And as promised, here is the second part of that movie dump I promised. This ought to catch me up with my movies and hopefully I can skim a little less when reviewing the next one.  Thank you for your patience!

-Fco.

Couples Retreat

Director: Peter Billingsley
Genre: Comedy/Romance
Year: 2009

OK, so not every movie I watch is the sort that should be up for award consideration, but then again, who does? Every once in a while you gotta indulge those other itches. True, my wife did sort of talk me into seeing this one, but at the same time she did not exactly have to twist my arm. Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau have always been a pleasant combination on the screen for me. Kristen Bell and Malin Akerman are nice on the eyes and Kristin Davis brings with her a bit of that air which she carried in Sex in the City and does come across a bit sexy. So if nothing else, there is a cast to look at. The movie is not bad though. In fact, from a married point of view it is actually rather funny, the way Mr. & Mrs. Smith was funny. Cause things are bound to come up on the screen which make you chuckle at the fact that either you have done that before to your spouse or your spouse has done it to you.

All in all, this is an enjoyable movie set up around a resort that focuses on rebuilding damaged relationships. It is part one of a two part resort. It is the…less fun part of it, where said fun is all pretty much tossed on to the other side of the bay where the singles resort is. When four couples pitch in for what they think is a relaxing vacation turns into a sometimes ridiculous, overextended self examination session, pretty much everybody is ready to throw in the towel. But through falls and stumbles, they cling on and not surprisingly they all find their means in the end, giving everybody something to smile about and a Hollywood packaged feel-good ending.

Formulaic? For the most part. Predictable? Yes. Well acted? Eh…..not the best I have seen from any of these guys. But enjoyable? Sure, for some light chewing, a few laughs, a jolly good time with your partner, this film is not so bad either, it does actually deliver a few good jokes, memorable moments, and has funny little cameos from secondary characters that make it worth it.

Rating:
Comments: Adult themes and languages and tons of skimpy clothing.
Quote: Therapist #2: It’s like a little kid gets a puppy for the first time, just hugs it so much, snaps it’s neck. It’s puppy cradle death syndrome. All that love is gonna snap that puppy.

Protocols of Zion

Director: Marc Levin
Genre: Documentary
Year: 2005

Shortly after the attacks on the twin towers in New York the rumors started, that no Jewish people perished. It was said that the Zionist had gotten word in advance and warned every person of Jewish decent to stay away from the towers that morning, so that the bombings could proceed, to serve their ends, without the needless spilling of Jewish blood. Who started these rumors or why, is a bit unclear, though the motive behind them are pretty damned transparent. Marc Levin uses this stage to question those rumors and the fact that shortly after the book titled the Protocols of Zion, became ever popular again, selling off the shelves like hot cakes.

The Protocols of Zion, for those unaware, are essentially a list of protocols written (or rather, being credited to a handful of Jewish people) by a secret cabal with a single agenda in mind: world domination. It list the various ways to get rid of or control various other races and cultures, how to turn them against each other for their own means and elevation and so forth. That it is a conspiracy theory, there is no doubt, but because it IS a conspiracy theory, there is also the unavoidable interest about it. While this film focuses really a bit less on the Protocols themselves and more on the attitudes of people post 9-11, it is still interesting material to consider and though it provides no absolute answers, it does bring to the surface the bigotry of various people, misguided attitudes and shallow arguments that will leave your head shaking. I would put this in line with Michael Moore documentaries, interesting if only you allow yourself to look past the documentarian himself.

Rating:
Comments: Some language and tense situations along with some questionable comment that would require a mature audience. Brief nudity as well.

The Violin

Director: Francisco Vargas
Genre: Drama
Year: 2005

Because I know this is how it works, I will tell you right now, this film is in black and white, so we can filter out those of you that are already not interested and focus on the ones that are. If you are still reading, then allow me to say this is an absolute gem coming quietly and under the radar out of Mexico. Even I, who like to think keep an eye and an ear in that direction, entirely missed this one until a couple of years later, and then it got bogged down in my ridiculously long (topped out) Netflix list that it seems it took another couple of years to get to it. But what a film!

Set in what might be Mexico, though the film maker is careful not to put any actual names to regions and locations and uses generic names instead, we meet three generations of men, a revolutionary, his young boy and his musician father, a humble one-handed violinist. They are men caught between living their life in peace and struggling from the oppression of the government who comes after them with brutal tenacity. When things go wrong at home, the three are forced to flee, and to act, each of them doing what they can, giving insight in a rather heartfelt manner at how the seeds of violence are planted.

Mixing the beauty of music with the ravages of war and violence, this subtle film does a fantastic job stripping the ornamentation off of violence, making it human and giving it very credible faces, while at the same time showing that the world is not black and white (ironic, huh?) but in fact carries a lot of difficult shades of gray. Poignant, interesting, insightful and very well done, this film is a must watch, if you can only get past the introduction which I warn, is quite graphic and disturbing but probably as bad as this film gets.

Rating:
Comments: Quote graphic and violent at points, particularly on the films intro. There is also some language in Spanish and sexual behavior and prostitution portrayed. Spanish with English subtitles.

