smccar77 Reviews

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

A fun Carpenter classic

[7/10 · 5 April 2011]

"Assault on Precinct 13," is a siege thriller set in an L.A. police station. The movie chronicles a few tense hours as a closing precinct is attacked by a large group of gang members. Typical of Carpenter, the film has a lonely and oppressive low budget feel. The evoked mood is one of the movies greatest strengths. In a way, the film comes off as unnervingly real. That the attackers are relatively unorganized is to be expected. What makes this story chilling is the sense that this is animal against animal. The humanity of the gang members is left blank so as to emphasize the brutal nature of the attack. This is not akin to "Bataan," in which the enemy was defaced for propaganda. Rather, Carpenter hits on the feeling of simple, ferocious, and violent confrontation.

While the film does elicit wonderful fears about life or death struggle, Carpenter did cut some corners. A somewhat distracting refrain comes from the protagonists repeatedly saying that back up is soon to arrive. Even though Carpenter has armed the gang with silenced weapons, the staggering degree of isolation is hard to swallow, especially when regularly reminded. A second issue is the way in which the assault is finally discovered. Deus ex machina is a functioning formula but when employed, it leaves much to be desired. In AoP13, the arrival of the cavalry feels almost as if Carpenter had run out of ideas or had written himself into an unwanted tragedy and needed a way out. The above, and a few other issues, aside; the film is a well paced thriller. In addition, the four protagonist characters stand out as near perfect use of stock characterization. The "straight as an arrow" cop, the "dark yet honorable" criminal, the "world weary" female lead, and the "overly boastful yet kind" convict are all well portrayed and convincing enough. In fact, Carpenter has added enough touches to these people so that the audience really can empathize with them.

As with most low budget films, the over all technical display is modest. The cinematography is confined to set pieces and urban "waste." The editing and pacing, typical of Carpenter, begin slowly and build to an exciting and fast climax. The score, another Carpenter addition, is fitting and accents the stark mood well. The highlights of the film really are the eerie feeling of brute competition and the easy to identify with characters. Overall, this is a fun film that achieves more than most low budget offerings.

On a personal note, I will recommend this film for future movie nights. While AoP13 is not a film to be watched once a month; it is a tense pot boiler that has a wide appeal. 7.3 of 10 stars.

I Come with the Rain (2009)

Three parables make for an uneven film

[7/10 · 29 March 2011]

"I Come With The Rain," is a film that is hard to define. In some ways it is a redemption story, in other ways it is a reinterpretation of Christian mythology, and in yet further ways it is a study of evil. If anything, the film is ambitious in the themes that it tries to explore. As with most ambition, a degree of prudence is often needed for reaching higher quality. For example, one may wish to change the world for the better. However, trying to affect a whole planet is beyond the capabilities of most. The prudence enters in defining one's world more strictly. The wish to change the world changes into a wish and drive to change one's immediate world or community. The ambition becomes tempered by practical and manageable constraints. Unfortunately, ICWTR attempts more than it is capable of handling well. The film touches on the three interconnected themes mentioned above in a less than coherent way. By the end of the movie, one is left with the sense that valuable ideas have been brought to the table but never developed into anything that can be useful or fulfilling to the audience.

The premise of a damaged detective searching for a messianic figure amidst the corruption and evils of modern life is promising. The film falters by attempting to create three interconnected and artfully ambiguous tales about the detective, messiah figure, and the personification of modern corruption and evil. One of the hallmarks of parables is that they are rather simple. The parable usually develops a story around a single moral or epistemological rule. ICWTR attempts to tell three parables in tandem. The result is not a smooth synthesis commenting on the complexities of the human condition. Rather, the film comes of as confused and lacking in relevant concrete development. To be clear, the film itself is not overly difficult to understand; the attempts of the film to convey deeper meaning are muddled and shallow. In fairness, the raising of interesting questions may have been the goal of the film. The problem is that the film does not arm the audience with any tools to continue the discussion later on. As an example, how would you respond to the following question if asked by a random stranger: "Is 'good' tainted when it is saved by 'evil?'" Hopefully this is a jarring question and one that defies immediate answer. In one sense, the question is interesting and plumbs the depths of moral/ethical thinking. In another sense, the question is too brash and off putting. Such a question almost begs for some sort of established framework to deal with it. In essence, the above question comes later in the discussion after some context and philosophical norms are established. ICWTR asks questions like this without giving the audience any real framework to deal with said questions. The film methodically, and beautifully I might add, simply presents scenarios that lead to these questions. The result is a confusing and somewhat disjointed experience. As a viewer, I know I am supposed to have been exposed to some deeply meaningful symbols and questions; yet I do not really know what to do with these symbols or where to go with these questions. In the end, one really wants to find deeper meaning in this film and unfortunately cannot.

While the above may seem a harsh review, the film does offer a great many good points. The cinematography is beautiful. The scenes vary from lush tropical forests to oppressive and over developed cityscapes. The actors assembled are an international powerhouse. While Hartnett may be less than A status in America, Kimura and Lee are considered first rate stars in Asia. In this sense, the film is an international blockbuster. The acting by these stars is somewhat uneven. Of the three, Lee is the most consistent, turning in a nuanced performance that aptly captures the variegated emotions connected with his personification of modern corruption and evil. The editing and pacing are very well done and match the attempted themes. The Radiohead soundtrack adds a pleasant ethereal touch which aids in setting a more contemplative tone. In essence, the film is extremely well made, it just attempts too many messages within the story.

On a personal note, I really wanted to like this film and was somewhat saddened that I was underwhelmed. I enjoy having my knowledge and interpretations of symbolism expanded. Unfortunately, this film merely referenced a great many known symbols without expanding or deepening their meaning. For this and the above reasons, I will probably not recommend this film to many. I tend to see this as a film that attempted something artistic and philosophically profound. No doubt, many people will agree and furthermore extract something from the film. Sadly, I was not able to pull any greater meaning from this movie. 6.7 stars of 10.

A Perfect Getaway (2009)

A near perfect mystery for movie night

[8/10 · 28 March 2011]

"The Perfect Getaway," is a who-done-it thriller that has mass appeal. The mixture of story, acting, and cinematography work together to make this a film that keeps the audience engrossed and filled with a sense of isolated ominous beauty. As with all mysteries, TPG is going to be viewed and interpreted on a statistic like curve. Some viewers will have the twists figured out within thirty minutes while others will need about an hour. The issue of predictability is not really a boon or bane to the film. From very soon into the film, the audience is aware that this is a mystery and that some form of twisty revelation is bound to occur. Criticism is more usefully aimed at the development of the story and the characters. All in all, the movie is a great deal of fun and accomplishes the goal of being a coherent yet convoluted mystery thriller.

The mystery genre hinges on challenging the audience to figure out who the antagonist is. TPG is a standard mystery in the sense above. The audience is quickly introduced to a murderous context and then challenged to figure out which character or characters have done or will do murder. In this sense, TPG is exactly what one would expect from a mystery. What distinguishes TPG is the coherency of the story, dialogue, and character acting. It is this reviewers opinion that what determines the success of a film is not just how well a film follows genre rules, but, also how innovative and well done the movie employs those same rules. In the case of TPG, the rules are strictly followed and there is enough innovation to make the film fresh. The story is genre standard in that it is a permutation of the "dangers while on the trail," motif. The innovation enters with the stunning cinematography. The audience is forced to juxtapose images of immense natural beauty with an oppressive sense of impending violence. The effect, while not wholly new, is both unsettling and thrilling. The dialogue of the film eventually requires review. This, again, is a genre standard. After the antagonist is revealed, the audience is challenged to go back and review memory of past interactions so as to determine of the mystery is tidy and coherent. TPG is well crafted and the dialogue is a very good example of the multiple interpretations that can be put upon a single sentence. The only potential flaw here is that the film actually replays certain scenes so that the viewer is able to make more concrete associations. This is a flaw only in that it seems to assume that the attention span of the audience is somewhere around the twenty minute mark. While the firmly established connection is helpful, it also seems to indicate that the filmmakers believe that the audience may be a bit stupid. The character acting and development is clear and uses stock types well. TPG avoids falling into completely bland characterization by providing just enough exposition and detail to make all of the characters seem real. While the protagonist and antagonist clearly confirm to genre standards, the subtle and blatant details given to both allow the filmmaker to blur identities until the proper moment of revelation. Essentially, Jovovich, Olyphant, and Zahn are all capable actors who utilize the scripted materials very well in developing characters that the audience is able to trust.

