Bloggish review blog

Under discussion:

Steel Magnolias  (1989)

Waitress  (2007)

The Village Barbershop  (2009)

I'll get this out of the way right now: You probably aren't going to see "The Village Barbershop" on any shortlists for Film of the Year. It's not a terribly important movie. It doesn't make any statements and relies on a lot of cliches and "hollywood-ending" plot points. But (and I know this is gonna sound silly) it's got an awful lot of heart, and, in the words of Mark Kermode, "does what it says on the tin." It's a sweet, poignant comedy that delivers decent performances and a mild amount of entertainment.

The movie tells the story of Gloria (Shelly Cole) and Art (John Ratzenberger of Pixar fame). Art runs a men's barbershop in Reno. His wife has died, he's lonely, he's kind of a curmudgeon. At the start of the movie, his longtime business partner dies unexpectedly (and inexplicably. It just sort of happens without any kind of announcement). Now, Art is in debt, behind on his rent and needs an extra barber to help run the place. He originally hires the spirited, pregnant Gloria to do the books, but realizes she's got the skills to trim hair. As the movie progresses, wouldn't you know it, Gloria ends up opening Art's mind and heart and turning the business into a success.

Like I said, "The Village Barbershop" is far from unique. It also suffers from weak writing in several places, and overacting in others (watch for the judge at Art's hearing about 3/4 of the way through the movie). But Ratzenberger and Cole bring the goods in both their scenes together and apart. Both actors turn in real, grounded performances that only serve to point out how silly everyone else looks. The other characters are cariactures. Art and Gloria are characters.

If you're looking for the next indie darling, the next "Waitress" or "Juno," "The Village Barbershop" ain't it. But if you're looking for a sweet, undemanding movie to watch on a Friday or Saturday night, it's a pretty good candidate.

Recommendations:

"Waitress"- More pregnancy, more pie, less hair.

"Juno"- More wit, better music

"Steel Magnolias"- More women, more drama

Under discussion:

Inkheart  (2009)

Just uploaded a new vlog post! Anyone who's interested, feel free to check it out and comment (we're such comment whores). This week is a review of "Inkheart."

Under discussion:

Friday the 13th  (2009)

The Hills Have Eyes  (1977)

The Hitcher  (1986)

Last House on the Left  (1972)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre  (1974)

The Thing  (1982)

The Unborn  (1991)

The Virgin Spring  (1959)

Saw  (2004)

Prom Night  (2008)

Mirrors  (2008)

The Unborn  (2009)

So, I just downloaded Taken By Trees' cover of the Guns 'n' Roses song "Sweet Child Of Mine," after hearing it on the trailer for the upcoming remake of the classic horror film "Last House on the Left," which looks utterly odious (I saw it during the trailers preceding the equally odious "The Unborn." Don't ask me why I decided it'd be a good idea to watch this movie...I think it was probably Gary Oldman that did it) Anyway, my ire at the fact that this movie, among others, was being re-made gave me pause. Why is it that movies with a strong following in one generation get remade a couple of generations later into movies that are completely awful? Why is it that the remake of "The Hitcher" not only was a pile of flaming dog poo, but was destined to fail from the very moment the idea of the remake came into being? Why does this seem to be the case with nearly every horror remake since...well...pretty much forever?

After giving it some thought, my thinking is this: the problem with remakes is twofold. The more recent problem that's emerged is the hollywood pop horror machine running out of ideas and, as a result, remaking movies that weren't really worthy of the treatment (BBC film critic and horror film guru Mark Kermode claims this was the case with "Prom Night" and "Mirrors").

The other, more angering problem is this: Most of the audience these remakes are aimed at (such as the loud and undiscerning teens who shared the theater with me during tonight's screening of "The Unborn") have grown up with no clue who Wes Craven is, or that "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" originally came out in the 70s, not in 2003. This is a generation of people who don't know about The Thing or, it seems, the original versions of The Hills Have Eyes and Friday the 13th. The major studios think they can pull the wool over an audience's eyes by showing them warmed-over versions of culturally important movies with all the significance removed.

