The Evil Dead (1981) Review

Five Michigan State University students venture into the hills to spend a weekend in an isolated cabin. There they find the Book of the Dead (a Babylonian and Sumerian text, unrelated to the Egyptian Book of the Dead), otherwise known as the Morturom Demonto. They also find a tape recording by a professor translating the ancient text and reading it aloud. An amateur book-on-tape if you will. Much to the protest of one of the students they play the tape which unleashes demonic forces that take them down one by one. Are you annoyed by the lack of a more in-depth plot summary? To be honest the above paragraph is all I am really able to tell you and still keep this review spoiler free.

The film, written and directed by Sam Raimi, is easily one of the scariest low-budget films I have ever seen. Once the horror scenes begin they don't let up until the credits roll and by the end of the film I was genuinely upset by what all had occurred. Not because it's gruesome or needlessly filled with sex but because I wanted things to work out for the characters in the film. It is one of those films where you are happy it is over.

Perhaps the best scene in the film is when the first character is possessed. She gains an ability to guess the cards in a deck and she turns to reveal hollowed out eyes, a scarred face and a much deeper voice. As if she had inhaled Sulfur Hexafluoride. She contorts her body while the demon inside her reveals its intentions. Many of you are aware that I don't generally care for splatter movies unless they can bring something to it besides blood and guts. What the film brings is false leading. There's several moments where you expect the monster to jump out and when it doesn't you can't relax.

An interesting, cheap and classic way to not have to reveal your villain is to run the camera across the ground in the spirit's point of view. I know I have discussed the trend where, because of a POV shot, we are unable to sympathize with the main characters and eventual victims. However if you never show what happens when your monster attacks you are never really put in the eyes of the villain. Sure the effects are dated and the acting is a bit cheesy but what is the most basic purpose of a horror film? It's to scare you. I have to ask myself did the film fail at its intentions. After a night of uneven sleep, I say without a doubt most certainly.

★★★★

 

 

Scream (1996) Review

Slasher films are that sub-genre of horror that give the rest of the horror films a bad name. Their purpose is put a bunch of pretty people in a situation where they have a very good chance of being stabbed, shot, disemboweled, decapitated, burned, electrocuted or disposed of. After all those films with Freddy, Jason and Michael Myers certain patterns begin to emerge. You know the big ones. Virgins never die and strange noises ought not to be investigated but probably will be so you can see another gruesome kill. There is no subtlety in a slasher movie and, since they don't scare someone by raising tension and building suspense, they increase the body count. There are always exceptions to the rule that says these films are dreck. Scream could possibly be the first one to break that rule effectively.

Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is having a rough time lately: After the brutal rape and murder of her mother a year ago, one of her classmates (Drew Barrymore) has been killed by a lunatic who harassed her with terrifying phone calls and quizzing her on the details of such films as Friday the 13th and Halloween. Soon Sydney starts receiving similar phone calls and is attacked by what we presume to be the same cloaked maniac. With her father missing, she has hardly anyone on her side except her best friend Tatum (Rose McGowan) and Tatum's brother Dewey (David Arquette), a half-bright cop. The murderer could be any number of people: Sydney's father; her cute but overly intense boyfriend Billy (Skeet Ulrich); Tatum's boyfriend Stuart (Matthew Lillard); Randy the movie geek (Jamie Kennedy) or the "tabloid twit" Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox).

Generally when people think of modern horror they are usually aware of two names even if they have never delved into it before. Now that I think about it can you imagine a film directed by Wes Craven and based on a book by Stephen King? I digress but those were the names I planned to mention before I got off-track. Craven, the director, knows how to structure a film to get your audience reacting whatever that reaction may be. He also knows enough about the horror genre to make fun of it intelligently. What he manages to do with Kevin Williamson's script is put more of the focus on the scenes in between the murders. After the horrific opening scene we go to Sydney's bedroom and a scene that for all intents and purposes is sweet and almost romantic. These scenes serve to give the audience a sense of who the characters are as people instead of happy, brainless creatures who spout one-liners until they die.

One of the many things that work so well about the film is its willingness to poke fun at itself and the genre. One does not realize while you watch it that the film is almost self-aware. The characters in it even speak about their lives as if they were in a movie. Its jabs at the horror genre are whimsical and clever. So much so that it crosses into the realm of satire without losing its horror film feel.

★★★1/2

House of Dracula (1945) Review

The third film in my OctHorrorFest series of viewings and reviews is House of Dracula. It's one of the two major monster mash-ups that Universal put out to milk the money for their creations. Sometimes what happens when studios decide to combine their most popular creatures is disastrous. Remember Alien VS Predator?

Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) are tired of being monsters and so they both travel (separately) to Visaria, presumably somewhere in Europe, to enlist the help of a Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) who has a reputation of treating patients with strange diseases. With the help of his hunchbacked assistant Nina (Jane Adams), Dr. Edelman discovers that Dracula has a rare blood disease and Talbot has pressure on certain parts of the brain which bring about his hideous transformation. Unfortunately Edelman's treatment will take more than a month to be ready. Talbot, in a last ditched effort to end it all, jumps off a nearby cliff and into the ocean. He survives (as happened with all his previous attempts) and washes up into an underground cave. When Edelman joins Talbot they discover the body of the Frankenstein monster (Glenn Strange). How the monster managed to go from sinking in a swamp in House of Frankenstein to a cliff-side cave here is not clear. While he deals with the moral question that plagued all the other scientists who came across the monster, Edelman realizes that his experiments with Dracula have caused him to become a vampire as well. All of this leads to a showdown where only one monster can survive.

It's a shame that Onslow Stevens' career took a downward spiral towards the end of his life because he is really quite good in this film. The juxtaposition of the two sides of Dr. Edelman in the final act of the film has an almost Jekyll/Hyde feel to it. It's more than tousling up his hair and moving around with an evil grin on his face. He looks like Dr. Edelman, he sounds like Dr. Edelman but we know that these two are not at all the same. Although Stevens shines the truly great performance of the film is given by Lon Chaney Jr. who was an actor that, unfortunately, was not appreciated during his lifetime for the wonderfully complex portrayals of tortured souls or hulking monsters that he brought forth. By this, his fourth appearance as Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man, Chaney exudes a tragedy that is familiar to those who have seen the other films but no less meaningful.

My only lament for the film is that the Frankenstein monster is left with nothing to do but lie on an operating table and, in the film's climax, have a thankless lurch around the lab. This is a far cry from Boris Karloff's riveting emotional portrayal of the monster in three of the earlier films. Still the fault is not with Strange. He does the best he can with what he's given which sadly isn't much.

Offering just enough scares and plenty of camp, House of Dracula is a wonderful monster mash up for a more civilized audience. Is it perfect? No but the thing about these films that you have to remember is that they are like a fine wine. They just get better with age and the more you watch them.

★★★



 

The House on Haunted Hill (1959) Review

This film is a frequently viewed favorite of mine. I try to watch it at least once a year. Usually this happens during the month of October. Featuring plenty of twists and a couple effective scares it is the second of my daily reviews for a horror film this month.

Vincent Price stars as Frederick Loren. A sinister gent (you're surprised?) who owns a sinister mansion on a sinister hill. He offers several of his enemies $10,000 each. As is the normal practice with such an offer he, just for fun, throws in a catch. If they agree to spend one night in his mansion they get the prize. If they leave or are somehow murdered they don't receive anything and their prize money is divided evenly between the remaining guests. Frederick festively gives each of his invitees a tiny coffin containing a handgun, then he takes delight in setting in motion a number of gadgets and devices designed to frighten the guests to using their weapons. The end result, he hopes, being that they all kill each other.

There's a certain moment in the film which utilizes what I like to call a "jump scare". A jump scare is intended to make people jump and then chuckle. This is a cheap technique that gives your audience five seconds of shock and then they're only reaction is to laugh at themselves. However in this film the jump scare is a primitive version of that technique in that there is no loud bang or sharp musical chord to accompany the scary image. I don't want to ruin that moment for the people who haven't seen the film or have never heard of said moment. Besides if you have seen the film you know exactly what moment I am talking about so I'll just say that after more than fifty years it still startles people and Vincent Price is still at his creepiest (you're surprised?) in this film.

All I can suggest is that, if given the choice between this film and the inadequate remake with Geoffrey Rush, search for this one. It might take you a little longer to find but trust me. It's worth it.

★★★1/2

 

Monkey Shines (1988) Review

You know those films that are so bad they're brilliant? Films that offer more enjoyment to make fun of than to take seriously. They are the films that you must take with a grain of salt. Otherwise you should be prepared for an awful experience. Frequently these films tend to be low-budget horror films. Monkey Shines is a film that is no exception. It is most certainly one of the films that the term "awesomely bad" seems to be coined for. Therefore I shall be giving it an earnest and occasionally good review. I know that the film is fairly, for lack of a better phrase, crappy but in this case entertainment value trumps what I know to be a low quality film.

Allan (Jason Beghe) takes care of himself. He eats healthy and jogs several times a day with a backpack full of bricks. His lifestyle and habits make little difference when he is hit by a truck and becomes a paraplegic. Allan loses all will to live until his best friend Geoffrey (John Pankow) gives him a genetically engineered monkey as an assistance animal. The monkey's name is Ella (Boo) and she becomes Allan's best friend while helping him. Eventually Ella's extreme intelligence causes her to develop feelings toward her master while developing feelings of jealousy toward her trainer (Kate McNeil). Ella begins to carry out Allan's subconscious wishes caused by his rage and his desire for revenge.

