Stoked Reviews!

Well, hey there!

2010-09-30T16:57:00.000-07:00

It certainly has been a while since I wrote one of these. I apologize sincerely for the delay. I spent the entire summer without internet; fortunately, though, there were only a few movies that interested me enough to want to write about them. Don’t get your hopes up - I didn’t write anything. All you have to look forward to in this blog is a brief overview of the movies you might have missed already during this Season’s Cinema 10 Line-up. To be honest, it’s looking better than ever to me, and I can’t wait to see the other selected movies.

The first movie offered for our viewing pleasure was John C. Reilly’s new film, “Cyrus (2010).” The comedy revolves around the budding relationship he pursues with a single mom played by Marissa Tomei, and her son’s (played by Jonah Hill) passive-aggressive attempts to keep them apart. From the introduction of Reilly’s character, who is caught by his ex-wife as he’s masturbating, the film becomes the definition of an indie-Comedy. The humor is unapologetic and frequently touches on how real sexual encounters are a lot less glamorous than Hollywood would suggest. Reilly and Hill are a fantastic pair, exchanging awkward glances and hushed threats not unlike those in “Step Brothers (2008),” though this film more often takes the high-road. It maintains the typical “happy ending” that would appear in any other comedy, distancing itself from a lot of the expectations put forth at the outset; it is a surprising and sophisticated film by the relatively unknown directors, Jay and Mark Duplass.

The film that followed trumps their efforts by far, however. “GasLand (2010)” made me lose any remaining faith I had in the powers-that-be. The film is director Josh Fox’s open letter to gas companies and the politicians that keep them in control; it is his attempt to expose the consequences of the “natural” and “better” solution; it is his plea for a god-damn good reason. He wants to know why his home, and those of countless others, is being destroyed for the gas that sits under his feet. More importantly, he asks why people have to get sick on tap water that is so toxic that it can be lit on fire. Told through Fox’s strikingly unsettling monotone, the documentary feels more like a horror movie than a depiction of facts. Perhaps it is that the landscape he shoots feels barren and dry, burnt even. Maybe it is the pacing or the mystery. Whatever the cause, I could not help but feel scared for the people that were interviewed. It’s like they’re being stalked down some alleyway, with the glaring exception that the villain isn’t some digitally imbedded figure, but rather is something very real and capable. It is a given that every documentary film-maker means to get across a point; he has an agenda. With all that the public is already aware of, however, this seems to be more proof that we are seen not as people, but as numbers and obstacles. We are either meant to be bought or to be run down. It is one of the most successful documentaries I can recall seeing in my life, in the sense that I was hurt and angry as I left the theater. I’m not promoting piracy, but do whatever you can to get your hands on this film.

And then there was “Looking for Eric (2010),” which I didn’t see. Heard good things, though. Oh well.

Verdict: So Far So Stoked. Glad to be writing again. Thank you, dear reader(s).

Clever title.

2010-04-19T18:52:00.001-07:00

Sebastian Silva’s 2009 film “La Nana,” – or “The Maid,” for you non-Spanish speaking readers – is an awkwardly humorous drama that explores the life of an aging housekeeper that’s lost touch with the outside world. The picture opens on Raquel’s 41st birthday, which she accepts with a stern stiffness, receiving gifts and smiling with all of the enthusiasm of a stick figure (Ahem...) It is clear from the outset that she finds little to be happy about, and while she loathes her position, it is the only comfort she knows. And so Raquel paces the house and takes after children that she considers her own, making no verbal complaints and opts instead for the passive-aggressive route. In addition to doing the dishes and laundry, she takes it upon herself to tattle on the masturbatory habits of the son and terrorize the eldest daughter’s study-induced slumber. Needless to say, this creates some tension amongst the family members, which in turn causes more problems for Raquel, etc. etc. Making life hell for everybody proves to be too much and eventually Raquel collapses, turning herself into a heap of exhaustion. Then - although she’s been rotten to her adopted family - they hire on some new help that’s sure to relieve some of her stress. Instead of welcoming some much-needed relaxation, she retaliates by insisting her health and making life hell for each of the new maids. I could say that she finds a metaphor for her life by repeatedly locking every maid outside and turning a deaf ear to their cries from the garden, but I don’t think this movie calls for any of that. Really, all Raquel looks for during the first half of this film is a friend; not a child that she can admire or an employer, but a friend with whom she can share even the simplest of conversations that don’t revolve around the dirty clothes or the placement of pans. She finds this in the third maid, Lucy, who forces her kindness (/nudity) and refuses to be turned away by Raquel’s desires to eat alone. The two grow closer as the film comes to an end, and Raquel begins to take steps to ensure her own happiness.

The film is somewhat touching and lighthearted, but doesn’t offer many layers. It’s much more of a comedy than it is a dramatic piece, and I think the advertisement for this film suggests otherwise. The title – while appropriate – is slightly cryptic, as is the trailer that accompanies it. With dark color schemes and increasingly malicious behavior that’s riddled with a subtle kind of humor that’s anything but overt, I was expecting to be caught off guard by violence. This never comes though, and I suppose that’s a good thing. It’s the kind of movie that a person can laugh at and enjoy in the moment, but probably won’t seek out to view multiple times. I don’t think any of the content warrants or necessitates that. Raquel’s character is easily digested; she’s a hard-nosed bitch that has been stuck inside another family's home for so long that she is apt to avoid cordiality and the bright colors of the world outside. She is certainly well rounded; though her mindset is static, her character is not. She changes throughout the course of the feature, and we finally see her loosen up and find a comfortable rhythm during the last minutes of the movie. Many of the others who are introduced are left to stand on their own with only a few lines or camera shots, however. It’s not that these characters are wholly under-developed, it’s just that maybe their numbers are too great. Clearly this suggests that Raquel is inundated with a flood of people, but maybe it’s too much for the audience. I wasn’t put off necessarily, but only the four characters I mentioned had any real effect on me.

Verdict: Stoked with a lowercase "s." This has got a high rating on IMDb, and I can see why: it is a quality film with interesting characters and an unconventional shooting style. It’s funny and surprising and the casting was wonderful, even with the younger actors. As a whole film, though, "La Nana" is mostly surface and doesn’t offer anything you’ll need to ponder for hours on end.

Crystal Meth Tweakers (Spoilers ahead):

2010-04-13T23:18:00.000-07:00

I’m told I missed something in Werner Herzog’s rendition of "The Bad Lieutenant (2009)". A friend said that all of his other films have quirky, weirdly humorous parts that seem out of place but aren’t, and I’m willing to accept that. I was certainly entertained by this film and never once did I find myself dozing off or wondering what was going on in the other parts of the theater. In that sense, the film is an achievement. But I’m just not sure how great of a film it is otherwise; is it fine cinema or just pulp?

The primary issue with this film is that the conflict seems to be detached and insignificant; it comes into play only in the last ten minutes (which are phenomenal). This is because everything comes so easily to Nicolas Cage’s character, Terence McDonagh. That is not to say that no problems arise during the course of the film. McDonagh is plagued with back pain that causes him to seek out prescription and illegal drugs, both of which he abuses. He’s also forced to deal with an alcoholic father and a prostitute girlfriend who gets him in debt with some scumbags. To top it all off, he’s a raging gambling addict who cannot control himself, feeling sure that his next big win is one game away despite his horrible track record. For a normally functioning human being, this might seem like a downward spiral, but McDonagh seems completely unaffected by all of it. He remains calm and scheming throughout, and maybe that’s what Herzog’s message is: the junkie’s only real concern is his next score, and if everything falls to pieces around him, then so be it. Still – I’m not sure, in a cinematic sense – if I buy into this. By making any real conflict unimportant, Herzog fails to create a sense of tension and drama. In other films about junkies, like Danny Boyle’s masterpiece, "Trainspotting (1996)", there absolutely is a sense of fear and dread; we sympathize with the protagonist and cringe when he’s in the grips of his withdrawal-induced hallucinations. However, with Bad Lieutenant, there’s never a point where things don’t seem like they’re going to work out. It’s as if we’re watching an addict’s humorous and absurd dance with indifference, but the picture is out of focus. We can’t see whom we are watching and so we don’t know why we should care. In the end, it all works out just as McDonagh had apparently planned; every character with whom he is even remotely at odds comes crawling at his feet, rejoicing over the wonderful things he has done.

On the last few minutes: Flawed as the film which precedes them may be, the last two scenes of this film, which show us McDonagh before a table of cocaine and then at an aquarium, are brilliant. Pressed against a tank filled with sharks, he laughs at himself and the film goes black; it’s all some sort of sick, inescapable joke to the lieutenant. These last two scenes are the heart of the conflict – we see that Terrence will never change and that’s all there is to it. It’s tragic here but nowhere else – and if so, only in retrospect.

Verdict: Almost Stoked. The more I think about it, the more I liked this movie. I would watch it again if only because I feel that there are some things I probably missed as my friend has suggested. What I don’t need to see again is the lingering and drawn out shots of the different reptiles with which McDonagh shares a tweaked-out connection.

Sorry!

2010-03-31T00:05:00.001-07:00

Unfortunately, I won't be able to provide my three or four faithful readers with a review of this week's latest Cinema 10 film, "Coco avant Chanel (2009)." I was only able to watch part of the movie, so I won't comment on what I did see. I'll try to put some other review up here in place of this one, as there won't be a Cinema 10 screening next week. Sorry to anyone that I've deeply hurt!

