Big Eyes review

Adam: Hello! It's been a while, how are you? Gosh, you look great.

Anyway, I wrote a movie review for the first time in months. No, it wasn't The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies believe it or not. It was Big Eyes, the new film from my first ever "favorite director" Tim Burton. Read it below!

--

Big Eyes Review

As long as I’ve been watching movies, I’ve been a fan of Tim Burton’s work. When I was young, I loved the quirky color schemes, the macabre visuals, and the dark, but somehow still friendly, tones and messages of his films, and as I’ve grown older, the same is still true but with a further appreciation of the way he writes and shoots them. But I’ve also learned over the years that many people have grown tired of the unnaturally skinny and pale characters, Danny Elfman’s bouncy scores, and Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter being cast in almost every single one of his films since 2005 (and a few before that as well), and no matter how well the movies do at the box office, critics and moviegoers continue to sling unnecessary venom at the crazy-haired director.

Here’s a brief reminder of Burton’s director filmography from the past ten years: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Alice in Wonderland, Dark Shadows, and Frankenweenie. Of those six films, the only one I’ve heard the general consensus consider “a good movie” is Corpse Bride (which is a fantastic movie, and one of his best films hands down). Most people with whom I discuss Burton will tell me he “sold out” or “just can’t make movies anymore” or “just does the same thing over and over” or “will never top Edward Scissorhands” or the one that makes my skin crawl, “he only casts Johnny Depp and Helena Bon-whatever, I guess he just can’t find anyone else to be in his crappy movies besides his best friend and his [now ex] partner ugh no other director does that.” (Many other directors do that, i.e. Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, David Fincher, Quentin Tarantino, Judd Apatow…to name a few, and there’s nothing wrong with working with a group of people with whom you have creative chemistry.) It seemed Burton was doomed to keep putting out movies only Hot Topic kids (and yours truly) would enjoy, but Christmas 2014 proved this is not the case.

Enter Big Eyes, a tale set in the 1960’s about a soft-spoken, modest artist (Amy Adams) who marries a charismatic man (Christoph Waltz) after she leaves her first husband. He paints realistic representations of the streets of Paris, and she creates beautiful melancholy children with massive eyes. They display their work at a club after the local art gallery turns them down (you see, modern art is the hip thing), and when the public desires her pieces over his, he takes credit for her work (“no one likes lady art”) until eventually everyone believes that he is the true artist. The tension rises and we watch this talented artist being controlled by a hollow husband that reaps ever-growing fame and fortune from her fruits.

The thing that initially struck me about this film as being drastically different from Burton’s other work was not the absence of Depp or Carter, nor was it the lack of stop motion or stripes or misshapen houses – it was the fact that I was bored. I’ve never been able to use “boring” as a compliment, but this was the first time I was watching a Tim Burton film and felt so stuck in reality that it felt a bit stale, and I was exhilarated somehow. However, when I realized I was feeling like this, I knew I wasn’t reading the film the right way. Burton is not a boring filmmaker, nor is he a gimmicky one (despite what the crowds may think), and I knew I had to dig a bit deeper. And then it hit me: this could be Tim Burton indirectly making a film about Tim Burton. Amy Adams’ character can be read as the “real artist Burton” and Christolph Waltz’ character can be read as “the sell out Burton” that everyone sees. Add in Adams’ daughter, her character’s inspiration, as a representation of Burton’s inspiration, and we have ourselves an intriguing meta film. The sell out artist suffocates the true artist to the point where no one knows what the truth is anymore, much like Tim Burton’s career over the past ten years. Once this clicked in my head as a possible reading, I couldn’t look away. It wasn’t just meta for Burton, but for anyone pursuing a life as an artist. Fame and fortune are the number one killers of artistic integrity, and this film captured that in a big way.

Now, if all this “meta” stuff isn’t really your thing, don’t worry. This movie, although a touch predictable, contains some excellent performances (particularly Amy Adams), beautiful colors, interesting shots, and a nice build of tension until the climax when everything gets wrapped up a little too quickly. It’s a good movie. But for those wanting to dig a bit deeper…it’s fantastic.

Big Eyes is not Tim Burton’s best film (though I’d probably rank it pretty high), nor is it a rebirth or redefinition, but it’s definitely one of the most surprising films of the year because of its lack of surprise, and for that, I must recommend it.

Godzilla (2014) Review

Godzilla (2014) Review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUv1U0lQ7TA

Cheap Thrills Review

Cheap Thrills

written by David Chirchirillo and Trent Haaga

directed by E. L. Katz

starring Pat Healy, Ethan Embry, David Koechner, Sara Paxton, Amanda Fuller

running time: 88 minutes

Not Rated

Ah, Cheap Thrills.

This was a great film.

Some of you might have been dismayed by its trailer; an aggressive, two-plus minutes of dares, drinks and debauchery, but you might be surprised by its layered, darkly funny plot and dedicated - convincingly so - performances. I say ‘convincingly’ because the premise itself seems hard to realistically pull off - yet it does. And this is in large part due to the impeccably cast Pat Healy, Ethan Embry and David Koechner.

Craig (Healy) and Vince (Embry) make an interesting pair. They are more than just two drunk dudes accepting increasingly ridiculous dares for cash; Craig, freshly jobless and with a family to provide for, and Vince, an old friend from college with similar empty-wallet circumstances, take on each dare with increasing determination. Along with their economical reasons, you get a fine sense that these two reunited pals never put to rest some sort of hostility they had for each other in their college days. Soon, you wonder whether it is their need for money or their need to one-up each other that is keeping them from walking out of Colin and Violet’s (Koechner and Paxton) front door.

And Koechner. It’s a truly weird film to refer to as among his best performances, but hot damn, it is. He is sinister and yet, as one-half of the mysteriously wealthy couple, he grounds some tenderness into Colin’s warped soul. He avoids playing Colin with any camp and although he explains his motives (he’s doing this for Violet’s birthday), you never quite feel like believing him. He also has an intriguing counterpart in a mesmerizing, near-mute Paxton, who keeps us wondering throughout the entire film why she ended up with a guy like him.

