The days of Siegfried is at an end....

I've decided to move on to a more professional blog. Blogspot was always temporary, and now I've got my own domain with a nice and lean Wordpress blog. You can now find me at mattgronke.com. The blog format will stay the same, but I'm abandoning the moniker of Siegfried. Farewell!

Looking for suggestions....

If anyone knows of any interesting or provocative films out there, I'm looking. I'm feeling stagnant at the moment, and I need to write about a film that catches my eye.

Bonus points for films that are available for free online (not pirate, but freely distributed) or streaming on Netflix Instant Watch.

Retrograde

Retrograde is an awful film starring Dolph Lundgren. Dolph, seeming to be barely conscious throughout the film, stars as John Foster, a man from the 24th century sent into the past to stop a horrible virus from eradicating humanity. See, what happened was this horrible virus eradicated most of humanity, but somehow, civilization, even while battling off the worst plague in the history of mankind, was able to advance themselves enough to invent not just spaceships but time-traveling spaceships as well. Foster takes advantage of this technology to travel back in time to the turn of the 21st century. While he's there, some other guys who went back in time with him change their mind about wanting to save humanity, and instead they decide to have some vague goal about "controlling the past to control the future." They try to kill Foster.

While avoiding bullets from futuristic guns, Foster meets up with the crew of a research ship in Antarctica. See, the research ship was the original discoverers of the plague, and Foster is apparently supposed to stop them or blow them up or something. Anyway, he becomes friends with the crew, and together they plan to stop the bad guys that flew in with Foster from doing whatever they were planning on doing. Somewhere in here there's something about a virus, but I think the filmmaker forgot to include it.

There are some pretend fight scenes, some awful sound effects, and some really bad space CGI. Also, the following exchange (which actually occured in the film), which I believe mirrors the conversation between the producer and the director after they looked at their finished product:

Man #1: "Oh my god..."

Man #2: "Months of work.... fucked."

It appears I took a leave of absence.

It's over now. Updates will resume tomorrow.

Street Figher: The Legend of Chun-Li

This horrible video game adaption stars Kristin Kreuk as Chun-Li, who--

I can't even write a serious breakdown of the many facets of this film. It's just plain mediocre. It doesn't bear any resemblance to the series, sans the names. It has plot holes throughout the entire film. I will say that Chris Klein's puts out the performance of his career as Charlie Nash. I still haven't figured out if his portrayal was comedic or serious, because it comes across as both. If comedic, his Kaufmanesque performance should be promptly awarded with a supporting actor nomination at the next general film awards.

Klein aside, even in the notoriously bad video game adaptation category, this film fails. The original adaptation, Street Fighter (1994), faired much better. It hit all the points a video game adaptation needs to: It gave small nods to all of the characters in the game, and it didn't take itself too seriously. It's enjoyable as camp, especially for those of us who grew up with fighting games in our early video-game years.

SF:TLOCL is just a hunk of shit.

Terminator Salvation

This franchise was on life support after Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, and I had high hopes for this film after seeing the bleak post-apocalyptic and Nine Inch Nails scored theatrical trailer. Sadly, I was disappointed. This franchise is now dead.

Let's imagine that, a year ago, McG (yes, that's the director's actual name) had approached me to fashion for him a moneymaking sequel to this franchise. If I was to think of ways to fuck up this franchise before this film was created, I would have suggested the following:

- We need to sell as many tickets as possible. This film is the fourth in a series of all R-Rated films, but we should still make it PG-13. This way, kids under 18 will be able to see it. Let's ignore the fact that they would have had to see three R-Rated films beforehand. This will also allow us to get rid of all the horrible things in the previous films like gratuitous violence and intense action sequences. I don't think anyone enjoyed those.

- There was too much focus on character development in the previous films. For example, in Terminator there were only 3 characters: Sarah Conner, Kyle Reese, and the Terminator. This allowed for way too much character development and puts too much demand on quality story telling. We need a solution to this. You know what's all the rage today? Large rag-tag groups of people from all different backgrounds. This is what made films like Resident Evil and Doom such a great success. We can have one Black guy, one butt-kicking girl, one devoted wife, hell... we'll think of some others. The point is that with all these people we won't have to focus on character development at all!

And thus this film would be written. Hopefully in twenty years Skynet can send a terminator back in time to kill me so this film will never be made (and I will never have to see it).

Everything that's wrong with this film is the fault of it being put in the hands of the MTV generation. The director's previous credits include such ADHD-fests as Charlies Angels (and the sequel) and numerous music videos. Because of his idiocy, this film is all over the place. One minute it's chugging along as a great post-apocalyptic action film (the first third is genuinely good). The next minute the film plays like a generic summer action movie, complete with "the rag-tag group of people from many backgrounds" and a music score perfect for the next Will Smith release. With such a large cast of characters, the story is all over the place and never really gets developed.

The film could have been redeemed by upping the action to ultra-violent levels, but alas... PG-13. That isn't to say that the action sequences were all bad. There were some enjoyable moments in between the banal conversation, including an awesome cameo at the end. But it came short, partially due to the rating restriction, partially due to the MTV director, and partially due to the complete lack of care I had for the undeveloped characters.

Wrestlemaniac

We're introduced to six companions traveling south to the beaches of Mexico. Their intent is to film a pornographic movie. They stop at a rest station so one of the girls can use the restroom and so the camera can get a gratuitous butt shot as she runs to the facilities. There, they meet Irwin Keyes, who you might remember as "that weird guy who played that weird guy." He gives them directions, but warns them that they'll be traveling through "Sangre de Dios," which one of the characters mistranslates as "The Blood of Christ." He says they need to avoid it at all costs. Instead, they find themselves being chased around by a fat old Mexican wrestler when they decide to film their movie in this abandoned village.

This film had potential, but man did they blow it. First off, the homocidal wrestler is played by none other than Rey Mysterio, Sr. That's right, for the last half of the film we get to see the cast murdered by an overweight retired wrestler in a lucha libre mask. It takes a small bit away from the realism when a muscle-bound 20-something is overpowered by a 51 year old fat guy.

The film attempts to redeem itself by showing us exactly three breasts, multiple chase cams behind girls in panties (including a girl who miraculously gets her daisy dukes stuck on a door handle while being chased by El Fatso and has to rip them off to escape) and a surprisingly unconventional horror ending. All of this fails to account for absolutely no suspense, excitement, or actual "horror" anywhere in the film.

Reporter

To be brief, Reporter follows New York Times columnist Nick Kristof as he searches for the perfect subject for his column regarding the genocide in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

To say more, this film is about the failure and success of journalism in both documenting the horrific events in this world and inspiring a call to action. Nick Kristof, a two time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, attempts both of these with every column he writes. Director Eric Daniel Metzgar follows Kristof closely, only appearing a few times by audio to give observational comments on the bedlam spilling out before him.

Like an experience physician, Kristof appears immune while witnessing most horrible and tragic human events. We see him surveying a group of starving villagers. They appear to be not depressing enough, as he chooses not to make them the subject of his column. His methods may seem harsh, but in his mind he is doing the most good by writing about only the most heart-wrenching story he can find. We follow behind him until he finally locates his muse.

Playing alongside Kristof's search is another dizzying journey which takes him to the dinner table of General Nkunda, the warlord of the region. A charismatic host, Nkunda displays a subtle and ominous intensity with his words. Surrounded by soldiers with automatic weapons, he explains that he is fighting the government to free the country for the people of the Congo. Juxtaposed with the images of the starving and ravaged villagers, we see what are perhaps direct contradictions to Nkunda's claims.

Metzgar devotes a small section of the film to a phenomenon referred to as "psychic numbing." This phenomenon, he explains, is why it's so difficult to motivate the average citizen to donate to a cause. As he explains, studies were done to see how much a person would donate if shown a specific image (the example used was a photograph of a malnourished African girl). People would donate a certain amount based on seeing that image. However, if explanatory text was added showing that she was one of four million starving people, then the amount that people would donate went down. The larger the problem appeared to the average person, the more likely they would want to turn their minds off to it and not donate. This "psychic numbing" is what Kristof attempts to overcome with his writing.

We see a film like this, and we want to help. We open our wallets and say, "Take whatever you need. I can donate all the money you want." That's not enough, according to Kristof. The shortage doesn't come in the form of money, but in bodies. They need people in the Congo handing out food, educating the children, and healing the sick. That's the difficult commitment: for people to leave their lives behind and devote them to helping strangers in a completely foreign country. Donating money is easy. Making a real difference isn't.

