Review: "Life Itself"

In his review of the 3D re-release of Titanic, film critic Roger Ebert wrote:

"James Cameron's film is not perfect. It has some flaws, but I hate the way film critics employ that word "flaw," as if they are jewelers with loupes screwed into their eye sockets, performing a valuation."

This is a line that I not only agree with wholeheartedly, but something I have taken as advice when criticizing
a movie. In college, a good friend of mine would often ask me to define what art is, and if it can be confined to just a few mediums. The answer lies in the mind of the beholder - anything can be considered art, from brick laying to murder (my college friend suggested that last one). To expand further, an art form should not and cannot be confined to a strict standard. Sure, there are basics in storytelling and expression through film, but they can be creatively manipulated and re-imagined in all sorts of ways. Basically, movies are not to be examined as one would a diamond. A movie can be more than one thing.

Roger Ebert spent his career as a film critic observing and picking apart cinema, explaining why and how, from his point of view, what kind of thing or things a particular movie was. His body of work was elegant, evocative and accessible, enlightening many a reader. This I knew. What I didn't know was that Roger was initially assigned to be a film critic. Fate?

He Didn't Care for "Superman Returns"

Just the other day, Roger Ebert announced the formation of Ebert Digital, a new venture “devoted to the creation of new digital products that build on the lifelong work of the world’s preeminent film critic.” This was planned to include a newly formatted RogerEbert.com, where the man himself would serve as editor, nurturing a handpicked slew of reviewers.

Since that announcement, the contact information for this project has been displayed in a tab on my browser. It’s there, waiting for me to use it.

I’m in a constant state of hesitation; would I get a response? If so, from who? And what will they say? I’d like to think that my writing is good enough... A couple of deep breaths are needed here. It’s just an email. Sure, it’s a big deal, asking to take part in a website run by the king of your craft, but it’s not the end of the world if nothing comes of it.

After all, this is the guy that didn’t like Superman Returns.

Review: "House of Bad"

Just the other day, the good folks at MovieBoozer setup a debate between myself and fellow reviewer Mitch Hansch over the movie Olympus Has Fallen. Despite some problems with the format, we came to a mutual understanding for each others opinions. When the recording was over, however, I couldn’t help but wonder; are all opinions on movies created equal?

Far be it for me to deny another critic their right to review, or for an audience member to express themselves, but some ratings just confuse me. How can someone rate 2001: A Space Odyssey six beers or The Happening thumbs up? Sometimes, a movie can generate opinions from both sides of the spectrum, and that’s fine. But sometimes, there just is no valid opposing view.

For House of Bad, there can be only one grade - poor.

And I really hate that I typed that, but it’s just true. The movie is about three half sisters (though maybe only one of them is half?) who have just robbed a drug dealer of his stash, and hide out in the most secure and off the grid place they can think of; their old childhood home. They figure they’ll hide out for two weeks, then skip town (even though skipping town first might’ve saved them some trouble). The big sis takes full control, the one confirmed half sis struggles with drug withdrawals and the middle sis tries to hold it all together. But the dark history of the house may be too much for them to handle…

…or for the director. Overacting, over expository and redundant dialogue, bad editing and confusing story moments all make for something unintentionally funny. Horror films are known for a level of campiness and fun, but this was going for a more dramatic thriller theme. Unfortunately, it approaches its theme with the skill level of a bad late night cable softcore porno. At one point, the big sis is standing alone in a room, naked, bathed in moonlight, with a gun to her head. She goes on and on about how her life got so messed up, before a vision of her evil father appears. Continuing to monologue, she stares out the window, with an eye twitching like a mad scientist in an insane asylum. I laughed hard, knowing that I probably was supposed to feel unnerved.

There is another scene where the man they stole the drugs from shows up at the house, and ties the girls up. He drones on and on, over using the f word and repeating himself (possibly bad improv to fill in the blanks of the scene?) before finally getting stabbed on a bad edit, and then shot in the head with a dot of paint with bad squib exploding from behind his head. When you have made me laugh more than a schlock horror flick like The Granny, and your tone is that of a supernatural thriller… As Alfred said to Bruce Wayne, “Know your limits”.

I’ve read quotes from reviews that have been promoted on the films’ facebook page. They say it’s one of the best new horror films, it’s an example of great independent cinema, etc. With no level of arrogance or doubt, I can say that these reviewers either A) weren’t watching the movie I watched B) didn’t watch the movie at all C) were way too kind or D) were influenced by some demonic being. Filmmaker Jim Towns is a wonderfully nice guy, and I genuinely look forward to his next project, but House of Bad is just not good. No other opinion fits.

1/5 *s

No Such Thing As Too Many Critics

Image via Wikipedia

Ever since I realized that watching movies could be a career, I've wanted to be a professional film critic. Sure, I had other ideas for jobs growing up - actor, teacher, pro wrestling writer, filmmaker, videographer, editor and Superman - but film critic was always at the top.

In 6th grade, I entered a "Wag the Dog" review into a student writing contest. In 7th grade, my class wrote essays on our best friends. Everybody else chose a person, while I chose cinema itself. Every summer, I'd visit my cousins and when we'd watch movies, they would call me Siskel. And now, I have my own blog and rate movies by the beer through MovieBoozer. I think I can say that I've reached amateur status, but...

