Dodd's Film Reviews

A Decent Story About Descent

moviedodd — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:47:07 GMT

What is it that we love so much about drug movies (and by “we” I mean “I”)? In the year 2000, a little movie called Requiem for a Dream made moviegoers cry, vomit, and hate their lives all at the same time. Yet, despite the depressing tension of watching characters throw their lives away for pills and needles, I found myself watching Requiem over and over again as if I were an excited kid watching The Goonies for the umpteenth time. I have found that depressing drug movies, such as Requiem, serve that fine purpose of allowing addicts to reflect on their wrecked lives, and allowing non-addicts to revel thankfully in their sobriety. What can I say? I love good, miserable movies about addiction! Not only are they the types of effective films that guidance counselors should be showing high school students, but they are sometimes full of rich storytelling and detailed character studies. One notable example is the indie drama Clean.

Emily Wang (Maggie Cheung) is a rock musician who jumps between various motel rooms and rock venues with her husband Lee (James Johnston), who is also a rock musician. Unsurprisingly, both Emily and Lee are addicted to drugs and shoot up on the good stuff after a night of playing gigs or rubbing elbows with the right promoters. It is also unsurprising that Emily walks into her room one evening to find that Lee has overdosed on the heroine that his wife bought for him. After being caught in possession, Emily is sentenced to 6 months in a penitentiary.

The news of Lee’s death and Emily’s imprisonment is heartbreaking news to Lee’s father, Albrecht (Nick Nolte). Not only has he lost his beloved son, but he and his wife have been caring for the couple’s young son Jay (James Dennis). Even when Maggie is released from prison, custody of Jason remains in Albrecht’s favor until Emily can sober herself up. To do this, she flies to Paris where she once lived to clean up, reconnect with old friends, and start anew with her musical career. The question remains: Once an addict always an addict? It is up to Emily to come to terms with her problems, and make herself a fit and responsible person before she can reclaim Jay.

Now there have been plenty of drug movies that have impacted me in ways that Clean did not even reach. However, I am referring to films with an agenda to make me feel excruciating pain and suffering. Clean plays a more subtle cord that moves slow at times, but it is still an effective human drama. This is a film about the drug recovery process and how such horrible addiction can pull us into a rut. Rather than focusing more on Emily’s relationship with drugs, Clean lets us witness her struggle in the work world as she tries to undo the damage left on her by drug use.

Playing a drug addict is one of the most challenging and Oscar-worthy jobs right next to playing someone gay or of the opposite sex. Maggie Cheung brings a little something different to the table in her performance as Emily. Rather than screaming and writhing from the pain, she plays things rather quietly. However, that inner torment still remains in her eyes as she gets by working at a Chinese restaurant simply because she knows she has to degrade herself to get back in line. It is difficult to like this character, but it is also difficult to dislike her. While an irresponsible addict, she recognizes her problem and quietly accepts her son’s custody decision. Nick Nolte is also wonderful here as Emily’s father-in-law. As an actor in his 60’s, Nolte has wisely accepted roles that fit his age. The gruff actor is actually a warm and compassionate character here. This is mighty impressive because it is difficult for me to get the wretched mug shot of the actor out of my head from his DUI arrest years ago.

Clean is not a life-changing drama, but it is a mentionable independent film with strong performances. This is more a story about starting over rather than about drug use, and it focuses more on Emily’s struggles. For anyone searching for underrated cinema, this definitely begs to be rented.

Preposterous Oblivion

moviedodd — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:51:02 GMT

Wondrous Oblivion is one of those films that I either love to hate, or hate to love. You probably know exactly what I am referring to; the sappy sweet kind of film that intentionally yanks at your heartstrings and pushes a blatant moralistic message at the very end. Sometimes movie fans like you and me immediately call out its agenda and put up an impenetrable steel wall around our hearts muttering the words, “Nice try”. However, other films of the same caliber are more successful at charming our guards down and leaving us stunned and smiling by the closing credits. The most recent personal examples I can recall are Love Actually and The Astronaut Farmer. By looking at the front cover of Wondrous Oblivion and its squeaky clean characters that emanate niceness, I knew I was in for a sentimental trip. But did it manage to win me over? My rolling eyes during the closing credits indicate not.

David Wiseman (Sam Smith) is a young Jewish boy who has recently moved to a London neighborhood with his émigré parents (Emily Wood and Stanley Townsend) in the 1960s. After living in the area, young David falls in love with the game of cricket and wishes nothing more than to become a popular athlete. He even devotes his free time to snatching up every cricket player card he can find in the area. Being that poor David does not have the skills to play the sport well, he simulates winning games on his desktop using his player cards and pencils.