Black Sheep

I looked around for a good copy of the poster of this film to display at the beginning of this review. When I found this image, however, I realized that it fully encapsulated everything one should expect when going to see this film. This is a film that successfully balances between horror and humor, making it a great film to enjoy with a few of your friends (provided you're all okay with seeing sheep disemboweling people).

Not to be confused with the iconic buddy comedy film of the same name, Black Sheep is a horror film about a flock of genetically altered sheep wreaking havoc on a New Zealand farm. Henry Oldfield, sheepophobic after an incident in his youth, heads home to the farm to collect his portion of an inheritance. He soon finds himself running for his life after the sheep are let loose by a cute but misguided environmentalist named Experience. Together, Henry and Experience must battle these mutant sheep and restore order to the farm.

Sound appealing? It is. Heavily borrowing from Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series, the violence is comical, over-the-top and comedic. Men are torn limb from limb, preachers are beheaded, and one villain is taken out by an explosion from ignited sheep farts. This is definitely one to add to your rental list.

The One Percent

The One Percent is an admirable effort by Jamie Johnson to expose the goals and intentions behind the richest 1 percent in America. Johnson uses his wealth and noteriety to gain access to some of the countries most powerful men, and in interviews they dance around the idea that their power and wealth has any negative affect on the country. As somewhat of a side story, Johnson continously confronts his father, a man who had the same mindset as Jamie when he was his age. His father avoids every attempt b his son to pry away at the exterior he has built up after many years.

Ultimately, Johnson's naivete hinders him from truly reaching something great with this film. Perhaps if he was armed with more knowledge about economic policy and income disparity, he would have been better equipped to debate a grumpy Milton Friedman. Without this, he comes across as a disaffected trust-fund baby rejecting his guaranteed wealth. Despite this, the film succeeds admirably in exposing the attitudes of those at the top. They reject any idea that their attempts to keep the wealth concentrated within their tiny circle does anything but good in the world. They feel that by creating their own wealth, they are helping the economy grow and ergo helping the common man. They ignore the reality of the growing income disparity in America.

Johnson's film is a tiny whistle blower being drowned out by families who own almost half of all the wealth in the country, so I feel that it will not be heard by many. I'd be interested to see Johnson's opinions on the current state of affairs following the huge change in American government since this film was produced (2006). With less of a capitalist government in power, he may feel more optimistic about the direction of the country.

This film is available free on Youtube.com, so please share it with who you can. Milton Friedman, in the film, said that congress is moved by the will of the people. As unlikely as this seems, if there is enough groundswell support maybe change can finally come.

Supermen of Malegaon

Supermen of Malegaon is a tribute to the joy of filmmaking. It is set in a small village in India, where men can scout the copyright laws of the United States and make exact copies of films without much fear of retribution. The poverty-stricken village, like most villages in India, uses film as an escape from the toils of daily living. When a small business owner, Shaikh Nasir, decides to adapt the story of Superman set in his village, the residents leap at the opportunity to contribute. The end results is nothing short of heartwarming and hilarious. Using only the most basic of filmmaking tools, the crew not only utilizes such advanced technologies as a green screen, but also records their own soundtrack (a staple in Indian film). Operating on a minimal budget, the crew innovates to get their perfect shots. Superman is strapped to a bicycle with his arms out, while Nasir trails him tied to the front of a donkey cart. Although their end product is Z-grade in quality, watching the journey was extremely fulfilling.

Sauna

I am very excited about Sauna. Why do foreigners always make the best horror films?

Where I find myself personally mentioned on Indyweek

Mark Maximov posted an excellent article covering the panel discussion led by Thom Powers titled, "Wanted For Review," about the search for new documentary film critics. I was especially amused by Mark's ending paragraph:

Whether film criticism can survive the possible impending death of print media is a question for another panel. But if the long-term growth in audiences at Full Frame over the past dozen years is any indication, perhaps consumer demand will eventually place documentary film on an equal footing with narrative film in the word counts of reviews published, if not in dollars recouped at the box office (or Netflix, or Hulu, or what have you). But all agreed on the best advice for the earnest young blogger seated in the front row, who asked about a career in film criticism: “Don’t quit your day job.”

That earnest young blogger was none other than yours truly. And for the record, I was seated in the second row next to Sons of Cuba director Andrew Lang. I had sneaked away to see the panel discussion, and I had enjoyed every minute. As an aspiring critic, I had never really met professionals in the business. To listen to them discuss the state of the industry was both inspiring and disheartening, for the reasons mentioned in Maximov's article.

When it was time for the Q & A, I asked the panel, but specifically Eugene Hernandez, the CEO of Indiewire, "You say that we should use the internet as a medium to make a name for ourselves, but how do we use that to start a career? And also, as a follow-up question to Eugene, are you hiring?"

My question was, of course, met with laughter from the panel and the audience. Eugene replied, "Yes and no." A hopeful answer. They went on to discuss what Maximov appropriately summarized, that it's difficult to use this as a money-making venture. Thom Powers remarked that even though it isn't a way to make money as a career, people should be reviewing it for the love of film. I wanted to ask him, "Can't we have both?" I was looking up at three people who did exactly the opposite of what Thom was saying: They were making a career out of their opinions of film.

Eugene and I had our paths cross a few times at the festival. We would discuss the films at the festival and the future of film criticism. He eventually asked for the URL to my blog and, with fear in my heart, I provided it to him. My writings usually only are read by some anonymous persons on the internet, and to be handing it out to the Editor-in-Chief and CEO of a major film website was a big step for me. Eugene was a great person to talk to, and I really enjoyed the conversations we had. I certainly hope our paths cross in the future. And, yes, I do hope that one day I can "quit my day job" to make money doing what I love. Isn't that everyone's dream?

Utopia, Part 3: The World's Largest Shopping Mall

When this 13 minute film ended, I wanted more, so much more. There were too many films I'd seen at the Full Frame Film Festival that seemed to drag on forever, and Utopia, Part 3 was like taking a bite out of a ribeye steak. It's delicious, but now your stomach is waiting for the rest of the beef. With quiet shots of empty escalators, yawning employees, and wandering mascots, we are taken on a journey through a failed experiment: To build the world's largest mall in southern China. Having few customers and a handful of stores, the mall sits in it's record-sized lot collecting dust. The film is brilliantly shot, and the humor is drawn through the opposition between gluttony and loneliness. There are a few lines of dialogue, which I hesitated to ask the director about during the Q & A (I didn't want to get thrown out that early!). In my opinion, the film functions much more effectively in silence, letting us draw our own conclusions about this empty space.

Sons of Cuba

I have seen many horrific and saddening events in films. I have seen true loss and heartbreak. I have seen events in some films that would make most people bawl their eyes out, use up a full box of tissues, and be forced to leave the theater. I have seen all of these things, and I've never cried.

Sons of Cuba made me cry.

I've been struggling for the past few days to figure out what exactly I wanted to say about this film ever since it's world premiere on Thursday at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival. It's safe to say that I enjoyed every minute of it. Sons of Cuba follows the journeys of three preteen males who are part of a prestigious boxing academy in Havana, Cuba: Cristian, Santos, and Junior. The students all have ridiculously regimented schedules, getting up at 4am, meticulously maintained meals and weight, and above all enormous pressures from both their coach, their families, and their government to becomes champions for Cuba. The students who make the cut go on to the national championships and compete for a trophy, one that was taken last year by a rival academy. Cristian, the undisputed star of the film, lost in the finals last year and is working hard to be victorious this year.

The film is richly shot, giving us a glimpse into the life at the school as well as the city of Havana. The genuine thoughts and emotions of the boys spill out onto the screen. They complain, innocently, that the biggest problem is getting up early or having to eat rice. We see them roughhousing. In reality, the coach is one of the few who is aware of the pressures put upon them by the entire Socialist nation to produce Olympic champions. He pushes the boys with a stern hand, but he occasionally lets through how much he truly loves them as sons.