God I Love South Park

2010-03-23T22:35:00.000-07:00

I'm trying to keep up to date with these reviews, but life seems to be getting in the way a little bit. So I apologize that these aren't as frequent as they could be. I plan on writing reviews for older movies, as well, but I guess I'm too busy to start up with that just yet. But anyway, here's some more food for thought:

It seemed like Cinema 10 had its biggest audience on Monday for the screening of the Academy Award Winning film "The Cove (2009)." People that I didn't think had any interest in attending independent film turned out in droves, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's the allure of the Academy's distinction. Or maybe people just really dig on dolphins and dolphin killing. Either way, I'm not sure that anyone walked away disappointed. I know that I had my reservations; activist films are often subject to some negative connotations and I was worried that this would be an hour and a half of how dolphins are the greatest creatures on the planet. Though the dolphin love provided the basis for this entire documentary, it wasn't a gushy, lovesong to our cetacean friends.

On the contrary, the documentary used a plot that at times reminded me of Hollywood thrillers, particularly the footage of the covert operation to place recording equipment at the sight of the dolphin slaughter. Much of the screen time was taken up by dolphin-trainer-turned-activist Ric O'Barry as he lamented his role in popularizing dolphins and thus creating a market for their services and meat. This film was clearly a very personal endeavor for O'Barry and the director, but O'Barry definitely steals the screen as he tries over and over again to make up for the colossal wrong he feels he has committed against the world.

More importantly, "The Cove" is influential and effective. The ending message to "Text DOLPHIN to 44144" is a little hokey and actually drew laughs from the audience, but aside from that, the film is serious and pointed, only straying from the central course once or twice. The Filmmakers undoubtedly turn the audience against the fisherman that hunt the dolphins and the politicians that enable them. And they don't have to use eerie music or menacing camera angles. Their method is simple: tell the audience that politicians are allowing children to be poisoned by the mercury that contaminates dolphin meat, which is being sold to schools as a substitute for other more expensive alternatives. Done. Instantly these people are evil mother fuckers. In the end it's all about money and corruption. The outcome of dolphin hunting isn't as important as the immediate influx of money. It doesn't matter that the industry is unsustainable and cruel and harmful to everyone, just as long as a few misguided people are compensated monetarily. Lately, it seems more and more documentaries are about the horrors of capitalism, and it seems appropriate considering the current economic climate. I don't think this is a theme that's going away anytime soon.

As I said, the movie only strayed momentarily to preach some dolphin love with a heavy dose of anthropomorphism. Is that the right word? I think so. I buy that dolphins are smart and share connections with each other, but I don't really believe that they operate on the same level as human beings. Obviously as living, feeling creatures, dolphins don't deserve to be tortured or killed inhumanely, but that doesn't mean that they are the super beings that the film makers suggest them to be. There's a great episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! on the subject that you should check out. (And if you're confused by my title, make sure you check out South Park Studios and watch their "Whale Whores" episode.) But what do I know, really? I suppose I could be wrong.

Verdict: Fairly Stoked, but not Stoked beyond reason. I totally understand why this movie won an Oscar. It's powerful, engaging and entertaining in the sense that it keeps you on the edge of your seat. It sparks a weird sort of rage in people that are otherwise indifferent to the subject. I guess everyone can relate and sympathize with creatures that bare the brunt of greed and cruelty, though. Go see it.

Bright Star

2010-03-15T11:54:00.001-07:00

To say that tonight's Cinema 10 film, "Bright Star (2009)", was anything short of beautiful would be a colossal misstep on my part. I can't say that my mind was totally blown or that I'm left absolutely speechless. If that were the case, I wouldn't exactly have much material for this blog entry. What I can say, however, is that Director Jane Campions' latest endeavor is a wonderful piece of art that might bridge on the "masterpiece" status.

The profound poetry that ran the course of this film about John Keats and his lover, Fanny Brawne was touching, but what made the film was the silence that broke up the emotional dialogue. On countless occasions since I've begun my college career, I've been fed a quote from an author whose name I've lost that runs something like this: "The hardest part about writing is trying to convince my wife that I'm working when I stare outside my window." This film captures this sentiment perfectly. Much of the picture is composed of shots of characters staring - gazing, even - at something or someone in the distance. The audience is forced to wonder at what they're contemplating. While much of the message is straightforward and precise, the audience must create their own meaning, just like they must with every piece of important literature.

Even masterpieces have their flaws, though, I suppose. The film is a little slow at the outset; the first few minutes are slightly boring and trite, but it unfolds into something incredible quickly. Every relationship presented in the film is significant and plays a role in the final outcome, and is therefore enjoyable and engaging. I was a little put off by the attire at first, as high class British dress tends to rub me the wrong way, but the film transcends the class war stereotype that is so often the subject of movies set in the 1800s and focuses instead on the conflict of expectations established in the aforementioned relationships. If that run-on sentence makes strikes a chord at all; sorry.

Verdict: Moving. This is the first and last time I'll sum up a movie without somehow using the word "Stoked." I think that while I find the word funny and useful, to say it now would almost be to sully what this film was about. I hate to say that "Bright Star" was moving because that's cliche and boring, but there aren't too many other words in my vocabulary that come to mind at the moment. Do whatever you can to get your hands on this.

Alice in Wonderland

2010-03-05T14:47:00.000-08:00

So I've seen "Alice In Wonderland (2010)" twice now, once at a private midnight screening and once at a public midnight screening. I'm only writing this now because I need something to occupy the time between now and work in a half hour. It's one of those movies where you get about what you expect to get. It's a Tim Burton spin on an old Disney Classic, but frankly, the original is much more entertaining and profound. This one just seems to be full of a lot of clutter that detracts from the plot. Burton's use of CGI and 3D effects is so overwhelming that I often found myself confused about the plot because I was too busy looking at something else going on in that scene. Even more troublesome is the fact that sometimes it's hard to pick out the focus character of a given shot because there are so many distractions. The best part was Johnny Depp's take on the Mad Hatter which was nothing short of hilarious and troubling, making for a well-rounded, enjoyable character. Everything else just seems kind of boring and undeveloped; what I took away from both viewings was that it's a three-hour movie crammed into a two hour time slot.

What I keep finding myself coming back to is the 3D element utilized here. People are paying in excess of ten dollars a seat to see a 3D movie that doesn't really use 3D to its fullest potential. Since "Avatar (2009)" came out in December, a new bar has been set. James Cameron used 3D to create a world so vast and immense and beautiful that it was hard to distance one's self from the movie and the real world. Plot-wise, Avatar sucked. It was the same story that's been told four hundred times over. But god dammit, it looked fantastic. It was visually stunning and for that reason, any movie that uses 3D or creates some sort of new world has to be able to capture the sort of wonder that Avatar induced, or else it just cannot compare. In short: I found myself taking off my glasses at numerous points and didn't see too much of a difference.

Verdict: Meh... less than Stoked. If you think you're going to love this movie, you probably will. It will meet your expectations, and exceed them if you happen to have your standards set pretty low. This movie's nothing spectacular and fails to compete with its animated predecessor.

A Life in Images

2010-03-01T19:33:00.000-08:00

Finally!, the theater for Cinema 10 was packed the way it should have been. I’d like to think that all my advertising and blogs and hype have helped a little bit, but that’s probably not the case. I don’t really care. I’m just glad that more people are coming out to support important independent and foreign cinema. I don’t know what compelled people to come to the screening of “Los abrazos rotos (2009),” but they certainly didn’t walk away disappointed, clapping at the screen as the credits began to roll. While it wasn’t the best film I’ve ever seen, Almodovar’s fourth venture with Penelope Cruz certainly waswas inspired, vibrant, and entertaining.

The film is a multi-layered and angled look at the life of blind film-maker Mateo Blanco who we instantly recognize as a charming and passionate dude that throws himself at whatever he wants. The other players are his production manager, Judit, and her son, Diego, who simultaneously propel and frustrate the plot throughout the course of the movie. They (and their actions) are, of course, catalysts for the change that must take place in order for Mateo to overcome the death of his tragic lover, Lena.

The film jumps back and forth between times and places, to Mateo’s brief-love affair with vision and to Lena’s struggle to help her dying father which results in being tied to a man whose obsession with her dilutes any feelings she could ever reciprocate. The refusal to focus is initially confusing, but ultimately deliberate; it feels like there are a million different ideas thrust forth at once - muddling the picture - but it all comes together beautifully in the end. Likewise, the film can be surmised in two brief moments: when Diego finds a heavy, full grocery bag in Mateo’s locked desk drawer, and secondly when he finally opens it, spilling its contents over a table in a jumbled mass. Offscreen, Diego begins the impossible process of piecing together the hundreds of thousands of torn photographs of Mateo and Lena. Onscreen, we catch only a sideways glance at the one picture that Diego has assembled, but it’s enough so that we get an idea of what Almodovar wants from us without his message being overt.

“Broken Embraces” is also a comment on the film making process. On the whole, the many layers create a story within a story within a story within a story, where different actions and aspects of each piece affect every other layer. The creative process is often subject to this complex relationship, so it’s kind of refreshing that Almodovar acknowledges this. Mateo’s blindness (and subsequent alter ego) allow him to take a step back and approach his art from a new angle, a frustrating necessity of all artistic endeavors.

