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?

Review: "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit"

There is much I can (and have already) said about America's post 9/11 attitude towards global politics. Despite term limits and all, Dick Cheney's empirical plan for perpetual war appears to still be in effect, and worst of all, wholeheartedly believed in and endorsed by a populace frightened over another attack. Through all of the preemptive bravado and violent rhetoric (and bombs), there was a sliver of time when fighting felt, gasp, like the right thing to do.

In Hollywood's latest prequel/continuation/reboot/re imagining, this gung ho spirit is infectiously presented and executed.

Hit & Miss Review: "Pacific Rim" and "R.I.P.D."

This past month has seen some high profile movies do very poorly at the box office. Lack of interest from the audience, poor marketing and horrible word of mouth aside, I feel the urge to discuss two of them - one that deserved to be shunned and one that didn't. If either or both are still playing at a theater near you, hopefully my quick words will sway you in the right direction:

Review: "World War Z"

In This is the End (which I quite liked), Emma Watson remarks to her celebrity friends that she believes the disaster that has hit Hollywood is a zombie apocalypse. Now, it turns out to be the rapture in that movie, and not a single zombie is actually seen. But This is the End does share some common ground with that horror genre. The setting is a tight space (a house), and the characters pose an equal threat to each other when compared to what is happening outside.

Traditionally, the zombies are merely a catalyst for getting the characters together, and presenting the real threat - humans. We bicker, fight, make selfish choices and even kill one another. The looming danger outside only heightens the true danger inside. Commentary through horror. If only we had just gotten along.

Review: "Man of Steel"

For me, one of the most striking images after 9/11 was on a local news report. The reporters did a regular feature on paintings and drawings made by Elementary School kids, based on current events. One child, after witnessing the terrorist attacks on New York, drew a crayon colored picture of Superman, stopping one of the planes from crashing into one of the towers, having arrived just in the nick of time. Sad that there is no real superhero in our world, but hopeful because potential for good exist within all of us. This meant more to me than President Bush standing on top of rubble, calling for payback.

You see, Superman is about doing the right thing, even in the face of unimaginable horror. He doesn't give in to senseless rage, nor does he use his powers for selfish reasons. Well... except for when he turned back time to save Lois Lane. And does breaking a man's neck count as rage if done to save a group of people?

It's hard making such decisions, especially when you can do almost anything. But, that's part of what makes the character so compelling. In his latest film adaptation Man of Steel, we get an origin story laden with this.

Review: "The Purge"

One night of unrestrained, perfectly legal violence. For this future version of America, this Purge is a Holiday in the vein of the 4th of July. We faced the collapse of our country, and our leaders "solved" it all - by allowing us to bludgeon each other during a 12 hour period once a year. Low unemployment, low crime, no government debt. Clearly, this works.

The Purge is not about how this night came to be, who implemented it or how it should be taken down, but instead what could potentially happen during it. A well off white family attempts to go through the night, guarded with what has been billed as a tight security system, in peace. Unfortunately, the young son lets a poor black man, who is being chased by psychopathic hunters, in. The hunters threaten the family, causing them to confront the morality of the nights events directly.

Review: "Now You See Me"

The belief in magic is, I imagine, looked down upon by many. If you're a child, the tricks performed by illusionists are puzzling, intriguing and entertaining. To be completely fooled as a kid is ok. Once you reach a certain age, it's assumed that you've matured a bit. You understand the truth about Santa, accept that Pro Wrestling is a show, and hopefully, appreciate magic on the showmanship level only.

In Now You See Me, a magician actually points out the foolishness of charging him with a particular crime. To do so would be admitting that magic is "real". Another character accepts that what she sees are just tricks, but enjoys the feeling she gets from them. She speaks of having a little faith in the unbelievable, and being a more tolerable person because of it. A professional trickster that calls you stupid for thinking what he does is real and an adult woman who just goes along with the tricks despite knowing that they're just tricks. What was it that Obi Wan Kenobi said about fools?

Review: "After Earth"

Green Lantern left such a sour taste in my mouth. Ever since reading the comic issue where Hal Jordan goes nuts and destroys the Corps, I've wanted to see a live action version of the superhero. Based on the trailers, I was expecting something along the lines of The Last Starfighter. Instead, I got a studio controlled product of mediocrity. So sad.

Many things were wrong, but the one that stands out is the reason for Hal's fear. It vaguely has to do with his father's death, but after a very quick flashback, this is never brought up again. All he says is "I'm afraid." Then suddenly, he's no longer afraid. Why? Because the script said so.

Why couldn't Hollywood deliver a heroes journey where fear is confronted and lessons are learned? It's so simple, even M. Night Shyamalan could do it. And he did. Rather well, I think.

