Director: Nimród Antal
Genre: Sci-Fi/Action/Thriller/Adventure
Year: 2010

The Predators are back, and this time I do not feel like punting them back to their twisted little planet! Cause–let’s be honest–AVP and AVP 2 were like pushing your forehead to a nail gun and squeezing the trigger. Predator 2 was not that good either but I am such an avid Predator fan that I was willing to look past pretty much everything. At the core, however, Predator will always be a man’s guilty pleasure. Its an alien and it hunts humans for sport. Nothing more exciting than to see the roles reversed and watch us be the hunted. If you have seen Predator and you enjoyed it, this movie will not disappoint. No predator film will ever be an Academy Award recipient, of that I am sure and after watching this movie, I still hold to that statement. But if we are able to look past the expectations a good film must overcome and see it for what it is–a fun, sci-fi, action, summer block buster–then we are golden.

The plot is pleasantly simple and yet still provides us with everything that we need to get this film going and at a breakneck speed off the starting mark. As mercenaries and killers start falling out of the sky, it is clear that there is something not quite right about the situation Royce (Adrien Brody; Love the Hard Way, Splice) finds himself in. Isabelle (Alice Braga; City of God, I Am Legend) points out that the area, the vegetation, the topography is all off and it does not take them very long (though for the audience it might feel like it does take them a while to reach this point conclusively) to realize they are not in Kansas anymore. Soon after angry, quadrupedal, alien hounds come chasing down their asses, they realize, the game has been flipped on them.

Among the group of the chosen are Royce, special ops; Isabelle, elite sniper; Cuchillo (Danny Trejo; Machete), a Mexican cartel mercenary; Stans (Walton Goggins; The Shield), an apologetically unreformed convict; Edwin (Topher Grace; Traffic), a doctor; Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov; The Way), Spetznas; Mombasa (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali; The 4400), a Sierra Leone warrior; and Hanzo (Louis Ozawa Changchien, Pretty to Think So), a Yakuza badass of few words. Together, this varied group of people must band together to survive against a team of predators that have declared the current hunting season open in a planet (or at least a jungle within a planet) that is deemed a hunting preserve. All evidence points to the fact that this has been going on for a long time. All evidence also shows that most prey die quickly and mercilessly.

Predators brings to the screen the joy of the first movie back, with faced paced action and some cleverly worked in humor. The acting is above par, and the feel of the film is respected, bringing it back to it roots and drawing a number of elements form some of the comic book mini-series that I once read as a teen.

While it might satisfy the action sweet tooth, you should go into Predators knowing it is not perfect. There are some plot choices that were a bit questionable and without going into spoilers, I was not very pleased with the unnecessarily complicated direction in which they took the character of Edwin. There are moments that make you wonder why certain things were not realized a bit earlier–highly trained killers that they are. There is also a ‘pregnant woman’ moment. Remember the second movie, where the Predator spares Maria Conchita Alonzo’s life because she is pregnant? It was a moment that showed the honor the Predators put into the hunt. This movie has such a moment when one of the hunters faces Hanzo on the Yakuza assassin’s own terms rather than his own and while some people might roll an eye at it, I thought it was once again representative of the type of hunters that the Predators are. There is also a few hints tossed into the different types of Predators out there and though they only mention two types–the warriors and the hunters–and pits them against each other (something I was unaware of in the original material but which might be accurate) there is certainly room here for a sequel.

All in all, this is the Predator return to form with a thrilling climactic fight and lots of glowing green blood. It is an enjoyable and fun film to watch even if it is not the brainiest of summer films–that will most likely end up being Inception.

Rating: I really love Predators and I am holding back adding in an additional star out of pure fandom geekiness. On the other side of the coin, if this is not your cup of tea, I can see how one might rank this 3.5 out of 5 instead.

Comments: Violence and language as is to be expected from a Predator film.
Quote: Royce: This planet is a game reserve. And we’re the game.

Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Genre: History/Romance/Drama/Biography
Year: 2009

For whatever reason, after seeing this film it was clear to me that the story lacked substance, or rather…build up. It was an interesting story that overall still seemed bland and lacked any form of climax, and yet, I still felt the desire to watch it all the way through the end, which does speak to what this film does right.