"How do you get a full-time job doing this? Damned if I know!" - Dan Kimmel

In order to become the professional critic I know I can be, I need to get paid for my opinions. In order to get paid for my opinions, I need to get hired. And in the current economic climate, no move to get hired is too bold.

To any publishers and editors that may be reading this, I offer not only my thanks, but a list of things I can do for you as a critic:

1. Review movies.

Of course, as a critic, my primary function would be to rate films. But, it's one thing to simply add a star rating to the latest Katherine Heigl snore fest, it's another to properly articulate why it should be avoided. With keen eyes and ears for detail, I notice things - tone, awkward dialogue and line reads, camera work, production news, etc - that will help any reader make a decision regarding a ticket purchase. And, with a little personality, I can make sure they will return to read another review. 

2. Local and National movie events.

Through social networking, independent theatres and film organizations are able to promote special events and screenings. I can preview such events, as well as cover them. Twitter, for example, has provided critic's the opportunity to cover film festivals and screenings live for readers who may not be able to attend. Using a laptop or smartphone, I can cover an event as it's happening. If the event is a televised awards show (Academy Awards, Golden Globes), I can provide up to the minute commentary, and converse with other readers.

3. Editorials.

I've written entries on special topics, from proposing a film screening to offering my take on a movie news story. As a critic, I can write pieces expressing my views on a local film production, how a news story might affect readers, DVD / movie streaming picks and even do recurring articles on movie history in a particular area. There is an unlimited amount of specialty content that I can provide.

4. Interviews.

Through many a google search, I've been able to contact several independent filmmakers, in an effort to track down their hard to find films. I can continue to do this, as well as ask some questions that would give readers some insight into the filmmaking process.

If interested, please read my other posts on this blog, as well as my writings on MovieBoozer and Invade Nola.

Some people wanted to be astronauts, while I wanted to discuss "Apollo 18". Others wanted to own a dalmatian, while I wanted to rip apart the "101 Dalmatians" sequel. We critics are a rare breed.

Why Did Roger Ebert Spoil "Super"?

SPOILER ALERT: I reveal a spoiler originally spoiled elsewhere.

For film buffs, the decision to read a spoiler can be a difficult temptation to overcome. With high ticket prices for movies, and even higher anticipation for popular movies, spoilers can provide certain audience members with the insight they need to decide whether or not they'll be catching a flick. But for most moviegoers, having a film's ending revealed unsolicited can ruin their theatre experience. Knowing this, reviewers do their best to avoid making any startling revelations.
Image by rexb via Flickr

In his review of "Super", Roger Ebert let slip the fate of the character played by Ellen Page. In the first two paragraphs. Filmmaker James Gunn immediately took to twitter, and started hashtag jokes at Ebert's expense. While a spoiler notice has since been attached to the review, I wonder - why did Ebert write the spoiler in the first place?

Personally, I disagree with his take on the movie. At the end of the review, He writes "'Super is a film ending in narrative anarchy, exercising a destructive impulse to no greater purpose than to mess with us." To me, this is a positive and is what makes the film great - it being emotionally intense and challenging (a nice way of saying that it "fucks" with you). Ebert is no stranger to emotionally challenging films, but maybe this one scene went too far in his mind. 

Image via Wikipedia

Ellen Page, as an actress, is easy to fall in love with. I can't say that I've disliked any of her performances, whether they're in low budgets like "Hard Candy" or big budgets like "Inception". And, judging from his reviews, I'd say that Ebert feels the same way. I think that when He witnessed what happened to Libby (Ellen Page) in "Super", He felt offended - how could they do such a thing to such an actress? He practically expresses this with SPOILER "when Ellen Page of 'Juno' stars in a movie, we don't much expect to see her brains dripping." END SPOILER This reminds me of the dust up He had with "Kick Ass" (another "real world" super hero flick) - how could they put that little girl in such extreme action scenes?

I don't want to suggest that He always disregards an entire movie because of one scene, but I have seen this happen before. I once showed "Storytelling" to fellow college students, and I'm convinced that if they hadn't witnessed a specific graphic sequence, they would've liked the film. I wonder if Ebert's thoughts on "Super" might change a little if graphic sequences were excised or rewritten. Seriously, one scene could make all the difference (kind of a compliment to the film, that one scene could make such an impression).  

Of course, Ebert's revelation didn't completely ruin the movie, nor did it ruin my opinion of him. Personally, I usually agree with him maybe 80% of the time (though I'm not sure how to accurately determine that). In this one case of disagreement, I find something to agree with - Ellen Page is wonderful, and seeing her in such a sequence is a shock.

Should critic's be so chivalrous in their reviews? Spoiling a movie in an effort to warn others? I dunno. That's a topic for a blogger more articulate and better disciplined that myself. Certainly, some audiences don't mind knowing a little extra about what they're gonna spend their money on. Just be sure to attach a notice BEFORE posting the review. Might save yourself from a nasty hashtag or two.