I had a long conversation with the editor of the film, Simon Rose, a day after the screening. He was eager to hear my opinion of the film. We had been discussing the difficulties in critiquing a documentary film. He realized that sometimes it can be difficult to separate the actions of the characters within the film from the actions of the director. If a director simply films what is a brilliant real-life story, is that a good documentary even if no real filmmaking skill was involved? Can a brilliant director take an awfully boring story and make a mesmerizing film? (I would argue yes) He thought that good documentary films should have a nuanced message to them, one that can be read between the lines and isn't used to beat the audience over the head mercilessly. I told him of the nuanced message I read in Sons of Cuba. In a Socialist country like Cuba, citizens are homogenized, and their glory is said to be only in reverence to the fatherland and not for themselves. Sons of Cuba, I told him, appeared to be about youths breaking free from that and attaining glory for themselves and their families. Simon appeared surprised at this revelation. He said that wasn't something they had intended, but it was always good to find new discoveries within your own films. He added that they had tried to remove most of the politics from the film and make it a story about the three boxers. I told him that must have been difficult, because Cuba appeared to be a politically charged environment. He didn't seem to agree. Our conversation ended at that point (not because we disagreed, but he had to catch a film), but I found myself surprised by his confession that they had tried to remove politics from the film. From my own observations, the film began with a reference to Castro's influence over Cuban citizens, and it ended with a note about his well-being. It was, quite literally, surrounded by politics. Perhaps removing the politics from the daily life of Cubans was more difficult than Simon thought.

Politics aside, this film is a champion of the human spirit, and a wonderful story of sportsmanship. Havana and it's rival trash talk each other throughout the film on the way to the championships, but it's all for the sake of competition. It's this love of the competition of boxing which is the heart of the message in Sons of Cuba. Cristian's father Luis, a former champion boxer, watches his son fight his way to the championships. After a match, he embraces his son. Tears swell on the eyes of the former champion and father. For the first time, he is truly proud of his son. For the first time, I found myself in a theater with tears in my eyes. Maybe it was connecting with my own issues of yearning for pride and acceptance from my father. Maybe it was just a great moment of documentary filmmaking.

Mechanical Love

My first film that I saw at the Full Frame Film Festival, and currently my favorite, Mechanical Love is an ambient film from director Phie Ambo about the humanization of mechanical objects. We follow two dual narratives: Hiroshi Ishiguro, an inventor working to create a most realistic robotic version of himself and his family, and Frau Körner, a nursing home patient who receives a theraputic robotic seal named Paro. In these two narratives, we see the drastic differences in human reactions and emotions to robotics.

I absolutely adored the tone with which the director approaches the material. The camera is simply an observer, watching the humans in the film interact with the robots. We notice their facial expressions, their body language, and it's more telling than anything they reveal to us through spoken word. In a particularly telling scene, Frau Körner has her Paro taken away after it becomes too distracting during choir practice. Almost instantaneously, the happiness shown by her throughout the film is gone. She sits quietly through the practice with a sullen look, eagerly awaiting the moment she can spend time with her Paro again. Once she picks up the robot, she nurtures it as if it genuinely missed the time it was gone from her. Although she says nothing during this, it's what she doesn't say that's most important. With Ishiguro, the director takes the same approach. Letting Ishiguro babble on with long-winded dialogue about his endeavor, Ambo allows Ishiguro to reveal his detachment from humanity. Ishiguro jokes, somewhat seriously, about how he wishes his robot could be realistic enough that it could replace his mundane duties at his house where he's "required" to spend time with his family. In a later scene, his wife admits that she would prefer the robot to her husband provided it operated well enough. This quiet, observing camera is accompanied by a barely audible ambient soundtrack. Like these two characters and their relationship to humanity, it is detached, only floating in every few minutes with a few electronic notes, reminding is it's there.

In Ishiguro's vision, we see how having a goal of complete realism can impede the emotional attachment that humans can place on robots. Ishiguro's Gemenoid (as he calls it) is incredibly realistic in it's movement, frighteningly so, and his daughter reveals this by her refusal to interact with it during Ishiguro's test run. He's confused, a testament to his loss of his own connection to his family and by extension humanity while on his obsessive quest. The reason for his lack of success is demonstrated through the Paro narrative. The designer of the Paro, Takanori Shibata, is shown speaking at a conference of his successes and failures when designing the Paro. He originally designed a realistic cat, but it was a commercial failure. Users, already familiar with the actions of a cat, had too many expectations of the robot. They wanted realistic cat behavior and were disappointed when the robot couldn't deliver. Shibata took his design in a new direction, and he created a robot creature that one couldn't have any expectations for: a seal. Since users were unfamiliar with it's behavior, they didn't have any expectations, and were then only seeing the present interactivity of the robot. This was Ishiguro's failure. His Gemenoid was, in fact, too human-looking but not human-acting enough. It was so realistic looking that when it's actions didn't deliver it simply became an uncanny and horrifying likeness of Ishiguro. The Paro, with it's generic movement and vague squeaks, allowed the user to project their own emotions upon the robot. When the Paro is squealing, is it doing it with delight? Is it hungry? Is it yearning for the warmth of it's mother? It's whatever Frau Körner wanted. She pet the robot as it squealed, giving it all the genuine love she had to give. This open-ended action allows the user to identify with Paro in their own way, and this is how it became much more human than the Gemenoid would ever be. It's the reason we all love R2-D2.

Full Frame Film Festival Trip Report - Day 1

Well, it's official. Day one is over, and I am totally exhausted. I woke up at 9am, and I've just now gotten home. I had a great time working my first day at the festival, and I ran into some old acquaintances and met some new ones as well. I want to say, "You're welcome," to Professor Devin Orgeron of NC State University. He was running late for his film, and I held his credentials outside in the rain until he arrived. I also want to say hello to Craig Lindsey. I gave you a thumbs up and then posted that I did to Twitter. There was also an odd event when a gentleman, who I don't believe I'd met before, came up to me and shook my hand and said, "Nice to see you again!" I acted like we'd met, but in reality I had no idea who he was.

I stopped by the Press Lounge and picked up a Media Kit. They are a very nice group of individuals, and I was honored by how well they treated me, despite me being a simple blogger amongst professional journalists.

With all that out of the way, onto the reviews! Some of these had press embargo requests, which means I can't write a fill review of the film. I will, however, attempt to write full reviews for each film that I am able to. I'm seeing upwards of four films a day in addition to working a full volunteer schedule, so it will definitely be hectic.

I'm disappearing off the face of the Earth for 4 days.

I've planned myself a fairly rigorous schedule for this weekend. I'll be volunteering at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival, and, when I'm not working, I'll be seeing as many movies as I'm allowed to. If everything goes as planned, my schedule will look exactly like what you see below. Any time I don't have listed, I'll probably be either eating, walking around, and trying a feeble attempt at networking.

Thursday, April 2nd:
10:15am - 11:40am - Mechanical Love: "Exploring the possibility of love between humans and robots, this film challenges the conceptions of companionship and loneliness in the modern age."

1pm - 2:50pm - Rough Aunties: "A close-knit, multi-racial group of women activists help find justice and healing for victims of child rape in South Africa."

3pm - 9pm - Volunteer work and hopefully dinner.

9:30pm - 11:25pm - We Live In Public: "A provocative look at a frenzied decade in the life of Josh Harris, internet pioneer, social engineer and performance artist."

Friday, April 3rd:
10:45am - 12:15pm - Utopia, Part 3: "A monument to consumerism, the South China Mall is missing two important pieces: stores and shoppers." And on the B-roll, Supermen of Malegaon: "Documenting a localized remake of Superman in economically depressed Malegaon, India, this film captures a very particular example of the primal fun of movies around the world."

1:00pm - 2:55pm - I may or may not have time to see Salt and Salonica, since they end almost at 3pm, but I will try to see them. If not, I will just matriculate, network, and hang out. I guess eating lunch will be a good idea.

3pm - 9pm - Volunteer work.

10pm - 11:50pm - Bitch Academy: "In St. Petersburg, bitch really is the new black as attractive and accomplished young women enroll in the Vixen Academy to learn how to “turn off their heads” around men and dance like strippers for imaginary sugar daddies."

Saturday, April 4th:
8am - 6pm - Volunteer work. This is the long day of work, where I put in all those hours for all the free film I'm getting to see. Whew. And if I still have the energy.....

8:30pm - 10:30pm - Boy, Interrupted: "Filmmaker Dana Perry reveals an extraordinarily personal document of her son’s mental illness and the grief and questions surrounding his suicide at the age of 15."

