Ben's Movie Reviews

Choose a Side

thesolarsentinel@gmail.com (Alan Trehern) — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:27:00 +0000

"Avatar Wars" by Black20

My Favorites of the 2000's: 2003

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:33:00 +0000

X2: X-Men United: Bryan Singer topped his original X-Men movie with this one, which held the esteemed title of "Best Comic Book Movie Ever" for a short time among those who argued such things, myself included. The opening scene with Nightcrawler was extremely well done, and the Cerebro storyline with William Stryker hell-bent on destroying all mutants made for a fascinating action film that was unafraid to tackle some complex philosophical questions. The ending, hinting at the Phoenix saga, was enough to have even the most passive X-Men fan clamoring for more; unfortunately, Brett Ratner and Bryan Singer switched franchises (Ratner to X-Men, Singer to Superman) after the release of X2 and everything started heading downhill fast.

Mystic River: I've only seen this film once, but it instantly became one of my favorites. Powerhouse performances from Sean Penn (whom I normally dislike) and a supporting cast of Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburne, and Emmy Rossum make this worth seeing, even if it wasn't directed by Clint Eastwood (which, you know, it is). Check out my review of it for more on this flick, and don't forget to catch up on the comments section of that post where I recant basically everything bad I said about Eastwood's directorial ability.

Big Fish: This is not only my favorite film of 2003, it's in my All Time Top Ten. I love this movie so much, which is surprising considering I'm not the biggest Tim Burton fan in the world. Perhaps it's not that surprising after all; Burton shies away from his typical darkness in this film and presents an emotionally powerful story of a man and his son wrapped in a fanciful tall tale of wonder and romance. If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and rectify that situation immediately.

Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of The Black Pearl: Who could have predicted that a movie based on a theme park ride could be so much fun? Launching Johnny Depp into the mainstream star he is today, this movie's rewatchability is incredibly high. The script is fantastic, the story is tight and purposeful, the performances are great all around, and most importantly it's freaking FUN. I have yet to meet someone who dislikes this flick, and I don't foresee it happening any time soon. The sequels were a dreadful mess, each getting worse as they came out, but this one was a blast.

Shattered Glass: I'm not going to pretend like I watch this movie all the time, because it's just not true. I've seen it a couple times, but I don't really plan on watching it again for at least a year. Why? Because there are too many other things to catch up on in the world. That said, Shattered Glass is, for me, one of the absolute best journalism movies ever made. Journalism movies is a genre I have a particular fondness for, and I think this movie deserves more recognition and respect for both Hayden Christensen's performance (he gives a good one - shocking, I know) and the fact that it's based on a true story. This flick also introduced me to Peter Sarsgaard, whose other work almost demands to be seen thanks to his work on display in this movie.

The Italian Job: The ensemble cast and lighthearted pace makes this a perfect companion piece to Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven. Another fun movie that doesn't need a full dissection, this one is equivalent to a comfort food: I know what I'm getting, and I like how it tastes. I'll be surprised if they can ever reconvene this cast again for the long-rumored sequel, The Brazilian Job.

Likely to see on everyone else's "Best Of" lists: Lost in Translation, Cold Mountain, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, 21 Grams, The Last Samurai, The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King

Avatar

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:35:00 +0000

It's been twelve long years since James Cameron's last live-action feature narrative (Titanic) took the world by storm, and his newest film is finally upon us. Starting about four or five years ago, a steady growth of anticipation filled the online film community, especially after learning that Cameron and his team pioneered new technology to tell the story of Avatar the way it was intended.

Pushing 3D technology to its most advanced point yet, James Cameron has created a film that is unlike anything you've ever witnessed. If you plan on seeing this movie (which I'd ultimately recommend, even with its many flaws), it absolutely must be seen in a theater in 3D. The IMAX part is up to you, but 3D is absolutely essential to your viewing experience. The film is being offered in 2D across the country, and I can only imagine the drastically different (probably negative) reaction one would have upon a 2D viewing. So I implore you: shell out the extra cash, and you won't be disappointed - at least with the visuals.

Avatar

Writer/Director: James Cameron

Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver

As I sat in the midnight screening on opening day, I was completely overwhelmed at the sheer prowess of the visuals in this movie. Cameron almost literally opened a door to another world, and I happily stepped through without question, completely inundated with the staggering attention to detail and the audacity with which he realized his ideas on screen. There are rumors that this film is the most expensive movie of all time (I've heard whispers of everything from a $250 - $400 million dollar price tag), but it was some of the most well-spent money in cinema history. The overall effect of Avatar is astonishing, and when the film reaches it's halfway point and we're flying alongside Jake and Neyteri on the back of winged Banshees through mountains floating in the clouds, it's very easy to forget you're watching completely rendered 1's and 0's. Even in more reserved scenes set in the wildlife of Pandora's level ground, I would sometimes have to remind myself that this wasn't filmed live on location.

I should give a brief plot synopsis in case you're unfamiliar with the story. It's the typical Pocahontas/The Last Samurai/Dances With Wolves/Ferngully archetype: in the future, paraplegic marine Jake Sully heads to the planet Pandora for a research mission. The planet is home to an alien race called the Na'vi, a ten-foot-tall blue allegory for Native Americans. Jake joins their culture by inhabiting the body of his avatar (a creature synthetically created with human and Na'vi DNA) and essentially enters the Matrix, embodying this creature while his human body is plugged in back at their base camp. He meets Neyteri, the free-spirited Na'vi daughter of the chief, and simultaneously falls in love with her and undergoes training to become accepted into their society. Surprise, surprise - the big, bad U.S. military wants to use Jake's newfound status to relocate the Na'vi away from a large supply of Unobtanium, a rare and incredibly expensive element that the humans wish to mine from Pandora. And if you've ever seen a movie before, you can guess where all this is heading - Jake switches sides and leads the Na'vi into battle against his former employers to protect their people and their world, for which, coincidentally, Jake now has a profound respect.

Listen, I don't want to be the guy crapping on this movie when everyone else seems to love it, but there's a certain level of pressure associated with a huge "event" movie like this to draw a line in the sand and take sides: did you love it, or hate it? There seems to be no room for middle ground in this particular battle, but that's precisely where I found myself. I realize it doesn't make for the most interesting viewpoint available, but I have to be honest - aside from the incredibly engaging visuals and the rip-roaring final half hour, I didn't feel as emotionally connected to these characters as the supporters of this film evidently did. I'm not going to dismiss the story simply because it shares elements with other films, and I'm certainly not going to dismiss Cameron's directorial choices when it comes to executing this astounding vision, but at the same time, I'm not going to tell you that this was the best movie I've ever seen. In fact, it's not even the best movie I've seen this year. The one with the most tactile implications on the future of the industry? Sure. The biggest visual feast? Definitely. But I think when people eventually buy their DVD's and Blu-rays and are removed from that admittedly magical 3D theatrical experience, they'll be left with the bare essentials of a story and characters which, frankly, we've seen many, many times before.

What amazes me most about Avatar is such incredible detail is devoted to the minutiae of the landscape but the script is approached with not even a quarter of that same zeal. Some of the story beats feel unnaturally rushed, like when Neyteri gets "Jersey Shore"-pissed at Jake, then falls back in love with him about 15 minutes later. And Sigourney Weaver's scientist character, Dr. Grace Augustine, is almost as one-dimensional as Stephen Lang's hard-nosed Col. Quatrich, who revels at each chance to destroy another member of the Na'vi and seek vengeance on Jake for switching sides. There are some other things I could nitpick. This film doesn't know the meaning of the word "subtle," with the most obvious example coming in the form of the Na'vi's biological ability to literally connect with their world and the animals that inhabit it. (Worried we wouldn't get the point, James?) Some of the philosophical questions the film could have dealt with were left unasked (what happens when a human is connected to an avatar and the avatar dies?), and by the end I was wishing I had gotten a little more meat from the story instead of just immersive visuals.

Giovanni Ribisi's performance was a highlight for me; he was great as the weaselly corporate lackey pulling the strings on the human side. Sam Worthington was charming enough and showed a little more of the promise hinted at in Terminator Salvation, but never fully reached "iconic action hero" status. Zoe Saldana, however, was fantastic as Neyteri, and even though we never once saw the actress herself, her performance shone through the blue skin and bioluminescent dots so powerfully that she demanded our full attention whenever she was on screen. Still, the dichotomy between obsessive design complexity and broad film-making appeal struck me as unjustifiably uneven; this is especially the case considering so much time went into world creation (Cameron worked with a USC linguistics professor to create the Na'vi language from scratch) and it's obvious that the paper-thin characters were either an afterthought, or, more likely, character templates which were never fully fleshed out.

But even with all those faults, this movie still delivers a great balance of thunderous action, wide-eyed wonder, and fun-filled fantasy. The final half hour I mentioned before? Unbelievable. Cameron keeps his editors on a tight leash (so tight, in fact, that he co-edited the film himself), and his eye for action and pacing can't be praised enough. Michael Bay and Paul Greengrass should take note: this is how you edit an action scene. Cameron chooses wider shots and slightly lingering shots over intense close-ups and fast cutting because A) that's historically been his style and B) it provides him another chance to show us the world of Pandora, even while its inhabitants are engaged in battle above ground as well as on it. The first scene in which Jake uses his avatar immediately conjures that child-like wonder we all hoped to experience when seeing this movie, and Cameron repeatedly takes your breath away with his beautiful virtual cinematography throughout the movie.

Make no mistake - this is the work of a master, and while Avatar is drawing ridiculous comparisons to the original Star Wars, this film is certainly a turning point in the history of film that will be studied and discussed for years to come. At least, that is, until the sequel is released. Until next time...

Inglourious Basterds

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:29:00 +0000

If you asked me my opinion about Inglourious Basterds a year ago, I would have told you that I had very little interest in it. In fact, I might have told you that I was against the movie before it even came out. This was a time when I resented Tarantino for his "knock off" directorial decisions, still had the bitter taste of Death Proof in my mouth (which I still despise, by the way), and was doubtful this project would ever see the inside of a movie theater, let alone make his one-year delivery date promised at Cannes '08.

After seeing Jackie Brown, I had a massive shift in opinion about Quentin Tarantino, but was still unmoved by this particular project. I had heard rumors that the film consisted of long "talky" scenes, and obviously after Death Proof this was not a cinematic road I was particularly excited to retake. Let me be clear - these rumors were absolutely true. My apathy, however, quickly turned to total immersion the second I pressed play. This movie was fantastic.

