The Cove

In Taijii Japan they capture dolphins and sell them to amusement parks, exhibits and other “swimming with dolphins” experiences. They also kill dolphins for meat and are giving it to the Japanese school children for free to gain sympathy for their massacres. The level of mercury in dolphin meat is deadly to humans.

O’Barry, feeling responsible for creating this multi-million dollar industry revoling around dolphins decides to do something about it. He enlists a covert team of specialists with different skills to create an illegal mission to gain evidence of what is occuring in Japan.

The documentary had me in tears several times as I’m sure it will for you. It is moving and shocking.

Please Sign The Petition To Stop The Dolphin Slaughter In Japan

Ebenezer Scrooge has it in for all things Christmas in "Scrooge."

(Brian Desmond Hurst, 1951)

December 25, 2009

by Joel Crary

The year I watched Brian Desmond Hurst’s “Scrooge” for the first time may have been the same year a kid at school told me there was no such thing as Santa Claus. Flipping television channels late that Christmas Eve, I came across a weatherman describing Santa’s current position in the night air somewhere above the Earth. Though I was then experiencing the holiday on the edge of doubt, I logged away the feeling of that magical time of night when Santa was in the midst of his journey, moving very quickly while the children of the world stayed still, feigning slumber.

As my mother prepared the turkey in our kitchen, more channel flipping brought the moving images of “Scrooge” to the screen and the film became synonymous with a more grown-up sense of that magic feeling. Early in my childhood, I had been familiar with the animated Disney version of Dickens’ story, in which a miser is awoken in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve by the ghost of his deceased business partner and instructed to heed the warnings and visions of three spirits before certain events come to pass. My first viewing of “Scrooge” made me very aware of the story’s efficacy when told in time with the character’s travails. As such, I began a tradition of watching the film every Christmas Eve, staying up late by myself while the rest of the house slept, with only the dim colourful glow of Christmas tree lights to compliment the picture.

“Scrooge” is a scary film. It is, after all, a ghost story – a tale of a haunting, about a man who must be convinced that a supernatural world not only exists, but desires him to change his character. In order to do so, he is both made to suffer consequences and given the choice to divert from them. The horror of Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” proceeds from the dark depths of the mid-19th century London prisons and workhouses that embrace the sick and dying lower classes, the wretches extending their palms for a handout, only to have them pushed away by a wealth-obsessed man grown twisted into a self-imposed seclusion.

Desmond Hurst and director of photography C.M. Pennington-Richards manufacture Scrooge’s seclusion by placing him in a large, dank, sparsely decorated Victorian house with little more than a covered bed to serve as an indication of wealth. Ebenezer is not a man who spends selfishly, but one who squanders every penny, shrugging off those who might appeal to his charity and economic position. Above all, he despises Christmas and would rather do without spending it with his closest relative, a nephew who scoffs at his curmudgeonly bearing. Scrooge is almost pitiable as he sits down to a simple late meal of soup in front of a small wooden table, glowering at the darkness of the room as though it, too, opposes his worldview.

“A Christmas Carol” has been adapted many, many times, enough for a production’s success to hinge solely upon the performance of its central characters. “Scrooge” is the best adaptation I’ve seen insofar as Alastair Sim’s performance offers the most depth, the most interesting interpretation and the most unadulterated pleasure taken in the execution of an actor’s craft. After nearly 60 years, the chasm-eyed Sim is still riveting, sinking into the character like a man possessed. When his Scrooge sits in deft opposition to the world, it remains difficult to see how such a man may be turned around. Afterward, Sim’s exhibition of outlandish joy scratches away all memory of his stinginess and cruelty, leaving only the hope that the worst of us may exert the power to better ourselves.

An adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” must also take certain liberties with Dickens’ story to distinguish itself by both eliminating and adding material to suit the construction of Scrooge’s psychological profile. For example, it is here revealed that Ebenezer’s mother died during his birth, causing a rift between son and father and setting the grounds for Scrooge’s loneliness. The appearances of the ghosts, chief among them the Gothic and silent Ghost of Christmas Future, who in “Scrooge” appears with a black shroud and pale arms that point the way forward unfeelingly, are another intriguing liberty.

“Scrooge” has a multitude of atmospheric setups and environments that enrich the depiction of Scrooge’s past, present and future. The optical printer effects may seem quaint by today’s standards (especially when Scrooge’s sister runs through his apparition), but a pair of superimposed long takes in which Scrooge converses with the ghost of Jacob Marley (Michael Hordern) still impress with their seamlessness. There is a brilliant, haunting shot in which ghosts caught in limbo try to pass their worldly belongings on to a poor mother huddled over her child in the street. But “Scrooge” also contains one of my favourite movie blunders. As Ebenezer gazes with mad glee into his bedroom mirror on Christmas morning, a stagehand can be seen quite clearly in the reflection, leaning forward in a chair.

Pointing out this gaffe has become an annual activity in my family’s household. Since my early days of watching “Scrooge,” the tradition has extended to my parents, who never like to miss it. For them, the film’s appeal continually comes down to the film’s message of goodwill, which always elicits the same verbal approval. My mother routinely laughs at Kathleen Harrison’s portrayal of Cockney charwoman Mrs. Dilber. Personally, I can’t help but remark on Sim’s performance, especially in his reactions to the Ghost of Christmas Future, or upon discovering his name on the tombstone, or while trying to fool Bob Cratchit (Mervyn Johns) into thinking he isn’t a changed man. Sim had an incredible ability for shifting expression that was needed to depict a man who has his whole life turned upside down in one night. As I write this review in the magic hours of Christmas Eve, reflecting on Dickens’ eternal tale, I believe that’s all it takes.

Director – Chris Sivertson

Cast – Marc Senter, Shay Astar, Alex Frost, Megan Henning, Robin Sydney, Michael Bowen, Ed Lauter, Dee Wallace

Release Year – 2006

Reviewed by John of the Dead

It seems to be a growing trend these days to adapt the literary works of horror author Jack Ketchum into full length films.  The most notable adapted effort of Ketchum’s work was the great 2007 film “The Girl Next Door“(which I have a review for) and the most recent effort, Red, has opened to good reviews.  Often overshadowed by the graphic and successful nature of “The Girl Next Door” is the first adapted Ketchum story, “The Lost”.  Prepare for one of horror’s most sociopathic killers to date.

Four years prior to the events in this film, 19 year old Ray Rye was hanging in the woods with two of his friends when he took notice to two girls cuddling at a nearby campsite.  Under the influence of alcohol, in possession of a rifle, and the beckoning question of “what does it feel like to kill someone?’…Ray shoots the two girls.  Fast forward to present time and Ray still has not been charged for the crime.  Veteran detective Charlie Schilling(Michael Bowen) knows for a fact that Ray committed the crime, yet has been unable to prove it.  When the significant other of one of his closest friends catches Ray’s attention, blah blah realizes that he has to put Ray away for good before he harms any other people.  Det. Schilling begins to push Ray harder and harder, making his life a living hell as often as possible.  In addition to this Ray falls for Katherine, a cocky yet beautiful darling that appeases to every one of Ray’s senses.  When things don’t work out between Ray and Katherine, he finally loses his cool…and welcome to one of horror’s best final acts ever.

This flick gives us one of the most sociopathic killers I have ever seen, and lets us delve into his world and the chaos that brews in it.  I really liked how writer/director Chris Sivertson wrote in a lot of character development for Ray, which made him probably the most developed killer to date for a single film(non-franchise).  Ray’s brittle yet hard-assed nature made him a fun character to watch, especially with the little things he does such as putting crushed beer cans into his boots so that he’ll appear taller.  Mr. Sivertson really has guts for adapting and directing some pretty violent scenes towards the end of the film.  I personally loved them and felt the showed the brute tenacity of what a true sociopath would be like in real life, and go farther than most horror flicks have to guts to go.  Bravo on that.

Aside from the development of this awesome character, the rest of the storyline is pretty interesting.  We get a fair amount of different characters thrown into the mix to liven up the story, and that helps a lot given this film is 119 minutes long.  When I first noticed how long this film was I thought to myself “lets see if this one drags or not” and sure enough, it didn’t!  Sure not the entire film is action packed, but every time Ray is on the screen he keeps you entertained and subdued from distractions.

