The Wolf of Wall Street
Truth of the matter is, I have no idea how to review this movie so I came up with this:
The Wolf Of Wall Street - Imagine Alec Baldwin's cameo in Glengarry Glen Ross repeatedly having weird and graphic sex with the drug scenes from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but with none of the danger and none of the meaning, extended over 3 hours and you're about half way there.
The film is about an utterly repellent, narcissistic, smug, unrepentant, soulless and swaggering young stock broker turned snake oil huckster, the sadly, very real, Jordan Belfort played by a superb Leonardo DiCaprio, who, after one martini lunch with a hilarious, cameoing, Matthew McConaughey, starts down the road of swindling people out of their money, taking massive amounts of drugs, sleeping with everything in a skirt, buying all the big ticket items you can imagine, throwing midgets at dartboards and a whole host of other taboo-breaking, debauched things guaranteed to shock some, amuse some and bore some. I was mostly amused, sometimes bored and the only shocking thing was that it was Scorsese doing it. We knew he could do violence but all of a sudden there is an early DePalma or later Kubrick level of tits and ass flying about.
Belfort starts by swindling regular folk out of thousands at a penny stock trader on Long Island and then hits on the big idea to trade penny stock to the 1% richest people because, it's all fake anyway, it's just about moving your clients money around and, most importantly, the commission is so much higher. I suppose we're meant to like him for this, the fact he's only picking on the wealthy I mean. Is this why Scorsese and DiCaprio made this? I have no idea. My natural instinct is to assume they are not in favour of this behaviour but I don't know. It is never dwelled upon WHO the clients are or what happens to them, the 1% thing is mentioned in passing briefly and never really brought up again. The ins and outs, intricacies, repercussions and downside to any of this is never shown. We never even see a failed sales call, a plumber loosing their home through bad investing or even a CEO of a fortune 500 asking "wait what about that stock I bought?". We barely even spend any time with any of the characters who may or may not disapprove with this lifestyle and to cap it off there's even a hint at the end that the FBI guy who's after these crooks, Kyle Chandler as Agent Patrick Denham, also a bit of a full-of-himself-dick, feels like it was all for nothing and humanity's not worth saving anyhow. The one character who is definitely decent, Belfort's first wife, gets dumped early and even made out to be a whining cow for not 'getting-it' like his new girlfriend does, the, admittedly, stunning Margot Robbie.
No other perspective! In a 3hr movie! It's just 3hrs of this Belfort guy doing stuff and more or less getting away with it. Seriously, that's it. Lots of drugs, excessive nudity and sex of all kinds and an extravagant lifestyle. All played for laughs, funny laughs admittedly and the script is great but there's no substance to it, whatsoever. Which wouldn't be so bad if this guy was fictitious or some of my ticket money wasn't going to this slimy, lying jackass but it is and I feel like my trusted film friends, Marty and Leo, made me culpable in the continued, wealthy existence of this prick.
Not only that but the film routinely tells you over and over again that I, or we, the audience secretly want to be like him and that we SHOULD be like him, maybe not in the debauchery exactly, but in the getting and being rich part.
I, personally, want to be successful at something and if money comes, great, if it doesn't, as long as I can eat, have a roof over my head and treat myself occasionally to some blu-rays, I'm pretty happy. Success is what I strive for and am ambitious for, not just the mindless accumulation of wealth but then, I am funny that way.
Some, in fact, many reviews have suggested that this film is really a biting attack on people like Belfort but that kind of misses the fact that
A) at no point in the film is Belfort really attacked. There's no real tragedy that befalls him that he can't happily and smugly buy his way out of, well no tragedy that is looked at with any depth for more than 2 seconds or that he shows any signs of being really bothered by, that is
and
B) Belfort wrote the book this is based on and happily appears in it, introducing and praising the Hollywood version of himself, on stage at a public speaking gig, no less.
Now I am not a prude or a killjoy, I am not against sex, drugs or midget tossing, neither am I an economist, I don't pretend to understand Wall Street and I don't think Wall Street pretends to understand itself. I assume it's mostly loud mouth folks 'winging it' with each other and patting themselves on the back A LOT, regardless of whom their actions hurt, but I don't know for sure. I choose, however, in my life, not to spend time with people like that because I find ego, swagger, braggadocio, smugness and a sickening lust for wealth without skill or substance, completely and utterly sickening. Spending 3hrs with these guys then was just aggravating.
I have just watched some video of Scorsese, DiCaprio, Terence Winter and Jonah Hill and firstly they seem to think the film is critical of Belfort's actions back then and Wall Street now and they also seem to think that Belfort was punished for his crime. The trouble with that is, he's not punished and even says so in the script. Secondly the film laughs with and at Belfort but never really criticises or judges him, unless you as an audience member choose to. In fact it implies, even with its last shot, that we, the audience, should be enthralled by him. DiCaprio called the book bravely embarrassing and said it was a modern day Caligula story but Caligula was assassinated, no such luck with Belfort unfortunately. Terence Winter, the screenwriter, seems to believe this all really happened when clearly Belfort made vast sections of it up, much in the way idiotic teenagers brag to each other about sexual conquests that never took place.
So here's the dilemma I'm in:
The film, technically, is very good. It's very funny, the script is excellent, it's performed brilliantly by all involved, it's directed with the usual Scorsese flair and, although, it has no business being 3hrs long, those 3hrs don't drag. However I don't like it's politics or purpose (intentional or unintentional), I don't like the story or the person that's the focus of the story and I don't like the assumptions about me or the audience that the film makes and never sufficiently rebukes.
Can you like a movie based on skill of production alone?
It is truly an eye-opening and fantastic central performance by Dicaprio, I mean seriously unhinged and a joy to watch with some impressive and bravado speeches. His greatest scene though is when, partially incapacitated by quaaludes, he has to make it out of the country club and into his car. It's the most phenomenal physical comedy I have seen this year. Also Jonah Hill is surprising, wonderful and genuinely funny in his role. All the actors are great, every single one, with not a weak link anywhere. They are helped, of course, by a first rate script, when it comes to dialogue. When it comes to a point to be made or a reason this story is being told in the first place, then it's terrible but in terms of jokes, discussions and weird characters, the script is spot on. As for Scorsese, I have heard this, in more than one review, called his best or second best film ever. Admittedly one of the people who wrote that, a lady from The Los Angeles Times no less, believed The Departed was his best film, so take it all with a pinch of salt but this is far from his best work. This wasn't even as good as Shutter Island. It looks beautiful and everything but this needed a little more Casino and a little less Eyes Wide Shut.
I am going to wrestle with this film a long time. There's a lot of fun to be had and it's definitely entertaining but it's like a masterful Scorsese montage that never begins or ends or tells you anything at all.
I also think that if it was a fiction it would be fine but it's, apparently, mostly true.
Someone on another blog put it perfectly when they said
"would Anchorman still be as funny if Ron Burgundy was a real person and the movie based on a book he wrote himself?" - Vince Mancini, Filmdrunk
Just to clarify, though, I don't not like Jordan Belfort or his colleagues because of some misguided, moral correctness screaming "oh the depravity", some working class jealousy or hate of the rich and I also didn't understand the scam well enough to hate what they were doing to people on a social level and was, actually, told in the film not to worry about it and just understand that they made lots of money! I just hate him because he's a smug, unrepentant prick who wrote a self-aggrandising book about how crazy and great he is and how he beat the system because he had gobs of money. Honesty and humility go a long way and Jordan's ego did capsize the movie for me.
It was like when Piers Morgan took a hard line on gun control, I agreed with him completely but it's Piers Morgan, even when he's right you want to take a paddle to the fucker.
