Body Snatchers

BODY SNATCHERS doesn't really deserve to be held up against its predecessors, for it exists on an entirely different level of filmmaking. Directed by the treasured Abel Ferrara, this is a film about people more than it is a film about body snatchers. Humanity, and guilt are in play here within a story familiar to us. A family goes to a military base because the father has work to do there. The mother is the first to go, possessed by a body snatcher that kills her and imitates her body. The little boy suspects the mother of this change, and warns his older sister (Gabrielle Anwar). Everyone starts to turn and the older sister flees with a military boy to destroy the aliens. Ferrara's spin is specific and seductive. For one thing, the ending (which I shall not reveal) ends the film on a note contrary to the usual: everyone's fucked mentality. But for another, more integral piece of work, Ferrara creates a tension with the family. The sister and brother don't like each other because they don't share the same amount of time with their parents. The sister hates the father because he's a constricting asshole, and the mother is a stepmother which makes her a foreigner inhabiting a specific persona just like how the alien inhabits her. BODY SNATCHERS is well filmed and fun, scary but substantial in every scene and every gesture. It's a great film.
Body Snatchers: ★★★★

The Others

THE OTHERS is a superior horror film, one that pays attention to style, but also one that goes a long way in terms of substance, in finality. Beyond being entertaining, the end of THE OTHERS is one that puts a new light on an old idea in the form of a twist. Well made, this twist was perhaps problematic in other hands, but in the eyes and under the camera of Alejandro Amenebar, I accepted it. There's a lot of muddle near the middle, but that only comes from frustration, but the vastness created in every room and every eyeball is enough to make an entertaining film pretty great. Starring Nicole Kidman is a great performance, THE OTHERS tells of a wealthy widow living in a mansion. Help appears at the door one day, and she hires the trio, a group of elderly workers who had worked in the house many years prior. The children in the house (two of them, and played wonderfully) are allergic to light, and thus the doors, shutters, and curtains all remain closed and locked. From this creepy premise we're given a conventional but well filmed ghost story. The children begin to see ghosts, and there are some mysteries looming, but nothing seems out of the ordinary in terms of narrative approach until the end. It's a great twist, one that I admire and enjoyed, but it shouldn't define the whole film. The first hour and a half or so is a very good, conventional ghost story, and the last thirty minutes is a great movie. Still though, 'very good' and 'great' combined makes something very worth seeing: well acted, shot, and paced.
The Others: ★★★1/2

Theater of Blood

THEATER OF BLOOD is an exercise in self-parody, accentuating the serio-comic persona that made Vincent Price famous in the later part of his career. That subtlety of his earlier work is here taken to an extreme, as Price plays Edward Lionheart, a disgruntled Shakespearian over-actor panned by the critics and seeking revenge. After faking his own death, Lionheart returns with a group of meth-riddled bums as his cronies, and in an old, derelict theater, murders each any every one of the critics. Specifically angered over losing the critics choice award of 1970 for best actor, Lionheart formulates his murders based after deaths in Shakespearian plays, and as he recites a passage from the play, plunges a knife in his victims' hearts. Lionheart is hammy but sort of endearing as he makes the case for himself, saying that the talentless critics panned him and ruined his life for little relief but for their careers. It's easy to take him seriously too considering how each and every one of the critics are complete buffoons in one way or another. But that adds to the fun. Who wants to see an inventive death not happen? Price is over-the-top but all the better for it too. This isn't the flaw of the film, but parades as it to purport itself as trash. The real flaw is in the pacing, which is sort of languorous. THEATER OF BLOOD is no great film, but an odd one, and a creepy one, which makes it worth seeing for its weird decisions alone.
Theater of Blood: ★★★

Last Man On Earth

LAST MAN ON EARTH was the first film adaptation from the novel, I am Legend, which was made into the popular, but problematic I AM LEGEND with Will Smith. LAST MAN ON EARTH, however, while not even sharing the same title as the book, is a much better adaptation of the general idea the book conveys. Vincent Price is the lead in this film, giving the film its first main flaw: an overbearing self-narrative, despite the power Price conveys, which is more powerful than anything Smith ever really gave in I AM LEGEND. The film follows Price around a post-apocolyptic world after being struck by a plague that turned everyone into vampires. Price keeps up his life in his house, boarded up, and venture out into the city by day to execute sleeping vampires and search for food and supplies. We also get a long flashback about how the disease came about, and its effect upon society. As Price searches for remnants of the human race, the defining qualities of that race is challenged. He, Price, executes these creatures, but only on the pretense that they're evil, and without the knowledge of their own constructed night-society. There are some striking images in LAST MAN ON EARTH, and Price is a likable lead, but the story is a little thin, and in terms of real content, the film lags. Not great.
Last Man on Earth: ★★1/2