One thing that really surprised me about this film was the acting performance by Marc Senter.  He put on one of the greatest horror performances I have ever seen, and had me thinking “who the heck is this guy?”.  Considered a “nobody” by Hollywood standards, I can see this guy setting a strong footing for himself in the horror community, and his appearance in the recent film “Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever” seems to prove that true for the time being.  Michael Bowen did a fine job as Detective Charlie Schilling, and that does not surprise me one bit.  Mr. Bowen has graced the screen on such epic films like “Magnolia” and “Kill Bill: Vol. 1”.  It also seems this film has launched his horror career as well.  After appearing in this film he has appeared in “Autopsy”, “Deadgirl”(which I have a review for), the remake of “The Last House on the Left”(which I have a review for), and also acts alongside Marc Senter in “Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever”.

I have no major complaints for this film.  I personally would have like more kills and gore out of Ray, but only because this guy was so awesome at what he did.  The ending for this film left me conflicted, it was simple but at the same time slightly unfulfilling and anticlimactic.  We get one of horror’s most incredible ending sequences and then for the film to end the way it did, well…I wasn’t satisfied.  Oh well.

Overall, this is a great horror film that brings a new and very brutal sociopathic killer to the genre.  Check this out if you are looking for a fresh film with a great killer or are a fan of Jack Ketchum’s work.

Rating: 7.5/10

Director – Billy O’Brien

Cast – John Lynch, Ruth Negga, Sean Harris, Marcel Lures, Crispin Letts, Essie Davis

Release Year – 2005

Reviewed by John of the Dead

The Irish make horror films? I stumbled upon this Irish horror film and after quickly reading on the plot I decided to myself “well what the heck…it sounds interesting”, and sure enough…it really is! The science geek in me is the reason I found this film interesting, but I am sure those who are just looking for a unique story would be satisfied by this film due to the fact that there are some original elements in it that I have yet to see in another horror movie.

The film takes place on an isolated farm somewhere in Ireland. A dairy farmer named Dan is very low on money and gets involved with a local veterinarian named Orla, and a scientist named John, who want to use his farm as a laboratory for what seems to be a pregnant cow that is going to deliver any day. The cow delivers very soon, however there is obviously something wrong with the newborn calf. The calf is born with some very un-cowlike features and is even going so far as to repeatedly attack it’s own mother. We soon learn that both Orla and John were doing some quite unethical genetic experiments on the calf, which was supposed to revolutionize and bring more money to the dairy industry. Instead, they created something which will not only bring in more money, but may cost them their lives as well.

I know what you’re thinking…and NO, this film is not necessarily about killer cows. Not in a literal sense at least. As I mentioned earlier, the science geek in me is the biggest reason I enjoyed this film. I’ve always been a fan of films where genetic experiments go wrong, and those who are responsible begin falling victim to their own design. If you enjoy those types of films as well, then there is a good chance you will enjoy “Isolation”. I will admit that the film is a bit slow, but graciously picks up at the end with some great gore scenes and a cool looking creature, among other pretty cool things going on in the laboratory they have built.

Aside from pacing issues, I do not have too much to dock this film for. I do however believe that this film could have been executed much better, and that is why I am going to give this film the rating that it gets. This film had a lot of potential, as much as you can get from a plot having to do with cows, but overall I felt that if this film was executed properly and paced better that this could have been a really good horror/science film quite similar to John Carpenter’s “The Thing”.

Overall, this film is a bit slow, but delivers in the end. Fans of the horror/science genre may enjoy this, as well as those who just want to see a new aspect of the “genetic experiment gone wrong” horror sub-genre.

Rating: 6/10

When was the last time any film became an experience for you? Not just a film that made you think or whose narrative and story exercised your mind. I mean a film that despite some of its flaws became such an experience that you became swept up with the rest of the audience in immersing yourself within the film. The biggest and most hyped film of 2009 and, most likely, this first decade of the new millenium, was such a film for me. A film over 15 and more years in the making for mega-director James Cameron more than lives up to the imposed upon hype (fair or not this film couldn’t escape the hype) which hounded it right from the very first new bit leaked about its production.

James Cameron’s Avatar is not the greatest film ever made despite what the studio heads financing it may declare. Nor does it change filmmaking the way technicolor film did during the late 50’s and early 60’s. What he has accomplished with this film is to finally give filmmakers a blueprint on how to make the intimacy between an audience and a film get much closer than in the past. Stories and ideas which in the past were said to be unfilmmable because the technology is just not there to make it happen is finally arriving, if not already here.

This film was and is an experience that should be seen whether one buys into the story or not. It is a story that is not very original and for some may conjure up a certain Oscar-winning Costner-directed film or a certain animated feature with Gully in the title. I won’t say that it doesn’t matter that it’s not original, but I will say that the story works in the film. Cliched and hackneyed dialogue and all they work within the film Cameron was making. I will never mistake Cameron’s writing skills when it comes to dialogue to be on the level of Kaufman or Mamet, but he does know how to tell a simple story and make the audience follow it and, if they’re willing, immerse themselves in it. It helps that he has an innate sense for keeping the story moving forward to prop up what may be lacking in the tale.

With that particular flaw out of the way I must say that I haven’t felt like this about a film (not even the best one I’ve seen this year) since the first time I saw The Fellowship of the Ring and, prior to that, Spielberg’s first Jurassic Park. Only a few films can truly sweep me into what I was watching and just hold on and enjoy the ride. It didn’t matter that what I was watching wasn’t the second coming of Rashomon or this generation’s Citizen Kane. What I watched I fully bought into. The new world of Pandora as imagined by Cameron and brought to life by the magicians at WETA Digital and ILM. There was a sense of dedication in what I was witnessing. The detail, clarity and realness of someone’s imagination come to life made me hopeful that some of the boundaries people said would never be crossed creatively will finally have people stepping over them.

While the film is also being shown on 2D for theaters who haven’t upgraded some rooms with 3D-capable gear I will say that Avatar must and need to be seen in 3D with IMAX 3D being the ideal format. It is the way Cameron has utilized the new “emotion capture” cameras he helped develop and create just to finally achieve that CGI-photoreal flaw which makes films like Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol creepy in a certain way when seen. The so-called “Uncanny Valley” which exist in past films where CGI-characters replace flesh and blood actors doesn’t exist in this film. Using the groundbreaking “mo-cap” technique developed by WETA Digital for Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings (the trilogy which finally convinced Cameron that it was time to make Avatar and do it they way he envisioned it). The computer-generated Na’Vi have taken the crown from WETA’s first CGI creation (Gollum) and are now the most realistic CGI characters ever put on screen. Cameron shows with Avatar that there’s no limit on how much CGI should be used in a film. It’s how they’re implemented and pulled off that counts. Lucas, Bay and other proponents of CGI who have failed in its creative use down the years have much to learn from what Cameron has achieved with this film.

While it took several minutes to adjust to the 3D-effect in the film the moment my eyes finally adjusted to what it was watching everything clicked for me and the thought I was watching a film almost left my mind. The combination of CGI and real-life scenes didn’t just blur but disappeared altogether. I’m more than willing to nitpick a film’s heavy use of CGI and even some of the very best and most entertaining CGI-heavy films have certain scenes which can shock an audience out of the moment. I didn’t feel that in this film and it was that total immersion in the work done by Cameron and his digital magicians which helped me overcome the story’s familiarity and, as some would call it, ordinary-ness.

Even with the kind of material the actors had to work with the overall performances by everyone involved ranged from good to excellent. While I will admit that characters who were definitely written to be villains were done so one-dimensionally the way the performers played to be done these characters did a fine enough job that I bought into them. Yes, the corporate weasel and Burke-reborn played by Giovanni Ribisi did look very cartoonish in his execution of his character’s motivations. Again Cameron is not known and will never be known for very deep and well-rounded characters. The same one-dimensionality in characterization still holds with the one character who stood out the most. Stephen Lang as Col. Miles Quaritch was scenery-chewing at its best. It has been quite the year for this journeyman actor. First he stands out in Mann’s Public Enemies and now literally steals the film from Sam Worthington’s “Hero on a Journey”. While I doubt his performance won’t win him much accolades this awards season and will probably be overlooked it still stands as one of the most riveting and grab-you-by-the-collar performance of the year. He joins an elite group of characters audiences love to hate, but still can’t forget or take their eyes off of.

