Hello Old Friend

Today I had an interesting conversation with my boss and a few regulars about blogging. My boss has read my blog and likes it. That's heartening, but I feel like I don't have as much time to write as I used to. Perhaps this has something to do with not being at an office job anymore. I certainly had more than enough time to devote thirty minutes a day to typing out a review when sitting in a cubicle. I also had more time to watch movies and go to the theatre when I worked a 9-5. Since moving into the bar scene, I find that all I want to do when I get home is catch up on TV and sleep. My days off are crammed with all the tasks that MUST be completed for me to continue living. Add to this the lack of internet at my house and you get a pretty lazy blogger.

The positives: I think I'm finally starting to find a balance after over a year of being a paid night owl. I am also consciously choosing to watch the movies that languish in my queue or on top of my DVD player. I miss writing about what inspires, drives, and truly nourishes me. That may sound cheesy, but film and to a slightly lesser extent TV have been my touch stones. I have always been interested in what makes them good, what other people think, and how they factor into my life. I don't know what I would do if my TV broke. Actually, I do; as that happened to me not too long ago. I borrowed money from my parents to replace it ASAP.

As a welcome back to blogging, I want to talk about a movie I just saw.

"Would You Rather" (2012)
Director: David Guy Levy
Starring: Brittany Snow (also Exec-Producer), John Heard, Enver Gjokaj, Sasha Grey, Eddie Steeples

"Would You Rather" is perfectly described as a cross between "Hostel" and "Ten Little Indians". The concept isn't particularly new, but the approach and acting elevate it beyond previous works. We meet Iris (Snow) as she interviews for a job. She just quit school to take care of a sick brother after both parents have died. Money is tight, and she doesn't seem qualified for much. Her brother's doctor introduces her to Shepard Lambick (Jeffery Combs), the head of some huge corporation? Endowment? It isn't explained very well. Needless to say, he's rich and giving away money. Would Iris be interested in attending a dinner party, playing a game, and potentially winning enough to make all her and her brothers' dreams come true? Sounds too good to be true, and that's our first red flag. WYR doesn't try to be smarter that other films of its ilk, it simply understands that you, the viewer, know what's going to happen, and speeds along until hitting pay dirt.

Iris agrees to go to the dinner where she meets a cast of characters plucked from the pulp headlines: a gambler down on his luck (Heard), a saucy minx (Grey), the token black guy (Steeples), the ex-military guy (Charles Hofheimer), the little old lady (June Squibb). Dinner seems pleasant until the game is introduced.

It's a simple children's game. We've all played it: Would you rather? In our version, the choices are usually between bedding some famous actor or the weird guy at school. Drinking some weird concoction or kissing a dog. Who knows? The possibilities are endless! Of course, this is a horror/suspense film, so the stakes are much higher. I don't want to ruin some of the ingenious ways Mr. Lambick has devised to torment and test his potential beneficiaries, but I will pose this offered question: Would you rather electrocute yourself or your neighbor? How much are you willing to risk to chance?

At times, WYR made me cover my eyes. It was a nice change of pace for me truthfully, where nothing is usually weird or disgusting enough that I've not seen it before. In this case, I may have seen it before, but I cared more for the characters involved that I didn't want to see what I knew must happen.

Is this torture porn in the same way Hostel may be categorized as? No. Is it equally, if not more, disturbing? Yes. What would the average person do in these"Exam" or "Cube" that "Hostel". It's really about what makes a person human? What limit is too far? What would you do to achieve what is most important to you? It is in these questions that WYR succeeds.

circumstances? As one character expressed, we'd like to think we know but as the timer runs down, what would we really do? Thinking on this now, I think the film has more in common with

Would you rather??

The Power of X

It should be noted that I am a geek. One of the highlights of my year so far was attending the Dallas ComicCon and missing Leonard Nimoy in the hall by just seconds. Geek.

I love comic books; the art, the characters (both fantastical and realistic), the stories. Whether it be a far away galaxy or right here on earth, the future or in the present or the past; I am constantly impressed by what the writers and artists are able to accomplish. Comic books, and their grown counter part the graphic novel, represent the perfect blend of my twin passions- movies and books. Seemingly simple writing is reinforced by the art work, both working diligently to move the story forward and build characters frame by frame.

It seems shocking that it would take so long for Hollywood to jump on the geek bandwagon, until you remember comics are for kids. Or, at least that was the popular thought when the greatest characters were created in the 50s. Who would have thought a dime store comic book would later sell for millions?

Regardless of how long it took to get there, Hollywood eventually did come calling and have been turning out both good (1st Superman, Batman, Blade, Iron Man, Ghost World) and bad (Daredevil, the Hulk, Barb Wire, Tank Girl (though I LOVE that movie), Ghost Rider) ever since. The list could go on. It amazes me how anyone could fuck up a comic book movie. It's all right there! The set design, art direction, costumes, physical characteristics, etc. Each character has a long and layered back story. There are established hero's and villains, not to mention plots galore. Seriously, some one must be taking the piss to turn out as much garbage as they do.

It was with great excitement that I went to see "X-Men: First Class". I love the X-Men. Of all the big "brands", the mutant warriors of good and evil are by far my favourite. I love how each character is so different from the next, but there are subtle overlaps in powers. The line between good and evil is also blurred as each villain and obstacle are attacked by opposing sides- the "good" X-Men and the "bad" Magneto and his army. [side note: Does anyone else think it's kind of lame that Magneto didn't get a cool moniker for his brood?].