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

Despite much of the talk that has been made about HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, it is no horror film in the conventional sense of that terminology. It's too slow, too biliously building to be that kind of abrupt horror. Rather, HENRY fits into a disturbing group of cinematic quasi-breakthrough. Released Unrated in the 80's in order to avoid an NC-17 rating, HENRY tells the sickening tale of a tall, stoic drifter named Henry (Michael Rooker). He lives in an apartment with a drug dealer just out of jail named Otis. Henry kills people, he's a serial killer, but no enigmatic, hammy type like Hannibal Lecter. Instead, Henry is cold and gross. We see his mangled victims, each killed in different ways to keep the cops off his trail, and the camera pans in on their empty eyes, their screams acting as background music. One day, Otis' sister Becky comes into town. She begins to live with Henry and Otis, and takes a great liking to Henry. She's a damaged person though in the greatest sense of that elusive phrase. Molested as a child, Otis has the same tendencies as their deranged father, and Becky's in danger. Henry and Otis start killing people together, and Becky stands on the sidelines in some sick admiration and some ignorance. What is ultimately devastating about HENRY though is the coldness of its subject, and the relentless sickening scenes after sickening scenes. There's not even a style to the kills, but an ugly abruptness followed by quasi-methodical ritual. As what it purports itself to be, a 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' HENRY is a good film, but just that. For reasons I cannot pin down, its detachment, and the general pathetic-ness makes the film appear as disaster porn. Still, however, worth seeing.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer: ★★★

Battle in Seattle

This film seems so relevant today, and even more worthwhile because it's major flaw repurposes it to apply to any kind of protest. BATTLE IN SEATTLE pretends to be specific though, and that's a false pretense given the smart filmmaking apart from any of those scenes. Through the eyes of six people: protester, cop, and official alike, director Stuart Townsend attempts to incite us against the WTO (World Trade Organization). The WTO is supposedly cruel and business oriented, but Townsend's film is an utter failure under this light, and a triumph under another. Despite the six stories Townsend follows, none of these convinced me one way or the other that the WTO is wicked, but in every single story, Townsend convinced me of police brutality. Most interestingly seen through Woody Harrelson's frightened cop and his pregnant, in danger wife (Charlize Theron), the effects of chaos are seen. The film uses a shaky-cam to capture the insanity, and what comes across in distinct tones, scenes, and yells is the brutality of the police. We see in BATTLE IN SEATTLE the modern protest, and that makes it sort of relevant. Any of its scenes of protesting could be interchanged with any other modern protest (like, say, the Occupy Wall Street protests of today) by just replacing the signs. BATTLE IN SEATTLE is inept in its purpose, but it finds another niche of worth, and that's really just as good.
Battle in Seattle: ★★★

NINJA KIDS!!!

It's spelled in the exact way I spelled it above. But, NINJA KIDS!!! is a film by Takashi Miike, one of the best directors alive in the world. It's insane. It's completely fucking cuckoo and good for it. It's bright, colorful, cheesy, dumb, irreverant, funny, retarded, thrilling, instructive, and great. It tells the story of Rantaro, a young, cute Japanese boy who leaves his family to go to the Ninja Academy. There, he will redeem his family in the eyes of the ninjas. Except, Rantaro is in 1st grade. The young ninjas learn all about how to be a ninja in the most entertaining part of the film. We get instructive insights into every weapon and style, and then the teacher bangs the head of a young kid on the desk, spewing snot everywhere and thrusting the boy out the window where he plummets, hits a rock with his head, and falls peacefully asleep. Then an assassination attempt occurs, but the assassin isn't allowed in because he won't sign in. Then there's ninja hair stylists who fight people by giving them silly hairstyles, a race, more snot, a devious dog, small fish!!! NINJA KIDS!!! is fucking insane, but Miike handles the insanity. The film is funny, repetitive in its comedy over the span of twenty minutes, and we are reminded of things that we found comical earlier. There is obvious parody at work, some heart, and some ridiculousness. When some sappy scene threatens itself, Miike handles it perfectly with some oddball revelation. NINJA KIDS!!! is purely fun, terrific entertainment without any convention.
NINJA KIDS!!!: ★★★1/2

Out of Sight

Directed by Steven Soderbergh, star studded, and consisting of outstanding cinematography, OUT OF SIGHT is a hell of a lot of fun. Based off of the Elmore Leonard novel, OUT OF SIGHT is at first glance the story of a cop-criminal relationship. The characters in the film are well aware of this fact, and that makes the film all the better. George Clooney stars as Jack Foley. He's a career bank robber, been in and out of prison, and has a way with words that gets most people to do whatever he wants. Soderbergh puts us in the middle of Foley's life, and the film concerns itself with what happened before, and what's happening. Foley has a number of criminal friends, all entertaining characters, especially Ving Rames as Foley's partner, but when he breaks out of prison, he stumbles across the beautiful, hard-ass U.S. Marshall, Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez in a very good performance). Karen follows Foley around the country as he plans one last big heist, but this is an unconventional tale that takes us through the conventions and then shows us how it can do them differently. The filmmaking is smart and the images are excellent, Clooney is great, and Lopez surprises us. OUT OF SIGHT is a great movie, it's entertaining and a lot of fun.
Out of Sight: ★★★★