Review: "Fast & Furious 6"

Over on the official MovieBoozer Facebook page, a question was posed to readers: When does a film cross the line from stupid-fun to just plain stupid? This being the season for big and loud Hollywood blockbusters, it's a perfect time to provide an answer. So many sequels, so much potential money to be made, so much money to burn - and so many fine examples.

What is a "plain stupid" movie? There are many components that are considered; plot, logic, character behavior, etc. But, for me, none of those necessarily equal "plain stupid" by themselves or even together. Movies like The Room and Birdemic may be incompetent technically, and laughter usually ensues from this, but they remain fun to watch. Why? Aside from laughing at the incorrect skills and unusual moments of the film, there is sometimes a genuine effort going on that shines through the screen. Sure, the cast and crew were over their heads, but they at least tried. That's admirable.

"Plain stupid", for me, is when there is no joy or redeemable quality to be had from a film. No effort to attempt to elevate the material from stupid to fun, just a paycheck and a job to do.

The Fast and the Furious franchise didn't start on the right side of the line, but it eventually crossed over.

Review: "The Hangover Part III"

Have you ever just given up on a movie? I know you have. One time, I popped a DVD of Anchorman into my player for family night, and turned it off about 20 minutes in. It was a chore to watch what we watched. Now, that particular movie aged well, as I gave it a second shot some years later and loved it. Typically, however, once I've made the decision to turn off or walk out, that's it. The movie has lost me forever.

I can stick through just about anything. Heck, Orson Welles' The Trial - unwatchable for some of my friends - is a personal favorite of mine. But it was only a few months ago that I first walked out of a theater midway through a screening, completely bored. It was Taken 2. What could've been a fun Liam Neeson-sploitation flick was just a joyless affair, churned out with the sole purpose of making money based on the success of the previous film. I went to the bathroom after the first half hour, and never returned.

It's sad, because even money hungry sequels are capable of delivering something entertaining. Take Ghostbusters 2: not needed whatsoever, but did a fine job of continuing the story and gave audiences something to come back for. The cast/crew weren't phoning it in and the filmmaker wasn't filled with contempt for his fans. It was a fun movie that I would pay to see, even now.

I wouldn't even scoff at a discounted DVD of The Hangover Part III. It really isn't worth any attention whatsoever.

Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

I like to think that, when compared to other critics, I'm pretty easy to please. Silly plot holes, odd dialogue, unfinished effects, etc. can be forgiven, as long as I leave the theater thinking and excited. I'm not asking for much; treat me like a mature human being, and I'll treat your movie with respect. A simple request that can be easily met, I believe.

Sometimes one moment - just one - can nearly ruin an experience for me. The movie as a whole might be superb, but this one sequence can stick in my mind and tarnish the good feeling I was having. It's like having a pounding headache with no pain reliever in sight. It. Just. Hurts.

Can such a headache be excused in time?

Review: "The Great Gatsby"

There are many great scenes in Django Unchained, but one in particular stands out for me. After ordering his dogs to tear apart a runaway slave, Calvin Candie stares up at Django, who is on his horse. The two men look into each others eyes, all the while a man is being viciously killed out of frame. They discuss Django’s friend Schultz for a moment, then head on their way to the plantation.

That moment was a cinematic equivalent of a two man poker game. For not even a minute, we learn more about the danger our protagonists face, just how dastardly our antagonist is and more importantly the presence of a power struggle, all without saying much. I love it when what’s unsaid speaks louder than what’s being said.

Imagine that sequence with voice over narration, perhaps from an older Django; does it make you angry?

@NOFS Review: "Upstream Color"

It feels a little awkward to compare a one of a kind film to anything else. Somehow, by putting it side by side with a similar movie - maybe one that is highly regarded - you are putting your knowledge of cinema and ability to express that knowledge on the line. An argument can be made about almost anything, but can you be convincing? Basically, you’ll either be thought of in a scholarly manner, or looked at as a weirdo from Room 237.

With that, I will now make the following case: Upstream Color is the successor to Inland Empire.

Review: "Iron Man 3"

The idea of an extraterrestrial life visiting Earth and making contact with humans has been expressed many times over. I remember spending a lot of energy on the subject, to the point where it caused me anxiety. It got so bad, my parents decided NOT to take me to see Independence Day, until I calmed down. Of course, I’m a bit more collected now, but I still wonder; how would we respond to the knowledge of intelligent life beyond our planet?