The young protagonist’s struggle with becoming a first-rate athlete seems hopeless; this is until Dennis (Delroy Lindo) movies in next door with his family. Despite the neighborhood being full of immigrants who have undergone prejudicial treatment, everyone does not like the arrival of their neighbors one bit. Dennis and his family are black Jamaicans, and the era is still active with segregation. While David’s parents are stand offish, the wide-eyed David can only stare in wide-eyed wonderment as Dennis and his daughter Judy (Leonie Elliot) hit mean cricket swings within the confines of their personal batting net. In fact, David becomes so excited that he jumps the fence on a regular basis to learn moves from Dennis and become close friends with young Judy. This blissful relationship hits a few snags as angry racists begin encroaching upon the household, and David’s bored, housewife mother becomes a little too un-racist with Dennis.

It would be a hard thing for me to say that I love to hate Wondrous Oblivion. It is kind of like being acquainted with someone whose intentions are well, yet you could never hang out with he or she due to some grating characteristics. Oblivion does indeed mean well with its positive story about racism and the irony of Jewish immigrants persecuting those similar to them because of skin color. Delroy Lindo is particularly poignant as the kind-hearted Dennis. But the film from indie label Palm Pictures plays out more like a Hallmark movie rather than an edgy, independent project. There is definitely an audience for this film, but its candy coated trip down nostalgia lane became a little too noticeable and excessive for me. When the movie is not so focused on looking at life through David’s eyes of awe, there are certain unneeded conflicts. One is an implied romance between David’s mother and Dennis that escalates, and is dropped like a sack of potatoes as if it never occurred.

In the long run, I was a bit underwhlemed by Wondrous Oblivion. This sweet little morality tale about racial conflict is no different from a trite television movie that is thrown into a network Saturday night time slot. If you are looking for something new, there is nothing exciting to see here. However, this should definitely please the Hallmark crowd.

2 out of 5

Unsettling Intensity

moviedodd — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:48:00 GMT

Sometimes I find it amusing to reflect on the world’s obsession with death. I am even more intrigued by the utilization of death in the suspense thriller. There is nothing people are more frightened of than the idea of losing their own lives. This is precisely why the knife-wielding psycho or the murderous gunmen make us cringe whenever we sit down to enjoy an intense film. However, at the same time we are entertained by these murders because it is the characters experiencing a bloody fate while we clench onto our lucky souls as spectators.

Every week thrillers are released, but they are sometimes so gratuitous and hollow that they fail to focus on death as the ultimate fear in life. However, there are some films that truly force its audience to watch in anticipation and dread. One recent example of this is the French nail-biter 13 Tzameti.

This overlooked film does not begin with much intensity. It takes its time in introducing its protagonist, Sebastian (George Babluani). Sebastian is a mild-mannered handy-man who respectfully minds his own business while desperately trying to scrape by on table scraps from the wealthy. While fixing the roof of a disturbed rich man, Sebastian stumbles upon an invitation-only opportunity that could yield profit. After finding the opportunity to get his hands on an invitation, he pursues this secret event.

After following specific instructions, Sebastian travels from one place to another until he is hardly aware of his own location. However, he does reach his destination. What Sebastian does find is indeed a profitable venture, but not an easy one. In order to take home big money to support himself, he must first test his own courage and stare death directly in the eye.

What Sebastian discovers occupies at least the second half of 13, and it would be a sin as a film critic to reveal what exactly it is that the protagonist finds. Though, it would also be fair to briefly summarize it as the infamous Russian roulette sequence from The Deer Hunter on speed. It is Sebastian’s unfortunate finding that contributes to the effectiveness of 13 as a truly convincing thriller.

Shot in crisp black and white from start to finish, this is a film that relies on colorlessness to convey its tone. This is not a picture that eventually gives into colorful resolutions, finding lost love, and puppy dogs. Instead it only wants to emphasize the drabness of living in poverty, and the lifelessness of coming into contact with death. 13 does not promote a positive agenda through its appearance or storytelling.

While not positive in nature, it is important to remember that this is not a boring film. While 13 starts out slow with a very necessary character introduction, it ends up being a rather disturbing, attention-grabbing thrill ride. Most of this is psychological in nature as it takes its time portraying the fragility of life, and forcing the audience to watch this at a slow and repetitious pace. This is not even kosher for the adrenaline junkie that thrives on thrillers. This thriller that is colorless and disturbing in nature is not for everyone, but it will certainly appeal to cinephiles who desire more gripping realism in their movie-going experience.