Red State

RED STATE is one of the worst films I can remember seeing. It's inept, perpetuates its own unimportance, its lazy, and its ugly. Directed by Kevin Smith, RED STATE being his last film ever, which is a good thing considering his recent films (See: COP OUT), I see a lazy filmmaking here. Smith has always been one to continue a swath of laziness, CLERKS celebrates this, but its sort of immature in the way that the characters never change. At least CLERKS, though, realizes this immaturity, but then years later, Smith makes CLERKS II, which merely belittles the characters and the original film in intent alone. Smith believes in filmmaking as he sees it, and his trainwreck, COP OUT, which catapulted him out of the mainstream, led him to this schlocky piece of garbage: RED STATE. RED STATE is about a cult, led by a disgusting minster who captures three unsuspecting high school boys. He believes the boys to be homosexuals, even though he lured them in by using one of his female followers (Melissa Leo) to sexually persuade them into her trailer. At work here are Smith's notions about cults, which are underdeveloped and surface-y. He has no concept of real cults, and thus creates a quasi-cult, a creation of his own mind. There are a lot of good actors in RED STATE, probably lured in on Smith's insistence of RED STATE as his final film. Good, RED STATE because like torture-porn in the way it disposes of the poor teenagers in the same fashion of a FRIDAY THE 13th film. The images at hand are ugly and poorly comprised, and there are so many plot holes and immature notions here, I could choke the filmmakers with them. Especially offensive is Smith's take on the high schoolers. He makes them say dumbshit things and toys with them. RED STATE is just awful. The action is second-rate, the acting is submerged in the bad decisions of the director, and the intents are just befuddling and dumb. Smith has become a bad director, and this is a bad film. I will not miss his work, for he has fallen into the trap he warned of in CLERKS: he has stayed immature, he has not grown up.
Red State: 1/2 of a star

An American Werewolf in London

It's too bad that AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON kills off its most likable character early on, too bad that it features a great performance out of Jenny Agutter as a nurse, too bad that the makeup on display is excellent, too bad that the ending is a brilliant change, when the film as a whole is a stupid, cynical mess. David (David Naughton) and Jack (Griffin Dunne) are young Americans making their way across Europe. They're funny young men, especially Jack, and they sadly find themselves in an unfriendly town that looks like it came out of the 1800's. The townspeople are unhelpful curmudgeons, and the boys leave town for the dreaded moors. They begin to hear the cry of a wolf, and they both flee while making funny one-liners. Jack is torn apart and brutally killed, while David lives, their attacker is shot, and David ends up in London under the care of a beautiful nurse. Exposed in the title, David is now a werewolf, bitten by the last one alive, and apparently forcing Jack to walk the Earth as a undead because he is the last werewolf. Jack pleads with David to take his own life, thus setting them both free to heaven, but David resists. Turns out, David brutally kills a lot of people on his own, and the idiot decision creates a cynical void in the middle of the film, populated on its edges by bad editing, poor storytelling, and a weakly supported main character. Then that's it, and we know how the film ends. Very bad.
An American Werewolf in London: ★1/2

Paranormal Activity 3

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 is a bore of a film and it makes little sense in any context of a trilogy. The general premise of the Paranormal Activity movies is that in a house, there are ghosts about, and one of the family members gets the bright idea to film different portions of the house so that paranormal activity can be caught on tape. What makes little sense to me is A) How we are expected to believe that three members of a distant family can all get the idea to tape the experiences. It would make sense for one film, but the shared knowledge is a contrivance. B) That if ghosts were in the house, they would parade about on tape. Despite this, I bought into PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 for the first few minutes and especially about the last fifteen. I would say that in this film, where the boyfriend of the mother of two girls films the goings-on, I liked about 20 minutes. The problem with the film is that we get long stretches of boredom where people sleep. There's a lot of expectations set up in the film. We expect that we are going to be frightened, but don't know when. Unfortunately though, scares come about every 15 minutes and for the rest of the time, we're bored. The film was directed by the same two men who directed 2010's CATFISH (which was a very good film). Little of that talent is on display in this film though, and its essentially a stupid piece of utter shit, using the children in the film for cheap scares in sadistic, gross scenes that, when long, grow ridiculous. That being said, the film is also very scary, but its just not well made and not thought out. It's a rehash, and for me, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 was interesting only in its novelty (for I have not seen either of the earlier films).
Paranormal Activity 3: ★★

