Considering the Cinema

New Podcast Episode: News Media & Journalism Movies

2011-07-24T15:14:00.000-07:00

New podcast episode: "News Media & Journalism Movies" with broadcast news cameraman Brian Champagne: http://t.co/TQLFUKj

JJ Abrams

2011-07-17T23:55:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while a movie comes along that really affects me. It moves me or has me thinking about it a lot not to mention seeing it multiple times. In the past it’s been ground-breaking movies like Blade Runner or Amadeus. Last year’s Inception also comes to mind.

This summer it has been JJ Abrams excellent work of art called Super 8. On the surface – this film can seem like just another coming of age story with a funny, great group of friends who also happen to run into a scary powerful extraterrestrial that’s trying to get home. (Ring any bells?)

In fact, many critics have compared (dismissed?) it as just a nice little homage to Spielberg’s movies of the 80’s (ET, Goonies, Gremlins etc.) as well other kid classics like Stand By Me. And every person with whom I’ve seen it with the exception of my wife has had comments like: “Oh it was good but kind of just reminded me of…” (See the above mentioned movies) or “Yeah it was ok…a little slow in parts.”

Personally, I think JJ has gone a step further in showing his uncanny ability to hone in on what really counts in ALL movies – and that is: characters matter! If you can develop the characters as completely as possible – they become a group of people that we are solidly rooting for and want to hang out with! We even desperately want to help them complete their journey.

Forgetting for a moment his prolific successful experience as a TV producer and writer; (Alias, Lost) - as far as feature films go – this is Mr. Abrams 3rd time at the helm of director (and his 2^nd as both writer and director) and he is already proving himself to be a master.

He currently holds the record for the biggest budget given to a first-time director for a feature film – and that was for his directorial debut of Mission Impossible III. Tom Cruise asked him if he would direct it after seeing his work on Alias.

His second film – which he wrote as well – was the brilliant rebooting of the Star Trek original series franchise - still holding a solid 95% on Rotten Tomatoes.

So needless to say he’s doing something right. And in my view, the thing he’s doing right (write?) is characters. And especially their relationships.

Super 8 is so brilliantly put together and moving for several reasons. First of all – JJ and I are only 2 years apart in age which puts him at 45 and since Super 8 is set in 1979 (when I was 15) I can tell you he nailed that part down perfect. Costumes, sets, décor, music – you name it – it was bang on!

Second, he manages to pack in so many lifelong principles and emotions – loss, forgiveness, redemption, first-love, coming of age and maybe, most importantly timeless friendships, that all flow so beautifully that they don’t become lost, trite or convoluted. By the end of the movie you love all of these people.

This brings me to the third reason: The casting. Every character in this film is so perfectly cast that it’s almost impossible to think of anyone else playing them. And with one or two exceptions, all of them are unknowns! Joe, the main character has an unbelievable ability to convey emotion without saying anything. There is a brilliant scene that is so moving but if you blink you could miss it – but again shows Mr. Abrams real talent; it’s right after the train has finished crashing and Joe is standing by himself but he can hear something trying to break out of the train-car in front of him – petrified, he pulls out the necklace that belonged to his mother and holds it in his shaking hand and the emotion in his face is so powerful. You can’t teach that kind of acting.

Cary, the pyromaniac friend almost steals the show and provides all of the comic relief. I could go on but go see the movie and you’ll see what I mean.

Lastly, with the exception of the look, I think JJ came up with the perfect alien. Not an ET, Yoda, or Ewok cutesy thing but a powerful, frightening and scared creature that is not without malice but simply is scared itself and just wants to go home. It’s what makes Joe’s courage and heroics that much more stirring and profound at the end. I would have chosen an alien that looked a little less animal-like because when you start to do that it makes it harder to believe that this creature could have built a space ship and traveled through the galaxy – but I’m nit picking.

Maybe its nostalgia or perhaps I’m just a sucker for a well told story with compelling, thoughtful characters and emotions that seem to be so rare these days; but it is easy to see why Mr. Spielberg was eager to be the producer on this film as well as lend his Amblin brand name to the production.

If JJ Abrams continues with these kind of moving, strong characters and triumphant thoughtful story-telling, I think he’s on his way to surpassing his mentor.

New Podcast Episode: Pirates of the Caribbean

2011-07-04T00:09:00.000-07:00

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises. In this BONUS episode, we consider the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise. Our special guest is filmmaker and film critic Tim Buel, host of The Golden Briefcase podcast.

Listen here: http://bit.ly/j5cLwo

Welcome New Writer Geo Romero

2011-06-16T20:25:00.000-07:00

Hi,

Jason here. Before our new announcement, I have to celebrate and recognize Andy's diligence in continuing to write for this blog. I have been neglecting it for months, due to my stewardship over this site's official podcast, Considering the Sequels. So, thank you, Andy, for your faithful contributions. This site would have died without you.

Now, we'd like to introduce a new writer who will help contribute regular content. Welcome, Mr. Geo Romero! It is an honor to have Geo writing for our site now; he is a samurai film enthusiast who also has his own Luis Buñuel DVD collection. He is an impressive cinephile, indeed.

The primary objective of this site has always been to have a place where friends who love movies can consider the cinema. To facilitate this goal, we've selected unusual films every few weeks that we can write very casual reviews about.

But all along the way, in addition to the featured films, our writers have always been welcome to submit posts about any film. We haven't seen very much of this thus far, but I have a feeling Geo will be contributing some great content outside of the featured films. I plan to write a contribution of this sort, myself, in the next week or so.

So, we welcome Geo to our team, and encourage everyone to tune in to our "Harry Potter" podcast this Sunday night, June 26, 2011, at 7 p.m.

New Podcast: The Lord of the Rings

2011-05-25T00:26:00.000-07:00

Considering the Sequels is a bi-monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises. In Episode 12 we consider “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and answer some voice mails from our new, Listener Feedback Hotline: 801.382.8789.

Find this episode here: http://bit.ly/loSKLv

Thanks,

New Podcast Episode: FLETCH

2011-04-29T01:06:00.001-07:00

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises.

In Episode 11 we consider the “Fletch” movies with film critic Cody Clark. As always we each give Mini Reviews of recent film releases and whatever else we’ve been watching lately, and this episode concludes with the reading and answering of listener e-mails — as well as drawing our winner for the random, free DVDs!

Go here to listen to this podcast: http://bit.ly/jsClIQ

New Podcast Episode: Extreme and Shock Cinema

2011-04-02T23:29:00.000-07:00

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises. But this BONUS episode varies from our usual format and gives us the opportunity to discuss Extreme and Shock Cinema. (Due to the content described in this show, listener discretion is advised.)

This episode features an interview with Ashley C. Williams (pictured above), the actress who plays the middle segment in "The Human Centipede (First Sequence)." And our guests are Dave "Dr. Shock" Becker and director Torben Bernhard.

Listen to the episode here => http://bit.ly/e0JS6w

New Podcast Episode: Original Star Wars Trilogy

2011-03-17T10:03:00.000-07:00

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises. In Episode 10 we consider the original “Star Wars” trilogy. And, as always, we each give Mini Reviews of recent film releases and whatever else we’ve been watching lately. This episode proudly features two special guests: Dave3 of Geeks of Doom.com and “Star Wars” Guru Steve Hernandez.

Listen here => http://bit.ly/fr6zhf

New Podcast Episode: Star Wars Prequels

2011-03-11T00:57:00.001-08:00

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises. In Episode 9 we consider the “Star Wars” Prequel trilogy with special guest Steve Hernandez, a Classical Studies scholar and “Star Wars” guru. This episode also includes a Concept Discussion in which we’ll analyze Robert Zemeckis’s “Cast Away.” And, as always, we each give Mini Reviews of recent film releases and whatever else we’ve been watching lately.

Listen to this episode here: http://bit.ly/ggowod

Thanks,

"The Fall" - Andy watched it

2011-03-04T15:33:00.000-08:00

I think I recommended this one for the blog. "The Fall" is interesting to say the least. It's a very cool, bright, colorful, expose into the imagination of a child, and the love of a suicidal actor.

Um....what else is there to say about "The Fall"? I wish I was actually a writer. I am not. I even have to write for my profession and I'm not very good at it. I've had a pretty good idea for a screenplay for over a year and I can't seem to finish up a first draft. I hate writing. My dislike for writing is the opposite of Tarsem Singh's love for movies. He loves movies, loves the production of movies, and loves epics.

He's like Stanley Kaufman (see Synedoche, NY). Unfortunately, for the Kaufman's and Singh's of the world, we are a fickle movie-going public. Epics are tough. They are expensive, long, complicated, deep, and, unfortunately, boring to most people. And you know what, even "critics" and "movie lovers" get bored in films. I get bored. But, and I say this with some amount of esteem, I can watch and even enjoy boring films.

"The Fall" is not so much boring as it is long and slow (and a little bit boring)... Ok, it drags, but it's simultaneously super fascinating.

And the art....wow. This is probably the most colorful film I've ever seen. The production values are incredible, and the bluray transfer is fabulous. Acting - superb. Directing - excellent. Movie - great, but too long. And, as far as a money making adventure, it was a flop. I don't think it appealed to any particular audience. It's clearly shot with a child's bright perspective, but the length and material were well above a child's grasp.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about that...

-Andy

The WAF (Wife Approval Factor)

2011-03-03T00:28:00.000-08:00

Recently I went over to my good friend Jason’s new house to check it out. In the interest of full disclosure – it happens to be the very same Jason who is the purveyor of this here blog.

It is Jason and his lovely wife Natalie’s first home purchase. And I must say they picked a dandy. As Jason was giving me the grand tour, I noticed that the basement was unfinished; and as men are want to do – I started imagining all the possibilities just waiting to be created in the always exciting art of home theater. At this point I hadn’t said anything out loud.

When we got back upstairs to the kitchen where Natalie was working on something with their cute son Davy, I braved the friendly air with a casual: “You know it’s great that the basement isn’t finished yet cuz we can pre-wire it for a nice home theater!”

At this point Natalie looked at me with a hint of a smile - but try as her body most assuredly did, she could not force back the inevitable rolling of the eyes that is almost as natural as blinking for women when they are forced (consciously) to think about anything that has electricity flowing through it.

Now at my age, I’ve learned to overlook such blasphemy from the unwashed, and put it down to a lack of (audio/video) education. It reminds of a time when I was first married (now 20 years ago) and my wife would look at me with disgust and disdain after I had just purchased yet another piece of audio or video gear. It took many years of proving over and over again why something was better or improved and how it added joy to our home movie viewing.

One of the things that didn’t help was the fact that for every new piece of gear that you would buy – another remote control was added to the arsenal. And finally after a while – our coffee table started hinting that an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) factory was just in the other room. It seemed that manufacturers would never come together to solve this very unfriendly-to-wives situation.

Enter Logitech. That’s right – the famous computer mouse and keyboard making company that we’ve all come to love as one of the best makers of cool working devices for communicating with our beloved PC’s. About 6 years ago they decided to buy a little company called Harmony. A company whose name was so inspired – it seemed as if God himself had a hand in it - probably to ward off the ever increasing divorce rate from out of control husbands who couldn’t figure out why their wives had a problem with 14 remotes!

Harmony had started building remote controls that were designed to control ALL of your gear! Imagine only having to pick up one remote and you could control all 10+ devices in your system!

Harmony’s idea was so beautiful and simple – that it’s one of those that you wonder why it took so long in the computer age. Harmony’s idea was to take their remote, hook it up to your computer via a USB cord, fire up the Harmony remote program and tell the program the brand and model number of each piece of gear that you wanted it to control. It would then program the remote with the correct codes and voila! But they didn’t stop there. They also programmed the remote for your system so that whatever activity you were going to do – watch TV or DVD or play a video game – it would know which devices to turn on AND which inputs and settings to set each device on. Couldn’t you just hear the angels singing? I could.

They even went one better and included a HELP button. Which is designed that if during the setup of a particular activity – something didn’t get set right – you just hit the help button and it re-runs the macro and then asks you a series of questions to see if everything is as it should be.

After I bought my first Harmony remote – (that’s right – I’ve owned a few and currently have 2 – one for each room) my wife no longer looked at me with that hint of “what made me say yes to you all those years ago?”

It’s these little inventions that bring man and woman together; and let’s face it, ensure that we can keep buying more crap and not be single again.

After years of me teaching my wife how an audio system should sound or how a calibrated TV should look – she finally gets it AND more importantly – appreciates it.

I remember the tear in my eye a couple of years ago when she came home from a friend’s house and said to me – “They were watching a movie or something and I could tell that their TV was way out of whack! – It made me appreciate ours more” Honey – you had me at “I could tell”.

Having children and watching them grow up is awesome – but having your wife notice when someone else system isn’t as good as yours? That’s a keeper.

So remember gents – harmony in the home is worth its weight in gold. A Harmony remote? – Priceless.

New Podcast Episode: Red Riding Trilogy

2011-03-03T00:02:00.000-08:00

As the official podcast of this site, Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises, as well as other cinematic matters.

In Episode 8 we consider the “Red Riding” trilogy. This episode also includes a Concept Discussion in which we’ll discuss the idea of the “life-changing movie” and if such a thing exists. And, as always, we each give Mini Reviews of recent film releases and whatever else we’ve been watching lately.

Listen to Episode 8 here: http://bit.ly/f3tLZs

New Podcast: Richard Boddington On Directing

2011-02-24T23:34:00.001-08:00

As the official podcast of this site, Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises. But the bonus episode we just posted varies from our usual format and gives us the opportunity to discuss the job description of a director and the industry phrase “execution dependent,” while comparing and contrasting “The Cave” and “The Descent.”

Listen to this episode here: http://bit.ly/fvv64J

Jason

Batoru rowaiaru (aka Battle Royale)

2011-02-02T05:52:00.001-08:00

by Jason Pyles

In late March, the official podcast of this site — the Considering the Sequels podcast — will have a bonus episode on “Extreme and Shock Cinema.” (We’ll post it at ctspodcast.com in April.) We’re going to investigate the morality, utility and social repercussions of filmmaking that graphically depicts the dregs of human depravity. Our discussion won’t be for the faint of heart, so be ye warned.

Though comparatively mild it may be, the infamous Japanese film, Batoru rowaiaru — aka “Battle Royale” (2000) still falls upon the fringes of this extreme, macabre film movement.

Reading from the Internet Movie Database’s plot description, “In the future, the Japanese government captures a class of ninth-grade students and forces them to kill one another under the revolutionary ‘Battle Royale’ act.”

So what you’ve got here, is a dystopian society, of sorts, where military-types gather a group of 14-year-old kids into a room and explain that they have to engage in mortal combat, in an every-man-for-himself, last-man-standing fight to the death. And to illustrate their seriousness, the military instructors kill a kid or two in front of their classmates to demonstrate that the same fate will surely befall them if they don’t participate.

So, these kids must fight or die, with the objective to kill every last person — even friends, love interests and siblings. No mercy. The solitary winner will be set free. Each child is given a small “kit” that includes one weapon. These weapons vary in their utility. Some “weapons” really aren’t weapons at all. And most of the kids aren’t natural-born killers, though they must learn quickly or else.