My favourite character is Jean Grey, almost exclusively because she becomes the Dark Phoenix whom I adore. It is much for this reason I loved "X-3", and seem to be the only person who did! I urge you to go back and watch it again. Sure, Brett Ratner isn't known for the subtlety that proved Bryan Singer the right man for the job. (Remember when everyone hated that he was directing? Fools!). The story was good but perhaps they tried to do too much in too little time (much like this newest film). **SPOILER ALERT IF YOU NEVER SAW "X-3: THE LAST STAND"** Still, who could forget when Mystique is cured of her mutant-ness and Magneto leaves her behind? I think the line is something like, "You were beautiful, now look at you." To a nude Rebecca Romijn!! Or, the struggle Rogue goes through when faced with the possibility of a cure. Should she? Shouldn't she? I hated the choice she ended up making, though now, years wiser, I understand it.

How did Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) meet and then how did they come to be foes? (I won't use the term enemy, as I've always felt they still have a great deal of love and respect for one another). When did they become Professor X and Magneto, respectively? When was the school for gifted youngsters established? Why is Charles in a wheel chair? All and more will be answered!

The film starts with our hero's in the 40s- Erik in a Nazi prison camp and Charles in a mansion in upstate New York. It then moves pretty quickly to the 60s and the dawn of the Cuban missle crisis. Mutants are alone, unrecognized, and in hiding. Erik is hunting his old nemesis and war criminal Sebastian Shaw (a devilishly cool Kevin Bacon) and Charles is getting is doctorate in Oxford. Soon, he is enlisted to help CIA operative Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne), and believer in the extraordinary, as she hunts for Shaw. Shaw has taken what he learned as the chief medical experiment guy in concentration camps and turned himself into a superhero with the ability to absorb energy. He looks smashing! Joining him on his quest for world domination is Emma Frost (January Jones), Riptide (Alex Gonzalez), and Azazel (an unrecognizable Jason Flemyng). On the side of good, Charles and Erik use a prehistoric version of Cerebro to locate other mutants who may be able to help in their task. Finally, more than half way through the movie, we meet the first class: Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Angel, not to be confused with the male Angel from "X-3" (Zoe Kravitz), Havok (Lucas Till), Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), and Darwin (Edi Gathegi). It's nice to see some new faces in the already established movie-verse of X-Men.

Matthew Vaughn has transitioned well from the indie darling "Layer Cake" to more commercial fare like "Kick-Ass" and this film. His attention to character is precisely what this film needed. There is a lot of history (both real and from the comics) to cover, and not getting lost or dragged down and away from the plot could be tricky in less capable hands. I think there were just too many cooks in the kitchen, with four credited screenwriters, not to mention two story by credits. Clearly, someone had a lot of fun writing it but the film would have been better if it didn't try to introduce too much of the school. It should have been called "X-Men: Origins" and saved the "First Class" moniker for a second film when we could really explore the establishment of the school.

There are great performances through out, most notably Fassbender. It's great to see Magneto with a bit more humanity, before it is killed and he begins trying to lead the mutant uprising. Lawrence proves she can handle a blockbuster (good thing what with "The Hunger Games" poised to become the new "Twilight") and Hoult shows just the right edge of nerd and carnivore. The biggest fault in casting is the other women. I'm not sure if Jones is just used to the "Mad Men" school of acting or if she just can't act, but she was never really present and seemed to phone it in. One would think the role of Ice Queen would be perfectly suited to her, but I guess that doesn't work in every dimension of the 60s. Thankfully, it does not distract from the overall film. Byrne is also under utilized, but I disagree with other reviewers that her character was so unbelievable. We must remember, most women at this time were homemakers or secretaries. It is not far fetched that she would be demeaned or objectified in the work place. Of course, the Moira MacTaggert of the comics is a lot more interesting (and not a CIA agent), but what can you do?

I want desperately for this film to do well (knock on wood). I want more sequels! There is so much story to be told, so many characters who still have not had their day, it would be a shame to stop here. Whether you're a card carrying geek like me or just someone looking to have fun at the movies (all without having to check your brain at the door), then this is the must see of the summer.

**** (4 stars)

Millennium Trilogy Resolved

**** (4 stars)

I've been a bit preoccupied with life at the moment, so not a lot of time to sit at home and watch the Netflix collecting dust on top of my VCR/DVD combo. Last night I finally finished "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest", the third film in the Millennium trilogy based on the best selling books of the same name. I reviewed the first movie on my older blog, but seem to have skipped the second one all together. Weird. If you haven't seen the movies or read the books you've probably been living in a distopian society that has outlawed all forms of entertainment. If that's the case, than congrats on escaping from the cult and let's get crackin' getting you up to speed.

**There Will Be Spoilers! (But, I'll try to keep them to a minimum)**

In the first film, "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", we are introduced to Mikael Blomkvist- rogue journalist and editor of a seemingly boring political magazine. Blomkvist has just served a short prison sentence for slander when he is recruited by a wealthy old man to help solve the disappearance of his granddaughter. Blomkvist's search is too long and tedious to do alone, so he enlists the help of a computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander to help.  Lisbeth is a bit of a genius but the government has kept her under control by declaring her incompetent and locking her up in a mental institution when she was a young girl. What's the angle? Of course everything ends happily but of course that's not true or there would be no need for two other movies.

Cut to the second film, "The Girl Who Played With Fire". Blomkvist moves on with life and begins investigating a possible sex-traffic ring. He would be lost without Salander's hacking skills and once again enlists her to help. Unfortunately for her, there is more than meets the eye in this case and she is soon the scape goat for several murders that occur during the investigation. Now on the run, she must rely on Blomkvist for help this time around. These events unfold along with, and sometimes in conjunction with, the story of Salander's painful childhood and years of abuse. It is revealed that her father, whom she tried to kill as a child, is actually behind everything that has happened to her in life and is now the one trying to shut her up forever. Unfortunately for him, she gets there first and tries to kill him again. Blomkvist to the rescue and roll credits.

