 With an Irish brogue, Julianne Moore is the best part of the film Director: Lasse Hallström Writer:Robert Nelson Jacobs; based on the novel The Shipping News by Annie Proulx Cinematographer: Oliver Stapleton Producer: Rob Cowan, Leslie Holleran, and Irwin Winkler by Jon Cvack There was a movement between the late 90s and early 00s that provided such incredible mid-budgeted Domestic Dramas as In the Bedroom (‘01), You Can Count on Me (‘00), and The Ice Storm (‘97), typically taking place in small towns, featuring a broken family attempting to repair their severed or severing ties, with filmmakers like Ang Lee and Kenneth Lonergan going onto bigger and better things, and Todd Field looking to become one of the all time greats, though failing to provide another project since 2009’s Tom Perotta adaptation Little Children. I had never read the Pulitzer Price winning The Shipping News, but heard amazing things. Lasse Hallstrom directs the story, who provided the wonderful coming of age John Irving adaptation The Cider House Rules (‘99) only a couple years prior. The Shipping News is equally impressive in craft and photography, but the story seems far too large for its two hour running time, introducing so many characters and plots that by the end it races to catch up and resolve them, leaving you with far more questions than answers, making you want to read the book in order to fill in the blanks, knowing that some of the more fantastical elements simply failed to translate. The story stars Quoyle (Kevin Spacey) as a pathetically passive middle aged man who suddenly (within minutes) meets the trashy, though sexy Petal (Cate Blanchett), who declares within seconds that within a few hours she would fuck him. In a brilliant montage, we witness the rise and quick fall of their relationship, delivering a baby name Bunny (played by three actresses) along the way. Petal’s interest in Quoyle fades as fast it arrived, with her heading off to local dive bars and hooking up with whatever hunk of meat she happened to seduce, leaving you wondering what she saw in Quoyle to begin with, other than the obvious and easy exploitable man who could give her… something of which I’m not really sure. She takes off with one of the men, taking Bunny and selling her into sexual slavery (or as they call it a “Black Market Orphanage”). If things couldn’t get worse, Quoyle’s parents both kill themselves, though not before leaving a voicemail explaining their action and how disappointed they are in what Quoyle became. As things appear incapable of getting any bleaker, a long lost relative of Quolyle’s, Agnis Hamm (Judi Dench), shows up and invites him to start anew in Newfoundland. It’s around this point where the movie attempts to condense far too many characters and plots into the remaining 90 minutes, with Quoyle learning he’s descended from barbaric pirates who use to pillage ships and assault women; Hamm putting Quolyle and Bunny up in a rundown house that’s held up against the strong gales by thick cables; a love interest, Wavey Prowse (Julianne Moore), and her handicapped son; ghosts showing up at the house, and really pushing the limits of story by not really providing any clarity other than it’s not really a ghost, but a man who ties knots in ropes to help relieve a strange curse on the house; Quolyle’s job at a newspaper where he works with the film’s strongest cast, involving Pete Postlethwaite, Scott Glenn, and Rhys Ifans, with Scott Glenn’s character Jake Buggit drowning in a boating accident, laid down at a wake days later, where right as someone provides the final words, he coughs up water, alive, further pushing into the movie into nonsense; a brother who raped his sister Hamm, who she later killed; and even more absurdities that I’m leaving out. If I had only read the synopsis, I'd consider it a parody of the subgenre. What’s most disappointing is that, for all these elements, the moral of the story (the film version, that is) seems to be that you can’t escape your past, you can only change it, so try and change for the better. Or something. It’s a beautiful movie, and it left me wondering what ever happened to Lasse Hallstrom who, other than a few Nicholas Sparks adaptations and The Hoax ('06), hasn’t really made a movie I’ve heard of since. The camerawork and imagery are so strong, the performances fairly incredible, and yet it all added up into nothing much. Compared to The Cider House Rules or My Life as a Dog, both incredible coming of age stories, this left me hoping he’d return back to these smaller, more intimate dramas, rather than continuing the foray into colorful romance novels. It’s always a disappointment to see such incredible talent fall. BELOW: Spacey's character is too pathetic to be believable Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page
0 Comments
 McConaughey in a role way ahead of his time; worth revisiting for his performance alone Director: Jonathan Mostow Writer: Jonathan Mostow, Sam Montgomery, and David Ayer Cinematographer: Oliver Wood Producer: Dino De Laurentiis and Martha De Laurentiis by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... Being away on location for a film shoot and confined to a bedroom with nothing other than my laptop, I watched the film with my studio headphones and had an absolute blast. Whatever you think about this story, the film has absolutely incredible sound design, going on to take the Oscar for Best Sound Editing. I’ve watched the movie many times, but it was only with headphones that I truly got to experience its glory, where you can hear every tiny squeak and breath which creates the highly claustrophobic atmosphere. The impact of Das Boot is abundantly clear, though falls far short of the Wolfgang’s masterpiece. Steadicams follow with the sailors as they race down the corridors, working their way between compartments, closing doors and opening them. Shot wide, there’s depth to the frame, with focus pulling between sweaty close ups, complementing each sound we hear as they are left ever wondering whether the next explosions will be the last. And it’s here that McConaughey really shines, as again, while during the last time I watched the film he was perceived as the Rom Com lead, now that I’ve seen him steal the show in Mud, Interstellar, and Dallas Buyers Club - I came with fresh eyes. His performance has such subtle nuances and flavors, as he attempts to maintain calmness, searching to make the right decisions within seconds, hoping it’s the right one. Opposite Harvey Keitel as Chief Gunner’s Mate Henry Klough, the pair’s dynamic is powerful. Klough’s honor demands that he abides