indieabby88

Under discussion:

Steel Magnolias  (1989)

Waitress  (2007)

The Village Barbershop  (2009)

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

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

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

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

Recommendations:

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

"Juno"- More wit, better music

"Steel Magnolias"- More women, more drama

Under discussion:

Inkheart  (2009)

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

Under discussion:

Friday the 13th  (2009)

The Hills Have Eyes  (1977)

The Hitcher  (1986)

Last House on the Left  (1972)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre  (1974)

The Thing  (1982)

The Unborn  (1991)

The Virgin Spring  (1959)

Saw  (2004)

Prom Night  (2008)

Mirrors  (2008)

The Unborn  (2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under discussion:

Henry Fool  (1997)

Napoleon Dynamite  (2004)

The Guatemalan Handshake  (2005)

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

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

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

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

Reccomendations (if you like this movie)

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

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

Under discussion:

The Motorcycle Diaries  (2004)

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation  (2008)

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

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

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

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

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

Under discussion:

Shorts! Volume 2  (2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under discussion:

LOL  (2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under discussion:

In the Name of the Father  (1993)

Dragonheart  (1996)

American Psycho  (2000)

A Beautiful Mind  (2001)

Sweet Home Alabama  (2002)

Syriana  (2005)

Good Night, and Good Luck.  (2005)

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

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

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

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

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

Under discussion:

Africa Unite  (2008)

I'll admit I was skeptical about "Africa Unite." I didn't think I would find the film very interesting, since I'm not a huge fan of reggae, nor do I understand rastafarianism. But I was pleasantly surprised by Stephanie Black's documentary about a huge concert and African unity conference in celebration of Bob Marley's 60th birthday. While the film serves mostly as rasta propaganda, there are parts of it that I found touching, inspiring and on the whole very informative about the subject matter.

One of the threads the documentary follows is the story of a 70-year-old Rasta from Jamaica, whose community raises the money for him to attend the conference/concert in Ethiopia. For this man, who has spent 50 years in the Rasta faith, this trip is the opportunity of a lifetime. It tugs a little at the heartstrings to see the man so impressed, excited and inspired by the message of African unity preached at the conference, and by his visits to sites such as Emperor Haile Selassie's Cathedral.

Another point I found particularly interesting was the in-depth description of Rastafarianism, and the Rastas' worship of Selassie, who ruled over Ethiopia from World War II through part of the 1960s. Selassie's message of personal freedom and inner resolve still resonates in the Ethiopians today, as well as people like Marley, who furthered the cause of an Africa without borders and separate governments. While I don't really advocate the worship of one particular human being, I do find Selassie to be an inspirational character, and the documentary does a good job of explaining why.

I was a little disappointed, however, that there wasn't more concert footage from the film. I feel like "Africa Unite" might have been a more effective film if it had been almost exclusively a concert movie, interspersed with information about Marley, Selassie, Rastafarianism and the conference. As it is, the majority of "Africa Unite" is footage from round table discussions and conference attendees. While some of these vignettes are interesting, they don't add together to make an interesting film. It serves more as a long, narrationless news report.

I couldn't see renting or  buying this film, even if I was a big Bob Marley fan. It's not quite a concert film, not quite an interesting documentary. It's something of a mashup, and never quite coheres. While I did find "Africa Unite" informative and inspirational, I also found it lacking in several areas.

Under discussion:

The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things  (2006)

It was hard for me to watch "The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things." I don't usually take well to films about child abuse (for obvious reasons), but I was willing to give this one a shot. I shouldn't have.

Asia Argento's directorial effort is based on the "autobiographical" novel by J.T. LeRoy, who is in fact not a real person, but a character devised by writer Laura Albert. It's the story of Jeremiah, a little boy taken from his foster home to live with his completely drug-addled and unfit mother, Sarah (Argento). After going through several boyfriends and one husband, who rapes Jeremiah after Sarah scarpers, the boy is left in the care of his strict Christian grandparents (Peter Fonda and Ornella Muti). After three years living and preaching under their creepy but more stable care, Sarah takes Jeremiah back and pulls him with her on her fast journey to rock bottom.