So much of this film is too ridiculous to be scary. I hope that director George A. Romero knew what he was doing when he decided to write this film. After all he's a man who has made a career out of making zombie films with underlying social commentaries for those smart enough to notice them. I admit I have not read the novel by Michael Stewart on which the film is based. I'm willing to give Romero the benefit of the doubt since this film was re-cut by Orion Pictures, the studio that released the film. The performances for the film are just bloody awful. Boo, the monkey actually outshines all of her human costars. Just as an example Beghe spends nearly the entire film paralyzed from the shoulders down. This means that he retains the ability to move his head and instead of moving as a realistic person he becomes a bobble head. The best example of this is when Allan yells at his overprotective mother, "Mother did you see my hand move or didn't you?!"
I admit the film itself is awful but God help me I liked watching it. If I didn't do you really think I'd give it such a high rating. Oh, what would we do without our guilty pleasures?

★★1/2



 

Shame (2011) Review

Brandon (Michael Fassbender) is a successful businessman in his 30's living in New York. To most of the people around him, Brandon appears calm and confident, but inside his home he wrestles with a powerful demon. Addiction. He is obsessed with pornography (even views it at work) and only desires to engage in short-term relationships with women that allow him to keep the world at arm's length. The grim routine of Brandon's life is upset when his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) stops by for an extended visit without notice. Brandon and Sissy, although close, are polar opposites. Where Brandon is reserved and introverted, Sissy is outgoing and flashy. As Sissy forces her brother to look closely at his current situation and confront his past, he comes to understand the circumstances that made him the man he has become and his seemingly unbreakable cover of calm begins to crack.

Michael Fassbender is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors with each performance I see. This film just put the man on a list of actors to watch. Take for instance the scene in which Brandon, while walking on a pier, comes to the realization that he cannot overcome his addiction and in a rare moment breaks down and releases his suppressed emotions. This scene is played with such heartbreaking realism that we feel the need to root for Brandon where earlier in the film we might find him predatory, abusive and overall unlikeable. Fassbender's ability to play that unlikeable man who we find ourselves hoping the best for is nothing short of extraordinary.

The film is directed by Steve McQueen (no, not that one) and there's several decisions he made in the filming that need to be mentioned. Many of the scenes feature very long shots. I'm a big fan of very few cuts. What's so great about long shots you might wonder? The most important thing is this allows us to see everything that is happening. When a director includes too many cuts I am reminded that I am watching a movie. With Shame the phrase "fly on the wall" comes to mind. Everything that happens, including a very uncomfortable scene between Sissy and Brandon, unfolds for us in long takes. This technique only further shows the talent of the film's lead actor.

With regards to the sex scenes, McQueen takes an approach that I am a firm believer in. A sex scene in a film should be sensual in nature and not sexual. The film features one such scene in particular. Brandon goes to the apartment of two women and sleeps with them both. While watching this scene I am reminded of The English Patient's love scenes.

A brilliantly worded script by McQueen and fully-fleshed out competent performance by Fassbender recommend multiple viewings.

★★★★

American Reunion (2012) Review

You can basically expect two things when you go to see an American Pie film. One. An all-encompassing amount of sex. Two. An all-emcompassing amount of sex-related jokes. Basically these two things are what American Reunion gives us. Jim (Jason Biggs), Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), Stifler (Seann William Scott) and all the rest (I'm too lazy to list them) all return home for their high school reunion. Sure some of them have relationship problems and Jim's Dad makes everything really awkward. But that's about it.

As I'm sure you must be aware if you ever looked in the 5.99 bin at your local Wal-Mart there are approximately seven separate films in the franchise. This is only one of four to feature all these characters and the rest were released direct-to-dvd. The film itself elicited two separate reactions from me. One was a couple of instances of genuine laughter (one involved Jim's Dad [Eugene Levy]) and a whole lot of head-shaking. I prepared for that by sitting in the back of the theater so no one would see my annoying non-frat boy reaction. Unfortunately I was informed after the screening by one of the individuals in my party that he could see it several times.

There are really only two types of jokes in this film. There are the bad jokes that become good by one or two actions and the good jokes that go too far. I'm going to go ahead and reveal what the other joke was. You know the one that redeemed itself and then went too far? After being humiliated by a trio of high school punks, Stifler seeks his revenge. He ties their jet skis to his truck and silently sneaks to their icebox, opens it, and evacuates his bowels into it complete with nasty sound effect. He runs off and, true to formula of a collage party film, high school punk #1 opens it and sticks his hand into it to get a beer. The thing is that excrement jokes, in and of themselves, are not funny and the act of covering someone in said excrement is also not funny. Now, you may say, "Joe, why when you were so annoyed by the same effect in Joe Dirt and Fast Five do you give American Reunion a pass?" The answer is simple. While performing the act Jim asks Stifler, as any rational person would do, what he is doing. Stifler smiles and, silently, informs him what he is doing sitting on the icebox with his shorts around his ankles. That was what I laughed at. Then they had to ruin it by showing the contents on high school punk #1. From the looks of it methinks Stifler needs to eat more yogurt with live and active cultures.