10:45pm - 12:20 am - Miroir Noir: "Arcade Fire makes beautiful and moody music and Vincent Morrisett has made a beautiful and moody film about the making of their critically acclaimed 2007 album Neon Bible."

Sunday, April 5th:
10:30am - 12:30pm - This Sporting Life Panel: "Filmmakers and subjects from our series come together to discuss the allure and profound success of the sports film genre."

3pm - 6pm - Volunteer work.

After this, there's a rescreening of award winners, so hopefully I will get to see a film that I missed three days prior. As you can imagine, I will review every film I see, when I get the time, for this blog. Stick around!

Seed

There's very few films that have made me feel physically ill when the end credits roll. This sort of physical reaction is reserved for such films that are so powerful and uncompromising they drain me of emotion and cause me physical pain. I consider that an achievement for a film, and I tend to give films due credit for doing so. Funny Games (1997) and Irreversible (2002) are two films bestowed with such an achievement. I would like to add another film to that list, and that film is Seed.

Congratulations, Uwe Boll, your film made me physically sick after watching it.

You still suck as a director, and here's why.

Seed is a horror film about a serial killer in the late seventies in the United States. Caught after a series of grizzly murders, he is sentenced to death by electrocution. Having miraculously survived two electrocutions in a row, the prison warden fears that they will have to release him if he survives a third (a popular urban legend). They decide to bury him alive in a cemetery. Seed (the name of the killer) escapes and wreaks a path of revenge upon those who sentenced him to death.

This movie starts out surprisingly well. The dark, barely lit atmosphere hearkens back to the fear brought about in such classics as Alien or Halloween, where what you didn't see was just as important as what you did. The fear of the unknown and what lurks in the darkness can be a wonderful device. We see glimpses of Seed as he grabs his victims out of the darkness, and it's genuinely scary. Boll carries this for about 25 minutes before abandoning that concept completely. Shooting the villain from a wide angle in broad daylight may work for an action film, but it tanks a slasher film. Once Boll pulls the curtain away and exposes Seed as what he truly is, a man who looks like an overweight professional wrestler with a potato sack on his head, there's no more fear. This is one of the most basic concepts of horror cinema, and Boll misses the point completely.

In fact, this entire film is one missed point. Boll has been interviewed before as saying that to be a successful filmmaker, one has to be edgy. Whether it's a violent edge, a sexual edge, any sort of edge. You have to be edgy to get your name out there. Apparently, this means utilizing actual animal torture footage (obtained by PETA for the film) and having, most notably, a 10 minute shot of Seed torturing a woman to death with a hammer. I say woman, because frankly I have no idea who she was. It wasn't anyone I recognized from anywhere else in the film. Boll could have completely cut the scene out of the film, and the audience would have just chugged on oblivious to the missing scene (and would have been better off). This occurs with most of the deaths in the film. There's very little introduction into any of the "main" characters, and the protagonist's family only gets a few minutes of screen time. Why should we care if anything happens to them? If Boll's appealing to our basic human instincts then, sure, I don't want to see a little girl get tortured to death. But that's way too easy. Anyone can put a faceless puppy in front of an oncoming train, shoot it with a movie camera and proclaim, "See! You want this dog to live, but I will not do it! Ahaha, notice how I play with your emotions. I am such a skilled director!"

Why include such a disgusting and unsettling scenes in the film? Why include such obvious torture porn? I mentioned the two films, Funny Games and Irreversible, at the beginning of this review for a reason: both feature grisly scenes, both feature long unbearable takes. The difference between those two works of art and this rotting turd is that they're included with a purpose. Haneke indicts the audience in Funny Games, exposing us as just as guilty as the two kidnappers for having a lust for violence and entertainment. Boll may claim such, but to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, "if you gave him an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox." There's no deeper message here. There's no entertainment. No one is scared, no one is frightened. They're just disgusted. Anyone can set up a camera, torture someone to death, and then burn it onto a DVD. That doesn't make them a good filmmaker. Uwe Boll succeeded at failing to do anything but turn my stomach. Was that your intention? Great. I look forward to your next release of "Maggots and Shit" or something as equally vapid.

I am Omega

I Am Omega is a 2007 straight to DVD release by the now infamous film producers The Asylum. Released one month before it's blockbuster counterpart, I Am Omega chronicles the adventures of a man named Renchard who believes he is the last man on Earth after a zombie infection wipes out civilization (I found out after checking the IMDB credits that his name is in fact "Renchard" and not "Richard," and I was going to comment about the strange nasal inflections heard from people in the film). As you can imagine, he soon finds out that he is not alone in this world, and he has to leave his fortress of solitude to rescue Brianna, a woman trapped in the nearby city. Like most post-apocalyptic films, this film has a problem straddling the fence between realism and convenience. If the character has an electric-powered home and drives around in a gas-powered vehicle, we have to have an explanation for how this is possible. There is a willingness by the audience to overlook some minute details, but when Renchard receives an "incoming video transmission" on his Macbook... come on. You're saying the Internet still works after a zombie apocalypse? Awesome.

Glaring technical errors, like the zombie infection, plague this entire film. I realize it's challenging to shoot a scene in a city where civilization has been eradicated, but could you at least do a re-shoot if a pickup truck drives into the scene at the last moment? The icing on the cake was a horrible nuit américaine scene towards the end which looked like someone had spent five minutes in Adobe After Effects applying a dark haze around the cast in the center of the frame. This was compounded by cuts to the cast standing in an area where it actually was night, seemingly seconds later.

As expected, the acting was mediocre and the dialogue was annoying. One character would not stop using the word "compadre" at the end of every sentence. The relationship between the leading man and leading lady was as scorching hot as the surface of Pluto. The villain's motives for his actions were at best mind-numbingly stupid, plus he makes the bone-headed (yet strangely oft-repeated in cinema) mistake of kidnapping someone he repeatedly states he just wants to kill. Why didn't you just kill them when you were standing right next to them with a loaded weapon in your hands? Am I the only one who picks up on this?

Sharks in Venice

I never thought that I would run into a film worse than Alien vs. Hunter. Today, I have been proven wrong. Sharks in Venice is a completely awful direct to DVD horror film starring Stephen Baldwin. Sharks in Venice is a film about a diving professor (???) who travels to Venice after his father (also a diver) goes missing while on a diving expedition in the canals of Venice. "The Man" says it was a propeller blade that killed the diving team, but Stephen Baldwin knows better: It was a fucking shark, and he's going to find the bastard. Like most horrible films, this film fails on all fronts. I will attempt to break this down into categories to ease your suffering.

Cinematography: Instead of taking us to Venice, the director of this film decides to use stock footage of Venice (or perhaps some other city with canals) and then "strategically" cut to interior shots of the characters inside buildings. When outside, the characters are shot from an extreme low angle, so you can't see where they are. On the few shots where we actually see the characters "in Vienna," they are obviously standing in front of a green screen.

Editing: There was no shark used in this film. I'm just going to say it right now. And Jesus Christ, it just looks awful. The first shark attack is edited as such:

1. Shot of a diver in the water.
2. Stock footage of a shark, probably taken from The Discover Channel.
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 with rapid cuts.
4. Shot of the diver moving forward out from a rock.
5. Shot of, and I'm not kidding, the same shot as #4, but played in reverse to give the appearance of the diver being pulled back behind the rock.
6. Close up shot of the diver's face, while "blood" appears around him.

Almost* every shark attack in this film is shown the exact same way. It's almost as if the director learned about building tension by repeatedly watching those black and white Western films where the bad guy tied the damsel in distress to the railroad tracks, and the train quickly made it's way towards her doom.

*I say almost, because one man dies in a spectacular fashion from a CGI shark. Sadly, this is the only occurrence in the film. If the director had continued this vision to apply to the rest of the film, I might have reviewed this film differently today.

Acting/Dialogue: If you've seen any straight to DVD Stephen Baldwin film, you've seen them all. Baldwin stumbles through this film, collecting his paycheck as the one "big name" actor in the film. The rest of the actors deliver their lines with incredibly transparent attempts at Italian accents, all while offering opinions of the most idiotic caliber.

At one point, Stephen Baldwin is diving in the water, complete with a full breathing apparatus, and continuously communicates with the boat using spoken word. This includes times when the camera is showing close up shots of his face, lips tightly wrapped around the plastic. Bravo, director. Bravo.

