City Lights: A Film Blog

Movie Review: A Separation

2012-02-12T08:32:00.000-08:00

Peyman Moaadi (as Nader) and Sareh Bayat (as Razieh)

A Separation (2011)
Written & Directed by: Asghar Farhadi
Starring: Peyman Moaadi, Leila Hatami, Sareh Bayat, Shahab Hosseini and Sarina Farhadi

At first glance, A Separation appears to be an intimate glimpse at the steady decline of a 14-year marriage between a 30-something couple with a young daughter. The opening scene, where they each face the camera to plead their case -- she wants a divorce, he does not -- doesn't even begin hint at the domestic turmoil that is to come in this slow-burning narrative. Iranian writer-director Asghar Farhadi has crafted a thrilling, edge-of-your-seat domestic drama brimming with carefully guarded secrets and devastating misunderstandings.

Simin (Leila Hatami) boldly requests a divorce from her husband, Nader (Peyman Moaadi). She wants to take their 11-year-old daughter, Termeh (Sarina Farhadi) out of Iran so that she can experience a world outside the strict confines of her homeland. Nader refuses to leave -- not so much out of a sense of patriotism but simply so he can take proper care of his elderly father (Ali-Asghar Shahbazi) who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Simin's urgency is understandable -- she has an exit visa that expires in 40 days. However, when her request for divorce is turned down by a judge she leaves her daughter in the care of Nader and goes to live with her mother for the time being. Nader, struggling to make ends meet, hires Razieh (Sareh Bayat), a female caretaker, to come and care for his father while he is away at work. A devout Muslim who brings her little daughter, Somayeh (Kimia Hosseini), along with her to work, Razieh struggles with conflicting emotions over whether or not her religion would allow for her to care for an elderly gentleman alone without the permission of her husband, Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini). That the plot later involves a shocking murder charge and feuding families is a testament to how Farhadi expertly weaves his intricate plot together -- everything that unfolds feels like a natural culmination of preceding events.

A Separation is a beautifully structured character study that uses its slow reveals and plot twists as a means to create mounting tension. It's easy to assume that the title refers simply to the separation between Simin and Nader. However, the film chronicles a variety of "separations" from ideological differences to religion and class division. All four of the adult lead are, at their very core, genuinely good people. It's a tragic and emotionally resonant example of how seemingly honourable decisions can result in a bitter domestic conflict that has the (often irreversible) ability to ruin lives and taint reputations. Farhadi's script ties together multiple narratives and character viewpoints -- yet he avoids painting any of his characters as villains. They each make very human mistakes.

Leila Hatami as Simin

The film may be set in Tehran, but the themes and issues at the heart of the plot are universal. It's partially about preservation -- protecting one's self and family from the attacks and slanders of others. It leaves the viewer questioning whether or not they would have done differently if they found themselves in a similar situation.

Where A Separation succeeds in its brilliant and beautiful storytelling, it also boasts a wonderful ensemble cast -- arguably the best of 2011. As a young couple on the verge of divorce, Hatami and Moaadi give genuinely powerful performances as Simin and Nader. Whether their scenes are shared or separate, their portrayal of a couple in turmoil feels so authentic you may catch yourself feeling as though you were watching a documentary on a real marriage. The supporting cast, led by a towering performance from Bayat as the quietly commanding caretaker Razieh, each create fully realized people who find themselves in a tough situation.

When we catch ourselves in a downward spiral -- when life suddenly gets too messy and complicated -- it's how we react to the situation that says a lot about our character. A Separation isn't only about the things that divide us, it's also about how we choose to handle the problem -- and how it can potentially unite us in the end.

FINAL GRADE: A+

Film Noir Series: The Asphalt Jungle (1950)

2012-02-09T06:08:00.000-08:00

My latest Film Noir Spotlight entry for Next Projection. The eight film on my list is The Asphalt Jungle (1950).

Coming off his 1949 Oscar win for The Treasure of Sierra Madre, director John Huston crafted a tightly coiled caper brimming with murder and corruption and told almost entirely from the point of view of its criminals. The Asphalt Jungle, a seminal work in Huston’s impressive filmography, has a gritty realism that sheds light on a dark corner of society.

Based on the novel by W.R. Burnett, The Asphalt Jungle zeroes in on “Doc” Erwin Riedenschneider (Sam Jaffe), a German immigrant who masterminds the ultimate score during the seven years he spent in incarceration. Funded by Alonso Emmerich (Louis Calhern), a treacherous businessman with his own set of objectives, the jewel heist is meticulously plotted. Regarded as a flawless scheme by the diminutive Doc, the puzzle pieces finally fall into place once he recruits a safecracker (Anthony Caruso), a driver (James Whitmore) and a street-savvy hooligan named Dix Handley (Sterling Hayden) whose desire for wealth masks his inherent decency. When the heist backfires and the men retreat to their own separate hiding places, The Asphalt Jungle chronicles the descent of each of them as they struggle to survive both the police task force – and each other.

There’s an artistry to the film that only someone with Huston’s impressive credentials can bring to what is, essentially, a low-budget B-movie about tough guys and their dames. With its richly textured black and white cinematography, expertly lensed by Harold Rosson, and its sparse and rundown city streets, The Asphalt Jungle has a claustrophobic documentary style. Devoid of the contrived dialogue that is often a staple in the noir genre, there are times when conversations feel almost entirely improvised and natural. With a large cast on his hands, Huston, who co-wrote the script with Ben Maddow, weaves each plot point into a deeply absorbing – and dialogue-heavy – endeavour. Following a linear narrative (the rare noir without any flashback sequences), The Asphalt Jungle is a relatively quiet urban crime drama with only brief bursts of violence and action.

The jungle – that seedy underbelly of society that lies beneath city streets – is chock-full of corruption, backstabbing and dead ends.

Marilyn Monroe

Huston’s inspired casting is most notable with his two leads – Jaffe and Hayden, as Doc and Dix. As Doc, Jaffe is quietly commanding as the cool and collected mastermind of the failed heist. Nominated for Best Supporting Actor, Jaffe brings a softer approach to a role that is traditionally filled by a “tough-guy” thug. Meanwhile, Hayden stands out with his performance as Dix – an idealist whose life comes crashing down around him as the jungle swallows him whole.

A woman’s touch is keenly felt with two electric supporting performances from Jean Hagen and a then-unknown Marilyn Monroe. Hagen is the standout as Dix’s long-suffering girlfriend, Doll Conovan. In one notable scene, Hagen, in the middle of an emotional breakdown, rips her fake eyelashes off, while mascara drips down her face and mingles with her tears. Her nervous smile, always so eager to please Dix, is heartbreaking in its poignant honesty. Monroe is a knockout as the much-older Emmerich’s mistress, Angela. Beautiful and vulnerable, Monroe shines, giving audiences a glimpse of the star she was later to become.

One of the few downfalls in a film with a plot as crammed with characters as The Asphalt Jungle is that the character development of some of the other players falls short. There’s also the underwritten role of Commissioner Hardy (John McIntire), a preachy moralist who is inserted into the film simply to counter the actions of its central figures. As Hardy sermonizes to his police troops: “Suppose we had no police force, good or bad …Nobody to listen, nobody to answer. The battle's finished. The jungle wins. The predatory beasts take over.” It’s excess baggage that weighs down an otherwise tight script.

But those “predatory beasts” that Hardy rants against are very regular people making very big mistakes – tough guys and their dames, just trying to make in the world by any means possible.

Welcome to the jungle.

FINAL GRADE: A-

Movie Review: Warrior

2012-02-04T09:45:00.000-08:00

Tom Hardy (left) and Joel Edgerton

Warrior (2011)
Directed By: Gavin O'Connor
Starring: Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton and Nick Nolte

Warrior is an emotionally rich family drama disguised as a film about a mixed martial arts tournament. To overlook director Gavin O'Connor's quiet masterpiece as just another "fighting movie" would be a mistake. Beneath all the masculine angst is a touching look at the ties that bind family together.

Skillfully built around meticulously constructed character studies, Warrior looks in on the family dynamics of three men -- two estranged brothers and their recovering alcoholic of a father. We're first introduced to Paddy Conlon (Nick Nolte); a Moby Dick-obsessed former wrestler who is 1,000 days sober and looking to mend his fractured ties with his sons, Brendan (Joel Edgerton) and Tommy (Tom Hardy). More than 10 years ago, Paddy drove his sons away -- his debilitating alcoholism and abuse towards their mother resulting in severed family ties. Each son dealt with their pain separately -- Brendan by getting married and starting his own family and Tommy by joining the Marines and leaving his life behind. When Paddy learns that Tommy (appearing out of the blue after years of absence) wants his help to train for Sparta, an upcoming mixed martial arts event in Atlantic City where the winner takes home $5 million, he agrees -- seeing it as a chance to reconnect with his younger son. Tommy has his own personal reasons for needing the money -- reasons that are only slowly revealed to the audience. At the same time, in another city, Brendan is preparing for the same Sparta tournament; with his house facing foreclosure and having to support an ailing daughter, he decides to return to his amateur fighting roots, much to his wife's (Jennifer Morrison) disappointment.

Warrior is a performance piece -- each of the three leads carry the emotional weight of the story on their shoulders. O'Connor, who co-wrote the screenplay with Anthony Tambakis and Cliff Dorfman, slowly lets his story unfurl through intimate conversations between characters. It's only gradually that their secrets and their pasts are revealed; a fine example of character building. There are multiple open wounds in the Conlon clan and what the Sparta tournament ultimately becomes for them is a physical release for years of pent-up emotion and rage.

Nolte received a well-deserved Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his complex portrayal of a once-brutal man trying to make amends with the sons he drove away so long ago. It's a wonderful performance that avoids taking the easy route by making him a completely sympathetic figure -- his actions towards his now-deceased wife were brutal and his sons are right to still be wary about forgiving him.

Tom Hardy (left) and Joel Edgerton

Edgerton (an up-and-coming Aussie actor) gives a breakout performance as the older Conlon sibling. A dedicated family man, he makes the greater effort to reach out to Tommy once his younger brother comes back into his life. It's a quietly commanding performance, one that will likely result in lead roles down the road.

As Tommy, Hardy is an angry and frustrated loner. A former Marine who returns home to the realization that the only people he has left in his life are a father and brother he severed ties with, Tommy's only release for years of anger and hurt feelings is the therapeutic release that comes with cage fighting. Hardy is the revelation here -- it's an underrated performance in an underrated film. He doesn't just look or sound the part (perfectly masking his British accent), he feels the part. It's the rare performance that makes you forget you are watching an actor and not a real, struggling human being.

Warrior avoids the cliches so common in tales about a struggling underdog. It's a film about blood, sweat and tears and, as a result, is one of the most emotionally engaging films of the year. O'Connor and his co-screenwriters bring a perfect balance to all three roles, allowing the audience to get to know each of them slowly. This balance is most keenly felt when it comes to Brendan and Tommy -- both are good, decent men trying to do the right thing. It doesn't ask the audience to choose between the brothers, likely because it would be next to impossible to do. Instead, it closes in on their journey to forgiveness and how their paths -- once so separated -- are finally coming together. Brendan and Tommy are tough guys, yet you like them so much because of their moments of fragility.

In the end, Warrior is less about the fight than the means of finding forgiveness and redemption. It's a movie about family -- specifically brotherly love. The climax is so emotionally resonant that it's impossible not to get invested in its outcome. It's more than just a sports drama; it's about the family ties that bind us together. Simply put, Warrior is a story well told.

FINAL GRADE: A

Movie Review: Coriolanus

2012-01-29T10:44:00.000-08:00

Coriolanus (2011)
Directed By: Ralph Fiennes
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler, Vanessa Redgrave, Brian Cox and Jessica Chastain

The plays of William Shakespeare have been adapted, dissected and pulled-apart on screen since the invention of film. Over the decades, various directors have attempted to sell the Bard's timeless tales to new generations of audiences, all to varying degrees of success. While some purists may shrug off the adaptations that have supplanted the plots to modern times, this latest re-imagining of Coriolanus is an exceptional argument as to why it's sometimes appropriate to give a modern twist on a classic tale.

Roman General Caius Martius 'Coriolanus' (Ralph Fiennes) is a creature of war. Raised single-handedly by his a tyrant of a mother, Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave), Coriolanus only knows how to communicate with weapons of warfare. Egged on by his ambitious mother, he seeks election to the powerful office of Consul. However, the few times he ventures forth to speak to the public, the end result is chaotic as his starving countrymen voice their outrage over the prolonged war and famine they've suffered at his hands as a General. Not one to keep his rage in check, Coriolanus' verbal outburst results in a full-blown riot which forces him to flee Rome and join ranks with his bitter enemy, Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler). Coriolanus will take back Rome on his own terms -- his fellow countrymen be damned.

Although little is known about Coriolanus' political motivation (does he really crave the Consulship for any other reason than personal gain or is he just following through on mother's orders?), he remains a fascinating character nonetheless. His all-consuming arrogance sometimes briefly gives way to quieter, more emotional moments, often shared with his mother or wife, Virgilia (Jessica Chastain). Although these scenes of psychological vulnerability are few and far between, they suggest an inner-torment; a softer, more human, side to Coriolanus that, unfortunately, always recedes into the background when his rage comes to the forefront. As played by Fiennes, Coriolanus is a commanding presence -- capable of instilling fear in even his most strongest opponents. Fiennes is a force to be reckoned with and his performance is nothing short of captivating. The reason you want to learn more about the actual man behind the facade of the feared General is because of his wonderful performance.

Ralph Fiennes and Vanessa Redgrave

The rest of the cast are all equally excellent, specifically Redgrave as Volumnia, Coriolanus' mighty mother. Her ambition and unwavering love for her only son is beautifully executed in all of Redgrave's scenes. An absolute powerhouse of a performance, it's a shame Redgrave wasn't recognized with an Oscar nomination. Chastain is solid in the underwritten role of Coriolanus' wife. We aren't sure why she's so loyal to her violent husband or why she's so submissive to the will of his mother, but Chastain more than holds her own in a performance that rounds out a terrific debut year for her. As Tullus Aufidius, Butler is all barely concealed rage -- he loathes Coriolanus and, when he reluctantly agrees to help his sworn enemy reclaim Rome, it slowly begins to dawn on him that he may have made a fatal error in judgment in trusting Coriolanus in the first place.

Filmed as though it were a modern political documentary -- its jerky, handheld war footage revolves around issues like democracy, class wars, political egos and the nation state -- Coriolanus is a stunning technical achievement, nailing all of its brutal scenes of familial intimacy and violent warfare out in the field. Wearing camouflage, his face covered in blood and warpaint, the audience is left to wonder if Coriolanus -- reduced to a deadened shell of a solider -- even has an ounce of humanity left in him, once all is said and done.

FINAL GRADE: A-

Film Noir Series: Gun Crazy (1950)

2012-01-28T16:42:00.000-08:00

My latest Film Noir Spotlight entry for Next Projection. The seventh film on my list is Gun Crazy (1950).

A gun-crazy man sets his sights on a dangerous dame. Theirshared infatuation with pistols – memorably captured in one of the most bizarreseduction sequences in American cinema – results in a whirlwind of criminalactivity for this trigger-happy pair. A precursor to Arthur Penn’s 1967 classicBonnie & Clyde, Gun Crazy is a stunning technicalachievement capped off with two electric lead performances.

Originally released in 1950 as Deadly is the Female, the film came and went, rapidly falling offthe radar when critics panned it and audiences failed to show up. Laterre-titled as Gun Crazy, directorJoseph H. Lewis’ once underrated gem is now recognized in films circles as aninnovative crime drama that has since been included in the National FilmRegistry.

As a youth, Bart Tare (a young Russ Tamblyn) is sentenced totime in a reform school and, later, a stint in the military, after stealing apistol. The aimless, gun-obsessed youth grows into an aimless, gun-obsessedadult (John Dall). His first day of freedom starts with time spent at acarnival with two former childhood pals and ends with him fallinghead-over-heels in love with an English sharpshooter named Annie “Laurie” Starr(Peggy Cummins). Their intense attraction is mutual and the two quickly wed andset out for a life spent robbing banks. GunCrazy is an unfettered social commentary on gun worship in America. Basedon a short story by MacKinlay Kantor, the film crackles with barely containedenergy, fuelled by the chemistry between Dall and Cummins.

Lewis insisted on giving his actors breathing room,encouraging them to improvise dialogue, specifically during their heist scenes.The main bank robbery sequence at the centre of the film was shot in one longtake from the backseat of the getaway car. Equipped with a groundbreakingportable camera, it elevated Gun Crazy aboveand beyond what a typical B-movie could achieve. It’s a beautifully executedseries of events, from robbery to getaway, which later influenced the likes ofArthur Penn and Quentin Tarantino. You’re just grateful that, as an audience, youfeel as if you’re an accessory to their crimes.

John Dall and Peggy Cummins in Gun Crazy

Bart is a killer shot, but he’s no killer. His love for gunscontradicts his discomfort with the notion of murder. His years in the militarydidn’t harden him in that regard. Emotionally fragile, yet twitchy in hisconstant need to reach for his gun, Bart is a quietly sympathetic figure. Hesees his gun as an extension of himself – his reason for living; that is, untilhe meets Laurie. He’s a fundamentally decent man who is easily swayed by adangerous woman: in short, the archetypal noirprotagonist. As Bart, the lanky and jittery Dall gives a charming performance;imagine Jimmy Stewart as a Clyde Barrow-type.

As Laurie, one of the most dominant femmes you’re likely to come across in a noir, Cummins is dynamite – both sexy and vulnerable, she exudes afiery confidence. She hints at a violent past, but her nature is more primitiveand bloodthirsty than even Bart knows. She’s an alluring enigma but her lovefor Bart is undeniably genuine, an interesting twist on the traditional femme fatale.

Dall and Cummins exude a raw sexuality rarely seen inAmerican cinema at the time. Their romance is so believable that the quieterscenes they share together are just as compelling as their bank robberies. AsBart tells Laurie, they go together “likeguns and ammunition.”

Gun Crazy remainsas fresh and thrilling as it was during its initial release. It’s one of thosequietly heralded Hollywood pictures that few audiences have seen. It deservesto be dissected, discussed and admired for its technical achievements andlargely improvised performances from the exceptional Dall and Cummins. Captivating from start to finish, Gun Crazy is must-see cinema for any film connoisseur. It’s asentertaining as it is influential.

FINAL GRADE: A+

Movie Rant: The debate over the Oscar nominations

2012-01-24T08:01:00.000-08:00

Every year, film critics and fans around the world get a severe case of amnesia and forget how the Academy Awards often leave us disappointed and bewildered. Every year we come back for more, only to relive disappointment all over again. I think we all keep coming back for more because, deep down, we are waiting for the year when the Oscars do something right -- and start taking risks for once.

I know most people brush off the Oscars as trivial -- and they are, essentially! However, the movie fan in me would just love it if it would actually become what it proclaims to be: a place where true artists are recognized for their body of work. Alas, it's all about gaining viewership and nominating movies and actors that either buy their way in or get nominated purely on popularity and monetary value. So, each year, we go through this cycle again -- wondering why we even bother watching in the first place.

For a full list of this years nominees, click HERE.

The Oscars had the chance to take some risks this year -- we all know they are long overdue, especially since 2011 was such a wonderful year for smaller films like Shame, Take Shelter, Martha Marcy May Marlene and Midnight in Paris, among others. All are worthy contenders, yet only Woody Allen's hit was recognized by the Academy. When I wrote about my disappointment over the SAG Award nominations last month I still held out hope that the Oscars would correct some of their mistakes -- mainly in their decision to not nominate Michael Fassbender, Elizabeth Olsen, Michael Shannon and Andy Serkis. I was mistaken and should have known better.

There are nine Best Picture nominees this year -- they just couldn't make it an even 10 and give the last spot to Shame, eh? They just had to snub what is arguably the best film of the year simply because of its explicit rating? But, I guess no one ever said the Academy wasn't comprised of a bunch of old, backward prudes anyway.

Oddly enough, the best category this year is Best Director (with the exception of Alexander Payne for The Descendants, whose spot should have gone to Steve McQueen for Shame). But it is wonderful to see Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist), Martin Scorsese (Hugo), Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris) and Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life) all in the running. True artists, all of them.

On a lighter note, it's lovely to see Canada get a couple of shout-outs with Philippe Falardeau's Monsieur Lazhar receiving a Best Foreign Language Film nomination and Christopher Plummer's well-deserved nomination for Best Supporting Actor for Beginners. It's also nice to see a lot of love for The Artist, Hugo, The Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris and Moneyball (with the awkward exception of Jonah Hill being nominated ...A-BUH?!).

So, what do you think? What do you like or dislike about this years nominations?

Movie Review: The Descendants

2012-01-22T09:26:00.000-08:00

The Descendants (2011)
Directed By: Alexander Payne
Based on the Novel By: Kaui Hart Hemmings
Starring: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller, Judy Greer and Matthew Lillard

When it comes to Alexander Payne, one expects to meet quirky and beautifully drawn characters surrounded by everyday issues that ultimately set off a series of events that eventually reveal the inner humanity of its main players. Dark and satirical, Payne's films tend to leave memorable, and emotional, impacts. The acclaim his previous work has garnered over the years is well-deserved, especially when discussing the wonderful and underrated About Schmidt (2002). Expectations were high with the release of The Descendants, Payne's first film in nearly seven years. Thus far, the film has become a critical darling, with both film circles and audiences singing its praises. Imagine my surprise when, after finally viewing the Oscar frontrunner, I was left disappointed and bewildered by the high praise it has received.

Matt King (George Clooney) is a direct descendant of some of Hawaii's original settlers and, through a line of inter-marriages, a native princess. As the chief trustee of the King family's 25,000 acres of land on Kauai's South Shore, Matt must make the final decision on whether or not his family should sell their private piece of paradise to a bunch of developers. His decision is quickly put on hold with his wife's Jet Ski accident -- an accident that puts her in a coma and on the brink of death. As his wife clings to life, Matt, a self-professed "backup parent", must grapple with impending widowhood while struggling to bond with his two daughters; rebellious teen, Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), and 10-year-old Scottie (Amara Miller). To add to the rapidly thickening plot, Matt discovers that his wife had been having an affair with a realtor named Brian (Matthew Lillard) whose own wife (Judy Greer) was also unaware of the relationship. Matt sets off to investigate his wife's affair, dragging his daughters along in an effort to force a bond between them.

