JJ79 Blog

Under discussion:

Couples Retreat  (2009)

Eight friends, all coupled, find themselves on a Couples Retreat under the guise of a fun, adult vacation in Eden. As it turns out, there's one small hitch: each are required to meet with counselors and work on their relationships. Not all of them are happy about it and, in fact, the two who put the trip together (Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell) are in the most treacherous waters after failing to conceive a child. Dave and Ronnie (Vince Vaughn, Malin Akerman) have two boys at home but no time for themselves. Recently divorced Shane (Faizon Love) is dating a 20-something named Trudy (Kali Hawk) who wants to dance and drink and have fun. And then there's Joey and Lucy (Jon Favreau, Kristen Davis), a couple intending to divorce once their daughter goes to college.

With so many characters and storylines, director Peter Billingsley's second directorial outing has the talent to be successful and an absolutely beautiful location to work with, but feels overstuffed and "normal." It's in the first ten or fifteen minutes we see the eventual problem with the story: too much to do and not enough time to do it in. Small scenes of exposition are laid out on the screen designed to demonstrate the marital issues between each couple. And the film has the service all four storylines for the entire running time, almost as if juggling firecrackers and hoping not to miss one. We're never allowed to get to know these people as people; rather, they're just pieces to be moved from one place to another to get to the finale. The unintended byproduct of too much going on if the story takes the easy way out for each couple without asking them (and the audience) to really examine each partnership.

It should be said at the outset that the location shooting in Bora-Bora is absolutely stunning. Billingsley is able to turn the camera in nearly any direction and capture the wondrous beauty of the ocean and island. If anything, Couples Retreat can serve as a calling card for the island as a tourist location. Clear blue ocean, pure white sand, seemingly perfect weather all the time, villas with floor ports to watch the fish in the ocean...at least one part of the film lives up to the billing.

In the beginning segment, the story moves from Dave not being interested in picking out new tile with Ronnie to Shane pleading with Dave to co-sign for Trudy's motorcycle (she calls him Daddy...) to Jason and Cynthia (Bateman, Bell) working on their Eden power point presentation for their friends while Lucy and Joey can barely stand to look at one another. Now, each of these are valid relationship issues which deserve to be investigated in depth. They come into play throughout the film as the characters personify their relationships. For example, Jason and Lucy plan everything with graphs and analysis, a frustrating way to live to be sure. There is no spontaneity for them, no deviation from the norm. And the story keeps hammering it into our heads. Over and over again. Jason adheres rigorously to a schedule created by the group's counselor Marcel (Jean Reno), including when they can and can not eat or drink. One gets the feeling that, if he could put away the calendar and plans for a minute, he and Cynthia wouldn't have that hard a time conceiving. For a time, he comes off as the most sane one in the group. They are clearly in love, fully aware of their failings and open to working on them. Not that the others aren't aware. They just choose not to confront them.

Just like the film's chooses not to let the actors shine in the way they can. Only the men are given anything meaningful to do; Akerman has a substantial role as well, but even Ronnie devolves into a giggling, drooling caricature by the finale. It's unfortunate both Bell and Davis are basically wasted since they can stand up to their respective husbands and engage in witty conversation. Most of these people have been together for long periods of time. As such, they should know how to get under one another's skin. But they don't. I can't believe they have too much respect for one another, especially considering what is said both on the singles side of the island and in therapy. They're restrained, civil, unlike what people are in real life. Had they gone at it, David and Favreau could have handled anything given to them. An early scene setting up their relationship proves the point. Both are able to be pointed and witty. So why not let them?

Couples Retreat paints with a broad brush in both the serious relationship storyline and in the humor which dots each and every scene. It's not enough for yoga instructor Salvadore (the impossibly ripped Carlos Ponce) to demonstrate each position. He has to make them all sexual in nature, thrusting, pulsating and pounding the men and women. A true yoga instructor, you'd have to imagine, would be fully cognizant of how the moves would be seen, adjusting accordingly. When Marcel tells the group to remove their masks (aka their clothing), it's played as a joke instead of the horrific moment it should have been. Who, after all, wants to see their friends naked? (A minor quibble: the instruction is to remove all clothing. Boxers, bras and panties are left on. I know this is a PG-13 flick and these actors aren't going to do full frontals, but at least mention underwear so it doesn't look like everyone on the screen is a total idiot.)

Since it goes over-the-top so much in every aspect, it's impossible to know what the story is really getting at. Are we supposed to be watching scenes from real marriages, amped up a bit for the screen? Or a farce, in which case the finale is hideously out of place? The ending...as if there's any doubt how it's going to end. To be honest and truthful to the subject matter, at least one couple needs to split. But none do. Okay, that's not exactly truthful. One does and through plot machinations, both end up happier. And one leaves coupled.

Speaking of the comedy, it's hard not to point out the places the script uses convenience over truth to advance itself. After breaking into Dave's house, Jason starts a conversation centering on divorce and other uncomfortable subjects. Of course, as children always do, Dave's kids find themselves on the stairs, literally pushing Dave and Ronnie out the door. Hell, they've even called grandpa already to take care of them. And the minute grandpa's name is spoken aloud...yup, the doorbell rings. Really? Sub-ten-year-old kids worried about their parents splitting up, going so far as to call themselves a caretaker? Um, okay... (A running gag about one son and display toilets may be the funniest thing in the film.)