House on Haunted Hill

I would say that the 1959 film, HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is the best film on Halloween that exists. Halloween, at first, suggests horror, but behind that horror there is the knowledge that such things as witches and monsters do not exist. This is the intent of HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. In the film, a wealthy mogul named Fredrick Loren (played by the legendary Vincent Price), invites a group of five people to a house he owns. The house is supposedly haunted, and is a notorious eyesore in an abandoned part of town. Loren tells the five that they will all have a little party, and if they can stay the night, he will pay them $10,000. This seems like easy money to the five, and they all show up for the fun. However, everything goes wrong, and in shocking scenes filled with empty space and gorgeous lighting, the ghosts come out. There is a lot of clever and smart filmmaking at work. Not only is the story quite clever, and the end brilliant, but the way that tension builds (and the reasoning for why tension building is important) is occasionally quite scary. What Price and director William Castle accomplish is a shared hysteria. The five visitors are all unreliable source of information, and the camera never follows any one of them too carefully. This makes for a treasure of a film, entertaining and well made.
House on Haunted Hill: ★★★1/2

Marwencol

At first, MARWENCOL looks like a sad but conventional trip through the life of Mark Hogancamp. Beaten brutally outside a bar in New York, Mark's brain was essentially altered after the beating. His lawyer tells us about the incident, and we see Mark as a severely damaged, retarded man. And then the film changes, and we learn that Mark was a real asshole, a drunk who probably started the fight (not to say that he deserved his punishment). He was a drawer in his old life, but this is a Mark Hogancamp who is now a different person, and reminisces on his old self (who he cannot remember) sadly, telling us that he doesn't even undestand such violence. He is however, a damaged person with fragmented memories and sad obsessions. In his first appartment after the incident, he pined after the woman next door (married and with two children). The woman and even her husband understand and pity Mark, but Mark sees the woman very clearly as something he probably knows he will never be able to have again. And then the film shifts. Mark, in order to deal with his personal tragedy, constructs a world in which he can live comfortably. He begins to collect action figure dolls, dresses them, names them after people he knows, and photographs them incessantly. He creates the town of Marwencol, with himself as a sturdy officer in a WWII town. He parades his figures (dead ringers for their real-life counterparts) around town on the road in a little jeep, he gives them all perfect detail. We see in Mark a man who has created a world that he can control, because he cannot control the world in reality. And then the film shifts. Mark is discovered by another photographer, and his work is put out into the open. Mark's images are beautiful and expressive, serious and non-comical works of his mind. MARWENCOL itself is a very good film about a very interesting subject. Although it is occasionally manipulative in its chosen paths, it is an interesting portrait of a man and his art.
Marwencol: ★★★1/2

Sukiyaki Western Django

Takashi Miike's SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO is essential a tribute to spaghetti westerns. Like any film that Miike is issued though, SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO, which in its very name references a Japanese delicacy and the western, DJANGO, becomes an odd, but well directed piece of cinema. Miike's influences apropos to the western films he's basing the movie off of are clear, but more interestingly, Miike's common themes of poor farmers with children comes into play. The story centers around two warring factions of samurai/townspeople vying for an unimportant town with hidden treasure. A man without a name enters the town, and his quick draw makes him the subject of a from-everywhere pull for his talents. Through flashbacks, splattered gore, and charming tributes which many unfamiliar with the films he's referencing might not get, Miike crafts a pretty damn good action film. There are some flaws here, the decision to make all of the actors speak in English when Miike himself is not an English speaker was a mistake, and the implantation of Quentin Tarantino at the beginning of the film and near the end as a gunner descending into old age is a little indulgent of Tarantino's sensibilities, while not really forming that character clearly enough. But Miike's action here is occasionally quite beautiful, and as he moves from parody to tribute to his own brand of kick-ass literal gut wrenching, SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO clarifies itself as an artistic statement on the western: the descending powers of men without names, the trivialities of war-like fighting, and pure horror / fun.
Sukiyaki Western Django: ★★★

The Evolution of Awards: The State of the Best Actress Category and Elizabeth Olsen's Ascension