The fact that these movies are nothing more than vain, empty husks of their original selves stems, I believe from one simple factor: what makes these movies great is the context and the cultural climate in which they were created. Wes Craven's work in the 70s is considered classic not only because it legitimately scared the pants off you, but because it was shocking in a way that few movies were at that time. Last House on the Left (which, supposedly, is itself a take on Bergman's Virgin Spring) was the product of people who had grown up watching the Vietnam war on TV. What audiences were seeing was a wakeup call to a culture that had become desensitzed to violence. Friday the 13th was, in its way, a satiric morality play (Jason's mom, after all, is taking out her revenge because her son drowned while being neglected by horny camp counselors).

None of these remakes work now (nor, I posit, will they ever) because the true meaning of these movies, the spirit in which they were created, has been lost. In an age where movies like the Saw franchise are practically considered the norm, a modern version of Last House on the Left packs no punch. It only has something to say to modern audiences if you consider the original film in its cultural context. The same goes for Friday the 13th. A movie like this has no noticeable place in a culture that's become desensitzed to both violence and sex. It'll only be a cheap thrill unless you consider why the original came to exist in the first place. Not to mention that the script wasn't that great in the first place. The only thing this movie has going for it is its concept, and if that loses its significance, you can kiss the whole thing goodbye.

All this is to say, I wish Hollywood would quit churning out fifty or so of these cheap-ass thrill-a-minute meaningless remakes year after year after year. The people who produce these wastes of perfectly good celluloid aren't considering what it is about these movies that ever appealed to anyone at any point in time. They are considering only the legions of teenagers who are unaware that, many years ago, the forgettable horror flick that has them cowering in their seats was once an important, groundbreaking piece of work. These movies are not a form of preservation, but rather one more patina of tarnish.

Under discussion:

Henry Fool  (1997)

Napoleon Dynamite  (2004)

The Guatemalan Handshake  (2005)

"The Guatemalan Handshake" is a hard movie to pin down. Equal parts "Napoleon Dynamite" and Hal Hartley movie, it's an episodic piece of oddball cinema that achieves occasional moments of brilliance.

The most I can say by way of plot is that Donald Turnupseed (Will Oldham) goes missing, and his best friend, a ten-year-old girl cryptically named Turkeylegs (Katy Haywood) seems to be the only one who cares. Also, an old insane woman loses her dog, Donald's pregnant girlfriend Sadie becomes a demolition derby protegee and a ridiculously cool, wedge-shaped orange electric car goes from owner to owner (say what you want about the movie, that car is awesome).

As with "Napoleon Dynamite," the portrait of life in a small, unremarkable American town is dead on. Seedy roller rink? Check. Dying downtown strip? Check. Utter lack of attractive people? State fair as the cultural event of the year? Check and check. Unlike Jared Hess' movie, however, the truly funny moments are few and far between, and the film has a more overall cerebral bent to it, perhaps a little closer to the subtle comedy of Hartley's "Henry Fool" but less intellectual. This works both for and against the film. It puts more of the focus on the composition (which, by the way, is pretty gorgeous), but even stellar cinematography can't make up for dragging stretches, of which this movie certainly has its fair share.

I can't say I disliked "The Guatemalan Handshake." In fact, I think the general feeling is that I liked it. I'm sure there will be audiences out there who will simply adore this film, and call it a work of genius. It may well be. It's just not my type of movie. It may well resonate with some people. It just didn't leave me floored.

Reccomendations (if you like this movie)

Napoleon Dynamite: The dying small town vibe and cast of offbeat characters are a good compliment to the folks you'll see in "Guatemalan Handshake."

Henry Fool: While it doesn't have the same atmosphere as "Handshake," Hal Hartley's lit-cinema film about the transformation of a working-class loner into an acclaimed poet by his mysterious loner mentor has a similar super-smart feel and subtle humor that it takes a certain kind of viewer to recognize.

Under discussion:

The Motorcycle Diaries  (2004)

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation  (2008)

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation is a movie about many things. It's about the process of growing up. It's about soccer, it's about politics, and it's about judaism. Somehow, all of these elements come together to make a touching movie that's just as beautiful and haunting as other South American politically and culturally charged dramas, such as "The Motorcycle Diaries."

Our main character is young Mauro, a 12-year-old sent to live with his grandparents when his own parents flee Brazil's totalitarian regime in 1970, under the pretense of "going on vacation." Upon his arrival, Mauro finds that his grandfather has just died, and it's up to an elderly jewish neighbor, Shlomo, to take care of him. Turns out that Mauro's family is supposed to be jewish, too, but the boy was raised outside of the faith, something Shlomo finds to be highly disturbing. Fortunately, during the course of his stay in Sao Paulo, Mauro forms a sort of family with Shlomo, a group of kids in the building, and other members of the synagogue and the neighborhood where they live.