The composition of the group is maddeningly "normal." When a film like this purports to show marriages and relationships on the verge of destruction, varying up the participants helps the marketing potential and the texture differences bring. Couples Retreat features six white people and two black. All straight. All middle class (possibly upper middle or upper in the case of Jason and Cynthia). No one from the other side of the tracks. That's terribly boring. Now, imagine the yoga scene I described before with a gay couple. Or an interracial pair. How about a relationship with three people? More comedy possibilities, not to mention showcasing something besides the norm.

Under discussion:

GNAW  (2009)

THE FLICK
The horror genre on film goes back, roughly, to the 1890's and Le Manoir du diable by Georges Méliès. In the intervening years, filmmakers from across the globe have tried to put their spin on the genre, some successfully and some...well, less so. In the last decade or so, there is a new school of thought which equates blood and gore with horror at the expense of rational, logical decision making. Wes Craven's Scream series pointed this out to great effect, yet some people still haven't taken the hint. It's not enough to carve up a half dozen teenagers in the middle of nowhere anymore. Nor is it enough to pay lip service to the things they should be doing to survive the film. Rather, horror films (and the associated sub-genre's of chiller, slasher and torture, among others) need to create a realistic world for the characters and audience to get caught up in. The British import Gnaw does none of these things and opts, instead, to be one part slasher and one part gross out flick.

As with most films in the genre, Gnaw starts out with a group of six teens heading out into the middle of nowhere, where they are systematically killed off because they have no idea how slasher pics work. Seriously, this is the modern day United Kingdom. Doesn't anyone watch a movie or television show? Don't you know the minute you decide to go off into the country you will end up dead? How many times do we have to see one person (in this case, the movie's lone asset, the Slaughterman) killing the entire group when, by all rights, at least one person should survive the carnage? Oh no, Gnaw doesn't stop there. On top of being mind numbingly banal, it has the audacity to think it has the smarts to bring cannibals into the story. Cannibals! It's not director Gregory Mandry who's the problem. Nope, it's the "been there, seen that" script by Michael Bell and Max Waller which cuts off its own foot in the before the marathon even starts.

Gnaw doesn't just tip its hand far, far too early (the bad guy is shown at the very beginning of the film); it has no hand to tip. See, nothing in the film feels remotely original. It may be the lack of any true story arc. Mandry tries to make a case for the arc being Slaughterman's obsession with Lorrie (Sara Dylan)-who is pregnant, by the way-with Jack's (Nigel Croft-Adams) kid. Alas, Jack's girlfriend Jill (Rachel Mitchem) doesn't know this. And she doesn't get the chance to figure it out precisely because the script doesn't deem it important. So much for that story arc, right? All the characters are merely a distraction and cannon fodder for Slaughterman. If the only rationale for the story is to watch people die, is that worth it?

It's not, in case there was a doubt. There is no bottom to the story, nothing to propel it forward with any meaning. Typically, that reason would either be a story arc or character development. Since we've ruled out a story arc, then it must be the wonderfully complex characters, right? Wrong. They simple run from place to place-usually alone-and get massacred. And that supposed story arc? It's non-existent precisely because Slaughterman has no personality. He's just a killer, grinding up his prey into meat pies. Freddy Krueger had a motive. Jason Voorhees had a motive. Michael Myers...heck, even the shark(s) in the Jaws films. Slaughterman? Eh, there's nothing on television.

I apologize if it sounds as though I'm being hyperbolic. Gnaw doesn't do much right. The acting is categorically over the top, especially Croft-Adams as Jack. Loud, grating and obnoxious, Jack is the jock of the pic without anything particular jock-y to do. Bell and Waller are unable to do anything but paint with the broadest of strokes. Each character has one, maybe two, defining personality traits. Asthmatic Matt (Oliver Lee Squires) pines for Lorrie...and that's all we know about him. Jill is just as shrill as Jack and prudish on top of that. And so on. Everyone involved seems to have a cognitive disconnect about what a horror movie is. Yes, blood and guts, but scary blood and guts which puts the audience in the position of the characters. We can identify with some of the characteristics, but simultaneously can't wait for the six leads to die so the end credits can roll.

By the way, here's a note for future filmmakers who want to dabble in this genre. If you're going to commit to a slasher film, you need to be willing and able to show slashing. Especially if your characters and plot are worthless. Gnaw shows precious little of its alleged blood-letting. It even tries, if you read between the lines, to up the scare ante by not showing knives cutting into bodies or other acts. But that philosophy is to the film's overall detriment. Something has to make people want to see the flick. Jaws doesn't feature a lot of blood or violence, yet it works because the tension from the menace is there. Slaughterman has no hope of being iconic or thrilling. One well placed whack to the head and he should be down for the count. Try that with a shark.

The intention was for every element in the film to come off as being realistic to the modern day, at least according to Mandry. That's why a cell phone is used to take a short video of Lorrie and Matt makes a point to check his cell phone when the group arrives at the country house. I guess the script should get some props for thinking of the cell phone angle even if it doesn't quite get around to thinking about anything else. Why go back to a car which doesn't start in order to escape? Didn't any of these kids tell parents where they were going? And when they don't return, no one mounts a search and rescue, which would invariably lead right to Slaughterman and Mrs. Obadiah (Carrie Cohen)? A credits sequence suggests these two have been at their killing rampage for years and years. Apparently, there are over 200,000 cases of missing persons in the UK every year. Some people are recovered alive and others aren't. There's not a lick of information about where they might have gone? Really?

