Funny Face

Audrey Hepburn is so cute and lovely that she at times made me forget how annoying certain parts of this movie could be. I'm not a huge fan of the old school Hollywood big flashy musicals.

Maggie Prescott is basically a sort of nicer version of Meryl Streep from "The Devil Wears Prada" In fact the opening scene of her coming into her office is near identical, and even the look of her office and her assistants desks look the same, or very close. I can see where they took some of the visual aspects for "Prada" from. She comes into her office and calls all her little lackeys in, she is distraught over the newest issue, its dead to her, with a bit of genius and ingenuity she comes up with "Think Pink" Everything should be pink, the whole issue will be Pink. There's a whole dance number involved that screams consumerism and a certain soullessness. That is until the end of the song when everyone else but Prescott is in Pink someone asks her why not, she says she wouldn't be caught dead in the color. It was at that moment I was seeing the tongue in cheek humor of the whole thing. In that way it was very funny.

When Prescott and her photographer Dick Avery can't get a dimwitted model to photograph well they take her to a small book store in Greenwich Village where they meet the girl who works there, Jo Stockton. They treat her like garbage, and ultimately decide she will be the new face of their magazine and take her to Paris with them. She is against everything they stand for, but in Paris is her favorite Philosopher, so she's willing to play along, for a while. Once in Paris there are plenty of dance numbers and opportunities for Jo and Dick to fall in love, and for the rest of it to fall in place just like they all do.

If I had seen this when I was younger I'm sure I would have gotten bored, and not understood most of the humor. The movie makes fun of basically all the types of people in it. The narrow minded and rather shallow magazine editor. Her yes (wo)men drones, the photographer who doesn't care about anything of substance, even the Philosopher we meet is generally mocked for having his high values and outlook but is little more than a man.

When on their way to the book shop at the beginning Prescott says, "Look there's a good one, it looks just sinister enough" referring to the book store. Pretty funny stuff. The whole sequence about pink became a terrific lampoon when it ends and she shows just how little she actually cares about the nonsense she spouts.

Audrey Hepburn actually looks much better before her makeover. She is what really made the movie for me, as funny as it was at times there were still many cliched and boring parts that weren't meant to be cliched, but just were what they did at the time. When she tries to stop the girls from rearranging all the books in her shop, and eventually push and lock her out you just want to step into the movie and help her she's so cute.

The music was pretty good for the most part, as was the dancing, it wasn't to flashy and overdone, In fact the best dance sequence they have in it is just Audrey Hepburn, and a few male dancers who are there sort of doing their own thing, emphasising her as she dances in the middle of a cafe. Most people have actually seen it, there was a Gap commercial about 3 years ago for their new skinny pants that has her saying "I rather feel like expressing myself now, and I could certainly use a release" She then starts dancing. Its a great commercial, they take only her out of the movie and bring in a yellow background and play around with the footage of her dancing. That scene was probably my favorite in the movie. The air is thick with smoke, she's wearing a simple black pant (skinny) and black shirt with her hair pulled back in a pony tail. Her face becomes obscured at times, the whole room is rather smoggy, not the usual look for a musical.

It was funny, and wasn't as annoying as some musicals Ive watched, but the thing that really made it worth watching was Audrey Hepburn, doesn't she make everything shes in worth the time? 7/10 stars.

Director: Stanley Donen

Starring: Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire, Kay Thompson, Michel Auclair

9

There were so many movies in the last year that came out called "9" or "Nine" or "District 9" its easy to get them all confused. This one I think got a little mixed up and forgotten.

Its not surprising that it was a little forgotten, it's rated PG-13, so there it knocks out the adult and kid crowd for the most part, leaving the teens and people in their twenties to pick up the slack, and honestly unless its Pixar I am willing to over look most animated films until they are released on DVD like I did this.

9 is the name of our main character, he is a robotic rag doll made of burlap and rudimentary robotics in a time that resembles the 1930's, in what we can presume is Paris based on the architecture and the presence of what appears to be Notre Dame. 9 wakes up in a room where there is a dead body and the world has basically been destroyed, he is maybe a foot tall at the most. When he begins to venture outside he finds another one like him named 2. When 2 is captured and taken away by a robot made up of metal and a cat skeleton its up to 9 and another robot who saves him named 5 to get 2 back. In this time we also meet 1, 6, and 8. The others we are told are dead. When going to save 2, 9 awakens something far worse and are now on the run from the real evil they've unleashed.

Along the way we learn more about what annihilated humanity and how the world became the ruins that it is now. Its a re-imagining of history, if we had made this huge jump in the 20's and 30's with robotics and artificial intelligence is this what might have happened? With the Nazi's as power hungry as they were its certainly a possibility.

The animation takes a few steps backwards and instead of getting glossy, or going for photo realism they rather go for a look of the drawings from the time of what the future would look like. The animation is certainly top notch, but they intentionally didn't make it flashy, the story didn't fit that and it would have taken away from the deeper message.

This is where I'm going to jump to some conclusions, and I could be wrong, but there is certainly plenty of stuff to go on in this to come up with some ideas of what they were going for. Not only is this a reflection on war and specifically WWII, but I think they were also taking a look at the Holocaust from a safer standpoint than making a movie directly about it. They mention the "Chancellor" a few times and how his use of the 'brain machine" resulted in it turning on us. They even show the "Chancellor" at one point and he looks plenty like Hitler. There are burning smokestacks in it, yes that's a stretch, but then couple that with the archway to the factory from where the smoke comes from looks a lot like the one over the entrance to Auschwitz then it makes a stronger case.

6 is made up of what appears to be the striped clothes many of the Jews and others prisoners were made to wear. The fact that they are numbered and that it is physically printed on them is a good example. Now like I said, I am jumping to conclusions, but all of this taken together and the fact that the time frame is somewhere close to the 30's and 40's of the last century it fits much better.

The voice acting was good, other than 9, who is voiced by Elijah Wood and 5, who was John C Reilly, I couldn't really tell who any of the rest of them were, later I found out that many of the other ones are voiced by people I know. It was short, a lot shorter than I would have hoped, they spent a lot of time creating this world, and we see a lot of it, but I wish they wouldn't have rushed the story along as much as they did, and spent some more time just around in the destruction. Then we as the audience could really soak it in. The designs of the robots were very inventive and imaginative. From the one that looks like a cat, to a dragon one, or a cobra one, they really made them look different from many other robots Ive seen in movies.

Its to dark to be a decent kids movie as compared to what is expected of kids movies today. I still think kids should be allowed to watch this, maybe for little kids it might be to much. It was a strong addition to the computer created animated film sub-genre. They made it more adult, hoping one day it might become more mainstream for older people to see animated movies. 8/10 stars.

Director: Shane Acker

Starring: Elijah Wood, Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau, John C. Reilly, Crispin Glover, Jennifer Connellu

Mancora

The more movies I see coming out of South America and Israel the more impressed I get. Not that there aren't great movies coming out of the states, trust me there are, but there is a certain freshness in watching a movie from South America.

In Lima, Santiago is to busy having sex with his girl friend at a concert to answer his phone when his dad is calling. If he had he would have spoken to his father and heard him in person say "I Love you" before he kills himself. Santiago is not doing well, he's not leaving his house, he's just moping around. He keeps getting calls from his step sister Ximena who lives in New York, she wants to come and see him, and in tow she brings her new husband (Inigo).