6 out of 10
Inside Llewyn Davis
I have to say this one was a bit of a mystery to me. It's left me feeling like it was a sub-par Barton Fink with Oh Brother Where Art Thou? music and occasional Odyssey nods.
The funny thing is that it's far from a bad film.
The script is great and peppered with a drier than sand sense of humour, performed exceptionally well by Oscar Isaac, John Goodman and most of the supporting cast and not so well by a bland, always miserable Carey Mulligan and a silly Justin Timberlake (both in, relatively, tiny roles), it looks beautiful, is, of course, directed perfectly and the music is sublime.
The story, such as it is, is simply a series of mishaps, both self created and "acts of god", that befall a poor folk musician in 60s New York, his ginger cat and the crazy cast of Coen-esque characters he, of course, meets along the way. There's lots to love in the film and as a portrait of a time, a place and a music it's fine but as anything deeper or better I am simply not sure. I know people will probably read all sorts of stuff into it and get their own interpretation and I know I need to watch it at least two more times to probably fully absorb it but I can't say on this initial viewing that it left me feeling like it was anything special and that's despite the dilemma and depression experienced by the central character resonating really strongly with me right now.
Definitely worth the watch but you know the Coens could do better and for all the serious tone, moody cinematography and allusions to something deeper, something better, this just feels like a place holder and a greatest hits of their recent work but the Coens spinning their wheels is still more fascinating than most film-makers giving 100%
7 out of 10
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
What has been levelled at this film, in the press, is the fact that there's product placement and the fact that the character, once choosing to engage with life, undergoes crazy, dangerous and reckless feats with seemingly little or no psychological repercussion.
Some of that is true and I at least see where it's coming from, although I would argue that the product placement in the movie is the ok kind, the real kind. For example there IS a website called EHarmony on which single people date and people do eat Papa John's pizzas (presumably) and if you're setting a film in the world in which we currently live it's not unreasonable to expect characters might interact with products, restaurants or websites much like we do every day. I'd rather that than changing names to DaddyJoe's Pizza or ECompatibility or something. The bad kind of product placement is when characters casually drop names of products into conversations like 'It's an Omega actually' with it having no bearing on the plot, like an advert on the TV (James Bond Casino Royale).
The other point that Walter Mitty is surprisingly brave, all of a sudden, for a middle aged schlub, once the plot demands it of him, is slightly true but, to be honest, it is done in such a charming way, to the strains of Kristen Wiig giving a kick ass, inspirational rendition of David Bowie's Space Oddity and you are so rooting for him, at the point it happens in the film, that you go along with it. Anything more drawn out or believable would stop the incredible, exuberant and brilliant pacing of this film. Well, it didn't bother me anyway.
You, as an audience member, are meant to be inspired by Mitty's seemingly over-the-top, exciting and probably expensive, real experiences in the same way Mitty is inspired by the fantasy life he has earlier in the movie. Watch it like that and it's better.
All that being said, The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty is the best film Ben Stiller has ever made as a director. Are Tropic Thunder, Zoolander and The Cable Guy much funnier? yes, of course, Walter Mitty is not strictly just a comedy but in terms of juggling multiple themes and multiple styles, while telling an engaging and fun story and making it look incredible and beautiful? THIS is his best work to date.
Also people worried that it might be too soppy, or too simplistic, too overly sentimental or too silly... it's, thankfully, none of those things. It's a surprising, fun, entertaining, enjoyable comedy drama with wonderful fantasy elements and lots of sweetness and surprise. Kristen Wiig is also an unparalleled delight, proving herself, again to be more than just a fantastic comedienne but an actress to watch and respect.
Turn off your cynical or ironic glands, relax and get carried away watching this enchanting, midlife-crisis-as-a-fairytale movie.
8 out of 10
American Hustle
A comedic caper with a Martin Scorsese 'Casino' like sensibility and, similarly, a kick ass period soundtrack.
I can't say that I 100% embraced American Hustle the way I did Silver Linings Playbook but the acting is always watchable, the fashions and hair suitably over the top and ridiculous and the script pretty strong. I get the feeling I will enjoy it more a second time.
I felt like it meandered too much, didn't have terrific focus and I thought that Jeremy Renner, while fine, was too young for the role. The impact of his position in the plot I felt through Bale's reactions rather than anything, actually, that Renner did. I thought Jennifer Laurence was good but not completely confident or assured in the role and very often I could see her "acting". It's difficult to shake the fact that Christian Bale, as marvellous as he is in the film, is 'doing' Robert De Niro which gets really confusing and weird when De Niro, himself, shows up for a brief cameo half-way through. Amy Adams is good in all but accent which wavers everywhere. The plot involves her putting on the performance of that of an English lady but her English accent is not defined enough to be English and her American accent isn't strong enough to be clear who she is and what she's doing. This is only a problem in as far as the fact there is a plot point and a reveal that sort of hinges on you being able to tell the difference. Lastly Bradley Cooper is tremendous in the movie, none more so than, in one scene, doing a perfect, physical impression of a surprising and awesome Louis C.K. character. Cooper clearly has hidden talents and is fast becoming O. Russel's De Niro (or DiCaprio to bring it up to date) with him doing, by far, his best work with the Director. I hope they have a long fruitful partnership, I could watch their stuff once a year, no problem.
The plot is all very well and dragged out a bit but the genius of the film is in its character portrayal and in its dark, a lost Coen-esque sense of humour. It doesn't always balance this well with the drama though and it makes a bit light of a situation we're meant to feel rising danger in and the tone is a bit all over the place, to be honest. In parts Broadway Danny Rose and in other parts Casino.
The ending, too, isn't exactly A) a shock B) explained clearly and C) gripping enough to let you walk from the cinema thinking you've seen a great con man caper.
Also, the film, like almost all films these days is 20mins too long.
That being said, however, there is great performances, clever writing and fun, assured direction to enjoy. No words on whether O Russell is still being a massive cock on set though, I like to think not.
No real strong complaints, just not the unmitigated work of genius some would have you believe.
Thinking about it again it's like the Coen brothers seen through the eyes of Scorsese but not as successful as that sounds, still a damn good effort though.
7.5 out of 10
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues
I have just got back from Anchorman 2 and wanted to get my thoughts down while they formed in my laughter filled head.
The good news is my brain is scrabbling to remember all the really great lines and bits in the movie, this means there were, thankfully, lots of them. The second thing I should point out is that I could watch the Channel 4 news-team play tiddlywinks for 2 hours and be happy. So I am definitely a soft sell member of this movies key target audience of loyal Anchorman fans.
Bare that in mind and make of it what you, inevitably, will.
So, continuing with the good, the first 30-45 minutes of the movie, the getting the boys back together and the establishing of the key story elements are absolutely fantastic. Hilarious, well played and a great 'welcome back' to the world of Burgandy. After the joyously strong opening, the film struggles a bit without a strong, 3 act structure to hang the jokes on but it is still very funny. However the laugh count has reduced from 3 every minute to 1 or 2 big laughs every 10 minutes.