The Qatsi Trilogy

Director: Godfrey Reggio
Genre: ??
Year: 1982-2002

OK, I am about to attempt to review an unreviewable set of films and I am not even going to bother giving it a star rating. This sort of film is so far out of the conventional film that it really does require a special look, by itself without any real comparisons both because it would be unfair to the nature of the film and because really there is nothing to compare it to.

This trilogy is comprised of three films: Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi and Naqoyqatsi. But before discussing what each of this films does individually, I think it is a good idea to describe what they all do as a whole. For starters, these films have no plot, no characters, no storyline and no dialogue. Everything that seems to make a movie has been stripped and done away with. As Reggio himself explains, these films are meant to strip away the foreground and replace it with the background. Secondly — and largely because of the nature of these films — they are meant to be more of an experience, rather than a rational, point by point explanation as an agenda. For that reason, these movie are rather adaptable and in many ways malleable, capable of becoming whatever it is you want them to be. Though there is commentary being made here, it seems a lot of ground has been left for you to take in the good with the bad and make up your own mind (not so much on the third installment but we can talk about that in a minute). Lastly, these films are vast, a collection of professionally captured images and footage, more often than not presented from the angle what you will least typically experience it from, at a pace you will never live it in. Either with slow motion, or fast motion, this film gives us a fresh, new, beautiful and disturbing look at the world we live in and the world we don’t.

Kowaanisqatsi, the first installment, is described by the director as being a film about the Northern Hemisphere. I personally feel that is is more a film about Western culture and first world countries, to be more specific, for it focuses on the differences and similarities between nature in its purest state and the technology that now drives those particular nations. Roughly translated from the Hopi language, it means Life in Turmoil, though the director admits that he would have much rather have given these films no name at all, settling with the obscure word in the Hopi language only in the end because ‘it had no baggage attached to it’ and not because it has anything to do with the Hopi peoples. Without lines of dialogue, scene after scene portrayed, show us a world that is wonderous and terrifying, descructive by its own means and by means we ourselves have created. Beautifully calm and uncomfortably crowded all at once, the director does a great job setting a pace that escalates from the relaxing and tame, to the nauseously absurd. Quite literally, part of me felt ill after the climactic, frenetic editing that works organically with the score to build up the momentum that eventually pushes you off the edge and manages to restore some calm before the film is over. Though many of the images are dated back to the late seventies, a lot of this can be overlooked given the perspective and the new point of view that Reggio and his gifted cinematographer Fricke, give us. The arguments are left for you to make, the film simply shows us our environment as it was and our environment as it is. Both have been beautiful and terrible, there is no dispute there, it is only a matter of looking at how things are progressing and wondering what can be done to better it.

The second film is aptly titled Powaqqatsi, which translated as the director intended from the Hopi language means Life in Transition, but perhaps more obscurely and more accurate a life that consumes another way of life for its benefit. Godfrey Reggio describes this as the story of the southern hemisphere, but once again I think it more accurately could be said to be the life of the third world countries upon the first world countries have made their mark. True enough, every shooting location was in the southern hemisphere and it will bring to those of us unfamiliar with their way of life a collection of shots that are, just as Kowaanisqatsi was, both thrilling, delighful, disturbing and heart-wrenching. It is a humbling experience, one that has perhaps raised voice to the accusation that Reggio was trying to romanticize poverty, something he claims not to have intended to do. His intentions? To show the way of life as it stands in a process of change, as caused by globalization and the influence of first world civilization. Without a doubt I found this to be the most beautiful of the three films, and even in its gritty, dirty scenes, one can find a certain beauty to a much simpler way of life, though undeniable there is a lot of ugliness as well. Credit must go once again to Fricke for managing the subjects so well in the eye of the camera and to Philip Glass who composes a fabulous score — in my opinion the best of the three he did for all these films.

The third film is called Naqoyqatsi and its rough translation would be Life as War and it is what Reggio describes a film that encompasses the gobal conflict, life of the world as a whole in the direction it is headed. Much like the other films, this too uses archival footage and originally shot footage to tell its tale though, remarkably enough, it does a major leap towards the usage of CG and filtering that changes the original pictures. While this film manages to get done what it set out to get done and show us a startlingly prophetic and frightening troublesome way of life, it also falls prey to the very thing it is trying to criticize, because this film uses a lot of technology to make its point about technology. It is an ironic twist that some might call apt and others might call hypocritical, but no matter where you fall it is obviously done with intention, as admitted by Reggio himself in a talk in New York. What I have a hard time determining is whether I like it or not. Time and time again I feel like this film, unlike the other two, brings down a heavy hammer that is nothing close to subtle and that bothered me, while at the same time I realized it also worked incredibly well in some places. Really, the largerst shortfall here is the fact that in the last decade since this film was released, CG has advanced tremendously and the images used here, while perhaps appropriate for the early years of the millenium, no longer hold up. Heavy use of polarizing filters, colorization and other effects also make the entire landscape for this film austere, manipulated and too blunt. And I had to ask myself if perhaps it may not have been better to make it subtle and let the images speak for themselves.

I will be honest in the fact that this films are not going to be for everybody, but those of you that brave it might find yourself enthralled by what Reggio has done, transfixed by his images and the curious way in which they work with the music of Phillip Glass. It can be truly said that here, it is both the video and audio working cohesively as one to create a very interesting sequence for us to admire or recoil at but, running at an average of ninety minutes per movie, this might be too much for some.