Shortly after they get there Santiago admits that he's leaving Lima for some time and going to a childhood escape spot called Mancora, he and Ximena went there when they were children. When he goes to leave the next morning Ximena and Inigo are there to go with him. So they start on their journey to the Ocean. They meet a man named Batu along the way who joins them. As sexual tensions rise fights break out and Santiago starts searching for what he thinks is missing and wrong with his life.

The story isn't anything new, or even that originally done. Ive seen a dozen movies that have this or close to this storyline. A one that comes to mine and has plenty of comparisons would be "Y Tu Mama Tambien" There is a certain sexual freedom that exists in both of the films, and a lot of them that Ive seen coming from the Southern Hemisphere of America.

The characters are strong, not according to some of the reviews I read, but their complaints seemed more about the actors looks and the fact that the characters seem to be pretty well off. Personally I don't really care about that, am I surprised the actors are good looking? No. Is it easier to make the characters rich so you don't have to waste story with explaining how they can just leave work and dealing with their work situation in general? Yes. Its better for this story to stick to what its about and not try and make it all that grounded in the middle classes socio-economic situations.

That was the reasons I read for why one reviewer didn't like it, weak sauce to say the least. And if they hate that about this movie then they must hate most movies, because these plot points that they gloss over are the norm.

The colors of this movie are so rich and vibrant. The golds and oranges make me feel the warmth of the place, the blues of the ocean make me feel the cool splash on my face and skin. The cinematography certainly made the film that much better. Like I said the story wasn't all that original, the characters weren't either, but the fact that it was strong in so many other ways it made that other stuff inconsequential.

What Santiago learns on the trip will change him, the problems he has with the world he finds the reasons, or at least finds out how to fix it, within himself. On a side note, the girls in this, all of them are beautiful (The guys too) but I don't really care for the guys. Really gorgeous and nice to watch.

Here is another great contribution to the cinematic community coming from the South and I'm sure it wont be the last, I look forward to the next. Keep them coming. 8/10 stars.

Director: Ricardo de Montreuil

Starring: Jason Day, Elsa Pataky, Enrique Murciano, Phellipe Haagensen

Big Fan

Some of what sports fans do I think in many other societies could be viewed as a form of mental instability. Don't get me wrong, I love most sports, and am actually a big football fan, but I know when to stop.

Paul is a shlubby guy in his mid thirties who lives with his Mom and works as a Parking lot attendant at nights. He spends his days listening to the radio to call in sports programs and writing out his retorts for when he calls in later that night. Little in his life doesn't revolve around watching and loving the New York Giants. When out with another super-fan friend they spot their favorite player Quantrell Bishop. They jump in their car and naively follow him, his ride stops in a bad neighborhood and he goes inside to presumably buy some drugs, either Paul doesn't realize that's what he's doing, or he doesn't want to believe it.

They then follow him into Manhattan where he goes into a strip club, they make their way in, and after a few failed attempts to get his attention they actually go over and visit him. At first things go fine, until Paul slips and mentions something that gives away that they were following him. Bishop gets very upset and beats the crap out of Paul. He is hospitalized and chargers are starting to be prepared against Bishop. He could go to jail, and if he does the team will suffer, and the team is Paul's life.

Paul is played by comedian/actor Patton Oswalt. He has been a favorite comedian of mine for some time now, his early stuff showed promise and over the last few years has really hit a stride with his style. This would be the first movie I think Ive seen him in that is actually a serious role, and a very serious movie. He is vastly talented and does a great job with the role. I was actually surprised how well he played some of the scenes. Nothing was over the top, he was just a sad loser. His family adds to the character of Paul as well, his brother the sleazy personal injury lawyer and his brother's orange tanned fake titted trophy wife. It paints a real picture of where he came from, how his life is that sad that he will cling onto anything that brings him a set of emotions like loving the Giants does.

It gives him something everyday to feel. Sometimes happy that they just won and that they are doing well, angry that a ref made a bad call, or there was an injury to a key player. It also gives him a social acceptance, the sports watching community is vast, and he can go almost anywhere and talk about football with someone who loves the sport too. Thing is though, he is a Big Fan, perhaps to much, when he is beat up, all he can think about is the team. Having a rivalry with another guy who calls into the radio station ends up consuming him.

The story telling is very straight forward and rather simple, but it works, this mans life is uncomplicated, he goes to work, he watches the games and that's enough for him, there's not much to complicate his life until his run in with Bishop. There were some really interesting shots and some cool things done with the lighting, but for the most part it was standard dramatic lighting, they kept some style in it, but it wasn't stylized, or at anytime unrealistic.

I just read a moment ago that its director, who also wrote this, was also the writer on "The Wrestler" While watching this I couldn't help but notice the similarities, and there are many. They are not the same movie though, but they are both a negative look on the people who idolize athletes, and shows the other side of the story. We see what wrestling does to the human body in "The Wrestler" and in "Big Fan" we see what football does to the psyche of a fan who takes it to seriously.

The film very effectively points out the problems our society has in giving attention to the wrong things and rewarding bad behavior simply because there is something we like in the person, or that they do. 8/10 stars.

Director: Robert D. Siegel

Starring: Patton Oswalt, Kevin Corrigan, Michael Rapaport, Jonathan Hamm, marcia Jean Kurtz

Smile Pretty

It was amateur hour in my living room tonight. I could not stop laughing at this crap fest of a movie, and I'm being light with this.

A girl named Nastalia, aka "Nasty" is being abused by her adoptive father in the most PG way I've ever seen. She gets in some trouble at school when she is caught giving some dumb shit a blow job. Of course she gets into trouble with her "Dad" Peter. He locks her in the closet....so scary right? She soon after meets Matt a 32 year old that is super cool about talking to her and hanging out even though he knows shes 14. We soon find out that he knew her, from the Internet, apparently Peter has been putting the pictures of her he takes naked on the Internet, and Matt is one of his best customers, and has figured out where she lives and has come to find her. (Side note: Peter is selling the photos online for 8 dollars a piece, couldn't they even make that realistic?) (Also why is he not afraid of distributing child porn like this?)

She is now in love with him, after he attacks Peter they go on the run. After meeting another 14 year old, who was also abused they start a little 3-some action. I don't even think I can continue explaining this crap fest. So Ill just move on to making fun of it.

The movie starts out with the words "Suggested by a true story" Already off to a rocky start. It looked like they shot it on a camera phone, the audio levels were all off, they were peaking all over the place. The acting was below bad, it was upsetting to me as a human being. Not only are all the men in this, and I mean ALL of them pedophiles, but all the girls have been abused by their fathers and are more than willing to do it again. This isn't even close to the real world, its not even a good fantasy world.

I couldn't not stop laughing at the horrible dialogue that sounded as if an 8th grader with a hard on had written it. The story was so illogical and stupid it would have made even the worst story tellers question what these hacks were thinking. They took on a subject that is beyond delicate and treated it with a butchers job when they needed a surgeon. Ive seen some great and disturbing films on this subject and Ive seen it done right. This was a travesty that they performed here, they should next make a Holocaust movie, they might treat the subject matter with a little more humility and a little less bullshit.

As much fun as I was having laughing at this train wreck I couldn't wait for it to end. The characters existed simply for the story and not vice versa, they were 100% flat and one dimensional, and so... so.... so.... stupid. I really cant stress enough how bad this was, it reminded me a lot of the movie called "The Room" it was that laughingly bad. It was meant to be shocking and was only shockingly bad. Even the costumes were bad, like terribly bad, a beret, really?