Inglourious Basterds

Writer/Director: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent

From the opening scene until the final minute, this film had me sucked me in and held me captivated. (I find it interesting I said this about both Basterds and Before Sunrise, a film also heralded for its massive amounts of dialogue. I suppose I really enjoy films with good dialogue.) Something I want to stress: the main difference between the long spans of dialogue here and the long talking periods in Death Proof is that in Basterds, the words serve an almost palpable purpose - they hover over situations as tensions rise, heightening the scene subtly and effectively until the inevitable burst of violence that finishes the session. Death Proof's "girl talk" seemed wildly unnecessary to advancing the storyline; it was as if the characters just took a break from the movie and were sitting around talking. If that was the intent, then congrats to QT - I didn't "get it" until just now. And no, I don't plan on revisiting that film (ever) to see if I'm right or wrong.

Inglorious Basterds was incredibly well-received in the critical community, but one of the most rampant complaints involved Brad Pitt's accent. I had no problem whatsoever with it - in fact, I thought it was one of the best parts of the movie. Sure, it's ridiculous. But late in the film when his character says he can speak Italian, and then does so without attempting to hide his Southern accent, I was cracking up. If that scene alone was the sole reason for Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt's character) to speak like that throughout the whole film, then the whole thing was worth it because that scene worked perfectly. This was one of Pitt's most memorable roles, and one I think we'll be talking about for a long time.

The film's final line - "I think this just might be my masterpiece" - is a heck of a ballsy statement to end on, but considering the auteur behind the camera, it's one that makes perfect sense. Oh yeah - and I forgot to mention that it's absolutely true. This is unlike any other Tarantino film, a reserved work of art that, for me, transcended a normal movie-watching experience. I must see this movie again before I can attempt to talk about it with any authority. There are so many aspects of this film I want to discuss: the meaning of identity, QT's thoughts on the cinema and what exactly that translates into in the final product, connectivity between characters who have never even met, the implications of violence, and much more.

I'll keep this little discussion short (and admittedly lacking in overall quality, so I'm not even going to refer to it as a full review), but Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, his self-proclaimed WWII spaghetti western (evident with little touches like the homage to The Searchers in the opening scene) is probably his most intellectual film, and one that demands to be seen multiple times. I intend on accepting that demand, and hopefully reporting back to you afterwards. Until next time...

My Favorites of the 2000's: 2002

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:24:00 +0000

Spider-Man: I was arguing with a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago about the status of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. He feels that it's still the best superhero film out there, and while I've spoken at length about that notion before, I think my friend is right to some degree: the essence of the character was captured so well by Raimi, and the use of technology was expertly utilized to bring us the first truly breathtaking comic book film of the decade. I must also take this moment to thank this film in particular for singlehandedly leading me into the world of upcoming movie news on the internet. I was just a lad when I first heard Spider-Man was actually coming to the big screen - not the long-rumored James Cameron version, but a real version - and I was just becoming comfortable enough with the internet that I put two and two together: perhaps I could learn a thing or two about the production before the movie came out. And thus began a curious streak that has only strengthened in the ensuing years. So thank you, Spider-Man. You've given me more than you'll ever know.

Brotherhood of the Wolf: I came across this film much later in the decade (somewhere around 2008, I'd wager), but I'll tell you what - this movie kicks ass. It's a French film, but believe me when I tell you it's worth enduring the subtitles. Blending mystery, martial arts, murder, werewolf mythos, and historical fiction, Brotherhood of the Wolf has become one of my favorite foreign films of all time.

City of God: Speaking of foreign films, let's knock those out quickly, shall we? The previous sentence should in no way diminish the quality of City of God, since this 2003 movie had about an equal impact on me as Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire. A Brazilian crime film, this movie provided a look into a culture I never knew existed, and it did it with a visual flair that was as technically impressive as it was viscerally thrilling. I had never seen a film like this before, and after years of watching bad movies and cookie cutter Hollywood formulas, City of God was a breath of fresh air that I would recommend to just about anybody.

The Count of Monte Cristo: I'm almost certain you won't find this one on anybody else's list. But for my money, this adaptation of the classic novel is the best revenge story on screen. I'm a sucker for revenge movies in which the protagonist spends years researching the most effective ways to enact his/her master plan, and Monte Cristo delivers that in a big way. The performances were top notch (especially Guy Pearce's weaselly villain), and the feeling of satisfaction at the end is only comparable (for me, at least) to the end of The Shawshank Redemption.

Minority Report: Spielberg has two spots on this list, which means he remarkably put out two stellar films in the same year - a fact I hadn't fully realized until creating this post. Minority Report was released in June, and it's one of the best science fiction movies I've ever seen. The world (specifically, the technology in that world) that Spielberg and his team created (based on a short story by Philip K. Dick) was groundbreaking at the time, and the desaturation of the film gave the movie a unique look that separates it from others in its genre. I think this is also one of Tom Cruise's most enjoyable, if not necessarily iconic, performances: John Anderton, the down-on-his-luck detective emotionally crippled by his own inability to care for his child, who then takes on the role of surrogate father to Agatha, the "precog" who predicts Anderton himself will murder someone. An underrated movie that deserves revisiting.

Catch Me If You Can: The much more breezy of Spielberg's one-two punch of 2K2, CMIYC was released in December of that year. Again, fantastic performances by Hanks and DiCaprio (not to mention the bevy of small parts for actors like Amy Adams and Jennifer Garner) coupled with a great story make this one of the most rewatchable movies of the year for me. The Barry Allen gag gets me every time, and the Walken speech about mice churning cream into butter has been an intermittent running story in my personal relationships with friends.

Orange County: Speaking of personal, this film is the most personal to me of all the ones on this list. In fact, rarely has a film spoken to me on a deeper personal level than this one. I've always enjoyed writing, and there wasn't a film that spoke to my generation of writers quite like this one did. Check out my review for more on why I love this flick, but for now I'll leave you with the one thing YOU probably remember from it - CrazyTown's "Butterfly."

The Transporter: My introduction to Jason Statham was punctuated at first by outrage that the missile-deflection featured in the trailer was nowhere to be found in the actual movie, but soon gave way to utter appreciation for the ass-kickery that was on display during the film's short run time. The simple premise was extremely well directed by Corey Yuen, and the movie features fight sequences (the bus terminal) and car chases (the opening chase) that still make me shake my head and smile at their sheer awesomeness. Sure, the plot is threadbare and derivative - but it doesn't matter when it's done with as much style as this, and Statham plays the role so straight we almost miss the joke.

Likely to see on everyone else's "Best Of" lists: Punch-Drunk Love, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Bourne Identity, 25th Hour, Adaptation. [I must admit, though - I still haven't seen 25th Hour and it's popping up on a lot of lists that I've seen so far. I dig Ed Norton (although clearly not as much as my sister), so I'll have to check this one out and maybe come back to revise this post later.]

My Favorites of the 2000's: 2001

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:37:00 +0000

Ocean's Eleven: Director Steven Soderbergh put on his casting pants and filled this movie with the best ensemble cast to hit the big screen in recent memory. The chemistry between the characters was great, Julia Roberts didn't make me want to kill myself, and it's a heist film wrapped in slick visuals: any one of those things normally warrants a view from me, let alone all three in one package.

Swordfish: This is one choice of which the online film community (and possibly the community, in general) will most certainly not approve. But that's the point of this series - to let you know what my favorite movies of each year were, and not which one's are going to make everybody else's lists. The opening scene to Swordfish is one of my favorite ever put to screen, and each person in the cast plays their character to perfection. They completely commit to the material, even though it ludicrously features a climax where a bus is lifted by a helicopter. This is modern action-tech at its most fun, and needless to say, it's director Dominic Sena's best film.

Super Troopers: One of my all-time favorite comedies, this movie just freaking dominates. The one-liners are endlessly quotable, and the rewatchability is incredibly high; it seems like every time I revisit it, I come away with a new favorite scene. Little things from the confusion about which "biker" to dress like, to Farva's "liter of cola" line, to the "soap in the coffee" gag makes this one required viewing for anybody who likes comedy. Any day is a good day to revisit Super Troopers, so go ahead and get to it, OK meow?

Mulholland Drive: David Lynch's failed ABC television show was reworked into this feature film, and holy crap - it blows some minds. I've only seen it once and it was my first Lynch film, so it's safe to say it's changed the way I view the cinema landscape. It's so incomprehensible that it can't be explained.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: To me, this was the best of the LOTR movies because it was the introduction into the massive world that Peter Jackson created. The scope of this movie was unlike anything I'd ever seen, and I think this part of the story is the most interesting part of the overall adventure. Seeing how these characters come together was (and is) more interesting to me than seeing the inevitable conclusion (plus a tacked on 40 minutes of run time just for the hell of it in Return of the King). A Beautiful Mind won Best Picture in 2001, and in retrospect we can easily see which of these two films is still in the public's memory.

Likely to see on everyone else's "Best of" lists: Amelie, Vanilla Sky, Monsters, Inc., Donnie Darko, A.I. Artificial Intelligence

Bicentennial: Ben's 200th Post!

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:27:00 +0000

I don't have any big announcements or anything, but I greatly appreciate your readership. Seriously - I wouldn't be writing these if you weren't reading them. Well, actually I probably would - but regardless, the fact that you read them proves that they exist. So keep on rockin' in the free world, and I'll see you back here soon with the next in my "Favorites of the 2000's" series.

I have no new ideas for Photoshopped banners commemorating the event (currently, all of my Photoshopping skills are being put to the test in an epic battle with The Solar Sentinel and my other blog, Media Consumed), so I'll redirect you to the Branzy Award-winning glory that is the Centennial Post picture for you to reminisce. If the mood strikes, leave thoughts of your favorite review in the comments section or nominate new films for me to review. Until next time...

My Favorites of the 2000's: 2000

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:36:00 +0000

Snow Day: I never had snow days as a kid (I grew up in Florida), but this film totally captures the essence of what that experience must be like. A great kids movie, but one that I honestly enjoy (free of irony) to this day. Look for an early appearance from super hottie Emmanuelle Chriqui.

Gladiator: Russell Crowe stormed into the action hero's handbook in Ridley Scott's sword-and-sandal epic. Winner of Best Picture at the Academy Awards, this one will most likely be on everyone else's list: but that's for good reason.

Memento: The world's introduction to Christopher Nolan (aside from the little-seen Following), this masterpiece of cinema is a mindbending story expertly told. A sign of the great things to come from one of the most talented directors working today. Guy Pearce was fantastic, and the cinematography is so good it looks as if it were shot yesterday.