Overall, this is a well done film that cleverly tells a who-done-it story. The acting is both accessible and believable. The cinematography is stunning. The editing and pacing begins somewhat slow and builds to a fast and furious climax. The story is well told, even if it is not particularly new or groundbreaking. The attempt to tie up all loose ends leads to some cloying exposition but this is only a minor distraction. TPG is a simple story well told by filmmakers and actors who are clearly professional and talented.

On a personal note, I think this is a perfect movie night film. The story holds the audience's attention for the full 100 minutes. The mystery encourages yelling at the screen and guess work. The genre typical style and story make the film accessible to a very large audience. Above all this, the film is just plain fun. 7.8 of 10 stars.

Season of the Witch (2011)

Season of the Witch casts a mediocre spell

[5/10 · 24 March 2011]

"Season of the witch," is an action-horror film that barely achieves mediocrity. 40 Million dollars, talented actors, and a supernatural story are usually enough to guarantee that a film will provide a decent escape for 90 minutes. SotW is one of the rare examples when money, star power, and story synthesize into a slipshod mess that is not able to cater to anyone but the lowest common denominator. In essence, this is a film that highlights the extent to which producers consider their audience dim witted.

The main problems with the film are character, story and predictability. First, the characters are simply too stereotypical and cliché. This is an action film so we are given the standard cast of: tortured good guy, spunky good guy friend, moral compass priest, throw away helper one, throw away helper two, and pure evil bad guy. What distinguishes a genre piece is developing these stock types. The filmmaker is supposed to add some details and background that allow the characters to become relatable with. SotW does nearly nothing. Tortured good guy (Cage) has killed an innocent and is therefore tortured. That is it, no more details. The moral compass priest is a moral compass because he is a priest. These characters are so shallow that by the mid point of the film, one could care less what happens to them. Second, the story is insultingly dumb. What if the black plague was actually started by witches and wasn't a biological epidemic? And, what if the only way to battle witches from pagan Europe was to spout Latin Christian formulas from a "Holy Book?" If you have ever asked those questions, SotW provides the answers. There is no over exaggeration here. This is a fantasy story that imagines one of the greatest scourges on Western life as being supernatural and furthermore the scourge is battled by faith in Christ. This brings us to our third issue, predictability. The outcome is guaranteed from the start. Will the above mentioned throw away characters die? Of course. Do they die first? yes. Will the other characters go through trial and tribulation that eventually ends in a hollow redemption of their clichéd conflicts? Umm, yes. Is the ultimate good guy not actually a guy but a metaphorical faith in Christian ideals? You nailed it. To be fair, religious values are not the heart of the issue. The film could have substituted in some cheesy mystical idea about the value of valor and love to achieve the same effect. The issue is that the premise is so contrived and tired that the film cannot but suffer predictability. By the mid point, if you have not lost all care, you may find yourself making internal bets on who will be offed next and in what order.

As to positive points, the film has some beautiful locations and helicopter shots. There are a few scenes that are creepy and visually jarring. Unfortunately, that is about all. The acting is uneven and wooden. The pacing oscillates between exciting and bland. The special effects demonstrate that 40 million dollars is very easy to waste. Overall, this is a poor film.

On a personal note, I will be actively mocking this film over the next couple weeks and will then probably forget the whole experience. Recently I had been watching some films that were more challenging for the me (i.e. El Topo). I picked SotW as a light film to bring a bit of levity to my film watching experience. While the film is in no way challenging, it is also in no way worth watching. The story and visuals are a bit too dark and frightening for small children. The film itself is too stupid for adults. This seems to be the crux of the issue. Who is this meant for? Apparently, should you find yourself incapable of an attention span, amused by shiny things in a gray landscape, and inebriated then you will enjoy this film. Such a unique demographic does make one wonder how a producer could green light such a project. 5 of 10 stars.

Eagle vs Shark (2007)

The wit is in the details

[8/10 · 23 March 2011]

"Eagle vs Shark," is a quirky romantic comedy that finds most of its humor in dialogue and absurd situations. The film is easily compared to "Napoleon Dynamite," in that the characters are socially awkward and the story revels in the common everyday happenings of less than extraordinary people. The comparison breaks down in regards to the subject matter and themes explored. EvS is a story of how romantic and familial relationships develop. The film strives to create a humorous story that is actually quite reflective of how many people lead their lives. The effect is a touching and funny film that is extremely easy to relate to.

Some qualification is necessary for the above. Many audience members will not have the exact experiences as those in the film. That said, the plights, thought patterns, and actions of the main characters remain hauntingly familiar. For example, the love interest of the two mid-twenty-somethings springs from the retail work place. As these two currently aimless drifters knock into each other, the results are far from surprising. We soon learn that nerdy-ness has not created some reclusive pop culture obsessives. Rather, these are people who have developed coping mechanisms that are odd but highly effective. Both characters, as one would expect, are not shy about sex, giving opinions, their own societal position and the social status that they desire. Essentially, these are very realistic "dorks" going about their wonderfully idiosyncratic lives. Furthermore, these are adult dorks dealing with the issues that matter most to the target audience, namely, adult relationships and interaction. The loving development of realistic characters working within an entertaining story allows this romantic comedy to be fresh, unpretentious, and very easy to empathize with.

While the above clearly demonstrates my personal attitudes, I do believe the film is open to some criticism. The humor is comprised of mostly dialogue driven quips and absurdities. The viewer is treated to humor that is highly contextualized and therefore not generally funny. The film, basically, provides very little repeatable humor. To be more clear, the film is akin to watching an inside joke. Just as close friends jibe and tease with words and phrases that hold significance due to the relationship, EvS is filled with personality and relationship based humor. This can be a turn off. The film rarely makes one laugh out loud. Rather, EvS is more of a constant chuckle and snort fest.

As to the technical aspects of the film, they are all well done and professional. The editing leads to a well paced film that does not really feel like 90 minutes. The scenery and shot composition highlight the beauties of New Zealand as well as the slipshod attempts of space personalization by the lower middle class (i.e. Jarrod's mounting of Ninja weapons on the wall). The acting and scripting, as mentioned above, are realistic and nuanced. Overall, this is very well done comedy that manages a great deal of heartfelt and awkward realism.

On a personal note, I will be recommending this film to anyone who will listen. Unlike many indies, EvS is highly accessible, romantic and funny to boot. In essence, the film is and deserves to be seen because it is refreshing and optimistic. 8.4 of 10 stars.

Baghead (2008)

An attractive style presented in a mediocre way

[5/10 · 22 March 2011]

"Baghead," is a film integral to the mumblecore sub-genre of independent film making. For those not familiar, like myself; mumblecore refers to a very low budget film that relies on natural dialogue and the intricacies of banal situations. This is film made by the people labeled "generation X." As Nirvana instilled the spirit of "Whatever. . . " into our hearts many years ago, now artists are depicting the joyous spiritual lethargy that took root. Baghead is a mix of genres cobbled together because no one story type touches on all the important cultural/emotional nuances of 90's apathy. The result is what you expect: it was kinda good I guess.

First and foremost, this is a film about human relationships and interaction. The sub-plot of a killer in the woods is present and used to great effect, yet the film is at heart about people. The couching of a "realistic slice of life" story within a framework of "slasher" horror sounds interesting at first. Are we finally going to get a horror film with actual smart people in it? The answer is kinda. By dividing resources between the two genres, the film as a whole comes of as thrown together and mismatched. The pacing varies from very slow and improvised to tense and nerve wracking. While the film makers clearly have the ability to elicit a wide range of emotion from the actors and audience, one is left wondering why the film goes for such extremes within a single film. If the goal is to imitate life or provide realism in a strange situation, the film is not so much realistic as it is disheveled.

One reason the film comes off as so, well, home movie-like is due to the use of auto focus and constant zooming. By setting the cameras to auto focus, the audience must endure the constant readjustment of the lens via shaky computer compensation. The effect is that the whole movie comes off as a movie. The audience is never able to loose themselves in the characters, setting, or dialogue because of incessant reminders that this is in fact a shoddy film. Furthermore, the constant zooming in and out of the camera conveys a sense that the photographer is either new or poorly trained. Now it may be that these are stylistic tricks to let people know that what is being seen is not reality but an artistic interpretation. That said, there are other subtle ways to let the audience know that the film is a piece of art and not a reality that are not so distracting.