Don't watch this, ever. Its sad that movies this bad are made when there are great ones that will never see the light of day. 2/10 stars.

Director: Harry Bromley Davenport

Starring: Scout Taylor-Compton, Pete Chekvala, Alexander Knezevich, Shannon Collis

The Dancer

There are so many little niches in our society as a whole. Its just filled with microcosms that for the people involved in them are their whole world. One such niche is the world of professional Ballet dancing.

Many little girls take Ballet lessons when they are kids, its fun for them and its very feminine. Thank God most of those girl don't go after it as a career, not only does it take a very specific body type like with Football, or Boxing, but it also destroys the body. The girl that the documentary follows is named Katja Bjorner. She describes the pain she is always in, as she warms up and talks to the documentarian she mentions that her leg and foot were hurting her that day and that she has just learned to ignore it. The reason for the pain is that she, as well as other Ballet dancers are doing something unnatural. The human body is not made to do this sort of thing. The film makes us watch as her as well as other dancers bend and mould their bodies into doing what they need them to do.

They bend and mold their bodies in the same way that their shoes are made. A very cool section of the film shows how their shoes are made, how quickly the shoe makers work, since they have to be made by hand and tailor fitted to each separate girls foot they cant just make one size fits all. So much of a Ballet dancers movements are based on the feet having to be able to do something incredibly specific with weight distribution and balance that if there's something wrong with the shoes they cant do what they need to do.

One of the teachers explains the difference between a dancer and a ballerina, and that they are the same, but the Ballerina has to be perfect. She continues to say that nothing is perfect, but the Ballerina has to be. That is quite a load to bear as a dancer. Perfection is the key to success, but as you turn your body into a dancers and break your self down and rebuild there has to be weakness' that form and cracks.

Ballet is made up of a few components, to my understanding of the way it works is that its a merging of the geometry of the human body, the lines we have and the way we move combined with the math of the music that each different dance is made for. Making the body into an instrument of the music, to me it seems the purest form of dance of trying to make the human body into the music would be Ballet.

Watching the dancers is like watching a Degas come to life, at one point towards the beginning of the film there is a wide shot of Katja and one of her teachers dancing in unison and it was so beautiful, it was beyond what I could describe, you have to see it. Most of the film when she isn't talking about dancing we are simply watching her warm up, train and perform, sometimes alone, sometimes with other dancers and teachers. That might sound boring, but it really was breathtaking. Its been a few years since Ive been to the Ballet, and when I did see it I was in the nosebleed section, but even from there I could see the women and their movements and it was something else.

A complaint I would have, and its not really their fault necessarily is that sometimes they were shooting on film and other times on video tape making a strange mix. Years of simply existing degrade tape, so certain sections you could tell the color was a little off, or there was some interference, minimal at best. These are things that upon reflection I thought about, but didn't really notice during the actual viewing. Almost no one would realize this without the proper education on it.

There are so many stupid dance movies that have come out in the last few years, here is one about the real thing. It might be slow, and there might not be a "story" but it was just beautiful to watch and I really enjoyed it. Seeing the human body in that way is about as close to perfect as I guess we can get. 8/10 stars.

Director: Donya Feuer

The Others

I already knew the twist. In case someone does read this....hello......HELLO....I'm alone right? Anyway if someone DOES read this then I wont give away the twist, it's a good twist though.

So this is post "The Sixth Sense" movies for a while thought they had to have a big twist, so I will give it a pass for being slightly heavy handed in that respect. A woman named Grace is looking for a new staff to take over when her other employees just left. She own a fairly large estate and since she has money she can pay other people to do the domestic things for her while she reads or sleeps, or whatever. She gets a few new employees and upon showing them around explains the house rules including if one door is open then all others must be closed and locked. Strange, yes, until we find out about her kids, they have a severe reaction to sunlight, if exposed even for a short amount of time they could die.

This sets up the mood for the rest of the film, with the house being a fortress closed off from almost all light we are left to see the house only where they have candles, many dark corners form. Scary enough for kids like that, but then add onto it that they say there are other people in the house. Strange noises are heard, doors open and close on their own, and so starts the fight to find out whats going on.

I remember seeing the trailer for this and being marginally interested, but not enough to pay to see it. People had told me it was good, but still I wasn't really compelled to see it. I thought it was about time to see what the fuss was about. It wasn't the amazing movie I was led to expect, but it was better than it could have been with a weaker cast or script.

The gimmick of the kids allergy is great for giving a real reason why the house needs to be dark. I was happy about that, so many times sitting there in other movies you wonder why not just hit a light switch. Nicole Kidman is good in just about everything, she is good at playing the anal mother and in this instance plays it as well as you can, pushing the threshold of annoyance and overbearing.

Its worth a glance, but not something that needs to be seen. 7/10 stars.

Director: Alejandro Amenabar

Starring: Nicole Kidman, Fionnula, Alakina Mann, James Bentley, Eric Sykes, Elaine Cassidy

Fear(s) of the Dark

Upon seeing the trailer for this a short time ago I was very interested in seeing it. Based on the roughly two minute trailer all I knew of it was that it was all Black and White, all animation, and several different stories.

I put off watching it for a few days, not really in the mood for a French, B&W, animated horror short collection. When I did pop it in though I was instantly surprised and disturbed. The simple at times, and precise animation was more than enough to send chills down my spine. I will do my best to describe the basic stories. One involved an old English man walking his dogs, all large and near the point of foaming at the mouth, when he comes across people he will let one go and watch while laughing as it chases them down and eventually mauls them to death, women, children...all of it very funny to him. Another involved a young college age student who after angering a bug he caught when he was a child is on the receiving end. This is the one that to me had the least bit of explanation but I think the one that bothered me the most, for a few different reasons.

Another involved a young Japanese girl moving to a new town and living near where an infamous Samurai was buried after he was beheaded for killing some English people. She has to deal with the mean kids at school as well as ghosts, a possible possession, murder of her parents and eventually institutionalized where she is tormented by her doctors. Really sickening stuff. There's another story about a boy who sees people disappear in his community, because of some sort of monster. Finally a story about a man who seeks refuge in an abandoned house during a snow storm....oops, maybe its not abandoned.

Working with such coarse and drastic imagery as well as subject matter this collection of short horrors did more for me that a lot of feature length horrors that come out of Hollywood like so much bile. They traded in the conventional horrors and instead used simple mood and animation that left much to the imagination.

Some of the tales where cleanly drawn and rounded, while others were dirty and scratched up. Even things that shouldn't have been scary looked horrifying when drawn a certain way. Many parts of it lacked dialogue or even some sort of exposition or explanation of what was happening which was fine by me since it worked so well to upset me. I didn't really care about the stories, more just how they were making me feel.

The decision to stay black and white was a wise one, as well as keeping it animated, they did things with the pen that CGI, or make-up just couldn't do. It allowed the different animators to show exactly what was in their head instead of settling for finding somewhere in the real world that's close enough to what they wanted.

There was one thing that I didn't like about it, and it was something I think they should have cut out entirely and it was a voice over section that played in between the stories where a woman is describing her fears while geometric shapes fly around on screen. I saw no point to it and it broke up the tension created by each story and bored me. It was like a palette cleanser when you want to keep the taste in your mouth, not neutralize it.

Aside from that one complaint I thought this was a very "cool" film. It promised something and held up its end of the bargain. If you like horror with a certain twist, or "think outside the box" quality then this is a good addition to your list of films to watch. I'm going to be keeping my eye out for an old man with viscous dogs, and if I see them, run and don't look back. 8/10 stars.