Much like McKay's and Ferrell's films The Other Guys and The Campaign, Anchorman 2 has a fairly blatant satire at its core of the 24hr news cycle. It conflicted me a little because while I will never ever knock comedies that try and make a point, I am not sure it belongs or fits well with the Burgandy and news team characters. The joke of the first film was an acutely realised absurd pomposity and arrogance of four, highly damaged male characters and the reckless decade they inhabit. That is somewhat missing here as they aren't really battling anything here or confused by anything. The characters in the sequel just go through a series of rises and falls, stumbling through comedy sketch after sketch, always with an eye on the satire of the absurdity of shitty cable news, or with an eye to telling a joke and, often, beating it to death, but with very little regard for a story. So the first film comes off looking like it had an actual structure and while it, too, has many ludicrous and surreal flights of fancy, the story is always moving forward. This sequel, by comparison, is more like the 'unofficial-only-on-dvd' sequel Wake Up, Ron Burgundy, a movie compiled (rather than planned) using different takes, cut scenes and a whole removed sub plot from the first film. This is not to disparage it, just an attempt to vocalise what this film IS.
The sequel, like the first, shot two movies worth of footage and the first rough cut was 4hrs long. By a process of test screenings, private screenings and tinkering we get the finished result. Although I hate test screenings, I am sure this was the same on the first film, it's just in that case they had not one but two 3 act structured stories they could use. In Anchorman 2, it feels like, they, probably, just picked the funnier stuff; Whether it made sense or had a flow to it, or not.
Anchorman, at times, is a weird movie but just like Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, Anchorman 2 is weirder. There's a whole sequence in the middle of the film set around a lighthouse that is just bizarre and not always laugh-out-loud funny bizarre but always intriguing, surprising and weird. Ferrell and McKay, given the chance to finally make the sequel have gone a bit hog wild in parts. It feels like several of the more left-field funny or die sketches strung together. The ending, too, takes some of the reality bending concepts of the first film and explodes them up to 22 (twice as much as 11). Again, because of the way this was edited and put together, the direction seems less focussed and pleasing than McKay has achieved in something like, the relatively normal by comparison, Step Brothers, for example. Not that I cared too much. In fact I welcomed it. McKay and Ferrell as a team are experimental, weird, wonderful, intelligent, odd, satirical, surreal and just damn funny but the mainstream eat it up. Possibly because they're also delightfully silly but I like to think that the mainstream gets a bit starved for crazy shit sometimes and so embraces people like Ferrell to make sure the scale doesn't tip too far into Blandville.
In terms of the performances the film is, honestly, the Ron and Brick show. This isn't a huge concern however as Ferrell and, especially, Carrell slip back into the roles as if they'd never been away. It's a little sad, however, that Veronica, Fantana and Champ get little to do once the initial 40mins is up. As for the new additions to the cast it's really only Kristin Wiig that gets to match the madness of the men, James Marsden is sort of miscast in the role. I've never really liked him much and, while he certainly looks the part, is no match for the others around him in the comedy stakes. He tries his best and doesn't stink up the joint but there are plenty who could've played it better.
The last point to make is that Anchorman 2 does suffer from the Austin Powers/Waynes World syndrome of recycled gags, or in this case it's more like welcome referential humour nodding at particular character tropes or gags of the first film and either expanding or changing them in some way. This is not over done and it's not grating but it's definitely there. Most of the time it's welcome and even, by a weird area of human nature and humour that loves familiarity, demanded, so don't worry but it was definitely worth mentioning.
All that being said and I realise this review may have sounded negative in parts, I loved the film. It's the weirdest, most experimental and silliest mainstream Christmas comedy and sequel since Gremlins 2 and it's funny. If, like me, you have watched Anchorman and Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie a lot and just want to spend more time with those guys, you won't be disappointed and there's enough to make the uninitiated chuckle too, though they will, probably, have no idea what's going on. The nice thing is that they have filled the scene with lots of in-gags and sight jokes that will lend itself to delightful 2nd, 3rd, 4th viewings and so on. There's also been talk of releasing the other 2 hrs of this film as an alternative version so, I imagine, the DVD/Blu-Ray set of this will be a never ending treasure trove of great lines and ludicrous scenarios.
Time to cherish a movie like this, even with its flaws. because studios just don't bet on weird ideas like this anymore, as can be attested to by the, quite frankly, odd array of really shitty film trailers which preceded this.
7.5 out of 10
Blu-ray #MovieMagic GIVEAWAY
YES! The After Movie Diner has an ALL NEW GIVEAWAY and it's a chance for you to grow your movie collection this CHRISTMAS!
This Holiday rediscover the #MovieMagic behind your favourite films. Blu-ray offers exclusive special features that put you in the filmmaker’s chair, with a behind-the-scenes access to all of the magic: Special effects, talent interviews, alternative endings, unreleased scenes, bloopers, and more!
With a Blu-ray combo pack, you can enjoy your favourite films in high-definition whenever and wherever you want. You can keep the Blu-ray disc in the living room, DVD in the car, and the digital copy on your phone for when you’re on the move!
Grab your favourite movie lover a Blu-ray this holiday!
We are giving away a copy of one of the following titles to one lucky reader!
Titles will be sent randomly from this list
- The Little Mermaid - Diamond Edition
- The Lone Ranger
- Monsters University
- Angels Rising
- Rise of The Guardians
- Despicable Me 2
- Turbo
- Grown Ups 2
- Wizard of Oz 3D
- The Wolverine
- Star Trek: Into Darkness
- White House Down
- Fast 6
- Pacific Rim
- After Earth
- Man of Steel
- Red 2
- World War Z
- 2 Guns
- Weeds: The Complete Collection
- Predator 3D
• Behind-the-Scenes #MovieMagic GIF Grid - Mouse over each of the GIF squares and click to view a behind-the-scenes clip exclusively from the film's Blu-ray special features.
• The Next Generation of Blu-ray - Don't get left behind with old tech! Check out what's next for Blu-ray in 2014 and beyond!
HOW TO ENTER!!!
a Rafflecopter giveaway The After Movie Diner Podcast
The Dr.Action and the Kick Ass Kid Commentaries Podcast
Each household is only eligible to win ONE #MovieMagic Title via blog reviews and giveaways. Only one entrant per mailing address per giveaway. If you have won the same prize on another blog, you will not be eligible to win it again. Winner is subject to eligibility verification.
a Rafflecopter giveaway The After Movie Diner Podcast
The Dr.Action and the Kick Ass Kid Commentaries Podcast
Each household is only eligible to win ONE #MovieMagic Title via blog reviews and giveaways. Only one entrant per mailing address per giveaway. If you have won the same prize on another blog, you will not be eligible to win it again. Winner is subject to eligibility verification.
Giveaway ONLY available in the U.S.
Titles will be sent randomly from the list
Titles will be sent randomly from the list
The Last Days on Mars
Next up on this year's list of films about us flesh and bone types kicking about the void is The Last Days on Mars which comes to us with the promise of a quite starry cast (pun intended) that includes Liev Schreiber, Elias Koteas and Olivia Williams.
What is surprising and worth mentioning about that is the fact this got made at all, let alone with those people involved. At the front of the film, as is usually the case with low budget films with ambitious amounts of effects, there is a never ending list of production companies. The amazing thing about this is how they all read the script and gave it the thumbs up. One production company full of short-attention span morons I can buy but all 10 (or however many there were) at the head of this film stumping up filthy moola to put it into production, I just don't understand. Then you factor in the writer, director and cast and you are left, when the film ends, scratching your head thinking "wait, have NONE of you seen another horror sci-fi film ever? Did you all have your brains wiped after a bus accident and think this was a valuable use of your time and resources?"
Now, let me explain. My confusion comes because the film, The Last Days on Mars, is, hands down, the most generic, obvious and mundane film I have ever seen. Earlier in the year my friend James and I took in Stranded, a Christian Slater starring, moon set, film that had clearly been made in a shed in Skegness for the cost of some Ginsters pasties and a packet of cheese and onion crisps and even that had more going on in it than this. True, you couldn't always tell what the hell was going on and the plot seemed to revolve a lot around doors opening and closing but still it was less generic than The Last Days on Mars.