American Psycho: Mary Harron's ultra-sharp satire of 1980's culture went over my head the first time I saw it, but has since become one of my favorite flicks. The ambiguous ending (was it all in his head? Or did he actually do those things?), the business card scene, Huey Lewis, kittens and ATM machines - hilarious comedy and disturbing violence collide to impressive results.

Remember the Titans: This wasn't the first great sports movie, but I don't think one has topped it in the years since its release. The subject matter wasn't new, the genre archetype wasn't new, but this movie accomplished its goal with style, class, emotion, flair, and fun.

X-Men: Inspired casting and the novelty of seeing some of my favorite cartoon heroes on the big screen overshadowed a too-small budget and some slow pacing here. This movie wasn't the first comic book film by a long shot, but it started off this decade with a bang and its success laid the groundwork for everything that came after. I'm still pissed Cyclops was shafted in this series, though.

Mission: Impossible II: I wrote a review of this over at The Solar Sentinel a couple years ago, and while I don't agree now with everything I wrote then, this movie still rocks. I've become very fond of MI:III in recent years, but I still think this one has the edge over it. Visit that review, watch the motorcycle chase scene at the bottom, and tell me that isn't awesome. Plus, it's John Freaking Woo.

Likely to see on everyone else's "Best Of" lists: Amores Perros, Almost Famous, Requiem for a Dream, Sexy Beast, Traffic, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Cast Away

Before Sunrise/Before Sunset

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:10:00 +0000

I normally wouldn't break up my flow by inserting a random review when I just promised a series of themed posts, but today I watched Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise and its sequel, Before Sunset, and these movies demand to be discussed.

Before Sunrise and Before Sunset

Co-writer/Director: Richard Linklater

Starring: Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy

I'm going to address a fairly obvious topic for a second, but this subject is rarely contemplated and I think deserves mention: the age at which a viewer sees a film has a profound impact on his/her overall reaction to that film. Someone can see the same movie at age thirteen and again at thirty-five and have vastly different responses to it. Our personal experiences bring with them a deeper understanding of life, and those experiences color our perception in ways we (most of the time) don't fully realize, let alone talk about.

Enter Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise, a 1995 film about two twentysomething strangers who meet on a train and spend one night together in Vienna. I imagine this type of movie says something different to each generation: older people may reminisce about their youth, younger people might aspire to be like the two main characters, and viewers equal in age to the characters (read: me) could possibly see the movie's depiction of love in a much more serious light, not merely written off as "young love" by the old or romanticized as a potential future by the young.

I'll be the first to tell you that I'm not normally gung-ho about seeing movies with plot summaries like this one's. I'd heard some good things about this series, and I wanted to check it out for myself. I certainly don't want to over-hype the effect this film had on me, but I can honestly say that I was completely engrossed from start to finish. So engrossed, in fact, that I almost missed the incredible actorial achievements of the movie - Hawke and Delpy give some of the most engaging performances I've seen in a long time, and because the story is so insanely character-centric, I was so entranced that I almost forgot I was watching a movie. And I don't mean in a literal way ("are those people actually IN MY TV?!?"), but I'm sure you know what I mean. Finding these rare experiences is the reason why I love movies, and why I'm on a never-ending quest to find films that evoke these kinds of reactions within me. Back to my point - I almost didn't notice some of the super long takes (many minutes in length) of pure conversation between the two actors, and this is a testament both to the naturalistic writing and the actors' nonchalant delivery and palpable chemistry.

I'm not sure if the structure of the film "works" or not - I was so captivated by every word that I didn't view it with an overly critical eye. Some might complain of aimlessness, the characters wandering around lost in random conversation and accuse the movie of having no direction. That may be true (I haven't truly thought about it, so I'm not sure if it is true or not), but I honestly don't care. The movie does such a good job of fleshing out these characters and giving the audience a close look into their lives, it feels as if I actually know these people. The conversations they have, touching on everything from consumerism to distrust of the media to notions of life and death, are so true to life for people of that age. Anyone my age (especially college students or college grads) will vouch for hearing conversations like that on any campus across the country.

Suffice it to say that I really, really enjoyed Before Sunrise and would recommend it to almost anyone.

[Please note: if you have any interest in what I've said so far, I'd suggest going out and renting Before Sunrise and watching it before you read the rest of this post. The very nature of discussing Before Sunset means that I have to touch on the ending of the first film. That said, I suppose it's necessary to impart my advice on this series here and now: if you watch (and like) the first movie and want to see what happens in the second film, I'd recommend not watching the sequel immediately afterwards. I watched them back to back and now I wish that I'd put some time in between viewings - even something as little as a few days might make a difference. If you don't care about any of this and aren't going to see either movie, read on.]

On to Before Sunset. This 2004 sequel takes place nine years after Jesse (Hawke) and Celine's (Delpy) first encounter, this time in Paris instead of Vienna. Jesse is at the last stop of an international book tour (he's written a book about his meeting with Celine) and happens to be making an appearance at the bookstore Celine frequents. They reunite and go out for coffee, and the movie essentially unfolds in real time as they catch up and discuss, among other things, their thoughts of their night together nine years prior.

The reason I suggested putting some time in between viewings is that I didn't care for Before Sunset nearly as much as Before Sunrise. The passion between the two characters wasn't nearly as epic in the second movie, and while I never felt cheated, the whole thing seemed to be a retread of familiar territory. Keep my previous warning in mind: age has everything to do with perception, and since I'm 24 years old right now, I'm obviously relating more to the younger versions of the characters in the earlier film. They are in their early thirties in the sequel, and I'd wager that I might like the second film a lot more if I were closer to that age when I first watched this series. If you wait a few days to watch Before Sunset, perhaps this sense of being slightly let down would be outweighed by an appreciation to see these characters again, now old friends after the first movie.

Linklater shared writing credits with Hawke and Delpy for this movie, and the film was shot in an astounding fifteen days. Before Sunset shares many similarities to the first film, the most obvious being the low budget aesthetic featuring long tracking shots of conversation [reaching up to eleven minutes long (!) in this entry]. Also notable is the restraint of time in both films: in the first, Jesse is flying out of Austria early the next morning and asks Celine to accompany him until he has to leave; in the second, Jesse has to catch a plane out of Paris later that afternoon and essentially the same thing happens. The continuous long takes and real-time aspect heighten the immediacy of this movie moreso than the first, providing a ticking clock effect that is subconsciously driving the film forward.

The "aimlessness" argument could be employed against this movie as well, albeit to a lesser extent: the topic of their feelings for each other is hanging heavily in the air as they go through the small talk of politics and the environment before eventually making their way to more intense subject matter. Generally speaking, though, I think it's safe to say that if you liked the first one, you'll like this one. That may sound like a "duh" kind of sentence, but the recent Crank 2: High Voltage has proven that this statement isn't always necessarily true.

Overall impressions: Before Sunrise was pretty freaking masterful. I have no idea if the flick works as a movie, but I know it had an impact on me. Before Sunset was not nearly as effective in the visceral way that Sunrise was, but it was a satisfying sequel that raised my appreciation of the series. The ambiguous endings in both movies are excellent, and I love the clever way they discussed that very topic in Sunset (the bookstore interviews in the opening scene). Collider recently did an interview with Linklater asking about a possible third movie, and the director revealed he's been talking to Julie Delpy about it, but they won't commit to a third movie just for the sake of doing it. They need a great story and a real reason to return to these characters, and that is something to be respected whether you like this series or not. Until next time...

Trivia: The waltz that Celine plays for Jesse at the end of Before Sunset was written by Julie Delpy.

Introduction: My Favorites of the 2000's

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:12:00 +0000

Any critic with a keyboard to their name is jamming out "Best of" lists right now - both "Best of 2009" and "Best of the 2000's (a.k.a. - the Aughts)" lists. Listen, I enjoy reading lists as much as the next guy, but let's get real for a second: they're a pretty blatant way to get hits on a website. Inherent to their very existence is the fact that they will going to cause controversy; ranking one thing above another is a sure-fire way to get people talking (in both good and bad ways).

Since I don't get paid for writing on this blog (or anywhere, for that matter - hopefully in the future), and this site isn't exactly getting Pete Rose-esque hit numbers, this should be proof enough to you that I'm writing this for nobody but you and me. I'm not going to pretend to be able to put together a "Best of the Aughts" list, and I'm sure as heck not going to start a "Best of 2009" list when the year isn't over yet.

So what AM I going to do? Glad you asked. I'm joining the mayhem and creating a list - "My Favorites of the Aughts." Each year from 2000 to 2009 will garner a post in which I'll remember my favorite films of that particular year. Take heed - these will not necessarily be the best films of that year, or the most popular, or the most profitable: simply my favorites of each year. I went back and forth deciding whether I should write from my POV within that year ("When I was 16 in 2001, I really liked Zoolander!"), but I've decided to go with my modern self's retrospective opinion of movies from those days ("I appreciate American Psycho now, even though I didn't see it when it came out in 2000").

Get ready to turn back your clocks, because we're starting with Y2K. I'm not sure how often these entries will be posted (I'm still writing for GeekTyrant, after all), but rest assured that the series will be over right around the beginning of 2010. So for now, enjoy those Thanksgiving leftovers - I'll be back soon. Until next time...

[One final note - I'm going to be hitting my 200th (Bicentennial) Post in the midst of this series, so don't be alarmed if some insane Photoshop nonsense breaks up the order. And speaking of insane Photoshop nonsense, check out the "Puns of CBS Television Shows" battle going on between Media Consumed and The Solar Sentinel.]

Up in the Air

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:55:00 +0000

It's rare when I walk out of a movie not having an immediate opinion on it. Up in the Air seems to contain enough story for at least two films, and I think the film's inability to truly connect these two tales is the reason I'm having such a hard time defining it.

Up in the Air

Co-writer/Director: Jason Reitman

Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick, Jason Bateman

This film certainly has a lot to offer, but I'll warn you now: there are no explosions, no damsels in distress, no dragons, and no action montages. If you're one of my readers for which one (or all) of these elements is a requirement for enjoying a movie, you might as well tune out now and move on to something else (Ong-Bak 2, preferably). For those who prefer a bit more depth to your movie-going experience, read on.