Rating this set of films also seems to be a bit moot. What you get of this will be entirely up to you, your insights, your preconceived notions. What might be beautiful for some could be ridiculous to others, what might be alarming to some could be pointless to another. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be people screaming that this is some leftist propaganda, while others will complain it is not leftist enough. It is worth the debate, it is worth the conversation that will undoubtedly be born out of the images from these films which are captured just at the right times, just at the right moment, just under precise circumstances that make it work (Reggio admited to setting up a handful of scenes, simply because the timing had not worked, but 90% of it is said to be just right-time right-place shooting following a very documentary style). Nevertheless, when you see the image of a beautiful little girl, in a pink dress, shiny black shoes, no more than five years of age carrying a red lunch box, walking in slow motion, hair bouncing, stopping at the edge of your screen, turning around, watching you for a long moment, all in front of a background upon which graffiti has been painted stating “long live the war of guerrillas” in Spanish…well, you can not help but get a tight knot on your throat. If you have the patience, please, watch these films, you will not regret it.

Rating: N/A
Comments: Some powerful imagery, some disturbing, some graphic violence (particularly on the third), some brief underage nudity.

As I am wont to do when I fall behind on film reviews, which I unfortunately did towards the end of the year, rather than not reviewing some of the films I have watched at all, I put them in a dump of mini-reviews for you. So, here it is, do forgive me if I unfortunately pay little attention to some very good movies, but I figure, better a small review than none, right? Right?? Anyway, here is part one of a two part dump.

-Fco.

Surveillance

Director: Jennifer Chambers Lynch
Genre: Thriller/Crime/Drama
Year: 2008

Not a bad attempt, on the part of David Lynch’s daughter who for all intents and purposes is making her directorial debut for the big screen. This film is essentially a who-dunnit thriller focused on an incident surrounding two less than stellar cops, one drug addicted couple, and an unfortunate family who all come together under some stressful circumstances that spiral out of control and result in some untimely deaths. By the time the federal agents arrive, there is only the drug addicted woman, a child and a cop left to question and it is absolutely necessary to get down to the truth, which might not be what one expects…

…except that it is. The twist in this film is really not that surprising and I found myself guessing it very early on, partly due to some questionable directorial calls which make it all too easy to unfold. For a first time film, this is not entirely bad, but for David Lynch’s daughter with David Lynch himself helping out in the background…lets just say I was expecting a little bit more. Worth the watch, this film has an interesting multiplicity of points of view, some thrilling moments but it is not by any means a perfect film. Enjoyable to watch, but not the most exciting or titillating of films.

Rating:
Comment: Violence, language, adult themes and situations. Definitely a film for a mature audience
Quote: Sam Hallaway: There’s only one way to unfold a note, so to speak, without tearing the paper.

Cinderella

Director: Man-dae Bong
Genre: Horror/Thriller/Mystery/Drama
Year: 2006

I might, perhaps unfairly, toss this film into the ‘typical Asian horror’ pile, and by that you might gather that this film is not in fact the tale that you are likely familiar thanks mostly to Disney. There is in fact very little in common between this film and that fairy tale, other than the fact that the main character, like the one in the other story, spends most of her life locked away. The reasons are, however, entirely different.

Making some statement regarding plastic surgery, this film focuses on a young girl, who is deprived of a regular life for reasons that become unraveled little by little as we get to know the circumstances under which she has become a captive of sorts. For that, it must be given credit, because the film is not necessarily expected, but at the same time it does become a bit tangled in its own trappings, enough to become murky. It is unfortunate, because like many Asian films, this one holds a bit of promise, which makes it worth watching, but not so much promise that would actually have me recommending it to others. Mediocre…really that is about where the mark is on this one.

Rating:
Comments: Some very graphic and gory moments. Those that are not fans of the horror genre with slasher tendencies, ought to stay away.

Waltz with Bashir

Director: Ari Folman
Genre: Animation/Drama/Biography/War
Year: 2008

Every once in a while, animated gems burst their proud heads from the masses to remind adults across the world that animation is NOT just for kids and that it ought to be given a fair shot of seriousness. It is sad that most adults will not give it that chance, but if you are open-minded enough for it, please give this one a shot. Much like Persepolis before it, or The Triplets of Belleville, this film does not have the young in mind as its target audience.

Done in stylistically unique fashion, this animation tells the story of Ari Folman as he approaches long time friends, in an effort to reconstruct his memories regarding the Israeli invasion of Palestine in 1982. Recent events have brought bits and pieces to the surface and Ari realizes that he does not have the answers to set himself at peace, which sparks a journey around the world, interviewing his friends (all of which play themselves) and drawing us into a fascinating, powerful bit of storytelling that is guaranteed to spark your interest and give you plenty of intellectual fodder to discuss after. Very moving and intriguing film!