The problem is that the franchise has been raucous and bordering offensive since the very beginning. With each passing film I fear the filmmakers must up the ante on how far they can push it. Why? This is what the audience expects. At this point the audience expects to see a man's penis behind a clear pot lid.

You know what I would have loved? If for once, just once, not everything works out for these people. Can't one of them get hit by a car and not walk away from it? Can't we end the film with them sitting on the sidewalk realizing their life sucks? Why does everybody have to get laid by the end?

★

 

 

Sleeping Beauty (2011) Review

Lucy (Emily Browning) is a 22 year-old university student who spends her time outside of school working a number of jobs. She works at a coffee shop, volunteers at a research lab and as a photocopy clerk. She answers an ad for women to make at least $250 an hour. Starting out as a lingerie-clad waitress she gains the favor of her employers and soon is promoted to the job of Sleeping Beauty. The job requires her to be drugged and sleep nude while paying customers do whatever they want with her body short of penetration.

This film has the emotional warmth of a walk in freezer. The depiction of human nature is not only completely miserable. It is unbearably, ridiculously miserable. There seems to be an attempt to replicate the films of Stanley Kubrick, particularly Eyes Wide Shut. That film was a masterpiece. Sleeping Beauty is a near abysmal implementation of faux eroticism and fails to be even remotely erotic.

Here's the thing. Much has been said about Browning's "visceral" performance and bravery for baring all onscreen. If nudity automatically translated to a good performance Elizabeth Berkley would have won an Academy Award for Showgirls. Did she? No. I should say that it's not entirely Browning's fault for an unmoving and uninvolving performance. The script, written by Julia Leigh (who also directed) gives her very little to do but walk around in the same miniskirt day after day and then take off her clothes and sleep. However Miss Browning cannot escape all the blame. I couldn't help but wonder where her natural accent goes from scene to scene and the finale features a scream that is neither engaging nor short enough to avoid laughing at.

The script does not present any background for Lucy and we learn nothing about her. We don't get to find out what she's studying or why. We don't get to discover how she makes the decision to take the job she does. Why can't we know of her dreams or fears? Is it the intention of Leigh to present her as a thoroughly unlikable, rude and unfeeling woman? I'm not sure but that was my reaction to it. I could care less about her friend who is either a drug addict or has a terminal illness or both.

The most annoying technique in the film is a slow fade to black. I counted nine. I'm sure that there were more but I lost count. When you have very little happening onscreen besides one character sitting down somewhere and you don't move the camera I suppose you have to put in some sort of attempt at style. Nice attempt. And before I stop writing this review like I should have stopped watching the film I want to say this. Julia Leigh needs to watch Creature from the Black Lagoon and see that no one wants to listen to bubbles for twenty minutes so the occasional piece of music would be nice. She needs to realize that silence is boring if not used appropriately and sparingly.

Zero Stars

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) Review

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a film that lacks clarity and structure. A near constant jumping around of time periods and obscurity create a feeling of confusion and, I must confess, made me feel very lost. Remember the 1992 film Unforgiven? That was a film with a subpar script and a subpar story that featured fantastic performances. This film suffers from the same condition. Of course given the caliber of actors in this film (Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Colin Firth, Mark Strong) saying that they give great performances is like saying that chocolate is sweet.

I hate to do this but I can hardly remember a thing about the film and so much trouble following its plot that I am left with either not including a synopsis or copying it from another source. I pride myself on (almost) never having to do this but I want to be fair to it so I will have to take it from IMDB:

"In the early 1970s during the Cold War, the head of British Intelligence, Control (John Hurt), resigns after an operation in Budapest, Hungary goes badly wrong. It transpires that Control believed one of four senior figures in the service was in fact a Russian agent - a mole - and the Hungary operation was an attempt to identify which of them it was. George Smiley (Gary Oldman) had been forced into retirement by the departure of Control, but is asked by a senior government figure to investigate a story told to him by a rogue agent, Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy), that there was a mole. Smiley considers that the failure of the Hungary operation and the continuing success of Operation Witchcraft (an apparent source of significant Soviet intelligence) confirms this, and takes up the task of finding him. Through the efforts of Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley obtains information that eventually leads him to Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong), the agent at the heart of the Hungary fiasco. He is then able to put together the pieces of the puzzle, which leads him to the identity of the mole and the true intent of Operation Witchcraft."

A major issue is that too many characters are introduced in too rapid a succession. In one single scene we meet every single senior member of the organization and are hardly even able to follow what their names are, for one thing, and what they're purpose is for another. This is a cheap and lazy way to bring in all this information at once and I sat there in the theater scratching my head as I wondered where a character came from and if they had already introduced them and saying, "wait, didn't that guy get shot?"

