by Andrew Jupin
There is no doubt that George A. Romero's 1968 classic, Night of the Living Dead, is one of the most important contemporary, American horror films ever made. The film was the start of a terrifying new direction for the horror genre and at the same time was a biting critique of contemporary, American life and some of the more popular ideologies at that time. The film was able to criticize things like race relations and contemporary familial structure, while at the same time scaring the pants off of audiences all over the world. It was also a great achievement in the realm of independent, American filmmaking.
Forty years later, Romero is still chugging along with films in his 'Dead' series after most recently releasing the critical overkill (no pun intended) Diary of the Dead. Here, Romero is attempting to stomp on things like television news media and the affects of You Tube on today's society. The problem (as you can read in greater detail in my review of the film) is that all the subtlety that Romero was once the master of is now replaced with endless amounts of obvious remarks from characters that don't belong in a Romero film to begin with. One of the great aspects of Romero's casting over the years as been his ability to select average, believable looking people to play his characters. The opposite is true for Diary which is filled with pretty girls and chiseled guys, none of whom seem at home in a George A. Romero production.
Well as of today, Dimension Films is granting you, the consumer, the chance to purchase both the good and the bad. Both Diary of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead are finding new homes on DVD. While the Diary disc seems pretty standard--special features include the usual rambling Romero commentary, and behind-the-scenes featurettes--there is one unique feature available which is a series of five short films made by fans and selected by Romero himself. Yes, the films are all about zombies and yes, MySpace is responsible. But nonetheless, they are certainly worth checking out.
But the real gem to come out of this Dimension Films zombie DVD release party is the Night of the Living Dead disc. The film itself became public domain years ago and because of this the DVD community has seen at least a dozen different releases of the film, all even worse than the last. You sadly even find the film crammed onto a DVD with at least six other films in one of those 'Great Horror Movie 50-Pak' things which is something so sad considering the upper echelon of horror that the film falls into. Well the great thing about the Night DVD is that it is fully remastered. This transfer looks absolutely incredible. The picture is crystal clear and the audio just crackles with every bone-chomping sound effect in the film. This special 40th Anniversary Edition also comes complete with two audio commentaries (one from Romero himself and one from select cast and crew members), an entire feature-length documentary called One for the Fire which chronicles the production and importance of the film, a separate Night of the Living Dead-centric Q&A with Romero himself as well as the final interview with Duane Jones, the African-American lead of the film who, along with Romero's casting insistence, helped break down race barriers in the motion picture industry.
In all honesty, if you're going to go out there and purchase either of these DVD's, make sure you pick up Night before you consider buying Diary. If anything, Diary is a rental. I think it's important to see all of Romero's films, but only necessary to own a select few. Keeping track of his body of work as a whole is important because the lows in his career, like Diary of the Dead, certainly give a whole new importance to the highs of his career, like Night of the Living Dead. And there honestly isn't a better edition of Night out there than the one being released today.
5.19.2008
Two 'Dead' Films Find Life on DVD
5.07.2008
Iron Man Starts the Summer Season on the Highest of Notes
by Brett Parker
Is Peter Parker too much of a winy wimp for you? Do you find Clark
As the film opens, we learn that Stark is the most famous and most brilliant weapons designer on the planet. He’s like a cross between Howard Hughes and Hugh Hefner. Stark is a carefree spoiled brat who acts more like Jack Nicholson in the 70s than a responsible war figure. However, things change on a fateful trip to
Stark has other plans for them. While in captivity, Stark builds a suit of iron armed with various weapons. He uses the suit to blast his way out of the terrorist prison and fly to safety. Stark is found and brought back to
As a superhero film, Iron Man lies somewhere between the complex drama of Batman Begins and the fluffy fun of Daredevil. Yet this isn’t a scattered venture; the film is fully realized comic pop that gets the best of both worlds. The film makes strong efforts to unearth the underlying human complexities of the material, yet it still knows how to have a hell of a good time! Much credit is due to the special effects department at Industrial Light & Magic, who make Iron Man’s superhero feats look fully convincing and eye-popping at the same time. The effects not only dazzle us but truly give a strong sense of how the Iron Man suit would feel and operate. No small detail is spared. These effects are way more convincing than the ones in Spider-Man.