Payne manages to balance multiple narrative threads, weaving them into a coherent story focused on the struggles of the King clan. However, despite the fact that the film was meant as a character study, the film is surprisingly devoid of any real emotional heft. Payne, a usually insightful and evocative storyteller, has left his audience hanging. The Descendants barely scratches the surface of the inner turmoil of his characters, resulting in an emotionally detached story about some guy trying to come to terms with where life has suddenly taken him. Everything about the film is "surface" right down to the cloying voice-over narration that insists on having Matt tell us what he is feeling, but rarely showing us. Where Payne utilized voice-over narration to both heartbreaking and hilarious perfection in About Schmidt and Election (1999), he struggles here to truly reveal anything of substance about Matt.

Clooney and Woodley are both good and play well off one another, although I think Miller, as the precocious Scottie, is the true standout in the film. It's well-acted, considering what little the actors were given to work with in terms of character nuances. In a year where there was a wealth of standout films (and performances), it's hard to believe that The Descendants is what is really hitting an emotional nerve with critics and audiences.

Check out this REVIEW by Jason McKiernan of Next Projection. He perfectly put into words how I felt about The Descendants. I couldn't have said it better myself.

FINAL GRADE: C+

Movie Rant: Why I Dislike the Term 'Chick Flick'

2012-01-15T11:30:00.000-08:00

Richard Gere and Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman

In the year since I got Twitter (@laura_grande13) I've become a bit obsessed. It has introduced me to a whole bunch of film fans from around the world and I'm grateful for it. It has also led to some interesting conversations, like the one I had earlier this week about the term "chick flick."

I recently got a comment from some guy who was writing in response to a tweet I wrote regarding the fact that I wasn't a big fan of the movie Love Actually and that I'd never actually seen The Notebook. The guy responded with: "Pfft. What kind of woman are you?" What the what?! Apparently, all women are expected to swoon over tales of romance and unrequited love. I guess we all love movies where a woman has to sweat it out for two hours before a guy finally admits that he loves her. Well, I never got the memo. I didn't say anything in response to the guy's tweet (which is very unlike me), but it irritated me to no end.

A few days later, I got into a Twitter discussion with a follower of mine about the term "chick flick" and we went back and forth discussing the reasons behind our intense dislike of the term (many other women, and some men, that I know also loathe the term). But before you say we're merely overreacting, hear me out.

First of all, I think "chick flick" shouldn't be classified as a genre (or sub-genre) -- most movies of this type arguably fall under the category of romantic comedy. Or even a romantic drama. A "chick flick" suggests that the film will likely be fluffy, formulaic, far-fetched and devoid of a decent script -- i.e. something only women will (and should) enjoy. It stereotypes women in terms of their sex, suggesting we all want the same things in life, i.e. marriage and kids. It's that assumption that only certain movies appeal to women and are, as a result, somewhat of a "lesser" film because of it.

That being said, I realize that not everyone objects to the "chick flick" label. I even know some women who use it themselves and don't find anything wrong with the term. But, I can't help my reaction towards it.

Gender specific genre terms are unnecessary. For example, Die Hard is an action movie -- it's not a "male action flick." Sure, most action films are lambasted by critics the same way romantic comedies tend to be (for a lot of the same reasons, too); however, an action film is never brushed off and dismissed with quite the same flippant attitude that comes with a movie labelled as a "chick flick." I think the label "chick" in and of itself to represent the female gender is derogatory, but that's a whole separate issue.

Naturally, there's our understanding that films are marketed to a specific target audience; obviously certain films will appeal to certain types of people. However, it should never be used to automatically assume an audience. But that is, unfortunately, what happens and the majority of the film-going public buy into it. For example, I love Die Hard but I really, really disliked Pretty Woman. So what does that mean? According to Mr. Twitter Guy, it means I'm not making a "regular woman" choice when it comes to films. But, what it really means is simply that I liked one movie more and didn't enjoy the other. That's it.

Bruce Willis in Die Hard

So, when I see a trailer for a movie starring Reese Witherspoon or Kate Hudson, they aren't "chick flicks", they are romantic comedies. And romantic comedies just aren't my cup of tea (with a few exceptions like Bridget Jones' Diary, for example). It's not because I'm rebelling against a stupid term, but because romantic comedies just aren't usually my bag, and that should be fine.

It's alarming how often movies that aren't even romantic comedies are considered "chick flicks" simply because the cast is mainly comprised of women, like The Help. Yet, male-dominated films, like something directed by Quentin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese, for example, are films, not "prick flicks" (as Gloria Steinhem wrote).

I know a couple of guys in my life who enjoy the odd romantic comedy (Notting Hill, in particular, comes to mind), yet you'd be hard-pressed to see them admit that outside of their circle of friends. And that's just silly. Why does one's gender have to be a factor in which films we like?

Like what you want to like. Watch whatever film you prefer. Despite the fact that the Hollywood studio machine tells us that certain films are geared towards specific audiences, don't buy into it. I'm tired of people assuming I love Julia Roberts' romantic comedies simply because I'm a woman (it happens more often than you'd think). My favourite film is The Godfather -- because I love film and I think it's a great one. But I also love An Affair to Remember and I still bawl when I watch Titanic.

Film Noir Series: The Set-Up (1949)

2012-01-13T06:29:00.000-08:00

Robert Ryan as Stoker Thompson

My latest Film Noir Spotlight entry for Next Projection. The sixth film on my list is The Set-Up (1949).

Before there was Raging Bull, there was The Set-Up, Robert Wise’s brutally devastating glimpse into one night in the life of an aging, struggling boxer. It’s no great surprise, then, to hear Martin Scorsese waxing poetic about the influential merit of the film on the DVD’s commentary track. The Set-Up is a potent noir classic; a gritty documentary-type film made well before such a style even existed.

Right from the opening frame, it sets itself apart from other Hollywood releases in the late-1940s. Devoid of any soundtrack, the opening credits pan over a brutal fight in a boxing ring – a perverse, violent “dance” that only ends when one man is finally knocked out, to the crowd’s roaring approval. Robert Wise, a director often associated with his upscale musicals like West Side Story (1961) and The Sound of Music (1965), zeros in on the sights and sounds of a boxing match to recreate an authentic atmosphere.

Based on a Joseph Moncure March poem (which, in actuality, had a black ex-convict at the heart of its narrative, not a white boxer), The Set-Up moves along briskly in real time. At 35 years of age, Bill ‘Stoker’ Thompson (Robert Ryan) is considered “over-the-hill” by the bloodthirsty mobs that flock to the sweat-drenched boxing matches at the Paradise City arena. His own manager (George Tobias) is so sure that Stoker will go down in his match that he takes “dive” money from a gambler who goes by the pseudonym Little Boy (Alan Baxter) – and neglects to inform Stoker. Despite desperate pleas from his wife, Julie (Audrey Totter), to retire, Stoker insists he has one more big fight left in him.

The film unfurls slowly, gradually familiarizing the audience with Stoker as he prepares for his duel in the ring against a much younger opponent. With its revolving door of compelling secondary characters, all of whom offer their own personal tales of woe and victory, The Set-Up is a stripped down tale of the physical and psychological struggles of men like Stoker. All the boxers in the room are big dreamers although, judging from their anxious chatter, they are all too aware that their one-time shot at fame is fleeting.

Lensed by cameraman Milton Krasner, you can practically smell the stale air and feel each punch thrown. Alternating between intimately brutal, bloody close-ups and jarring wide shots, the fight scenes demonstrate both stunning choreography on the part of the actors and superior camerawork by the crew. Like gladiators in the Coliseum, the men in the ring are modern day warriors, complete with a powerful fan base that can be heard screaming and stomping from their dressing room. The crowd is comprised of those who place the bets and those who just love a bloody exhibition – like the blind man who has his friend narrate the fight sequences and the housewife who embarrasses her husband by screaming obscenities in her quest for more blood.

With his weathered features – complete with cauliflower ears, five o’clock shadow and upper lip sweat – Ryan breathes life into the role of Stoker. Considering his years as a boxer in college prior to acting, Ryan is a natural, carrying himself like a battered, yet determined, athlete. Looking as though he carries the weight of the world on his shoulders, Ryan gives a remarkable performance. His Stoker is one of the finest incarnations of a struggling athlete in film. His scenes with Audrey Totter as his wife, Julie, are particularly compelling, adding depth to both of their characterizations.

The Set-Up remains a startlingly raw slice-of-life narrative that more than earns its place as an influential noir classic. It balances a superbly crafted story with exquisitely choreographed fight sequences, all of which is anchored by an understated, naturalistic performance from Robert Ryan. It’s a knockout.

FINAL GRADE: A+

Film Noir Series: Born to Kill (1947)

2012-01-07T13:17:00.000-08:00

My latest Film Noir Spotlight entry over at Next Projection. You can check out the review HERE. The fifth film on my list is Born to Kill (1947).

A beautiful woman watches a tall, brooding man playing a game of craps at a casino. She watches him out of the corner of her eye as he rolls the pair of dice. When their eyes eventually meet, the man’s mouth lifts into a tiny smile. This wordless exchange lasts only a couple of moments, but the powerful connection between the two leads at the centre of Born to Kill is undeniably palpable.

Based on the James Gunn pulp novel, Deadlier Than The Male, this oft-overlooked noir is arguably one of the nastiest incarnations of the genre. Adapted for the screen by Eve Greene and Richard Macaulay, Born to Kill goes against type by featuring a female in the lead – a woman just as despicable as her male counterpart. This unconventional noir doesn’t rely on the familiar tropes of the genre. The film is devoid of any flashback narratives or voice-overs provided by a down-on-his luck private eye. Instead, the plot revolves around the two villains at the centre, one of whom happens to be a man with a seductive edge.

Beautiful socialite Helen Brent (Claire Trevor) finds her soul mate in the form of a psychotic murderer named Sam Wild (Lawrence Tierney). After her first glimpse of him at the casino, she’s drawn to his dark good looks and finds his grim persona irresistible. When she discovers that Sam is behind the grisly murder of an acquaintance, Helen keeps her lips sealed, preferring instead to recount the bloody scene with him privately, with breathless passion. It’s violence as foreplay for Helen and Sam. In a reversal from the traditional femme fatale seducing the lead male, it’s actually Helen who can’t help but get caught up in Sam’s tangled web of violence and deceit. There’s just something about Sam that immediately draws a person to his side – everyone agrees to help him get away with murder, from his loyal friend Marty (Elisha Cook Jr.) to Helen’s own foster sister, Georgia (Audrey Long).

Lawrence Tierney and Claire Trevor

Despite its stationary camera, the visuals in Born to Kill create a compelling, sometimes haunting, atmosphere – whether it’s a shot of dark shadows obscuring the corpse of a young woman or the image of Sam menacingly crouched in a corner of the room only moments before committing a double murder. Such visuals serve only to heighten the tension, more than making up for the films often-static camerawork.

As Helen, Claire Trevor is nothing short of a revelation. Her barely concealed desire for Sam and her flippant attitude towards his violent nature touch on the dark recesses of her own soul. She hides her true nature beneath a warm and welcoming exterior, a façade that only begins to crack when her own freedom, or that of Sam’s, is under serious threat. As one character tells her: “You’re the coldest iceberg of a woman I ever saw.” Shrewd and manipulative, Helen takes what she wants and it’s a pleasure watching Trevor triumph in the role. She’s so good that you’ll catch yourself rooting for Helen.

Despite not being a strong enough actor to bring out the smaller nuances in the character of Sam, Lawrence Tierney is still strangely alluring in the role. We don’t know why Sam is so angry, only that he’s a hardened sociopath who can “make people or break them.”

In the minor role of private investigator Matthew Arnett, Austrian actor Walter Slezak excels as portraying the sleazy underbelly of a man less interested in justice and more interested in monetary gains. Although the role is under-written, Slezak succeeds at portraying yet another loathsome character in a film full of such types.

With two mesmerizingly evil lead characters, Born to Kill manages to wade through its melodrama to present an exciting and unconventional noir that is both dark and deliciously wicked.

FINAL GRADE: A-

Movie Rant: My Favourite Films of 2011

2012-01-02T11:07:00.000-08:00

Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan in Shame

Another year has come and gone and, like every other film fan on the planet, I've decided to compile a list of my favourite films of 2011. Going through reviews from the past year, I realized that I hadn't seen enough truly great films to make a list of 10. So, instead, I'll have to settle for a list of eight.

Keep in mind I haven't seen the following films (some of which likely would have made the list had I seen them on time): The Descendants, The Adventures of Tintin, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, A Separation, Albert Nobbs and Warrior.

My Top 8 Films of 2011
1) Shame
Controversy over its explicit rating aside, Shame is a close study of the isolating nature of addiction -- that gradual separation from the tangible and the emotional. Some of the most revealing scenes in the film are often the ones with little or no dialogue and Michael Fassbender's performance is nothing short of astonishing. Shame will stay with you long after the final credits.

2) The Artist
It's a vibrant and richly texualized film. Although the idea may not be new and some may argue that the premise itself is a bit of a gimmick, it's an undeniable crowd-pleaser and a beautiful one at that. With its two charming leads at the centre, The Artist is, above all, a love letter to cinema's past.

Jessica Chastain in The Tree of Life

3) The Tree of Life
Audiences and critics alike will be hard-pressed to come up with a list of other films that are as ambitious, unique and full of meaning as Terrence Malick's latest. The Tree of Life is a bit of an enigma -- an often puzzling, yet incredibly powerful, film that deals with love, loss, death, nature and the universe. Without a linear narrative, the film includes long interludes of vivid cosmic and prehistoric visions. Spiritual and artsy, The Tree of Life challenges mainstream ideas of what a Hollywood film can achieve.

4) Hugo
One of the most visually beautiful films of the year, Hugo wraps you in a blanket of movie passion and nostalgia. Led by a wonderful ensemble cast, Martin Scorsese has created a haunting, yet whimsical, ode to the original pioneers of film.

5) Moneyball
There's no denying the long love affair that American cinema has had with the game of baseball. Moneyball is the best sports films to be released in years as it delves into the behind-the-scenes drama and inner workings of what it takes to build a winning team. Thanks to Brad Pitt's greatest performance to date, Moneyball reminds us that, despite the abundance of riches in professional sports, there are those who really do care -- for love of the game.

6) Martha Marcy May Marlene
Writer-director Sean Durkin has crafted a compelling debut feature that is ultimately a fascinating commentary on familial ties and paranoia. Elizabeth Olsen gives the kind of breakthrough performance that most up-and-comers can only dream about. She's quietly devastating and she makes it impossible to look away.

Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain in Take Shelter

7) Take Shelter
With its slow-burning narrative, Take Shelter is a quietly unsettling indie hit that is more character study than apocalyptic thriller. In the lead role, Michael Shannon is remarkable. His quietly commanding performance is one of the highlights of the year and it's fascinating watching this gentle character battle his inner demons.

8) Midnight in Paris

With its commentary on the folly of nostalgia and the assumption that everything was a whole lot better "back in the day", Woody Allen has crafted a welcome escape from blockbusters and franchise sequels. Guided by Owen Wilson in the lead, the film takes a delightful, whimsical tour of Paris in the present day and the 1920s, where it once seemed as though only intellectuals and artists roamed the streets.

What are your favourite films of 2011?

Movie Review: Hugo

2011-12-27T12:31:00.000-08:00

Asa Butterfield as Hugo Cabret

Hugo (2011)
Based on the Book By: Brian Selznick
Directed By: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Ben Kingsley, Chloe Grace Moretz, Sacha Baron Cohen, Christopher Lee and Jude Law

Hollywood has been reminded of its celebrated history more than once in recent months, with both The Artist and Martin Scorsese's Hugo at the centre of this resurgence (of sorts) of old cinema. Both films couldn't have come at a better time -- while an endless stream of forgettable movies are dropped into theatres as a quick cash-grab for studios, audiences often need to be reminded that there are filmmakers out there who love the art of cinema and continue to make great, challenging films.

Scorsese, by using the source material from Brian Selznick's graphic novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret, has crafted a love letter to the world of cinema. By jumping on the opportunity to promote his passion for film preservation and its forgotten pioneers, Scorsese has ultimately created a film for adult movie buffs in the guise of a children's adventure.

Young Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is an orphan boy living behind a giant clock in a beautiful Paris train station in the 1930s. With his keen knack for stealing discarded items and fixing them, Hugo bides his time inventing little gadgets -- none of which cures his loneliness. Desperate to connect with the people he watches beyond his isolated quarters, Hugo befriends Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), an imaginative girl living in Paris with her godfather, Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley). Together, the two embark on a series of adventures involving a mysterious automaton left behind by Hugo's dead father (Jude Law), a heart-shaped key and a case of hidden identities -- all the while being chased around by a tyrannical station agent (Sacha Baron Cohen).

Hugo is, essentially, two films expertly weaved together into one. Despite numerous minor subplots and two main narrative threads, the film never loses its focus as the action slowly builds towards a beautifully moving climax reminiscent of the 1988 Italian classic, Cinema Paradiso.

With assistance from cinematographer Robert Richardson and production designer Dante Ferretti (both Scorsese regulars), Hugo is a lush and whimsical creation -- an ode to the wonder of the world of cinema that is just as wonderful itself. Arguably the most visually beautiful film of the year, Hugo wraps you in a blanket of movie passion and nostalgia.

Asa Butterfield (left) and Ben Kingsley

In the lead role, Asa Butterfield is fully capable of carrying an entire film on his small shoulders. With his expressive blue eyes and elfin features it's hard to imagine another child more suited for the role of a young orphan desperate for love and companionship. It's the rare child actor that can have both a commanding screen presence and manage to hold his own against veteran actors.

The supporting cast is equally compelling, specifically Ben Kingsley as the emotionally broken Georges Melies. His chemistry with the young Butterfield is the heart at the centre of the film. The scenes that these two lonely, broken souls share carry the emotional weight of the film. Kingsley, with his sad eyes and soft voice, gives one of his loveliest performances in years. As Isabelle, Chloe Grace Moretz is charming, despite a wavering English accent. In smaller roles, Sacha Baron Cohen, Christopher Lee and Jude Law round out a solid cast with superb performances that manage to jump off the screen despite limited screen time.

Hugo is a vibrantly beautiful film, both charming and tragic. Howard Shore's score only adds to the haunting, yet whimsical, atmosphere.

Scorsese reminds that, like Rome, cinema wasn't built in a day -- there were many pioneering faces, some unfortunately long forgotten, that brought the medium to what it is today.

FINAL GRADE: A

Movie Rant: Why I love the 1951 version of A Christmas Carol

2011-12-24T11:42:00.000-08:00

While doing some holiday movie research for an article and slideshow I was putting together for work awhile back I came to the realization that Charles Dickens' classic short story, A Christmas Carol has been adapted at least 50 times since the invention of moving pictures. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find another story that has been adapted more often into film and television specials than that!

I know plenty of people who love a wide range of adaptations, most notably A Muppet Christmas Carol and Bill Murray's Scrooged. While both films are fun holiday flicks in their own right, I prefer my Scrooge straight up mean and nasty -- all the better to make his conversion at the end have more of a meaningful impact.

Which brings me to the 1951 Brian Desmond Hurst adaptation starring Alastair Sim in the title role. Arguably the finest version of how the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge re-discovered his Christmas spirit and restored his reputation, a lot of credit is due to the performance of Sim. The man was born to play Scrooge -- the craggy-faced Scottish native perfectly captures all of the characters' multitude of emotions, from hardened and world weary to childlike wonder. Regardless of how many times I've seen this film, his jubilant Christmas morning jig towards the end always makes me smile.

When I was about eight years old, my mom introduced this classic adaptation to my sister and I. It was in black and white. It made cracking and popping sounds because of a poor VHS transfer. It had long lines down the screen from where the original film was scratched. And, from that young age of eight, I still managed to become hooked, despite everything going against it. It soon became a Christmas Eve tradition -- the night before Christmas, we'd sit around the TV and watch Scrooge transform into a caring and compassionate human being who learned "how to keep Christmas well."

Alastair Sim as Ebenezer Scrooge

I can't think of another version (and I've seen many) that so accurately captures the true holiday spirit of Dickens' story. It's dark, it's sad, it's charming and it's ultimately what Christmas is all about -- putting differences aside and spending time with loved ones.

There's something to be said for a story that has endured for so many generations -- it's clear that Dickens hit a nerve when he first published his novella. I even wrote about the phenomenon for last years holiday issue of History Magazine ("How Charles Dickens Saved Christmas"). Every great piece of fiction deserves a worthy film adaptation should people decide to translate it onto the silver screen and the 1951 version of A Christmas Carol is just that.

So, later on tonight, once my family and I have returned from our Christmas Eve dinner with one side of our extended family, we'll curl up on the couch and watch A Christmas Carol once again. Twenty years after watching it for the first time, it's still my favourite way to unwind on Christmas Eve before the hustle and bustle of the big day.

Merry Christmas!

Film Noir Series: Crossfire (1947)

2011-12-23T20:09:00.000-08:00

I'm continuing my ongoing Film Noir series on Next Projection. You can check out my post HERE. The fourth film on my list is Crossfire (1947).

With its tightly coiled narrative and top-notch cast, Crossfire is a slow-burning crime drama and unlikely “social message film” with a noir twist.

Based on the controversial Richard Brooks novel The Brick Foxhole, screenwriter John Paxton re-teamed with director Edward Dymtryk after the success of their 1944 noir classic, Murder, My Sweet. This time around religious bigotry takes centre stage, as intolerance is unearthed among a group of soldiers recently returned from the Second World War.

Set in Washington, D.C., this band of brothers bond over hard liquor and poker games at various bars while swapping war stories. After one particular night of heavy drinking, three of the men wind up at the apartment of Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), a Jewish man they met in a bar. Samuels openly shares his thoughts on what he perceives to be the true hidden enemy to a soldier recently returned from battle – pent up and unfocused negative energy that comes when there is no longer a clear enemy to kill. When Samuels winds up dead, the three soldiers become prime suspects in the homicide investigation led by Detective Finlay (Robert Young) and Army Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum).