In a nutshell this is the plot: A rag tag band of bored and annoyed astronauts are finishing up their scientific fact finding mission on Mars. There's a tetchy, by the bookish, type, a pure-as-the-driven-moon-rock type who hangs around keeping a level head when all about are shitting bricks, the out-of-depth captain who makes all the wrong decisions and a roguish, mumbling engineer who happens to be claustrophobic. Rounding out the group are a bunch of nondescript nobodies who look like they've just wandered in off the set of Coronation Street (a soap opera) filming in the studio next door. There's also a European chappy we never get to know who discovers living bacteria, breaks the rules to go out and examine further, the ground gives way, he falls in and becomes an alien infected Mars zombie. He then quickly infects someone else and the two undead space monsters shuffle back to the camp to pick off the panicky, inept and idiotic crew one by one in a quick and not interesting way.
That's it.
Seriously.
That's it.
Now normally I'd be all for that because a film that is, in essence, "Infected rage zombies from Mars" with Liev Schreiber should be awesome. Should be tremendous. Should be right up my street. The trouble is, imagine that film but made by really boring people with no sense of fun. Imagine that film made by a bunch of people that think they're are being innovative and different while being wholly derivative. Who read the short story this was apparently based on and thought "hmmm I haven't heard of this before, this will be a perfect movie?" It's Contamination, Leviathan, The Thing, Alien and a hundred others like them but with none of the style, wit, charm, creativity or talent.
Don't get me wrong, it's acted fine, looks good, the effects are impressive and there's even a little bit of decent blood letting but the script is inept, the idea redundant, the score non existent and the finished film, dull.
The title sequence, long slow vista shots and weird claustrophobic flashbacks all fool you into believing this could be another Moon type scenario. An art-house space picture with good acting, some psychological and emotional depth and maybe even a decent twist. Sadly that is not the case, you have no hint, really, of who any of these people are, beyond their generic cliches and even when the alien rage beasties attack nobody really does anything. Things are tried quickly and abandoned, mistakes are made left and right like these people were college co-eds in a mid 90s Roger Corman produced slasher film and the ending is as pointless as it is dull.
I really wanted to write some praise for this but, unfortunately, all I was left with was a sense of "this got made? how did THIS get made?" Also how do you have a film like this and NEVER use the line 'Is there life on Mars?' or ANY Bowie reference for that matter! Disappointed!
To Jennifer
James Cullen Bressack's To Jennifer claims it is the story of a guy, Joey, who is convinced his girlfriend is cheating on him and so plans to travel to her home and catch her in the act, all the while making a video about his journey and how much she's hurt him. On the surface the film appears to simply be about Joey, played by the excellent Chuck Pappas, being hampered continually in this attempt by his two inane and annoying, party friends Steven and Martin, played by the director himself, James Bressack and, Bressack regular, Jody Barton respectively. The whole thing is shot on an iPhone 5.
Now, even in the first few minutes we can tell that maybe Joey is not all he appears and his slowly building tense energy and the occasional freak out hints at brewing psycho tendencies, that and the fact that you hope the film is leading somewhere.
Your enjoyment of To Jennifer will depend on three things,
1) if you can put up with his two, selfish, vulgar, stoner, party friends
2) if you can put up with constant hand held shaking and moving of the camera
and
3) if you care enough to find out what's going on that you can put up with the first 2 points.
What I can say is that I usually loathe found footage/handheld camera films and characters like Steven and Martin would, normally, be enough to make me switch off but with To Jennifer the writing is good enough, the performances believable and the storyline compelling that I pressed on. I'm glad I did too but more on that later.
Just to clarify something, when I say the characters are annoying that is not a slight against the actors portraying them, quite the opposite, I presume that they are meant to be annoying and James and Jody do a grand job of portraying this. In fact Jody Barton even manages to give the pot smoking, hard drinking, bizarre prostitute hiring annoyance that is Martin a sort of pathetic tragedy which really sells the character perfectly. This film does everything to help make us side with Joey, despite the fact we suspect, deep down, the man's a little unhinged. His friends are so teeth gratingly, selfishly obstructive to Joey's goal that you don't blame him for losing his temper occasionally. This was not a Blair Witch Project situation where everyone is a selfish idiot to no end and with no reason, this is not only a strong attempt to present realistic characters but also ones that serve the overall story.
Although the writing is good, one thing that was unclear was why Joey and Steven took a flight somewhere and then when they got there still had to drive a long way to Jennifer's house. For the first half of the film that confused me maybe more than it should, as I never fully understood where they were or what they were meant to be doing.
I am not going to spoil a thing but, if it encourages you to watch the film all the way through and put up with the, sometimes, almost unbearably shaky camera work and a road strip story line that seems, frustratingly, to constantly be deviating from the plot, please know that this film, quite out of nowhere, manages to pull the same trick that The Sixth Sense did. That's not to say that Joey turns out to be a ghost but I mean to say, that when you're done with the film and you run it back through your mind, you see just how clever the script was to hide its ultimate reveal. It's a great trick and means you definitely look back on the film again in a new light.
It's not so much an enjoyable experience watching the film the first time but, once it ends you realise, it's a wonderful exercise in proving that, at the end of the day, what you need is confidence in your plot, a decent script and a director who knows how to scatter the clues seamlessly throughout the film without ringing any bells the first time round. Your film can be made on an iPhone and filled with characters you might not want to spend 5 minutes with in an elevator, let alone 85mins in a car/hotel/bedroom etc. but be clever, tell a good story and allow tension to build and it's a wholly worthwhile endeavour and gets my respect. The performances were not bad either.
Prolific indie scream queen Jessica Cameron plays the titular Jennifer and, although she doesn't have an abundance of screen time, she does a good job in an emotionally charged climax.
Check it out!
13/13/13
Basically it's all something to do with leap years violating the ancient Mayan calendar and all those extra days in February, over time have created an extra month and on the date of 13/13/13 everyone who wasn't born on a February 29th goes completely nuts.
It's a wonderful, end of the world scenario that allows for lots of death, destruction, mayhem and the symbolism of the "unlucky number" 13. More importantly, I hadn't really heard of much like that before and it's always nice to hear a fresh idea.
Yes, ok, so behind the idea is the whole Mayan calendar hoopla that went around last year claiming that, in 2012, the world was going to end and, I'm sure that, The Asylum liked it for that reason, as they're always making B-Movie versions of big budget disaster films (or Mockbusters as I believe the affectionate term is for them) but this has a decent spin on that and actually attempts something novel with it. The idea that leap years added up would form this weird 13 month is just the kind of bonkers, surreal hokum I am drawn to. There was a bit of George A Romero's The Crazies mixed in there as well but it's, at least, a different Romero source to draw from than the interminable bad zombie films we've had to wade through lately.
The things that I enjoyed in this film were the slow build up to people going crazy, some good and, on some occasions, even darkly comic deaths, a nice, atmospheric, gory and weird hospital sequence and attempts to establish different types of craziness for different groups of people. There was a really strong bedrock here for a pretty decent end-of-the-world horror film and what the filmmakers were able to do with, what was, obviously, a limited budget was, also, very impressive.
What was a slight disappointment with the movie, for me, was the fact that, I didn't feel, the concept went anywhere or was explored as much as I would've liked. For example, it needed a crazy old professor, or someone, who knew about the old world and spouted Donald Pleasance-like doom filled one-liners. The film, definitely, could've done with some sort of further explanation of the situation or some place to go. Maybe a glimmer of hope to reverse the situation using a mystical rock, Mayan gold amulet or something, or, maybe the rising of old beings to establish their order again on earth.
