Filmic Reviews

Criterion Collection re-releases Ang Lee's Ride with the Devil

2010-04-29T13:28:00.000-07:00

Funny how life works sometimes. In Wednesday's post, I mentioned that when Ang Lee makes films that miss the mark, they're generally a mile away (Thankfully, he's only really made one brutal head scratcher: Hulk).

Today, I receive a newsletter from Criterion Collection about the addition of Lee's Civil War drama Ride with the Devil to their ranks. For those unaware (there are many), this film was released in 1999, between Ang's two more seminal works: The Ice Storm and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The film stars Tobey Maguire and Skeet Ulrich as two Confederate-sympathizers - or 'Bushwhackers' - spurred to action after Maguire's character's father is killed by pro-abolitionist 'Jayhawkers'. It was an awesome film when it was released, and looks to be even better now, as Criterion has given Lee the opportunity to re-cut and remount Ride with the Devil into the film he had originally intended.

I chatted a bit about my love of Westerns in my post about Red Hill, but this film is a little more than a traditional Western. It focuses on the rather violent massacre of Lawrence, Kansas by Confederate Bushwhackers. It's a brutal, and disturbing mess, and is definitely not for the faint of heart.

That being said, everyone should check this film out. Also, anyone who says they hate Tobey Macguire and think he's a no-talent hack should definitely watch Ride with the Devil. He's fantastic in it.

By the way, if you think this about Tobey Macquire, then you're an idiot.

Life of Pi, in 3D...why?

2010-04-28T11:15:00.000-07:00

At around 10:00 AM this morning, I saw a tweet pop up in my Tweetdeck mentioning something about Canadian author Yann Martel's Life of Pi being green lit to start production. I paid little attention to it...primarily because it was 10:00 AM and I was super swamped with work.

At around 2:00, and my tsunami of work subsided long enough for me to poke my head above water and have a look around the interslice for new and interesting tidbits of film-related knowledge. I stumbled upon an article from Comingsoon.net via Anne Thompson's Thompsononhollywood blog announcing that Life of Pi had indeed been green lit, and that the idea of turning it into a 3D extravaganza is looking very possible.

it seems Ang Lee - who has been attached to the project for a while now - wants to use 3D to create a "3D magical fantasy adventure crammed with visual effects." Meh.

I really liked Life of Pi, and I think Yann Martel is awesome (check out his blog whatisstephenharperreading.ca, where he goads our Prime Minister into reading works that promote stillness of being), and Ang Lee is obviously amazing, but I just can't possibly get behind another 3D film because, well, I hate them.

Here's Why

1. I hate the one-size-fits-all 3D glasses. They always push on the sides of my head, and make the crevice between my ear and my head hurt. People have told me it's because I don't wear glasses, but that doesn't make my poor skin feel any better. Also, if you're unlucky enough to get a smudge on the lens, it's almost impossible to get it off. You might as well just poke the weird 3D plastic out of the frames and pretend like everything is alright.

2. I hate how the glasses limit your field of view. Ya, it's great that bullets flying at me look like they're an inch from my nose, but what about the sides of the screen? I hate that I have to turn my head left and right depending on where the action is. I'm a centre-sitting film-going individual primarily so I don't have to crane my neck like some slack-jawed moron to see what's going on. Films are made to be viewed as a complete work stuck in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio screen. It annoys me when portions of it are cut off because my ridiculous 3D glasses are too thick.

3. Most of all, I hate how whole-heartedly Hollywood has embraced 3D technology as the be all, end all of the industry. It seems like every major film coming out these days has been bastardized in some way to fit the 3D mold. Films now include that obligatory "Oh look, someone's throwing a can of beer to another character for no reason." ARG!!!

I feel that the profliferation of 3D technology in films has added a layer of novelty to films that has made me unable to fully immerse myself deeply in them. More often than not, I find myself taking my glasses off halfway through in an attempt to revert to the glory days of cinema film watching. It never works though (the screen's too blurry without the glasses). At the end of the day, I'll always opt for the non-3D version if it's available.

I've never been one to slam Ang Lee for his directorial prowess, but his imaginative style can sometimes be a curse. When he's on, he's on (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), but when he's off, he's WAYYYYYY of (Hulk). Hopefully his attempt to take a fun, yet deeply-allegorical story and adapt it into a magical journey of 3D excitement will turn out for the best. Let it be known, if he turns it into a moronic 3D in-your-face jerk-fest, I might vomit all over the place. Probably best not to sit in front of me.

Red Hill

2010-03-28T08:13:00.000-07:00

Just read on Cinematical that Sony pictures has picked up the distribution rights to the Australian neo-western film Red Hill. The film stars native-Australian Ryan Kwanten, who most might know as the lovable-yet-dimwitted Jason Stackhouse on Alan Ball's TrueBlood series (bet you didn't know he was an Aussie).

Cinematical classifies Red Hill as a Neo-Western, most likely due to its contemporary setting. For those keeping track, the Robert Rodriquez westerns (El Mariachi, Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico) are also lumped under this category. The case can also be made for the Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men being similarly classified, although I feel it presents the juxtaposition between traditional Western film traditions (as genre, not ideology) and modern tensions in a different way than the aforementioned films.

Side note: I absolutely LOVE Westerns. They are so rich with thematic content, classical plot structure and an adherence to the land that makes for gorgeous long-pan shots. From an analytic standpoint, Westerns are also hugely influential to contemporary film studies, as they form the backbone of genre studies, which was an important development in the standardization of the discipline. The above screen grab is from John Hughes' Stagecoach, the film that gave the genre credibility, and launched John Wayne's career. But I digress.