Now, in the final movie, Salander is clinging to life and about to face trial for the attempted murder of her father. We all know by now what a bad guy he is, but he has deep roots and trusted allies with which to help him. This film is a lot slower than the previous two and that's saying a lot considering the shortest of the trilogy is 129  minutes. The problem isn't necessarily the filmmakers as it is the author. Steig Larsson traumatically died shortly after the first book was published. We know through his long term girlfriend that a forth book was in the works. Would it have continued the story of Blomkvist and Salander? Was is something completely different? We may never know as it is tied up in the malicious court case between her and Larsson's family. [side note: If you're with a Swede, get married. The country does not recognize girl friends or common law wives, and the family can contest the will and estate in such cases. Bummer.]

The book was able to do a better job at explaining the government's connection to Salander's father and herself since it is unrestrained from the confines of time. To shot the book as written would require the film to be almost 8 hours long. The writers did a fine job editing out additional back stories and characters, yet they seem to have forgotten the main ones. How is Blomkvist so smart in the previous films but so dumb in this one? Why would Sweden protect such a nasty individual as Salander's father? The book fixes both of these problems and for that reason, I suggest you read it first. Otherwise, you will be left in the dark about many things that will fill in the holes the movies creates.

It is a bit of a sad conclusion to such a fantastic series, but not so far gone as to warrant massive complaints or calls to avoid it. You should see it. If you've already watched the other two movies, it will be impossible to ignore it. Furthermore, the English language remake is being filmed now and I can already guess there will be more car chases, bare breasts, and swearing than the original. Such a shame.

The Legacy Continues

**** (4 stars)

I so rarely get to sit down and type out my review immediatly following the movie, but I am today. Please bare with me and keep that in mind if some of this doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm just too excited to wait!

The original "Tron" was a massive failure. Still, on video and at countless midnight showings across the country it is considered a forgotten gem, a camp classic for the ages. Now, almost 30 years later it is getting a reboot in the form of a continuation story. "Tron: Legacy" picks up almost where the original left off. After getting sucked into his own computer program, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) sends a message through the ethos to his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund). Soon, Sam finds himself trapped in the grid amidst an ancient battle between Flynn's alter ego Clu and his father. With the help of Quorra (Olivia Wilde), another program and Flynn's protege, they must rescue Flynn and return home before Clu can cross over and reek havoc on Earth.

The first thing that hits you while watching "Legacy" is the look. Gone are the fuzzy, almost pastel lights and sound stages. Here is a whole world created with the magic of CG and the technology unavailable in the early 80s. This is a movie that was screaming for a remake! Thank you Hollywood. Bridges plays both his current aged self and the ageless Clu, ssimilar to "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", and the FX team must have crossed themselves since they had access to footage of Bridges from the original movie. While in the grid universe, this copy and paste technique works wonderfully. Everything has that slick, wet look and the light suits and weapons cast a similar glow to all the actors. It is truly amazing. However, a brief scene in the beginning of the film was misguided. It totally removed me from the story to see a shiny, happy Bridges talking to his young son. Oh well, we can't win all the time.

Kevin Ishioka ("Avatar", "Chronicles of Riddick") does an amazing job with the art direction of the film. Usually, talking at length about how good a film looks would be the kiss of death, but "Legacy" relies on the sets, the FX, the costumes, to bring this world to life. If we don't buy it, it's just "Tron: Redux". I can't say enough about how great and consuming the overall look of the film was. The 3D was also pretty good. It wasn't campy or trying to hard. It just gave depth to the computer world and breathed life into it. If 3D was used this consciously in every movie, maybe I wouldn't have such a huge problem with it.

This new "Tron" also has a nice script by Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz (the writers/producers of "Lost" TV series, "Birds of Prey"). They seamlessly weaved in the recap of the first movie without making it seem like an afterthought. Quorra has some really nice lines and the relationships between all the characters is well developed. If there is a weak point, it's in James Haygood's editing. At 129 minutes, it's just a tad too long. Some scenes seem like they were thrown in last second (or more realistically, after a bad screening). During a lovely conversation between reunited father and son, we jump cut to Clu in his lair for the ubiquitous and meaningless "I'm gonna get you Kevin Flynn" moment, then jump back to the dinner table conversation. What was the point? We know he's out to get him. That's what they're talking about at the table! I wish more movies could leave a bit to the audience to imagine (great case in point- the sparse "Black Swan"). It could have been much tighter. The score by techno-legends Daft Punk is very good though a bit overwhelming in places. It's as if the director and editor didn't know what to do so they just layered a loud piece of music over the scene. It's not really Joseph Kosinski's fault, or really anything to blame. Far worse has occurred in other director's first films and I'm sure he will have a long career if he wants it.

The action scenes and fights are really fun to watch, especially the grid battle between teams of light cycles. I nominate David Leitch ("300", "Fight Club") for a Stuntman Award. His coordination of the films stunts is great and we never give the stuntmen and coordinator enough credit. Applause!! My buddy who went with me and I both agreed that the sound was off the charts! How nice to see a movie that finds that perfect pitch of quiet and loud. A certain Oscar contender.