I wouldn’t hail this as a masterpiece, but I very much enjoyed 13 Tzameti. This is a thriller that knows how to rile up its audience while being subtle and conscientious of its aesthetics. After a slow start, this film picks up the pace. Rarely does a thriller hold my attention and force me to empathize with its characters so much. I wouldn’t go so far to suggest a blind buy for this bad boy, but a rental is definitely in order.

Attention Sports Fans!

moviedodd — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:34:51 GMT

It is a fact that everyone in the world has a grand event that he or she anticipates once a year. By annual “grand event” I am not referring to winter or patriotic holidays, but instead the one time out of the year when one sits in front of the television in awe and appreciation. This is an event that is generally different from country to country. Some hold Super Bowl Sunday dearly, while others are glued to their sets for the final stretch of the World Series. I, myself, don a tuxedo on my sofa for the Academy Awards. Yes, almost everyone has a certain ceremony or tournament that gets them excited, but there is one event that teaches the world to absorb the media in perfect harmony like the subjects of a Coca-Cola commercial. That event is the World Cup final. It is a sporting event that gathers soccer (or football) fans and non-fans together to root for their own countries and the countries of others. While most are aware that major countries such as the United States, Brazil, and England have a wide-eyed interest in the sporting phenomenon that occurs every 4 years, there are other parts of the world ready to cheer with soccer balls in hand. The places on Earth where we would least expect diehard sporting fans is precisely what The Great Match is all about.

The Great Match (La Gran Final) revolves around the World Cup Final match between Germany and Brazil in 2002. Rather than showing the reactions of soccer hooligans perched on barstools, the film takes us to Mongolia, Brazil, and Niger, and the sports fans are those living in remote areas without the convenience of home entertainment centers, a bowl of popcorn, or even a pub television.

The first group of enthusiastic fans is a tribe of nomadic Mongolians who travel the mountains using trained eagles to catch their dinner. While living away from civilization, they are very aware that the big game is on the horizon. Therefore, they take it upon themselves to pirate electricity from a desolate network of power lines and enjoy the tournament. The second group of protagonists is desert travelers in Niger. With a television strapped to the hump of a camel, they are on the lookout for a spot known as “the tree”, which is a manmade rod that will serve as a sufficient antenna for the sports broadcast. Finally, there are a group of Amazonian tribesman who desperately steal the materials needed to enjoy the game surrounded by greenery and wildlife.

I recently had the opportunity to review the impressive Ten Canoes, which dealt with Aboriginal tribe life in a non-patronizing manner. For similar reasons I enjoyed watching The Great Match. While not nearly in touch with its main characters as Canoes, Match is a film with a globetrotting plotline similar to that of Babel, but with a great deal of comedy mixed in. Rather than exoticizing the Other, this movie reveals that so many people across the world are alike and do not even realize it because of physical and cultural differences. While the Amazonian tribe is frowned upon by nearby mill workers as annoying savages, they are really normal men who want to find a television and enjoy the internationally renowned ballgame. If some groups took the time to look past shocking differences, they may find a more similar channel of communication; here that channel is popular sports.

What both hurts and hinders the film is its use of comedy. At first the film presents its sense of humor without hesitation. The characters are all eccentric and bicker with one another in a cutesy fashion. As hilarious as this is at the onset, this begins to wear thin by the time the big game finally debuts. At a running time of 88 minutes, this is a short-running film, but the humor lies mostly in the anticipation of this massive sporting event. At about an hour in, the characters feel more like pre-show entertainment to amuse us before the anticipated climax. The use of comedy is not necessarily a bad thing, but the humor is played out on a single and predictable note.

The Great Match is by no means a masterpiece, but it is certainly an enjoyable piece of work from abroad, and I would recommend that any fan of international cinema give this a try. With DVD, the United States has gone from accessing strictly Hollywood, domestic films, to a larger selection of independent and international titles, and Match certainly falls into the latter unique category. This story that links sports fans in three different places on Earth is a light comedy that may hit the nail on the head for many film buffs.

3.5 out of 5

Flamboyantly Fun

moviedodd — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:38:49 GMT

When exploring cinema from abroad, I am particular intrigued by Australian cinema. While doing my recent time in film school, I managed to take in quite a few films from Down Under. Something that always stuck out to me was the emphasis on Aussie masculinity. Not only do you have the Crocodile Dundee stereotype, but many other films depict the laid-back, beer-guzzling nature of Australian men. Take for example Aussie actor Bryan Brown in the film Two Hands as a Mafioso gang leader who chooses sweaty rugby shirts as his attire. Keeping the prominent idea of masculinity in mind, I was even more intrigued to see a film like The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert for the first time. After familiarizing myself with the macho depictions of characters in Australian film, I was now able to see things through the eyes of queer characters, and this turned out to be one wild and entertaining ride.