Unmemorable and confusing Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy leaves much to be desired.

★1/2

 

 

A Separation (2011) Review

A film that can only be described as disappointing, A Separation begins uninterestingly and ends anti-climactically. As I have not seen the other contenders for Best Foreign Language Film I cannot comment on whether or not it deserved the Oscar. All I can do is report on what I didn't like.

Simin (Leila Hatami) wants to leave Iran to try and give her daughter Termah (Sarina Farhadi) a better life. However her husband Nader (Peyman Moadi) can't leave as he has to take care of his father with Alzheimer's. Simin leaves Nader as he refuses to go with her. Termah, in an attempt to bring her parents back together decides to live with her father. Nader hires a young woman named Razieh (Sareh Bayat) to be caregiver for his father. Nader does not know that Razieh is not only pregnant, but also working without her unstable husband's (Shahab Hosseini) permission. Coming home to find his father tied to the bed and Razieh nowhere around, Nader literally throws her out. Later he is charged with murder after she suffers a miscarriage supposedly caused by falling down the stairs.

The film ends with Termah being forced to choose between her parents. While Simin and Nader wait in a hallway for her decision the credits begin to roll. I am not against ambiguous endings when I care about the individuals involved. That's where my biggest issue with the film lies. It was immaterial to me if Simin and Nader get back together or if Razieh is telling the truth or what happens to Nader's father. The only characters I felt any sympathy or empathy for where Termah and Razieh's young daughter. They are unwillingly simply caught up in their issues of their parents. Beyond these two this is no such thing as a likable character.

The film is tedious and dull until we reach the catalyst, which even then is uninteresting. It doesn't so much forget the title of the film as much as it goes off on an irritating tangent from what could have been a film about how Simin and Nader deal with their conflict and the difficult decisions they must make. Perhaps someone who is fluent in the language being spoken would feel more of a connection with the characters.

There is one scene in the film that I enjoyed. It is the scene in which Nader confesses a truth to his daughter. For all you spoiler police don't worry I won't give too much away about it.

Like I said, I can't comment on whether or not it deserved the Oscar until the other films and I won't fault it for the typo-ridden subtitles. I'd rather see "threatening" misspelled several times than hear someone else dub the lines in English.

★★

The Artist (2011) Review

A fantastically phenomenal film that harkens back to the early days of cinema, The Artist tells the story of George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). He is arguably the most admired silent film star of 1927. During the post-premiere of his latest film The Russian Affair he runs into an aspiring young actress/dancer named Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) which ends up being the springboard to her career. With the advent of the talkies their roles of success are reversed. Peppy becomes Kinograph's new biggest star while George, who rejects and resists the entire idea of talking pictures, fades into oblivion. Peppy attempts to help George as much as she can, even going so far as to convince her producer Al Zimmer (John Goodman) to let George read for a major role. Ultimately it would have to be up to George if he manages to be successful in an era where he doesn't believe audiences are interested in hearing him speak.

The film is the first (mostly) silent film to receive a large release in theaters in over thirty years. I love classic cinema and with that comes a love of silent films. The Artist is as close to extraordinary and perfect a film as it gets. Certainly one of the best films that I have seen in recent years and currently is a leading contender for a spot on my list of my all-time favorite films. There is a massive amount of affection for the films that inspired it and its love of those films is nothing short of brilliant. I must confess that I cannot praise it enough.

The thing about a silent film is that because there is no sound, short of the orchestra, and so your ears hunger for it. There isn't any dialogue actually heard until the last five minutes. In this scene Jean Dujardin says his only two words. Upon being asked by Al Zimmer if he and Peppy can do another take of a considerably complicated dance sequence he replies simply, "With pleasure." When he finally speaks I felt an enormous amount of elation that he does so. It's a wonderful scene where you can celebrate the emotional journey that this character goes through.

Throughout the entire film I got the feeling like I was a member of the audience in 1927. Perhaps it was the aspect ratio of 4:3 which was what was actually used for 35 mm films in the silent film era of cinema. Some films need the aspect ratio of 2:39:1 but The Artist is a film that is made better by the decision of a lower aspect ratio.

I've heard it said that the three most important things for an actor to use are their voice, face and hands. Silent film actors have a particularly larger challenge as they don't have the use of their voice and so they must walk a fine line with their facial expressions and hands. Jean Dujardin's performance fits comfortably with the likes of Lon Chaney, Charles Chaplin, Conrad Veidt and etc. so that you believe that he could have in fact been an actor during that time period. He hams it up if you will just enough without it being gimmicky.

As I said I cannot praise this film enough. It is extraordinary and so much more.