Even though this movie was purchased by Viacom and played on the Sci-Fi Network, I'm not tagging this as a Sci-Fi Original. That would do a disservice to the fine men and women who produce the genuine Sci-Fi Original films.

Except for those who made Alien vs. Hunter. Those men and women can die.

Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead

Lloyd Kaufman's Troma films are notorious for their over the top sex, graphic violence, and juvenile comedy. Kaufman spares no expense with this film, one he had to draw into his own personal savings to fund the production. Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead is a horror comedy musical about a geeky virgin named Arbie who works at a fast-food restaurant on an ancient burial ground. The chickens begin coming back from the dead, and it's up to Arbie to save the customers and Wendy, the love of his life, from the coming chicken apocalypse.

The violence, sex, and fart jokes are non-stop in this film, and they work like perfect portions of the classic American pie recipe. You smell the aroma as it's cooking, and once you take the first bite you know you've got something delicious on your hands. This film is not for the faint of heart, and if you dislike masturbation, lesbians, explosive diarrhea, beheading, fisting or any combination of any of these at the same time, then you may want to skip this movie. For those of you who can stomach the film, enjoy it. Kaufman designs these films to have over the top gross out violence, and it's meant to be read as comedy. Did I mention this film was a musical? The songs are hilarious and surprisingly well-written. They form the meat of the film; the binding between all of scat and blood that holds the film together.

Find some friends who you know would enjoy a nice night of low-brow graphic comedy, and you will have an enjoyable evening.

Mega Snake

This promotional image is lying to you. There are no tumbling skyscrapers, no jet fighters, and no helicopters in Mega Snake. The snake is not 500 feet tall. Feedback is, in fact, not "featured" in the film, but he only makes an appearance for 5 minutes. What do we have then? A Sci-Fi Original movie that succeeds in being entertaining.

We're introduced to two brothers from a family of religious snake handlers in a small town. Ambulance driver Les Daniels has grown up with a fear of snakes ever since his father was killed at a church while snake handling. His older brother Duff Daniels has followed the family tradition of snake handling and constantly berates Les about his fear of snakes. In need of new deadly snakes for his church, Duff visits Cherokee snake salesman Screaming Hawk. The salesman refuses to sell him a mysterious snake encased in a jar, telling him that it's a mythical snake that killed his ancestors and must never be released. Screaming Hawk tells him that there are three rules for the snake, "Don't let it out. Don't feed it. Don't fear the heart of the snake." Duff decides to steal the snake, and accidentally releases it once he gets home. As all three of Screaming Hawk's rules are broken throughout the rest of the film, the snake begins feeding on the citizens of the town, growing from a mere 12 inches to a gargantuan size, and wreaking havoc upon the town.

There's some conflict points in the film that it attempts to address. Les and Duff have the usual brother issues over the death of their father. Les is in a love triangle with his girlfriend Erin and a controlling cop named Bo. And as usual, once Les and Erin figure out that a snake is on the lose, the authority in the town doesn't believe them until "it is too late." These really take a backseat, though, to the main focus of the film: The Mega Snake.

The snake is sloppily rendered in CGI, looking like a monster out of a big budget Hollywood film from 1999. This works to the benefit of the film. This hearkens back to such films as The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, where the protagonists are stabbing at something that clearly was put into the film post-production. Regardless of it's authenticity, we're privy to the snakes mayhem. And trust me, no one is spared. We cheer for the little guy as he grows into a behemoth and an audience favorite. During the course of the film, entire families are eaten, including children. Dogs and cats are gobbled up like snacks. And in an amusing turn of events, an entire section of people on an amusement park ride are beheaded in one swoop. Most of the violence in the film is comically over the top, and this makes it an enjoyable movie to watch with friends. As a straight to video release, this is definitely a good rental film to sit down with some popcorn and enjoy.

La Maison en Petits Cubes

It's amazing to see how such a short film can contain so much emotion by being so subtle. At a running time of 12 minutes, La Maison en Petits Cubes introduces us to an old man who lives in a tower. It's difficult to describe the plot of this film without spoiling what it's about, since it's a very short film. I think it best to go into this film completely surprised.

This film beautifully explores, through metaphor, the idea of forgotten memories and loss. The animation is a wonderful accompaniment to the story. Whereas most of the other films nominated this year feature slick computer-generated animation, La Maison en Petits Cubes' hand-drawn and colored scenes present the story the way we'd remember times of long ago. With animation that is softened, deep, and expressive, director Kunio Katô takes us on quite a journey. We see each grumble on the old man's face, and although he says nothing, his facial expressions, each perfectly animated, show us all we need to know. The music, composed by Kenji Kondô, sets the mood, and although it quietly plays in the background, without it the film wouldn't have the same effect. All of the elements come together to make this a memorable short film.

Alien vs. Hunter

This movie is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad. One of the worst films I have ever seen, and I've seen some awful films in my lifetime. I generally try to compile a list of reasons during the film, things I can write about, and I am not kidding when I say that I lost count 15 minutes into this horrible piece of shit.

Alien vs. Hunter was most likely the brainchild of a seventh grader at a local junior high school. The kid was reading some comic books, and he decided that he wanted to write a cool story for a school assignment:

Billy

7th Grade


Some aliens land in a small mountain town. There's a hunter who has this huge rifle, and he shoots stuff with it but he misses a lot. The alien is half alien from the movie aliens and the other half is a spider. There is a man who writes for the papers and he and this girl run from the aliens with some other people. The hunter with the huge rifle chases the people around and he shoots at them also at the alien. Some of the people die because they get shot and also the alien eats them a lot. Then the people find the alien ship and they find one of his guns and they shoot the alien and it dies. The end.

And after Billy finishes this, he shows it to his father. His father is a broken down director who is desperately trying to feed his cocaine and hooker habit. He sees dollar signs after reading Billy's assignment, and pats him on the head. "Good job, son," he says, dreaming of the drug-fueled sex binge he's going to go on after he directs this straight to video shitter. The dad asks him what the hunter is supposed to look like. Billy draws him a picture of a scuba diver in a samurai outfit.


"Thanks, son!" the father says. The father then directs the film straight from the handwritten essay, without developing it into a feature length screenplay.

There are three locations in this film: Rooms in someone's house, the forest, and the sewers. The same identical sets and shots are repeatedly used. The hunter, the samurai scuba diver, is the worst shot I have ever seen. He frequently misses everyone with his laser rifle (which actually goes "pew-pew"), not to mention he appears in about five total minutes of the film. When he does, repeated stock footage of the alien is shown through his "hunter vision," he runs off, and we're taken back to the main cast of humans.

And oh god, the humans. The progenitors of the most hackneyed, contradictory, and suicide-inducing prose ever spoken in modern cinema. I rarely literally cringe during a film, but this film had me clutching my stomach and desperately reaching for something to stab myself in the throat. It became more than a film-watching experience. It was like getting a cramp during the middle of a marathon. Every muscle in my body was telling me to quit, but I just had to see if I could make it through. And I did. I made it through to the anti-climatic, twist-attempting, incredibly demented ending. Had I a handgun at the ready, I would not be alive to write this review today.

Outlander

Sympathy plays an important role in character development in films. Without sympathy, why do we care about the protagonist? Sympathy can be used to make us cry when a character dies, it can be used to make us cheer when they emerge victorious, and it can be used to pull the rug out from under us when a character turns out to be evil. If sympathy can make or break a film, consider Outlander broken.

Outlander is one of those films that, after reading the plot, you think that it's going to be the most bad ass film of all time. Outlander is the story of Kainen, a space marine who crash lands on planet Earth during the time of the Vikings. He is pursued by a giant space creature called a Morwen, and he must band together with a kingdom of Vikings to destroy the creature. Did I mention that the role of Kainen is played by Jim Caviezel, a.k.a. Jesus Christ? After reading a plot description like this, I walked into the theatre fully erect. I left it, not with priapism, but with erectile dysfunction.