Priscilla was released in the United States in 1994 with a cast of primarily unknown actors. However, Terence Stamp is an exception. The tough guy actor better known for swinging projects out of the psychedelic era such as Billy Budd stars in Priscilla as a transvestite named Bernadette. After losing his/her life partner, Benadette is down on the dumps. This is when Tick (Hugo Weaving) suddenly calls and asks him to accompany him through the desert to do a drag cabaret show in another territory. Looking for an opportunity to get away, Bernadette and Tick load up with their obnoxious co-performer Adam (Guy Pearce) on a bus that they officially christen, “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert”.

The rest of the film follows the three…eh…men as they drive through the Australian Outback and work through their conflicts with one another. Most of the problems particularly come from Adam, whose immaturity and decadence gets to be much for the mourning Bernadette. On their trip, the three friends encounter love and bigotry with the people they meet. They also pick up an aged mechanic named Bob (Bill Hunter), who manages to connect with the similarly-aged Bernadette despite his upbringing in a narrow-minded world. So much drama occurs for this group of drag queens simply so they can look fabulous for a brief hotel stint. Or is that the only reason? It turns out the soft-spoken Tick has a hidden agenda for the road trip that may change the way his queer comrades see him.

There is something appropriately timed about the Special Edition release of this film in 2007. When the film was released in 1994, it certainly sent a shockwave through the minds of film buffs. Terence Stamp, a symbol of masculinity from the 1960s and 1970s, convincingly plays a heart-broken gender bender. His excellent performance overthrows any assumptions about the actor and the roles he can play. However, the same thing can be said for Stamp’s co-stars in 2007. The then relatively unknown Pearce and Weaving have since gone on to establish themselves as charismatic leading men. Weaving is most remembered as the evil Mr. Smith in The Matrix and the title hero in V for Vendetta. Pearce has earned a reputation himself as the star of Memento and The Proposition. Seeing all three of these men embracing their gay sides is quite a treat; the men get into their characters so much that they are virtually unrecognizable even without drag.

With the performances aside, Priscilla is simply an enjoyable road trip film decorated with flamboyance and flare. We’ve all seen the standard road trip film where goofy hi jinks ensue. For these men, an eventful adventure includes dressing in the most flamboyant costumes possible, and climbing a high desert mountain in their heels and fish stockings. With the exception of a few scenes that demonstrate homophobic tensions between the rugged men of the Outback and the drag performers, the film has a light tone that carries the plot from start to finish. Whether these men are bickering on the bus, or doing elaborate lip-sync renditions of ABBA, they are fun characters that do not take look to empathize. Terence Stamp is particularly on his mark as an exhausted queen who has seen it all.

It seems clear to me that Priscilla was the inspiration for the very crappy drag queen American film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar. It is just unfortunate that the latter is what I caught in theaters in the 1990s. Priscilla does not meet my standards of a classic comedy, but I certainly enjoyed this unusual road trip film. Much credit goes to Terence Stamp for leaving his tough guy at home to become all woman. Fans of the film are encouraged to pick this up, and those unfamiliar should definitely rent this to visit an overseas treasure released over a decade ago.

Psychological Chiller

moviedodd — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:45:30 GMT

Perhaps this sounds like a familiar Stephen King premise; a writer stays at an old hotel for work-related purposes. The hotel is old and is said to house various angry spirits. Of course these ghosts exist because they died or were brutally murdered in this exact hotel. Anyone who stays in the hotel for too long begins to see evil things and loses their mind, which is exactly what happens to the previously-said writer. Sound familiar? Stephen King's The Shining is a novel that mirrors this exact premise, and it is quick to assume that the familiar story, which later became a classic film, is the storyline in question. However, it is not. In 2002, Stephen King revisited his "tormented writer in the haunted hotel" roots with the short story "1408", and the story recently received the film adaptation treatment. In a sea of thousands of Stephen King adaptations, there is a question as to how much this stacks up against the others. The answer is quite frighteningly.

Mike Enslin (John Cusack) is a self-absorbed writer who specializes in ghostly phenomena. His obsession in life is to track down supposed haunted locations, and overthow the existence of paranormal activity. These accounts on haunted graveyards, hotels, etc., are compiled into cheap thrill books that end up on the bargain shelves at Barnes and Noble. A rural couple firmly believes their bed and breakfast is haunted by the spirits of angry spirits? Mike uses his state-of-the-art gadgets to shatter the belief that these ghosts do exist.