Postwar angst is often an underlying theme in the majority of noir films. However, few have dealt with it as directly as the Oscar-nominated Crossfire. Its chock full of aimless soldiers suffering from misguided anger. Despite Dymtryk and Paxton’s decision to change the victim from a homosexual in Brooks’ novel to a middle-aged Jewish man in the film, the theme of intolerance still resonates.

Gloria Grahame as Ginny.

Crossfire opens with a violent exchange between two men – one the gracious Samuels, the other one of the soldiers. However, all that is seen are shadows on a wall. Enter Detective Finlay with his soft drawl, ever-present pipe and immaculate suit. Finlay, in his hunt for a motive, is one of the calmest screen incarnations of a homicide detective to ever grace the silver screen. Whether he’s lounging in a high-backed chair or slowly walking the perimeter a crime scene, Young instills Finlay with an ice-cold demeanor, all the better to interrogate with.

Along for the ride in this compelling ‘whodunit’ is a brash soldier named Montgomery (Robert Ryan) and a sultry, exotically beautiful nightclub singer named Ginny (Gloria Grahame). Ryan is captivating as the blustering bully Montgomery, nearly stealing the show from both Young and Mitchum. As the jaded Ginny, Grahame more than earns her Best Supporting Actress nomination in her two brief scenes. Strong-willed and fiery, Ginny is the standard femme – albeit with much less fatale than is common in the genre. You can tell that, beneath her cool indifference, she’s a kind woman at heart.

The uncharacteristically slow narrative carefully unfurls character motivations, wading through each character’s conflicting flashback accounts in order to crack the case. When the truth is finally revealed to Finlay it sets off a three-minute speech addressing anti-Semitism and anti-Irish Catholic stances in America. The scene hammers home the overall message, coming off a little too preachy, almost as though it thought the audience wouldn’t be able to comprehend the notion of religious intolerance without its being sermonized. The one thing that pulls this scene back from outright melodrama is Young’s strong performance.

Despite this heavy-handed conclusion and its eventual exoneration of the military’s role in the murder,Crossfire is a surprisingly bold noir, tackling an issue that touched a raw nerve with audiences.

FINAL GRADE: A-

Movie Rant: The (Perfect) Trailer for The Hobbit

2011-12-21T06:24:00.000-08:00

Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins

It's finally here! Peter Jackson and co. have finally unveiled the first official trailer for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Sure, it isn't released until December 14th, 2012, but I pretty much consider myself in line already. ...Don't you?

As much as I liked the idea of Guillermo Del Toro taking over for the prequel (he's one hell of a fantastic visual storyteller), I was relieved when a scheduling conflict kept him away. With Jackson back at the helm The Hobbit will look and feel similar to The Lord of the Rings trilogy -- which makes more sense, if only for the sake of consistency.

So, how is the trailer? Well, it's pretty perfect in my opinion. I love the casting choice of Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I'm not overly familiar with his work but he definitely has the perfect look and feel for the role. And, after seeing the trailer, I'm convinced he'll make a wonderful Bilbo (especially since filling the shoes of Ian Holm won't be easy). In fact, in the brief glimpse we get of all the new characters, all the casting choices were right on the money. Not that I had any doubt, seeing as Jackson has a knack for unearthing unknown talent and turning them into household names. The trailer also includes some familiar faces, most notably returning actors Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett and Andy Serkis.

I won't ramble on about all the things I loved about the trailer because it would take up more than one post. But, basically, I think this film will live up to all the hype and all the hopes of J.R.R. Tolkien fans. Thankfully, Hollywood has people like Jackson making quality blockbusters or we'd all be doomed to endless remakes of dull action franchises. I'm not even bothered by the fact that The Hobbit was filmed in 3D (a cash-grab gimmick I usually loathe) simply because I know that Jackson made every one of those images count -- and it'll look fantastic.

Seeing trailers like The Hobbit are necessary if only to remind us that the things we loved as a child still have enduring popularity -- our childhood isn't dead so long as dedicated directors like Jackson are loyally adapting our favourite books into epic films.

What do you think of the trailer?

Movie Review: The Artist

2011-12-18T12:54:00.000-08:00

The Artist (2011)
Written & Directed By: Michel Hazanavicius
Starring: Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, James Cromwell and John Goodman

The Artist is this years most unlikely Oscar contender -- a black and white silent film with two unknown foreign actors in the leads.

The film often relies on parody in order to pay appropriate homage to the era of silent movies; however, it never comes off as disingenuous. It re-introduces techniques of the past, from printed titles to relay dialogue to the audience to an overly enthusiastic musical score. With a plot reminiscent of both Sunset Blvd. (1950) and Singin' in the Rain (1952), The Artist is an engaging and light-hearted film that is so likeable that it can easily appeal an audience raised on technology and CGI special effects.

The Jazz Singer (1927) was the first "talkie", instantly changing the world of cinema. With it came great upheaval in Hollywood -- audiences demanded to hear the actors they had come to adore, while certain actors struggled with the transition to the point where it broke their careers. The Artist is set in 1927, just as the major changes are starting to take shape in the old studio system in Hollywood. French actor George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) has legions of fans who worship his heroic incarnations on the silver screen. With his natural charisma and knack for expressing himself non-verbally, George initially brushes off the breakthrough of sound in cinema as a temporary fad, something that will disappear as quickly as it came about. What George fails to recognize is that "talkies" are ushering in a new age of film and that actors like himself were on a steady decline. When he falls in love with a beautiful dancer and background actress named Peppy Miller (Argentinian actress Berenice Bejo) it slowly dawns on George that Hollywood is now looking for more actors like Peppy -- charismatic stars who were made to be seen and heard. As Peppy is catapulted into stardom, George is left in the dust, a cruel aspect of Hollywood that remains relevant to this very day.

Jean Dujardin as George Valentin

As a man who refuses to acknowledge that his world is changing, Dujardin gives one of the best performances of 2011. He amply demonstrates that emotional expression and actions can speak louder than words -- with a face straight out of the silent era of Hollywood, Dujardin both looks and feels the part of a rapidly declining star. The role is undeniably challenging -- without any dialogue to work with Dujardin is left to over-emote in order to make up for his lack of ability to express himself verbally. However, his actions are never hammy and always feel genuine. He evokes the pathos common with silent film greats like Charlie Chaplin, and he never misses a beat. Dujardin more than succeeds in his role as George Valentin, giving a nuanced performance that it both comic and touching.

Bejo is an equally great find as Pepper Miller. With a smile that could light up a room and spades of talent, Bejo is luminous is a role that nearly jumps off the screen.

The Artist is a vibrant and richly textualized film. Although the idea may not be new and some may argue that the premise itself if a bit of a gimmick, it's an undeniable crowed-pleaser and a beautiful one at that. Director Michel Hazanavicius recreates the world of classic Hollywood and his attention to detail is remarkable. He instils the perfect amount of dark reality and whimsy in the lives of George and Peppy and, as director, he makes some wonderful visual choices (none of which I will reveal here so as not to spoil the fun). Stylistically, the film is flawless. Composer Ludovic Bource creates the perfect musical accompaniment, at times both rousingly cheerful and tragically mournful. Silent films often relied on the emotion of its scores to sway audience feelings and opinion and The Artist makes powerful use of its own score in the same manner.

A heartfelt and beautiful film, The Artist is, above all, a love letter to cinema past.

FINAL GRADE: A

Movie Review: Take Shelter

2011-12-15T18:29:00.000-08:00

Take Shelter (2011)
Written & Directed By: Jeff Nichols
Starring: Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain

"You think I'm crazy? Well, listen up, there's a storm coming like nothing you've ever seen, and not a one of you is prepared for it."

A quietly unsettling indie hit, Take Shelter is more character study than apocalyptic thriller, leaving the audience just as overwhelmed and perplexed as the central protagonist -- a man who literally lets fear rule his life.

The setting: rural Ohio. Hard-working and loving family man Curtis (Michael Shannon) is plagued by shockingly realistic apocalyptic visions while he sleeps. Curtis isn't sure if he's inherited schizophrenia from his mother or if his visions are real -- a glimpse into the very near future. He decides to err on the side of caution and builds a survivalist shelter for himself and his wife, Samantha (Jessica Chastain), and young daughter, Hannah (Tova Stewart). Curtis is not a particularly religious man -- instead of looking up Bible passages to uncover answers to his violent and chilling visions, he checks out books on psychiatry from the local library instead. The overriding theme in the film is fear -- fear of economic hardship, fear of health problems, fear of losing those we love most, and fear of death and the end of the world. Fear often influences our greatest decisions and it's what ultimately sparks Curtis into action, regardless of what those around him think.

Take Shelter has a slow-burning narrative, carefully revealing the frustration and fear felt by a man unraveling right before his family's eyes. Despite its leisurely pace there's never a dull moment.

From a visual standpoint alone the film is stunning -- the apocalyptic visions are chillingly vague and appropriately ominous; like Curtis, you aren't sure exactly what they mean ...or if they even actually exist. With its smart use of CGI, the film conjures realistic thunderstorms and inky rain showers, using them to greater effect than any big-budget blockbuster.

Curtis (Shannon) and an apocalyptic vision.

In the lead role, Shannon is remarkable. His quietly commanding performance as Curtis is one of the highlights of 2011 and it's fascinating to watch this gentle character struggle with inner demons he just doesn't understand. A man of few words, Curtis is hesitant to explain his situation to his loving wife -- in fact, his pent up frustration and fear only boils over once in a shocking fire and brimstone speech that rattles those around him, himself included.

As Samantha, a religiously devout woman who dotes on her husband and young daughter, Chastain makes another case for why she's the biggest star of the year. Her performance is the definition of a supporting player -- she may be secondary in the plot but she makes her presence felt with a quietly beautiful performance. It'd be a shame if this wasn't the film she was recognized for at the Oscars.

Although the final scene may polarize moviegoers, Take Shelter leaves an undeniable impact. It's an intelligent piece of cinema that provokes a powerful response. Up-and-comer writer-director Jeff Nichols has crafted a resonating film that utilizes our societal fears to propel the story forward.

Part psychological thriller, character piece and family drama, Take Shelter is one of the highlights of 2011.

FINAL GRADE: A-

Movie Rant: The debate over the SAG Award nominees

2011-12-14T10:55:00.000-08:00

For me, this is the most wonderful time of the year. It's Christmas, hockey season and a prelude to all the upcoming film awards where I get to catch up on everything I've missed over the year. Nothing satiates my passion for cinema more than a good film debate.

I've enjoyed the SAG Awards in the past -- I often find them to the be the most accurate indicator as to which films and performances deserve the greatest accolades. The Golden Globes are a joke and the Oscars rarely get it right, which is why I've often relied on the SAG awards to set things straight -- well, kind of anyway. Moreso than the Oscars.

Not the case this year. Today's announcement of the 2012 nominees brought a lot of disappointment -- not just to me but all over the Internet, especially Twitter (you can see the full list of nominees HERE). A lot of people seem shocked at some of the obvious snubs in a what should have been a breakout year for smaller films and up-and-coming actors.

That being said, they did make some really great choices:
-Midnight in Paris (Best Ensemble): One of my favourite films of 2011, it's one of those feel-good whimsical gems with a ridiculously perfect (and charming) cast and a story that just sweeps you away. I was worried it'd get lost in the shuffle. Still not sure where it stands with regards to the Oscars, though.
-Brad Pitt (Best Actor, Moneyball): I'm not surprised they went with the audience-friendly baseball movie. Pitt has had a truly breakout year with diverse performances. He could very easily have been nominated for Tree of Life; however, his performance as Billy Beane in Moneyball truly carries the film into a whole new level in the sports genre. He won't win but in his case it will be an honour to have been recognized.
-Christopher Plummer (Best Supporting Actor, Beginnners): This nearly-forgotten indie from earlier this year boasted one of the finest performances of 2011. We should all be happy that they remembered Plummer's lovely turn as an older gentleman finally coming to terms with his homosexuality. His performance is a lesson in how to subtly convey a persons inner conflict without having to resort to scenery-chewing.

Here's where, in my opinionated opinion, the SAG Awards got it wrong:
-Jessica Chastain (Best Supporting Actress, The Help): Chastain has been the story of the year, the toast of Hollywood. When was the last time an actress had such an astounding breakout year? She co-starred in four films and has one more coming up (Coriolanus) to round out 2011. She gave two truly stunning performances in Tree of Life and Take Shelter. And while she was equally wonderful in The Help it's a shame that the obvious love-fest for the 1960s-era drama resulted in her receiving a nomination for one of her "lesser" performances. I'm shocked she wasn't recognized for Tree of Life or Take Shelter but I suppose we should just be grateful that she was recognized in the first place.
-Michael Fassbender for Shame: Probably the BIGGEST shock of them all -- a lack of Best Actor nomination for the finest male performance of 2011 (that I've seen so far). Fassbender is outstanding in Shame -- a raw, realistic and truly challenging role. The fact that the film was given the equivalent of a porn rating in the U.S. likely damaged his chance of being recognized for his work. Unfortunate.
-Carey Mulligan for Shame: Some may argue that she didn't have a whole lot of screen time -- but remember when Judi Dench won Best Supporting Actress in 1998 for clocking in only eight minutes in Shakespeare in Love? Mulligan was heartbreaking and more than held her own alongside Fassbender.
-Shame: I suppose the lack of a Best Ensemble nomination shouldn't be all that surprising. It likely had to do with the MPAA ratings. Still disappointing. There's no way Bridesmaids was the better film in this department. To those stuffy, uptight SAG members, Shame is obviously too hot to handle.
-Michael Shannon for Take Shelter: In many critics circles, his performance was voted the best of the year. There's really no excuse for his snub -- unless he's secretly anti-SAG or not a member. People may be torn over the film itself but Shannon was just so good that he should should have been considered an automatic nominee.
-Elizabeth Olsen for Martha Marcy May Marlene: I think a lot of people expected her to be a shoo-in. In her breakout role she carries the emotional weight of the film on her shoulders and never lets the ball drop once. She'll make you forget there were ever other actresses with the last name Olsen. I look forward to more of her work. I can only hope she's recognized by the Academy.
-Andy Serkis for The Rise of the Planet of the Apes: I've been on his bandwagon since Day 1, when he first started doing interviews about why motion capture performance is still acting. It's amazing how many people just brush it off as "voice work." Recognition from the SAG or the Academy would go a long way towards opening peoples eyes to this different (but still legitimate) method of performance art. Serkis deserves his chance in the spotlight.

Which of the SAG nominations to you agree (and disagree) with?

Film Noir Series: Out of the Past (1947)

2011-12-13T05:56:00.000-08:00

I'm continuing my ongoing Film Noir series for Next Projection. You can check out my post HERE. The third film on my list is Out of the Past (1947).

Like its sleepy-eyed antihero, Out of the Past is disorderly and complex – a thrillingly chaotic example of a multiple-narrative film noir.

Former private investigator Jeff Bailey (Robert Mitchum) is leading a quiet life in a small town in rural California where he owns a gas station. However, Jeff harbours a secret – one that is gradually revealed when his past reaches out to tap him on the shoulder one day. Back in another life in New York, he was known as Jeff Markham, hired by Whit Sterling (Kirk Douglas), a gangster willing to pay whatever is necessary to get his double-crossing girlfriend back. Kathie (Jane Greer), the girlfriend in question, left Whit’s body riddled with four bullets before taking off with his $40,000. Whit wants her back, but not for revenge. As he tells Jeff: “I just want her back. When you see her you’ll understand better.” The beautiful, doe-eyed Kathie is a maneater – shooting and conniving her way out of tough situations. The ultimate femme fatale, she would appear to have both Jeff and Whit wrapped around her finger.

Jeff’s story is told in a flashback narrative as he reveals his past to his new girlfriend Ann (Virginia Huston) on a long trip to Lake Tahoe. He tells Ann everything: How he tracked Kathie down for Whit, followed the trail to Mexico and instantly fell in love with her. Jeff goes even further; telling Ann he lied to Whit about finding Kathie so the two could run away together. When Jeff and Kathie are spotted in San Francisco by Jeff’s former partner Jack Fisher (Steve Brodie) Kathie shoots him dead – leaving Jeff with the corpse and Kathie’s bank book showing that she had, indeed, stolen the $40,000 from Whit.

All of this takes place in the opening 40 minutes. The rest of the film is set in the present and includes two other storylines which all culminate in a violent finale. Screenwriter Daniel Mainwaring (the blacklisted novelist writing under the pseudonym “Geoffrey Homes”) wrote the script to his own 1946 novel, Build My Gallows High. The pulpy dialogue is rife with quotable one-liners (“If anyone’s gonna die, baby, I’m gonna die last”). Despite its melodrama and convoluted plot, Out of the Past is still thrillingly paced and pays close attention to the rising tension between Jeff, Whit and Kathie.

Half of the action takes place in lush, outdoor locations instead of stuffy soundstage sets, lending the film an atmosphere of authenticity rarely felt in the noir genre. Director Jacques Tourneur and cinematographer Nicholas Musuraca used rural locations, untouched by human corruption, to visually contrast the two lives of Jeff Bailey. The scenic landscape is as calm and beautiful as Jeff’s life is chaotic and violent.

As Jeff Bailey, Mitchum makes for an intriguing noir antihero. Constantly surrounded by a bright white ring of cigarette smoke and easily seduced by Kathie (does this make him a hopeless romantic or a deluded chump?) Jeff ultimately comes to terms with his fate – resigned to the fact that the majority of his choices in life have been poor. Mitchum’s slow, deliberate speech pattern and heavy-lidded eyes give Jeff the world-weary appearance of a man who has seen it all – the eternal cynic.

Out of the Past is essential viewing for any cineaste. Like Murder, My Sweet (1944) before it, the film is a measuring stick with which to gauge the success of every noir before and after its release.

FINAL GRADE: A-

Film Noir Series: Murder, My Sweet (1944)

2011-12-06T06:42:00.000-08:00

I'm continuing my ongoing film noir series. You can check out my post on the Next Projection website HERE. The second film on my list is Murder, My Sweet (1944).

This iconic and richly layered film from RKO Pictures remains a highlight of the film noir genre, with its famously glib antihero at the centre – a man with a witty one-liner for every insult thrown his way.

Based on the Raymond Chandler pulp novel Farewell, My Sweet, this highly quotable adaptation is a quintessential film noir. With screenwriter John Paxton at the helm, the sharply scripted Murder, My Sweet expertly weaves together what are essentially three separate narratives. The film utilizes the traditional film noir tropes, complete with a flashback framing narrative and descriptive voice-over narration. Director Edward Dymtryk created a moody, atmospheric masterpiece. You can practically smell the whiskey that the characters chug down. Dymtryk and Paxton neatly knit the loose narrative threads together and the end result is a dark, seedy and occasionally violent ode to the crime dramas of Raymond Chandler.

Private investigator, Philip Marlowe (Dick Powell), is hired by Moose Malloy (Mike Mazurki), a longtime crook recently sprung from jail after serving a lengthy sentence. Malloy is concerned about the whereabouts of his beloved moll Velma Valento, whom he hasn’t seen for the last six years. The case becomes a tougher nut to crack than Marlowe originally anticipated, leading him into a tangled web of deceit, bribery and theft.

The visuals lensed by cinematographer Harry J. Wilde explore the dark recesses of the human psyche through lavish visual concepts that literally reveal the state of paranoia in which Marlowe finds himself. A literal black haze moves over the screen as a fainting Marlowe narrates, “A black pool opened up at my feet. I dived in. It had no bottom.” His bizarre hallucinations are conveyed by overlapping imagery and cobwebs that seem to literally cling to the screen and blur the audiences’ vision.

Dick Powell (left) and Claire Trevor.

Dick Powell portrays Marlowe as a world-weary “everyman” – even though his career may involve him in the happenings of the criminal underworld, his moral compass remains intact.
As Marlowe himself explains early on in the film: “I’m just a small businessman in a very messy business, but I like to follow through on a sale.” A former crooner in the musical genre, Powell was cast against type yet convincingly made the transition from a song-and-dance man to a P.I. antihero.

Anne Shirley plays Ann Grayle, a woman who teams with Marlowe when she discovers her father is involved in the mess surrounding the whereabouts of Velma Valento. Earnest and eager to help, Ann’s apparent naïve charm casts a spell over Marlowe, although her motivations are not always clear.

As Helen Grayle, Ann’s bombshell stepmother, Claire Trevor is flawless, the very embodiment of the femme fatale. She’s platinum blonde and all legs – she’s introduced to the audience sitting curled up on the couch, like a predatory cat waiting to pounce. With her plunging necklines, glittering jewels and overtly sexual haughtiness, Helen is the type of woman who could lure a man into a life of corruption.

And then there’s Mike Mazurki, an absolute revelation as Moose Malloy. The former professional wrestler was more than just a craggy face with a body built like a piece of concrete. He gives a touching performance as a lovesick criminal who just wants to be reunited with his girlfriend.

Murder, My Sweet is ultimately a higher breed of film noir – highly quotable, expertly paced and well acted. There are few finer examples of the genre.

FINAL GRADE: A

Movie Review: Shame

2011-12-03T08:52:00.001-08:00

Shame (2011)

Written and Directed By: Steve McQueen

Starring: Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan

"We're not bad people. We just come from a bad place."

When it comes to sophomore efforts there's always that fear that a director won't live up to the same level of excellence achieved in his debut. However, after the 2008 film Hunger catapulted British director Steve McQueen (and his star Michael Fassbender) to stardom, his follow-up film is among the best of 2011. It's also one of the most explicit theatrical releases in years and is bound to stir up some controversy.

Controversy aside, Shame is ultimately a character study, a close look at the isolating nature of addiction. That gradual sense of separation from the tangible and the emotional that is experienced by the central figure in the film is something many can identify with in our current digital age.

Brandon Sullivan (Michael Fassbender) is handsome, owns a beautiful apartment and owes his financial success to his cushy executive job. However, beneath the surface lies a chronic addiction -- one that requires Brandon to constantly, almost exhaustively, seek sexual release, albeit without ever finding true fulfillment. He follows a meticulous, rigid schedule each day -- beginning with masturbation in the shower and ending with picking up a prostitute at night. When his younger sister, Sissy (a wonderful Carey Mulligan) shows up at his apartment after a nasty breakup, she encrouches on his personal space, forcing Brandon to break out of his pattern and come face-to-face with his addiction and obsessive nature. Their relationship is not a traditional one shared between two siblings. With Brandon and Sissy there is an unspoken tension lying just beneath the surface -- somewhere along the way, something happened between them, although the viewer is left without answers which only adds to our unease.