As always, though, I do have some gripes; this is not as great a film as some of the other Spanish films I’ve encountered (Ahem…). Though most everything comes together, the plot does seem to meander at points, suggesting subplots that could have been omitted. There’s also a revelation at the end that is entirely unnecessary, as it’s hinted at nonstop for 2 hours prior and follows another revelation that is far more profound. I suppose I just mean that in a film that is otherwise so deep and clever, there are a few moments that leave me asking “so what?”

Verdict: A little more than Stoked. I'm starting to think that I should invest some time in Almodovar's other films. His ideas and directions are powerful and provocative, and he ends this one with the very profound suggestion that films (and art and life and love and and and and) should be finished, whether or not sight is a gift you possess.

My apologies!

2010-02-27T13:05:00.000-08:00

So sorry that I haven't updated this in a while. It's been a crazy week, but I promise I'll have at least three updates done for Monday, including the upcoming Cinema 10 film, "Broken Embraces (2009)." Congratulations to SUNY Potsdam student, Brian Bond, on winning the Cinema 10 Season Pass by listening to my radio show on Friday.

Keep reading for an update on how to win the remaining Season Pass on my next radio show, this Friday at 2 pm.

Soul Power

2010-02-15T18:12:00.001-08:00

I literally just sat down to my computer after leaving the theater for tonight's Cinema 10 screening of "Soul Power (2008)," a film that's been delayed since last semester. My review for the first film of the season took a few days to be published because I felt like the other things I was doing were much more important. But I could not wait to get back to my computer so I could write down my thoughts on this powerful, awe-inspiring movie. As a matter of fact, I'm currently in the process of scouring all free-sources available for James Brown and BB King music - something I never imagined myself doing. I've never really been fond of blues or soul or funk or anything to that effect until tonight. I wish now more than ever that this film hadn't been delayed so I would have been moved by this music before my last few months as an undergraduate. I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll actually say something about the movie's content.

"Soul Power" documents a 1974 music festival that took place in Zaire featuring the legendary James Brown, BB King, Bill Withers, and a slew of others. The three day event was meant to coincide with a heavy-weight boxing match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, but that was ultimately postponed. At first, the film is just a bunch of musicians and promoters talking about how important this music festival is, some interviews, and some footage of stages being erected and sound equipment being tested. There are beautiful shots of women carrying their children sandwiched between scenes of press conferences, while any type of music places throughout. This is all entertaining, certainly, but the film really picks up as the bands begin their journey across the ocean to Zaire; it's a plane ride filled with loud, improvised music, and more uplifting back-and-forth about how important the movement we're all about to witness is. From that point on, almost all of the time is taken up by concert footage, and I haven't a single gripe with that. Whether or not I had any knowledge of the artist performing didn't matter; each musician played their instrument so skillfully and confidently that to snub would surely be a sign that you hate fun.

I've found with Cinema 10 films that a common theme is the idea of the language barrier. That is: our different languages keep us from forming meaningful connections. Whether this is present in the film itself (between two characters from different-speaking countries) or between the film and the audience (an English speaking viewer reading subtitles and missing the subtleties of a foreign film), the language barrier seems to be a constant. This film seems to reject this notion, though. At numerous points throughout the film, one person or another comments on the fact that many of the musicians performing speak English, while the bulk of the audience is French-speaking. Despite this, they say that everyone listening knows every lyric to every song. They dance and sing like the music was written just for them. It is the music that brings them together and allows them to embrace one another. It sounds almost hokey when you put it in writing like this, but there's no other way to put it: this film is about people joining together through the power of music and the happiness it can bring without regard for race or beliefs.

Verdict: More Stoked than I have ever been. This is one of the best films that Cinema 10 has brought to Potsdam, second only to "Synecdoche, New York (2008)", and was by far the most fun film they have ever had. From start to finish, this film is nothing short of fantastic and wonderful. I only wish more people had attended so that more people would know about this great piece of art we have. Ignore the relatively low rating that IMDb gives it. Do anything you can to get ahold of this movie, and then find all of its music (preferably on Vinyl).

A Series of Sappy Events

2010-02-10T20:29:00.001-08:00

Watched "Dear John (2010)" last week at a midnight screening just because it was free and I had nothing better to do. How wrong I was. I absolutely had better things to do than sit through this absurd, plotless, meandering joke of a film. Having seen and enjoyed one other Nicholas Spark adaptation, I expected to be entertained at the very least. And I was, but only by the comments my friends and I shouted at the screen. Literally nothing happens in this movie. There are four hundred little conflicts that are as resolved as quickly as they appear, and a million loose ends that no one bothers to tie up. The acting is boring and totally uninspired (except for that of Richard Jenkins), allowing for characters that are purely surface.

Verdict: So unStoked, it's unreasonable. Do not go see this movie. Don't even see this movie to laugh at it. It is a boring, insulting, and trite movie that a friend could only describe as "A series of Sappy events." Fuck "Dear John" and protest the fact that all of his other books are going to get optioned because it took the number one spot over "Avatar (2009)" after two months. God dammit.

Amreeka!

2010-02-10T19:42:00.000-08:00

Monday night was the season opener for the Spring session of Cinema 10. Attendance was a little lower than I had expected, as people generally come out in droves for the first film of the season. People seemed in good spirits, though, responding well to Holly's pleas for the audience to do well by their garbage and to support local businesses. The mood of the film was appropriate for a season opener: light-hearted but somewhat commanding.

"Amreeka (2009)" follows a Palestinian woman (Muna) and her son (Fadi) as they travel to America to seek out better lives for themselves. We're introduced to them by way of their cramped, uncomfortable home life that is constantly interrupted by military check points and nagging mothers; it's a life that the viewing audience does not envy. Pathos is established here - blah, blah, blah. It's a relatively tame opening and offers nothing fresh to the cinematic world (though experiencing their plight alongside them is frustrating). Where the film gets interesting is when they finally arrive in America and are immediately subjected to culture clashes that make our pair long for the home they so desperately fled. But the politics p`resent in this type of film are set aside for the most part, and that's why this film is refreshing. It becomes less about a woman being of foreign descent, and more about trying to fit into a world that does not want anyone new.

Muna, a banker in her homeland, seeks out employment at any of the 400 banks surrounding her now house, only to find that the language barrier stops all her efforts dead. Naturally, she resorts to a fast food restaurant. Despite her success, she feels a great deal of shame and so hides the fact from all those close to her. Meanwhile, her son becomes involved in disputes with local racists, and the plot unfolds from there in a predictable way that is both satisfying and disappointing. I won't spoil anything, because it's a film that is definitely worth watching, and almost certainly worth re-watching. That is not to say that the political lining (which is ever-present) is so dense that it cannot possibly be comprehended in a single viewing. I just mean that the film was entertaining and suggested a political agenda in a way that wasn't overwhelming.

Also noteworthy is the film's camera work. It seems as though the film makers employed hand-held cameras for the majority of this film, and the way they utilize them gives the audience the feeling that they're not only watching, but experiencing. The shots feel as though they're from the perspective of a member of the family standing just in the background.

Verdict: Just Stoked. While I probably won't buy this movie, I would watch it again should the opportunity present itself. There are certain movies that are so dense and depressing that I can only condone a single viewing per year (Ahem...), and this definitely doesn't fall into that category. One friend said that this is on her on-demand list on Cable where she lives. Check it out if you've got the luxury.

Brutal Fucking Justice

2010-01-28T23:01:00.000-08:00

Ya know, everyone gives Mel a hard time. Maybe it's the hate-on he's got for one particular group of people. It's okay if you don't like Mel Gibson for that reason. That's just fine. There's one thing you've got to remember about good ol' Mel, though: when someone fucks with his proverbial shit, he won't stand for it. When he gets the word "revenge" in his head, he doesn't rest until he's got a scumbag's decapitated head mounted on his mantel. So to speak.

What I mean to say is that despite all of his shortcomings, Mel Gibson doesn't fuck up when it comes to his fictional characters getting what's coming to them. He proved this in the 90s (Ahem...), and is proving it again in 2010. Caught a midnight screening of "Edge of Darkness," tonight, and all I can say is that I honestly forgot that it was titled as such. I had convinced myself that it was called "Brutal Justice," because that's what this movie was. Everyone gets shot or run over or punched. And while there are parts (and conspiracies) that are mildly hokey (and utilize the hot words "turrrrr" and "turrrist"), the movie is incredibly entertaining. It's really just another movie about how corporations are awful and will do anything for money, but most other movies don't utilize brutal justice to the degree that Mel Gibson does.

Verdict: Brutally Stoked.A friend told me he couldn't wait to see this because he thought it was going to be comedy of the year. Certainly there's a fair amount of unintentional humor, but it's really only the result of failed attempts at one-liners. In actuality, this was by far one of the better thrillers I've seen in the last few years. I could have gone without "terrorist" and "threat to America" business, but that seems to be what movies use these days and it's not going to stop anytime soon. Mel doles out brutal justice with ease throughout the course of the movie, but nothing is as satisfying as his use of dairy products in the final showdown. Great revenge flick.

