ed isn’t even real is silly. I would counter that every character in a fictional piece is a construct of somebody else’s imagination, so isn’t arguing about how “real” they are kind of silly as well? He's in the film, so he's "real," but he's more device than character. It’s a disconnect I’ve had in a lot of films lately, in particular Aronofsky’s work. Maybe I’m reading too much in to it here. Then again, after sitting through the entire piece, I find it just as hard to believe the filmmakers thought they were simply making a taught thriller. It’s worth investigating for yourself, I think. Maybe you’ll enjoy a well written film working on multiple levels. Maybe you will be given a reason to derisively mock my exaggerated subtext. And maybe, just maybe, neither.
A(n) art form/ sports star is struggling with substance that could be abused. This has caused negative result. The star meets love interest name and self dectructive actions, generally leading to a highly dramatic turning point with conflict caused by substance abuse. And then, the star dies/gets sober.Starring: Luke Wilson, Will Ferrell, Vince Vaughn Directed by: Todd Phillips
As one of my goals for 2012 – in addition to publishing In The Queue on a more regular basis than I did in 2011 – I plan to fill some of the gaps in my movie viewing experience. Recently, my work compatriot Jeremy Alexander was shocked to hear I had never seen Old School and Wedding Crashers. At the time these movies were popular, I pretty much dismissed them (especially Old School). I wasn't really a fan of Will Ferrell in his SNL roles and hadn't yet seen the absolutely fabulous Talladega Nights or Anchorman yet. So to begin playing catch-up on pop movies, I started with Old School.
The main trio of Mitch (Luke Wilson), Frank (Will Ferrell) and Beanie (Vince Vaughn) are theoretically representing the spectrum of relationships for 30-year-old males. Beanie is jadedly married with two kids, coaches soccer for his 6ish-year-old and sometimes packs around the baby in one of those sling carrier things.
Will Ferrell is the newly-married and semi-domesticated guy…the one who dedicates weekend days to lame home shopping/improvement activities with his brand new wifey. He didn't listen when Beanie tried a last-ditch (i.e. while the bride-to-be was walking down the aisle) and hilarious speech to get him to reconsider marriage.
Mild-mannered Mitch is newly single, catapulting himself out of a comfortable relationship after discovering his girlfriend (Juliette Lewis) hosted polyamorous parties while he was traveling for work. Moving to a sweet rental house right off the campus of Harrison University, Mitch is ready to relax and regroup. Beanie has bigger plans for Mitch and his new place – primarily turning it into party central, supplied by resources from the Speaker City store chain he owns.
Mitch – who would actually rather date women his own age like Nicole (Ellen Pompeo) – reluctantly joins in the fun but still has a good time. Frank stumbles back into his party self, aka "Frank the Tank," streaking his way out of his new wife's good graces. And to boot, Harrison University Dean Pritchard (Jeremy Piven, whose character I assume was the inspiration for 'nerdy Pete Wentz' in the 2005 video for "Dance, Dance") recognizes Mitch, Beanie and Frank as guys who used to pick on him years ago. He serves them with a notice the house has been re-zoned and now must be used only for campus housing or social service activities.
Mopey Mitch comes home the next night to find his house stuffed with guys of all ages, races, creed and levels of education. To preserve his vicarious lifestyle, Beanie has decided they will start a fraternity in the house, open to everyone. From this motley group, they choose 14 pledges – many college students, but also a couple middle-aged businessmen and an octogenarian named Blue that hangs around one of the Speaker City stores. In an absolutely hilarious sequence of pledge kidnapping and hazing activities, the fraternity is born. And thus they manage to escape the wrath of Dean Pritchard for the time being.
You know the rest – the Dean finds another way to block the guys, they find a loophole...happy ending, etc etc etc. The movie overall is significantly funnier than I expected it, particularly due to:
If you:
Put it in the queue!
However, if you:
Don't put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
This will probably be our last show of 2011. Luckily, we were able to go out on top with The Descendants and the new Mission Impossible film, which should not be confused with the terrible Commadore 64 game, Impossible Mission. Goodbye 2011, you were really full of ups and downs, and then some more downs, then really bottoming out with the The Human Centipede 2. If this show doesn't interest you, at least listen to the first 2 minutes to find out what sadly constitutes as a nightmare for me. Happy Holidays, and all that jazz.
