Posts Tagged ‘movie’

OK. I am going to start with a rant that has nothing specifically to do with The Incredible Hulk (2008) or its DVD. Well, maybe there is some relation. The box boasts that it is a 3-Disc Special Edition, which sounds pretty damn good by anyone’s standards. Three discs, huh? The movie is two hours long, which means that the other two discs must be reserved for special features, right? Wrong, biotch!

The studios have found their latest trick to market things that aren’t nearly as good as they sound. First there was “Collector’s Editions” and “Special Editions” when in fact they were just normal DVD packages. Then there was Unrated DVDs which rarely contained any new, “unrated” material. And now, we have the DVD that contains the digital copy. The digital copy. Who the f**k cares about a digital copy? What percent of people actually give a damn about getting The Incredible Hulk in digital format so they can watch this action movie on their three-inch iPod screen? Five percent? Three percent? Give me the damn digital copy, but don’t market to me that I’m getting three discs of goodness. The digital disc doesn’t give me anything new; it just saves me a step of ripping the movie from the normal DVD. Come on, studios, don’t go down that path!

Anyway, now that that’s out of my system, let’s take a look at The Incredible Hulk special features from its single bonus disc.  To be fair, the first disc – with the movie on it – contains a few deleted scenes and a feature commentary as well, but essentially all of the special features reside on a single disc. Here they are:

• Deleted scenes
  A pretty good amount of deleted scenes that were generally cut for pacing reasons. Some of the scenes go into a little more detail than what was seen in the movie, though there were none that stood out to me as being good enough that they should have avoided the cutting room floor.
• An alternate opening
  You can watch the original opening sequence to the movie. Let’s just say that thank God this one wasn’t used in theaters, because it really isn’t good at all.
• The Making of Incredible
  Your standard making-of featurette. Like the rest of the featurettes on the DVD, it isn’t too promotional at all; at the same time, there’s nothing new or particularly interesting here. Compared to such documentaries as the making of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, it just doesn’t offer anything original. Still, fans of the Hulk should find some tidbits of interest here.
• Becoming the Hulk
  This is an exploration of the creature design, from the models to the special effects to the involvement of Ed Norton. Norton’s insistence that he actually get to play the Hulk in his green transformation is a bit odd, and one makes me think that director Louis Letterier was quite annoyed with the actor by the end of the picture.
• Becoming the Abomination
  Slightly more interesting than “Becoming the Hulk,” this one has Tim Roth doing motion capture and making fun of the suit he has to wear, completely unaware that the guy doing motion capture with him wears that suit for a living. When all is said and done, this one has some value because you get to hear about the intentional differences between the Abomination and the Hulk; though a lot of the effects talk is, for obvious reasons, pretty ambiguous.
• Anatomy of a Hulk-Out
  I never quite figured out what these chaptered segments were for, as they seem to rehash other featurettes on the DVD. Still, for the Hulk fan, the more the merrier.
• From Comic Book to Screen
  These are the kind of featurettes I hate, where some animator is brought on to draw a bunch of semi-static comic book/storyboard friends to make a mini-movie. What a waste of time; I only sat through a couple of minutes of this one.
• Digital copy of the film
  Everything I wanted and more on its very own disc!

All in all, there are a good amount of bonus features to be had on The Incredible Hulk: 3-Disc Special Edition DVD. Of course, none of these really matter to me. The quality of the film matters to me. And it was good enough (read my The Incredible Hulk movie review).

Halloween may not boost theatrical horror releases in the way you’d expect, but DVD sales and rentals have to go up for scary movies come the end of October. Thus, it’s no surprise that the hit Liv Tyler thriller The Strangers slashes its way onto DVD this Tuesday, just in time for the spooky holiday.

The Strangers is about a couple going through relationship troubles who find themselves subjected to a night of terror when a family of masked hoodlums shows up to wreak havoc. What at first appears to be a practical joke gone bad soon reveals itself to be something much more deadly. Basically, the movie is about Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman trying to escape from a bunch of really freaky sound effects.