For those expecting the usual breakdown and deconstruction of this film will probably think I’ve joined the Jim Cameron train and drank the Kool-Aid (the purple stuff even), but I can’t seem to wrap my ahead around why I enjoy and love this film despite the aforementioned familiarity and weakness in the story, the sometimes cliched dialogue and one-dimensional take on characters. Is Avatar just a technical and visual marvel that delivers on what Cameron has promised? Yes, it is and more so. Does the CGI and bombastic climax get in the way of the storytelling? No, I believe it actually helps it along and props it on legs as fragile and weak as Jake Sully’s own human ones.

In the end, I have to conclude that my love for this film despite all its flaws comes down to the fact that watching Avatar was an experience for me and one that only happens so very rarely with film nowadays. Yes, Cameron didn’t make a perfect film nor did he craft a film that is better than sliced bread. But what he did make was a filmgoing experience that decades from now would be talked about in the same way people talk about how they felt when they first saw Star Wars and believed in Jedis and space battles. Or how people felt when they saw Donner’s first Superman and believed that a man could indeed fly. Cameron and his Avatar made me believe that there is a Pandora and that it is a place I hope to visit, but barring that at least experience it through Cameron’s eyes as he sees it. I am definitely ready for what he has in store next and what other filmmakers can create with what he has shown them to be possible. 9.5/10

With the soon to be released Nine on its way, I had to finally dust off my Criterion DVD of Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2 for a viewing since that new musical is based off it. Besides all the praise lauded on it, I really had no idea what to expect. It only took about ten minutes or so to discover that we would have no Charlie Kaufman if it were not for this, Fellini’s interpretation of his inner thoughts, both creatively and personally road-blocked. Synecdoche, New York borrows a lot from this opus and Adaptation takes the rest. I say this not to demean anything Kaufman has made—I love both of those films—but instead to praise this Italian master for doing it almost fifty years earlier, as well or better. The movie soon causes you to be disoriented in regards to what is real and what is imagined. Inventive transitions are connected by actions or thoughts in the scene, leading us through the mind of Guido Anselmi as he himself seeks answers to the chaos.

Marcello Mastroianni’s Guido is a stand-in for Fellini himself, at a crossroads in his life, desperately trying to discover what it is he needs to do next. So many people have come and gone in his life, connections that he could have reached out and loved unconditionally, but all of whom he pushed away, creating the isolated loneliness he despises. He can tell any of his actresses, producers, or mistresses exactly what he feels, causing them to hate him and leave without a second thought. The one woman he truly cares for, however, his wife Luisa, is left in the dark. Throughout the film we see Guido whisper to himself about how much she means to him, but when in her company, all he can do is lie or act disinterested. He is lost in life; unable to find true happiness and feeling bored by those he surrounds himself with. It is a self-imposed torture that he can no longer run away from. Who else would invite both his mistress and his wife to the city he is filming in? Only a man looking to be cleansed of his demons would play with fire such as that. Guido just may not be strong enough to do it; sitting back and watching each opportunity pass him by.

Even the script doctor he hires to hopefully make some sense of the incoherently abstract script he has written cannot get through. His notes attempt to drive out the symbolism and personal moments that make no sense to an audience unknowing of his past, commenting on the memories that play for us as though we are watching the film he is about to begin shooting. I wonder if the notes he makes are real notes made on the script for 8 1/2. And that is the genius of the movie—what we are watching is the film the character is refusing to make. While Guido drags his feet, bringing every woman that has ever crossed his path back into his consciousness, we get to watch it all take place inside his head. His memories are what have been put on paper to eventually shoot, (although I’m still not sure where the spaceship comes into play, maybe as an escape hatch to leave his true self behind), and they are shown to us as he remembers them. We see the first women in his life, his mother and nanny, give him a bath; his first glimpse of sexuality with La Saraghina’s full-figured Rumba; the chorus girls he bedded; his wife of which he has taken for granted; the mistresses he has used and thrown aside; and the actresses he has made perform for his films and possibly himself. This is a man who has treated women as objects at his disposal for as long as he remembers and the unfilmable movie he has written is a way to air out all that dirty laundry.

What then becomes even more profound is how, while Guido couldn’t stand tall to make the film, although he could let the screen tests be viewed by his wife as a way to tell her what has been happening without actually opening his mouth, Fellini himself has. The real director of 8 1/2 has made himself emotionally naked here, sharing with the world his mistakes and insecurities. Talk about a catharsis as art form, the underlying meaning to the film only makes the finished piece that much more astounding. It opens with our ‘hero’ being trapped in a glass box for all to see, a celebrity held up to immense scrutiny without any secrets, attempting to break free only to find his foot tethered to the Earth and his producers, the ones paying his way of survival. The vicious system is its own predatory circle of life that has barred him in to serve more powerful people, himself a pawn in their games much like the women in his. Life is a system of power struggles and that, I believe, is at the forefront of this cautionary tale of ego. Even the actors, so excited to be working with a prolific auteur such as Guido become impatient to learn what their parts and motivations are. They use agents to threaten for information, their guiles for an upper hand, and yet they still must wait until he is ready to let them into the loop.

It all culminates to an extended sequence in Guido’s mind, a world consisting of all the women he has ‘loved’ and the ruled hierarchy they must adhere to. He is their master, whipping them when they are out of line or insubordinate, and they love him unconditionally even though his own feelings for them are fickle and ever changing. Once you are too old, you are sent to the upstairs, never to be seen again except as a memory of younger times. It is a world created for his own comfort, a world he thought he had constructed in real life, but only recently realized never existed anywhere but in his head. Even the muse he imagined at the start, a shining face of youth amongst the cattle-driven lines of elderly folk at the day spa he is seeking treatments at, isn’t enough. Claudia Cardinale’s Claudia is sent for to be this angelic, fresh, new beginning, but her arrival in reality is not as he imagined it. Instead of the jumpstart to a new life, her youth and vitality only serve as a mirror to how broken and unloving he truly has become. She is the catalyst to finally end his lamenting, end the prospect of this new film, and finally accept the people in his life as more than just chess pieces he can move and discard whenever he feels.

The inventive camerawork at the hands of Fellini is stunning in its dream-like quality, creating distinct divisions of place when we are in real time, Guido’s mind, or fantasy worlds. Compositionally precise, every frame is meticulously put together, drawing our eyes in and tricking them with quick edits, replacing actors seamlessly at times and transitioning from scene to scene with the use of a common point. I was impressed early on when seeing an out-of-place woman washing nonexistent windows inside a hotel room soon being the static detail as we move scenery, watching her now wash the windows of our new locale. And the acting is fantastic as well, especially Mastroianni who must carry each and every scene. The women are beautiful and talented—Anouk Aimée’s Luisa morphing from the quiet victim with her depressed, glasses-wearing face to the stunningly happy housemaker in his vision and Sandra Milo’s Carla just as you’d think a mistress would be, flaunting her body even though she herself is married. Everyone plays his/her role so as to continue Guido’s progression to the enlightenment of truth. The final scene’s destruction of the scaffolding built to bolster the lie, as the people who have cared for him reenter for a farewell parade, is the perfect footnote to a complex and intricate tale. This Fellini guy just may be as good as I’ve always heard.

8 1/2 10/10

Have you ever walked into a movie theater with high expectations for a significant cinematic experience only to find that your expectant posture sabotaged any real opportunity to enjoy the film? This happened to me with Good Will Hunting and it has occurred once again with The Blind Side. The question, “Have you seen Blind Side yet?” almost became comical as I played my mental game of trying to prognosticate who and under what circumstances I would be posed that question on any given day. Of course, the real damage wasn’t the asking, but the follow-up statement, “You’re just going to love it.” I have seen The Blind Side, and, no, I didn’t love it.