As it was, while it was atmospheric, gory as all hell and nicely shot, the hospital sequence went on entirely too long and once our two, Feb 29th born, protagonists finally escaped there was little time for anything but a muddled and, I felt, rushed finale back at the house.
The acting was a problem in the film. I watch a lot of amateur and low budget films so it doesn't bother me a lot but the acting was pretty stale, unfortunately, and not one character really shone in the film. A lot of that might have been the script too because, while the idea was there and the deaths, gore and action were all there, the dialogue was, in places, dreadful. I thought that more creative ways could've been used to convey the craziness other than just rage and repeated uses of "fuck" said unconvincingly by actors struggling to act. Don't get me wrong, there were some creative bits of craziness, especially Quentin (Jody Barton) believing himself, suddenly, to be a Korean war general but overall the swearing and the anger felt forced in some of the performances. I liked the laughter and the random acts of violence but thought the opportunity to make that truly creepy was missed.
Without a few strong, decent lines of dialogue and the odd interesting character, the film did, very slowly, become something of a slog but there was, genuinely, some nice potential here.
Trae Ireland and Erin Coker were solid enough, but neither of them had very interesting characters. Calico Cooper is Alice Cooper's daughter but sadly didn't get to do very much but what she did was fine though. Jody Barton got the showy role and was, at least, enthusiastic with it and, probably, the strongest performer of the lot. Bill Voorhees, with the name made for horror film acting, was sort of funny in the role of sidekick to Jody Barton despite it being an underwritten, obvious, slob-friend role.
My favourite scenes in the whole thing were an early scene where Quentin decides to humorously run some people down with his car, the slowly escalating crazy in the hospital and its gore drenched walls and the news room scene with the comedy news anchors attacking each other. They were all, a genuine joy.
While it, sadly, does go nowhere, there was lots to like in this B-Movie. One positive on the acting was that I didn't feel anybody was winking at me or playing any scenes in a lazy, half-arsed manner. I felt that everyone was trying their hardest and playing the scenes straight and true. This is important because it's become all too fashionable these days, even amongst high-profile stuff like Tarantino and Rodriguez's later work, to knowingly and lazily play every scene just for puerile, pathetic and ironic laughter and, for me, that just takes me right out of the film. While the acting isn't always strong or dynamic, I am glad to say 13/13/13 doesn't do this. The key to making a fun, enjoyable, weird, silly, wonderful, cult or B-Movie is to believe in what you're doing, no matter how ridiculous and, again, this film does succeed in that regard.
While not quite there completely I appreciated this film for it's attempt at a different, creative take on an apocalypse scenario. It was an enjoyable romp, some great scenes, some good enthusiasm and a decent idea at its core.
Best Man Down
It has a Jason Reitman directed, tragi/comedy vibe similar to a 'Young Adult' or an 'Up in the Air' and, like those films, the protagonists do a lot of traveling around nondescript mid-western towns.
In the case of Best Man Down, the plot synopsis is this:
"When their obnoxious and over-served best man, Lumpy (Labine) unexpectedly dies at their destination wedding in Phoenix, bride and groom Kristin (Weixler) and Scott (Long) are forced to cancel their honeymoon and fly home to the snowy Midwest to arrange for his funeral. But when they arrive they realize that there was a lot more to their friend than met the eye."
Basically, wouldn't you know it, that Jack Black-like annoying best friend really had a heart of gold and was practically a saint!
Honking cliches aside, this film isn't bad. It's ok. It's serviceably shot, well acted and pretty decently scripted. It has a few things to say and plenty of emotion, some occasional humour and even a couple of simple twists.
These stories of supposedly realistic, average folk learning true values from a confluence of unfortunate events, in bleak mid west surroundings, are fine and everything but I am never quite sure who they're made for or why anyone would choose to write this story this way.
There are some good observations on the nature of male friendships, a nice comment on what people perceive and who people really are and some ok parallels made between different characters' drug taking, that, ultimately, seem to be marginalised subplots that go nowhere.
However this is not deep riveting drama, it's not even overblown melodrama, the language in the movie is not rich, stylised, different or poetic, it's not continuously funny enough to be a black comedy and it's not profound or observational enough to be truly worth something.
It's just people, played well, doing stuff with some humour, some emotion and some almost interesting motivation.
I will say this: the concept is solid. The idea of a best man dying on a couple's wedding day and that couple coming to terms with who they are as they help to sort out his funeral instead of be on their honeymoon? that's good. It's a nice frame work for a decent story and if it appeals to you then you'll love this film. There's nothing about the direction, script, acting or anything that ruins that pitch. It pretty much plays out as you would expect. It's just never going to light anyone on fire or dazzle but it tells its story in a charming enough way and the pacing never really drags.
Relative newcomer Addison Timlin is very pleasing in the role of Ramsey, even if the role itself is simply that of 'young girl with a big heart and wisdom beyond her years' she manages to play it sincerely and with a cheeky rebellious streak that makes you worry about and root for her.
BEST MAN DOWN opens in select theatres on Friday, November 8
and is now available on iTunes/OnDemand:
http://www.magsneaks.com/
For more info:
Official website: http://www.magpictures.com/
Official Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/
Broken Circle Breakdown
It's a phenomenal, brilliant, difficult, depressing, heart warming and joyously musical movie from Belgium by writer/director Felix Van Groeningen starring the supremely talented Johan Heldenbergh and Veerle Baetens.
Johan Heldenbergh was also a co-writer of and performer in the original stage play The Broken Circle Breakdown Featuring the Cover-Ups of Alabama and even learned to play guitar, mandolin and banjo to perform the lead role of Didier who is fascinated by America and bluegrass music.
The film tells the tragic story of Didier, the bearded bluegrass fanatic and passionate atheist, Elise/Alabama the head strong, mysterious, confused, emotional, sexy and lost tattoo shop owner and Maybelle their doomed daughter.
The film chronicles their lives together, through the good and the bad, in a nonlinear narrative. The emotions involved and the relevant life moments, though, flow in a perfectly understandable and pleasing way. It's not unlike someone, sat round a table, telling you their life story. It wouldn't go from start to finish, there would be moments where they'd have to go back and fill in the blanks for you, that's the nature of this film.
The director, Felix Van Groeningen, explains the inclusion of the music this way:
"Didier and Elise play in a bluegrass band and that is no accident. Bluegrass is integrated in a variety of ways into the story and forms the intrinsic link between all the main issues that appear in the film"
"We have tried to let the songs find their spot in the scenario in a more organised manner and by doing so, give them the greatest possible dramatic impact. Sometime a song is purely narrative and helps to tell the story... In other places, we select a given song because it underpins the emotions."
During the rendition of 'Will the Circle Be Unbroken' We see attraction, amazement and the first flickers of love in Elise's face from the audience.
During "Cowboy" Didier connects with Elise, shows off, struts, feels confident and she responds with excitement, awe and lust.
During "Boy Who Wouldn't Hoe Corn", shown in a fantastic montage that goes from Didier practicing in the caravan, passed a beautifully photographed, fireside hoedown and up to the point when Elise finally joins her man on stage, you see her blossom and Didier unable to believe his luck. You even see the band buoyed and pushed forward by the way everything is gelling.
Elise's solo performance of "Wayfaring Stranger" is so powerful and perfect that it doesn't really need the intercut images of poor Maybelle's fate, as everything is on Veerle Baetens' face and in the words of the song.
