Review: Snowpiercer

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos If somehow I could psychically convey some demands to the emperors and caliphates, and if — suggesting an even more unrealistic hypothetical situation than psychic communication — they cared and listened and understood, I would propose the two following decrees.

1. To cast Tilda Swinton in everything they could, and
2. To never recreate The Wizard of Oz, especially through the use of a grim/gritty lens.

Fortunately, Ms. Tilda is at work again but at the cost of the second decree.  Snowpiercer — not a Hollywood picture in the slightest, except in distribution — is at its core Oz writ dark, desolate, and dystopian.  But it’s leagues better than any latter-day Tim Burton production could ever offer.  (Baseless swipes across the board here.  If I was something a pittance more redeemable than an online critic, I might worry about making enemies.  But since I’m not, I swipe away!)

Director Joon-ho Bong is a gift to mankind.  Once I heard someone laughing at the CGI monster in The Host and got really fucking mad.  It’s a little silly, of course.  The monster does look a little laughable, almost like the killer beast Gojira does.  The Host and Gojira both do something profound with their potentially laughable seeming creatures.  They are transformative creatures by their destruction.  Gojira gives us a city devastated.  The Host gives us a family devastated.  We deeply understand humanity with how it reacts to loss and fear.  It rises and fights back and protects its loved ones.

Snowpiercer is not like The Host.  Where The Host begins with a comfortable family, who becomes destabilized by an event, Snowpiercer arrives after the event.  A manmade ice age has lain waste to the world, and everything that’s left of us sit on a train circumnavigating the globe indefinitely.  The tail passengers — a long oppressed faction of underlings, with a wildly diverse cast of throwaways, Octavia Spencer, John Hurt, Ewen Bremner, lead by Chris Evans — lead a revolt to take over the train and question the man himself, the great engineer who pioneered the Snowpiercer train, Wilford.

It’s messy and mean and nasty stuff, revolution.  Armed with a drug addicted security expert, Kang-ho Song, and his daughter, Ah-sung Ko, they quickly unravel more and more terrors about their life and the lives of the other residents.  If anything, go see the meat train scene.  It is the most frightening and surreal scene I have seen in some time.

I don’t have anything to say more about it.  It is seething.  It is its scariest at its funniest.  Look at the school train scene (ran by the excellent Allison Pill) and the ecstatic Wilford song.  To the train passengers who stumbled into this Roald Dahl book by way of the early days of Rapture, it is a grim hero-worship a few degrees away from a cult religious experience.  It is not a stretch to go back to our elementary school days and find that history being taught is so much hero-worship, so much like indoctrination, it’s insane to find we love and idolize men who sought terror and reaped war.

If I were to complain about anything, is that its pacing gets wonky in the second act.  That cars fly by without comment.  Some like the opium den/orgy car — something not offered by the TRE — might do with some acknowledgement.  But I see its purpose.  To the people from the tail, the front end’s life is all triviality without consequence.  We see a lot of broad characterization in its cast — see for instance Wilford’s lieutenant Mason (the great and powerful Tilda).  But it’s so much less biting in passing.

It should be a huge hit.  If it’s in theaters still, see it with as many people as possible.  If it’s on VOD, invite friends over.

---

Score: 5/5

---

Director: Joon-ho Bong Writers: Joon-ho Bong and Kelly Masterson Studio: The Weinstein Company Run Time: 126 Min Release Date: 6/25/14

Review: Murderdrome

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

Murderdrome, from director Daniel Armstrong, feels like going to a really kick-ass punk rock show with a bunch of close friends. It moves along quickly without getting reckless and keeps its fun and positive attitude even as the body count starts to get out of hand. It’s one of those really rare movies that blows the impacted cynicism straight out the back of your head and leaves you wanting more.

Derby jammer Cherry Skye (Amber Sajben) has a bit of a problem. Her new boyfriend Brad (Jake Brown) has given her a sweetheart pendant that he scored online. Unfortunately the pendant is also  connected to a demonic roller-lich called Momma Skate (Be-On The-Rocks) who wants to drag sweet little Skye right on down to “H-E-double hockey sticks”. Making Skye’s dilemma even more of a hassle is Brad’s ex-girlfriend Hell Grazer (Rachael Blackwood) who dumped Brad but then gets all evil once he starts making loveably dorky small talk with Skye. So our perky, snack obsessed rollergirl Skye is truly stuck between two Hells.

Luckily she has her devoted group of derby-girls to help her out. Trans Em (Kat Anderson) is the parental type, Daisy Duke Nuke ‘Em (Laura Soall) is a sex obsessed rockabilly girl, Thrusty P Elvis (Gerry Mahony) is the good natured one, and personal favorite Psychlone (Cyndi Lawbreaker) is the feisty punk-chick who’s always up for a fight or ready to drop a meandering and vulgar figure of speech. Together they skate on the derby team The Alamos, a name that contains more than a bit of foreshadowing.

One of the first things you notice about The Alamos is that although they don’t always get along, there isn’t the normal amount of backstabbing and pettiness that all Hollywood groups of friends seem to have. For the most part this group seems to like and actually care about each other and never resort to throwing another member under a bus to get what they want. They feel like actual people, even if they spend most of their time hanging out around a skating rink and never seem to remove their skates.

Murderdrome plays out in a nighttime world that seems to belong to Skye and her friends. We never really see anyone who isn’t a part of the skating world and this gives the film the feeling that the characters exist outside of normal reality in a place where skating down the street is routine and having ecstatic sex in a vintage Cadillac is just how things are done. And although the film was shot in Australia that fact isn’t constantly trotted out. Really the only thing that gives it away are the accents of the characters.

There’s a short segment of the film that let’s Cherry Skye just skate through the streets, pirouetting and enjoying the freedom that having wheels on your feet can give you. It’s a nice touch and feels dreamy and peaceful, a literal calm before the storm. Although the rest of the film moves along briskly it never feels rushed and the tone, timing, and intent is consistent and solid.

Special effects are a combination of good old splattery corn-syrup blood and latex and digital effects that are inventive and clever. Most CGI effects feel strange in the “uncanny valley” sort of way and Murderdrome embraces this feeling to show Skye’s surroundings becoming surreal and threatening. There’s a good mix of actual skating, which is impressive, character dialogue, and effects heavy sequences. It’s great to see a low budget film that contains all of the necessary parts of a well made film while also having the freedom independent film allows creators to have.

One of the most interesting elements of Murderdrome is that although it has a primarily female cast it doesn’t devolve into the standard tropes and cliches. This is a Bechdel Test passing movie that doesn’t have to try to hard to impress how feminist it is. Although the women are dressed in the pseudo-fetishistic regalia of roller derby they are not presented as mere objects, They are sexual without being sexist, and they always seem to be agents of their own will. Basically like real world women.

Get some friends together, crack open some beers and enjoy this brilliant little gem. If we’re lucky maybe Armstrong will accept his birthright as an Aussie filmmaker to give us a post-apocalyptic view of the Murderdrome world, Dead End Drive-In style. And of course it would be called Cherry Skye: Beyond Murderdrome.

Murderdrome will be released in The US on Sept 9th, 2014 and can be pre-ordered from Amazon.

---

Score: 5/5

---

Director: Daniel Armstrong Studio: Camp Motion Pictures Run Time: 71 mins

Review: Hide and Seek

Back in college it took me a while to get into Korean cinema. Unlike Hong Kong and Japanese films my exposure to Korean films was extremely limited. When I started buying and importing a lot of Asian cinema (that still makes up the bulk of my DVD collection) I began to notice more and more of my film selections were coming from Korea. In fact in my opinion their cinema has done something neither Japan nor Hong Kong have been able to do and that’s be its own industry. By that I mean that Korea doesn’t imitate (though there is always going to be some imitation, no country is excluded from that), but rather innovate. It doesn’t attempt to be Hollywood junior, but rather it is Korean cinema and Hide and Seek illustrates that perfectly. Creepy and terrifying are perhaps the only words that can describe Hide and Seek. It is a thriller with light moments of horror, but where it really excels is in its ability to terrify you. It is not a movie you watch by yourself when your significant other is out-of-town or the family is away for the night. And while it terrifies and creeps you out to the tenth fold, it also laces in a subtle amount of social commentary. It’s something you either pick up on or you don’t.

The story follows Sung-soo; he’s OCD to the max and is forced to take medication for it otherwise he can’t function in society. He owns a business, has a lovely wife and two perfect kids and in general has the perfect life in the city. That of course doesn’t last as he’s called by the landlord of his estranged brother. Well estranged isn’t quite right; his brother is part of the reason he’s OCD as he has a skin condition. Due to an event in their past they don’t talk and Sung-soo has intentionally not been in contact; mostly because his brother is in and out of jail for sexual assault. Out of guilt Sung-soo goes to find his brother who the landlord says is missing and behind on rent. This is where things get even stranger.