THE LOOK
There is a distinctive look to films produced outside of America. They tend to have a color palette veering into red/brown territory and slight picture softness. Neither of those hallmarks are actual transfer issues and need to be removed from the discussion when talking about Gnaw. Instead, the anamorphic picture is generally well done with no visible scratches or blemishes. Black crush plays a part in further diminishing texture and detail in dark scenes. While we can make out some specifics, a lot of the film-especially the background-is hard to see. The black's tend to be a bit too bright also, making them more gray than actually black. Fleshtones are acceptable keeping in mind all the picture caveats.

THE SOUND
The disc includes both an English 5.1 mix as well as a 2.0 versions. Both are clean and free of distractions, allowing the dialogue to come through clearly. (This is especially important considering the English accent of all the actors.) Very early on in the 5.1 iteration the use of the rear speakers jumps to the forefront. Scratching and clawing sounds, not to mention mental-on-metal, enhance the main title sequence. From then on, these ambient sounds are toned down a bit in favor of the front speakers. Directional effects are relatively sparse, usually coming in the form of a car driving down the road and not other sounds going across the screen. The track also does a very good job in balancing the score, sound effects and dialogue, making sure one does not overpower the other. English subtitles are included.

THE STUFF
One note about the run time on the box art: Gnaw is purported to clock in at 90 minutes. The film itself lasts for roughly 74 minutes.

Now then, director Gregory Mandry doesn't have a lot to say in the feature-length commentary. He either doesn't have the necessary anecdotes and behind-the-scenes information with him or he's not quite sure these kinds of things work. Long gaps in the film go by with nothing from him, essentially making the audience watch the production for a second time. When he does interject, the information isn't terribly compelling. The movie took 2 weeks to shoot, certain sequences kept getting expanded, the coldest day of the year (that always happens when a film is shooting, it seems like) and the startling fact he had a relatively closed set for the sex scenes. Mandry needs someone to play off of or, at the very least, a good stack of notes about his film.

The nearly ten minute making of is world's better in terms of providing background trivia, however lame and useless it might be. There are references here to the nursery rhyme allusions in the movie (Jack and Jill, for instance), the drive to make Slaughterman as iconic as Freddy or Jason (psst...EPIC FAIL, as the kids say) or the crew patting themselves on the back for keeping Slaughterman out of the picture for as long as they did (Ridley Scott. Alien. Check it out.). This is the kind of stuff that should have been in the commentary. A terribly spoilery trailer for the movie is also included. The film comes in a clear keepcase without an insert. There are 13 chapter stops.

Under discussion:

Paranormal Activity  (2009)

Made for an estimated $11,000, Paranormal Activity follows the model set forth by The Blair Witch Project, utilizing non-actors, limited sets and a small handful of thriller moments to create a tense, if somewhat faulty, chiller. The central conceit of the film is simple: Micah and Katie (Micah Sloat, Katie Featherston) are haunted by a demon. In an effort to document their problems, Micah invests in a video camera and uses it nearly all the time. And that is how the first half hour of Paranormal Activity plays out, as an attempt to introduce the characters and situation to the audience. From there, writer/director Oren Peli slowly weaves in the scares, at first small sounds and eventually culminating in...well, that would be ruining it.

Perhaps by design, Peli doesn't allow either Micah or Katie to really develop as characters. There's nothing to really tell the audience what makes them tick or why they're actually together. It might not be completely necessary, though looking back at the classics in the horror genre, each have allowed their characters to become people as opposed to caricatures. (Blair Witch-this film's obvious inspiration-is an exception.) Why does this really matter? Knowing and therefore caring about the leads heightens the impact of each scare above and beyond what we'd experience otherwise. Again, this may be by design. Not knowing anything about the two adds to the anonymity, not to mention the alleged "true story" nature of the film.

Here's the rub on the way the film is shot. Everything we see comes from Micah's video camera, meaning he or Katie have to grab it whenever the action shifts to another location. I have to ask: if someone you care about is screaming bloody murder in another room, are you really going to stop to grab a camera before going to help? Even if you need hard evidence something is going on? Far more realistic is either calling a news crew with multiple cameras or buying them yourself to monitor all the rooms at the same time. Is that a nitpick? Probably, though even Katie takes Micah to task over his use of the camera, making it less of a nitpick and more of a conceit.

What the film does extraordinarily well is using night vision filming inside the bedroom. With the camera positioned at the foot of the bed, Peli is able to stage most of the scares very simply and easily. Night vision almost by definition means the room is seen in an eerie blue/green, heightening the scare factor. After all, that is why most horror movies take place at night: for the thrills to work, we can't see what's behind the door, in the next room or in the corner. Peli lets us "see" what's there, for lack of a better term, even if it doesn't help. This, I'd argue, enhances each scare. There are only a few things which could happen in the room and our eyes inadvertently dart from one to the other, simply waiting.