Rating:
Comment: Firstly, I must say that I do feel a bit biased towards good animations like this, which might prompt my perfect scoring. You might find it is perhaps more of a 4.5, or maybe even a 4 out of 5. But there is no question this film is a good one. Also, due to graphic scenes of violence, adult themes and brief nudity, this film is not intended for children, do not let the cool animation style fool you.
Quote: Anonymous soldier: What to do? What to do? why don’t you tell us what to do?
Ari Folman: Shoot!
Anonymous soldier: On who?
Ari Folman: How should I know on who? just shoot!
Anonymous soldier: Isn’t it better to pray?
Ari Folman: Pray and shoot!

Barton Fink

Director: Coen Brothers
Genre: Drama/Comedy/Thriller
Year: 1991

Meet Barton Fink, gifted writer and generally a purist, writing from the heart, or so he tells himself. He is writing for the ordinary man, he tells himself. He is the voice of the voiceless, he tells himself. And then he gets the opportunity to work for Hollywood, which needless to say fills him with fright, but he goes and he braves it and he settles in his decrepit room, with nothing but an old image of a woman in the beach to inspire him and a very interesting neighbor to interrupt. Barton Fink realizes he is hitting a wall, and he is about to find out a lot about himself, and his neighbor and the common man, as an affair turns into more than he bargained for.

Typical of Coen brother fare, this movie is filled with dark humor and raw humanity, which is at least to me always an interesting combination. It is difficult not to both sympathize and despise every character in this story, but no matter what emotions they might provoke, it is clear that this story, simple as it might be on the surface, is really engrossing and runs deceitfully deep. One of their older works, this film is solid but not my favorite of theirs and watching it will demand a bit of patience from the viewer.

Rating:
Comments: Some language, adult themes and a couple of intense and graphic scenes.
Quote: Jack Lipnick: We’re only interested in one thing, Bart. Can you tell a story? Can you make us laugh? Can you make us cry? Can you make us want to break out in joyous song? Is that more than one thing? Okay!

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Director: Wes Anderson
Genre: Animation/Family/Comedy
Year: 2009

I will be honest and admit that when I first saw the trailer for this Wes Anderson film, my knee-jerk reaction was to think: What the eff just went wrong here? Not only did the subject seem stupid (forgive me Mr. Fox fans but I did not grow up with the story), but the animation seemed like it had just gotten a kick to the face all for the worse. It was like getting punted back to the bad old days when animation was not yet perfect, all of which was intentionally done by the genial Anderson.

So, I went into this film with a little more than trepidation. I came out of it thinking it was probably one of the most satisfactory animated films I had ever seen in a very long time. If the old school style of animation turns you off, as it did me, do not let it get to you, it really has it’s own, very unique charm and Wes Anderson does what he does best, bringing to life interesting, amusing, complicated characters that will stick to you long after you have left the theater! This movie is cussing good!

Rating:
Comments: Pretty much family friendly, but it would help to be there for a few thematic questions your kids might have.
Quote: Badger: In summation, I think you just got to not do it, man. That’s all.
Mr. Fox: I understand what you’re saying, and your comments are valuable, but I’m gonna ignore your advice.
Badger: The cuss you are.
Mr. Fox: The cuss am I? Are you cussing with me?
Badger: No, you cussing with me?
Mr. Fox: Don’t cussing point at me!
Badger: If you’re gonna cuss, you’re not gonna cuss with me, you little cuss!
Badger: You’re not gonna cuss with me!
[Both start snarling at each other, and then settle down]
Mr. Fox: Just buy the tree.
Badger: Okay.

The Men Who Stare at Goats

Director: Grand Heslov
Genre: Comedy/Drama/War
Year: 2009

Don’t quote me on this but I am pretty sure that the book on which this was based (which has the same title) is supposed to be non-fiction, which makes this story just a bit quirkier than it already is. It is a story about Jedi Knights, which is an ironic funny cause Ewan McGregor played the young Obi Wan in the first three episodes (the crappy ones yes) of the Star Wars saga. But this is not some sci-fi space travel movie, this is about a particularly specialized unit in the military that specializes in psychological warfare, all the way down to its lunatic extremes. The belief was that one of these men could in fact kill a goat with his mind, which is where this movie gets its name. Bob Wilton, is a journalist trying to validate himself, who accidentally runs into one of these psychological soldiers, recently reactivated and he finds himself getting the story of his life in the most uncharacteristic of ways.

Funny, entertaining, amusing, really fun to watch, this movie is all of that but it still felt, to me, to fall short of expectations. I am not sure what I was expecting but perhaps after the hype the book received I was expecting just a little bit more from the film, maybe it is the fact that the story does not seem to run deep enough, or maybe the fact that with a cast like this, they still fall short of hitting the mark. All in all though, it is still worth the watch.

Rating:
Comment: Language, adult situations, drug references, brief violence.
Quote: Bob Wilton: So what do you use to remote view?
Lyn Cassady: I drink. And I find classic rock helps.
Bob Wilton: Any music in particular?
Lyn Cassady: Boston. Boston usually works.

Director: John Hillcoat
Genre: Drama/Adventure/Thriller
Year: 2009

If Avatar was one of the best films you will see 2009, The Road is likely to be one of the greatest films you will not. Which is a shame, but it seems the universe has been conspiring against this movie from the very start, to the point that I fear it will be overlooked for some very well deserved prizes come award season. This movie, based on the highly acclaimed book by Cormac McCarthy of the same title, was supposed to be released late 2008, or at least that is what word in the rumor mill said. Early screenings apparently sent it back into the editing room to be released early 2009; those plans were then ditched in favor of a late release trying to get some better positioning for the awards…though I fear they might have overshot it and released it far too late because, in all honesty, nobody wants to watch such a sad tale over the holidays with the family around.