Based on a book by Walter Kirn, Up in the Air tells the story of Ryan Bingham (Clooney), a man who fires people for a living. Constantly flying across the country to fire people in person, Bingham has an almost non-existent home life and prefers living in hotel rooms and on airplanes. He yearns to be one of only three people to ever rack up 10 million frequent flyer miles, and he is loyal to only one airline. Everything we hate about traveling, he loves. There is a pretty excellent montage in the beginning of the movie (strangely reminiscent of a similar montage in a previous Clooney movie, Batman & Robin) that shows Bingham packing his suitcase, smoothly and flawlessly removing his shoes and laptop as he goes through security, and seamlessly repacking everything and going on his way. This dude has it down to a science, and this montage was a solid way to establish just how Bingham loses himself in the world of travelling. He also gives motivational speeches at conventions, all of which revolve around the same theme: everyone carries a metaphorical backpack that is stuffed with every aspect of their lives (physical possessions, stress, relationships, etc), and Bingham preaches in favor of ditching as much weight as possible.

His world is thrown into the blender with the appearance of Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), the prototypical hotshot college grad hired at Bingham's company, and she is eager to shake up the structure of the company and ultimately make Bingham irrelevant by introducing an online system that allows agents to terminate clients via webcam. Naturally, Bingham is resistant to change and demands to take Natalie with him on the road to give her a firsthand lesson of how personal his job is, a demand to which his boss (Jason Bateman) reluctantly agrees. This sets up one of the many conflicts of this film: human interaction vs. technology.

Another storyline concerns Bingham's budding relationship with a fellow road warrior, a woman named Alex (Vera Farmiga) who shares many of his interests, philosophies on life, and affinity for travel. Though the Natalie and Alex storylines do overlap a few times, this is where I think the movie has its most significant problem: the issues Bingham deals with are vastly different with the two women, almost too different to be contained in the same movie. Tonally, Bingham is more of a father figure to Natalie (in whom I'm sure he sees a younger version of himself) and he essentially slips into a teaching position as he shows her the ropes of how his business is conducted. With Alex, he subverts his own teachings (read: the backpack speech) and slowly begins to realize that maybe he's been looking at things all wrong. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be multiple layers to a film (I almost always prefer when there are), but this movie is so layered with penetrating themes that it's oddly disorienting at points.

In the interest of keeping this review spoiler-free, I'll refrain from mentioning any more plot points, although if you see this movie and want to talk to me about it, feel free to do so in the comments section.

I had the opportunity to see this movie last week (for free!) at an advanced screening on the Paramount Pictures lot, so let me take a second and geek out about the totally awesome experience. If you ever get a chance to see a movie at that theater, I'd obviously highly recommend it - the seats are amazingly comfortable, the screen is massive (not IMAX quality, but much larger than a normal theater screen), and the sound quality is perfect. The coolest part of the night was a Q&A afterwards featuring the female leads in the movie, where they gave some insight about their characters. Vera Farmiga described her character with a phrase I thought was extremely well-voiced: she said Alex was the "masculine portrayal of the feminine desire." (This will actually make sense to you if you've seen the movie.) Jason Reitman seems to be drawn to strong female characters, which is a nice thing to see these days. Let's be honest, most cinematic female roles are relegated to secondary characters that rely on a man to define them, or at least define their purpose for being involved in a given situation. Reitman, along with his co-writers, has crafted two female characters who do not rely on Clooney's Ryan Bingham to get through their day, but are arguably more mature than Bingham by the end of the movie.

There has been some talk about this movie possibly being nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars this year, and I think it's probably a lock for a nomination since the Academy expanded the nominations from five to ten this year. Do I think it'll win? No. Does it deserve to win? I'm not sure, but as of right now I'd say no. That said, did I enjoy the movie? Definitely. It touches on some relevant buzz words (the economy, job loss, etc), but like I said - the disjointed feel of the overall narrative was slightly off-putting for me and I'll be interested to see how that will play for Academy voters.

There are very few roles where Clooney doesn't excel, and this one seems tailor-made for him. It's an interesting deviation for him, since he doesn't play the charismatic suave guy, but instead embodies Bingham with a heavy insecurity. His character has a need for the luxuries provided him by his frequent flyer status and the facade of fake smiles given by flight attendants, but he can't fathom a real relationship or even relate to his own family. Do I think he'll be nominated for Best Actor? Absolutely. Will he win? I think he deserves it (but that's because I haven't seen all of the nominees yet).

Speaking of Oscars, Vera Farmiga (who you'll undoubtedly remember as the therapist in The Departed) was fantastic in this flick and showed her ability to roll with another of the biggest actors of this generation. She handled herself very well among DiCaprio and Damon a few years back, and I think she's surpassed that performance in Up in the Air. Anna Kendrick (a relative unknown, save for Rocket Science - which I'd recommend checking out) did some great work here as well. I feared her character might fall into the aforementioned trap of being defined by a guy, but she ended up teaching Bingham a thing or two as the movie progressed and made a profound impact on his life.

Visually, the film feels very similar to Reitman's debut, the excellent Thank You For Smoking. The cinematography is gorgeous, especially the aerial shots from the exterior of planes flying above major American cities. Both the score and the visuals were subtle and reserved, allowing the actors' performances to be the centerpiece of the movie. One more word of warning - this isn't exactly a heart-warming story, so don't go in expecting some sort of holiday cheer when it hits theaters on Christmas Day. The film skips between a breezy vibe tinged with humor to the bleakness a person experiences regarding job loss with little warning of the impending tonal shift. Even though this aspect is an unfortunate setback for the film, you can sense Reitman's touch all over this flick; his hard work pays off in some great ways here, most notably by melding the actors to fit their specific characters. He wrote most of the characters with certain actors in mind for the roles, and was lucky enough to get his first choice on most (if not all) of them. In any case, Reitman's direction should be highly touted (kudos also for shooting in location-specific airports) and I'm very much looking forward to his next project.

There is a good amount of humor featured in Up in the Air, but it's not a selling point for this movie: don't expect to be laughing out loud all the way through. This is a complex story about an emotionally distant character and his reactions as his personal and professional beliefs are challenged. If none of this has convinced you to see this movie by now, then check out the teaser trailer embedded below (edited by Reitman himself), which is one of my favorite trailers of the year. Until next time...

Lame Aside/Observation Alert: I'm literally "up in the air" while writing this review - I'm on the plane on my way back to Florida for Thanksgiving. Enjoy the holidays, readers.

Assassination of a High School President

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:38:00 +0000

[Reprinted from BlindingLoud.com, a site for which I no longer write.]

Premiering at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival to rave reviews, Brett Simon's Assassination of a High School President was finally released on DVD a couple months ago. The film was promised a theatrical release in March of 2009, but actually went direct-to-DVD, thanks to the Yari Film Group's releasing division filing for bankruptcy in December of 2008.

Assassination of a High School President

Writer/Director: Brett Simon

Starring: Reece Thompson, Mischa Barton, Bruce Willis

The film is a noir mystery set in a Catholic high school, revolving around Bobby Funke (Reece Thompson), a sophomore reporter for the school newspaper, as he stumbles through a web if illegal activity and uncovers a conspiracy to frame the president of student council for stealing the SAT's. Along the way, he is seduced by Francesca Facchini (Mischa Barton), a popular senior at the school, and has various run-ins with the Gulf War Veteran principal, Kirkpatrick (Bruce Willis).

The movie has been called an homage to Roman Polanski's neo-noir Chinatown, and the similarities are prevalent throughout; the final line in Assassination even puts a predictable spin on Chinatown's famous last line, "Forget it, Jake - it's Chinatown." Like Nicholson's character in the 1974 classic, Funke gets deeper into the fray and finds the scope of his discovery is far bigger than he originally imagined.

Brett Simon's direction is solid for a debut feature film, but the movie itself fails to extend beyond its intriguing logline. The deception and misdirection feel played out, and we don't spend enough time with any of the side characters for their actions and motivations to be emotionally effective. Reece Thompson did a great job and held the film together; after seeing him in this and another film fest favorite Rocket Science, his status as a rising star should be cemented. Mischa Barton was watchable (which is more than I can say about any of her other performances, save her extremely brief cameo in The Sixth Sense) and Bruce Willis was entertaining as the borderline-crazy war veteran who runs his high school the same way he ran his command unit in the Gulf.

The main problems I have with Assassination of a High School President aren't necessarily with the movie when viewed by itself, but become glaringly clear when compared to another film noir set in a high school, Rian Johnson's 2006 masterpiece Brick. The world of Brick pays homage not to neo-noirs like Chinatown and Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye, but to film noir institutions like The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon. Brick feels so much more pure than Assassination; the pulpy dialogue in the former is no match for the occasional one-liner in the latter.

There's not much else I can say without giving away major plot points, so I'll just conclude this review by telling you I was a little disappointed with the movie. Perhaps it was because I heard some good hype coming out of Sundance, but this film didn't live up to my expectations. I'll admit - I'm coming down a little harshly on Assassination of a High School President because of my bias in favor of Brick. If you haven't seen either film, give Assassination a shot (see what I did there?!) - noir fans should be pulled into the comparatively innocent world Simon has crafted, where detectives are reporters and cigarettes are replaced with chewing gum. But after you see this, check out Brick if you're looking for the best in the subgenre; I'd also recommend Rocket Science (even though it's not a noir) for another great performance by Reece Thompson. Until next time...

Ong Bak 2: The Beginning

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:31:00 +0000

[Note: This video isn't actually 28 minutes long. Vimeo is being weird about that lately, and it's doubling the length of my videos for some reason.]

I can't believe I forgot to mention the elephants. In one scene, Jaa runs across the backs of a herd of elephants, eventually making them all kneel before him like he's the Lion King or something. And in the big finale, Jaa fights a bunch of dudes directly under a live elephant, dodging between its legs and hurling people into its stomach, knocking them out. If that isn't enough for you, he moves ON TOP OF THE FREAKING ELEPHANT and battles a dude dressed like a crow (kind of weird, but excusable thanks to the epic amounts of action in the movie). Unbelievable.

Clip from The Protector - bone breaking scene

Another clip from The Protector - epic long shot

UPDATE: As you can tell in the comments, someone doesn't like the fact that I posted Ong Bak 2 clips here. In order to make everybody happy, I've taken them down; after all, you (the reader) are smart enough to track these clips down yourself. "A Real Lawyer" has some valid points as rebuttal in the comments, but I'll err on the side of safety.

Law Abiding Citizen

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:44:00 +0000

Before I saw this movie, I heard considerable chatter throughout the internet regarding its outrageous nature; from nearly all accounts, it supposedly exceeded the boundaries of a typical B-movie. I appreciate films that realize what realm they operate in, and embrace their role in that realm without awkwardly attempting to transcend it. [Quick note: there are, of course, films that succeed in transcending genre without being awkward. The Dark Knight comes to mind.] For me, that internet chatter was a bit misplaced. I think Law Abiding Citizen remains firmly in B-movie territory, and (thankfully) it does so without any forehead-slapping detour from its core.