And that's the beauty of Paranormal Activity in the long run. The movie is a success based purely on economics, but it's also a triumph in viral marketing and expectation. Relatively little "scary" happens in the first part of the story aside from a false alarm and a couple house noises which may be completely normal. It lures us into a false sense of security, as if the entirety of the thrills come from benign little things so when the big stuff begins, it pales in comparison, effectively jolting the audience (not to mention Micah and Katie). As a function of the budget, the cast is kept extremely small and precious few sets are used. In fact, the camera only ventures outside once. The rest of the film takes place in their house. Not only are they trapped with this demon, but so are we. Based purely on the rules laid out in the story, there is nowhere they can actually be safe.

Now, with that being said, they can do a hell of a lot more to help themselves. Remember how, in older horror films, the nubile young female runs into a closet to escape the killer, with the audience knowing it was the wrong place to go? Also remember how Scream made fun of those conventions? No one runs the wrong way in Paranormal Activity, per se. That ends up being the biggest issue: characters performing well below audience expectations, especially when life and death hands in the balance. (Similarly, it doesn't help that the biggest and best scares come in the last 120 seconds of the film. The filmmakers are trying to play with our expectations, to be sure, ramping up what they show ever so slightly. But man...to make the audience sit through 90-something minutes of amateur home video like Cloverfield to get to the good part? Not the best idea.)

Under discussion:

Not Quite Hollywood  (2008)

THE FLICK
Exploitation cinema refers to a film genre which cashes in on some sort of lurid, perhaps sexy, element. Blaxploitation may be the most well known iteration of this genre with films like Superfly, Sweet Sweetback's Badasssss Song and Blacula. These films don't rely on a "name" star or special effects to draw in the crowds; rather, they use over-the-top marketing techniques and outrageous statements to generate ticket sales. Slasher films, like Halloween or A Nightmare on Elm Street, can be considered exploitation films with their small budgets and and graphic kills. However, no one ever mentions Ozploitation, a group of films written, shot and released in Australia by Australian filmmakers. These films were largely created after the introduction of the R certificate (similar to the "R" MPAA rating in the United States) in 1971 and feature gratuitous nudity, sex and violence. Not Quite Hollywood traces the evolution of the genre, as well as its major cinematic entries, for the uninitiated.

Mark Hartley's film takes a no-holds-barred approach to the material, demanding the audience follow along without being pandered to. That isn't as much a problem as the fact most Americans will be unfamiliar with the names and films being talked about. Yes, film can usually transcend languages, countries and culture, but when the subject matter deals with obscure productions, it needs to slow down just a bit to frame the narrative properly. There are moments when Hartley does a spectacular job using the interviews and film clips to create a picture of a nascent Australian film industry and its relative success over the decades, though Not Quite Hollywood is squarely aimed at audiences with a working knowledge of film history.

As an example, late in the production, one-time James Bond actor George Lazenby is brought on to speak about The Man from Hong Kong, a 1975 film starring Yu Wang. While hardcore filmgoers will know Lazenby's claim to fame is portraying 007, Hartley makes no mention of the background. Any number of other films are name dropped, including Jaws, Piranha and Psycho...but not On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Lazenby's only stab at the character)? Did MGM require a clearance or license fee to use the name or did Harley assume the audience would know who he was? The actor also burned his hand during filming and, while footage of the stunt from the film is shown, there is no accompanying insert shot of the hand. Regardless of whether or not it has healed completely, it would have added to the story.

Roughly broken down into four divisions (sex, action, monsters and martial arts), Hollywood almost giddily revels in it's B-movie subject matter. Be warned, this doc isn't for the faint of heart or easily offended with a plethora of naked breasts, full frontal nudity (male and female), generous discussion about "boobies" and "titties," cursing, misogyny and violence. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Because there was no Australian film industry, the films which went into production had very low budgets, reducing the overall quality of the work. Each director laments this inevitability, though none of them really apologize for their films. In every interview, there is an overriding sense these men reinvigorated the profession and took it back from foreigners who were making films about Australia without knowing the land. Funnily enough, when Aussies began to use their country as it was, audiences began mortified, afraid the rest of the world would believe it really was a desolate wasteland like Mad Max or full of bimbo's and sex-starved citizens.

Throughout the dozens of interviews, participants and film clips, one thing Hartley is unable to do is place the Ozploitation films within historical context. Surely other Aussies were making higher quality, mainstream films at the same time these B-movie, bargain basement flicks were on the screen. What were they? How did the other films incorporate the R certificate? Was there an audience backlash against the nudity and profanity? (Critics has issues with both of these things, but the audiences are rarely spoken about.) See, nothing occurs in a vacuum; there is always cause and effect, a push and pull. Hartley's sole focus is on the films which make up this sub-genre to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Surely someone was influenced by these stories and made their own homage. An unauthorized Italian sequel to Patrick doesn't really count. Where are those anecdotes?

It's funny, in a way, that few of the people involved with the Ozploitation era comes off as embarrassed or apologetic for their work. This is despite knowing the production values are relatively poor, behind-the-scenes issues or the general reaction to the film itself. Even when the shooting schedule and budget were severely slashed (as in Roadgames and Turkey Shoot), there is a sense both films deserve awards. If anything, there's a hubris to the creative talent which is unable to see the forest for the trees. Perplexing to be sure and just slightly dishonest.