by each order, knowing that it’s not about whether he agrees or not, so much that discipline's vital in maintaining the crew’s morale. Keitel finds such a delicate balance, in which we’re never really wondering why he’s never moved up to Captain. It’s clear that he doesn’t at all want the role, finding his greatest strength in building up and encouraging the men. Counter to his often bad boy persona, Keitel’s prowess makes it believable; serving as the type of mentor you’d want if enlisted, knowing he’s always acting in the best interest of the crew. It’s a film where once you accept the heavy embellishment, you can sit back and enjoy the show. This isn’t to be celebrated for his historical inaccuracies like Saving Private Ryan, When Trumpets Fade, or The Thin Red Line that’s trying to portray the horrors and realities of war. It’s a popcorn movie with big action scenes and excellent sound, kind of about duty and - if pressing just a tad - sacrifice. It’s the type of WWII film by the likes of Guns of Navarone or Where Eagles Dare, taking place beneath the water rather than on land. It’s not perfect, but it’s a fun one. And if you got headphones, it provides a nearly brand new viewing experience. Turn it up loud. BELOW: McConaughey shines as a WWII Submarine Captain action star Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  I've seen this movie at least half a dozen times, had a bunch of discussions about the film ever since it came out, wrote this, and and still had no idea Jon Bon Jovi was in this film until today Director: Jonathan Mostow Writer: Jonathan Mostow, Sam Montgomery, and David Ayer Cinematographer: Oliver Wood Producer: Dino De Laurentiis and Martha De Laurentiis by Jon Cvack I’ve seen this movie more times than I can remember. It arrived amidst the WWII revival, as Saving Private Ryan kicked off the genre’s return, and films like Enemy At the Gates, Pearl Harbor, and When Trumpets Fade followed into the new millennium. It was ripped to pieces for its historical embellishment, with a former U-Boat Captain stating that the only thing this film and actual U-Boat histories have in common is that they both contain U-Boats. For the longest time I never really enjoyed it, thinking that by comparison to other WWII films it fell far short. I probably hadn’t seen it in over six or seven years since the last viewing, during which time Matthew McConaughey’s rose from Rom Com Stoner to a premiere talent. My perspective shifted, seeing McConaughey’s performance with fresh eyes as an energetic powerhouse, rather than a failed attempt by Hollywood’s Hottest. Perhaps it’s the endless crop of remake garbage that’s punching up these older films, as we realize perhaps, comparatively speaking, they weren’t all that bad; or perhaps their peers were so good, that the reverse equation made them play poorly. One thing I love about revisiting films I grew up with is their ability to shift your focus. While before I imagined serving as the lowly private, forced to make decisions without fully grasping the implications, now I empathized with Lt. Andrew Tyler’s (McConaughey) struggle with getting overlooked for promotion. He wants to command his own ship, and his Commanding Officer Mike Dahlgren (Bill Paxton) doesn’t think he’s ready. Given that I’m around Tyler’s age, the disappointment struck home - I’ve been rejected from jobs, promotions, raises, film festivals; where it all looked good and then crashed and burned. It was strange how I never even recalled this subplot, which is as classic as it gets in that the young and upcoming prodigy fails to get the opportunity he’s been waiting for, then finding himself suddenly facing the responsibility when disaster strikes. Dahlgren doesn’t think that Tyler’s ready to make the tough decisions a commander is responsible for; namely, the willingness to sacrifice lives when it’s for the greater good of the country or crew. As all of this is being discussed, they get word of a Top Secret mission, in which an American Submarine crew is to take over a German U-Boat in order to rescue the ailing crew which has a sophisticated encryption machine (as seen in the Medal of Honor video game series) that could turn the tides of war, if retrieved. The mission is led by the formidable Major Matthew Coonan, Navy Intelligence (James Gammon; who I just saw in Major League II, playing the most intimidating characters in both films). Tyler will act as Dahlgren’s 2nd in Command, leading the crew to the ship, where one of the lowly privates who speaks perfect German will help to work their way past the guards, kill the crew, and take the machine. Of course the mission goes wrong, as we’re left wondering why a Coonan thinks it’d be easier to train the entire submarine crew to engage in close quarters combat, rather than bringing aboard a small team of his own to execute the mission. They retrieve the encryption machine, but in the distance is a German Battleship that launches a torpedo toward the actual American U-Boat, killing most of the crew, including Dahlgren, who in a final farewell before sinking into the water, instructs Tyler to take charge, providing him with the coveted opportunity to command a ship. Of course the mission goes wrong, as we’re left wondering why Coonan thinks it’d be easier to train the entire submarine crew to engage in close quarters combat, rather than bringing aboard a small team of his own to execute the mission. They retrieve the encryption machine, but in the distance is a German Battleship that launches a torpedo toward the actual American U-Boat, killing most of the crew, including Dahlgren, who in a final farewell before sinking into the water, instructs Tyler to take charge, providing him with the coveted opportunity to command a ship. Continue on for Part 2... BELOW: Strap on some headphones for a taste of some Oscar-winning sound design Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  Could have used another of this trio Director: Fred Schepisi Writer: Richard Russo (based off his book "Empire Falls") Cinematographer: Ian Baker by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... Although you expect that the factory eventually gets reopened or purchased, I wasn’t seeing the subtle comment Russo gives of the consequences, in which the increasing wealth drove riverfront properties through the roof, making you wonder what became of the area and its homely atmosphere. Being from Chicago and having gone to the more modest areas back when I lived there - Wisconsin Dells, New Buffalo, Koontz Lake (where my grandparents had a lake house), I’ve realized the rarity out here in