The movie is pretty scary at times, and the director does a good job of presenting the villains, who often stand silent in the background while the good guy looks the other way. As horror movies go, it gets the job done. Unfortunately, the movie isn’t nearly as good as the director thinks it is, and the film ends up lacking a satisfying resolution or climax. The characters – especially Liv Tyler – turn out to be just as dumb as your typical horror victim, if not dumber, and that’s not good.

Nevertheless, The Strangers is one of the scarier movies of 2008 (read my full The Strangers movie review here), so in that regards it’s worth renting. If you need bonus features to move you from the rental to purchasing stage, however, bonus features does The Strangers lack. Hell, this is a pretty sad DVD by anyone’s standards; other than a few forgettable deleted scenes and a small, rather promotional behind-the-scenes featurette, the DVD contains nothing of value. Wow.

Oh, and the cover artwork is terrible, too.

So, there you go. Decent movie, crappy DVD. You decide. I’ll vote for Obama.

This was released last week, but I’m just getting to it now, so deal with it! Here’s the movie trailer for The Uninvited, which is based on one of my all-time favorite horror movies, A Tale of Two Sisters. Needless to say, expectations are high with me… or, in other words, really, really low. After all, this Asian horror remakes seem to be getting worse and worse, and judging by The Uninvited movie trailer, this one is going to suck.

The great thing about A Tale of Two Sisters was that it was subtle, almost a drama in some ways, except that it was pretty damn freaky. The Uninvited looks like a cliche and uninteresting teen horror movie with all the typical, boring ghost elements that American directors like to use. The Uninvited is uninvited in my opinion.

Here’s the movie trailer so you can decide for yourself:

Further proof that traditional animation is by no means dead, Walt Disney recently released its acclaimed classic Sleeping Beauty to DVD and Blu-Ray in an all-new Platinum Edition… and it ended up topping the DVD sales charts for the week. Not only that, but it beat out previous #1 earner Iron Man for such a spot.

It never ceases to amaze me how much demand there is for Disney’s old cartoons; beyond the fact that this implies traditional animation is not dead as long as the story and production values are good, this sales success story also implies that even with all the big kid’s movies that come out each year, parents still scramble for anything that would be good and entertaining for their children to watch. Hollywood, pay attention.

I actually have a copy of Sleeping Beauty: Platinum Edition, and while laying on my death bed last week, I managed to watch most of the movie (I fell asleep near the end due to drugs and the magic potion the DVD releases into the air to make the viewer feel more involved inthe picture. Personally, I think sleep-inducing drugs is going a bit far, especially for a children’s DVD, but I guess I trust the Disney marketing executives to do what’s best for their audiences). Having not seen the movie since my childhood, I was once again pleasantly surprised at the quality of the picture. The animation, acting and music is great, the story mesmerizing.

Still, a few pieces of the production show their age; when the fairies grant Sleeping Beauty their gifts, the movie sidetracks into a rather cheesy array of special effects that really add no value and will be a bit off-putting to modern audiences. The effects look like they were added because they could be added, nothing more.

Nevertheless, these moments are rather brief and not all too distracting. All in all, Sleeping Beauty is still an effective classic; it has its outdated moments, but its rich animation and artwork make up for those shortcomings.

The DVD includes several special features I didn’t bother exploring, including a virtual tour of the castle, a dance game, an alternate opening, deleted songs, a making-of featurette and a few other thngs.

I was over at Box Office Prophets the other day and came across an article/discussion on High School Musical 3, examining the box office fortunes of the upcoming Disney film. I hadn’t really given it much thought, but the analysts at BOP – whom I consider to be right more often than not, at least when it comes to estimating revenues – raised the interesting question: just how much money will High School Musical 3 make?

The first one was a big hit on television, and the second was a downright monster, with 27 million people tuning in when it debuted. Disney, wisely, has decided to transfer the film to the big screen, where they can actually make some real money off of it. But just how much?

As BOP points out, the potential box office for High School Musical 3 is anyone’s guess, though the analysts who took the conversative route and suggested under $50 million on opening weekend were pretty much ridiculed. On the high end, one went as far to suggest it could make $100 million in its opening weekend. Thus, middle-of-the-road estimates were around $70 million. $70 million! For High School Musical 3? In its opening weekend?