Red Hill looks really interesting to me because it seems to actively incorporate the notion of the "modern town" with elements that define the Western genre. Also, it's set in Australia, which means the film has the potential to include a whole slew of niche cultural traits and tensions not normally seen in traditional American Westerns. For a film nerd like me, this sounds pretty interesting. Check out the trailer below, and see if you agree with what I'm saying.

IMDB Game - Woody Harrelson, Defendor

2010-03-27T10:16:00.000-07:00

In September, I picked up a contract working for the the Canadian Alliance of Film & Television Costume Arts & Design (CAFTCAD) doing publicity for their annual Film Festival fund raiser. The event displayed costumes created by several CAFTCAD members for films being featured at the Festival, including Dilip Mehta's Cooking with Stella, Ruba Nadda's Cairo Time, and George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead.

One of the most interesting costumes at this event was from Peter Stebbings' Defendor. It was all black, with what looked like a German army helmet, and a giant 'D' made of of duct tape and stuck on his chest. I couldn't decide if it looked awesome or ridiculous. I decided though that it was awesome because it was ridiculous. It definitely sold me on going to see the film.

I went and saw it in February and was blown away by how amazing it was. Woody Harrelson was fantastic as Arthur Poppington. Kat Dennings and Elias Koteas were equally as impressive. What topped it for me was how the film managed to maintain its distinctly Canadian feel while casting three relatively well-known American actors. I just loved it! I urge everybody to check it out.

Therefore, I launched this lastest installment of the IMDB game with Woody as a tribute to how awesome this film was. Feel free to refer to my pervious IMDB game post, if you're unclear on the rules.

Woody Harrelson -> Defendor -> Peter Sebbings -> “Flashpoint” -> Amy Jo Johnson -> “Felicity” -> J.J. Abrams -> Untitled Star Trek Sequel -> Chris Pine -> Unstoppable -> Denzel Washington -> The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 -> Tony Scott -> “The Pillars of the Earth” -> Ian McShane -> Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides -> Johnny Depp -> The Rum Diary -> Aaron Eckhart -> The Dark Knight -> Christian Bale -> Untitled Batman Project -> Doug Jones -> Legion -> Paul Bettany -> Iron Man 2 -> Robert Downey Jr. -> A Scanner Darkly ->Woody Harrelson

Interesting note: I compiled this on Thursday, and was surprised to read that Doug Jones was rumoured to have been cast as The Riddler in Christopher Nolan's new Batman film. I went back to hyperlink everything, I noticed that was no longer the case. I think he'd make a cool Riddler. Take a look at the photo below. He looks perfect for the role. All Edward E. Nigma-ish.

Film Review: October Sky (1999)

2010-02-20T16:26:00.000-08:00

One of my favourite things to do on Saturday afternoons is scan the networks for random films I haven't seen, but find interesting. In my experience, networks tend to fill their early Saturday afternoon slots with films that are a little more calm and low-key than those aired later on in the day. Of course there are some exceptions (It's not uncommon to see Commando in the mix somewhere), but if you're looking, this is the best time to find those films you've always wanted to see but have fallen through the cracks.

It's rare that I'm not doing anything on a Saturday afternoon, so when I found myself in this position today, I took full advantage and planted myself on the couch with TV remote in-hand. I was going to watch Life is Beautiful, but I came in a little too late (the bane of the Saturday film-on-TV hunter). I flipped over to Bravo! only to find I had made it just in time to catch the beginning of October Sky, a film that has lived on my perennial list of those I've wanted to see but have continuously passed over in favour of others.

Well, today I gave October Sky a shot, and it definitely didn't disappoint.

October Sky is based on the memoirs of Homer Hickam Jr, a writer, Vietnam veteran and former NASA engineer. Hickam's original memoir, titled "Rocket Boys" was actually changed to October Sky - an anagram of Rocket Boys - in an attempt to broaden the film's appeal and avoid pigeon-holing it as a Sci-Fi flick. Excellent move, I think, as October Sky is as far from being being a Sci-Fi flick as Scarlett Johansson is a credible singer.

Directed by Joe Johnson (Hildago, Jumanji), October Sky stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam, a high-school student who dreams of escaping his small West Virginia coal-mining town. Chris Cooper plays Homer's father John, the big boss at the local coal mine whose life begins and ends with his job. John dotes heavily over his eldest son Jim (played by Scott Miles), the at times typical jock-like star quarterback who's football prowess gives him the power to leave their small town in favour of a college scholarship. Homer is desperate to follow in his brother's footsteps and earn his own college scholarship, and avoid a life of shovelling coal underground. With no athletic skill to speak of, Homer's chances of escape seem slim, a fact to which he is painfully aware, putting him a constant odds with his father.

Everything changes for Homer when he gathers with a group of townspeople to watch the newly-launched Russian satellite Sputnik soar through the sky. Homer is so transfixed by this monumental ball of steel, that he announces to his family somewhat haphazardly the following morning that he's going to build a rocket - much to the chagrin of his father. Not being the brightest student, Homer reaches out to Quentin (played by Chris Owen), the school's resident nerd. Together with his friends Roy Lee and O'Dell (William Lee Scott and Chad Lindberg respectively), the group embarks on a quest to successfully build and launch a rocket of their own.