For those unaware of the plot, the film — like the book — deals with an unnamed man (Viggo Mortensen; LOTR trilogy, Eastern Promises) and his son (Kody Smit-McPhee; Romulus, my Father), living in a post apocalyptic earth after it has been scorched, presumably by war. Remaining largely loyal to the book and adding only small bits of information to add to the broader understanding on the subject — additions which include the mother/wife played by Charlize Theron (Monster, Hancock) — the story takes us on a journey to the sea, where man expects to find some sort of hope for himself and the boy, before the next winter hits. In the process, he and his child will encounter some of humanity’s greatest qualities and some of its worst in a heart wrenching manner.

If you have read the book, then you are familiar with the engrossing pace with which it reads, gripping, unforgiving and brutally honest. The movie, to its credit, is a very good adaptation of the original work of literature, even if I did feel in the end that the entire bit with Charlize Theron was ultimately not necessary and probably only served to confuse things a bit more.

With nothing but a gun, two bullets (one for his boy, one for himself) and a cart full of supplies, man and boy travel the lonely roads, encountering brief glimpses of life, which will both test and fortify their bonds. Emotionally, this is a very difficult movie to watch, particularly for a parent, where the question is not only ‘what is the point of going on living in a dead world?’ but also ‘would you have it in you to kill your own child in order to save him?’ This and many other similar questions are brought to the forefront of this film whose bitterly realistic view hits like a horse’s kick but manages to hold a candle of hope against a very austere background.

“You have to keep carrying the fire.” Man tells the boy in one part of the film, explaining why they must continue their journey, and in many ways that single line becomes the heart of this story, the idea that small as it might be, the humanity that we carry within must survive at all costs and when things become dire and difficult, it is the boy who will lift that flame back up and remind his father what it is exactly that they are fighting for, even if he is not aware he is doing it.

Displaying a fantastic bit of directing, Hillcoat has been more than fair in making this film live up to the book, and while I might still recommend reading the book before watching the movie, you will find that most of these scenes are actually taken directly from the original material.

Credit must also be given to Mortensen, who plays perhaps his greatest role to date, carrying the entire film with only the help of Smit-McPhee, who is doing his largest role, and with the aid of a very small, but very effective supporting cast which includes Robert Duvall, Guy Pearce and Molly Parker. Viggo Mortensen displays a range on his acting ability that not only establishes credibility to his role, but which goes a long way in defining that bond between father and child which becomes so crucial to this film. All around, this movie hits all the right notes, however melancholy or frightening they might be, which is a sad thing, considering that this film is playing only in a handful of theaters and likely will be buried under the rest of the holiday season’s movie-trash such as movies with talking chipmunks. My advise? If you are OK with emotionally trying movies, seek this film out as soon as possible before it comes off the theaters, and you might just be surprised at how a can of peaches, can be the humble highlight of an entire film. Moving and horrifying in turn, this starkly beautiful film is likely one of 2009’s most underrated films.

Rating:
Comment: Not at all a film for children. Very adult themes, language, violence, brief nudity and frightening imagery.
Quote: The Man: I told the boy when you dream about bad things happening, it means you’re still fighting and you’re still alive. It’s when you start to dream about good things that you should start to worry.

Director: James Cameron
Genre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Year: 2009

It is rare that Hollywood manages to give us something that balances the mainstream with the intellectual, the entertaining with the insightful and so, when it does happen, it is bound to be noticed. This holiday season, people have taken notice of Avatar which is a pleasant surprise, because it is rare that I hinge hopes upon a film that will actually carry them nicely. Most of the time, the scenario looks a lot like me crossing my fingers, hoping a film will do well and then, watching it all crash and burn to the point that I do not even bother seeing it — Transformers, I am looking in your direction!

Needless to say, given the rumors of overrun budgets and the new techniques — untried and untested — being utilized on this film, I had that little butterfly in my stomach insisting that I do not put too much of my hopes on this one, just to be safe. And to be fair, I also had my own personal misgivings. Having seen some exclusive footage at the San Diego Comic-Con, some of the character designs were not exactly winning me over (for the record, by the time I was done watching the movie, I took back every bad thing I said about the Na’vi character design). Having seen it, however, I would venture to say that, while this is not the perfect film, it is pretty much everything the hype is saying. Those that like to pick apart films the way my friends and I do, will likely find something to bitch about — there always is — but when you look at it as a whole, the flaws and errors here and there amount to nothing more than a divot in an otherwise very well executed film.

As far as plot goes, it sounds really complicated, when in truth it isn’t. Mixing the fantasy genre, with the adventure genre and the historical genre (circa the early 1600’s in the Americas), Cameron has put together a thinly disguised retelling of the Pocahontas story, with bigger, more bad-ass ships, and bigger, more bad-ass horses. This has led me to describe this film to people I have talked to as the more mainstream and easily accessible version of The New World. The beautiful, poetic cinematography and fantastic landscapes replaced with equally inventive and interesting, CG landscapes which are easy to admire.