Youth In Revolt

2010-01-18T11:57:00.000-08:00

I loved Michael Cera in "Superbad (2007)". I think he, Jonah Hill, and every other cast and crew member of that film worked together to make one of the best comedies I've ever seen. And then Cera played the same character that year in "Juno". Then last year that same character had long hair in "Year One". He seemed to have found a niche in playing awkward teenagers, but after he knocked up Juno, I felt the character was a little played out. So you can understand my nervousness when making the trip to see "Youth in Revolt (2009)". But my fears were for nothing. Turns out Michael Cera can play more than one character, quite literally. While "Revolt" wasn't the best comedy I've seen (and it certainly was no "Superbad"), it had moments that left me in hysterics.

From the beginning of the film, Cera's character Nick Twisp speaks in a much more calm, certain, and intellectual manner, though he certainly lacks what could qualify him for maturity. His interaction with his less-than-gifted peers and family members is great, but where the movie really picks up is when he creates the supplemental persona in "Francois Dillinger" so that he may better cater to his lady's desire for danger. The character is fantastic, doing all of the things Nick's subconscious demands, rudely shunning his mother and burning down half of Nick's town to impress Sheeni. While often an actor portraying two roles is campy and boring as shit (and generally just the same character with two different sets of clothing), Cera's portrayal is hilarious. Nick and Francois play off of each other in such a way that one needs constant reminder that they are both part of the same person. Cera plays a cocky, risk-taking asshole so well that I hope he continues to do so in later roles.

Mostly, though, I'm just glad to see that such a funny guy isn't a one-trick pony.

Verdict: Just Stoked. I will absolutely see this movie again. It's been a while since my friends and I saw a movie that we quoted immediately after leaving the theater. Maybe so long ago as "Inlgourious Basterds (2009)." While out of context the quotes are fairly nonsensical, they are wonderful and funny, nonetheless. Like "Basterds," it ends with a line that sums up the previous celluloid perfectly.

Double Feature

2010-01-14T23:11:00.000-08:00

Saw two movies tonight, "The Book of Eli (2010)" and "Youth In Revolt (2009)". Had to drive twenty miles to see the latter, and caught a midnight screening of the former. Neither were the movie I expected to see, but I don't have time to write about either of them. So I promise you I'll do them tomorrow.

As always, though, don't listen to anything I have to say and go see the movies for yourself.

Non-sparkly Vampires

2010-01-12T13:30:00.000-08:00

Got a chance to see "Daybreakers (2009)" last night and as a result of sheer hatred for the other work I have to do, I'm writing a review instead. The trailers and tv spots expose the premise very well, and I wasn't shocked when the movie started. The set up involves a strange virus that's transformed humanity into a bunch of blood sucking bastards. But whereas with most vampire flicks, the creatures are the "others," they are the norm in this world. One large corporation for which the protagonist, Edward, works specializes in farming the last remaining humans for their blood. But, oh no! The supply is running thin, and it's up to some crafty vampire scientists to find a blood substitute. The acting and not-horrible script produce a movie that is less like its Vampire-flick counterparts of today and more like classic (and totally awesome) Vampire-flicks of another decade entirely (Ahem...)

While there's certainly a little extra cheese than necessary, it certainly doesn't use melodrama as a plot device like every other fanged release in the past few years. This movie's full of old-school Vampires with no reflections and self-destruct buttons implanted in places that only stakes can reach. Sure, there's the sex appeal, but it doesn't cause sexual tension that can never be resolved because the Vampires are 14. It even pushes the genre forward by suggesting a cure that has always only been the cause of destruction in the past.

Verdict: Fairly Stoked. I would see this again, but it's nothing to rave about. A little social commentary is tossed in for flavor, but it's almost too overt; everybody knows that corporations are evil. The message is a little played out dramatically. Go see it if you still have a chance but don't wear your Team Edward shirt and boots and hairband and gloves and eyeliner.

Whoa!

2010-01-06T11:00:00.001-08:00

Where have I been?! I don't know. But I haven't had internet for a few weeks, that's for sure. So I apologize wholeheartedly for my absence. I'll hopefully be able to get back to writing these blogs soon; I've got a lot of catching up to do. Saw quite a few movies (some more than once) over the break, and now I'm ready to praise and/or tear them apart. Stay tuned but don't hold your breath for the next review.

Disney doesn't really respect the people it portrays.

2009-12-11T01:00:00.001-08:00

I suppose it's my duty to write a review of "The Princess and the Frog (2009)". But I don't have time to do that right now, because I am tired as fuck. I'll write one tomorrow... er, today. I promise. Sort of.

I'll say really quick though that you shouldn't bother with this movie if you're expecting some new sort of Disney Plot just because the Princess is of a different descent than all the others. It makes literally no difference in the story. And the music was just boring and uninspired. The result: I'm pretty sure Disney is convinced that all Cajuns are mentally handicapped and that perpetuating stereotypes is okay.

No Cinema 10 this week/Sad face.

2009-12-07T17:21:00.001-08:00

Unfortunately there's no Cinema 10 screening tonight or for the remainder of the semester. Won't be another one until a couple of weeks into Spring semester. Sorry, folks. Looks like you'll have to search for your weekly dose of Indie Films elsewhere. Never fear, though! Stoked Reviews never sleeps! I'm going to keep updating this as new movies come out and I have the opportunity to see them. I was going to write a blog about "Everybody's Fine (2009)" a few days ago, but then I decided that I didn't care too much about it. The long and short of it: De Niro was good; Rockwell was good; the kids sucked; the music sucked. It wasn't a Christmas Comedy. The end.

Keep checking back for what I'm told are witty reviews.

Bored in Kazakhstan

2009-11-30T18:31:00.000-08:00

Tonight was the final Cinema 10 film of the Fall 2009 Season. While I love what Cinema 10 does for the community and appreciate the hard work that goes into setting it up, sometimes the films presented are a bit of a let down. But I've never been so taken aback as I was tonight. It's not that "Tulpan (2008)" was terrible; the acting was fine, and quite a few of the shots contained beautiful images. It just wasn't interesting to me in the slightest. The plot sort of meanders around for an hour and a half, and there's never really any clear indication of what's going on or why we should care about the characters.

The title suggests that a girl named Tulpan will be the person of interest, and she is... sort of. Asa, the protagonist, tries desperately (sometimes) to win her affection, and seems to have turned her into a symbol of change and complacency. That is: once he weds Tulpan and mans his own flock and yurt, he'll be a happy person. The fact that we never see her face leaves a kind of mystery, but even that is not incredibly engaging. The movie begins with Asa's first attempt to court the girl, which predictably ends in a less than desirable fashion. From there, the director throws in about ten minutes of lingering shots on the desert farmland of Kazakhstan and the family's herd. What makes this movie so boring is the lingering and the superfluous information the audience is given. The director devotes an absurd amount of time to the family's animals, and while I understand the purpose - which is, of course, to show the importance of the flock - it's just not entertaining. Animals are not really characters, unless of course it's a single character and his dog placed out in the wilderness, in which case the narrator only has one outlet for interaction. (Or, Ahem...)In this case though, the animals are so numerous and interchangeable that almost any time spent on them seems like too much. In addition, too much importance was placed on the family members. While they were certainly played an integral role in Asa's life, they, like the animals, were the focus of a number of lingering shots that added almost nothing to the film. A little flavor here and there, perhaps, but it could have been worked into a cohesive plot.

Verdict: Not Stoked at all, God Dammit.I fell asleep somewhere around thirty minutes in, coming to and passing out again at various points. When I finally woke to the sound of bleating - a constant, whining reminder that we were stuck on a farm - I didn't feel the least bit guilty. I had missed nothing, and the plot still made perfect sense because it was so loose and wandering that I didn't need to be awake. I was bored to sleep and missed nothing. If you see this movie, make sure you have control of the volume, or stay far away from speakers, lest you have your ears bleated and screamed off by animals and children.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

2009-11-27T13:45:00.000-08:00

So I saw "Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)" for the second time tonight, the first at a private midnight screening, and to applaud it by referencing the first word of the title would be cliche, so I won't. I will, however, say that it was wonderful and is certainly a movie that any Wes Anderson fan would enjoy. But that's also boring, so I'll be perfectly honest. I could not be more pleased with this movie than I am; having seen almost none of the trailers, and even fewer of the tv spots, I went in with a completely blank slate and came out quoting it from the second I left the theater.

I read a review in Entertainment a few weeks ago that gave it an "A" rating, citing that Wes Anderson's style and tone were expressed perfectly through the world of animation, so much so that the critic said the director should have been manning the helm of animated movies from the start. I was hesitant to agree, as I feel that Anderson's live action films are nothing short of hilarious masterpieces. In fact, I was a little taken aback when I first read that Anderson was going to be working on an animated feature. I was not convinced that his subtle and awkward humor could work using anything other than real people. But I had no reason to worry, it turns out. The jerky animation and extreme close-ups that help personify the animals, not to mention the Anderson-esque dialogue, makes you forget that you're watching something fake.

If you love "The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)" and "The Life Aquatic (2004)" but are hestitant to see this movie because it's animated, then shut up. Go hock the G.I. Joe 2-Disc collector's Edition DVD that you got as an early Christmas present for some cash, and go see George Clooney talk smug while killing chickens. There is nothing to worry about. Unless of course you don't enjoy this movie, which means you don't have a soul, and you might want to seek professional help immediately. Why? Each and every line in this movie's 87 minutes is hilarious, and as is typical with all other Anderson movies, there are a few beautiful shots that catch you off guard, that seem almost out of place amidst the humor, but are surprisingly appropriate. The soundtrack is much more playful than his previous works, but it helps the mood and progresses the story. There was something else I wanted to say... oh, yeah. Perhaps what I find most enjoyable about Anderson's expositions is how he introduces each character in segments that are almost asides from the storyline. This film is no different, and is perhaps enhanced by the fact that it is animated.