Director Jon Favreau has not only proven he can direct exceptional fluff with Elf and Zathura, but his behind-the-scenes work on Swingers and Made also proves that he is an actor’s director. So certainly he knew the importance of casting when all these heavyweight actors decided to take on seemingly thankless comic book roles. These seasoned veterans bring more conviction than probably necessary to their roles, making the comic book drama all the more fun to relish. Its great seeing Bridges as a bald-headed villain; Howard will go on to make a fine War Machine in the sequels, and Paltrow is smart and likeable in the love interest role. I really enjoyed the affectionate scenes between Paltrow and
Even with all these great qualities, it’s ultimately Robert Downey, Jr. who is the driving force behind the film. It’s so fascinating watching a quirky character actor play a superhero as opposed to a hung-up heartthrob. Most superhero characters are usually so repressed and socially inept that it’s really refreshing to see one that’s a hard-partying wild man. Like Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean,
When it comes to great superhero films, Batman Begins and Superman Returns are still the ones to beat, yet it’s hard to deny that Iron Man is smarter and funnier than the average genre flick. Favreau has not only proven that Iron Man is more than we could’ve imagined, but
By the way, you know how some movies have an extra scene waiting after all the end credits have finished playing? Iron Man has one of those and it is extremely worth waiting for after the film is over. It not only features a surprise cameo but also a surprise plot development that will get you all fired up for a sequel. Like Terrance Howard, you’ll be chanting “next time, baby!”
5.01.2008
Vote in the 2008 Babelgum Online Film Festival!
The Babelgum Online Film Festival is the first of its kind, and provides a unique distribution opportunity for the newest filmmaking talent. A number of entries have been created specifically for the festival, proving that it is also generating new and original content.
Categories:
· The Babelgum Short Film Award
· The Babelgum Looking For Genius Award
· The Babelgum Animation Award
· The Babelgum Music Video Award
· The Babelgum Social / Environment Award
· The Babelgum Spot / Advertising Award
· The Babelgum Documentary Award
Judging Process:
· Babelgum users are now voting in their thousands and having their say on who will become the next big filmmaking talent. A shortlist of films will be reached through a combination of factors: users’ votes, the amount of times a film is viewed, the amount of posts and comments and the number of times a film is linked
· The shortlist will then be judged by the BOFF Jury, led by renowned director Spike Lee. The other jurors consist of film experts from across the globe, including the directors of established film festivals, film schools and film industry associations
About Babelgum
Babelgum is a new interactive web TV portal. Babelgum uses peer-to-peer technology to provide the immersive viewing experience and picture quality of traditional TV combined with the interactivity and personalization enabled by the Internet.
Babelgum allows users to enjoy free, on-demand and personalized channels, using both niche and mainstream content to satisfy individuals’ needs for tailored entertainment. Instead of user-generated clips, it features only professionally produced content spanning film, news, sports, documentaries, music videos, concerts, lifestyle and trends, animation and scripted programs.
4.26.2008
'88 Minutes' is, well, Eighty-Eight Minutes Too Long
by Brett Parker
Picture an Oscar-winning acting legend trapped in a clumsy high school production and you’ll get a feel for what watching 88 Minutes is like. The always-wonderful Al Pacino finds himself in a thriller so crude and cheap that we’d be laughing if the script weren’t so insulting to our intelligence. Everything about this film is a mess, from the acting right down to the music. When early reviews trashed this film, I asked “could it really be that bad?” Yes, it is that bad! This is hands-down the worst Al Pacino movie I’ve ever seen.
Pacino stars as Dr. Jack Graham, a forensics psychologist who, as the film opens, helps to put an alleged serial killer named Jon Forster (Neal McDonough) behind bars by testifying at his trial. Through Graham’s expert opinion, the court is able to find Forster guilty and sentence him to death. Years pass and Graham now teaches his trade at a local university. One day on his way to class, he receives a phone call from a distorted, threatening voice informing him that he has exactly eighty-eight minutes to live. 
This turns out to be the least of his problems. People in Graham’s life start to turn up dead, very much in the same fashion Forster killed people. Evidence is manipulated to make it look like Graham is up to something murderous. Graham believes whoever is trying to mess with him has strong connections to Forster, or in fact could be Forster himself. He tries desperately to figure out the chaos around him all while the clock ticks down to his alleged death.