A challenge suddenly appears before Mike in the form of a postcard. The anonymous message states that room 1408 in the Dolphin Hotel in New York City is a room housing unbelievable terrors. Mike sees this as an exciting opportunity, and packs his bags for the city.

Upon arrival at the hotel, Mike is greeted by the stern manager played with brief brilliance by Samuel L. Jackson. Despite offers for expensive cognac and a free penthouse upgrade, Mike ignores all warning and insists on staying in the dreaded 1408. With self-assurance and arrogance, he checks into the room expecting the usual creaks, shadows, and lightning flashes that are read into by the usual local folk. But Mike is in for one wild ride. Small incidents evolve into catastrophic, traumatizing hauntings, and the superstitious writer discovers more than he bargained for.

The state of horror cinema is a bit on the weak side these days. It seems it is either in the form of watered-down PG-13 ghost stories, or hard-R torture porn. In the middle of these releases, I continue to wonder if anything actually scary will hit screens. To my surprise, 1408 manages to succeed with chills and thrills. Yes, the film is rated PG-13, but it delves into a realm of psychological horror and creepy imagery so much, that the thought of blood and guts is left in the gutter. At times, it feels as if a certain edginess is absent as scenes of horrific insanity are dragged out. If anything, this occasional feeling of emptiness is one of the film's weaker points. But every time 1408 is hit with a lull moment, it brushes itself off and does not hold back on mystery.

What really keeps this film standing is the direction and the performance from John Cusack. Director Mikael Hafstrom has supposedly tripped up on his previous outing Derailed (I would not know as I avoided it like the plague). However, the director proves his eye for detail in creating this King adaptation. Stephen King is a very descriptive writer who will devote two full pages in tiny font just to describe the interior of a hotel room. While I haven't read this particular short story, it seems that Hafstrom has stayed true to King's writing style. When Mike Enslin enters the hotel lobby and room 1408, we observe every little detail through his eyes. This is everything from an antique stroller sitting in the lobby, to the tacky wall paintings that grace the walls of the room. While a keen eye for such detail may bore some, I found this to be particularly effective. Before the scares begin, we become completely situated and familiar with the surroundings right alongside our protagonist. Because of this, we become susceptible to experiencing the terrors firsthand through the eyes of Mike Enslin.

Another praiseworthy note is the performance by John Cusack. While other talented performers, such as Jackson, Mary McCormack, and Tony Shaloub, come and go, this is truly Cusack's show. As a man who spends the majority of the film battling insanity/ghosts in a hotel room, he really exhibits his acting range. While Cusack simply does his usual schtick at the beginning of the film with his smug grin and smart ass retorts, he completely subverts his usual persona to get scared. Cusack does indeed wipe the grin off his face and resorts to utter sadness and maniacal fear.

My final thought on 1408 is that it is a psychological thinking person's film. It is questionable as to whether viewers prefer their suspense to be this ambiguous, or more straightforward. I, myself, giddily kept my mind busy one scene after another. However, good story or bad, the performance by Cusack is worth the admission alone. Cusack really makes the insanity and claustrophobia come alive. 1408 is the hotel horror film that Vacancy should have been. In a summer full of lackluster sequels, I can happily say that 1408 is one of the more original and satisfying movies I have seen this season.

A Trippy Masterpiece

moviedodd — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:07:42 GMT

It is truly saddening when high quality films are treated like excess garbage. Let's take The Fountain for example. After directing his druggie masterpiece, Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky set his sights on another enigmatic project that would embrace his dazzling vision. The Fountain was set to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in a tale of two lovers set in three different time periods. After considerable budget was poured into the project, the megastars backed down, and the The Fountain's story of eternal life was left for dead. This was until it was resurrected once more with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz filling the shoes of Pitt and Blanchett. Film aficionados and Aronofsky fans anxiously awaited the film's Thanksgiving week release, only to see it fail considerably with negative reviews and low box office numbers.

It is easy for me to comprehend why The Fountain was not received by the movie-going public. Despite its stunning array of aesthetics, the film is packed with more questions than answers, which is rarely appreciated by audiences. However, what I fail to understand is why this film was slammed by so many critics. Various indie films have proven to be too "out there" for the mainstream, but generally seek refuge in the arms of understanding film critics. The Fountain is a film that seems to have hit theaters at the wrong time, perhaps confusing the critics who were reveling in the Thanksgiving blockbuster goodie baskets. Despite its bad reputation, I not only give The Fountain accolade for being a great film, but possibly the best film of 2006.