The plot pretty much drives itself from that point on. The group of boys face a great uphill battle in their quest to launch their rockets but ultimately triumph over adversity. With the help of their nurturing and motivational teacher Miss Riley (Laura Dern), the boys discover they all have what it takes to rise up and leave their small town in search of bigger and better things. To use an obviously referential cliche, 'the rest is history.' Homer Hickam goes on to become a successful NASA rocket scientist and has since gone to work both the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station, among other projects.

October Sky is not a groundbreaking film, stylistically-speaking. After all, it does follows the typical three-act structure that typifies most pursuit-of-the-American-dream-type films, and doesn't do anything to really deviate from this model. It is, however, a tightly-knit yet simple film that left me feeling relaxing and serene once it was all over. No cliffhangers, or stressful situations, just a happy conclusion. There's something to be said for films like this.

I'm not stupid. I knew October Sky was going to play out this way. I think this might even be the reason why I had been putting off seeing it for as long as I did. Had I seen it in the theatre, it's possible I may have come out feeling a little underwhelmed, but in the confines of my living room, I found October Sky to be completely conducive to the chilled-out mood I try to propagate on a Saturday afternoon.

Jake Gyllenhaal was also fantastic in what really amounts to his break-out role as Homer Hickam. I've always liked Gyllenhaal's facially-expressive acting style, and it was great to see it put to good use in October Sky. My stock in Gyllenhaal has been steadily dropping lately (I think he looks out of place as the lead in the upcoming Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time adaptation. For what it's worth, the film itself doesn't look that great either), so it's was nice to come back to the humble, slightly forlorn type of character he started out playing.

I liked October Sky because I didn't have to think about it. I wouldn't necessarily recommend running out and buying it, but if you find yourself flipping through the channels on a Saturday afternoon, and you come across it on TV, October Sky is definitely worth a visit.

Pros:

Compact plot line makes it an easy and non-intrusive film to get into.
Jake Gyllenhaal is wonderful in the role that launched his career, pun intended (ha). Laura Dern and Chris Cooper are also fantastic.
Neat that it's based on the true story of a NASA rocket scientist.

Cons:

Simplistic plot line could be a hindrance to people not watching on a laid back Saturday afternoon.
Plot moves a little slowly.
If you hate three-act-structure American feel good stories, don't even bother with this one.

Why we're watching the Watchmen?

2009-03-05T06:50:00.000-08:00

As many of you now know, today is the day Watchmen officially opens in theatres. As I write this, thousands of rabid fan-boys across the continent have already fought off sleep, jobs and, quite possibly, normal human contact to attend as many Watchmen screenings as possible (As I write this, the thrid screening of Watchmen is now taking place in Cineplex Odeon theatres across Canada). Oh rabid fans. So hilarious.

I wonder how many are wearing costumes to the theatre?

Anyway. I personally have been waiting for this film to come out since I saw that brilliant teaser trailer when The Dark Knight opened last year. For those not familiar, it's the one using The Smashing Pumpkins "The End is the Beginning is the End" remix, aptly titlted "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning" (get it?). The song's been out for a while. I believe it first appeared on the Batman Forever soundtrack. It's also the first song I ever "downloaded" using Napster, way back when. Those were the days!

Zack Snyder's decision to use this track in the teaser was brilliant. It's a moody remix of a semi-popular, catchy song, and it provides an excellent glimpse into what the overall tone of the film will be: dark, brooding, and devious. It also foreshadowed the kind of publicity push this film was going get between then and now. Again, while I've been eagerly awaiting Watchmen's release, I'm absolutely amazed at the amount of publicity the film has generated.

I work in communications, with most of my experience being on the entertainment industry side. I've worked on enough entertainment-related brands to understand the challenges involved in landing mass amounts of publicity on a given project, let alone doing so in a concise manner using several different types of media. One thing I've learning through my experience is the importance of having a concise and well-thought out communications plan in place. A properly constructed plan will allow the execution of tactics to flow smoothly, while the absence of such a plan can lead to a jumbled, mixed-messaged mess. What the Watchmen communications/marketing team has done is mind-boggling, and I'm certain it's because of an excellent plan.

The advanced coverage this film has received - especially during the last week - is just crazy. I haven't seen all the press associated with this film, but suffice to say, it's a massive amount. The Canadian press alone is staggering. A quick coverage scan shows over 150 print and online hits, including the five-or-so wire stories picked up by many papers across the country throughout the past week. From general film reviews to cast and crew interviews to the inevitable how-does-this-relate-to-Canada story, our homegrown press has been gobbling up anything and everything to do with the film.

I've also noticed the frequency at which print publications have been posting Watchmen sidebar and spinoff stories (check out those linked to the Katherine Monk CanWest piece - shown above, in the "More On This Story" section). I'm certain a publicity team had a hand in generating and facilitating this direct and ancillary press.

The National Post also ran an interesting illustrated history of The Watchmen screen adaptation (Who makes the Watchmen?) in it's weekly Avenue spread. Papers all over the continent have been printing features like this all week. I'm certain publicity teams all around the major markets have been working night and day to generate this kind of press. Kudos!

The Watchmen brand has also been steadily promoted using a bunch of different marketing techniques. These ranging from lengthy television ads to attention-grabbing events, including the innovative Manhattan-on-Thames stunt, featuring a 7-story-tall Dr. Manhattan rising out of London's famed river. They also created a fake newscast from the '70s that went viral in January. Wow.