There is a scene late in Cheap Thrills that poignantly represents the bigger story, as a slideshows is displayed on the wall above a character about to make a crucial decision. Saying anymore would spoil the fun, but it’s the moments like this that inject the film with heart.

I want to remain vague about the plot-points because I don’t stand for reviews that purposefully overshare plot details (I’m looking at you, The New Yorker). Know what you’re getting into whenever you choose to go see a film. Check out the other work of the director/writer(s) behind it, scope a brief summary of the plot, know the MPAA rating, and if you feel so obliged, visit Rotten Tomatoes for a peak at the critics’ grades. Just don’t wreck it for yourself. Remain unsaturated. Every movie deserves to surprise (unless you’re the type of person who LOVES spoilers *shudder*). And with Cheap Thrills, know that you are getting into an engaging, gripping, funny and pitch-black time at the cinema. Cheap? Anything but.

An Interview with Cheap Thrills co-writer David Chirchirillo

How did you and co-writer Trent Haaga come up with the concept for Cheap Thrills?

DC: All credit goes to Trent Haaga here. He wrote a script something like seven years ago called "Money For Something" which was about these two guys who are propositioned by a rich couple to compete in these crazy challenges for money. Evan (E.L. Katz) read it and really dug the idea, but wanted to do a different telling of the same concept. Evan wanted a more "party gone wrong" angle than a straight up thriller, so he began to talk to writers. This process went on for a few years (I think, I'm not totally sure about the timeline here) before it came to me and I pitched what eventually became the version that exists today.

What was the process like writing a screenplay with another person?

DC: The only time I've ever written something with another person was after college; my best friend, Joe, and I wrote and directed a short together. There's a good chance I wouldn't be able to write with anyone other than him, because we've gotten into so many fights and arguments over the years, that they don't even affect us anymore.

What was it like bringing the story to the screen with first-time director E.L. Katz?

DC: Evan was great to work with. He was one of my first friends out here that was a professional in the industry, and we have similar eating habits, so we would always go to these really obscure, bizarre restaurants together. He'd let me pick his brain about the industry and give me advice on this or that, all while trying to decipher a menu at some hole-in-the-wall spot in Koreatown. When it came time to write Cheap Thrills, he pretty much left me alone during the outlining process. After I turned that in, he really dug it, gave me some great notes, and then I went off to write the first draft. I wouldn't realize until later that that process is fairly unique. Lots of times, the development process is very hands-on - I have to turn in 15 pages at a time, then get notes, then rewrite, then turn in another 15 pages, etc. Although I understand the reasoning behind this, I work best when I'm allowed to go off and work and make mistakes and follow through with them and then go back and say, "This did or didn't work and here's why." Eventually with Cheap Thrills, once the first draft was done, Evan and Travis Stevens, the producer, became a lot more hands on, but it was really nice to have that first draft all to myself to really get in the heads of the characters and story I was writing.

According to IMDb, a few of your credits belong to the horror genre, including the upcoming ABCs of Death 2. Were you drawn to the genre naturally? Has it been something you’ve always wanted to write for?

DC: I'm a definitely a fan of horror, and I know the genre so well that it was easier to start there when I began writing. I'm also into whatever freaks people out, and horror movies generally have a rebellious quality to them, so that's appealing. However, I wouldn't consider Cheap Thrills a horror movie, although there are  horrific things that happen. The ABCs of Death segment I wrote for Evan isn't horror either (I think that's about all I'm allowed to reveal at this point). I like horror movies because they can thrill as well as be about something.  But I'd say any quality genre movie can do the same thing, so I'm not necessarily disposed to one genre or the other.

What are some of your favorite movies and why?

DC: Favorite movies huh? There's a lot, and I think considering the movie Cheap Thrills is, people will find my choices surprising. I think Children Of Men is the movie I most want to emulate. To me, it's pretty much perfect: fantastic story, deep character work, and scenes that are as thrilling as anything ever put to screen. I recently re-watched Rachel Getting Married for the first time since I saw it in the theater, and was absolutely blown away by it. Pulp Fiction, Fresh, Cannibal Holocaust, Starship Troopers, Forty Guns, Session 9, Can't Hardly Wait (which makes Ethan Embry's casting in Cheap Thrills even more awesome), Point Break, Moonstruck. Those aren't necessarily my favorites, but they're movies that mean or have meant a lot to me at point or another in my life. If I can make a movie half as good as those I'll be pretty damn thrilled.

Riley's Best of 2013

*An opening disclaimer: last year’s Oscars post, covering the evening’s nominations, will be our first and last. Seeya, Academy.

Riley: Greetings! For the sake of content, I'm posting my forgotten "Best of 2013" I began writing back in January. Timely, right?

12 Best Films in particular, difficult, inevitably interchangeable order:

1. Her
2. The Place Beyond the Pines
3. Inside Llewyn Davis
4. The Wolf of Wall Street
5. The Spectacular Now
6. Nebraska
7. Philomena
8. 12 Years a Slave
9. Prince Avalanche
10. Mud
11. Mama
12. The World’s End

Best Runners-Up

1. Monsters University - Not the best animated film of the year, but damned if it was criminally ignored by the year’s end. A very funny, visually beautiful Pixar homage to campus comedies, elevated from humorous to heartbreaking by a late third-act twist.
2. Spring Breakers
3. Ain’t Them Bodies Saints - Aesthetically gorgeous with an incredibly pretty original score.
4. You’re Next - This should have been the highest grossing horror movie of 2013. It’s hilarious and disgusting in equal measure and includes the best use of a song in a horror movie since “Mama Tried” led to death in The Strangers.
5. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Haven’t read the book, haven’t seen the first film in the franchise. But boy, was this a thoroughly entertaining adventure to be a part of, especially in 3D. One of the few films I saw twice.
6. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty - One of the rare cases in which the critical reviews (fairly neutral/poor) made me go into the experience with the intent to seek and defend the filmmaker’s POV, rather than emptily accept pre-written judgments. This was an imperfect film, yet contained such thematic and aesthetic beauty that I wholeheartedly embraced its positive ideas. What dragged it down for me, primarily, was the missed opportunity of an ending, which is something Stiller seems to drop the ball on. The film had the opportunity to end with an unusually effective message. Instead, it kept going, and Stiller chose the path of ending his movie like he normally does - with his male protagonist and his love interest talking amicably in public and then the credits rolling.