California of keeping a beautiful small town affordable. My friend has brought us to Donner Lake near Lake Tahoe and to his hometown of Calistoga in Napa Valley and both have become victims of massive property value spikes. Their main drags aren’t filled with small town diners or general stores, but boutique fashion outlets, overpriced home furnishings stores, and expensive restaurants. There is nothing wrong with this, as that type of economy contains its own sense of intimacy and cuteness, but there is something for the latter, which out here in California, is getting taken over by an increasingly affluent population. I always wonder what happened to the towns I grew up visiting. I think about Wisconsin Dells, which for those who don’t know - or perhaps from what I recall - is essentially an entire town dedicated to kids, with numerous water parks, go-cart tracks, arcades, miniature golf courses, carnival rides, roller coasters, tons of gift shops, and so on. I’m sure if I visited Wisconsin Dells today it’d feel much different. As an adult I’d filter out most of the kid stuff, instead seeing the bars and restaurants. Whether it was still what I remembered or completely changed, I wonder how much I’d recognize as different versus the same and how close I’d be. There’s an association between this film and what I watched before finishing these thoughts - Summer of ‘42 - about the celebration of small town life and the way the mind can form such an idyllic place, creating roots based on either distorted fact or idealized memories. I feel fortunate to have had a great childhood, and it’s a strange moment when you realize that they will no longer return. Living at home with your parents, not having any say in what they did, but suddenly you’d wake up outside of a giant water park with not a care in the world is no longer something I'll have provided so much as provide. The real world is more fun in some ways, but like anything that’s over, and like memories altogether, we tend to idealize childhood and the places associated with it, sad they can never return. The thing is, as I attempt to piece Empire Falls and what it mean all together, I don’t really know what it results in. I’d like to say that if Empire Falls is a fading past memory then the people should leave. None of them do. Beyond all the personal conflicts and doubts, everyone remains in the town, with only Miles looking to actually do anything different - and that’s opening up a restaurant that can serve booze. I thought Miles was a great character and provided a fitting conclusion. Beyond him and his daughter, though - I don’t know what the point of what anyone else and what they learned actually was. It felt much too self-celebratory, as though borderline nationalistic, where no one’s welcome and no one can leave. Even when Miles went to college - the only one who ever left - he ended up returning before finishing up. I’m not sure what it means. I hate to even take it that far, as trying to deconstruct why it felt so near empty in the end, I was struggling. The memories people have of this town exist because people remain there to help keep create those memories, no matter what happens. They’ll adapt in any way they must to move forward, whether a new restaurant, or getting together with an alleged gym owner and dropping him when discovering there’s no money. And yet they all stay there, as though it’s the only place they know how to survive in. It’s a good film, with a great cast, and when you start unraveling what it all means it takes you for a pretty interesting ride. BELOW: Still slim pickings on YouTube, so here's a TV spot that shows some of the cast Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  In the film for about twenty minutes and Phil Hoffman steals the film Director: Fred Schepisi Writer: Richard Russo (based off his book "Empire Falls") Cinematographer: Ian Baker by Jon Cvack Here’s a film I recall seeing in high school when it was first released, never checking out again until over a decade later. It’s always strange watching a film where the characters shift from where you once were. When first seeing it I connected to the high schoolers and their sense of small town alienation. Now, I found myself engaging with the adults, who were attempting to navigate the town’s politics and secure a decent life The story involves a small town, heavily controlled by a wealthy widow Francine Whiting (Joanne Woodward) who made most of her money from the town’s factories, but when the factories were shifted overseas, Empire Falls plateaued and never seemed to have progressed much further since. It’s a Domestic Drama as often seen during the 00s - with films such as In the Bedroom, The Ice Storm, Little Children, and others. It contains cheerful music that perfectly captures the small town relationships, and while shot with a very made-for-tv feel at points, the rich cast allows us to forget about the lacking style, forcing us to focus on the people rather than how they’re portrayed. While called a miniseries, being only two episodes, the story is very much a four hour film. Empire Falls is the type of place you’d love to go if you never really wanted much else. It’s the town for those who want to find a comfortable and secure life, protected by a community of people who all wish for the same. The primary character is cook Miles Roby (Ed Harris), who’s at the center of the town’s relatively “dark” secret in that his mother Grace (Robin Wright Penn) had an affair with Charlie Mayne, who I’m not entirely certain, but might have been Francine Whiting’s lover or husband (in one of the first times I’ve ever noticed, the WikiPedia Empire Falls page doesn’t offer a full story breakdown, so much as a suggestive synopsis, and even stranger, the synopsis is identical on both the miniseries and book page, leaving me wondering if author Richard Russo or his marketers have edited this, as it’s really difficult to find out who exactly this person is, and frustrating when I don’t think it’s that interesting given what I’m gathering). So rolling with Grace’s mom having an affair with Francine’s husband or lover, this has forced a tension between her and Miles, somehow having forced Miles to maintain the diner - again for reasons I don’t entirely understand, but believe involved Charlie Mayne helping Grace much to the disagreement of Francine. What I always loved about this sequence, other than Philip Seymour Hoffman playing Charlie Mayne (which is incredible, even with his half dozen lines) is that even when I first saw it in high school I was confused, though vaguely understood the suggestion. Russo