     We are coming into a world of film where each category defined by the Academy Awards is becoming distinctively categorizable. For example, in contemporary times, the Best Actor spot is one usually dominated by an actor who everyone thinks must have an Oscar by now, but doesn't. These are spots filled by A-list stars who have moved into independent film territory. For 2010, Colin Firth won. He, although never really acting in studio films perpetually, is an actor filling the space in audience's minds as a serious one, or at least a very good one. In 2009, Jeff Bridges won, in 2008, Sean Penn. For the Best Actor prize, we tend to give our awards to actors who we feel comfortable giving them to. 2008 put Penn against Mickey Rourke in an unattractive, but worthy performance, but Rourke had been out of the spotlight too long, and his face is too mangled. Penn won. The list goes on and on from Russel Crowe to Denzel Washington at the start of the century. In short, we give the Best Actor prize in modern times to actors who we can view as defining and important in the same league of John Wayne: obviously an attractive role, usually playing a good guy, and most importantly: American.
     In the Best Supporting Actor area, though, we see the actors who the Academy (and thus the popular opinion) view as very good (or, in truth, the real best actor who had a role too small to be thrusted into a defining Best Actor position). In 2010, although Christian Bale wrongly won, John Hawkes, a pillar of independent film, was a nominee for his great performance in WINTER'S BONE and he was surrounded by Jeremy Renner and Geoffrey Rush (whose performance in THE KING'S SPEECH was arguably better than Firth's). In 2009, Christoph Waltz, an unknown, and a villain won. Waltz's performance was the best of all the nominees in actor categories that year, but if he had been in the Best Actor spot, he would have lost. Heath Ledger, Javier Bardem, and Alan Arkin populate earlier Best Supporting Actor wins, and all of these were unattractive roles played well.
     The Best Supporting Actress spots are usually, sadly, throwaways. Viola Davis in 2008's DOUBT was too minor and impressed upon to actually be of serious merit, 2009's PUSH, with another black woman, Mo'nique, was undeserved and silly, and even the usually worthy Melissa Leo won in 2010 for a performance that ranks low in her body of work.
     However, now we have come to the most interesting category of all: The Best Actress award. This is turning into an award, especially in the 10's, I think, that is a secret admission of the public of greatness. We have gone from giving this award to old women to 20-year olds, and this is an admirable change. The Academy Awards have never been, for true film lovers, a definitive statement on the best of anything, but rather a celebratory time of recognition. But here there is some greatness, some real sexuality. We look at a league of 20-something year old actresses and see a vulnerability and a deep love of film. In the late 00's, we awarded the Oscar to Helen Mirren and Kate Winslet (young, but film weathered), and always hiding in the nominee area were Judi Dench, Meryl Streep, Julie Christie. Now however, I predict a change forwarded by the vulnerable and invested performance of Natalie Portman in 2010's BLACK SWAN. This is becoming a race for the 20-something year olds. Carey Mulligan's nomination in 2009, and horrendous lose to the shlock-fest of THE BLIND SIDE with the grating Sandra Bullock, hinted at this change, and the change has come with Natalie Portman. Portman herself had to vie for 2010's prize with Jennifer Lawrence, who embodies the 'great 20-something year olds' fully. In 2011, we can expect a barrage of this. There are some older women threatening as dark horses (Meryl Streep in the upcoming IRON LADY, Tilda Swinton in WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN, and Glenn Close in ALBERT KNOBBS), but I believe that the award at least should belong to a certain league of young women. MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE features Elizabeth Olsen in a role that I would be very surprised at if it didn't get at least an Academy Award nomination for best actress. Olsen, who probably doesn't even dream of such a future, has her work cut out for her though. The mostly political Academy Awards rely on late night tv appearances, and especially the like-ablity of the actress (who could resist Portman's winning smile and cute off-screen hookup story for last year?) Olsen primarily will be facing off against Rooney Mara, I predict, for her role in David Fincher's upcoming GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. Mara was a tremendous opening force in Fincher's well-received SOCIAL NETWORK, and it DRAGON TATTOO, she will emerge triumphant. I would also count among these great young actresses: Kristen Stewart, Juno Temple, Greta Gerwig, Rooney Mara, Natalie Portman, Elizabeth Olsen, Kirsten Dunst (another major contender for 2011), Keira Knightley, Scarlett Johansson, Carey Mulligan, and Jennifer Lawrence. But we shall see, we are reaching a point, as well, where many of our older actresses are ceasing further film roles. Streep has always been persistent, and finds roles, but there are few good older women roles out there that aren't villainous or pathetic. What I look forward to though, is a rediscovery of fine young actresses.

Uncle Kent

Pretty sublimely mumblecore, UNCLE KENT, one of the four features Joe Swanberg released in 2011, is, for him, a mostly one-sided view of male desires. UNCLE KENT is without balance, and despite its immersive nature and hang-out sensibilities, it's immature. UNCLE KENT begins with the character of the title, who lives a boring life day-by-day working out of his apartment on sketches for a children's animated tv show. He talks with his friends, and has a lazy life consisting of excess bong hits and an unhealthy obsession with chat roulette. He mentions to a friend that he's got some woman coming into town. He met her on chat roulette, a "modern" twist Swanberg imposes, and although she has a boyfriend, he has particular expectations out of the girl. Kent, recently 40, is enamored with the librarian-like Kate (Jennifer Prediger), and although their relationship is undefined, he feels as if they can take it in a certain direction. Their time together becomes filled with sexual experiences, though not with each other. Kent steals some nude pictures of Kate off of her camera, they have an almost-threesome with a young 20 year old from Craigslist. But Swanberg's film is too imbalanced, and we have no sense of why Kate acts the way she does teasingly, except from a guyish perception of Kate as a bitch. In NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS, Swanberg's collaboration with Greta Gerwig, there was a forced balance, but in UNCLE KENT, there is just a one-sided near misogyny.
Uncle Kent: ★★