★★★★

 

 

Hugo (2011) Review

A masterful picture made with an exponential love of early and classic cinema. Its wonderful cinematography coupled with an interesting cast of characters in a "keep you guessing" story makes Hugo Martin Scorcese's best film since Goodfellas.

Set in Paris in 1931 Hugo tells the story of a resourceful and imaginative orphan who, upon the death of his father (Jude Law), begins a quest to uncover the secret of an automaton (a mechanical man intended to use a pen and write a message). Convinced the message is from his father Hugo goes at great lengths to repair it. He hides in a railway station and runs the clocks all while avoiding the ever watchful Chief Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) Hugo's journey brings him to the attention of a bitter toy-shop owner (Ben Kingsley) after he is caught trying to steal parts for the automaton. The toy-shop owner, Georges Méliès takes Hugo's notebook, which contains notes and drawings on the automaton, from him with the intent of burning it. Hugo follows Georges to his home where he meets Georges goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz). Hugo and Isabelle follow all the possible clues which eventually lead them to a secret about Méliès.

Hugo is in many ways not a Scorcese film. There are no gangsters and the film is not Rated-R. It does however speak to Scorcese's adoration of film and his belief of protecting the films of the past. It is thoroughly upsetting that half of all films made before 1940 are gone. Hugo is his love letter to cinema and a well-made love letter at that.

Something that I was able to pick up on was the wonderful cinematography and digitally developed backgrounds. The backgrounds and shots of the Paris skyline look like glossier Matte paintings then we've seen previously. This film is all about escaping to the movies and the "not quite reality" look allows us to do just that. Your opinion may differ from mine about artificially created backgrounds but the work done in this film is a wonderful. Indeed the use of lighting and color in the film presents Hugo's relationship to each character. When Hugo is around Méliès there are a lot of blacks and greys and when he later runs into Isabelle the color turns to a hopeful gold. Whatever Hugo's particular feeling is at any given time is reflected in the film's look.

Distinguishably one of the better films of 2011 and most absolutely one of Martin Scorcese's best films he has ever made that presents a message that I unreservedly agree with. Movies and the experience of going to them are "what dreams are made of."

★★★★

Winnie the Pooh (2011) Review

Less childlike and more childish the latest installment in the franchise is an overall abysmal and highly disappointing turn for the characters and the stories created by A.A Milne and popularized in the United States by Walt Disney.

Attempting to return to the form presented by The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh the film is more a series of animated shorts compiled into one film. Among them are the story of Eeyore (voice of Bud Luckey) losing his tail and Winnie The Pooh, Tigger (both voiced by Jim Cummings), Owl (voiced by Craig Ferguson), Rabbit (voiced by Tom Kenny), Piglet (voiced by Travis Oates), Kanga (voiced by Kristen Anderson-Lopez) and Roo (voiced by Wyatt Dean Hall) all begin a contest to find a new one. While misinterpreting a note from Christopher Robin (Jack Boulter), Owl convinces everyone that he has been kidnapped by a horrible creature known as the Backson (Back soon) and Pooh attempts to find honey.

There are several songs in the film (written by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez) and every single one of them fails to live up to the wonderful songs written by Robert and Richard Sherman for the previous shorts. There is a lack of charm and constant laziness in the new songs that causes them to be unmemorable. Repeating "honey" thirteen times does not make a good song and the complete shortage of talent in Zooey Deschanel is apparent in her singing of at least one of the songs.

One thing I have always loved about the characters that were originally created by A.A. Milne and illustrated by E.H Shepard was how honest and open they were with each other. They never tried to pull anything over on one another. In this film that is gone. The script, developed by no less than ten individuals, is so chock full of somewhat sinister actions (such as "toss in the pig") and lying that the individuals perpetually border on unlikeable. Perhaps I am lamenting for an era of animation and a style of storytelling that is gone or maybe I haven't given many programs the chances they deserve. Whatever the reason, I was severely disappointed in what I have been given by Disney in their attempts to update the characters to fit into a world of cynicism.

If I was to say anything good about the film it would be the voice work by Jim Cummings. He is the only member of the cast whose performances I didn't hate. His near pitch-perfect imitation of the late Sterling Holloway is so spot on that you would swear it was the same person. Of course he has had years to practice but he, nonetheless remains true to his characters unlike the rest of the cast.

★

The Grey (2012) Review

Man vs. nature. There has been several of these type of films as I am sure you are aware. The films present a major fear of humans. How does one survive when they are lost in the wilderness going up against the animals that live full-time in that wilderness? The Grey exploits that fear in a satisfying albeit predictable way.