God, it’s so hard to tell. BOP is right, in that there is mad demand for the franchise. They may well be right. But logically, I just can’t see $70 million worth of people going to theaters on opening weekend to see an overly cheerful, colorful, poorly written and poorly acted piece of theater. And if they do, I still won’t understand. I made the mistake of watching High School Musical 2, and it was one of the most terrible things I had seen in a long time. I understand that parents want their kids to watch something wholesome and harmless, which the High School Musical franchise is, but the songs are just so annoying and poorly choreographed that I just don’t get it.

Either way, I hope BOP is wrong, but now I am very, very nervous at the prospect that High School Musical 3 will, indeed, be a box office monster.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull rolled onto DVD on Tuesday, and with it the crushed dreams of children-past who were hoping for a flawless, action-packed adventure. Indiana Jones 4 came to theaters amidst a torrent of mixed reviews, and mixed reviews it deserved. The most highly anticipated adventure film was, as it turned out, about aliens. Aliens with big, shiny, plastic-looking skulls. Combine that plot with unnecessary supporting characters and so-so CGI and you get… the latest Steven Spielberg fine?

Frustrations aside, I’m happy Paramount sent me the 2-Disc Special Edition DVD, because I will watch this movie again, and hopefully with dampened expectations I’ll be able to enjoy the picture more. In the mean time, though, I watched the special features. With further special editions inevitably coming in the future, the 2-Disc Special Edition is not jam packed as one might expect; there are no deleted scenes, bloopers or even a commentary. However, the discs do contain some in-depth production featurettes, which take you from pre-production through post-production.

These featurettes are pretty good and rather lenthy, though I compare all of these to the best I’ve seen, those from Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, and they don’t really compare. While detailed, the Indiana Jones featurettes have an air of promotion to them; the interviews with the actors are very sanitized and not particularly insightful. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the exploration of some of the film’s more eleaborate sequences.

Other than that, there’s nothing but a couple of the movie’s trailers. Oh, and if you have an XBox 360, you can play a demo of LEGO Indiana Jones. However, I don’t, so I didn’t.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull has some decent DVD features, but if you aren’t sold on the movie alone and want some superstrong DVD features, you may want to wait until the next edition comes out.

For years, Robert Downey Jr. has been poison. Maybe not complete box office failure poison, but he was a name people immediately associated with drugs, career suicide and uncontrollable. Oh, how a couple of years of sobriety and a super hero can make a difference. Downey is at an all-time career high, and it isn’t too surprising that Chaplin, for which he earned an Oscar nomination fifteen long years ago, is being re-released in a – you guessed it – 15th Anniversary Edition.

I had never seen Chaplin before, nor did I know much about the famed actor other than the few short films I’ve seen of his. The movie, directed by Richard Attenborough, is pretty good, but Downey is tremendous as the British, silent-film innovator. Much of the time he is unrecognizable, and not just physically. He transforms himself into Chaplin, capturing his moves, his mannerisms, accents and behaviors with amazing sincerity. Given that this is Downey’s one and only Oscar nomination, one has to wonder what he would have done over the last fifteen years had he not been flying a kite the entire time.

Beyond his performance, Chaplin is dotted with a dizzying array of supporting actors, including Anthony Hopkins, Diane Lane, Dan Akroyd, Milla Jovovich, Marisa Tomei, Penelope Anne Miller and Kevin Kline. All turn in fine performances, but none stand out in any way or form.

The movie itself is pretty good, chronicling Charlie Chaplin’s life from childhood through his honorary Oscar acceptance in 1972. Attenborough keeps things rather biographical and subtle, avoiding dramatized moments where possible. Unfortunately, this approach leads to an understated feel and a lack of power; while good, the movie rarely captivates. It also doesn’t help that the makeup used on Downey when he’s portraying Chaplin in his later years looks pretty God-awful.

Chaplin is a worthwhile film, though not tremendous by any means. Downey, however, delivers the finest performance of his career.

Check out the latest movie trailer for Transporter 3, which once again stars Jason Statham. The movie looks like it should satisfy fans of the previous flicks, as it will contain plenty of ludicrous action. While I prefer more realistic action, I must admit that I have a small soft spot for the Transporter movies; I’ll probably wait until DVD, but am looking forward to this one. The final few moments of the trailer leave little to be desired; Statham driving a car on the top of a train is, shall we say, stupid?