Verdict: So Stoked out of my mind it's unbelievable. I haven't a single complaint about Wes Anderson's sixth feature length. While some have labeled it a children's movie, that is something of a rushed conclusion. It's certainly more accessible to children, and a lot of the jokes will go unnoticed, and that's okay. But in order to be fully appreciated, the movie's got to be seen by an adult. Jesus, I feel like I just kinda droned on for a few paragraphs. Go see the movie, that's all.

New Moon

2009-11-20T10:31:00.000-08:00

Yes, I saw "New Moon (2009)," the newest addition to the Twilight Family. Let's just get that out in the open right here and now. And I wasn't dragged to it. Sure, it was free for me, and that's probably why I went. But I still went of my own accord and in a sober state of mind. And really, honestly? I enjoyed it. It was a wonderful comedy full of off the wall slapstick antics and pointless teenage drama bullshit, sprinkled throughout with delightful special effects that were eye-catching and believable.

Oh. It wasn't a comedy?

Well, then it was just really, really, really stupid. But that's not to say that it was terrible by any means. I'm not going to be one of those IMDb trolls that claims that it was the worst movie ever made and gives it a 1-star rating under four different account names (Ahem...) Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner were fine, if over dramatic (which is what the roles call for). Their acting was believable and not quite as off-putting as I expected. By their own admission (in an Entertainment Weekly article), this movie isn't about the acting. It's all about appearances. Still, though, they tried and displayed at least a somewhat vast range of expressions. The most laughable part was Kristen Stewart's acting. I've heard people say that she's a great actress, but I just don't see it. Ever. And I really want to, for a number of reasons. But it just isn't there. Maybe she's just not trying, but every emotion that she's supposed to have seems the same. There was literally no difference in her tone between begging Edward not to leave her and walking away from a motorcycle gang, expressing the "rush" that she felt from the danger. I just don't know how that's passable or reasonable at all. I'm not an actor, though, so I guess I can't talk too much shit.

And I don't want to gripe ad nauseam about the story line. There were plot holes and very clear issues with the display of the passing of time, but in terms of what people actually go to this movie for, that's secondary. It's all about appearances. So, why then, do the werewolves look like cartoon characters? Wikipedia lists the estimated budget for this movie to be between $50 and $70 million. The actors had to be paid, I guess, along with the rest of the crew, but certainly a substantial part of the budget was dedication to visual effects. Despite this, I'm almost positive that everyone in the sold-out theater this morning laughed when the werewolves finally showed up. Let's look at another werewolf flick just for a second. "Dog Soldiers (2002)" is a British Horror movie about a group of soldiers dropped into a forest infested with a family of werewolves. The creatures in this movie look amazing, and are probably the best that I've seen in almost any movie. And yet - gasp! - they weren't created using CGI. To top it all of, all sources indicate that this was a low budget movie, though none can give an exact figure. In any case, it didn't come close to the $70 mil mark. It seems like the creative geniuses behind the second of fifteen films in this Saga could have saved themselves a lot of money by going for a more natural look. Sure, there might have been some functional issues, like the werewolves fighting, but CGI could have been used a little more sparingly.

Verdict: Not Stoked.I feel as though at this point I've droned on far too long for a Twilight movie. It wasn't great, and it wasn't terrible. It was just a money-making, appearance driven feature that had nothing to say. But god dammit am I envious of that Vampire complexion. If I could be pale and glittery at the same time, I think I'd be okay with my life.

Cold Souls

2009-11-18T18:03:00.000-08:00

For the first time I feel almost at a loss for words over a Cinema 10 movie. This week was the screening of Sophie Barthes' first feature film, "Cold Souls (2009)," which I have been waiting for since the beginning of the season. It seemed like it would be a perfect movie. It stars Paul Giamatti playing a fictionalized version of himself, and that alone got me Stoked out of my mind for the movie. Add to that a plotline in which he travels to Russia to find his soul after it's been removed from his body. What could go wrong? Existential and maybe metafictional and you've got my approval, even though I don't really understand either concept too well. So why is it that I feel almost totally indifferent to this movie? I feel as though I'm not compelled to ask too many questions, and honestly humored the idea that I, personally, have no soul because I wasn't incredibly touched by this movie and its outstanding ending.

Looking back, I can find no fault with the story, the acting, or the themes. All were incredible. But maybe I wanted too much out of it. Having done so much research prior to the screening, naturally I had certain expectations. But I received something entirely different; I didn't feel how I wanted to feel. Reviewers and critics alike - yes, there is a difference - have drawn some parallels between this movie and other quirky dramas in the vein of Charlie Kauffman. I guess that's why I expected to be moved a great deal, like my last experience with existential, maybe-metafiction, courtesy of Cinema 10 (Ahem...) I find that such films can move me to tears, but Barthes' attempt did not. That is not to say that her debut wasn't beautiful. All of the messages were presented wonderfully, and as I said before, the ending was powerful in a way that I could never master in my art. Why, then, do I feel indifference?

I wonder if I did, indeed, miss something crucial. My brother didn't have to tell me how this picture moved him. It was noticeable in the absence of words, in the grimace that tried desperately to become positive. Others around me wore similar expressions, though I'm not totally convinced that they understood what they saw, either. The only conclusion that I can draw about this film is that it absolutely warrants a second viewing, perhaps a third. Though our souls can be condensed to chic-peas and easily contained, this film won't fit into any glass jar. It's much too deep and vast to be quickly examined and discarded.

Verdict: Not sure how Stoked I am. It might be an important film, but I can't say yet. Get back at me, or watch it for yourself. In fact, do the latter because you're going to draw your own conclusions no matter what I say. But Jesus God, man, respond to all of this and let me know. Someone set me straight.

A Christmas Carol (in 3D)

2009-11-15T23:49:00.000-08:00

A friend recently said that in a drunken stupor he stumbled upon my blog in the hopes of finding a review of "A Christmas Carol (2009)". Unfortunately, he did not find it. This is my quick attempt at an apology to him.

The story is one that everyone already knows, but this incarnation had a much darker feel to it. I was surprised to find that it wasn't child friendly, and held nothing back. A few of the images and scenes were fairly brutal, especially for the younger audiences that have been attending. But I don't so much care about them, as I'm pretty relieved that the movie wasn't hokey. It was hilarious when it needed to be, and frightening when the scene called for it. The voice acting left nothing to be desired.

What was much more impressive, however, was the utilization of the 3D effect. This is the first film I've seen that was intended for 3D; the only other attempt was the reissue of Toy Story, which was never meant to be shown in this way, so it jumped back and forth between 2 and 3D, ultimately resulting in a god damn splitting headache. This movie, however, used the effect the entire time, and I could not be more pleased with it than I am right now. While I was fairly convinced that it would be just an attempt to throw things at the screen for some cheap shock value, it was anything but. Granted, there were a few moments where gold flecks and whips flew at the audience, but it was used purposefully. At times where it was snowing on screen, I had to remind myself that I was in a theater, and that the audience around me had no reason to shiver. A scene near the end in which a surprised Bob Cratchit watches from outside the office as Scrooge dances was so deep that I could not believe that I was watching a film; I felt as though I had been dropped into the scene and I was intruding on the action.

Verdict: So Stoked. I firmly believe now that 3D can be a great addition to a film as long as it is utilized carefully. If the effect is your only selling point, so much so that the plot is lacking and wholly unentertaining, don't bother to make the movie at all. If used well, though, 3D can allow the audience to feel like a part of the action instead of an innocent bystander.

Saw VI

2009-11-13T10:41:00.000-08:00

Every once in a great while I like to post a review of something that's not Cinema 10 related. This is one of those times. I'm told that this blog is decent enough and thorough, but I'm going to keep this one brief. I think. I don't know, let's see what happens.

After work the other night, I finally got a chance to see "Saw VI (2009)." Sure, you could be wondering why I even bothered; didn't I expect the same gore from the other five installments? Absolutely. But I tend to keep my faith in directors or series for much longer than I should, holding out in the hopes that they'll surprise me or, at the most, redeem themselves (Ahem...) Now let's be clear, the first "Saw (2004)" was and still is awesome. It was incredibly original and very well executed. Its only fault is that it spawned six sequels (as Saw VII is in the works - and in 3D!), and those sequels have sadly failed to match up to the high bar set by the original. The fact is that as long as these movies continue to make money they'll continue being made, no matter how confused and up-their-own-asses they become.

This installment showed that the film makers have got their fingers to the pulse, dropping a Health Insurance Exec into a hell-hole where he's forced to decide who lives and who dies based on a formula he created. Meanwhile, Agent Hoffman is trying to tie up loose ends so as to not be found out to be the current proprietor of Jigsaw, Inc. Like Hoffman, the film itself plays catch-up and answers most of the questions posed by the other five movies. All-in-all was not terrible. The acting was what I expected; the Saw movies rarely have awful actors. But I guess the story just left a lot to be desired. I found myself just repeating, "Really? Come on," and wanting for their to be some semblance of the feeling I had after the completion of the first movie. It just wasn't very gripping or intense, and I didn't have too many reasons to care about whether the characters lived or died.