Upon arriving at the apartment Sung-soo begins looking into his brother’s things and finding women’s clothing that’s just not lining up with the info from the manager. He’s confused by this and wonders what the hell his brother is up to. Meanwhile his wife is winning mother of the year as she lets her kids play out in the street of an unsafe neighborhood. A man who looks a bit mentally handicapped begins waving at the wife and she freaks out about her kids. Lo-and-behold they’re gone. She frantically runs around looking for them and eventually comes back to her car to find them in the back seat and the strange man in the front seat pretending to drive. Another mother comes to her rescue and scares the man off. She lives in the same apartment complex as the brother and offers to host the family that is very rattled and out of their element.

Conversation begins, about the building and it’s likeliness of being torn down. The perfect children want nothing to do with the poor ladies kid and you can’t really blame them as she has her eye patched and lives in the slums, while they’re rich and always have been. Sung-soo yells at his daughter to allow the little girl to play with her doll and the first things she does is rub her patched eye on it. Like what the fuck.  Of course the subject of the brother comes up and the woman freaks out. She kicks them out and tells Sung-soo to tell his brother to stop watching them. He’s confused of course but she says that she can’t sleep at night because she’s up watching her daughter and protecting her from him.

Two major things happen at this moment as Sung-soo notices markings below each doorbell of the apartments. He figures out that it indicates who lives in side. One man, two kids, that kind of thing. He freaks out because it’s below every door bell. During the opening and after this scene we learn that there’s a rumor going around about squatters living inside of people’s homes without them knowing.

Sung-soo sends his wife home without him and stays behind to figure out where his brother is and what he’s up to. The wife is upset, but she heads home. Little does she know that she’s being followed. Eventually Sung-soo ends up back home only to discover the same markings below his doorbell and the doorbells of everyone else in his building.

I haven’t told you anything that’s not in the trailer and the reason being is that final element. To come from the slums of another city to your luxury apartment that has security cameras, 24/7 guards and is essentially a small fortress and yet… here are the markings indicating, with accuracy, who lives inside each apartment.

Creepy, yes. Terrifying, certainly.

Without a doubt the story is scary. The twist and turns of the mystery are rewarding and will leave you guessing about the outcome. The parts I want to talk about, the rewarding stuff at the end… I can’t. I don’t want to ruin the movie for anyone, but man-oh-man does this story get good.

The social commentary comes in to play about security first and foremost. That’s the easy one as it asks “how safe is anyone?” The answer of course is that safety is an illusion as this film demonstrates. Human beings will always find a way. Always. I mean homeless people living inside of your house without you seeing them… you might as well change your pants now.

The other commentary is more subtle and actually something that I doubt a lot of people will pick up on. A lot of the movie is about the “haves” and the “have nots” and with that possessions in general. It’s illustrated perfectly as the son wants the new DS. He needs it. He’s addicted to things. This even saves the kids at one point as they recognize something that belongs to their mother. Again though, possessions. They and their mother know what is theirs and what is not. To go into it more I would have to talk about the ending and so rather than do that I would encourage you to keep this commentary in mind while you watch it and you’ll see what I mean.

The film has been brought over the North America for a home release and if you like or love thrillers then for sure check this film out. It’s one of the best Korean films I’ve watched in a long time, you know what? Slated that it’s one of the best films I’ve watched in a long time.

---

Score: 5/5

---

Director/Writer: Huh Jung Distributor: Ram Releasing Run Time: 107 Min

Review: Her

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos I do not like Her.  There.  Now I feel like I’ve kicked a puppy.

Of course there are many things to like about it.  1.  It’s a pretty picture.  Spike Jonze and cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema have created a gorgeous cityscape of Future L.A., with its sumptuous pastel/citrus coloring.  2.  ScarJo is so damn charming, it’s insane.  Ms. Johansson has such a natural style and range as OS1/Samantha that Ray Kurzweil just plotzed.

But try as I might, I can’t un-kick that puppy.  I may as well explain my actions.

Theodore Twombly is the quintessential Sensitive Young Man.  Even his name is adorable.  Played with overweening heart by Joaquin Phoenix, he does everything a SYM does.  He bemoans the dissolution of his last relationship, a marriage by his critical ex Catherine (Rooney Mara).  He’s financially successful in a futuristic SYM trade, writing love notes for strangers.  It’s a meaningful career, not just in securing him a middle-class existence, but in becoming an empathetic cypher for his clients, the emotionally unavailable and fetishists of the really-not really homemade.  A commodity of intimacy.  Already, I hate him.  He’s a genius, he’s paid well, and he’s terribly, disastrously lonely.  IF ONLY SOMEONE OR SOMETHING COULD HELP.

In enters Samantha.  Samantha (Scarlett Johansson) is a personality part of the OS1 PA system.  It’s designed to organize your life, but it has feelings and a responsiveness that imitates humanity so well it’s nigh indistinguishable.  Samantha’s lively, flirty, and effective.  Immediately the both of them are smitten.  We get why he’s taken with her.  He’s the SYM, prone to love things that are lovely.  We love her immediately.  But, to paraphrase Joe Jackson here is she really that taken with him?

There’s some discomforting questions Her never resolves, nor intends to resolve.  A famous critic said that discomfort, which I will discuss further, is the discomfort we feel about computers nowadays.  All sci-fi is of-its-time.  With the NSA and Facebook forever altering human relationships and how we view privacy and technology, it’s an interesting if immaterial interpretation.  We never entertain the idea that Samantha has some ulterior motives.  Even as she rifles through your things, she employs discretion and sensitivity.  The movie doesn’t end with her selling off his private messages and credit card numbers.

The discomfort lies with Samantha.  Far be it from me to judge romance, but everything is crazy idealized.  Twombly lives well, and earns constant critical appraisal from everyone (except his ex).  His ego’s bruised and needs diagnostic and repair.  Samantha (created from a few set questions) is made for him, which reads so weird.  Samantha regularly makes choices; she even chooses the name Samantha.  So she chooses Twombly, but her design is fabricated strictly for him.  Is it a choice or a design?  Those questions are for deeper souls than mine.

A curious scene involves their relationship on the mend.  Catherine scolded Twombly on his choice of rebound partner, invoking the irreconcilable differences that landed their relationship in divorce, and now he’s critically reexamining the commodity/sentience he’s chosen to date.  Samantha is still going through a period of developing an identity for herself and in this relationship so she’s chosen a physical cypher to play-act as her.  It’s an uncomfortable scene that Twombly reluctantly agrees to.  It gets intimate.  Samantha tells Twombly to declare his love for her to this stranger, and he balks.  It’s possible to agree with him.  That professing your affection for a third-party is weird.  It is, but it feels like a half-truth.  When you have a woman without a body, it doesn’t eliminate the male gaze.  Her physicality is imagined.  How she acts and behaves and looks is presumed.  She in effect becomes every woman; but with an amenable displaceable personality.  It’s masturbation plus.

It’s possible I read too much into the scene.  “But did it move you?” Jonze will ask.  This isn’t a sci-fi film, rather a modern love story seen through a sci-fi lens.  I can’t say.  I look back at the romance story that did move me, and I felt was a strong and curious and human, and it’s the Before trilogy.  Jesse and Celine.  That could be seen as fantasy too, but both parties have an interplay that challenges and denies the other.  They argue.  They have differing opinions.  They have stories.  None of which you see here.  Here it’s a one-sided relationship.  As human as Samantha is, she has no experiences that shape her.  She has creation and definition.  Arguing isn’t a part of this relationship, and it suffers from that.  It feels too idealized, too perfect.  She does.

Another thing I reminded myself of watching Her.  The sci-fi bent is merely a backdrop.  There’s a brilliant episode of Black Mirror called “Be Right Back” in which something similar happens.  A woman gets an AI to replace her husband.  It works great until she realizes the commodity never replaces the human, then it becomes a heartless reminder.  Perhaps the sci-fi bent feels so trivial here in retrospect.

---

Score: 2/5

---

Director/Writer: Spike Jonze Studio: Warner Bros. Run Time: 126 Min.

Review: The Grand Budapest Hotel

The Grand Budapest Hotel is the culmination of every technique and signature style that director Wes Anderson has ever used. There are elements of everything including Fantastic Mr. Fox which is shown towards the end of the film with a chase down a mountain between Willem Dafoe’s character and Ralph Fiennes. Just before this though we see the classic looking over the lead character’s shoulder that has appeared in several Anderson film’s like The Royal Tenenbaums. I’m pointing this out first because it’s easy to write this film off as just another Wes Anderson film when it’s the furthest thing from it. It’s not that it’s unrecognizable, but Anderson has grown leaps and bounds from where he was when he directed Moonlight Kingdom. The story’s opening is actually full of deep meaning, but I’m sure most people were probably just confused or annoyed by the four scene opening. The film starts off with a young girl heading into a cemetery and placing a key on a statue labelled “The Writer.” The significance of the key is never explained, but as the girl sits down to read a book the film cuts to “The Writer” who is an older gentleman. He’s breaking the fourth wall as he records something, but is quickly interrupted by his child shooting a toy gun at him. He pushes through as he tells us a story that was told to him. At this point the story cuts to a third opening and we find the writer younger and played by Jude Law.