Law Abiding Citizen

Director: F. Gary Gray

Starring: Jamie Foxx, Gerard Butler, Leslie Bibb

Ludicrously-named director F. Gary Gray has some solid films to his name thus far, most notably the remake of The Italian Job (with talks of its potential sequel, The Brazilian Job, still lingering). It's obviously unfair to compare LAC to The Italian Job since they inhabit different genres, but Gray's directing style in his newest feature hasn't changed that much since his 2003 hit. There's nothing particularly noteworthy about Gray's direction; that's both his problem and (I'm assuming) his saving grace.

Let me explain: Gray is perfectly competent behind the camera, but he doesn't add any specific style or flourish to his movies - they typically look very similar (at least in the case of The Negotiator, Italian Job, and now LAC), and there's nothing to distinguish his work from other directors. I'd put him a rung or two above Brett Ratner on the director ladder; he always executes well, but never contributes that extra something that gives him a style all his own. That's a problem for artistic reasons, but I'm sure it translates to an asset in Hollywood. The Playlist recently wrote a piece about potential directors for The Avengers, and they named Ron Howard as a candidate for the same reasons I'd nominate F. Gary Gray: they are both unassuming big name directors who could easily turn out a solid product. No Michael Bay-esque ego conflicts, no "Tony Jaa disappearing into the jungle" fiascos: these guys would both be puppets for Marvel's ultimate goal for The Avengers - to make a middle-of-the-road movie that everyone will enjoy. If you want somebody who can give it to you straight, hire F. Gary Gray.

Let's get back to the film at hand. Law Abiding Citizen was written by Equilibrium scribe Kurt Wimmer, and I've been excited about seeing this movie ever since Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption) was attached to direct. The concept of an imprisoned mastermind carrying out villainous deeds from his jail cell was (and still is, I suppose) intriguing to me, but the film never rises above its logline and ultimately feels very "written" as you watch it. Not helping matters is every occasion in which Wimmer recycles the gimmick into actual lines of dialogue, saying things like, "You've got to be kidding. He's killing people from inside his cell?!" and things of that sort, which happens more than once. But my favorite part of the writing is Jamie Foxx's District Attorney character making ridiculous demands of his staff: "Get me the records of every industrial property purchased in Philadelphia in the last ten years!" Come on, bro - narrow it down a little.

One technical aspect of the film I was impressed with was the editing. Specifically, there is one scene that stands out as the best edited of the entire film. Early on in the story (minor spoilers), Jamie Foxx's character elects to see a man die by lethal injection rather than see his daughter's cello recital. The two scenes, occurring simultaneously, are intercut brilliantly; everything from the curtain opening in both scenes to the prisoner's last words spoken over the daughter's instrumental blends together to inform the audience that Foxx's character is witnessing a deadly performance by Butler's character, although unbeknownst to Foxx at the time.

Interestingly, Foxx and Butler were initially signed to play each other's roles. Butler changed his mind at the last minute and we ended up with the configuration we see today. The acting is utterly standard throughout the entire thing; there is not one performance that stands out above the rest, and even Gerard Butler's maniacal madman seems somewhat reserved with the exception of a few scenes. There was one supporting character who I thought was perfectly cast - Gregory Itzin, who played President Charles Logan on TV's "24", plays the minor character of the warden at Butler's prison, and did a great job with a very small part.

Next Paragraph Only - Spoilers for Law Abiding Citizen

Leslie Bibb's character essentially plays the Rachel McAdams role from State of Play, but eventually becomes a non-factor when she is blown to bits in a car bomb. I was so disappointed in this development because immediately before she is killed, she makes a great hint at the identity of her new boyfriend, Chester. Foxx says something like "I can't wait to meet him," and she says something like "Oh, he's not ready for you yet." Instantly, my mind shot back to a previous scene where Bibb questions Foxx about whether they are working for more than just a high conviction rate. My mind put two and two together - obviously, I thought, Bibb's "new boyfriend" is none other than Gerard Butler's character! She wasn't thrilled with the decision made ten years ago, and has been feeding Butler information this entire time. Alas, my brain was a little too hyperactive for this film and its mediocre machinations - I'm still under the impression the movie would have been more effective (or at least more interesting) had my idea been proven correct.

End of Spoilers

I was also under the impression going in that the violence would be excessive, but that is not the case. Sure, there is one VERY bloody scene in a jail cell (I won't give away what happens, but blood ends up EVERYWHERE), but aside from that, there was really nothing out of the ordinary. Gerard Butler threatens to chop a dude to bits, and talks about what he did to the guy later, but we never see him actually do it. There was talk of a rape scene, but you have to be really looking for it to even notice that it happens. After recently seeing Sam Peckinpah's 1971 Straw Dogs, which features one of the most uncomfortable-to-watch rape sequences I've ever beheld (thankfully I haven't seen that many), it's going to take a lot more than innuendo to affect me the same way Straw Dogs did.

Law Abiding Citizen stays afloat just enough as to not be boring, but never reaches any worthwhile plateau at any level: story, visual effects, dialogue, direction, acting, music - any way you slice it, this movie's pretty average. It's maybe worth a rental, but there are much better films out there from everyone involved that would be time better spent in my opinion. Until next time...

Paranormal Activity

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:33:00 +0000

Filmed in one week for under $15,000, Oren Peli's Paranormal Activity has become a marketing sensation for a strange reason: a lack of conventional studio marketing. Solid word of mouth and an online campaign urging people to demand the film play in their city convinced Paramount Pictures to give the movie a wide release tomorrow (October 16th). I'll admit: the main reason I saw this in a theater was to see what all the buzz was about. Nicely played, marketing campaign - touche.

A brief history of the project: first-time untrained filmmaker Oren Peli wrote and directed the film, which screened for the first time at the Screamfest Horror Film Festival in 2007 and was eventually picked up by Dreamworks and shown to Steven Spielberg. Spielberg reportedly encountered some strange events while watching the film - the doors in his house locked by themselves and he had to call a locksmith to get out. He returned the film to his company sealed in a garbage bag, claiming it was "haunted," but liked the movie enough to be an executive producer for it. Obviously that story has to be taken with a grain of salt considering Spielberg's involvement, and has been considered by many (myself included) to be merely an attempt to drum up some more publicity for the movie.

Executives at Paramount planned for Peli to direct a remake with more established actors and a bigger budget, but when they screened the film for some potential screenwriters, a strange thing happened: people started leaving the theater while the movie was still playing. The execs thought they had a dud on their hands, but later discovered that people were leaving because they were legitimately too afraid to keep watching. At this point, they scrapped the idea of a remake and decided to release Peli's original film.

Paranormal Activity
Writer/Director: Oren Peli
Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat

Add this film to the ranks of the recent "shoot from a home video camera" trend revitalized by Cloverfield, the Spanish film [Rec], and its American remake, Quarantine. Paranormal Activity surrounds Katie and Micah, a couple living together in a large house. Off and on since Katie was eight years old, she's had mysterious things happen to her at night, wherever she was - she moved twice, but the entity always follows her. Too bad she didn't mention this to her boyfriend of three years, Micah, when they recently decided to move in together. Now that they're in this big house, Micah is determined to record as much of the paranormal activity as possible to figure out once and for all who or what is bothering Katie. The movie goes to extreme lengths to convince you you're watching real footage, adding a brief text message thanking the San Diego Police Department before the film starts and electing to avoid opening Paranormal Activityand ending credits entirely.

The movie uses two main methods of providing tension. The most effective is setting the camera on a tripod every night to watch the couple sleep and document the frightening things that happen. The camera is equipped with a wide angle lens so we can see not only the couple in their bed, but through their (inexplicably) open bedroom door, the hallway outside and the stairs that lead up to the second floor. Timecode runs across the bottom of the screen in these "night" segments, fast forwarding until something worthwhile happens. This provides an uneasy feeling for the audience; every time the film transitions to one of these segments, we know something is going to happen, so it heightens our senses and puts us on edge. The second method occurs when the couple is awakened at night. Micah repeatedly grabs the camera from the tripod and ventures out into the dark house, refusing (again, inexplicably) to turn on the lights to the whole house. Instead, he slowly creeps around corners, building tension for the audience as we brace ourselves for what might be around every turn.

The entire film takes place at the couple's house, and Peli did a great job of making the house a character of its own. Early in the film, we see just enough of the house to feel comfortable in the space, but there are some unexplored areas (featured later in the movie) where the "unknown" aspect of the house's layout is just as big of a factor as what might be found inside it. There was plenty of opportunity for cheap scares here, but I'm glad they decided to show some restraint and not rely on jump scares too much.

Next Two Paragraphs Only - Spoilers for Paranormal Activity

I get that Micah is supposed to be your typical "tough guy" and he wants to take care of the situation himself. I buy that. But when a Ouija board catches fire, or you see hoof prints in your bedroom, I think trash talking the spirit in your house may be a little overkill. What does he think that is accomplishing? Also, after all this evidence is presented to him, why wouldn't he agree to call the demonologist? How could that possibly hurt the situation? He's freakin' reading stories about demons and seems to believe in them, yet he refuses help from a specialist. Needless to say, I would have gotten the heck out of Dodge (with the girl in tow - I obviously wouldn't leave her behind).

There's one more thing I want to discuss before we get back to the part where people who haven't seen it yet can read along again. That ending was pretty nuts, huh? I think it was actually my least favorite part of the whole thing, but that's just because I thought it was a little anticlimactic. I thought it would have been better if Katie had just returned upstairs by herself and crawled into bed, implying Micah's murder on the ground floor below. Anyway - according to Wikipedia, Spielberg himself suggested the ending take its current form; apparently in previous screenings there were variations that sounded more interesting than what we actually saw. Want to hear them? Sure you do. The first is pretty much what I wanted, with Katie returning upstairs and sitting in a catatonic state by the bed, alone. The last alternate ending depicted Katie returning with a knife and slitting her own throat in front of the camera. How insane would that have been? I wish they had the balls to stick with that ending.

End Spoilers

The similarities between Paranormal Activity and Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell are striking. Both feature cursed women with skeptical boyfriends, both feature conversations with psychics, and the list goes on. In fact, I consider Paranormal essentially a documentary version of Drag Me To Hell. If you've seen both films, you'll easily recognize the correlation.