John Ottway (Liam Neeson) is a member of an oil drilling team based in Alaska. His job is to kill wolves that surround and threaten the team. On his last day he writes a letter to his wife and walks out into the woods to commit suicide. However while kneeling in the snow with his rifle in his mouth he hears a wolf howl which stops him. Upon completion of the job the team and Ottway board a plane headed for home. The plane is unable to withstand the power of a blizzard and crashes in a barren wasteland killing all but Ottway and seven of the oil-drillers. Ottway immediately assumes control of the group whose initial plan is to stay with the destroyed remnants of the plane but upon realizing they are in a wolf pack's territory (especially after one member is torn apart by the wolves in the middle of the night) the team decides that it is better to walk south in the hope of being rescued or finding civilization. The wolves continue to hunt the men on their journey and, as you would expect, one by one the men are killed by the cold, wolves, trees etc.

The film unfortunately is far too predictable at times to really feel as original as I wanted it to feel. I was literally able to sit in the theater and know who would be killed next and/or how they would be killed and so the film follows a formula and plays it safe. It doesn't shock or frighten nearly as much as it should when one factors in the harsh environment the fortunately fully fleshed out characters are in.

Previously I mentioned the film's satisfying use of the fear the characters have. It might seem as though I am contradicting myself but the truth is that half the film is predictable while the other half is a lean forward in your seat type of film. The scenes in which the characters are surrounded by the wolves or face to face with them are among some of the most frightening and intense scenes in the film. Dracula's opinion of their musical prowess comes to mind in several scenes. I only wish the filmmakers had focused more on the eyes of the wolves which are the feature that an audience relates to most in an animal onscreen. There are issues with the CGI animation of the wolves but to be fair Hollywood has always had issues with the animation of wolves and indeed the animation of creatures with fur. The wolves lack weight when running or attacking and their size in the film is excessive and visibly surpasses the average wolf size while some of their hunting behavior is inaccurate.

The trivia section of imdb for the film mentions that the atrocious Bradley Cooper was initially cast in Liam Neeson's role and all I can be is thankful for the change because Neeson's performance is one his better. As my friend remarked after the film's credits, "when I grow up I want to be Liam Neeson."

An interesting take for the film's cinematography is to create it in a coherent style with the film's title. There is a lot of attention obviously given to the color palette and style of the shots (although I wish there weren't so many establishing shots of the snow covered mountains). Everything is either gray, white or black which creates a feeling of dreariness to the film.

An overall fear-provoking and intense picture that walks a balance and unfortunately sometimes falls off into predictable and pointlessness.

★★★

 

 

 

Anonymous (2011) Review

Anonymous is about what you'd expect. Ludicrous hypotheticals abound in this film directed by Roland Emmerich, who you might remember directed the equally ludicrous though far worse 10,000 B.C. The film's tagline reads "What If Shakespeare Was a Fraud?" which basically sums up what the film is about. It subscribes to the Oxford theory and suggests that the plays were written by the 17th Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans). Due to his status as an important individual in society and his relationship with William Cecil (David Thewlis) and Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson) he cannot take credit for the plays and sonnets so he decides to make Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) put his name to them and have them performed. Who should happen to take credit from Jonson but the film's biggest buffoon William Shakespeare, played entertainingly by Rafe Spall. The next hour and a half is as slow and tedious as Shakespeare can be to read.

As I said the film is filled with absurdity. It does not follow a chronological story but instead tries a rather transparent tactic of confusing the audience by fastforwarding and backflashing to mask it's absurdity and historical inaccuracies (such as Young Elizabeth having near constant relations with several men and birthing several bastards) and anachronisms (for example Macbeth is seen being performed during Elizabeth I's reign even though it was performed during the reign of King James. There is also a scene where the Globe burns down nearly ten years before it actually burned down).

Despite the ridiculousness of the film there are several things of merit. The performances by Ifans, Redgrave and Edward Hogg (who is particularly creepy as Robert Cecil) are all of a fairly high quality but it is David Thewlis who shines in his role and gives quite possibly the best performance of his career thus far. The character of William Cecil goes through, physically speaking, the most change transforming from young to old to dying but a great makeup is only going to be able to carry an actor so far. Without the subtleties that Thewlis gives in his role it would simply be a great makeup wasted.


Besides the performances the film is actually good from a technical standpoint. When I say technical I am referring to the costumes, cinematography, makeup, art direction etc. I guarantee that there will be some Academy Award nominations for those moments

I know the theories and arguments about who wrote Shakespeare is quite polarized and I admit I am not an expert on Shakespeare. Oxfordians think that the Stratfordians are idiots and vice versa. I know a lot of you Shakespearean scholars and students will think me an idiot because I refuse to "pick a side" but the truth, my friends, is that at the end of the day it doesn't matter who wrote Hamlet, Henry V, Sonnet #81, Macbeth, A Midsummer Night's Dream, King Lear or Romeo & Juliet. They all were written by someone and exist for us to analyze, praise, scrutinize, be bored by or just plain enjoy.