All of this may sound like an intriguing plot, but 88 Minutes manages to fail miserably at every aspect of this production. Most of this is due to the fact that we are presented with one of the worst serial killer schemes in recent memory. The mystery killer doesn’t really execute a well-planned, precise death trap so much as hurl random mayhem in Graham’s direction. So many sloppy curve balls are thrown at Graham that there’s no way the audience can keep track of everything. It seems impossible for the killer’s plan to hold up. If we gave every development a second thought, we’d probably be able to see all the holes it truly has. When the mystery killer is finally revealed along with the big scheme, we realize once and for all that this enterprise is too preposterous to be plausible. I guess that’s one interesting way to look at the material: most thrillers contain plots around criminal masterminds. Here’s one centered on a criminal idiot.
It’s hard watching a movie where characters with highly-skilled personas make incredibly stupid decisions. The acting certainly doesn’t help. This movie is filled to the brim with laughable performances. I can’t remember the last time I saw so many unconvincing secondary performances in a single Hollywood film. These third-rate performers look even worse while standing next to Pacino, who also seems to be phoning it in. In a mediocre film, you can always depend on Pacino to add color and fire by hamming it up when need be. Here, we don’t get so lucky. Pacino is way too relaxed and casual, looking desperately like he wants to be elsewhere. It’s not a focused, realized performance, nor does it have the colorful dialogue or explosive delivery of his over-the-top fun roles. The only performances that work come from William Forsythe as Graham’s straight-forward police colleague and Benjamin McKenzie as one of Graham’s suspicious students. I also give serious credit to Alicia Witt who is competent while playing a character with an absolutely ludicrous background.
I found frustration at pretty much every turn in this movie. From the rushed editing to the distracting soundtrack (Backstreet Boys, Limp Bizkit, and Bubba Sparxxx don’t exactly fit in a serious thriller, do they?), it’s almost astonishing the ways in which this thriller fails. How they ever got a talent like Al Pacino into this project is beyond me. He may have had some misfires before, but even Gigli was more realized than this disaster. This makes I Know Who Killed Me look like a Hitchcock film.
We Won't Soon Forget 'Sarah Marshall'
by Brett Parker
One of my biggest pet peeves is movies about guys who cry over their ex-girlfriends. It’s annoying watching pathetic slackers whine over their girlfriends leaving them when it’s pretty obvious why that happened: because they’re pathetic slackers who whine! It’s this very reason that I had my fears about watching Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I enjoyed Jason Segal in Knocked Up and on TV’s How I Met Your Mother, but a whole movie about this guy balling over a break-up could have me groaning in frustration for two hours.
I’m happy to report that the movie is more than just that and is actually an enjoyable comedy. To be sure, Seg
al does do a great deal of crying, but as his tears dry up, hilarious comic gags and nice relationship scenes begin to spill out. The film isn’t exactly the powerhouse break-up film you’d expect it to be, but it makes a valiant effort to achieve that goal and you can’t help but admire it.
As the film opens, we learn that Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell) is one of television’s hottest stars on a CSI-type show. She appears to be in a happy relationship with her musician boyfriend Peter (Segal) who composes the musical score for the show. Things between them seem great, until the day Sarah dumps Peter for British rocker Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Devastated and heartbroken, Peter needs to find an escape from his environment that constantly reminds him of Sarah. His step brother Brian (Bill Hader) suggests that Peter take a trip to Hawaii to clear his head.
The problem? Sarah and Aldous decide to take a holiday at the same exact hotel Peter is staying at on the island. Instead of running away crying, Peter decides to stand his ground and enjoy his vacation as best he can. Pretty soon he meets a chorus line of wonderful characters, including the beautiful Rachel (Mila Kunis). As Peter begins to open up and feel better, Sarah throws some emotional complications his way and he is forced to re-examine the relationship that has caused him so much heartbreak.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall wants both to be a hilarious comedy and a thoughtful break-up film. Its biggest problem is that these two ideals often get in the way of each other. Its goofy tone takes away from the authenticity of the relationship scenes and those very scenes aren’t as deep and involving as they strive to be. Yet in its efforts, it creates some enjoyable stand-alone moments. While this film isn’t as funny as The 40-Year-Old Virgin or Knocked Up, it does hold some scenes of feel-good hilarity (a scene where Peter makes a “Hawaiian breakfast” is one of the funniest gags I’ve ever seen). The relationship scenes don’t exactly reach the level of insight and honesty as High Fidelity, but it has far more brains than most cookie-cutter romances. The scenes in which Sarah and Peter talk honestly about their relationships are the best, for it brings more dimension and sympathy to Sarah and makes Peter realize that he’s not as victimless as he feels.