Brandon's lack of real connection with the people around him coincides with the films subtler theme of humanity's gradual loss of basic connection in the modern world. The New York in which Brandon lives is seen as cold and unfriendly, a place filled with concrete buildings and self-involved people. His is a world where the sun never shines and Brandon must go through the motions of interacting with the people he meets in lounges and bars with his egotistical boss (and only friend), David (James Badge Dale), a man who communicates with his own young son via web cam.

Some of the most revealing scenes in Shame are often the ones that require a very limited use of dialogue. In an early scene, we witness the the interaction between Brandon and a pretty woman (Lucy Walters) on the subway late at night. While both ride the train in silence, sitting across from one another, a wordless exchange is passed between them. The scene is astounding in its ability to go through a range of emotions in just under three minutes -- from initial attraction, to flirtation, to devastating regret. It's a shockingly powerful scene that is a highlight in an already excellent film.

Fassbender gives the best male performance of 2011, to date. His Brandon is a man of obsession and desperation and Fassbender is able to convey this through his expressive eyes and quietly commanding presence. Watching him struggle to connect with Marianne (Nicole Beharie), a colleague he asks out on a date, allows the viewer to see another side of Brandon -- the charming man beneath the cold surface is briefly and touchingly revealed. But his attempts at human connection are more often than not in vain. Fassbender's performance is nothing short of astonishing.

Shame hits you like a ton of bricks and sits heavily on your shoulders. It stays with you long after the final credits. It's an absorbing, piercing look at isolation and addiction -- a true work of art that requires more than one viewing, in order to pick up on its smaller nuances. You'll leave the theatre with conflicting emotions -- an effect all great films should have on its audience.

FINAL GRADE: A

Film Noir Series: Dillinger (1945)

2011-12-01T06:11:00.001-08:00

I've recently started blogging for the Toronto-based film website, Next Projection. They also have a Facebook page and a Twitter account.

I'll be doing a Film Noir series for them, which I'm really excited about. You can check out my first post HERE. I also plan on putting them on here, to help me keep track.

The first film on my list: Dillinger (1945).

Before establishing himself as a weathered thug in films like Born to Kill (1947) and Reservoir Dogs (1992), Lawrence Tierney made his major film debut playing one of America’s most notorious bank robbers.

Clocking in at a brisk 70 minutes, this mostly forgotten crime noir chronicles the illicit career of John Dillinger at breakneck speed. Having robbed more than a dozen banks with his rag-tag group of associates, Dillinger joined the ranks of Bonnie and Clyde and Pretty Boy Floyd as the top newsmakers of the Depression era.

However, Dillinger is not a traditional biopic. The Oscar nominated screenplay by Philip Yordan played it fast and loose with the facts. Yordan chose not to dwell on the motivations that saw Dillinger resort to a life of crime. The film is, essentially, a largely fictitious glossing over of the infamous career criminal who, at the time of the films release, had only been dead for 11 years.

Lawrence Tierney (right) as Dillinger.

A B-movie from Monogram Pictures, the tiny “poverty row” studio that made a quick buck with low budget films between 1931-1953, Dillinger went on to gross more than 4 million dollars at the box office – this despite its obvious flaws. At the time, Dillinger defied the Production Code’s unofficial rule to relegate real life criminal activity to the background in Hollywood films, likely the reason behind its popularity.

No one else in Hollywood would touch the story of Public Enemy #1, leaving the door open for Monogram to adapt Dillinger’s exploits to its own liking.

Riddled with inconsistencies, Dillinger begins with a framing narrative that is quickly abandoned. A theatre audience listens as Dillinger’s elderly father recounts his sons’ misadventures. The film than moves into a flashback of Dillinger’s early introduction to a life of crime and the story proceeds from there. There is no concluding scene that features Dillinger’s father finishing his account.

Another curiosity comes out in the DVD commentary (featuring John Milius, the director of 1973’s Dillinger) where it’s revealed that the 1945 film actually used stock footage in some of its prominent scenes. Most notably, the tear gas robbery sequence was lifted straight from Fritz Lang’s 1937 film You Only Live Once – complete with a close-up shot of the films star, Henry Fonda, peering out of the back of his car.

Although some have argued against the films classification as film noir, director Max Nosseck utilized traditional narrative devices and visuals often associated with the genre. With its use of flashbacks, albeit briefly, and reductionist lighting, Dillinger features sequences with heavy rain, thick clouds of cigarette smoke and spinning newspapers with bold titles revealing Dillinger’s criminal activity to propel the plot forward. In terms of its aesthetic qualities, the film as aged remarkably well.

However, its strongest facet is Tierney; he makes for a shifty, anxious and explosive Dillinger. Although the character development is kept to the bare minimum you understand he’s a man to be feared – the type of guy who would take serious offense to being called a “two-bit chiseler”. His barely concealed rage simmers just beneath the surface. Tierney doesn’t strive to make Dillinger likeable, opting instead to portray him as an outright villain with questionable motivations.

Dillinger is strange hybrid of gangster flick, film noir and docudrama, without ever quite achieving success as any of the three in terms of storytelling. Its simplistic approach to storytelling propels the action forward, however it ultimately leaves little impact outside of Tierney’s performance.

FINAL GRADE: C+

Movie Rant: When Theatres Screen Classic Films

2011-11-27T17:42:00.001-08:00

James Dean, a Rebel Without a Cause (1955)

I've found a new obsession and I need to start making it a weekly thing.

About three weeks ago I finally got around to actually seeing a film at the TIFF Bell Lightbox here in Toronto. I've been there before, most notably for the Tim Burton exhibit a few months back. But, for whatever reason, it has taken me this long to actually buy a ticket to see a movie there.

Maybe I was subconsciously waiting for the right one, the perfect movie for the perfect first experience.

Well, it came along in the form of a Spotlight on director Nicholas Ray. I bought two tickets to see Rebel Without a Cause and took my sister. It's unlikely we could have found a better film to introduce us to the TIFF experience. I got to watch an iconic film in all its scratchy, crackly glory. No high-definition Blu-Ray edition just popped into a player. No DVD anniversary edition. It was actual film. It popped, cracked and showed its wear and tear.

I've seen Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) in an anniversary theatrical run a few years back, but it was essentially just the DVD copy projected on the screen. Still incredible, but not quite the same experience.

Another miracle of miracles: the audience remained silent throughout the entire screening of Rebel. No talking, no cellphone-checking and no heaving around their weight in restlessness. You could have heard a pin drop. They laughed at the right moments, but other than that, nada. It's rare to have such a perfect viewing experience.

I told my friends about the great experience I had while watching Rebel Without a Cause (oh, and seeing James Dean on the big screen for the first time wasn't too shabby, either) and I recommended that we see a movie together sometime soon.

Jon Cryer and Molly Ringwald in Pretty in Pink (1986)

That "sometime soon" happened to be this past Friday night. We had a girls night and chose John Hughes' teen angst movie, Pretty in Pink. To see that wonderful piece of melodramatic teen fluff ("What about prom, Blaine? What about prom?") on screen was equally awesome -- ragged and scratched, it looked and sounded so good.

You could almost feel the audience drowning in nostalgia. With its fantastic soundtrack and quotable lines, it would appear that John Hughes movies are still meant to be viewed in their natural state -- on the big screen.

There's just something about seeing your favourite films on the big screen, especially if they were originally released before your time. To have that opportunity to go back and enjoy it the way film audiences of the past did is a huge treat for any film buff.

This must be the equivalent of what music buffs feel when they sit back with a glass of wine and listen to their vinyl records.

What classics or old favourites have you seen on the big screen?

Movie Review: My Week with Marilyn

2011-11-24T05:24:00.001-08:00

Williams and Redmayne as Marilyn and Colin

My Week with Marilyn (2011)
Based on the Memoir By: Colin Clark
Directed By: Simon Curtis
Starring: Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne, Kenneth Branagh, Julia Ormond and Judi Dench

There are certain stars from a bygone era of Hollywood that are difficult to interpret on the silver screen. Imagine actually finding someone who could successfully portray Marlon Brando, Elizabeth Taylor or Paul Newman? Marilyn Monroe was once put into this category -- few dared to try and portray her in a film until now. Some celebrities are just too big and any attempt to give a genuine glimpse at the star will likely come off as little more than imitation. My Week with Marilyn succeeds with some aspects of Monroe's personality, but disappointingly not in other areas.

Based on the 1995 publication of the personal diary of British documentary filmmaker, Colin Clark, My Week with Marilyn focuses on how a 23-year-old Colin (Eddie Redmayne) became the third assistant director to Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) during the tumultuous production of the 1957 film, The Prince and the Showgirl. A dream job for a film buff like Colin, he recognizes his upcoming opportunity to meet Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) in person will be a dream come true. What he didn't anticipate was the friendship that would blossom between them over a brief period.

The script by Adrian Hodges leaves enough room for Williams to shine, but any chance she had at truly running away with the picture was diminished by the fact that the film frustratingly centres on Colin -- a man who claims to have shared moments of genuine love with the megastar. It's a shame too because Williams will likely prove some naysayers wrong (myself included) who thought she was woefully miscast as the blond bombshell. Although there are moments when Williams stumbles in her performance (she's never entirely convincing as Marilyn, which is disappointing), she does have a couple of lovely, subdued moments -- less silly, flirty Marilyn and more vulnerable Marilyn with tears of disappointment in her eyes.

These glimpses that we do get of Marilyn (albeit through the eyes of the lovesick Colin) is of a beautiful and sad woman who seems in over her head -- things we already knew about Monroe. This inability to bring anything new to the table nearly topples the film in the first half when most of the attention remains focused on the dull Colin.

Williams as Monroe

The underutilized secondary characters who share scenes on the set of The Prince and the Showgirl is a disappointing misuse of its cast. Halfway through the film it's easy to forget Judi Dench was in the picture as Dame Sybil Thorndike and audiences are expected to care that Colin has slighted some nice costume girl named Lucy (Emma Watson) who really, really liked him until Marilyn came along. Julia Ormond, a lovely actress, is, alas, no Vivien Leigh.

That being said, there's an interesting film buried underneath it all -- and this is where My Week with Marilyn improves. There's an early scene that shows what this movie could have been when a script read-through briefly touches on the changing norms in Hollywood during the 1950s in terms of acting technique. Olivier, a legend of the stage, is dumbfounded by the fact that Monroe needs her acting coach Paula Strasberg to work her through the art of a "Method" performance. He struggles to understand why Marilyn can't simply "play pretend" like other actors of his generation. In the same scene, Marilyn stares admiringly at Olivier as he reads through his portion of the script, suggesting she is uncomfortable in her own skin when it comes to acting alongside the longtime pros she respects, like Sir Laurence. Perhaps the film would have benefited more had it actually been about the making of The Prince and the Showgirl and the clashes between Marilyn and Olivier. Both were incredibly insecure actors at the time -- he, because of the changing art of performance on film and her, because she struggled to be taken seriously as an actress on an almost daily basis. Showcasing the incompatibility of these two actors would have allowed Williams and Branagh to really let their talents loose -- both of them had their finest moments in the film occur when they were together.

But, the focus is on the time Colin spent with Marilyn. Oddly enough, what allegedly happened between Colin and Marilyn fails to live up to Colin's over-dramatic narration at the beginning and end of the film. While Colin waxes poetic about how he "understood" Marilyn and how they shared this glorious bond, you realize there was actually very little that was real between them -- only a handful of flirtatious laughs and a couple of spooning sessions after some sight-seeing tours around London.

A woman often defined by her sexuality or the men in her lives, it does her legacy a great disservice to have her relegated somewhat to the background. All those burning questions you may have had about what Marilyn was like when she was away from the cameras still remain largely unanswered in the film.

The film amounts to little more than a lopsided venture that struggles to put both Colin and Marilyn front and centre. The plodding pace (especially in the middle of the film) and heavy-handed direction diminish whatever excitement the film was able to build in certain scenes. More frustrating than enjoyable, the real standouts are Williams and, especially, Branagh -- another instance of a couple of performances being better than the overall finished product. If only the film had been about Marilyn Monroe and Sir Laurence Olivier and a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the making of The Prince and the Showgirl. Marilyn deserved a better picture.

FINAL GRADE: C+

2011-11-18T08:47:00.001-08:00

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)
Written and Directed By: Sean Durkin
Starring: Elizabeth Olsen, John Hawkes, Sarah Paulson and Hugh Dancy

"There's no such thing as dead or alive; we just exist."

Martha Marcy May Marlene is a disturbing examination of a young woman's damaged psyche. Part psychological thriller and part quietly restrained family drama, the film is brimming with crackling tension that lies just under its surface.

When Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) suddenly reappears after a two year absence, her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and brother-in-law, Ted (Hugh Dancy) struggle to reconnect with the strangely subdued young woman. Lucy suspects Martha has just escaped an abusive boyfriend, but doesn't press the matter -- she's just happy to have her sister home again. Little does Lucy know, but Martha has been under the influence of Patrick (John Hawkes), a Charles Manson-like cult leader, who runs a Catskills commune on an abandoned farm. As he surrounds himself with lost, lonely youngsters he randomly picks up (specifically women), Patrick subjects them to rituals of drug abuse and rape, threatening bodily harm to any who dares to leave his absurd "family."

Olsen gives the kind of breakthrough performance that most up-and-comers can only dream about. With her bizarre and inappropriate behaviour around her sister and brother-in-law, Martha experiences a confusion of identity. Life on the commune was rife with drugs and group sex -- therefore, returning to her old reality with her sister is not an easy transition. While on the commune she was given a new name ("You look like a Marcy May", says Patrick) and she was allowed a new lease on life after abandoning her sister after the death of their mother. Olsen gives a powerful performance, never quite allowing the audience inside the head of this strange, sad, lonely young woman. One minute she's sitting quietly, letting her hair fall over her eyes, and the next minute a powerful memory of her time spent on the commune rears its head and she lashes out at those around her. An unreliable narrator, we question the accuracy of Martha's memory. She even asks her sister at one point: "Do you ever have that feeling where you can't tell if something's a memory or if it's something you dreamed?" Olsen perfectly portrays just how difficult reintegration can be after experiencing a personal trauma. It's the stuff Academy Award nominations are made of.

Elizabeth Olsen and John Hawkes

The supporting cast is just as compelling, especially Hawkes (a Best Supporting Actor nominee last year for Winter's Bone). Mesmerizing and downright creepy, Hawkes' Patrick is an enigma -- both terrifying and possessive.

Writer-director Sean Durkin, in his debut feature, has brilliantly constructed a fascinating commentary on the familial restrictions imposed on us by those we live with, despite our supposed free will. As Toronto Star critic, Peter Howell, wrote in his review of the film: "Durkin draws unmistakable analogies between the demands of two very different family groups, both of which claim to offer liberation of the mind and body yet deliver something far short of that." With a debut feature as excellent as Martha Marcy May Marlene, we should expect to see a lot more projects from Durkin in the near future.

The drained cinematography (beautifully lensed by Jody Lee Lipes) lends an oppressive feel to the film -- even when characters are outdoors you feel as if there is nowhere to run and danger lurks around every corner. It successfully visualizes for the audience the paranoia and altered reality Martha experiences. In Martha's eyes, the world around her is cold and isolating.

Some will likely grumble about the abrupt ending (it's amazing how many people still need films to tie together all the loose strings into a neat bow); however, the ambiguity of the final scene perfectly suits the overall tone of the film. It taps into the paranoia that Martha experiences, leaving the audience to come up with their own interpretation of what exactly happened to Martha (Marcy May Marlene).

FINAL GRADE: A-

Movie Rant: Why I'm Not Completely Sold on the 'My Week With Marilyn' Trailer

2011-11-16T09:07:00.001-08:00

While on my lunch break today, a colleague and I talked about the trailer for My Week with Marilyn.

Neither of us are completely sold on it.

I'll still watch the movie, despite the fact that the early buzz has been pretty mediocre. I'll give most films a fair chance, especially ones that centre around Hollywood icons from the past. However, there a couple of things about the trailer that left me feeling a little disappointed.

1) Michelle Williams. I was initially excited when I first heard that she landed the role. One of the most talented actresses of her generation, Williams improves with each performance (most recently in Blue Valentine). Although she actually looks nothing like Marilyn Monroe I really liked a lot of the image stills from the set while it was still in production.

But when the trailer came along recently, something didn't feel right. I felt like I was just watching an actress try to portray Monroe -- and not doing a particularly convincing job of it. It was surprisingly underwhelming. I know, I know ...I haven't actually seen the film yet and I should reserve my judgment until then, but, as my co-worker, Cara, put it -- if you didn't know the movie centred around Monroe, you'd wonder what the hell was happening. The performance looks more than a little awkward but I hope it proves to be wonderful once I actually see the film. I hope.

2) There's also the fact that the film should have been about Marilyn herself -- not some British guy she may or may not have spent one full week with. Monroe deserves her own picture. She was a fascinating women in her own right; however, she's usually only ever associated with the men in her life. I'd rather see an in-depth biography on her rise and fall and how Hollywood continues to idolize her.

I know most people will disagree, but I think a significant part of why I didn't like the trailer was simply because the story looks dull in comparison to something that could have (should have) focused more on Monroe herself.

I'm a lot less excited about the film now.

But, that's just my two cents. And my co-workers. ;)

What do you think of the trailer?

Movie Rant: Why I'm Happy Billy Crystal is the Oscar Host

2011-11-11T05:29:00.001-08:00

Back in September I blogged about how I was less than thrilled to hear the news about Eddie Murphy receiving the hosting gig for this years Oscars ceremony. With his pal Brett Ratner no longer at the helm as producer of the telecast after his ignorant comments on the Howard Stern Show, Murphy has resigned (who still actually thinks it's a good idea to be interviewed by Stern anyway? I mean, really? When has that ever ended well?).

I was definitely no fan of Ratner's beforehand (he makes mediocre blockbusters, hardly someone I'd call worthy of one of the most prestigious jobs in movie biz), but now I most certainly dislike him even more. As for Murphy, he was funny once. I can vaguely recall laughing at his earlier films and old reruns of his stint on Saturday Night Live but that was, what? -- 20 years ago now?

Needless to say, after all the drama with Ratner and Murphy leaving the Oscars (good riddance, anyway) I was crossing my fingers that Billy Crystal would be the go-to guy as his replacement (don't even get me started on the silly Muppets for Oscars Host campaign on Twitter ...sure, they are funny and I love them, but hosting the whole telecast? No.).

When Brian Grazer was announced as the new producer for the 2012 Oscars yesterday I knew that the Academy had come to their senses and hired someone who would make sure the ceremony remained a classy affair that was, first and foremost, a celebration of film. I totally understand their initial desire to hire someone young like Ratner to bring in a new generation of fans but, really, the audience they wanted to bring in to boost their ratings likely wouldn't have seen the majority of the nominated films anyway, so why bother?

I remember when the Oscars used to actually mean something. Sure, there have always been some controversy over who deserved to win what and when, but, for the most part, the right person was deserving of his or her victory. That hasn't been the case of late -- with far too many Best Picture nominees and too many actors nominated for average performances -- the Oscars have become more like the Golden Globes.

Not that the hiring of Brian Grazer or Billy Crystal will fix these problems. But I guess I'm just a little nostalgic for the days when I was a kid -- when really great films were nominated and the ceremony was filled with beautiful montages featuring vintage film clips.

I adore Billy Crystal. Always have. I'm so happy he'll be hosting the Oscars again and I have no doubt he will charm the socks off of everyone. He's hilarious, classy and knows his film.

I know some will likely thumb their nose at the news about Billy Crystal, but he'll do the show justice. While it may not fix the problems with the Oscars -- or bring it back to a time when it was relevant -- at the very least, Crystal will remind us of what it was once like during the epic ceremonies of the past.

What are your thoughts on the whole Oscar controversy this year?

Movie Review: Troll 2

2011-11-08T06:29:00.000-08:00

Last weekend, three friends and I decided to kick off the Halloween weekend with our very first viewing the "so bad it's good" Troll 2. We all found we had something to say about this ...classic.

There's something to be said for a truly awful film that has found a cult following to match that of The Rocky Horror Picture Show or, more recently, The Room. What is it that audiences find so appealing about Troll 2? The movie, as the documentary Best Worst Movie illustrates, has worn its awfulness as a badge of pride in the 20 years since its straight-to-VHS debut in 1990.

When a family arrives in the vacant town of Nilbog they are exposed to a band of vegetarian goblins who turn their victims into green veggie goop before consuming them for dinner. The brilliant minds behind this premise? Italian "director" Claudio Fragasso and his partner, Rosella Drudi.

If you are looking for a low (very low) budget horror movie with unintentional laughs, surreal plot "twists" and some of the worst acting this side of Tommy Wiseau, than look no further than Troll 2. It's enduring popularity continues mainly because it just makes you feel so damn good!
-Laura (Twitter: @laura_grande13)

Here's what Emily Sadler (Twitter: @emmysadler) had to say about Troll 2.
Before Laura told me about Troll 2, I had never heard of it. As she and I are often reminded, there are a lot of movies I've never heard of, so I just figured Troll 2 was just some horror classic that somehow flew under my radar. That thought lasted until about two minutes later, when I watched the YouTube clip of Arnold's "Oh my gawwwwd!" scene from the movie. Slightly grossed out by the slimy, green stuff and pretty amused by the fly on Arnold's forehead, I knew immediately that I needed to see this movie.

I must say, I'm not one to sit through a horrible movie just for the sake of appreciating the terrible-ness of it all. But there's something so wonderfully bad about Troll 2 that I can't quite explain.

And, here are some comments from Cara Waterfall (Twitter: @belledejournal).
The best thing about Troll 2 is its earnestness: without it, you're left with a cut-rate flick whose plotline has the cohesiveness of a bowl of Jell-O. But when you factor in an overzealous, autocratic director, a screenplay that sounds like it was fed into (and spat out of) Babelfish and lovely bad actors, from an Elvira-type sorceress to a freckled boy better suited for Chef Boyardee commercials than cinema, then you've got: the "best worst movie."

