Summer Alternatives

Long time no update, blah blah blah, is there anything worse than a blogger apologizing?

Right then, as I look back on the list of movies I've watched recently I see there's a number of little gems that might go unnoticed next to the season's swath of blockbusters. So here is a short list of some of the smaller and dare I say smarter alternatives out there.

The Secret In Their Eyes

If it sounds familiar it's because The Secret won the best foreign feature at the Oscars. At the time I couldn't see how anyone would fail to pick The White Ribbon, but having seen Secret I understand the decision. (I don't agree, but I think I can see why.) The Secret In Their Eyes has a lot of things voters look for in an Oscar-Caliber movie. An epic love story. Dark themes. Restrained but effective acting. This is a movie about the dangers of desire. About being consumed by it or haunted. It has touches of film noir. It's also a very subtle look at the many lives of Argentina. And, as a murder mystery The Secret makes most Hollywood films feel like an episode of Law & Order.

Exit Through The Gift Shop

This is an extremely frustrating movie only because I greatly enjoyed it, but I'm afraid if I explain what makes it so satisfying I'll spoil it. So, I will only say this is much more than a movie about the street artist Banksy. This is movie about what happens when you invite the anarchists into the art gallery. It's quite consistent with Banksy's raison d'etre and one of the most provocative docs I've seen in years.

The Trotsky

This is a high school comedy that posits the question "Boredom or Apathy?" Which is why I love it. (Well they already had me at the Battleship Potempkin parody.) But for the rest of you let me say Jay Baruchel is all the reason you need to watch this film. Like Che Guevera crossed with Buster Keaton, Jay's conviction brings Leon Bronstein (aka Trotsky) to life. The Trotsky is as close as Canada has gotten to making a movie like Rushmore but director Jacob Tierney did it, by creating his own unique spin on the high-school hero genre.

Mid-August Lunch

From the co-writer of the searing Gomorra comes a zesty,

light-as-air comedy of mild-manners: Mid-August Lunch. During a holiday in Italy a good-natured mama's boy Gianni gets stuck watching his mother and a couple other ladies.

Watching the suave, calm and collected Gianni deal with these clucking, complaining women is a master class in coping, not to mention an excellent advert for powers of white wine. A gentle, affectionate comedy that brings to mind Big Night at moments, Mid-August Lunch doesn't oversell its story and knows sometimes a little is enough. (Written, directed and starring Gianni Di Gregorio who based it on his own real-life experiences with his Mama. Awwwwwww.)

Wild Things, With Fangs

LARP (Live Action Role Play)

+

Lord of the Rings

=

THE WILD HUNT

See it, it's good. Worth your time. Bloody good fun, a nice twist on the dungeons and dragons genre. Great example of the new wave of Canadian cinema, like Pontypool, Fido and Ginger Snaps. Smart slick takes on genres, fun films that don't depend on stars to succeed.

More here: http://www.wildhuntfilm.com/main.html

3-Duped

I got a little glimpse of the future last night.
And it involved a lot of people wearing funny glasses.

I happened to see two different 3-D experiences. First, Samsung’s new 3D TV, and then the 3-D film Clash of the Titans.

Care to guess which was the better experience?

It was the TV.
The screen was crisp and the graphics hovered out in front of the set like something out of Minority Report. The content wasn't much, a loop of sporting events, but 30 seconds of a soccer game was all I needed to understand the potential.

Of course, for the full 3-D experience you'll need a new TV, a new Blu-Ray player, and don't forget the special 3-D glasses. A steal at $249 a pair.

Well now, perhaps the movie is looking a little more affordable eh? An extra 3 dollars a ticket doesn't seem so bad if you get a 3-D experience in return… Except this isn't real 3-D. This is a 2-D film, converted into 3-D.

Seems the producers of Clash of the Titan decided they'd spend an extra 5 million to convert the flat 2-D film into 3-D. Or almost 3-D. Call it 2 and half.