Directed by: Barbara Brancaccio, Joshua Zeman
Cropsey is a documentary about that one stereotypical scary story everybody tells around the campfire, the one about the guy with a hook for a hand who hangs out in the woods…or lives on your street…or in the abandoned warehouse just down the block. The ones that are obviously just stories. But are they based on some semblance of fact?
In the early to mid-80s, on Staten Island, there was a string of children disappearances, most of which involved the mentally handicapped. The documentary focuses primarily on the disappearance of Jennifer Schweiger, a young girl with down syndrome who disappeared in July of 1987. Shortly thereafter, Andre Rand was arrested in relation to the crime due to eyewitness accounts putting him with the young girl earlier in the day.
Although Rand is at the center of the documentary, the filmmakers also delve deeply in to the history of Willowbrook, a state school for the mentally handicapped found on Staten Island. In 1972 it was the focal point of an expose reported by a young Geraldo Rivera, trying to shed light on the unsuitable conditions therein. Andre Rand was an orderly at the school, and after it shut its doors in the early 80s it was believed Rand still lived on the grounds in makeshift hovels, along with many of the misplaced patients who had nowhere to go when the building closed.
I’m not completely sure what the filmmakers initially set out to do. As the film begins it feels more like any news piece run on a program like 48 Hours or Dateline. Were they really thinking they were going to uncover something new or interesting in a case over 20 years old? When the documentary was being filmed, Rand was getting ready to stand trial for the disappearance of another girl who had gone missing years earlier on the island. Were they just rehashing facts, making a film based on a subject sure to have renewed interest given the circumstances?
I don’t know if it was what they had planned all along or if, at some point, they decided just rehashing the facts wasn’t going to be interesting enough to warrant a feature-film documentary, but the piece eventually starts to subtly sway away from whether Rand committed the crimes or not to an in depth look at the preconceived notions everybody, even the authorities, bring with them in to a case of this magnitude.
Some of the interviewees, including detectives who worked on the case, say they were sure Rand was part of a satanic cult. Some say he was the ringleader of a group of former patients still living on the grounds who kidnapped the children for the sake of abusing them. Some say he was a necrophile. Some say a gopher for something larger and more deviant. During the trial, eye-witnesses who hadn’t spoken in over twenty years pop out of nowhere to now claim they had seen something pertaining to the case. Despite no physical evidence, families of many of the victims insist Rand is the culprit, hoping for closure to a mentally destructive portion of their past.
What begins as a film feeling like it wants to shed light on to the tired old formula of whether the perpetrator did or did not commit the murders, turns in to a look at how urban legends are built, and how rumors and different points of view often times distort the image of people we know nothing about.
There are clips of Rivera’s expose of Willowbrook, and they are haunting. The areas are dark and windowless, the children are moaning and rocking, most naked, some bent in unnatural contortions. Rivera reports in most building there may be one attendant for upwards of 50 mentally handicapped children, and all areas smelled of disease and death. I shudder to think about the number of patients who died on the premises and were simply swept under the rug. In what I assume was the culminating soliloquy of his piece, Rivera sums it up perfectly, “What we found and documented here is a disgrace to all of us. This place isn’t a school it’s a dark corner where we throw children who aren’t pretty to look at, it’s the big town’s leper colony.”
There’s a portion of the film where Rand decries that everybody at Willowbrook, including the staff, were victims. After seeing the conditions in the hospital, I can’t believe anybody who worked there didn’t come away mentally scarred. Could working in those conditions day in and day out have caused psychological damage so deep to Rand he felt it was his duty to “save” the children from parents who he didn’t believe wanted them? It makes more sense than any of the other theories posited. But, then, maybe it’s the filmmakers, adeptly making me feel a certain way with leading interviews and subtle inferences. Who’s to say?
Written by Ryan Venson
Starring: Bill Nighy, Emily Blunt, Rupert Grint Directed by: Jonathan Lynn
Quick, what comes to mind when you think of a British family business? Perhaps a tea shop with freshly-baked biscuits aplenty, a haberdashery, or a B&B Fawlty Towers style? Hang on just a minute – how about a family of assassins?