The scenes in which the whole community comes together, for bar mitzvahs, funerals and (of course) world cup soccer matches, are particularly touching. It's sweet to see how much the people in the film's neighborhood care about each other and their country.

Mauro's confusion over what has happened to his parents is equally touching, although it's more heartbreaking than joyous. He is always hopeful, but continually disappointed, angry and sad. Michel Joelsas, the actor who plays Mauro, is a real find. He's earnest, sweet and utterly convincing. Daniela Piepszyk, who plays Mauro's fiesty friend Hannah, pulls off a clever, charming performance. It's not often I find child actors very praiseworthy, but these kids have really got it going on.

Engaging and lovely in every sense of the word, Cao Hamburger's "The Year My Parents Went on Vacation" is a movie that should have gotten a lot more buzz than it did. Apparently it was Brazil's entry for the foreign film academy award, and deservedly so. There are very few movies I've recieved from Spout that I'd want to watch again. "The Year My Parents Went on Vacation" is definitely one that will be making its way back into my DVD player soon.

Under discussion:

Shorts! Volume 2  (2004)

I've always found short films pretty eerie. There's something about them that just seems ever so slightly off to me. Perhaps it's the fact that I never know what it is I'm getting into when I watch them. Most short films I've seen come with no synopsis, only a title (if even that). This forces me to figure out what the film is about, and the puzzle creates an air of mystery.

There are plenty of eerie (and not-so-eerie) short films in "Shorts! Vol. 2"  a collection of 17 short films that have one awards at various film festivals (there are three in the series). It would have been nice if I had known what form of award some of the films have won, since the quality is rather a hodge-podge. There are some great short documentaries, one or two sumptuously shot, beautifully ambiguous short films, some intriguing animation, but overall a lot of stuff that seems like kind of promising (but mostly mediocre) amateur and student work.

First the highlights of the collection: "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a pointed, bitingly funny short editorial documentary about abortion and a woman's right to choose. "Milton Rogovin: The Forgotten Ones" presents a touching portrait of photographer Milton Rogovin, who spent much of his career documenting the lives of the working-class and lower-class people in his Pennsylvania hometown. The longer, curiously entertaining "Coyote Beach" and the laid-back family dramedy "Family Tree" present interesting looks at relationships, both romantic and familial. And, for some reason, I can't get the super-duper-short "The Most Beautiful Man in the World" out of my head. It's 5:32, but beautifully and hauntingly shot.

Most of the clunkers come from the animation section. I'd seen "Dear Sweet Emma" and "The Firefly Man" previously, and hadn't really been that impressed the first time. Upon second viewing, my thoughts didn't change. I hate to sound like a snob, but I've been spoiled by so many great CGI films and shorts over the years that low-budget computer animation really doesn't do it for me, so I was nonplussed and a little annoyed by "Emma." "Firefly Man" was better, combining CGI effects and stop motion, but it left me feeling empty. "The Fine Art of Poisoning" was the most interesting of the animated films both visually and conceptually, but something about it just didn't seem genuine. Perhaps it just felt a little too "Hot Topic Goth" for my comfort.

I was most disappointed by "Space Off," which was touted by the DVD blurb as one of the most exciting films of the selection offered, but turned out to be pretty dull. The effects, I suppose, are to be commended for being pretty damn good despite what I assume was a low budget, but by the end, I was left thinking "so what?

"Shorts! Vol. 2" is a patchwork of movies, some great, some barely watchable, and some completely unwatchable. It's worth checking out for the good ones (I can't reccommend "Rogovin" enough), but you'd be much better off skipping most of the films and saving your time for a much more industrious use.

Under discussion:

LOL  (2007)

Well, it certainly took me long enough, but I finally got around to watching and reviewing "LOL," Joe Swanberg's movie about the effects of modern technology and relationships. I'd been hearing a lot about the Mumblecore genre, especially since the folks here at Spout have all but canonized Swanberg and his fellow Mumblecore artists as the patron saints of a new generation of filmmakers. I was curious to see how the movie lived up to all the hype. What I found was a movie that, while interesting, didn't really reveal its message until the last possible moment. In fact, up until the last fifteen minutes of the film, I was prepared to write off "LOL" as just another interesting but ultimately failed artistic experiment.