Overall, this is an enjoyable film with some wonderful moments. The acting is natural and gives a sense of realism. The plot is for the most part predictable yet easily related to. The camera work, pacing, and editing are reflective of a very low budget, i.e. the film comes off as a bit slow, boring, and slipshod. All in all, this is a film for the indie lover or fans of the Duplass brothers. All other potential viewers should enter into this film with the understanding that it is probably a love it or hate it film. As for my personal take, I liked the film but won't be recommending this willy-nilly. Rather, I will mention this film around friends who are truly looking for something they have not seen before. Oh, "The Puffy Chair," is a much better intro to mumblecore for those of all who are interested.

Return of the Evil Dead (1973)

A more accessible remake

[6/10 · 20 March 2011]

"Reutrn of the Blind Dead," is a slightly higher budget remake of Tombs of the Blind Dead. Return maintains the intriguing premise and textural richness of the first, while also achieving a slightly faster pace and more accessible story. In all fairness, Return is a remake in spirit only. The story arch and conflict differs very much from the first film. In the earlier film, the director lavished time and extended shot composition to create a creepy mood. This second installment develops characters more and explores how some of the monsters may still be alive.

This series has gained a cult following for a few reasons. First, the premise of long dead satanic knight zombies mixes history, occultism, and gory monsters. Such a mix is near perfection in the overly exploited zombie genre. Second, the stories are rather simple and straight forward. The director is clearly not attempting to create a nuanced and subtle piece of storytelling. Rather, the films are a notable for the visual and color textures. The zombies are a wonderful combination of desiccated flesh and bones wrapped in earth hardened tunics. In addition, these knights attack in force both on foot and on zombie horseback. The costuming and makeup effects are actually quite unsettling and some of the most original.

While the zombies are very fun, the lack of attention to story and development do hurt the film. The dialogue is simplistic and clearly serves to keep the pacing up. Whenever a movie sacrifices realistic scripting, the production as a whole suffers from wooden performances and characters the audience cares little about. Return, having made the above scripting sacrifice, comes off as very clichéd, poorly acted, and at times outright stupid. An important note is that, even with these negative points, the film still maintains a sense of excitement, horror and fun. Return is a "b" zombie film and all of the staff know it. In a sense, this film deserves to be judged by more lenient "b" criteria. By evaluating this film on less strict criterion, Return is a success. The Editing is well done and maintains a good exciting pace. The acting is wooden, which inevitably leads to unintended humor and laughs. The zombies are the star and clearly have been developed lovingly. The score is a mix of cheesy music and stereotypically creepy sound effects. This film attacks its goal with both a high degree of technical skill and an even higher degree of pride. Will this film ever make a come back and receive awards? No, it will not. Will this film stand the test of time and be referenced for many years to come by horror enthusiasts? Yes, it most definitely will. All in all, this is a fun film that has a unique if campy perspective on zombies.

On a personal note, I have really taken to this series. The premise, visual textures, creepy locations, and unplanned humor combine to make these films a pleasure to watch. These make great movie night fare when with horror buffs. In addition, this series provides a great many examples of the wonderful techniques used in earlier horror. A great many films of today are clearly influenced by the likes of the blind dead.

Fido (2006)

A zombie film for, well, everyone

[8/10 · 17 March 2011]

"Fido," is a unique example of the zombie comedy. Instead of focusing on the comedic events that come from acclimatization with a world overrun by zombies, Fido examines the benefits and pitfalls of cohabitation with the living dead. The context of a precariously stable interaction between humans and zombies allows the film to address some very interesting questions. To be sure, this film breaks from some of the standard conventions of the genre. Even though the genre breaks may offend a purist; the film's novel approach provides a great deal of thoughtful material that is accessible to a wider and thoughtful audience.

As with all zombie films, Fido is based on the premise that the dead can return to life. Furthermore, the zombies all have an inherent desire to eat human flesh. The deviant premise is that humanity has found a way to curb the violent lusts of the zombies and thus created a docile and mindless workforce. The last premise is what allows for fascinating questions. Zombies robbed of their horrific behavior quickly enter into a zone as gray as their slowly purifying skin. Are these former humans alive or dead? Do peaceful zombies retain memories or emotion? What are the moral ramifications of harnessing zombie labor? Is it morally aberrant for humans to form emotional attachments to zombies? All of these questions are subtly touched on in Fido. That the issues are touched on subtly is key to the success of the film. Had the filmmakers decided to create a heavy handed yet contextually odd morality lesson, the film would have come off as preachy and gimmicky. Fido, however, takes a more even handed and vague route. Respect for the various biologically ambiguous positions are maintained throughout the film.

To be completely fair, the filmmakers do allow themselves a measured amount of firm moral positioning when establishing conflict. An underlying theme is depicting the qualities of a healthy family relationship. The filmmakers views are much more concrete in this area. While subtlety is lost, the moral judgment maintained is neither mawkish or distracting. Overall, the film creates an easily accepted context from which a collection of interesting philosophical questions are explored.

In regards to the more technical aspects of the film, Fido is well done. The character development and acting is well done. The most easily identified weak point is Moss's portrayal of the mother. In the first half of the film, Moss is rather stilted and wooden. By the mid-point, however, Moss has eased into a much more believable and dynamic character. Regarding editing, shot composition, and cinematography, Fido is a cleverly composed evocation of a post-apocalyptic 1950s suburban America. All in all, this is a thought provoking story told through a film that is just plain fun to watch.

On a personal note, I will be highly recommending this film to friends. Being such a mix of genres and ideas, Fido offers something to almost any viewer. This film is near perfection for the Friday movie night with friends. 8 of 10 stars.

Footprints on the Moon (1975)

A psychological thriller that can run with the best

[7/10 · 16 March 2011]

"Le Orme," or Footprints is an Italian film that is often loosely classified as a giallo. The film is mysterious and suspenseful, typical of gialli; however, footprints lacks the gratuitous nudity and gore typical of the genre. In addition, the themes of outer space and moon walking are atypical in a genre focused on more earthly endeavors. The most distinguishing aspect of this film is the mood created by the combination of story, camera work, and cinematography. Footsteps manages to elicit a darkly unsettling mood not commonly accomplished in gialli or any other genre for that matter.

This film defies review for the simple and common reason that revealing the assumptions of the filmmaker means revealing the ending. Footprints is a film with a twist ending that ties up all of the loose ends left throughout the film. In that sense alone, the movie is quite well done. Without giving too much away, the film is comparable in mood to Scorsese's Shutter Island. The story hinges on a woman accounting for her whereabouts from earlier in the week. She seems to be suffering from amnesia. Yet, as the film progresses, something more sinister may be a foot. Like Shutter Island, the film takes the audience along on the confusing, cryptic, and paranoia fueled journey of a protagonist puzzling out what exactly the reality of the situation is. The story of Footprints is subtle and spooky. The lonely setting, sparse yet textured visuals, and use of a variety of camera techniques all act in harmony to create an oppressive mood that is both creepy and enjoyable. The main point being conveyed is that the film is aptly described as visceral. The crowning accomplishment of Footprints is that the audience experiences the palette of emotions in synchrony with the protagonist.

As a whole, this is a wonderful film that truly engrosses the audience. As with many gialli, the movie comes off as a bit long. The filmmakers lavish time on creating the moods and ambiance wanted. This slowness is the only potential flaw in the film. "Potential," is used as pacing and contextual needs do seem to be very subjective. Overall, this is a wonderful exploration of confusion and the paranoia caused by said confusion.

On a personal note, I will definitely be recommending this film to friends. Footprints does not make the best Friday movie night film, as it is noticeably downbeat. That said, this is a film to recommend for movie discussion groups. The title is often unknown and the story/techniques are extremely well done. 7 of 10 stars.