I didn’t hate it either. I found it mediocre at best. Part of the problem was I knew too much of the story going in. Combine this with predictable lensing, an uninspired soundtrack, and uninteresting scene decoration and the result: boredom.

Now, I do have one and a half praises for the film. My one praise goes to the thespians who made canned dialogue and significant pauses work to their favor. While Sandra Bullock still pretty much plays herself in this film, she has taken her “funny, but kind” character to a new level by adding a layer of no-nonsense attitude that may just be the closest thing we ever see to a break-out from her. True, we also saw it in The Proposal, but perhaps 2009 is her year to display a new “comical, but tough as nails, kindness.”

As for the rest of the cast, I did laugh along with Jae Head who provides comic relief as young S.J. Tuohy. He is clearly a first-rate child actor who does the best he can with cookie-cutter scenes that leave little opportunity for any real spontaneity. The actor most worthy of mention, however, is Quinton Aaron who portrays Michael Oher. He works silences, smiles, and a well-placed piece of dialogue like a seasoned veteran. I look forward to seeing him in future roles.

I offer my half praise for the film’s strong family values. While it is certainly refreshing to see a family-friendly film that tackles a challenging subject, I couldn’t shake my frustration that such fare always seems artistically bland. Are families settling for mediocre art for the sake of some higher moral? Pixar has proven that quality film-making and strong family stories can play nice together, so one must wonder why producers of live-action cinema haven’t quite mastered a weave of these two realities?

Should you see The Blind Side? Certainly. It stands as another worthy addition to the string of recently released “hopeful” films, which I, for one, look forward to seeing more of. Significant cinema, however, it is not.

When two favourites come together a kind of magic happens. A favourite authors reviewing a favourite film.  Sameera Jain’s Portraits of Belonging: Sagira Begum is a very old favourite and Paromita Vohra reviews it for the Open Magazine. Read the review here:  http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/documentaries/portraits-of-belonging-sagira-begum
Gargi Sen

A list most definitely in progress. Everyone seems to love going to the movies around Christmas. Pick a good one. I still want to see Avatar 3-D, among many others like An Education, Nine, Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. No. No. I will not. Doodles was begging to see more Alvin today. He couldn’t understand why we didn’t own it. Why we had only rented it. And I can’t believe I just admitted we even did that much. It was so bad, but the kids laughed so hard. Belching + farting + helium voices = surefire children’s movie hit.

Here are some of my film faves so far in 2009:

Inglourious Basterds
(500) Days of Summer
Adventureland
Zombieland
Up (3-D)
Up in the Air
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Funny People
The Hangover
District 9
I Love You, Man

Director – Steven Spielberg

Cast – Roy Schneider, Robert Shaw, Richard Dreyfuss, Lorraine Gary, Murray Hamilton, Carl Gottlieb, Jeffrey Kramer

Release Year – 1975

Reviewed by John of the Dead

This being one of the most well-known and infamous films of all time, this needs no formal introduction. The still yet-to-be-a-star 28 year old Stephen Spielberg made himself a household name with this film and proved his greatness in direction and his ability to made credible “Blockbuster” flicks that serve as great films as well.

Jaws follows veteran actor Roy Schneider Amity Police Chief Martin Brody, a man who personally hates the water, but somehow has wound up police chief of an island city. With the July 4^th weekend approaching, the waters of Amity become plagued by a rogue great white shark with a taste for human blood. As the weekend gets closer and more people fall victim to the massive shark it is up to Chief Brody, a shark scientist named Matt Hooper(Richard Dreyfuss) and veteran shark hunter “Quint”(Robert Shaw) to set out on a quest to kill the shark before any more lives are lost. This is no ordinary shark however, and proves to be a very formidable foe for the three assassins who are taking the battle to the shark’s newly claimed territory.

I really like how this film succeeded very well in using a giant shark as a protagonist. Many films have copied this idea, but fail miserably. Based on the novel and co-written screenplay by Peter Benchley, director Stephen Spielberg used excellent camera angles and a chilling score to set the tone for this film…right away with it’s infamous opening scene. His use of the “what you DON’T see will scare you” tension gets the job done perfectly, and was actually somewhat “incidental”. Spielberg had so many problems with the giant mechanical shark that he had no choice but to use camera-angled tension and POV shots to scare the audience. Hooray for technology right?

The acting performances in this film were top notch, and each actor/actress portrayed their character’s personalities and stereotypes as if they were born to portray these roles. How is the pacing for this film? It paces pretty well for the most part. Some scenes and dialogue could have been cut down but given Spielberg’s knack for making a film not just a “film”, you can expect some interesting dialogue and character conflict that may slow the pacing a bit, but not enough to really detriment the film.

Overall, this is a very well executed film for what it is…a film about a giant killer shark. These concepts may sound silly to some people, but this film succeeds in every aspect and won three Oscars for a reason.

Rating: 9/10

Director – James Isaac

Cast – Kane Hodder, Lexa Doig, Chuck Campbell, Lisa Ryder, Peter Mensah, Jonathan Potts, David Cronenberg

Release Year – 2001

Reviewed by John of the Dead

Of the twelve Jason Vorhees films so far, Jason X seems to get the most criticism from fans of the franchise, as well as horror fans in general. In all honesty, I cannot say I really blame them for feeling the way they do about this film. The idea of Jason Vorhees slashing sex crashed couples in space is quite outlandish when we are so used to seeing him hack up his victims in the Crystal Lake setting, and once in Manhattan. Unfortunately, with interest in the franchise losing momentum, producers decided they needed to do something “modern” with Jason, and we were given Jason X.

The film starts off around the year 2000 with Jason finally captured and being held at Crystal Lake Research Facility(fans immediately start laughing at this). Due to the fact that Jason simply cannot die, scientists figure the best solution for him is just to freeze him in a cryogenic tomb, forever. However, a greedy scientist(played by infamous horror director David Cronenberg!) decides to keep him from being frozen so that he can figure out how Jason simply regenerates damaged tissue, which would be a medical breakthrough. Unfortunately, this idea is ruined by Jason and he is not loose in the facility with our lead protagonist, Rowan. She is then able to trick Jason into the cryogenic chamber, but not without sacrificing herself as well, leaving them both frozen in the icy tomb.

Fast forward 455 years and the research ship “Grendel”(based on the monster coming from a lake that simply cannot be destroyed from the epic tale “Beowulf”) has made it’s way down to Earth(which is no longer able to sustain life) and stumbles upon the frozen Jason and Rowan while searching the Crystal Lake Research Facility. Due to the fact that the “Grendel” has 445 years worth of increased technology, they are able to bring both Jason and Rowan back to life. Bringing Rowan back to life has no regrets, but bringing back Jason Vorhees as well? Well…hehe…this is where the film really gets going.

This film, aside from being a silly concept, still kept true to most of the Friday the 13^th statutes and is not as bad as most people say it is. If they tell you that this is one of the worst horror movies ever made, then they do not know their horror movies. Why? Because there are LOTS of horror movies so horrible, that I will not even give them the respect of mentioning their names in this review.

If there’s one good aspect about this film, it’s the amount of deaths that Jason delivered to us. Jason’s 28 victims in this movie were the most ever for any F13 film. I guess producers needed a way to distract us from all the other aspects of the film that were less than acceptable. Although some of these deaths were pretty neat(the face smashing scene is one of the most original F13 deaths to date), this was the first F13 film to use CGI during the death scenes. Tom Savini probably threw up when he first saw this film and how these filmmakers decided to stray away from the live action effects we are used to seeing Jason dish out.

Unfortunately, the F13 record for most deaths is about the only thing positive with this film. The dialogue in this film was HORRIBLE! Whoever wrote the script for this film really needs a swift d*ckslap to the face. Seriously. I found myself shaking my head multiple times at the ridiculous dialogue, which was compounded of course with horrible acting(the shitty script wasn’t enough to annoy us). How did Sean S. Cunningham, longtime producer for nearly half of the F13 series and also the director of the original Friday the 13^th, even let this happen! Not only are we forced to listen to horrible dialogue as well as horrible acting, but the musical score for this film was really disgusting. And not in the good way! Aside from trying to give this film the feeling of a Star Wars flick towards the beginning of the film, we are forced to rape our eardrums with a soundtrack so bad even Panic at the Disco wouldn’t stoop this low. I will admit, although most will not agree with me, it was kind of cool to see Jason in the new suit towards the end of the film. I hope to never see him don that suit ever again, but the 25 or so minutes that he donned the space age suit was an interesting take that I guess only true fans would enjoy. It was a bit silly, but this film was meant to be entertaining, nothing more. As a diehard fan of Jason, I will watch anything involving him doing what he does. Whether he is in space, Manhattan, or in a flipping tootoo, I WILL WATCH!