Tom (Hugh Jackman) is a research scientist who is married to and madly in love with Izzi (Rachel Weisz). In the midst of their happiness, Izzi is inflicted with cancer. This leads Tom on an obsessive quest to discover the cure for disease and pain; he is on a mission to discover the serum for eternal life. Meanwhile, we frequently see Tom in the future where he is speaking to a tree and encapsulated inside of a globe-like atmosphere. Like Izzi, there is something about the tree that Tom holds sacred and sees as the key to eternal life. On top of "Present Tom" and "Future Tom" we also meet Jackman in the early 1500s as conquistador Tomas who is on a mission under Queen Isabel (Weisz) to find the Tree of Life.

Yes, The Fountain is clearly a film that is difficult to summarize. It is certainly not easy to cram into a Hollywood pitch. Many critics claimed they did not enjoy the film because they simply didn't get it. What I do not understand is that these same critics that admire the mind-boggling smorgasbord of David Lynch suddenly give up on a film because they do not get it. Upon seeing The Fountain in the theater for the first time, there was not a sense of closure. How the characters in the three different time periods were connected was not entirely clear to me. However, the film exhibited a sense of mysticism that called for a second viewing the following week. During my second viewing, I saw The Fountain as an entirely different text. Rather than focusing solely on the central plot, I was able to make more connections, and appreciate the film for its aesthetics. In addition to a simple storyline, there is a tear-inducing score from composer Clint Mansell, unforgettable visual effects, and the skilled cinematography of Matthew Libatique. While still not entirely sure about the intricate workings of the plot, I identified The Fountain as a film that simply is what it is. We are not meant to follow a straight plot line, but instead use our imagination with the pieces laid before us by director Aronofsky.

Of course, there remains the question as to whether or not Jackman and Weisz are worthy replacements for Pitt and Blanchett. While never getting to see the previous actors in this role, I whole-heartedly bought the performances by the talented performers. Hugh Jackman really exercises his versatility by playing three different characters obsessed with the mystery behind eternal life. The Fountain is essentially a morality tale that stresses the importance of enjoying our short lives, and this point would not be clear without Jackman's performance. As men who make too many mistakes in their impossible journeys, Jackman gives one of the best performances of the year. Following her Oscar-winning turn in The Constant Gardner, Weisz is also on target as his wise love interest going through the stages of death.

I cannot stress enough my recommendation for The Fountain. This is not standard, popcorn-munching fare. It is pertinent to stress that this film is ambiguous and caters to those who don't mind exercising the noggin. I do suggest buying this film, because it is intended to be seen more than one time. The film and special features are outstanding and get my solid stamp of approval.

Torture Horror Follow-Up Is Just Plain Torture

moviedodd — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:52:10 GMT

Looking back on older horror films, we may notice the phases that they went through. One example are the cautionary slasher films of the late 1970s and early 1980s that followed the Vietnam era. When looking at the past it is easy to draw parallels between films and their historical context. In looking at the present state of horror, however, it is not so simple. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact trend in horror cinema that will one day be written about by horror theorists ten years from now. But if I were to venture a guess, it would be the recent trend in torture horror. Forget suspense! Projects such as the Saw films and Hostel have taken terror to a different level by constructing elaborate methods of mercilessly killing people off. Obviously this subgenre has been a huge hit with the youth market, but the horror fan inside me sometimes questions this new bloody trend. How long can prolonged torture sequences really succeed with shock value? After seeing Eli Roth's Hostel II, I am hoping not for very much longer.

This sequel opens exactly where the predecessor ended. The survivor from the first film, Paxton (Jay Hernandez) makes a pointless appearance in the first few minutes to tie up loose ends. This is done more ridiculously than the opening of a Friday the 13th sequel, except without the camp. After this intro, we are taken to Rome where three female college students are catching a train to Prague for a little R and R. There is Lorna (Heather Matarazzo), the sweet and dorky one. There is Whitney (Bijou Philips), the sexually-excited one. Then there is Beth (Lauren German), the straight-laced one. I'll bet you can't guess which one is the heroine.

The three girls meet a mysterious woman on their train ride, who convinces the trio to switch trains and take in a Slovakian spa. Of course, this spa is located next to our favorite hostel. The girls check in, meet the friendly staff, and even attend a party. Little do they know that thousands of dollars have already been paid by rich men just waiting to torture and kill them. Of course this means there will be blood.