Dealing with Queen Victoria’s difficult early years as she becomes the leader of her country, this movie takes us from her childhood all the way to when she becomes an established sovereign, influenced largely by the people around him — many of which have their own political agendas — and others of noble lineage that were led more blindly by their genuine love, namely Prince Albert.

As far as historical accuracies, I am entirely at a loss. I will not pretend to know much about the period and that was in fact one of the most frustrating aspects of this film. The fact that they run at breakneck speed through a number of accounts without fully establishing, making the assumption that the audience is somewhat familiar with the subject is a mistake, particularly for ignorant viewers like myself that hold no knowledge on the subject. Through most of the beginning of the film I struggled to keep up with events and names that were briefly mentioned and then moved on from before I had a chance to truly digest it.

As a romance film, however, there is no denying that the undercurrent of romanticism is strong and it does has its own peculiar charm. The story of true love in an arena of corruption does hold its own sense of triumph and perhaps that is the driving force that compelled me to finish watching this film. There is no denying that Emily Blunt, who plays the young Victoria and Rupert Friend, who plays Prince Albert, are good at what they do. Toss into the mix Paul Bethany who is genial and you have yourself a strong cast to carry this story all the way to its conclusion, so that even if the story is lacking in complexity, it is still quite a good watch.

Rating:
Comment: A pretty tame movie when it comes to content. There is brief sexuality that is mostly implied, so with some parental guidance this is essentially a family film, though I almost guarantee that your kids are going to be bored to death by it.

Director: Vincenzo Natali
Genre: Sci-Fi/Horror/Thriller
Year: 2009

The newest addition to sci-fi films done right got its release this weekend (as of 6.7.10) and it goes by the name of Splice. A thriller regarding two brilliant scientists exploring the realm of cloning and insistent on using human genes, even if illegitimately. When their experiment proves successful, Klive Nicoli (Adrien Brody; The Pianist, The Village, Love the Hard Way) and Elsa Kast (Sarah Polley; My Life Without Me, Go) allow it to proceed to term and then further, resulting in the birth of a creature, part human, part animal and full of trouble.

Expecting a horror film more than anything else, this film far succeeded my expectations, giving us a convincing drama, based in the relationship of these two scientists who are also intimately involved with each other. As the experiment proceeds, the bond of their relationship is tested. Here and there it seems their roles are a bit too harshly scripted, but the caliber of these two actors skills is for the most part able to surpass those hurdles. The sci-fi aspect of the film thankfully breezes past the technical side of things and is far more concerned with the aftermath, bringing up questions — while providing no answers — to questions dealing with ethics and morality when it comes to human cloning.

Having recently read Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, I was struck by the wonderful way this movie and that book compliment each other. The two could not be more extreme in their outlook, but at the core the questions being brought up and the issues that are being dealt with are often the same and these two sources provide extremely different outlooks. It will be interesting, once Never Let Me Go the movie is released this fall, to watch the two films side by side.

In general, I would highly recommend this film to any fan of sci-fi, keeping in mind that it is not entirely perfect and it does manage to hold on to a handful of cheesy moments that one could have done without or that could have been easily changed on a screenplay rewrite. Nevertheless, this film is a must watch for any fan of the genre and for those that might be interested on the philosophical arguments of cloning.

Rating:
Comments: NOT FOR CHILDREN! I was astounded, at the theater, that one couple brought their kids to the theater. The scary moments and the frightening creature were not enough, to get them to walk out. Neither was the full nude scene of the creature strapped down to the table. It took a scene far more grave than that to finally empty out their seats. There are two scenes in particular here that might disturb a lot people, so exercise caution.

Director: Alejandro Springall
Genre: Drama/Comedy
Year: 1999

Esperanza lost her daughter! She took her to the hospital and left her there overnight for the removal of her tonsils. Routine procedure. And yet, when she returns the following day, the pre-teen is already in a coffin, wrapped up and under a hazard seal labeling her contagious. All Esperanza can do is sign the papers for the creamation and accept that her daughter is dead. She is trying to deal with this, already suffering by being a single mom, living with a woman who also lost her husband in the same accident in which Esperanza’s own died, and working at a hardware store where it seems her work goes under appreciated.