The violence is fairly graphic, which is unsettling, since the perpetrators and victims are so young.

You might have guessed that, upon its release, this film instantly became a cult classic. And really, it is “a trip” to watch. It’s a little hard to believe your eyes sometimes. It’s just so weird.

As I’ve thought about “Battle Royale” and other entries of extreme cinema, I’ve noticed that these films and the milder horror genre, in general, reduce down to two primal elements: fear and sorrow.

Through myriad illustrations of unthinkable violence, extreme cinema and the horror genre are fueled by intense fear and profound sadness. Now, these movies aren’t for everyone. I’m personally not even into regular horror movies, really — let alone shock cinema. But there is no denying that there is an enthusiastic audience for such filmmaking.

So, speaking about that audience from a place of curiosity and not condemnation — what is it about the human condition that draws so many people to become fascinated by the aspects of life that we instinctively tend to avoid the most — fear, sorrow and death? (The only one I didn’t mention here was “fire,” but many of these films also use fire to great effect, as well.)

This is something we’ll explore in our podcast, we hope, in non-judgmental terms. But in short, I think when it comes to viewing taboo atrocities — such as ninth-graders being forced to kill one another — we are so hard-wired to steer clear of such things, having been raised by “proper society,” that we are paradoxically drawn to them. It’s that age-old principle, if you want someone to press the red button, all you have to say is, “...and under no circumstances whatsoever — whatever you do — don’t press this red button.” At that point, we simply have to press the red button. We must, and we do.

Many, perhaps most, humans have a morbid curiosity and fascination with the macabre because those things are so far outside our circle of daily, monotonous experience.

And I guess in some, sick way, “Battle Royale” serves as some kind of twisted wish-fulfillment: I mean, if we’re perfectly honest with ourselves, who among us didn’t have at least one person in junior high that we would have liked to knock off?

Top Secret!

2011-02-01T05:32:00.000-08:00

by Jason Pyles

OK. So this is how it happened. This is why I chose “Top Secret!” (1984) to review for this site. In the rec room (where did I get that archaic term?) of a house where I used to go for band practice, someone had the DVD for “Top Secret!” lying around. I kept seeing it there, week after week, and the floating cows wearing boots always got my attention. I asked my friend Jeff Bryner, in a condescending tone, “What’s this?” And after flipping out that I hadn’t seen it, he said, “Hey, don’t judge a movie by its cover — you will laugh your head off during this movie. I guarantee it.”

A few years later, I still remembered that exchange and reasoned from the DVD cover alone that surely this must be an unusual film, so I chose it for this site — not realizing that it was one of those spoof-parody movies.

Even so, Jeff was partially right. “Top Secret!” has some pretty funny parts, but I still don’t think it was a worthy pick for our lofty purposes here ... but then, we’ve also discussed things like “Urban Menace” and “Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man” on this blog, too.

Released in 1984 and having three directors, “Top Secret!” stars a young Val Kilmer. As near as I could tell, this movie is “Airplane!” (1980) meets “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” (1964). It’s an apt comparison, especially since it was made by the same people who made the former. But despite its charms, “Top Secret!” really isn’t in the same ballpark as the latter.

Val Kilmer plays Nick Rivers, a Beach Boys-like American pop-singing icon who has been commissioned to perform at an East German festival, where an evil, German, world domination-type plot is afoot. Unlike other more recent spoof movies, “Top Secret!” actually has a story — and isn’t just a number of random, pop-culture sight gags strung together. (The excruciating works of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer — as well as Shawn Wayans and Marlon Wayans — have been a blight on moviedom the past 10 years.)

The highest praise I can give “Top Secret!” — meaning, if you’re going to watch it, then this is why you should — is that it defies your expectations right and left, every step of the way. To me that’s where the humor of this movie comes from. It’s silly humor, which I usually don’t go for now that I’m no longer 14 years old, but this silly humor almost always comes as the result of an expectation-defying surprise.

Now that I think back to it, “Top Secret!” is actually pretty funny. I laughed more than I usually do during a comedy — and I’m tough on comedies. So, maybe Jeff Bryner was right, after all. You can’t judge a movie by its cover.

Win the "Star Wars" Trilogy — FREE!

2011-01-24T20:02:00.000-08:00

Click this link right here to learn how you can listen to our podcast and win the original "Star Wars" trilogy, Episodes 4–6.

"Monster Camp" as seen by Andy

2011-01-22T20:30:00.000-08:00

What to write about "Monster Camp"... It's tough because what makes "Monster Camp" interesting is the oddity of the people it portrays, and yet, somehow, by the end of the film, I feel almost overwhelmed by my feeling of improper voyeurism. Does that make any sense at all?

"Monster Camp" is a documentary about the Seattle chapter of NERO. NERO is live-action role playing; Dungeons and Dragons, but acted out in real life. It's the guys (adults) with swords in the park dressed up like medieval sorcerers and elves hitting each other with wooden swords and shields.

It honestly felt like I was sneaking a look at someone's deep dark secret, and I was a little ashamed of the dispersions I cast while watching the show. It gave me some amount of unfounded and unfair esteem that I was not, nor had I ever, been involved in that sort-of thing; that I wasn't THAT weird. But in reality, I probably am. We are all weird in our own ways, right? I drive all over the country collection National Park stamps, and some days are ridiculously rigid and stressful, yet I'm supposed to be on vacation. I have a few subjects where I know WAY TOO MUCH information. But still...I don't pretend-hit other people with sticks.

Fascinating documentary though. Brilliant, actually. I guess it may have fallen in their laps, but the story telling of the characters was excellent. It wasn't simply a documentary about some odd adults who dress up and play fight with swords. They were real people who were having a lot of fun together, and somehow having serious drama about their person struggles and interpersonal relationships.

Wow. If you thought he characters in "King of Kong" were fascinating, check this one out...

thoughts by Andy

New Podcast: Mad Max Trilogy

2011-01-21T23:41:00.000-08:00

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises.

In Episode 7 we consider the “Mad Max” trilogy. This episode also includes a concept discussion in which we try to identify the elements that make a film a masterpiece. And, as always, we each give mini reviews of recent film releases and whatever else we’ve been watching lately.

Go listen to this podcast here: http://bit.ly/fcVxhE

Thanks,

Jason

The Good, the Bad, the Weird

2011-01-20T05:34:00.001-08:00

by Jason Pyles

Think of the odd, graphically violent comedy of Quentin Tarantino, framed as a western with the charm of “Maverick” (1994), and the entertainment value of “3:10 to Yuma” (2007) — all set in Manchuria, China, and populated primarily with Korean actors — and you’ve got a good feel for “The Good, the Bad, the Weird.”

As Andy noted below, many posts ago, “The Good, the Bad, the Weird” is a South Korean film that’s subtitled, and yes, it’s loosely inspired by Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” (1966).

The term “revisionist western” comes to mind, though this movie is even more genre-defying than that — hence its inclusion here. Many films that are blatantly, almost rebelliously, shedding genre conventions are also disregarding tonal unity and clarity, which is to say, they’re all over the place when it comes to dramatic elements, comedic elements, etc. Films like “The Good, the Bad, the Weird” run the gamut, as if written by multiple personalities or my moody ex-girlfriend from high school.

“The Good, the Bad, the Weird” is made with apparent technical skill. First of all, the film looks beautiful. It’s the kind of movie that’s rewarding to simply look at — even if you can’t hear the volume. (And hey, it’s mostly subtitled, so I guess you could watch it as a silent film.) The film opens with a pretty spectacular tracking shot on a train. And at about 61 minutes in, a character leaps toward the camera and sails through the air while the camera is backing up, passing between a railing and then resuming a chase, following the running characters on the ground below. It is phenomenal, and I’m still not sure how that trick was done. In short, this film is worth watching for its cinematography and direction alone.

There’s one last aspect of talent that I’d like to highlight: The actor Byung-hun Lee, who’s like a Korean Ray Park, has a remarkable physicality and agility that’s sort of mesmerizing to watch. In this film he plays “The Bad.” It’s funny to compare him to Ray Park (Darth Maul, Toad), because in “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” (2009), Park plays Snake Eyes opposite Byung-hun Lee, who plays Storm Shadow. We get to see them face off in “The Rise of Cobra,” which is the only reason to subject yourself to that movie.

Anyway, “The Good, the Bad, the Weird” has a title that’s nearly a mini review of itself, minus “the Bad” portion. It’s good and weird and I recommend it.

Apology: To Readers, To Andy

2011-01-17T19:34:00.000-08:00

Hi,

Once upon a time this blog had 8 followers. Now, thanks to me, we probably have none. I must apologize to our readers — and to my faithful co-writer, Andy, for my slacking over the past several months. I've been swept up in this blog's affiliate podcast, Considering the Sequels. But I'll stop neglecting my duties here on this blog and get things rolling again. Watch for our forthcoming discussions of "Monster Camp" and "The Fall." We have several really interesting, very unusual films coming up, so please check back with us soon. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Jason

New Podcast: Best Films of the 2000s Decade

2010-12-17T01:49:00.000-08:00

In this BONUS episode, directors Andrew James and Torben Bernhard help us list the very best films of the previous decade, listing them for each year from 2000 to 2009.

Listen here: http://bit.ly/epQAsR

Don't worry, Patient Readers, we're going to be returning to our more consistent posts about unusual films.

Thanks,

Jason

Join Us for Our LIVE Podcasts!

2010-12-04T00:46:00.000-08:00

Hello Readers,

Starting Sunday, December 5, 2010, at 10 p.m. MST, we're going to broadcast LIVE via Ustream.tv. We'll be considering the "Mad Max" trilogy for this particular episode. We plan to broadcast the recording of each show —live — henceforth. Don't worry, we'll still post the recorded episode on ctspodcast.com and in iTunes a couple of weeks later.

But if you join us live, you can participate in the chat room and interact with us and our other listeners during the recording of the show. Please come and join us — this is how: http://bit.ly/eG4jrQ

Thanks.

New Podcast Episode: AIRPORT

2010-11-26T02:27:00.001-08:00

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises.

In Episode 6 we consider the “Airport” movies with special guest Eric Fichtner, First Officer for a regional airline and pilot of the ERJ 145. This episode also includes a concept discussion in which we list non-classic movies that have a holiday back-drop. And, as always, we each give mini reviews of recent film releases and whatever else we’ve been watching lately.

Click here to listen: Episode 6

Ah 3D….The Little Engine that No One Wanted!

2010-11-15T23:39:00.000-08:00

Greetings one and all! (Actually at this point that may be a redundant statement!) J

Jason Pyles – the host of this clever and original blog asked me if I might be interested in contributing my musings occasionally here from a slightly more technical side of the movie going experience. And like most of us who are in love with the sound of our own opinions – I thought: “A place to permanently plant my endless drivel? Woohoo!”

So before I begin my rants – a little about me so that you know I’m not completely talking out my arse. When I was 14 my mother and step father gave me my first Stereo Receiver. It was a Kenwood with an analog dial style tuner and pumped out a modest 60 watts per channel. It lasted me for 14 years! This included the first 2 years of my now 20 year old marriage! Thus began my love of audio equipment and would give rise to my love of video equipment as well.

I spent 10 years in TV News and continue to work in film as a part time actor. So over the last 30+ years I have become an “expert” in audio/video and Home Theater.

Let the whining begin!

You may have read on this blog a copy of a letter that I sent to the editor of Home Theater magazine of which I have been a subscriber since it began in the mid 90’s. I had noticed – not without some understanding – there recent gaga-like obsession with all things 3D. You can read my letter if you want to see why I hate 3D and fail to understand the attraction. Home Theater is a magazine that reviews audio and video equipment as well as movies on Blu Ray and DVD. So I get why they feel they have to cover this feverish attempt by Hollywood and the equipment manufacturers to shove a new/old technology down our throat even if nobody wants it!

I’m still wondering why Hollywood and the manufacturers feel that 3D is thing everyone wants? True some of the films released recently in 3D have done well but not a lot of them. More interesting is the fact that the one director who can claim to have actually pushed the technology forward – James Cameron (of Avatar fame) recently both praised and criticized Warner Brothers for their attempts at making the forthcoming (this Friday) Harry Potter movie a 3D affair.

The criticism came because WB didn’t shoot the film in 3D; they were attempting to make it a 3D film after the fact! A process which by all accounts ends up looking disastrous 9 times out of 10. Want to see an example? Check out the recent Clash of the Titans. It was a retroactive 3D attempt and although I only saw it in 2D – everyone I know that suffered through the 3D version said it was pathetic.

However, in the same interview Cameron went on to praise WB for their decision, at last, not to release the film at all in 3D because they realized that it was, in the end, just a gimmick.

Can someone please tell me who is really itching for this technology? And why they feel it adds to the story? At most, 3D is just the “neato” effect of objects coming out at you briefly, from the screen. What is the attraction? Are you really anxious to look like a dork in your own living room wearing those HUGE 3D glasses? Recently Costco has set up 2 or 3 demo stations in front of the 3D TV’s they’re selling where the 3D glasses are mounted on an adjustable stand that the viewer can raise or lower depending on their height to check out the 3D movie that is playing.

Sometimes I will stand there for several minutes, watching people walk by and check out the setup. Some will stop and look through the glasses for a bit while others just watch the whole station with a kind of bewildered awe of “would I really want that in my living room?” And even those that watch the film for a couple of minutes through the glasses never seem to get excited about it. When they’re done they just walk away with a kind of shrug saying “eh”.

Will this newest “craze” (if you believe Hollywood) take off to the levels that DVD and Hi Def movies did when they first came out? Personally, I doubt it. But you never know – I thought the “musical” was dead and buried but Zac Efron and his pals shut me up on that one. J

But if I’m right – I hope the manufacturers are ready to have one hell of a Black Friday type sale to flush out all of that shiny new 3D equipment that no one wants – after movie goers realize that adding a 3^rd dimension visually can’t make up for story that has zero dimensions on the script.

"World's Greatest Dad" as reveiwed by Andy

2010-11-04T16:23:00.000-07:00

Some "artsy" movies are fun to watch. Others are brilliant, but totally suck the life out of you. "World's Greatest Dad" is the latter. I'm not sure what terrible childhood Bobcat Goldthwait (writer/director) had to have given the inspiration for this film, but it must have been dark...

Here's the jist of the film: Lance Clayton (Robin Williams) is a single father with a 15 year old son Kyle (Daryl Sabara). Kyle is a terrible kid. He hates everyone and everything, and calling him a pervert is such an understatement that it perverts the word "pervert", if that even makes any sense. Lance tries to balance teaching school, where his talents as a writer go largely unappreciated and unknown, and trying to raise a well-adjusted son. He seems to fail at both, although he does have a very nice girlfriend. Then Kyle dies accidentally in a very foul way. In an attempt to save his son (and probably himself) further embarrassment and scorn, he fakes Kyle's death as a suicide. He writes a suicide note and even stages the body to look like a suicide. Initially everyone expresses sorrow for Lance, but then a student gets a copy of the suicide note from the police and publishes it in the school newspaper.