One of the things that took me out of the movie is that it uses a very small music score to ratchet up the suspense in scary situations. The great thing about Quarantine was that it didn't need to rely on music at all - the frightening aspect was being completely immersed in the same world that the characters inhabited, hearing every small noise that they heard and reacting as they would. Adding music, however slight, kills the whole vibe of what they were trying to do with this film. I found it semi-distracting and pretty unnecessary.

The last point I want to bring up: actress Katie Featherston reminded me a lot of Jenna Fischer's Pam Beesly (now Halpert!) from TV's "The Office." Perhaps it was that she looks like a normal person instead of the ditzy Abercrombie models that are featured so heavily in today's horror flicks, and perhaps it was because the movie was shot in documentary style, but something in me made that connection. To everyone else who has seen this: did anybody else get that vibe?

If you're going to see this movie, I would recommend checking it out in a packed theater. Like all good horror movies, this is a societal event and needs to be experienced in the company of others. That said, the movie would also be pretty damn effective if you watch it in the darkness of your own home with a few friends; after they leave, you'll be jumping at every creak in the floorboards for the rest of the night. If you're a traditional horror fan, you might be a little disappointed with Paranormal Activity, since nothing truly scary happens until the last half hour or so. But if you're more of a casual genre fan looking for a good time, I think this film will provide that for you. Until next time...

The Brothers Bloom, Round 2

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:53:00 +0000

In my original review of The Brothers Bloom, I mentioned that I would probably write some more about it upon a second or third viewing. Now that it's hit DVD, I got a chance to check it out again and the film still holds up as my favorite of the year so far.

As most of you know, I'm now writing for some other sites across the web. But my thoughts on Bloom might be considered "too much" for the breezy atmosphere of the film blogs out there, so I figured I'll post it here, where I know you all can handle it. Fair warning, though - some of my thoughts might be considered a little...much. Even so, I wanted somewhere to post them in case somebody wants to check them out - so why not use my own blog? Good idea, I think I will.

Revisiting The Brothers Bloom: An Analytical Retrospective

"He writes his cons they way dead Russians write novels, with thematic arcs and embedded symbolism and sh*t.” - Bloom, The Brothers Bloom

Although this quote refers to his brother, Stephen, Bloom just as easily could have been referring to Rian Johnson himself, the writer/director of the ambitiously brilliant The Brothers Bloom. The film was released in theaters in May of 2009 and has recently become available for rent on DVD/Blu-ray. I thought I'd take a minute and explore some of the more interesting aspects of the film, straying from the typical “plot summary recap” a lot of movie blogs publish.

Spoilers For The Brothers Bloom Coming Up

Let's jump right into it, shall we? Johnson does a spectacular job of creating necessary separation between his characters, allowing the audience to experience the events of the film through Bloom's perspective. Even after a life spent as a con man, Bloom seems out of his league when it compared to his scheming brother, Stephen, and their partner Bang Bang. This distinction is presented to us in numerous ways throughout the movie.

In one example, we see Stephen walk up the stairs in Montenegro to inform his brother of their “last con.” As he walks up the stairs, Stephen passes by a deck of stacked playing cards on a table and spreads them out as he climbs past. To me, this is a physical representation of Stephen's entire purpose – laying things out and looking at the big picture. Planning is a skill Bloom doesn't have difficulty comprehending, but rather executing (evidenced by his younger self getting caught up in Stephen's “cave” con in the opening scene).

Second, during the conversation in which Stephen convinces Bloom to partake in their last con, we see the gag from the trailer where Bloom has trouble pouring sugar into his coffee. Flustered, he gives up. Not missing a beat, Stephen calmly takes the same sugar and adds some to his drink with no problem. Exasperated, Bloom tries again, only to have the lid pop off and the contents of the container dump into his drink. Stephen is on a different level than Bloom and seemingly possesses a greater mastery over the world they inhabit. Soon after the sugar incident, the brothers sit in a bar and Stephen coolly catches a fly out of mid-air without a second thought.

Johnson indicates that Stephen and Bang Bang are intellectual equals through their on-screen interactions together. Those two always seem like more of a pair than the actual brothers, communicating (mostly visually) through a style all their own and understanding each other perfectly. I can't think of a better example of this than during the introduction of Penelope's mansion. As Stephen explains his plan, he pulls back a tree branch and Bang Bang produces a retractable saw to remove it for him. No one questions why Bang Bang thought to bring a saw, and the saw itself is never seen or mentioned again - it's this level of interaction that Bloom simply does not participate in. It's also why these moments work as humorous quirks rather than mundane routine; if every character did things like that all the time, it would take away from the overall effect. Johnson understands this (obviously better than anyone) and uses great restraint in leaving Bloom close to the action, but simultaneously distanced enough to where the audience has the ideal vantage point to the group's situations.

The introduction of Penelope to the gang's ranks sparks a vastly different reaction from the three con artists. Bloom eventually falls in love with her after questioning whether she is one of Stephen's characters. Stephen himself seems overwhelmed if not outmatched by Penelope's intellect and straightforwardness. Penelope has no problem calling Stephen out multiple times over the course of the film, whether it be his thinly veiled reference to Melville's “The Confidence Man” or the fake death in Mexico near the film's climax. This obviously puts the mastermind slightly on edge. Bang Bang, however, seems to find a friend and confidant in Penelope, giving her a cell number that she hasn't even given Bloom.

The nearly-universal criticism of the movie is at the tonal shift in the third act. Inspired by Penelope's mysterious escape from police custody, Bloom has an epiphany that allows him to embrace his relationship with her. He steals an apple (without his brother's influence, presumably for the first time), giddily robs a snack cart on a train, and is legitimately happy for the first time in his life. After Penelope sees through the staged death in Mexico, Bloom retreats to Montenegro again, this time to protect Penelope by not letting her participate in their cons any longer.

While this section of the film may be the weakest for Bloom, I think it's the strongest for Stephen. Stephen's life goal has always been to tell a story so well, it fulfills itself. He achieves his own prophecy from earlier in the film, when he tells Bloom, “The day I con you is the day I die.” The relationship between Stephen and Bloom is strange; Bloom tells his brother he loves him twice as the movie progresses, but Stephen never returns the expression. Stephen sees the brothers almost as a single entity. In an early scene, Bloom says "You're a genius, Stephen," to which the elder brother replies, "No. We're a genius."

In their final scene together, Stephen finally pulls off “the best trick [Bloom's] ever seen.” Bloom wishes Stephen had a bigger audience to witness it, but Stephen responds, “You're the only audience I've ever needed.” For Stephen, the consummate entertainer, this is the biggest compliment he could give anyone. For his whole life, he's been trying to grant his brother the only thing he's ever wanted – real love – and in Penelope, he sees the chance to give it to him. Stephen's death is the ultimate sacrifice and act of love for Bloom, and only after Bloom sees the brown blood on his shirt does he realize what his brother has done for him. It's Penelope who finally tells Bloom she loves him, granting his need for reciprocal love and helping him move on after Stephen's death.

Penelope: You can make a pinhole camera out of anything hollow and dark.
Bloom: It's gotta warp the image though, right?
Penelope: Yeah. Yeah, it does. I mean, that's what's good about it. I mean, you could point this baby at the most menial, everyday little thing, like the fabric or your...your face or anything, and depending on how the camera eats the light, it's going to be warped and peculiar and imperfect and odd, and it's not going to be reproduction. It's storytelling.
Bloom: It's a lie that tells the truth.

This brief exchange early in the movie serves as Rian Johnson's definitive statement on the nature of film, and gives us a look into his personal viewpoints on the medium through which he's built his career. “A lie that tells the truth.” Johnson creates just that with The Brothers Bloom – personal storytelling involving love, family, loyalty, and sacrifice. These themes aren't unique, but the way Johnson conveys them cements him at the top of my “must watch” directors and I look forward to future journeys through his cinematic worlds. Until next time...

Assault Girls (2009)

thesolarsentinel@gmail.com (Alan Trehern) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:56:00 +0000

By Tyler Alexander Branz

If you've ever seen me review movies, you know what I look for. If you haven't, check out my most dangerous review of The Most Dangerous Game (2008). Now that we have that out of the way, let us look at this most ridiculous and most Japanese movie trailer.

What we would call a weekly event on the SciFi channel here in America is what the Japanese call an epic period piece. I'm pretty sure dragons roamed the lands of Japan long before men were men, and woman were gun toting black angels. Oh yes, you heard me right, this film claims to contain every cliché in the book: flying dragons with no means of flight, the girl from Brothers Bloom sporting some 1920s derby hat in the 2200s, some guy wearing a Yankees hat, and of course the montage of super-futuristic weaponry set to super-futuristic Japanatechnetronica/folk music. But why haven't the tanks and helicopters evolved along with the rest of the weaponry? And where were all the Japanese schoolgirls? I hear they're everywhere! And why not use the one gun that disintegrates the dragons on ALL the dragons? Why waste fire power when you can use THAT gun?? I guess that movie would be a little too short for the elongated attention span of the Japanese people. Enjoy!
Opening December 29, 2009 in Japan.

Hey, Is That...? It's Ben!

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:33:00 +0000

Guess who played a dead body in a commercial? Yeah. Good guess.

Before you say anything: yes, the video is slightly cut off. But you can still see me, and you have the option of making it full screen if you want. I'm not going to go in and mess with HTML settings to change the size of the video because I'm too lazy. Sorry.

This doesn't really count as "movie news" or a "movie review," but whatever - a nationwide commercial is close enough. Until next time...

Trick 'r Treat

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:59:00 +0000

Michael Dougherty’s Trick ‘r Treat is a fantastic Halloween movie – arguably one of the best ever made*. But does that mean it stands on its own as a great movie apart from its holiday ties? Let’s find out.

Trick 'r Treat

Writer/Director: Michael Dougherty

Starring: Brian Cox, Dylan Baker, Anna Paquin, Agent Ballard from "Dollhouse"

First – a little background information. Dougherty, best known as the screenwriter for X-Men 2, directed Trick ‘r Treat three years ago, and the film has since undergone a hellacious distribution process. Originally scheduled for a 2007 release and continually pushed back by Warner Bros., the studio finally decided not to give the film a theatrical release and opted instead for a DVD/Blu-ray/On Demand release date of October 6th, 2009. I just finished a theatrical screening of Trick ‘r Treat in Los Angeles, and Dougherty was on hand for a question and answer session afterwards.