Perhaps the greatest press achievement has been the film's ability to settle so firmly within the realm of social media. Of the 25-or-so film blogs I follow, all of them have consistently posted on The Watchmen throughout the past two-weeks (see right for a few examples ->). The case can be made that a large portion of this online interest stems from the deep, religious-like interest many blog-enthusiasts have for Watchmen in general. However, I've noticed a large number of film-blogs posting original content, including direct interviews with actors/crew, behind-the-scenes features, advanced screening reviews and a slew of press material they could only have received directly. This suggests the direct influence of a publicity team, which also suggests the innovativeness on the part of this team to reach out to non-traditional media types. Again, kudos!

I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface of what has been done to promote this film. In general though, everything publicity and marketing teams around the world have done to promote this film is indicative of a well-thought out, well-researched and well-executed plan. It's amazing what a thoughtful and innovative plan can do to etch a brand so permanently in the minds of the general public.

While reading through Kofi Outlaw of Screenrant's disection of Watchmen today, I came across this quote...

Seriously though, I’m getting a little fed up with these critics who have their heads so close up" to the movie screen they seem to miss what’s going on beyond the screening room, in the theater of the public. Watchmen is our cultural fixation of the moment–but that fascination won’t last long. I realize that. However, the Watchmen craze WILL last long enough for Snyder and Warner Bros. (and Fox) to turn a very pretty profit for all their hard work, distilling Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ great achievement into mass consumptive form.

Kofi Outlaw also mentions the hype surround the film as one of the main reasons why it will be successful. Obviously reviews of the film are going to be mixed. However, this quote to me that the Watchmen brand - at least for the moment - has transcended traditional movie status to become the pop-culture talking point du jour. Of course all the hype will fade next week, but to inundate a global population with enough information so as to create a global cultural phenomenon is no easy task.

A lot of this hype can be attribute to a team of publicists and marketing people. Furthermore, all the tactics and techniques employed to promote this film outlines the utter importance of having a clear and concise plan. I'm certain without a well-researched plan, Watchmen would have been in trouble. Without a bankable star presence, it's quite possible Watchmen would be floundering instead of on the verge of a record-breaking opening weekend.

The IMDB game - An explanation

2009-03-02T10:00:00.000-08:00

When I was in University, I (like many) was forced to write a multitude of ridiculous essays. While I generally enjoyed the topics I wrote about in school, I hated the strict, regimented way in which I had to organize (re vomit) information in academic "essay" form. That strict Hamburger method generally left me feeling uninspired to do more than was necessary to finish an essay. Lets be real here; there is no art to University essay writing. If you can figure out the formula (it's not that hard), you can crank out mindless, quote-laden schlock to support your wildly baseless arguments in mere hours. What fun!

I always found it beneficial to my overall well-being to stretch these mere hours into days. Some would call this procrastination, but I preferred to call it "extra-curricular research time." To escape the monotony of school work, I, like many, tended to drift to the wide expanse of the Interweb. While others spent their time playing mindless flash games on ebaumsworld, I chose to waste valuable essay hours surfing IMDB.com.

Love it or hate it, IMDB is the single best resource for pertinent film news on the web. Of course, IMDB doesn't approach the industry with the same robust intellectualism of a trade magazine or well-informed blog, but its database format allows IMDB to synthesize mountains of key film information easily and in one place. It's ultra-clickable interface also makes it invaluable in determining who worked on what and, more importantly (or so says I), who's working on, or will be working on what in the near future. For click-hungry, film buffs or for those who just don't feel like sifting through a bunch of text to figure out what's going on, IMDB is the place to be.

I spent hours in university foregoing essays in favour of semi-conscious IMDB clicking. I found that by beginning with a particular actor/director/film of interest, I could start on a click adventure and discover what new/exciting projects were in the works while still keeping in the spirit of wasting time. Soon after, I began trying to work my click adventures into full circles; trying to see if I could start and end with the same person/film. And thus the IMDB game was born.

Feel like playing? Here are a few rules I created to make the game challenging and super FUN!!!

Beginning with any actor, alternate between individual (actor, director, producer) and film title. When possible, try to keep the loop going using new film projects (the ones with red writing next to them). This way, you'll get a better handle on what's going on.
Don't be a hero. There are millions of entries in IMDB. If it's been an hour and you still haven't come full circle, just quit. After all, this is supposed to be a mindless distraction from important computer-related things, not a psychotic obsession. If you're feeling industrious though, write out your connections (see below) and pick up where you left off later.

While the IMDB game doesn't always produce high-calibre projects, it does give you an informative - and potentially hilarious - whitewash of information (you'd be surprised how many actors have starred in now-defunct TV series'). This game also forces you to select people in the industry who are well-know, relevant and most-likely still working and keeps you abreast of many new and proposed major films coming out in the near future.

So with that, here is my first IMDB game entry. I will be playing it from time to time, then posting my results on my blog. If you'd like to play as well, I encourage you to record your connections and post them in the comments section under the IMDB game blog posts.

I began this IMDB game entry last week, shortly after writing my The Rocker post. However, because of my erratic laptop battery, I lost my original post and was discouraged to reproduce it until now. Don't you just hate when that happens?