What then comes of this is instant popularity to both Lance and Kyle. Kyle becomes an instant celebrity where classmates who once hated Kyle now genuinely look to him as an example of "honesty," and Kyle's tragic story then inspires classmates and others to live better lives. Lance even uses Kyle's undeserved popularity to write a journal (attributing authorship to Kyle), and his life seems to finally take off positively. Publishers want to make a book deal, the school wants to rename the library in honor of Kyle, Lance's classes fill up, and his girlfriend becomes more committed to their relationship. Everything was going fine, but Lance's cognitive dissonance prevents him from continuing the lie, and he finally comes clean in a very dramatic way.

Great film, but damn what a sad story. Humor, love, and any other positive feelings are totally overshadowed by discomfort, awkwardness, deceit, and disturbing behavior. This is certainly not a good date movie, and all but a very few will hate this film. Shockingly, Robin Williams and Bobcat Goldthwait are world class comedians, and you can see that they tried to be funny in this movie, and in other contexts they would have been successful, but for me the film is far too real and serious to take even the intentionally funny parts as humorous.

But very well done. Williams was fabulous, as was Sabara, who I didn't recognize (but starred in several well-known children's films). Just plan on doing something happy after you watch it. And remember that suicide is a permanent solution to temporary problems.

thoughts by Andy

Introducing Karl's Corner

2010-11-03T20:47:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm not sure that he's actually going to call his posts "Karl's Corner," but I'm here to ring out the news that Andy and I would like to introduce a new, regular writer posting on this site.

Our Considering the Sequels podcast co-host, Karl Huddleston, is going to be contributing a wide variety of home entertainment, Blu-ray, etc. — basically techy-related articles that I'm confident many of our readers will enjoy and find useful.

Karl has been published in legit periodicals like Home Theater Magazine, and a sample of one of his articles can be found here.

In short, from time to time, amid the discussions of unusual films that Andy and I post, you'll also be seeing interesting and educational articles written by Karl.

And if you'd like to listen to all three of us discuss various aspects of the cinema, listen to our podcasts at www.ctspodcast.com.

"Battle Royale" comments by Andy

2010-10-31T17:16:00.000-07:00

The genesis of "Battle Royale" is quite fascinating. Wiki reports that the director, Kinji Fukasaku, was part of a class of kids that were enlisted in WWII to make munitions. Apparently the class was caught in artillery fire and had to hide under dead classmates. They then had to dispose of their fallen friends. This, combined with a new-found knowledge that their government lied about the reasons for WWII, caused a severe mistrust of adults, and inspired the film.

The essence of the film is that, at the turn of the century, Japan's economy collapses and employment skyrockets. Children become disillusioned with adults and start openly rebelling against teachers, police, parents, etc. The Government then creates and passes a law, commonly known as "BR." What the act provides for is that classes of 8th or 9th graders (I can't remember...) are taken to an island to fight to the death. And that's what happens in our film. It's "Lord of the Flies" meets "The Most Dangerous Game," meets "Pokemon."

A class boards a bus for a field trip, and after being drugged unconscious, arrives at an island. They realize that around their necks are metal collars with some sort of electronic device. They are greeted by a small group of armed infantry, and, to their unfortunate surprise, their teacher from the previous year. After reminding the class of how terrible they were to him, the teacher explains the situation. The kids are stuck on an island for the next three days. Only one kids will leave the island at the end of the contest, provided only that all the other kids are dead. If more than one kid is alive at the close of the contest, the collars will explode and kill all the kids. Any misdeed, tampering, etc., will cause the collar to explode. Each kid is issued a satchel with some provisions and a "weapon." I say "weapon" because the "weapon" each kid is issued is different. Some are issued a firearm, another a bow and arrow, the next a knife, and others were issued binoculars, and one kid got a gps unit.

Let the killing begin. There is a tender love story contained within the violence, but most of it is overshadowed with death and dismemberment. And it is very bloody. It's a slasher film at it's core, and I think it does an effective job at scaring the bejebbies out of you and providing realistic, yet stylized violence. Quentin Tarantino likes the film, to give you an idea. Very well done, very violent, very "not suitable for children."

Bonus Podcast With Directors of Cleanflix

2010-10-29T22:13:00.000-07:00

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises.

But this BONUS episode varies from our usual format and gives us the opportunity to discuss the new documentary, “Cleanflix,” with its directors, Andrew James and Josh Ligairi.

Your hosts are Andy Howell, Karl Huddleston and Jason Pyles. Download this episode to find out how you can win a free copy of Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbook 2009.

Listen to the podcast here: http://bit.ly/cQkcpv

Read my written movie review of "Cleanflix" here: http://bit.ly/aS8IMr

New Podcast Episode Posted: Wall Street

2010-10-25T01:30:00.000-07:00

Featuring special guest Rob Booker, currency trading money manager, registered commodities trading adviser

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises.

In Episode 5 we consider the “Wall Street” movies. This episode also includes a concept discussion in which we talk about guilty pleasure movies and list some of our favorites. And, as always, we each give mini reviews of recent film releases and whatever else we’ve been watching lately.

To listen, go here: http://bit.ly/bhzrqq

Adjective + “Porn” Suffix Is a Misnomer, Usually

2010-10-05T20:45:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

In Episode 4 of the Considering the Sequels podcast, we discussed modern film criticism with film critic Missy Thompson. At about the 25-minute mark, we talked about how innovative trailblazing is still possible in such an art as young as film criticism. We noted, as an example, the designation of the term “mumblecore” to describe the American independent film movement characterized by low-budget production values, generously improvisational scripts, naturalistic acting, lighting, etc. That term isn’t overly self-evident, but it does the job.

However, in our zeal to describe the cinema, we film writers sometimes settle upon coined terms that are incorrect, such as adding the pseudo-suffix “porn” to an adjective to describe a genre or sub-genre. As far as I know, this began with the phrase “torture porn,” which is most commonly meant to describe a film that’s replete with graphic torture scenes. Usually the usage of “torture porn” has nothing to do with explicit depictions of sexual behavior or organs. In this sense, the pseudo-suffix “porn” is intended to convey a gratuitous, graphic abundance of whatever adjective precedes it.

Another example I’ve heard is “disaster porn.” I’ve heard this used more than once to describe Roland Emmerich’s “2012,” for instance.

But as I’ve suggested above, there’s a problem. This practice is technically incorrect and should therefore be scrubbed from usage. It is incorrect because the official definition of the word “pornography” has a sexual affiliation. Here is the definition my iMac, desktop dictionary gives for pornography:

“Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.”

Ergo, “porn” is not a suitable synonym to be substituted for the phrase “gratuitous, graphic abundance.” No, the words “porn” or “pornography” are rooted in sexually explicit material.

Now, unfortunately, there are instances (so I’ve heard) where “torture porn” is exactly the correct phrase because it describes explicit sexual depictions — in conjunction with — physical torture. In this case, the phrase is acceptable, even though its manifestation isn’t.

So, in the spirit of advancing film criticism, what do I suggest to replace this imprecise phrase? I don’t know ... but what’s wrong with “torture flick” or “disaster flick”? It has always worked fine for “porno flick” or “chick flick."

Oct. 6 Addendum: It has been brought to my attention by The /Filmcast, as I feared it might, that there are some dictionaries that define pornography in the sense that I'm complaining about above (though, my up-to-date dictionaries do not), which would suggest a fatal blow to my argument. However, I still stand by my assertion that this usage is problematic, and therefore unusable, purely for its ambiguity: Pornography is universally understood to be sexual in nature. So, while I guess I can concede that there are flimsy grounds for this sort of usage, my personal, future film writing will not contain this phrase. Note: My exception found here was purposely intended as a segue to this article.

Jason's Movie Reviews

2010-10-03T01:33:00.000-07:00

Hi Friends,

My writing for this site is unstructured, casual discussion (contrasted with Andy's writing, which is more polished). I will continue posting my thoughts on unusual films here.

But I have resumed my formal movie review writing at this site:

http://considercinema.wordpress.com/

Check out my new review on Michael Dougherty's "Trick `r Treat."

Thanks,

Jason

Listen to Episode 4 of our Sequels Podcast

2010-10-01T03:42:00.000-07:00

In Episode 4 we consider the “Alien” franchise. This episode also includes a concept discussion in which we talk about the role and value of modern film criticism. And, as always, we each give mini reviews of recent film releases and whatever else we’ve been watching lately.

Click here: Episode 4

Thoughts on Top Secret! by Andy

2010-09-15T16:38:00.000-07:00

"Wow. They'd have enough salt to last forever!"

and

"You must go now quickly. If they find out that you've seen this your life will be worth less than a truck-load of dead rats at a tampon factory."

These, and many other great quotes are yours for small price of enduring a ridiculous spoof film. Here are a few of the notably entertaining parts for me:

East Germany.
A stamp that prints: "Find him and kill him."
Skeet-surfing.

The catholic priest listing off gibberish (including pig-latin, and other ridiculous lawyerly latin phrases) prior to his own execution.

Making out in the park to avoid suspicion by the police.

People peeing on the statue of a pigeon.

An entire scene shot in reverse.

Nigel, "the torch."

Du Quois, Chevalier, Montage, De taunt, Avant gard, Deja Vu, Croissant, Souffle, Escargot, Chocolate Mousse, Latrine - french "resistance fighters" in East Germany.

Der Pizza Haus.

An homage to The Count of Monte Cristo.

"Let me know if his condition changes. He's dead."

"How do we know that he's not Mel Tormei?"

Cow in army boots.

"I was exposed to the world's great thinkers: Karl Marx, Lennin, Elron Hubbard, Freddie Laker."

Exploding Ford Pinto.

"The Great Escape" homage.

Underwater bar-brawl scene.

"....as long as an actor can be elected president, we must continue the struggle."

So what makes a spoof movie great? It's the etherial "funny" answer. If it makes us laugh, it's a good spoof. I'm not sure why some things are funny and some are not, and I'm guessing producers of such movies struggle with that question throughout.

There's not much more to say about "Top Secret." I enjoyed it, and I wouldn't say it was the funniest film I've ever seen, but maybe one of the best spoofs ever made. Frankly, the best parts for me were some of the obscure '80s references.

By the way, here are some spoof movies that I think are funny:

"Robin Hood: Men in Tights"
"Spaceballs"
"Blazing Saddles"
"Young Frankenstein"
"This is Spinal Tap"
"Airplane"
"The Naked Gun"

and my personal favorite:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

"The Good, The Bad, The Weird"

2010-09-05T20:21:00.000-07:00

Director Ji-woon Kim would like us to refer to "The Good, The Bad, The Weird" as a "kimchee western." I'll make a deal - Mr. Kim, you keep pumping out awesome westerns and I'll call them whatever you want.

This film is probably one that most people won't see. It's a Korean film, set in 1930 Manchuria China, and deals quite a bit with then-current Asian politics. It's not heavy-handed, and it's easy to follow, but I think most Americans are not interested in seeing films with subtitles, even if it's a great film (we've reviewed several now for this site - "The Son," "Let the Right One In," "Delicatessen," to name a few). Anyway, it's too bad, because this is a great film for those who like westerns and light-hearted gun violence.

The plot is relatively simple, and is an homage to "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly." Someone sells a treasure map and two theives vye for map, in this case, "The Bad" and "The Weird." "The Good" is a bounty hunter after both men. And hilarity and violence ensue. It's not complicated, just good fun. It's set in typical American western genre (from the plot, costumes (with cowboy hats), horses, trains, motorcycles, etc.), but is supposed to be in Manchuria China. I don't know where, exactly, the filming occurred, but it certainly resembled some of the desolate desert scenes found in our hemisphere.

One of the many cool things about the film is that, as far as I can tell, the stars do their own stunts. On the bluray extras, there is a behind the scenes featurette that shows the filming of several of the actions scenes. Woo-sung jung ("The Good") rides a horse well enough to cock the 30-30 lever action rifle like a true western cowboy. And, apparently he broke his arm during the filming. Reckless abandon...?

Anyway, it a pretty good violent fun, and even funny in the translation.

"Stephen Tobolowsky's Birthday Party," comments by Andy

2010-09-05T19:46:00.000-07:00

"Stephen Tobolowsky's Birthday Party" might be one of those films that really separates film junkies and Hollywood know-it-alls from those who are only pretending to be. I'm sorry to say that I fit squarely in the latter group. I'm embarrassed to say that until I saw this film, I did not know the name of one of Hollywood's most prolific actors, Stephen Tobolowsky. I certainly knew who he was, but he never rose to the level of someone whose name I should know. I know it now though.

Jason has a fine description of the film - watching Mr. Tobolowsky tell stories about himself. To me, the intriguing aspect to me is how the film came about. From what the director tells us, he cooked this film up after attending one of Mr. Tobolowsky's many parties. Apparently Mr. Tobolowsky is most noted among his friends for spinning yarn (story-telling, for those not in the know). We are told, and I believe it, that his parties always eventuate in everyone listening to him tell stories. The director was so intrigued and impressed that he decided to make a film of Tobolowsky telling his stories.

The film is probably a collection of his favorite stories. Interestingly enough, he's not a name dropper. He's worked with almost every A-list actor, yet his stories have nothing to do with any of them, nor does he generally even mention working with them. Classy, I think. More interestingly was who attends his parties. Sounds like some very well-known people attend his shindigs. For the film, there were at least two recognizable figures - Amy Adams (who had no speaking role whatsoever), and Mena Suvari (who only had a small comment to add).

Anyway, it's a terrific film if you are looking for interesting stories from one of the best story tellers around. I wish I could go to one of his parties.

Considering the Cinema Welcomes a New Writer

2010-09-04T12:40:00.000-07:00

On July 15, 2008, Jason Pyles and Andy Howell began this Considering the Cinema discussion blog, where we watch and talk about unusual films. Neither this site nor its writers have any pretense of professionalism or profundity. This blog is simply friends talking about movies.

For the first couple of months, we had several exciting contributors — most of them filmmakers — but their hectic schedules pulled them in various directions, away from us. Only Andy and Jason have soldiered on, basically by themselves, to keep the discussion going.

In June 2010 this site spawned Considering the Sequels, a monthly podcast hosted by Jason, Andy and actor Karl Huddleston. If you like this site, you'll love our podcast. Please give us a listen.

And now, September 2010, marks another great milestone when we welcome the writing genius of our friend, Rachel Brown, an intelligent and insightful young woman whose occasional contributions to this site will add great value. We'll let her forthcoming submissions speak for themselves. It will be wonderful to add a female perspective to all this "boy talk."

So, we extend a warm welcome to Rachel Brown, and we thank our small but faithful readership for sticking with us.

His Gift That Keeps on Giving

2010-09-04T12:32:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

Since 1976, Actor Stephen Tobolowsky has been in about 200 films and television shows. His work is prolific and exceptional. You might not recognize his name, but you definitely know his face. Perhaps his best known role is “Ned Ryerson,” the annoying guy who afflicts Bill Murray’s character in “Groundhog Day” (1993).