If it is possible to love Olivia Wilde more, it is after seeing this movie. I never watched "The O.C.", but I really liked her in "Alpha Dog", the short lived "The Black Donnelly's", and she was certainly the best thing about "Turistas". "House" also picked up once she was cast as 13. In "Legacy", she gets to play something totally different- a girl. Not someone tough and jaded or guarded, but a strong young woman who finds humor in the smallest places. I highly recommend reading the interview she gave to /film where she talks about fleshing out the character and the importance that she not be just another pretty face (which she certainly is). I just loved her!

Bridges is best when it's actually him acting and not his CGI morphed face on another actor's body, but that's a bit to be expected. Hedlund (the upcoming "Country Strong", "Eragon") does a fine though somewhat flat job as Sam. He is at his best when acting opposite Wilde and in the more tender moments between himself and Bridges. I'm certainly curious to see more from him, though am reserving love or hate for later.

If you have any interest in seeing "Tron: Legacy", you must see it in the theatre and I recommend in 3D.

PS- Someone get me a light cycle!!

The Fighter

**** (4 stars)

Following up his successful collaboration with Mark Wahlberg in "Three Kings" and the critic's favorite "I Heart Huckabees", director David O. Russell is back with "The Fighter". The true story of a down on his luck boxer and his even further down the rabbit hole brother, it has already garnered critical acclaim and several high profile nominations (Golden Globe, SAG).

Mark Wahlberg is Mickey, a welterweight "stepping stone" who gets beat up more than he actually boxes. In his corner is his brother Dickey (sublime Christian Bale) who used to be a notable fighter in his day before succumbing to drugs, and his mother (Melissa Leo) who's also his manager. When Mickey meets Charlene (Amy Adams), he gains the confidence to step out on his own and look out for himself first with family obligations second. Soon he finds he has a shot at the title, but is it worth anything without his brother?

The city of Lowell, Massachusetts plays as much a character in the film as any of the actor's. It's is the picture by which we all imagine the Boston suburbs to be- hard, down on their luck Irish with drinking problems and anger issues. Instead, this film portrays it's residents as equal parts "trash" and hero. They take pride in the few things they've got and don't let anyone mess with them.

Wahlberg delivers much as you would expect him to. He's the perfect toughie with the heart of a lamb. The scenes of him boxing (shot in cinema vérité style by Hoyte Van Hoytema, "Let the Right One In") are brilliant; more in the style of "Raging Bull" than "Rocky", and certainly pay homage to the great boxing films that came before. When we first meet our heros, they are being interviewed by HBO for what they are told is a documentary chronicling Dickey's return to boxing. Each scene shifts from the standard 35 mm format to digital which recreates the televised fights and interviews.

I was surprised by how much this was really Dickey's story and Bale the powerful center of the film. It's his scenes you most look forward to. What is he going to ruin now? How will he regain Mickey's trust? Who is he going to hurt next? Bale famously dropped weight for this movie but it isn't in your face as it was in "The Machinist". Instead, his frail yet powerful body are a map to his triumphs and struggles. It amazes me the amount of stress he puts it through, yet it never fails him. The guy really needs a few films where he can just enjoy a normal weight as I'm sure the frequent fluctuations are not good for his long term health. Dickey can't seem to catch a break, so he lives through his brother. He pushes him and molds him to be what he never was instead of allow him to be his own person. It is an amazing story of brotherhood more so than it is a tale of boxing.

Melissa Leo is genius as their mother. Overprotecting and oblivious to what's going on around her and how she is manipulating her sons. She deserves all the nominations she can get and is my front runner to win the Golden Globe. On the reverse, Mickey's dad (Jack McGee, "Rescue Me", "NYPD Blue") is the caring father, the true Irish standard. He only has eyes for his son and won't let anyone, not even his wife, run him down. Adams looks haggard, which I suppose is on purpose, but I just kept thinking, "She's not going to age well". That really has nothing to do with her performance except it was a bit distracting. She surprised me actually. I think of her as the "cute girl", the chick from "Enchanted" and "Julie & Julia". Even in "Doubt" when she was able to attack a more serious role, she always looked dow-eyed  and sweet. She gets to be dirty here and it's as if for the first time she believes what she is doing and who she is portraying. I can only applaud Russell for his excellent direction as she gives a performance I'm not sure she could have with anyone else.

[side note: I now believe Adams could be Janis Joplin. Well, maybe believe is a bit strong, but I'm certainly less opposed.]

I really liked this movie. Maybe part of it had to do with seeing it in a packed theatre with an audience that applauded during the fights. It is always a better viewing experience when the audience gets wrapped up in the film, when they laugh, cry, cheer. Somehow I always enjoy myself more than if I were at home with a bottle of wine by myself. I recommend "The Fighter". It is not what you think it is. It's about family, and struggles, and triumphs. Oh, and it's also a little about boxing.

Mr Potter

**** (4 stars)

The week long celebration of my birth ended Thursday, so I'm finally sober enough to sit down and write. Well, maybe not; but I'm not hung over and that will just have to do.

The traditional Graygrrrl Thanksgiving involves going to the movies, stuffing my face, and passing out. Now that I'm older, it also involves a quick stop at my friends Misfits Thanksgiving (which is not a nod to the power of Danzig, though I think I wore a Misfits tee one year...) to drink a bottle of wine before the family fun. This year we combined my birthday movie with out Thanksgiving movie (seems to be happening more and more these days) and saw "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1".