Here’s the new Transporter 3 movie trailer:

I am young, by cinematic standards. I didn’t grow up in the 40′s and 50′s where the film industry was still, in many ways, relatively young. I haven’t had sixty years to watch movies and say with sincerity that dozens of films from the 1940′s are masterpieces. I do see old movies and appreciate them – and sometimes love them – but not all old films are great just because other people say there are. Take Cool Hand Luke, for example. It’s ranked #118 on IMDB’s Top 250, which means that there are only 117 films that are better. In the world. I’m sorry, folks, but Cool Hand Luke isn’t that good.

Cool Hand Luke is a pretty good movie starring the late Paul Newman, but I’d have to say my reaction to the film was lukewarm at best – forgive the quasi-pun. The movie is about some cool dude named Luke who’s a bit of a troublemaker, so much so that he finds himself in a minimum security prison for two years for destruction of private property. However, the rural prison can’t hold a man like Luke, physically or mentally. Constantly beaten down, Luke refuses to give up, and often escapes – only to be dragged back in time after time. After his mother dies, though, the warden sets all sights on Luke, determined to break him.

The movie features some good and likable performances from a recognizable cast. George Kennedy delivers a great performance as Luke’s eventual sidekick, and Newman himself turns in a quality performance. Unfortunately, while Newman is good, his subtle performance – and the movie’s subtle approach – just didn’t work for me. I wouldn’t say that the movie doesn’t stand the test of time; now out on a new DVD, the film looks great, especially when the scantily clad woman is washing her car. The writing, direction and look and feel all hold up well.

It’s just that the movie is sort of boring. I like character-driven stories, but Cool Hand Luke just isn’t one of those stories. Its plot is minimal at best, and I never felt like I could connect with Luke or any of the other characters. Ultimately, Luke keeps resisting and escaping, but I don’t care.

There’s not much more to it than that. Cool Hand Luke isn’t a bad movie, but it certainly isn’t one of the world’s top 250 movies.

When hearing that Year of the Fish is a modern-day Cinderella story, that’s not a cue to take your children to it. After all, the movie is about a Chinese immigrant named Ye Xian (An Nguyen) who finds herself working for and in debt to the owner of a massage parlor – in actuality a brothel – in New York.

Year of the Fish is a film festival picture that opened in Seattle (and presumably elsewhere) over the weekend and that rolls Chinese folklore, modern-day issues and a Cinderella love story into one. The result is mixed, but given the obvious small budget and limited scope, it is decent enough.

Read the full article »

Iron Man. The movie shocked audiences by raking in $100 million in its opening weekend and lots of critical praise. This, a movie about a guy who dresses up in a metal suit and goes around blowing things up. Who would have thought?

The huge box office winner is coming to DVD this Tuesday, September 30, 2008, and Marvel and Paramount managed to forward me an early copy of the two-disc special edition. The DVD is a great addition to anyone’s collection, though I doubt this review is going to have any bearing on your decision one way or another. You either liked the movie or you didn’t, though I haven’t met a person who wasn’t blown away by the flick.

As far as special features go, there is a good deal of deleted scenes, some of which are halfway decent. I suspect that a couple of them were removed to keep a PG-13 rating, as one makes a rather direct allusion to a three-way, and eventually a four-way. Others add unnecessary exposition and explanation to the story; you can see where they fit in, but were most likely removed for pacing reasons. Nevertheless, they make for good deleted scenes.

Moving onto the second disc, we are greeted with a series of seven featurettes that look at various stages of the production, from location shooting to suit design to special effects. Some of the best behind-the-scenes featurettes come from the biggest of films, and this single feature runs for a good hour and a half. The featurette is pretty insightful and not promotional in the least, meaning you get a lot of sincerity from Jon Favreau, Robert Downey Jr., the stuntmen and everyone else involved.