My personal favorite Stephen Tobolowsky performances are those he gives during his storytelling podcast, The Tobolowsky Files, hosted by David Chen and /Film.com. If you haven’t heard any of those episodes yet, it is a must. While his acting talent is notable, Tobolowsky’s remarkable stories — real-life stories — are even better. (They are so remarkable, in fact, it’s difficult not to be suspicious of some embellishment here and there. But I am told they are completely true.)

The Tobolowsky Files are just an extension of the magic captured in “Stephen Tobolowsky’s Birthday Party” (2005), an usual documentary whose attention is fixed on a guy telling his life’s tales while preparing for his birthday party and his subsequent entertainment at said party. I realize that must sound boring, but it’s almost edge-of-your-seat engaging. And to me it is requisite viewing.

As a true, professional storyteller, Tobolowsky relays his narratives in a specific way. To describe any of the 17-odd tales he tells during the film would be to spoil them, so I won’t even attempt it.

I’ve thought about this film and the way it serves as a video diary, of sorts. Indeed, since these stories about his life are told on his birthday, it’s a fitting, autobiographical celebration of the man.

It seems odd to shoot a documentary where its subject stares at the camera and intentionally reveals his past, unfolding his life before the filmmaker and his audience. But when you consider that most people love the cinema precisely because of its narrative construction and explorations about the human experience, this documentary seems a perfectly natural addition to filmdom. It makes me thankful for May 30, 1951, when the world was given a gift. Happy belated birthday, Stephen, and thanks for inviting all of us to your party.

Note: The deleted scenes on the DVD are essentially a second film shot under the same circumstances. I guess they had three hours of storytelling footage, and they basically had to cut it in half. If you watch the deleted stories, they’re just as good as the film itself.

Hear Us Discuss the "Jaws" Franchise

2010-08-30T23:53:00.000-07:00

Ep. 3 - Jaws - August 2010

Featuring special guest Luke Hickman, film critic for The Reel Place.com and host of the Talking Pictures Podcast

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises.

In Episode 3 we consider the “Jaws” movies. This episode also includes a concept discussion in which we talk about creative sequel titling. And, as always, we each give mini reviews of recent film releases — including a mandatory “Inception” discussion — and whatever else we’ve been watching lately.

New CTS Podcast Host Comments on 3-D

2010-08-10T21:05:00.000-07:00

Editor's Note: August's forthcoming episode of the Considering the Sequels podcast will reveal a new surprise host: actor Karl Huddleston. The following post found below is Karl's response to seeing his favorite magazine "going gaga" over 3-D. This is Karl's letter to the magazine's editor:

Dear Home Theater Magazine Editor,

I can't keep my pie-hole shut any longer on this whole 3-D fad. I found three separate online surveys that say the number of Americans that currently wear some type of eyeglasses is around 76 percent. I fall into that percentage (more on that in a moment). The last 3-D movie I went to was Scrooge ["A Christmas Carol"] last Christmas. And it was by accident — a friend bought the tickets.

I can't describe how much the picture sucked. Contrast and Brightness were pathetic, and the picture was so dark — add to that having to wear a pair of 3-D glasses on top of (in front of?) my regular glasses — it gave me a nice throbbing headache at the end. And this was in a new multiplex that had all DLP projectors. By the time I left I was Scrooge!

It seems to me that Hollywood is trying to shove down the public's throat, something that is not ready for prime time, whether we want it or not! I work in the film and TV industries and have many friends also that are in it ... Not a single one of them goes to 3-D movies; they all hate them for the same reasons I've described above.

I realize that the equipment manufacturers and magazines like yours feel compelled to chase the latest buzz item, but I really can't believe that many people are loving this. And despite what the pinhead at HomeTheaterExpert.com said about Roger Ebert living in 1999, Ebert nailed it right on the head when he basically said that if you know anything about the true purpose of what a motion picture is supposed to do, adding a third dimension is nothing more than pure gimmickry. It doesn't make a character more compelling, a story more moving or a picture more "watchable."

Until 3-D has as good a picture quality as a Blu-ray, like "Star Trek," without having to wear glasses (which the experts say is about five years out), I think it's going to rank up there with DIVX, the horrible "watch and toss" rental plan for DVDs, which incidentally, I think also came out in 1999.

I have never, in my life, seen a bigger case of "The Emperor Has No Clothes"! In fact, he's butt-naked — and in 3-D!

Sincerely,

Karl Huddleston

Provo, Utah

Danny the Drama

2010-08-08T10:37:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

Sure. Viewer expectations can make or break a movie.

Case in point: Ang Lee’s “Hulk” (2003). If we all weren’t expecting to see an action-packed superhero movie, it would have been fine; instead, it was an underrated, brooding character conflict whose subject also happened to transform into a bouncy green cartoon.

Minor spoiler follow for “Unleashed.”

So, in his post below, where Andy reasonably expected the Jet Li vehicle “Unleashed” (aka “Danny the Dog”) to be a martial arts film, I can see why he would be disgruntled by the lengthy, sentimental second act.

Indeed, this film is actually a drama masquerading as a martial arts action flick. The first act delivers Jet Li doing what he does best, as does the third act, to some extent. But the second act shifts from martial arts into drama, and it’s a cold shower in terms of pacing.

So I guess that’s problematic. I like the film, but since we’re on the subject of the film’s imperfections, I’ll list my criticisms first:

My biggest complaint is the impossibly inconsistent character of Danny. Jet Li’s dramatic performance is convincing enough, but the actual character himself could not exist as he is portrayed. I have lengthy arguments for this, but I’ll try to briefly describe a couple of instances below:

For example, his vocabulary and communication skills — not to mention his comprehension skills — vary drastically depending on what the plot requires.

And the collar prop does not function or affect Danny the same way during the course of the movie, either. (It was intended that Danny would change, but his behaviors associated with the collar vary in such a way that is inconsistent with the expected arc.)

Uncle Bart can touch the collar anytime without Danny flinching, but no one else can. Before Uncle Bart can remove the collar, at one point, Bart’s enemies get the upper hand and Danny seems to be oblivious to his caretaker’s pleas for help. Yet others can speak to him while he’s wearing the collar, and he understands them. Oh, and later we learn that Danny is completely aware of the brawl in the grocery store.

This really is a big deal because Danny’s collar is the linch pin of this film’s premise.

So, while this film is a great idea — as an action movie or a drama — its main character is poorly conceived and the premise is broken.

Speaking to Andy’s critique of the martial arts sequences, I see his point there, too. While some interactions really seem brutal — as in, the actors actually hit one another — most of the time, it looks like a dress rehearsal. Andy calls it “play fighting.”

But overall, I still enjoyed the film — perhaps because Andy primed my expectations. I was prepared and therefore more willing to slow down for the second act of the movie. And though I vowed to try to defend this film against Andy’s critique below, I’m having trouble articulating the undeserved affection I feel toward it. But I think it’s worth the time, and it’s far more tolerable than “The Forbidden Kingdom.”

Episode 2: The Toy Story Trilogy

2010-07-31T19:39:00.000-07:00

To the 8 cherished readers of this blog:

Andy and I recently posted Episode 2 of the Considering the Sequels podcast, the official podcast of this blog. Give it a listen. It's our best episode yet. We know that sequels typically aren't unusual films, but we'd like to think our shows offer some insight and entertainment for almost anyone who's willing to give us a chance. (It's not just about "Toy Story.")

www.ctspodcast.com

Thanks for reading (and listening),

Jason

Yol: Or, Why I’m Better Than You

2010-07-31T19:35:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

I love unusual films because they make such great conversation pieces. And in some sick, “I had no friends in high school” way, possessing a repertoire of obscure, filmic oddities like “Gerry,” “Freaks,” “Gates of Heaven” or “Yol” gives me some feeling of superiority over the common moviegoer. See? Just the fact that you haven’t even heard of those films makes me feel powerful …

But there’s another aspect of obscure films that I love: Watching them gives me that magical, near-euphoric feeling of being in 9^th grade, eating Doritos and Mountain Dew on a Saturday at 2 a.m. and happening upon some bizarre, B-movie on a late-night cable network. The next morning you wake up and remember that viewing experience to have been a lot more interesting than it actually was.

Well, “Yol” is kind of like that. But technically, it’s not all that obscure, I guess, since it won best film in 1982 at Cannes. Then again, you could probably ask 1,000 people — in vain — if they’ve ever heard of it. Why? Because it’s a Turkish film from 1982, that’s why. It’s actually quite difficult to track down, even if you did want to watch it. Andy and I found a VHS copy from the Salt Lake City Public Library. It’s not available on Netflix or Blockbuster online. Find it and watch it and you, too, can join our elitism.

As best as I could tell from my research, “Yol” has one of three English translations: 1. “trek of life” 2. “the road” or 3. “the way.” … (Or if you’re Andy, you might interpret it as “Yo!”)

We learn from its deadly serious preface that “Yol” is a message movie whose filmmakers and cast put themselves at great risk just to be associated with the project.

A few inmates at a “half-open prison” are permitted a week-long leave from the prison. They embark on their journey and begin dispersing to various cities. Naturally, each inmate has his demons associated with his prison sentence, but some prisoners’ baggage is heavier than the others’.

Mostly, “Yol” is just a long, slow, passage-of-time film. Now, at first, this seems about right because, after all, it’s a film about inmates: A convict’s sense of time passing must seem really slow. But when you think about it, this one measly week must really seem to fly to these typically caged birds.

Anyway, the fact that “Yol” is subtitled and very slow will probably discourage most viewers from ever watching it. But there are rewards for those who do. There are revelations and occurrences in “Yol” that become progressively more and more troubling. Remember how the Brad Pitt character’s initial death scene in “Meet Joe Black” is jarringly startling? Well, there’s nothing immediately upsetting about “Yol.” Its alarming developments slowly become increasingly alarming as they echo in your mind. The more you dwell on “Yol,” the more haunting it becomes.

To keep this film and our elite status exclusive, I won’t reveal what these troubling developments are. You’ll just have to brave it for yourself. But if you read Andy’s exceptional review below (posted on July 6), he throws a bone and reveals one of the stories.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying "Yol" is entertaining at all. Watching "Yol" is akin to eating a worm: It's not overly pleasant while you're doing it, but after you've endured the experience, you have a singular accomplishment (that nobody cares about).

Mise en Scène and Terry Gilliam's Brazil

2010-07-31T17:53:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

“Brazil” was co-written and directed by Terry Gilliam. For those who are unacquainted with Mr. Gilliam, allow me to introduce you:

Somehow Terry Gilliam is simultaneously both the argument for — as well as the argument against — studios allowing a director to have free reign with his or her creative vision. Gilliam is a true artist, indeed, which is to say, his artistic passions often slide off the edge into madness.

Case in point: Among the special features of Gilliam’s “12 Monkeys” DVD, there is a making-of documentary titled “The Hamster Factor and Other Tales of 12 Monkeys.” This documentary’s segment about “the hamster factor” perfectly illustrates an artist like Gilliam’s paradoxical strength and weakness. There is a brief, simple scene that shows Bruce Willis sitting naked. The documentary indicates that this scene should have only taken a few minutes to shoot. But Gilliam insisted on having a hamster running inside a wheel during this scene.

What should have taken 15 minutes ended up taking several hours, thanks to an uncooperative hamster (and a scarily determined director).

Now, anybody who’s ever created anything knows that it’s often the little (unnecessary) details that can give an artist a feeling of satisfaction and ownership. However, the documentary shows us the final product of this scene from “12 Monkeys” and the running hamster is barely visible. If you weren’t looking for it, I believe the hamster would be totally invisible, or at least, indistinguishable. The documentary gives the definite impression that it’s not as important for Gilliam (or his audience) to see this detail as it is for him to simply know it’s there.

Greatness or madness? I think I know, but let’s just say it depends. The studio financing the project will give you one answer; the handsomely paid hamster wrangler would probably give you another. Hard to say. I guess it also depends on the artist: I mean, Orson Welles was basically given carte blanche, and he delivered “Citizen Kane.” Innumerable counter examples also exist. Sure, I lean toward letting the artist freely execute his or her vision, but then, it’s not my money, either.

“The Hamster Effect” documentary, as well as another called “Lost in La Mancha” (2002), shows us that Gilliam is not only obsessive, but he’s also very unlucky. Even the word “cursed” might be appropriate. His bad luck is a whole other discussion for another time and place.

I prefaced my comments on “Brazil” with this Terry Gilliam discussion about the hamster scene because I think it lends us insight into the place where Gilliam is coming from in his films. I’m suggesting that “Brazil” is more autobiographical than you might expect. Think about it — for those who have seen “Brazil” — the protagonist, Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce), envisions himself in a much more heroic light than the rest of the world sees him. In his fantasies, he’s a winged warrior of romance and passion, free to fly anywhere he pleases. This surely isn’t much different from how Gilliam must picture himself as a filmmaker.

And Lowry and his love, Jill Layton (Kim Greist), are ominously watched over, restricted and regulated by the Powers That Be, namely a suffocating and controlling government, which has its reasons, namely, counter-terrorism.

How parallel the above paragraph seems to the way Gilliam must surely feel that he and his love (the film in his mind) are ominously watched over, restricted and regulated by the Powers That Be, namely a suffocating studio and board of investors, which have their reasons, namely, financial viability.

…And so forth.

Yes, I agree with Andy that “Brazil” has unmistakable similarities to George Orwell’s book “1984” and to director Michael Radford’s filmic adaptation. So, anybody who’s anti-Big Government will probably love this movie in much the same way.

But to me, the biggest reason to see “Brazil” is to enjoy the chock-full richness of its mise en scène, which basically means everything the camera sees. The art direction and set design are truly something to behold, offering excessive eye-candy. Andy wondered if this film was low-budget, and I should say not. But if it was a low-budget production, that would make it all the more impressive — à la “District 9.”

Even the most casual moviegoer can recognize the look of a Tim Burton film, with all his typical, macabre weirdness. Similarly, Terry Gilliam’s films also seem to have a signature style that’s deeply rooted in mise en scène. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Gilliam is a master of mise en scène, and I would cite “Brazil” first as evidence. In “Brazil,” even the scenery itself is a character. It carries forth the odd, tonal duality of humor and uneasiness.

So, the next time you’re feeling cinematically adventurous and arty, check out Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil.”

"Unleashed," blather by Andy

2010-07-27T21:03:00.000-07:00

Remember how much I hated "Forbidden Kingdom?" Well, unleashed isn't quite that bad, but it sucks very, very much.

I wasn't expecting the world. I don't have unreasonable standards for action films. But if you, as a director, try to introduce "plot" to an action film, you have to be careful not to screw up the action. "Unleashed" is a perfect example of exactly what not to do.

If I sound vitriolic, it's because I've now watched two terrible movies with Morgan Freeman (see also "Maiden Heist," which might be the worst movie-to-talent ratio ever) and Jet Li (see also "Forbidden Kingdom," previously reviewed for the blog). I don't understand why Freeman is accepting stupid roles. There's nothing artistic, challenging, or otherwise worthy of an actor of his caliber in those two movies. And on a similar vein, Jet Li needs to focus on movies that showcase his obvious martial arts talent.