Victor Maynard (Bill Nighy) is a middle-aged gun for hire with the look of a respectable banker and the neat accuracy of a 007. For his 55th birthday, his dear old mum (Eileen Atkins) presents him with a scrapbook of articles about his successful kills. Though he hasn't yet got a son to carry on the family trade, he does have a strong reputation within the field.
Until he's hired to take out the devil-may-care Rose (Emily Blunt). Whether she's riding through a museum on a bike with a basket with reckless abandon and apparent innocence to spare or strolling through town lifting scarves, pocketbooks and clothing at a rate that would make the Oliver Twist gang blush – Rose is clearly a loose cannon. In a fabulous fashion parade of sky-high stiletto heels and brightly-colored tights.
After pulling the old switcheroo on an art aficionado (Rupert Everett) who thought he was getting a vintage Rembrandt and ended up with a clever fake, Rose ends up on Victor's hit list. Unwittingly eluding Victor's aim, Rose ends up in the crosshairs of a completely different threat – the bodyguards of the art collector she stuck with the faux Rembrandt. Of course, things are completely bollocksed up, and errant car wash boy Tony (Rupert Grint) gets pulled into the whole mess after he shoots one of the bodyguards.
Victor can't bring himself to kill Rose – especially after she offers him a nice sum of money to protect her – so he, Rose and Tony go on the lam.
Overall, I found Wild Target quite a laugh. There are car chases, buffoonery, poking fun at the stuffy British stereotype, a feisty aged parent, a drunken birthday party, an ex-parrot and a humorous rivalry with another hitman (Martin Freeman).
If you:
Put it in the queue!
If you:
Don't put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
Starring: Federico Luppi, Ron Perlman Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Antiquities, alchemy, immortality. All are present in Cronos, Written and directed by Guillermo de Toro, the film begins with a brief history of a strange device that looks somewhat like a golden scarab – created by an alchemist and allegedly able to extend the owner's life. After living 300 years, the owner dies in a freak accident and his belongings are auctioned off.
Elderly antique shop owner Jesus Gris (Federico Luppi) and his granddaughter (Tamara Shanath) are minding the store one day when several cucarachas crawl out of a wooden angel statuette. Prying open the statue, Gris finds a strange golden device. As he attempts to figure out how it works, the mechanism springs open and pierces his hand with its metal legs. Startled, he disengages it…but takes it home with him.
Meanwhile, one of the shop's customers that day was looking for the same angel statue. Irritable Angel de la Guardia (Ron Perlman) thinks he's been on a wild goose chase seeking similar statues for his terminally ill uncle (Claudio Brook). However, his uncle also has a piece of the alchemist's estate in a detailed journal and is completely certain they have found the right angel. They are more than displeased to find it empty of the real treasure, but Gris will not give it up – even though the elder de la Guardia suggests there will be trouble if Gris uses it without understanding 'the instructions' on how to use it.
In the meantime, Gris finds himself drawn to the device again, and allows it to clamp onto his hand once more. In addition to the metal legs clamping to his hand, there is a 'stinger' that also pierces the skin and activates another interesting mechanism inside the machine. He begins to change as well, feeling and looking younger. His granddaughter notices the change and mistrusts the device, attempting to hide it from Gris. However, he finds it again and continues to use it.
Things become even stranger on New Year's Eve. Gris, his wife and granddaughter go to a dance, and he is suddenly struck with a strange craving. Angel de la Guardia has also tracked Gris down and intends to get revenge for continuing to keep the device from his uncle. He gets his revenge by pushing Gris' car off a cliff – with Gris in it. Will that keep him down? Of course not! However, immortality does come at a price…
I quite enjoyed this movie – the pacing was excellent, the plot was just weird enough you could suspend your disbelief *just enough*, and the acting was good. I initially had misgivings about the film because I was worried it would be like Pan's Labyrinth (which I really did not like), but it was completely different. The movie has parts in both Spanish and English, so some reading is required unless you speak both of these languages.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
If you:
Don't put it in the queue!
Written by Jennifer Venson
I'd say there's a 50/50 chance you'll like troll-based "found footage" Norwegian film, Troll Hunter, but a 100% chance you will love our podcast on 50/50. HAHAHHAHAH, you see what I did there? Pure, unadulterated wit. And I'm pretty sure that's what you come here for.