paints a fascinating portrait of a kid who didn’t entirely understand the relationship going on around him, as older Miles begins to piece it together. I do wonder if in the book there was a more heated moment between Francine and Miles, as Miles perhaps lied or in some way defended his mother, leading Francine to force him out of college (or was this on his own volition?). Although I think Miles put together the situation long before, the timing is coincidentally right in enlightening him to sell of the diner, and go into business with his ex-mother-in-law Bea (Estelle Parsons), whose daughter is the gorgeous and vain soccer mom Janine Roby (Helen Hunt) who’s about to marry the allegedly wealthy gym owner Walt Comeau (played brilliantly by Dennis Farina). They had a falling out for reasons that aren’t interesting, but also had a daughter Christina (Danielle Panabaker), who just broke up with the school jock, and has befriended a socially and emotionally disturbed near-homeless boy John Voss (Lou Taylor Pucci). All of this kind of gets a bit old at points, in which the film’s problem is exactly what the book would likely solve in that, with only about four hours, we don’t get enough time with any of the characters (the book’s near 500 pages). It’s not that I don’t care, so much as it sometimes finds itself much too cute, such as the subplot between Miles and the Church, as he can’t climb a ladder because he’s scared of heights. There are a handful of these subplots scattered about, some better than others, such as Miles feud with Christina’s ex-boyfriend and his old friend, now police officer Jimmy Minty (William Fichtner, who I love to watch and has really gotten back to the type of stuff he did from the 90s to mid-00s). It’s a fascinating conflict to observe, as it’s often what’s not said that drives them deeper into feud, especially with Ed Harris playing opposite. None of these become all that distracting, so much as leaving less room for the juicier material, or even better, to provide more information, rather than forcing us to wonder what exactly happened. For a movie that felt so accessible in its majority, many of the answers necessary to plug things up felt needlessly complicated. Continued on in Part 2... BELOW: Slim pickings on YouTube, so here's Paul Newman as a dirty old man Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact pa  Still convinced Michael Pitt will become one of the all time greats Director: Michael Haneke Writer: Michael Haneke Cinematographer: Darius Khondji by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... Haneke is a serious film lover’s filmmaker, in that I don’t think the average person or even novice film lover would necessarily understand or enjoy him. I remember hearing nothing but praise when Cache came out, and when I finally watched it, being the first or so Haneke film I had seen, I didn’t get it. It wasn’t bad. Haneke’s style is slow. There is very little editing and the camera doesn’t move, which for the first few films is uncomfortable. He portrays his characters with such intimacy that it’s as though you’re a voyeur. Or maybe you’re just bored. Sometimes I’m not sure which. It was with 71 Fragments that I finally felt comfortable with his style, expecting it, and then his ideas began to wash over me. In one of the earlier scenes, as the boys are introduced and in the most cinematic way possible, Haneke suggests what occurred and it’s terrifying. We hear a barking dog, never seeing it. Later Paul arrives, sees an expensive pair of golf clubs and requests to hit a golf ball, goes and then kills the dog - all without us seeing the dog, or any blood or bit of carnage. When the kid is finally shot it creates a moment that is completely empty. Haneke locks the camera down, we see the kid dead on the ground, his blood all over the wall and television, with the television playing a NASCAR race and with Anna tied up, trying to break free, then trying to stand, then finding her husband, who we think might be dead, but who was overwhelmed with emotion, on the ground, and he can’t stand because his leg is broken, shooting pain into his body like he’s never experienced (as Tim Roth expertly displays), and they have to keep trying to break free or die. It was at this moment that I decided to turn the movie off, only after this unbearably long take ended, which is much longer than you can nearly bear. I was left feeling all the more weird watching this film late at night, alone, with all the lights off in my apartment. I finished the film the next morning as the sun shined bright and offered some needed foil against the macabre. After the long take, Peter and Paul have apparently left. We know they’re coming back, but as with the entirety of the film we keep thinking "what if?". Then when George is killed, I found myself retaining hope that would Anna would escape, and in one of the film’s most frightening scenes, as Peter and Paul take a tied up Anna onto a boat - frightening for the reason that I found myself completely dejected, no longer really caring if Anna escaped so much as hoping the film would just end - that she’s pushed off, left to drown and die in one of the worst ways imaginable. Peter and Paul then turn the boat around, heading to the next house to start up yet another funny game. It’s the type of film where you don’t even care to read into what it’s exploring. There are ideas about white suburban escapism, which has veered toward alienation, demonstrated in that although all the neighbors seems to know and like each other, they are spread so far apart that it’s impossible for them to even fathom someone coming by to help. We watch as these seaside homes, painted in their classic uniform blues, grays, and whites, take on a sterile appearance. We gather that they’re rarely visited except for a few weeks out of the year, left vacant for the rest, taking up space that could be used by those in need, and thus Peter and Paul are acting toward an equilibrium. In such a violent world, it’s wrong for these families to live such isolated and safe lives. Peter and Paul do not have a reason to kill. We gather their worldview was shaped by the media they consumed, as they offer reference after reference, even calling each Beavis and Butthead, turning on a NASCAR race while on the verge of slaughtering the family. They are completely removed from the situation, observing it as no different than the television they consume, deciding to act in a way that would ensure their own survival. You can easily extend the narrative and see the media soaring having a field day (should they ever be