Cashback (2006)

A beautifully done existential romance

[9/10 · 15 March 2011]

"Cashback," is an innovative take on the romantic comedy genre. The film more than fulfills all of the expected trappings. The characters are both quirky and realistic. The humor ranges from sexually explicit to subtly introspective. The story and conflict revolve around the tumults of romantic pursuit. While the above define "Cashback," as part of the romantic comedy genre, the film is a great deal more. "Cashback," distinguishes itself from other similar films by contextualizing the humor and romance within philosophical quandaries about time, love and beauty. Rather than immerse the audience within an easily identifiable framework, the film asks questions and then develops tentative answers. The process of mental exploration is brought to the forefront. The effect of exposing these musings is a wonderful film that encourages the audience to do some reflecting on their own.

As is common in the genre, the film is composed of a variety of common and everyday situations. However, instead of assuming that meaning is clear through simple depiction, the film leads its viewers through an analysis of the various interpretations a situation is subject to. The majority of analysis comes from the art student Ben. An extended bout of insomnia has led to his day increasing by eight hours. To pass the time, Ben takes a job at an all night supermarket. Ben's thoughtful and artistic inclinations combined with dull labor are the inspiration for the philosophical musings. The combination of voice over narration, creative camera work, moody music, and smart dialogue act in synthesis to lead the viewer through the creation of several perspectives on life. The assumption of the filmmaker appears to be that the process of self-reflective discovery is as interesting as the implementation of behavior based on introspection. In all fairness, this assumption is not particularly new or unfamiliar. "Cashback," is, however, very successful in making an internal and unseeable journey a very enjoyable and watchable film. The narration combined with quirky behavior provide a subtle and easily accepted commentary on both the situations and the situations interpretation. More importantly, the film is very purposely subjective, therefore allowing the audience to interact and critique the interpretations at will. In essence, the film accomplishes the ethereal task of implanting the audience within the perspective of another mind, while maintaining the audiences ability to comfortably maintain their own agency and analytic tools.

On a personal note, I will be recommending this film to all who will listen. As the dull gray Chicago winter overstays its welcome, a thoughtful comedy gives just the right succor. "Cashback," is a wonderful film for the casual movie night, romantic evening, or wine steeped philosophical meander. 9 of 10 stars.

The Mist (2007)

An overlong film unreflective of the author's or director's talents

[6/10 · 14 March 2011]

"The Mist," is an adaption of a Stephen King story by a director now famed for these adaptations. Unlike, Shawshank or Green Mile, Mist is a supernatural horror film. One may expect that taking on a theme more typical to King would lead to a highly entertaining film. Unfortunately, the result is overlong and never escapes a "b" movie feel.

Clocking in at two hours, Mist lavishes time on creating a moody and oppressive atmosphere of unknown horrors. Firmly situated in the creepy context are the typical cast of King stock characters. The film focuses on the interactions of these characters more so than on the monsters or ominous fog. The result is a drawn out and rather predictable exploration of how a highly caricatured "humanity" deals with an abnormal situation. The assumption seems to be that by giving developed exposition to stock characters, a sense of realism and an important message can be established. The problem is that stock characters are by definition shallow. By creating easily identifiable character types, the audience is relieved of the need to analyze character action. For example, the ignorant country bumpkin will always respond in a bigoted and violent way. Developing such a bumpkin does nothing to the expectation that said character will ultimately respond as expected. In fact, lavishing time on hollow stock types eventually highlights just how poorly developed these characters are. The effect is a film that is populated by annoying people doing highly predictable things.

In fairness, the film does end with a twist. Unfortunately, some of the dramatic weight of the twist is removed because of the characters. Having been methodically ushered down the garden path, the final actions are somewhat inevitable, expected, and emotionally bland.

As a whole, Mist is a technically accomplished movie. The editing, camera work, stylization and direction are all highly competent. The problems arise with the writing and the story itself. Both writing and story rely so heavily on stock characterization that the film comes off as a modern take on a 1950's horror "b" film. All attempts to create a more realistic sense of foreboding are overshadowed by shallow characters puttering about in predictable ways.

On a personal note, this film strikes me as being a wonderful introduction to someone wholly ignorant of both horror film and/or Stephen King. The reliance on stock characters is well done, as long as one is not overly familiar with such character types. Unfortunately, finding such a specifically ignorant audience is a very tall order. Therefore, the mist will highly impress a scant few, and merely satiate the horror tastes of the masses. 5.7 of 10 stars.

Agora (2009)

Ultimately, poor characterization really hurts this film

[7/10 · 14 March 2011]

"Agora," is a visually stunning historical drama that explores the tumults of religious/societal change and the often antagonistic clashes of reason and faith. In taking on these themes, the film relies on a highly metaphorical presentation. The reliance on metaphor acts as both a boon and a detriment to the storytelling. From the standpoints of technique and talent, "Agora," is an above average film. The greatest problems arise from symbolic depth causing shallow character development.

The apparent assumption in "Agora," is that a general but highly metaphorical presentation makes up for not exploring the details of characters. A theme that pervades the film is that tolerance is a key ingredient to successful civilization. To demonstrate this, the story utilizes the historical conflict between pagan society and the burgeoning Christian society. The various clashes between the pagans and Christians illustrate how diverse and complex groups are capable of descending into bigoted violence over poorly thought out matters of faith. The metaphor is prescient to a modern audience in that it indirectly hints at the religious turmoil surrounding current issues between conservative Muslim factions and Western society. The strength of this metaphor is both subtle and strong. "Agora," takes great care to develop the conflict clearly. In addition, no sides are taken. The general goal of espousing tolerance is never adversely complicated by suggesting one side as being more correct than another side. While this metaphorical style of conveying messages is deftly woven throughout the film, an unfortunate side effect is a lack of characterization. The martyr of intolerance is Hypatia of Alexandria. Rachel Weisz turns in a well-rounded yet hollow performance of Hypatia. Unfortunately, Weisz's performance is typical for the whole cast. There are no characters that are really developed to the point of being complex humans. Rather, characters defined by gross and general traits function to grease the wheels of metaphorical development. For example, Hypatia is a rarity in that she is a highly regarded scientist and philosopher in a clearly misogynistic society. Furthermore, she maintains some interesting behavior and thoughts regarding sex, relationships, societal contract, and governance. At no point in the film are any of these interesting and character defining traits directly addressed. The problem with such lack of definition is that the audience is asked to use imagination to fill in important and not readily deduced detail. Had Hypatia's details been provided and a general character inferred, the film would have come off as a great deal more realistic. As the film stands, characters are interesting stereotypes and little more. The presence of stereotypes is not necessarily bad. By creating easily accessible characters, a story is sometimes able to delve deeper into complicated issues. The problem with "Agorra," is that advocating of tolerance hinges on an audience understanding what is being tolerated. By creating a shallow Hypatia, the film subverts its own goals of creating sympathy and a foundation for tolerance. Essentially, the ultimate lack of character depth made the film feel bland and ultimately hollow.

On a personal note, I really wanted to enjoy this film. The mixing of philosophy, history, and societal upheaval has the potential for wonderful storytelling. "Agora," is a solid attempt at mixing these themes but neglects character details of the utmost importance. The effect, pure and simple, was disappointment. A part of me knew I would like this film. Another part of knew that the important subject matter of the film should make me like it. After viewing, I was struck more by the detrimental effects of flaccid characters than by the films message. In essence, this was a sad let down. I will probably ask a few friends to see this film so as to hear other perspectives. Unfortunately, I expect to hear a great many: "Well, the message is an important one; however, the film as a whole was a bit underwhelming."

High Road to China (1983)

A boys adventure novel put to film

[7/10 · 11 March 2011]

"High Road to China," is a film that is challenging to a 21st century movie reviewer. The troubling issues arise when deciding how to contextualize the film and story devices. Essentially this is an adventure comedy done with very dated sensibilities. As an example of technical skill and cinematography, HRtC meets and occasionally exceeds all of the conventions of early 80's film making. However, the character types and cultural representations are somewhat crude and naïve by current standards.

Essentially, this is a film version of a 1950's style boys adventure novel. HRtC contains the requisite action, foreign locales, dashing characters, and subdued romance. The story is straightforward and focuses more on thrills than on breaking new ground or developing characters. With such a story, the film does require the use of stock characterization and a higher degree of stereotyping. The stereotyping is the single aspect of the film that leads to the most problems. To begin, the main protagonists are quite likable but noticeably hollow. Selleck would have made for a dashing pilot had the script given him more personal exposition and less snide quips. Armstrong plays the plucky dilettante to a tee. Again, her character is never given any dialogue to develop the character beyond a caricature. The second issue regarding stereotyping is the depiction of various Asian cultures. In maintaining a faster pace, any attempt at humanizing the tribal cultures is neglected. The Arabs are misogynistic tyrants. The Nepalese are doe-eyed mystics. The rural Chinese are barely functional in-fighters. While these caricatures do hearken back to pulp adventure novels, current audiences may cringe at such simplistic and imperialistic representations. The effect of these less than stellar characterizations is a film populated by hollow facades rather than relatable human beings.