Three Best Final Scenes

1. Sightseers
2. Mud
3. This Is The End

Best Scene Put to Film

1. James Franco as “Alien” serenades the ladies with an ocean-side performance of “Everytime” by Britney Spears, in Harmony Korine’s Spring Breakers. The entire sequence made me laugh, cry, and feel uncomfortable - almost always simultaneously. It also made me feel the beating love of what creativity and sheer lunacy can do on a movie screen.  

Three Best Films I Haven’t Actually Seen Yet, But Instinctively Feel They Would Have Ended Up In My Top 10 If I Had

1. Frances Ha
2. The Act of Killing
3. Short Term 12

Most Convoluted List

1. See above

Cheers! See you at the movies!


*A closing disclaimer: More categories to be included in next year’s Best-Of post.

AJCFP -- Cluster #4: Magic, Mindfunks, and Mawage

Adam: Here we are at the end of February, and I still have a cluster after this one to do. Oops. Oh well. Thanks for hanging in there, everyone. I know you’re probably crushed that I didn’t get this finished in January or even February. (Hint: I’m the only one who’s actually mad at myself for not getting it done.)

This cluster takes place in a world far from our own. Kind of. The theme of these films is “fantasy” in many senses of the word. Some take place in other lands, some take place in a blend between our world and another, and some take place in “altered” versions or perceptions of our world. Enjoy this, part four out of five. We’re almost there.

-

AJCFP #4: Magic, Mindfunks, and Mawage

The Princess Bride (dir. Rob Reiner, 1987)

There are few films that can be described as classic, and even fewer that can bear the description of flawless; The Princess Bride is one of those films. Everything about this film is timeless. The story is one of adventure, romance, suspense, and of course, true love. The laughs are never cheap, the characters are unforgettable, the plot never once drags, and not a single moment is wasted. I cannot say much more beyond thank God this movie exists, to take us on an adventure, to enchant us with its magic, to make us laugh and cry, and to revive our belief in true love, even if it is mostly dead.

Labyrinth (dir. Jim Henson, 1986)

Until this particular viewing, I had only ever seen Labyrinth in special big screen events, and never in private at home. But when one of my favorite people ever got me the collector’s edition for my birthday this year, I finally got the solo viewing I had wanted since the first time I went on this fantastical journey.

Labyrinth is a sort of coming-of-age story about a young girl who wishes her baby brother would be kidnapped by goblins when she is forced to babysit him on a night where she would rather be out with her friends. But she isn’t your typical early-teens popular girl; Sarah enjoys role-playing the fantasy stories she reads, particularly the one about the Goblin King and a mythical Labyrinth, which is where she gets the idea to wish for her baby brother to be “removed” from her situation. Her wish actually comes true, and this warrants a visit from said Goblin King, played by none other than legendary musician David Bowie. Sarah is transported to the land of the Labyrinth when she tells the glam-tastic Goblin King that she wants to take back the wish. He gives her thirteen hours to reclaim her brother before he is transformed into one of the Goblin King’s goblin minions.

If you’ve talked to me in the past month, you know I’ve recently acquired a swiftly onset and quite potent obsession with David Bowie and his music, so to rewatch this movie during said musical investigation was an absolute treat. But Mr. Bowie isn’t the only highlight of this movie. A very young, very beautiful, and very talented Jennifer Connelly plays the role of Sarah wonderfully, and the music (written by Bowie) is catchy and classic. But all of that aside, I have to admit the best part of this film is the magnificent puppet work by Jim Henson Productions. The non-human characters (of which there are many) come to life in a way that has not been close to matched with CGI (although I suppose Gollum and Smaug give them a run for their money…), and quite honestly, I forget they are puppets very quickly. This movie is escapism at its finest for me, and a quirky fantasy journey unlike any other. I recommend it highly, but be warned…it’s pretty trippy sometimes, but if you just let it happen, you’ll find yourself singing “dance, magic, dance!” and hoping Sarah saves the day and grows up...but not too much.

The Fountain (dir. Darren Aronofsky, 2006)

I obtained my copy of this epic romance for free from someone who didn’t want it anymore. I had seen it once before and gladly took it off his hands, but then realized I couldn’t remember what it was about, at all. It started coming back to me when I watched it this time, but what really came to me was something much more. The Fountain is split into three storylines, all of which starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. The first is about a Spanish conquistador searching for the Tree of Life by order of his Queen; the second is about a present-day doctor/scientist looking to cure his wife of cancer; the third takes place in a celestial bubble, where a man is floating through space trying to protect a tree (presumably the Tree of Life) until their eventual rebirth. It’s kind of trippy, yeah. But the themes of this film are death, and the human desire to thwart it, rather than accept it. There are recurring themes of religion, philosophy, science, history, and, again, death, all throughout the film, which also contains some incredible cinematography and sound work (I’m going to repeat this in my review of Black Swan, but watch this with headphones to get the full effect), and excellent performances by all involved. If you’ve never seen any of Aronofsky’s work and you want a safe, but still mind-blowing, entry point into his work before you hit the really dark stuff, The Fountain is that film. I’d also recommend it to lovers of movies that make you think the whole time you’re watching them, working to wrap your mind around what’s going on and how to follow three story threads, only to have to do it again when something changes. But if you want a straightforward love story or a linear plot, look elsewhere. This one is quite a tangled thread to undo, but if you’re willing to undergo it, the payoff is ever so worth the trouble.

Black Swan (dir. Darren Aronofsky, 2010)

This was the first movie I ever screened when I became a projectionist at Celebration! Cinema Crossroads. I was alone at 1am watching this psychological, psychosexual, thriller-horror film about a ballerina who loses herself in her art, and it left me pretty deeply disturbed and walking around a movie theater at 3am worried that my evil twin was going to jump out and kill me. I should probably write a review so this story isn’t as confusing.