Directors: Blutch, Charles Burns, Marie Caillou, Pierre Di Sciullo, Lorenzo Mattotti, Richard McGuire.

Sin Nombre

It means with out a name. The title refers to the untold and nameless people who have died trying to get into the United States by any means necessary. At a point on the border there is a sign that reads "Sin Nombre" to warn and remember all the people who have died that we cant tell who they were.

We meet Willy aka El Casper, a young thug and enforcer in a Mexican street gang, he is bringing El Smiley into the gang, and we watch him as well as other members of the gang kick the crap out of the kid. They name him Smiley because when they pick him up off the ground he is smiling with blood pouring out his mouth. Willy makes a mistake and visits his girl friend (Martha) while he is supposed to be on guard duty. When Lil Mago the head of their gang finds out he thinks that Willy should share and goes to rape the girl, he while struggling with her kicks her down, her head hits a rock and she's killed.

Willy, Lil Mago and Smiley go on a "mission" they are going to rob some immigrants on the top of a train on their way north towards the States. On the train is Sayra who is traveling with some family hoping to get to New Jersey. Lil Mago attempts to rape her and Willy cuts his throat with a machete. Now its on, there's a hit on Willy's head, and he now has to try and get as far away as fast as he can. The rest of the film is spent following him and Sayra as they try to escape. She is following him because she owes him, he doesn't want to ruin her life too and keeps pushing her away.

The film is violent, although from the description I'm sure that was something you could figure out. Along with the brutal violence though there is delicateness to it. Alongside beautiful landscapes there is this brutal crime and violence that beats everyone around into submission. It seems to be both a love letter to the goodness of the people as well as a drastic reflection of the worst qualities we are humans all possess.

Watching people risk life and limb just to get into our country really puts things in perspective, as much as we have our problems in America we really can try and do anything we want, where in other parts of the world, particularly third world you have limited options, most ending in a short life.

The cinematography is gorgeous, but I have come to expect little else from South American movies, they seem to fully embrace the surroundings of the movie and make it important, such as in "City of God" or "XXY" Although the story might be about something else entirely there is still plenty of attention paid to the world around the story, the beauty of it, as well as the ugliness of it. Watching the gang work and spread like a virus was intriguing, since the gang that they are part of spans countries and even continents it leaves Willy few places to hide.

The acting was spot on, there is a quietness to most of the characters, to keep your head down, but alert, and you might get through this. Don't be a problem, don't make anything an issue and you will be okay, as soon as you fight back you give them the reason to do whatever they want to you. When seeing a member of their rival gang shot, its hard enough, he's begging for his life, he has children. But then the next shot is the dogs they own eating some raw meat, you know exactly what they did with his body.

Overall it was a good film, it was strong in many ways, but lacked a certain spark that will get it the sort of recognition as a movie like "City of God" got. Watching Lil Mago who is covered head to toe in tattoos hold his baby girl in his arms, while at the same time talking about killing people, you see a face of Central America, a certain touch that can be both kind and loving and in the next moment be brutal and ending. 8/10 stars.

Director: Cary Fukunaga

Starring: Edgar Flores, Paulina Gaitan, Kristian Ferrer, Diana Garcia, Tenoch Huerta

Once

This movie was not what I expected. It was built up at the Oscars and from what I had heard people say about it, and it certainly did something rarely seen.

The characters are never given names, so I will have to refer to them as Guy and Girl. Guy is a street performer when he isn't working for his Dad's vacuum cleaner repair store. He sings well known songs during the day and plays guitar, and at night plays more for himself singing his own compositions. After playing a fairly emotional song he meets Girl who gives him 10 cents, he is noticeably bitter to her even though she seems much worse off than him. She is an immigrant from Czechoslovakia, with a kid and a mother to support.

They begin to hang out and he makes a move on her that she doesn't really care for. Even though that happens they continue to be around one another and eventually record some songs together. I wont go any further on with the story, but honestly there wasn't much story.

The filmmakers traded Story, Cinematography, even acting in for the music and a general emotion of the film. There are long stretches that they are simply singing and playing instruments. When I say simply I just mean on the surface, there is a deep well of emotion behind what they are doing as well as something is happening between them. Instead of talking, most of their flirtations are through the music. It was a strange musical for sure, where the music isn't part of the world they live in, they are singing in the real world. In "West Side Story" When someone breaks into song its a normal thing, in this world it would be viewed as strange. So instead its a musical simply because that's the main course of communication they are using with one another.

The music was really fantastic, there were some really sad and touching songs. Both of them come together beautifully, and are a harmony themselves. I did feel though there were scenes where the image suffered simply because they didn't really care about how it looked, the film was more a vehicle for the music, which hey, nothing wrong with that. If some films exist simply for the actors to act in, then why not a film to get some music across to the audience?

The acting wasn't great, but it doesn't really matter, most of it feels like a documentary (the use of a digital camera, the non-actors they cast) so I am willing to forget about the acting since so much of it felt real, I could believe they were just people being followed with a camera.

The packaging of the film as well as my understanding of it before I saw it told me one thing, and I was saddened to find a different movie under the hype. A sad movie, with no one running to the airport to stop them in time, no kisses in the rain. It was merely the story that many people live, with their music being the glue holding them together, even if only for a short while. The small time they had together will seemingly dictate the rest of their creative lives.

Its a good movie for music, its not meant to be visually stimulating, or not as much as it could have been, but its greatest strength is the fact that there aren't many movies like this out there. Combine that with the fact that it was a good film makes it worth watching. You'll probably end up downloading the music as well. 8/10 stars.

Director: John Carney

Starrring: Glen Hansard, Marketa Irglova

P.S. If you watch it, afterwards look up on IMDB, the Trivia section of the movies page, what she is saying when she answers his question after they are looking at the sea. There are no subtitles for that part, and its key to the story.

Raise the Red Lantern

I think its hard for many Asian films to easily translate to our Western culture, there seems to be some disconnect along the way. There are of course movies that I can easily understand and follow "Battle Royale" "Ran" but then there are also the ones I just don't get such as "Suicide Club" or "Oldboy" This film on the other hand I feel communicates it self across cultural bounds.

Songlian is a young woman who after her father dies is forced into being the 4th wife of a rich Chinese man. She is basically going to be a concubine and will need to produce another son for him. When she moves in she is quickly either accepted by the other wives or finds herself new enemies. There is a certain hierarchy of the household and the politics are cut throat. She as the youngest and most beautiful becomes the Masters new favorite, as she tries to keep herself apart from the drama that's created she eventually buys into it and becomes just as bad as they act.

In these type of movies it either goes like that or they are able to with hold entirely, this though was not the case. As a prisoner of sorts she plays the game quickly. Like many Asian movies its very quiet and still, which I think in this works for it instead of against it as I have seen happen before. They certainly knew what they were doing with the camera as well as the color choices they used. Working with the estate they live on for almost every single frame of the movie they effectively make every inch of the place feel like a bricked in prison, there are so many rules they must follow and certain schedules, sounds like prison to me.

Something I really liked about it was that you barely see the Masters face, its either obscured by silk, or a plant, or he simply has his back to the camera. The main reason I think this film works as well as it does, and so easily crosses borders to other audiences is that it is a global story, the woman who is forced to marry someone she doesn't want to, and has to fulfill some sort of task, such as having a son. Just think "Marie Antoinette" "The Other Boleyn Girl" and those are just two quick examples off the top of my head, there are certainly another 15 movies I alone have seen that fit this description.