"Unleashed" is the story of a young man ("Danny," played by Jet Li) trained as a loan-shark's muscle. He was raised just like a pitbull to fight visciously every time his keeper (the loan-shark) removes his dog collar (some sort of Pavlovian response, I guess). As you would guess, eventually Danny's life changes dramatically when his keeper loses track of him and Danny meets Sam (played by Freeman), a blind, non-judgmental piano tuner with a bizarre story and an even more bizarre amount of patience and empathy towards Danny.

Danny moves in with Sam and Sam's sort-of-daughter Victoria, and his lifestyle changes dramatically. He is loved, cared-for, and he learns about simple joys and finally has some childhood experiences. He has a total change of heart and eschews all of his prior violent life.

And then, as you would expect, the keeper comes back in his life, and puts pressure on him to return to work.

So here's where I see the breakdown: the story arc where Danny begins to integrate into Sam's family is REALLY slow. It's painfully dull, not well acted, and the exposition of Danny's sorted life is very choppy and confusing. And, there's a good 30 minutes where nobody is getting their butts kicked. It goes without saying, doesn't it, that Jet Li's movies should not go more than about three or four minutes without some good violence. What I'm saying is that the middle is really slow.

And the violence, when it was there, seemed incredibly silly and poorly choreographed. It's hard for me to describe, but, if I had to, it would simply be to say that the violence seemed fake. Absolutely fake. Sub par. Like a "play fight."

The worst part of the movie was yet to come. The denouement was very unfulfilling. It was cliche, but yet the story somehow failed to follow any of the formats generally recognized as being successful. I don't want to spoil it too much, but it made no sense to me that the keeper didn't go after Sam or Victoria. It really felt flat and lame.

Jason felt really bad about subjecting me to "Yol" and "Brazil" (although I enjoyed both films), so he picked a film that he thought would actually entertain us. Not so much. Yes, other, more educated and respected critics disagree with me, but I just don't see how they liked this film.

"Yol," comments by Andy

2010-07-06T10:07:00.000-07:00

I was really worried about "Yol." At first I thought the film was "Yo!," but after reading more carefully, I realized there is no !, rather an l. Good thing too. There's nothing exclamatory about "Yol." I happened to know that it was a "sleeper" going into it, so I took a nap ahead of time.

All that said, it was delightfully boring. It really was a slow film, but I thought well done, genuine, and captivating in its own right.

The story "Yol" follows four fictional characters who are convicts that have been given leave from prison in Turkey. Each of the four characters travels a great distance to see family members. Each story is tragic in its own right, and the movie is intended to be expositive of then-Turkish culture.

I think the film did an excellent job showing the problems facing then-Turkish-Islamic culture. I think things have changed since (I hope anyway), but if "Yol" is accurate, Turkey sure was a depressing place, especially for women.

The most disturbing part of the film for me is the scene where Mehmet and his family are on the trail. Mehmet's wife left him after Mehmet went to prison because he was in part responsible for her brother's death (an argument I don't totally agree with). On his leave from prison, he tracked her down and she, after much opposition from her family, agreed to go with him. While on the train, they got a little frisky and decided to go into the private bathroom for some alone time... and they got caught. I'm honestly shocked at how big of deal everyone made of it. I can't believe in that kind of male-dominated society that a husband getting a little nookie with his wife could be such a big deal. Anyway, I was really saddened and embarrassed for them, and I was quite disturbed when they were gunned down by her vigilante little brother.

The two other stories are also quite depressing, but well told. All in all, I also think it quite an accomplishment that the director made this movie while in prison by giving copious notes to a very scrupulous helper.

"Brazil" review by Andy

2010-07-04T21:33:00.000-07:00

Sorry to keep this official. Big brother is watching.

"Brazil" is a wonderfully delightful film. Quirky, funny, and tense all at the same time. I'm not sure why it grooved with me, but it did. I think I can explain what the movie is about without any spoilers as follows: "Brazil" is like Orwell's "1984" meets Tim Burton, who then had a baby with "A Clockwork Orange," who is being raised in "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure."

For those who are watching to check off films in which Deniro is in, he really only has an insignificant part, so be prepared.

I don't know much else about what write. The story works, even though it is very odd, and the set designs/production is intentionally and obviously bizarre (I want to say "low budget," but I don't know if that's true).

And I did really like the ending. Twist-ish, without being trite or obvious.

Anyway, that's what I thought.

Introducing the Official Podcast of This Blog:

2010-06-24T23:03:00.000-07:00

That's right! That's what that says ...

The Considering the Cinema film discussion blog now has an official podcast called CONSIDERING THE SEQUELS.

Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of specific movie franchises. In Episode 1 we consider the "Back to the Future" trilogy.

My fellow film blogger, Andy Howell; my life-long best pal, Bill Barnes; and I, Jason Pyles, host the show. We three and a varying special guest review the individual installments of the franchise in story order to collectively determine whether each sequel is a worthy continuation of the primary film — or if it’s a just another instance of cinematic dead horse beating.

Each episode also features a concept discussion, where we talk about matters pertaining to sequels or the cinema, in general. These discussions are often spawned by listening to excerpts from pre-recorded interviews with various sorts of experts. We also discuss new releases and whatever else we’ve watched recently.

If you're a fan of this site, please give our podcast a try. You can vote on which one of us you tend to agree with most, and you can let us know what state you're listening from. Hope you'll visit us.

Sincerely,

Jason Pyles

www.ctspodcast.com

Hukkle and Another Bad Movie Recommendation

2010-06-15T20:16:00.000-07:00

Prelude

This post will ultimately be about “Hukkle,” I promise, but with all this best-worst movie talk surrounding “Troll 2,” I have to insist on one more bad movie recommendation here. “Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000” (2000) is the kind of movie Andy refers to in his post for “Troll 2” — it’s bad but still entertaining. I actually have a lot to say about it, but in an effort to shorten my posts, I’ll simply refer you to this episode of KCRW’s The Business, where you can learn all the background you’ll ever need to know. It’s a must-see if you like entertainingly bad movies. It’s hard to believe that “Battlefield Earth” turned out as it has, considering that it was made so recently, in these modern times of movie magic — with a bankable talent like John Travolta — and with a reported production budget of $73 million dollars, according to Box Office Mojo. Anyway, if you haven’t seen it, rent it and your mind will be blown in a special kind of way. Tiny spoiler to give you an example of what I’m talking about: Travolta plays a sadistic alien, and at one point he actually calls another character a “knot head.” (For extra funny irony, be sure to watch the behind-the-scenes, making-of special feature and note the way the filmmakers describe the movie.)

“Hukkle”

All experimental films are “unusual,” so I guess we could simply discuss only experimental films and fulfill the objective of this site. But I just couldn’t take it. I knew Andy wouldn’t be able to stay awake through “Hukkle.” A couple of posts below Andy said “The Puffy Chair” was pointless. Well, “Hukkle” is the epitome of pointless, and I’m sorry I chose to subject us to it. But luckily, you don’t have to watch it.

“Hukkle,” which means “hiccup,” is a Hungarian film written and directed by György Pálfi. It opens with a slithering snake. We watch the snake’s uncoiling during the credit sequence. Now, this is typical for a credit sequence: We’re usually shown something unrecognizable that’s barely interesting enough to keep our attention. But we have the promise of the film to follow, so we wait it out. Well, “Hukkle” continues to give us opening-credit-sequence-like imagery.

An elderly man has hiccups. We watch him for longer than we are willing. I’m no actor, so I’m not sure how difficult it would be to “act” like I have hiccups. Surely there was an audition process for this task. Assuming there was, I can only conclude that this guy was chosen because he has a wrinkled face that makes for interesting close-ups — which there are plenty of. But this guy fake hiccups and smiles about it, like he’s a child on a merry-go-round. (Anyone who’s ever had hiccups before knows you don’t just keep smiling about it. Hiccups are irritating; perhaps that explains this appropriately titled, filmic indulgence.)

Now, if I seem like I’m nitpicking the smallest, most insignificant details, it’s because these hiccups are in fact the film’s largest, most significant detail.

For these kinds of films, often the word “experimental” should be read as “non-narrative film,” meaning there’s no story, or as Andy terms it, “pointless.” Basically, “Hukkle” just shows us a bunch of random footage — often in close-up — of various people, animals, insects, objects and machinery just going about the regular hum of life.

Believe me, the best moments or imagery from the film are all shown in the trailer. Watch the trailer, and you’ll get the point. But in short, here are the things “Hukkle” shows us: hiccups, people, animals, machinery, nature, hiccups, people eating, animals eating, hardly any dialogue, hiccups, a long, super close-up of pig testicles, recurring characters, hiccups, etc., etc. You get the point.

Now, there are people who grasp at straws to assemble a narrative through-line for this film. Well, I refute this, and for my evidence, I can explain this rather simply — it’s called “the Kuleshov effect.” Allow me to explain:

Editing is among the most powerful techniques employed in the cinema. It effortlessly manipulates our understanding of how the images portrayed onscreen interrelate both thematically and spatially. Lev Kuleshov was a Russian film theorist who conducted an experiment that proved that various shots edited together didn’t have to have any sort of relationship in actuality, but because they are edited together, the viewer’s mind draws certain conclusions. If I recall correctly, in Kuleshov’s experiment he showed a viewer a picture of a person with a blank expression and then a bowl of soup and then a blank expression again. That viewer was sure the person looked hungry. He did the same thing with a different viewer and replaced the bowl of soup with a casket. That viewer was sure the actor was portraying sadness.

We, as filmgoers, are conditioned to draw conclusions between the images flashed onscreen, that we might assemble and decipher a story from the filmed images. And I’d assert that those who insist on as much from “Hukkle” have simply been “Kuleshoved.”

But even if the writer-director himself, György Pálfi (I assume that’s a male’s name), told me he had in fact constructed a faint and subtle narrative within his film, I’d still dismiss it as little more than a Lumière brothers actuality, along the lines of “Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat” (circa 1895 / 1896), but not quite as artistic.

"Hukkle" as watched by Andy

2010-06-09T21:53:00.001-07:00

I know that we've discussed this before on this blog, but here again is a perfect example of how some artsy independent films can alienate viewers. In the same way that many pieces of modern art have symbolism and meaning that are lost on the general public, so too will "Hukkle" find few viewers who will watch the entire film and then have anything intelligent to say.

I'm really trying to be better and more sophisticated about films and criticism of such films, but I don't understand what "Hukkle" is all about.

Let me see if I can save everyone 75 minutes of their lives and describe "Hukkle." The film is a plotless expose on life in a poor Hungarian town. It is shot as several random closeups, panning shots, and other artsy cinemtographically interesting shots. The subject of the shots are generally people doing random things: from working, to eating, sitting, watching, walking, conversing, etc. There are several animals film in what appears to be natural habitat. And there's one guy who hiccups who is in several parts of movie sitting on a bench. That's about it. There is hardly any dialogue.

Who recommended this movie, and why? I would really love to hear some comments from someone who can explain what I a missing. I had to pop in "Pirates of the Caribbean" just so I could get back to normal.

UPDATE
Ok, maybe I was just too tired from staying up late the night before with Jason watching all three "Back to the Future" movies, but I really didn't get it. I guess I realized towards the end that there was something to the ladies, the liquids, and something about the cop, but it was largely over my head. Wikipedia does a good job of explaining the plot, so I won't get into it, but check it out for a total rebuttal of my "plotless" comment. I guess I'm just not astute enough at all things filmic to understand "Hukkle." Good luck to you if you give it a go.

"The Puffy Chair" as seen by Andy

2010-06-07T22:24:00.000-07:00

Hmm...."The Puffy Chair" is, to me, a perfect example of why most people are going to have a difficult time with indy films. Let me say at the outset that I am getting better and enjoying bizarre films, but every so often I run into a film that I didn't really enjoy, and that I don't get.

Here's what I don't understand about "The Puffy Chair": what's the point? I just didn't really get it. I get that the film has very little to do about a chair, but what it does seem to be about, i.e. relationships and tension, doesn't seem to make any sense, have any resolve, or have any particular point.

What the film ends up being to me is a very long, obvious, yet arduous breakup. And I didn't really care for either character. Emily's character, who I believe is probably the most compassionate, is very emotional, irritating, and quite erratic. One moment she is wanting "Schmoopy talk," and the next she is hysterically destructive. And Josh is even worse. He treats Emily like crap, doesn't give her the attention she clearly needs, and ultimately passive-aggressively convinces her to break up with him.

Frankly, the only thing I enjoyed about the movie's script was that they did end up breaking up for good.

As for the rest of the film, I quite enjoyed the production values, and I thought the acting was superb.

It's a tough one though if you are looking for an entertaining film.

"Troll 2" as reviewed by Andy

2010-06-06T21:22:00.000-07:00

WOW!!! Seriously folks, for all seven of our readers, if you watch any of the movies that we review, watch "Troll 2" and "Best Worst Movie." Watch in that order. Friends have suggested that you don't necessarily need to watch "Troll 2" before watching "Best Worst Movie," the idea being that you wouldn't have to endure the 90 minutes of the original movie. I disagree. I don't think you can appreciate the phenomenon that "Best Worst Movie" captures without having agonized through the entire thing.

I don't really know what to say other than it might be the epitome of bad films. We've watched several now for our blog, and this one might be the most entertaining. It's great. Several prestigious film lists agree. See imdb and wiki for lists of the worst films that include "Troll 2," "Plan 9 from Outerspace," and "The Room," to name a few that we've seen. And again, as we've discussed before, a film's badness can actually be a good thing, and can make a film watchable. I.e., I will never again see "Master of Disguise" or "The Forbidden Kingdom," but I would watch "Plan 9" and "Troll 2" again, even though the later are far worse than the former.

What I think is remarkable about the film is not how bad it is (and it is VERY BAD), but how some of the participants have continued in their denial about how terrible the show actually is. That's the essence of "Best Worst Movie." It is incomprehensible to me that the director could possibly blame anyone other than himself for the terrible qualities of the film. Yet he steals the show ("Best Worst Movie") with his unintelligible defense of the film. I honestly can do justice here describing this further, so just watch it. It's absolutely brilliant.

Anyway, see it with some friends and be come a Nilbog-ian. And share in the neurosis.

Bonus Review: Troll 2 and Best Worst Movie

2010-06-01T22:35:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

If you love unusual movies and you haven't seen the infamous "Troll 2"

(1990) yet, then you need to go watch it free on Hulu.com. It has been called the "best worst movie," but for my money, the best worst movie is still "Killer Klowns From Outer Space" (1988). (It's presently available on Netflix Watch

Instantly; there's no excuse not to watch "Killer Klowns.") And then there's

always "Monkey Shines" (1988), which is also notable, but not nearly as entertaining as the

aforementioned pair. "Troll 2," which doesn't have one troll in it, is about a family who is terrorized by a gaggle of vegetarian goblins. And since the goblins don't eat meat, they have

to trick humans into eating their specially prepared foods, which transform the victims into plants that can therefore be eaten. Now, you have to admit, that's pretty original material. (The luring victims to eat repeatedly becomes awkward and tiresome, however — not an easy plot for the screenwriters to sustain; to see an equally difficult writing challenge handled much more effectively, watch "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer." That killer was a big "smeller.")