For those of you living in a cave or at the bottom of the sea without access to TV, book stores, libraries, movie theatres, and Netflix; this is the penultimate HP movie before it comes to a close next summer. I'm not going to recap the last 6 movies for you, I'm sure someone has already done it, but I will tell you about this one. It's been forever since I read the book (well, only a year actually) and I totally forgot everything that happened. It was nice to be surprised and upset in the movie. Usually, if I read something once it's with me forever. In the final installment, Harry and crew are on the run from the Death Eaters (Voldemort's, the ultimate baddie, minions), searching for the fragmented pieces of Big V's soul, and trying not to die while also making googly eyes at one another.

I was not excited when it was announced that this book would be split into two movies. I know it's long, but really? Greedy much? After watching the film though I can say it was probably a good idea. Did it need to be 2 1/2 hours long? No. Two hours would have covered it and we would have been fine. However, naysayers should finally shut their mouths that this could have been told in one movie. Maybe if we were back in the glory days of Hollywood when movies had intermissions, but no one does that anymore. Why don't they? I would kill to see the final installment right now. I remember what happens ultimately, but the journey to get there is lost from my mind. I want to know now!

Directed again by David Yates, the film has all the dark, mature tones the books had while maintaining some semblance of humor. I teared up twice (when did I start getting emotional at movies? I blame "Heavy") but laughed at least 20 times. Every time something was revealed I would whisper, "Oh!" or "What?" or "Oh my!". My mother and friend thought that was hilarious and kept laughing at me. Who cares? Get into the movies people!

Longtime writer Steve Kloves continues his reign as one of the best adaptation writers in the biz. Everything from the books is there with all the fluff removed. I could have done without so many long looks and it-will-be-alright stares, but I fear that was more an editing decision. Editor Mark Day has worked with Yates for years. I wish he had broken from the mold of previous films that seemed to linger on establishing shots that establish nothing. I don't care about a bird flying over Hogwarts, I know we're at Hogwarts, we've been at Hogwarts for the past 3 scenes! You're making me crazy!

The actor's keep getting better though. Each movie they mature more and more, and I'm not talking about getting older and taller. The confidence has been there since Yates took over, but I think it was really instilled by Alfonso Cuaron in "Prisoner of Azkaban" when the films took their turn to the dark side and began demanding more from it's child stars. A particular scene towards the beginning finds Harry, Hermione, and Ron on the run in the streets of London. I busted out laughing, watching Ron (Rupert Grint) starring in wonder at the "real world" around him. "Hallows" continues the tradition of "name the actor", with familiar faces in small roles. This time I wracked my brain trying to identify two men Ron and Harry impersonate in the Ministry of Magic. Thank god for IMDB! Now I know it was David O'Hara from "Wanted" and "Doomsday", and Steffan Rhodri from "Gavin & Stacey"(TV). Love those guys! Also stopping by are a who's who of British character actors: Peter Mullan ("Session 9"), George Harris ("Layer Cake"), Andy Linden ("Rocknrolla"), Sophie Thompson ("Emma"), Jamie Cambell Bower ("Sweeny Todd"), Rade Serbedzija ("Snatch"), and John Hurt is back as Ollivander the wand maker.

Alexandre Desplat is a welcome addition to the team. Nominated for several Oscars and BAFTA awards, his musical compositions make me want to buy the score on CD. His music has appeared in an amazing array of wonderful films: "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "The Queen", "The Beat That Skipped My Heart", "Lust/Caution", "The Golden Compass", and "Twilight: New Moon" (which I will forgive him for). He is brilliant!

So, should you see the movie now or wait until next summer to see them both at once? I say go now. You want to see this on the big screen (though I would advise against IMAX- too much fast motion and random Steadicam shots would make you ill). Also, if you don't see it you will be forced to join the other weirdos in the caves and underwater cities until you do. That last one sounds kind of cool though. "You haven't seen Harry Potter? To Atlantis with you!"

[side note: What's up with charging $4 more for ETX (Enhanced Theatre Experience). All you get is a slightly bigger screen and upgraded sound. I won't even mention the digital projection as the rest of the theatres I visit have that too. Really? $4? You're website says $2 and that seems pushing it. Maybe if you had those awesome motorized chairs that vibrate and pivot I would consider it. Oh! Who's tried those new chairs and why doesn't Dallas have them? If Nowheresville, TX can have them, I want them too!

The Killer Inside Me

**** (4 stars)

In the tradition of "Frailty" and "The Minus Man" comes Michael Winterbottom's adaptation of the 1952 Jim Thompson classic, "The Killer Inside Me". I've already added the book to my Goodreads account. Starring Casey Affleck, Kate Hudson, Jessica Alba, Elias Koteas (LOVE!), Ned Beatty, and Simon Baker.

Lou Ford (Affleck) is the deputy sheriff in small town Texas who mostly keeps to himself and seems nice enough, if a bit dim witted. He's got the perfect girl (Hudson) and the perfect life. All this changes when he meets a prostitute (Alba) who awakens his sexual and maniacal desires. This new sheriff is a man afflicted with "the sickness" he thought he had defeated in his childhood. Now the main suspect in a double murder, can we outwit the local prosecutor (Baker) and live the new life he's created or is his secret destined to destroy him?