Its a beautiful movie and very sad in its beauty. When it ended I just sort of stared at the screen admiring the last series of shots, which from a Cinematography stand point was something I hadn't really seen before. The film is so full of pent up female sexuality and the hypocrisies that come from a society where men are held in higher esteem than that of women.

Its a strong movie, its quieter and slower though than I think most people are willing to sit through, there isn't much action, even the sexuality of it is deep under the surface. I mean seeing someone play footsie in it seems like a trespass unspeakable. As there are so many other films with this same basic story, I cant really say that its a must see, but it is certainly something I would recommend to anyone who likes Asian Cinema or if you are in the mood for something like this. 7/10 stars.

Director: Yimou Zhang

Starring: Li Gong, Saifei He, Cuifen Cao, Jingwu Ma, Lin Kong

Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement

How do you turn down watching a movie with a title like this? Its just to good of a title, it promises so much more than can even be described. Ive seen plenty of end of the world scenarios in documentaries but this is the top of the pile.

Alex Jones, a lunatic Neo-Con is responsible for this mockery of what is trying to be real investigative journalism and documentary film making. Instead of working with cut and dry facts he opts to take things that are true and twist them to mean and say whatever he wants. He is obviously a smart person (believe it or not) he understands how the use of language and rhetoric can get you everything or nothing.

He blames everybody for every problem in the world. Here are a few examples.

-Environmentalism is just merely a means to enslave the planet by "forcing" people to have less children (just like in China, with their one child per home policy)

-Darwin was a firm believer that the world should be run by a small elite group of people and thus wrote "The Origin of the Species"

-Darwin can and should be blamed for Hitler and the Holocaust.

-Any and all politicians are part of a secret organization wanting to enslave the human race.

-The British are evil.

-Everyone is the enemy

-The global elite wants to make two species of humans, the lower slave ones and the upper elite ones.

-The Bilderberg group wants immortality

He so easily uncovers this vast conspiracy, if its so easy to discover then I think this plot will fail, if these are the best and brightest trying to take over and we can so easily figure this out then they are screwed.

At best this is simply funny quasi-entertainment, its not really a documentary, I hate what this guy says, I think its damaging, but I will fight for his right to say it, I doubt he would do the same. 3/10 stars.

Director: Alex Jones

Judd Apatow

There are tiers that exist with certain filmmakers, some of their movies are good, some are bad, there are several tiers, some filmmakers have more, some have less. These are mine for Judd Apatow. Within each tier there is no specific order.

1st Tier: Pineapple Express, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Superbad, Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy

2nd Tier: Funny People, Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

3rd Tier: Step Brothers, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Kicking and Screaming, The Cable Guy, You Don't Mess With the Zohan

Cant place since I haven't seen: Year One, Drillbit Taylor

Personally I think this is a pretty clean record, keep up the good work. The third tier is nothing to own, but see them once if you think they appeal to you, there are certainly some funny parts in them.

Fermat's Room

This film is simply put as a gimmick film, if you start to look even shallowly under the surface it all comes apart in your hands, but it sure is fun.

A few people whom we only know by the names they are given by a mysterious host converge on a secluded barn by invitation to impart on the solving of the best enigma ever. They are mathematicians and brilliant, there's Pascal, a middle aged man who recently accidentally put a women in a coma when he hit her with his car. Hilbert, an older man, looks like a slick playboy, but sort of pompous, Oliva, the token woman, then Galois a young brilliant mathematician who figured out a 200 year old problem only to have it stolen from him, and finally Fermat the host of the affair.

Its strange for them from the get go, they don't know why they are there and what they are even supposed to do, when Fermat is called away with an emergency the game begins. They have a minute to answer each riddle, if their time expires then the walls start to move in on them, so their room if they do nothing will be to small for even one of them within the hour. There are industrial presses pushing the walls together, they don't have a window or other exit. So at times they play along, other times they start to see if they can some how sabotage the compressors.

As we watch we start to learn more about them, and how there's a connection, and how maybe one of them is behind all of this, or not, they are desperate to figure a way out. The riddles are all ones Ive heard before, or for the most part were, so I already knew the answers for most of them, it took them longer to figure them out than it did for me to remember, but then again when I did those riddles it took me longer than a minute. I was hoping for the riddles to be a little more difficult, but they do get harder as the time goes by.

Almost all of the movie is in the one location, much like parts of "Saw" we are simply watching their panic as they try and figure this out and then start to turn on one another. Like I said earlier if you start thinking about it as real it falls apart quick, all these part would have to fit together perfectly for them all to come together and figure things out like they are supposed to, as well as if all four walls are moving in....hows that possible? Wouldn't the corners crush against it self? Only two walls would be able to come in, not all four, but oh well, who really cares.

Its a fun enough movie, a little light on the thriller scale, but something to pass the time, its a gimmick, but at least its one that works in keeping me watching. 7/10 stars.

Director: Luis Piedrahita, Rodrigo Sopena

Starring: Lluis Homar, Alejo Sauras, Elena Ballesteros, Santi Millan, Federico Luppi

Moon

I saw the preview for this some time ago, and said to myself, "I have to rent this, right now." That was until I found out it was just being released in theatres and I said, "Shit, I have to see this in the theatre then." But no one would see it with me, no one, even the person I lived with said she wouldn't see it, she'd rather see "Rachel Getting Married" so I had to wait....till now.

It was worth the wait, this is Sci-Fi for adults. Like "Sunshine" before it, or "2001 A Space Odyssey" it takes the genre out of the play pen and into the boxing ring. No offense to "Independence Day" or other movies with that same pedigree but there is no comparison to these other films, and movies such as that give the whole genre a bad rap of being movies that aren't to be taken seriously.

There is far to much for me to give away, so I will just do my best in keeping it as mysterious as possible. This is a little in the future and a company has set up a base on the moon where they harvest Helium 3, its clean burning energy, and it has solved the Earths energy crisis. We meet Sam, he is the person on the moon that keeps the machines harvesting on the surface as well as sending the tubes filled with H3 back to Earth, he has a robot that helps him named GERTY, other than that he is alone, on the entire moon, alone.

He has a three year contract and it is about to end, he can go home. On his way to get a H3 canister off of one of the harvesters he gets into an accident. He wakes up in the infirmary with GERTY watching him. The bosses on earth wont let him leave the base until he's feeling better, he tricks GERTY into letting him outside to fix a problem with the exterior shell, but he really is going to go fix a stalled harvester, that's when he finds a man out on the Moon, who is passed out and looks just like him.

I'm not going to go into any more detail about what happens after that. I loved it, every minute of it, I thought that maybe since I had built it up in my mind so much it would have been lacking what my expectations were, but it didn't. For a first time director this is a marvel. Made on a mere 5 million the effects are great and the sets are imaginative and classic at the same time. There are so many cues to the classics, GERTY's eye is similar to that of HAL's in "2001" they even sort of talk the same. Parts of the base reminded me of "Alien" and "Aliens" There was even a sort of cleanness that I felt like it was from "AI"

Even with all these other influences the film stands firmly on its own two feet and finds a voice for itself. Choices like cutting down on CGI and going with models and forced perspective give the look that this is all real, and since those things are physical objects they are real.

Now onto the acting, Sam Rockwell who plays Sam Bell in it our main character was amazing, the likes of Tom Hanks having to keep the movie "Cast Away" going on his own with no other actors, Sam had to do the same. GERTY was only voiced later by Kevin Spacey, so other than a few images on some LCD screens he has on the base that he never really interacts with he does the entire thing on his own.