Anyway, here's my first entry. I managed to go full circle on this one. I had to trudge through A LOT of terrible one-off TV shows, but it was worth it. Have a look

The Rocker -> Rainn Wilson -> Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen -> Megan Fox -> Ironclad -> Paul Giamatti -> The Last Station -> Christopher Plummer -> Up -> Edward Asner -> Trim -> Bruce Dern -> Hart's Location -> Diane Ladd -> American Cowslip -> Val Kilmer -> The Dirt -> Christopher Walken -> Kevin Approaches -> Guy Pierce -> In Her Skin -> Sam Neill -> Daybreakers -> Willem Dafoe -> The Wild Bunch -> Elizabeth Hurley -> The Last Guy on Earth -> Carol Burnett -> The Post Grad Survival Guide -> Jane Lynch -> The Rocker

Happy IMDB gaming!!!

With regards to the Academy Awards

2009-02-23T09:23:00.000-08:00

A lot of people ask me how I feel about the Academy Awards. I used to tell people how much I hated the over-produced, phoney ceremony because of it's ability to dumb-down nominated films with pretentious monologues given by high-strung, ADD-ridden comics and the like.

Let's be honest. I still feel this way.

That being said, I've always appreciated the mass-appeal the Oscars have on our movie-going society, and how it affects absolutely everyone I know in some way, shape or form.

If there's one thing I find more interesting than the Oscars themselves, it's the buzz that fills the air around Oscar season. Like politics, sports and "Octo-mom," it seems most free-thinking individuals have an opinion concerning the entertainment value and viability of this particular awards show.

There are some people who back the Oscars vehemently, arguing they help promote and ultimately support all the hard work individuals put into bringing a film from paper to screen. And then there are those who either "don't care" about the Oscars, or hate them outright. Many of the Oscar-haters I know argue the show little more than the visual representation of a pseudo-trashy gossip magazine: 20 minutes of newsworthy information peppered on top of hours of mindless celebrity interviews, commentary on clothing and conjecture on who's dating who. To be honest, they're not all that far from wrong.

But here's the catch.

The secret is, we ALL love the Oscars, whether we'd like to admit it or not.

No other awards show galvanizes opinion quite like the Oscars. I can't remember the last time I heard a heated discussion about, say, the Day-time Emmys. Furthermore, no other show gets the kind of coverage the Oscars do.

I scanned the four major Canadian dailies yesterday. Not only did all four report on the winners, but they all posted extensive coverage on several "feel-good" winner stories (the win of the Japanese documentary "Departures" was especially poignant). Also included online were those prerequisite photo galleries that accompany every Oscars ceremony, including but not limited to the venerable "best and worst dressed" galleries. Many of the outlets also posted up-to-the-minute blog rolls and "live chats" to chronicle and comment on every second-by-second development, although I'm not entirely sure what they thought was going to happen. Perhaps a broken heel on the red carpet. "Heel Gate."

Follow these links and see how extensive each outlet's coverage was.

Globe and Mail (CTVGlobeMedia)
Toronto Star (TorStar)
Toronto Sun (Sun Media)
National Post (CanWest)

How many international arts events are covered as extensively as the Oscars each year? How many of these events generate buzz six-months before showtime, and sporadically throughout the year (how many times to you hear someone say "that film's going to win an Oscar")?

My point in looking at this coverage is that it suggests something about the close-knit relationship our society has with film in general and the Hollywood star system in particular, as typified by the Oscars.

We love the star system, whether we want to believe we do or not. We love to comment on who's dating who, who's wearing what, and who's going to win. Perhaps more importantly, we love to comment on why we hate the star system, the celebrity gossip and an awards show that is biased and full of pomp, despite the fact that most of us have no say in the voting process whatsoever. Talking about why one hates gossip isn't all that different from gossiping about why one hates gossip, is it?

I like the Oscars. I'll watch if they're on, but I'm never terribly upset if I miss them. I watched the last half of this year's program and was, for the most part, impressed. I enjoyed their decision to have past winners come on stage and talk about those films/actors up for nomination. Even if the whole process was a touch contrived, it still shifted of the awards on creating a dialogue about a film/performance as an artistic work, and not as the backdrop to celebrity gossip, although it's not like the camera didn't cut between Jennifer Aniston and Brangelina every four minutes...lets be real here. It's not exactly the Nobel Prize ceremonies.

But still, let's not forget, the Oscars aren't really about us anyway. I'm sure the nominees don't care in the slightest whether Jim the banker hated the awards ceremony. All they care about is winning the gold statue. They say they care about being nominated, but I'm sure they cry themselves to sleep at night...possibly with shampoo bottles like Kate Winslet used to do. Who knows.

The rest of the western world, though, cares. Even those who are blasé show a fleeting interest at who won the major categories still care in a way.

Yes the Oscars can be weak, but complaining about them is even weaker.

While reading the Toronto Sun's coverage, I found a comment left by "Bryan" that says

"Pretty bad when the National news is an hour late because of overpaid actors worshipping themselves. Who won? Who cares?"

My answer: You do pal.

(Photo courtesy of Reuters)

Film Review: The Rocker (2008)

2009-02-17T18:22:00.000-08:00

I knew this would happen.

I was at the local video store looking for something to rent on the weekend. It has been a while since I had perused the new releases section, and I was eager to see what bountiful booty had found its way to the shelves. As I generally hate being major chain video stores (especially the half-assed branches that exist in my home town), my goal was to pick a flick quickly, then leave with my soul intact.

It was a toss up between two flicks: the new X-Files release (X-Files: I Want to Believe) with Billy Connolly, and The Rocker, with Rainn Wilson. While I'm interested to see what sitting in production purgatory for 10 years did (or didn't) do for the X-Files film, I decided The Rocker was the way to go. After all, who wants to deal with heavy Alien/Conspiracy dialogue on the Sunday night of a long weekend?