The writer is now staying at the Grand Budapest Hotel circa 1968. The hotel is not grand looking. What you see on the cover is not this hotel. It is the same make and size, but it lacks the color and luxury of what we see there. Here Law’s character meets the owner of the hotel Mr. Zero Moustafa. Moustafa played by F. Murrary Abraham is an older gentleman who is quite famous. Law’s character ends up having an encounter with him in the bathhouse and Moustafa invites him to dinner to tell him his story.

In our fourth opening we go to the truly grand, Grand Budapest Hotel. Here were’ introduced to the hotel concierge M. Gustave played by Ralph Fiennes. After his eccentric opening in which it becomes clear that he’s slept with a very elderly rich woman, played by Tilda Swinton, we’re introduced to young Zero played by Tony Revolori.

To recap we meet a young girl and cut to an old man; from there we meet his younger counter part who meets the older counterpart to the younger main character. That’s not just clever by the way; it’s actually establishing the history of the story. It’s establishing that this story has been passed down from generations through the novel, but even before that it traveled many years between from the people who lived the adventure. It’s a complex opening and I’m sure some people will watch it and think that Anderson is being clever and nothing more when in actuality he’s taking the viewer on a journey through time. Whether they suspect that its happening is on them, but he’s taking you there either way.

This story is really impossible to sum up in a way that does it justice. Part of it is about the war; part of it is about legacy, class, love, friendship and a sense of belonging. It has drama, comedy, dark comedy and an overall presence of humanity to it both good and bad.

Fiennes’ Gustave finds a kinship in Revolori’s Zero because they come from the same cut. Gustave started as a lobby boy the same way Zero did and neither one of them have a family. In the end and as it is in much of the film, they have each other.

What is significantly different about the story for this film compared to Anderson’s previous tales is the lack of a majestic ending. If you’ve seen a previous Anderson film then you know what I’m referring to, it’s that tremendous feeling that you’re left with after the film. It’s almost melancholy, but there’s enough laughter and joy that you just feel good. That’s not the case here. You don’t leave feeling sad per say, but Anderson’s goal is not to give you the majestic ending that several of his films are known for. All of the characters do not come together to do a long walking march and show that they grew and learned together after going through hell and came out stronger in the end. Instead the ending is based in reality, but one that most people should be able to relate to.

The visuals of course are beautiful and full of Anderson’s style. If there are any other visionaries making films today than they’re hiding their presences because Anderson is standing alone. His attention to detail is incredible and you can see that in just the opening as he cuts from four different eras none of them look anywhere near the other. He is a master at his craft and frankly no other filmmakers are near his level.

For the home release there are plenty of special features and ones that you’ll actually want to watch, but then this is another area in which Anderson always delivers.

If you’re a fan of Wes Anderson then you have already seen this movie, but if you’re not, if you haven’t checked his films out because they’re too different from the Hollywood machine then you’re missing out. The Grand Budapest Hotel in particular is the most accessible film that Anderson has made. It’s also his best and as some would say the most “Wes Andersony” of them all. How it manages to be all three things at once, accessible and yet unfamiliar while still being incredible… well that’s just Anderson’s style I guess.

---

Score: 5/5

---

Director: Wes Anderson Writers: Wes Anderson, Hugo Guinness, inspired by Stefan Zweig Studio: Fox Searchlight Pictures, Indian Paintbrush Run Time: 100 Min Release Date: 6/17/14

Review: The Jungle

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

The third film in director Andrew Traucki’s “Trilogy of Terror”, The Jungle is a fast paced ride that at 84 minutes feels trim and to the point.

Rupert Reid plays Larry Black, a conservationist intent on finding evidence of the rare Javan Leopard. He enlists his brother Ben to film his expedition and they both head off to Indonesia, the camera rolling the whole time. There they meet Budi (Agoes Widjaya Soedjarwo) their Indonesian government contact and Adi (Igusti Budianthika) their tracker. There is a fast friction between Larry and Adi and it keeps even the day-to-day scenes tense.

After visiting a local shaman who gives them warnings that Larry willfully ignores the foursome head off into the vast jungle in search of their great cats. But of course they find much more than they bargained for.

Although Larry is a conservationist who really wants to save the leopard he is also a smug white guy who dismisses any native beliefs as nonsense and keeps pushing himself and his companions into situations that a more rational person would avoid. His ego manifests itself often and it’s this trait that threatens to doom him and his party.

I am one of those people who finds shaky-cam/found footage movies hard to watch. Often the camera movement is merely an excuse to cover up bad cinematography. That is not the case with The Jungle. The camera is controlled and is used to hide as much as it reveals. The constant shift between daylight to nighttime to night-vision view is used effectively. Along with some brilliant sound design the Indonesian jungle is made to feel humid, dangerous, and claustrophobic.

Another interesting technique is the use of Budi and Adi’s conversations in Indonesian to both give information and conceal it. Although Larry professes to know some of the language it is obvious that he can’t keep up with the rapid fire dialogue between his two native companions. Adi especially seems to be deliberately trying to turn the party back and seems to be equally warning and pleading with Budi and Larry to make the sane choice. But of course they won’t.

I was initially shocked by the rating of The Jungle being an “R” for Language. Really? I know that every PG-13 gets one “FUCK” only (say that in Connery’s voice) but honestly this movie doesn’t deserve an R even if the Aussie characters toss “fucks” around like sprinkles on a Homer Simpson donut.

It is frightening and tense but the bloodshed is really minimal and limited to the leftovers from various attacks. This is in no way detrimental to the effect of the movie and it’s actually fun to watch a film that isn’t trying to impress you with gore effects. Especially in an era of crappy CGI gore this was welcome. And the one truly creepy scene in this movie is truly worth the price of admission.

A lot of scenes that could have been drawn out to pointless lengths are trimmed to keep things moving and this results in a film that feels like a well executed commando raid. Get in, achieve the mission, and get out. And in a genre of film that can easily take itself way too seriously, The Jungle makes for a refreshing change.

---

Score: 4/5

Director: Andrew Traucki Studio: Lightning Entertaiment, Screen NSW, and Mysterious Light Run Time: 84 mins Price: $19.99 Release Date: 6/24/14

Review: Edge of Tomorrow

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos An alien race of unstoppable killing machines has invaded Earth, and yet all we can talk about is a TV weatherman who had one hell of a day back in 1993.  Certainly Doug Liman’s actioner Edge of Tomorrow borrows the language and structure of Harold Ramis’ Groundhog Day, but the concept belongs entirely to video games.

His mission —regardless of whether he chooses to accept it —is to rid Earth of the scourge of these damn bastard alien bugs.  Sure enough, first time out dude gets fragged; respawning instantaneously at his last save-point back at the base he woke up at to get Southerned at again by Bill Paxton.

All of which yields an interesting dramatic dilemma.  Say you’re like me and you’re replaying Dishonored for the umpteenth time.  You have been here dozens of times before.  Now you know the layout, you know who goes where when.  You anticipate reaction, you know shortcuts.  By all intents and purposes you’ve achieved God mode.  (Interesting note: “I’m a god.  I’m not the god, I don’t think.”—Groundhog Day’s Phil Connors.)  This is cheating.  Death loses its dramatic spark once it loses meaning.

Fortunately, the writers have found some interest byways around that.  There’s a fabulous, funny training sequence that embraces the silliness of the concept: broken leg, “no, I’m okay,”death; broken arm, “no, I-,”death; “stop, please, really,”fuckin’death.  Plus, the writers understand that it’s cheating.  The alien beasts are on hard mode — knowing the future before the battle, a handy means of introducing and contextualizing the concept —so it’s fair-ish.

But Blunt reveals she had it previously, and lost it; sure enough, before the boss battle, Cruise loses it, a transparent move to up the stakes.  It’s occasionally interesting, breathlessly paced, transparent a B-level movie but it; ets the concept pull the weight of otherwise unremarkable action.  Put simply, it’s probably the best video game movie out there, something that isn’t that high a hurdle to jump.

---

Score: 3/5

Director: Doug Liman Writer: Christopher McQuarrie and Jez Butterworth & John-Henry Butterworth Studio: WB/Village Road Show Run Time: 113 mins Release Date: 6/6/14

Review: Birth of The Living Dead and The Definitive Document of The Dead

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

“It was no big thing man. Who knew that we were ever even going to finish this movie? It was just like a bunch of people getting together and we were going to try to make a movie.” ~ George A. Romero

Birth of The Living Dead and Document of The Dead are on the surface both simply documentary love letters to the work of George Romero. But they also show various sides of Romero not only as a hard working, visionary filmmaker but also as a really decent man who wanted his work environment to match his own blue color ideal of society. It’s these collected views of Romero that come together to create a really complete vision of this man, his collaborators, and the works that they created together. If you watch one then watch them both as they complete and heighten the overall effect.

Beginning his career in Pittsburgh shooting beer commercials and short films for Mr. Rogers, Bronx-born George A. Romero was obsessed by the myriad jobs required to make films. Like many independent filmmakers, Romero was forced by practicality to learn these skills but also seems to really enjoy doing them. From directing to writing and editing, he was often required to put huge amounts of effort into his projects simply because he didn’t have the available staff or funds.