Her refuge is religion, always having been a woman of faith, to the point where her best friend is an elderly priest to whom she seems to confess to daily, it is perhaps little surprising when after all of this takes place, Esperanza turns on the oven and in it finds an apparition of St. Jude, telling her to go look for her daughter. And this is where it all starts. As the visions increase and Esperanza’s innocence is fed hope; she goes in a journey across the country and abroad, working jobs from hotel maid to prostitution, all in an effort to find her missing daughter whom she is sure has been stolen and placed in a house of bad repute.

It is a stark concept with a rather good chunk of charm, considering the subject and I am almost willing to compare it a Millions for the adult audience, even if this particular film is not as sharpened, focused or well delivered as that of Danny Boyle’s regarding a child who also talks to saints. Nevertheless, there is enough in this film to keep one intrigued and entertained, even if at times the actors over act and the plot seems a little forced.

Studded with colorful characters, all seemingly with their own quirks and unexpected turns of events that are both alarming and funny, this movie is one to watch but perhaps not run out and get with any sense of urgency. It is worth the time to watch it and it holds enough water to make it a thoughtful film with an interesting concept, but it also seems to waver in the direction, because the actors are clearly capable of good performances and yet they seem to meander in and out of good acting throughout. Certain characters appear to be more caricatures than fully fleshed out personalities, which is in many cases a shame because this story does have a good amount of humor, and as previously mentioned, charm.

Santitos then, is an interesting story about a woman’s journey and effort to deal with tragedy and find in the dark a self that is able to blossom, even if painted under her superstitious nature. Just do not expect any fantastic performances or directing, with expectations set to medium, this film can not disappoint.

Rating:
Comments: For a movie that deals so heavily with underage human trafficking and prostitution, this film has a surprisingly low amount of nudity. There is brief nudity, there is some violence and obviously there is some heavy adult themes, but there is nothing scandalous here that will ruin the naive charm of the movie. Spanish with English subtitles.
Recommendation: For a family film with a similar subject matter check out Danny Boyle’s “Millions.”

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
Genre: Drama/Biography/Crime/Action
Year: 2008

Michael Peterson (Tom Hardy; Layer Cake, RocknRolla) just wants to be famous. He knew he was destined for something big but he was born into mundane circumstances, to a nondescript family and really…he has a temper. What starts as bad behavior in school, petty thievery and yard fights, develops into the holding of a Post Office, where he acquires a small sum of money and seven years in prison after getting caught. And then the flood gates opened, because there, in that world of misfits and criminals, Michael Peterson, who later went on to adopt the alter ego — fighting name, as they called it — of Charlie Bronson, finds his place where he is feared, notorious and eventually goes on to become one of the most interesting and infamous people in the British penal system. The short sentence evolves, due to his unruly behavior; it develops into fight after fight and an eventual landing at an asylum for the criminally insane. With a brief stint in the real world after release — when the staff at the asylum figure out that he is simply too much of a liability in the institution, which apparently merits his release as certifiably sane — Peterson goes on to become a bare knuckles fighter in the underbelly of his hometown and inevitably lands back in prison where he remains.

Bronson, the film, is told from Michael Peterson’s own perspective, with a heavy dose of his unique personality splattered all over the screen, running in tandem with clever editing and a tongue in cheek use of epic music, this film is from the very opening scene a spectacle to behold, the one carnival creep show that makes your skin crawl and you are entirely unable to look away from. The fact that Refn (the director) gets us to care about this brutal man is more than a simple achievement, considering the raw, violent undertone that seeps through every scene in this film, with rising tensions that do not allow the audience to ever feel at peace while Bronson is present.

Indeed, the story is unforgiving and all the more disturbing considering the fact that it is based on a true story of a prisoner that has served more than 35 years in prison for a small robbery and around 20 of those years have been spend in solitary confinement. If anything, this film shows the downward spiral of this man who becomes the very violence he is drawn to, until it seems every quiet moment he presents is merely the silence before the next storm. One might think a film of this nature would be difficult to watch and with its numerous scenes where fists connect to faces and blood is drawn, one can hardly blame such a judgment; yet, it is Peterson’s own charisma, brilliantly channeled by Tom Hardy who becomes a star and carries this film expertly from beginning to end, not only in the story being told but even in the side scenes in which he is shown narrating, either lost in the dark of an undisclosed abyss or on a stage before a very lively crowd that hinges on his every word while he dons ironically elegant suits and mime face paint.