In Independence Day, we fought against an attack. In District 9, we impoverished an entire species. And in Marvel’s The Avengers, we assembled our best to protect us and send a warning. The options appear to be either A) Fight them or B) Control them, at least in the examples provided. In the case of Avengers, we get a series (the Marvel Cinematic Universe) that shows our world prior to, during and now after alien life has been exposed to all. How does the world move on in the follow up film Iron Man 3?

Better than you’d expect, actually.

Review: "Pain & Gain"

A movie might be based on real events, but the director doesn’t have to treat it what happened as gospel. A good example would be Tony Scott’s Domino, based on the real life Domino Harvey. The story is completely fictional (if you can follow it) but the filmmakers weren’t interested in telling a straight bio pic, opting instead to express her balls out personality through a fantastical tale. They didn’t get the truth of what happened, but rather the truth of her. And, for me, this is of most importance.

Now, a filmmaker doesn’t have to treat a person’s story as the final word, but a level of respect for the subjects involved doesn’t hurt. Unfortunately for the real life people behind Pain & Gain, Michael Bay is their storyteller.

Review: "GreasePaint"

I have great respect for pro wrestlers. Ever since 2000, when my older brother took me and others to a Monday Night RAW TV event, I’ve read books, watched old tapes and absorbed as much information as I could on the subject. We’re watching guys and gals perform daring feats of strength and courage, tell a story with their body language and be charismatic enough to connect with people; silent film acting is alive and well, people! I could basically sum it up with “The Wrestler got it right. All of it.” Seriously. Mad props to these performers.

Clowns, on the other hand...

No, I don’t dislike clowns - I’m just indifferent towards them. Once, my parents took me to a circus. During the show, a clown came through the crowd, to pick a kid to join him. When he came to me, I just shrugged, shook my head and let out a half hearted “eh”. It wasn’t anything personal; clowns just never connected with me. Sure, watching Bozo on TV was fun, but mostly to see if one of those kids would eventually win the ball toss game.

Review: "Trailer War"

During my days as an aspiring videographer and editor, I dreamt up many ideas for movie projects: Shag Wars - a Star Wars and Austin Powers combo; Desk Jumper - about a miniature man who base jumps from a school desk to the carpet below; 3 Punks, a Monster and a .45 – pretty self explanatory. But my favorite idea was for a feature film made up entirely of movie trailers, to be called Trailer: The Motion Picture. It would start with a few ads (restaurants, doctor offices, etc), the silence is golden / emergency exit cards, then move into the trailers. And the ending? The feature presentation card, of course.

In the middle of releasing the Tarantino / Rodriguez double feature Grindhouse, Eli Roth mentioned that he would love to make a movie along the lines of the one I had thought of years before. So far, the latest word on that project is a blurb on a wikipedia entry, but I'm optimistic – especially with groups like Drafthouse Films in operation.

Review: "Birdemic 2: The Resurrection"

There’s something charming about certain kinds of “bad” movies. For me, I can say that they remind me of my middle school days, when I’d run around the neighborhood, making short films on my palmcorder and S-VHS camera. I cringe whenever I view this old footage - it is just horrible. However, there is an earnestness that comes through clearly; a wanting to make a movie because you love movies, skills be damned.

Birdemic: Shock and Terror was made and put out into the world with the kind of passion that some mainstream directors lack. Through word of mouth, midnight screenings and an excellent Rifftrax commentary, the movie became a cult success. And, like with most successful films, plans for a sequel came out.

Would the same charm that people loved carry over?

Review: "Oblivion"

I have great affection for David Lynch’s Dune. It’s a movie that barely explains itself, but keeps throwing stuff at you anyways. Sure, The Original Star Wars Trilogy didn’t feel the need to spell everything out either, but it would at least establish and ground things to make the audience comfortable. Dune, on the other hand, expects you to have done some reading beforehand. Despite that problem, I really dig the flick. It’s a classic sci fi adventure with a weirdo modern (at the time) edge. It has a real “you just had to be there to understand” feel to it, and, knowing that I can never go back and “understand”, makes me love it even more.

The latest Tom Cruise movie Oblivion works well as a classic sci fi adventure, but without the special “you had to be there” feel. Actually, it’s really up to you if you want to go at all.

Review: "To the Wonder"

Within my circle of facebook friends, Trash Humpers is one of the most disliked films. Two local theater programmers, while appreciative of Harmony Korine’s body of work, absolutely despise his found footage flick. Every once in a while, the movie will come up in a comment thread, and I’ll try my best to defend it. Well, I’ll defend my view of it, anyways.

Anti-Cinema is what I like to call it. Something that feels more like a statement against what we currently accept as the moviegoing experience. Basically, a movie that is executed and presented in a manner that challenges the audience to a staring contest; some people are up for it, but many will blink and walk away.