There is no doubt that tremendous man hours were spent in thinking up the details to create this world and this creatures. From the smallest little animal to the largest plant, there seems to be a common thread that allows for this world to be easily welcoming and believable to the point where you can lose yourself in awe of your surroundings (particularly if you watch this in 3-D) without even thinking about it. A consistency has been applied to all life forms, so that they appear to belong in the same world and have some purpose and do not come across as nifty puppets pulled out of a hat ‘just because they would look cool’. A large amount of the fun in this movie, in fact, is watching these animals behave, or move, or even breathe!

The title of Avatar is taken from the concept that is at the core of this film, in which humans are able to transfer their consciousness into the bodies of the Na’vi, an extra terrestrial intelligent life form with a keen sense for cohabitation and love for the land, while also making for savage warriors when cornered. It is a scientific project that is riding on the coat tails of a privately funded project which aims to draw highly coveted minerals from beneath the village and the grand tree in which the Na’vi live. Minerals which serve as energy so efficient it will translate to obscene amounts of profits…enough to perhaps validate the hiring of private militias to do the necessary dirty work once the diplomatic means seem to have completely stalled.

Jake Sully (Sam Worthington; Terminator: Salvation) is a former marine who has lost the use of his legs, trying now to fill in the shoes of his smarter, science driven brother who has suffered an untimely death at a crucial point during the relationship establishing process between the Na’vi and the humans (whom they call the Sky People, or often the dreamwalkers). Blindly stepping into the Avatar program, largely owing to a need to feel useful again and an ego that is hardly hindered by his handicap, Jake dives head first (almost literally) into this fantastic world, where he meets Neytiri (Zoe Saldana; Star Trek, Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl), a native who reluctantly takes him under his wing to teach him the ways of the Na’vi, in the process, teaching Jake a number of valuable lessons that allow him to see the world and life, with a new set of eyes — not necessarily his avatar’s.

Considering the scope of this project, the execution is rather impressive! And given the fact that it is truly trying to be as wide as possible when it comes to audience, it is also very well balanced, with enough action to please the bomb-heads, enough romance to please the heart-throbs, enough eye-popping cinematic wonder to entice the younger groups and humor to keep it from spiraling into dark territory — which it very easily could have done. Aside from a bit of language, this film is actually pretty accessible to just about anybody in most families and likely to please them all.

Thankfully, there is enough intellect fodder to get the mind gears rolling; enough concepts and ideas to provoke discussion and enough of a visual feast to ENTIRELY make you forget that you have just sat through a movie that runs an ERT of three hours and fourty minutes (that is without counting the unavoidable trailers and ads that come before the movie)! All in all, this is probably going to be one of the best movie going experiences you will have had during 2009, or a good one to start 2010 with. Either way, this is a film you must not miss.

Rating:
Comments: There is a bit of language, they drop a few s-bombs and they also hint at some ‘mating’ between two Na’vi characters, though that is kept tastfully tame. Really, it comes down to a good amount of action sequences which use implied violence more often than not and some adult themes regarding politics, and cultural clashes.
Quote: Jake Sully: Everything is backwards now, like out there is the true world and in here is the dream

Director: Oren Peli
Genre: Horror/Thriller/Mystery
Year: 2007 (released 2009)

This feel did sort of creep up on us like its subject matter, didn’t it? When I initially heard of it it was set to be playing in something like thirteen places and only for a limited time. Next thing I know it is everywhere, playing all day long and raking in obscene amounts of profit, considering it was shot with a budget of about 20K. This film is, for all intents and purposes, The Blair Witch Project revisited and the similarities are not limited to box office behavior.

Depending on your point of view, this may or may not be a good thing. I personally was not a fan of The Blair Witch Project. It failed to frighten me, lure me and the hype it got ruined what little it had left simply because it did not live up to expectations. I think the best thing that particular film had going for it was the widespread, albeit flawed, belief that it was a true story. That seemed to inject a heavy dose of creep factor into a lot of the audience and understandably so. Paranormal Activity does not have that going for it. I do not know of a single person that believes this is true found footage (even if there is more than plenty willing to argue that shizz like this happens). Nevertheless, it ought to show some sort of its inner self to still be doing this well and that is where I think this movie outshines its similar, but in my opinion, less than stellar predecessor.

The formula used here is not surprisingly very similar to Blair Witch, where two charming young adults begin to experience paranormal activity in their home which seems to get progressively worse as they make an attempt to look into it and stop it. It is apparently something that started when Katie was eight and has followed her throughout. It is not explained how it happens or why it is boiling over now and I think asking questions of that nature really is asking for too much of a film that is simply not bothered with such. Paranormal Activity is only out for scares and that it does quite well.

If one can get over the simplistic set up, it is actually easy then to appreciate the fact that this movie does not waste 45 minutes setting up something that is scary even if you are not aware of the entire background. In fact, this movie makes full use of that in that sometimes what is left unexplained is just as creepy as the rest and since we the audience are seeing this through the lens of the camera as shot by either Katie or Micah at the home, it does not seem out of the ordinary or disappointing to not get all the answers.