Daybreakers

Zombie films and infection films that count as zombie films are filled with such a void. They all end in the same way that they began, except that when they end everyone is worse off, but newly educated on some silly parable-like lesson. This is how it is with DAYBREAKERS, a vampire-zombie hybrid movie. Vampires have taken over the world after being infected by bats. Everyone is power is a vampire, and everyone goes about their nightly lives in a similar fashion as to before, except that now, everyone is a vampire. However, the vampires get their power from human blood, and humans are a dying race, existing only in scientific farms or on the run. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a scientist for one of these farms. He is a reluctant vampire, drinking only animal blood (also on the decline). Because of this open reluctance, Dalton is approached by a few human refugees. Working with the refugees, Dalton seeks a cure, and finds one with a hunter named Elvis (Willem Dafoe). DAYBREAKERS, in between its bloody, murky violence, finds some interesting things to say about corporations, and the evil Charles Bromley (the head of Dalton's human farm and played by Sam Neill) conveys how the vampiric world does not desire a cure, because that would be bad for business. The miscalculation in DAYBREAKERS comes from its desire to juggle gross violence and political half-notions. These half-notions are half-understood, and that makes for a pretty timid movie, filled with characters who just serve as obligatory fillers for a statement or action movie.
Daybreakers: ★1/2

The Ides of March

THE IDES OF MARCH is the fourth film directed by George Clooney. Clooney also acts in the film, but only in what is at best a supporting role. Dominating the film is Ryan Gosling, who isn't really directed, but taken down the manipulative path that Clooney has constructed. For a political film, one based on a source material (in this case, a play), Clooney has a lot of interest as an outspoken liberal / activist himself. However, Clooney is no expert on the subject, and that shows. For a film about the corruption within political / presidential campaigns, IDES OF MARCH is rather timid, and sort of juvenile. That isn't to say that there isn't a lot of worthy material here, but its taken down a strange road. Clooney breaks his film into two parts. In the first, we are seduced by Mike Morris (Clooney), who is fighting for the nomination for democratic candidate. Morris is the biggest liberal I've ever seen on film, he's the perfect liberal. But in the second half, Gosling's campaign head Stephen is deterred from his love of Morris because of a silly misdemeanor of Morris' doing. Disappointingly, for a film with such intelligent political talk in the first half, Morris' mistake is blown out of proportion for the furthering of the story. Despite the wonderful talk in the first half, we are manipulated so that Clooney can have a second half. This second half is good in its own right, but it has been created from a false pretense, and is disjointed from the first half. The film has its problems, rooted in Clooney's actor-esque thinking that he could make a definitive political movie, but its entertaining despite its timidity.
The Ides of March: ★★★

South Park Season 1

What the 1st season of "South Park" did was introduce lightly the satire that would become so much more prevalent in later seasons, but what is to be cherished about the early beginnings is the irreverent nature of the show mixed with some random, ridiculous humor to pull viewers in. Some of the episodes are choppy, but most have some really simple humor that comes across due to the voice acting of the creators.

The Perfect Host

THE PERFECT HOST is an odd film, complete with twists and surprises. Filmed in a mere seventeen days, it's occasionally static and sharp. The film opens with John Taylor (Clayne Crawford), a crook fleeing the scene of a crime. Newly rich, Taylor has an injured foot, and limps around Hollywood looking for a place to hide out. A series of flashbacks tells us that Taylor had an accomplice working from within the bank he just robbed, a woman he was involved with. She is nowhere to be found, and Taylor begins knocking on doors and making up stories. Eventually, he finds Warwick Wilson (David Hyde Pierce). After reading Warwick's mail, he has come up with a shrewd story, and passes himself as one of Warwick's friends' friends. He shadily deals with Warwick, who begins to catch on, but has some buried secrets of his own. In a twist that almost saves the film because it allows Pierce to craft a truly creepy and unique character, Warwick takes control, and tortures Taylor. We learn a few more things about the characters, and there are a host of new twists as the film progresses, but too occasionally, director Nick Tomnay loses control of the action on screen. There are accentuated bursts of cool, usually shown in the twists. But that's all THE PERFECT HOST is, and all it can really handle. Quiet moments are uncomfortable and contrived. Despite Pierce's performance, Clayne Crawford isn't a very good lead, and we don't really care about him. He would at least have to be charismatic for us to care.
The Perfect Host: ★★

The Walking Dead (S. 1)

"The Walking Dead" exists to further the idea that AMC creates great television. It's about zombie apocalypse, and, broken up into 44 minute episodes over the course of six episodes, different aspects about this apocalypse are explored. At the center of the series is policeman Rick Grimes, who was shot in the line of duty and sent into a coma. Grimes woke up post-onset, and made his way to a father and son who aid him. They tell him of Atlanta being a potential haven from the zombies, and he sets off for it, only to discover that is as overrun as the rest of the country. He meets up with a cast of characters including his old partner, his wife, son, and a group of refugees, and they slowly search for methods of survival. As mentioned earlier, the format of the show allows for different, interesting aspects to be explored. For one thing, there is no power in the world now, and without that, no government structure. With such realization though, as it is with many other apocalypse films, the idea that an eventual disintegration must take place sets it. This is grim and bleak, but well made. Unfortunately though, the subject is a dead-end, and many of the earlier plot developments are abandoned.
The Walking Dead: ★★1/2