Black Swan is about Nina (Natalie Portman in an Oscar-winning performance), an innocent and sensitive ballerina who wins the role of her dreams: the Swan Queen. However, in order to play the role perfectly, this performer has to embody both the White Swan and the Black Swan. When she gets the part, Nina can only play the White Swan because she hasn’t found the Black Swan in herself yet. Cue Lily (Mila Kunis), a sexy and unorthodox ballerina who, oh my gosh, always wears black. Through a series of minor corruptions, and one infamous sex scene, Lily (or rather, the idea of Lily as Nina’s doppelganger), starts to bring out Nina’s Black Swan. Nina also has a very controlling (and probably abusive) mother, who adds a Carrie-esque aura of terror to the already chilling film, and the director of the ballet also has an air of sexual threat about him. As Nina starts losing her mind, she also starts losing herself and discovering that she can be, and is, the Black Swan.

The film uses recurring motifs of mirrors, evil doppelgangers, doubles, fleeting youth, the pursuit of perfection, and lots of other dark themes if you wish to dig deeper. The cinematography is gorgeous, the lighting and make-up are marvelous, the dancing is fantastic, and (here it is) watch this movie with headphones because the use of sound is out of this world.

This was one of my favorite films of 2010, but like Aronofsky’s other work, this is not for everyone. The theme alone is pretty disturbing, but when you throw in some unsettling gore, possible child abuse (her mother is pretty messed up), sexual awakening (both healthy and unhealthy), a downward spiral into insanity, including hallucinations of murder and a lesbian sex scene (if that’s the one that made you scoff, you have bigger problems than I could start to write about in this review), you have definitely narrowed down your audience. So yes, I recommend this film highly, but you must know what you’re getting into, and know that what you’re getting into is actually a brilliant, dark tale of the pursuit of perfection.

Big Fish (dir. Tim Burton, 2003)

Tim Burton’s Big Fish (which could also be titled That Tim Burton Movie That Doesn’t Feel Like A Tim Burton Movie) eluded me for years after I saw it. I first watched it early in high school (so actually shortly after it came out…maybe 2005?) and adored it. It had something different about it, and I vowed to figure out what that was…but I didn’t watch it again for almost ten years. I bought it on a whim a year or two ago, but only just now watched it for that much anticipated second time. I am pleased to report that it did not let me down one bit.

The story centers on a literal, calculated man and his whimsical, storytelling father. For his entire life, the man had heard these tall tales about his father’s life, and now that his father is on his deathbed, he wants to finally hear the truth about his old man. The story is long, elaborate, and strides the line between believable and unbelievable until it blurs. And the ending is perfect.

Like I said earlier, this doesn’t really feel like your usual Tim Burton film, which is a good thing no matter if you’re a long time fan (as I am) or one of those hater-people who think they’re deep by commenting on how Burton casts Johnny Depp a lot. Directors do that. Get over it. I digress. This doesn’t feel like a usual Burton film because it’s not his typical blend of Gothic cartoonish style and morbid storytelling (although this is very much a Southern Gothic story, and there’s a dying father, so maybe it’s not all that different…). But it wouldn’t be the same without Tim at the helm, because his touches are still very apparent. The cast is wonderful: Billy Crudup and Albert Finney believably play son and father respectively, and Marion Cotillard is so very charming as Crudup’s wife. However, the real treasures in the cast are told in the fairy tale flashbacks, starring Ewan McGregor as a young Albert Finney. McGregor shines as the naïve, but clever, Edward Bloom who leaves his small town in search of something bigger. On his journey, he meets Danny DeVito as a circus ringmaster, Steve Buscemi as a missing poet, Loudon Wainwright III as the mayor of a mysterious town, Alison Lohman as the girl of Edward’s dreams, Helena Bonham Carter as…a few people (just watch it, you’ll understand), and there’s even an 8-year-old Miley Cyrus (credited as Destiny Cyrus). And that’s not even the whole group.

The cast isn’t all this movie has to offer though, by a long shot. The story alone is beautiful enough to carry a cast of unknowns, and the visuals are colorful, vast, but also personal and intimate. Danny Elfman’s score was also Oscar-nominated, which is almost always a good sign.

I would argue strongly that this is one of Tim Burton’s best films, and I would recommend it not only to Burton fans, but also to anyone who likes fairy tales. It’s a pure-hearted film about life, family, death, and storytelling, and will please viewers of any and all ages. Please watch it, if you haven’t already.

AJCFP – Cluster #3: Fate, Fangs, and Pharmaceuticals

Adam: Fear not! I will still be finishing Adam’s January Clusterfilm Project, even though it’s no longer January! (I know, you weren’t fearing anything.)

The reason I fell so far behind is actually this cluster. I was nervous about rewatching Let The Right One In since it had such a life-changing effect on me the first time I watched it. That may sound silly to some of you, but it actually delayed me over a week because I needed to have the “perfect night” to watch it. I did get that perfect night, but it pushed me back with this project quite a bit. So I will be finishing the project, it just might take me a chunk of February to get it done.

This cluster deals with dark subjects like the apocalypse, predestination, vampires, terrible sex scenes, murder, and growing up. Enjoy.

-

AJCFP – Cluster #3: Fate, Fangs, and Pharmaceuticals

Donnie Darko (dir. Richard Kelly, 2001)

We begin this cluster with a film I’d been looking forward to rewatching since I saw it for the first and only time back in 2008. When I saw Donnie Darko for the first time, my reaction was mixed. Part of me really liked the odd humor, the cast, the dark images, and the fact that a kid with mental health issues kept hallucinating a guy in a rabbit suit and hearing about time travel and wormholes. And yet, part of me hated the scenes that actually didn’t make any sense no matter how you looked at it, some of the blatant anti-authority or “young outsider” stuff that felt really forced and gimmicky, and of course…the fanbase. Vast majorities of the people who love this film mock those who don’t like it because they “don’t get it” and the fans do. (Hint: there’s not much to actually get.)

Well, upon rewatching, I can say that I understood it more this time, but for the life of me I cannot understand why so many people love this thing. My reaction was almost completely split the entire time between “oh, I love that!” and “ugh, this is the worst,” which is a reaction that I absolutely love because it’s so rare for me to feel both extremes during the same film. So no matter how it seems, this actually isn’t a negative review. Or is it?