This movie is a must own, if you are able to bear the violence of its nature, but if nothing else a must watch, if only to witness Hardy’s stellar performance, Refn’s carefully orchestrated directing, Matthew Newman’s artistically timed editing or Larry Smith’s gifted cinematography. There is so much right with this picture that it is easy to overlook the few things that are wrong, namely some fighting choreography that falls a bit short of realistic, particularly when shown in slow motion and a not very well attached love subplot that feels rather empty in comparison to the rest of the film. While it might not be perfect, it is probably the most enjoyable nihilistic movie I have seen since Fight Club while at the same time making you wonder what is broken here, the man? The system? Or both?

Rating:
Comments: Extremely violent at times, disturbing imagery, nudity, language and adult situations.
Quote: Paul: All you need is a name.
Charles Bronson: What’s wrong with Mickey Peterson.
Paul: You need a fighting name, like a movie star.
Charles Bronson: Charlton Heston.
Paul: Look, love. No one gives a toss about Charlton Heston. The man’s a cunt. You’re more of the Charles Bronson type.

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Genre: Action/Comedy/Drama
Year: 2009

Quentin Tarantino what Quentin Tarantino does best, but somehow this film got blown up with hype and tossed into nominations for Best Film which I am not sure are deserved. While I did enjoy this film as I tend to enjoy most Tarantino films; while it is entertaining and fun to watch; while it has some pretty good cinematography and directing…it also seems to me that it was one of the most overrated films of the year.

The film is loosely based on the Italian film Inglorious Bastards (Quel maledetto treno blindato) by Enzo Castellari, a film about a troop of misfits and last-chance soldiers recruited on what is essentially a suicide mission (click here for my review of that film) in World War II as they get dropped behind enemy lines to create some serious, bad-ass chaos. Tarantino’s film is at heart essentially the same, but changes a number of details. This time around, instead of misfits making the crew, it is a number of Jewish soldiers and their mission has been simplified to kill as many Nazis as they can (100 scalps per soldier).

Two stories have been weaved together, that of the Inglorious Basterds in their mission and that of Shosanna Dreyfus, a young jewish girl whose family is brutally murdered by Nazi’s in the opening scene of the film. Managing to escape with her life, she goes on to settle down in a cinema which she eventually ends up running and which turns out to be the venue for one of Nazi propaganda’s films, giving her–and the Inglorious Basterds–the unique opportunity to not only take out high ranking Nazi’s, but Hitler himself.

Unfortunately, the division between the two stories is altogether too easily felt. Shosanna’s story is dramatic, powerful, interesting and extremely well handled, amounting for about ninety percent of the best acting in this film–Christoph Waltz as Colonel Landa is nothing short of fabulous and absolutely earned his Oscar–which holds the key to most of the plot here. The story of the Inglorious Basterds, who ironically lend their name to the title of this film, is by far the weakest and one might argue pointless. The acting falls through, severely poor on the part of some (Eli Roth) or overdone on the part of others (Brad Pitt). Their mission itself seems superfluous and redundant, given that everything they are working for is already being handled by Shosanna and her boyfriend Marcel at the cinema. Unless Shosanna failed terribly–which she didn’t–the story of the Inglorious Bastards is moot and one ends up watching a film where either the Inglorious Bastards succeed, or Shosanna succeeds, or both, which really cuts down on the thrill that should be carried by a movie of this caliber.

Most of the comedic moments are carried through in the Inglorious Basterds story, which only adds to the polarization of this film. Frankly stated, this film never decides if it wants to be taken seriously or simply be an act of delightful buffoonery, a display of brawn and a parade of gore. Fortunately, this film does indeed carry some memorable scenes that salvage it from being a complete waste of time. The opening scene regarding Shosanna is amazing; the bar scene regarding the more obscure members of the Inglorious Basterds, a spy and a Nazi officer, will have you on the edge of your seat; and the scene at the restaurant between Pvt. Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl; The Bourne Ultimatum, Joyeux Noël), Shosanna and Col. Landa is yet another and the dialogue is carried with the capabilities that Tarantino has deployed in many of his previous films. Unfortunately, it is not enough to cover the schizophrenic feel of this film, keeping it at a enjoyable level but in my opinion never lifting it above that.