Here is our compiled list of Life Lessons We Learned From Troll 2:
1) Vegetarians are the devil.
2) Never eat green shit. Hungry? Stay away from that green-shit sandwich and green-frosted cake.
3) That awkward moment when you shut the car door when the person inside is still talking to you? That happens in movies too!
4) Looking to spice up your love life? Just add corn!
5) Sometimes, you can piss on hospitality. Literally.
6) To avoid hunger pains after one missed meal, tighten your belt exactly one notch.
7) Always keep a double decker bologna sandwich (on a hamburger bun) in your backpack. You never know when it might save the day!
8) People can actually have names like Gene Freak ...and you'll just have to come to terms with that as best you can.
9) The best way to comfort a terrified, scantily-clad woman alone in the forest is to tackle her to the ground.
10) Always trust the ghost of your grandfather -- especially if he's been to hell and back. Chances are, he'll have learned a few goblin-killing tricks down there.
11) If you put some food in a brown paper bag and throw it, it will actually fly through the air like a frisbee!
12) To avoid those intense family moments, make the situation better by breaking out into a rendition of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat."
13) Your older sister will always be a sexier dancer than you!

Movie Rant: Why Andy Serkis Should Get an Oscar Nomination

2011-11-03T20:07:00.000-07:00

Andy Serkis as Caesar

According to multiple sources, English actor Andy Serkis has signed on for the sequel to this summers monster hit, Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

As the brilliant chimpanzee Caesar, Serkis was covered in motion capture technology and CGI -- but not, by any means, buried beyond recognition. Thanks to his powerful performance, the character of Caesar shines through all the computer graphics, resulting in one of the finest performances of the year to date.

Serkis, who got his big break as the emotionally tortured Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, has perfected the art of giving wonderfully heartfelt performances while physically obscured by technology. It will likely be years before anyone else comes close to his ability to emote through the motion capture censors.

Fox recently announced that they would be launching an Oscar campaign for Serkis (no word yet on whether or not it will be for Best Actor or Supporting Actor, although he may have a better shot in the latter category).

The potential dilemma? The Academy, and even some filmgoers, may be reluctant to nominate an actor who performed under motion capture technology.

Over the years there has been a lot of discussion about the idea of nominating someone who appears as an animated character on screen. There are some, like myself, who believe it's requires the same talent and dedication as any other type of performance, while others may deem it as something that doesn't quite feel legitimate.

The first time I can remember this "debate" coming up was in 2003 when there was talk that Ellen DeGeneres could potentially earn a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her voice work as Dory in Pixar's Finding Nemo. In the end, there was no nomination but it was, arguably, the first time an animated performance was seriously considered an Oscar contender.

With the advances in motion capture technology, the game changed. It was no longer simply "voice work" -- it had evolved into a complete and physical performance by an actor. The actor behind the technology interacts with his or her fellow cast members, performing alongside them as equals. To brush off the amount of work Serkis put into his role as Caesar would be a mistake -- the Academy already did it to him once before by snubbing him outright when he should have been considered a major contender for his performance in The Lord of the Rings.

Zoe Saldana in Avatar

With the 2009 release of Avatar it was next to impossible to listen to Oscar talk without hearing the name Zoe Saldana thrown around in the mix for the Best Actress category. I was relieved when she was passed over for a nomination -- not only was the performance aggravatingly over-the-top, but it didn't feel right to have a film like Avatar heralded as the first to have an actor nominated for a motion capture performance. I kept thinking that, once Peter Jackson got around to directing The Hobbit, Serkis would have another shot at a nomination. I didn't anticipate the success of Rise of the Planet of the Apes or the critical accolades Serkis earned in the role.

Serkis paved the way for actors who dare to venture into the physically demanding world of motion capture performance. It takes a certain level of talent to convey subtle nuances through a CGI mask. For his groundbreaking work as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings (and the upcoming Hobbit films) and his motion capture performances in King Kong, Rise of the Planet of the Apes and the upcoming The Adventures of TinTin, Serkis has become, without a doubt, the go-to guy for this type of challenge.

As Serkis himself said in a recent interview with Britain's The Telegraph: "I am a bit evangelical, I know, but performance-capture is still misunderstood. Ten years down the line people say, 'Oh, so you did the voice for Gollum?' Or people go, 'You did the movements for Kong?' It's frustrating because I play Gollum and I play Kong. It is acting."

The Academy Awards need to get with the times -- and, should there still be enough open nomination spots come the February telecast, there's no better time to start than now with Serkis' performance in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Favourite Halloween Movies: The Exorcist

2011-10-31T07:17:00.000-07:00

I thought it'd be fun to write about some of my favourite horror films in the days leading up to Halloween.
Third on my list ...The Exorcist (1973).
Directed By: William Friedkin
Based on the Novel By: William Peter BlattyStarring: Ellen Burstyn, Max von Sydow and Linda Blair

Often credited as the scariest movie of all time, The Exorcist manages to remain just as terrifying as it was when it was first released. Considering most horror films don't necessarily age well, The Exorcist still manages to pull in new generations of fans who find it legitimately unsettling.

Why I Love It: The story of the demonic possession of 12-year-old Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) may have too slow of a plot build for some audiences (it takes nearly 45 minutes for the film to truly get underway); however, it sets up the relationship between young Regan and her mother (Ellen Burstyn) as a loving one that will face the ultimate test when Regan is brutally taken over by an unseen demon. With its viscerally shocking scenes of possession and religious confrontations, The Exorcist ingrained itself into popular culture from the moment of its initial release.

The films is stylishly atmospheric and contains some of the most memorable scenes in not only the horror genre, but in film overall -- the most iconic being the shot of Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) silently emerging from a taxi to stand in the night, surrounded in mist, in front of the MacNeil house as he mentally prepares to face-off with the demon inhabiting Regan. The demon causes the once-polite girl to swear, spit, vomit and growl in a horrifyingly inhuman voice -- the moments when Regan is able to come through and ask for help before being taken over once again are unsettling in their portrayal of a young girl completely vulnerable to a terrifying supernatural situation.

It's the religious and spiritual themes that make the movie more than just your average horror film. Villains like Freddy Krueger or Michael Myers is one thing; the notion of an evil spirit inhabiting the body of a good and innocent girl is something entirely different. The words coming out in the demon's voice and the physical actions it forces Regan to take are all the more jarring because she's still a young child. While some (audiences and critics alike) have accused the film of religious exploitation over the years, The Exorcist remains a powerful horror film with jarring imagery of demonic possession while delving into such issues as a crisis of faith.

Combined with Jack Nitzsche's chilling score and some of the most iconic scenes in film, The Exoricst was controversial when it was first released and it raised the bar for the horror genre. Few have been able to match its power to unsettle and terrify.

Favourite Scene:
Here's a pretty good video of the five scariest scenes from the film. Embedding wasn't allowed, but you can VIEW IT HERE.

Movie Review: Paranormal Activity 3

2011-10-26T18:21:00.000-07:00

Chloe Csengery and Jessica Tyler Brown

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)
Directed By: Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman
Starring: Christopher Nicholas Smith, Lauren Bittner, Chloe Csengery and Jessica Tyler Brown

The best horror films are often the ones that make our skin crawl without the director ever having to show us exactly what is getting under our skin.

Knowing very little about the Paranormal Activity franchise (I saw the first film once and never bothered to watch the sequel), I thought this three-quel prequel did a solid job of gradually building tension without ever going over-the-top in the cheap scares department. It just proves that, in most cases, the less you see, the scarier the situation.

Under the assured direction of Henry Joost and Ariel Shulman, the film takes its time setting up the scene for this third instalment -- a rarity in most horror films nowadays, which tend to go straight for the gratuitous shots of blood and gore.

It's 1988 and siblings Katie and Kristi have moved into a new house with their mom, Julie (Lauren Bittner), and mom's boyfriend, Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith). Almost immediately, younger sister Kristi starts telling her family about her new imaginary best friend, Toby. Around the same time, Dennis accidentally catches some suspicious activity on his video camera one night. He goes into detective mode and sets up three cameras around the house -- one in his bedroom, one in the girls' bedroom and one that pans over the living room and dining area.

Paranormal Activity 3 is prequel meant to explain why these two sisters are susceptible, throughout their life (and in the other films), to visitations from things that go bump in the night.The formula has already been established with the first two films; yet, despite the "been there, done that" feel of the film, it still manages to spook its audience.The use of an oscillating fan to capture paranormal activity on the panning camera in the kitchen is an especially creepy touch, leaving the audience to catch mere glimpses of strange activity from their peripheral vision only.

Proper character development is often the biggest casualty in the "found footage" sub-genre; however the two young actresses playing Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) give solid performances. From start the finish, these two young actresses -- and the unseen spooks -- sustain our attention, and a consistent sense of dread, from start to finish. It's not the actual scares that hold our interest, it's the slow-building suspense and sudden jolts.

The only real downfall is the perplexing ending that very nearly topples the entire film with its bizarre and unexplained conclusion. It pretty much guarantees a fourth movie is in the works, but the cliffhanger leaves no real clues as to which direction the franchise will go in next.

Although the whole "found footage" trend has essentially been reduced to a gimmick at this point, the creators of Paranormal Activity 3 show that, if used right, it can still rise above average material and produce some genuine scares.

FINAL GRADE: B

Movie Review: Moneyball

2011-10-19T18:46:00.000-07:00

Brad Pitt as Oakland A's GM Billy Beane

Moneyball (2011)
Directed By: Bennett Miller
Written By: Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian
Based on the Book By: Michael Lewis
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour-Hoffman

"It's hard not to be romantic about baseball." There's a lot of truth behind that quote, uttered by Brad Pitt in the lead role as Oakland Athletics General Manager, Billy Beane. There's no denying the long love affair that American cinema has had with the sport -- more than any other game it looks and sounds the best on the big screen, from those slow-motion pitches to the sharp crack of a bat. It's a sport filled with long and quiet lulls, punctuated by moments of euphoria and excitement, much like we experience in life.

Adapted from Michael Lewis' 2003 novel Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, director Bennett Miller's film closely examines the 2001-2 season of the down-on-their luck Oakland A's. As Billy (Brad Pitt) explains to his teams scouts, "There are rich teams and there are poor teams, then there's 50 feet of crap, and then there's us." Billy is, essentially, completely handicapped by the lowest salary constraint in the big leagues. Where teams like the New York Yankees boast millions of dollars to pick and choose from among the best prospects, the A's have a middling few hundred thousand to spend. When Billy recruits Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), an economics major from Harvard, as his new assistant GM, Billy risks alienating his entire staff as he and Peter play a strange numbers game in an attempt to lure cheap, seemingly mediocre players to fill their roster. Billy and Peter are under the assumption that they can assemble a playoff-worthy team under budget by using a computer-generated analysis created by a factory worker named Bill James to draft players. To the majority of scouts and owners, Billy has lost his mind and irresponsibly erases decades worth of how baseball franchises go about forming their teams.

Moneyball is one of the best sports genre movies released in years. It instantly made my top five favourite sports films list (which also includes baseball classics Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and A League of Their Own, along with the underrated soccer gem The Damned United). However, unlike the other films mentioned, Moneyball delves into the behind-the-scenes drama and inner workings of what it takes to build a winning team. There's more drama behind office desks than on the field.

Pitt and Hill as Billy Beane and Peter Brand.

With Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian's sharp dialogue and expert pacing, Moneyball manages to take what, on paper, may read as a dull plot and crafts an inspirational saga about a team of underdogs.

The chemistry between Pitt and Hill is what really drives the fantastic script home. They have an instinctual knack for comedic timing, yet both demonstrate they have the dramatic chops to keep the film grounded. This odd couple carries the weight of the film on their shoulders, with occasional help from an excellent Philip Seymour-Hoffman in the small role of A's manager Art Howe.

This is Pitt's maturest performance to date -- he's subtle and nuanced, even in the lighter comedic moments. Whether spitting tobacco or tossing aside chairs, he's both a loving father and a quick-to-anger former athlete who loves the game of baseball. Billy is the outcast at the centre of a struggling sports franchise and, while all eyes are on him to turn things around quickly, he ultimately becomes the beating heart of the team. He doesn't just want to win, he wants it to mean something.

Moneyball examines the harsh realities that face major league teams when they are unable to take it all the way and the pressures that come with a restless fanbase and hovering owners breathing down your neck. Movies like Moneyball force us to remember that, despite the abundance of riches in professional sports, there are those who really do care -- for love of the game.

FINAL GRADE: A

Favourite Halloween Movies: The Shining

2011-10-13T14:31:00.000-07:00

"All work and no play make Jack a dull boy."

I thought it'd be fun to write about some of my favourite horror films in the days leading up to Halloween. Last week I did Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Second on my list ...The Shining (1980).
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick
Based on the Novel by: Stephen King
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall and Danny Lloyd

Kubrick's films have always managed to leave me feeling unsettled. But I can never pinpoint exactly what it is that I find so disturbing about them. Whether it's his eerie classic The Shining or a non-horror film like Full Metal Jacket or even Dr. Strangelove, I'm always left impressed with how well Kubrick was able to capture the dark atmosphere lying just beneath the surface. It's a testament to his talent as a director to have you on the edge of your seat without ever really knowing why. With The Shining we actually know why we are on the edge of our seats; yet, Kubrick manages to keep us on edge even if we've read the novel and know the outcome. No easy feat.

Why I Love It: Growing up, I was a hardcore Stephen King devotee. At one point, I read his books as if no other author in the world existed. Although it has been years since I last read a King novel, The Shining was always one of my favourites. The thought of being trapped in an empty hotel over the long winter season with a father who is rapidly losing his mind gives the plot a claustrophobic tension that is hard to shake.

It's a cold, yet stylish, masterpiece of a film and an excellent how-to guide for future directors on how to slowly build and create atmosphere by using vivid visuals and pushing its main actors to the brink.

Few films are this psychologically overwhelming -- a close examination of madness (and what madness can ultimately set loose within a confined space), Kubrick provides the audience with a glimpse of how powerful a film can be when the central characters are unreliable narrators -- Jack, Wendy and Danny are either all off their rockers or onto something with regards to the hostile energies in the hotel.

Although the film does have its critics, its deliberate pace and gradual build to its climax ensures it will continue to remain a classic of the horror genre. Kubrick also manages to, arguably, make the ending even better than in King's original novel. With Nicholson leading the charge in an over-the-top, yet perfectly creepy, performance, The Shining is a must-see for any film fan.

Favourite Scene: An example of how one single, close-up shot, without any dialogue, can both leave the viewer unsettled and suddenly change the direction and momentum of the plot at the same time.

Favourite Halloween Movies: Nightmare on Elm Street

2011-10-07T11:56:00.000-07:00

Robert Englund as Freddy

I thought it'd be fun to write about some of my favourite horror films in the weeks and days leading up to Halloween.

First up ... Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).
Written and Directed By: Wes Craven
Starring: Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp and Robert Englund

This was the second horror film I'd ever seen in my life at the time (second only to the wonderfully atrocious Dolly Dearest, which was essentially a girl-doll remake of Child's Play). I saw Nightmare way back in the sixth grade and I consider it my official introduction to the horror genre (sorry, Dolly).

Freddy Krueger (or Fred, as he's referred to in the original movie -- there's a bit of trivia for you!) remains one of my favourite film villains. He luckily hasn't been destroyed by the shoddy and over-the-top remakes that effectively ruined any enjoyment I ever had for classic villains Michael Myers (Halloween) and Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th). Last years Nightmare remake starring Jackie Earle Haley was actually decent, although completely unnecessary.

Why I Love It: While many horror film buffs that I've talked to tend to prefer gorier, grindhouse fare from the 1970s (or anything by Dario Argento), I've always been a bigger fan of the more traditional "slasher flicks" that were really big in the 1980s and early 1990s. I guess there's just something about a clever, shadowy villain chasing teenagers that I find more watchable -- its that whole idea of the "boogeyman" that you just can't seem to outsmart.

The plot, for those who don't know, is relatively unique for a teen slasher film: When it's discovered that reclusive creep Fred Krueger is the man behind the recent deaths of young children in a small town, the parents of the community mobilize a lynch mob in an act of vigilantism. They lock Fred in his house and set fire to it, scarring him beyond recognition before he eventually succumbs to his injuries. Years later, the children of the parents who took part in the lynching are being terrorized by a shadowy figure in their nightmares -- an act of revenge from the "spirit" of Fred.

I remember being so freaked out by the premise when I was a kid. Sleep can not be avoided and Freddy was not just some intruder you could lock out of your house. He got inside your head and stayed there. He didn't have a slow, ambling walk like Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees -- Freddy could turn into various people, or even objects, to confuse a dreaming teenager.

Nightmare is a horror fantasy franchise that distorts reality and utilizes nightmare tropes to chilling effect; a surprise considering its low budget. Dream sequences involving stairs turning into mush so the victim is trapped in same spot is only one example of the creative, nightmare-quality the film takes on.

Although Freddy has very little actual screentime in the original film, it's the first time audiences got a glimpse of what would ultimately become his iconic outfit -- red and black striped sweater, clawed hand and fedora-like hat. Freddy eventually became a bit of a wise-cracking villain in the gorier sequels but, although some fans prefer some of the later films, the first film is arguably the true classic of the series.

Favourite Scene: Johnny Depp (in his breakout role) is pulled through his bed and...there's no real way to explain this properly. It's one of the most famous scenes in the film because it manages to be both ridiculous, creepy and gross at the same time. Plus, it's got that great (and by great, I mean cheesy) generic music that became the staple of many horror soundtracks. YouTube didn't allow any embedding, but you can watch the clip HERE).

Movie Review: 50/50

2011-10-02T10:18:00.000-07:00

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen

50/50 (2011)
Directed By: Jonathan Levine
Written By: Will Reiser
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard and Anjelica Huston

There are some people who, like myself, tend to avoid movies that centre around a fatal illness. These films are usually either one of two extremes -- far too devastating to watch or so sappy and self-important that you can barely sit through its running time. 50/50 is neither, thankfully. Instead it's a quietly intelligent look at one young man's cancer diagnosis and how he resolves to remain upbeat (and somewhat aloof) while undergoing chemotherapy treatment.

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a 27-year-old radio producer with a slacker best friend (Seth Rogen) and a distant and self-involved girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), finds out he has a rare spinal cancer and that his odds for survival is deadlocked at a 50% chance.

The script by Will Reiser is based on his own battle with cancer six years ago and addresses how he and Rogen, his real-life buddy, dealt with the diagnosis. Gordon-Levitt is more than up for the challenge of filling Reiser's shoes onscreen, delivering a subtle and nuanced performance that is an early frontrunner for an Oscar nomination.

Adam couldn't be any more of an average joe -- the eternal "nice-guy" who enjoys his simple, regular life and its lack of complications. His "everyman" quality makes his diagnosis all the more heartbreaking, especially considering the insensitive manner in which it is delivered by a distracted doctor.

50/50 is a perfect blend of light-hearted comedy and a look at the sadness and fear that accompanies an illness that may very well result in death. Once faced with his own mortality, Adam begins to make some changes in his life -- inspired in part by his eternally optimistic pal, Kyle, and his new young, med-student therapist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick). With his concerns over his health and his deteriorating relationship with his girlfriend, Rachel, Adam comes to lean on the support offered by Kyle and, especially, Katherine more than ever. However, it's the scenes that Gordon-Levitt shares with Anjelica Huston as his mother where the film really soars. Both give such lovely performances that it's hard not to wish that the script had required them to share more screen time together. Although her role is much smaller than the rest of the cast, Huston's performance is the definition of a perfect supporting role.

The only real flaw in the film is the two main female leads. They are devoid of any real personality -- Howard portrays another variation on the bitchy character she recently played in The Help and Kendrick is still hanging onto the vulnerable smart-aleck characterization she used to earn herself an Oscar nomination for Up in the Air a couple of years ago. However, the film is all about Adam and his friendship with Kyle and director Levine gave both Gordon-Levitt and Rogen the freedom to ad-lib on occasion, which only adds to their chemistry.

While the notion of a lighter, more comedic look at cancer may turn some people off from seeing 50/50, they should know that the movie is also filled with moments of genuine despair and anger over the diagnosis. Watching Adam bond with two older men also suffering from cancer (played by Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer) is one of the highlights.

50/50 is a feel-good film that will make you laugh and cry in equal measure without falling into the trap of being overly sentimental. Certain scenes will stay with you long after the closing credits.

FINAL GRADE: B+

In Memoriam: The Anniversary of James Dean's Death (1931-1955)

2011-09-30T06:03:00.000-07:00

James Dean

Eight years ago, I caught Rebel Without A Cause on TV late one night. I was exhausted that day. I had planned on going to bed early, but I was struck by the image of James Dean, lying on the ground with a wind-up toy monkey, in the opening credit sequence for the film.

I recognized the iconic red jacket. It was around this time that my obsession with film was just starting to really take off so I decided, despite my exhaustion, to watch this much-beloved teen angst classic. I figured it would be another Hollywood classic that I could check off my must-see list. I hadn't counted on actually being able to stay wide-awake into the early morning hours.

The film itself is significant to 1950s film history. While parts of it may not have aged very well it still deserves its place among the Hollywood elite. This, in large part, is thanks to Dean's performance. I found him striking, in an odd way, but I was much more intrigued by his unique performance.

Around this time I'd only recently become enamoured with Marlon Brando (the previous year I'd watched The Godfather for the first time -- it was a great introduction to Brando's talent). Dean reminded me of Brando, despite their differences in acting style. Dean clearly idolized and tried to mimic Brando, yet he managed to make all three of his film performances unique and very Dean-esque. From the inspiration he got from Brando he came up with his own style and helped revolutionize acting in film.

Drawing from real life experiences and tragedies, Dean utilized these in his character creations so that the audience could relate and sympathize with his characters, such as Cal Trask (East of Eden, my favourite Dean film and performance).

Rarely do I watch a film and walk away from it absolutely fascinated and in awe of the talent before me. Young actors today so rarely go out of their way to bring something fresh and original to their performances, which is why they won't have the enduring cult power of Jimmy Dean. Watching Dean that night, in the early morning hours, I was saddened at the loss of life and talent. I didn't know much about him at the time, but I knew he'd died young and tragically. I've been a loyal fan, ever since.

