Day 480 - Spring Breakers

Spring Breakers

I have real sympathy for anyone who went to see this film thinking they were going to see a normal, linear actiony-comedy movie.  Because what Harmony Korine has done is made one of the most expensive experimental art films that has been released in recent years.

The story of four college women (girls) who go "wild" on spring break, get arrested, and then hook up with a gangster rapper is a pretty simple one.  But the real film is in the telling of the story.  When the film opens we're inundated with the debauchery of spring break.  It's both titillating and sad.  This is where the girls want to go to?  And they can't even afford it.  So they turn to robbery.  In a normal Hollywood film, this heist would be glamorized to the nth degree. Here it's hidden the first time we see it - we catch glimpses here and there.  But when we see it in flashback, it's what it probably would look like in real life - ugly.  But Spring Break is the objective, so off they go.  Drinking and drugs and promiscuity are the main courses, and eventually it catches up to them, and they're carted off to jail.

At which point it becomes the James Franco show.  As the gangster rapper Alien, Franco creates a character that is so hypnotic that any of the films previous faults (like lethargy) are completely forgiven.  He is a captivating monster.  Every time he appears onscreen or says something you feel like you're in for a treat.

This movie has been advertised on the strength of its leading ladies.  For a lot of young 'uns, seeing Selena Gomez or Vanessa Hudgens cavorting in bikinis and waving guns is more than enough to get them to the theater.  But their characters are barely even characters. Almost all the girls are interchangeable, with Gomez given at least the tiniest bit of backstory to differentiate herself from the others.

And that may be the point.  The less we care about the characters the more the film can just objectify them.  As I said, the film is not the most linear of pieces.  With time jumps, hand held cameras, and repeated lines the film is less interested in story than it is in style.  I may never care what the girls' story is, but I was swept up in their escapades.

I left the theater thinking that about 80 percent of the audience probably hated the film, thinking they were hoodwinked.  But that other 20 percent had their minds blown by the fact that they thought they were going to see "girls gone wild with guns" and got something they would never see on their own.  And then they had the added attraction of seeing James Franco with enough grill in his mouth to rival that of Lil' John.

Was Harmony Korine playing a joke on us using "innocent" actresses in a movie that glamorizes debauchery and violence?  Probably.  But it was at least a funny and clever joke.

***

Day 477 - Horrorhound Weekend

I've been to San Diego Comic-Con, Mid-Ohio Con, C2E2, Cinema Wasteland and previous Horrorhound conventions.  I have never waited in line to get into any of those conventions for more than an hour... until this weekend's Horrorhound.  And my experience only relates to Friday's show.  But I waited outside, to simply get into the convention, for 3 hours.  The show opened at 5PM, and Jason (a patient saint) and I finally got inside around 8PM.

I have no problem with the convention itself.  I had a great time for the three hours that I spent inside the building.  I got (almost) all the autographs I was hoping to get.  But that was all I was able to do.  I made a quick pass through the vendor rooms, but I really didn't have time to browse.  An extra two hours may have been a more profitable two hours for some of those guys.

I expect to wait in line for autographs when I go to a convention.  I don't mind waiting for 3 hours to meet someone I really appreciate as an actor, actress, director or writer.  But waiting for 6 hours for that same autograph (regardless of the company you're keeping) is too much.

Horrorhound changed venues this time to a larger location.  It was a good move.  But I have to imagine there were more entrances into the building other than the one (one!) everyone was herded into.  Different doors for different ticket holders would have to get people to move through the line quicker (I have to imagine).

Some of the complaints from other people who've attended seem to place the blame on the fans of The Walking Dead.  When you have a half dozen actors from one of the most popular shows on television (and it's not a niche show with those ratings), obviously a lot of people are going to want a "piece" of them.  But I've read things saying that these attendees aren't true horror fans.  Well, you know what?  The Walking Dead is a horror show.  Zombies, exploding heads, arrows through the eyes, and social commentary... sounds like some of the best horror movies I've seen.  And the more people who watch things like this the better it is for all of us.  That means more networks are going to try more outrageous shows.  Of course some of them are going to be crap, but maybe something just as good or better will come along.  But a fan of Norman Reedus has the same right to attend one of these shows as a fan of Sig Haig.

But enough negativity. I had a blast at the convention (once I got in).  The three hour wait to get in was alleviated by the fact that I got to hang out with one of my best friends, Jason, and the young lady who was with us.  We never got her name, but that was okay.  Her conversation made the wait go by a lot faster than it could've.  Jason kept nudging me - "get her number."  But we both knew that wasn't going to happen since she was married.  (But we did get to complain about the fact that some of the women that we've met would seem to be perfect for us, except for the fact that they're already in relationships.)