Hence the charm of "Troll 2." Even though the performances, writing, special effects, costumes (and everything else) are poorly executed, the movie is so odd and so bizarre that it defies the typical criteria that constitute entertainment value as we know it. It's no wonder people love "Troll 2." It is truly one of the most unusual films I've ever seen — and I've seen some unusual ones. "Troll 2" is like an unsettling dream. I must admit that it does have a few moments that almost border on creepy. And that's a compliment because this is somehow accomplished in the midst of its wacky weirdness and unintentional humor.

On May 28 I had the pleasure of attending the Tower Theater in Salt Lake City for a screening of "Best Worst Movie," a documentary by Michael Stephenson — the now-grown little boy, Joshua Waits, who starred as the protagonist of "Troll 2." In case you don't know, here's the story, as I understand it, behind "Best Worst Movie":

"Troll 2" was filmed in Utah in 1989 under a different title, probably "Nil Bog," which is "goblin" spelled backward. (I'm sure some fanboy will inform me.) Nothing seemed to come of the production until, in the early '90s, little by little, the actors started seeing their B-movie on cable channels or hearing about it from friends. Because it is so poorly made, most of the actors — including a young Michael Stephenson — were ashamed of it. Years passed and while the actors tried to forget about it, their cinematic mistake became a cult phenomenon. "Best Worst Movie" is the hilarious documentation of this film's cult popularity, its fans and its filmic associates.

I hadn't yet seen "Troll 2" before seeing the documentary, but it wasn't altogether necessary, because many clips from the original movie are interspersed throughout the documentary. I recommend seeing both films, in any order. They're both entertaining and enjoyable.

"Best Worst Movie" is oddly humorous and simultaneously sad. It strikes a similarly bizarre emotional chord, much like its inspiration. The Italian director of "Troll 2," Claudio Fragasso, steals the show through his apparent high regard for the artistic merits of his film — at one point comparing it to "Casablanca" and "Gone With the Wind." We learn that his wife, Rossella Drudi, co-wrote the screenplay with him, and the vegetarian-goblins idea came from her having friends who were vegetarians, and her script was meant to poke at them a little.

At my screening, I was lucky enough to enjoy a Q&A afterward with five members of the cast of "Troll 2," including Michael Stephenson (Josh), Jason Steadman (Drew), Gavin Reed (the Present son who threw the baseball), Deborah Reed (Creedence Leonore Gielgud) and Darren Ewing (Arnold).

From their Q&A I found out that the mind-blowingly bizarre film the friends are watching in the motor home is a terrible Italian film called "Grunt!" (1983). At one point Michael said the director was asked why this was filmed in Utah: Michael said his answer was, "We didn't choose Utah; Utah chose us." The male actors listed above said they earned $100 a day on the shoot. The budget for "Troll 2" was $600,000, but Michael remembered complaining of having been given only stale pizza to eat. And the kid whose plant growth covers his mouth in the creepy church (I think it was Darren Ewing as Arnold), he was said to have stood (quite painfully) in that get-up for 14 hours while filming.

As I've learned about the filmmaking process, the creative and artistic differences and the challenges of financing a movie and so forth, I've often said it's a wonder when a movie is actually made. And I've said it's a miracle when a "good" movie is made.

Obviously, sometimes out of that horrific process comes a by-product that might be described as cinematic toxic sludge. It's ugly, but it's tantalizing. It's dim-witted, but it glows. It's filled with goblins, but it's called "Troll 2."

Kicking Back in The Puffy Chair

2010-05-31T22:09:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

I love it when movies aren’t really about what we think they’re about. The Duplass brothers’ film, “The Puffy Chair,” is one such example. There is indeed a puffy chair in the film, but it’s merely a macguffin, which is a term often attributed to Hitchcock that he used to describe an object that serves as a plot device to move the story along but has no other purpose.

In “The Puffy Chair,” Josh’s father’s birthday is approaching, so he buys a recliner on eBay like one his dad used to own. He decides to take a long road trip to pick up the chair and deliver it to his father in Atlanta. Naturally, Josh acquires some unintended travel companions and many set-backs, because after all, “drama is conflict.”

This is an independent film, obviously made on a shoestring budget, but this is one of those special occasions where those facts end up enhancing the film. The likable characters and their actors’ naturalistic performances make this all seem familiar to us, like an odd adventure we’ve heard from our friends.

Jay Duplass and Mark Duplass (who stars as Josh — a not-too-distant cousin to John Krasinski’s Jim Halpert) co-wrote the film together, and they both directed, though the latter is uncredited. I am impressed with their work and look forward to checking out some of their other films, such as “Baghead” (2008). I should also mention that I found Katie Aselton’s Emily and Rhett Wilkins’ Rhett characters especially engaging. Each member of the traveling trio complements the onscreen misadventures and one another.

I liked “The Puffy Chair” most because of how funny it is! I laughed out loud several times from the very first scene. The tone shifts quite a bit, but I think that lends to its humorous powers.

Ultimately, “The Puffy Chair” is a tale about acquisition and loss and how one is just as easy as the other. Some of the developments seem unlikely and are a little disappointing, but I have to appreciate how unexpected they are.

Jumping the Island: LOST Critique Part 2

2010-05-25T20:40:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

This post is in response to Bill Barnes's comments found at the bottom of the post below this one. (More spoilers are probably found herein.)

Jumping the Shark

Natalie asked about jumping the shark, so for those who don’t know: In “Happy Days” Fonzie was portrayed as the coolest guy on the planet. He could hit the juke box in just the right place and it would play — sans coinage. He could get in a rumble and barely mess up his hair (except in my favorite episode when — spoiler alert — he fought Tom Hanks). But in one fateful episode he was waterskiing and he successfully jumped a shark. (Bill said he jumped it on a motorcycle, which is unlikely since motorcycles typically don’t travel in the ocean ... but then again, on “L O S T” there are no parameters, so anything could happen.) Anyway, I guess that dumb shark thing was the last straw with Fonzie’s coolness. (See for yourself.) It was just too far, and from then on, anytime a show derails and crosses over into stupid territory, they say it “jumps the shark.” You know, like “L O S T” did on just about every episode after Season 3?

[Note: If you watch the shark clip, it’s really not all that far-fetched. Perhaps the new “jump the shark” term could be adapted to “jump the island”!]

Bill— I loved the ending to your comment on the post below this one … so much, in fact, that I almost surrendered on the merits of your cleverness alone. Alas, instead I must rebut.

I was reluctant to list any specifics — especially concerning my interpretations — in my initial post, because I knew such a theory-laden show could yield countless counter arguments. So, for simplicity’s sake, let’s just say I’ll concede that I have wrongly understood the underlying premise, and I will defer to your well-studied theories, which, I might underscore, are interpretations themselves — yours and your fellow Lostie fanboys and girls online.

Nevertheless, Sir, you should know that my personal take on the meaning of it all was one of the few things that I was fond of concerning the series. So, if you tell me that my take was altogether wrong, then I am impressed with “L O S T” even less.

And it must be said, obviously, there are lots of theories. Surely you aren’t claiming that all of the other Losties have reached the same conclusion you have. Again, and more to the point, how can you be sure that your interpretation isn’t way off? And if it is such a brilliant show, then why can’t a reasonably intelligent person, such as myself (or hundreds of other disoriented yet intelligent viewers) successfully follow along and arrive at the writers’ intended vision? … That is, if what you’ve described is, in fact, their vision. I’m not so sure. How can we be sure?

And if you should claim that the brilliance of the show lies in its depths wherein multiple interpretations are possible, then shouldn’t I be afforded my own stake in that brilliance with my own little theories?

Really, my problem wasn’t as much what “L O S T” was about; it was, as Roger Ebert says, “how it was about it.” My original post, though lengthy, just addressed my general, overall feelings about how the series was poorly executed and delivered to us, the audience. You took a small portion of what I wrote and refuted it. That’s fine, but don’t miss my overarching point. Your response doesn’t speak to the heart of my problem, which is how 70 percent of the show’s lunacy need not have happened at all and is ultimately unrelated and irrelevant to the grand scheme, even as you have described it.

Effective storytelling is progressive and driven forth by cause-and-effect events and relationships that build upon one another. “L O S T” portends that its mysteries will come back around, but most of them dangle limply. Loose ends from loose storytelling. More on this below.

Some questions about what you wrote: I understood the flashbacks and the flash-forwards, but when you say “sideways flashes,” are you referring to the alternate/parallel universe flashes? This reminded me of the film “Sliding Doors” (1998). Is that accurate? That’s how I understood it — as an alternate reality. Or, as Little Texas would say, what might have been.

How would the purgatory theory render the entire show’s point moot, exactly?

I whole-heartedly agree with you about Sayid’s true love, but they needed to incorporate Shannon somehow, since nobody else liked her — not even her brother.

And no, I don’t need every question answered. To answer every single question is poor form for a storyteller. But the major questions should have been addressed. You call this mystery, I call it biting off more than they could chew. They couldn’t deliver the goods. Did you not watch that hilarious video about all the unanswered questions? Was that not brilliant?

You know, you’re right. Not all of those questions needed to be answered in the end. Why? Because many of the questions raised were absolutely pointless. They were tangential indulgences — mere shark-jumping — in the name of entertainment value. Listen to the list of questions again in this video, and you’ll notice that most of them have nothing to do with the overall design. That’s my complaint. Why drag us through all that intrigue if it’s not going to be addressed — or even matter in the end!

I know you love “L O S T” like a fourth child, but can you not admit that some of my gripes have merit? I can admit that there are things to admire about “L O S T.” To add on to my initial list, the casting was great and the performances are almost always excellent.

I’m not so sure anymore that my viewpoint is a small minority. On Monday, I think it was Charlie Anders of io9 who wrote this on Twitter:

All along LOST seemed 2 be a story. Until the end when it wasn’t. In the end it was just a bunch o/stuff that happened" http://bit.ly/9Jm1VC

Or how about what happened just today at work. I sit in a room with several people. I’m new there, so I don’t know some of their names. Two guys (smart I.T. guys) began talking about “L O S T.” I immediately started dictating, word for word, because I’m a fast typist, and their conversation validates these posts:

1st Guy: So, I quit watching “L O S T” around Season 3 or 4. What ended up happening?

2nd Guy: The island is a mystical place. Down in a cave is the heart of the island and it glows. There’s a smoke monster, and they have to try to kill the smoke monster, but the keeper of the island gets killed. So they need a new keeper. The new keeper is chosen from survivors of the plane crash. The first keeper guy was in charge for hundreds or thousands of years — probably hundreds. The smoke monster’s goal is to get off the island; the keeper wants to keep him on the island. (Pause)...

1st Guy: Well, I stopped watching during the whole time-warp thing. ... So, how was the finale?

2nd Guy: It was good except for all the unanswered questions.

1st Guy: Yeah, that’s the problem I had with it. Every episode created more questions and more mysteries and more dead-ends. ... What was the whole point of the Dharma Initiative?

2nd Guy: I’m not sure.

We should note that the 2nd Guy never even mentioned what happened at the end when everybody “moved on.”

Bill, you think we’re like Jack and Locke; I think we’re like Jacob and Johnny Cash (The Man in Black, aka The Smoke Monster). You try to “protect” the island, and I just want to leave.

My cousin, Kellie, is another “L O S T” apologist who said today, “Why do people have to pick it apart? Why can’t they just leave a good thing alone and let us enjoy it?”

Well, I didn’t have the heart to tell her my position. But that’s just the way the world is: Some people call dandelions flowers and others rightly call them weeds. But regardless of whether you call a dandelion a flower, it’s still just a colorful weed. And so it is with “L O S T.” When the color fades and it dries up and blows away, its weedy identity will be revealed. When all the fantastical and melodramatic, soap opera fluff is peeled away, “L O S T” is a flawed and brittle story.

You may have the last word, Bill Barnes. I'm finished ranting about "L O S T."

A LOST Cause ...Or... 120-Some Hours LOST

2010-05-24T21:23:00.001-07:00

by Jason Pyles

[Spoiler alert: This post contains spoilers for “L O S T.”]

True, this site is almost strictly dedicated to discussing unusual films, but with the recent season finale of “L O S T,” I figured I should give it some attention, especially considering my minority opinion of it.

I didn’t start watching “L O S T” when its pilot first aired in September 2004. Nevertheless, sometime in the middle, I started watching the DVDs from the beginning and got caught up, watching — and waiting — ’til the bitter end last night.

While watching Season One I said, “This is a masterpiece!” “‘L O S T’ is the greatest show ever made,” I said. I felt the same way all you Losties feel. I was sold and helplessly hooked.

Then something terrible happened. “L O S T” quickly grew asinine and utterly ridiculous. Yeah, yeah, I was convinced that the island’s supernatural mysteries would eventually be revealed to some grand design. I kept reassuring the naysayers and Doubting Thomases, too, just like the fans are still doing. “Don’t worry,” I’d say. “We are in the hands of not only capable but genius writers. When the answers to these questions are revealed,” I asserted,” “we’ll all be blown away, and you’ll be silenced.” But the naysayers weren’t silenced. I was.

My eyes were first opened when I noticed that many more questions were being raised than were being answered. Like anybody who’s ever had a piggy bank understands, if you take more money out than you put in, you’ll soon be left with an empty piggy bank. And that’s what “L O S T” did to me: It would answer one little question and pose 10 bigger ones. Suspense and mystery are wonderfully entertaining, but there comes a point when the audience’s faithful patience starts being abused.

Not only were loads of more and more questions piling up, the show started having 9-month breaks. 9 months! That’s nearly a year! With such a complicated and intricate show, those long breaks made it impossible to remember what was going on — not that we ever really knew what was going on in the first place.

Some things that bothered me most, described broadly: Very lucky plane crash “survivors” find themselves on a deserted island somewhere in the South Pacific. The island is only so large; they explore it thoroughly. Yet, with each season, more and more characters and noticeable landmarks and places and objects are introduced! People die, but the cast of characters somehow grows larger.

Season Two, the one with the hatch and the numbers and the alarm, is so monotonous. The introduction of Benjamin Linus (as Henry Gale, marooned hot air balloon pilot from Minnesota) is the highlight of the season. Oh, and by the way, there’s a man living down there in that hatch. His name is Desmond. How ’bout that!

Season 3 becomes dark and malicious. “The Others” initially are almost ninja-like phantoms who whisper and spy and kidnap. But no, they actually have book clubs and care about babies being successfully carried to term.

An ill-written episode “Happy Days” is where we get the phrase “jumping the shark.” Well, “L O S T” jumps up on top of the shark and then surfs on it — repeatedly. Sure, sure, I’m OK with supernatural fiction. I can dig it. I like make-believe, and conversely, I’m a man of faith. But “L O S T” has no parameters whatsoever.

No parameters: Films and TV programs portray various universes different from our own. We’ve seen spaceships, aliens, giant apes, zombies, vampires, flying kids and dogs and everything else. But typically, the universe is established early on; we acknowledge this as an audience, and suspend our disbelief that we might allow ourselves to accept this newfound world.