Paranormal Activity builds up nicely with scary imagery that goes back to the psychological aspect of thing and does not make use of blood and gore. If one were to force a label upon it, this really is a good ol’ ghost story and the fact that we see it through grainy and often unsteady shots (thank you for cutting down on the hand-cam, by the way, unlike BWP I did not feel like I needed to hurl afterwards) actually seems to lend some credibility to the idea that this is not a film, not a big time production but a rather intimate glimpse into a tragedy that could have happened to any of your neighbors.

The acting holds up, the scares hold up and the film itself moves at a fast enough clip to be entertaining. But most importantly, this film relies on no visual effects and no expensive post production to get its point across, which also becomes part of the success.

In the end, is this a great film? No, not really, but it is downright entertaining, creepy and far better than a lot slash and hack horrors out there and therefore definitely worth checking out. If it is a thrill you are seeking, Paranormal Activity definitely delivers and does so in a refreshing fashion.

Rating:
Comments: Creeeeeeeepy moments, do not take a kid to this, you are bound to traumatize them. Other than that no nudity that I recall and there was some language to consider and…pretty disturbing imagery.
Recommendation: If you liked this, you might like Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez’s The Blair Witch Project, but you will most likely feel like you have already seen the better one of those types of films so instead, I will recommend a wonderful Spanish horror gem called [REC] by Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza, guaranteed to be one of the best horrors you will ever see!
Quote: Micah: [while waiting on a very tardy psychic] You would think he’d be able to predict that the traffic is going to be bad.

Director: Joon-ho Bong
Genre: Drama/Thriller/Crime
Year: 2003

Based on the true events of South Korea’s most notorious serial killer/rapist, this movie is an overview of the investigation that went into the still unresolved case. Though clearly dramatized, the film still comes across as a powerful, thrilling police drama as a group of investigators rush to try to find the culprit of a number of heinous crimes in the Gyungii Province.

With a team composed of four men, three detectives and a sergeant, the investigation unfolds taking at times unexpected turns, chasing odd clues and at points desperately searching for answers where there is none. The story is well written and advances at a good pace, slowly uncovering the crimes and giving insight into the ways – some more admirable than others – in which the manner was handled, but always focusing on the frustration of the police in their inability to create results. The title itself is quite fitting of the mood of the movie.

Though not entirely familiar with Joon-ho Bong’s work — I have only seen The Host, but have heard great things about Mother, as well — I am quite impressed with his writing and directing, his gift for characterization and the solid delivery of material so that even during the slow parts of the movie, it does not feel like a waste of time, to the point where he is able to make the lengthy 132 minute running time of this movie feel quite easily bearable.

The acting is solid throughout and each character brings something crucial to the table, but the spotlight shines brightly on Kang-ho Song (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, The Host), who plays the flawed, but likable detective Park Doo-man, who is convinced his ’shaman’ eyes can deduce the truth from the eyes of others. The rest of the cast is equally strong and their bring to the screen believable characters with their own breed of humor that is necessary to break up the dark of the material itself.

A must watch, must own if you are into this sort of genre.

Rating:
Comments: There is a bit of violence (though never gratuitously) along with a number of adult themes and disturbing scenes which include the corpses of rape victims. Very brief nudity. Korean with English subtitles and dub, depending on which you prefer. I also have to say: the detective that spends his life drop kicking the world made me laugh waaay to many times with his impulsiveness.
Recommendations: Another good film along this vein is David Fincher’s Zodiac.

Director: Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady
Genre: Documentary/Drama
Year: 2006

Ironically, one of the most alarming documentaries I have watched in quite some time, this Oscar nominated film follows a number of youngsters from conservative Christian families as they are sent to the Kids on Fire Camp – a summer camp (located in Devil’s Lake, N.D – no joke) intended to help them solidify their faith and strengthen their resolve in the convictions that are being drilled into them from a very early age. And, if it does not immediately grip you with its initial dark clouds, it certainly will when the leader of the camp (Becky Fischer) admits in camera that she is trying to make those children militant about their religion, the way the jihadists do for Islam.

Absurd, shocking, frightening, depressing and at times oddly funny, this documentary allows us to see the extremes to which certain Christian conservatives go in order to instill their skewed teachings into their impressionable children, bordering on brain washing in the name of Jesus.

Largely, the documentary focuses on a handful of children in preparation to the camp, and the leader – Becky Fisher – herself who describes her goals and intentions, followed by footage of the camp itself, which gathers youth from the area and pushes them to be proactive with their religion. The extents to which things are taken are dramatic, to say the least, as witnessed in a scene where a young girl expressing the delight she takes in dancing appends her statement hesitantly, admitting that she must be cautious because she sometimes “dances for the flesh.” The girl is ten years old. You can almost hear your heart breaking.

Interestingly enough, the counter argument in this particular film does not come from the liberal end of the spectrum, or the atheists as one might expect but rather from other conservatives who themselves see this preacher and her work as extremist. It is something that can be appreciated and lends credibility, to see the criticism coming in from the same side of the spectrum and avoid unnecessary debate, allowing the audience to focus what is at hand instead.

This movie is an unveiled view at religious fanaticism, proving that we need not look at the Middle East for examples when we have plenty in our own nation – sort of the Matthew 7:5 concept at work here, but this film smartly goes beyond that, looking at the repercussions in politics and society as a whole.