South Park Season 8

I consider "South Park" a great show, comedically exhibiting complex issues as well as some silly fun. This is a guide to season 8.
Good Times with Weapons: A little grating upon repeating viewings, but funny in how it shows the parents as idiots, and interesting in its focus on weapons.
Up the Down Steroid: On Cheating In Sports
The Passion of the Jew: On Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ
You Got F'd in the A: Ridiculously parodying dance competitions / movies
Awesome-O: Stand-alone hilarity
The Jeffersons: On Michael Jackson
Goobacks: On Immigration
Douche and Turd: On Voting
Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes: On Wall-Mart / Corporations
Pre-School: Stand-alone hilarity
Quest for Ratings: On the News
Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset: On Whores
Cartman's Incredible Gift: On Clairvoyance
Woodland Critter Christmas: Stand-alone hilarity

Half Nelson

HALF NELSON is a realistic portrait of drug use. Often, for privileged members of society, or like the well-off history teacher in HALF NELSON, drug use is a pleasant luxury. But once confronted with the means by which those drugs are acquired, it creates a sense of guilt. In HALF NELSON, a dedicated, alternative history teacher named Dan Dunne (Ryan Gosling) teaches his group of underprivileged students about the way history affects their lives, and between classes and after school, smokes crack. Director Ryan Fleck understands drugs though, he gives no specific "reason" for Dan's drug use because most well off people don't have a reason. This is a film about drug's effect on people, and what they mean to specific people. When Dan begins to take a student under his wing named Drey (Shakeera Epps), he sees drugs effect on her life. For him, drugs are an escape and a pleasure, but for Drey, they mark a future of drug running, and are exhibited in the ruined lives of her low-class relatives. Dan's realization of the negative effects on Drey, in contrast to his earlier thinking: that he wasn't hurting anyone by experiencing a solitary pleasure. Furthermore, Fleck strains the worth of Dan, who, on drugs, is still a great history teacher, inspiring his students to whom drugs are a sad future. This is a complex issue, and it is approached with complexity and understanding.
Half Nelson: ★★★★

Gamer

An ugly obviousness comes to an ugly film, not to say that filmmakers Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor don't have an enormous amount of talent / style, they do. But in GAMER, their second film in 2009 alone, along with CRANK 2, there's a bluntness within their stylistic ambitions, a proof of bad scriptwritings effect on good filmmakers. Neveldine and Taylor make their movies out of singular images, ones that could be transposed as art pastels on the wall of a museum, filled with texture, composition, and non-focus: seeming to say that in an image is a multitude of experiences, a series of feelings, emotions, true grit. They are fine filmmakers, but this is not a fine film. It is not sound in story, and evokes a headache in trying to comprehend a vice-grip of a perhaps intentionally non-sensical film. The story talks of a series of games where you can pay to essentially control people. This makes video gaming very real, and dangerous, as if you die in the game, you're actually dying in real life. The creator of these games, played by Michael C. Hall sporting a quasi-southern accent, is an eccentric, but clear headed about his goals, vying for his games in the same way that Mark Zuckberg fights for pure community. One of the newer games is a war based shooter, and a young 17 year old controls a prisoner who is fighting to save his life (if he lives past level 30, then he gains his freedom). But the sci-fi is loosely explored, and it makes for an ugly series of headaches, rather than an ugly series within an image. Neveldine and Taylor's talents are better suited for other films, but GAMER is merely a failure, merely a miscalculation.
Gamer: ★★

Bridesmaids

Less enthusiastic about BRIDESMAIDS than most, I resisted the film because it knew what it was trying to accomplish, and that was an intent separate from good filmmaking. Beginning arrogantly (in the same manner as last year's horrid PLEASE GIVE) with loud, rambunctious sex scenes with its lead Kristen Wiig, the film establishes itself (with a mostly all female cast) to be a film perpetuating the existence of feminist films. Later in the film, women shit and barf all over the place at a bridal shop after having some bad Indian food (as if to say that, hey, women can shit and barf too and we can make it just as disgusting). However, BRIDESMAIDS is a good film despite its male director's and male producer's intent. This is largely due to the strength of the cast, and even some credit must be given to the director. Wiig, who is so obnoxious on "Saturday Night Live", is here pleasant and very funny. Her character Annie, a self-conscious, thirty-something dead end, only has her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) to look to for any consolation. Her mother is no help, she has an asshole boyfriend, and she opened an expensive cake shop in the middle of the recession. Annie is then piled on with the task from Lillian of being her maid of honor at her wedding. At first thrilled, Annie continues to systematically ruin every aspect of Lillian's wedding, and has an intense rivalry with the very funny Rose Byrne as Helen. Consisting in tv-ish form of good individual scenes that reveal themselves to be set-ups without payoffs (everyone gets on a plane to go to Vegas, nobody ends up going to Vegas), BRIDESMAIDS with its funny lead, great cast, and funny writing, is still a good comedy in spite of its shortcomings.
Bridesmaids: ★★★