Even with its faults, HRtC is a very enjoyable film. As mentioned above, the story is simplistic yet engrossing. The action sequences are well done and have a wonderful early 20th century flavor. The cinematography is, at times, breathtakingly beautiful. The score is poignant and expertly coupled with the mood of the scenes. Essentially, this is a highly accomplished film on a technical level that falters in the gross stereotyping and mawkish dialogue. To be sure, HRtC is great entertainment; it is just great mindless entertainment.

On a personal note, I really like this film. The fact that HRtC is a clear Indiana Jones copy in no way detracts from this movie. Steeping myself in high flying adventure from by-gone days is pure nostalgic bliss. I see this film as having great potential as a family film. The movie provides great entertainment and an opportunity to open up discussion on film and cultural representation. I will probably recommend this film to my father, so that we may relive past days and mull over just how correct Said was in "Orientalism." 6.5 of 10 stars.

Joysticks (1983)

Almost worth it for the decadence

[3/10 · 9 March 2011]

"Joysticks," is a 1983 sex comedy that revisits the clichéd theme of a small youth led endeavor fighting against traditional older hierarchy. The movie is essentially a "Porkys (1982)," knock-off. The cheesy double entendre of the title is an immediate indicator of what this film will deliver. J is a playful low budget romp touching on themes of video games, puerile sex humor, and underdog status. The distinguishing facets of this film have to do with the assumptions that the writers and film makers make. Specifically, two premises directly influence how such a playful but poor film was produced.

The reliance on currently popular slang and vulgarity is typical of this sub-genre of film. The assumption that separates J from other teen comedies involves what is allowed for humor. The writers seem to hold that creating humorous situations is more important than what those same situations may imply. Such an assumption leads to surface level giggles that actually become uncomfortable cringes. For example, two protagonist characters break into the antagonist's home to cause some troubles. In the process, one of the protagonists inevitably falls into the bed of the sedated wife of the antagonist. The wife begins unconsciously groping the protagonist. At this point, the other protagonist character encourages his friend to have sex with the unconscious wife. The entire scene and exchange is meant to be humorous due to an uncomfortable situation and silly opportunistic prodding. The issue arises when the audience considers what would be the outcome if the character in bed actually listened to his friend. Engaging in sex with an unconscious stranger is rape. Of course, the film did not intend to create a situation of cognitive dissonance; yet, the adherence to a premise of creating humor regardless of consequence will inevitably lead to ethically strained situations.

The second major assumption and premise follows from the first. The direction of the film relies on the idea that low-brow humor and moderate nudity make for an enjoyable film. This is not completely fallacious. The problems arise when the audience is treated to a film that only relies on sophomoric humor and nudity. The storyline, production quality, film quality, acting, and character development are almost completely neglected. The result is a clumsy vehicle for fart jokes and youthful curves. J comes off as a film directed toward 13 year old males from 1983. Furthermore, J is almost exclusively enjoyed today by the niche audience of males who were 13 years old in 1982.

Overall, this is a poor film. That it is a poor film was probably recognized by all who took part in the project. The goal of creating a substandard knock-off was accomplished. In fact, the film does have a few quirky scenes that elicit the occasional chuckle. However, the completed end product is highly dated 80's trash. J is only worth pursuing if 80's American culture was formative in one's life.

On a personal note, the film did bring back fond memories for me. I am slightly younger than the target audience, yet this was the type of film that friends and I would try to get video store clerks to rent to us. As to recommendations, I will more than likely do my part in letting this film slip into utter obscurity. 3 of 10 stars.

Fantasy Mission Force (1983)

Proof that conspicuous consumption is fun

[4/10 · 8 March 2011]

"Fantasy Mission Force," is quite aptly named. The movie is a fantasy about a mission taken on by an eclectic force of military types. The catch is that all coherency stops at the title. FMF is best described as ridiculously bizarre. Only under the broadest definition can the film be said to have plot or characterization. Examining what this film has is not really of much use. Rather, FMF is most effectively evaluated by what it purposefully lacks.

To be brutally honest, this film lacks a great deal of what many consider the qualities of a proper film. To be sure, a camera and actors were used. However, the film quickly begins to diverge from generally accepted standards at this point. The assumptions of the filmmakers are not really comprehensible. It would appear that creating a mixed genre farce was the goal. To achieve this, the film strings together several set pieces that peripherally hint at particular genres. For example, horror is incorporated by having the "force" stay at a haunted house. What happens in the haunted house defies explanation. Honestly, the scenes in the haunted house simply make a full break with reality and the genre. The effect is an incoherent mish mash of semi-familiar clichés causing either intensely uncomfortable confusion or riotously funny weirdness. In addition to the set pieces, the transitions make absolutely no sense. In regards to the horror scenes, the protagonists escape an incarnation of the devil by setting off a string of cheap fireworks. How does this work? Never you mind, the next set piece has already begun. While the characters remain generally the same between vignettes, everything else is altered based entirely on whim. Essentially, this film is a mess.

Oh, but what a mess! The humor is an acquired taste. Imagine a film that purposefully breaks any and all assumptions an audience might have just for the sake of doing it. You want a story? Sorry. Do you like things to be slightly realistic? Tough luck. How about characters that have character? Nope. Social perspective, observational humor, or even a dram like logic? No, No, and No. What will you give me? How about whatever I feel like and a few explosions. Not only is that all the viewer gets, the end result is absolutely hilarious. FMF is perfectly summed up as the result of deviously jaded filmmakers providing "product" for a public that will consume it. If anything, the film clearly illustrates that the human animal is still amused by flickering lights and shiny things. I have never been so hilariously made aware of my almost non-existent standards.

On a personal note, I will absolutely recommend this film to certain friends. Should you be a "film connoisseur" then FMF will probably not be to your liking. On the other hand, if you enjoy what can be and has been done with a motion picture camera, then this is a movie for you. The film lends itself to large amounts of intoxicants and running commentary. 3.5 of 10 stars.

The New Legend of Shaolin (1994)

Hooray for bizarre legends!

[7/10 · 7 March 2011]

"The New Legend of Shaolin," is an absurd and fantastical romp of an action film. The movie is definitely not a traditional kung fu film; rather, it is a collection of physics defying fights and traditional Chinese morals loosely held together by a semi-coherent plot. The combinations found in the film are bizarre enough to be very humorous. However, the same bizarreness could also be interpreted as slipshod filmmaking and genre exploitation. TNLOS is a film targeted at audiences who enjoy caricature. Expectations of masterful displays of physical prowess are never met. On the other hand, tongue in cheek silliness quotients are more than amply filled.

TNLOS is not in any way a serious film. In fact, the film is best categorized as a kung fu comedy oddity. As such, the film relies on some bending assumptions. First, the action defies any and all laws of nature. The audience is assumed to suspend all sense of reality. At no point in the film does a fight sequence have the least plausibility. The effect is that violence becomes a comedic device. Action is anticipated not only for its excitement, but also for its humor. The dual function of the action could be off putting to some. A serious fan of martial arts will not be treated to perfected examples of pure form. The physical talent is highlighted through extended shots and choreographies of outright silly violence. The action is, therefore, intended as more of a visual treat than a serious display. A second assumption has to do with the word "legend." The film is not a historically accurate period piece. This should be obvious from the title. TNLOS is a legend and follows the conventions of Asian legends. The characters are of a stock nature. The story incorporates supernatural elements and hyperbole. The themes are allegorical in nature. These facets of legends are expected to be understood. Had the film been titled, "The Real Accurate History of Shaolin Temple," a great deal of criticism would be warranted. However, the film is a legend and as such revels in some of the bizarre plot elements a legend allows for. For example, why does the main antagonist drive a polished metal car into battle? Well, the anachronism firmly establishes him as a supernatural force not to be trifled with. Is the anachronism goofy? Absolutely and positively yes. Yet, when understood within the context of a fantastical legend, the audience is not too hard pressed to accept the blatant oddity.