For instance, I love the soundtrack and the cinematography. Both of them are fantastic. I also love the cast. To be honest, if this was a film of entirely unknown actors, I really don’t think anyone would care about it at all. On the flip side, I hate how hard it tries to be deeper than it actually is. Sure, it discusses time travel and wormholes and tangential realities, but at the end of the day it’s basically a “here’s what would happen if this kid cheated death” story, and then ends in an overglorified montage of everyone waking up from a dream. It’s every decent writer’s ultimate sin: “it was all a dream.” (That wasn’t even a spoiler, to show you just how unimportant the ending is in the big picture.)

I guess my opinion of Donnie Darko can be summed up with a lyric from the famous-for-no-reason montage at the end, to the song “Mad World.”

“I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad.”

Let The Right One In (dir. Tomas Alfredson, 2008)

This film has been in my top ten favorite films of all time since the first (and only) time I watched it a couple years ago. Let The Right One In is a Swedish coming-of-age story about a bullied boy named Oskar who, when practicing his retaliation for the boys who torture him at school, meets a young girl named Eli. But Eli is not a girl, nor is she young; Eli is a vampire. The two become friends, and throughout the film, they teach each other about love, friendship, standing up for yourself, and all sorts of vital lessons we begin to learn early in our lives (Oskar is only twelve). But before you think this is some sort of happy, flowery, saccharine story, let me bring up some of the dark stuff. Eli has a “helper,” a man who goes out, captures people, and drains their blood so Eli can drink it. Eli doesn’t do it herself because it causes too much of a mess and a ruckus (not to mention, she’s only “twelve” years old…), so this man does it instead. The film tackles a gallery of dark and important subjects, such as loneliness, bullying, alcoholism, pedophilia (barely…it’s covered more in the novel, I hear), parent-child relationships, imperfections and follies of adults, death, love, and so much more. It’s filmed beautifully, and exquisitely acted, especially by the two lead child actors. This film also captures Winter better than any film I have ever seen (Let The Right One In, Fargo, and Frozen are the three best, I think). Honestly, in my mind there is no flaw in this film. It is still comfortably in my top ten films of all time, and will probably stay there for many, many years.

If you can’t handle a film in Swedish with English subtitles (there is an English dub, but…why would you watch that?), then, I don’t know, go read a book and stop being one of those “I don’t like reading movies” people. But if you can handle the Swedish, the darkness, the blood, and the raw truth of growing up, you simply must watch this film. I insist.

Let Me In (dir. Matt Reeves, 2010)

Why yes, this does have a strikingly similar title to Let The Right One In, doesn’t it? That’s because it’s the British-American remake, released only two years after the flawless original. But before you think this is going to be a review trashing a redo of one of my favorite films, think again. This remake (though I prefer to simply call it “the American version”) is actually near perfect in a lot of ways. In numerical terms, if the Swedish film is a 10, the American version is a 9. It’s that good. But it’s hard to get into the movie if you’ve just watched the Swedish one, so I’d recommend watching the Swedish one first, waiting a few months, and then watching the American one.

Comparing the two films is actually a fascinating critique of American filmmaking and culture in comparison to foreign filmmaking. For instance, the Swedish film, released in 2008, feels like a timeless coming-of-age fairy tale. The American film, however, is shot like a modern day American horror film, and will age as such. If I didn’t know the Swedish film was made in 2008, I would have guessed any time from the 80’s (when it takes place) to yesterday. The American one, however, screams 2010. The violence and gore are more intense, the camera angles are more “suspenseful,” and the whole thing is saturated with American social norms/taboos. Something that’s in this film that isn’t in the Swedish one is an almost definite homage to Rear Window, where Owen (oh yeah, it’s Owen and Abby in this one, instead of Oskar and Eli) looks through a telescope at two of his neighbors. In one apartment is a couple that is very sexually active, and in the other dwells a man who works out frequently. This is a very interesting statement on what young boys are shown to need to be when they get older: sexually active and physically strong or fit. (The same is true for women, of course, and much more harshly and complexly so, but the movie is focusing on a young boy, so that’s why I say boy here.) Apart from that, there is a sexual undertone to the whole film that was missing from the Swedish one. Speaking of which, the bullying that happens in this version is more disturbing, and the biggest difference is the bully calling him “little girl” instead of “little pig.” This says a lot about America seeing women as weaker or lesser than men, and that being called a woman or girl is an insult. At first, this enraged me, but then I realized…that’s the point. It was an intentional change that shows American sexism embedded in our very culture when we don’t even realize it. Ouch.

The biggest difference, in my opinion, is the abundance of religious paranoia present in this film. The Swedish one made no mention of religion, yet the American version seems to be obsessed with “good vs. evil” and whether or not Abby is evil, which was intentional from the director, and is a beautiful metaphor for uptight, religious, conservative adults often being paranoid that their children are falling into evil as they grow up, when in reality they are just growing up and have questions and are facing the world that said adults are so afraid of. It’s incredible.

In terms of acting, the two leads are spot-on again, bringing different flavors to the characters than their Swedish counterparts (Kodi Smit-McPhee who plays Owen actually didn’t watch the Swedish film until after the American one was released, to avoid copying and taking away from his own performance…awesome).

Overall, the whole package is amazing. It’s beautiful on its own, but considering my unwavering bias for the original Swedish film, I have a hard time not comparing the two. Maybe one day I’ll put in the American one without having watched the Swedish, and it will become something all its own to me. So, in the end, the Swedish one is better, but the American one is absolutely worth watching. And the author of the novel both films are based upon loved both film interpretations, and on those terms, it’s good enough for me too.

Underworld (dir. Len Wiseman, 2003)

Let’s be real here: we all know the Underworld series is not great cinema. But this first installment is a wonderful slice of the strange “goth” phase of action movies that tonally piggybacked on the Matrix films in the early 2000’s. You know, the movies that looked like they could be a music video for Disturbed meets Marilyn Manson meets Atreyu, but with a long story? Well, the first Underworld film is that style to a T, and it’s awesome. It took me back to my high school days of wishing I was as cool as the kids who dressed entirely in Hot Topic garb (back when Hot Topic was the “scary store” in the mall, and not the pop culture/meme garbage pile it is now), as well as a certain Halloween night involving axes, swords, fake fangs, and friends. Good times.