At first, Hostel II is a film that has its ups and downs. The premise initially appears to be the same as the first, except with females venturing into the house of pain. However, it is then temporarily redeemed by the advent of new characters. We meet Stuart (Roger Bart) and Todd (Richard Burgi); two wealthy American men who have come to Slovakia to sadistically torture the protagonist beauties. With the original Hostel laying the groundwork for the big "secret", the sequel cleverly asks us to empathize with the torturers and the torturees. Unfortunately, just when the film is riding high with this attention-grabbing premise, it plummets hard without redemption.

The film obviously treats its audience to scenes of torture. While watching these scenes, I sat with a sense of awe. Then I realized that Hostel II is one of the first horror films in a while to numb my sense of excitement. As an avid horror fan, I have taken pleasure in seeing people getting decapitated and ripped apart from limb to limb. These are horrific acts, and I enjoyed them guiltlessly. Yet, Hostel II did not amuse me. The torture scenes are quite serious without the campy reassurance to laugh. At the same time, they are not scary or suspenseful. They are simply sadistic and awkward. As a young girl is slashed in various places so her blood can gush down upon her attacker, the scene's stone cold seriousness is reminiscent of something out of a snuff film. Whether or not this is a good thing is really up to the viewer.

I had the pleasure of seeing the original Hostel, and thought it was a decent effort. A lot of this had to do with being amongst a theater full of college students who joyfully cheered every time a person was tortured or killed. The surreal experience of seeing people obliviously revel in the bloodshed of a film commenting on people's sick obsession with violence was both fun and frightening at the same time. Without that experience, I am not sure if I would have even held Hostel in such high regard. However, with Hostel II, I fail to even see the point. While at first I saw the original film as a clever commentary from writer/director Eli Roth, the second is clearly all about bringing more torture horror to the masses for profit. When Hostel II is trying to be scary, it is not scary. When it is trying to be funny, it isn't funny. Instead it pats itself on the back and proclaims, "Look kids, more outrageous torture scenes!" This movie is definitely bloody, but it is far from bloody fantastic.

David Fincher Does It Again

moviedodd — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:48:18 GMT

Ask any true movie buff and they will tell you that films are not what they used to be. I must say that I agree with this to a certain extent. Being that Wild Hogs debuted in the #1 spot this weekend, it is no wonder that more crap is consistently churned out as audiences keep asking for it. However, it is imperative that I do acknowledge the filmmakers out there who still strive to craft quality cinema. Like the subversive and ground-breaking directors of the French New Wave or the American Golden Years of the 1970's, these filmmakers are more concerned with paying homage to the masters before them while introducing their own signature styles. One of these directors happened to have a film debut this weekend against Wild Hogs. That man is David Fincher and the film is Zodiac.

Many may affiliate Fincher with his previous thriller Se7en, or his cult action piece Fight Club. Both of these films are memorably gritty and violent, and this has contributed to Fincher's still-growing fan base. After announcing that his next project would focus on the still-at-large Zodiac killer, it was assumed that the director would construct a graphic masterpiece of blood, twists, and slick camera effects. These are, after all, motifs from his prior classics. However, instead of giving audiences what they expect, David Fincher has done something entirely different. Clocking in at 2 hours and 40 minutes, Zodiac is a detailed and dialogue-heavy crime film that pays tribute to classic crime films of the 1970's while making room for Fincher's modern direction techniques. The result is, hands down, one of the best films of 2007.

It is the 1970's, and the San Francisco Bay area is riled up over the Zodiac killer. The faceless man has claimed the lives of several victims in the area, and has not left nearly enough evidence for identification. To make matters worse, he continues to taunt authority figures by sending letters and making phone calls to the San Francisco Chronicle.

How could a man who commits spontaneous killings and pursues the attention of the police be so hard to bag? This is exactly the question that the main characters ask themselves. Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a cartoonist for the Chronicle who takes an interest in the killer after decoding some of the cryptic letters that he sends to the paper. Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) is a wiseass reporter for the paper who also wishes to get to the bottom of the killer's identity. Meanwhile, police inspectors Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) also neglect their real lives to put an end to the murderer's reign.

Rather than following a single protagonist, Zodiac revolves around these four main characters. Toschi and Armstrong frustratingly work with other police jurisdictions where the Zodiac has left behind corpses. While they receive numerous tips and leads, the cops repeatedly find themselves in the dark when one small piece of evidence doesn't factor into the equation. Avery and Graysmith also open up their own investigations, with Graysmith sometimes digging up more than the cops could salvage.

All four of these men set their sights on the Zodiac and become fascinated with his elusiveness. Their interests turn into life-consuming obsessions, which become the basis for this film. Zodiac may be a film about the notorious killer, but it is primarily about how some things in life tend to hold on and never let go. While watching these men become consumed by the Zodiac case, I could feel their unrelenting fixation from start to finish.