Here's the other side of the coin though. Reading the back of The Rocker, I knew it had the potential to...well...rock. Hair-Metal, Rock cliches, Rainn Wilson? Guaranteed to illicit a few laughs, right? Yet with all the awesome-ness, there was that nagging possibility that The Rocker could take a nosedive 2/3's of the way through. I knew it going in, but It was a risk I was willing to take.

....And, well, I was right.

As mentioned, The Rocker stars Rainn Wilson (The Office) as Robert 'Fish' Fishman, a 30-something desk jockey vehemently obsessed with the rock star life he once had as original drummer for the hair-metal mega-band Vesuvius.

Fast-foward to 10 years (or so) later. Vesuvius is the biggest band in the world, and Fish is stuck floundering in an office. A series of events brings him in contact with his nephew Matt (Josh Gad), and his teenaged angst-ridden high-school band A.D.D. Fish eventually joins A.D.D., whose mismatched musical line-up produces hilarious results...for a while.

Watching this film, I hoped - no prayed - that it would take the high road and not stroll down the Skid Row of American comedies: the three-act rags-t0-riches-with-a-touch-of-love plotline. But after the first 30 minutes, it became quite apparent The Rocker was not only going down to Skid Row, but it was looking to score some smack and die the OD death of a rockstar on the curb.

The film opens up with some absolutely hilarious moments. Vesuvius' opening performance with Rainn Wilson along side Will Arnett (Arrested Development, this hillarious clip), Fred Armisen (SNL, the "creepy Italian" in EuroTrip) and Bradley Cooper (Alias, He's Just Not That Into You...ugh) is so well executed, that it's oddly and accurately reminiscent of the flamboyant hair-metal performances that typified the '80s.

Other comedic heavy weights, including Jeff Garlin, Jane Lynch, Human Giant's Aziz Ansari and SNL's Jason Sudeikis as the slimy, over-confident band manager (check this clip out) give this film a hard and fast comedic edge that fools the audience in believing the laughs can last right to the end.

Performances newcomers Josh Gad, and Emma Stone are particularly brilliant, and a pleasure to watch on-screen. Both actors display an astute sense of comedic timing and presence well beyond their years, and hold their own in obvious ad-lib matches with the much more seasoned professionals in the film.

And then it happens...Enter Christina Applegate.

I like Christina Applegate, but her abrupt appearance 2/3's into the film meant only one thing: Love Interest. Well, it meant two things: Love interest followed by me vomiting in my mouth.

Her appearance sets of a cataclysmic chain of events where characters start falling in love, learning about morals and coming to terms with their pasts...Wonderful. As a result, the last 1/3 of the film was a blur to me, because I stopped paying attention and started looking for blunt instruments to gouge my eyes out with.

I'm not opposed to love on film (I think The Notebook is wonderfully directed and beautifully acted). I am opposed to love subplots when they're injected in a formulaic manner into a film that doesn't need it. When Applegate is introduced, it's not hard for the audience to guess the sequence of events...

1. Girl introduced to guy, is annoyed by his childish ways (etc.)

2. Guy, in turn, thinks girl is a prude and says/does things to annoy her

3. Cosmic forces intervene to bring Guy/Girl closer together for some mutual goal

4. Guy/Girl realize they're not that different after all.

5. Guy/Girl eventually realize Cinderella-like love story

6. Life works out, everyone's happy and Guy/Girl buy a house and make Rice Krispie squares

I had hoped when renting this film that it was going to take the School of Rock approach to Rock-flicks, namely that Rock take primacy over all other subplots, thus squashing them out of the film. After watching School of Rock, I applauded director Richard Linklater for not resorting to the love-interest three-act American comedy model, when it would have been so easy to do so. Of course his comedy was light movie-going fare (it had a bunch of kids in it, after all), but it was intelligent because it picked the theme of rocking out and stuck with it.

The Rocker, by contrast, chose to start off thrashing right out of the gates, only to halt its momentum by poisoning itself with love at the end.

In a way though, The Rocker typifies the genre it portrays: Strong and full of energy at the beginning, flaccid and dead at the end.

Sometimes I hate being right.....

Pros:

Great ensemble cast of well-established comedians give comedic bits a sharper edge
Excellent performances from newcomers Josh Gad and Emma Stone
Decision to cast teen heartthrob and John Mayer-like musician Teddy Geiger as the singer of A.D.D. gave the band some performance believability.

Cons:

Cliched love-interest subplot insertion ruined all momentum this film built up in the first 2/3's of the film.
Christina Applegate's performance was unfortunately lack-lustre and vomit-inducing.
Where are all the guest appearances by Skid Row, Cinderella, Poison and all other Hair Metal bands that made this period in music history so hilarious?

...On Bryan Singer

2009-02-13T11:45:00.000-08:00

In my previous post, I wrote a bit about my favourite film The Usual Suspects. While I enjoy the film greatly, I was on the fence about it's director, Bryan Singer.

With a professional career spanning over 16 years, Singer has yet to make a film as critically acclaimed as The Usual Suspects. As a result, I always wondered why he never chose to make something similar. It made me wonder whether Bryan Singer was a cinematic visionary with the ability to provide credibility to big budget Hollywood projects, or whether he was a race-horse that started off fast out of the gate, but who broke his legs around turn three and needed to be "retired" (I don't think they shoot race horses anymore, do they?)? I gave this question quite a bit of thought a few weeks ago, and this is what I came up with.