But “L O S T” doesn’t play fairly. It breaks its own rules and cheats. And cheats. And cheats. Ironically, one of the episodes is titled “Deus Ex Machina,” which, in Latin means “God From a Machine,” and refers to a contrived and completely incredible (as in unbelievable) plot device used to bail the writer(s) and the character(s) out of a seemingly impossible situation — such as last night, when mortally wounded Jack magically appears up out of that "cork" pit and in the forest again. “L O S T” wanders and meanders anywhere and everywhere it wants or needs to go. Indeed, “L O S T” asked too much of its viewers; so many events were just too much to swallow.

And speaking of jumping the shark and no parameters, once the time traveling and island-moving and smoke-monstering and sky-lighting and dead-people-reappearing and interconnected coincidences and relationships all started becoming commonplace, the show devolved into nothing more than a fantastical soap opera. Poignant moments of melodrama were interspersed with extraordinary events ... now that’s entertainment, is it not?

Who else got sick of this scenario: “OK. Shag, Scoob, you go here, and I’ll take the girls and go here.” Or “Let’s run to this part of the island,” and then, moments later, “Now, let’s race to this part of the island.” It seemed like every episode the characters were off on a hike somewhere — somewhere new that we’ve never seen before on this relatively small island.

Or what about all the “idiot plotting”: As in, “I know something, but I’m not going to tell these people. They’ll ask me what it is, and I’ll just say, follow me.” Yeah, that makes sense, since there are so many other things to talk about while waltzing through the jungle. Surely there musn’t be any time for discussing revelations about this crazy island we’re stuck on. It drove me nuts how nobody ever told anybody anything. The characters treated one another as the writers treat us: Leave ‘em in the dark, and then kick ‘em in the head once in a while; it's good for 'em.

And supposedly, the writers had the beginning and the ending in mind, but the middle was much more flexible. Well, that’s fine, but most of the insane developments throughout the series ended up being absolutely pointless and inapplicable to the show’s grand scheme. The word “nebulous” comes to mind.

Yes, it's neat that the series began with Jack opening his eyes, and ended with him closing them. Neat. But that kind of book-ending is not new, let’s not forget. I don’t wish to take anything away from this very cool element, but symmetrical introductions and conclusions are an age-old writing technique, so let's not be too impressed with this big pay-off.

And let’s talk more about the final episode. Somebody must have had a brilliant idea that went something like this: “Hey, know what we should do? Let’s just replay all the touching moments between the characters so people will feel whisked away by the emotion of their mental reunions!” It was so manipulative and hollow. Come on, did anyone else think that Juliet's handing Sawyer a candy bar was a little thin for conjuring up those wonderful feelings? Give me a break. Break me off a piece of that Kit-Kat bar.

And wasn’t it convenient that the broken-down airliner was able to be repaired within one hour (instead of five) and then was able to take off on a sandy coast, obtaining enough speed for lift-off. And they surely had enough fuel to get wherever they surely knew where to go. I thought it was a Roland Emmerich movie for a minute.

But I quibble.

I loved Season One. I loved the Season One musical montages at the end of the episodes. I loved the Smoke Monster (before we knew it was a Smoke Monster). I loved what a bad-#$@ Sayid was. I loved Sawyer's nicknames. Some of the flashback subplots were very affecting, such as Locke’s heartbreaking history with his father. And of course, I’m basically IN LOVE with Richard Alpert, the man, the character and his story line. Indeed, his episode was my favorite, but I could have sworn his eyes were blue at some point.

And I guess I can dig what I understood it to be (who knows if this is right): The characters were dead, as Alpert tells them. The Island was a kind of purgatory for these suffering souls who just couldn’t let go of their demons and “move on.” And then, when they were ready to move on, they all did together. When Jack saw his dad again, and everything was good, and his dad explained that they were “dead,” I imagined that heaven is probably something like that. Those we love who preceded us are there to welcome us. I guess that was beautiful.

People say “L O S T” changed television, but I’d suggest that with a little bit of time, those wool-pulled Losties will see that it wasn’t as great as they thought. To be fair, it was built up so much with its mysteries and intrigue, there’s no way the series could have ended profoundly enough to truly satisfy its fans and critiques.

I guess if I had it to do all over again, I wouldn’t. ... Or I would have stopped after Season One. But if I had to watch it over again — and waste another 120-some hours of my life — I would watch it all in a row, without the 9-month breaks, one episode per night, every night, and then maybe I’d appreciate it more. But I won't.

Why? To me “L O S T” is a lost cause and a real loss.

P.S. Why does the island statue only have four toes? That's probably what I wanted to know the most.

Addendum: Here is the hilarious reward for reading my comments: I found this video — thanks to David Chen of The /Filmcast. He posted this link of "Unanswered 'L O S T' Questions" on Twitter, and it captures EXACTLY how I feel and, you'll agree, illustrates what I was saying about most of the show's mysteries being nebulous, pointless and ultimately unrelated: http://bit.ly/9m1KbF Again, hilarious! Please watch. Thanks, Dave!

The Myriad Ugly Faces of Vigilantism

2010-05-16T21:29:00.001-07:00

by Jason Pyles

Author’s note: I intentionally waited to pair my comments on “The Star Chamber” and “Kick-Ass” due to their common themes of vigilantism. Sorry so lengthy.

Andy, I knew you would either enjoy or hate the “The Star Chamber,” thanks to your professional experience, and I had a feeling it would be the latter. It’s not uncommon for a real-deal industry professional like yourself to balk at Hollywood’s attempted portrayal of his craft ... understandably so.

To me “The Star Chamber” is a tricky little film, meaning it had to do some hoop-jumping not to alienate its audience. Naturally, I defer to Andy’s expertise on all the finer points of the law and inner-workings of the legal system, but I will make my layman’s attempt at discussing this film.

As Andy notes below, we see the abridged version of a few cases where the defendants — who are accused of hideous crimes — are apparently caught red-handed. But due to various instances of logistical mismanagement of said cases, each defendant’s defense attorney is able to spring him. Everyone is outraged and horrified by the absence of justice, especially the judge (Michael Douglas), whose hands are tied, ironically, by the law. (Yet, as Andy points out, the Constitution is simply being upheld.)

Now, I consider this a tricky little film because I am impressed at the relatable way the film conveys the legal points of each case in a comprehensible manner that doesn’t exclude guys like me who have no law school degree. It would have been more impressive still if their legal scenarios had held water, but alas, Andy informs us that they don’t.

And yet, despite all that, “The Star Chamber” takes us on a bit of a moral-dilemma ride, whereby it deviously enlightens us on the problematic nature of vigilantism, as well as our current legal system. I love when a film appears to have one stance, then it appears to have another, and then in the end we realize it just tricked us into considering (or at least listening to) multiple perspectives.

Andy (or anybody), do you know why it’s called “The Star Chamber”? Did I miss something obvious, or is it obscure legal term? Perhaps it’s Kafka’s.

As for “Kick-Ass,” I love this film — who doesn’t? What a great premise: What would happen if a regular, nerdy guy tried to be a superhero? Hasn’t someone thought of that before? Yes, even in reality. A few years ago I saw a news report on a guy in Oregon who walks around in a Spandex get-up doing good deeds. As I recall, the police were insistent that he stick to helping old ladies across the street and recovering cats from trees. And then there’s The Guardian Angels, who are a type of superhero to me.

Aside from its entertaining premise, two aspects of “Kick-Ass” make it brilliant:

1. The film takes an unflinching look at just how dangerous such an ambition could be. (Unfortunately, there will be some, no doubt, who try to emulate viral, YouTube crime-fighting, and that’s probably not a good thing.) Kick-Ass’s first attempt at crime fighting quickly goes from humorous to disturbing to upsetting.

2. And the true genius behind this film is the slick way it begins as a comic-book movie parody — seeming to ridicule the genre — while seamlessly becoming that very object we thought it was mocking. Indeed, “Kick-Ass” ends up following the same formula as most other comic book movies but in a refreshingly clever way. Brilliance.

And yes, I loved Hit Girl, too, just as much as everyone else. However, I have some qualms with her dialogue. (The stylized action violence doesn’t bother me.) Call me a censor, but I don’t think anybody should say that word she says — you know the one — especially not a 13-year-old girl. Also, it’s probably irresponsible of the writers and filmmakers to outfit her in such fetishistic, dominatrix attire, because if we guys are honest with ourselves, there is something “intriguing” about Hit Girl, despite her age — perhaps it’s the purple wig. (I’m not a sicko, by any means, and I’m not the only grown male who has said this. It’s even joked about in the film itself.) Indeed, I’ve heard that Hit Girl’s also a hit with the pedophiles, which is very disturbing.

Here we have two films whose underlying concept is vigilante justice. We Americans love these kinds of films: “Dirty Harry,” “Death Wish,” “The Punisher,” “A Time to Kill” — and pretty much any western or martial arts flick, etc. I guess we find something extremely appealing about taking the law into our own hands, exacting justice as we see fit.

Vigilante films allow us to indulge in the proverbial “ideological safety valve,” in which we get to experience violent fantasies vicariously by visualizing them onscreen, thus relieving our own desires to execute such violence ourselves in the real world. (Road rage murders are a simple demonstration of the folly of vigilantism, by the way; it’s easy to take it too far or to get killed yourself.)

But superheroes are a horse of a colorful color. We seem to deem them worthy of the wisdom to be judges, juries and executioners, though they often don’t kill their perps. But I guess the difference between the two films’ takes on vigilantism is the point at which the justice is administered: In “Kick-Ass,” justice is often delivered on the spot, while the crime is in progress, and “The Star Chamber” still follows some semblance of judicial consideration.

I don’t believe vigilante films (and real-world vigilantism) will ever go out of style. Victims who consider themselves robbed of justice will always find it in vogue to deputize themselves into retaliation. Yeah, in every one of us, there’s probably a Damon “Big Daddy” Macready lying dormant — but capable of eruption, if the circumstances were ever sufficiently provocative.

Addendum: According to the usual 20-year remake rule and the Internet Movie Database, a presumable remake of “The Star Chamber” is currently in development for a 2011 release.

"Star Chamber" as reviewed by Andy

2010-05-02T12:29:00.000-07:00

I don't care for movies like "Star Chamber." I suppose it's true for any person whose profession is depicted in film, but as a criminal defense attorney, I can't stand "Star Chamber." In fairness to my friend Karl, he did not recommend the movie as a good movie, rather, it it came up in a discussion that we had.

The jist of the movie is that one judge in California (played by Michael Douglas) is feeling overwhelmed by decisions he had to make that led to the dismissal of a couple of murder cases. The evidence that was supressed (which resulted in the dismissals) were based on illegal searches (one scenario would not now be an illegal search). He feels frustrated because he doesn't believe "justice" is being done. Apparently, in this alternate reality, several judges in California are having this same problem. All kinds of murderers are getting off scott-free.

Another judge who was his mentor invites him to join a group of judges called the Star Chamber. The chamber passes judgment against those defendants who "get off" on technicalities (i.e. the constitution), and if they judge someone to die, they send out an assassin to get the guy.

I guess what bothers me is this idea that a constitutional violation of the law is a "technicality." The fourth amendment is alive and well and protects us all from an encroaching government because illegal searches result in suppressed evidence. The fact of the matter is that good defense attorneys make sure the game is played fairly. As long as cops and prosecutors do their jobs, the bad guys go to jail. And fortunately for all of us, most cops and prosecutors are honest, and very good at what they do, and as a result, our country is a nice place in which to live.

Anyway, my soap box speech could go on and on, but that's the sum of it. And really, I'll bet nobody can think of a single murderer who escaped punishment because of a constitutional violation or a judge's ruling on the admissibility of evidence. And I do appreciate that the film has the decency to show some of the inherent problems with the chamber.

My favorite quote from the film: While watching a LA Dodgers ballgame, Emily says to Adrian, "Was that a homerun?" Adrian replies, "No, that was a single."

"Kick Ass" comments by Andy

2010-05-02T08:57:00.000-07:00

For some reason I thought "Kick Ass" was an indy film. I was dead wrong. I was as wrong as many of the bad guys in the film, in fact.

I also thought the film was simply a comedy. Again, I was wrong. It was hilarious for a large portion of the film, but it was surprisingly dark for parts too.

Chloe Moretz steals the show as "Hit-Girl." Ms. Moretz , andI hope you google your name every-so-often to find this: You are fabulous. Keep doing what you are doing.

I will say, though, that I don't hold much hope for having a good sequel. I think there probably will be one if someone can write a passable script, but I have real doubts that it will be good. Here's why - what made "Kick Ass" so great was that it chronicled a tale of a young man, Dave Lizewski, who decided to be a superhero, and he was horrible at it. He got his hat handed to him in every single situation. He did manage to get a girl, which was what the impetus was for being a superhero, but it was really only through the help of other people.

His tale was interspersed and entwined with another arc of the revenge of the Macready, who were, in fact, superheros. They had the training, the weaponry, the know-how, and the targets to be actual vigilantes. They were really good - in fact Hit Girl was probably the most brutal of them all. And as the story unfolded, Dave quickly realizes that he's not cut out to be a superhero, and that he certainly doesn't have the acumen to fight crime. The problem is he becomes inexorably caught up in the Macready's revenge plot.

The point is, I don't know how anyone would write a sequel that would in any way be true to this movie's characters. Dave never actually becomes a superhero, and even if you say that he has become one, you've left the original premise of the movie. That's just my opinion.

But, wow, what a fun film. Ms. Moretz - you are terrific. Keep making movies.

"Enduring Love?" comments by Andy

2010-04-15T19:41:00.001-07:00

Wasn't sure why the title is what it is until the end of the movie. I honestly had no idea what the movie was about before watching the film.

Stalkers are fun, aren't they? I almost always hate stalker films for many of the same reasons that I was so critical of the character in "Julia." Victims of stalkers almost never avail themselves of the appropriate tools to deal with their stalkers. Such is true of Joe, although I was very glad to see Joe's willingness to deal with the situation when push finally came to shove.

I think what makes "Enduring Love" such a brilliant stalking film is that if you don't know anything about the movie ahead of time, you aren't immediately aware that you are watching a stalker film. Rhys Ifans is absolutely fabulous as Jed, and Jed is just about as creepy as you can get and still be believable. He was instantly off-putting when asking Joe to pray.

My only concern with the movie was that it seemed rather slow. I appreciate a good drama, but I don't understand how the film could feel so long without spending any real time explaining how Joe's relationship devolved so terribly over time. And the curtain reference seemed a little thin to me. Why was his girlfriend so unreceptive to his midnight theory anyway?

Daniel Craig is a pro.

Up, Up and Away

2010-04-12T21:55:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

“Enduring Love” is another odd little film in the neighborhood of “All the Little Animals.” It’s sort of surprising that it was ever made, but I suppose I’m glad it was.

It has one of the most intriguing curtain-raisers I’ve ever seen in a film. As far as inciting incidents go, this one takes the cake. It has to do with a hot air balloon accident. In case anyone reading this hasn’t seen it and plans to, I won’t discuss it here. But I must say that the filmmakers did a great job filming the scene; it must have been a logistical challenge.