First of all, I have a hard time figuring out why any social worker would think Sarah was capable of caring for a child, seeing as how she's obviously gone off the deep end from the very beginning of the film. Secondly, I can't figure out why Sarah would want to have her son around, since he's obviously nothing but a burden to her. It's possible she wants the boy because he's the one person who truly loves her, but towards the end of the film, Sarah says that Jeremiah has caused her no end of trouble, and that she got along better on her own. The whole premise and logic of the film seems deeply flawed to me, not to mention Argento's one-sided, stereotypical and almost cartoonish representation of Christianity.

There are parts of the film that are well-shot and interesting, and it seems clear from the soundtrack (Sonic Youth, The Smashing Pumpkins, The Subhumans) and the oddball cameo roles (Peter Fonda, Winona Ryder and Marilyn Manson to name a few) that Argento is trying to make some kind of cheeky, badass punk rock film. But it's hard to consider the artistic value of a project when the subject matter is so disturbing. Meth labs and neglected children do not a masterpiece make.

I watch movies for two reasons, reasons I suspect are universal: entertainment and artistic merit. "The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things" is certainly not entertaining, and it hasn't got enough style to be considered a work of art. At the very least, this film could have served as a slap in the face, a cold stab of cruel realities we often ignore, like abuse and drug addiction, if J.T. LeRoy had been a real person. The fact that the story the film is based on was part of a major literary hoax takes away almost all its credibility. So instead I found myself subjected to one domestic horror after another, not in the service of telling someone's life story, but simply an exercize in sadistic, poorly realized fiction.

Under discussion:

The Natural  (1984)

Seabiscuit  (2003)

Cinderella Man  (2005)

The Rocket  (2007)

While I'm not much of a sports fan, I do enjoy watching sports movies. There's just something about watching an underdog beat the odds and take the necessary risks on the road to success that just makes me feel good. I know I'm not alone in this. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a market for movies like "Cinderella Man," "Seabiscuit" or "The Natural."

That's what filmmakers tried to do with "The Rocket," a movie about the career of legendary hockey player Maurice Richard and the racism against French Canadians both in sports and in regular society, during the forties and fifties. Technically, "The Rocket" is a pretty good piece of work, with great music, lovely, rich cinematography and a good story. But  due to some seriously weak writing,  the movie never really takes off.

What "The Rocket" mainly suffers from is relying on telling more than showing. We are only shown vignettes of Richard's life, and these chunks of narrative are stretched almost too far apart to be strongly connected. If the filmmakers wanted the audience to be paying attention for the 124-minute running time, they should have been paying more attention to continuity.

Also, we don't actually get to see much of Richard's particularly great games. The facts of these supposedly spectacular displays of athleticism are instead told to us by fans, reporters, and (in a particularly irritating example) Richard's barber who describe the action in long monologues that I somehow doubt would have been used by those people in reality. I'd rather have seen the actual games being played out than listened to the implausible lines spoken about them.

Another result of this cut-and-paste style of storytelling is that the characters aren't given much of a chance to develop. Richard's relationship with his teammates is never explored, and the conflict with his blue collar brother-in-law doesn't get much attention either. The characters don't even seem to change much. Richard is stoic and modest, his wife is always concerned but proud of her husband, and Mr. Irvin, Richard's coach, is always an enigmatic, reverse-psychology dependent S.O.B. While these details might not have seemed important to the people making the movie, they are just as instrumental as any action sequence.

All of this may sound kind of hypocritical when I complain about the lengthy running time (two hours and four minutes is a long time for me to watch bad screenwriting), although it probably could have been avoided had there been more action and less talk. "The Rocket" after all, is a sports movie. Why don't we get to see more sports? 

Under discussion:

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen  (1989)

Brazil  (1985)

Time Bandits  (1981)

12 Monkeys  (1995)

The Boondock Saints  (2000)

Overnight  (2004)

It's the ultimate Cinderella Story: A young, first-time screenwriter working as a bouncer in Los Angeles gets the opportunity of a lifetime when Harvey Weinstein of Miramax Studios buys his script, gives him a hefty advance, lets his band record the film's soundtrack and promises his new discovery co-ownership of the bar he works at.