caught), and the movie version one day arriving. I recall Hitchcock’s Rope and the story of students Leopold and Loeb inspiring the film. Though never mentioned, Peter and Paul know that they will live in infamy and it’s better than never being remembered at all. And yet I feel guilty for even considering these ideas or others I’ve read, as their actions are so terrifying and their apathy so extreme, that to even contemplate an iota of justification behind these actions produces nausea. Haneke’s ability to say so much about the characters with so little, with a ripe tension between Anna and George (with George possessing some form of depression or melancholy), all with a kid that was so excited to simply sail with his dad, all without a single word made it all the more terrifying. They had their own problems and issues, never contemplating murder or death. They were simply trying to exist and were murdered in the most brutal way possible. I recall Haneke mentioning how he thought Spielberg’s way of shooting the showers in Schindler’s List was despicable because it turned genocide into entertainment. I’m not sure what Haneke is doing here. It’s interesting to think about and take apart, but in the end I don’t think I’ll ever revisit this film all the way through. I don’t know what it’s trying to tell me or warn me about that warranted such terrifying images. It’s one thing for a horror film to show this. I think The Strangers and The Purge are excellent films in the genre. In the hands of a master, though, the images are no longer about shock. They are meant to explore and convey ideas. They have something to say. Not knowing what that is in this film leaves me feeling empty and emotionally drained. Wondering what it all meant to the man who made it and why these images were the best way to accomplish that; not with just one film, but two. BELOW: Be kind please rewind Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  As a single, long and subtle take, this uncomfortable scene in the kitchen is one my favorites Director: Michael Haneke Writer: Michael Haneke Cinematographer: Darius Khondji by Jon Cvack I usually put on my Netflix movies after I’m done writing, around 11pm. With my girlfriend gone for three weeks on a shoot, I’ve been enjoying playing the movies a bit louder and being able to choose what we watch (though she would have liked this film). While I was fine for the first half, enamored by Haneke’s to examine minute details, set up a camera, and let the scenes play out accordingly, I ended up turning it off the second day. The film is sad, hopeless, and so violent that I couldn’t stomach watching it alone, especially on a Sunday before I started a whole new week up, opting for Frankenheimer’s Ronin instead, electing to finish Funny Games the next morning during the bright and sunny morning hours in Santa Monica. I don’t recall when I saw the first film, but it was long enough ago where I didn’t remember much other than that Paul (Michael Pitt) addressing the camera and even grabbing a remote and rewinds the scene. This is one of the first home invasion films ever created in the modern era - in which movies like The Strangers, The Purge, You’re Next, Straw Dogs (remake), Eden Lake, etc. ushered in a new horror sub-genre that was left off with Torture Porn. They typically involve at least two individuals, usually more, stuck in a house, as a group of individuals attempt to break in and murder them all. What makes it interesting is the complete departure from the supernatural, not so much interested in its father’s fascination with blood and gore so much as being stuck in a room while listening to your loved ones being killed. The original Funny Games came out in 1997, with the shot-for-shot remake arriving a decade later. I suppose you could argue that Scream was one of the first 2.0 home invasion films (1.0 being Last House on the Left and Straw Dogs by in the 70s), yet it was also a crossroads movie, splitting between the 00s torture porn, and taking a much more circuitous route to Home Invasion, eventually arriving about a decade later, setting up Funny Games and its success. Interesting enough, just as Scream operated within the 90s post-modern milieu, and given that the ‘07 version is a shot for shot remake, I was awed by the parallels between Scream and the original Funny Games, in how both address the audience directly, either with Scream’s endless film within a film self-reference and Funny Games’ direct address of the viewing medium (that is, television, VCRs, etc.), where Paul keeps on addressing the audience, mentioning how we know the structure of things and where it’s going, until he finally takes a remote control and rewinds the actual film. Both force the viewer to realize they’re watching a film, which made Scream all the more frightening, and was just kind of interesting in Funny Games, leaning me more toward getting pulled out of the film than providing engaging commentary (which it did, just not that much). That’s Haneke’s voice, though. At least his early stuff. From 71 Fragments in Chronological Order to Cache, his films are about how video and media operate in the world, with Benny’s Video offering the best analysis in exploring a boy who’s free time is consumed with television, where both films and television portray violence throughout the day, culminating in him killing a girl while filming the entire event. While neither Peter nor Paul film anything in Funny Games, they are aware of us watching them and what they do. In what would eventually become the genre’s norm - Peter and Paul walked us through how they were going against the norms. The family is going to be killed, unless they accomplish the near impossible in escaping, which would essentially rely on the old deus ex machina, meaning the film would break its own characters’ rules by going against the norms of popular narrative. Still, I thought maybe, some way, somehow, Anna (Naomi Watts) would escape as it felt unbearably depressing to think otherwise. To know you’re watching a film where all of these decent regular people were going to be inevitably butchered for no reason, and done in a way that was completely objective, all while Haneke just letting the camera roll as the action unfolded. Yet it’s with this exact action that I got pulled into the story. Stay tuned for Part 2... BELOW: Be kind please rewind Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  One of the weakest characters from a sequel Director: Kevin Smith Writer: Kevin Smith Cinematographer: Dave Klein by Jon Cvack While camping and a bit indisposed my buddy said Kevin Smith