This sort of “can do” mentality was pushed to the limit during the shooting of his first feature film Night of The Living Dead. From favors called in by local businesses and TV personalities to a chess game being played for the cost of sound processing, Romero and his collaborators made everything count. And instead of this being a detriment to the film it instead creates a feeling of reality that has rarely been equaled.

Birth of The Living Dead begins by exploring the social and political landscape of The United States during the years that NOTLD was being written and shot. Drawing his initial inspiration from the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend, Romero re-imagined the concept of the dead returning to life as a revolutionary act, perhaps the penultimate one. One of the many strengths of Birth of The Living Dead is that it places the film perfectly into this world of violent revolution and frustration at the still staggering injustices being perpetrated on various groups during the 1960s. Although there has been a lot of discussion about the various socio-political themes in NOTLD, it is extremely interesting to hear from Romero himself which of those themes were intentional and which were serendipity.

A collection of admirers of NOTLD including film critic Elvis Mitchell and filmmaker Larry Fessenden discuss the challenges and successes of the film without ever going too deep into wide eyed worship. In particular having Mitchell and Sam Pollard giving their take on seeing the film as black men has a powerful resonance and they make abundantly clear how mind-blowing it was to see a strong, intelligent black man in the lead role of Ben. Although Duane Jones was initially cast for the part simply because he was the best actor of the group, it is clear that once people picked up on what his character meant that he was by far the best choice. Jones himself often had misgivings about some of the actions that Ben takes in the film simply because they were going to be seen as shocking to predominately white, middle-class America. But luckily neither he nor Romero backed down from his portrayal and instead created a character that was far more in line with a real person and not some watered down, simpering expectation of what a black man should be.

Birth is a very tightly structured and well paced retelling of the history of the filming of NOTLD. The opinions of the various experts are informative and interesting. And Christopher Cruz’s NOTLD class for junior school students would have been a blast to be in. But the true joy of the documentary comes from the still bright and friendly Romero himself. Talking in a naturally cool and hip voice, Romero comes across as a favorite uncle, the guy who’s been places and seen and done things that make for great stories around the dinner table. There’s a relaxed manner to Romero that is engaging and endearing. He’s in on the joke and knows that your hip enough to pick up what he’s putting down.

The Definitive Document of The Dead is a far messier beast having originally begun as a teaching aid created by Roy Frumkes for a film studies class. It begins during the filming of Dawn of The Dead and shows some great behind the scenes footage while explaining the basic filmmaking process as well as showing the various challenges that Romero’s crew faced during filming in Dawn’s shopping mall setting. Frumkes was given access for a long weekend and he collected a good amount of material not only with Romero but also the producers, actors, and other people responsible for the production. This coverage of Dawn takes up half of the film’s running time and shows us a very different George A. Romero.

Instead of the elderly hipster of BOTLD we get to hang out with the handsome and laid back Romero of the late 70s, a guy who can use the words rap, trip, and man so naturally that they don’t sound like asshole affectations. Romero has always had a killer smile and he flashes it often. You get the sense that he is just a really nice dude who  truly wants to get along with the people around him. In the super stressful world of independent filmmaking this trait must have gone a long way.

The second half of TDDOTD is a strange mish mash of set visits from various Romero films and party shenanigans including a pretty uncomfortable scene of Joe Pilado (Rhodes from Dawn of The Dead) drunkenly flirting with NOTLD’s Judith O’Dea. Roy Frumkes is still walking and talking with Romero but we again see a different side of the director, one that seems tired and a bit put off by all of the hoopla surrounding his work.

Few films of any kind have had the massive social and artistic impact of Night of The Living Dead. It proved that entertaining, thought provoking films didn’t have to be made in Hollywood and actually went a long way towards showing that the Hollywood system makes it damn near impossible to make that type of film. It’s appeal crossed social boundaries and its inclusive style of filmmaking made untold numbers of amateur  auteurs pick up cameras and struggle to make their own films. It was a massive success that made its creators next to nothing and became a bad joke of a copyright issue. It is the single best public domain film ever created and is truly a gift to the world of film.

All fans of horror film owe a huge debt to the cast and crew of NOTLD. They willingly gave their blood, toil, sweat, and tears so that we might have this film and I am grateful to all of them. And I am especially thankful to George Romero, the man who got all of these people together and who inspired them with kindness, leadership, and vision.

Birth of The Living Dead and Document of The Dead go to show that the man at the helm is also a really decent guy and that we’re lucky to have him. Thanks for what you’ve given us Mr. Romero.

---

Birth of The Living Dead is available on Netflix

Score: 4/5

Director: Roy Kuhns Studio: Glass Eye Pix and Predestinate Productions Run Time: 76 mins

The Definitive Document of The Dead is available on Amazon Instant Video

Score: 4/5

Director: Roy Frumkes Studio: Midnight Pulp Run Time: 103 minutes

Review: Interplanetary

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

“Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.”

In the world of independent and low budget movies it is often far easier to create great horror effects than to create actual comedy. When someone tells you that “You’ve got to see this movie! It’s hilarious!” they’re usually talking about laughter at the expense of the filmmakers or actors, the magic difference between laughing with and laughing at. I found myself laughing quite a bit during Interplanetary, right along with it.

Interplanetary starts with a couple of schlubby spacemen entering a cave on Mars while having a discussion about a recently discovered native fossil. The timing of the scene while Ed (Nick Crawford) tries to convince Wil (Chuck Hartsell) of the importance of the find is a good start to things. Things get bad quickly for our two bubble-helmeted fellows as an unknown assailant comes in. The whole sequence, which take less than three minutes, sets up the overall themes of the movie as well as pointing out just what kind of people are currently living and working on Mars.

This is followed by a clever bit of exposition in the form of a 1950s style corporate training film called “Welcome To Mars Base Two” which again provides a quick burst of necessary technical background about the said base as well as providing some good site gags and forced, stilted acting of the kind found in the majority of industrial films.

With these two bits of exposition to get things started Interplanetary goes right into its odd mix of corporate bureaucracy, ancient evil, and oddly unrestrained sexuality. There seems to be a lot of leeway when it comes to relationships in Mars Base 2 and the implication is that most people are willing to do anything, or anyone, to alleviate boredom.

Several of the characters are worthy of note. There’s Lisa (Mellisa Bush), the bureaucratic Facility Manager who is dangerously clueless about the reality that surrounds her and her overly eager to please Head of Security Kevin (Kevin S. Van Hyning), who crushes on her so badly that even being shoved into a closet at gunpoint seems to make him happy as long as he’s locked up with her. Kevin is a David Cross character if there ever was one, Van Hyning’s performance would have been right at home on an episode of Mr. Show.

There’s also Jackson, the pragmatic and tough cook, who seems to be the only person on the staff with any real concept of the situation the crew find themselves in. And his experiences with “The Texas Mafia” make him the go-to tough guy for Mars Base Two.

Overall Interplanetary is a fun little movie that outperforms its obviously small budget by keeping things in perspective. The majority of the performers are solid, the gore effects are well done, and the action scenes hold together. But the real joy of Interplanetary is the way it shares the feeling that most us wage-slaves have had about where we work and the people we work with. Gone are the days of astronauts as perfect human specimens, the Interplanetary Corporation seems happy enough to have some warm bodies that don’t ask for much and don’t take up too much space, and the banter between the Mars Base Two inhabitants will strike a familiar chord for anyone who’s ever worked a low paying, dead end gig.

---

Score: 3/5

Available on Amazon Instant Video

Director: Chance Shirley Studio: Shock-O-Rama Cinema Run Time: 83 mins

Review: LizardMan: The Terror of The Swamp

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

We are currently in an era of bad movies. Bad movies that are fun to watch because of their total cluelessness, like The Room and Birdemic, and movies that are just idiotic-stupid-dumb bad like anything that Michael Bay has touched. But Bay has committed a greater sin than making a merely bad movie. He has made his crap by blowing millions upon millions of dollars.

But I’m not here to talk about this sort of waste. I’m here to talk about the true heroes of American independent cinema. The people who make due with minimal budget and rely on tenacity, creativity, and lots of friends and family members to create their cinematic offerings. And honestly to offer them a bit of a challenge and explain why what they do is more important than it’s ever been. But first let’s talk about LizardMan: The Terror of The Swamp.

We begin with this tantalizing bit of info:

The Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp (Also Known as The Lizard Man Of Lee County) Is a humanoid cryptid which is said to inhabit areas of swampland in and around Lee County, South Carolina

Awesome! Cryptids and shit! I bet this is going to be a “based on a true story” ride like The Legend of Boggy Creek. Unfortunately I would have lost that bet.

Instead LizardMan: TToTS starts off in an undisclosed time period in an area that seems to be the edge of a normal neighborhood. A boy loses his bike chain and has to walk his Huffy home. Then all hell breaks loose! Not really. A guy in a foam rubber suit knocks him down and waves his hands in front of his face while digital blood splatters appear and disappear on the screen. This is the first shock of the film, shocking in how bad the blood effects look.  Digital blood looks like shit all the time every time. Please for the love of Karo Syrup stop using it. If someone doesn’t want to get bloody and sticky don’t let them be in your movie. This should be known as The Bruce Campbell Clause, if you’re not willing to have 55 gallon drums of Ultraslime poured into your face, then you really don’t want to make a movie.