What can not be questioned is the depth and breadth of the information presented in Not Quite Hollywood, especially the inclusion of Quentin Tarantino. An uber-film buff if there ever was one, Tarantino is the marquee interviewee (though both Lazenby and Jamie Lee Curtis make appearances) displaying unbridled, wide-eyed enthusiasm for each and every film mentioned. To see him almost jump up and down in his seat while discussing Dead-End Drive Inn or Roadgames is nearly worth the price of admission on its own.

THE LOOK
Like any other documentary, Not Quite Hollywood's visual performance is largely at the mercy of the footage it uses. On the whole, the film looks incredibly good with shifting aspect ratios, stock footage mixed with new interviews and even some black and white film. The film is mainly presented in anamorphic widescreen format without any major problems. Fleshtones of interview participants tend to be a touch bright from time to time, though the blacks are generally spot on. The new footage is otherwise clean of blemishes or other problems. It's the movie clips and vintage interviews which pose a problem. They sport all manner of defects from pops and wear lines to downright blurriness and general picture softness. This shouldn't be held against the disc, considering the state of Australian cinema when they were produced.

THE SOUND
Normally, I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. Magnolia Home Entertainment provides both an English 2.0 and 5.1 mix on the disc. What's wrong with that, you might ask? Well, this is a documentary, a dialogue-driven film by definition. There isn't much to gain by pumping audio through five speakers instead of two. In most cases, creating a surround sound mix hampers the film by stretching the available audio information too broadly. Here, though, both versions work equally well in bringing the dialogue across without distortion. Naturally, the 5.1 mix has more bass throughout, especially as cars or buildings begin exploding in film clips. There aren't many directional sound effects and both options can be more than a bit forceful at times. The only real issue is the lack of English subtitles; Spanish subs are provided.

THE STUFF
Not Quite Hollywood comes in a regular black keepcase with no inserts. Upon start up, trailers for Ong Bak 2, The Canyon, World's Greatest Dad and the HDNet network play (they are also available under the Special Features menu). The film itself is broken down into a dozen chapters.

Director Mark Hartley moderates a spliced together commentary track featuring many of the directors and personalities seen in the film itself. These men-whether in the recording booth or by phone-seem more open and free to discuss the Australian film industry. In particular, they're more than happy to discuss being pigeonholed as the "sex director" or perhaps being too happy in pushing the new R certificate. Some films (Turkey Shoot, for example) find themselves defended-this was a flick with a slashed budget and shooting schedule many cast members disowned during production-while none of the filmmakers have a love for critics.

Hartley collects deleted and extended scenes on the disc. In fact, there's 21 separate pieces, ranging in run time from under a minute to over five. (A play all option is included.) It's really a shame these cuts had to be made for unspecified reasons. Among the films profiled, 1986's Sky Pirates is among the most intriguing. A near rip off of Indiana Jones, writer John Lamond apparently had a running feud with Steven Spielberg over box office success. Suffice to say, Sky Pirates didn't do as well as the Indy flicks. Interestingly, a segment about E.T. alum Henry Thomas' film Frog Dreaming is completely cut.

Quention Tarantino and director Brian Trenchard-Smith hang out in a movie theater and talk about each other. Tarantino's personality is larger than life, completely overshadowing Trenchard-Smith because of his exuberant love of film. The piece is billed as Tarantino interviewing Trenchard-Smith but it comes off as being a conversation among friends. Topics range from the intentional similarities between Patrick and Psycho and a brief mention of a combined cut of Kill Bill. Tarantino returns, this time with John D. Lamond, in two funding pitches for this film-essentially asking investors to put money up for the film.

An audio interview with director Richard Franklin (22:47) is also included, adding even more trivia and information to the film. Here, he's able to talk more about catching former Bond George Lazenby on fire and the issues with the Jamie Lee Curtis/Stacey Keach film Roadgames. The audio volume is a bit low, but extremely serviceable. An image gallery running for over five minutes and the theatrical trailer are also included.

Under discussion:

Fame  (2009)

There are two potential reasons the remake of 1980's Fame fails so spectacularly on the screen. The first would contend the audience is fed up with stories centering around kids learning all about an art form in a prestigious school. (See: Save the Last Dance, Save the Last Dance 2, Step Up, Step Up 2: The Streets, Center Stage, Center Stage: Turn It Up). More likely is the fact this screenplay, by Allison Burnett, is so riddled with holes, leaps in logic and a burning desire to cram four years worth of storylines into just 107 painful, lacking and excruciating minutes.

The problem with the script-and it is a doozy-is that there are so many characters (11 students, 5 teachers and other supporting players) covering so much time, it's impossible to organically create drama or a cohesive story. Let's not forget to mention the obligatory production numbers, ranging from all out dance routines to theater performances and instrument recitals. With so much going on, Burnett skips the connective tissue in order to focus on the "big" moments over four years. Why doesn't this work? Because it feels manufactured, fake and, ultimately, lazy. For example, breakout star Naturi Naughton butts heads with her father early in the film when she is asked to take part in a production of Chicago. Dad doesn't want her to play anything but classical music. Yet the next time the parents are brought into the picture is during year four following a very public-and exciting-hip hop performance. There's nothing in the middle, outside of a handful of scenes showing Denise at work. (To be completely fair, lip service is paid to Dad not being wild about the idea. The script doesn't give the audience anything else to work with.)