Starring: Marlon Brando, Maria Schneider Directed by: Bernardo Bertolucci
After a month of watching pretty much nothing but horror movies of extremely varied quality, I sought out a foreign/artsy/acclaimed film. Last Tango in Paris had been languishing in the queue for some time, and it fit that description. The dialogue is mostly French, with some scenes in English. Marlon Brando was nominated for an Academy Award for his role in the film.
And yet…I didn't really like it.
The psychology behind the film is interesting – take two complete strangers and have them carry on an anonymous affair for an indeterminate, but presumably short, period of time. Paul (Brando) and Jeanne (Maria Schneider) happen to arrive within minutes of each other to view an apartment. Despite Jeanne stopping to look at the apartment on her way to pick up her boyfriend from the train station, she ends up having a quickie with Paul. He suggests they meet there again.
Jeanne seems to be moderately irritated with her boyfriend, a filmmaker who is making something of a 'day in the life' movie about her. She seems to feel used by him, especially as her greeting him at the train station is filmed to get spontaneous expressions of emotion as part of the film. Thus it makes sense why she might be willing to go back to see Paul – who appears to be at least twice her age – again.
Paul has recently been freed from a relationship by his wife committing suicide. With her mother fussing about and squawking at Paul like a ruffled matron hen, it is easy to see why he longs to escape to encounters without commitments. When at the apartment, he repeatedly tells Jeanne that he wants to know nothing about her – not her real name, not her age…nothing.
Jeanne meets him at the apartment several more times. Especially in contrast to Tom – who wants to know every bit of her past through filming and participate in every bit of her future by proposing marriage – the lack of interest in anything but the present via Paul must have been an exciting draw.
However, there are some scenes in which Jeanne seems like just an object, a toy for Paul. She comes to the apartment as if seeking acknowledgement, lounges around wearing jeans and a scarf (or less), on display for Paul…who uses her and doesn't seem to care. Until it's time to break off the affair, in which they undergo a dramatic role reversal.
I suppose I am easily scandalized (as apparently were some audiences, as the film has been rated X, R with edits, and currently NC-17). As mentioned, it's an interesting idea, but the execution is a little uncomfortable to watch. Especially as Jeanne looks very, very young with a poodle-curly, glam metal-esque hairdo, and Paul looks…just older. In a pathetic and depressing mid-life crisis way. Which was probably completely intentional. Perhaps I should have watched On the Waterfront or something to see a better Brando.
If you:
Don't put it in the queue.
If you:
Put it in the queue.
Written by Jennifer Venson
Starring: Naomi Watts, David Dorfman Directed by: Hideo Nakata
Last October, surprisingly, the best movie I reviewed was The Ring. It was great precisely because it was more of a mystery to unravel rather than a 'spooky things jump out at you around every corner' film.
Apparently when The Ring 2 was written, the opposite intent prevailed. The movie is chock full of Evil Samara (Kelly Stables). Her video still exists, and she's stalking Aidan (David Dorfman) even though Rachel (Naiomi Woods) has attempted to take them away to the small town of Astoria, Oregon.
Though Rachel finds the tape and stops its circuit among the town's teenagers early on, Samara is still not finished with her and Aidan. Instead of just the well and TV dwelling specter, she is now able to manifest in a public restroom, command a herd of murderous deer, do poltergeist-y things to Rachel's house, kill Aidan's fish, turn a bathroom into a visually impressive illustration of centripetal force and…oh yes, attempt to possess Aidan.
Sure there's still a mystery Rachel has to unravel, but it is somewhat half-ass. The roughly half hour Rachel potters around trying to figure out more about Samara's history is pretty much the most interesting part of the film.
The rest is just monster around the corner (or monster at the bottom of the well) fare. What's really creeping me out now is a fly has been buzzing around by my computer the whole time I've been writing this review…perhaps it’s Samara returned from the beyond in insect form…
Also I have no idea how they're going to pull a third film out of this one. Unless it's a prequel, I am thoroughly uninterested.
If you:
Put it in the queue!
However, if you:
Don't put it in the queue!
Written by Jennifer Venson