Jimmy Dean embodied the charisma, beauty and talent that most actors can only dream of achieving for themselves. Even though he only left behind three cinema features, they will never be forgotten. He was the epitome of masculine-cool. He was ahead of the game both in his activist-humanitarian nature and the way he portrayed a conflicted young rebel. He helped make it okay for male characters to cry in film. Gone were the days of the alpha-male, like John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart. Dean helped usher in a new generation of young, Method actors who saw performance as an art form worthy of their sweat and tears.

It's been 56 years since his death in a car accident at the age of 24, yet time has not diminished his star. To some people he may be a product, just another young dead celebrity face on a poster or a t-shirt -- but to his real fans he was a first-class movie star.

They don't make celebrities like Jimmy anymore.

Here's a rare clip of Dean's screen test for East of Eden (1955).

Movie Review: The Help

2011-09-24T09:04:00.000-07:00

Viola Davis as Aibileen in The Help.

The Help (2011)
Directed By: Tate Taylor
Based on the Novel By: Kathryn Stockett
Starring: Viola Davis, Emma Stone, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard and Jessica Chastain

I saw this movie more than three weeks ago, so this review is long overdue. Initially, I had little interest in seeing The Help, but with all of the hype and Oscar buzz I couldn't let it pass me by.

Set in Jackson, Mississippi in 1963, at the height of the civil rights movement in America, The Help follows the intersecting lives of rich, white families and their "help" -- women who have raised generations of children not their own, while taking care of the household chores of the entitled people they work under. Skeeter (Emma Stone) has aspirations to become a writer. As she toils in an unsatisfactory job as a home care columnist, Skeeter decides to uncover a juicy story in order to impress a New York book editor. When the town terror, Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard), fights to enact a bylaw that would equip all homes with outdoor washrooms for "the help" -- to avoid sharing and "contamination" -- Skeeter sets her sights on writing a piece on the plight of black women working for white families in her hometown. It would be the raw, human story she was looking for, although it takes a fair amount of convincing before Skeeter finds someone willing to speak. She finds her subject in a woman named Aibileen (Viola Davis) who puts her heart and soul into raising her current charge, a lonely little toddler with a nonexistent mother, in an attempt to try to overcome the recent death of her own child.

With her expressive eyes and quiet grace, Viola Davis gives a beautiful performance as Aibileen. She gives her characterization of a grieving, under-appreciated woman subtle nuances that pulls the viewer in from the start. What the story lacks in cohesive plotting, it more than makes up for in the acting department. With Davis leading the charge, The Help is a film brimming with wonderful performances from some of the best actresses working in Hollywood today.

Viola Davis (left) and Octavia Spencer.

As Aibileen's closest friend, Minny, Octavia Spencer gives a performance that is both hilarious and heartwarming. Although Minny was initially reluctant to agree to an interview with Skeeter, watching her transform from a hesitant woman to one filled with confidence is one of the films highlights. You can't help but sit up and take notice when Davis and Spencer share scenes together. And, as the town's outcast "floozie," Celia Foote, Jessica Chastain continues to impress with a memorable supporting performance as a lonely housewife who finds true companionship with Minny; their scenes together provide The Help with some of its strongest, most emotional moments.

As Hilly, Bryce Dallas Howard does her best with a role that is, at best, a cartoonish villain devoid of any redeeming quality or legitimate motivation as to why she behaves the way that she does. It's fun to hate her (and Howard is so good at being unlikeable in the film), but the word "villain" is practically stamped on her forehead. Emma Stone is solid as Skeeter but she's ultimately relegated to the background in the second half of the film.

Despite wonderful, award-worthy performances, The Help has the tendency to gloss over racial themes in favour of fluffy, easily-resolved issues. The main problem is at the very core of the plot -- rich, privileged Skeeter is likable enough; however her book on "the help" poses no risk to herself. Best case scenario, she'll get to move to New York to become a successful author and fulfill her dreams and, at worst, she can just go back to the job she already holds down at the local newspaper. The fact that she's writing the story to land a cushy job and take a step up the career ladder is hard to forget as she coaxes Aibileen, Minny and other women in her hometown to speak out against their employers. Sure, Skeeter promises them anonymity but, as we see, it isn't hard to figure out who is who in the finished novel. Skeeter is appropriately outraged at the tragic stories that are recounted for her, but it leaves a bit of a bad aftertaste knowing that the ones who will suffer the consequences of any backlash will be the actual subjects of the novel.

The quieter scenes with Aibileen and Minny recounting their life stories are powerful, yet audiences may want a little less glossing over of the true, tense nature of that time period in the south. One scene, in particular, stands out as an indication of exactly what is at stake in 1963: When civil rights activist Medgar Evers is shot dead in front of his family, the town of Jackson goes into a state of panic. After learning the news of Evers' death, Aibileen is cruelly booted from the bus she was riding on with mostly white patrons. As people run back and forth in the dead of the night, Aibileen panics and starts to run towards her own house. Suddenly gripped by the realization that she, too, could wind up getting killed while all alone on the street, Aibileen lets her fear take over. A usually stoic and reserved woman, she is briefly overtaken by unrestrained terror. The Help needed more of these quietly powerful scenes to provide more commentary on the racial relations in Mississippi during the 1960s.

However, any qualms you may or may not have about certain aspects of the film easily disappear as you witness the performances of the superb cast; celebrating with each of the characters as they witness the powerful effects of their stories being revealed to the public for the first time. Part quick-summary history lesson, part melodrama, The Help should (and will) be recognized during awards season for its remarkable cast who all rallied around a patchy, glossy script to create a mostly satisfying tearjerker.

FINAL GRADE: B+

Movie Rant: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

2011-09-15T09:49:00.000-07:00

It's hard to believe Raiders of the Lost Ark is celebrating its 30 year anniversary this year. Nevermind the fact that I was still three years away from even being born -- the film is so classic and so timeless that it feels like it very easily could have been made today. With limited use of special effects, it's an action-adventure with a dash of the supernatural.

My parents first showed me this film when I was about six or seven years old. It was pretty much love at first sight -- I even watched the Young Indiana Jones television series just to get my daily Indy fix. I basically wanted to be Indiana Jones (I still do).

At an early age it instilled in me both a love for film and a passion for history (which I wound up majoring in while in university). I continue to watch this film annually with my younger sister -- I can't even venture a guess as to how many millions of times we've watched Raiders over and over again through the years. And each and every time I'm amazed how well it has stood the test of time.

Most film fans have lists and lists of artsy movies they credit as their "all time favourite film." I usually say mine is The Godfather when I'm asked, but if I'm being completely honest, it's probably actually Raiders of the Lost Ark -- or the third film in the original trilogy, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

A few years back I had the opportunity to see Raiders at a screening at a really, really old theatre near Hamilton. It was such a treat to see it on the big screen. You know how people can quote movies like The Rocky Horror Picture Show word for word? Well, I can do that with Raiders.

A video has been circulating the Twitterverse of a recent Q&A session Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg held in Los Angeles to celebrate the anniversary. Unfortunately, the videos can't be embedded, but you can listen to some of the audio from the YouTube video below.

I wish I could have been there!

Question: What is your favourite scene from all four of the Indiana Jones films?

TIFF Film Review: Drive

2011-09-11T09:12:00.000-07:00

Drive (2011)
Directed By: Nicolas Winding Refn
Based on the Book By: James Sallis
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Albert Brooks, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston and Ron Perlman

Director Nicolas Winding Refn really loves John Hughes movies -- he just wants you to know that.

The Dutch director of Drive, touted as one of the must-see movies at this years Toronto International Film Festival, claimed he was very heavily inspired by both the late-director and 80s movies, in general.

With its 80s-influenced soundtrack and bright pink title credits, Drive has a certain Hughes feel to it -- only imagine Hughes' angst-ridden teen characters going on a violent rampage and brutally murdering each and every one of their high school tormenters in an increasingly violent (and creative) manner. In a recent interview about the film, both Rehn and star Ryan Gosling said they were influenced, in particular, by Pretty in Pink (1986).

"One thing we both agreed on was that we loved 'Pretty in Pink' and that it would have been a masterpiece if it was more violent," Gosling said. "In some ways we tried to make a violent John Hughes movie."

Rehn and Gosling brought up that same idea once again last night during the Q&A session at the North American premiere of the film at the Ryerson University Theatre. So, go into the movie envisioning a really evil, fed-up Duckie from Pretty in Pink and just take it all in.

A Hollywood stunt driver by day, a getaway driver by night, the man known only as Driver (Gosling) discovers that he's a target after a heist gone wrong. With baddies Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks) and Nino (Ron Perlman) hot on his tail, Driver rips and roars through the streets of L.A. while simultaneously trying to romance a young mother (Carey Mulligan) who is, at first, completely unaware of his darker side.

What Drive lacks in character development and plot, it more than makes up for in style. It's essentially a blood-soaked homage to both B-movie Hollywood flicks and European art house fare. Graphic violence is around every corner, escalating to the point where each new scene will make you flinch in anticipation of the brutal demise of yet another character. Definitely not for the faint of heart, the film indulges in guilty pleasure thrills and explores the dark recesses of our most violent fantasies.

Gosling during the Q&A session at TIFF.

One scene, in particular, which takes place in an elevator, vividly contrasts the tenderness of a first kiss with a violent (and prolonged) death sequence. You'll never truly feel comfortable in an elevator ever again. Drive is filled with similar scenes -- jarring violent images that will shock you right out of your seat; and, judging from the gasps and applause from the audience last night, it happened on a few occasions.

As the driver, Gosling is a commanding screen presence -- he's absolutely terrifying and will erase all your previous memories of him as a gawky teen on Breaker High or as a romantic lead. His Driver is a man without a name or any past that we are aware of, making his actions all the more chilling since the audience is left without any idea of the true origin of his anger. Gosling proves he can play diverse characters and still bring his A-game to each performance.

Another noteworthy performance, albeit in a much smaller capacity, is Bryan Cranston as Gosling's pal, Shannon. The man can do no wrong, between this and the AMC series, Breaking Bad. He's one of the few characters that actually inspires audience sympathy.

Despite the performances and the highly-stylized visual concept and direction, Drive stumbles a bit, preventing it from becoming a truly epic piece of revenge cinema. The uneven pacing at the beginning of the film makes it feel a little lopsided -- at first there's minimal dialogue and a whole lot of driving around. Perhaps Rehn's intention may have been to lull the audience into a state of calm before foisting the extreme violence on them. So, if that was his intent, it succeeded. If not, than the pacing could have used some re-tweaking.

Female characters are often relegated to the background in films like Drive -- although in this film they are practically put in a faraway corner. It's unfortunate that Mulligan's character, Irene, had little to do other than glance longingly at the driver -- even after she witnesses one of his violent episodes firsthand. There's no indication as to why Irene would even consider seeing the driver again and placing her son's life in danger just to be nearer to this violent man.

I didn't quite know what to make of Drive once the credits started rolling. I can appreciate where people are coming from when they tout it as one of the most stylish films to come out of Hollywood in years. Yet, there was something missing that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Visually stunning, yes. An homage to both Hollywood films past and European arthouse flicks, yes. Perhaps it was the pacing or the lack of any real character development -- or maybe my expectations were too high -- but I left wanting a little more substance to accompany the graphic violence. That being said, I realize I'm likely in the minority when it comes to Drive.

Regardless of my torn opinion, I'm glad I saw it. It will likely be discussed quite heavily among film fans for the next few months and who doesn't love when a film inspires great discussion? So, just sit back and buckle your seatbelts when you watch Drive. You'll certainly be taken for a ride.

FINAL GRADE: B

Question: Drive will likely provoke a strong reaction in anyone who sees it. What did you love or dislike about the film?

Movie Rant: Eddie Murphy, Oscar Host

2011-09-06T18:37:00.000-07:00

It was officially announced earlier today that Eddie Murphy has been named as the host of the 2012 Academy Awards. How did that happen, you ask? Well, with his friend Brett Ratner at the helm as producer of this years telecast, Murphy was practically a shoo-in. How convenient.

For the most part, the revelation seems to be receiving mixed reactions from film critics and movie fans: in one corner are die-hard Murphy fans who have remained loyal to the comedian despite the crappy movies he's made them suffer through and, in the other corner, ...is everyone else.

Murphy was hilarious on Saturday Night Live and, through the years, he's had his moments to shine -- it's just that they are too few and far between. I mean, here is a man who is mainly still remembered for The Nutty Professor, Norbit and Daddy Day Care more than anything else. Not exactly a film resume to brag about.

Film critic Patrick Goldstein wrote a piece for the Los Angeles Times about why he's less than enthused about the choice (you can read it here). He makes a few good points, specifically when he references the 2006 Oscars where Murphy threw a tantrum and left the ceremony halfway through when he lost the Best Supporting Actor Oscar to Alan Arkin (for Little Miss Sunshine). As Goldstein wrote: "Murphy, who is infamous in Hollywood for his half-hearted work ethic and sense of entitlement, managed to embarrass himself when he left the Oscar ceremony in a huff ...he didn't even have the class to stick around and watch his Dreamgirls co-star Jennifer Hudson win an Oscar of her own."

He left while the ceremony was still getting underway, yet he's now been invited back as a host. The fact that he was still given the honour in the first place is confusing, to say the least.

From here on in I'll just look at the whole situation as a wait-and-see type of thing and remind myself that, at the very least, it couldn't possibly be worse than last years dreadful Oscars with James Franco and Anne Hathaway hosting. Right? Right?!

What are your thoughts on Murphy as the new Oscar host?

Movie Review: Midnight in Paris

2011-09-04T09:35:00.000-07:00

Midnight in Paris (2011)
Written & Directed By: Woody Allen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Marion Cotillard, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and Kathy Bates

Over the past 10 years, Woody Allen has released a slew of underwhelming movies that quickly faded from theatres. However, Midnight in Paris is being hailed as a welcome return to form, even moreso than his other most recent success, Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008).

Gil (Owen Wilson) is an L.A. based screenwriter who aspires to be something more than just another Hollywood hack who churns out lame, cash-grab scripts devoid of any real artistic merit. His real passion is for the past -- specifically the 1920s Jazz Age in Paris. When he and his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams) take a trip to the City of Lights on her parents' dime, Gil is inspired to finally finish his novel. Inez, a woman completely devoid of culture who views Paris as nothing more than a shopping expedition, spends more time with her pompous friend Paul (Michael Sheen) than her own fiance. While taking midnight strolls to clear his mind from his worries over his incomplete novel and his clashes with Inez, Gil accidentally embarks on a series of whimsical nightly adventures.

When the clock strikes midnight, Gil is beckoned by iconic figures of the past, all of whom found artistic inspiration on the streets of Paris at some point in their careers.

Johanne Debas and Darius Khondaji's cinematography is breathtaking. Being such a beautiful city by nature, you'd think it couldn't look any more stunning, yet Debas and Khondaji combine their efforts to create a captivating glimpse of Paris in the 1920s.

In keeping with the fantasy of Gil's midnight encounters, Paris is portrayed as Gil would have imagined the 1920s -- all champagne and late night parties; a place without fake intellectuals and nagging fiancees and full of intellectually stimulating conversation and artistic expression. Through his adventures, Gil is finally experiencing his romantic notion of living in another time and place, where only intellectuals and artists roamed the streets.

Allen's script is full of commentary on the folly of nostalgia and the assumption that everything was a whole lot better "back in the day." Gil's fascination with the 1920s and his literary idols veer dangerously close to the point of obsession -- even the main protagonist of his incomplete novel works in a "nostalgia shop." Because he often rejects the idea of living in the present and enjoying his own existence, Gil is forced to come to the realization that every decade had their problems -- and that, at some point, everyone thinks the grass is greener on the other side.

Owen Wilson and Marion Cotillard

The cast more than lives up to Allen's funny, insightful and whimsical script. As Gil, Owen Wilson nails the Woody Allen persona -- all jittery speech patterns and everyday "average joe" personality. Marion Cotillard is wonderful as Adriana, a woman with her own romantic nostalgic pinnings for the past. As Inez, Gil's airy fiancee, Rachel McAdams is the perfect amount of irritating -- you like hating her because she's just so damn good being unlikeable. Ditto Michael Sheen as Inez's arrogant friend, Paul, who fancies himself an expert on every subject under the sun. Sheen is so perfectly aggravating and hilarious that he nearly steals all the scenes that don't take place on Gil's midnight strolls. Without taking away the fun of discovering which famous personas they wind up playing, the rest of the supporting cast is excellent, especially Corey Stoll (as a particularly boisterous American literary icon), Adrien Brody as a quirky painter and Alison Pill as the quick-witted and moody wife of yet another famous literary idol.

With its commentary on art and the inevitable criticism that follows each creation, Allen shows both sides of the impact of art criticism -- as both useful for it what it inspires in both the artist and the audience (such as with Kathy Bates' Gertrude Stein, who helpfully critiques Gil's manuscript) or the danger in how it can sometimes be absent of properly informed historical context (as seen with Sheen's Paul).

Midnight in Paris is a welcome escape from all the summer blockbusters and sequels -- the perfect way to close out the summer and get you thinking about all the upcoming potential Oscar films. Smart, imaginative and hilarious, Woody Allen's latest is his most charming venture in years.

GRADE: A-

Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking

2011-08-25T17:25:00.000-07:00

A week ago today I saw Carrie Fisher's one-woman show, Wishful Drinking, at the Royal Alexandra Theatre in Toronto. Based on her 2008 memoir, the show has been a smash hit and even had its own HBO special.

So often associated with her iconic role as Princess Leia in George's Lucas' Star Wars franchise, few fans likely take the time to distinguish the differences between Leia and Carrie Fisher herself. After the show last Thursday, she ceased to be Princess Leia for me. Now she's simply, Carrie Fisher -- comedienne, author, businesswoman and a star of the stage.

We all know Fisher is funny. She has a knack for nailing her lines in one episode stints on hit TV shows like Sex and the City and 30 Rock. But there's no real way of preparing yourself for her refreshing, hilarious, brutally honest and self-deprecating account of her own life story.

And what a bizarre, and often tragic, life she's led! As Fisher herself said at one point, "If I didn't make it (my life) funny, it would just be true. And I couldn't have that."

Fisher structures her show as a series of vignettes -- starting with the sudden death of her close friend, Gregory R. Stevens, in 2005. She woke up to find his corpse lying in the bed next to her. Watching her relate the story full of emotion and humour is fascinating to witness. (You can check out her blog entry on the subject at her official website).

Hollywood Inbreeding 101.

She goes from that heavy opener to her college course-like tutorial titled "Hollywood Inbreeding 101" in which she uses a pointer stick and a chalkboard to methodically walk the audience through the many relationships of her famous parents, singer Eddie Fisher and actress Debbie Reynolds.

She discusses everything from her broken home to her father's countless marriages and affairs -- most famously with Elizabeth Taylor, her mother's best friend at the time. When Taylor's husband, Mike Todd, died in a plane crash, her father Eddie immediately ran to support Taylor. "Daddy rushed to her side, than he worked his way around to her front and finally wound up comforting her with his penis."

But what is clear from Fisher's show is that, despite her often strained relations with members of her family, she's a woman who loves them dearly. Whether she's recounting the time her aging father accidentally ate his hearing aids or about how her mother insists on stating her own name every time she calls on the phone ("Hello, dear. It's your mother ...Debbie."), Fisher tells her life stories in such a hilariously candid and touching manner. When gushing about her 19-year-old daughter, Billie, Fisher memorably exclaims that "she's the best thing to ever come out of my body."

Unlike many celebrity memoirs Fisher is not asking her audience for sympathy. She openly blames herself for her own mistakes, saying it would be lazy to blame Hollywood and her broken home for her woes -- and, besides, her brother turned out to lead a perfectly normal and happy life; a rare exception for someone descended from Hollywood royalty.

She will quite openly talk about her bi-polar diagnosis and ECT treatments although she's a little more restrained in her delivery -- as Toronto Star theatre critic Richard Ouzounian wrote: "despite the jokes, quips, the gal-pal merriment, there is something seriously life-threatening underneath."

However, her energy is contagious and, if nothing else, drives home her overriding theme that life is what you make it. If only we were all brave enough to laugh at our faults and failures.

Movie Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2011-08-19T18:16:00.000-07:00

Caesar (Serkis) and Will (Franco).

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Directed By: Rupert Wyatt
Starring: James Franco, Andy Serkis, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow and Brian Cox

Heading into the summer, Rise of the Planet of the Apes wasn't likely at the top of most filmgoers "must see" lists. After all, it appeared as though Hollywood finally felt like admitting that it had run out of fresh ideas and was willing to settle on rebooting yet another tired franchise as a quick cash-grab.

After five films, two TV series and Tim Burton's most recent interpretation, what more could studios possibly say about those "damned dirty apes?" A lot, apparently.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is not only the surprise smash of the summer, but it's arguably the best film of the entire franchise, which dates all the way back to the 1968 original. As the first film in a planned trilogy, this reboot starts all the way back at the beginning -- essentially making it a prequel (of sorts) to the Charlton Heston original.

Set in present day San Francisco, disease researcher Will Rodman (James Franco) spends nearly every waking moment concocting and testing a cure for Alzheimer's -- from which his beloved father, Charles (John Lithgow) suffers. He and his girlfriend, Caroline (Freida Pinto), wind up secretly taking custody of a baby chimp named Caesar (Andy Serkis) after a presentation to a for-profit research company takes a disastrous turn. As Caesar grows, Will discovers the chimp has inherited the chemically induced genius IQ of his dead mother -- making him smarter (he's fluent in sign language) and more aggressive with each passing year. When Caesar violently lashes out in defence of his loved ones one day, the chimp is taken to a brutal ape "sanctuary" run by a cruel man (Brian Cox) and his sadistic son (Tom Felton, with more lines and screen time here than in his entire 10 year stint with the Harry Potter franchise). Caesar is left to fend for himself as he struggles to come to terms with his own potential and live up to his regal name.

Caesar (Serkis).

Even for those reluctant to see yet another ape-fest, do yourself the favour and watch it for Serkis -- covered by motion capture technology and CGI but not, by any means, buried beyond recognition. Somehow the personality he instills in his characterization of Caesar shines through all the computer graphics, resulting in one of the years finest performances to date. Caesar is a complex bundle of emotions and instincts -- both human and animalistic. It says a lot about Serkis' performance that his creation of Caesar is, by far, more fascinating than any of the humans on the screen. Serkis has perfected the difficult art of giving a truly wonderful, subtle performance while physically obscured by technology and it will likely be years before anyone comes close to his masterful ability.