Otherwise the film looks really good. The transition scenes work well and the overall coloring looks pretty filmic and not like a mid-grade camcorder. This level of image quality runs throughout LizardMan and sets it apart from other low-budget movies that seem to be content to use their mom’s old Kodavision.

Another element that LizardMan handles pretty well is with the actors, especially lead

James Arthur Lewis as Mark Turnbull, the special ops fellow contracted to bring the LizardMan back alive. Lewis has a sense of gravitas with his performance that is improved by his physical presence and good ability to move around like a bad-ass soldier. There’s a quick leap onto a loading dock stunt that is damned excellent even if the possible action scene it could have turned into never materializes. And sadly this seems to be the biggest take-away from LizardMan: The Terror of The Swamp. Instead of using the resources that director Peter Dang had on hand he squanders them in favor of a mixed up movie that is really only a collection of things happening and not a driving narrative story.

I am however not here to mock or overly critique director Dang, the producers, actors, or anyone else involved in LizardMan. Instead I have a question and a challenge for independent filmmakers like Dang.

Why are you making movies?

Answer this question honestly and I think it’ll give you a more intense focus that will help you to create interesting and truly memorable work.

Why are you making movies? To break into “Hollywood”? To make money? To have fun? To meet attractive people? To have something to do with your friends besides getting together to watch other people’s movies? These are all valid reasons to make movies but when they are merely nebulous concepts they only tend to muddy the waters of a project that usually requires intense focus and absolute dedication. Making a movie, any movie of any quality level is damned difficult. Know why you’re doing it before you start so that you’re not depleting the time and money of those involved without at least getting something good out of it.

I don’t want to just write LizardMan: TTOTS off because there seems to be some heart in it and it’s not offensively inept. It just doesn’t seem to give a damn. It doesn’t have the passionate soul of a movie made by someone who loved the genre so much that they couldn’t contain their love and it manifested itself as their own vision. Instead it feels like a copy that no one really gave to much of a shit about. And that’s what makes it disappointing, that parts of it look great but don’t ever hold together long enough to keep the viewer enthralled.

So now my challenge to anyone who is currently or will ever make a low-budget independent movie.

Give a damn about it.

Real world, “Hollywood” movies are currently controlled by six companies. Everything that is released in theaters has to be allowed to be shown by these six companies and the fucking MPAA censors. And it’s pretty obvious that they have some of the shittiest taste in the world. Those of you who are somehow able to get together enough funding and support to create an entire film should take what you’re doing very seriously. Because you’re making the future of filmic art.

The great ideas in film are never going to come from the formulaic, audience-tested, pits of mediocrity in Hollywood. They are going to come from independent creators who actually care about what they’re making as more than a way to generate profits and points. They are going to come from people who want to see giant robots fighting on the moon, zombies crawling out of the ground, and lizard men creeping through the swamps. The great ideas are going to be created because we now have excellent video cameras in our phones and the ability to create and distribute movies throughout the world to audiences who just want something interesting, something that they haven’t seen before. We have online services like Netflix that want more, more, more and are willing to pay for it. Like the drive-in boom of the 50s and 60s and the video store boom of the 80s we have a need and a desire for movies that are dangerous and risky in a way that corporate Hollywood crap can never be. And you could be the person who makes those films.

But only if you actually give a damn.

(Sorry to pick on LizardMan but it was so close to being a decent movie that it pissed me off a bit. There is an overall lack of cohesion to it that made it hard to watch and harder to care about. And the less said about “LizardMan Rock” the better.)

---

Score: 2/5

Director: Peter Dang Studio: Camp Motion Pictures Run Time: 81 mins

Group Review: X-Men: Days of Future Past

Another comic book movie has released which means it’s time for another Comic Bastards group review! Each of the participating writers/reviewers will give their score for the film followed by thoughts on the film. First here’s what X-Men: Days of Future Past is about according to Fox: The X-Men send Wolverine to the past in a desperate effort to change history and prevent an event that results in doom for both humans and mutants.

Samantha: 5/5

I was excited to see this movie, but First Class sucked, and I didn’t want one of my favorite comics to get hit in the balls again. But man I enjoyed the hell out of this movie.

Some things that had me worried that worked. Well first I thought Singer was trying to shove too many characters in this movie. It felt like he was trying to recreate the magic from the first and second X-men.  In DOFP, it was actually pretty awesome. Everything made perfect sense. It looked like the other movies were thought of when making this. The future was visually cool and having all those favs from my childhood made it all the better. There is nothing like seeing Storm glaze her eyes over. The second was pushing back the date for X-Men. It is never a good sign, but having coming out Memorial Day weekend, it gave me plenty of time to decide when to the see the movie. Since I wasn’t that excited I thought I may never get around to it, but having the extra time allowed for more people to give this movie the time of day. And I think this movie deserves that.

Some things that blew my mind. Wolverine’s butt… duh. And Mystique’s body... even bigger duh.

But seriously, it was amazing how awesome Magneto was in the past and future. He has always been a fan favorite. Michael Fassbender brought it! This dude owned Magento and was an equal with Ian McKellen. I couldn’t get enough of it. Quicksilver was pleasantly good too. He didn’t annoy me and added some humor (Probably the funniest X-men yet).

Overall, it was a good movie. The writing worked well. The story added some twists. And the after credit scene will likely lead to another great movie. Thank you X-Men for restoring my belief.

Nick: 3/5

Days of Future Past sort of doesn’t give a shit if its internal logic doesn’t make sense. It knows you’re gonna see it anyway. There’s a lot about sending consciousnesses into past bodies through time and you can only time travel if you’re asleep and for some reason the Sentinels in the future look just like the Destroyer from Thor. It’s another X-Men movie that manages to make itself entirely about Wolverine, the single most overrated comic book character in the history of time and paper, even though the source material made the whole story about a teenaged girl.

It wasn’t a terrible time at the movies. It’s visually impressive, even though Wolverine’s bone claws look insubstantial. It also has a really messy first and second act on the way to a pretty damn impressive third act. You know how you sometimes forget what a badass a villain is until they do something rad? You forget how awesome Dr. Doom is until he becomes Doom the Annihilating Conqueror, and you forget how rad Magneto is until the last half hour of Days of Future Past.

You don’t get much in the theater you wouldn’t get at home, so I can’t in good conscience recommend that you go drop 10 bucks on a ticket. Subscribe to Netflix and wait for it to happen, use the change to buy a comic book.

I will freely admit though, the post-credits scene got me pretty hype. Apocalypse totally rules and he always has.

Erik: 4/5

Someone should write an article about X-Men: Days of Future Past, and call it ‘The Evolution of a Film’. And if you haven’t instantly caught on to my meaning (I can overdramatize things from time to time), what I really mean is that by the end of the movie, an entirely new universe will be created using pieces of an already existing one.

The dictionary defines evolution as “any process of formation or growth”.

That is exactly what this film did. It grew. It found a way to cast off the unnecessary things created in the film adaptations of the X-Men comic books, and gives us something that is completely original. I’ve never been much of a fan of the comic book by Chris Claremont and John Byrne, I just didn’t get what all the fuss was about. If they had made a movie that matched that plot exactly, it would have been boring. A good read, but a boring movie. That’s what comic book fans and moviegoers refuse to understand. Some storylines just don’t make good movies. Which is why comic book movies are so successful. You can be a fan of the movies, not having ever read the comics. And vice versa.

I guess that I haven’t really said whether or not I like it. Well I did. But not for the reasons that I had originally thought that I would. It took a while to really get going, but there is a lot of story to tell here. A lot. But I’m sure Logan would be able to smell the haters coming a mile away.

Carl: 2/5

So far I have read glowing reviews for Bryan Singer’s return to the X-Men franchise.  I went into the film with great expectations, and I was summarily let down.

Bryan Singer made only one good movie in his life.  Every other film has been a rip-off of another story.  X-Men 2 plays as homage (nee plagiarism) of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.  Superman Returns borrows so liberally from Richard Donner’s Superman and other comic book movies that the film is more pastiche than movie.  X-Man:DOFP should be called The Matrix for how it plays off with its conclusion where the Sentinels attack.  Notice how the name applies in both situations?  As a side note, the Beast character Hulks out like the Hulk, so we have another character copied for the sake of the story.

Worst of all, Singer rips off Brett Ratner’s fan and critically maligned X-Men:The Last Stand.  In TLS Magneto picks up the Golden Gate Bridge so the mutants could cross the bay and attack the evil research facility.  In DOFP Magneto lifts up a baseball stadium for no discernible reason other than some half-assed way of trying to impress fans with the lack of logic and distract them from the issues arising.

Granted, the story does an outstanding job of weaving in the two worlds of the X-Men film universes: Singer and Rattner’s triumphantly mediocre first three films and Matthew Vaughn’s exemplary First Class.  While the continuity somewhat follows the last film, the promise of the same theme of X-Men as a period piece as established in First Class falls by the wayside.