Overall, unless you are a true, radical fan of the franchise that will watch anything involving Jason Vorhees, such as myself, you probably will not enjoy this film unless you are already in a very silly mood.

Rating: 4.5/10

Director – Jon Krautz

Cast – Trevor Matthews, Robert Englund, Daniel Kash, David Fox, Dean Hawes, Rachel Starsken, James A. Woods

Release Year – 2007

Reviewed by John of the Dead

Why is it that so many of the great modern day horror films are not widely released in theaters, and instead either get limited releases or go straight to DVD. It really is a damn shame that this happens now adays. Although we do get some pretty good horror films that go into theaters (28 Days/Weeks Later, The Descent), way to many awesome horror films seem to get no love from production companies and are seemingly kicked to the curb. It is a sad state of affairs that these awesome films do not get the same representation as horrible, teeny horror films like “The Haunting of Molly Hartley” got with it’s wide release and immense advertising. Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer is not only an awesome horror film, but goes back to the 80s feel of horror back when horror was enjoyable…and gory. This is the best 80s-homaged horror film since “Slither”, and actually…I will go ahead and say it, Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer is BETTER than Slither. Not a whole lot better, but better.

The film follows Jack Brooks(played by Trevor Matthews), a man who’s family was murdered by a monster when he was a  young boy, and has since had extreme anger problems aimed at his inability to save his family so many years prior. Years of therapy have done nothing to improve his anger issues, and his uber-annoying girlfriend does nothing to help his situation either. He works as a plumber and takes night classes to help him adopt a more enjoyable career, unfortunately they hardly interest him and his grades show for it. In an attempt to help salvage his piss poor grades, he agrees to help his professor(played by horror icon Robert Englund) with some problems he has with the pipes in an old house he just bought for dirt cheap(sound fishy?). Fast forward a little while, and something strange begins to happen to the night class professor. He begins acting differently, projectile vomiting some nasty looking stuff, and soon turns into and awesome looking not-so-human creature. With the night class slowly being devoured and turned into violent zombies, Jack Brooks must finally use his anger for something good, as well as get revenge on the creatures of the night that took his family away from him so many years ago.

This flick has everything you can ask for in a horror film. An interesting story, gore, laughs, monsters, fighting, enjoyable characters, good pacing, no CGI, revenge, and of course…Robert Englund!. The film did take a while to get to the good stuff, but I did not find that to be a problem due to how enjoyable the plot-filler scenes were. a lot of times horror films simply take too long or leave too much time between horror scenes. However with this film, all of the time taken between horror scenes was both needed for the plot to develop…and best of all…funny! This film reminded me a lot of Evil Dead and the most recent 80s-homage…Slither. I really applaud director/co-writer Jon Knautz and writer John Ainslie with this very successful attempt to bring us a fun horror film that would go great with some pizza, beer, and wings. :light bulb above head lights up:

Trevor Matthews did a fine job as Jack Brooks, which is very surprising given his little previous film experience. Given that he has done several of Jon Krautz’s other films in the last few years, I see this little relationship of theirs hopefully blossoming into something fun, and gory in the near future. :crosses fingers: And of course…Robert Englund. The iconic horror figure most known for his roles in the seven “Nightmare on Elm Street” films and of course the infamous Freddy vs. Jason did a fantastic job as Jack Brooks’ quirky professor who finds ill fate in the new home he bought with a knowingly dark past. It is just classic seeing Mr. Englund slowly, and comically transform into the awesome looking creature we see towards the end of the film. Speaking of the creatures…there was absolutely no use of CGI in this film, which is AMAZING! Way too many times I see good films with good ideas take the crappy road and use CGI effects for their monsters instead of the much scarier live action effects(like “I Am Legend” did) that helped transform Tom Savini into the iconic special effects maestro he is.

I really have nothing to detriment this film on aside from Jack Brooks’ overly annoying girlfriend Eve. Actress Rachel Starsken did a fantastic job at playing the overly annoying girlfriend, and I really hope it’s not a “natural” role for her. Haha! I do understand the purpose of Eve’s role in the film, showing how Jack Brooks may in fact be justified in many of his anger problems given that he doesn’t’ have an escape from normal life in the form of a woman, but instead it is a woman is who only giving him more hell. Sound like marriage anyone? JK

Overall, this is an awesome film that I recommend to all horror fans. This takes us back to when horror films were fun, interesting, and stayed true to form with live-action effects.

Rating: 8/10

Director – Scott Spiegel

Cast – Elizabeth Cox, Dan Hicks, David Byrnes, Sam Raimi, Ted Raimi, Eugene Robert Glazer, Renee Estevez, Billy Marti, Burr Steers, Craig Stark, Bruce Campbell

Release Year – 1989

Reviewed by John of the Dead

I really do not know why on Earth this underrated slasher film is not spoken about more often. I believe it to be simply because there is not much distribution for the film, which limit’s it’s availability to us horror fans. Director Scott Spiegel, who is a long time friend of horror icons Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, did an excellent job with this film. I knew this guy had talent when I learned that not only did he grow up and make short films with Raimi and Campbell, but he wrote Evil Dead II with Sam Raimi, which is highly regarded as one of the best horror films of all time. Although he has not had as many directing jobs as I’m sure he’d like to have, he has amazing credits in the areas of writing and producing for some pretty great horror films, but you can do your own research on that.

The film takes place in an old fashioned supermarket as they get ready to close. A cashier girl named Jennifer is having problems with an old boyfriend of hers who just got out of prison. After giving her a hard time and being a complete jackass, he gets into it with a few of her coworkers and they eventually kick him out. However, with his ego bruised and his undying love for Jennifer, he finds a way to secretly break back into the supermarket, and then all hell breaks loose as the night shift workers begin to get hacked up one by one.

I really liked this movie simply because of how fun it is to watch. The acting is questionable(its an 80s slasher…what do you expect?) but the execution and camera work in this film is quite amazing, especially given that this is a pretty unknown, low budget film. When the movie first began and we see the fight scene involving Jennifer’s crazy ex and her co-workers I was really thinking to myself…”What? I thought this movie was supposed to be good, this is wayyy to cheesy!”. However, once the film actually gets going, this film quickly redeems itself from cheesyness, to awesomeness! First and foremost, the kill scenes in this film were amazing. They were gory, original, and even quite comical. Seriously, who laughs out of joy after a brutal kill scene? No I’m not crazy, Scott Spiegel just knows how to do this type of work and made it happen perfectly. Now, as if this film couldn’t get any cooler…it also has acting roles for the infamous Evil Dead and Spider Man trilogy director Sam Raimi, his brother Ted Raimi(who appears in a lot of Sam’s films) and even a small role at the end of the film by the epic horror B-movie icon Bruce Campbell! Director Scott Spiegel also gives himself a short cameo as “The Breadman”. Honestly, can you think of any other film in history(other than the short films they made in high school) that has Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell, Scott Spiegel, and Ted Raimi all with acting roles? No!

The reason this film is getting the rating it is going to get is because it scores wonderfully in what it was trying to do, be an epic 80s slasher that is not only fun to watch, but takes place in a supermarket, which is pretty original compared to the countless other 80s slashers that took place in a house or cabin. I did not personally like the ending to this film, and that is one of the reasons for this film not getting a higher rating. The biggest reason for this film not getting a higher rating is simply the fact that the acting is cheesy at times, as well as some of the fight scenes. Sorry Mr. Spiegel, but even you cannot get away from being docked for that! Haha! On a lighter note, given that this film was released in 1989, this quite possibly the last 80s slasher film, so let’s be glad that the 80’s slasher flicks went out on a high note!