Essentially an action film at its core, Rise of the Planet of the Apes has moments of emotional commentary on animal cruelty interspersed with wooden dialogue and over-the-top action sequences. However, it never ceases to entertain and grab viewer attention which is ultimately what is expected of a summer blockbuster -- if it can tug at your heartstrings in between its action sequences, it's a job well done.

Overall, it's a very good film. Certainly better than anyone expected. In yet another summer filled with lackluster blockbusters and quick cash-grabs, Rise of the Planet of the Apes rises above its seasonal competition and emerges as one of the top quality films of the summer. It even already has Oscar buzz for Serkis' performance (although it will remain to the be seen whether or not that hype can still stick months down the road). While the film won't be recognized for any awards other than deserved ones for Serkis and the special effects, it's arguably the best summer blockbuster since the 2009 Star Trek reboot.

FINAL GRADE: B+

Upcoming Release: Twixt (2011)

2011-08-14T08:23:00.000-07:00

Elle Fanning and Val Kilmer

An original (way to go, Hollywood!) gothic horror film written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola! I'm already lined up for opening night.

A friend of mine showed me the Twixt trailer early last week -- and it had me intrigued right away. It's not so much a trailer (it's nearly four minutes long) as a sneak peek. It's focuses on a series of bizarre child murders in a small town -- and throws in suggestions of witches and/or vampires as the culprits.

Val Kilmer plays a Stephen King-ish horror novelist who has arrived in town for an autograph signing when he's lured into the murder mysteries by both the local sheriff (Bruce Dern) and a ghostly girl named V (Elle Fanning) who keeps appearing in his dreams. On top of it all, actor Ben Chaplin is listed as playing the role of Edgar Allan Poe. How could you not be intrigued? It all sounds very Stephen King meets Twin Peaks!

Val Kilmer and Ben Chaplin ...as Edgar Allan Poe.

It could be a really interesting departure for Coppola -- no gangsters or rebellious teens in sight. Most of his recent film dealings have been as a producer over the years, so it was about time he got back behind the camera.

My only concern is the reminder of his 1992 foray into supernatural horror -- Bram Stoker's Dracula, with Gary Oldman in the leading role. Although that interpretation of the classic vampire novel has its loyal fans, I could barely sit through it in one sitting. But that was all nearly 20 years ago now and Twixt looks like it has a lot of potential to be a perfectly bizarre and grisly film. I haven't come across an official release date (some websites have different dates than others), but it is listed as being a 2011 film, so it's likely it will be released around Halloween.

I love a good horror film as much as anyone, but so few great ones have come out over the last few years. I have high hopes for Twixt.

What do you think of the sneak peek trailer?

Casting News: Tarantino's Django Unchained

2011-08-06T08:52:00.000-07:00

I realize I'm a little late with this news, but a few weeks ago it was announced that Kevin Costner would be joining the cast of Quentin Tarantino's upcoming Django Unchained. I think he's the final missing piece of the puzzle and it will be set to start filming soon.

Tentatively scheduled for a Christmas 2012 release (although I really hope we don't actually have to wait that long!), Tarantino's latest is a throwback to the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s. There are only a few details released about the plot so far -- and, if the rumours of the premise are true, it sounds fantastic!

Costner will play Ace Woody, a man who trains slaves to fight to the death solely for the entertainment of a sadistic plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Django (Jamie Foxx), one of the slaves, manages to escape and teams up with a German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) to exact revenge and rescue his long-lost love (Kerry Washington). The film also co-stars Samuel L. Jackson and Keith Carradine.

I'm beyond excited -- I'm such a huge fan of Tarantino and he so rarely disappoints. In fact, the only Tarantino film I was a little bit disappointed with was Death Proof (2007) and even that wasn't all that bad! If I were an actress or screenwriter working in Hollywood, I'd give up the opportunity to work with pretty much anyone else in order to work on a Tarantino film.

Anyway, I love the premise and I'm really loving the cast. I like that a couple Tarantino regulars are returning (although I'd really love to see him work with Harvey Keitel and Tim Roth again in the future!). I especially love that he wrote another part for Waltz who needs another great role immediately in order to save his reputation (his agent should be fired ...he hasn't made a good film since his Oscar win). DiCaprio and Costner are really interesting choices: I think both have the potential to fit really, really well in a Tarantino flick and they'd probably ace his dialogue. It would be something different for DiCaprio and Costner, who both tend to play a variation of the same role in a lot of their films.

All in all, should be another great film for Tarantino!

What do you think of the cast announcements for Django Unchained?

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

2011-08-01T13:52:00.000-07:00

Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

Directed By: David Yates

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman and Helena Bonham Carter

Ten years and eight feature length films later, the adventures of J.K. Rowling's boy wizard comes to a close. A generation of kids who grew up reading about black magic, goblins and hidden Horcruxes will now be closing a chapter on their childhood. Although I have not read the books myself, many of my friends credit the series with teaching them about loyalty, friendship and first loves -- essential life lessons that go above and beyond what is normally expected in your average fantasy series.

However, as I mentioned in my November 2010 review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One: Peter Jackson managed to make all three of his The Lord of the Rings films a cohesive story. They followed one thread and worked well, both together and as individual, stand-alone films. I find that this has never been the case with the Harry Potter franchise. Granted, there are a lot of films that the screenwriters have to struggle to string together, yet for someone like me who has never read the books, it can be alienating. Nearly each Harry Potter film has had a new director and, as a result, has a different tone and atmosphere than its predecessor, which I also think is the root cause of some of its issues. I think it makes them feel like jagged vignettes that don't always quite fit together as a whole.

In this final instalment the film begins right where the last one left off -- Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has retrieved the Elder Wand from the corpse of Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). Meanwhile, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) team up to try to find the mysterious Horcruxes -- each one containing a small, yet vital, fragment of Voldemort's soul. In destroying each of the Horcruxes, Voldemort's power weakens and sets the story up for the much-anticipated duel between Harry and his snake-like nemesis.

Director David Yates returns with his same cast and crew and, as a result, these final two films in the franchise come together nicely in terms of atmosphere, tone and visuals. The cinematography is beautiful -- all dark greys, browns and earthy greens, lending the finale a sort of aesthetic acknowledgment that it has come to a dark, emotional end.

Yet, Deathly Hallows Part Two lacks a structural tightness to its story, although this has more to do with Rowling than it is the fault of the screenwriters. From what I gather of the book series, it's ultimately all leading up to this final duel between good and evil. However, it does seem to have taken an awfully long time to get to the point of it all. Did Rowling really need seven novels of misadventures at Hogwarts to effectively illustrate her life lessons on friendship, loyalty and good vs. evil? Probably not. As a result, the entire film series was a combination of false starts and anti-climaxes, resulting in sometimes plodding films (specifically the sixth film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, of which I remember next to nothing, despite having seen it more than once).

Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort.

The strongest link in this film franchise has, and always will be, the acting -- all of which improves with each film. Emma Watson (as Hermione) and Rupert Grint (as Ron), in particular, have both matured into great young actors who brought a lot to their roles as young, blossoming wizards. Without them, Harry would have ultimately failed in many of his tasks. Their unflagging loyalty to their gifted friend remains one of the franchise's most powerful lessons in what it means to be a true friend. It makes it inevitable that both Hermione and Ron will both come to appreciate that dedication in one another and fast-track their relationship past the platonic stage -- and thankfully Watson and Grint have a charming, opposites-attract chemistry.

However, if this final instalment belongs to anyone, it belongs to Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman. Both do a tremendous job with what they are given to work with (which isn't a lot, especially in the case of Rickman).

As Lord Voldemort, Fiennes is fabulous -- teaching the audience the art of subtlety; giving a masterful performance of evil, even while buried beneath layers and layers of caked on make-up with only his eyes to convey his dark thoughts. It's a pity it took so long for his character to come anywhere near front and centre in the franchise. Fiennes is absolutely fascinating to watch and he turned Voldemort into a remarkably creepy villain.

Alan Rickman as Severus Snape.

As the tragically misunderstood Severus Snape, Rickman is finally given his chance to shine. Why Rowling took so long to reveal the unrequited love Snape harboured and his desire to protect Harry is anyone's guess. Rowling very nearly deprived her audience of feeling any sense of understanding for the Hogwarts teacher, choosing instead to reveal everything all at once at the very end. As a result, the audience is forced to quickly catch up on an entire life's worth of pining and loss in Snape. Oh, what might have been -- for both the character of Snape and Rickman as an actor -- had Rowling delved deeper into her creation much earlier in the series, allowing her audience to relate and grieve with Snape, instead of making it all feel like an afterthought. Instead, the audience is left wondering about what more there could have been to the tragic (and disappointingly underused) character of Snape.

Once all is said and done, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two will likely leave all those loyal Potterheads happy, thrilled and nostalgic for their childhood. If those devotees left the theatre satisfied than that's ultimately all that matters. Although it was a flawed series it still achieved what any good blockbuster should -- a loyal fanbase that welcomed its coming-of-age life lessons and its portrayal of good vs. evil.

FINAL GRADE: B

Question: What was your favourite Harry Potter film?

Movie Rant: Saddest Movie of All Time?

2011-07-28T17:01:00.000-07:00

The Champ, starring Ricky Schroder and Jon Voight.

So, two American psychology professors did a little research and determined that the nearly three minute climax of the 1979 boxing flick, The Champ, makes it the "saddest movie ever made."

...Alright.

They've supposedly been working on this research project since 1988 (!!) in order to find the saddest film clip ever (I wish I had that job! Seriously). After testing more than 250 movies on a bunch of subjects, The Champ came out the champ of tearjerker moments.

Random, right? You'd think the most tear-worthy scenes would be from films like Titanic, Schindler's List or anything involving the tagline "based on a true story." Nope. Supposedly even the most cynical of viewers lost their composure watching the climax of the Franco Zeffirelli flick.

The Plot: Billy Flynn (Jon Voight), a former boxer-turned-horse trainer, raises his little son T.J. (Ricky Schroder, that kid from Silver Spoons) all by himself after his wife, Annie (Faye Dunaway), abandoned the family years earlier. Billy struggles to save what little money he can, but ultimately decides to return to the ring one last time to earn more money so his son can have a better life. After winning the final fight and being named The Champ, Billy suddenly dies and (*cue tears*) his little son tries to wake him up.

Now, I've never seen this film but after this research study was released I looked up the climax scene (linked below). It's a little hard to get completely wrapped up in it having not seen the whole movie, but I can see why it would be very touching for a lot of people. All credit must be given to Ricky Schroder who is super-cute and can cry with the best of them in this scene. It looks like he gives a great performance ...something rare for child actors. My only beef with this study is that it calls The Champ the "saddest movie of all time" ...but I highly doubt the other nearly two hours of the films are sad. It shouldn't win that distinction based on one scene alone. A more appropriate title would have simply been "saddest movie scene of all time."

I couldn't choose one "saddest movie scene of all time", just like I couldn't pick "saddest overall movie of all time" ...there are too many to count. I wouldn't even know where to start.

Question: Do you have a pick for either "the saddest movie of all time" or "the saddest movie scene of all time"?

Movie Rant: (Fairly Recent) Movies I Think Are Underrated

2011-07-22T11:19:00.000-07:00

The Talented Mr. Ripley

I thought this could be a sort of companion piece to the Popular Movies I Dislike list I did last week.

The movies on this list were pretty much all universally acclaimed by critics. But I consider these films underrated because, in talking with other people, I find many either haven't seen them or they've never even heard of them at all.

There are a ton of underrated films out there, from each and every decade. This list will be more "recent" films -- the oldest being from 1984 and the most recent from 2008. Going back through the history of world cinema to find more underrated gems from other decades would be a task and a half -- so, in no particular order, here's a list of fairly recent movies I consider underrated/sadly ignored by the masses nowadays.

(1) The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
In this mostly faithful adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel, the late Anthony Minghella directed a moody, atmospheric murder mystery among the sights and sounds of Italy. It feels like an old-fashioned thriller and Matt Damon's restrained, yet perfectly awkward and eerie, performance allows the audience to get lost in the bizarre enigma that is Tom Ripley. I still consider this Damon's best performance.

Amadeus

(2) Amadeus (1984)
The film won Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, yet it remains largely forgotten by almost everyone outside of its loyal fan base. Those expecting a straight-forward biography of the brilliant composer, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, will be disappointed -- however, this visually beautiful film focuses on the myths, the addictions and the jealousy behind the famous Austrian genius' short life. With rich performances (especially by F. Murray Abraham as the jealous Salieri) and an authentically historical atmosphere, Amadeus is an absolutely fascinating look at an artist's dark descent.

(3) Zodiac (2007)
Everyone loves David Fincher, right? Well, no one seemed all that interested in his masterful recreation of the investigation into the famous 1970s Zodiac murders. The film was a dud at the box office and most people complained about its running time and the slow pace. Granted, it's recommended that you brush up on your knowledge of the case beforehand, but I believe Zodiac will go down as Fincher's most underrated masterpiece. It was ignored and is already largely forgotten, but it's an eerie look at a horrific murder case with wonderful performances (especially by Mark Ruffalo) and a great attention to period detail.

(4) Amelie (2001)
Nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards, it wound up losing in a shocking upset. Incredibly popular upon it's initial release ten years ago, it has since receded into the background. This whimsical gem from France was a breakthrough for star Audrey Tautou but, more importantly, it's that rare film that improves with each viewing. It's more than just a fairy tale love story and it's filled with wonderfully genuine commentary on how people choose to live their lives. It will leave you wishing you could see the world through the eyes of someone like Amelie Poulain.

American Psycho

(5) American Psycho (2000)
You either love it or you hate it. The first time I saw the film I know I missed out on a lot of its dark comedy and commentary on yuppie society of the 1980s. Having re-watched it a couple of times over the years, I realized what a great (albeit understated) adaptation it is of a very complex (and graphic!) Bret Easton Ellis novel. Christian Bale nails his performance as Patrick Bateman, the wealthy New York investment banking executive who slowly loses himself in his perverse and violent fantasies.

(6) Boogie Nights (1997)
This cautionary tale of how a young man went from small town student to a big-time porn star named Dirk Diggler is arguably director P.T. Anderson's best film to date. It's a film that is rarely mentioned anymore, but it's an intimate and often hilarious look at the porn industry of the 1970s and 1980s through the eyes of the famously well-endowed Diggler. Full of wonderful performances in a large ensemble cast that includes Mark Wahlberg, Julianne Moore, Burt Reynolds, John C. Reilly, Philip Seymour Hoffman and William H. Macy, Boogie Nights also boasts a killer soundtrack. Anderson has Quentin Tarantino's knack for picking great songs to accompany his films.

(7) In Bruges (2008)
This film debuted in one lonely theatre in Toronto a few years back and, when mentioned, it's usually met with blank stares. Despite the fact that it was critically acclaimed and earned Colin Farrell a Best Actor Golden Globe, it's an under-the-radar film from the U.K. that deserved more attention than it received. Watching the delightfully un-PC hitmen, played by Farrell and Brendon Gleeson, run around the medieval city of Bruges is hilarious, heartwarming and tragic all at once. In Bruges is classified as a dark comedy, but it's so much more than that.

Secretary

(8) Secretary (2002)
Speaking of small indie films that are often met with blank stares -- Secretary is that fantastic little film that you haven't even heard of, let alone seen. Maggie Gyllenhaal is so perfectly cast as a mentally ill young woman heading back into the workplace that I often continue to associate Gyllenhaal with her character, Lee Holloway. James Spader plays the demanding lawyer that she works for -- and the two ultimately embark on a sexual, sadomasochistic affair. It's a wonderfully bizarre love story.

(9) The New World (2005)
The fact that this is widely considered to be Terrence Malick's weakest film is no insult to the work itself -- it's still a lyrical, poetic ode to man's ever-changing relationship with nature, told through the eyes of 17th century Englishman John Smith (Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher). With it's leisurely pace, long segments of stunning visuals and whispered dialogue, The New World won't be to everyone's personal taste, but it's a masterpiece that often gets lost in the shuffle of other more well-received Malick films.

Downfall (Der Untergang)

(10) Downfall (2004)
This German film was nominated for a Best Foreign Language Film award at the Oscars -- only to suffer a surprising loss, much like Amelie in 2001. Bruno Ganz gives a stunning and authentic-feeling performance as Adolf Hitler during the rapid decline of his power. With his subtly trembling hands (Hitler was rumoured to have had Parkinson's Disease), watery eyes and stooped shoulders, Ganz embodies the diminishing fire of one of the world's most violent dictators. The entirety of the film takes place in Hitler's bunker in Berlin during the final days of his tumultuous life. Downfall dared to show a softer side to the dictator -- one who thanked people for their loyalty, married his longtime girlfriend, Eva Braun, and tearfully mourned the betrayal of Albert Speer, one of his most trusted men. You'll feel as though you are watching an actual documentary on Hitler's final moments.

Question: What films do you think are underrated or have been largely forgotten?

Movie Review: Horrible Bosses

2011-07-16T08:22:00.000-07:00

(Left to Right): Bateman, Day and Sudeikis

Horrible Bosses (2011)
Directed By: Seth Gordon
Starring: Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx

The same summer that gave us the uninspired comedy sequel The Hangover 2 has also given filmgoers two fresh, hilarious hits -- Bridesmaids and, now, Horrible Bosses.

We've all had our fair share of unlikeable bosses -- but did we dislike them enough to actually want to conspire to kill them? (If the answer is yes, maybe keep that bit to yourself). Jason Bateman, Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis play three average joes whose only real excitement in their lives is the stress level they reach at work -- all three have nightmare bosses that make the workplace a living hell.

Nick (Bateman), Kurt (Sudeikis) and Dale (Day) conspire to do away with each of their bosses during a drunken visit to the pub one night. Why do their bosses inspire such hatred in the seemingly harmless pals? Nick's boss, David Harken (Spacey), enjoys tormenting and publicly humiliating him, going so far as to withhold a job promotion from Nick, simply because he can. Kurt, on the other hand, is devastated when Bobby Pellitt (an unrecognizable Farrell), the son of Kurt's beloved (and recently deceased) boss, takes over for his old man and proceeds to make everyone miserable in the process. And, finally, there's Dale, who elicits the least amount of sympathy from his two pals because his boss is the beautiful Dr. Julia Harris (Aniston) -- a dentist who has taken a particular liking to Dale and sexually harasses him on a daily basis. The three friends hire Dean "Motherfucker" Jones (Foxx) as a "murder guru" of sorts, in an attempt to come up with a plan that will satisfy all three of them and free them from those evil overlords.

Audiences can take comfort in knowing that these three buffoons could never actually successfully pull off a triple homicide, allowing you to just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's that rare dark comedy that has a few surprising tricks up its sleeve to keep you guessing about the outcome until the very end.

Bateman and Sudeikis both play characters similar to those they've played numerous times before, but their comedic timing is impeccable, especially the droll and sarcastic Bateman -- a master of understated comedy. As for this Day fellow, I've never seen him in anything but his small stature and impish charm actually reveal a large talent for hilarious scene-stealing. He usually overshadows his other two co-stars with his manic energy and perfect comedic timing.

Farrell as Bobby Pellitt

Spacey excels at playing evil, conniving men -- and his character, David, is the most unlikeable of the three bosses because he's probably the closest to how some top corporate men can be in real life. You hate the guy and that's all thanks to Spacey's ability to inspire loathing.

Aniston is probably the most shocking, playing against type. She's never been raunchier in her entire career and, for the first time, has eliminated any passing thoughts of her Rachel Green character from Friends. She's such a funny comedienne, and it's great to finally see her cut loose.

The standout, though, is Farrell. With his receding hairline (complete with wispy comb-over) and added paunch, he a coarse, vulgar and rude cocaine addict who gets off on ruling the roost. Not only does he get in some great one-liners, but just watching him roll around the office in his chair will make audiences laugh.

In the middle of yet another summer movie season full of blockbuster sequels and comic book adaptations, Horrible Bosses stands out as one of Hollywood's better offerings -- a genuinely funny film with an all-star cast that each bring something different to the table. Here's hoping they don't ruin this film by giving it countless sequels.

FINAL GRADE: B+

Movie Rant: Popular Movies I Dislike ...Which Will Likely Make Me Unpopular

2011-07-08T10:55:00.000-07:00

The Breakfast Club

While re-watching Pretty in Pink (1986) again for the first time in years last week, I realized how much I enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure film (poor, loyal Duckie). Than it reminded me how much I disliked The Breakfast Club (1985) -- arguably John Hughes' most popular and beloved film.

It got me thinking about other popular movies that everyone seems to love but makes me feel like an outcast for actively disliking. Not hate, mind you, just dislike (as in, I don't get the fuss). So, I thought it'd be fun to make a list of Popular Movies I Dislike ...Which Will Likely Make Me Unpopular.

1) The Breakfast Club (1985)
The Brat Pack get sentenced to a Saturday morning detention -- and all five of them bond in the process. And how do they bond? By spending nearly two hours moaning about their awful parents as if that's the only thing to blame for their failures in life. It's teen angst that isn't really fleshed out or interesting and, as a result, the characters just come off as irritating.

2) Avatar (2009)
An overrated blockbuster that was, essentially, just a re-hash of Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves. The CGI wasn't particularly earth-shattering and the performances and dialogue were pretty cringe-worthy. Made me long for the days when Titanic (1997) was still the highest grossing film of all time.

3) Crash (2004)
Just about as mediocre as movies come. The fact that this won Best Picture (over Brokeback Mountain!!) ruined the Academy Awards for me, forever. Granted, the Oscars have made mistakes in the past but this one is unforgivable and doesn't make any sense. Why it was even nominated in the first place is a mystery in and of itself. A huge cast of so-so actors go through the motions of showing why racism is bad without offering anything new to the discussion. Been there, done that.

4) Pretty Woman (1990)
I saw this for the first time ever earlier this year. I'm already not a fan of Julia Roberts, so I tend to avoid her films. Roberts plays a prostitute hired by a businessman to be his escort for the weekend. While the two fall in love (!!) she proceeds to spend his money, revel in all the jewels he gives her and tells off a saleswoman for thinking she had no money (even though it isn't actually her money). All women apparently only like shiny things and ultimately want to get married to boring businessmen who stay in nice hotels. I know some critics have defended the film, calling it fantasy, but I'm still not buying what its selling.