★★★

Beginners (2010) Review

Rarely do you have a film like Beginners. It is a film that works on mostly every level and is so wonderfully simple in its complexity. Graphic designer Oliver (Ewan McGregor) meets a free-spirited actress named Anna (Mélanie Laurent) after his father, Hal (Christopher Plummer) has passed away. As Oliver gets to know Anna he realizes that he is very much inexperienced in the prospect of a long-lasting romantic relationship. Oliver's memories of his father, who, following the death of his wife of 45 years came out of the closet to lead a full, energized and wonderful life and possibly encourage Oliver to find a woman and do the same and find true happiness. Oliver ends up taking in Hal's dog, named Arthur who can understand up to 150 words but does not talk except in subtitles. It is unclear as to whether the words at the bottom of the screen are what the dog is thinking or just what Oliver decides the dog would say if he could. One thing does remain clear and that's the fact that Arthur is the only character in the film that truly has a good bead on his life and is able to be happy with no effort at all.

The film moves from time period to time period with surprising finesse and fluidity. All too often a filmmaker attempts to do this in a way that is fresh and doesn't annoy the audience and fails in their attempt. Writer/director Mike Mills succeeds by presenting all the flashbacks as Oliver's memories. This allows the audience to feel comfortable with the seemingly random jumping around because the human mind recalls memories at random. The script really doesn't feel chaotic as one would expect or would easily happen. Oliver's narration in the film provides the set up by saying, "this is 2003. This is nature and the stars and the president and movies. This is what happy looks like in 1955. This was smoking etc."

The three leads (McGregor, Laurent and Plummer) all deliver great performances in the film with special mention going to the perfection of Christopher Plummer in his now Oscar-nominated role. As Hal he is a cheerful and simple man that is surprisingly transparent. He does not overplay the stereotypical gay man but instead plays it as a man who is finally being true to what he is. This makes Plummer's performance one of his most human performances. I do admit that although I have only seen her in one other film (Inglorious Basterds) I predict and expect great things to come from Laurent throughout her career in the US. I guarantee that she will bring many other great performances in the future.

One of the things that bothered me the whole film though was the musical score. Don't get your dander up. I do not say that I necessarily disliked the score as much as it's placement in the film. It feels out of place in this film. It is almost as though composer Roger Neill wrote the music for another film and decided to put it to use here. Although pleasant to listen to by itself it simply does not fit here. Still the film is so wonderfully made on every other level so I suppose in the grand scheme of things the issues I have with the music are a minor inconvenience.

★★★1/2

Ten Most Hated of 2011

I love doing this list. Revenge is such a sweet, sweet thing

10. Winnie the Pooh

Not very long ago the characters were always honest with each other and never tried to put anything over on each other. Here they have become deceitful and cynical to the point of unlikable.

9. The Green Lantern

Ludicrous looking visual effects and the uselessness of Ryan Reynolds drop the hopefulness of this film to abysmally stupid

8. The Roommate

A dull and unnecessary remake of an interesting, although admittedly, flawed film.

7. Scream 4

Far too predictable to be scary

6. Priest

This film is a murky, unimaginable mess with vampires that seem to be covered in sausage casing

5. Conan the Barbarian

There was no reason to make such a pointless film. 90 minutes of Conan stabbing people and the ground

4. Zookeeper

Animals break their silence and the only thing they can think of is to talk to Kevin James. Why, you ask? Who cares?

3. Your Highness

An offensive, unfunny gag "comedy" which features Natalie Portman following up an Oscar win with a ridiculous bad performance.

2. Sucker Punch

A goofy and failed attempt to appeal to the twenty-something male members of the audience by having pretty girls back-flip in skimpy outfits in slow motion.

1. The Hangover Part II

Don't tell me you're surprised

Top Ten Favorites of 2011

It's now time for me to put together a list of my actual favorite movies that I saw in 2011. I admit that I haven't seen every film released, and there are many I still want to see, so this isn't so much a list of what could be considered the "best". This is a list of the films I was lucky enough to see that I saw as being above average quality.

10. Super 8

An enjoyable film made by lovers of science-fiction films for lovers of those same films.

9. Rango

Okay, so I might have not liked the flat humor in the film but its animation is quite gorgeous so it gets a spot.

8. The Adjustment Bureau

A great, if underused, performance by Terrence Stamp brought what could have been an unmemorable film to a higher level

7. Our Idiot Brother

A funny film that lacks any unpleasant cynicism

6. Paul

While watching it I realized that not only do I know people like the two main characters, I am people like the two main characters

5: 50/50

Humor in the light of excessive drama can be hard to pull off but this film manages to do so tastefully.

4: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Excellent special effects and an effective, mesmerizing performance by Andy Serkis recommend this film

3: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

No one is more surprised than myself that, being overall unimpressed by the franchise, I am putting this on my list

2: The Muppets

Didn't I say that this film would have a spot?

1: Rio

A wonderfully colorful, cheerful film that even several months since its release still is enjoyable to watch