My problem with the film is that I never once wanted to cheer due to intense action, smile at smart jokes, nor nod my head in fascination.  The Quicksilver moments come off as tragically comedic and breaks the tone of the film.  Additionally, he has no role or function in the story other than to run fast.  I feel that this was more a shot to steal the thunder from a Flash project than to help out with a key part of a storyline.

Overall, this is a strong film with some good moments.  Nothing about this film, however, is great or new.

Dustin: 1/5

I’m not going to lie, at the time of their release I like the first two X-Men films okay. The action was terrible and I didn’t know why a dramatic director was picked for an action film and then when I saw it I realized it didn’t matter because he turned it into a drama with hiccups of action. It’s been downhill for this franchise ever since.

X-Men: First Class looked promising. It looked like a fresh reboot… but then it wasn’t a reboot, it just mudded up the continuity created by the films and cherry picked from the comics harder than any other comic movie had before or since. I didn’t hate First Class, but I didn’t like it either. After our podcast this week I thought about the last time I watched the film and it was just my original theater experience with it.

Let’s not pretend that Days of Future Past is actually based on the comic book. It uses the premise of an X-Men traveling back in time to stop a dystopian future from occurring and uses the name because any comic fan will tell you… that’s a badass name. That’s it. To compare it otherwise would be pointless.

Days is a film that knew it’s ending, worked backwards from there and every time it hit a snag it made up some bullshit to get past it. The entire “future” aspect of the story is pointlessly show over and over just to remind you of the old cast. They’re not interesting, they don’t do anything and you never fear for their lives. Of all the things I could say and believe me after sleeping on this film for a few days I want to obliterate it for being the piece of trash cinema it is, but instead I will just point out the fact that never once do you sense the danger that the film presents. Not in the future, not in Wolverine’s race against time in the past, not even when Magneto is bringing the White House down. The only real danger is to your bladder due to the run time… I felt that for sure.

Oh and don’t try to piece together the time line of the movies… it’s pointless, this is a reboot so none of it matters.

---

Director: Bryan Singer Writers: Jane Goldman, Simon Kinberg, Matthew Vaughn Studio: 20^th Century Fox/Marvel Studios Run Time: 131 Min Release Date: 5/23/14

Review: Godzilla (2014)

The new Godzilla film has been met with a veil of secrecy that few other films have had. You’d think that it was a comic book movie or something from JJ Abrams it’s been that tight lipped since day one of the production. Even what Godzilla looks like and how tall the King of Monsters is compared to his Japanese counterpart, are again a secret. If you look at the promotional teasers for the film and compare them to trailer you’ll be hard pressed to definitely state anything about the film… until you see it. The film beings in the Philippines where a mining company has discovered the remains of a huge skeleton and in Jurassic Park fashion called for an expert on giant monster remains that arrives via helicopter. This introduces Ken Watanabe’s character and his company that is put in charge of containing and studying the creatures. They crawl around on the skeleton to show its size and find a growth on the bones that shouldn’t be there. Something has hatched and broken free and somehow no one noticed even though it broke through a mountain and destroyed several miles of forest before reaching the ocean and swimming away. I get it though; it was too early to show you the monster.

In a strange twist the story goes to Japan where we find Bryan Cranston’s character in charge of a new nuclear power plant that’s entering its final stage of development. His wife played by Juliette Binoche also works at the plant. Cranston’s character is a key component to plot as his story gives meaning to Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s character and helps ensure that we’re not just watching monsters fight and making up bullshit as to why they’re doing that. I guess I’m the only one that just wants to see monsters fight regardless of their reason.

The nuclear plant begins receiving some strange readings and suddenly there’s a meltdown of sorts. In the process Binoche’s character is killed and we’re left with more questions than answers for the moment.

We flash forward to the future and find Johnson’s character all grown up and back home from serving in the military. After a quick introduction to his wife played by Elizabeth Olsen and his kid, who is about as useful as a puppy, Johnson receives a call that send him back to Japan to bail his father out of jail.

He arrives in Japan and we learn that Cranston has stayed in Japan to figure out what really happened the day of the “meltdown” as there is a huge cover up about it. Father and son eventually head into the contamination zone and discover that there is no radiation. Soon they’re arrested and we get our first glimpse at one of the monsters. It’s not Godzilla and by now we’re a solid half hour into the film just to give you an idea at the level of teasing.

Eventually the monster is born and breaks free and this sets off the plot of monsters versus monsters that eventually ends up in San Francisco where Johnson happens to live.

I would not proclaim to be the biggest Godzilla fan in the world, though I have seen my fair share of the Toho films. That said there is a formula that works for Godzilla and one that doesn’t and both sides of the Pacific have found the formula that doesn’t work. Unlike most fans of the franchise I wasn’t excited at the announcement that Hollywood would be taking another stab at the King of Monsters. Zilla, the name Toho and fans gave to the 1998 version of the monster, is not that far removed from my mind. For its many problems the 1998 film suffered for the biggest mistake any Godzilla film can make… it focused on the people rather than the giant monster everyone came to see.

The new film from Gareth Edwards is a strange beast. It two focuses on the human aspect of story, but it tackles it in a way that’s relevant to the story. In that regards screenwriter Max Borenstein has excelled making sure that for the most part the characters serve a purpose other than staring at CGI monsters and giving Spielberg inspired responses of shock and awe. There is a problem with that though because as the human side of the story becomes interesting, in order to make it that way you need to sacrifice the monsters screen time.

As I said the monsters end up in San Francisco, but it’s incredibly forced. Spoiler, there are two M.U.T.O.’s and one is in Japan and the other is in Arizona and so the middle point is San Francisco, but the film takes the time to explain that everywhere they’re traveling has nuclear that the monsters want.

Because they’re forced to San Fran where Johnson’s character lives, he’s along for the long haul. After being detained and holding important secrets he’s literally just cut loose and given a ticket home. Too bad the monsters are hot on his ass so his trip home continues to be delayed until he volunteers for the mission to deliver a warhead meant to distract the MUTO’s. At one point he attempts to impress the lead officer on the mission and he wasn’t impressed… nor was I. Every bit of Johnson’s journey is forced upon the story and he soon becomes the go to man for every branch of the military and the only capable person in fighting giant monsters.

Cranston’s character isn’t particularly useful, but he does figure out part of what’s going on before Watanabe’s character does. The problem is that Watanabe has been studying the monsters up close and personal for at least 15 years and doesn’t know shit. He quickly becomes the guy that delivers the suspenseful “Godzilla” line. I’m not kidding his dialogue and delivery was bad, not cheesy, but bad. You’ll forget that he’s a doctor by the second time he’s on screen and wonder why they continue to check in with him afterwards. In actuality he's there to deliver the lines fans supposedly want to hear, the ones that remind them it's a Godzilla film.

I still feel like I barely know what Godzilla looks like even after seeing the film. He’s rarely shown full body and up until the final battle the film takes more of Cloverfield approach and shows the monsters from the human perspective. The M.U.T.O.'s on the other hand are shown plenty and actually have a great design.

I gave my best shot at like the design for Godzilla even after seeing leaked photos and action figures, but I still don’t like it. There is nothing iconic about the look, instead Godzilla looks like a snout-nosed T-Rex more than the iconic King of the Monsters. I have read that Japanese fans don’t like the “fat” looking Godzilla and I can’t disagree. In fact I don’t think the design of Godzilla makes sense for what they make the creature do. Godzilla is a graceful swimmer which is fine, but then when you see his legs you have to laugh at the idea of the creature swimming with two whiskey barrel legs the way it does.

The classic sounds and powers are there and when they’re finally used it’s pretty spectacular. Though they kept it sparse it was probably for the best since they had nothing to add to it afterwards.

I do think it’s important to point out that Godzilla is a hero of sorts. Sure Johnson’s character is the protagonist, but Godzilla is the hero. The film takes its time establishing it for the characters in the story, but it was pretty clear from the introduction from Watanabe’s character that he was not a bad guy or something to be feared. It works, but it’s a bit strange since Godzilla has always been impartial. He’s a force of nature still, but he’s definitely in humanities corner.

The cinematography is great and the CGI is what you’d expect from a modern film… pretty. Overall I didn’t have any complaints about the way it looked, but some of the shots were rather annoying. I saw it in 3D on an IMAX screen and while I don’t hate 3D, I’m not a fan of it. It could have worked wonderfully for this film, but as I said there are Cloverfield shots in which we see something from a strange perspective like a crowd or through a window and at times the 3D look more like a hand over part of the projector than part of the movie. And like most 3D movies it forgets that it’s a 3D movie half way through the film so these shots become even more annoying because clearly they were shooting for 2D. I would recommend that if you see the film, see it in 2D.

By now you’re probably wondering if I liked the film or not. I did like it. Even though a lot of the story elements were convenient and others were pointless, I think the film makers did a good job of making Godzilla fit into our world the way it is now and so it works as an updated retelling. The weird thing is that I don’t want to watch it again. It’s one of those movies that one time is enough and the reason is the lack of Godzilla. Because there is so much build up to the reveal there isn’t going to be the same level of suspense with a second viewing. I wasn’t disappointed by the film, but I wasn’t excited by it either and so that’s where I stand with it.