It ends in such a way that I feel as if there's no need for a seventh installment, but I know this will not be the case. My only hope is that if and when the seventh comes out, it's not just a cheap thrill that uses 3D as an excuse to get rid of plot, much like the last "Final Destination (2009)" film. Although I know the series is mostly just gore and is partly responsible for the infatuation with "torture porn," I can't help but feeling like the original minds behind this have got something up their sleeves that will bring the series home. I.e. - where the fuck is Dr. Gordon and why hasn't he hobbled his way back into my life?

Verdict: Not Stoked. Watched this in a theater with just four other people, which is to be expected now that it's been out for a few weeks. They seemed just as displeased as I was. What I don't get is that I overheard them saying that they had never seen a Saw movie in its entirety. Why go to see it then? Granted, the series has mostly been reduced to gore for gore's sake, but it still relies on plot points from the other five movies. Someone want to help me out with this?

You see what you want to see.

2009-11-09T19:45:00.000-08:00

After last week's surprise, I was a little more open to tonight's screening of "Everlasting Moments (2008)." Okay, okay, I'll admit that I fell asleep after about 45 minutes, but I have an excuse! For once my dozing wasn't the result of the movie boring my lids shut, but because of being overly comfortable and tired from such a long, arduous day of being a student of my caliber (Ahem...). On the contrary, my first encounter with a Swedish film was an enjoyable one.

Gritty and minimalist (in regards to the score), "Everlasting Moments" portrays the life of a Swedish woman, Maria, belabored by an alcoholic husband and the children he has her bare. Like so many other films before it, this one is propelled by the horrors of capitalism, and how it can tear families apart. Though a common theme in cinema, it is a story that is told well by director Jan Troell. The cinematography is also noteworthy, as it is nothing short of fantastic. It perfectly captures the Sepia tones present in photography of the early 1900s, accentuated by bursts of color in very particular shots.

Though I'm certainly not ecstatic after watching this, I was only able to find two faults. The first is the narration provided by Maja, Maria's eldest daughter. The voiceover feels almost like an afterthought, as it is prominent in the beginning, and reappears at the end. From the middle section, it seems almost entirely absent, though I know this is not the case. What is spoken seems superfluous; what she says we already know, or can figure out on our own, from the action and the dialogue already occurring. The only time Maja's grown voice plays a crucial role is the resurgence at the end when she comments on her Mother and Father's relationship; quite a bit is revealed here in only a few words. The second area of contention is with the ending. I'm reminded of the fifteen or sixteen endings of "The Return of the King (2003)," though that is a gross over exaggeration. The film seems to end over and over again during the last ten minutes, and though they're all wonderful, they could have been arranged in a different manner, perhaps ending with the snapshot of Maria being spun around in her husband's arm. But I suppose you can't change the past.

Which leads me to my next point: the philosophical nature of "Everlasting Moments." I think this movie bridges on metafilm. Or meta something. I wracked my brain in the theater during Maria's last scene with her would-be lover, Mr. Pedersen, trying to find a term for this. Maybe it's meta-art. If that doesn't ring any bells, what I mean is that this film could be considered art about art. It focuses on a woman's inherent talent for photography, and the things she makes using it. The film, aside from being about family life and the struggles of women in early 1900s Sweden, is about how art is created and the effects it has. At one point, Maria wants to sell her camera back because it's starting to interfere with her home life. She says she forgets that she's a mother and puts all of her effort into her art. As a writer, there are often things I have to put aside to focus on my fiction, and it sometimes is detrimental to my personal relationships. But it is unavoidable. Art in any form, even those intended for exhibition or wholly collaborative, is born out of a certain solitude. Working with a group of people still necessitates that each member participate in serious inner-reflection, and often must shut out those not in the group. This is Maria's quandary. She distances herself in order to produce pictures, and her family suffers as a result.

Secondly, this film asks "what purpose do photographs serve?" This film unflinchingly states that they serve as a window into the past, and are taken under the assumption that the current happy moment will be better than the one that follows. Each picture in this film is taken when there is an abundance of beauty, no matter how ironic. Immediately after the capture, something even worse happens, usually involving the husband's rage. I had more to say during the movie, and now I've forgotten it. If I had written it down (or maybe taken a picture) we'd be in much better shape.

I guess that's all. Thoughts?

Verdict: Not Overly Stoked. Another great turnout. I'd like to think this blog and all of my advertising is having something to do with consistent attendance, but I'll keep my ego at bay for now.

Next week we've got Paul Giamatti playing Paul Giamatti in "Cold Souls (2009)." So Stoked for this movie. Hope it exceeds all set expectations.

Magic wands aren't always where you expect them.

2009-11-02T18:23:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I'm wrong. Sometimes, but not often. As of late, I've taken to admitting when my mouth runoff is in the wrong. For example, last Wednesday I thought that the water being pumped through our bathroom had a disgusting yellow tinge to it, and so I put off showering as long as possible in the hopes that clarity would return. To my surprise upon closer inspection, the water was, and always had been, clear. I stunk for no reason, but acknowledged that maybe I should have just showered in the first place (Ahem...). The fact that I didn't shower has almost nothing to do with this week's Cinema 10 showing of Les plages d'Agnès (2008), except that my apprehension toward the water in my room was about as justified as what was felt upon entering the theater.

To this humble blogger, the description provided for the film suggests a certain degree of arrogance. I expected just under two hours of self-praise, scene after scene of director Agnès Varda talking about how awesome her life is and how influential her fifty-year film career has been. On the contrary, what I found is that the film was comparable to Ray Bradbury's "Zen in the Art of Writing," which is not a how-to-write guide. Rather, it is a guide to finding the inspiration to write. And that's what "The Beaches of Agnes" is: a glimpse into the director's life and how she has used her experiences in her art. It is a two hour documentary of Varda chasing her muse. In a a scene nearing the end, she films each living member of her close family, during which she beautifully states that she doesn't know or understand them; she just goes towards them. She doesn't always comprehend her ideas, but she follows and uses them to the best of her ability, often creating something beautiful and open, allowing for a great deal of viewer interpretation.

The film was not at all what I had expected. To be perfectly honest, I wanted to hate this movie because I assumed it was pretentious. And - as is fairly consistent in the art of assumption - I was mistaken. The audience needn't any prior exposure to the director; the film stands alone as a portrait of the nine (or more) muses. It is not an attempt to pat herself on the back. If anything, Varda marginalizes her role, though her soothing French is ever-present. Rather than make an attempt to flex her movie knowledge, the fact that she had seen only ten films before making her first is presented without hesitation. What she has chased and how it has been used is the focus.

I didn't find myself caught up in the quirky stylistic choices, either. Nor am I now reflecting upon the color schemes, or wondering at the use of mirrors. Their implementation is fairly obvious, and to dwell upon them infinitely would only detract from this film's purpose. They are unconventional, certainly. But the film's not about how unconventional Agnès Varda is. It's about how important the people around her are; the shots of loved ones are the most crucial and advance the (loose) plot more than a million shots of beaches ever could.

My only gripe is the use of special effects at the end. After we learn of the death of her husband, Jacques, a few shots have particularly strange overlapping effects. A shot of her back to the audience with waves crashing over her shirt is odd and seems like something out of a PBS documentary.

Verdict: Surprisingly Stoked. The audience actually clapped after the credits. Hm. Next week: Everlasting Moments (2008). I'll try to keep an open mind before I sit down in the theater.

Los cronocimenes.

2009-10-27T21:27:00.000-07:00

Another packed theater this week for Nacho Vigalondo's first feature length film, "Los Cronocrimenes (2007)" which translates into English as "Time Crimes." Thankfully, my viewing at Cinema 10 was my second encounter with the three Hectors, and I was able to appreciate the film on a new level. As was the subject of my last post, this Spanish film was a relatively low budget picture at just over $2 million, and it's clear that none of that money was wasted. The director even cut corners at appropriate - but never detracting - spots, particularly with the cast which consisted of only four actors, one of whom was the director himself.

The film follows Hector, a middle aged Spanish man, who gets inadvertently caught up in a web of time-travel. He finds himself chased by a strangely dressed assailant, which leads him to a lab where his only means of escape from certain death is in the belly of pretty plain looking tank. Transported back through time by only an hour, Hector tries to go home, but is stopped short when he sees his wife is having an affair... with - gasp! - Hector! Even though there's no technical difference, Hector feels the need to see to it that he, himself, gets back with his wife. Confusing? Only slightly. He foolishly and selfishly sets off a series of events that results in a deeply troubling, philosophical film.

Perhaps one of the film's strongest points is that it wastes no time trying in vain to explain the intricacies of the time travel it presents. There are no flashing machines or flux capacitors (Ahem...), or long involved monologues about what could happen if Hector interacts with his former self. Instead, the writer/director focuses on story and character, which should always be a film maker's intention. The audience gets a chance to see three different aspects of Hector's psyche as he's put through various tests of himself. We see - quite literally - his different faces and what each means to accomplish. In the end, though, his goal throughout is a noble one: to stay with and protect his wife.