Trick ‘r Treat might be the best Halloween film of all time. Before all of you John Carpenter fans come roaring into the comments section, let me explain. Carpenter’s iconic film, as Dougherty said in the Q&A tonight, “could have been set on Valentine’s Day.” The Halloween setting aided in the fear and horror elements ofHalloween, sure – but Trick ‘r Treat devotes the entire film to establishing the rules of Halloween and punishing those who break them. In a series of four connected stories, Dougherty and his team have crafted a Halloween tale for the ages, an instant classic that will become an October mainstay for years to come.

Can Trick ‘r Treat be called a legitimately great movie? I don’t think so. If we’re judging it on whether or not it achieved what it set out to accomplish, then it should receive unanimous 10/10 reviews. To look at the movie as anything more than a fun Halloween film isn’t quite as appealing. It almost feels like we’ve heard these stories before, which is a testament to relatable writing: praise-worthy on occasion, but ultimately detrimental in this case. The film’s tone and execution were near perfect; unfortunately the plot elements are kind of average if you look at each story individually. I’m not going to recap what happens or ruin it for those who haven’t seen it yet, but suffice it to say that this film pales in comparison to this year’s Drag Me To Hell in ramping up suspense and holding it until the breaking point.

Don’t get me wrong: I really dug this movie. I appreciate its tone, style, and the balls it took writer/director Mike Dougherty to make a movie like this and fight the system to get it released. I saw it in early October with a crowded room full of horror fans, and we all cheered at the right times and had a great time watching it. It was a great movie-going experience. I hope more films like this are made, and I recommend that every horror fan see this movie. I’m just trying to quell some of the ultra-hype that’s surrounding it so you don’t go in with incredibly high expectations and come out slightly disappointed.

The cast was great (especially Dylan Baker – why doesn’t he get more work?), the cinematography perfectly achieved the tone they were shooting for (over-the-top dark comedy), and the score was pretty solid, as well. The editing was awesome, complete with comic book influences in the opening credits and the occasional comic panel on screen to let us know where we are during the course of this crazy Halloween night.

The movie works on multiple levels – for those who haven’t seen many horror films, it has enough suspense, jump scares, nudity, and violence to keep you interested. For the horror connoisseurs among you, you’ll appreciate the tongue-in-cheek manner in which Dougherty approaches the material and toys with your expectations of certain genre elements.

Support this movie any way you can – it’s the only way we’re going to see more like it in the years to come. Get the DVD/Blu-ray, invite your friends over, and have a Trick ‘r Treat party at your place. Spread the word. I almost guarantee you’ll have a great time with it. Just don’t quite expect a 10/10. Until next time...

*If you haven’t seen the 1993 animated film The Halloween Tree, it’s worth checking out. Ray Bradbury wrote and narrates the movie, Leonard Nimoy voices a main character, and it features some great characters learning the origins and history of Halloween.

(Read this review at GeekTyrant)

Site Update

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:47:00 +0000

Hey everybody.

In case you haven't heard, I've been brought on as a writer for two different websites in the past week. The first is a smallish indie-based site that's practically like The Solar Sentinel: it covers books, movies, TV, video games, music - the works. The site is called BlindingLoud.com, and you can read my first post here: it's about the live-action Flash TV series from the early 90's.

The second is a bigger movie news site called GeekTyrant.com. They are basically an amalgamation of this site and Ben's Daily Movie News, covering upcoming movie updates, releasing trailers, pictures, and reviews of films new and old. My first post there is a review of Trick 'r Treat, which I am actually going to publish here as well.

I basically wanted to take a second and let you guys know that I'm not going to stop writing here or at Ben's Daily Movie News. I'm trying to find some "real work" out here in Los Angeles, so my time isn't quite as free as it once was, but I'm going to make an effort to keep up with both of these sites (and The Sentinel, after Branz posts #200) along with contributing to the new sites as well. This will surely lead to some crossover posts (like I'm getting ready to do with Trick 'r Treat), but hey - at least you'll still be able to read stuff here and not have to go wandering the internet to find my stuff (although I guess it would be nice if you occasionally checked out those other sites to get their hit counts up - I don't really know how that works).

As always, thanks for reading. Until next time...

9

becca.pearson23@gmail.com (Becki : )) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:00:00 +0000

I am just going to get right down to it. I think this movie is really disappointing. I definitely think that you can live your life without seeing it. The movie would make more sense if you just went along with what was going on, rather than trying to actually understand it. There are a few questions that I would like to go over just to explain why I was confused during the entire movie.

Directed by Shane Acker

Produced by Tim Burton

Guest Review by Becki Pearson

This movie is about 9 characters that are living in a world where machines have taken over and destroyed all of mankind. That sentence in itself brings up some questions. The biggest being - what exactly are they? We can only assume they are robots because they were made by a human, but nothing about them is really that technologically advanced. They don’t have any special powers and they definitely weren’t any smarter than humans were - they just look like scared rag dolls. After accepting their unexplained species, another question arises - why didn’t their creator make them bigger? In the beginning of the movie, the viewers don’t understand the purpose why they were created, but even after you do understand, the issue still stands. You would think if he created them to last for all time he would make them at least one foot tall or more. Just seems a little inconvenient and challenging that the 9 are almost smaller than a human hand.

Throughout the movie, the 9’s motivation and will power seemed very episodic and the plot was solely dependent on problems to occur. The same cycle appeared three times in the movie - a new machine was after them (“beasts” as they were referred to), they defeated it by sheer luck, celebrated, and then a new beast appears. I understand that problems have to occur in order for the story to continue, but after watching it three times, with miniscule changes in each, it got to the point where I didn’t even care if they won or not. What did they have to live for anyway? In a world where everything is shattered and broken, how else could they find happiness? I mean, how many times can you listen to “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” on a half-broken record player and actually find true contentment?

Spoiler:

We find of that in the story of 9, the scientist that created them put a little bit of his soul into each of them so they could come together and save the world in the end. Placing sections of your soul into another thing to ensure the longevity of its life… some could argue that the creator himself wanted to live through the 9 characters...sounds oddly like J. K. Rowling’s Horcruxes, does it not? So, comparing the two films with the Harry Potter knowledge that all the Horcruxes had to be found in order to successfully use them, I was very confused when only 4 out of the 9 characters lived and would eventually change the world. If all of them weren’t important, if some of them died but the remaining could still succeed, why were so many of them made?

A friend that saw the movie with me said that the creator must have thought rather highly of himself if he thought that he could save the world single-handedly. With that being true, why wouldn’t he give ANY instructions to the 9 characters he created? Maybe that’s a true lesson to be learned in the movie- all that stuff about learning how that overcoming struggles on your own makes you a better person...yada yada yada. Wouldn’t it just have been easier for the creator to leave a manual of all the steps that would help them along the way of saving the world? The creator obviously thought about this for a long enough period of time to place his own personalities into little dolls, I don’t see why the instructions are that much more of a stretch.

I was impressed, however, with the cast they chose for the personalities of the 9. The cast includes:

(1) Christopher Plummer, the cranky and extremely stubborn old leader

(2) Martin Landau, an elderly engineer

( (3 and 4) Twins that never speak but hold all the records and documents of the past

(5) John C. Reilly, some cool friend of 9 that is really good with tools

(6) Crispin Glover, the artist of the group that is really creepy and keeps repeating himself

(7) Jennifer Connelly, the fearless fighter of the group

(8) serves as 1’s bodyguard

(9) Elijah Wood, who questions all actions and messes up everything because he couldn’t stop trying to be the leader

I have some problems with the characters. If they were all representing different parts of the creator, when why were they all so alike? Each doll was opinionated and had their own way of thinking. 9 strongly disagreed with the ideas of 1, 6 kept saying what needed to be done but no one would pay attention, 7 didn’t want to listen to anyone, 5 didn’t seem to want to do anything because he was a little pansy, 8 just seemed to be a place holder. 3 and 4 were the only characters that I thought were actually original. They had done extensive research and documented all aspects of the past that they could. This only proves that the creator was mentally unstable, or that I just completely missed the story’s reasoning.

It would be interesting to hear a kid’s point of view on this movie. There wasn’t a lot of comedic relief in the film and the characters seemed kind of hard to relate to. Maybe it was because they only had a few chances for character development, but I certainly had no emotional connection towards the 9 characters. Like I said before, I ended up not caring if they won or if they died.

I would pick Spielberg’s War of The Worlds over this one any day.

The Fall

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:39:00 +0000

Roger Ebert summed this film up pretty well: "You might want to see [it] for no other reason than because it exists. There will never be another like it." I'd argue (and I will, if you dare to read on) there are many reasons to see this film aside from merely its existence, but the essence of his quote rings true: this is a strange movie and if you're not willing to be a little adventurous as an audience member, chances are you won't appreciate The Fall.

The Fall
Co-writer/Director: Tarsem (Singh)
Starring: Lee Pace, Catinca Untaru

Since this one is so far off the radar, here's my abbreviated synopsis, with minor plot spoilers: Set in a Los Angeles hospital around 1915, a little immigrant girl named Alexandria (who has fallen and broken her arm while working in an orange field) meets a man named Roy, a movie stunt man who injured himself on set while trying to impress his girlfriend. The girlfriend unceremoniously dumps him for the leading man in the movie, so Roy is suicidal. He starts telling stories to Alexandria to gain her trust, hoping to trick her into retrieving morphine for him so he can overdose and kill himself. The film weaves back and forth (Princess Bride style) between the hospital framing device and the epic tale as imagined by the young girl. Check out the trailer below.

As evidenced by that trailer, you can tell that this director is extremely visually-oriented. His only other film thus far was The Cell back in 2000; that film was extraordinarily under-rated and, though perverse in many ways, hauntingly watchable. Jennifer Lopez notwithstanding, The Cell is notable for outstanding cinematography and establishing a clear, original voice for Tarsem Singh (who has recently joined the douche-filled ranks of the One-Namers, cutting his last name and opting to be known only as "Tarsem" in the credits for The Fall). As a point of reference, this movie was released in 2006 and hit U.S. theaters in 2008. [Also, if you're going to rent it, you've gotta see the Blu-ray. Gorgeous.]

Getting back to the story at hand, The Fall succeeds in presenting the dichotomy of a dazzling world of massive landscapes, gorgeous terrain, and heightened caricatures with an intimate portrayal of a heartbroken man and a curious girl who has placed her hopes in his imagination. [In this way, it reminds me of the outstanding Pan's Labyrinth, one of my favorite movies from 2006. HIGHLY recommend it.] The filmmakers did a great job of placing us in the mindset of Alexandria by adding subconscious visual cues throughout the film to keep the audience relating to her. One example I'm thinking of (which you can see in the trailer) is the paint in the hospital hallways. The walls are painted a vivid green color when equal with Alexandria's height, representing her imaginative mind; this is contrasted with the drab tan of the walls when they reach adult height levels. A better example of the filmmakers shifting the audience's perspective in the child's favor is a tactic used brilliantly in The Wizard of Oz: many of the actors portray characters both in the "real life" hospital scenario and also within the confines of Roy's story to Alexandria.