Well, as the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. This is the story of Troy Duffy, writer and director of the cult hit "The Boondock Saints" as told by two of his friends in the documentary "Overnight," which recounts Duffy's meteoric rise and spectacularly depressing fall. The documentary is surprisingly objective in that it is effective from two angles. Those who are great fans of "Boondock Saints" will probably see Duffy as an embittered tragic hero who continues to fight for his art while everyone around him loses faith. Those (like me) who just don't "get" Duffy's film see the director as an opinionated asshole whose sudden success turns him into a power-mad paranoid. His attempts to retain complete control over his movie and his band make him lose credibility in the eyes of his family, friends and bandmates, whose lives and livelihoods are pretty much destroyed by Duffy's antics.

What happens is this: Duffy makes the monster deal with Miramax and becomes, in his words "Hollywood's new hard-on." Then, suddenly and without warning, Miramax drops him. The band makes a record deal with Maverick records, then the record company pulls out at the last minute. Franchise pictures ends up buying the "Boondock Saints" script, and giving Duffy less than half of the budget Miramax offered. Duffy accepts and makes his film, but no major studios are interested in distributing the film. Finally, Indican pictures, a small independent studio, releases the film for two weeks in five theaters accross the U.S. The band does eventually get a label and cuts a record, but the record sells less than 1,000 copies in six months and they are dropped, at which point they break up rather unceremoniously.

"Overnight" did definitely make me feel sympathetic to Troy Duffy. Although I don't consider myself a "Boondock Saints" fan, and Duffy and his friends aren't exactly classy, clean-cut guys, I did feel a certain amount of pain seeing this blue-collar guy from Boston who thought he had something big going get continually screwed over by almost every Hollywood establishment. I suppose one might compare Duffy's predicament in "Overnight" to the famous battle between Terry Gilliam and the major studios over the distribution of "Brazil." But the difference is this: Gilliam is a director who started off as a financial success with "Time Bandits" and went on to make some great films, both commercial hits like "12 Monkeys" and movies that were artistically beautiful but tanked at the theater (see "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen"). The only movie Duffy has under his belt, seemingly because of the situation laid out in "Overnight" is "The Boondock Saints," a movie that I was surprised ever got made at all, let alone something that could ever have been optioned by Miramax. "Brazil" was a movie worth fighting for. "Boondock Saints" not so much.

Under discussion:

Waiting to Exhale  (1995)

Amélie  (2001)

Under the Tuscan Sun  (2003)

Agata and the Storm  (2004)

I like to think of myself as a diverse movie viewer. I can watch a horror movie, then turn right back around and watch a period drama, followed by a screwball comedy. But there are some genres that I just really get a kick out of. Well-done, inspirational romantic comedies are one. I love movies like "Amelie" and, yes, even "Under the Tuscan Sun" that are light and fun and leave you feeling great. "Agata and the Storm" is one of these movies. Something like a hybrid of "Amelie" and "Waiting to Exhale," it had me grinning from beginning to end.

The movie centers on the life, relationships and adventures of Agata, a forty-ish bookstore owner in Genoa with a strange ability to make electricity go haywire when she gets emotional. She's seeing Nico, a married man about half her age. Her brother Gustavo recently discovered he was adopted as an infant and appears to have abandoned his family and successful architecture career to find himself and hang out with his biological brother Romeo and his wife. It's all a bit complicated, but oddly enough the varied plot lines all work out. As we get to know Agata and her family, we become more involved and turly begin to care about these sweet, unique and utterly human characters. Romeo's dream of owning a trout farm, Gustavo's search for his father and his true identity and Agata's relationship issues all become terribly involving and engaging the longer the film goes on.

Most importantly, "Agata and the Storm" has a great playful sense about it. Even the film's dramatic moments (and there are quite a few) aren't much of a downer. The movie, like Agata's spirit, moves on the happy parts of the characters' lives. Everything from the colorful visuals to the characters' quirks to the film's music is very entertaining and lighthearted.

That isn't to say that there aren't a few problems. There's an awful lot of infidelity going on in the film, and nobody seems to make a big deal out of it. Romeo, especially, seems to have serious problems remaining faithful to his wife, Daria, but when pressed by Agata he states that he knows he's got a problem but brushes it off, saying "I am what I am." Another plotline, involving Agata's estranged 20-year-old daughter, is never resolved, nor really even followed. It would be interesting to see what Agata's daughter would be like, or what she thinks of her mother having an affair with a man 13 years her junior.