There were so many things I wanted to complain about during this movie that I realized I needed a notepad to keep track of them. I'll start with what I mentioned in the opening paragraph. The biggest problem with this film is it's lack of sympathy development. Kainen is obviously the protagonist in the film. He crash lands on the planet and is taken hostage by a local group of Vikings. The Vikings think he may be part of a rival village, and they interrogate him with their fists. So, being a standard audience member, I should now feel sympathy for Kainen's plight and dislike the Vikings who just beat the shit out of him. Immediately following this scene, the film decides that now would be the time for the Morwen (the evil space creature) to attack the village. We're shown scenes of the brake Vikings falling in battle... but wait... why do we care? Weren't these the people that we were just shown beating the shit out of our hero, Kainen? Aren't they the bad guys?

With a skilled director, this sort of back and forth sympathy play could be used as a tool to make more dynamic characters and play with the audience's emotions, but fear not: These characters are as one sided as ever. The problem is that the director (the film, the producer, who do I blame here?) just seems to forget which side the characters are on. At the beginning of the film, we're introduced to some of the Viking characters that will play a larger role in the tale. Rothgar, the leader of the tribe, his (not) surprisingly well groomed and attractive daughter, Freya, and the hot-headed commander Wulfric. (Guess which one of those three gets taken hostage by the Morwen?) Wulfric is set to ascend to the throne on the death of Rothgar, and it is shown early in the film that he has strong feelings for Freya. One would suspect, as Kainen and Freya grow closer, that a love triangle would develop. Surprisingly, Wulfric seems to completely forget that he has feelings for Freya after the first ten minutes of the film, and Kainen and he become best buddies. And finally, the star of the show, the Morwen. The Morwen is a CGI monster with the upper body of a Hell Knight from Doom 3 and the rear of Godzilla from the horrible Matthew Broderick film. To be honest, it does look wicked, and the graphics are well done for such a low budget movie. It's unfortunate that the sounds it makes are "generic demonic monster sound taken from Doom 3" (so much so that iD software should probably contact their lawyers). Oh, there's also a Viking in this film named Boromir. Someone should contact the Tolkein family about that.

There's a lot of forgetfulness in this film, and I often wondered whether there was some underling dementia that had been written into the script. After the first attack on the village by the Morwen, the Viking men band together with Kainen to go hunt the creature. They find a cave that houses a giant bear, and they all work together to slay the animal. Cheer, drinks, and celebration ensue, because the Vikings all think that they've slain the creature that attacked their village. Kainen is well-aware that the creature that was killed was not the Morwen, yet he neglects to mention this small, but important, detail to anyone during the party. Maybe he just wanted to enjoy the free booze, or maybe he was still pissed that the Vikings had just beaten the crap out of him the day before. There are numerous plot holes in this film that revolve around characters and entities forgetting obvious facts, most of which would spoil the movie, but just be warned. There are some "are you kidding me?!" moments towards the bitter end.

But, back to sympathy. I mentioned earlier that sympathy was a large reason for why this film fails. The main conflict driving this film is that Kainen is being pursued by this horrific creature, and he needs to defend himself and the Vikings from destruction. Great, so we're supposed to care about his survival, right? Well, about that... Kainen decides to take a moment in the middle of the film to give us more insight into the backstory. We learn what his actual duties were, and why he was crash landing with a Morwen stowed aboard his ship. I'm not going to spoil anything, but let me just say that it doesn't paint him in a positive light. In fact, he sounds like a real douchebag after telling us the story. Again, in the hands of a skilled director, this could have been used to develop a dynamic and conflicted character. This never happens. Kainen is a one-dimensional hero that we're supposed to cheer for because he's fighting a monster.

The positive in this film is that Ron Perlman plays a dual hammer wielding bad ass Viking named Gunnar.

Ideological Formalism and the Sci-Fi Original

I've recently begun reading more on formalist theory and filmmaking. It's become obvious that ideological formalism, the idea that the classical Hollywood editing style is the way it is to appeal the most to to the audience and to earn the most profit, holds much truth. This is also evident in the Sci-Fi Original. For those unaware, the Sci-Fi Originals are a collection of quickly produced low budget monster or horror films produced or purchased excusively for the Sci-Fi network. These films typically have names like "Boa vs. Python" or "Frankenfish" and hearken back to the days of true B-movies.

Ideological Formalism is different from Auteur Theory of formalism in one key area: motivation. Ideological Formalism is the idea that it is not the director's own personal motivations and experiences that drive the film (such as in Auteur Theory) but the socio-economic and human pressures around him. In this sense, Sci-Fi originals embody Ideological Formalism in it's purest sense.

These films are mass produced, coming out at an astonishing rate of once each week, for a Saturday night premiere on the Sci-Fi network. They require small budgets of only one million to two million. The pressures put on them to keep the costs down greatly influence the filmmaking process. By releasing direct to DVD or a cable network, the filmmakers avoid the extensive costs of film processing. The films often have a basic set, such as a city, a jungle, or a desert. They often star almost all unknown actors, or at the most an actor with few major film credits such as Robert Beltran. Rarely, famous "B-movie" actors are cast in films. Stephen Baldwin, being an example, has starred in numerous straight to video or television films shown on the Sci-Fi channel.

The "monster" is the major draw for the film. The filmmakers need to come up with something original, yet amusing enough to retain the camp that is present in all of these films. Each film strives to be more over the top than the previous one, in order to grab the ratings on Saturday night. This is why sequels, spinoffs, or cliches will frequently occur. For example, "Boa vs. Python" was released in 2004. Since then, the snake meme has perpetuated in the Sci-Fi original film library. Following "Boa vs. Python" has been "Snakehead Terror" (2004), "The Snake King" (2005), "Fire Serpent" (2007), "Mega Snake" (2007), "Vipers" (2008), "and "Copperhead" (2008). This is one of many of the frequent memes present in Sci-Fi Original films. The filmmakers are heavily influenced by the success and ratings of the films. They will keep producing different snake films until it stops being profitable.

Ideological Formalism isn't a bad thing. To put it quite simply, it shows that we're influenced by external factors much of the time. It's clear that these filmmakers are producing these films for the ratings, and audiences respond well to that. Audiences aren't always looking for pure art in film, otherwise Michael Bay would be out of a job (...zing). Until the ratings shift in the other direction, Sci-Fi Original filmmakers will keep bringing us giant mythological creatures attacking a rag-tag band of adventures each week, and we'll keep enjoying watching them.

Full Frame Documentary Film Festival Prelims

I volunteered to work at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival this year. I originally wanted to be a photographer, but the spots were limited and filled quickly. Instead, I will be working the "Civic," which basically means nothing important to any of you. The important fact is that I know have free reign to see as many films as I possibly can during the festival.

The organizer informed us that our volunteer pass allows us "about ten films." She said this as an estimation because, as she put it, "that's about as much as you will have time to see." She added that if someone was superhuman, they could make time to see more than ten, and in fact see as many as they want.

I'm planning on taking off work from my regular job during the Thursday and Friday of the festival to see as many films as I possibly can. I will of course be writing reviews of these films for my blog, so look forward to frequent updates from April 2nd through 5th.

Post-Oscar Wrap Up: How well did I do?

First off, I want to commend the designers of the show. It was incredibly well done. Now that that's out of the way, let's see how bad I did:

Best Adapted Screenplay:
I chose Slumdog Millionaire. The winner? Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Original Screenplay:
I chose In Bruges. The winner? Milk.

Best Director:
I chose Danny Boyle with Slumdog Millionaire. The winner? Danny Boyle with Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Supporting Actress:
I chose Marisa Tomei. The winner? Penelope Cruz.

Best Supporting Actor:
I chose Heath Ledger. The winner? Heath Ledger.

Best Actress:
I chose Kate Winslet. The winner? Kate Winslet.

Best Actor:
I chose Mickey Rourke. The winner? Sean Penn.

Best Picture:
I chose Slumdog Millionaire . The winner? Slumdog Millionaire.

That's 5 out of 8 correct, or 63%. In reviewing the picks that I got wrong, they definitely were close match-ups. I would love to see the voting results from the Academy. I imagine that the Best Actor category was very close.