I also can’t tell you how much I loved Dracula: The Musical. Peter has spent a great deal of his musical career writing a rock opera about Dracula…with puppets! A great musical moment comes when Peter sings one of the Dracula songs for a Hawaiian bar. He performs the heartbreaking tune with a dead-on Transylvanian accent and touching sincerity. The song isn’t just a silly comedy tune but a well-written show tune that could exist in real life. Even a performance of the show towards the end proves that it would be one hell of a way to re-invent the art of puppetry, much the same way Broadway’s Avenue Q has done. The Dracula bit is one of the most inspired ideas I’ve ever seen in a romantic comedy.
It helps greatly that the performances are focused and realized. This movie is wall-to-wall with funny supporting characters. Jack McBrayer, Davon McDonald, and Russell Brand all bring funny and memorable impressions to their characters. Kunis proves to be a gorgeous and sincere leading lady who seems more genuine than most actresses in this genre. I also admired Kristen Bell for doing more with the Sarah character than just making her a high-maintenance ice queen. Yet the real surprise here is how Segal transcends our expectations of the role and makes Peter a likeable guy. In spite of his whining and self-pity, he manages to not only be funny, but to paint Peter as a good-hearted person who wins our sympathy and even our affection. I thank the Movie Gods that Peter doesn’t resemble Mark, the pathetic lunatic from Ethan Hawke’s awful break-up film, The Hottest State.
Break-ups are usually a depressing and emotionally draining aspect of everyday life. Therefore, most break-up films leave you feeling the same way. What I liked about Forgetting Sarah Marshall is the way it had me smiling the whole time and leaving the theatre with a good feeling. Underneath the plot, the filmmakers cheerfully convey the message that there are so many happy and enjoyable things one can do with themselves outside of romantic relationships. While I’ve seen better films convey this message more gracefully, I admire finding that message in such a silly comedy and appreciate the filmmakers for reaching beyond their grasp. I could name you a dozen better relationship movies right now, but with Hawaii and singing puppets, what’s not to enjoy?
4.16.2008
The Flawed Feminism of 'Flawless'
by Eric Szyszka
Heist films set in 
th a somewhat uniquely albeit flawed feminist perspective. Demi Moore portrays Laura Quinn, a female manager of a British diamond company, who upon recently being passed over for a promotion yet again gets a little disgruntled. In this male-dominated society the only way out for her is another overlooked member of this upper-crust company – the night shift janitor, Mr. Hobbs, played in a rather jovial manner by Michael Caine.
It seems as if this is a formulaic heist movie that is trying to give it a girl power vibe which falls slightly on deaf ears since in order for her to pull off the crime and win one for the little people, she has to rely on a man. While this man is low-class with a smile, it still projects the under current of while a woman can be intellectual, powerful, and has potential for success, she still ultimately needs a man or some male visage to get any work done.
By the film's mid-point Laura's pro-active character takes a back seat and she takes the role of the audience. She merely tries to figure out what is going on. And so are we. Her objective is no longer a robbery but to decipher the intentions of her superiors as well as what Mr.
Watch and find out. Then think about how the movie goes from a perhaps strong female driven story to the typical thing the start of the film was resisting. It is time for a real feminist film that doesn't rely on a man; a film that doesn’t allow him to take center stage and become the highlight and main focus as well as point of it all.
The movie even starts and ends with an interviewer looking for strong women of the 1960's and goes to Laura for this purpose [beware Demi Moore in 1960 The Time Machine-like Morlock "old person" make-up]. Once Laura tells her story it just makes me think that reporter should look elsewhere for that strong role model. There are surely better ones out there than this.
As for entertainment value, although slow in parts, Flawless is an interesting story. It just seems to deflate itself in areas that could've been explored in more depth and better light.