For anyone who missed this early-00’s fang-fest, it’s the story of a group of vampires fighting a group of werewolves (called Lycans). That’s the movie. Then there’s some betrayal, human vs. superhuman tension, a strange star-crossed love story thing, and lots of hissing at each other between action sequences. Oh, and Kate Beckinsale wearing leather for two hours. Not to mention a chilling performance from Bill Nighy, who completely understands what these movies are going for and lets that shine through in his acting.

When it boils down to it, Underworld is fun in the way that Van Helsing or Hansel + Gretel: Which Hunters is fun. It’s a bit campy, a bit melodramatic, but man is it a good time. Especially if you like vampires (and I do), but aren’t looking for the heavy coming-of-age story of Let The Right One In. If vampires or movies that are “bad in the good way” aren’t your things, I’d skip it. Otherwise, throw it on and have some fun.

Underworld: Evolution (dir. Len Wiseman, 2006)

The fang vs. fur fight continues in this blue-tinged sequel that, in many ways, is an improvement on the original. (It’s even one of the few films in these clusters that I’ve never seen before!) The fight scenes are better, there’s more gore, and the stakes (pun intended) are raised. I mean, there really isn’t a whole lot to say here…it’s more vampires fighting more werewolves, while trying to save Michael, the hybrid of both species from the first film, who is also an unbelievable and annoying love interest.

One thing I do want to bring up, though, is how absolutely terrible the sex scenes are in these movies. I mean, wow. They don’t serve the plot, but that’s to be expected…the real kicker here is they aren’t even sexy. It’s just uncomfortable to watch, and I was by myself. Yikes. I mean, come on. You have Kate Beckinsale wearing leather and fake fangs, being sexy for two hours, except for when she is having sex. Sure, her husband is the director, but just cut the sex scenes then? They are worthless in showing plot or character development, and they aren’t particularly arousing, so just cut the stupid things. And that’s what I have to say about that.

Overall, I do think I like this one better than the first, but not by much, and only because the action scenes are better. They’re both just a good time, and if you liked the first one, you’ll probably like the second one. Now for the real test…the third one: a prequel with a different director. Scary.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (dir. Patrick Tatopoulos, 2009)

I never thought I’d see the day…the Underworld prequel is actually the best in the series. I can’t recall another single instance where a prequel, made six years after the original, actually tops the original. Maybe it’ll come to me eventually.

Anyway, last night was the first time I’d ever seen this and to be honest, I was expecting complete trash. The only positive thing I’d heard about this was from the person who gave me these DVDs (she upgraded to Blu-Ray and gave me some awesome stuff for free) who said this was her favorite in the series. I had my doubts…until I actually watched it.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans reveals the history of the vampire/Lycan war, and the actually heartbreaking way of how it began. It’s a simple enough story: a slave falls in love with the ruler’s daughter. We’ve seen it before. But the way it’s done here is that we have a slave werewolf who was raised under close watch (along with his werewolf kin) of the vampires, who go out and hunt the full werewolves (because the slaves are Lycans, which are werewolves that can kind of control their transformation, so they hunt the ones who can’t), who rises up his fellow Lycans to overthrow the oppressive vampires (which is a cool switch from supporting the vampires in the first two films) and be with the woman he loves. This is actually a very dark slave story, tackling issues of racism through “species-ism.” But it’s no metaphor for America or anything; it’s bigger than that. It’s a story of freedom, and the effect oppression (as well as star-crossed love) can have on people.

Bill Nighy plays Viktor once again, and does so with a melodramatic malice that only someone who “gets” the series can provide. But the real star here is Michael Sheen, who plays our protagonist, Lucian. The emotion and passion he brings to this role belongs in a period epic, which this arguably is, I suppose, but dang. There’s a scene at the end, when he finally goes off the edge as he watches the fate of the woman he loves, where he actually caused a lump in my throat. I wish I were kidding.

I don’t mean for this to be a love letter, because it’s still an Underworld movie. The effects can be pretty terrible in this one (the CGI Lycans look worse than the non-CGI ones…same goes for the blood), and it wouldn’t belong in the series without a god-awful sex scene! At least this one had a purpose for the characters. Kind of.

Overall, I recommend this if you like the Underworld movies and want some background to the war that drives the first two films, but I also recommend this to anyone who likes dark, medieval movies. You can watch it without having seen the first two, and to be honest, I might actually watch this one more than the others solely because I found it so interesting and refreshing for the franchise. I haven’t seen the fourth film, but I think I’ll wait. I’d rather watch this one again.

From Hell (dir. The Hughes Brothers, 2001)

If I told you to imagine a dark thriller starring Johnny Depp about Jack the Ripper that wasn’t directed by Tim Burton, the movie you’re probably imagining would be exactly From Hell. This is one of those movies that you find on TV in the afternoon and end up watching the whole thing because “oh nice, Johnny Depp! Wait…Hagrid is in this?! And Bilbo! Nice!” except you’ll want to watch it unedited because the murders are actually pretty cool.

This movie doesn’t redefine the genre, nor does it do anything really specific to itself and only itself, but it’s still enjoyable to watch. It’s set in London, 1888, and deals with the Jack the Ripper murders. There’s a pretty cool subplot showing classism in London, as well as the rich vs. the “unfortunates” (the prostitutes), and some pretty harsh racism stuff that caught me off guard. There are some really great moments, some stylistic murders, and lots of opium addiction. Though the murders aren’t shown explicitly, they’re filmed in an interesting way that makes you forget that you aren’t seeing the knife go in for yourself, which is a testament to properly done thriller filmmaking.

As far as Alan Moore adaptations go, it’s a watered-down version of what I’m sure the massive graphic novel is, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. (I mean, the only person who has actually done a Moore novel justice is Zack Snyder’s Watchmen: The Ultimate Cut, and if you disagree, you’re not impressing anyone.)