First off, Singer has directed five Hollywood films, since directing The Usual Suspects in 1994: 1998's Apt Pupil; X-Men and its sequel X2 in 2000, and 2003 respectively; 2006's Superman Returns and the 2008 WWII thriller Valkyrie, starring Tom Cruise. He's been the Executive Producer on a number of television shows (House, Dirty Sexy Money etc.), but for the sake of argument, we'll focus on those who's visual elements he's had a direct hand in shaping.

I love The Usual Suspects, but primarily for nostalgic reasons. Many reviewers - both mainstream as well as bloggers - have struggled with it's confusing story line. Rottentomatoes.com is peppered with reviewers who struggle with the film, and/or the so-called pretentious way in which it jerks viewers around. While TIME's Richard Corliss sung it's praises several times, Roger Ebert has noted that, surprise ending aside, The Usual Suspects ultimately solves nothing in a film that has nothing to solve (if that makes sense). However, most criticisms I've read of the film focus on it's up-and-down plot direction and tend not to dwell on its stylistic elements.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the film shows flashes of cinematographic brilliance, with intelligent shot progressions and a beautiful use of colour - all elements that can be attributed to a director's style. While I don't believe it's a flawless film, I think it stands on it's own as a major directorial debut. But this is exactly what bugged me about Singer.

I would argue that The Usual Suspects is popular because of it's twist-ending, which is why film purists are lukewarm to me calling it my favourite. This popularity calls into question whether the film would have been a directorial tour-de-force had the plot twist not been as major a factor as it was. This ending - what people associate the most with this film - is a cliched trick, but one that was executed flawlessly. It's also what galvanizes opinion either for, or against this film. I would also argue its success created an expectation within the public sphere to produce another film equalling its success. It also created that same expectation within myself. For a long time I wondered why this guy couldn't buckle down and make something as intelligent as his debut film.

But then something happened

I was at Blockbuster with a friend a few weeks ago, looking for something to rent. He suggested we rent Superman. I reluctantly agreed. I had seen the film once before and had liked it...but not LOVED it.

We were driving back when I mentioned how much of a shame it was that Bryan Singer would never make another equal to The Usual Suspects. My friend said "I'm glad he hasn't tried. He'd be a one-trick pony if he had."

That got me thinking...

Compare Singer to M. Night Shyamalan, whose 1999 blockbuster The Sixth Sense used a similar plot twist to conclude his film. Unlike Singer, Shyamalan chose to use these twists throughout his body of work. I like most of Shyamalan's films, but his unwavering desire to use the same technique time and time has grown a little tired.

Like Singer, those who criticize Shyamalan often compare his work to his first, and most successful film. However, Shyamalan has chosen to stay roughly in the same thriller genre, which makes these comparisons credible, while Singer taken steps to distance himself from The Usual Suspects. Unlike Shyamalan, Singer's films exist despite the success of his first film, not because of it. He has never attempted to use similar plot techniques in his films, thus never pegging himself as a one-trick pony. I believe this is a good thing.

Although he's made very few films, Singer's major releases following The Usual Suspects have been set in different genres. Consider X-Men. The film was a great success...and nothing like The Usual Suspects. It was the first of the modern comic adaptations and ushered in a slew of similar adaptations that have typified summer blockbusters of the past decade. In this way, X-Men is groundbreaking.

Consider also Superman Returns. While I was initially so-so about this film, a second watching was much more fulfilling and yielded more by way of content than I ever would have suspected.

At the time of its released, superhero blockbusters had become the stable of the summer season. Big name players like Spiderman, The (Ang Lee) Hulk, and Daredevil had already had their kick at the can. The X-Men franchise had spawned two more sequels, one which surpassed the original in terms of complexity and one that sucked big time. Even smaller cult heroes like Hellboy and Constantine were allowed to shine on screen.

When Superman was announced, many (including myself) thought it was going to centre around a major character reinvention, somewhat analogous to Christopher Nolan's adaptation of Batman Begins. But it didn't play out like that at all.

In an era where the pressure was on remaking and reinvention, Singer chose to continue the original story line last portrayed on screen in 1987's Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. While this film was terrible, Singer's decision to transfer many of the character nuances and histories over into his film was a brave decision, and one that deserves a certain amount of admiration. To continue an existing story line 19 years after it last ended shows a respect for film history and the mythology that surrounded the release of those original films.

Singer's Superman ultimately under-performed at the box office, at least in the eyes of Warner Bros. Studio exec Alan Horn. But a rereading of this film proved to me that Singer possesses a creative edge that is not solely based on the desire to produce a body of work.

As I mentioned in the opening to this post (way back when), I had initially struggled with Singer's inability to replicate the success he had achieved with The Usual Suspects. Watching Superman again made me realize that perhaps replication had never been Singer's goalas a filmmaker.

I suppose it would have been easy for him to create another film with a crazy plot-twist ending (Like Shyamalan), but he didn't. In 16 years of filmmaking, he's only directed five films, which suggests to me that he picks what he does carefully. That he has chosen different films existing in different genres and being made under different circumstances tells me that he is a director that is not as much concerned with replicating his freshman success as he is with making challenging films altogether.

Like I said earlier, I don't think Singer will ever be as great a director as those we consider to be the best. That being said, he is a good director with a good understanding of what good films should look like. He's also better at traversing the boundary between Film and TV than most, making him a master at achieving success regardless of the medium. There is a lot that can be said for being able to exist in these two different worlds harmoniously.