Once we got in the show we headed downstairs.  That's where The Walking Dead cast was, and I wasn't willing to wait in those lines, so it was back upstairs.  The first celebrity I got to meet was Robert Patrick (the T1000 from Terminator 2).  I work with somebody who used to hang out with him back in the day, so we talked about that.  And while I waited in his line, Jason scoped out some of the other rooms.  The buddy system was the perfect way to do this.

Diane Franklin was next.  And she was really the reason I wanted to attend the show.  Better Off Dead is one of the greatest comedies of all time.  But as I told her, she has been in three truly memorable films - Better Off Dead, The Last American Virgin (the most shattering comedy you'll see), and TerrorVision (a movie that combines awesomeness and awfulness in one amazing package).  I bought the last copy of her autobiography in hardcover, and got a picture with her.  But the great thing about getting a picture with her, is that she still has the hat and coat her character wore in Better Off Dead, and she wears the hat while you wear the coat.  After Jason took my picture, he pulled out his wallet and paid the 10 bucks for his own picture, because how could you not?  She was truly great, and I can't wait to read the book.

But the best person I got to talk to was Daniel Roebuck.  Most people know him as the science teacher who blew up on Lost.  I was originally going to have him sign by my review of The River's Edge because he's truly terrifying in that film, but once I realized he was in Dudes, one of the coolest movies no one has ever seen, I had to get him to sign by that (3 star) review.  Then we had a long conversation about Cavegirl, one of those terrible 80's flicks that I just can't get enough of.  We talked for a good chunk of time, and it's one of the reasons why I try and go to these events.  Just a nice guy.

And I finished off the show with meeting the director of TerrorVision, Ted Nicolaou, and he told me why Gerrit Graham wasn't on the "Making of TerrorVision."  (He was filmed, but the sound was bad so it wasn't used.)  And I finally got Bill Mosely (Chop Top from Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2) to sign my review notebook.  He seems to be at a lot of these shows, and it was about time that I met him.

So, was it worth it?  Heck, yeah!  Would I liked to have a chance to look through the dealer rooms?  Yeah.  But that's the convention's fault.  Sorry guys.  Not my fault.  But, hey, Cinema Wasteland is in 2 weeks.

Day 452 - Django Unchained (and Norm Greenbaum)

So, I actually hadn't planned to write anything, but sometimes you just have to.  And Django Unchained was as good a movie to write about as anything.
I still remember reading Film Threat back in college, and they had been raving about Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs for months before it actually came out.  Then I got to see it in the theater with my buddy Greg, and when the film was over, we had a discussion about whether or not we thought Harvey Keitel pulled the trigger at the end or not (I thought he did, he thought he didn't).  Regardless, I knew after seeing that film, I was more than ready to watch whatever he wanted to make.
The newly Academy Award winning Django Unchained is Tarantino's newest effort.  And while it may not be his best, it might be his most fun.  It captures the feel of a 70's exploitation film, along with a Robert Altman-esque western vibe (which, is to say, it looks like McCabe and Mrs. Miller), as well as that ever-important (and clever) dialogue that is Tarantino's signature.
Set two years before the Civil War, bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (portrayed masterfully by Christoph Waltz - in a performance that is as charming as his Inglorious' role was nasty) teams up with Django (Jamie Foxx - clearly enjoying himself) to both collect some bounties and eventually free Django's wife, Broomhilda, from the vile clutches of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio - having the time of his life).  Much bloodshed ensues.
Much has been said about the violence in the film.  But you've got to know, going into the film, that it's a Tarantino movie.  Caveat emptor.  But what seems to be overlooked is that it feels incredibly 70's.  The blood gushes out in arterial sprays that have no semblance of realism attached to them.  His visual flourishes are a statement as much as his musical cues (which, as always, seem spot on).  We're watching Tarantino's filmic reality, and in his world, this is what would happen.
As for the neverending use of the "n" word, there are no apologies.  For some of the characters, it's a way to ingratiate themselves with others, for some it's simply because they don't know any other way, and for others it's because they're racist.  And those racist ones - yeah, they get what's coming to them.  Because the film doesn't seem like it has a racist agenda at all.  King Schultz is one of the most progressive characters in the film, and slavery is something that he does not like.  Putting a bullet in the chest of a wanted man doesn't make him bat an eyelash.  But seeing a black man (or woman) with whip lashes on their back, shakes him to his core.  As well it should.
Fun, loud, smart, well-acted, overlong - completely Tarantino.  ****

And when I was driving home after the movie, Norm Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky" came on the radio.  At Christmastime, my uncle asked me what my favorite song was.  My reply was "Grey Matter" by Oingo Boingo.  And it is, but the incredibly close number two would have to be "Spirit in the Sky."  The first time the song really impacted me was during the opening credits of Miami Blues (starring Alec Baldwin and Jennifer Jason Leigh).  The credits are the only thing on the screen, and all you hear is the song.  It's a great opening, and it immediately sucks you into the film.  I remember watching it in the student lounge on a Monday night.  (man, that was a long time ago).  Years later, I bought the soundtrack to A Perfect World on cassette for a buck because the song was on it, and I could then listen to it in my car whenever I wanted.  And after that, I had my buddy Brian make me a CD of my own specially picked songs, and the first one on that CD...duh.  It's a great song to sing along to, and it's a great song to drive to.  Music is always so subjective, but when a song can conjure up memories or inspire joy, then I think it's worth writing about (or at least listening to).
(Of course, now I want to watch Miami Blues again.)