The Cinematography and Lighting was pretty much locked in, the set made it so they could only put the camera so many places and the lighting was for the most part built in. They still do some really cool stuff with the lighting, such as if an alarm is going off on the base the lights change to orange or red, just cool stuff like that.

As the answers unfold in this its not a huge surprise, but don't look for the twist, just sit back and enjoy it. The isolation and deadness of the moon really comes across in this. If you read this and saw, and liked "Sunshine" then I would suggest you check this out. For as good as this was I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more play, I only knew of a few places that were playing it and they were art house theatres, but with the likes of "2012" and other such trash I guess I'm not to surprised that this film would go over looked. 9/10 stars.

Director: Duncan Jones

Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey

Stalker

This is going to be a hard one to review. The other day I watched a film called "Ivan's Childhood" When I mentioned I had watched it to a friend they suggested I watch this other film by the same director that he did many years later.

A man only known as Stalker wakes up in the morning and has a fight with his wife, he's out on another job and shes not to happy about it. The job being a sort of guide and protector in a place called "The Zone" You see "The Zone" is a place where strange things happen, its even said to have a room where your wishes will come true, but its very dangerous, its a large area of land where the simplest of tasks can kill you, stuff like a river bed can go from dry to under 20 feet of water in mere moments. This place is guarded by men with guns, and there are many theories of how this place came to be, one we hear is that it was due to a meteor that landed there, maybe its a gift from God....or a curse.

Stalker is taking two men in with him, the Scientist, and the Writer, both of whom don't say why they want to go in there, or at least not right away. So after they get in they set to finding the room, "The Zone" though seems to be conscious of their choices and frames of mind, it can and does spit them out, or send them to places they didn't mean to get to. This actually sounds like it would make a really cool American remake, but there is a certain charm to this version, and I'm not really into American remakes. This though......was very long winded.

Clocking in at 2 hours and 45 minutes, with very little happening through out most of it, a certain boredom arises. If you can make it through the first 30-40 minutes or so, and are willing to watch with out a huge pay off then this movie can be very enjoyable. Its Russian and much of it is spent pontificating about the meaning of life, why things happen, what it means to be human, and on and on they go. They even spout off poems at one another, different to say the least. Certain scenes and shots go on for minutes and minutes with nothing happening, and I mean that, people sitting on the ground, for like 2 minutes, talk about boring.

For the most part the cinematography was incredible, but was punched in the face by the lack of a decent editing job, this movie could have easily been 40 minutes shorter and nothing would have been lost story wise, the only thing we would lose is the feeling that the movie will never end.

As interesting as the characters are, they pale in comparison to "The Zone" here is the real focus of the story, it knows you're there, and can see through you. There are rooms filled with piles of sand (kudos to the art department) there are rooms where the floor is filthy water and the walls are falling in (again art department) Its full of that kind of thing, what saved this movie for me and ultimately made me enjoy it as much as I did was the fact that the Cinematography was killer, although sometimes shots lasted forever (editors fault as well) and "The Zone's" amazing imagery supplied mostly by art department. Now this was made in the late 70's so they couldn't exactly do what we can do now in movies like "The Cell" or "The Fall" both of those are by the same director. Other movies being "The Fountain" or "Moulin Rouge" for amazing imagery, but this still has its own real appeal.

The acting was....underdone. They seemed very flat, and all of what they spoke of was misery, perhaps its because its a Russian film, seems to be a theme they go with often. I'm sorry to say this, because the film was good, but I would not recommend it to most, its a difficult pill to swallow, while watching it I was asked several times if I wanted to stop it, but it takes a lot to get me to give up on a film, and I was really interested in this one. Is this a film I need to watch again? No, not really, but I certainly would show excerpts of it to people if I need to show an example of what people can do with film.

Even though I will be giving this a high rating, or at least higher than most people would its because its a good example, not necessarily something you might enjoy. If you're open to philosophy and have the 3 hours and the patience then take a look. 7.5/10 stars.

Director: Andrei Tarkovsky

Starring: Aleksandr Kaidanovsky, Anatoli Solonitsyn, Nikolai Grinko

Ivan's Childhood

Its hard to figure out exactly what it was like for the Russians during WWII, the Americans and the Allied troops certainly had many casualties, but Russia's topped 20 million, its a hard number to wrap your mind around.

The story is of a young boy of 12 named Ivan who works as a scout for the Soviet troops. He is willing to do just about anything, and doesn't seem to care to much about his own health or well being. He has no one left, all of his family has been killed and he wants revenge. After swimming across a river away from German troops he says he will only talk to the commander of the Soviet troops who found him in the water. They of course don't take him seriously until they actually call the HQ like he had asked and find out that he is actually a VIP. The rest of the movie involves Ivan and the other troops trying to fill their time as the German offensive approaches, they eventually decide they have to get some Soviet troops bodies across the river to their side. The Germans had caught them and hung them off a tree in view of the Soviets.

Ivan is told he is being sent to the rear to go to military school. But before they do that he wants to help once more, in one last mission on the opposite shore. The thing that makes this movie work for me as much as it did is the outstanding cinematography of it, as well as the bold and at times risky lighting choices. Its not exactly film noir, but it has many of the same attributes, but is distinctly Russian. As much as I might respect film noir, there is a certain animosity from it as well, and what I mean is....I'm supposed to pity the French and the Italians here, which I do in a way, but they also did some terrible things during the war.

The Soviets certainly did some horrible things after the war, I'm not going soft on them, but I think I feel much closer to these characters who are fighting in this, as opposed to the post whinings of the French who collaborated with the Nazis.

I can see a lot of influence coming out of this in other movies based on the imagery which is incredible, I wish I could describe it, but its just to dense and complicated. I suppose Ill try. There are dirty and muddy rivers, the trucks cant even drive on the roads practically, they are so thick with mud and water. Parts of the countryside are just always smoking, there are vast tracts of land that the only thing that remains is the chimneys of the houses that were once there, the houses have burned. Other than some thin birch trees there is little other life anywhere but man. Every thing about this place feels dead and yet still menacing. The lighting is hard and all contrast, the characters faces are obscured, or they walk in and out of the light, or even disappear completely, and all we see is a hand, or a knife, or legs.

Its an interesting depiction of the war from the Russians POV, and says a lot about them as a people and their feelings about the war, art, and the Germans place in the world, as well as their own. If you like movies that look incredible and have interesting images then this is worth a viewing. My only complaint is that as a Russian I don't quite get it like they would, there were and will be things that allude me about it because its a cultural time capsule and I will never experience WWII and never be Russian. 8/10 stars.

Director: Andrei Tarkovsky

Starring: Nikolay Burlyaev, Valentin Zubkov, Yevgeni Zharikov, Stepan Krylov, Nikolai Grinko, Valentina Malyavina

Nothing But the Truth

Its good to see that certain actors really have it in them to be good actors. I think most of them have gotten to where they are because they are that good, but as fat old producers get their claws into them they pimp them out based on their looks and offer them roles they really shouldn't take. I feel that this is pretty true for actors like Kate Beckinsale, among others.