Overall, however, "Agata and the Storm" is good watching. It's the kind of movie you can sit down to watch with your girlfriends and a bowl of fresh popcorn. Or, for that matter, a pint of Ben and Jerry's. It's romantic escapism of the best kind: the kind that wraps you up like a warm blanket and makes you feel like running out into the street afterwards and hugging everyone you meet.

Under discussion:

Familia  (2005)

In the opening shots of "Familia," director Louise Archambault poses an interesting question. When we have children, do we pass on simple genetic traits like hairy knuckles or hitchhiker's thumb? Or does the transfer include pieces of our own personalities?

If "Familia" had answered these questions, I think it would have been a much more interesting film. Instead, when I had finished watching it, the only question I had (a question that also remained unanswered) was "What the hell is wrong with these people?"

The movie focuses on the relationships between friends, mothers and daughters. On one end of the spectrum, we have Michele (Sylvie Moreau), a compulsive gambler, and generally irresponsible woman. Her daughter Marguerite (Mylene St-Sauveur) is a fourteen-year-old club kid who thinks herself more streetwise than she truly is. After deciding her boyfriend is being abusive after he accidentally hits her with a car door and refuses to give her any more money to waste on the gambling machines, Michele decides to move to California with Marguerite. Michele's lack of funds ensures that they never get that far, and instead end up staying with Janine (very convincingly played by Macha Grenon), a childhood friend of Michele's.

Janine is the exact opposite of Michele. She is a successful interior designer with two kids and a mostly-absent husband. Where Michele is charming and lenient (albeit rather leechlike) Janine is frigid and controlling, as evidenced by her failed relationships with her husband and children. Her daughter,  Gabrielle (Juliette Gosselin), is sweet and obedient, but befriending Marguerite gives her the opportunity to break out of her shell, which she does in grand rebellious fashion.

"Familia" was a hard movie for me to watch. While it does explore the topic of relationships, it's just as much an exercise in Bad Parenting 101. It shows how leniency with a child, or, alternatively, fierce control, can do nothing to help the development of a kid. It was also difficult to like the characters. Both Michele and Janine are almost too flawed to be sympathetic. While I did feel sorry for Janine having to put up with the frustrating and generally obnoxious Michele, her totalitarian view of her family was just as frustrating as any time I saw Michele gambling away her paychecks on slot machines or poker.

In fact, the best parts of "Familia" come right at the very end, when both the women witness the consequences of their family relationships. While Janine's life falls apart at the seams in a long, downward spiral that ends in some nasty confrontations, Michele learns the necessity of responsibility, and realizes that if she is to save Marguerite from becoming like her, she needs to step up and put just as much importance on her child as on herself.

As far as the performances go, Macha Grenon's Janine was far and away the most impressive. She really gets the best dramatic scenes, since she's the one who gets to break down and watch the life she's built for herself fall around her. Moreau is good as Michele, but at the end of the movie, it was Grenon's performance that I remembered the most. As much as I really disliked Janine, her situation made me feel for her.

"Familia" is just as much a drama about the importance of relationships as it is a great example of two very different ways in which a person can screw up their lives and, unfortunately, the lives of their children. The film presents some interesting situations, but it lacks truly sympathetic characters. Had I not wanted to slap the two women nearly every time they made a decision or alienated their kids, I might have enjoyed the movie more. As it was, "Familia" is a movie I watched with gritted teeth.

Under discussion:

Clean  (2004)

Witness the rock and roll lifestyle: awesome music, lots of parties, and (of course) lots of drugs. Especially heroin, the drug of choice for great rockers like Iggy Pop and Lou Reed. But while some, like the aforementioned icons, manage to get off the smack, there are plenty that die from it.

Lee Hauser is one of the unfortunate ones. Early on in "Clean," Lee dies of an overdose, leaving behind a junkie wife, Emily (Maggie Cheung), his parents, Rosemary and Albrecht (Martha Henry and Nick Nolte), a mountain of debts, and a son, Jay (James Dennis) who lives with his grandparents. The movie is about Emily's journey to clean up her act and show Albrecht she is ready to handle the responsibility of caring for the son she barely knows.