---

Score: 3/5

Director: Gareth Edwards Writer: Max Borenstein Studio: Legendary/WB Run Time: 123 Min Release Date: 5/16/14

Review: Jodorowsky’s Dune

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

The word seminal is one of those over-used words that sounds great when talking about a subject but rarely means what it’s supposed to mean. Seminal means to act like semen, to impregnate, and to bring new life. Many works of art might be inspiring or help to create new trends but few works are as purely, biologically seminal as Alejandro Jodorowsky’s attempted version of Dune. From the group of highly talented creative people involved to the overall epic grandeur of the concept, Jodorowsky’s Dune set a high bar for future science fiction projects and filmmaking in general and its ideas were truly seminal in the fields of science fiction and fantasy filmmaking.

In 1974 Alejandro Jodorowsky was less of a filmmaker and more of an emerging cinematic prophet. He believed in the power of art to not only create reality but also to force an expansion of human consciousness. His early films were anarchist experiments seemingly designed to creatively shock main stream sensibilities as opposed to telling narrative stories. Building on this background along with a powerful interest in mysticism and mind altering pharmacology Jodorowsky created the surrealist western El Topo in 1970 and the mystically dense The Holy Mountain in 1973. Both films also featured Jodorowsky as an actor in the roles of highly spiritual beings, in El Topo as a wandering outlaw/gunslinger who is on a quest for spiritual enlightenment and in The Holy Mountain as an alchemist who guides the main characters along their path of mystical discovery.

Jodorowsky seemed to be at the height of his own personal enlightenment when he was given the opportunity to direct a film for producer Michel Seydoux and immediately chose to direct Frank Herbert’s Dune based purely on the recommendation of the book by a friend. Jodorowsky had not read the book at the time that he chose the film and it seems uncertain how much he actually read of it at any later time given some of the narrative liberties he took with the script.

Along with the initial script Jodorowsky hired the French artist Jean Giraud/Mœbius to draw storyboards based on Jodorowsky’s descriptions. Along with concept artists Chris Foss and H. R. Giger and special effects technician Dan O’Bannon, Jodorowsky created a massive book that showed not only the storyboards of Dune but also character designs and ship and building concepts. These books were sent to various studios in an attempt to find additional funding were they have been lost over the years after being mined for ideas by the many creative people lucky enough to discover them.

Much of the film-time of Jodorowsky’s Dune is taken up in exploring this massive book, according to Jodorowsky there are only two now known to exist, and having it ably animated and narrated by Jodorowsky himself is a real treat. It’s a shame that not even a digital version of this book is available and something that hopefully will be redressed now that this documentary has been released. But the book and the story of the film’s production are not the only enjoyable parts of this Jodorowsky’s Dune. There is also Jodorowsky himself.

Now in his mid-eighties, Jodorowsky is still a powerful and inspiring speaker, even when he’s saying ridiculous things. His beliefs about the nature of art and the power of the artist are said with a fervor that is rare amongst people even when they talk about their religions. Jodorowsky is not someone who simply mimics currently popular themes or who parrots other’s ideas. He preaches about art with a passion and sureness that creators half his age often have trouble projecting. And even his most bizarre concepts seem to come from a place in his heart and mind that is perfectly and truly real. It is a powerful artist indeed who can communicate that sort of reality to others with the zeal that Jodorowsky manifests. It’s a pleasure to watch him again become inspired on the topic of what could have been his final project and to turn what could have been defeat into a truly spiritual understanding.

See this movie if you love film, fantasy, science fiction, and art. See it if you’re a fan of Giger, Foss, Mœbius, or O’Bannon. Jodorowsky. See it if you’re a fan of Jodorowsky’s earlier films or his many comic book sagas. Or see it if you have no idea who this person is. Either way you’ll soon become a fan of Jodorowsky.

---

Score: 5/5

Director: Frank Pavich Studio: City Film, Snowfort Pictures Run Time: 90 Mins

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos -Dustin:  Jeff, you want to watch The Amazing Spider-Man 2 for us, eh, buddy?

-Jeff:  Dustin, you are a son-of-a-bitch and I love you, but I won’t do that.

-Dustin:  Stop quoting Meatloaf, you idiot.  I know your passion for complaining about the first one —

-Jeff:  That fucking lizard-mouse, what happens to it?  Does Peter dispatch it?  Did he imprison it?  Why include it all?

-Dustin:  Unimportant.  Go see it.  Write up a couple hundred words.  After that, we’re square.

-Jeff:  …’kay.  Hey, do you think I can grow a beard someday?

-Dustin:  Up to Steven.

-Steven:  Absolutely not, you twerp.

Well, here we are, days later and there’s no The Amazing Spider-Man 2 write-up.  Dustin has been sending me daggers online and Steve keeps sending me gratuitous videos of him grooming himself.  I need to get on this.

I outright hated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012).  You might know that if you read the conversation that totally happened above.  I’m no Spider-Man fan-boy, no foot washing pilgrim at the mount of Dunst-Maguire-Raimi.  While the lizard-rat scene irks me, it’s among the lesser offenses the picture commits.  It is violently bland.  The storytelling is as color-by-numbers cynical as anything I have bore witness to.  Need emotion?  Kill someone close to Peter —4 times, it happens 4 goddamned times.  (Maybe, just maybe, the writers think they can kill enough people to make us like Peter Parker.)  There’s so little care put into the pieces of the picture (like the lizard-rat), that when it occurs it’s goofy.  And as charmed as the critics were to the Garfield-Stone nexus of cutesy mumblecore teenage first blush romance hype, it left me chafed and bored.  (Then again I hate the young.)  But enough complaining.  That was then, this is now.  Let’s complain about now.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 picks up where its predecessor left off.  Dr. Curt Connors is gone.  (By the way, this post-credits scene?  Yeah.  Still doesn’t make sense.)  OsCorp is sweeping it and every other man-animal experiment under the rug.  Meanwhile Norman Osborn is dying from some mysterious genetic ailment and warns his erstwhile latchkey heir to the OsCorp fortunes Harry, while the OsCorp board scoffs and grumbles and hatches a plan to unseat the young yuppy upstart.  Gwen is doing great, delivering the most foreboding valedictory speech in the history of high school graduation and on her way to study science stuff in England.  She wants to make it work with Peter, but the disapproving ghost of her father (Denis Leary straight bringin’it, staring, stewing) is cockblocking him with guilt from beyond the grave.  Will those kids work it out?  Buy your ticket like the rest of us schmucks.  (Kidding.  You know she dead.)

Besides Gwen, Peter deals with two other narrative threads: his parents and Harry, both of which end at OsCorp.  For a major motion picture summer tentpole blockbuster there is a surprising dearth of action sequence and a large number of dialogue-driven narrative threads.  Which is fine.  Maybe a little refreshing post-Transformers.  Writers Orci and Kurtzman (formerly of the famed Orci and Kurtzman duo) wove a overlong, convoluted, uninspired web (see what I did thar).  Nothing is as punchy, and I mean that semi-literally, as it ought to be.  The length and the compounded astigmatic focus drains the potency whatever dull-as-ditchwater clichés the two want to hock at us.  You’ll know it when you see it, near the end.

Bet you wonder where Electro fits into all of this.  In fact, the way he figured in Sony’s marketing, you might think he starred in this picture or something.  Electro, aka Max Dillon, aka Jamie Foxx, whose death/transformation is primo golden-age silliness, is a setpiece.  He doesn’t actually matter, plot-wise —a cruel and ironic twist there, Orci and Kurtzman.  That Schumacherian campiness is underscored by the pitiful performance by Foxx.  Here Electro is Jim Carrey’s Edward Nygma (the scene in his apartment is almost a shot-for-shot reduplication of Nygma’s in Batman Forever, I can almost guarantee you that) but with a pathos that’s without any sort of grounding or humanity that, rather than allow audiences to empathize with this obviously miserable, unbalanced man, we are forced to laugh at his experience.  The final fight scene between him and Spider-Man is insane.  Expect a dub-step “Itsy Bitsy Spider.”

What we can take away from ASM 2 is there is always ASM 3.  Let us throw the blame of it on the fact that it takes place in a transitory period in the Spider-Man life.  What happens between his origin story and the origin story of his greatest foes is a lot of nothing.  I mean, what’s her face dies –you know, to make us like Peter —but I mean, he’ll get another girlfriend.  Whom he’ll inevitably be guilt-trip cockblocked by the combined forces of unhappy Denis Leary and unhappy Gwen Stacy.  The real issue is who will they kill off next in order for us to like Peter Parker?  Watch out, Sally Field, your days are numbered.

---

Score: 1/5

Director: Marc Webb Writers: Alex Kurtzman, Alex Kurtzman, Jeff Pinkner and James Vanderbilt Studio: Sony Pictures Run-Time: 142 Min

Review: Son of Batman

When you read the title “Son of Batman” most comic fans will think of the story arc of Grant Morrison’s run on Batman (pre-New 52) called “Batman and Son.” It drew in a lot of attention because Morrison promised that everything Batman was now in continuity and that included Batman: Son of the Demon in which Batman had a child with Talia. Even the name “Batman and Son” was a play on “Son of the Demon” and so any comic reader familiar with this storyline from 2006 is likely to think of it when seeing the words “Son of Batman”… “Batman and Son”… “Son of Batman”… “Batman… and Son.” Sadly the difference in title should be your first warning that Son of Batman is only loosely based off of the “Batman and Son” story arc (in fact Morrison and Kubert aren’t even credited on the film). What’s stranger is that there is a new Batman continuity created with this animated film. I suppose it’s not that strange when you consider Superman vs. The Elite and Superman: Unbound did much the same. The difference being that since those movies releases Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox and Justice League: War. Granted War created its own continuity, but this seemed like the beginning of a united animated front, much like the united comic front that became known as the New 52.