I would recommend this film to fans of the thriller genre, people who are interested in the Ripper killings, Johnny Depp fans, or if you have your TV on in the afternoon. This is a solid way to spend it.

AJCFP – Cluster #2: Criminally Great Movies

Adam: Hello again, everyone! I know, I know, I’m a little bit behind on these clusters…but I’m gonna do it, I swear!

This particular cluster focuses on movies about crime, criminals, justice, and things of that nature. We have breaking-and-entering robbers, cowboys, “idea theft,” double-agents, rogue cops, and a whole lot of guns, greed, and good times. Enjoy.

-

AJCFP – Cluster #2: Criminally Great Movies

Panic Room (dir. David Fincher, 2002)

Finally, a movie in this project that I’d never seen beforehand! As a huge fan of Fincher’s work, I was eagerly looking forward to watching this, and I have to say that, although I wasn’t disappointed, I certainly was not blown away upon my first viewing. When I saw Fight Club, The Social Network, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Se7en, or even The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for the first time, I was left obsessing over what I had just seen for weeks (and in some cases, years). With Panic Room, this did not feel like it would be the case when the credits rolled, but the reason had nothing to do with Fincher’s directing. The cinematography and directing are still strikingly early Fincher, but in my opinion, the story is far weaker than any of his other films that I’ve seen to date. Or so I thought.

This “micro-thriller” was written by David Koep (one of the most successful screenwriters in Hollywood). It focuses on a recently single mother (Jodie Foster) and her little boy—I mean girl (Kristen Stewart), as they move into a big ol’ new place in New York City. In said new dwelling, there is a safe room (or “panic room” WHOA THAT’S HOW THEY GOT THE TITLE) which, unbeknownst to our protagonists, is concealing a hefty sum of money. The first night they spend in the new house, a break-in occurs and the story takes off. The mother/daughter team hides in the panic room while the three men try to break into it, and the tensions rise. Now, if you watch this as a break-in thriller, it’s a solid movie. And that’s what I did the first time I watched it. However, the more I thought about it (mixed with reading a few reviews and such online), I realized there is much more going on here. It gave me immense relief knowing that beneath the above-average thriller surface, there lies a complex statement about feminism, technology, isolation, greed, and perspectives of different people. I’m really looking forward to rewatching it with these things in mind next time.

Overall, I recommend this specifically for any fans of the thriller genre that missed it back in 2002, and of course for any fans of David Fincher’s work. In terms of his filmography, Panic Room and Zodiac kind of bridge the gap stylistically between his earlier work and his most recent work, in my opinion. Fight Club obviously looks and feels far different than The Social Network or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which is partly because of the camera/equipment he used to film it, but also because of the way the cinematography feels. He changed quite a bit, for better or worse, and I think that this growth is a very important part of—anyway, before I turn this into an essay on Fincher, I’m going to go watch The Social Network for the first time since I fell in love with it in theaters.

The Social Network (dir. David Fincher, 2010)

When I first saw The Social Network in 2010, I loved it immediately. I had recently gotten into David Fincher, really dug Jesse Eisenberg’s acting (especially in Zombieland), and was already a raging fan of Trent Reznor’s music (he’s the mastermind behind Nine Inch Nails, if you didn’t know). Not to mention, I was (and am) part of the flock of people under the rule of online social networking sites, especially Facebook. When the Oscars came around that year, The Social Network was nominated for eight awards, including Best Picture. Considering it captured everything about where we were as a society in 2010, naturally I pulled for it to win. It did not. In fact, it lost to The King’s Speech, which is a solid but safe historical drama. It’s in no way a bad film, but it did not deserve Best Picture at all. I will never recover from this injustice. (Pardon my melodrama.)

But this review isn’t about my bitterness toward those particular Academy Awards. This is about the film that, upon rewatching, I realized is one of the most important and overall best films of the past ten years. I will venture to say it is David Fincher’s best film in the latter half of his career. From the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous) to the writing (quick, sharp, brilliant work from Aaron Sorkin) to the acting (Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield gave performances of their careers) to the score (for which Reznor won an Oscar), this entire film is an absolute work of art. When I started it, I was going to make a pizza after the first conversation (which has become something of an iconic scene), but couldn’t look away from the screen for a straight half hour. This movie has a staying power that I did not expect. To be honest, after it came out, I assumed it would lose its potency after a few years since it was such a great snapshot of 2010. This is not the case. In fact, in the past four years, I’ve actually lost interest in the “accuracy” of the film in terms of factual events, which brings out the real truths of the film: friendship, reliance on technology, pliancy of society through trends, greed, popularity resulting in notoriety, the underdog overthrowing the majority…this thing is chock full of brilliant statements that are still relevant, and maybe even more so as time progresses. It’s still where we are, and it’s still where we’re going.

I could make this a novel-length love letter, but I won’t. Suffice it to say, if I had to make a list of the most important films of the past decade, The Social Network would be in the top three, hands down. If you haven’t seen this movie, you are truly missing something vital. Watch it. I cannot recommend it more highly.

Fargo (dir. Joel Coen, 1996)

Sometimes it’s easy to forget the power of a good story. I’m not talking about a grandiose statement about society or the love story of an age. I’m talking about just a good, entertaining, suspenseful, funny, interesting, well rounded…just a good story. And that’s precisely what the Coen brothers’ Fargo is.

Some would categorize Fargo as a thriller (as the DVD case suggests), others as a comedy. Personally, I get a dark comedy vibe from it, because it’s definitely a blend of the two. The story shows how one’s desire for money, as well as some terrible miscommunication between untrustworthy people, can cause one’s life to spiral out of control. It’s that simple. No bells and whistles. And yet, the characters are so fleshed out and believable, the performances are so strong, the dialogue is so memorable and funny (oh, geez), and the setting captures winter so much better than almost any other film I’ve ever seen (I say almost, because…oh just wait until the next cluster…), that it’s impossible to miss why this movie is so dang good. Seriously, watch it.

Fargo is rightly described as an American classic, and if you haven’t seen it yet, you’re missing out…and you clearly don’t laugh darkly whenever you see a wood chipper.