The above interpretation aside, this is a truly bizarre film. While themes of familial devotion, ethical behavior, and struggle against oppression are familiar; the film as a whole is out right weird. The characters are quirky to the point of being potentially obnoxious. Jet Li turns in a quiet and stoic performance which could be seen as boring. The melodramatic deviousness of the female leads is endearing and/or obnoxious. The plot structure is extremely basic. As such the film does occasionally allow for some very large holes and incoherencies. The above criticisms do take away from the film. However, as a whole, the simple plot, accessible themes, quirky characters, and over the top action are more than enough to offset the film's problems. TNLOS is worth seeing for its strangeness factor. The odd internal logic of the film is just enough to keep the story from degrading into a collection of weird vignettes. While the film will not likely be remembered for excellence in filmmaking, the odd ball fun of the film will guarantee a cult status.

On a personal note, I will definitely be pushing this film on friends. The movie is perfect fodder for a night of pizza, beer, and running commentary. With appropriately low expectations and a taste for bizarreness, this is a near perfect film. 6.5 of 10 stars.

The God of Cookery (1996)

I see your Cook Fu is strong!

[8/10 · 7 March 2011]

"The God of Cookery," is a bizarre and over the top comedy that deals with passion, love, and a journey of self discovery. The three previously mentioned themes are couched in a storyline revolving around cooking and cooking competition. In addition the film incorporates wire fu, slightly gory kung fu, and Chinese religious references to stylize and accentuate the humorous aspects of the film. TGOC is a truly mixed bag of story, storytelling techniques, and genre staples. Such a bizarre mix is bound to be divisive. The film is very easily loved. Unfortunately, the film is just as easily hated. Certain assumptions by the filmmakers clearly show that TGOC is directed at a particular audience and not for general consumption.

The first assumption is that bizarreness, in story, in action sequence, and in acting is funny in and of itself. TGOC does not take itself very seriously. The layering of martial arts gang fights, quests for perfect the meatball, and scatological humor blend seamlessly into an extended examination of what it means to be one's self. Juxtaposing absurdity with existential growth leads the film to be odd, silly, and (depending on the viewer) outright hilarious. In addition, such juxtaposition requires that only a caricature of reality be maintained. Basically, the audience is given some very familiar themes to establish context and then the film takes those themes through a whirly-gig story that is wholly unexpected. The second assumption follows from the first. The filmmakers clearly hope that the themes of passion, love, and self discovery are not lost when masked with massive amounts of goofiness, satire, and humor. This second assumption appears to be very carefully considered. At no point does the story become so convoluted as to confuse the audience. In fact, the plot line is devilishly consistent allowing plot devices to function both as thematic reminders and key character development points. As a unit composed of acting, story, assumption, and direction, TGOC is very well done.

As hinted at above, this film does lend itself to being disliked. The absurdity of the story leads to several potential problems. First, the acting is at times too cheesy. This is particularly the case with extended shots of the female lead pensively staring into the camera. Second, the subtitles are very fast and somewhat hard to understand. The dialog of the film is meant to be quick and quirky. This combination is especially difficult to capture in subtitle form. Occasionally the viewer misses whole sentences or catches lines which are seemingly non-sensical. Finally, Chinese humor does not always translate. There are several instances where puerile slapstick or silly punning is used. Unfortunately, both of these comedy types are lost on audiences unaccustomed to Chinese humor (and I am not really accustomed to Chinese humor).

While TGOC may have some debatable weak points, the film makes up for them in other wonderful ways. The plot is laugh out loud funny and surprisingly coherent. In addition, the plot creatively finds ways to take absurd characters and develop them into likable and rather natural people. From a technical standpoint, the film is well paced. The editing very rarely lags or hinders the natural stride of the story. The shot composition is a good mix of fast and slow cuts depending on mood and intention of the filmmaker. The effects, while now commonplace, are well done and a visual treat. When all is said and done, TGOC is a set of upbeat themes draped in playful goofiness. The film leads the audience through a playful story of the roles love and passion play in self discovery. In essence, one cannot help but laugh their way through this upbeat and fun tale.

On a personal note, this is a wonderful introduction to bizarre film. Everything about the movie is slightly off for the Western audience, thus allowing for some big laughs. Also, the film is not so over the top as to alienate anyone. This film makes the perfect companion to an evening of shared cooking, wine, and film. I will be highly recommending this to friends. 7.5 of 10 stars.

I, Madman (1989)

A story with great potential hurt by the delivery

[6/10 · 3 March 2011]

"I, Madman," is a lower budget horror film that plays with the idea that reading can draw monsters into the real world. The story attempts to blend a dark and horrific tale with the sleazy conventions found in pulp novels. While the goal definitely has potential, the execution is lacking. IM is bogged down by slow pacing and an unfulfilling development of the main antagonist. The failings are very unfortunate because this film had the potential to be scary, innovative, and engaging.

The premise of the film is not really new. The plot is based on the idea that reading and interacting with a text has the ability to make the subject of the text a reality. Essentially, this is a theme explored by European mystics over the centuries. This film tried to take a "magical" assumption and apply it to the horror movie genre. In the past, this idea has usually been used in demonic film, for example, "The Evil Dead." The ingenuity here is contextualizing magic in the more mundane. The magical books are not esoteric religious. Rather, they are pulp novels written by a demented mystic and alchemist. The situating of dark magic within a mass produced yet poorly distributed article of mass consumption is creepy. The problem is that this part of the story is left mostly untold. The film seems to rush through any background setting so as to allow more shots of dimly lit corridors and shadows. Needless to say, the lack of development hurts the film far more than the "spooky" scenes lead to enjoyable mood. A second shortcoming is the story's reliance on characters to act stupidly when confronted with desperate situations. The assumption that humans react with less thought when pressured is valid. The assumption that humans become incoherent stupid messes when pressured is spurious. The film makers advance the story a great deal by relying on stupid characters as a plot device. This second assumption causes the film to overly distance itself from reality. In essence, the film lures people in with questions about horrifying occult evil placed in plain sight and then never answers those questions in a plausible way.

On the whole, this is a devilishly fun idea involving off beat and unique antagonists. The film falters due to slow pacing, lack of background, and stupid by definition protagonists. The degree of negative criticism found here is unfortunate. IM really did have the potential to be a fresh take on some tried and true genre motifs. The lack of thought by the film makers led to a movie that is barely mediocre. With the current vogue of remaking films, IM would benefit from fresh eyes and a better thought out story line. However, the possibility of this film ever getting such a chance is vanishingly small.

On a personal note, I loved this film as a kid. Watching it again provided that warm and fuzzy feeling typical of nostalgia. It also informed me that, as a child, I had some very lax criteria for evaluating movies. Should you choose to see this film, it makes a pleasant prequel to a nap after a large greasy meal. 5.5 stars out of 10.

Tongan Ninja (2002)

A parody that clearly demonstrates the fun of filmmaking.

[6/10 · 3 March 2011]

"The Tongan Ninja," is a low budget parody of 70's and 80's martial arts films from Asia. The clearest comparison is with "Kung Pow! Enter the Fist," a film released slightly earlier in the same year. Both of these films are send ups of the various clichés and gaffs typical to kung fu and ninja films. TN distinguishes itself not in quality of SFX or novelty; rather, TN stands out because it exudes a sense of joy and enjoyment that the film makers had. The title of this film is an immediate clue to the overall theme and technical quality of the film. What sets this entry into the parody genre apart is the way in which it was executed.

As with all parody, this film assumes that the audience will find mockery of details funny. TN pays very close attention to the slipshod practices of previous martial arts film makers. The result of this attention is a film that lambastes dubbing, poor writing, awkward/unrealistic romance, and absurd plot devices. The effect is very amusing. Unlike films that attempt to fill 90 minutes with as many gags and jokes as possible, TN remains consistent with the gaffs that it parodies. By limiting the extent of mockery, TN allows itself to develop an actual alternate world which is populated by naïve, stupid, and very funny people. A second, and more risky assumption, is that an "action" film can be successful if dialog driven. This does seem a contradiction in terms. How is it that a film, one which relies on fight scenes and mortal combat, can rely on so much exposition and dialog? The movie answers this by providing over the top silly dialog that touches on every oddity found in Martial Arts film dubs. Repetition, awkward translations of common "Asian" sayings, ridiculously misplaced commentary, and colorful threats all blend together to create a truly hilarious experience.