Jerry Maguire

5) Jerry Maguire (1996)
It's too cute for its own good. I'm not a fan of Cameron Crowe, in general, but this one is my least favourite of his films. It's cute quirk factor is overwhelming and Cuba Gooding Jr. is too much to handle.

6) The Matrix (1999)
I never got all the fuss with this franchise. In fact, I only saw the first one all the way through and remember very little of it, other than that it bored me to tears and had way too many slow-mo gun battles.

7) Garden State (2004)
I know so many people who love, love, love this film. It was fine. Like Jerry Maguire, the characters are too unnaturally quirky to the point of distraction. I've only seen this movie once and it made me want to explain to star and writer Zach Braff why ripping off the vastly superior The Graduate will never work in your favour.

8) Sex and the City (2008)
I should have passed this one over. What was I thinking? What was once a charming and funny show has become a shallow, empty, fashion-obsessed bore where women only talk about men, sex, men, sex, weddings and shoes. *snore* It was borderline offensive at some points. No thanks, ladies. It's time to retire those Jimmy Choos.

9) Superbad (2007)
A whole bunch of swearing and a couple of guys wandering around looking for places to get drunk and laid. That's all I remember. No thanks.

Saving Private Ryan

10) Saving Private Ryan (1998)
I feel like this one is likely going to get me into the most "trouble" but I need to admit my dislike of this film. I liked it when I was younger but when I watched it again as an adult I was bored and not the least bit interested in any of the characters. The fact that it also has Ed Burns and Tom Sizemore in the cast doesn't help matters either. Sure, those opening 20 minutes are incredible, but nothing else in the film even comes close to that emotional first scene. For a genuinely fantastic look at the Second World War, check out the Steven Spielberg-produced Band of Brothers instead. Powerful story, great script and a perfect, A+ cast.

Question: What films would make it on your own list?

Movie Review: The Tree of Life

2011-07-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

The Tree of Life (2011)
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn and Hunter McCracken
Written & Directed By: Terrence Malick

Film critic Peter Bradshaw (of The Guardian in the U.K.) called director Terrence Malick's latest film, "cinema that's thinking big." Audiences and critics, alike, will be hard-pressed to come up with other films that are as unique and full of meaning as Malick's latest. "Thinking big" is just scratching the surface, really -- the film is thinking on a much larger plain.

The Tree of Life is a bit of an enigma -- an often puzzling, yet incredibly powerful, film that deals with love, loss, life, death, nature, spirituality and the universe in a two hour and 15 minute running time. But we would expect nothing less from Malick, the reclusive Texas director who spends years piecing together his films.

Tree of Life is without a linear narrative -- its plot not only moves into different periods in the life of its main protagonist, but also throughout the history of the world and, on a grander scale, the universe -- with long interludes of vivid cosmic and prehistoric visions.

When a friend recently asked me to describe the film, I said it was like a poem with moving images captured on celluloid. With very minimal dialogue (most of which is whispered), Malick has managed to inspire his audience to question the meaning of life and, ultimately, what our purpose is in the grand scheme of things. Because, at some point don't we all wonder: why are we here?

Jack O'Brien (Sean Penn) is at a crossroads in his life. What little we know about him is glimpsed through brief images -- a seemingly broken relationship and a corporate job that is heading nowhere. His overwhelming dissatisfaction with his life sends him down memory lane to his boyhood growing up in a small Texas town. In times of personal crisis we are often reminded of the past, which Malick illustrates by sending us back in time to Jack's youth (played by Hunter McCracken). With very little use of dialogue, other than soft and questioning whispers, the audience watches young Jack interact with his family in the 1950s -- his overbearing father (Brad Pitt) who is an often frightening blend of nurture and violence, his beautiful mother (Jessica Chastain) who is the heart and soul of the family and his two younger brothers, R.L. (Laramie Eppler) and Steve (Tye Sheridan).

Mrs. O'Brien (Jessica Chastain)

One of the most notable highlights of the film is the performances. Considering there is very little background given on the characters and very little dialogue in which they can use to interact, the cast does a remarkable job of conveying the myriad of emotions each of them goes through in the film.

Pitt is both terrifying and gentle as Mr. O'Brien and, as a result, this may be his greatest and most mature performance to date. A stiff, conservatively traditional man, O'Brien encourages his sons to learn to fight, while tenderly embracing them in some of their quieter shared moments. This disparity in his personal nature only makes him that much more human -- a man battling his own personal demons, whatever they may be, and taking them out on his loving family.

Chastain is the real revelation of the film. Her quiet performance is full of beautifully realized moments and interactions with her co-stars. She understands Mrs. O'Brien's connection to nature and motherhood and she's mesmerizing to watch, even if all she's doing is washing the dishes or watching her sons play outside.

Penn rounds out the adult cast as older Jack and, despite the fact that he has very few scenes, his weary eyes and hunched posture suggests a man who, like his father, is battling a darker and melancholy side of himself. The three young actors who play the O'Brien boys are all wonderful -- their performances even more remarkable for the fact that Tree of Life is the screen debut for all three of them. McCracken is the standout, with the larger role of Jack. He has a maturity rarely seen in child actors and his scenes with Eppler, who plays his brother R.L., are some of the highlights of the entire film.

Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pitt)

The Tree of Life is comprised of some of the most beautifully intimate human interactions ever captured on camera. How often do audiences get to see a toddler gaze down in wonder at his newborn baby brother, only to be punched lightly in the nose by his little fist? Or the scene where Mr. O'Brien cups his newborn sons little foot between his palms, marvelling at its tiny size? There are lovely moments between parents and children -- such as when Mrs. O'Brien playfully wakes up her three sons by putting ice cubes down their pyjama shirts. Or when Mr. O'Brien shows his softer side as his son, R.L., accompanies his piano playing with that of his guitar -- a wonderful little musical moment of father-son bonding.

One of the most striking scenes of brotherly love is the moment when a chagrined Jack apologizes to R.L. for a particularly mean trick by softly kissing his younger brothers arm -- only to have the kiss wiped off by a still-upset R.L. Jack's perseverance ultimately pays off when, after a couple more arm kisses for his younger sibling, R.L. finally doesn't wipe Jack's affection off his arm. All is forgiven.

It's moments like those that can make film fans and critics, alike, wish there were more directors out there like Malick, who challenge the mind while providing glimpses of smaller moments that happen in everyday life.

The Tree of Life is a challenging film and won't be to everyone's own personal tastes. It will likely require more than one viewing to fully appreciate. It's spiritual and artsy, challenging mainstream ideas of what a Hollywood film could be. While there are moments and sequences within the film that may be alienating, you still leave the film appreciating Malick's complex masterpiece.

FINAL GRADE: A-

Book Review: Dark Victory - The Life of Bette Davis

2011-06-26T11:09:00.000-07:00

Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis (Published 2008)

By: Ed Sikov

The title is misleading. Those expecting a full-length biography of the life of screen legend Bette Davis should look elsewhere. That's not to say that film critic Ed Sikov's book isn't worth a read -- only that it is somewhat misrepresented as something it is not.

It's not so much a biography as a glimpse of the film sets for each one of Davis' films, plays and television appearances. Sikov, being a critic, instead discusses her performance in each piece and provides an analysis of her abilities in each role, with only brief glimpses of what was going on in her personal life at the time.

Warners Brothers co-creator, Jack Warner, once described Davis as "an explosive little broad with a sharp left." When Sikov quotes great lines like that you can't help but wish a little more emphasis had been placed on Davis not only as an artist, but as a complex person. Married three times (all tumultuous, sometimes abusive, relationships), with a raspy voice, heavy drinking problem and a smoking habit that could rival all the chain smokers the world over, Davis was so much more than just her body of work. I suppose I was expecting a biography in the more traditional sense -- discussion of the subjects career with an equal balance of focus on their life away from work.

Davis is my favourite actress and I'd never read a book on her before. While Sikov provides insightful and fascinating interpretations and opinions on her performances and her on-set behaviour, I was also hoping to learn a lot more about her legendary rivalry with diva-extrodinaire Joan Crawford, her strained relationship with her daughter, B.D., and whether or not people truly believed that the injury she caused her second husband, Arthur Farnsworth, actually caused his premature death while still in his 30s. Davis was forever surrounded by controversy and damaged relationships -- from a broken home that included a distant father, an overbearing mother and a mentally ill younger sister, to three disastrous marriages and an estranged daughter. In addition to her personal woes -- which made for great tabloid fodder -- Davis was also known as being one of the most difficult actresses in Hollywood to work with and was rumoured to have had numerous affairs over the years with everyone from her directors to her co-stars, including actor Errol Flynn.

However, even though the focus of Dark Victory wasn't quite what was expected, it's still a superior source on Davis compared to some other resources available. Sikov perceptively illustrates how Davis often utilized her personal issues to transform whatever character she was playing at the time into a fully realized and complex human being. Like other screen legends both before and after her success, Davis understood that acting was a unique art form that should be respected, discussed and left open for interpretation.

Although she was difficult to work with and had countless battles with Warner Brothers over her rights to portray her characters as she deemed fit, no one would dare dispute that she was fully committed to her career -- even when forced by the the old school studio system in Hollywood to appear in films with lousy scripts and dull characters. While Davis always made the best of each situation when it came to her film career, her personal life was always in need of more attention; but she ultimately neglected her responsibilities in that area of her life.

Davis was a woman ahead of her time, always ahead of the curve -- someone who sassed back at studios when she disagreed with something; a woman who wore pants, cursed like a sailor and once refused to offer her "services" to a theatre producer in exchange for a starring role. Sikov does an admirable job of portraying Davis exactly as she was, even going so far as to note in his introduction that the reader may come away from Dark Victory not liking Davis very much as a person -- but Davis never sought public approval.

Although not quite a biography, Dark Victory provides well-researched insight into one of the most fascinating women to ever grace the silver screen.

I was originally going to put up an interview, but I came across this fan video instead. (Music: "Bette Davis Eyes" by Kim Carnes).

Movie Rant: Should Some Movies Be Exempt from Serious Film Criticism?

2011-06-18T10:20:00.000-07:00

When I got together with a friend of mine a couple of weeks back we felt like watching an older film -- something light and fun, nothing heavy. Neither of us had seen Benny & Joon (1993), nor did we even know the premise. But, it had a young Johnny Depp so we figured it couldn't be that bad.

The premise: Benny (Aidan Quinn) has lived with his younger sister, Joon (Mary Stuart Masterson) ever since their parents died when they were young. Although Benny and Joon are old enough to live in their own separate apartments, Benny continues to live with his mentally ill sister both as a protective measure and out of necessity (or so he thinks). When Benny loses a strange bet to one of his friends, he is forced to bring an eccentric young man named Sam (Johnny Depp) into his household. Uncomfortable expressing himself through words, Sam instead makes his feelings known through brilliantly imitated routines from old Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton films. When Sam and Joon form a romantic bond, Benny starts to experience jealousy about his sister's growing independence from him.

While reading up on the film afterward I noticed that audiences and critics alike were pretty divided about their opinions. Some took it for what it was -- a sweet little distraction that was never meant to be taken as high quality cinema -- while others lambasted it as an empty and contrived film that reduced mental illness to a trivial character trait. Film critic Desson Thomson of The Washington Post commented on Rotten Tomatoes: "Riddled with insufferable contrived zaniness ...it deals as deeply with mental illness as The Sound of Music explored the genocidal advance of the Third Reich." Yikes, I say. It got me thinking about film criticism and how, every once and awhile, it's simply okay to thoroughly enjoy a film without damning it for not being high-calibre cinema. I completely disagree with Thomson's comment and it made me think about films that I may have reviewed in the past that I maybe shouldn't have taken so seriously and criticized so harshly.

Joon (Masterson) and Sam (Depp).

For the record, I loved Benny & Joon. Really, really loved it. It's one of those fun, light, feel-good movies that leaves you feeling better about everything. Yes, the script is a little sugary at times and, sure, it does overdo it on the quirkiness factor. However, I think there are certain movies that should get a pass when it comes to hardcore film criticism. Movies like Benny & Joon don't profess to be Oscar-calibre masterpieces packed with worldly insight into great matters. It's entertainment; a distraction that just so happens to have really lovely performances from the whole cast (especially Depp, who was nominated for a Golden Globe for his role). As Roger Ebert said in his favourable review of the film: "The movie suggests that love and magic can overcome mental illness and, at least for the length of the film, I was prepared to accept that. Much of the credit goes to Depp, who takes a character who may have seemed unplayable on paper, and makes him into the kind of enchanter who might be able to heal Joon." Here's Ebert, arguably the most famous film critic working today, and he responded favourably to Benny & Joon, despite its numerous flaws.

The audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes is at 85%, which is incredibly positive. The critical rating is lower, at 73% -- but that's still not too bad. Overall, it would seem the majority of people enjoyed the film. That being said, I'm sure everyone will agree that it's not exactly anywhere near one of the greatest films over made -- but it did what it set out to do; entertain.

I know there are a lot of people out there who hate film critics and think they shouldn't exist. I know people personally who say that it's one of the most useless occupations because it ultimately has little influence as to whether or not a person winds up seeing a certain film. While this may be true to a certain extent, I'm of the opinion that all art forms should be fairly criticized so that they can be discussed and studied. How else will we learn to form opinions, share our ideas and talk about popular culture without art criticism, in all its forms?

So, I guess my question to you is: Should some movies be exempt from serious film criticism? Or, if not exempt completely, should they be rated differently than certain higher quality films?

Movie Review: Super 8

2011-06-12T11:36:00.000-07:00

Super 8 (2011)
Directed By: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Kyle Chandler and Ron Eldard

This film has been hyped as E.T. meets The Goonies -- and this is precisely one of the biggest problems with Super 8, the big budget blockbuster produced by Steven Spielberg and directed by Lost creator, J.J. Abrams. It's trying to be too many things at once and, ultimately, the end result is one big mess of a film.

Set in a fictional Ohio town in 1979, the film opens with the revelation that young Joe (Joel Courtney) has lost his mother in a freak accident at her place of work. Four months later, he's slowly moving on with his life and preparing to enter a kids short film contest with his three best buddies, led by "director" Charles (Riley Griffiths). Using Super 8 technology to film a zombie movie, the boys recruit Alice (Elle Fanning) to play the lone female role in an attempt to add a little emotional depth to the film. Joe and Alice aren't supposed to hang out together, though, as Joe's father, Jackson (Kyle Chandler) blames Alice's father, Louis (Ron Eldard) for his wife's accident. But the two feuding father's are inevitably thrown together when Joe, Alice and their friends witness an epic train crash in the middle of the night and get caught up in the government's cover-up of a really messy, loud, unseen creature.

The first half of Super 8 is enjoyable and holds a lot of potential -- but it just never delivers on the thrills it promises. The film is enveloped in nostalgia and, if nothing else, Abrams paid great attention to detail when it came to the setting and overall atmosphere. It felt like those 1970s Spielberg hits like Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. And, with the exception of a couple of modern words kids weren't likely saying in 1979 ("douche", anyone?), Super 8 is ultimately an homage to those classic summer blockbusters from back in the day. It would seem that everything would be headed in the right direction for this to be the major hit of the summer. However, Abrams tries to make Super 8 too many different things at once and, unlike Spielberg, he's unable to pull it off successfully.

Chandler, Courtney, Fanning and Eldard in Super 8.

One of the biggest disappointments is the "big reveal" of the creature that is terrorizing this small Ohio town. The whole first half of the film leaves you anxious to find out what exactly this creature wants and what it is capable of. Abrams builds tension by not letting the viewer know what direction the movie is headed in. But, once we hit the halfway mark, all of that goes downhill. Not only are the viewers left knowing very little about the creature, but when you do actually get to see it, you're likely going to wish that you hadn't. It's a combination of really laughable CGI and one of the worst "kid meets creature" scenes you are ever likely to see. Abrams doesn't pull off emotional cheese quite like Spielberg and Super 8 suffers because of it. The whole second half of the film, specifically the final 20 minutes, are painful to watch. The end result is that it's less of an homage to monster flicks and Spielberg epics and more of a major disappointment.

Unlike other uneven Hollywood blockbusters, watching Super 8 steadily decline in quality as the film progresses is harder to watch simply because it had started off with so much potential. There's a really, really great film in there somewhere, but it gets lost and muddled by a script that wants to be too many different things at once.

The strongest feature of the film? The cast. Newcomer Joel Courtney is a wonderfully natural young actor and he's more than capable of carrying the entire film on his tiny shoulders. It's safe to say we'll be seeing more of him in the future. Then there's Elle Fanning, an incredible actress and arguably the best performer under the age of 18 working in Hollywood today. She's all natural grace and charisma and her portrayal of Alice is that of a young woman on the verge of becoming an adult -- she still retains her childlike wonder while channeling her anger, frustration and loss as well as any adult would. The other young child actors are all excellent, especially Riley Griffiths as the bossy and hilarious director of the zombie flick. Kyle Chandler and Ron Eldard do the best they can with their two underwritten roles as the father's of the main protagonists (you keep hoping to see more a connection between Jackson and his son, Joe, and Louis and his daughter, Alice). It almost seems like a waste that such a talented group of kids, gifted with great comic timing and emotional maturity, should be wasted on a film like Super 8.

In the end, there are both positive and negative attributes to this summer thriller -- it's just a shame that there is more of the latter. It's just further proof that a solid cast can't save the ill-conceived script of a movie with an identity crisis. It's a mess of M. Night Shyamalan proportions.

FINAL GRADE: C+

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 23

2011-06-05T14:49:00.000-07:00

Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis as Daphne and Josephine

Day 23: FAVOURITE COMEDY FILM

I've written about this 1959 classic a bunch of times already. My obsession with this film has continued, unabated, for more than a year now -- ever since I watched it twice in one week and wondered why it had taken me so long to watch it in the first place.

Sure, it may not constantly have laugh-out-loud moments and it may not be to everyone's personal tastes, but Some Like It Hot has one of the cleverest scripts to ever come out of Hollywood, thanks in large part to director Billy Wilder and co-screenplay writer I.A.L. Diamond. It's so ahead of its time it's unbelievable.

The film is an absolute farce, with a broad sense of humour that revolves around a simple plot involving two musicians who witness a Mob murder and go into hiding by dressing as women and joining an all-girl touring musical band. It has a manic, high-octane energy -- everything feels as though it's moving in fast forward. Devoid of any dull moments, Some Like It Hot is as intelligent as it is hilarious. The jokes are whip-smart, the social commentary is sharp and the starring cast of Jack Lemmon, Tony Curtis and Marilyn Monroe are all impossibly perfect in their respective roles. The most startling thing about the film is that, to this very day, it remains as fresh and relevant as it was in 1959.

Marilyn Monroe as Sugar.

How many films of the 1950s and early-1960s openly challenged traditional gender roles and sexuality the way Some Like It Hot did so effectively? The first time I watched it I was blown away by the fact that it even managed to bypass the rigid Hollywood Motion Picture Production Code censorship guidelines. With it's jokes about gender identity, sex and Jack Lemmon's character openly embracing and revelling in his new life as Daphne (even going so far as to accept a marriage proposal from the millionaire Osgood Fielding III), it's amazing that the film even went on to become a monster hit in 1959. Hollywood executives were left reeling, but the film remains a classic -- one of those genuinely superb films that actually deserves the laurels and praise of being labelled a 'comedy classic.'

Some of my previous entries about Some Like It Hot:
(1) 30 Day Movie Meme Day 16: Favourite Quote
(2) Hollywood Tidbits: Some Like It Hot Part I.
(3) Hollywood Tidbits: Some Like It Hot Part II.

Movie Review: The Hangover 2

2011-05-30T08:53:00.000-07:00

The Hangover 2 (2011)
Directed By: Todd Phillips
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha and Ken Jeong

Have you seen 2009's The Hangover? If so, than I can assure you that you can go through the rest of your film-loving life without having seen The Hangover 2 without missing a thing. Both films are so identical that the only real differences are the location (moving from Las Vegas to Thailand) and the groom-to-be (now it's Ed Helms' nice-guy dentist, Stu).

The "Wolf Pack" is reunited for the upcoming nuptials of Stu (Ed Helms) and his bride, Lauren (Jamie Chung). Originally from Thailand, where most of her family still resides, Lauren prefers the wedding to be located in her home country, so Stu gathers together his closest friends and relatives to make the trek overseas. After the Las Vegas debacle two years ago, Stu prefers a Bachelor Brunch -- no alcohol, just coffee and eggs. But, when a campfire get-together with his pals Phil (Bradley Cooper), Doug (Justin Bartha), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and the bride's 16-year-old brother, Teddy (Mason Lee), takes a turn for the worse the gang finds themselves lost in Bangkok with a drugged up Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong, reprising his role from the first film) and a cigarette-smoking monkey as their only companions.

There's not much to say about this film, a literal rehash of the 2009 surprise blockbuster hit. Clearly nothing more than a summer cash-grab by studio executives, The Hangover 2 has few laughs and, more than anything else, leaves the viewer with a severe case of deja-vu.

Although the film has a couple of funny moments, for the most part the script contains only a barrage of swearing and a couple of cringe-worthy racist and homophobic remarks. The first half of the film moves forward at a rapid-fire pace; however, by the second hour the plot drags and you just want the guys to get Stu to his wedding on time so everyone can move on. Although the film isn't quite as atrocious as some critics have claimed (Peter Howell of the Toronto Star, for example, gave it only one star in his review), it's definitely no match for its much funnier and much more original predecessor. More than anything else, it's a disappointment.

Sometimes it's best to leave well enough alone, especially when considering the fact that The Hangover was embraced by critics and audiences alike -- a rarity for comedy films, especially ones with a premise involving drunk, immature men in their 30s. Alas, that's not Hollywood's style. Instead, they must beat a joke to a messy pulp, making all the money they can in the process, before leaving it alone and moving on. And that's a shame. With the monstrously popular opening for The Hangover 2 this past weekend (the film pulled in nearly $85 million in only its first four days of release), the inevitable third chapter is likely already in the works. It's safe to predict that it will be set in another yet another exotic location, featuring a new groom (Alan, perhaps?) and identical antics will ensue.

FINAL GRADE: C+