I'm also surprised to see that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button somehow managed to avoid winning any major awards. It was nominated for thirteen, and it took home only 3: Art Direction, Makeup, and Visual Effects. I should mention that it won most of these while competing against The Dark Knight, so the fanboys are in an uproar this morning.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Summary

With the Academy Awards just an hour away, here is the summary of my chosen nominations. I'm listing this for either posterity or embarrassment, depending on how correct my choices are.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay: In Bruges
Best Director: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger
Best Actress: Kate Winslet
Best Actor: Mickey Rourke
Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 8: Best Picture

And here we are, the Oscar for Best Picture. Arguably the most prestigious award any film can ever hope to receive. We have five strong films here, and this is going to be good. Let's look at the nominees:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - When Forrest Gump came out 13 years ago, it swept the Oscars, arriving with a record setting 13 nominations and leaving with 6 Oscars: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Picture. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has been compared to Forrest Gump, both in it's storyline, it's epic scope, and it's devotion to telling a story about American life. This film has 13 nominations going into tonight, the exact same as Forrest Gump. How many will it take home?

Frost/Nixon - Admittedly the underdog in this race. Ron Howard's adaptation of the play of the same name is led largely by the performances of the two leading actors, which makes it a long-shot for taking home the win.

Milk - Put a brilliant actor and a brilliant director together and what to do get? This film, which chronicles the life and death of Harvey Milk, California's first openly gay elected official. This film has been getting heaps of praise for it's portrayal and of Sean Penn's award-winning performance. This film wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture, with Revolutionary Road taking it's place.

The Reader - Nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture as well, this period piece, wouldn't have been up here without Kate Winslet.

Slumdog Millionaire - Is this film really the underdog that people are claiming it to be? Slumdog Millioniare may have been a small film, especially compared to the gargantuan budget of Benjamin Button, but this movie has already taken home numerous awards including a Golden Globe for Best Picture. With critics fawning all over this film, it looks to be Slumdog's year.

Conclusion: I choose Slumdog Millionaire, Regis. And, yes, that's my final answer.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 7: Best Actor

What sort of hodge-podge has this years Oscars brought us? A selection of epic proportions.

Richard Jenkins, The Visitor - A man who has worked in the field for thirty-five years, finally getting recognition by numerous groups all for this one film. Is this the only chance in his life at Oscar gold?

Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon - Another established actor. A career spanning forty-five years. Numerous accolades. His first Oscar nomination. Has he finally done enough to win?

Sean Penn, Milk - The Oscar veteran. His fifth nomination in the past 14 years, and possibly his second win. Will he had another trophy to his case?

Brad Pitt, TCCOBB - The pretty boy. The Hollywood sex symbol. His second Oscar nomination. Can he overcome his image to finally claim gold?

Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler - Out of nowhere, it's Mickey Rourke. The ultimate underdog in this contest. Huge amounts of buzz; claims of "resurrection." When did this B-movie star turn into a genuine actor of Academy material?

Conclusion: It's going to be Davis vs. Goliath. Rourke flexed acting muscles he didn't even know he had, and he finally proved he's capable enough to be a respected actor. Penn is the veteran, and always gives a spellbinding performance in all of his films. Here's hoping: Rourke takes home the gold.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 6: Best Actress

Kate Winslet has been receiving mountains of praise this year for her roles in both The Reader and Revolutionary Road. This year will mark her sixth Oscar nomination. Can she finally take home the golden trophy? Let's look at the nominees:

Anne Hatheway, Rachel Getting Married - A strong performance, and Hathaway has already been scooping up nominations left and right. This film has been near the top of many a reviewer's top ten lists.

Angelina Jolie, Changeling - Why was this nominated?

Melissa Leo, Frozen River - After being in the business for over twenty years, this fine actress is finally getting the well-deserved recognition.

Meryl Streep, Doubt - Streep gives her usual mesmerizing performance. She's one of the most prolific winning actresses in Academy history. I've written much about Doubt in the past few days, so I'm sure you're well aware of how I feel about this performance.

Kate Winslet, The Reader - Winslet delivered two powerful performances this year, and she has been receiving mountains of praise for both. The Acadamy had to pick one, and they were right to choose The Reader. Her performance was the focal point of this film.

Conclusion: Both Hathaway and Winslet are good picks for this Oscar, and frankly it's anyone's guess on who will win. If I had to choose, though, I would say that the Academy will finally honor Winslet with an Oscar.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 5: Best Supporting Actor

This category is going to be one of the most watched for one reason: Heath Ledger. Fans have been clamoring for him to get a posthumous award for his mesmerizing portrayal of The Joker in The Dark Knight that led to his eventual overdose on pain medication. Let's review the nominees:

Josh Brolin, Milk - It's often difficult for actors to keep up with Sean Penn when they star alongside him in a film. Penn has a way of taking over a film, and it makes it hard to keep up, even for the most skilled actors (See: Mystic River). Brolin attempted this in Milk, but his character just wasn't stretching the limits beyond the roles that Brolin has been doing recently. As a result, Milk was all about Penn.

Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road - With all the other nominees in this category, Shannon is going to fall into the background. A nomination will be good enough to boost the career of this actor, who is quickly making his way from bit part to star performer.

Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder - Largely considered the comedy option for this award (pun intended), Downey Jr.'s role as Kirk Lazarus, the actor with a tortured soul who went to great lengths for his role in an action film, was one of the most complex and difficult roles of the year. Downey Jr.'s self-identifying statement in the film, "I know who I am, I'm a dude playing a dude pretending to be another dude!" echoed the lengths that Downey Jr. went to portray Lazarus. In an age where most comedies star actors playing themselves (or their comedic "character") in every film, Downey Jr. went the extra mile. His serious portrayal parodying actors who get far too invested in their role was almost the only source of constant laughs in Tropic Thunder. In what is one of the great ironies of our time, he was nominated alongside an actor who went to such great lengths to portray a character that it actually killed him. Downey Jr. deserves the nomination for this controversial role.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt - I was surprised that Hoffman wasn't nominated for Best Actor for his role as Father Flynn. This could have been due to the fact that the Academy had many choices for Best Actor, and Hoffman was simply knocked down to the supporting category. It also could be that Streep's portrayal of Sister Beauvier was the main focus of the film and thus relegated Hoffman's character to a supporting status. Regardless, Hoffman delivered his usual fierce performance as Father Flynn, a pastor accused of molesting a child. Dialogue is what carried Doubt, and the back and forth banter, the stares, the subtleties that were shared between Streep and Hoffman were nothing but brilliant. Hoffman is a strong contender for the win in this category.

Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight - What else can be said that hasn't been said before? Ledger's performance was simply magnficent. Until The Dark Knight, no one really knew the depths to which the infamous Batman villian could be portrayed on screen. The actors who had played the role before him did play him maniacally, but it was always with a hint of comedy with a wink and a nod to the audience. Ledger took it far beyond what anyone could have imagined. The Joker and his psychosis fully realized and explored.

Conclusion: Ledger would have been a lock for this category even before his untimely death. The fact that he died only furthers the fact that this will be given posthumously. Look for Michelle Williams to accept the award.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 4: Best Supporting Actress

I feel that many people are often confused by what constitutes a supporting actress as opposed to a leading actress. Why do I say this? Well, for one, Kate Winslet won a Golden Globe this year for her performance in The Reader. The award? "Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture." It may have something to do with the fact that she was also nominated in the Leading Actress category for Revolutionary Road, but I find it confusing that she could be nominated in the Leading Actress category at the Academy Awards for the same role in The Reader that netted her a Supporting Actress award at the Golden Globes. I'll talk more about that, however, when I get to the Best Actress section. Onto the nominees:

Amy Adams, Doubt - Adams gave a strong performance in this film, which was difficult to do alongside the combined scene-stealing power of both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep. The two played off each other brilliantly, and Sister James (Adams) was the mediating center between the firey passion of Father Flynn and the icey heart of Sister Beauvier. She's a strong contender for the win in this category.

Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona - Cruz has already snagged a few awards from other festivals for her supporting performance in this film. This is her second Oscar nomination, the first being for 2007's Volver. There are two other nominees in this category more deserving. She gets the nomination, but she won't get the Oscar.

Viola Davis, Doubt - With what little screen time Viola Davis had in Doubt, she definitely made her mark as the concerned mother of the child taken under Father Flynn's wing. Despite this effoer, however, she was overshadowed for most of the film by the enthralling dialogue between Hoffman, Streep, and Adams. It's unfortunate, but she won't win this category.