Criticizing Torture Porn: Michael Haneke's 'Funny Games'
by Brett Parker
Torture porn is at once one of the most profitable and most controversial film genres ever to grace the local box office. With films like Saw, Hostel, and Captivity, young audiences are lining up to watch cheap and stylized exploitation films in which people are brutally tortured for entertainment value. Youthful audiences are paying top dollar to see these films while critics are labeling them as the end of taste and decency as we know it. Now comes Funny Games, a film that some critics are branding as the worst torture flick of all while I feel it just might be the most brilliant and thoughtful of the whole bunch. Certainly the film is aware of its own brutality and forces the viewer to fully understand what exactly it is that they’re viewing.
The film is a shot-by-shot remake of the 1997 Austrian film of the same name by the same director, Michael Haneke. As the film opens, we see a married couple named George (Tim Roth) and Ann (Naomi Watts) taking their son George (Devon Gearheart) to a summer home by the lake. This family represents your typical white bred, upper-class American family. Shortly after arriving, a young man named Peter (Brady Corbet) knocks on their door and asks to borrow some eggs. Peter appears to be a clean-cut kid with perfect manners, so Ann happily agrees to help him out. After an awkward episode in which Peter keeps dropping eggs, another young man named Paul (Michael Pitt) shows up. Irritated by Peter’s clumsiness, Ann asks both of the boys to leave. They downright refuse and after George tries to intervene, Paul breaks his leg with a golf club.
It soon becomes clear what Paul and Peter’s true agenda is: they wish to keep the family captured and play torturous games with them. They drop subtle and horrifying hints that they will kill them one by one before sunrise the next day. Over the course of the evening, the deranged duo will suffocate, beat, strip, gag, and shoot at the family in a twisted psychological fashion. The family keeps demanding explanations for the pair’s behavior but they vaguely give durable answers. It becomes tragically clear that they are doing this for their own personal amusement. At one point, Ann asks “Why don’t you just kill us?” and Peter grinningly replies: “You shouldn’t forget the importance of entertainment!”
Remember the scene in 1408 where Samuel L. Jackson practically begged John Cusack to stay out of a haunted hotel room? I feel like I received a similar warning from critics to stay away from Funny Games. The film has been getting whipped with half-a-star to one-star reviews on numerous occasions. Critics feel the audience faces more abuse than the tortured family in the film and a fellow colleague of mine snarled, “Who cares about the underlying meaning? There’s nothing entertaining about people getting tortured!”
I agree that the film is very disturbing and hard to get through. It’s an uncomfortable moviegoing experience, but it might also be an important one. Usually, I only get offended by an exploitation film when it is created in a cheap fashion that lacks skill or thought. Despite its shocking content, it’s hard to deny that there is skillful thought behind Funny Games. The film’s American genesis and self-reflexive nature make it obvious that Haneke is trying to make a serious statement about the torture porn “boom” in American culture. After viewing this film, you’ll realize there’s no turning back and it’d be too terrifying to move forward from here.
Consider the motivations for this remake. I have not seen the original Funny Games, but I have read in numerous articles that the updated film is a shot-by-shot remake of the original with hardly any changes, except for the actors and the language. Therefore, the original must be just as disturbing as its current incarnation. Why remake a sadistic foreign film for a mainstream American audience? Haneke probably sensed that the message of the film desperately needed to be heard amongst the current torture porn craze in
The key to unlocking the film’s themes are within the characters of Paul and Peter. Take a close look at them. Here are two clean-cut teenagers that are well-dressed with perfect manners. They are nihilistic and cold in the face of mindless violence and take amusement in watching strangers suffer. Could that perhaps be a way to describe the very target audience that turns up for torture porn? Notice the way they prefer hard metal music and snacking while observing their victims suffer. Notice how Paul is the only one who acknowledges the audience and even seems to relate to us. The similarities between these psychopaths and teenage moviegoers are not only accurate but frightening.
Like Hitchcock’s Rear Window, Haneke uses his characters to force the audience to reflect upon themselves, bringing a depth to how torture porn is viewed that has been absent before.
I remember giving a negative review of Hostel, feeling that the film was too cheap and cheesy. I thought if a torture film had a more serious, solemn tone, it would make for a truly gripping horror film. Be careful what you wish for. Funny Games is exactly that and is one of the most white-knuckled and fearful moviegoing experiences I’ve ever had. It certainly isn’t for the faint of heart and only brave moviegoers will be able to fully endure it. The big question is whether or not a cruel entertainment like this one is necessary. I feel it is. Haneke has used his film to highlight a cancerous aspect of cinema and force the viewer to question the morality and flaws of its nature. It’s rare to see a film brilliantly pick apart a specific genre that could ultimately lead to its very undoing. Plus, it’s hard to see how the film’s message could’ve been conveyed without going to the belly of the beast. While I don’t condone the film’s content, I believe in the cause the filmmakers are fighting against and I hope future filmmakers and American audiences will get the true message.