films are propaganda, which started a decent conversation. The night ended and I found myself laughing about the point and its semblance of truth days later. On the one hand, Smith romanticizes the slacker lifestyle - hanging out at the mall, working at a Quick Stop (or in this case a Fast Food Restaurant) and it’s all fine and good so long as you’ve got a good buddy, some comic books, and enough dick, fart, tit, and pussy jokes to last you eight hours a day. I understand the logic, but then I think about how few other filmmakers are showing us this side of life. Judd Apatow eventually came into the mix and essentially picked up where Kevin Smith left off, with Smith referring to Apatow as going on to carry the torch, particularly after Zack and Miri Make a Porno bombed, both financially and even within Smith’s pantheon, where in one of his Q&As, he mentioned that he could no longer make those types of films because he was no longer a slacker. He was now rich with a nice house in Los Angeles, with a family and wife. Smith has also professed, perhaps with false modesty, that he’s not all that talented. While I would disagree with him in terms of writing, I can see his point with production as his films aren’t very cinematic, and even Smith mentioned in the same Q&A how he has little knowledge of basic directing skills, such as lens selection. You can see this in his films - as the camera rarely does anything interesting, other than recording the characters talk. It’s what makes it all work. But ever since Jersey Girl, when Kevin Smith veered toward Slacker-Rom Com instead of Slacker-Pure (though I actually really enjoyed Jersey Girl, minus the extensive Ben Affleck crying scene), he has seemed to try and maintain the Slacker Rom Com formula, which is essentially what Clerks 2 is all about, showing off a more mature, though far less insightful man, who’s willing to sprinkle in sentiment between the fellatio jokes. One of the most glaring mistakes that Clerks 2 makes is the incorporation of shitty new characters, with Elias (Trevor Fehrman) as a particularly strange casting decision. Given his long hair and fairly attractive look, I just couldn’t buy his awkward nerdom. Imagining the same lines delivered from a more classic Pretty in Pink Ducky-like nerd could have worked so much better. Even beyond his ill-image is the flat delivery and performance, where even playing drunk and high was not even mildly believable. Then there’s the ongoing problem of putting an overweight, less than attractive male with one of the most beautiful women in the world, in this case Dante (Brian O’Halloran) and his relationship to the Fast Food Manager Becky Scott (Rosario Dawson). Dante has found a former prom-queen for his finance who’s a fairly hot cougar (I’m now discovering this is Kevin Smith’s wife, Jennifer playing Emma), who sees a person like Dante as someone that’s responsible and good and easily controllable. In one of many awkward scenes, while Dante paints Becky’s toenails, Becky talks about how girls like that never gave guys like Dante the time of day in high school, and then realize that guys like Dante are quite the catch - even though he’s not even a manager, but simply an employee at Mooby's Fast Food. On top of that, Becky and Dante are clearly in love with one another, for reasons as illogical as running up the stairs when the killer enters the house in a slasher film. Dawson is so beautiful and flirts so well that it’s literally impossible for me to buy this love triangle, or any confusion on Dante’s part. It’s also one of the moments that made me agree with my friend’s point regarding propaganda. Watch a Kevin Smith film if you’re working a shitty job with little to no ambition and you too might get someone as hot as Rosario Dawson. It creates an unattainable dream scenario, completely unrealistic and unachievable. Go ahead and justify that it gives hope to the many slackers out there, sure, but a more believable alternative could have simply been a decent looking girl, not drop dead gorgeous woman, who’s similarly lost, trying to find herself, thus relating to Dante. Instead, we get to watch the grossly uninspired trope that Becky just doesn’t believe in love or anything, until she met Dante. You don’t even wonder - you don’t even imagine - you can’t even suspend a crumb of disbelief - that this will result in anything other than Dante and Becky getting together. It’s Rom Com 101, and further concretized as Kevin adds a bunch of overly sentimental songs to the heavier scenes by the likes of Alanis Morissette's “Everything” or Smashing Pumpkins “1979” (great song, but awkwardly placed). We even get the classic shot of the dude driving in his car, devastated that he messed things up so bad with the girl, as the maudlin pop music plays over. Mallrats, Clerks, and Chasing Amy are incredible and important films. Kevin Smith served a significant role in portraying a side of life that many of us just would never have seen, and which new generations no longer get. In an age with over 5,000 independent films being made every year, I do not think Clerks would have achieved the success it has in today’s world. With production costs at an all time low for a fairly high minimum bar of success, there seems less and less of a place for people who simply want to tell a story with decent and unique characters. Kevin Smith’s strongest trait was never taking the material too seriously - something which he began to lose with Jersey Girl and continued on with periodic moments of horror. Without a doubt his earlier characters would have made fun of this film. Just like Jersey Girl’s crying Ben Affleck scene went on twice as long as it should have, the same thing occurs in Clerks 2, when Randal (Jeff Anderson) professes his love for Dante, except the scene keeps going and going, even to the point where Smith cuts into Jay and Silent Bob to provide a joke that buffers you out of the scene, only to return back to Randal, even more teary eyed, professing his love for Dante. I appreciated the gesture, but it was just far too heavy. It seemed that while Kevin Smith had magnificent insight into the minds and concerns of 20 to 30-somethings who’re trying to figure themselves out, his thoughts on those who do figure it out and get together just isn’t all that interesting. It’s as boring as the lives his characters feared they’d fall into. Clerks 2 made me want to revisit Clerks and watch that raw need to express himself with all of the superficial concerns of an early 20-something. It’s no wonder that he would soon graduate to other genres - with Red State, Cop Out, and