When a reporters (Rachel) gets her hands on a lead that will no doubt destroy the President's reputation, and make him face some questions I'm sure he would rather not, she is all to quick to want to run it in the paper. Problem is is that it involves outing a CIA operative (named Erica) (sound familiar) As much as it seems like she doesn't want to, she really wants the story, it will propel her into another stratosphere of journalism, and its a story that should be run, right? She runs the story and there is a huge blow up when all the other press gets their hands on the name of the CIA operative, as well as the federal government would like to plug the leak as quickly and as cleanly as possible.

So in comes Patton Dubois, a man whose sole job is going to be to find out who told Rachel that Erica was in the CIA. Rachel doesn't have to tell him, or anyone else for that matter, its a 1st Amendment issue, and if she does who will trust her again as a journalist. So Patton strong arms her, and is able to get her thrown in jail until she gives up the name of the source. She remains in jail for a year, never giving up the name, we eventually learn the cooberating source, but not the original, and even though her life is in ruins she wont tell who it was.

Its sick to think that this actually happened, and continues to happen, this is not the America I know, they take an individuals rights and throw them out in the name of "National Security" So if that's the case, what will stop them from doing it to me, or you, or anyone? Kate Beckinsale is the woman who plays Rachel, and is surprisingly good in it, I was telling someone just the other day that she is a good actress, its just no one has seen her good movies (another example is called "Snow Angels") Its the women of the movie who really run the show, the male actors are good in this but take a back seat to Beckinsale, and Vera Farminga.

Now as good as the acting was, and so was the story, it is very heavy in the melodrama, it goes a little to far in stacking the cards against our characters, whether that's how it really is or not it makes the movie seem like David against an army of Goliaths. Isn't that all the feds are though? The movie holds up a mirror to show all of our injustices, and uncommon as this practice may be that they do to the characters in the movie, the fact that its does happen in this day in age is disgusting.

There's nothing really exciting about the way it was shot, or the music, its mostly just a vehicle for its actors. The nagging question though of the movie, who was the source of the information is upsetting to say the least, I'm sure people figure it out, instead of trying to figure it out I just let it play to its strengths which is rare for me, I usually try and figure it all out before its exposed. We learn in the last scene who her source was.

For the acting I think its worth watching, but overall if you miss it you wont really miss it. Its just another drop in the bucket of movies that are heavy on plot and acting, but weak in other areas. 7/10 stars.

Director: Rod Lurie

Starring: Kate Beckinsale, Matt Dillon, Vera Farmiga, Alan Alda, Angela Bassett, Dadid Schwimmer, Noah Wyle

Left Bank

It's been some time since I've looked to Hollywood, or American Cinema for my horror movie fix. I don't particularly like horror, I'm more of a thriller kind of guy if I'm in the mood to be scared. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly good horror movies still made here, but few and far between, so when I'm in the mood I look over the oceans to places where they still know how to scare.

This film bothered me in a lot of ways, and the easiest comparison to me, and the way it made me feel would be like that of the movie "Being John Malcovich" The ending of that movie as well as this just makes me feel bad, it makes me feel dirty, and makes me so glad that its not a possibility. The story is about a woman in her early 20's named Marie who is a world class runner, they mention she is the 5th best in the world. She spends most of her time training, and thus has little social life. That is until she gets sick, her immune system is crashing, her blood is weak, and she's going to need to take some time off to recuperate. She begins to fill her time with a new boy friend named Bobby.

Things begin to progress very quickly and she basically starts to crash with him for the time that she is trying to rest. The thing is though is that the building he lives in is making her sick, she isn't getting better but worse, shes throwing up and generally getting more and more depressed. When she starts to have some truly disturbing dreams she looks into the history of the area that he lives in with the help of a man named Dirk whose girl friend lived in the building and disappeared a few months earlier. The lines begin to blur for Marie as she starts to become something else, shes got black coarse hair growing out of a wound on her knee, she cant stop throwing up, and the feeling that Bobby isn't what he seems to be is getting stronger.

Ill leave it at that when it comes to the plot and what happens because I don't want to give anything away. There were things that seemed unfinished though, loose ends and things they never explain. Which at first might seem like lazy writing, or lazy story telling, but honestly I think once you have put a certain amount of effort into explanation most of it after that point should be left alone. If everything is explained away then what am I fearing when the film is done? To truly scare me there has to be some mystery when the film ends because that scares me so much more than a nice neat little package where everything has a reason for happening.

Its very creepy, all the way through, they weren't fearing the dark in the way they shot and lit it, which I love to see, lots of it is dark and very drab. None of what you see really looks like a nice place to live, a lot of soft blues, and sickly greens and yellows (a current popular look) with a certain grimness around every corner. There's some black mud that might as well been a man with a knife that it seemed that threatening to me, and to the characters as well.

The acting was fine, I couldn't really say much about it since for a horror there really isn't much screaming, and only some running. In fact most of the terrifying things in this are ignored for as long as they can which just put the tension on steroids waiting for something to happen. If I had watched it at night I think it would have bothered me more, but just thinking about the ending will remind me how upsetting I really found it.

If you like horror that isn't straight forward or even all that blood soaked then this is a good choice, if you've seen "Let the Right One In" and liked it I think this would be up your alley, it takes so many more risks than most American horror films. One of the better and more atmospheric horrors Ive seen recently, enjoyable to the last minute, I mean as much as one could enjoy it. 8/10 stars.

Director: Pieter Van Hees

Starring: Eline Kuppens, Matthias Schoenaerts, Sien Eggers, Tom De Wispelaere

Party Monster

It has got to be hard to write, or act in a movie where the characters are so annoying it makes you want to stab your self in the face, over and over again.

This is the mostly true story of a young man named Michael Alig who in the late 80's and early 90's was the king of an under ground night club culture. He ended up murdering a drug dealer friend of his named Angel in cold blood and the hacked his body up, put it in a box and threw it into the river. The story is told from two peoples points of view, Michael's and James St. James. Both of these "people" are total and utter useless wastes of space. The story gives us some back ground on how at least Michael become the "monster" that he was by the end of his little 15 minutes of fame. If you are interested in that story, how he was molested and mistreated as a child then watch "Party Monster: The Shockumentary" a Documentary about it, not to be confused with this movies that is simply titled "Party Monster"

The documentary isn't a bad film, but its hard to care at all about these people because they are such.....tools. Their lives consist of being paid large sums of money to come to a night club and party, that's all. Hey if someone wants to pay them to do this, then whatever, what do I care. They get dressed up in insane and stupid costumes at these parties and do enough drugs to kill a horse, they even had to tone down the drug use in this for fear that audiences wouldn't believe the amount of drugs they did.

Now I cant stress this enough, there is nothing worth liking or admiring in these people, they really are useless to us and themselves. Instead of trying to do something useful for society they are completely self serving and so into themselves that its no wonder they ended up killing someone. Now did Angel deserve to die, I couldn't say, I'm sure he did some terrible things, but enough to be killed, and simply because he wanted to be paid for the drugs that Alig had consumed? After beating him with a hammer they put hypodermic needles full of Draino into his veins, smothered him and left his body there for days. They eventually cut it up and threw it away. Truly disgusting.

The way its shot isn't great, its decent digital video, but nothing great. There are a few interesting shots, and some lighting that didn't look completely staged, but not much. Its hard to enjoy the movie when I hate the people in it, and even worse when I know they are real people. The way they shot it didn't redeem itself. The acting was okay, but again, the characters are so over the top its hard to mess that up, its like how anyone can do a Christopher Walken impression, but to do a good one you have to pull it back.