The book was previously made into a movie in 1976 and starred Stacy Keach. I haven't seen that version but I find it hard to imagine Keach in the role. Affleck on the other hand proves his worth and establishes himself as one of the best actor's of our generation, completely separate from any association with his brother (not that that's a bad thing anymore, Ben Affleck is proving himself a very capable director). Lest we forget, he is an Academy Award nominated actor as well ("The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"), and has turned in good work in "Gone Baby Gone" and "Lonesome Jim" (which I hated, but it wasn't his fault). I am highly anticipating his starring turn in Ridley Scott's upcoming "The Kind One". His face, voice, and body melt into this character. It takes an innate sensibility to find the humanity and sympathy behind a man with loose morals and ethics. At the same time, it's a story of both love and survival. That so many themes and layers can be found is testement to Thompson's book and John Curran (previously a director of films such as "The Painted Veil" and "We Don't Live Here Anymore") screenplay. It is a cautionary tale of the sacrifices one makes when they've done wrong and a walk up call to the warning signs sociopath's always seem to give off in these films. How long can you cover your tracks? When does luck run out? As Sheriff Maples (Tom Bower) says, "It's lightest just before the darkness". So this motto becomes a prophecy and highlights the subtle shift in the movie as it leans away from romance and further into madness. This realization hits Lou late in the film, but he has the calm sense of self and mind to know "you can't kill a dead man".

Alba seems out of place. There's a woodiness (is that a word?) to her acting that is magnified in her scenes with Affleck. She's a TV actress, not the film star her agents are trying to make her out to be. In her characters pivotal scene, I was jolted out of the story to wonder who advised her to play it so cool during a savage beating? What happened to survival instinct? Is she that much in love? The whole scene in question is horribly false and lacks the melodrama it should illicit. In comparison with Hudson's character, hers is the least fleshed out. Maybe it's because we only see her as a sexual object that we find it so difficult to believe she would stand there and take it. Really? The girl who slapped and punched Lou when they first met. What happened to that girl?

Speaking of Hudson, I wish she would step outside her comfort zone more often. This role is rich in the female submissiveness that we think of in the 50s. She loves her man and allows him to do things to her that she normally wouldn't do. In complete contrast to Alba, we understand her motivations. This is the man she has been in love with for years, who plans to marry her, who will make her honest.

It is still Affleck's movie though. He is scary in the ways adults find frightful. Not as a monster who lurks under the bed, but as the seemingly charming one that lives next door. A Bundy figure long before Bundy was a killer too. We watch him justify his actions and feelings, and go along for the ride. Winterbottom's use of voice over narrative would normally drive me crazy (I think it's lazy), however it works here. We can hear his thoughts, his processes, his observations of his own actions.

Winterbottom has made it his career to observe and report human behavior. He reserves judgement for the audience and it is this removed perspective that allows him to produce high caliber films. Further viewing is required of: Wonderland, 24 Hour Party People, 9 Songs (very adult/mature), A Mighty Heart, and his award winning documentary Road to Guantanamo.

Marcel Zyskind's cinematography is a bit distracting at times. What could be powerful long takes of Lou walking towards the prostitutes home, leaving the office; instead are left long enough only to show us the kind of mood and atmosphere we could have had. Much of this can really be attributed to Mags Arnold's editing. In the hands of a more experienced editor, the small holes and jumps that momentarily leave the viewer scratching their head could have been avoided.

I don't know why I didn't see this when it was released. I remember reading about it a lot and getting excited, but maybe it didn't play in Dallas. Kind of odd, we seem to get most movies now. I would have loved to experience this in the theatre, seen who walks out and when. I do recommend it for anyone who likes mysteries, and critical character studies. If you didn't like the two films I mentioned at the head of this post, skip entirely.

WWQTW?: Nowhere

ARCHIVE

I could not have been more nervous and excited to reveal the movie on Monday. For the most part, we have been watching classics (both new and old), and I thought it was about time to shake things up. The purpose of the club has always been to educate and expand the movie knowledge of its members. This month, I didn't just want to expand, I wanted their brains to explode! So, I screened one of my favorite movies of all time- "Nowhere" by Gregg Araki.

Released in 1997, "Nowhere" tells the interconnected stories of a group of teenagers living in Los Angeles. The action takes place in the 24-hours leading up Jujyfruit's party. The main character is Dark (played by the amazing and frequent contributor to Araki's films, James Duval). He is the quintessential existentialist; always worrying about the future, life, love, and himself. He's in love with Mel (Rachel True, "The Craft") but she's only in love with sex and she doesn't care where she gets it. Dark is equally confused when his masturbatory fantasies are invaded by new kid Montgomery (Nathan Bexton, "Go"). Dingbat (Christina Applegate- one of the best in the cast) is looking for love in all the wrong places. Egg (Sarah Lassez) falls for the charms of a famous heartthrob. Alyssa (Jordan Ladd) appreciates the kinky side of life with her boyfriend Elvis. Her twin brother Shad and his girlfriend Lilith (Ryan Phillippe and Heather Graham) fancy themselves anarchist's in the same vein of "Natural Born Killers". Cowboy (Guillermo Diaz, "Chappell Show") is looking for his drug addled boyfriend (Jeremy Jordan, "Never Been Kissed"); and a very young Mena Suvari is looking for the party with her boyfriend (and Mel's brother).

Cameos abound with Gibby Haynes of rock band Butthole Surfers plays jujyfruit; Rose McGowan (also in Araki's "The Doom Generation"), Traci Lords, and Shannon Doherty are a trio of Valley chicks; Christopher Knght and Eve Plumb from "The Brady Bunch" play some parents (Araki seems obsessed with the Brady's, referencing them in several films); John Ritter is a televangelist; and Beverly D'Angelo is Dark's mom.

[side note: In my dream film where I pay homage to everyone I've ever loved, this recurring theme of casual, big name cameos will appear. As will direct references to this movie and "The Doom Generation". I love him that much.]