It really seemed as if DC and the WB were finally on the same page and understood that fans want there to be a connection to their universe and not just a made up story for the sake of the animation. Sadly there is a made up story/continuity for Son of Batman.

To begin with Ra’s al Ghul is alive and well and is in fact grooming Damian to become the leader of the League of Assassins. The League of Assassins is more like the league of Ninjas, because they’re all ninjas. They use swords and arrows and frankly it’s strange that as assassins they don’t have or use anything other than the aforementioned weapons… no I take that back they did have catapults that threw fucking rocks. So a mixture of Medieval technology and ninjas, but mostly ninjas.

Their compound is attacked by people with guns. You could say that they’re a league of assassins as well, but the name was already taken. They all have orange skull patches on their arms with one eye so let’s call them “One-eyed Orange Skulls.” They’re led by the villain of our film… wait the villain of our film? Didn’t I already introduce them when I said Ra’s al Ghul was involved? You would think that, but you’re wrong. In fact the film attempts to make the Ghul family look… good. On one hand they run the League of Assassins and on the other hand they are raising a child.

No the real villain of the film is Deathstroke the Terminator… and he has two eyes when we meet him. Eventually he loses the eye, but at this point you should be wondering why a two eyed man would be leading the “One-eyed Orange Skulls”… that’s right folks. In the WB’s infinite laziness they either A) decided to have one of the characters in the film take Deathstroke’s eye after already creating the design for his Crew of Assassins or B) … well B is that they’re still lazy. Either way it was poor planning or laziness.

This opening attack forces Talia to take Damian to his father’s place while she pathetically attempts revenge on Deathstroke. What’s Deathstroke’s motivation you ask? Well he was supposed to take over the League of Assassins until Batman was discovered and offered the job and when he turned it down they were like “we already got his baby batter brewing in Talia… let’s just make him the leader.”

It’s not until Batman meets Damian that he becomes annoying. It was strange because everyone that read his stint as Robin in the comic books knows how annoying this little bastard is and yet at first he’s not. Then he meets his dad… and becomes the most annoying child, character and cartoon persona ever. There is nothing to like about this version of Damian. He’s at his worst for the rest of the film.

Damian doesn’t really respect Batman. He listens to him only when it’s convenient for the story and when he doesn’t it’s also convenient for the story. If I was a small child watching this, the lesson I would learn is that I can do whatever as long as Dad says he’s impressed by me at the end of it. Every cliché between father and son meeting for the first time is used, “I thought you’d be bigger.” That’s verbatim. There are plenty more that were too painful for me to recall, but I’m sure someone out there can turn it into a drinking game.

Batman is reduced to a supporting role for the most part. That’s right he plays second fiddle to Damian who is ahead of him on everything and even hacks the Bat-computer. He’s also voiced by Jason O’Mara who you will recall as the really shitty Batman voice actor in the Justice League: War film. There’s something about his voice that isn’t believable and makes it sound as if he’s in a different film than the rest of the characters.

The worst part of the film comes from the first encounter between Nightwing and Damian. Nightwing is the one and only previous Robin making Damian the second Robin. They meet and we all know a fight is going to break out since Damian is about to kill someone and is seeing red. Instead we see the end of the battle which has Nightwing sporting several (and I do mean several) deep cuts from Damian’s sword. Why this fight was skipped is beyond me, but they chose to show a panel of the fight here and there in the credits… you know when you’re just dying for more from that train skipped scene.

The story is pointless which in my book is worse than bad. Deathstroke’s motivations throughout the film make zero sense and the go-to villains of the Bat-verse are made to look like heroes. All the while you’ll be left wondering what exactly Batman is doing when not on screen.

The voice acting ranges from passable, to meh, to really bad. It’s a shame that they’re mostly just grabbing people off of WB produced TV shows and throwing them in a studio in order to promote the show and the cartoon at the same time. Makes business sense until these animations start flopping like they’ve been doing ever since Geoff Johns forced them to animate three of his stories back-to-back.

The animation is good for the most part. Other than the laziness with the skulls in the beginning and a few weird action sequences, it’s what you’d expect from a WB animation. The action sequences that fail, both involve fast ninja movement. The first is Ra’s doing a no-hand cartwheel to block a bullet with his sword and it looks more like stop-motion animation. The second is a scene with Damian jumping across traffic. Not only is he about the same size as the cars, but his animation cell looks like it was just dragged to one car from the next. What’s worse is that momentum and physics where never taken into account for this scene as he jumps perfectly between cars going different directions at varying speeds.

There’s a sad truth to this film: most people are still going to buy or rent it just to see it. A lot of people grew up during the Bruce Timm era of WB animation and remember the great series that he produced or oversaw. Because of him we crave more WB animation and their characters are the perfect fit for it. Too bad the WB is more concerned with just pumping out content rather than content people will remember or care about in ten or even five years. Even if just money is their focus it’s a short-sighted way of doing business as you will eventually burnout your fanbase. They’re only willing to put up with so much. With Son of Batman I doubt I’ll even remember it by the time DCU Batman: Assault on Arkham releases later this year and would encourage you to not give into curiosity and just skip it.

Score: 2/5 (Animation Only)

Director: Ethan Spaulding Story: James Robinson Teleplay: Joe R. Lansdale Studio: WB Animation Release Date: 5/6/14

Review: Milius

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

“He doesn’t write for pussies and he doesn’t write for women. He writes for men. ‘Cause he’s a man.”

~ Sam Elliott

John Milius is one of those frustrating creators whose personality often obscures and poisons his great works. As part of the “New Hollywood” movement Milius began his career surrounded by the likes of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Francis Ford Coppola. He was an affable asshole, a self-described “zen anarchist” who seemed to relish being the loudest, most brash , and most abrasive bastard in the room. He was also immensely talented and intelligent with an over-sized persona that seemed to draw people to him even as he shoved others away.

The documentary Milius does its subject a great service by giving him plenty of time to use his outstanding storytelling techniques to fill in his own history beginning with his somewhat troubled childhood and his missed chance to go to Vietnam. The sadness that he shows while pining for “my war” gives some clues into what would become frequent obsessions in his filmmaking. It also shows an almost childlike love of war that many people who have actually experienced war might have a hard time grasping. Like Apocalypse Now’s Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore, Milus seems to view war as a a grand adventure and one that he is personally immune to.

Along with an obsession for firearms and grand bravado Milius soon developed into a creative entity that has created or influenced a huge amount of American pop culture. In the films Dirty Harry, Apocalypse Now, and Conan the Barbarian, Milius created tough-guy stories that hit hard and created an ideal of masculinity that was often summed up in omni-quotable lines like “Go ahead, make my day!”, “Crush your enemies!”, and “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” But he also set these lines within a story that was full of well-developed characters and masterfully told.

Milius made his first impact as a writer on films such as The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, Jeremiah Johnson, and Dillinger which all seem to have been forgotten by all but the most cultish film buffs. But they also gave Milius a good amount of Hollywood power and led to him becoming a director in addition to writing. Becoming the guy who got to call of the shots on set seemed to inflate Milius’s ego to even more extreme proportions.

“Charlie don’t surf!” but Milius did and as a young man took an almost spiritual satisfaction in the culture and sport of the southern California beaches. This led to him writing and directing Big Wednesday, a surf movie that directly opposed the Frankie and Annette beach movie vibe and instead used surfing as a symbol for life in general. Like many very personal projects Big Wednesday was not well received but seemed custom made to become a lasting cult film. It would not be the last time that Milius created a film that was badly received by critics. And the next time the fallout would be damned near fatal to his career.

I’m going to stop talking about John Milius the man and focus a bit more on Milius the documentary. Overall it’s a competent example of a formulaic style that really doesn’t veer too far from set parameters. We get lightly animated stills of Milius as a young man, talking heads of various famous people talking about him as well as a basic timeline of his career. Luckily we also get a good amount of previous interview material from Milius throughout his career. The filmmakers are no Errol Morris so there really isn’t any sense of there being an attempt to dig deeper beneath the surface to really pull new ideas out of the subject. Instead we get a by the numbers documentary that takes no chances and pulls quite a few punches. This format is made even clearer in contrast to the film’s subject. A powerhouse like John Milius deserves better than the standard format of anything.

That being said Milius is worth a watch if only to listen to Milius himself and to get an idea of his charisma and talent. After being thrown a couple of really shitty curveballs Milius is still fighting and hopefully his warrior’s soul will be enough to come back on more time.

Score: 4/5

Directors: Joey Figueroa, Zak Knutson Studio: Epix