While Lee seems to have been a popular guy in life, Emily is almost universally disliked. Bitchy half of the time and stoned the other, she's not an easy person to get to like. The one person connected with Lee who shows her any kindness is her father in law, Albrecht, who gives Emily the chance to redeem herself for her son and, though wary of her, truly seems to belive that Emily can fix up the mess she's made of her life.

Nolte gives a solid, surprisingly gentle performance as Albrecht. Watching him, it seemed like he actually felt the emotions he portrayed on screen. Nolte gives Albrecht the kind, caring demeanor he needs and, when faced with the idea of caring for Jay alone, a believable amount of confusion as to what he should do with the boy. Maggie Cheung also acts her part pretty decently. Her Emily seems realistically desperate and, at the end of the film, hopeful.

I had some major qualms, however, about the structure of the film. The audience is given very few moments with Albrecht, Rosemary and Jay. Like Emily, we hardly know them, and it would be hugely helpful if we did. The relationships within that family, especially between Albrecht and Jay, would be really great if they had been better developed. We also know nothing of Lee's relationship with his parents, or of Lee and Emily's practically non-existent relationship with their son. Jay's reaction to his father's death is very much delayed, and we have no idea how he feels about it until he meets his mother, which is not soon enough. The death of a parent experienced at a young age, especially in the circumstances presented, would have some kind of lasting impact on a child's development, and that is not shown at all. In fact, what little ire Jay does show towards his mother, he manages to shake off after spending one day with her.

The movie's issues aren't helped by the ending, which is not an ending at all, but merely a cutting-off of the plot. No resolutions are presented, which I thought was unfair. I don't care how unconventional a director wants their film to be, an ending should tie up at least one loose end instead of giving us the promise of a future resolution, followed by a scene that may or may not go anywhere.

"Clean" is the sort of movie that could be really great, if it were tweaked a little. As is, we are left with half-drawn characters, poorly shown relationships and an ending that leaves the audience dangling. As someone who watches movies for enjoyment, not to be bored for 111 minutes and left hanging, I was more than a little disappointed.

Under discussion:

Empire Falls  (2005)

Wilby Wonderful  (2004)

When I recieved "Wilby Wonderful" and read the synopsis, I have to say I was a bit underwhelmed. It just didn't sound that exciting. I started watching the movie, trying to be as open-minded as possible, but really under the impression that I was going to come away bored.

All I can say is: boy was I wrong. "Wilby Wonderful" is a great movie, full of interesting characters and a setting that almost seems like a character by itself. The movie plays out like a Canadian "Empire Falls" with different plots and subplots that are loosely connected at first, but intertwine more and more as the film goes on.

The plots directly (and indirectly) center around 24 hours in the island town of Wilby, Nova Scotia, where the local newspaper is planning to publish the names of several townspeople suspected of homosexual acts at the Wilby Watch, a stretch of woods along the island's coastline.

One of the men afraid of being outed to the community is Dan (James Allodi), whose wife divorced him after he came out of the closet to her. The depressed Dan's frequent attempts at suicide are continually, and comically, interrupted throughout the movie.

Duck (Callum Keith Rennie) is a painter who stops Dan's first almost-suicide in the opening shots of the film. His concern for Dan causes Duck to follow him around and eventually fall in love with him.

Dan's realtor Carol (Sandra Oh) is a constantly busy career woman who is not only trying to sell Dan's house, but her late mother-in-law's house as well. She's also taken charge of the town festival, "Wilby Days," and is in a position of power on the merchant's committee. The only thing she isn't successful at is her marriage to Buddy (Paul Gross, of "Slings and Arrows"), which is quickly going down the tubes.

Buddy is having an affair with Sandra (Rebecca Jenkins), a single mother and prodigal daughter of Wilby, who has returned to manage a diner with her daughter Emily (Ellen Page). Emily has plenty of issues with her mother, as well as a new boyfriend who she likes, but is cautious around.

Although the movie's various plots take a while to get going, once the movie kicks into high gear, it's a real joy to watch, with each scene leading up to an unexpectedly hilarious climax. Writer/director Daniel MacIvor has created characters and situations that are so realistic they seem as though you've experienced them yourself. I ended up really caring about these characters and, ultimately, even the town. As in real life, this movie takes its time but, overall, is funny, sweet, poignant and thoughtful. For the viewers, the good things in "Wilby Wonderful" come to those who wait.