4.15.2008
New on DVD – Inside (À l’intérieur)
by Andrew Jupin
Back in 1988, Chuck D and the rest of Public Enemy were adamant when they told their fans ‘don’t believe the hype.’ I say the same whenever I hear people going on and on and on about a movie they just watched and how funny it was or action packed or terrifying or how absolutely incredible and unbeatable the film is. I tell myself and others not to believe the hype because everyone sees movies in different ways and there is no way you’re going to absolutely agree with someone on a film and thus will be let down time after time. About three months ago, I first heard of this film, Inside (À l’intérieur), and the hype was exactly the same. Expressions used to describe the film at the time were things like, “mind-blowing” or “the best horror film of the last twenty years.” [That last statement is obviously ridiculous because it means whoever said it never saw Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. Kidding.] I know I myself am hyping up the introduction in this review. You’re probably waiting for me to say something like, “Well this time, kids, believe all the hype you want.” Well I’m not going to say that. But what I will say is this: the hype comes close.
Inside starts with our heroine, Sarah (Alysson Paradis), sitting dazed in the aftermath of a horrible car accident. She sits, pregnant and bleeding, while her dead husband lay next to her. The film jumps to four months later; it is Christmas Eve and Sarah is still very much pregnant and due the next day. Is there anything more precious than giving birth on Christmas day? Don’t ask Sarah. The aftermath of the car accident and the death of her husband has left her very cold and distant. She is incapable of sadness or crying. She seems more or less ambivalent about the fact that she’s about to have her first child.
She turns down a Christmas Eve dinner invitation from her mother (Nathalie Roussel) in favor of going home, watching the news (the immigration protests in France are commented on in the background of this whole thing) and going to bed. As she tries to relax and wind down, there is a knock at the door. Here’s where you need to sit down or hang on to your hat or whatever it is you need to do when really terrifying stuff happens.
Enter the Girl (Béatrice Dalle). She knocks on the door, asking if she could come in and use Sarah’s phone; apparently she is having some car trouble. From here on, the film becomes one big game of Cat and Mouse. Or in this case I should say something more like Tyrannosaurus Rex and Mouse. The film traps us inside the house with Sarah and the Girl and for the next hour and a half, poor Sarah is beaten, bashed, abused and tortured. Why? Because the Girl is on a mission to cut Sarah’s unborn child out of her.
I will and cannot say anymore about what goes on in this film, nor should I. What I can say is that Inside smashes any sort of boundary you put in its way. This is not a PG-13, Sarah Michelle Gellar, J-horror remake; it is also not some sort of Eli Roth, torture porn flick. This is something new. An artistic, well thought out, beautifully shot, terrifying piece of cinema that will be at the front of my mind for a long time to come. It’s not so much a horror movie as it is a terror movie. The events that take place in the film are indeed horrific, but the situation itself is just so incredibly mind-bending to sit back and think about because, theoretically, this could actually happen to you.
The DVD does not provide much assistance in the way of any sort of justification for the madness. Everyone who participated in the production of the film seems very balanced, well-adjusted and kind. The actress who plays the Girl, Béatrice Dalle, is still slightly unnerving to watch during interviews—especially after what you’ve just watched her do over the course of the film. But all the filmmakers are very genuine when they say that they wanted to direct a beautiful looking film but at the same time wanted to spatter the entire house with blood.
Aside from the ‘Making Of’ featurette, all we are left with is a theatrical trailer which is funny because the only theatrical release the film seems to have received was via random Horror film festivals throughout the world. I’m not saying rush out and rent this movie, but for a select few, you may be intrigued. The first half hour is worth the rental price alone.
NOTE: In all honesty and seriousness, if you have any semblance if a weak stomach, please go watch something else.
Inside is out on DVD today.