Unfortunately, “Enduring Love” has the second-act blues, where it sags badly in the middle. If only the balloon accident figured into the story more. Actually, that’s not the story at all; it’s a story of stalking and obsession.

In addition to the balloon scene, there’s a deeply creepy scene in the middle of the film, where a man is sitting on a playground in the rain. It’s truly chilling. Also, there’s a heart-stopping scene toward the end that is absolutely horrifying. These three moments make this unusual film worth seeing, just for their ability to give us such troubling cinematic experiences.

Otherwise, “Enduring Love” lulls and lulls. It took me three nights to watch it, because I kept falling asleep during the long second act. This is no reflection, of course, on the wonderful performances given by Daniel Craig (the new 007) and Rhys Ifans, who is probably best known for his role as the terrible roommate in “Notting Hill.” More recently he played in “The Boat That Rocked” aka “Pirate Radio,” once again, alongside Bill Nighy, who is also in “Enduring Love.”

I don’t know that I’ve seen any other film with a similar usage of a hot air balloon. It reminded me of a real-life horror story I once heard: I have a friend whose father worked at an upscale, rural resort. If I remember correctly, they knew a hot air balloon instructor there, and he was giving a lesson or something. I guess a kid was in the balloon and for one reason or another, the instructor was outside the balloon and it started taking off, so the instructor dutifully and bravely held onto the the outside of the basket and ended up dying from being beaten to death as he was dragged through the tree-tops. Awful.

Every year (while living in Utah), my family enjoys attending the hot air balloon show that’s part of the Freedom Festival in Provo, around the Fourth of July. Standing among those giants is truly awe-inspiring, but it reinforces my decision not to ride in one. And now “Enduring Love” pretty much seals the deal.

"Overnight" comments by Andy

2010-04-12T14:06:00.000-07:00

Troy Duffy is a douche. He's probably going to google his own name and read this blog. Frankly, I don't care. What a tool!!!!

"Overnight" was fascinating. It's not common for me to be so enthralled and enraged at the same time. The documentary was fascinating on two levels - one as an inside look into how things work in Hollywood, and second as how amazingly arrogant and stupid Troy Duffy is in blowing his deal.

Hollywood is fickle and finicky. A lot of promises are given and broken - lives made and then suddenly shattered. Also, it's extremely political; piss off or on the wrong person and it could get you blacklisted like a communist during McCarthy. Troy Duffy is a perfect example of what NOT to do if you find yourself suddenly in the limelight because Harvey Weinstein takes an interest in your film.

Did anyone even see "Boondock Saints?" My first question should be why did Mr. Weinstein even like "Boondock Saints?" It was really a stupid film without an impressive plot, or any real character development, cinematography, or violence. It seemed on par with a mediocre first attempt at film-making. I don't know what the fuss was all about. Honestly, far too many F words and otherwise stupid dialogue for me to really enjoy watching it. How did he even get a sequel? Why did the sequel suck so badly too???

Anyway, thanks Troy Duffy for reminding me that even total douche bags catch unbelievably awesome breaks and still find a way to screw it up! Your brother was right - you lost sight of it. You really should have focused more on the band.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Duffy, if you do read this, feel free to respond and offer counter-argument. Andy is my real name...

Troy Duffy and Overnight

2010-04-10T21:14:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

Troy Duffy. Ah, I haven’t seen such a good villain in a documentary since Billy Mitchell in “The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters,” which by the way, is an absolute must-see, whether you like video games or not. And if you have any interest in the drama found behind the scenes in the filmmaking business, “Overnight” is also a must-see.

For those who don’t know, Troy Duffy is the writer-director of “The Boondock Saints” and its sequel, “The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day,” both of which have a cult following comparable to the “Twilight” enthusiasts. Therefore, I am prepared, since this post is vulnerably exposed on the Internet, for The Great Defenders to ensure that I don’t say anything negative about the objects of their affection. Indeed, Troy Duffy himself might happen upon this post and light up the comments section with expletives and other intelligent colorful metaphors. So be it.

Comment away, of course, but please answer this: What’s the story behind Troy Duffy’s writing of “The Boondock Saints,” and how did Harvey Weinstein ever come to read his script? I’d just like to know how this all came about. I like Smith & Montana’s film, but I only wish it explained the preliminary connections that preceded the footage found in the film.

I mean, “The Boondock Saints” is OK — entertaining, to be sure — but like Roger Ebert, I wonder why Harvey Weinstein was initially so taken with Duffy. Or was he? I mean, we only hear Duffy’s version of the story, so perhaps he never was this golden boy that he suggests.

And by the way, was it his first script? How many drafts did he write? Where did he learn screenwriting? I’m so intrigued by Duffy’s process, because he doesn’t seem like a writer. He’s like a kid I knew in grade school named John C. There was an art contest in which he entered a perfectly drawn rainbow trout. Everybody knew he didn’t draw it, but he still won the contest, anyway. (What could the judges do?) Now, I’m not saying Duffy didn’t write his scripts, I’m just saying I’m surprised that he did. As Andy has mentioned, we can definitely see from the movies themselves that these scripts come from Duffy.

In any event, film deals fall through all the time in Hollywood. Projects commonly go into turnaround and suffer in Development Hell. But I think it’s apparent from this documentary — even if it is “selectively edited” — that Duffy sunk his own ship. He shot himself in the foot with his own hubris. I’m not here to judge Duffy or talk smack about him; it’s just the only conclusion I can draw after seeing this film.

Undoubtedly, as we see in the film, the directors Tony Montana and Mark Brian Smith arguably had reason to edit this film in such a way that it cast Duffy in an unfavorable light. I mean, who knows, maybe they had footage of Duffy saving a puppy from the road or helping old ladies across the street, but I doubt it. Duffy exposes himself in this film.

Still, there are moments when these filmmakers are, themselves, vulnerable under the scrutinizing eye of the camera lens, but to their credit, they include those moments, and I respect them for that.

The most tragic character in the film, to me, was Troy’s brother, Taylor, who truly seems to live for their band, and at one point has a heart-felt talk with his brother that falls on deaf ears, incurring more wrath.

But hey, again, I’m not here to judge Troy Duffy. I’ll judge his films and call them OK. Willem Dafoe steals the show — and in fact, is the show — in the first film. The second suffers without him, though Clifton Collins Jr. is a fine character actor whom I admire. His performance in the second movie makes it worth seeing.

In “The Boondock Saints” films, before the saints execute their victims, they recite a prayer and speak in scriptural tongue. Well, after watching “Overnight,” I can comfortably say Troy Duffy’s saints should recite Proverbs 16: 18 to him, which reads:

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Still, I must admit, I hope Troy Duffy keeps making films. He does have some talent. I’m curious to see what else he can do.

"Julia" - comments by Andy

2010-04-01T17:00:00.000-07:00

I hate movies like "Julia." The acting is so well done that I'm forced to actually pay attention to the movie's plot. And I hate stories like "Julia."

I don't hate the story about falling-down alcoholic reaches rock bottom and has to make a change. I don't hate the story about slightly-psychotic mother trying to get her kid back. What I hate is incompetent criminality.

How do you lose a gun in the middle of the road? Julia was obviously an idiot, but that much? Why would you bring the other million with you for the hand-off? Who trusts an over-friendly local enough to sleep with him (and subsequently lose your bounty (the kid) while you are sleeping off a hang-over)? I thought for a moment I was going to like her when she blew Miguel away. After that she was a raging idiot, pure and simple. I almost don't even care that things work out for her and Tom.

Boy though, I'll bet that if Tilda Swinton hadn't won an Oscar the year before for "Michael Clayton," she might have been nominated for "Julia." Powerful stuff. I especially thought her portrayal of drunk Julia (pre-kidnapping) was top-notch. I could genuinely feel her hitting rock-bottom.

And I will say this about the film - several times during the film I caught myself making sure my little girl was still playing in her room. Of course, if needed (god forbid...), I hope that I would have the mental fortitude and skill-set to approach the situation less like Julia Harris, and more like Brian Mills (Liam Neeson) in "Taken."

A Jewel in Julia

2010-03-30T15:03:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

Note to Readers: Remember, because this is a film-discussion blog, we often discuss spoilers. My comments below are spoiler-ridden, so watch the film first.

Contrast Tilda Swinton’s performance in “Julia” with her role in “Michael Clayton” and you’ll see some opposite-end-of-the-spectrum range. Wow. (She played these roles back to back, near as I can tell from her filmography.)

I often resent the overused assessment that an actor’s performance is “brave,” but I have to resort to it in this instance. Recently I was reading a book about acting, and it criticized many female actors who only take the “pretty” roles, noting that such actresses miss out on rich opportunities. (Indeed, as I thought about it, Charlize Theron won an Oscar for Best Actress in a Leading role for her performance in “Monster,” a decidedly “unpretty” part.)

Swinton’s Julia character is also a scary train wreck. There’s a moment in the film where another crazy lady (the kid’s mom) goes berserk on Julia, and I thought I was about to see the Kraken versus Medusa. I was literally jittery while watching this brief confrontation. I bring up this scene to illustrate a specific example of Swinton’s nuanced performance: Initially Julia strikes the disturbed mom, but when said mom becomes the mayor of Crazy Town right before her eyes, Julia backs down and backs away carefully. A less intelligent performance would portray Julia as a full-throttle maniac — all the time, no matter what — but even Hannibal Lecter had his sensible moments.

At its core, “Julia” is a tale of redemption, which is quite a feat considering Julia has almost no redemptive qualities. I was impressed that the writers gave us some ironic surprises (such as the double, double-cross in Mexico) and other neat turn-arounds, avoided predictability and maintained a fair degree of realism. Let’s face it, we have no idea how this mess will end, and when it does end, our anti-hero protagonist’s life is still precarious. Yet the conclusion is satisfying. We can imagine how bleakly her life might proceed henceforth.

In summary, “Julia” is a fine example of both a character-driven performance and a smartly written story. I consider it an unusual film because its female protagonist is almost completely devoid of maternal instincts. And I suppose this is my one criticism of the film: Eventually Julia shows some humanity and starts to develop some affection toward the kid. This isn’t the Julia that I met at the beginning of the movie. And while a character’s arc should show some change, this particular character surely would have taken off altogether once she got the 2 million dollars.

"American Splendor"

2010-03-24T09:41:00.000-07:00

Check it out - I finally figured out how to post under my own name. Well....Jason figured it out. I had to get a gmail account, which sucks because I have a really good hotmail address, and I'm afraid that gmail is going to take over the world. I really do like my gmail account name too, but it's far longer and will require more explanation than I want to give to everyone.

What does all that have to do with "American Splendor?" Nothing. Nothing at all. Of course, it parallels exactly what Harvey Pikar did in is comic novels - editorializing his own life for the enjoyment and consumption of other people. It's the precursor to blogs.

I think all of us are at least a little bit narcissistic enough to have thought about writing a book or making a movie out of our lives. I know that I have. I have dismissed such thoughts as being silly and arrogant, but after watching "American Splendor" I think maybe I was wrong. Surely my life is or has been as interesting as Harvey Pikar, right?

And that's what I took from the film. We all live interesting lives, even those of us who are quite boring and/or have few hobbies/interests, etc. The fact that your life maybe not full of drama or excitement does not necessarily mean it's not interesting to others. Admittedly, I have never read the comics "American Splendor," but based on what the film showed, Pikar's life was not all that exciting or special, yet it was interesting. Would my life be as intriguing if snippets were chronicled with pictures of me that make me look like an ogre? Who knows, but maybe.

Regarding American Splendor

2010-03-23T18:28:00.000-07:00

by Jason Pyles

I came across the trailer for “American Splendor” at the beginning of another film. It immediately appealed to me because I thought it was going to be mostly set in a comic book store and amount to a cross between “Be Kind, Rewind” and the comic book store found in “Fanboys” (you know, the one where Kristen Bell’s character works?).

Neither of those two films was particularly good, but there is something enchanting to me — that I’ll never be able to put into words — about an environment where young, lonely people are making peanuts doing a job they like because they’re immersed in the art that they’re passionate about. I guess it’s that same feeling I get when I think of Tarantino working during his video store days, pre-“Reservoir Dogs” era.

Anyway, I thought “American Splendor” was going to be that kind of magical amalgam, but instead, it’s a less alienating, less metaphysical incarnation of “Synecdoche, New York” — to some similar extent. (That’s it, Andy. “Synecdoche, New York” keeps coming up on this site, so we’re probably going to have to discuss it at some point, although I consider it a very unpleasant experience, despite my deep respect for its genius screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman. Let me know when you’re feeling brave; we’ll endure it together, like we did “The Room.”)

In short, “American Splendor” is a self-aware biopic, of sorts. It knows it’s a movie, and it often breaks the fourth wall. Indeed, the capable cast that uncannily portrays the real-life people is sometimes accompanied by the real-life individuals themselves, which is a wonderfully unusual touch in a biography.

I had a couple of questions: How did Paul Giamatti pull off that squeaky voice? Wow. Did he have to lose his voice somehow, in order to sound like that, or is he just “acting”?

And my next question was answered with a little research. I wondered if that final showdown with David Letterman ever actually aired on TV, because it wasn’t shown in the movie. Well, according to the IMDb.com’s trivia page, “NBC would not lease out the actual 'Late Night With David Letterman' footage where Pekar finally lashed out at Letterman, so the scene had to be recreated with the actors.” However, I found out that NBC did, in fact, air it, and the footage of the actual interview can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0akXKxbflM&feature=related

It starts getting juicy about 7 minutes in.

(Oh, and most people probably know this, but Pekar’s comic-legend/illustrator friend, Robert Crumb, also had a movie made about him called “Crumb” (1994).)

I have never read any issues of “American Splendor,” but for the first hour of the film, I really wanted to. After that, I changed my mind. At first the film is funny and whimsical, something like Harvey himself, but just as it would be to hang around such a person for very long, in time, it loses its charm and his incessant negativity weighs down the film (and this viewer).

Overall, watching “American Splendor” is a good experience, and it just goes to show that anybody can become a celebrity.

"All the Little Animals," comments by Andy

2010-03-22T14:13:00.000-07:00

I'm not exactly sure what to write about "All the Little Animals." Bizarre is the word that comes to mind. I agree with Jason's question - "Why would anyone make this movie?"

Being an animal lover myself, I too am saddened when I see animals dead in the road. I too think that automobiles are the most dangerous thing to animals. I felt terrible when I accidentally hit a rabbit, and I nearly cried when I took out a large owl during a road trip last Christmas. But a movie?

And that wasn't even the weirdest part for me. What was deal with the step-father killing Mr. Summers? That didn't make any sense. Why was he so enraged? Bobby was going to sign the papers, and although Bobby apparently had some "terms," we never even got to hear what the terms were. Don't get me wrong, I was glad to see him get his come-up-ins, but it still seemed very far-fetched to me.

Bale is very good though. Too bad about that little tirade of his - it'll probably cost him a well-deserved Oscar.

-thoughts by Andy