Rating:
Notes: Technically a family film, but some of what you see in this film is still rather disturbing and might impact impressionable minds.
Recommendation: If you like this, you might be interested in Lucy Walker’s The Devil’s Playground (2002), a look at the rite of passage many teenagers go through in the Amish culture.
Quote: Becky Fischer: It’s no wonder, with that kind of intense training and discipling, that those young people are ready to kill themselves for the cause of Islam. I wanna see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam. I wanna see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places, you know, because we have… excuse me, but we have the truth!

Director: John Huston
Genre: Drama
Genre: 1984

Geoffrey Firmin (Albert Finney; Before the Devil Knows You Are Dead, Big Fish), British consul to Mexico, stationed in Cuernavaca, is drunk. Again, this time permanently. With his life unraveling before him, paired with the seeming loss of his wife, he has begun to split at the seams, chasing drink after drink in a futile attempt to drown his sorrows. With his resignation in order and determined to live the rest of his life submerged head first in the ‘magic’ of Mexico that keep him in Cuernavaca, Firmin is determined to make alcohol his sole friend.

Set against the magnificent backdrop of the Popocatepetl, a volcano in central Mexico, in 1938 and on the Day of the Dead, one can see the limitless possibilities for symbolism, which are widely used along with strains of superstition, both Mexican and British, throughout. The turn of events comes when Firmin’s ex-wife Yvonne (Jacqueline Bisset; Death in Love, Domino) unexpectedly returns and shows up at home, much to the surprise of Geoffrey and his brother Hugo, who has recently returned from the Spanish Civil War.

The tension between these three is thick and prominent throughout the entire film and becomes the focus of this dialogue heavy film, at a time when not only are these people’s lives on the edge of a precipice, but the world itself as the undercurrents of World War II silently, but dangerously, begin to pick up.

A true drama, this film falls more on the artistic vein and demands some patience from the viewer, making of itself more of a portrait of the three main characters than anything else. Without giving too much away, expect moments of tension, adult disagreements and a main character that is drunk literally from beginning to end. While the story itself may not be charming, the utilization of Mexican culture to tell the story of three British citizens was most certainly curious, it is a matter of getting past its slow unfolding to its shuddering end in order to appreciate fully. If slow paced films are not for you, steer away from this one.

Rating:
Comments: Adult situations, alcoholism, some language (both in English and Spanish), moments of violence and prostitution.
Quote: Geoffrey Firmin: How, unless you drink as I do, can you hope to understand the beauty of an old indian woman playing dominoes with a chicken?

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Genre: Drama/Sport
Year: 2008

I will start with an honest statement: This is my least favorite of Darren Aronofsky’s movies. I will follow that up with a second honest statement: This movie is great!

With the likes of Wong Kar-wai, Danny Boyle, Kim Ki-duk and Guillermo del Toro, Aronofsky is simply one of the best directors of our time and I say that with no reservations; one look at his films, any of his films from his obscure Pi, to Requiem for a Dream, to the abstractly beautiful The Fountain to….this!

The Wrestler is a film about Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke; Domino, Sin City), a once famous wrestler in the twilight of his career when he suffers from a potentially career ending heart attack. It is an eye opening moment that forces the man, who often ends up sleeping in his van due to lack of rent money, to re-examine the direction of his life and make amends with important people in his past and important people in the present that could lead to a future that – as the film unfolds – proves more and more intangible.

Though the movie is set in a sport that I only lightly flirted with during with earlier years as far as fanaticism goes, and deals with people on the edge of society, the message that this film carries is truly universal and applicable to a number of people in a number of professions. It brings to the forefront the numerous challenges a person is bound to find and the importance of knowing how to deal with them.

Mickery Rourke is at his best in this film, bringing a credibility to this character that is disturbingly real, to the point that at times you feel like smacking him on the head for being so stupid, and all the while, you are telling yourself that you know someone like that, and that the choices he is making, the mistakes he is making, are probably choices and mistakes you yourself have made. In his performance for this film, Rourke reaches in and draws something out of all of us and creates a connection that regardless of how distanced you might be from the subject matter, the significance is not lost.

Supported by Marisa Tomei (Before the Devil Knows You are Dead, In the Bedroom), who plays a stripper dealing with her own life and struggles, competing in a field where youth and looks are all important; and Evan Rachel Wood (Across the Universe, King of California) who plays Stephanie, his abandoned daughter caught in the tidal wave of emotion of having her disappeared father suddenly pop into her life – this film has three solid performances that rocket this film above and beyond most films of 2008 and paired with a superb script, well, it explains all the nominations and the hype this film received and rightfully so.

Rating:
Comment: Strong language. Adult situations. Brief nudity, mostly topless (at strip clubs), along with a semi-graphic sexual scene. And then…of course, the violence, which if you are familiar to the world of wrestling, then you are pretty aware of how graphic that can be.
Quote: Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson: When you live hard and you play hard and burn the candle at both ends… in this life, you can lose everything you love, everything that loves you. A lot of people told me that I’d never wrestle again, they said “he’s washed up”, “he’s finished” , “he’s a loser”, “he’s all through”. You know what? The only ones gonna tell me when I’m through doing my thing, is you people here. You people here… you people here. You’re my family.