This continues throughout the film with everyone hitting the right facial expression, hand gesture, camera movement and edit so as to make the emotions utterly raw and believable in a way that only the combination of great direction, editing, performance, music and film can.
In what might be one of the most beautiful performances of the entire film, Elise joins Didier and the band on stage one last time to perform a duet version of "If I needed You". It is the point where everything shifts and the two lovers are moving apart, Didier reaching out and Elise retreating. It's so sad, awkward and stunningly simplistic that it tells you all you need to know about the character's hearts.
These musical interludes and their deep, clever, subtle storytelling are not, in any way, too obvious, mawkish, sentimental, over wrought or manipulative. They are woven so perfectly into the broken narrative that they enhance the journey you're on with the cast.
It helps, of course, that I am already a fan of this music and it helps too that the film is photographed, directed and edited in such a wonderful way as to make even the slightest nod of a head, or the move of a hand poetic and rich.
The colours, the grain, the lighting, the sound and the shots are so full of detail, texture, shadow as to both be seemingly realistic, you can feel the warm fire in a cold farm house, and utterly artistic, vibrant and clearly a movie.
Is it a tough watch, a tad depressing and definitely melodramatic? yes. It wasn't the love story I was expecting by a long shot but whereas other films I have seen are just relentlessly dreary, depressing, slow and devoid of ideas and emotions, Broken Circle Breakdown can be watched over and over again for the depth, detail, performances and ideology it has. Also it's not obvious, simplistic or manipulative of your emotions like a Hollywood film might be.
I took from the film that life is meant to be held on to and fought for, not given up on or run away from and while finding solace in the religious or spiritual is all very well, there is more than enough beauty, mystery, music and reason to keep living, as much as you can, day by day, on earth, no matter how hard it gets. You never know, one day you might be surrounded by awesomely talented, bearded Belgians singing bluegrass... we can all dream, right?
The Broken Circle Breakdown Theatrical Opening Dates:
New York: Sunshine Cinema – opens November 1
Los Angeles: Nuart – opens November 8
Boston: Kendall Square - opens November 15
Washington: E Street - opens November 15
Philadelphia: Ritz Bourse - opens November 15
Irvine: University 6 - opens November 15
San Francisco: Clay Theater – opens November 22
Berekely: Shattuck 10 – opens November 22
San Diego: Ken Cinema – opens November 22
Dallas: Magnolia 5 – opens November 22
Atlanta: Midtown Art – opens December 6
Denver: Chez Artiste – opens December 6
Austin: Arbor 8 – opens December 6
Phoenix: Camelview – opens December 6
Portland: Regal Fox Tower – opens December 6
San Jose: Camera 3 Cinema – opens December 6
Fort Wayne: Cinema Center - opens December 6
Santa Fe: Jean Cocteau - opens December 6
Monterey: Osio Cinemas – opens December 6
Santa Cruz: The Nickelodeon – Opens December 6
Ft Worth: Modern Art Museum – opens December 20
Columbus: Gateway Film Center – opens January 17
Trailer:
The soundtrack can be streamed on Spotify HERE
New York: Sunshine Cinema – opens November 1
Los Angeles: Nuart – opens November 8
Boston: Kendall Square - opens November 15
Washington: E Street - opens November 15
Philadelphia: Ritz Bourse - opens November 15
Irvine: University 6 - opens November 15
San Francisco: Clay Theater – opens November 22
Berekely: Shattuck 10 – opens November 22
San Diego: Ken Cinema – opens November 22
Dallas: Magnolia 5 – opens November 22
Atlanta: Midtown Art – opens December 6
Denver: Chez Artiste – opens December 6
Austin: Arbor 8 – opens December 6
Phoenix: Camelview – opens December 6
Portland: Regal Fox Tower – opens December 6
San Jose: Camera 3 Cinema – opens December 6
Fort Wayne: Cinema Center - opens December 6
Santa Fe: Jean Cocteau - opens December 6
Monterey: Osio Cinemas – opens December 6
Santa Cruz: The Nickelodeon – Opens December 6
Ft Worth: Modern Art Museum – opens December 20
Columbus: Gateway Film Center – opens January 17
Trailer:
The soundtrack can be streamed on Spotify HERE
Love, Sex & Missed Connections
With the Grand Entertainment Group, Writer and lead Kenny Stevenson, director Eric Kissack and producer Lisa Rudin present, what is described as "the story of a guy named Neal. Neal's been trying to get over a traumatic break up with his ex-girlfriend by doing what anyone would do... tricking women on the Internet. Neal's plan is going amazingly well, until he meets Jane, who just may be as devious as he is."
The central conceit being that Neal's reprobate friends, in order to cheer him up, hatch a plan to get him laid. This involves having him reply to 'Missed connection' posts on a Craigslist-like site, showing up, observing the woman in question waiting for her mystery man and when he, obviously, doesn't show up, swooping in to seal the deal. Remarkably it works until he finds Jane, the woman with the blue shoes, out there gaming the system and the two become drawn together.
It's a strong enough set up on which to hang a series of hilarious interactions between Neal and his friends, Neal and the women, Neal and his family and Neal and his Ex. The film survives on the strength of the script and the likeability of the performers.
Everyone involved in the production has a history in comedy from the Director editing Role Models and the Producer working with Bill Maher and Sasha Baron Cohen to almost everyone in the cast being in one comedy theatre group or other, mainly the Groundlings, and this is my main reason for wanting you to see this film. It's really funny. I know this sounds like a stupid and even offensive point to make but they even bother to make the women funny. Most Rom-Coms the Women are victims of supposed male charm, looks or apparent superiority, slaves to their emotions and, surprisingly, either dull or, worse, cutesy. This is even true when the film is written by a woman!
Not so with Love, Sex & Missed Connections, despite what, on the surface, may start out as a fairly misogynistic premise, the main two women in the film, played by, the wife of the lead, Dorien Davies and Sami Klein are written and performed as interesting, funny, complex and different. It's refreshing.
While there's nothing particularly new about the male roles in the film, again think Office Space or The Hangover, they are still well observed and played by charismatic, funny actors (Shane Elliot, Alex Enriquez, Abe Smith and Scott Beehner) who you enjoy spending time with.
Also, the film doesn't say a whole lot of anything new about relationships or the battle of the sexes, anymore than the next Tom Cruise movie will say anything new about being an upright, respectable, everyman, super spy with a ready quip and neat fighting abilities but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be watched and enjoyed. The central premise is one you haven't heard of before and there are some wonderful little, subtle moments in the film that really make it something different. The observation that, when depressed, the character makes the life changing move of walking everywhere, certainly in LA, feels like a novel little detail in the movie.
Funny, charming, well put together and worth a watch! It's the Office Space for the Internet dating generation
The film has won two handfuls of awards from various film festivals FIND OUT MORE HERE
and is available on DVD from Amazon
The film will be available to Pre-Order on iTunes: 11/01/2013
AND Available on the following platforms: 11/12/2013
Amazon Instant Video
Google Play
YouTube Movies
iTunes
PlayStation
and VUDU
The Conjuring Blu-ray Giveaway
The After Movie Diner is proud to be able to giveaway 1 copy of James Wan's The Conjuring on Blu-Ray!
Based on a true story, the movie tells the horrifying account of how famed paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren were summoned to help a family terrorized by a dark presence in a secluded farmhouse which they recently bought. In fighting this powerful demonic being, the Warrens find themselves in the middle of the most terrifying case of their lives!
For my money the film gets extra points for casting Lili Taylor, who's always a joy.