Lee Pace (star of ABC's now-defunct "Pushing Daisies") was fantastic as the bedridden Roy, delivering a Cusack-esque performance that made his character instantly likable - even with his suicidal subplot. Obvious-first-time-actress Catinca Untaru was a weak link as far as acting goes, but the breathlessness of the movie and the way Roy's tale pulls you into the tale almost makes her performance a non-factor. Funny aside: Tarsem and Lee Pace decided before the production that Pace would actually be confined to a wheelchair for much of the shoot in order to evoke a more realistic performance from the girl.

The story within the story is a sprawling epic featuring bandits, explosives experts, bows and arrows, mystics, Charles Darwin (?!), monkeys, and some badass costumes. Seriously, the costume design from Eiko Ishioka is worth checking out, and costume design is rarely something that warrants mentioning from this writer. The secondary characters are given their own flamboyant color schemes, and the effect is sometimes similar to one achieved by those fighting movies like Kickboxer and The Quest to the extent that the characters seem like huge stereotypes because of their attire; unlike those fighting films, the situation these instances appear in The Fall is within an elaborate fairy tale, so the film doesn't need to adhere to the normal rules in that regard. Filming took place on 26 locations across 18 countries and took four years to complete. The visuals in The Fall are unlike anything I've ever seen, and the sheer magnitude of what you see on screen is mind-blowing at points. Tarsem claims that there are no special effects used in the entire film, which I find incredibly hard to believe. At one point, they stumble across a city painted blue at the base of a huge castle. That really exists? I guess I'd have to actually go there to prove him wrong, so Tarsem - 1, Pearson - 0. Touche, sir. He did get a live elephant to swim and filmed it underwater, so I guess I'll give him a little credit. Actually, a lot of credit. The dude's a freakin' genius.

I feel like I've sufficiently complimented every aspect of this movie that I can, since I really don't have many complaints I suppose I'll end the review here. If you're really into movies, I'd suggest checking this one out. But like I said - be prepared for some weirdness. It's not David Lynch-weird, but it's certainly not mainstream. The more movies I see, the more I appreciate productions like this that don't fit nicely into the Hollywood box. It's these films (lower budget, mostly independent) that I find myself loving far more than the blockbusters we get today. If you're getting tired of the same formulaic crap force-fed to you all the time, then The Fall is a breath of fresh air. I'd recommend a back-to-back screening with Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth for an optimum viewing experience. Until next time...

Trivia: Tarsem was at one point attached to direct a remake of Michael Crichton's Westworld, and is now slated to direct a movie called War of Gods for a 2010 release. The logline: "Greek warrior Theseus battles against imprisoned titans." Henry Cavill (Albert Mondego from The Count of Monte Cristo) is attached as Theseus.

Jackie Brown

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:39:00 +0000

I've written before about my feelings regarding Quentin Tarantino, but for those too lazy to go back and read them (myself included), I'll try to provide a brief summation. I dug Pulp Fiction as much as the next guy. I respect QT for popularizing the fragmented narrative that we've been inundated with over the past 15 years, and I support the notion that Pulp Fiction is arguably one of the best representations of that type of film structure. That said, the man's personality and massive ego color my perception of his films. I'm aware that every filmmaker is influenced in countless ways from an infinite number of sources. Most directors make subtle homages to these influences, paying respect to those who have come before. Tarantino, as the last few films on his resume indicate, has a massive amount of respect for genre work. Exploitation, western, kung fu, you name it. The guy loves movies (he used to work in a video store), and I dig that. The thing I have a problem with is how blatant and cocky he is about his references. There's a great piece about QT at The Guardian the touches on the point I'm trying to make...

I just realized I don't even know the point I'm trying to make. Is it that QT lives in his own world and doesn't fall in line with the traditional filmmaking standards? That's not a bad thing! That's good! Is it that he hides behind the veil of these various genre movies instead of creating something original? No, because every one of his genre films can double as both an homage and an entry into that genre, crafted with a very particular voice and style. In the intro to Jackie Brown, he apologizes to audiences for having to wait five years for the DVD release. But immediately afterward, he revels in smugness; he says "I wanted to make you wait and appreciate it...I wanted you to salivate for it." I may not like how pretentious and self-indulgent he is (the man really loves to hear his own words, whether spoken through his own mouth or his actors), but his movies are much more entertaining than 80% of the garbage that gets churned out of Hollywood every year. Holy crap. Did I...? I think I just became a Tarantino fan.

Jackie Brown
Writer/Director: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson

Jackie Brown was released in 1997, and because until thirty seconds ago one of my personal traits used to be "not liking Tarantino," I never got around to (nor had interest in) seeing it. The story follows the titular character, a middle-aged African-American flight attendant who delivers gun money to a dealer, as she gets caught up in a whirlwind of murder, extortion, greed, double crosses, bail bondsmen, ATF agents, and five hundred thousand dollars hovering in the eye of the storm. The screenplay was based on the Elmore Leonard novel "Rum Punch," but QT adapted the story to fit the "blaxploitation" genre and retain its "who's going to end up with the money?" mystery in tact at the same time. (Leonard was an executive producer for the film.)

Aside from True Romance (which he wrote but didn't direct), I think the dialogue in Jackie Brown was the most enjoyable of Tarantino's films. Samuel L. Jackson and Chris Tucker have some great interactions in the beginning of the movie, highlighted by QT's signature long takes that really allow the actors to shine and I'm sure make him happy to hear his dialogue recited uninterrupted. Check out his segment of the directorial ensemble film Four Rooms for another prime example of what I'm talking about. There are also some great subtle (how un-QT-like) exchanges between Pam Grier and Robert Forster, who plays bail bondsmen Max Cherry. When Jackie asks Max if he wants some coffee, he says sure. "The milk went bad when I was in jail," she notices. He casually looks her up and down and responds "Black's fine." Awesome. Oh, if you're offended by the use of the "F" word and/or the "N" word, then by all means stay far away. I actually looked up how many times they drop the F bomb in this movie, and it's meager 145 pales in comparison with other things I've seen. It just seems so much more intense when Samuel L. Jackson is dropping bombs.

Admittedly, I'm not well-versed in blaxploitation films (the upcoming Black Dynamite looks pretty excellent), so I can't speak to how effective Jackie Brown fits into that particular mold of films. As a crime/heist movie, it works wonders. Practically every scene has Jackie meeting with a different person and making the audience believe that she is working with him/her to retrieve the money. I had no idea whether she was double-triple-or-quadruple crossing people until the finale, which plays out in an interesting off-set time style centering on main characters' POV's one at a time.

The acting is pretty magnificent from all the big players. Tarantino seems to have a way with revitalizing careers (Travolta, obvs), and Pam Grier was on the receiving end of his helping hand this time around. Grier gives a great performance here, especially considering she actually starred in many of the 70's films Jackie Brown simulates, but she tones down her acting to a very believable level. Samuel L. Jackson rises above the rest as the smooth-talking gun-runner Ordell Robbie, and Chris Tucker's brief appearance as Beaumont was a triumph for the casting director (coincidentally named "Jaki Brown." Hah!). Michael Keaton plays Ray Nicolette, an ATF agent trying to lock Ordell away for good; his commitment made me remember why I like Michael Keaton so much. His relatively small role was perfectly executed here, and the character humorously reappeared in Soderbergh's Out of Sight the next year. Soderbergh (director of the Ocean's trilogy) said that was the first time the same character has been portrayed by the same actor in two unrelated films (although both were based on the stories of Elmore Leonard). Robert De Niro plays a stoner named Lou, who I consider a spiritual continuation of his character from Michael Mann's masterwork Heat. Both characters are bank robbers, and his character in Jackie Brown just got out of a four year stretch in prison. I imagine this would be what would become of Neil McCauley if the final events of Heat were altered slightly.

The only bit of trivia that had me perplexed was Robert Foster's nomination for Best Supporting Actor in his role of bail bondsman Max Cherry. If anyone deserved a nomination for anything in this movie, it was Sam Jackson. Personally, I thought Foster's performance was one of the weaker aspects of the movie. Guess that highlights the differences between my thoughts and those of the Academy. From what I understand, Foster was a pretty popular actor at one point and fell away from acting, only to be brought back in this film. So maybe it was a kind of "honorary" nomination or something like that.

As is usually the case with Tarantino's films, the soundtrack is of paramount important to the final dynamic of the movie. He shoots and scores with Jackie Brown, opening a time machine back to the days of Motown and Marvin Gaye, the Delfonics and Diana Ross. If you dig that time in music history, you should appreciate the musical choices made here. There was no traditional score composed for the movie, which I found a bit odd but makes sense due to the repetition of many of the songs on the soundtrack throughout the film. Also consistent with the norms of QT's films is how great the entire production looked. But unlike some of the more over the top movies he's done in the past (Kill Bill Vol. 1), Jackie Brown has a subdued visual style that I appreciated. I noticed the director of photography's name go past in the opening credits and did a double-take: Guillermo Navarro. This guy is extremely versatile, shooting films such as Desperado, From Dusk Till Dawn, Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, Zathura, and Night at the Museum. Chalk this one up on his list of successes. A $12 million dollar budget is practically pennies in Hollywood these days (even back then it was pretty small), but having talented crew and a solid vision made Jackie Brown look way better than the budget might imply.

I think this review has benefited me more than any of you, because by typing out my thoughts I've corrected a misguided judgment that I erroneously maintained for years. Hopefully you got some enjoyment out of it, or at the very least it's convinced you to throw the movie into your rental queue. I'm off to re-think my decision to wait to see Inglorious Basterds until it hits DVD. Until next time...

What I've Been Watching, Episode 5

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:09:00 +0000

Hmmm. Something got screwed up in the transfer process, so the run time on this video is something like 32 minutes. Fear not - the actual video is only around 16, and honestly it doesn't even feel like it's that long. You'll know when to stop watching - there's a clear end point and then the audio begins again for some reason. Technology...ANYWAY, hope you enjoy. Until next time...

Apartment Tour

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Pearson) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:45:00 +0000

No, this doesn't really have anything to do with movies. Take it up with my lawyers. For those of you who care, here's a brief tour of my new place.