And that is the most maddening aspect of Fame: multiple plot lines which start and stop like a cab in New York City traffic without rhyme or reason. Each high school year is broken down into roughly half hour segments and, within those portions, each character gets a scene, maybe two, to advance their story. Think about the things which happen over the course of a year. Small incidental moments leading to grand, earth shattering events. Depression or love or jealousy don't happen overnight but they do here. Fame demands the audience connect the dots and essentially do the work of the script. If the film wanted to follow all these characters, then we need to see them over the course of one year, not four. And if it truly wanted to do the entire high school experience, then the cast needs to be cut. Even the most skilled of screenwriters can't juggle both.

To this point, I've mentioned one cast member by name for a good reason. With the exception of Naughton and Kherington Payne's Alice, none of the young actors are terribly compelling. And what makes these two ladies stand out isn't their acting ability, but their musical and dance performances, respectively. There is a transformation in Naughton through the film as she gains confidence in what she can do which is palpable through her singing. Indeed, it's the most obvious in her stunning bar debut as she turns from being self conscious to an assured performer. Alice doesn't have this arc since she is an extremely gifted dancer from the get go. Her coming out party is also late in the film, a sultry, seductive dance number featuring the actress crawling on the floor in a form fitting black costume.

No one else leaves any lasting impression, especially the four bona fide A-list names shunted to the side for no good reason. Megan Mullally, Kelsey Grammer, Charles S. Dutton, Bebe Neuwirth and Debbie Allen all have roles as teachers, adding a bit of star power to the production...if only the script didn't conveniently forget they exist. None of them have anything especially meaningful to do besides spout a handful of cliched and demoralizing lines to the students. Mullally is given a moment to shine in a singing performance which falls completely on its face due to music video style editing and terrible ADR. (The actress over performs the entire thing, too.) What good is it to have these actors on stage if the script refuses to do anything with them?

Among the teachers, there is a willingness to completely cut down any student they do not feel is performing as well as they should. Looking at their attitudes from any perspective, they come off as cold and harsh, unfeeling and lacking in any component which would make them good teachers. They can't help but show disdain for a performance throughout the film, going so far as to cover their face with a clipboard or half-heartedly smile. Fame comes off as a mean picture because of it. In the case of Dutton's theater teacher James Dowd, he uses the disappointment to get through to his kids. But when Neuwirth's dance instructor Ms. Kraft destroys a young man's dream, she doesn't stop to think of the long term repercussions. Certainly as she says, it is her job to be honest as a teacher. That honesty, however, has to be tempered with some sort of concern for her charges. Kraft's conversation with Kevin (Paul McGill) leads to a potentially disastrous situation...but then the movie doesn't care since no one has to deal with consequences on screen.

With its interchangeable cast of characters and porous storylines, you'd think someone would have had the good sense to include a big production number featuring "I'm Gonna Live Forever." Well, you'd be wrong. The one part of the original this film could have easily gotten right is squandered over the closing titles. This should have been the showstopper, the final performance we see from the kids. And it would have made sense within the context of the film, to boot. Instead, we're treated to an admittedly well-staged and visually arresting piece combining all the disciplines within PA...without the title song. Now what good is that?

Under discussion:

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier  (1989)

The fifth Star Trek film, The Final Frontier, is widely considered to be the worst of the original six and a contender for worst of all eleven entries in the franchise. That is a distinction this production doesn't deserve. Certainly, this story about the Enterprise being hijacked in the search for "God," has its faults. But it's nowhere near the unwatchable mess some people will claim. While it is true the visual effects are substandard for a Trek feature and the humor reeks of the writers trying too hard AND some of the devices used to get the Enterprise on its way are circumspect, this outing retains one of the most important parts of the previous entry: the focus on the relationship between Kirk (William Shatner), Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and McCoy (DeForest Kelley).

With a story by Shatner, Harve Bennett and David Loughery, Star Trek V tries to replicate the success of Star Trek IV by taking a lighter, more laid back approach to the material. This is often cited as one of the main downfalls of the movie. Whereas the interplay between the characters in 1986 San Francisco felt organic to the storyline of the film, it's gratuitous, forced and demeaning to everyone involved. In the open, Kirk is freeclimbing El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. At one point, Spock begins a conversation with him while using booster boots. When Kirk falls, Spock does his best Superman impression to catch him, including raising his arms above his head before diving. Moments later, Kirk jokes about dropping in for dinner. While the original series always had a playful dynamic between Spock and McCoy, it was very rarely humorous for the sake of humor. That ends up being the biggest problem with the finished product.

But that's not to say its the only problem. Various critics have pointed to Laurence Luckinbill's Sybok as partly to blame for the perceived failure of the film. He does the best he can with the limited role the script gives him. No one-specifically Shatner, Bennett and Loughery-gives much thought to explaining how he makes people confront their darkest secrets or why this makes them devote themselves to the cause. It just happens, making the rest of the crew turn on Kirk. This Sybok isn't a stereotypical bad guy like Khan; rather, he is the catalyst for the story. The real adversary comes in the form of Klingon Captain Klaa (Todd Bryant), a character so misbegotten and one note he shouldn't be given a second thought. (Hint: Kirk's actions in Star Trek III continue to haunt him.)