3.22.2008
Youth Without Youth: The Multifarious Psyche of Gus Van Sant and 'Paranoid Park'
by Sean Matthieu Weiner
Stutters suppress self-expression as time coasts like a thick chocolate shake in Gus Van Sant’s skater psycho-flick Paranoid Park (2007). Having unintentionally committed murder, Alex (newcomer Gabe Nevins) wanders his hometown of Portland in purgatorial guilt. With a nonlinear narrative winding onto itself and Alex’s apprehension inevitable, foreboding lingers constant. A shaken bottle of angst and phobia, our skateboard Raskolnikov sits quiet and blank as his insides screw and burst. His vacant gaze becomes the canvas of Van Sant’s latest work.
Recycling quietness from 2003’s Columbine allusion Elephant, Van Sant sets his sites on psychosis, again focusing into the teenage mind (a mélange of dirty angels and blasé devils).
The story, based on Blake Nelson’s youth novella, returns the director to Portland, a setting that has become a home to him and his work (Mala Noche, Drugstore Cowboy, My Own Private Idaho). Van Sant’s homecoming evokes the experimental craftiness that established him as an indie pin-up, a trait that for a long time eluded him.
Park’s cast of lanky pubescents meander through high school, skate parks, and empty nests voicing their roles but never their thoughts. Challenged with these familiar kinds of mutes, Van Sant joins forces with cinematographers Christopher Doyle, Rain Kathy Li and invaluable sound designer Leslie Schatz. Doyle and Li blend the misty saturation of 35 mm with the bumps and grains of Super 8 and video, compiling an array of aesthetics that are magically grounded by Schatz’s ear. The goal of this multimedia cocktail: to ensnare Alex’s scattered conscience.
Skate videos have been legitimized, having influenced the do-it-yourself genre that began somewhere around Jonas Mekas and devolved towards the Jackass movies. Doyle and Li tap into this subcult genre, using the soul mates (board and camera) to employ their archetypal tracking shot with characters on and off decks. Lengthy tracking shots with manipulated motion increase the paranoia of our pasty protagonist while negating the spectator’s expectation of any real destination.
Aurally, Park is Hitchcock when anxious and Sirk when histrionic. Schatz’s sundry score mutates Beethoven with break beats and twists Gershwin to atonal screams. And all the while the audio selections never last long enough to determine whether diegetic, nondiegetic, or simply mental.
The words of teens cannot do justice to their emotions so they are systematically subtracted. While Alex calls it quits with budding flame Jennifer (Gossip Girl’s Taylor Momsen) La Gradisca e Il Principe of Fellini’s Amarcord swells and we watch her bubbly air deflate to scorn. Nino Rota’s venerated score expresses rejection more successfully than Jennifer’s unbridled tirade of “likes” and “whatevers.”
The resulting is a bold creation comprised of elements from teenager outlets (skating, ipod playlists, experiential checklists). Made of the things that mattered in youth; being a part of something and pointedly apart from others. While the specs change depending on the environment, the adolescent quest remains for the same thing, identity. Borrowing images and sounds from the skater collective, Park’s makers dignify their subjects with an accurate and perceptive miscellany of their own ethnic mediums and movements.
This recycling of the real is also illustrated in the ensemble. Cast from an open call on Myspace, Gabe Nevins (Alex) and fellow cast members’ performances are so jerky they might as well be read off cards. Italian neorealism’s casting of nonactors determined whether unrecognizable faces could capture a greater realism. Would the removal of celebrity and utilization of inexperience achieve something new? The floppy-haired cast of Park looks the part, since they are the part. But, it is Van Sant’s use of their inexperience, their delivery of lines, for example, that enhances the narrative by infusing it with awkwardness.
Neither, Van Sant (55 year-old, gay Kentuckian), Doyle (Aussie Arthouse Imager), Li (24 year-old Chinese phenom), or Schatz (sound vet) are these ‘skate… drunks.’ The triumph of Park is in the reemployment of parts of this authenticated subculture. The look, the sound, the actual members are all soldered to the story (written by a native Portlander). Not neorealism but akin, by drawing on veritable facets of skate culture a net is cast loosely over the teen psyche.
Is the adolescent identity resolved? No more than the plot is. Adolescence is identity in motion, and so the spectator can only hope to catch a glimpse of the familiar disorder. Adult characters in Park are placed in blurry backgrounds as if blocked by Charles Schulz. When brought into focus, parents are revealed ironically with indecisions and fashionable jeans. And when we finally see Alex’s father his sleeves of tats distract us from his bumbling about his divorce. Forcing the question, “Do we ever get it?”