There are two things present that are troubling. Maybe more. Almost definitely more, in fact. The first, though, is the overwhelming longing one feels after leaving the theater. It's a thirst that can only be satisfied by answers to questions that cannot possibly be answered. I'm not at liberty to spoil any aspect of the movie if you have not yet had the chance to see it, so I'll only say that I wonder what happens to the Hector we have at the end. Does he stay, or does he disappear? (On that note: the ending was perfect and beautiful in a manner reminiscent of "Fight Club (1999)" in which the two central characters find some comfort in the crumbling infinity around them). It's not a bad longing, the viewer is just left pleasantly unsettled. While most films have some sort of backdoor or solitary shot that allows for a relieving understanding of the film, this one is sealed up.
Secondly, the film seems to be haunted by the "horror" label. Maybe this is for the sake of American audiences, which differ drastically from those in Spain (as does the film industry). Horror has come to imply some sort of gore, and at the very least, a scary scene or two. You're not supposed to want to sleep alone after watching because you're scared of what's lurking. But this film has none of that. It's not scary or frightening, and is completely devoid of gore. It doesn't need blood and guts; it's not dependent upon people jumping out of the dark. It puts you on the edge of your seat and makes you want to sleep next to someone because it's suspenseful and thought provoking. It makes you want to share a bed so thoughts can be shared, and a comfort can be found in the blissful hopelessness that the film offers. Let's just call the film sci-fi and leave it at that.

Verdict: So Stoked! I could say "Great Scott," and it would be equally as appropriate. The film is surprising and smart and is nothing like I expected, which is said with something like an exhausted contentment. It's entertaining as hell as most definitely is a mental exercise. See the Spanish-Language English-Subtitled version if you can; there's a certain tone to the original language that adds to the film. The dialogue is minimal in the first place, so subtitles should not be an issue. Incredible turn out from the Cinema 10 Crowd, though I'm not sure what to expect for next weeks exhibition of "The Beaches of Agnes (2008)".

Oh my god.

2009-10-23T09:09:00.000-07:00

"Paranormal Activity (2007)" just got a wide release, and I had the pleasure of catching the midnight screening with a bunch of friends at the Roxy Theater. I cannot recall ever having been so terrified by a movie in my life. For the first time in a long time, we got to watch a horror movie that wasn't dependent upon CGI or gore or nudity, like so many others that are getting released for the Halloween season (including "Saw VI (2009)" which also played last night). The terror was in what you didn't see: the loud noises, the screaming, and the total absence of the ghost's form. Each time I expected the movie to pussy out and throw in a cliche, it ignored me, and went right along its path. Instead of wasting his money on gallons of blood, first-time director Oren Peli spent his money on letting your imagination do the work. He conditioned us for an hour and a half to tense up every time the lights went out, and then pulled that rug out from under us, too. I'm trying not to reveal too much here, so I have to be vague. What I can say without tip-toeing is that the movie let out around 1:30 AM, and my friends and I weren't comfortable enough to go to bed until 5 AM. Although we laughed and tried to ease up, we found ourselves in the grips of what could only have been PTSD every twenty minutes, as we recalled scenes from the movie that made our skin crawl. I would be listening to a friend tell a hilarious story, but I would be off in space, reminiscing about this movie, hypersensitive to all the creeps and bumps in the building around me. Oh, and still scared out of my fucking mind.

All I can really say is that you need to go see this movie. There are certainly some people that won't find it frightening and will think that it was boring. And that's fine. You're allowed to be wrong. Even if it's not your cup of tea, it's still a really innovative movie that's found a good balance between the shaky cam fixation and standard haunting stories. Its predecessors can't compare.

Verdict: So Stoked. Theater was almost full, and everyone stood outside afterwords shaking, but not from the cold, and laughing, but not because anything was funny. This movie is worth your money.

Too much on your plate.

2009-10-20T22:46:00.000-07:00

Food, Inc. (2008) is one of the better documentaries to be released in recent memory. Not only is it a compelling presentation of shocking, and often times sickening information, but it is also a film that employs a number of classic cinematic techniques to scare the shit out of you. And it does. Granted, I didn't leave the theater vowing to convert to a plate full of organic food, or swear off store bought beef for the rest of my life. I did, however, take a step back and just stew in what Robert Kenner had just spent an hour and half showing me. I knew going in that there would be some grainy night vision footage of animals being abused. I was prepared for that and was completely unaffected by it, as cruel as that might sound. I've seen it all before. What had me struggling to keep my dinner down were the mountains of overwhelming corn to which half of the film was devoted. Shot after shot of corn falling at the screen, or the camera panning across an ocean of corn that is destined to become soda and crackers and feed. It all boils down to a food industry in which there is little to no variety, with a handful of people controlling what goes into your body three times a day. The film did what any documentary should do, which is preach to the unconvinced and spark a fresh thought. It made me wonder why my family, after so many years, had stopped relying on our own garden and animals for food. There was a time when our kitchen was full of home-grown vegetables and home-slaughtered pig. Why had we stopped doing this altogether so suddenly? That I can't answer, though the film shows why this happens with a lot of families. What I can say is that it makes me, and probably a lot of other viewers, long for locally grown food.

I was excited to see this film, even though I was prepared not to agree with a lot of what was presented (as I assumed that it would be a message laden with organic-only intentions). I grew more and more excited as the theater continued to fill until only a few seats were left. Following the film there was a panel discussion about the importance of locally owned and operated food production, which strengthened the film's message by allowing the opinions of those closer to the audience than the flashing images. Even better was that every person left the theater talking. That's what a good documentary - a good film - does. It stirs shit up, throws a wrench into the machine so that people start questioning what they're doing. While it wasn't the most artsy film Cinema 10 has brought to Potsdam since I've been attending, I cannot think of movie with more a connection to the North Country. Of all the films, I've attended, this one seemed to have the biggest impact.

My only concern (and the cause of a certain degree of puzzlement) is the inclusion of information regarding the founder of Stonyfield Farm. What bothers me is that his story almost goes against what the film encourages, which is for people to support local farming and demand to know what's going into their food. While Stonyfield Farm produces organic only yogurt products, this does not mean that they have anything to do with local interests. Just because something is labeled "organic," does not mean that it comes from a small, independent producer. The founder says that his business deal with Walmart is a small step toward the nation becoming more involved in their food choices. But selling out to one of the largest (if not the largest) suppliers in the world seems to take away from the movement. There's even a segment in the film where the producers and Stonyfield's founder walk around a convention full of organic and "independent" food producers. But, as is pointed out, most of these companies are owned by larger businesses like Coke and Pepsi. What this means is that although the ingredients might be organic, someone is still getting fucked. Walmart sets the prices because they command the majority of the market on everything. They're still going to find a way to produce the organic food cheaper and quicker so that there can be more of it supplied to people as the demand grows. He's taken his business from something small and meaningful, to just another wing in the corporate mansion. By buying in, he seems to have lost sight of what the movement means. Am I reading into this correctly? I wonder, then, why the film makers included this. Perhaps it's because they disagree with his methods, and are showing his methods as if to say that this is the opposite of what should be done. Maybe I'm wrong? I would absolutely love feedback on this, because when I think about this film, I get caught up on this section.

Verdict: Pretty much Stoked. Amazing turnout. I wish the response was always this great, and maybe it will be from now on. Really looking forward to next week's screening of Los cronocrimenes (2007).

Food, Inc!

2009-10-16T19:40:00.000-07:00

So the plan is as follows, dudes and dudes. On the 19th, the Roxy Theater will be screening Food, Inc. twice, with a panel discussion following the first. It's a look into the corporate dominated world of the Food industry, and it's received really good reviews thus far. I don't remember where, but someone said it was "the film 'Fast Food Nation' should have been." Or something to that effect. Either way, it'll probably be busy come showtime, so make sure you show up early to get your tickets. Just because you have a season pass does not mean you are guaranteed a seat. Too many pronouns in this.

"She'd never looked so beautiful."

2009-10-06T22:08:00.001-07:00

The only Japanese cinema to which I had been exposed before this week's Cinema 10 film were the likes of "Battle Royale," "Oldboy," and "Tokyo Gore Police." There's also the slew of horror movies that have been remade for American Audiences. While these movies are actually completely awesome, they all deal with subject matter that's pretty disturbing. "Departures" was something entirely different. Made in 2008, it received an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, and I can understand why. Yojiro Takita's film work is nothing short of beautiful.

The film follows Daigo Kobayashi, a struggling cellist, as he attempts to make ends meet in a less than respectable position. After his orchestra is dissolved, he takes up the shunned craft of preparing the deceased for cremation. He is a blissfully awkward character in the midst of indifference and unfaltering joy. Though he's seen as something of an untouchable after he begins cleansing the skin of the dead, he finds some comfort in it, and eventually learns to love what he does. But that all sounds kind of trite and unoriginal. A person thrust into uncomfortable circumstances, and then coming to terms with his station in life? Been done. But Takita plays up such a parallel between the living and the dead, between what it means to be alive and what happens when we're dead, that other films that address such circumstances fall short. "Departures" is comic, yet sad; beautiful, yet dingy. You won't know what I'm saying until you see the film, as it is nothing short of phenomenal, so find it on Netflix or at Video King or whatever you have.