It's impossible to imagine how this script ever got approved, let alone into production. From beginning to end the crew is treated as second rate buffoons all because someone feels it would be funny and provide the audience a laugh. When this happens, no one is actually laughing with the characters. We're laughing AT them which has the effect of simultaneously demeaning the 20 plus of development the actors have put into them. A host of other, ancillary characters might as well be thrown out the airlock: Sybok takes three diplomats hostage and, combined, they have about three useful lines in the entire film. None are given anything especially meaningful to do and, therefore, are maddening to see standing around with nothing to do.

(A word about the special effects. Things like phaser blasts and transporter beams are just fine. It's the outer space effects which leave much to be desired. Color schemes appear to be all wrong with the Enterprise almost glowing. And for anyone paying attention, it's not hard to imagine the models being filmed on a soundstage. That's how fake they look.)

The real issue with the entire Sybok story isn't even a revelation which seemingly comes out of left field. No, it's more basic than that. The finale doesn't work in any way, shape or form. Whatever the reasons, it is far too perfunctory without a sense of real tension. Most certainly the lack of a main "bad guy" doesn't help The Final Frontier at all. Kirk is forced to fight against non-corporeal entity with no personality in a battle that lasts an whopping three minutes. Each of the successful Trek movies has an adversary the audience can root against, someone the hero can physically fight against. Here, Kirk is hopelessly outmatched and only really prevails on accident.

Trek V continues the trend of giving each of the main characters something to do other than punch buttons and follow orders. In the open, Sulu and Chekov (George Takei, Walter Koenig) are shown to take shore leave together while, at the same time, Uhura and Scotty (Nichelle Nichols, James Doohan) share a couple quality moments on the bridge. Mind you, Trek IV did a much better job in this area. And because the characters get small moments to themselves, the movie ends up feeling more well rounded. There's also a rousing score by Jerry Goldsmith. But then, that's to be expected.

Come to think of it...maybe this is the worst of the original six movies.

Under discussion:

The Wizard of Oz  (1939)

The Wizard of Oz is based on L. Frank Baum's novel "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," first published in 1900. Its story of a young girl whisked away to a magical land by a Kansas tornado and desperate to get home is among the most well known and recognized tales in movie history. The film, celebrating it's 70th anniversary in 2009, retains all the wonder, joy and magic it must have brought to audiences in 1939 with one exception: the politics of the piece. And that isn't a problem with the film itself; the issue is with squarely with the audience.

It is remarkable to think Oz clocks in at 103 minutes. In reality, it never feels that long, thanks to light and breezy musical numbers and absolutely stellar performances by the four lead actors. From their singing ability to breathtaking dance skills, Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr and Jack Haley bring a sense of fun to the story which tends to touch on darker themes every once in a while. Each of the characters Dorothy (Garland) meets in Oz represents a different part of her psyche. For example, the Cowardly Lion personifies the girl's underlying fear at losing the only family she has. She is constantly told at the outset by Aunt Em to stay out of the way, constantly shunted to the side. While the effect is not intended, what ends up happening is a gradual psychological beat down over time, making her feel as though she's not smart enough to compete...sound like the Scarecrow to anyone? And because she runs away from home, supposedly causing her aunt's heart problems, there is the fear Dorthy lacks a heart.

But back to those personal interactions for a moment. There is such a sense of joviality to the fantasy characters which everyone on set completely buys into. Garland's reactions may appear stilted in 2009, but for a film personae in 1939, they are right on. See, she plays Dorothy without a lick of pretension as a naive Midwestern girl with a bright-eyed enthusiasm the audience can't help but find endearing. As our proxy, Dorothy allows herself to be taken in by this world, process the environment and completely move onto her larger goal. When the supporting cast are added in-especially her comrades-they play off of one another like old friends. There's a warmth between each of them on varying levels, ranging from a brother/sister dynamic (with the Scarecrow) to a mother/son version (the Lion).

Why exactly does the movie move so gosh darn quickly? Certainly the various musical numbers have something to do with it, but there's something much more basic at work. It just so happens that, when a we're engaged in an enjoyable experience, we don't realize just how much time has passed. (The opposite, the more excruciating the experience, the slower time seems to pass, is also true.) The film wastes little time in creating the rules of the world, specifically that of black and white Kansas, before moving headlong into the Technicolor utopia of Oz. It can be argued certain characters are merely plot devices and deserve at least some small amount of actual development, but that's beside the point. Each scene moves the story forward in some way. One gets the feeling anything not doing so was cut or simply not filmed in order to get the film to Oz as quickly as possible.

A while ago, I did mention the politics of the movie. Some historians have labeled various elements using 1939 as a reference point. Dorothy being the naive American people, led down the wrong path and forced to find it again. The wizard has been compared to President William McKinley; the latter has been called a wizard in the parlance of the day while the former can be seen as a president. The problem with interpreting the movie this way is it will lose any and all charm. Forget the fact the people of 2009 are not as versed in history as we probably should be. When you start to dissect something so completely, the magic-the fun-is ruined and impossible to get back.

Looking at the film from 70 years out, each of the photographic tricks used to generate the effects are quite easy to see through. All of the plants in Oz has an unnatural sheen to it, a clear indication they're not real. The matte painting backgrounds have absolutely no depth to them while the Wicked Witch of the West's smoke plume entrances and exits revolve around an elevator hidden under the stage (we can see the differently colored floor tiles). Does any of this really matter? Not in the slightest. There's a reason this movie has survived and thrived for as long as it has. It can be criticized, but what's the point?