Taraji P. Henson, TCCOBB - Henson's supportive performance as the nurturing mother of Benjamin Button earned her a nomination this year, and I actually wonder why. TCCOBB was such a giant film, and Henson's character often fell into the background among the epic story, the makeup, the costumes, and the love story in the film. She was a small rock tossed into the ocean of this film, making tiny ripples amongst the giant waves. Don't get me wrong, she did a fine acting job, but the film was just too big for her to deserve a nomination.

Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler - This will mark Marissa Tomei's third nomination for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in her career. She won in 1993, playing the Mona Lisa Vito, the streetwise fiance of Vincent Gambini in My Cousin Vinny. Can she repeat her success over 15 years later?

Conclusion: Look for Tomei to claim her second Supporting Actress Oscar at this years awards. Unless they hate strippers.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 3: Best Director

Best Director is always one of those difficult categories. When a powerful film is nominated for both Best Picture and Best Director (as is the case with every single nominee in both categories this year), one has to question what makes the film. Is it the film as a whole? If all the parts of the film, the actors, the cinematography, the music, the art direction, and the director all work together to create the masterpiece, does that make a film a Best Picture? If the film would not be what it is without the masterful work of the director, does that mean that the film should win for Best Director? But aren't all films this way? Isn't the director such an integral part of the film anyway that without him it could not succeed on it's own? If this is true, then perhaps the Best Director award is given to those directors who go beyond simply guiding the film to it's inevitable conclusion. Perhaps it goes to those directors who express those qualities of the Auteur or leave some mark of themselves some way upon the film. Let's examine the nominees:

Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire - This is the expected film to win in this category. Slumdog would have been completely different without Boyle at the helm. (I considered saying "nothing without," but who knows what it would have been like with someone else?) Boyle guided the story to it's conclusion masterfully, and considering he's racked up a half dozen awards already for Best Director, it's looking like there's a good chance he may add one more.

Stephen Daldry, The Reader - A very well done film from the director with the fewest notches under his belt of anyone else in this category. Daldry has only directed a handful of feature films, and this nominee is for a film largely led by the leading actress performance. A longshot candidate for the Oscar gold.

David Fincher, TCCOBB - The second most likely film to win this category. Not much to say about this film, as it is a strong contender for many of it's nominated categories. There's a chance, but I highly doubt it.

Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon - Another film largely carried by the performances of the actors within it. An unlikely winner in this category.

Gus Van Sant, Milk - A great director, an established history, and a great film. Another time and another place, maybe, but this is Boyle's year.

Conclusion: When two strong films are nominated for both Best Director and Best Picture category, the Academy tends to give one award to each film. In this case, look for Boyle to walk away with the Oscar gold for Best Director. Slumdog Millionaire depended too much on his guidance.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 2: Original Screenplay

This is a interesting category. Like the adapted screenplay category, here we have two strong contenders, a wild card, and two weak contenders. Let's review:

Frozen River - This film is up for two awards this year: Best Actress and Best Original Screenplay. Unfortunately, it's up against two very strong nominees in both categories. Despite the awards this film has won already, look for it to be a longshot in this race.

Happy-Go-Lucky - The wild card in this race. This film is performance led, largely focusing around Sally Hawkins' role as Poppy, but the script was original enough to warrant a nomination. The film has already won 16 awards (only one of them being for the screenplay). The Academy sometimes picks quirky saccharine independent films as of late (see the original paragraph in Part 1 of my Contenders choices). This film could surprise everyone with a win.

In Bruges - One of the two strong contenders in this race. This is this film's sole category. The film has already won numerous other awards for best original screenplay. Since McDonaugh didn't get a nod for Director, look for In Bruges to be a likely winner.

Milk - Another strong contender. Milk is up for eight Oscars, including best picture, best director, and best actor. Unfortunately, every one of those categories has it pitted against a stronger candidate. This is Milk's most likely category for a win, but it has to go up against In Bruges.

Wall-E - It's rare that animated films get nominated for this category. The script is good, but Wall-E is a lock to win in the Best Animated Feature Film of the Year category instead.

Conclusion: Look for In Bruges to take this category.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 1: Adapted Screenplay

The Academy Awards have recently been an event of dismay among many film critics, myself included. With such wins that occurred last year, especially when compared among the other films in the field, especially the fact that such a film would even be considered (and was) for a best picture nomination, it can cause critics to lose faith in the Academy.

That being said, these awards are the most important in the nation, so I will review the major categories and pick the most likely winner. These are not my favorite picks, rather, but the picks that I feel the Academy will choose.


Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay: A group of very strong films here. The Adapted Screenplay category tends to avoid the hype-machine and produce a legitimate winner... most of the time. Let's go over the nominees:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - This one is iffy. The film has received much critical acclaim, but it's mainly been for other aspects of the film, mainly the makeup (look for a definite win in that category). The Academy tends to shy away from giving wins to big budget releases in this category, especially when they're nominated for so many others.

Doubt - A mid-level contender, but a long-shot to win the award. This film was lead primarily due to the strong performances of the leading cast (Hoffman, Streep), but this could be a wild card.

Frost/Nixon - Another weak contender for the award. There hasn't been much hype around this film, and it relies strongly on the two leading actor performances.

The Reader - A strong candidate. Hare has written mostly for television, but the Academy can give the award to those small longshot films and surprise you. This one could take it.

Slumdog Millionaire - Bet on Beaufoy's adapted screenplay taking the Oscar in this category. Slumdog is up for many awards, but this one is one if it's strongest categories.

Conclusion: It's going to be a toss-up battle between The Reader and Slumdog Millionaire, but I think that the Oscar goes to Slumdog Millionaire.

Splinter

The Body Horror genre has long been a niche with one dominating force: David Cronenberg. He firmly established himself as the figurehead of body horror with such films as Rabid, The Fly, and Videodrome. The reason that Cronenberg's films work so masterfully in this genre is due to the focus on the paristitic infection, the invading alien element, as the main antagonist in the film. The fear that is brought about when someone is transformed against their will into something inhuman, when someone is violated (and definitely with sexual metaphors in many of Cronenberg's films) and their body is taken over. Cronenberg's success in this genre has, in a large way, laid the framework for how a successful body horror film must be written.

Splinter is a film about a group of four people that end up being trapped in a gas station in the middle of nowhere. The attacking force originally appears to be a reanimated corpse of a gas station attendant, covered from head to toe in strange splinters. The splinters reveal their true nature early on in the film, as a parisitic force that takes control of its infected host.

The “splinter” effects in the film, or when a character in the film is taken over by the parasite, are done remarkably well for the budget. The antagonists, the infected "splinter" bodies, move with a series of jerky, primal movements, captured with quick handheld shots. We don't see much of the monster, but we see enough that it works well as an agent of fear. This is a notable but common tactic that has worked well in other successful horror films, most notably Alien (I should mention that Alien is one of the few non-Cronenberg films that is championed in the Body Horror genre). When we don't see the monster in it's entirety, our imagination tends to fill in the rest of the horrific details. The shots in the film are done in an extremely shallow depth of field, and this adds to the claustrophobic feel as the characters are trapped in a 20ft square room for most of the film.

This film fails on two fronts. When a script limits itself to a handful of characters for the majority of the film, the film is shouldered upon these few characters. They have to be strong in order to bear this burden. This comes in the form of strong acting, strong dialogue, and strong character development. If this doesn’t happen, it definitely gets noticed. In Splinter, we meet a cast of stereotypes and hypocrisies. The initial ineptness of the city-folk couple is expected, but they seem to grow a surprisingly large pair by the end of the film. And the convict who hides a heart of gold? Strangely enough, the couple he kidnapped must have realized that fact before the audience, because they seemed quite willing to save his life immediately after having a gun pointed at their face.

Like the fates of most horror films, this one rises and falls on the success of the monster. As I mentioned earlier, the fear in Body Horror films is on the infection; the invasion of the body by a mysterious and deadly force. This film barely touches the surface of what could have been explored on this subject. One character finds themselves “splintered,” and this fact seems to stay quiet for most of the film. The director chooses, instead, to have the fear be directed outwardly towards an antagonist keeping the group trapped inside the gas station. The problem, in this case, is that the director isn’t presenting the horror for what it is: a parasitic infection. If you keep the infection at bay for the entire film, and you don’t present it as an invading force within the protagonists, then you’re ignoring the fear that a body horror film can bring to the audience. Had the director explored this more, Splinter could have been much more successful. This isn’t a bad film, but an enjoyable scary flick that reminds you of what it could have been.