Here are 5 THINGS you NEED to know about The Conjuring as told to you through the medium of INTERACTIVE GIFS!
1) The Conjuring is directed by the acclaimed James Wan, the Australian-born director of the fright-fests Insidious and the Saw series. His Twitter handle is @CreepyPuppet. Say no more.
2) The Conjuring has been given an “R” rating by the MPAA. Not because of blood, gore, or violence, but simply because it’s just so scary from start to finish!
3) The Conjuring’s cast and crew experienced creepy events during filming. Scratches appeared out of nowhere on Vera Farmiga’s computer soon after she agreed to act in the movie, the crew were routinely woken by something in the “witching hour” between 3 and 4AM, and the real-life Carolyn Perron fell and broke her hip while visiting the set.
4) The Rhode Island farmhouse where The Conjuring is set once belonged to an accused witch, Bathsheba, who tried to sacrifice her children to the devil and killed herself in 1863.
5) Hold your applause! The Conjuring will make you terrified to clap! Whether it’s playing a traditional game of hide-and-seek by following the clapping sounds like the mother and daughter in the movie, or being terrorized by ghostly claps in different rooms of the haunted farmhouse, these claps throughout the movie will give you the creeps!
ENTER THE GIVEAWAY
a Rafflecopter giveaway
GOOD LUCK!
This contest ends November 6th, 2013.
Each household is only eligible to win 1 The Conjuring Blu-ray via blog reviews and giveaways. Only one entrant per mailing address per giveaway. If you have won the same prize on another blog, you will not be eligible to win it again. Winner is subject to eligibility verification.
GOOD LUCK!
This contest ends November 6th, 2013.
Each household is only eligible to win 1 The Conjuring Blu-ray via blog reviews and giveaways. Only one entrant per mailing address per giveaway. If you have won the same prize on another blog, you will not be eligible to win it again. Winner is subject to eligibility verification.
All Is Lost: 2 FREE MOVIE TICKETS & Interactive Movie Poster
Plot Synopsis: Academy Award® winner Robert Redford stars in All Is Lost, an open-water thriller about one man’s battle for survival against the elements after his sailboat is destroyed at sea. But with the sun unrelenting, sharks circling and his meager supplies dwindling, the ever-resourceful sailor soon finds himself staring his mortality in the face.
Written and directed by Academy Award nominee J.C. Chandor (Margin Call) with a musical score by Alex Ebert (Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros), All Is Lost is a gripping, visceral and powerfully moving tribute to ingenuity and resilience.
All Is Lost opens in NY and LA October 18, nationwide October 25th.
Reviewers say:
“OFF THE SCALE BRILLIANT” - Emma Pritchard Jones. THE HUFFINGTON POST
"ROBERT REDFORD DELIVERS A TOUR DE FORCE PERFORMANCE” - Pete Hammond. DEADLINE
Watch the Trailer:
ENTERING THE GIVEAWAY:
In order to be eligible to win you must do 1 of the following
1. Share your personal ALL IS LOST survival story! Has there ever been a time where you thought... All Is Lost? Please post your stories in our comments section for a giveaway entry.
2. Share the All Is Lost poster or your favourite Gif from above on your blog, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumblr or Facebook and include a link to www.aftermoviediner.com, then post us a link to it in the comments below.
3. Share your favourite After Movie Diner or Dr.Action and the Kick Ass Kid article, podcast, review or piece of news on your blog, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumblr or Facebook and let us know about it.
it's that simple!
Competition ends October 27th, 2013 and is only available in the U.S. & Canada.
Each household is only eligible to win 2 Free Movie Tickets via blog reviews and giveaways. Only one entrant per mailing address per giveaway. If you have won the same prize on another blog, you will not be eligible to win it again. Winner is subject to eligibility verification.
Gravity
"How is this a movie?" I thought. "What happens? How can they just sustain that for 90 minutes?" Then I factored in the heavyweight star power in the film and really couldn't guess what was going to happen.
All I knew, was that I was going to see that film as soon as possible.
It was a refreshing inner monologue to have because after most film trailers, even for films I am interested in still seeing, I know, pretty much what is going to happen in the film by the end and what kind of film it is. Gravity was different though. I didn't have a clue.
I am a big fan of Alfonso Cuarón's dystopian action drama Children of Men and he's the only man to make a satisfactory Harry Potter film so I knew, with the director, I was in safe and interesting hands. I am also an unabashed George Clooney disciple, believing the man to have pretty impeccable taste in scripts and projects to work on (seriously, listen to my 'When Clooney met the Coens podcast' he's my man crush). Sandra Bullock is a great comedienne and can pretty much raise the standard of any generic rom-com or action-com she takes part in. I haven't seen a lot of her "serious, worthy" films and I don't want to but "an interesting choice" I thought and a good fit with Clooney.
So what was going to happen in this mysterious space film?
Well, I am not going to tell you here. If you're looking for spoilers or plot points then you've come to the wrong place because it's best to go into Gravity fresh and ready for anything. What I can tell you is that it is one of the most breath taking, nerve shredding, tension sustaining, technically advanced and most complex directed film, I think, I have ever seen. I would need to watch it again, not because of any twisty turny story developments but to try and wrap my brain around just the level of organisation and unfathomable skill that went into creating this heart pounding 90 minutes.
It is a sublime magic trick of a film because, unlike the cartoonish nonsense of, say, Avatar or Abrams' Star Trek you just, quite reasonably, assume that Clooney, Bullock and Cuarón filmed the whole thing in ACTUAL SPACE. Cuarón realises that to wow and amaze with CGI and modern special effects, you don't need to go hog wild and create insane worlds and multi-headed monsters, just make a seemingly realistic and simple film, set in space. He did the same thing to similar wonderful effect in Children of Men. It's not what you see, it's what you don't realise you've seen. You take everything for granted in a Cuarón film and buy the world completely, it's only later that you stop and think "Wait?! how on EARTH did they do that?!"
In an age where everyone knows "oh yeah, they just draw that stuff on a computer, right?" (you know, like ANYONE could do it effortlessly) it takes real skill to hush those tongues and drag the audience, spellbound and quiet as amazed church mice, into your film.
There is a similar trick that the story pulls and that is that, with so few cast members, you know somebody, logically and presumably, is making it to the end of this film alive but that never holds you back from being on the edge of your seat, biting your knuckles or gripping the hand of your loved one next to you, every time peril rears it's ugly head.
Peril's ugly head
The acting, too, is fantastic, with Sandra Bullock, especially, giving, to quote EVERY critic on the planet, the performance of her career. Hell! the performance of anyone's career! For the physical strain, it must have been to make this film, alone she deserves all the Oscars Billy Crystal can quickly polish and shove into the back of a Lexus. That's not to say Clooney's a slouch but it becomes pretty apparent why they cast him after just a few lines of dialogue, in a pleasing, welcome way.
Again, like Children of Men, the film is a mix of genres. It gave me more of a jolt and locked me rigid with tension more than any horror film of recent times, it has enough action in it to please any of John McClane's ardent admirers and it's also an achingly beautiful science fiction film, with critics throwing around 2001: A Space Odyssey comparisons like happy, pretentious puppies with a Kubrick designed squeeze toy. It may just be Clooney, the minimalist cast and an emotional theme of the film but referencing Solaris, in an attempt to seem smart and educated, might be slightly more apt actually.
It is in the emotional, character based thread of the film's narrative, though, that the first tiny, critical comment must be made because the slightly over-egged and obvious motivations of Bullock's character and the emotional journey she undertakes, is not as deep, fleshed out, or as relevant as the film thinks it is. I would argue it's the physical journey, and the mental struggle and dilemma that produces, that is a more satisfying and watchable than her emotional one. However, like all good sci-fi, there's lots of layers to the thing and you can enjoy what you want about it. I just didn't think the script or dialogue was particularly strong when dealing with a certain topic, that will remain unnamed here.