Overall, this is a fun film to watch if you are a fan of the slasher genre and is definitely one of the best, and most underrated slasher films of all time.

Rating: 8/10

Director – Alexandre Bustillo, Julien Maury

Cast – Alysson Paradis, Beatrice Dalle, Francois-Regis Marchasson, Nathalie Roussel, Jean-Baptiste Tabourin

Release Year – 2007

Reviewed by John of the Dead

After viewing the epic French horror films “High Tension”, “Frontier(s)”, and “Martyrs”, I kept scolding myself for never finding the time to watch the one great French horror film I kept leaving out…”Inside”. Although I cannot honestly say that I enjoyed this film more than the one’s I just mentioned, there is one thing this film will make you do…NEVER FORGET IT!

The film follows a pregnant woman named Sarah who, while driving her and her husband somewhere, got into a deadly crash that nearly killed her, and unfortunately killed her husband. Fast forward four months later, it is Christmas eve and Sarah is at the hospital for her very last checkup and is scheduled to deliver her baby early the next morning. The checkup goes well and once she is at home getting ready to call it a night, her doorbell rings. There is a strange woman outside, and Sarah quickly tries to shoo her off. However the strange woman, whom Sarah has never met, knows a little too much about her, and is  not going to leave without Sarah’s unborn child…

This film is a violent, shocking ride that in the end will leave you astonished at what you just saw take place. Although films with a stranger trying to get inside a protagonist’s home have been done before, this is the first time I have seen one where the plot revolves around a pregnant woman, and another woman. I I am a really big fan of woman vs. woman action in horror films. No, I do not feel that way because of some lesbian sex romp fantasy, I feel that way because I find it a lot more shocking. Countless times we see a guy trying to kill some girl and blah blah blah. Although I enjoy a lot of those films, I just have a fascination with girl vs. girl action simply because of how unconventional it is, and how rarely we see it in films.

I felt that this film paced really well, and kept the suspense going without any drag whatsoever except for maybe the first 10 to 20 minutes of the film as we allow the plot to develop. After that, we face countless of suspenseful, and really gory scenes involving the two women, as well as other unsuspecting visitors Sarah, has coming over to make sure she is resting well before the delivery in the morning. If you want an interesting plot…then this is it! Although the overall plot is interesting, I felt that the best and most well known aspect about this film is simply the gore. I saw kills in this film that I have never previously seen in any other horror film, and I’m not quiet sure I will ever see any of these kills ever again in a horror film. Some of them are downright shocking, and will leave you squirming in your seat. The fact that a film about two women can be this gory and brutal really fascinates me, it is just something that we never see happen in other films. “Why?” do you ask? Most likely because no director, writer, or producer has the guts to make it happen. Haha!

As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I really liked the plot of this film. However I really had a few problems with the story and execution of the story. For one, there were quite a few scenes that I felt lacked any type of realism, especially the scenes involving some police officers that are supposed to be monitoring the area. I know this is just a movie, and not a completely accurate representation of real life, but I do expect to see SOME sort of realism in the film. The police officers actions were really horrible, and did not represent normal police procedure. I had a problem with this because even people who are not police officers understand at least the basics in procedure and protocol. So this leaves me a bit angry knowing that at least one person on the set of this film was very well aware of this dilemma, and yet copped out and did nothing to fix it, which would have improved this film to some degree. Lastly, and this may not exactly be a complaint due to circumstance…but I really found the lead actress, the pregnant Sarah, to be very unlikable. Right from the start I felt no remorse for her whatsoever, mainly due to how she was treating people around her, especially those who cared for her. I understand she was close to labor, but you will see for yourself the severity of her actions, and I am sure you will agree with me. Now the reason I feel that may not exactly be a flaw in this film is because if you don’t like the lead character what will you normally do? Yes, that’s right, you will go for the bad guy, or should I say…”bad GIRL”! I am not sure if this was writer/director Alexandre Bustillo intention, but I found it to be quite interesting given that you would assume a film involving a good girl vs. bad girl will have you rooting for the good girl, well…maybe not in this case. Hehe.

Overall, this is an excellent film that should be viewed by all those who want to see a “no holds barred” battle royale in which a pregnant lady fights a weird, and pretty demented stranger, only to leave you gasping at the events that unfold during the last 15 minutes of the film.

Rating: 8.5/10

This film would have received an 9 rating had the “realism” issues been fixed. Either way…an 8.5 rating is awesome.

Joaquin Phoenix and Vinessa Shaw in "Two Lovers"

Mike Nichols opens Closer, his 2004 adaptation of playwright Patrick Marber’s treatise on sex and psychological warfare, with dual shots of two beautiful strangers (Jude Law and Natalie Portman) walking down a crowded London street. They notice each other instantly, and we can’t help but do the same. They pop out above the crowd–largely, this is a choice of focus on the part of Nichols and DP Stephen Goldblatt, but with Law’s piercing eyes and movie star good looks and Portman’s girl-next-door charm and fluorescent red hair, how can we not? These people stand out almost by habit.

Leonard Kraditor, the broken protagonist of James Gray’s Two Lovers, is not such a person. As played by Joaquin Phoenix (who, interestingly enough, briefly delves into his new career as a rapper during a ride over to a club), he’s not without his good qualities. He’s guarded, but not without wit or a certain clumsy boyish charm. His face still carries baby fat, but you can tell he would look good if he lost a little weight. He dresses shabbily, but practically, and he cleans up well. All around, a wholly unremarkable man. Even under the watchful gaze of lenser Joaquin Baca-Asay, Leonard gets lost in the crowd — sometimes, particularly in crowd scenes, it takes a good ten seconds before you realize he’s even in frame.

When we meet Leonard, he is a man desperate for something he can control. Well into his thirties, Leonard has returned home to live with his parents and works at his father’s dry cleaners after failing to make his place in the world. He has failed as a photographer. He failed as a husband — he and his former fiancee (both Jewish) tested positive for Tay-Sachs, so they were split up, rather than endure the inevitable heartbreak that could come with the increasingly likely death of any child they had. And as we first see Leonard, he’s about to become (for the second time) what Frank Zappa would call a “Suicide Chump.” However, we can never take his attempts seriously — scars from his cut wrists are across veins rather than along (i.e., less likely to be fatal) and he attempts to drown himself by jumping from a bridge no more than two feet above the water (in fact, he changes his mind halfway through the attempt and resurfaces, posing as a drowning victim). Leonard makes another bold gesture in the film’s closing moments, but he ultimately confirms it as an empty threat.

And topping off a laundry list of emasculating circumstances, he’s about to be set up with another nice Jewish girl (Vinessa Shaw), the daughter of Leonard’s father’s new business partner. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with Sandra — she’s quite pretty and appreciates Leonard’s eccentricities. But meeting a new girl at your parents’ house, where you’re currently living, and being goaded to show her your photographs in your messy childhood room is not exactly ideal.

This inciting incident spurs Two Lovers along as a fascinating and hypnotic tale about regaining one’s masculine identity. For Leonard, this also means shedding his Jewish identity (though he attends his girlfriend’s younger brother’s bar mitzvah, an allusion to Leonard’s own attempt to grapple with being a man), and taking up with a friendly, if wholly fucked up, shiksa named Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow). Michelle is everything that Sandra isn’t; blonde, thin, and completely uninterested in Leonard in any romantic way. While Leonard courts Sandra in a very traditional fashion (movies, dinners, standard couples territory), his relationship with Michelle carries out in the manner of a couple of hormonal teenagers sneaking around after Mom and Dad have gone to sleep (and behind their own partners’ backs — Leonard is dating Sandra while he pines for Michelle, who is having an affair with a married man). The windows of their respective rooms are right across from each other (it’s no coincidence that Michelle’s window is on a floor above Leonard’s), so they yell to each other across the alleyway. They make late-night phone calls while looking at each other through the window. They sneak up to the roof to talk (and eventually have sex). And as the film draws to a close, they make the split decision to run off together to live in California.