Now, I’m not a fan of 3-D but I’m know when it’s done right. Avatar. Coraline. Up.
Of the new breed of 3-D films Clash of the Titans is the worst viewing experience I have seen in years. Some scenes have no depth at all. Take off your glasses and you'll see little or no difference. Often one or two characters appear to hover in front of the background. The effect is basically that of a children’s pop-up book.

Many film blogs have relished sharing the details that the producers actually outsourced the 3-D conversion to a shop in India. Meanwhile SFX wizards are pointing out that most theatres aren't equiped to properly project 3-D films. The polarized sunglasses you wear darken the image and hurt picture quality. One can imagine the animators who worked on the new and improved Kracken crying when they see the muddy results.

Now, let’s be clear. Without or without 3-D, Clash of the Titans is no future classic. It’s the Showgirls of action films. A quick and silly sword and sandals adventure, (regarding Medusa, our hero says “Don’t look the bitch in the eyes”) with a plot that belongs in the Mighty Hercules cartoon.

But who cares right? We just want to watch Sam Worthington slash stuff!

Meanwhile movie theatres are converting to 3-D capable systems as fast as they can. Far from being a novelty, 3-D films are beginning to clutter up the multiplex forcing theatre owners to make tough decisions. The charming How to Train You Dragon barely got a foothold before Clash of the Titans came along.

But the worst effect of the return of 3-D is how it brings out Hollywood’s shallow side.
Now more than ever it's not about how good a picture is, it's about the spectacle.


The industry considers movie like State of Play or Duplicity failures. All that money for big movie stars and nothing to show for it? So why waste time writing something smart and hard to sell? If you have a movie with a great visual component just slap a 3-D on that title and you’re set!

So get ready for Tron 3-D, Smurfs 3-D, Piranha 3-D, Harry Potter 3-D, and Erector Set…3-D.
(Really. )



A now in honour of the next ten years of squinting through sunglasses, a classic from Timbuk3.


*Update*
The Big Picture has an interesting take on why Movie Stars should fear 3-D the most.

Revisiting Up in the Air

There's no doubt Jason Reitman's Up in the Air is a contender for Oscar glory this year.

Sure it probably wont win best picture, but best adapted screenplay is a safe best.

And already the Great Recession love story has appeared on dozens of “best of” lists (mine included.)

But not everyone, it seems, agrees about what happens to the main character: the modern man in grey, Ryan Bingham as played by George Clooney.

***Fasten Your Seatbelts, plenty of SPOILERS below***

For me, one of the great pleasures of Up in the Air is how it grows from a slick and smarmy love story to a tragedy. In the beginning, George Clooney's character is the master of his domain. He's not only comfortable in the alien artificiality of an airport, he revels in it. Perhaps it’s because the cold comforts of air travel mirror his life.

But by the third act the frequent flyer has been cruelly grounded. He made the ultimate sacrifice, taking a direct flight to his lady love only to find himself stuck in the snow; the door quickly closed in his crumpling face.

To me, this is the point of no return.

Like a bubble boy stepping outside for the first time, the character Ryan has lost his ability to enjoy the freshly sanitized pleasures of air travel. When his boss tells him they're sending him back on the road indefinitely (“send us a postcard when you get there”) there's a weary look in Ryan's eyes.

And so here's the question: Near the end of the film, (George Clooney's character) Ryan arrives back at the airport. We see him staring up at the departure board; carry-on luggage at his side. There's a close-up of his face. His hair is less than perfect. His eyes are wide. And he lets go. Lets go of his perfect-traveller’s suitcase as he stares up at the sea of destinations.

What is he thinking? For me, there's a sense of resignation there.

He doesn't want to be there. Having felt some real warmth in his life, going back In The Air is the last place Ryan wants to be.

Yet he does – which is the beauty of the film. And then there's the final line:

"Tonight, millions of people will come home to screaming children, barking dogs. Their spouses will hug them and ask them how their day was. The stars will wheel forth from their daytime hiding places; and one of those lights, slightly brighter than the rest, will be my wingtip passing over".