I don't remember exactly when I first saw this movie but I think I sought it out after watching "The Doom Generation". It introduced independent cinema to me in a totally new way. Previously, independent meant "Pulp Fiction" and "sex, lies, and videotape". Now, there was a filmmaker doing it for himself and showcasing subject matter I was more familiar with. Life isn't a John Hughes movie much as we wish it were. Instead actions have consequences. Sometimes it means your car gets high jacked by a trio of crazed hackers. Sometimes you stick your head in the oven. Sometimes you can't decide between two guys and wind up losing both of them. Sometimes it means you end up alone.

Araki has been the face of gay independent cinema for years, a title he would happily relinquish. A member of what a "New York Times" critic dubbed the New Queer Cinema, Araki was one of the first to address gay, bisexual, straight issues in the same breath. Furthermore, these characters where not ostracized from their peers. They were represented in a positive light free from cliche or stereotype. Actually, it might be more fair to say they were just as fucked up as any other character in the film! Blame it on my fairly young age or naivete, but it's hard for me to remember that this is a new concept; that gay culture was addressed in a derogatory tone. In an interview with the "Montreal Mirror", he says "I like to be thought of without any kind of adjective attached to it. A gay filmmaker, a Gen-X filmmaker, an Asian-American filmmaker--I'd just like to be thought of as a filmmaker. I don't make films to be thought of as a spokesperson or to toe any politically correct line. I approach films in the way a musician approaches music. It's just my means of expression, my chosen medium." However, it's impossible not to think about how his own experiences have influenced his "chosen medium". That being sad, I appreciate such a personal filmmaker who refuses to talk about his personal life. He's said all he has to say- It's on the screen.

Gregg Araki has never shied away from controversial subjects and visuals. His films usually address the misanthropy of youth that comes with being an outsider. His characters come from the sub-culture. They're gay, poor, violent, dumb, exceedingly smart, creative, lost, derelicts. There seems to be no shame to the actions performed by its characters. Most get away with murder, at least for a little while. One of my favorite scenes in "Nowhere" involves three Valley chicks waxing poetic (more like moronic) in complete oblivion to what is going on around them. Next thing we know, they've been zapped with a laser gun by a visiting alien (dead? abducted?). All that's left behind are their retainers. It's classic!

This movie is not for the faint of heart or prudes. It is a hard "R" and you will either love it or hate it. Unfortunately, it is not available of DVD so head to your local indie movie store or you can catch it on IFC. It's showing September 26th so check your local listings.

Recommended viewing: Also by Greg Araki The Living End, The Doom Generation, Mysterious Skin. Also Mallrats, Donnie Darko, All Over Me, Empire Records,

The Devil's in the Details

**** (4 stars)

If the above statement is true, than "Devil" is a truly good scare. While leaving the advance screening last night, one of the organizers asked if M. Night Shymalan had redeemed himself. The answer is both yes and no. While the story and screenplay (with help from "Hard Candy" and "30 Days of Night" scribe Brian Nelson) really works; he didn't direct this feature and that's part of why it works as well. At a tight 80 minutes, Devil is half as long as Shymalan's usual fare. It's also less preachy than his normal work and focused more on scares and less on what I call the "Shymalan stare"- characters stare at each other, the distance, the floor, for what seems like hours. It's annoying. Instead, "Devil" is helmed by John Erik Dowdle who previously remade "Quarantine" ([Rec]- Spain 2007).

The mythology of "Devil" is pure Shymalan- The Devil sometimes come to Earth to collect the souls of the wicked, starting with a seeming accident and ending with the death of one victim's in front of their loved one. To quote "The Usual Suspects", "...and with that- poof- he is gone". Enter our cast of misfits who, if you've seen the trailer I'm not spoiling anything here, get trapped in an elevator OF DOOM!!!!

The cast is well rounded with seasoned character actors from both the big and small screen. Chris Messina ("Julie & Julia") plays the lead detective on the case along with security guard and narrator Jacob Vargas ("Jarhead"). Trapped in the elevator is a mishmash of vagrants- Bokeem Woodbine ("Saving Grace") is a security guard at the building, Logan Marshall-Green ("Dark Blue") is the loner, Geoffry Arend (I call him Mr. Christina Hendrix) is the sleazy salesman, Bojana Novakovic ("Drag Me To Hell") the hot chick, and Jenny O'Hara ("Big Love", "Mystic River") is the creepiest old lady known to man. They all have secrets and it's only in uncovering them that they might save themselves. But, you know what they say about playing a game with the devil...

The movie keeps you guessing until the end with a twist that reminds you of "The Sixth Sense". I thought I knew what was going to happen until I was pleasantly surprised each time it changed direction.

The amazing Tak Fujimoto kept the action tight and interesting within the confines of the elevator as only an award winning cinematographer can. He has shot all of Shymalan's films (you must admit, they all look wonderful) as well as "Silence of the Lambs", "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", "Gladiator", and HBO's "John Adams". The opening credits are ridiculous though and tried far too hard to be clever. It's like Shymalan was in the room when they were put together. Don't listen to him!!

Much of the fun we had (thanks ladies for coming with me to a midnight screening on a weekday!), was the audience. The theatre was packed and everyone was involved. At one point, we were all yelling at a character who decides to investigate a noise he heard in the dark. Instead of yelling "No", I yelled "Walk into the dark!". Everyone laughed. Movies like this require a theatre audience and more importantly, an audience who gets involved.

If you love horror, suspense, and yelling at the screen you must see "Devil" while it's in theatres.

Ondine: A Love Story

**** (4 stars)
I had the privilege of seeing an advanced screening of Neil Jordan's new film "Ondine" Wednesday with my gal Friday, shine. Jordan makes movies that read like dreams, or at least my dreams, where reality and fantasy overlap like they do when we were children. He is the auteur of many of my favorite films ("The Crying Game", "Interview with the Vampire", "Michael Collins", and "Breakfast on Pluto"), as well as one of my favorite books ("Shade"- the better "The Lovely Bones").