Under discussion:

No Through Road  (2008)

No Through Road(2008)

THE FLICK
A peaceful night at home is shattered for Richard (James Helm), a photographer who is continually pegged as scared and un-manly. When he was younger, Richard did not help his cop father in a vaguely described incident, resulting in the man's death. On this particular evening, a woman (Megan Palinkas) sneaks into his house, seeking shelter in a closet from a group of hooligans outside. They want her...but for what purpose? Is Richard to believe she accused one of the crew of rape, put him away in jail and now they want revenge? Or is there something else to the story?

No Through Road is a low budget Australian thriller not unlike Vacancy or The Strangers. All three films stars a relatively small cast and an outside world unable to help the victims in addition to being more of a suspense thriller than outright horror. However, this film has one thing the others don't: copious amounts of blood and gore, either on screen or implied. I'm not quite sure it actually needs those two elements since director Sam Barrett has a competent little thriller on his hands until the story takes a hard left hand turn into...something else.

But before we get there, we have to start at the beginning. What Barrett and co-screenwriter Robbie Studsor do so eloquently is create the character of Richard with little to no dialogue. He's on a beach, taking a picture of a father and daughter. In his car, he's harassed by some football (ie. soccer) fans next to him. And he enjoys the quiet at home. Within five minutes, with very minimal dialogue-and none from the main character-his personality traits come across loud and clear, moreso than if the script had put words into his mouth. So we know before the story really kicks into gear Richard is not likely to fight back or stand up for himself. (A cynic would say this is the oldest trick in the book and a lazy way of setting up one of the film's conflicts.)

This isn't the major logic problem with the story as presented on screen. Rather, it comes in the form of Samantha (Palinkas). Wouldn't any rational human being call the cops after someone breaks into his house and a group of thugs start to harass him? Would it really matter how Samantha tries to talk him out of it? No. All that would matter to someone like Richard would be to regain his sense of security and calm. So as Samantha's decidedly flimsy story unfolds-there's really not much to it, to be honest-it's hard not to call Richard's decision making process into question.

The rest of the film fares much better in this regard. Whereas many characters in this genre tend to run around without thinking the predicament through, Richard and Samantha smartly utilize everything around them to ward off their attackers. And that's the brilliant part of the story: how tantalizingly close they come to actually succeeding with relatively little in the way of resources. (Mind you, I will casually gloss over the lack of cell phones in this universe. However, No Through Road does a nice little jog around this potential issue, so it's not a total loss.)

That is, it succeeds until screwdrivers, compressed air and other tools come into play. To be succinct, there is no good reason for the movie to run headlong in this direction. Yes, an earlier attack is organic to the story strictly because it makes sense within the confines of this world. But in the third act, these actions feel gratuitous, as if Barrett thought he needed a hook to bring people in, aside from the suspense elements. No Through Road turns from Vacancy to Hostel lightning quick for no good reason. Logically, it doesn't work either.

Hypothetically speaking, if an object is driven into your knee, not only will removing it be excruciating, but walking on that leg should be next to impossible. I'll also question how no one on Richard's street notices a pickup truck sitting in their neighbor's driveway. Granted, a major football match is going on and everyone is concerned with that. But no one bothers to look out their window for 90 minutes? And a time lag between an event and the final shot of the movie is preposterous by any standard.

No Through Road asks the audience to put their collective brain on hold and not think terribly hard about what's going on in the story. Contrast that to big budget horror movies which demand the audience act like complete idiots to make the story work. Does this, or the low budget, necessarily give Barrett's film a pass? Not totally. But it is an admirable effort, despite the problems.

THE LOOK
The 2.35:1 anamorphic picture looks better than it probably has any right to, considering what had to be a minuscule budget. Since the film is shot using natural light, large portions of the story are shrouded in shadow. It's a stylistic choice which works in terms of the story but lends to any number of problems on the technical side of the disc. Almost every shot is grainy to some extent; the scenes with more grain are usually the darker ones, leading to the blacks turning gray. Moreover, I did notice moire effects in a few objects-a puddle of water, a door-throughout the film. More often than not, there's little detail in the picture, with a good deal of blurriness in some longer shots. All these problems mostly likely stem from the original production and not anything Cinema Epoch did in the mastering process.

THE SOUND
All the disc comes equipped with is a lacking English 2.0 mix (no subtitles, either). I had to crank the receiver higher than normal to make out any of the dialogue. The funny thing about the track is that the score or sound effects never forced me to turn it back down; in essence, everything comes across very low. If it weren't for that issue-and the strange lack of subtitles-this track may have turned out pretty darn good. Dialogue is clear, aside from natural issues in understanding an Australian accent, while sound effects are nicely rendered. If you've ever wondered what a hammer hitting a human face sounds like, No Through Road will answer that question. The lack of an overpowering score is actually a plus here since a lack of sound heightens the thriller aspects of the film. Ambient sounds, while not directional or terribly easy to hear, are present, also adding to the atmosphere.

THE STUFF
No Through Road comes packed in a normal black keepcase with no insert. From the main menu, options are included for the 16 chapter stops, 20 stills (automatically scrolling) and cover art for other Cinema Epoch released (under "Also Available").