Now to me, those are the words of a man in exile. Sure it's artful but there's a sense of sadness there. Of course, not everyone sees it that way.

A friend of mine had a very different interpretation of that moment in the airport. When Ryan is looking at the departure sign, my friend felt he was happy. Ryan was returning to a place where he felt safe. After giving a real relationship a try and getting burned, he's running back to his refuge in the sky.

And there’s one more interpretation to stoke those fires. Another friend believes Ryan is looking at the departure board and planning to use all of his remaining frequent flyer miles (he should still have about 9 million or so) to plan his very own trip around the world.

Of course I believe it's option A. Sure the final shot is a heaven of sorts… with it beautiful sun-kissed clouds. But again, it's a false paradise. Outside, the air is freezing and the wind howls.

What do you think?

*UPDATE*

Watch this deleted bonus scene from the DVD.

More fuel for the fire!

Pretty Poster, Nice Movie

Saw this at TIFF, was lovely.

Ghost World

SPOILERS ABOUND, BEWARE

I’ve haunted by Hollywood lately.

Or to be specific, hack Hollywood writers.

This week marks the third film I’ve seen this year where ghostly daughters visit their grieving fathers.

First there was Creation where the adorable Annie Darwin caused her Papa (Charles Darwin) to be reduced to tears, chasing a phantom across his estate.

Then there was Mad Mel Gibson playing a bereaved father on mission of revenge in Edge of Darkness. As Thomas Craven, he can shed blood with the best of them, but he’s not above calling out for Emma, his recently dispatched daughter. And while the movie is aiming for Dirty Harry status, the Hallmark Card ending with father and daughter arm in arm would make the hard-boiled hero want to swallow his Magnum.
(Spoilers, remember?)

Which bring us to today and Martin Scorsese’s pretzel-plotted thriller Shutter Island.
Here we see US Federal Marshall Teddy Daniels visited by not just his daughter, but also his dead wife. As Teddy, Leonardo DiCarprio copes as best as he can with these chalk-coloured phantoms, but there’s a fine line between ghoulish visions and The Ghost Whisper.

So Hollywood hear my plea. Enough with the ghost writing already. Surely you can find another way to show the father’s grief. I know “Show Don’t Tell” is screenwriting 101. But some things are better implied than described.

Saint Steve

My cbc radio reviews for this week are Dear John and From Paris With Love. In that film John Travolta plays one of the strangest characters you've seen in a while. Charlie Wax. A bald, biker-dude turned secret agent. (right)

If you want to see him and Jonathan Rhys Meyers blow up Paris good, go nuts. But I think you'd be better off rewatching any of the Bourne identities.

For a great stab at what's wrong with From Paris With Love, check out this review by Roger Ebert.

And for a movie that's actually worth watching, try Saint John of Las Vegas. It's a rare treat for Steve Buscemi fans giving him ample space to do his trademark slow burn.

Saint John of Las Vegas is a road movie of sorts. Steve plays John, a reformed gambler turned insurance investigator on the case of a suspicous car crash. With his no-nonense partner Virgil, they set off to visit the scene of the crime and interogate witnesses. Along the way you'll meet Tim Blake Nelson, Sarah Silverman and John Cho.


What I liked about this film is that it didn't try to oversell the comedy. This isn't going for a in-your-face laugh attack like the overhyped The Hangover. Saint John is a gentler, more grounded brand of funny. John is just a guy, trying to do a job and get back in one piece. And who better to play the sad-sack hero than Buscemi, a man whose face was built for pain. Like watching Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, you can help but root for him.

As a opposed to John Travolta's over-sized Mini Me character, John fits Steve Buscemi as well as the simple suits he wears. You might say he's typecast from his Mr.Pink days of Resivor Dogs. But I think he's just playing to his stregth.