The acting must be commended in the part of Christoph Waltz and Mélanie Laurent, who do a fantastic job with their roles and it is a shame that Waltz character is so mishandled in the end, contradicting everything he had been set up to be. Brad Pitt is a few notches over the top, but does a good enough job to provide a number of laughs, even if his character is about as important to the movie as the Inglorious Basterds as a group seem to be to the plot. The participants of the bar scene, and the farmer in the opening scene do quite a good job in their scenes as well, but their characters are so relegated to the sidelines that unfortunately their talent is not properly displayed.

This is not a bad film, but do not make the mistake of buying into the hype before watching this film or you will most likely be sorely disappointed. Watch it, enjoy it, have fun and leaving it at that, you should be fine. Bring with you the nonsense about best film of the year and you will end up with the sour taste in your mouth I now carry.

Rating:
Comments: Violent and over-the-top gory at times, this film is not family friendly. Language is all over the place too, as can be expected from a Tarantino film.
Quote: Shosanna Dreyfus: My name is Shosanna Dreyfus and THIS is the face… of Jewish vengeance!

Good things come in threes–or is that bad things? No matter, the point is that today, I have three reviews for you, all of them being for documentaries regarding Iraq. I actually watched all three of these, back to back, which was a pretty cool experience in and of itself, considering how much of the material seemed to interweave the docs. In the end, it gave me perhaps a greater understanding on how these stories fit against each other and the subtext that might have been overlooked in one and the other. While I would not suggest you spend your time watching them back to back like I did, I would definitely encourage you to take a look at each of these docs if you have not already.

-Fco.

The Prisoner or: How I Planned to Kill Tony Blair

Director: Petra Epperlein, Michael Tucker
Genre: Documentary – Iraq
Year: 2006

I was always under the impression that a good documentary ought to be unbiased, but over the last decade a number of politically charged documentaries have hit the mainstream with a vengeance and it seems the new sub-genre of loaded docs is becoming more and more acceptable. Michael Moore comes to mind, but even this particular doc seems to be skewed, mostly because it is merely told form one person’s point of view: a reporter wrongly arrested by the Americans under charges that he had conspired to kill British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

While normally I would balk at the idea of a lop sided doc, this one works and it works because it is essentially an autobiographical story, supported by a good amount of evidence, including the fact that he was eventually released without a single charge. The story given to us is but one in a number of tales of abuse at the hands of American’s (and I suppose their allies as well) in a very badly managed war. At time amusing and often head-shakingly wrong, the story tells us of Yunnis Abbas, background, his eventual wrongful capture, his imprisonment at Abu Gharib, and his eventual release, given to him without answering any of the important questions.

Given that a number of the arguments made hold no visual evidence, a large part of this story is recreated in a style of animation reminiscent of Waltz with Bashir. Entirely told through his eyes, the story is an eye opening story that went on to get a good reception at festivals and acquired a nomination for Best Documentary in 2008. My only reminder to you is that this IS a first person account and therefore ought to be seen as that and that alone.

Rating:
Comments: While the content, visually speaking is kept pretty tame, the themes themselves are rather disturbing, particularly during the recounting of Abbas’ time at Abu Gharib.

No End in Sight

Director: Charles Ferguson
Genre: Documentary – Iraq
Year: 2007

There are documentaries that are one sided because they have an agenda and then there are the ones that have to be one sided because the people being put on the hot seat are too afraid to even talk about it. This is one of the latter, giving us an disturbingly clear picture of how badly managed the Iraq war during its first years, and how corrupt the Bush Administration was throughout the process.

Utilizing the stories of various ‘insiders’ to put together one of the most clear pictures of the events that transpired just prior to Bush taking us into the Iraq invasion and then the year to follow. Pointing out as if off a checklist, they go through all the issues that came up and the way they were not only mismanaged but at time clearly swept under the rug. And when shizz hit the fan, the way the administration used their scapegoats to get out as cleanly as they could have wanted.

In this case, attempt to reach those in question was made, each one of them high enough in the administration to shed some light on any of the accusations, but they each bowed out of comment, cementing their guilt as pointed out in the documentary that much more. The few brave enough to argue their point on film, build up such a ludicrous argument that it nearly becomes laughable.

If ever you wanted to get a clear picture of the complexity of events that led us to the Iraq war, this is a great source to get you started. If it is important to you, this film has also been highly acclaimed, nominated for 15 awards, including an Oscar and winning a good number of them.

Rating:
Comments: War and prisons are discussed. I do not recall much graphic material here at all and most of the themes surround politics more so than actual war details…but my memory is a bit hazy on this.

Standard Operating Procedure

Director: Errol Morris
Category: Documentary – Iraq
Year: 2008

I know I have used the word disturbing a number of times in regards to the three previous documentaries, but this takes disturbing to a whole new level, particularly because it deals with the ugliest side of our own soldiers. Unless you have been living under a rock the last half decade, you have already heard of the atrocities and human right violations that were taking place in the American run prison of Abu Gharib in Iraq. One can’t even bother to use the word alleged, because there are so many photographs documenting the horrible treatment of the prisoners that denial becomes moot. The very people involved do not deny the incident and THAT is what makes this documentary so mind gruelingly interesting, in that it becomes a psychological breakdown of what happened, who was involved and how to compartmentalize the blame, because everybody involved is pointing fingers.

To watch this film, you will have to have a steady stomach, because they take in a number of the photographs taken from the soldiers cameras, they are aligned in chronological order and they take us through one of the most disgusting stories ever told regarding abuse of prisoners and what is worse? It is our own side doing it, not them. That is not to argue that they may not treat our soldiers unfairly, because I think every army in a war zone, seems to show its ugly side in one way or the other. What is shocking here is that the American’s, with our ‘high standards’ of morale and air of superiority fell to their level, if not lower.

What makes this even more interesting is that each of the people involved tells their own story, some accepting part of the blame, others none and a rare couple accepting the blame openly. They go through the story in chronological order and describe in detail what they saw, what they did and in some cases why. What results is a stomach churning story, which investigates which actions were considered criminal and which ones were – as the title of the documentary implies – standard operating procedure, and you would be surprised!

This is one hell of a documentary, not suggested for the feint of heart and sure to break down, if only a little, your faith in humanity. Which is a really really sad thing, so after this, have an episode of the Care Bears ready, cause you are gonna need it.

Rating:
Comments: Very difficult to watch, none of the evidence is hidden here and the atrocities are discussed in detail and examined. This is most definitely not a family film and most adults are cautioned on the content.

Director: Terry Gilliam
Genre: Drama/Fantasy/Adventure
Year: 2009

You sort of have to know what you are getting into when you go see a Terry Gilliam film, otherwise you are going to run out of there feeling like you want to thump somebody’s butt with your boot. The fact is, from my experience, that Gilliam tends to split the audience into two groups, the ones that think he is some sort of underrated genius and the ones that, well…think he is not. That’s a terrible way to describe the rift that Gilliam can create with his films, considering that a lot of the people I have met, that do not like his work, are militant about it.

But when one is taking strides to move out of the mainstream the way Gilliam does, I can not help but admire him. SO, for the record, I am one of those that will be partial and biased toward his stuff, because his films seem to tap into the subconscious in ways very few can. Originally famous for his eclectic animations in Monty Python, Gilliam has built up quite the repertoire of films: Time Bandits, Brazil, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Tideland among others. Some of those have been highly acclaimed others only tepidly received but if there is one thread that runs…scratch that, if there is two threads that run in common among his work is that one, his imagination knows very few boundaries and two, most of his stuff falls under the radar.

I am sure that Imaginarium would have been another secret jewel the way Tideland was, if it were not for Heath Ledger’s (Dark Knight, Brokeback Mountain) untimely death. Having just finished a fantastic run as the Joker in the second installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman series, and rumored to be a shoo in for an Oscar nomination that year, his accidental death brought a lot of attention to this film he left incomplete. Halfway through production, Terry Gilliam had to deal with the unenviable task of fixing a half finished work in which one of the main characters no longer was accessible.

No stranger to on-set troubles (See the Lost in La Mancha documentary), Terry Gilliam found an innovative way to solve this issue, utilizing the talent of Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Collin Farrell to fill in for the role, requiring some re-working and re-shooting in order to get it to work. Strangely enough, it almost seems to fit in too perfectly with the storyline we are presented with, which, to nobody’s surprise, is one little white pill short of a trip.

The story revolves around Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer; Up, Syriana), an ageless man who gambled with the devil and put his daughter’s life on the line. It was a bet that took place ages ago and now, the Devil, also known as Mr. Nick (Tom Waits; Wristcutters: A Love Story, Coffee and Cigarettes), is coming to collect the girl on her sixteenth birthday. Aware that time is running low, Parnassus tries to gamble yet again, this time trying to save his daughter, but with the strange entourage of his, which help him run a movable theater which allows you to travel into the Doctor’s imagination, the process will not be easy.

Trying to describe this film in one paragraph is difficult and it most likely sounds like a mind warp, but if you know Terry Gilliam’s style, then you also know this is pretty much his default setting. The plot reads, strangely, very much like a combination of Being John Malkovich and Mirror Mask. Needless to say, the visuals are stunningly strange and interesting, taking us from the somewhat weird world we are used to, to the uber weird world that exists inside the good Doctor’s mind.

Imaginarium is a very enticing concept and story that nevertheless still feels a bit fragmented. Once has to wonder how much of that is due to the fact that Heath Ledger’s character had to be split between four people that do a decent job but never quite shine, or to a script that does not do the necessary job to truly root the characters we are shown. Surprisingly enough it is the relatively unknown Andrew Garfield (The Other Boleyn Girl, Lions for Lambs) as Anton, that steals the show. It is not that the other actors fail to bring their characters to life, but rather that they do not get us to care enough to push this film from being simply good to being something magnificent.

Still, with an original plot, amazing visuals, plenty of humor, dark fantasy and a heavy dose of imagination, this film is still definitely one to see and likely to become a cult favorite. While this is perhaps not Terry Gilliams best work, it is still one of those films that must be watched and are easily enjoyed.

Rating:
Comments: Not quite for children, there are a number of dark themes approached here in a frightening enough fashion that the average kid will be rather disturbed. There might have been some brief nudity as well.
Quote: Tony: Don’t believe everything you read. Especially The Mirror.

Director: Michel Gondry
Genre: Comedy/Drama
Year: 2008

All that Elroy Fletcher (Danny Glover; Blindness) has that comes close to a claim to fame is that Fats Waller, a famous jazz player, once lived in the corner apartment that is now both his house and his movie rental business. At a time when everybody has moved on to DVD and on to the digital age, Elroy and his ‘son’ Mike (Mos Def; Cadillac Records, The Italian Job) continue to rent VHS to a small group of people in the community with an unwavering sense of loyalty to the tiny shop. The only problem is that the Be Kind Rewind video store is in danger of being shut down to be turned into tenements and unless they can improve their business model, the store — like Fats Waller — is going to be history.

Enter Jerry (Jack Black; Kung Fu Panda, Tropic Thunder), a loser who lives in his auto junk grounds in a trailer, next to a power plant which is driving him more and more deranged, to the point that he sleeps with a strainer on his head to avoid brain damage. Not that it helps. In an act of sabotage, he ends up becoming accidentally magnetized and when next he visits the video store – during one of Elroy’s outings in an attempt to save the business – Jerry manages to erase all of the video tape rentals, putting Mike in a precarious position. Their solution? Re-film the rental movies themselves, using their own camera, a three to four person cast and extremely low budget effects, hoping against hope that…….nobody will notice.

People notice, but much to their surprise, these ‘Sweded’ films become the hit, bringing the demand to unprecedented heights and bringing the small gang a whole new set of problems.

Awkwardly comic, as Michel Gondry (The Science of Sleep, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) only seems to be able to achieve, this film is quirky and goofy but not devoid of content and a message. While intended to be a feel good comedy, this film also playfully manages to become a bit touching at times. Mos Def is at his most playful and Jack Black is up to his usual antics which…if you have seen them in one movie, you have seen them in most others. With a simple but well formed story, this movie is a treat to watch, though one gets the feeling there could have been some fat trimmed off it.

Rating:
Comments: A bit of mild language and some slightly adult humor, but for the most part this film is pretty clean all around.
Quote: Jerry: [Alma is providing the voices for "The Lion King"] Listen to me. I need you to say the line. I need you to say “I will piss on the bones of your ancestors”…
Mike: No, no! That’s not in the movie!
Jerry: [interrupts] This is the next Lion King. This is Part II.
Alma: Roar! I will piss on the bones of your ancestors!

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.