Trollhunter

Boasting in its opening credits to be found footage, edited together and presented as is, TROLLHUNTER is an odd, competent film with little significance. Told from the point of view of a documentary being made (thus, without interviews, structure, etc.) the film begins with a group of college students filming about a possible illegal bear killing. Hearing from other bear hunters in the territory of a mysterious, probable poacher, the students attempt to get an interview out of the man. He is elusive though, but perhaps does not know the convictions of the students and, letting his guard down, mistakenly leads the filmmakers to his secret. It turns out that the mysterious hunter is an officer for troll control. It turns out that ugly, clay-like trolls reside in the high mountains, telephone poles are electrified to keep them in, but there is something wrong with the trolls which is riling them up (and thus sending them into human territory to kill bears and raise suspicions). Approaching its tale seriously, and with glorious special effects to create the trolls, TROLLHUNTER never comes off as anything silly or stupid, and rather it comes off as competent and entertaining. To its detriment though, it's too long for its premise. However, it is still good entertainment.
Trollhunter: ★★★

Chungking Express

Directed by lionized, Chinese filmmaker Wong Kar-Wai, CHUNGKING EXPRESS is on the surface an exercise in style, and at its heart a tribute to youth. Expressing itself in unique cinematography, showing singular images or people stagnated within a quickly moving camera, and telling two stories about two different cops who pine for women at the same teahouse, CHUNGKING EXPRESS attempts to materialize the excitement of youth and blossoming love. It is quirky, but not obviously so. In fact, all of Kar-Wai's cinematic gestures are seamless within his established environment. In the first segment of the film, He Qiwu, collects pineapple cans with the expiration date of April 1st. April 1st will signify a month since breaking up with his long-time girlfriend, and it is also his birthday. He says that if the pineapples expire on April 1st, so will his love. He Qiwu is a cop, and occasionally brushes against people in his line of work who impress upon him small ideas or romantic visions. He Qiwu is like a detective who is investigating something meaningless or trivial, but this seemingly trivial investigation is actually one that is close to his heart. The second segment concerns the unnamed cop 663. He has broken up with his flight attendant girlfriend, and pines for her at the teahouse where He Qiwu spends most of his days. He notices, however, the pixie-like Faye, and her influence becomes important to the cop. Apart from being a tribute to youth, Wong Kar-Wai's film is a tribute to style. The first half could be likened to gangster films, and the second half to comedies like HIS GIRL FRIDAY in its playful nature.
Chungking Express: ★★★★

Moneyball

MONEYBALL is a very good example of what happens when you combine hype and the interesting story syndrome. For, MONEYBALL features the story of something pretty awesome: the realization that statistics can predict how good a baseball player is, and the utilization of that medium in creating a great baseball team. However, just because this is an interesting story, doesn't mean that MONEYBALL is very good. Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane here, the general manager of the Oakland A's, who have just lost their three best players to other teams. Beane is distraught, but doesn't listen to the advice of his usually trusted scouts. Rather, by chance, he runs into a young kid out of Yale Economics (Jonah Hill) who has some radical ideas about baseball. The entire film consists of Beane's reluctance to go with the statistics idea, and then some of the payoff that results from him trusting it. There are some cool sequences, but this is a film that is supposed to be good based purely on the hype around it. 1) It stars Brad Pitt, but he's not particularly revelatory in his role. 2) The script was written by Aaron Sorkin, who wrote the great SOCIAL NETWORK, but his writing specifically fit David Fincher's vision in SOCIAL NETWORK, and here, his writing just flounders and unrealistic in a realistic film. 3) There isn't anything exciting about the filmmaking in MONEYBALL, its just the events within the film that appear interesting. (Just because a film tells you of one interesting thing, doesn't mean that the film has the power of being innately interesting). Still, MONEYBALL is competent and decent entertainment, but as a supposed piece of "serious" art, it's just not that great, and occasionally it's self-important, overlong, and pretentious.

Moneyball: ★★1/2

Breaking Bad (S.3)

Beginning poorly with a warped storyline and pretentious openings, season 3 of the usually fantastic "Breaking Bad" looked like it might be the ultimate decline of the show. However, after a slump at the beginning, "Breaking Bad" re-established itself, featuring some of its finest storylines and some excellent monologues. An entire episode consists of Walt and Jesse attempting to kill a pesky fly in a lab, loyalties shift, and characters become increasingly more complicated. Especially explored is the risks of Walt's lifestyle. Season three is still very good, and "Breaking Bad" is still one of the best shows on tv.
Breaking Bad (S.3): ★★★1/2