Tusk, and many other exciting productions around the corner. I also see Clerks 3 in pre-production. I hope he’s has gotten more insightful over the last decade. We will soon see. BELOW: Your classic slow push in while the male lover interest watches the woman he's not yet aware he loves as she dances Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  The old and new guards - so cute Director: Tony Scott Writer: Michael Frost Beckner and David Arata Cinematographer: Dan Mindel by Jon Cvack Here’s a film that I always figured was going to be a cheesy piece of action trash, whose title alone is enough to make you question putting it on. Here’s a story that combines history, espionage, and inter-office politics all toward creating an exceptionally well produced and engaging story, with my only issue residing in pieces of early 00s editing and graphics that either were a symptom of Tony Scott’s inability to keep with what work for him prior, or studio heads requiring more clarity. Having had a general idea of what this film was and being completely wrong, it was exciting to watch this story unfold, with no clue of where it was going. The story starts off in a Chinese Prison, with a pure action-spy scene involving Tom Bishop (Brad Pitt) as he tries to free a doctor Elizabeth Hadley (Catherine McCormick) from a People’s Liberation Army prison. Tom fakes an electric shock, is injected with a serum that stops his heart, gets checked by the guards, is filed dead, wakes up, rescues the girl, and is about to escape via ambulance before getting stopped by the guard when one of them notices a prisoner chewing bubble gum. And that’s just the first five minutes or so. With those stupid sped up, veering helicopter shots that punch in and out of city skylines, which I now associate with bad reality television, we head back to the states where the CIA calls Nathan Muir (Robert Redford) who’s on his last day of work before retirement to the Bahamas. Bishop is going to be killed in 12 hours - at 8am! (exclamation point denoting an awkward, overly intense black and white freeze frame with timestamp when this countdown is mentioned and will repeat periodically with equal degrees of cringeworthiness). They learn that Muir had trained Bishop, having first met him during Vietnam, traveling through such events as the mid-70s peak of precariousness Berlin and the Civil War in Beirut. The story starts out rough, with the abovementioned freeze frame graphics, though especially during the Vietnam section when Scott (or the Studios) use an uninspired sepia tone to symbolize the war’s dreariness. Soon, though, the story expands, showing us 1970s Berlin and Beirut and in a pre-computer generated world. The film reminded me of Enemy at the Gates in terms of its vast production value - with each world (except Vietnam) feeling incredibly real and expansive. Counter this to the office environment and I’d bet my Criterion Collection that writer Michael Breckner had read Norman Mailer’s "Harlot’s Ghost" as inspiration for this novel, as both focus on the nuts and bolts of the CIA, leaving the romanticism reserved for Tom Bishop’s story. What we get is a type of inter-office political thriller, where petty and cheap conflicts, based on a grand understanding that what they’re all doing is Important (sic), where only those who work the office correctly can get up to the top. Redford is one of a kind in playing the likeable and dependable character who’s able to easily connect, while simultaneously calculating his next move. With the faux-tribunal thinking that Bishop went rogue and deserved execution, Muir tries his best to help his alleged friend (another fantastic layer, coming to that later) by leaking the story to CNN, borrowing and forging documents, selling his stocks, all in an effort to save Bishop while staying beneath the radar. I kept thinking how difficult this role had to have been - to portray yourself as truthful and honest while constantly formulating plans that will betray your colleagues. The story is very much about acting, as its one of the spy’s greatest assets - to formulate an alternative biography and to keep the facts consistent with that personality. In the film’s best scene, as Muir learns that Bishop has met a woman, causing him to become neglectful, he meets both Bishop and Hadley at a cafe. The two put on their act, but soon Muir drops the act, asking Hadley what side she’s on for the Beirut conflict. Hadley reacts brilliantly, immediately knowing that Muir isn’t some random friend, but not wanting to fully show her true self to Bishop; that is, until Muir pours out the facts about her exile from London and connection to the terrorist organizations that fund her hospital. Typically the love interest in spy films is offensive and shallow, but without drawing attention to it directly, what better person for Bishop to fall in love with than another spy? Muir, acting as the father figure, very much understands this. Bishop doesn’t, and he breaks off their relationship, seeking reassignment. It’s at this point that makes you see that their relationship is very much one of father and son. No matter Bishop’s anger, Muir retains his care for him, willing to risk everything, including his house in the Bahamas, in order to rescue the guy. Muir isn’t some upper level bureaucrat or executive. He’s middle management through and through, and Scott shows us this might be the only position an honorable individual could reside in the CIA. The ending reminded me of The Usual Suspects, the flashbacks a bit like Forrest Gump, and the action obviously inspiring the Jason Bourne films. It’s films like this, where you can feel the money all over the screen with extravagant set pieces that makes you nostalgic for the early 00s closing out the modern action film. When I see a film like Spectre that cost over twice as much and yet seems mild in practical effects and top heavy with computer VFX, you can’t helping wanting another film like Spy Game. Tony Scott was made to make engaging action films. It’s a shame that he’s no longer with us. BELOW: Gotta love a good training montage Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  For the longest time this poster made me think the movie was about action figures Director: Christopher Bell Writer:Christopher Bell, Alexander Buono, and Tamsin Rawady Cinematographer: Alexander Buono by Jon Cvack The oughts might have been the golden era of documentary filmmaking, as the cheap technology allowed any individual with a camera and a little bit of funding to tell the story they wanted to tell. I had known about Bigger, Stronger, Faster