Zodiac could be categorized as many things. Sometimes the audience bears witness to the grizzly murders committed by Zodiac, which makes the film a definitive horror film. Other times, we follow the main characters, as they jump through every investigative hoop from matching handwriting samples to identifying fingerprints. Much police procedure is involved here, but do not expect an episode of CSI. Fincher does away with "look-at-me" camera trickery to create something more detailed and psychological.

One of the major highlights of the film are the performances from its main characters. Robert Downey Jr. comes through as...well...the same scenery-chewing character that Downey Jr. has portrayed over the last few years. Yes he is predictable, but I still can't get enough of the man. Jake Gyllenhaal does some growing up here as Robert Graysmith, who penned the novel on which this film is based. The actor still brings with him a boyish naivety, but he accurately portrays obsession well. The same can be said for Mark Ruffalo as a conflicted cop who, even after closing the book on his investigation, can still not sleep at night.

While most critics favor this film, I heard moans and groans from certain audience members who clearly anticipated a slash-em-up package from the Fight Club auteur rather than a lengthy crime saga. The film does require patience, but it is worth every minute. I realize that viewers eat up every clichéd Hollywood moment where the cop always gets his man, or the killer is unmasked in a clever twist ending. Zodiac is neither of these things. It is both drawn-out and ambiguous, and that is exactly what makes it work. What makes serial murderers so frightening is that they sometimes never give a sense of closure. They continue to prowl the streets while law enforcement obsessively wonders where they will strike next. Considering that the Zodiac was never nabbed, the format for this film is quite fitting. If you can handle an intelligent, chilling, and precise crime film, then I strongly urge you to see Zodiac. David Fincher has once again proven himself as one of the most innovative filmmakers today.

A Rare Character Study

moviedodd — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:40:19 GMT

One ongoing debate in cinema is realism, and how much of it really exists in a film. There is always that question of what the audience wants: ridiculously unreal yet amusing, or true-to-life, yet accurate? Let's take for example the relationship comedy. Most of these films rely on pre-planned monologues and dialogues about sex and dating that may be rather funny at times. However, there is sometimes a question about the truthfulness of these scenes. Is this really how people talk in real life, and does the audience really relate to the material? In a sea of clichés, there are a few filmmakers in the independent world who will boldly sacrifice blockbuster spectacle to capture the essence of how humans really interact. Mutual Appreciation is a striking example.

In the spirit of Swingers and Rent, Mutual Appreciation focuses on the "little fish in the big sea" idea of young twentysomethings moving to the big city to pursue their dreams. Alan (Justin Rice) is an alternative rock musician who re-locates to New York City to hopefully stick out amongst the many other artists on the concert venue scene. His best friend Lawrence (Andrew Bujalski), who ekes by on teaching assistant wages, provides a support system for Alan while he desperately tries to find a drummer for his unique musical vision. However, things get slightly complicated when Alan begins to develop feelings for Lawrence's girlfriend Ellie (Rachel Clift).

While Mutual Appreciate could step into farce territory by constructing a silly love triangle between these characters, it refuses to do so. Instead, the 110-minute film follows its characters from the underground music scene to the cramped apartments of eccentric characters. Each scene places the camera in the room like an innocent bystander and observes these people as they exchange everyday conversation about their struggles in the Big Apple.

I consider myself an omnivore of all things cinematic. I can appreciate a forced, mainstream romantic comedy as well as an independent character study on a shoestring budget. Mutual Appreciation falls under the category of the latter, and it is hard for me not to appreciate this telling depiction of confusion and awkwardness. Director, writer, and star Andrew Bujalski knows how to convey these characteristics in the construction of the film. As Mutual Appreciation begins and ends abruptly it parallels real life, which hits these main characters so suddenly like a swift kick in the ass.

Something that the filmmakers really capture here is the art of conversation. Following in the footsteps of directors such as Richard Linklater, Bujalski focuses the film's energy on the connections between its characters. Rather than having the characters spout off witty and cute lines about pet peeves and heartbreak, they just go with the flow. There is clearly a form of improvised acting here, and the dialogue is hit-and-miss. However, it is refreshing to see conversation just as it is typically seen between real people. Humans do not communicate to entertain a camera tucked away in the fourth wall. They communicate their true feelings. Though mumbled and slow at times, I was with these characters every step of the way.

Mutual Appreciation is not a masterpiece of a character study, but I certainly appreciate its effort. Fans of indie cinema and the frustrations of being a lost twentysomething will likely want to give this a shot. I highly recommend giving this a rental.