Paranoid Park encapsulates a community of irresolute disciples. It just so happens that they are skaters. It also just so happens they are teenagers. They could have just as easily been any of us.
3.20.2008
Dozing at the Movies: A Review of 10,000 B.C.
by Brett Parker
I yawned a lot during 10, 000 B.C. This is curious, considering the movie contains an interesting premise, fun special effects, competent leads, a really cool villain, and an action-packed third act. You can always depend on caveman flicks to serve up cheesy fun, but director Roland Emmerich takes the production way too seriously and it becomes surprisingly hard to engage. If the film does one thing very strongly, it makes you pine for Raquel Welch when she donned cavewoman garbs in One Million Years B.C.
The film follows the adventures of a caveman tribe circa (you guessed it) 10,000 B.C. Their days consist of tribal rituals, hunting woolly mammoths, and speaking perfect English. The film focuses on D’Leh (Steven Strait), a tribal warrior whose heart belongs to the gorgeous Evolet (Camilla Belle). One day, tragedy strikes when a sinister tribe led by an evil Warlord (Affif Ben Badra) ravages D’Leh’s village and takes Evolet hostage. The Warlord is snatching up tribes to build a community of slaves that will build the pyramids. Desperate to rescue Evolet, D’Leh assembles an army of several tribes to take down the evil Warlord and his forces. This all leads to a climactic showdown of slaves versus masters on the grand Pyramids set piece.
The effects here mainly consist of CGI creatures (mammoths, saber-toothed tigers) that look no more real than Shrek, yet have a fun quality about them that makes it all tolerable. I especially liked a set of giant birds that gobble cavemen in a giant green jungle. As for the dreamy cavewoman formula, Camilla Belle doesn’t exactly fit the bill. Don’t get me wrong, Belle is a drop-dead gorgeous actress, yet her character is grossly underwritten and lacks the carnal quality we’d expect from a role like this. More material (and better costumes) should’ve been nurtured for her character.
Steven Strait’s D’Leh also suffers from the same faults. Strait seems like a durable leading man and will probably do well for himself as a future matinee idol, yet his character has no real dimensions or personality. We care very little about him and care even less about his quest for Evolet. Both Strait and Belle are attractive and likeable and will hopefully get better material in better movies. The one performance I did really enjoy was that of the evil Warlord. Badra looks like Ben Kingsley on steroids and his foreign caveman tongue makes him sound like the Persian Warlord from 300 with a really bad cold. He’s a uniquely evil presence that’s like an exotic color against a drab background.
Roland Emmerich is a director who tackles popcorn movie ventures with slick and elaborate production values. I think his problem is that he takes concepts at a serious face value and never adds any significant depth or humor to them. This straight-on approach brought a compelling urgency to Stargate and Independence Day yet brought a frustrating dullness to Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow. Adventure movies work best when there’s a colorful spirit driving them along. Wolfgang Peterson’s Poseidon may have been an expensive special effects show, but it’s the fact that the characters were more colorful than Crayola that made the movie watchable.
10, 000 B.C. has drawn numerous comparisons to Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto and the two films indeed have a lot in common. Both films follow an ancient and primitive tribe as they try to fight off the evil forces of an advanced civilization. Apocalypto demonstrates everything that’s wrong with 10, 000 B.C. and proves that Emmerich lacks the passion and risk apparent in Gibson’s direction. Gibson brought a stronger sense of adventure, danger, and humor to his film and even expressed deeper themes hidden within the material. Apocalypto is an intelligent allegory on primal violence and cultural conflicts while 10, 000 B.C. never rises above being a routine genre exercise. Emmerich’s film also reminded me of 300 in its depiction of a small band of warriors who take on an imperial army. I used to have my reservations about the cartoonish and macho world 300 created, but after 10, 000 B.C., I’ll never complain about the former again. For those that hate on the Spartan epic, I ask you to endure 10, 000 B.C. and tell me 300 doesn’t feel like Lawrence of Arabia afterwards.
I’m sure there will be plenty of moviegoers who are curious to see this film based on its premise and its blockbuster potential, but I warn you: it will bore you and have you thinking about better films the entire time. This made me realize that it’s better to have an adventure epic be too silly than too serious. It will also make you more appreciative of cinematic adventures that do work and are exciting. I guess we really did need another Indiana Jones after all!