His latest stars Colin Farrell (with a good West Irish accent) as a disheveled fisherman down on his luck. He's quit the drink but has never grown out of the role of alcoholic. The loner everyone in town knows and pity's but can't be bothered to help. While fishing on day he pulls in the catch of his life, a woman. Veteran cinematographer Christopher Doyle shoots their initial interactions like a fight sequence, which it invariably is. At times this becomes a distraction when the action/actor is out of focus yet the perimeter of the frame is crystal clear. What do they want you to see along the edges?

If Farrell's daughter (fresh faced ingenue Alison Barry) can be believed, the woman from the sea is a Selkie- half seal half human. I grew up listening to these same stories which may be why I feel a connection to this film that is greater than others. The Selkie who can shed her seal coat to walk on land amongst the humans. If she buries her coat she can stay for 7 years before having to return to sea. The legend of Oisin in Tir na Nogh, the land of youth. My father shared these and many more with me, so movies such as "Ondine", and "Into the West", and "The Secret of Roan Inish" (also about Selkies) worm their way into my heart and subconsciousness.

Farrell puts in a good turn as a man not unlike how we the public perceive him. He's been beaten down by life, but manages to scrape things together for the good of his daughter and himself. His daughter, precocious because she must be, spouts wisdom better suited to someone twice or three times her age. Ondine, mysterious and from the sea. Who is she? Where did she come from? Is this a fantasy?

The pacing is deliberately slow and methodical with bursts of action meant to disjoint the audience. When the ending is revealed, you don't know whether to applaud or throw your drink- you've become invested in the characters. Jordan has the power to suck you into his vortex and then spit you out when he's done. It's incredibly satisfying.

A must for fans of Neil Jordan, Colin Farrell (his "In Bruges" and"A Home at the End of the World" performances especially), Irish culture, folklore, and plan old good story telling.

WWQTW?: All About Eve

ARCHIVE

Monday was the 2nd annual WWQTW? meeting, and it was a total success! We ate delicious food and watched "All About Eve".

FUN FACTS:

Released in 1950, it garnered 14 Oscar nominations and snagged the Best Picture, Best Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actor- George Sanders. It is the only film in which 4 woman were nominated for acting awards for the same film. It won Best Film at that years BAFTA's, as well as the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay. When it premiered at Cannes Film Festival, it received a Special Jury Prize and Bette Davis won Best Actress. It is currently #28 on AFI's Top 100 Movies list and a must see! The director, Joseph Mankiewicz, is the only person to have won Best Screenplay and Best Director two years in a row (He won the previous year for "A Letter to Three Wives"). When Claudette Colbert injured herself shortly before shooting was set to begin, she was replaced by Bette Davis and the rest, as they say, is history!

Based on a short story by Mary Orr, "All About Eve" tells the story of veteran stage diva Margo Channing (Davis) and her relationship with a precocious fan, Eve (Anne Baxter). Eve has seen every performance of Margo's and waits for her patiently outside the stage door hoping for a glance at her idol. She befriends Margo's best friend Karen who introduces them. Eve is the best possible friend to have- she does whatever Margo asks of her ("This is how they dealt with stalkers in that day? Just embrace them?"- Lauren). Of course, nothing is as it seems. "All About Eve" is the seminal film about ruthless upstarts and show business. It is also a great example of female relationships both towards each other as well as the men that inhabit their lives. I think Megan said it best, "[The] complexity of female relationships and the guys didn't get it!" It certainly says a lot for Mankiewicz's talent as a writer! Eve effects, both positively and negatively, everyone she comes into contact with. If one person turns her out, she moves on to the next closest person and tries to integrate herself into their lives. It presents woman in a very modern way while still holding strong to the beliefs and conventions of the time. Margo is unhappy and single; she does everything in her power to push her beau away (tres modern). Karen is blissfully naive and married (repressed). They all drink and smoke and cavort in ways that are more than simply "implied, it's obvious" (thanks Lauren)!

My favorite quote from the group came from Stacy, out illustrious host: "hell, I'd marry his dead corpse, it's still better..." I really wish I had written down the context of this remark, so if you were there please let me know!

Our groups was enamoured of the writing style immediately and kept taking notes of clever dialog throughout the viewing. The acerbic wit spouted by Davis and the other characters (George Sanders' DeWitt, a newspaper critic, is a close 2nd for the best lines) would be best described as Parker-esque (see: Dorothy Parker). A few of my favorites:

"With Eddie gone, my life went back to beer"- Eve

"Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride" -Margo (one of the most famous movie quotes ever)

"Why do they always look like unhappy rabbits?"

"Because that's what they are"- Miss Caswell (Marilyn Monroe in her 1st film) to DeWitt

"Everybody has a heart, except some people" -Margo

"Groom, may I have a wedding present"?

"What would you like? Texas?" - Margo to Bill

RECOMMENDED VIEWING:

The Player, All About My Mother, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Stage Door, A Star is Born (1937), Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

Next month, I promised to pick a modern (i.e. in colour) film. I'm still not sure how mean I feel like getting, but I think something a bit obscure is called for. The whole point, as I see it, of WWQTW? is not only to expose it's participants to the films they should have seen; but also to those that many haven't seen. It is only in encompassing smaller genres or big names in little pictures, that one can call themselves a cinephile. It is my goal to get at least half of the group to feel confident enough to label themselves that within a year!