The resolution of Leonard and Michelle’s tryst is completely expected, but there’s something tragic in these otherwise adolescent events because they’re occurring between two adults. What could be shrugged off as a mere crush in two teen characters is filled with all the same confusion, regret, and hurt and elevated ten-fold by two actors as skilled in their roles as Phoenix and Paltrow. It’s Leonard’s state of arrested development that makes his journey that much more urgent, and why an unspoken hurt seems to register when Sandra tells him “I want to take care of you” that forces Leonard to make a point of telling Michelle that he wants to protect her. While Leonard is constantly on the defensive, it’s only because Phoenix is so fully open as a performer, unafraid to let every insecurity and spiritual pock mark bleed through onto film. It’s this vulnerability that makes the final moments of Two Lovers (which I won’t spoil for you here, despite my bad track record with such things) so powerful in their heartbreak.

Kevin McCallister decorates his Christmas tree as Harry looks on in "Home Alone."

(Chris Columbus, 1990)

December 23, 2009

by Joel Crary

The exciting notion of having free reign as a child is one that “Home Alone” gets right. As Kevin McCallister brings the bookshelves in ugly brother Buzz’s (Devin Ratray) room crashing to the floor and eats a devastating amount of junk food while watching a violent film noir, he still makes them seem like attractive ideas. Festive, even. T’is the season to scare a pizza delivery guy out of his wits.

People tend to forget how enormous “Home Alone” was. The film, in which a boy is left behind in Chicago by his vacationing family and must defend his home against two dimwitted thieves, is still among the top grossing American productions, having pulled in nearly $300 million before inflation. I’m a few months older than star Macaulay Culkin, who for a few years after the film’s release appeared in a handful of films of varying quality including a sequel, a cartoon television series and a Michael Jackson music video. All of his projects played off the young star’s inherent cuteness and likability. With his shaggy blond hair, amusing expressions and adult line readings, Culkin had a quality. As with most child stars, it was lost to the inevitable approach of adulthood.

The marketing for “Home Alone” revolved around Culkin’s energetic, hyperactive, where’s-the-Ritalin performance, capped by the iconic image of Culkin with palms pressed to his horrified face in a position akin to Edvard Munch’s “The Scream.” With his manic behaviour, Culkin was the posterboy for the ADD generation, the 80s suburban tykes who had spent their elementary years growing up overstimulated on television and video games and were thus prone to distraction and emotional schizophrenia at every turn.

However, it’s important to remember that Kevin McCallister was also a creation of John Hughes, who never made a habit of writing two-speed characters. Hughes had worked with Culkin on “Uncle Buck” a year earlier and wrote the part for Culkin in spite of director Chris Columbus’ insistence on auditioning hundreds of other youths. To cast anyone but Culkin would have been a mistake. For a 10-year-old, Culkin had a well developed sense of comic timing, especially with dialogue. And despite the screaming, which does border on the gratuitous at times, he was skilled in lugging the emotional weight needed for the film’s dramatic moments.

It helps that Culkin was surrounded by good and even great actors, without whom “Home Alone” could have been a total nightmare. Instead, it is a success by virtue of the schadenfreude it instills thanks to the physical performances of Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern and their stunt doubles as the robbers, whose abuse I take a genuine pleasure in watching in both installments. Stern is especially animated in his role, hitting pitch-perfect screams as he steps on a nail, tumbles down a tar-slathered staircase and reacts to a tarantula crawling across his iron-pressed face. As Kevin’s mother, Catherine O’Hara provides her usual reliable work, while John Candy makes a near-cameo appearance with some funny dialogue about his status as the polka king of the Midwest.

What remains a fork in the film’s side is its utter implausibility. “Home Alone” serves as little more than a comical exhibition of extreme slapstick – everything before the robbers’ final assault on the McCallister house has the feeling of rote set-up. As such, it feels like a joke that meanders too greatly before the punchline, killing the wallop. Kevin has to be in the house alone, and Hughes’ screenplay has to stretch to drive home the idea that his parents would ever make such a mistake, using a power outage, a faulty headcount and the convenient separation of the parents into first class on their departing plane. It’s hard to believe that not one of the 11 people on board noticed Kevin’s absence, or that the police wouldn’t have done more to help.

Still, over the last decade or so, “Home Alone” has settled comfortably into holiday classic territory, making it one of the smartest business decisions a studio ever made. The film could have been set at any time of the year. Massaging it into a Christmas flick has ensured its visibility on sale racks near every December 25th since 1991. A lot of people thought a 10-year-old laying a beatdown on two hapless robbers top quality entertainment 20 years ago. Making the beatdown a catalyst to celebrating the birth of Christ is just good marketing.

Avatar (2009)

3 stars – * * *

Director – James Cameron

Cast – Sam Worthington, Zoe Seldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribisi

———————

Avatar has finally burst upon us. It is arguably the most hyped movie ever, with James Cameron declaring that it will revolutionize the way we make movies. Possibly. The CGI is wonderful, and some of the things we see are absolutely unprecedented.

The story is about a man who, while inhabiting an alien body via some sort of pseudo-scientific telekinesis, falls in love with an alien (a “Na’vi”) who is native to the planet he has come there to destroy essentially by strip mining it. He changes his mind after seeing the beautiful planet and the native’s peaceful ways, and gradually finds himself becoming more and more like the Na’vi. His superiors naturally want him to keep his mind straight, and tell him not to “forget whose team you’re on.” Conflict (both internal and kaboom-style) obviously comes up.

It is such a pity that Cameron the director is so good, while Cameron the writer relies on cliché after cliché to tell a story. One gets the feeling that he thought of the feel of the movie, the environment, the cool sequences he could do etc., and then at the last moment thought “Oh crap, I need a story for this don’t I. Let’s see, Dances with Wolves was good, right? Let’s mix in that with a bit of Romeo and Juliet and we’re good to go.” The story in general had potential, but instead of focusing on the big themes (racial issues of forcing a population off their land because you want it; the whole idea of first contact with an alien race etc.) he focuses on the love story. Now this wouldn’t be so bad if the romance was treated with any degree of maturity and with a recognition of the problems involved. However the romance is played like all the run-down romances of the past. To put it simply, we’ve seen it SO MANY TIMES before. Line for line, plot point by plot point, this movie has hardly an original bone in its gloriously rendered CG body.

This is such a shame, as the world Cameron has created is for the most part wonderful. (I could have done with less “over-the-top beauty” though. For example when Cameron wants to show us the beauty of the place he doesn’t show us a natural looking world but fills it with incandescent purple-ness, as if bludgeoning us over the head “See, it’s PRETTY!” But that’s a fairly minor point.) The battle scenes toward the end of the movie are terrific, probably the best of its type. Some of the shots of all the military vehicles etc. will literally make your jaw drop.

Cameron has always been good at making stuff look good. He’s a very technical director, and unfortunately we see his story suffer from that. He looks at stories very technically. He looks at his blank piece of paper, and says “Forbidden romance, check. Evil corporation, check.” and ticks off all the ingredients he needs. He isn’t interested in telling a story. He needs a story as an excuse to put all his technical wizardry to work. Technical wizardry which is, granted, ground breaking.

One last thing; a major plot point involves a ceremony which the Na’vi believes is religious. The humans find that there is actually a scientific reason for what occurs during the ceremony. However, it is still played as religious to us, the viewer. The choral music sweeps up (James Horner composed the music by the way, up to his usual trick of ripping off everybody including himself as much as possible), the aliens start swaying, and the camera just worships it, while we keep rolling our eyes and wishing Cameron would just get on with it. If it had played as rational and scientific it might (MIGHT) have been less groan-worthy.

OVERALL

A ridiculously contrived and over-used romantic plot line combined with a total lack of subtlety almost ruin Avatar. The CG may be groundbreaking and the battle scenes worthy of fanboy-ish screams, but if we find ourselves groaning and rolling our eyes every other scene it can’t hold up. I recommend you see it if you want to see helicopters and trees blowing up. There’s a lot of that, and it is indeed awesome. But while the movie has a great “roof”, it has no “foundation”, and is as subtle as a brick to the head. To quote a friend “It’s an awesome movie, except for the story.” That pretty much says it all.