for a long time, with my friend frequently mentioning the film during conversations about steroids, saying how he doesn’t have a problem with them. Having just read the book "Baseball: Between the Numbers", which contained an essay by Nate Silver about the data behind steroid use, and how it doesn’t really make much of a difference to “big and strong” players like Barry Bonds, but really only for the middle-lower class players, I was interested in checking out the subject. The film is told in that Michael Moore style of rapid editing, in some ways honoring the cinéma vérité style of constructing a narrative based on the information provided by the subjects. It starts with narrator Christopher Bell, a former high school athlete, who follows his brothers who are both taking steroids; with one hoping to become a professional wrestler, and the other struggling to be a record breaking powerlifter. The film is very much focused on the idea of Male Body Image, where in contrast to women who are told to be as skinny as possible with busty features, men are told to gain mass and muscle, in order to come ever close to the archetypes of alpha-maleness - epitomized by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Hulk Hogan, and others. The problem is that while these men embody the spirit of what is Manly, professing the benefits of exercise and taking care of yourself, they also used steroids in order to achieve their success, demonstrating that basically, in order to acquire such success, you need a competitive advantage against others, as there’s only so much the natural body can achieve without assistance. The overarching question is why do steroids receive such a bad reputation when used by only a handful of individuals, with very little lethality or harmful side effects; especially in a nation that condones so many other drugs that are equally, if not more harmful? As Bell demonstrates, America wants its athletes to win; we are a competitive nation by design, and we often shun those who are defeated and celebrate our greatest athletes who push their bodies to the utter limit. We don’t criticize kids who take amphetamines for ADD and the edge it gives them; we don’t criticize individuals who need Xanax or other anti-anxiety medications who experience extreme nervousness or anxiety; and we don’t criticize our air force pilots for taking supplements that increase their focus when in flight (though most people probably don’t know this). So why are athletes the ones who receive the bulk of criticism, going so far as Congress hosting hearings on steroid abuse in order to try and quelch the problem, castigating the athletes for their use? In a brilliant scene which I think Bell knocked out of the park, he interviews a man whose son died, which he attributes to steroid use. After hearing the evidence, Christopher asks the father if there’s not a degree of hypocrisy in criticizing steroid use amongst professional athletes, who are participating in games in arenas where they sell alcohol that causes far more deaths per year to which the father remains silent about. The father gives a mumbled and unclear answer, mentioning something about how because alcohol and other prescription drugs are presently legal that it’s insignificant. We often hear endless stories about women who are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve the perfect body, even if it means causing harm to themselves. But there’s little discussion about the problem of male perfection. In another great scene, we see how the male body’s ideal has progressed over the years, with a doctor holding up action figures throughout the last three decades, with the first GI Joe looking like a scrawny male figure and slowly evolving to become bulked up with arms larger than their heads and veins sticking out, showing boys that this is the ideal they should strive for. We see that the entire workout supplement industry has revolved around this point, which is exempt from FDA approval, meaning that consumers have no idea what they’re taking, and should make you extra cautious given that other nations have banned many of the supplements the states allows to be legal. We see how the before and after photos are often done on the same day, using a mixture of tanning, shaving, posture, and photoshop to show how greatly you could improve in order to sell you the latest supplement. And so the conundrum is posed - until we redefine what a successful male athlete is, in which a person can be appreciated for their abilities given their natural bodies, rather than celebrating the biggest, strongest, and fastest, there will always be those looking for competitive advantage. Because if they don’t look to synthetic supplements, then they’re not just more likely, but very likely to fail in the pursuit. It was heartbreaking to watch Christopher’s brother, who essentially did everything he could, including steroids, to achieve his dream of professional wrestling. As silly as it initially looks, you realize that this man was essentially trying to follow in the footsteps of all those we idolize. He moves to California, hoping that his chances for discovery would increase, even though his body’s aging, long past its prime, and the possibility is dwindling. We see as his wife remains at his side, but even Christopher asks how long he expects the dream chase to last. Should people take steroids? Not necessarily. However, the science about their danger is flawed and selective, never really demonstrating the benefits they have for those who need them. But if an athlete feels like it will help them to achieve the body that they need for success, then that is their choice. What we need to do is much more difficult, and that’s redefining what success is. Until we no longer celebrate and revere the biggest and the strongest as the ideal version of athleticism and Maleness, then people will find ways to use steroids in order to achieve them. But that would force Americans to take a hard look at what they view as success - perhaps by looking to intelligence and creativity as more honorable pursuits, but then you wonder what drugs would be arrive that would benefit those with these raw and natural abilities. The alternative to appreciate people for who they are with what they got, and unfortunately, I just don’t ever see this happening. So long as greatness makes for ostensibly great lives, then people will aspire for such. BELOW: The idolatry of Buff Males Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page |
Yellow BarrelThoughts on films, old and new Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed