Author: Brent Moore

Documentaries very rarely get wide theatrical releases, and therefore film festivals like South By Southwest often provide you with the best opportunity to catch these great movies before they drift off into obscurity. Out of the 17 films I saw at this year’s SXSW, 7 were documentaries. We already ran my full review of American: The Bill Hicks Story but here are some quick thoughts on the other 6.

White Stripes: Under Great White Northern Lights

This concert film documents the eccentric duo as they go on their Canadian tour where they played every province and region of the country, and focused on the small out of the way towns instead of big cities. The tour included surprise daytime shows where they played on a boat, in a bowling alley, on a bus, and even did a show where they played a single note.

This documentary is a must for any White Stripes fan, even though it doesn’t reveal too much about the  band you don’t already know. There are a few candid interviews and you see much more of the notoriously shy drummer Meg White than you ever have before, but for the most part it’s just a gorgeously shot travelogue with snippets of their frenetic live shows. The majority of the film is shot is a stark and grainy black and white, with the occasional red filter, that is completely in line with the bands style.

The White Stripes are arguably the only true rock stars of the modern era. They understand aesthetics and myth making better than anyone else in the business. You never really get a glimpse into who they are as people, what with Jack White controlling their image with an iron grip. This is the reason they are larger than life, and it is key to their success. However, the film closes on an incredibly beautiful scene of Jack White playing a song on the piano while Meg silently cries next to him. Then, in a moment reminiscent of Lost in Translation, he whispers something into her ear and cradles her in his arms. This rare and touching moment of humanity is the thing you will leave the film remembering, and it does nothing but make you want to break through the rock star image and see who Jack and Meg really are.

Under Great White Northern Lights is currently out on DVD, and can also be purchased as part of an amazing box set including a live CD and LP as well as a stunning photography book.

Bear Nation

Bear Nation is an exploration of the sub-culture of “bears” in the gay community. A bear is a large and hairy man that goes against the stereotyped image of the homosexual male. Bear Nation simultaneously tries to define and reveal this outsider group, and show why this kind of labeling and segregation is unnecessary and harmful. It’s really about how we are all the same and we should all love one another.

Director Malcolm Ingram is coming off of his other gay themed doc Small Town Gay Bar which was a film with a certain narrative and never resorted to just being a talking heads documentary. Bear Nation, on the other hand, unfortunately becomes very redundant very quickly. The movie very quickly explains what a bear is, and then it’s just kind of rinse and repeat from there. It is almost all just talking heads, well shot talking heads but talking heads nonetheless, just explaining what they think a bear is and why they like them. You don’t really learn anything new over the course of the film.

It’s all passably entertaining but I think it’s overall a subject that’s stretched way too far here. The closest thing it has to a climax is an extended interview with Ingram’s pal and producer, Kevin Smith. It would have worked as a small part of a larger documentary, but can’t hold up a feature on its own.

The People VS George Lucas

I need to precede this review by acknowledging a certain bias. The makers of PvG are friends with us here at Geekscape and several Geekscape regulars, including our leader Jonathan London, make appearances in the film. Hell, I’m even mentioned in the credits.

But there is a reason we are so attached to this project, and that is because it is about something that has defined all of us. Star Wars, for better or worse, is an incredibly important part of our lives and this movie sets out to hold those responsible accountable for their actions in destroying something great. The film covers the entire span of the Star Wars saga, from George Lucas’ origins as a visionary and rebellious figure all the way to his artistically void corporate present.

Tons of geeks show up in this film to give their passionate criticisms and defenses of the man who betrayed us. And yes, for many of us this is all stuff we’ve heard and said many times before but there is something cathartic about having it all condensed here. This feels like closure. With this film it seems we are ready to move on. And for the non-geeks, this gives an incredibly informative glimpse into a world that they never knew existed.

Anyone with even a passing interest in Star Wars would do well to check this out.

Waking Sleeping Beauty

Waking Sleeping Beauty is about the near death and triumphant resurrection of Disney’s animation division in the 80’s and early 90’s. It goes into detail about the Eisner/Katzenberg era and all of the tensions involved in that relationship.

There have been several Disney documentaries over the last few years and while this isn’t the best of the bunch, it is interesting in that it is comprised completely of archival footage. No talking heads to be found here. Much of the footage was shot by a young John Lasseter and features rare footage of Disney legends like Tim Burton and Don Bluth.

The film is fairly entertaining but there is nothing too revelatory here. The rivalry between Eisner, Katzenberg, and Roy Disney is well documented and a good portion of the film is devoted to a series of “and then we made this movie, and then we made this movie”, without ever going into too much detail.

It is interesting to watch this with the knowledge of what comes after. The looming rise of Pixar and the demise of hand drawn animation casts a shadow over all the proceedings.

Richard Garriott: Man on a Mission

This movie is supposed to be about how a man with a dream can accomplish anything, but it really serves as a exploration of how big a dork Richard Garriott is. All you geeks know Garriott as the man who created the enormously successful Ultima games (as well as the much less successful Tabula Rasa) and watching him prance around in costume with his dual rat tails here is consistently hilarious.

Garriott is the son of an astronaut but due to physical defects he was not able to follow his father’s footsteps into NASA. However, with the fortune he earned from game programming he purchased a flight to the international space station through the Russians. We see his preparation and his actual trip to space. The training can be a bit tedious as Garriott is not the most entertaining storyteller but the footage shot in space is pretty extraordinary. We’ve seen zero gravity antics before but never quite like this. We also get the first ever footage of the violent re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere which is pretty amazing.

This is not quite the epic it should have been, but there is enough here to warrant a viewing.

Hubble 3D

This IMAX 3D sets out to fulfill the dreams of all space geeks who will never be able to go themselves. IMAX 3D cameras followed a NASA crew as they set out to repair the ailing satellite. The footage they got is pretty amazing but unfortunately it’s very limited in scope. Very little of the film is actually filmed in 3D and the scenes that are are mostly close up views of repair work. We don’t really get to enjoy the vastness of space or see objects floating in the blackness.

The most impressive stuff is actually the 2D images the Hubble has captured. They took these images and, using some computer wizardry, allow us to fly light years through space and explore far away galaxies. These are the scenes that took my breath away, even though they weren’t “real”.

The film is also hampered by the trappings of all IMAX educational films. It is only 45 minutes long and has an overbearing and cheesy narration by Leonardo DiCaprio. This was not the experience I hoped it would be but it’s totally worth checking out for anyone obsessed with space.

On a side not, I had to go with the “glasses over glasses” approach for this and there was some ghosting. Whether or not that was due to the dual glasses thing, or just sketchy 3D is hard to say.

Filmmakers must hate VH1’s Behind the Music. That show has ruined the standard rise and fall rock and roll drama forever by beating that horse until its whole family died. The Runaways is the latest victim of Behind the Music’s wrath. It’s a good enough movie with some strong performances and fun soundtrack but its story is complete rock and roll cliche.

Part of this is the actual Runaways fault, in that their story just isn’t that interesting. They were an interesting, and some might say important, group but despite being a new kind of rock band, they never diverted from standard rock script. Amateur musicians get together with a manager that exploits their image instead of their talent, they get too famous too fast, they get addicted to drugs, the lead singer gets too much attention and causes jealousy in the group, and they break up. Boring.

Part of the fault lies with the genre. Biopics are inherently limiting for a filmmaker, and almost always devolve into “and then they did this, and then they did this, and then they did this.” This dry recounting of events takes precedent over making something that is stylistically or dramatically interesting. Actors and directors don’t have the space to create art, they are just reading history.

These flaws aside though, The Runaways is not a bad movie. It’s just a serviceable one.

When talking about biopics, the main issue is always the casting. You need to find the perfect people to capture these larger than life personalities, and The Runaways actually does a decent job with this. There aren’t any real standout performances here, but I feel that’s mostly to do with the genre and not the actors. Child actors and Twilight co-stars Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning are the main focus here and this is a pretty big step in breaking out of their preconceived images and making way for more adult roles. Stewart’s Joan Jett and Fanning’s Cherie Currie are characters who gave in to the rock and roll excesses of sex and drugs at a very young age. Currie was marketed as a sex kitten at the age of 15 and she lived up to that image in her private life, though the film is constantly intent on reminding you of her soft side. There has been a lot of talk about the sex scene that the two share together but it’s really nothing indulgent. There is some kissing and some artful cuts to conceal anything not appropriate for girls their age.

Stewart has been riding high on the success of the Twilight series, but with that has come a great deal of, somewhat deserved, criticism. She tends to come off as having no personality and being too mopey, but ever since Panic Room I’ve thought of her as an actress with great potential. She doesn’t completely live up to that potential here but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. There is no question that Stewart has the look and “fuck it” attitude to play the role but she doesn’t quite have that raw passion or emotion. She is still a bit too distant here. Everyone knows that Dakota Fanning is one of the, if not the single, most gifted child actresses film has ever seen. She has always seemed almost creepily mature and it’s interesting to see her actually grow into herself. This is a very new kind of role for Fanning. She is playing a sex symbol and one who flaunts that aspect of herself with reckless abandon. I don’t know if it was just my past experience with Fanning or not, but I could never really buy her in this role. She puts in a fine performance but she doesn’t exude raw sexuality. The other members of The Runaways are more or less forgotten in this film, so there is nothing to really comment on as far as their performances. This is really the Joan and Cherie show.

The one actor who completely hits it out of the park is Michael Shannon, who completely embodies the look and feel of the completely outlandish personality that is Kim Fowley. Fowley is the legendary rock producer that put The Runaways together and kept them in the press with his controversy laden marketing. Shannon continues to be one of the most interesting actors out there and was a perfect choice to play Fowley. He is also responsible for the majority of laughs in the film.

All that said, if you’re a huge Runaways fan or if you can’t get enough of Grrrrrl Power then this is a totally decent choice. If you want something new or emotionally affecting, then this will completely disappoint.

Oh great, yet another film where a mild mannered person is driven to go on a killing spree when a loved one is brutally murdered by over the top evil thugs. The revenge genre is fighting slasher flicks and romantic comedies as the single most clichéd genre in existence. So, why do we keep coming back for more? Well, because it’s kind of badass.

Harry Brown makes no effort whatsoever to break away from the revenge flick mold. The difference here is that this stars the great Michael Caine. Caine has been on quite a roll as of late, with his work with Christopher Nolan as well as great parts in movies like Children of Men. Everyone knows that Caine is a bad ass but here you see that really brought to the forefront. He usually commands with his eyes and quiet confidence. Here he commands with firearms and a nothing to lose attitude.

Caine, who is looking more and more like my late grandmother, plays the titular character. A man who is slowly losing everything of worth in his life. He is retired, his daughter is long dead, his wife is dying in a hospital, and his only friend is a half crazy curmudgeon who plays a daily game of chess with Brown at the local pub.

Brown is also constantly confronted with a crazed and violent youth culture. A group of kids who reek mayhem not for any kind of cause, but rather just for entertainment. There is certainly no country for this old man anymore. So when Brown’s one friend is brutally slain by a particularly violent group of kids, he decides to take action.

Seeing Caine in full revenge mode is pretty awesome, and the added tension brought on by his age and failing health really ramps up the suspense.

Emily Mortimer and Charlie Creed-Miles play detectives investigating the series of murders left in Caine’s wake, but we don’t really get to know them too much. This is really a one man show.

My one big complaint with the film, apart from it being completely conventional, is that the gang of kids that become Caine’s target are a bit over the top. This is fine for most revenge flicks but Harry Brown has a sense of realism that just doesn’t jive with this group of pure evil. The climax of the film also feels strange as an impromptu street riot takes place with no real explanation. All of the sudden it’s all riot gear and firebombs, but there is no build up whatsoever.

I’m also getting pretty sick of CG blood. It’s bad enough when you see it in big budget, hyper stylized flicks but when it starts showing up in the small, gritty movies you know something is wrong.

These quibbles aside though, this is an entertaining and visceral entry into the revenge genre that should satisfy genre and Caine fans alike. First time feature director Daniel Barber really impresses with his grimy visuals and effective set pieces. The opening sequence of the film is incredibly memorable. So much so that it kind of overshadows everything that follows. This is kind of a problem since it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the narrative of the movie and it is visually out of synch with the rest of the film. It seems to serve as just a way to set the tone, which it does wonderfully. It’s a handheld and frenetic bit of chaos that takes your breath away and lets you know what you’re in for.

If nothing else, Harry Brown shows that Alfred should be out patrolling the streets along with Batman. He clearly doesn’t have an issue with shooting a man just to watch him die.

Bill Hicks has been called the single greatest comedian America has ever produced. He has had a profound cultural and personal impact, yet has never truly gotten the mainstream recognition he deserved. Given his abrasive and philosophical take on comedy, this is somewhat understandable but that doesn’t it any less of a tragedy. I didn’t find out about Bill until nearly a decade after he died in relative obscurity in 1994. He is a comedian that you found out about through friends, not through television, and it felt something like a secret. This mysterious force that showed up to change your life.

American: The Bill Hicks Story seeks to change all of this. The film hopes to give Hicks the exposure he should have gotten during his time on Earth. American tells the true story of Bill’s life, not just focusing on his public persona as Comedy’s Johnny Cash, the black clad bad ass, but Bill as a clean cut kid, as an alcoholic, as a family man, as a musician, as a friend, as an activist, and as a frail human being who succumbed to cancer at the height of his comedic talent. Bill’s story is a true tragedy. He was someone who did everything he could to understand himself and the world around him and he had to gift to articulate that to others so that their own lives made more sense. He struggled to connect to the American public but ended up performing small comedy clubs until his death, despite finding massive success overseas. His material was as sharp and as fearless as it had ever been at the time of his death, and it’s always painful to see someones talent snuffed out when they are in their prime.

It’s always tough for filmmakers to make an entertaining documentary about a subject where there isn’t much archival footage (apart from his filmed performances). There is a tendency to rely on talking heads which tend to make a documentary feel like a dull lecture as opposed to a riveting piece of cinema. Directors Matt Harlock and Paul Thomas sidestep this problem with an ingenious decision to take the hundreds of photos of Bill and his friends from his formative years and animate them. The result is actually a crude animated feature with the voices provided by friends and relatives of Bill. This is not a boring or somber talking heads doc. It is hilarious and entertaining. It certainly helps that Bill’s friends were comedians.

There are a few moments when the film slips into somewhat cheesy and new age-y territory. Bill’s drug experimentation is well documented and was an essential part of who he was, but it could have been explored in a slightly less “far out, man” manner.

This animated style is interspersed with actual footage of Bill on stage and it is fascinating to watch his material grow and evolve along with himself. His start as a Woody Allen clone and clean cut comedian to his drunken, screaming days and then finally to the enlightened and crassly insightful era that made him a legend is an engrossing tale of rise, fall, and redemption.

As a huge Bill Hicks fan, I am certainly biased but I truly believe that this is a documentary that everyone could enjoy and everyone should see. If only to finally educate yourself on one of our country’s greatest hidden treasures.

Barry Munday is a movie about a guy who gets his balls cut off, or at least that’s the gimmick that’s being sold to the audience. It sells itself as low brow shock comedy when in actuality the testicle trauma is somewhat nonessential to the story and is, in some ways, even harmful. There is heart hidden beneath the broad comedy but it is too often obscured or, alternatively, shoved down your throat in a way that is more off putting than moving.

Patrick Wilson plays Barry Munday, an office cubicle resident who spends his time hitting on uninterested coworkers or hunting for women during Happy Hour at Chili’s. That is until his balls get cut off by a trumpet in an accident that feels like an odd non-sequiter as opposed to a natural part of the film. It is the random kind of comedic outburst that you might associate with something like Family Guy.

The real heart of the movie is the story of an unjustifiably cocky womanizer who is forced to become a responsible adult after finding out a one night stand, that occurred just prior to his accident, ended in pregnancy. This is certainly not new territory but Barry Munday walks the well worn path without stumbling too much.

I think the film will have a hard time avoiding comparisons to Judd Apatow’s “loser guy learns to become a responsible man after getting a girl pregnant” movie Knocked Up, and the comparison isn’t always kind to Barry Munday.  In a lot of ways this feels like Knocked Up-lite, and I think that might be its downfall. The movies feature almost all of the same beats, but Knocked Up had a certain truth to it. Knocked Up was hilarious and touching, which Munday can be in spots, but it also felt honest while Munday feels manufactured. When Knocked Up takes you through the standard rom-com tropes, you don’t feel the cliché or the script. With Munday you can’t escape it.

The saving graces of the film would certainly have to be the performances. Wilson’s Munday is a dead ringer for someone you know; most likely the coworker you do your best to ignore. A great caricature from a great actor who seems increasingly interested in playing schlubby emasculated dudes (and who is no stranger to testicular torture, Hard Candy anyone?). Wilson really was transformed with this role. His mannerisms are dead on and often hilarious. Unfortunately he does at times give in too much to the caricature nature of the role, which makes him feel like a guy in a Saturday Night Live skit rather than a real person. This is a problem with almost every character in the film. Judy Greer plays Ginger Farley, the unlucky lady who gets impregnated by Barry Munday. Greer, like Wilson, is an attractive and talented actress who seems to have settled for playing the undesirable. Greer doesn’t fair quite as well as Wilson here. Wilson manages to be funny and subtle and somewhat believable despite the broad nature of his character, while Greer plays her part pretty one note. She hides behind her frizzy hair and giant glasses and constant sniffling.

These are not characters you can relate to. They are characters you can point at and say “Heh, that’s kind of like so and so”. There are a few notable exceptions, such as a scene late in the film where the two are on a couch and they discuss how they came to be where and who they are. In this scene I saw two people, not two characters in a film. If this was true of the rest of the movi, it could have risen above its “almost but not quite” status.

Another great example of this is the smattering of scenes dealing with Munday’s relationship with his mother, played by Jean Smart. Munday’s father left before he was born and the scenes where Barry and his mom talk about what it is to be a father and a man are very touching.

There are some notable supporting roles and cameos by people such as Chloe Sevigny, Billy Dee Williams, Malcolm McDowell, etc. It actually kind of boggles my mind how many interesting names popped up on screen and they mostly do well with their limited screen time.

First time director Chris D’Arienzo shows that he can put together a solid film here, at times even being reminiscent of Mike Judge, and hopefully next time he will have the confidence to move away from convention a bit.

As it stands Barry Munday is a movie that, while being generally enjoyable, is going to have a hard time getting out from behind the shadow of better films that cover the exact same subject matter.

Cyrus is a film that has gained a surprising and impressive amount of interest, considering the small scope of the film. You may have heard about it after it screened at Sundance or you may be one of the few that was already familiar with the Duplass brothers and were interested in their first studio film (Cyrus was actually backed by Ridley and Tony Scott). Jay and Mark Duplass have been slowly making a name for themselves for the better part of the last decade making ultra low budget and extremely personal films. They actually kick started a small and short lived movement called “mumblecore” with their festival hit Puffy Chair. The term is derived from the fact that the films are shot in an ultra-realistic manner with lots of improv, which led to characters speaking naturally and mumbling like people tend to do. A strange designation to be sure, but the branding of the Duplass style did wonders for drawing attention to their small films.

Cyrus, which stars John C Reilly and Jonah Hill, maintains the general feel of the Duplass’ early work but is by far the broadest comedy they’ve done. Hill plays the titular character who is threatened when Reilly starts dating his mother, played by Marisa Tomei. Cyrus and his mom have a strangely close relationship that is never described in any detail. They leave their bedroom doors open, Cyrus walks in on his mother in the shower and they both react as if it’s the most natural thing in the world, there are pictures of Cryus breast feeding way past the age when that is acceptable. These oddities give Reilly pause but his desperation after having been single for years after his divorce pushes him to pursue the relationship anyway.

The early character work that Reilly does in the film is great. He plays a complete sad sack but not a guy you look down on. He’s a smart, funny guy who just hasn’t been able to move on after his previous relationship fell apart. He is actually best friends with his ex-wife (Katherine Keener). It is in these early, character building moments that Cyrus most resembles the incredibly natural feel of mumblecore, but that starts to fade a bit once Reilly and Hill go to war over the affections of Tomei. At this point the movie crosses over into “Step-Brothers” territory and it is a weird fit at times.

Hill is mostly to blame for this not entirely working. I think he is a gifted comic actor and have loved his Apatow-related work, but he struggles a bit with the subtlety of Cryus. It’s not a terrible performance at all, and as his first subdued and dramatic role it is somewhat admirable but he still has a long way to go. The relationship between Reilly and Tomei was another sticking point in the movie. It is a love at first sight situation, which I struggle with in general but which is made even worse by the fact that Tomei is beautiful and Reilly, who self describes himself in the film as “shrek” like, is not a looker and spends his first scenes talking about how depressed he is while getting hammered at a party. It was just a big leap for me to believe that Tomei would instantly be attracted to this guy. I felt he needed to earn it a bit more. Over time the relationship became convincing because you could see his charm and good nature, but the initial attraction doesn’t work.

Those complaints aside, though, Cyrus is an impressive transitional film for the Duplass brothers. They are rapidly rising (they have a hand in several features at South By Southwest this year) and may very well take over the Apatow role in the coming years. It is more conventional than the work that got them here but it maintains a more natural and intimate feel than you will find in any other mainstream comedy. They also layer in very interesting themes of dependency, while also building ambiguous and unique relationships that really set the film apart.

Cyrus will be released on July 9^th in select cities.

Since Jon and I both are going to post our thoughts of Kick Ass, one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year, I’ll try to keep this fairly short.

You know about Kick Ass, whether you’ve read the comic or just got caught up in the media blitz. This is Mark Millar’s attempt at a “realistic” super hero story. One that takes place in a real world with no super powers, just a kid with a lot of free time and imagination. The comic was kind of an instant classic. Kick Ass wasn’t some bad ass, he was just a kid trying to rise above his unhappy existence by doing something great. The comic was outstanding in that it didn’t show the general hero’s journey. Dave Lizewski didn’t rise to power and become the ultimate bad ass, he mostly just got beat half to death and rejected by the girl he loves. The cool thing about Kick Ass was that he just kept going, despite near constant failure. That was something inspiring. It was real.

Kick Ass the movie is the exact opposite. It takes everything that was good about the comic and destroys it, I kind of hated it. I can’t give my honest opinion without some spoilers so here is your warning:

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!

Kick Ass the book ends with Dave having been rejected by the girl and having his balls electrocuted. Kick Ass the movie ends with Kick Ass winning the girl and flying in a jet pack equipped with Gatling Guns. This is all you need know. It’s ridiculous. It loses the realism of the book. It loses the inspiring story of a kid who won’t give up his ideals despite not having the ability to see them through. It takes a character-driven and emotional book and turns it into a glossy, traditional action flick devoid of character. All of the great stuff between Dave and his father is excised, which removes the emotional weight of the character. Big Daddy goes from being a comic book nerd accountant to being an ex cop avenging his dead wife. Red Mist is revealed as a villain right from the beginning so we lose the twist at the end when he turns on Kick Ass. Literally everything of importance was changed about the book and there is absolutely no reason for it.

END OF SPOILERS!!!!!!

Ok, so I’ve got my spoilery grievances out of the way. Now for some positives. Nic (Big Daddy) Cage and Chloe (Hit Girl) Moretz are awesome. Their performances are a joy to watch. I am upset about the changes to their characters but I could not be happier with the way these actors realized them on screen. This really is their movie. You will leave the theater thinking of them, not the main protagonist. Hit Girl is given all the best scenes and is clearly the coolest character, and the movie knows it. It actually kind of fetishizes her a bit, which can be uncomfortable at times. Sexualizing an underage bad ass is not something we haven’t seen before (see Leon: The Professional) but it feels extra creepy here. However, she is totally bad ass and Chloe is going to be a force to be reckoned with in the future. I can’t say the same about the two leads though. Kick Ass, as played by Aaron Johnson, is fairly bland and his voiceover is beyond grating. Christopher (Mclovin) Mintz-Plasse is just an odd choice as Red Mist when compared to his comic counterpart and he’s impossible to take seriously. Which I suppose it what they were going for.

The action scenes are all fairly well done, although awfully derivative of other films (one of Hit Girls biggest action scenes is lifted completely from “Wanted”). Director Matthew Vaughn is someone who I don’t feel has found a voice as a director, and that is evident here. He borrows heavily from others, and while it’s a good imitation it still feels like an also-ran. There is also a surprising lack of violence here. Now, that’s not to say it’s not violent, because it is very much so, but the buzz leading into this made it out to be the hardest of R’s. I went in believing I would see the most hardcore violence in a mainstream film since Robocop, and that’s not the case at all. I’ve seen many more violent mainstream films just in the last year (District 9 is more graphically violent than Kick Ass). The hype probably came from the fact that the violence is coming from a ten year old girl, which is certainly eyebrow raising, but taken on its own the violence is nothing special. Gore hounds will not find much here to love.

The lack of violence and unique vision are actually fairly minor complaints at the end of the day though. What does the movie in is just simply the fact that they took a great premise that wasn’t compromised in the comic version and took every bit of realism and humanity and emotion out of it. Kick Ass is pure Hollywood. It’s as glossy as movies get and as shallow. If you haven’t read the books then you will probably walk away pretty entertained (as is evidenced by the overwhelming positive reaction after the screening) and even if you have read the book you will be able to enjoy the delightful performances from Cage and Moretz. However, if you loved the book or if you just think of the movie that could have been if they had not given into to convention, then this will feel like a blow to the chest.

Writing a review for a film like Inglorious Basterds, the latest from geek auteur Quentin Tarantino, is a difficult task. It’s a movie that you can’t really discuss without spoiling the things that make it great. It’s also something you have to experience for yourself in order to really understand. Few other directors can craft such a unique and complete world. Every line of dialogue and camera movement put there with a purpose and with a perfectionists precision (we can just forget about that half assed Death Proof).

So, do yourself a favor and skip this review until you’ve seen the movie, and you SHOULD see this movie. It is not without its faults but you will not see a more audacious, grand piece of filmmaking this year. You will not see better performances this year. You will not hear better dialog this year. You will not see a bigger tribute to film this year. This is one of Tarantino’s best.

Ok, now that you’ve done that, feel free to read ahead to see my spoiler-ish criticisms of this brilliant film.

Inglorious Basterds is a strange one. It’s a movie where every single scene is great. I loved everything I saw. Yet, there is, at the same time, too much and not enough. The film is structured like a novel. It consists of several (five, if memory serves) chapters and each chapter feels like a short film unto itself. This lends the movie a unique feel and each chapter is brilliant on its own. However, the novel structure just doesn’t really work on film. It kills momentum. You lose sense of the overall plot and who the main character even is. When the fiery climax of the movie occurs, it doesn’t have the impact it feels like it should. When a certain historical figure is violently disposed of in a fantastic piece of revisionist history, your joy comes from your own knowledge of this person, not because the film properly built up to this event. Quentin has built a world here and populated it with wonderful characters, but you are only getting snapshots.

Speaking of wonderful characters, go ahead and give Christoph Waltz his Oscar. The race is over. As the “Jew Hunter” Col. Hans Landa, Waltz creates one of the best villains to ever grace the screen. Every moment with him is full of energy, every word a veiled threat. He is a character with a smile on his lips and the devil in his eyes, and he is terrifying. He is also quite possibly the main character of the film, despite what the advertisements would lead you to believe. Brad Pitt and his Basterds actually don’t get that much screen time. The movie is really about Hans Landa and Shosanna Dreyfus, played wonderfully by the striking Melanie Laurent. At its heart it is Shosanna’s revenge movie, and it is full of the grindhouse flair that you’d expect from a vengeance flick, despite the fancy WWII dressing.

We actually learn very little about the Basterds, we learn of their legend but we don’t get to know the people. Only three are given any semblance of a backstory. Most don’t have any lines and serve only as faces in the background. This is somewhat unfortunate. It would have been nice to get introduced to the team and give each member a unique personality, to see each of them have their specialty and their moment to shine. There is a great moment when we are introduced to Til Schweiger’s Hugo Stiglitz where we get a stylish and anachronistic backstory segment and it makes it seem like we will get this for each of the Basterds. But no, it only happens this once, which makes it feel a bit odd. As it stands, we understand these characters only as much as the Germans do. They are mysterious, larger than life, and threatening. They are legends, always looming in the back of our minds, but they are never people we get to know. Perhaps that was the point.

Brad Pitt is fantastic as the leader of the group. His accent may have been off putting in the trailer but works wonderfully in the film and lends itself to one of the best jokes of the movie. Actually, accent and language play an incredibly important part in Inglorious Basterds. Many different languages are present and the movie is mostly subtitled, and language isn’t only used as a method of lending authenticity. It serves story purposes and is used as a strategy in the verbal chess matches that litter the movie.

Yes, like all Tarantino flicks, this is a very talkative film. It’s a movie about people talking about what they’ve done and what they are going to do instead of a movie about people carrying out those actions. There is very little actual action, as a matter of fact, yet Tarantino uses his dialog the same way he’d use bullets and explosions. There are battles, no doubt about it, but they are battles of words, of body language, of hidden meanings. The first chapter, which is actually my favorite of the entire film, involves an interrogation between Landa and a French farmer, played by Denis Menochet who only appears here yet gives one of the most memorable and subtle performances of the movie, suspected of protecting Jews. This interrogation is performed with a great deal of formality and pleasantness. A situation where two men are trying their best to appear casual while both knowing that this is a life and death situation. Just watching these men maneuver through the conversation, trying to get the upper hand, trying to conceal their moves and motives, is fascinating. It’s more tense and engrossing than any action scene could be, and the climax is startling and heartbreaking. This chapter serves only to give the character of Shosanna a motivation for revenge and could have been handled quite quickly and efficiently, but Tarantino draws it out and turns it into its own mini-movie and that’s the wonderful thing about Inglorious Basterds.

Another treat for movie buffs is the fact that this is as much about film as it is about revenge or war. Like all Tarantino films, he wears his influences and love of film on his sleeve. This is, all at once, a spaghetti western, a grindhouse film, a 40’s war epic, and a propaganda film. The climax of the movie takes place in a theater during a film premiere from one of Germany’s top directors. Film is quite literally used as a weapon. This is the kind of movie that makes you love movies, and that’s perhaps the best thing I could say about it.

There are other things I could talk about, from the multitude of wonderful and wonderfully brief performances (Mike Meyers, Eli Roth, BJ Novak, Diane Kruger, etc.) to how stunningly beautiful it is (props to Quentin and DP Robert Richardson), to the great bits of ultra-violence (courtesy of KNB) but you should see it for yourself (and hopefully if you’ve read this far you already have). It may not be the movie I enjoyed most this year, it’s not something I love unconditionally, but it is the one that I will likely think about and revisit more than any other. It’s too ambitious and awesome not to.

We seem to be in a period of vampire resurgence as of late. Zombies owned most of this decade but there can be too much a good thing and audiences seem to be growing tired of the undead. Plus, vampires have the capability of making preteen girls, in the words of Kevin Smith, “moist”, which is good for business. However, if the vampire trend had nothing to rely on other than the preteen porn of Twilight, the trashy fun of True Blood,  or the information, procedural approach of the Chuck Hogan/Guillermo Del Toro book The Strain, then the fad would have no real impact and would likely blow over to make way for the next monster. I vote for The Creature From The Black Lagoon, dude is getting no love these days.

Luckily for us, but unluckily for Mr. Lagoon, we have people like Park Chan Wook who are interested in delving into what the vampire myth has to say about us. The metaphor of the vampire is the reason it has survived so long, not the teeth. On the surface it’s easy to assume that vampirism is all about sex, and in a way it is, but there is more to it than that and Wook is smart enough to know this. In his newest film, Thirst, he explores these other themes, of selfishness, faith, desire, the fall from grace, and, yes, a lot of sex.

Park Chan Wook made a big splash in the international film scene with his brilliant Oldboy, but his work beyond this flagship film is equally noteworthy. Wook has developed a very strong personal style that is present through all his films, and it is something uniquely him. His movies commonly deal with the same themes and all feature very dark and violent subject matter but he shows this with an almost whimsical elegance. Whether it be his use of classical music, his tendency to pull his camera back and let shots go a little too long to capture the awkwardness of a situation, or his interest in the quirky minutia of his characters. In this sense, Thirst is a completely typical Wook film. You could possibly fault him for not evolving his style much, but it just works so well.

Thirst tells the story of a priest, played by Wook veteran Kang-ho Song, who feels unfulfilled with his life and decides to take part in a medical experiment under the guise of wanting to help people. This seems to be a ruse, however, because the experiment is very dangerous and it is shown to be not uncommon for men of faith to take part as a form of assisted suicide. After falling very ill, the priest is given a blood transfusion which has failed to cure all the previous test subjects, but miraculously he is revived. His recovery has people believing he is blessed. He gains a group of devoted followers believing his prayers can cure them of their ailments, yet he himself doesn’t seem to believe there is anything miraculous about this event. There is also the problem of the side effects of the blood transfusion; enhanced senses, aversion to sunlight, and an intense physical reaction to the smell of blood.

This set up paves the way for what could have been a perfectly good movie about temptation, corruption and the loss of faith, as many vampire stories are. But, without giving too much away, this is really more the story of the Succubus, not the vampire. There is a girl, and this is really a twisted love story.

Ok-vin Kim plays a young woman that seems in need of saving, but looks can be deceiving. Her performance is fascinating. Watching her transformation from a cute, shy victim into something…else, is both amusing and terrifying. Her performance, and the film itself, is also very sexually charged. There is one sex scene in particular that pushes a lot of buttons. It goes from being romantic, to frightening, to hot, to awkward, and even funny. Because all sex is funny if you think about it. Wook does a great job playing all these different emotions in this scene.

Of course, you can’t talk about a vampire movie, or a Park Chan Wook movie, without mentioning the more grisly or fantastical elements of it. Thirst definitely has enough fucked up violence to satisfy those looking for purely visceral thrills. There are several incredible sequences involving jumping from or falling off of very high places where Wook not only shows off some snazzy camerawork but also manages to make you laugh and squirm at the same time.

If there is anything negative to say about it, it would be that there are some pacing issues. Like most Wook films, the structure is a little strange and he allows himself to go off on a lot of tangents. A little over halfway through I was sure the credits were going to roll, but it keeps going and turns into something else entirely. All the stuff works, but if you aren’t prepared for it the movie can seem a bit meandering.

All that said, you can definitely mark this as another win for Park Chan Wook, who has yet to put out a bad movie. I truly feel he is among the top working directors today and you should definitely seek this out to see why.

Plus, boobs. So that’s cool.

This is not a love story.

We are told this via narration from the very beginning, but it’s hard not to give in to expectation as we watch this young couple fall for each other because after all, we’re kind of falling for them to, or at least falling in love with the idea of falling of love. And we want things to work out for them, for us as well, and we’ve been told our whole lives by movies and books and music and television that love works a certain way. We have a preconceived notion of how these events will play out. Sure there will be a misunderstanding, some time apart, but true love always wins out in the end.

Well, this is not a love story.

(500) Days of Summer is the feature film directorial debut of music video director Marc Webb and comes from the writing team of newcomers Michael Weber and Scott Neustadter, whose only other credit is Pink Panther 2 but don’t let that scare you. It stars Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel as Tom and Summer, respectively, two twenty something’s working at a greeting card company, something that serves a thematic purpose, in LA. It’s an examination of the process of falling into and out of love; from the initial meeting, the flirtation, the passion, the loss of passion, the break up, the pain, and eventually the healing. It covers each important step in a way that rings incredibly true and should speak to anyone who has ever been through a similar situation. It’s the kind of movie that will have you thinking “this was made just for me” even as half the audience is thinking the same thing.

One of the more interesting aspects of the film is that it doesn’t show this process in a linear fashion. The movie is constantly jumping around within the 500 days in which it takes place. The transitions are never jarring and are often quite clever, such as when it shows the stark contrast between an event taking place when the couple is at their happiest and then immediately cutting to a similar event when the relationship is all but over.

This may sound like a somewhat somber film, but it’s absolutely not. It doesn’t shy away from heartbreak and doesn’t give in to romantic clichés but it’s an absolute joy to watch. It’s directed with a certain whimsy, almost as if it were a fairy tale, and in that way reminded me of Stranger Than Fiction. It’s also full of humor, often of the “sometimes you gotta laugh to keep from crying” variety. There is a brilliant musical/dance sequence that perfectly captures the feeling of absolute euphoria when you think you’ve succeeded at capturing your object of desire. It includes a “Star Wars” moment that caused an uproar, in a good way, in the audience. It’s one of the best uses of a Star Wars reference I’ve ever seen. The film is actually loaded with clever and meaningful pop culture references but never goes overboard with them. They actually contribute to the story instead of just serving as a way for the filmmakers to say “look how hip we are”.

The performances from the two leads, particularly Gordon Levitt, are very charming. It’s surprising to me that Levitt isn’t a huge star by now. He’s finally appearing in some big budget films with GI Joe later this summer and Christopher Nolan’s Inception next year. It’d be nice to see him break out big. I generally don’t like Zooey Deschanel and her wide eyed “deer in the headlights” approach to acting. She is usually devoid of charisma but managed not to annoy me this time out, so that’s saying something. More than the performances though, I was impressed with Marc Webb who really knocked it out of the park in his first time at bat. He infused an incredible visual style into what could have been a by the numbers indie flick and is definitely a director to watch out for.

So if you’re looking for a romantic comedy, which I suppose this could be labeled as, that doesn’t insult your intelligence and actually leaves you with a lasting impression then I highly recommend that you seek this out. It’s currently vying for the number one spot on my favorite films of the year.

Well here we are. After a long and arduous journey, Fanboys has finally made its way into theaters. The film, whose plot revolves around die hard Star Wars fans trying to break into Skywalker Ranch in order to get an early peak at Episode One, has been on the geek radar for a while now and its struggle to make it onto actual screens has fueled an intense anticipation. This is a movie seemingly made for us and it’s an underdog. Who doesn’t love the underdog?

So was it worth the wait?

Well, the film itself is actually a pretty by the numbers teen road trip comedy. A group of buddies hatch a plan and hit the road but things don’t go as planned and they are lead on a series of misadventures (with celebrity cameos) during which they learn about themselves, mend broken relationships, and finally grow up. This tried and true formula is altered only by it’s immersion in geek culture. This aspect of the film is the reason the movie has gotten as much attention as it has but at the same time it holds it back from being great. It simply tries too hard at times. The movie is unable to go five seconds without including a forced Star Wars reference and these are generally very hit and miss. Fanboys would have benefited greatly from taking a cue from someone like Kevin Smith who is able to write geeky characters and have pop culture references without it ever coming off as forced or unrealistic. The characters in Fanboys are written as if there is literally nothing in their lives apart from Star Wars and as such seem unrealistic and unrelatable at times.

The pain of the occasional eye rolling attempts at Star Wars humor is relieved somewhat by the very likeable cast. There are lots of familiar faces here and they do the best they can with what they are given. The only real weak link here is Dan Fogler who is just plain annoying as Hutch. The character is written as the zany, immature comic relief that everyone loves. He is basically the Stifler of the movie. However, he comes off as someone you would never want to hang out with… ever. There is a fairly impressive collection of celebrity cameos here as well, which I won’t ruin for you in this review.

There is a major subplot in the movie that gained a lot of attention in the press because of studio pressure to get rid of it. This involves the character of Linus, as played by Chris Marquette, dying of cancer. This provides the motivation to the group for trying to see Star Wars early since he will likely not live long enough to see it released. Getting rid of this would have been a horrible mistake because it provides all of the heart the movie has. The culmination of this was enough to bring a tear to my eye.

It’s interesting that the movie takes place prior to the release of Episode One. It was a time where Star Wars fans still had hope. When their franchise had yet to be soiled. I remember sitting in the theater opening night of The Phantom Menace and feeling that something magical was taking place. I remember the moment it hit me, after years of anticipation, that I was finally going to see a continuation of the series that helped define my childhood, that helped shape me into the person I am today. It’s hard to think about now, but Star Wars was important. Unfortunately, we live in the future and as super smart future people we know what ultimately happens. This knowledge gives Fanboys a similar feeling to something like “Titanic”. We are scared for these kids. We know this boat is fucking sinking.

However, the movie deals with this fact in a very clever way. Instead of focusing on the quality of the movie they desperately want to see, it shows that the movie doesn’t really matter. It’s the anticipation, it’s the thing that brings friends together, that lets you dream. It’s movies like Star Wars, good and bad, that created this culture that has enriched our lives, that have brought us together, that are the whole reason sites like this exist. And in those moments when Fanboys isn’t desperately trying to prove to you that it knows Star Wars by throwing references out of its ass, it successfully taps into this love.

Kevin Smith is one of the most idiosyncratic writer/directors out there. He has cultivated a devoted geek following by creating his own world to play in. A world full of long winded, inhumanly witty pop culture junkies stuck in a state of extended adolescence. Basically he populates his universe with different versions of himself.

Until now, Smith has only ventured outside of this safety net once. The result was the universally reviled (unfairly so in my opinion) Jersey Girl. Zach and Miri is Smith’s second outing outside of his “View Askewniverse” and interestingly enough is his first film that isn’t marketed heavily as a “Kevin Smith” movie.

You see, Smith clearly took notice of the recent success of Judd Apatow, who in many ways is Smith’s successor in the film comedy world, and he has filled his cast this time around with Apatow regulars and the film is being marketed as a Seth Rogen movie. This is reflected in the movie itself as well. The dialogue and performances are much looser here and feel more ad-libbed a la Apatow than overly written a la Kevin Smith.

Fortunately, this change in tone doesn’t diminish the humor, and yes, Zack and Miri is funny. Very funny.

The movie follows some very Smith-esque characters. Vulgar, dirty minded twenty-somethings caught in a state of arrested development. Zack and Miri are best friends and roommates who are barely making rent working as cashiers at a coffee shop (yes, another Smith film that takes place largely behind the counter). They attend their 10 year high school reunion and try to convince themselves they are better than they were when they graduated but both know that they are not. They’ve done nothing with their lives and when the electricity finally gets cut off they are forced to face this fact and resort to drastic measures to get money. And of course they come up with the only logical solution, having sex with each other. On tape.

In the age of free internet porn, this concept seems a bit ludicrous but Smith actually manages to make it credible. They only want to make enough money to pay off their bills and figure they can sell to their old classmates thinking that anyone would pay to see someone they went to school with naked. The world of porn is pretty ripe for comedy (it’s basically one step removed from being comedy anyways) and Smith definitely takes advantage of this and creates some hilarious bits out of it.

And thus the ball gets rolling on a pretty by the numbers plot. You know all of the story beats from here on out. The experience will make Zack and Miri realize that they have feelings for each other. They will sabotage the relationship through their own stupidity. Finally, after some self reflection, they will get back together and live happily ever after. You’ve seen the movie a thousand times but luckily Smith fills this clichéd plot with some great jokes and moments that brought the house down at this US premiere. Also, boobs. And let me break the news to you now so you aren’t utterly disappointed when the film is finally released: Elizabeth Banks doesn’t get naked. I know. I was bummed too.

The MPAA battles that Smith has faced with this movie are well documented and it is indeed a very hard R with explicit nudity and sexual dialogue. There is one scene in particular that will have you reeling from shock and disbelief. If you thought the (deleted by editor because it’s a serious spoiler) scene in Burn After Reading was the most shocking thing you’d see in theaters this year, just wait.

If you are an Apatow or Smith fan then you should check this one out. It won’t move you or surprise you but it will make you laugh and that’s all you can really ask of it. Also, any movie that features Superman’s Brandon Routh and Apple’s Justin Long as gay lovers deserves some credit. I’ve been waiting to see that for years…