Day 359 - Skyfall

Before reading any further, let me warn you - this is going to be filled with spoilers on the new Bond film, Skyfall, and why I didn't like it.  And without further ado...

Apparently I am one of the very few people in the world who didn't care for Skyfall and here's why.

1. It reminded me of Never Say Never Again.  Never Say Never Again is the terrible remake of Thunderball starring Sean Connery as Bond, and the whole idea of that film is that Bond is too old to do his job competently.  And then he proceeds to save the world making Mr. Bean happy.  Skyfall spends the whole film saying Bond is getting too old, when all the while Bond, at least to us, appears to barely have lost a step.  It'd be one thing if we see him stumble in the field (as opposed to at the firing range), but we never do.  So I could never get behind that central conceit.

2. He lets Severine (Berenice Marlohe) die.  Every Bond film has a sacrificial lamb.  It's part of the story.  But what has happened in every previous film, is that Bond was unable to do anything about their deaths.  In Goldfinger, Jill Masterson is killed after Bond is knocked unconscious.  In For Your Eyes Only, Ferrara is killed while Bond is fighting off angry hockey players.  In each of those instances, Bond can do nothing about those circumstances.  In Skyfall, all Bond has to do is stall for about 20 more seconds and Severine (a woman who is acknowledged as a (former) sex slave) would have been rescued.  As a woman whose life up to this point can't have been very good, this seems like a cheap and wasteful way to die.  And for the more "emotional" Daniel Craig Bond, not another thought is given to her.  That to me is poor writing.

3. Kincade - as played by Albert Finney.  It's like the film thought that we hadn't seen a character like J.W. Pepper (Live and Let Die) in such a while that it felt it needed to fill that gap.  I really dislike him.

4. The "Home Alone" style ending.  So Bond has two gadgets - A palm-reading gun, and a tracking chip.  And the tracking chip is just something you carry in your pocket?  They couldn't have even given him a hidden tracking chip?  I mean, he's had one in his shoe (Goldfinger) and radioactive lint (Thunderball), and this tracking chip is the best "Q" can do?  However, in this gadget-free Bond film, we get to see explosive light bulbs.  I was waiting for Bond to put a hot plate on a doorknob.  Give him gadgets!  I'm more than willing to suspend my disbelief then.  By the end I was just waiting for Ralph Fiennes to get his new title.  (And let me tell you, that was, by far, the most telegraphed thing in the film.)

There were a few things I liked.  I thought the pre-credits sequence was amazing.  Everything I expect from a Bond film.  Javier Bardem did a bang-up job the first time you see him, but by the time he's crazily shooting up the courtroom I had lost all sympathy for the character.  Daniel Craig is still a great Bond.  And I enjoyed the new "Q."  But did we really need to see him get his comeuppance in his very first appearance?

Maybe I just don't need to see Bond's origins.  I don't care where he came from.  I just want to see him be the best secret agent in the world, which is what the first 15 minutes showed me.  But the rest of the film didn't.

Day 344 - Marble Cities

Marble Cities is the new play that was created and produced by Cleveland's Theater Ninjas.  And while it is a play, it's also an experience, because it's very much an assault on your attention span.  This is not a play to go see if you want to sit back and relax.  This is one that, from the very first moment, grabs you , and doesn't merely not let you go, but flings you around.
The amount of dialogue that comes at you, while being informative, is almost mind-numbing in its quantity.  But that's a lot of why it's there.  I don't think the audience is supposed to fully grasp what the characters are saying.  I don't think the audience can fully grasp everything that's said.
There are eight characters, and all of them have been given an invitation to attend this gathering - except for one, who may be a moderator or may be something more.  But the other seven have been tasked with creating/building a civilization from the ground up.  But each of the characters is flawed and while their flaws may make things interesting, they also make their relationship strained at best.
And, really, that's my best guess at what's happening. Explaining the "story" of the play is not what's important.  What's important in Marble Cities are ideas.  And there are plenty thrown around.  If you have a theory as to why we're here, it's given a voice.  If you have a theory on social politics, it's here.  If you have a theory about nearly anything, it's probably here.  Each one of the characters represents a different social class, and each of the characters is given a specific voice.  I don't think we're supposed to pick a side, but we're they're to listen, because by listening, it gives credence to what the characters say.
This is a captivating and complicated piece.  This is a play, that in order to keep up, you have to be willing to let stuff go.  If you dwell too long on any one sentence, you've already missed a half dozen other ideas.  If there's any complaint, it's that the play has too much going on.  Even half the ideas within are more than enough to sustain a whole play.  But who am I to say that something's too ambitious?  If anything, at least the actors are uniformly amazing.  They give this piece their complete attention. If any of them had given any less than their all, the play would have suffered.  But by the end, each of the actors had really imbued each of their characters with realism, intelligence, and sympathy, and that alone makes this worth seeing.
There's one more week's worth of shows - Monday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.  I may not be able to explain what's happening, but I definitely think it's worth seeing.