TN is not without faults. The reliance on dialog does lead the story to drag at points. In addition, the repetition is just that, repetitive. However, these problems are easily forgiven when one actually feels this movie. To clarify the last sentence, this film conveys the joy and fun of the film makers. Possibly an example will help. We have all seen the uninspired formulaic film which is clearly made in an attempt to tidy up budgets and possibly make a small profit. These films are by no means "bad," yet they lack the ethereal quality of "Fun." TN exudes a sense of enjoyment. It is quite palpable how this production was relished by all involved. As the audience looses themselves in this happy mood, the film becomes all the more enjoyable.

On a personal note, I will be highly recommending "The Tongan Ninja," to friends. This is perfect movie night fare. The lovingly crafted crappiness makes a wonderful pairing with beer and greasy food. 6 of 10 stars.

Khun krabii hiiroh (2004)

Goofy over the top zombie goodness

[7/10 · 2 March 2011]

"Sars Wars," is a fast paced and highly enjoyable Thai zombie comedy. At its core, this is a film that revels in absurdity. The action and gore is more than enough to satiate the hardened zombie buff. The zany comedy is both internal and chips away at the fourth wall. A potential problem with this film is the fact that it is stylized for a niche audience. Essentially, this is a film that one either enjoys or passes off as a ho-hum addition to the horror genre. Additionally, the very aspects that make this film wonderful for some, may also make it a turkey for others.

SW diverges from typical Thai film in one distinctive way. Overall, Thai film uses the landscapes or urban settings of Thailand as an integral feature of the film. The pristine nature or bustling streets are unique enough to set a film apart as distinctly Thai. SW breaks from this standard and is set within an unspectacular high rise building. This change of scenery has led to several assumptions by the film makers. First, SW is more akin to an amusement ride than a standard horror/comedy story. Basically, the coherence of the plot arch is sacrificed for over the top visuals and slap stick comedy. The assumption is that the audience will give up all expectations and surrender to the ride. As hinted at above, this is either wonderful or dreadful depending on taste. SW offers no commentary on life, people, or the human condition. Rather, the film throws the audience into an absurd situation confronted by caricatures of stock characters. The effect is a fast paced horror comedy devoid of any seriousness. Second, the use of cheap SFX and CGI is clearly done for humor value. The assumption here is that the audience will embrace the over the top absurdity and appropriately poor effects. This assumption is again open to criticism. Some may find the poor effects bog down the film and remove any sense of reality. Others, like myself, enjoyed the humor of the purposeful low quality.

The film as a whole is well paced, competently shot, and technically professional. The characters, as mentioned above, are caricatures of well known stock types. The benefit is that the brief character development needed allows for more action oriented sequences. The drawback is that this film offers very little new in the department of "zombie fighters." On the whole, SW is not trying to break new ground or provide clever innovation. Rather, this is a film that exploits highly visual Thai humor within the context of a zombie story. If one enjoys their horror with a hearty helping of incoherent absurdity, then this is a film to be sought out.

On a personal note, I will definitely be recommending this film to friends. The style of humor, topics of mockery, and goofy gory action make this a film that is enjoyable by a diverse audience. This is a much better than average pizza and beer movie night film. 6.5 of 10 stars.

Bio-Zombie (1998)

Even with linguistic rationalization, this is still a mediocre film

[5/10 · 2 March 2011]

"Bio Zombie," is an unevenly paced zombie comedy that arches from over the top gags to serious human choice drama. The film maker's intentions of a quirky and invigorating addition to the genre are not fulfilled. Rather, the film is a banal and somewhat boring picture that is ultimately unable to impress the audience. An important caveat is that this movie is clearly made with a "Chinese," sense of humor. It is highly probable that what makes this film endearing is lost on non-Chinese audiences. The above stated, the film still has more faults than positive aspects.

The main issue with this film is the style of humor. The sight gags are universally accessible. On the other hand, the dialog driven humor has a unique Chinese sensibility. Many of the verbal gags strike a Western audience as poorly thought out or simply childish. This may be the case due to a fondness of punning in Asian culture. Various Asian countries have a tradition of humor based on the similarity of word pronunciation for wildly different concepts. As would be expected, these jokes require more than a cursory understanding of the language. At several points in the film, the non-Chinese speaking audience is given cues to laugh but seemingly has no material to laugh at. This disconnect between cue and humor is most likely the result of linguistic ignorance. The effects of the punning may be delightful for native speakers, but the puns leave everyone else feeling let down or underwhelmed.

The highlight of the film is the relationship between the characters. It is clear that the director placed great emphasis on both chemistry and character development. All of the players are multi-dimensional people that interact in, relative to the situation, natural ways. While the characters are a clear strong point, the required development involved causes the film to drag. BZ is a zombie film and zombies are neglected until the second half. While rich characterization is appreciated, the lack of zombies in a zombie film is, quite frankly, boring. The film further suffers from the actual zombie story being utterly devoid of novelty. BZ relies on themes previously used by Romero. The homage is appreciated; yet, adding no new context or style comes off as drudgery. In addition, the make-up effects are laughably poor. It is clear in several shots that zombies are wearing gardening gloves dipped in oatmeal like substance. Furthermore, the frenetic editing and cheesy music fail to provide humor or tension. Overall, the film is a collection of interesting people engaged in a dull plot and filmed in a technically average way. One can and should expect more from a zombie film, even a budget zombie movie such as this.

On a personal note, I will not be recommending this film to friends. BZ may come up in debates about who is the biggest zombie film buff, but only as a demonstration of the depths one is prepared to suffer for completeness. Should the potential viewer decide to watch this bore, please try to be in some way intoxicated. 5.3 of 10 stars.

Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer (2007)

A let down actually

[5/10 · 1 March 2011]

"Jack Brooks Monster Slayer," is not a good movie. In fact, it is a big letdown. While the production quality and tongue in cheek use of rubber costumes reflects the moderately large budget, the story itself is both flawed and boring. The culprit of the failings is found in the assumptions made by the film makers. By focusing on monster creation process, the film neglects important character development and playful action. Overall, this is a film to be missed. Admittedly, "JBMS," will strike a chord with some nostalgia buffs; yet, as a film, this is little more than a mediocre rehash of genre clichés.

The downfall of this film is two assumptions. First, the makers assume that showing the history and creation of the monster is both necessary and amusing. Second, supplying detail to the above mentioned monster ontology is assumed to also be necessary and interesting. Neither assumption is wrong, per se. The execution in this film, however, is outright boring. An extended example may help to clarify. Cooking shows run a tenuous line. Watching the act of creation is interesting and informative. Detailing every action that goes into dish preparation is dull. A cooking program needs to find a balance between informative exposition and potentially dull but important detail. The answer seems to be that every part of a cooking show is a mix of technique and technique explanation. As such, breaking down an onion is shown because it informs on knife technique in practice and also illustrates the benefits of uniform piece size in cooking. Peeling a potato or boiling water is not shown because they are important techniques that benefit little from being demonstrated. The point is that all elements of the process are evaluated on the levels of understanding that are conveyable. The same is true for the horror film. A background to the protagonist and antagonist is appreciated as long as it sets the current context as well as developing the actual characters. "JBMS," provides a great amount of detail concerning how the main monster is formed. The slow transition from human to demon is the body of the film. Choosing this transition as the focal point of the story leads to a ninety minute film; a ninety minute film that could very easily have been forty minutes. Furthermore, the added detail affords no real development. To the contrary, the monster development is the cinematic equivalent to watching a trained chef peel a potato. Essentially, this film would have benefited from a focus on devious monster action and not hum drum monster ontology.

The above stated, the film is not a total loss. The characters are likable enough, and Robert Englund clearly enjoyed this production. The use of rubber suits as opposed to CGI is a welcome throwback to the creature films of the eighties and before. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that these benefits do not come near enough to balancing out the dry, elongated, boring story telling. This film is worth a miss. I am loathe to recommend this movie even to the horror/comedy buff. There are a great many more interesting and better told stories that are actually worthy of one's time.

On a personal note, I will mention this film to friends as a real Turkey. Unfortunately, this will almost guarantee that it is seen by at least one more person. Should you feel the need to hunt this film down, the movie is best paired with low expectations and somewhat sloppy drunkenness.