The movie is about a group of friends (Swanberg, Kevin Bewersdorf and C. Mason Wells) each going through some relationship issues that have something to do with their addiction to online porn.

These guys all seem perfectly normal and good otherwise, but when it comes to their relationships, the sexual disconnection seems to be a major stumbling block. Tim (Swanberg) has been unable to truly connect with his girlfriend Ada. Mike (Wells) is missing his long-distance girlfriend Greta (Greta Gerwig) and has her send him nude pictures of her, which she finds a little wrong, and he finds unsatisfactory. Alex (Bewersdorf) is obsessed with a girl who is the subject of several pornographic photos and videos on a web site.

While both Swanberg and Wells' storylines are good, Bewersdorf's predicament is the most heartbreaking. He is so wrapped up in a relationship that appears to be entirely one-way while cute young hipster Tessa pines after him to no avail.

Another neat aspect of the movie is the use of "Noisehead" videos between different scenes. Bewersdorf (who also wrote the film's soundtrack) is creating a project of his friends making random noises in front of his camera, and uses the clips to make unique songs. These videos are easily the most interesting part of the movie.

My biggest problem with "LOL" is the fact that it takes so long to get to the actual point. I didn't really feel like I was interested in the movie until the very end, when I looked down at my video counter and thought "Really? There's only three minutes left on this thing? But it was just getting good!" I think Swanberg could have benefitted by cutting off about half an hour of the film's beginning and adding more onto the end. As is, the plot just drops off, with Tessa driving, disappointed, back to Chicago and Alex wandering around St. Louis looking for the online girl of his dreams.

Under discussion:

In the Name of the Father  (1993)

Dragonheart  (1996)

American Psycho  (2000)

A Beautiful Mind  (2001)

Sweet Home Alabama  (2002)

Syriana  (2005)

Good Night, and Good Luck.  (2005)

I'll admit that I'm a real sucker for interview shows. I've been a fan of "Inside the Actor's Studio" for years, so I was really looking forward to Professor Richard Brown's series of interviews with (mostly) well-respected actors, and for the most part, this disc delivered. I got "Leading Men," which contained interviews with George Clooney, Josh Lucas (huh?), Daniel Day-Lewis and Dennis Quaid.

Clooney's interview provided a lot of interesting information about his background. I thought his description of his childhood and his idealistic journalist father really explained a lot about the kind of public figure the actor is today, and why he's taken on so many of the recent projects he has, like Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck.  While he still seemed pretty self-important, Clooney's view that his stardom has everything to do with luck and ability, and less to do with arrogance was a great point of view to hear. It seems as though Clooney is very grateful that he's gotten to where he is today, and realizes that without the occurence of certain events, he might still be doing dozens of failed television pilots.

Josh Lucas' appearance was very hard for me to understand. I know he's been working for a number of years now, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything that noteworthy. Whenever I've seen Lucas in a film, it's a supporting (or barely noticeable) role in a good movie like "American Psycho" or "A Beautiful Mind," or a bigger role in a terrible movie (see "Sweet Home Alabama"). I'm not sure what made Lucas think he was entitled to seem like a "serious actor" when talking with Brown, but all he succeeded in doing was making himself seem more puffed-up than he has any right to be. I thought this one was a definite miss in the series.

Day-Lewis, on the other hand, was the interview I'd anticipated the most, and the one that I felt had the most in-depth disucssion of the actual craft of acting. Method actors have always fascinated me, and Day-Lewis is really the method actor's method actor. This is the guy who, on the set of "In the Name of the Father" spent the night being screwed around with in a jail cell and interrogated by British Special Branch officers for several hours just to better understand his character. That's some hard core devotion right there.

Dennis Quaid's interview was by far the most enjoyable. It was clear the crowd got a big kick out of seeing him talk to Brown, and Quaid, in turn, seemed genuinely pleased at the audience's enthusiasm. His answers seemed very straightforward and honest, and he came off as a very nice, genuine sort of guy. I get the feeling that Quaid is the kind of guy all the other guys want to have a drink with. His body of work hasn't been consistently great (there'll always be "Dragonheart," after all), but Quaid was so charming and willing to talk that I ended up not caring.