Overall as interesting as it is to see his decline and ultimate failure as a person, they don't devote enough time to showing why he did what he did, or how his decline transferred to the point of murder. It was faulty as a story, the script needed work, and its hard for me to stand watching a movie where the people are so so so incredibly annoying. 4/10 stars.

Director: Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato

Starring: Macaulay Culkin, Seth Green, Wilmer Valderrama, Wilson Cruz

Same Sex America

Ive watched a few documentaries about gay people getting married in America, I saw this was about to start on TV so I thought I'd check it out. I wasn't disappointed, it follows 6 couples in Massachusetts in 2004 and 2005 dealing with their right to get married.

At first glance all I kept thinking was they seemed like "All American Families" They take their kids to school, they work to make money just like I know they do. They just want to have what straight couples have, and since this is America I think/know they should. One the flip side of the coin are these lunatics who say they don't hate gays, but they are going to ruin everything. People are screaming out saying things such as, "If you allow this then you condone incest, polygamy, beastiality....." Could they be more wrong? They continue with, "One man, one woman, make children, no procreation, then no marriage" So by that wisdom then people who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to wed, or the elderly, is that what we are going to do now?

America is about removing restrictions, not imposing them. The crazies continue with "This is simply legalized perversion" One woman who they focus on who is on that side says, "If this happens then life is going to be a lot harder" Yeah, that makes sense, other people will be allowed to get married, your life is going to be full of hardships now. People like this really make me sick, she honestly thinks that if gays get married our society will collapse, she will be forced to defend her own marriage, just insanity.

Most of the film they focus on the fight in the state over the decision to allow gays to be married, and the couples who are planning their own marriages. One couple we see for a moment in it are gay men who have been together for 49 years, and are now able to get married, its so great for them, but also so sad that we let that right be with held from them for a half century. The women and men we see are normal people, there is no ear mark that screams gay about them, but they are. A man plays catch with his son, a little girl tells her Moms she wants to sing at their wedding, its adorable, and its normal. There is no proof that a kid coming out of a same sex household will be any different, if anything I think they would be more accepting.

Its not an issue of religion or sex, its a civil rights issue, they are trying to with hold rights from a group of tax paying citizens. Same thing with interracial marriage, its not about the race issue its about the right to do as you want in a free country and free society. As much as I hate the KKK or neo-Nazis if they want to have a march they have the right to do that, its wrong, but that's what comes with our freedoms. If hate mongering groups can march through DC or any other city in our country then why cant two people who love each other get married.

I liked how they just followed the people and didn't really ask questions or interfere that much, it was a straight up cultural documentary. Its a snap shot of our country that will be interesting to look at 5 years down the road or 50 years. 7/10 stars.

Director: Henry Corra

An American Werewolf in London

I watched this a few days ago, and knowing that this was made nearly 30 years ago makes it that much more impressive.

Two college ago guys (David and Jack) are backpacking around Europe, they are going to begin in the Moors of Northern England and then move onto the much warmer and nicer Italy. When we first see them they are in the back of truck full of sheep, heading off to the slaughter house (get it) They thank the driver and head off into the countryside. When they get to a pub they are treated like monsters themselves but warned before they head out to stay off the Moors, keep to the road, and beware the Moon.

They of course don't follow the directions and soon realize they are being hunted by something in the darkness, each time it growls its on another side of them, its circling, which way should they run? When Jack is attacked by a large animal David runs, he stops and comes back to help his friend only to find him already dead, and attacked by the animal himself. The men from the pub shoot the creature, and next thing he knows he's waking up in a hospital in London.

He begins to have strange nightmares, and starts to realize that maybe what attacked him wasn't a wolf, or a dog. Jack returns from the grave as a figment that only David can see, if David doesn't kill himself before the next full Moon then he will transform, and as long as he is alive Jack will be forced to walk the earth as the undead (the curse will only be broken when the last werewolf is dead)

The make up was phenomenal, even knowing the kinds of leaps and bounds they've made in make up and effects in the last 30 years this still looks good, and is very effective. When he first transforms its easy to watch a lot of the shots and not be able to find the seams. They smartly show his transformation, but not much of him after he becomes the werewolf, that is until later. The section of the movie where he is out killing is gory and scary, especially when he chases a man through the subway tunnels, and you only see him as the creature for a moment at the very end of it creeping into frame.

Its surprisingly funny, and its actually supposed to be. From Jack returning from the grave and speaking to David as if nothing is abnormal about that to hiding out in a porno theatre before transforming it kept me smiling, and chuckling. The script does waste a lot of time not building enough tension, and with not enough laughs, the last 30 or so minutes are by far the best, I only wish they would have gave some structure to the middle of the story.

Nothing is special about the way its shot, there are some shots that were really cool, but most of it is trying not to crush you with heavy visuals and intense lighting, but trying to keep it light so then you will still laugh. The ending was kind of disappointing, it ended very abruptly.

Its worth a watch to see some really cool effects, and its really enjoyable, if you're a little squeamish with gore and blood then you might want to pass up on this. 7/10 stars.

Director: John Landis

Starring: David Naughton, Jenny Agutter, Griffin Dunne

Open Hearts

I have went to long with out writing anything. I've watched several movies in the last few weeks that I haven't been writing reviews for, so I thought I should really get back to it. This isn't the best movie for me to review right away since I'm a little rusty, but Ill do my best.

Joachim and Cecilie are a young couple in love and engaged to be married, they are happy and energetic, they truly have young love, what could go wrong? He is going on a mountain climbing trip and she drops him off in their car, he steps into the street and is struck by a car. It shatters his spine and breaks his neck. He is left a quadriplegic, he cant move anything below his neck. He is angry, and bitter, understandably, and keeps trying to get rid of Cecilie, he cant stand being around her, he thinks how could she love him now? He is in the hospital, and as she goes to visit him, and receives his verbal abuse, she starts to lean on the husband (Niels) of the woman (Marie) who was driving the car who hit Joachim.

They begin an affair, and they both are so into the other they ignore the crash course they are headed on, several lives have been destroyed, many others damaged and they are going to finish the job of breaking all of them.

Its shot very cheaply, and I mean that in a good way, it was shot on a low grade digital camera giving it a lot of electrical grain in the image. it looks very gritty and more like a documentary that a narrative with the addition that almost all of it is handheld, and it wasn't over done. There seemed to be minimal lighting, even at times just working with available light. The cinematography and writing was successful in making me think about it as being real and then I was just able to watch the acting and feel the raw emotions emitting from the scenes instead of the beauty or ugliness of the image. I would actually prefer they work more on the cinematography, but in this case it worked better for them to play it down.

The dialogue is very European, there is a certain sense of apathy to some of the characters. The acting in it is key to making it work, there is seemingly very little that happens after the accident, of course the affair begins, but most of it is dedicated to just watching the characters trying to cope and live instead of a lot of action moving the story along.

It did a great job of showing every ones situation in it, from the feeling of helplessness and anger that Joachim has to Marie's guilt over doing that to him. We understand Cecilie's dedication and semi-betrayal out of desperation. The one I guess I don't get, or particularly like was Marie's husband Niels, the doctor who begins the affair with Cecile, he thinks only of himself and doesn't seem to care what he does to his family, he thinks he's in love.

Overall it was a great movie to watch and put yourself in their shoes for a few hours, feel what its like to have something occur in a second that changes every aspect of the rest of your life. 7/10 stars.

Director: Susanne Bier

Starring: Mads Mikkelsen, Sonja Richter, Nikolaj Lie Kass, Paprika Steen, Stine Bjerregaard