Other special features include a deeper look at the visual effects, a screen test with Robert Downey Jr., a featurette called The Actor’s Process that I was too lazy to watch (actually, after watching most of the special features I got so eager to watch the movie that I returned to the first disc to fire it up… though I then got interrupted by the Presidential debates for a couple of hours) and your typical stills gallery, previews, et cetera. Why do they even bother including stills galleries on DVDs? Does anyone actually look at them? Ooh, cool! I can look at non-moving images of a movie I just watched. This is most awesomest.

The DVD is pretty good, though I’d expect there to be an even bigger version to be on the horizon. Regardless, Iron Man itself is well worth the $20 to add this to your collection. You can read my full Iron Man movie review here.

A movie that sort of flew under the radar earlier this year, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a romantic comedy that proved that it was a lot more than a fluff-and-kiss romantic comedy. In reality, it’s in the same vein as Knocked Up, as it’s a romantic comedy for guys – there’s swearing, boobs, crazy sex and lots of awkward situations, including a break up scene with full frontal male nudity. Of course, none of this is surprising since it’s just one of many successful Judd Apatow-produced comedies.

To be straight, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is the funniest movie of 2008 to date, thanks to its crafty writing and likable characters. Thankfully, the movie comes to DVD on September 30, 2008, and Universal was kind enough to send me an advanced copy of the 3-Disc Unrated Collector’s Edition. Here are the bonus features:

• Two versions of the movie. Guess. Guess, dammit! OK, fine, you’re going to feel stupid. The two versions are… the normal, R-rated version and – yes, you didn’t guess it – the unrated version. The unrated version has a few additional or extended scenes, but it doesn’t really matter – the movie is just as funny the first time I saw it.
• Deleted/Extended scenes. In addition to those seen in the unrated version, several other funny scenes are available for viewing. To the pleasure of all male audience members (well, the straight ones), the DVD includes a fair amount of additional sex scenes, several of which are pretty funny. There’s also an alternative get-back-together-with-Sarah scene that is notably different in one piercing way. Ha ha, I crack myself up. Don’t get it? Nevermind.
• Auditions. Some entertaining moments of the cast preparing for their roles. The DVD gives extra focus to Russell Brand, who plays the British sex addict rock star boyfriend. Interestingly enough, the character was originally written as a cocky yuppy writer, but Brand’s audition impressed the casting crew so much that the character was rewritten for him. Brand is certainly a funny guy; his “U Show” that is included on the DVD is also quite funny in a limited way.
• Crime Scene. See some alternate NBC television shows that Sarah Marshall will be starring in over the coming months. Some, if not all, are absolutely ridiculous.
• Drunk-o-Rama, Sex-o-rama, Line-o-rama. These little featurettes take the best moments and establishes montages of related material.
• Video Diaries. I watched these, but don’t remember much.
• Gag reel, cast and crew commentary and a few other special features.
• Oh, and the third disc is devoted to a digital copy that you can copy to your iPod. In the day of environmentalism, it’s sad that studios are starting to do this.

Read my full Forgetting Sarah Marshall movie review, or… enter to win a copy of the Forgetting Sarah Marshall DVD.

If you haven’t noticed, I haven’t been seeing a lot of movies lately. At least not at theaters. I have been making my rounds through the DVD racks, but with a lull in new releases worthy of my time, I haven’t been reviewing a whole lot. Even though the end of August and September are considered dead times for theaters, there have been several films out that I want to see, one of them being Vicky Cristina Barcelona, the latest Woody Allen movie that stars Scarlett Johansson, Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem.

Why? Because I actually like Woody Allen movies for the most part, the cast rocks and the film has Johansson and Cruz going at it… and I don’t mean fighting. Alas, due to an extremely busy month and some so-so reviews from friends, I have yet to get around to the romantic comedy-drama, and probably won’t see it until DVD.

Thankfully, my coworker Alice Graves, who is a diehard Woody Allen fan, did see the movie and has weighed in with her opinion. I trust it, even though she did think Javier Bardem was “cute” in No Country for Old Men.

Read Alice’s Vicky Cristina Barcelona movie review!