The Big Lebowski (dir. Joel Coen, 1998)

The Coen brothers’ follow-up to Fargo is anything but the simple crime story of its predecessor. If you haven’t seen The Big Lebowski, this is going to be a really strange description and review, and for that, I say…just go watch this movie.

The Big Lebowski is one of the strangest, quirkiest films ever made, with a plot that is far too complex, dream sequences that make almost no sense, a lot of yelling, far too many characters that also don’t make any sense, and bowling. But the best part is: none of that matters, at all, and yet this is a film with a rabid cult following, quotes that never get old, and even a religion (go look up “Dudeism”…it’s a real thing). How is this possible? I don’t know. I just know I can yell, “Mark it zero!” and anyone who has seen the film will join in for a quote-a-thon of hilarity. I’ve often laughed until I cried because of quoting this thing with other people. It’s so strange.

But just like any film that isn’t supposed to make sense, sense can be made if you look hard enough. For instance, this movie has really important and brilliant points to make about politics, religion, belief and non-belief, hypocrisy, greed, sexism, communication, death, and tons of other things that I can’t even remember or care to list. This movie is smart, but disguised as an absurd, pointless, and utterly hilarious story of a man who just wants to take it easy and get compensation for his soiled rug. It really tied the room together, man.

True Grit (dir. Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, 2010)

The Coen brothers return again with something the same as, and entirely different than, everything else they’ve done. True Grit is an adaptation of the novel, and not a direct remake of the classic film, and I think that’s a good part of why this one is so good. Told through the eyes of fourteen year-old Mattie Ross, this revenge tale is probably the most “mainstream” thing the Coen brothers have done. It’s basically a straight Western vengeance movie. A young girl wants revenge on the man who killed her father, and hires two horse-riding justice-men to help her. But what seems simple on the surface is actually an expertly crafted cautionary tale of the ultimately frivolous pursuit of revenge, a study of brute force vs. law-abiding justice, and a parable packed full of religious symbolism.

Here’s a taste of what I’m talking about: the two men that go with her (Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, both giving excellent performances) each represent a different incarnation of the justice Mattie seeks. For instance, Rooster (Bridges) is very unorthodox in his methods and has no problem pulling a trigger (the anger and brute rage she feels) and Matt Damon is a Texas Ranger who follows all the rules, all the time, no exceptions (her religious conscience). Watching the film through this lens makes her motivations clearer, and it makes the end very satisfying.

-

(SPOILERS: she loses her arm because of a snake bite she gets after she falls down a hole…which happens after she exacts her revenge. It’s a religious metaphor if there ever was one.)

-

True Grit was one of my favorite films when it came out in 2010, and I’m happy to say it holds up nicely. I recommend it very much if you, well, like movies. The only people I wouldn’t offer this to would be people who explicitly don’t like Westerns. But that’s about it. So unless you hate cowboys and dust, you have no excuses. Watch this movie.

The Departed (dir. Martin Scorsese, 2007)

For the past seven years, I’ve had to put up with the same slack-jawed reaction to my answering of the question: “Have you seen The Departed?” The second I say no, the asker will gasp as if I’ve just admitted to killing an entire orphanage worth of babies. Don’t get me wrong: I love when people are passionate about films. And despite what many people may think, I actually really enjoy hype. I love when people hype up movies or music or books or anything because it means people are actually passionate about a certain type of art, and that’s never a bad thing…well, almost never. This is exactly what happened with The Departed, and I’m sorry to say…it actually impacted my viewing of this movie.

See, when I went in, I expected a film that would change my life, alter my views on crime movies, and otherwise blow me away in every aspect that would leave me reeling and obsessing over the writing, story, cinematography, performances, etc. What I got was one of the best crime films I have ever seen (arguably the best one since Goodfellas, like a lot of critics claimed) and…yeah. That’s it. It met my expectations, and then it was over. Leo was totally great, Marky Mark was a well-played douche, Matt Damon proved his chops once again, Jack Nicholson was terrifying, the soundtrack was awesome, the directing was great, some of the shots were really beautiful, and the story was complex but totally brilliant. It was exactly what I’d come to expect from the hype, and that was a fantastic movie.

So yes, The Departed is a really great film, and one of the best crime movies of the past 10 to 20 years…but you already knew that. And so did I. And I guess that’s why I felt disappointed. If I had watched it when everyone else did for the first time, I’d be right there with you. Mortified when someone hasn’t seen it, as the orphanage burns in the distance.

Sin City: Recut, Extended, Unrated (dir. Robert Rodriguez & Frank Miller, 2005)

When I first saw Sin City, it was in my mother’s living room on a DVD that I obtained for free from a coworker’s dad. He wanted to get rid of it since his young son kept sneaking around to watch it, and I gladly took it off his hands. I sold that copy when I purchased the “recut, extended, unrated” version a few years later. The special edition contains both the theatrical cut and an extended cut (which is what I’ll be reviewing here), as well as the first volume of Frank Miller’s graphic novel, which is shown almost shot-for-shot in the film (along with volumes three and four, I believe).

The way the “recut” version is set up, however, is in those separate parts. Basically, the recut version is four short films you can watch in any order you choose, which initially kind of bothered me…until I started watching it. Now, I watched them in the absolutely incorrect order, because they aren’t numbered (except in the booklet…which I didn’t notice until after I freaking watched three of them), but it didn’t bother me. In fact, it’s easier to see how the four storylines intersect without the “mashed up” editing of the theatrical cut, and next time I watch this movie, it will be in the correct order. Each of the parts is extended too, so we get a total of almost 20 more minutes of footage (I think) and a very smooth and satisfying storytelling experience.

If you don’t know anything about Sin City, by the way, it’s a neo-noir film set in a filthy fictional city with crime, booze, sex, and absolutely no absolutes. There is no right and wrong in Sin City…only broken people with good hearts, or successful people with rotten ones. The style isn’t for everyone, nor is the story, but I absolutely love it. Sure, it can be a tad cheesy from time to time, but that’s what it’s supposed to be.

If you’ve never seen the movie before, I’d recommend starting with the theatrical cut. After that, give the recut version a go for an even more thrilling and expansive ride.