While I was on the fence about Bryan Singer, some careful thought, analysis and research made me realize he's not the lame race horse I once thought he was.

No need to send him to the glue factory just yet.

The Usual Suspects - My Favourite Film

2009-02-10T19:56:00.001-08:00

I think it best to start this blog off with a little information about me. Before I start ranting and raving about this and that, perhaps it would be best for me to lay the foundation and let you know what I'm about cinematically, and what films tickle my fancy.

First off, I believe that one can be partially defined and profiled what what films they like the most. There is arguably no greater form of art that is as widely embraced yet as emotionally influential as filmmaking. Films have the ability to change minds and alter perceptions about the world in a way that few other mediums can. Because film exists in a narratively and aesthetically-constructed manner, it can affect how we feel on a very personal level. The greatest filmmakers understand how to control and manipulate these fronts, thus creating wonderful pieces of work that fill us with emotion (of some sort) and leave us thinking - sometimes for days, sometimes for years and sometimes forever!

Of course this is a generalization of sorts. I could spend days debating this point back and forth. but suffice to say, this basic understanding is what separates good films from, say Space Buddies.

My favourite film, without a doubt is The Usual Suspects. I'm serious...#1 of all time! Sometimes I tell people this and they give me funny looks - especially if they're passionate about film and film studies. Answers sometimes go like this...

"Seriously? It's because of the ending, right?"

"(insert requisite eyeroll) Oh, I get it. It's because Kevin Spacey's SOOOO wonderful in it, right?"

"Hey man, it's good. It's just not what I'd call '#1-worthy,' that's all"

Trust me, I've heard it all. I mean, after all, it's a mid-90s thriller with a crazy ending. It's so contrived, so Hollywood and so very OBVIOUS! But I love it, and here's why.

When I was 12, a couple of my pals and I rented it as part of a "rent-three-movies-cheap" deal at Jumbo video. We got through the first two (Johnny Mnemonic was one of them, I think), but we called it a night before hitting the third. The next night, with a deadline to return the tapes looming over my shoulder, I decided to watch the third one - The Usual Suspects - myself. From the moment I pushed play, I was mesmerized.

Dialogue was snappy; shots were full and colourful; cuts were quick and the music was riveting. Most importantly, the plot was so dynamic, it became hard to follow what was going on a times. It left no room for ADD look-at-distracting-shiny-things moments. I REALLY had to pay attention.

By the time I got to the end of the film, I was completely engrossed. I just couldn't stop watching. I was so fixated on everything going on in the film, that I was completely blind-sided by the ending.

For you unlucky souls who haven't seen this flick, I won't ruin your life by ruining this ending. It is, after all, one of those seminal cinematic plot twists - Up there with Rosebud in Citizen Kane. It is a powerhouse ending, and it left me speechless.

No, that's a lie

It left me screaming at the top of my lungs, no jokes! It was 11:30 when the movie ended. I was freaking out so loudly that my Mom rushed downstairs to make sure I was alright. After convincing her my freak out was cinematic in nature, and not from huffing glue or experimenting with drugs (I was 12, after all), I ran through all the highlights of the film to her.

She ended up watching the film the next day, and loving it. She even showed it to my Grandfather, who, despite all the swearing (old people and swearing is never a good combo) thought it to be one of the best films he had ever seen.

I re-watched this film over and over again. To this day, I have most of the dialogue memorized word-for-word. When I transferred into Film Studies at Carleton University, I used every opportunity to analyse and summarize elements of the film for assignments and presentations. And why not? The film is well-shot and directed, especially considering it was director Bryan Singer's first major role and he was working with an All-Star cast of top-calibre actors. His use of colour is wonderful and his camera movement, while very textbook, still contains moments of brilliance (The scene when Chazz Palminteri busts through the office door and says "Who's Keyser Soze" to Kevin Spacey comes to mind).

The Christopher McQuarrie-written script is fast-paced and heavily dialogue-driven. It incorporates all the staples that typify tough-guy gangster bravado - including references to past crimes, apathy towards killing while on a job, and tons of swearing (like Goodfellas). Of course it has its flaws, but all in all, it's a fantastic film. But these aren't the reasons why it's my favourite.

I love this film because it was the first one I ever watched critically. It was the first film I watched where I was conscious of the way in which it was shot and the techniques used. It was the first film where I noticed how important mise-en-scene (placement of objects/actors within a specific shot) was to creating a sense of visual completeness. It was the first film where I realized how important it is for a film to be edited properly to convey meaning. It was as though someone had turned a light on in my head. It was an exhilarating experience, and one that would completely change the way I watched film. They were no longer just "Movies," they were beautiful pieces of art.

Because of this film, I began researching older films considered "great" in their own right. I spent countless hours by myself watching old westerns, comedies, dramas and anything else I could get my hands on. Some of these films required A LOT of focus and mental energy (remember my ADD and love of shiny things), but I ultimately got way more out of them than what I had to put in. Immersing myself in films of all types gave me access to countless visual and mental wild rides, and allowed me access to the subjective imaginations of others. Quite literally, the development of a love of film quite literally changed my life.

Cinematically, The Usual Supects might not be as revered as anything made by Truffault, Bergman or Kirosawa - considered to be 'great' filmmakers. It is, however, a big deal to me. As I mentioned earlier, film has the ability to affect us on a deeply personal level. This film opened my eyes to the complexity of filmmaking separate from the simple enjoyment one gets from sitting on the couch and watching a movie. I became more aware because of it.