—————————————-

TRAILER

“Avatar” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

PLANET 51

Alien is a creature from outer space. Itulah definisi alien menurut kamus. Apa jadinya kalau istilah ini dikenakan untuk manusia? Hal inilah yang menjadi isu dalam film “Planet 51”. Cerita film ini mengisahkan kehidupan makhluk-makhluk luar angkasa yang diibaratkan memiliki kehidupan yang kurang lebih sama seperti kehidupan manusia di bumi. Mereka memiliki anggapan bahwa ‘alien’ (yang dimaksud adalah manusia) adalah makhluk yang jahat dan akan merusak kehidupan mereka yang damai. Suatu ketika, astronot Amerika, Captain Charles “Chuck” Baker (Dwayne Johnson) mendarat ke planet ini. Chuck beranggapan planet yang ia kunjungi adalah planet tak berpenghuni, sehingga ketika ia menyadari bahwa ada penduduk di planet itu dia menyebutnya itu adalah ‘planet Alien’. Di sisi lain, penduduk planet itu beranggapan planetnya dalam bahaya karena kedatangan ‘alien’. Jadi, siapa yang ‘alien’?

Film ini tergolong film yang sangat ringan dan sangat sederhana karena masalah di film tidak rumit. Isu utama yang ditampilkan adalah mengenai ‘perbedaan’ dan bagaimana menyikapi ‘perbedaan’ itu. Semua dikemas sederhana, mulai dari rangkaian cerita hingga animasi yang dibuat.. tidak sesempurna “Wall-E” dan tidak seseru “Finding Nemo”. Pengisi suara juga agak kurang memunculkan karakter. Untungnya digunakan nama-nama yang tidak asing di dunia perfilman untuk menjadi pengisi suaranya. Cukup untuk mengundang penonton untuk menonton film ini. Dengan kesederhanaan film ini, tidak rugi juga untuk memasukkan film ini sebagai koleksi. Bisa digunakan untuk penyejuk di kala penat dengan rutinitas.

Ide cerita film ini patut dihargai tinggi karena menyajikan bagaimana menganalogikan kelompok yang kita anggap dengan memutarbalikan posisi, sehingga kita juga merasa bahwa kita lah yang berbeda bila dilihat dari sudut pandang kelompok tersebut. Menurut saya, pesan moral film ini yang menambah nilai tambah film yang berdurasi 91 menit ini. Film ini mengajarkan kepada kita secara tidak langsung bagaimana resiko yang akan dihadapi bila menyikapi perbedaan dengan positif atau dengan negatif. Perbedaan yang disajikan (manusia – alien) dapat menjadi analogi yang baik untuk perbedaan yang ada di kehidupan manusia di bumi (perbedaan ras, suku, agama, atau status sosial). Intinya, membedakan seseorang cenderung bersifat subyektif sehingga menyikapi perbedaan harus dengan bijak.

Pemain: Dwayne Johnson, Jessica Biel, Justin Long, Gary Oldman, Alan Marriot

Sutradara : Marcos Martinez, Javier Abad, Jorge Blanco

Produser : Ignacio Perez Dolset, Guy Colins

Produksi : Ilion Animation Studios, HandMade Films, Antena 3 Films

Akting (pengisi suara) : ( 6 )

Harmonisasi film : ( 4 )

Hiburan : ( 5 )

Pesan : ( 9 )

Sinematografi : ( 7.5 )

————————————————————-

Overall: ( 6.3 )

-DJD-

Move over It’s a Wonderful Life, there is a new kid on the Christmas holiday block and his name is Silent Night, Deadly Night. Billy Chapman witnessed the atrocious murder of his parents on the side of the road at the hand of Santa himself and has never been the same. Raised in an orphanage run by nuns, he has learned very strict meanings for the words ‘naughty’ and ‘punishment’. You see Mother Superior believes punishment is absolute—punishment is good. Mix that hard-lined version of retribution with the fear-inducing memories of Jolly Ol’ Saint Nick and you’ve got one messed up kid primed and ready to snap. If I were basing this review purely on enjoyment—and boy did my friends and I have a riot watching and making fun at every turn—it would get a solid 8/10. Alas, when looking at it as a film, one cannot be that generous. Most people back in 1984 did go a little too far in their hatred though, (the Anchor Bay release has a plethora of quotes from concerned parents and critics), even if it is pretty horribly written and acted.

How does a film called Silent Night, Deadly Night not have the song “Silent Night” playing at any time? Budget constraints must have been the issue, even though I would have thought it in the realm of royalty free, because the only music we get is badly generic stuff with what sounds like a barbershop quartet in the background. Then there is the random construction of some scenes, the gratuitous nude and soft-core porn moments, two sets of expository time leaps, and multiple points that appear to be the ending until you realize the film is less than an hour old. It may be one of the most controversial slashers due to the usurping of all things sacred about Christmas and the joy Santa brings, but I’m more appalled by the lack of any real redeemable qualities. It was mentioned afterwards that at least they appeared to be trying to make something good, and I won’t disagree. With not much money, the only recognizable face being the guy who got struck by lightning 88 times in the head in The Great Outdoors, (Britt Leach), and muddy film stock needing to be spliced back in after being excised before its release to remove the gore that would ruin the holiday for young children that shouldn’t be watching anyway, the only thing the film has going for it is the appeal in laughing at the absurdity of it all.

It all begins strong enough with a Christmas Eve visit to grandpa at the insane asylum. Mom, Dad, and the baby leave the room of catatonic gramps, leaving young Billy to be the only witness to his reanimation and slyly crazed grin. The old man tells the boy to fear Santa Claus because any instance of naughtiness means he will be coming to punish. Billy only needs to nod his head frightfully when asked if he had been bad to hear the cautionary words spill forth, “You see Santa Claus tonight you better run boy, you better run for ya life!” And then the adults return, grandpa goes back to staring silently, and you wonder whether Billy imagined it all or if Will Hare’s creepy delivery, tear-streaked eyes and all, actually occurred. However, a malicious Santa on the side of the road, (Who falls for the broken down car con anymore? Honestly), makes us forget about the (in)validity of that scene because soon we see what that punishment grandpa spoke of is—a raped mother with throat slit and a gunned down father, both bloodily lying in the street. It actually is a pretty effective start to what will soon delve into tired clichés and random homicide where a psychological study of evil being avenged might have been possible to save some merit.

Instead of finding a way to overcome his fear of Santa and his murdering ways, life with the nuns at Saint Mary’s orphanage only serves to exacerbate things, causing even more pain and suffering to be associated with the holiday of goodwill. By the time Billy has grown old enough to get a job and be out in the world, we start to sympathize with his plight, having seen what he had experienced in just eighteen years of life. Don’t worry, though, that feeling of sadness soon goes away when his grip on realty breaks for good, turning him into a sociopath version of the fictional legend, going around town killing all the bad girls and boys. All it took was putting him in a Santa suit—the kid has been physically afraid of this character for over a decade, so that was a great idea—and witnessing a rape like that of his mother to make sanity wave goodbye. Next comes a series of grisly murders of innocent people arbitrarily chosen because the runtime needed some padding. Basically, if you bully some kids and go sledding at night, drink alcohol, (which would make sense if someone in his past had been a drunk), or show a nipple or two, you better watch out, Santa’s a-coming for ya and he ain’t got no present.

So many moments are laughable and epitomize the greatness that was cheap 80s cinema. Everyone tries so hard to act scared, but it never really works. Gilmer McCormick, as the good nun Sister Margaret, does her best to feign concern, but then why does it take half a day between finding out Billy is in a Santa costume, (How great is his handling of the little girl on his lap?), and finally getting there without any police backup? As for Billy, Robert Brian Wilson is a blank slate of stoicism. The only sense of animation is in his sweat shakes when things happening in front of him bring up past horrors. Each murder is only leading up to his inevitable return to the orphanage full of naughty little children and abusive religious figures to see punished by his hand. All the usual horror tropes are included from the comical accidental apprehension of other Santas or the heavy-handed setup for a sequel—there have been five with a remake in the works. There is no commentary against the church or blatant hope of instilling the fear of God in children so that they are nice; it’s just a fun romp of blood, gore, and sex. And I discovered what it was I truly wanted this year for Christmas … a wondrous new utility knife because I’ve been a very good boy.

Silent Night, Deadly Night 4/10