Robert Bell, who shares his movie reviews on FilmJabber and who is also based in Toronto, somehow was admitted into the Toronto International Film Festival (known as TIFF) despite the chaos he caused last year. OK, he actually didn’t cause any commotion last year (that I know of), but regardless, he has weighed in on the festival in general and many of the films that screened there. Without further ado…

Thanks to some amazing Canadian PR firms and studios, I have been able to catch some Pre-festival screenings of selected films to play at the 2008 Toronto Film Festival.  While no films have stood out as particularly bad, only a couple of films have stood out as great.  Hopefully, some of the films I screen during the fest will have more of a lasting impact.

Strangely enough, I spend most of my daily life in the same building where a TIFF purchasing office and the main press theatre for the festival is so the impact of the festival on our community and how annoying it is to the locals isn’t lost on me.  Endless parades of accreditation-laden press and starfu**ers mill around the bay/bloor area giving our city some much appreciated tourism dollars, despite occasionally behaving with a manner of entitlement and ignorance.

I have little interest in celebrities and networking parties.  In fact, I have ignored invitations to several of them (but am appreciative and thankful for them regardless).  While I am sure there are a couple of wonderful people at them, I much prefer the comfort of my own living room with sincere and carefully selected friends.  This is why most of the mainstream (studio backed) films I will and have seen at the fest were pre-screening invites.  Thankfully, the fine folks at TIFF have managed to match their understandable need to populate the festival with commercially viable star-centric films with an impressive number of obscure foreign and independent films, as well as documentaries.

Below is a list of the films I have seen, from best to worst, with brief impressions of each.

A Year Ago in Winter

“The magic of A Year Ago in Winter is its ability to dabble in stereotype without becoming overwhelmed and its adroitness in exploring the external impact that suicide has on the living without extending naïve answers or solutions.  Categorization is thankfully eluded with skill regardless of each characters desire to simplify complex, unanswerable questions with adage.  The film is about the human desire to simplify perplexing and layered human emotions while coping with feelings of loss, guilt and isolation.  It is consistently powerful, challenging and unafraid to wear its heart on its sleeve.”

Burn After Reading

“The Coen Brothers follow-up their Oscar-Winning triumph with a decidedly kooky satire on human stupidity and exaggerated interaction with Burn After Reading, a consistently entertaining and entirely amusing, if slight, film.  Structurally similar to “Fargo” but far less reflective in its “Raising Arizona” comic sensibilities, it will likely be criticized mainly for its deliberate lack of depth.  This one suffers only from cartoonish performances from McDormand and Pitt, in addition to the folly of ostentatious hipness.”

Yes Madam, Sir

“Filming the documentary over six years whenever she had time among various editing gigs, Megan Doneman has assembled a cohesive and in-depth portrait of a complicated woman.  It is a testament more so to Doneman’s editing skills than her direction, as her point and shoot technique is not particularly visionary but given the conditions and limitations of her endeavor, the final product is rather impressive.

A sense of humour and an effort to avoid typical preaching and bias keep Yes Madam, Sir on just this side of television biography territory, which is much appreciated in an age of heavy-handed manipulation and self-satisfied “lefty” political hipness.”

Plus Tard

“Reliant on single tracking shots and claustrophobic interiors—specifically to reinforce underlying anxieties that stem from external forces and evils—and passive-aggressive suggestions, Amos Gitai’s translation Jerome Clement’s novel of a man trying to make sense of his Jewish parents declarations in wartime has the appropriate gravitas but lacks the emotional complexity it strives for and has nothing particularly cinematic about it.  Everything in Plus Tard, outside of a WW II flashback, feels and looks like a filmed stage play.”

Blindness

“Acting as a kind of erudite, art-house, zombie movie, which dumbs down potential profundity with hippie-dippy, New Age, pseudo-philosophical insights on the state of mankind, Blindness creates discomfort and despondency but glosses over central connectivity, leaving a void where emotional resonance is intended.  Don McKellar’s script reigns in the literary triumph cohesively on a structural level—which itself is no small feat—remaining within the sociophobic confines that were on display in his earlier success, Last Night.”