But before you do that, I want to say what I have to say, dammit! All I could think of in the theater was how much this film had in common with 2007's "No Country For Old Men." Stay with me. There have been a few occasions where I've started at my DVD collection and found pairs of movies that were opposite sides of the same coin. For example, "Trainspotting," and "Requiem for a Dream," would be heads and tails, respectively. Both deal with heroin addicted groups of friends, but while one suggests something hopeful, the other is somber and depressing. "No Country" is about fate; how the only real certain destination anyone has is the afterlife, and to what do our lives between birth and death really amount? It leaves the viewer wondering what all of their morals and ideas mean, and if they matter. "Departures" also deals in fate, but is much more uplifting. The film recognizes that death is the only true certainty anyone can have, but the departed here are treated with such care and grace that the viewer can't help but think that maybe it's a peaceful drift down that god damn lake of fire.

Verdict: Completely and Utterly Stoked.

The only real criticism I have is that this is another film that's a victim of its trailer. Because the companies seem so intent on showing you everything in the movie in the two minutes of trailer, you get a pretty clear idea of how the film's going to end a lot earlier than you should. Any foreshadowing to the ending that the film uses seems so obvious because of the trailer, that a lot of the surprise is used up by the time we get to the climax. Oh, well.

By far the best film Cinema 10 has brought to Potsdam in recent memory, certainly this season. The crowd was nearly double that of the previous week, and the theater was noisy with the buzz of opinions as the credits rolled. Hopefully the showings continue to impress.

Cinema 10's going to take a break next week, as SUNY Potsdam will be on October break. It will return on the 19th with "Food Inc." Can't wait.

Every Little Step

2009-09-28T18:24:00.001-07:00

I expected to be completely bored by "Every Little Step," (2008). I have almost no interest in musicals, and even less of an interest in dancing. Since that's what the marketing for the film suggests, I didn't go into the theater thinking that I'd enjoy the content as much as I did. As art should be: it was very entertaining, despite my bias going in.

I suppose it's safe to say that this documentary has been thirty years in the making. It mixes original recordings from the planning stages of 1975's Broadway run of "A Chorus Line," and footage from the original production with revival auditions and production footage. The first half of the film relies almost entirely on what's spoken in the planning recordings. We hear original director Michael Bennett discussing very personal details of his life; in turn, those auditioning share their stories. What results is an incredibly close look into the heart of the story. Cliche? I know. But these recordings, accompanied by grainy archive footage of Michael Bennett interviews, expose the meaning of the film. The filmmakers (Deo and Stern) induce a feeling of nostalgia, but not the kind of nostalgia that hipsters cling to when in the midst of the ever-retro original Nintendo or ugly Ray-Bans. The almost black-and-white footage and the reel-to-reel are moving. I can't speak for everyone in the theater, but I know that I wish there had been more of this. It's not often that I find myself really caring for what the author of the book or song or show thinks. Even with film I try to distance myself from the writer/director while simultaneously combing IMDb and Wikipedia for any sort of revealing facts. Art should be able to stand alone; it is the reader/viewer that should give the piece meaning. With documentary, though, perhaps the expectation is a little different. The audience is supposed to care about what the creator thinks. In this particular case, we absolutely have to know what the authors and directors envisioned and what inspired them in order to be able to grasp fully the concept of this film and the musical to which it alludes. The audience has to know that the only thing the director cared about was doing what he wanted to do. The filmmakers mix in just enough drama to make the audience care, and they most certainly do.

But it's not flawless. I know, I started a sentence with "but." But I'm doing what I want to do, dammit! After the first half, the film wanes a bit. I found that far too much time was spent on the audition footage, especially for some of the performers who were ultimately not cast. I cannot understand why there needed to be as much time spent on the first round of auditions, or the second... What was more revealing were the final callbacks. And the star of the auditions is barely touched upon following his few minute stint. Jason Tam, who auditions for the gripping character Paul, performs so well that he brings the judges to tears... and then we don't see him again, save for a glimpse or two at the end. Clearly he had a big story to tell, but we don't see any of it. Instead we're bombarded in the second half with minute after minute after minute of extreme close up dancing that's no different than anything I could see on a weeknight on Fox, which is the greatest flaw. The filmmakers have to cater to an audience that is regularly exposed to "Dancing with the Stars," and "So You Think You Can Dance," and "Dance Your Ass Off." And so there has to be some resemblance to these shows in order for a greater group of people to give a shit. Which is unfortunate. More attention should have been focused on the roots of the play, on how all of the original ideas fell into place. But I suppose no movie is perfect.

Verdict: Pretty Stoked (For a movie about dancing).

Unfortunately, there was a dismal turnout compared to last week's screening of "The Class," (2008). Probably due to the abrupt change in scheduling, as 2008's "Soul Power," was dropped from the bill. Hopefully next week's Monday streets will be filled with flood water, and Potsdam will have nothing else to do but find refuge in the theater.

-E

Cinema 10 - 9/28/09

2009-09-28T13:19:00.000-07:00

Tonight's showing is "Every Little Step," (2008) a documentary about the casting process involved for the revival of the musical, "A Chorus Line." Though I'm not big on musicals, this looks like it could be pretty interesting. Starts at 7:15 at the Roxy Theatre in Potsdam. Tickets are: $3.50 for students and seniors; $4.50 for General Admission. Hope to see you there.

Goodbye, Solo

2009-09-27T21:02:00.000-07:00

I wish I had better things to say about this movie, because apparently everyone else on the planet does. I spent a fair amount of time researching Goodbye, Solo (2008) before I went to the theater to watch it, and I cannot recall having seen a negative review. Charlie Rose had the stars and director on for a twenty minute interview that left me Stoked out of my mind for this movie. Roger Ebert said that Ramin Bahrani was the new great American film maker. The film boasts a 7.5 on IMDb. While generally I'm a little wary of a critic's opinion - and herein lies the irony of this blog - I found myself accepting what they had to say. I decided that this movie was going to be fucking awesome, god dammit. But sadly, I literally fell asleep, and have since decided that Goodbye, Solo's folly was not necessarily present within the film, but was in fact the praise that it wrought. Like so many other films before it, Bahrani's was the victim of hype. ...Solo could not have possibly lived up to the praise that it was given before audiences were allowed to watch.

Bahrani says himself - just type the name into a YouTube search and voila! - that the film is an unconventional look at the impossible formation of a loving relationship. It is an unlikely friendship that forms between our protagonist, Solo (Savane), and his suicidal counterpart, William (West). It's suggested that the film is beautiful and deeply personal, while simultaneously presenting ideas that are difficult to comprehend. It prides itself, as do the critics, on its implementation of amateur actors that provide the film with a more realistic feel than your average Hollywood Blockbuster. I also caught wind of there being a strange parallel between the film's characters, and the actors who portray them. All that's fine and good, but what Bahrani seems to forget is that a film is first and foremost a form of entertainment. In order for your audience to be able to consider the message that you put forth, they must be entertained by it. This film failed to do so, almost wholly because of the hype that preceded it. Again, I literally fell asleep.

How this film may have affected me had I not been exposed to the mass of information available, I cannot say. Such an endeavor is pointless; I cannot separate myself from the hype surrounding it, and so I must say that the movie is mediocre at best. Few films can live up to the hype that precede them. I can think only of two offhand: The Dark Knight and District 9. Certainly there are others. But when you hear a review of a movie, you never hear that it's terrible. What the fuck would be the point in that? That would not get you Stoked about a movie at all. It's safe to say that one should be skeptical when going into a theater. Though I told myself to put the hype as far out of mind as possible when I sat down, I could not help but be let down. The principal actors were wonderful, especially when one considers that this was their starring premiere. The supporting cast, however, weighs down the film so much that it's hard to enjoy what the leads are doing. Bahrani also has placed, seemingly arbitrarily, a number of lingering shots that serve no purpose. The plot is less than remarkable, so much so that one must argue that the film is merely a character study in order to salvage some sort of credibility. That alone does not save it, though. While many things happen, they're never very interesting, and if they are, it's because they're unrealistic, which completely negates Bahrani's intention of being as true-to-life as possible.

Verdict: Not Stoked.

More importantly is that a million and a half people turned out to watch the movie, not all of whom were required to do so because of class obligations. Which is awesome. No matter what they thought, people still showed up and talked about the movie. Whether they were bitching, or raving, what's crucial is that they were discussing it. No matter what I thought of the movie, the fact that I watched something with people in my town means I had something to talk to them about. Which is always better and more productive than sitting around watching douchebags get makeovers on some reality show.

Ultimately, see the film for yourself and decide, but make sure you talk about it with someone after. Otherwise, what's the point?

Cinema 10

2009-09-27T20:41:00.000-07:00

For the remainder of this fall semester, the blog you see before you will be devoted to reviews of films shown during this season's Cinema 10 run. Oh, you don't know what Cinema 10 is? Well hell. This is what it is. If that tells you nothing, then you didn't read anything at all, and I'll just tell you.

Cinema 10 is a non-profit organization operating in the frozen tundra of Potsdam, New York. Run on a volunteer basis, it is devoted to exposing our little town to independent filmmaking that our radar wouldn't catch otherwise. Each season, it features ten independent films from around the world, whether documentary, or drama, or comedy, that have had some sort of impact on the world of Film. This fall, they've arranged to show a wide variety of films, some with completely untrained actors, while others star the likes of Paul Giamatti. Stoked? It's cheap, so that should do something for you. Tickets at the Roxy Theatre are $3.50 for Students and Seniors, while Adult tickets are $4.50. In any case, what else are you going to do? Especially when October 5th rolls around, and you've got two options: a heated theater and popcorn... or MANswers and Pabst Blue Ribbon. If the latter of the two has you Stoked, turn away now. Find some other blog.

-E