Day 287 Random stuff

My Neighbor Totoro is one of the happiest and most charming movies I have ever seen.  I have seen it twice - each time on the big screen, and I have had the same reaction each time - pure joy.  There's no real story or conflict to speak of, it's simply about two sisters (one 10 and one 4) and how they meet some wonderful forest creatures.
And then I followed that up with The Bourne Supremacy.  The second film in the Bourne Trilogy ends with a spectacular car chase.  After watching it, I thought to myself that every movie that has a car chase in it should do it practically - no CGI.  The only exception to that rule is the Fast and Furious series.  That fifth film was able to capitalize on the kinetic energy and destruction that CGI is able to portray.  But that being said, real cars smashing, speeding, and blowing up is something that I have always appreciated, even in a crummy movie.
Someone asked me today what my favorite genre of film was, and I replied, "Good movies."  In the span of a week I have watched Pina, a documentary on modern dance, Compliance, a stressful drama, Killer Joe, a stunning, brutal noir film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, which needs no explanation, Remember the Titans, a sports film, Totoro and Bourne.  The only thing missing from that group is a comedy.  And I do like some good comedies.
Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan's The Strain trilogy is a wonderful vampire story.  Jaw-unhinging, blood-sucking, worm-infecting vampires make for some incredibly tense reading experiences.  The first book does a great job of being tense and suspenseful throughout its entire length, and the third novel does a wonderful job tying up all storylines in a satisfying way.  This is a series that I can't wait to see adapted into a film.
Finally, soon all my free time will be taken up by all the new television shows that are starting up this week.  Good times, good times.

Day 280 - Compliance

Compliance

What would you do if someone called you at work and told you he was a police officer?  If it sounded legit, would you do what he said?  And how far would you go doing something that just walks that line between being a good citizen and blind obedience?  Those are the questions this film asks, and how it goes about doing it just seems absurd, except for a couple of things. 1). The film is incredibly well-acted.  Ann Dowd, as Sandra, the restaurant manager, does such a good job as someone who's obviously in something that's over her head, and it's during an incredibly busy time, so you see her trying to keep juggling all these things, and you know it's all just going to go south.  2). The film is based off actual events.  Sure, what happens in the film is dramatized, but it makes the film just believable enough that you accept what's going on.
The basic plot is this: At a fast food restaurant on a busy Friday, a cop calls the manager and tells her that one of her employees stole money from a customer's purse.  After taking her in the back, the cop says that the choice is either the employee is strip-searched or taken to jail.  And things simply escalate from there.
When I was in college, one of the film classes I had showed a film called Sweet Movie.  The professor told the class that if any of them wanted to leave at any time due to the content of the film, it would be fine.  I stuck it out (to simply be able to tell people that this is one of my bottom five films of all time), but a number of people took him up on that.  When I saw Children of God, at a certain scene, an audience member literally ran out of the theater.  During Happiness there was a steady stream of walkouts as the film went on.  The Aristocrats sent out a number of people in the first 15 minutes (after that, the rest of us knew what we were in for).  And more recently, a father grabbed his clan of young 'uns when he realized The Campaign was rated "R" for a reason.  One of the reasons I wanted to see Compliance was because people apparently weren't able to stick it out through the whole film.  I always like to see what gets someone to think to themselves, "I spent some money on a movie, but it's not worth it to stay."  At about the one hour mark in this film, the tension ratchets up to a fantastic level, and even more bad things happen.  It was then that I saw something I have never seen before - a couple was sitting in front of me, and the lady said something to the guy, got up, left, and never came back.  He stayed, though.  That was odd.
But any movie that is this gripping and suspenseful is definitely worth staying to the end.  And the end of the film really makes the movie.  It does what it's supposed to do - give the viewer closure and satisfaction.  You may still feel like a creep (because that's what the film wants you to feel), but at least there's no indecision.
***