Happy-Go-Lucky

“Dealing with Mike Leigh’s trademark talking head sensibilities and class system introspection, Happy-Go-Lucky is essentially a romantic comedy that subverts mainstream sensibilities while questioning the affability of the sincerely well-intentioned.  Everything about the film is far too obvious but the overall impact is fairly affecting if surprisingly lackluster. “

Afterwards

“Likely to be criticized for its structural fallibility and its overly sentimental ruminations on the nature of existence and the anxieties involved with acknowledging mortality, Afterwards is a lyrical and occasionally beautiful visual poem that essentially crumbles under the weight of its own ambitions.

A lack of relationship and character development between the leads ultimately keep the film from having the emotional impact it strives for—especially in an epilogue that should, in theory, have been devastating—regardless of the occasional graphic and unexpected violence towards children and well-intentioned players.  On the upside, sincerity and a refreshingly ‘unhip’ atmosphere make these flaws substantially more palatable and forgivable.”

Sugar

“This seemingly standard sports story of a young Dominican Baseball player who is brought to America to play professionally is deceptively coy in its intentions and ultimately winds up as an examination of cultural difference and Western apathy towards foreigners who are treated mainly as acquisitions and useful only when viable.  While foreshadowing is used appropriately in the film, albeit slatternly, the formula never dips into the typical pattern of assigning blame.  Sugar is interested more in making careful observations about those who are seldom considered in a wholesome and genial manner. “

O’Horten

“Owing a lot of its “uniquely” Scandinavian vision to the dry-humoured and deadpan work of Aki Kaurismaki and the starkly satirical, single-shot obsessed Swede Roy Andersson, O’Horten is a slightly amusing satire of aging and retirement.  It is communicated in an almost somnambulistic and structurally repetitive manner that seems interested more so in being dryly quirky than truly exploring the directionless nature of retirement that the didactic implies.

The predictable nature of the formula based set-up eventually over-rides the element of surprise that each scenario relies on to create humour, but the initial impact of this structure succeeds in what it attempts to do, which is more than can be said for most intentionally sly comedies.”

Control Alt Delete

“From the moment that “Sock” from television’s Reaper and Amanda from Ready or Not are seen fully nude in the “69’er” position, it is clear that Control Alt Delete is out to shock the audience rather than titillate with any allusion or subtlety.  The film seems to be an investigation of sexual perversion and deviance in relation to perceived normalcy and how the desire to be socially accepted can cause repression and self-denial, however, it lacks the sort of cohesion necessary to communicate this point effectively.”

 

 

Dean Spanley

“Sure to moisten the panties of the bridge and knitting crowd, who will most certainly gasp when men of the cloth drink Imperial Tokay and other men exclaim “poppycock” during discussions about reincarnation, Dean Spanley is the sort of film that one would expect the Queen of England to watch while acting coyly offended and hiding her inappropriately erect nipples.  It is a comedy of manners and clever” wordplay that reeks of Oscar Wilde smugness but settles for lengthy analyses of canine customs and thought processes.  Limited scope and sincere emotions give it a nudge towards copacetic regardless of being entirely forgettable and often self-righteous.”

Skin

“Feeling more like an ethnographic biography than anything particularly cinematic, Skin tells an interesting story in a discerning, yet detached and glossed-over manner, which does little to make the film exciting or memorable.  While the story itself should theoretically make for an emotional and engaging experience, the television movie vibe and a tendency to rush through and oversimplify several serious life events that span over twenty-five-to-thirty years in the protagonists life, leave an overall feeling of expositional hollowness.”

As mentioned before, none of these films are actually bad, rather, most of them are simply “decent”, which itself is certainly not a bad thing.

This coming week I will be seeing: Appaloosa, Ghost Town, Deadgirl, Che, Revanche, Parc, Linha De Passe, White Night Wedding, Lymelife and Fear Me Not: check back for updates!

The movie trailer for Gus Van Sant’s Milk is online, and it looks like we could have an outside Oscar contender on our hands. The movie stars Sean Penn as the first openly gay elected official in – you guessed it – San Francisco and looks to have the right combination of grit, power and acting to propel it into awards season. Honestly, I haven’t heard any buzz about this film one way or the other, and in fact hadn’t even heard of the movie itself until the trailer was released. Milk is not exactly a title that stands out to me, though now that I know the film is about Harvey Milk – a person I’ve never heard about – it makes sense.

Read the full article »