The Illusionist (2010)

A beautiful film as long as one is ignorant

[8/10 · 24 February 2011]

"L'Illusioniste," is an animated feature based on a Tati script from the 1950's. The film is a melancholy tale of changing times and the illusions created to maintain a sense of normalcy. This review concerns only the film itself. A brief amount of research reveals that this film was created under less than principled circumstances. While the context of creation does color how I feel about the film, this review is an attempt to critique the film divorced from the above bias. In essence, this is a film about the varied emotional nuances associated with inevitable change. As a whole, the film is expertly crafted and is felt more so than viewed.

The Illusionist pays homage to the French director Tati. This leads to some interesting assumptions by the filmmakers. First, a familiarity with Tati and his characters is supposed. The illusionist of the story is directly taken from Tati's most famous character. To be honest, I did not know any of this when I watched the film. Reading done after watching the film (regarding the character of Tati) did actually serve to enhance the impact of the film. However, learning of the less than honest representation of this story is assumed to not be known. This is a very dangerous assumption, as understanding the background to the script and this film does in fact lead to a sad disappointment. A second assumption is that narrative ambiguity, i.e. a story open to multiple interpretations, is a positive. On the whole, this is valid. The film works as a piece that challenges the audience to find meaning and insight from various perspectives. That said, the required interaction is somewhat taxing and can occasionally lead to a sense of confusion or worse yet boredom.

As the above hints, this film is extremely interpretable. The following points are not easily classed as benefits or faults due to the interpretive nature of the film. One, the majority of the film is without dialog. The burden of story-telling is accomplished through character expression, color choice, music, and shot composition. While this was achieved with a high degree of aesthetic and technical skill, it does lead to one feeling the film rather than viewing it. As such, the "feeling" of a film is something that, at least, I am not accustomed to. The experience was enjoyable but also slightly disorienting. Two, the events of the film are commonplace. In essence, this means that very little action occurs. Much of the film is comprised of walks, interactions in a room, or traveling. The choice of mundane action serves to slow the pace of this film. For some, this slow pace may mirror the plodding progression of time that one actually experiences, for others, like myself, the pace was too slow and marked some failure in editing.

Taken as an independent work of animation, "L'Illusioniste," is a beautiful and emotion stirring film. The story and characters remain in the viewers mind being slowly analyzed and interpreted. The moral of changing times, while tried and true, is given fresh vigor by the film. Overall, this is an accomplished work that subtly teases the emotions and thoughts of the audience. Although this film does not break new ground, the characteristic storytelling and expert manipulation of emotion make this a film worth seeing.

On a personal note, researching the background of this film has some devastating effects. The potential viewer should be forewarned that enjoyment of this film is dependent on a certain degree of ignorance. As such, I do not know if I will recommend this film as it has become a somewhat moral issue for me. In trying to be unbiased, this film deserves a 7.5 of 10 rating. With bias in place, this film easily becomes a 4 of 10.

Die You Zombie Bastards! (2005)

An enjoyable failure

[2/10 · 23 February 2011]

"Die you Zombie bastards," is a film that attempts to tell a humorous tale about world domination via a zombie making machine. The main conflict is between a cannibalistic hero an alien mad scientist. While this is an enjoyable film, the end product contains almost no redeemable film making. In essence, the film is a lengthy inside joke told very poorly.

The main problems with the film lie in the assumptions that it presumes. First, odd and sociopathic behavior are used as the driving force of humor. This assumption is not in and of itself flawed. However, use of socially taboo behavior as a joke does require some finesse and context to be effective. "DYZB," provides the bare minimum of context. The audience is made aware that the story takes place on earth and is conducted by people best described as stupid. Such a stark and simplistic context causes all attempts at humor to appear as puerile silliness and shock rather than comedy with any depth. A second assumption is that taboo characters are something that people want to see. To be fair, the idea of a cannibalistic hero was a drawing point. Yet, the utter lack of any development leads a viewer to disconnect the character from the actor. Essentially, one sees a person moving around and one knows that the character is a cannibal, yet, one does not necessarily care. The attempt to bolster a shockingly low budget film with quirky characters is a complete failure. A last assumption is that stringing a series of sketches together will lead to a full story and film. This is only half correct. "DYZB," is technically a film; however, it is quite fairly critiqued as being devoid of story. Basically, the film is summarized as: A man searches for his wife and also saves the world from a zombie machine. While it is true that many great ideas begin small, this is neither great nor an idea really. "DYZB," is a fragmented set of scenes loosely tied together by an incoherent idea and characterless characters.

The above critique is purposefully harsh. The film is actually objectively bad. The production qualities are nil. The camera and camera work are sub-par. The acting ranges from wooden to overdone. The editing and story pacing is amateur at its best moments. The sound and special effects are all clearly purchased at a dollar store. In essence, this is a terrible film. With all of the above said, the film is actually enjoyable. The bad of this film is humorous. "DYZB," is clearly a stupid idea loved into existence by film students who are probably slightly behind the curve. The point that shines through is that fun was had during the making of this film. Despite being a technical and storytelling failure, the film has brief moments that are both fun and humorous. Basically, this is a film made more for the people in it than for an audience; yet, sometimes the audience is included in the joke.

On a personal note, I will recommend this film to exactly one friend. It is technically a zombie film and thus part of the full zombie experience. The only other advice I have is: 1) Watch this with a group of people. 2) Be drunk or somehow intoxicated. 3) Expect nothing of value.

Timecrimes (2007)

A time travel thriller that actually focuses on time travel

[9/10 · 22 February 2011]

"Time Crimes," is a Spanish time travel thriller exploring the human choices that occur when a person is sent a few hours into the past. The film is multi-layered, dealing with both the humorous and serious repercussions of time travel. As a movie, this is a near perfect story driven by humorous dialog and tense action sequences. While there are a few potential flaws, the film is a stand out in the time travel genre and deserves to be seen.

As with all films, a few assumptions are made of the audience. The first is standard within this genre. The story relies on the main character not going completely insane on realizing that he has traveled back in time. On the surface this may seem simple. However, imagining one's self in a time travel situation should hopefully illustrate that the scenario is oppressively paradoxical and outright horrifying. As with any good time travel story, the main character decides to trudge on and attempt to rectify the issues at hand. Second, the story requires the audience to be able to switch gears between absurdist comedy and serious moral dilemma within the course of ninety minutes. Such a massive change in perspective is slightly uncomfortable; yet, the shift amounts to a wonderful twist in the story well worth the challenge to the audience. Third, and following the above assumptions, the audience is expected to pay close attention. This is a film of details and self-referential thinking. Loosing focus on the actions and motivations will lead to misunderstanding or charges that the film is inconsistent.

The flaws of this film are really quite subjective. Basically, the story is confusing and requires attention to detail. In addition, the ending is morally ambiguous and therefore potentially hollow. To be absolutely clear, these "flaws" are positive points in my opinion. The presence of a challenging story which requires audience interpretation is an increasingly rare aspect of films seen by the mainstream. As such, a film that presents these rare traits is open to being seen as flawed or overly pretentious. On the other hand, the above mentioned traits worked in this film to present a "realistic" representation of the ramifications of time travel. The story of this film uses time travel not as a contextual set piece but rather as an integral device worthy of exploration. The accomplishment of this exploration has led to a very well written and thought out story. In addition, the high quality of acting makes the story all the more believable. An important note is that this film is clearly shot on a low budget. The funds were clearly used in the selection of empathetic actors and quality writers. The action sequences are almost devoid of special effects. The story revolves around a sense of pressured motivations and half-planned actions. While one cannot expect any visually stunning special effects, one should expect to be engulfed in a thoroughly engrossing story that will provide more than a fair share of puzzles.

"Time Crimes," is not a film directed at an audience who wishes to have a fun and mind relaxing hour and a half. Rather, the film is intended to be a thought provoking exploration of the devastating effects of time travel. As a film exploring such a fantastical premise, "Time Crimes," is a resounding success. This is a film that will provide hours of discussion as well as lingering with the viewer for several days. That is, if you pay attention.

On a personal note, I will push this film on nearly all my friends until the point of obnoxiousness. This film is great fare for discussion over the course of a longer beer and pizza filled evening. 8.5 out of 10 stars.