It's a film all about connections though, in more ways than one, and the ultimate connection we must make with our own lives. That being said, it's also, pleasingly, about hair raising stunts and explosions in space. Unusually, if I urge you to go see this film at all, it's for that, latter reason, the sheer, jaw dropping, spectacle of it all.
Profile of a Killer
While it still has some of the welcomed cliches of the serial killer and police procedural drama genres, it also does its best to dispense of them and try something different. The main one being that we, the audience, discover the identity of the killer fairly early on and from that moment the film jumps between FBI agent Rachel Cade (Emily Fradenburgh) trying to track him down and the killer, David (Joey Pollari) instigating a battle of wits with his kidnapped profiler (Gabriele Angieri).
It was apparently intended as a studio project but when financing fell through Tredwell-Owen relocated to Minnesota, got a fantastic, local cast together and a fairly extensive crew, for an indie production, and they all took the project on themselves.
The gamble appears to have paid off as a solid script, some excellent performances, beautifully real cinematography and strong production values has propelled this taught drama onto the big screen across America and onto DVD using a word of mouth, grass roots campaign that continues today with humble blogs like mine receiving screeners and doing reviews.
I am happy to report that this film was well worth the watch. I was impressed by its visual flair. The snowy farm land and freeways of Minnesota, while, of course, conjuring up some favourable comparisons to the Coen Brother's Fargo, also remained feeling very fresh, different and unique to this film. The set dressing and art direction of the farm house, where the majority of the action takes place, is pleasingly run down and filled with texture. It's also lit and shot in an evocative and vibrant way, creating depth and shadow, as well as a sense of unease. You can feel the bone chilling cold and the rough harsh surfaces of this unforgiving building.
The other half of the film is focussed on the FBI and local police's attempts to track them both down, lead by Emily Fradenburgh's dedicated and dead pan agent Cade. She is the determined centre of this story and it can be a thankless task because while Fradenburgh's performance is pleasingly assured, serious and earnest, she can, sometimes, lack an emotional core. There are a couple of scenes in the film, a throwaway plot strand about her father and the death of someone close, that maybe could've used some beefing up, so that she could show the wearing affect of her steadfast dedication to the job but those are small complaints overall.
The cast of characters she is surrounded by or interviews are also resoundingly great and you're never thrown from the film because of some unfortunate dialogue delivery that can, sadly, derail even the most well intentioned low budget film.
The writing is strong and the dialogue authentic. The procedural elements of the police work felt real and without the usual over-the-top flashes that TV so often employs. The same can be said for the back and forth dialogue in the farm house. The questions, the actions and the reactions were different from what you'd expect as, usually, they would be ramped up and accompanied by an overly dramatic score but here they play out naturally. This makes these scenes disconcerting as you can't second guess what will happen next, which adds to the tension. The script is definitely clever and never overly stylised.
The film makes excellent use of the budget and it feels like every penny is on screen in the right place. There are authentic police cars, a helicopter, a delivery van and a variety of locations. There are also some nice, gruesome effects and while it's not exactly excessively gory or exploitative, the deaths are uniquely twisted and macabre.
I have to admit that the overly serious tone, pacing and length of the film are not usually my cup of tea. I also found some of the dialogue and drama during the mid section of the film to be a little confusing as I'm not sure I bought strongly into the mental cat and mouse as much as I would've liked. The ending was good though and the ultimate irony well thought out and haunting.
This is definitely a film to track down on-demand or for rent as it really has a lot to offer and projects like this need to be supported.
Purchase on DVD or RENT online
Bounty Killer DVD Giveaway
Bounty killers compete for body count, fame and a fat stack of cash. They're ending the plague of corporate greed and providing the survivors of the apocalypse with retribution.
Based on the graphic novel, Bounty Killer follows the exploits of Mary Death, the leading Bounty Killer on the scene.
It’s been 20 years since the corporations took over the world’s governments. Their thirst for power and profits led to the corporate wars, a fierce global battle that laid waste to society as we know it. Born from the ashes, the Council of Nine rose as a new law and order for this dark age. To avenge the corporations’ reckless destruction, the Council issues death warrants for all white collar criminals. Their hunters: the bounty killers!
Starring:
Kristanna Loken
Gary Busey
Eve
Beverly D'Angelo
and... Christian Pitre as Mary Death!
It’s Mad Max meets Grindhouse while getting slashed by
Kill Bill!
WANT YOUR CHANCE TO WIN A DVD COPY OF BOUNTY KILLER?
Then all you have to do is either:
1) Take the 'Could you be a bounty killer?' quiz below and post your results in the comments section below.
OR
2) Share your favourite BOUNTY KILLER Gifs (below) or the poster on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest or Tumblr (including a link back to your favourite review/podcast page of The After Movie Diner) and post the link below in the comments section.
OR
3) Tell us in 5 words why you want to see BOUNTY KILLER and in another 5 words the things you like about The After Movie Diner in the comments section below.
Only one copy up for grabs so make your post eye-catching!
OR
3) Tell us in 5 words why you want to see BOUNTY KILLER and in another 5 words the things you like about The After Movie Diner in the comments section below.
Only one copy up for grabs so make your post eye-catching!
Competition ends 09/26/2013
Bounty Killer is in theaters and VOD September 6. Go see it!
You're Next
Now I had the unabashed, joyful pleasure to interview Barbara Crampton last year about her work with Stuart Gordon in the 80s (some of my favourite of the genre) and the restarting of her career with Lords of Salem and You're Next.
You can HEAR that EXCLUSIVE interview HERE.
Sadly she was cut out of Lords of Salem but, thankfully, she remained very much in You're Next. So, of course, I was going to see it. It could've been a torture porn remake featuring a fast zombie falling love with a drippy teen made in the grindhouse style and I still would've been there with bells on. Barbara Crampton's return to our cinemas needed to be seen and supported. No question.
Well I couldn't be happier to report that, firstly, You're Next is none of the above and, secondly, it is a resounding success.
An entertaining, independently spirited, horror, comedy, action film that, although obviously has lots of familiar genre staple moments, is, thankfully, not knowing, winking, referencing or particularly derivative of any one thing.
The acting and direction are assured, the gore effects pleasingly devoid of CGI, the humour comes from a very real human place not a silly, contrived place and the tension is satisfyingly maintained throughout.
The best praise I can give this film is that it is just solid, decent, well made entertainment, the kind we so rarely get to see and, while none of it is exactly, what you could call, a huge surprise, to the initiated, I still had a tremendously good time with the film. I laughed out loud, I jumped, I felt nervous and was, on occasion, sufficiently creeped out.
I love that. So cool when a film can achieve that.
The cast, across the board, are great in their roles with stand out mentions going to Barbara Crampton, of course, Joe Swanberg, AJ Bowen and a tour de force from Sharni Vinson as the kick ass heroine ready to fight back.
The score and soundtrack, especially in the second half, is a sheer delight and was evocative of Goblin or Carpenter in just the right way.
Apart from one scene of heightened panic the camera did not veer into amateurish shaky cam, thank goodness and, in fact, I loved the way the film was directed, shot and edited. It has definitely made me want to check out Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett's other work and keep a close eye on what they do in the future. There's not a lot of flourishes or showing off, just strong, simple, clear direction. Fantastic job.
I can't urge people enough to go and see this in the theatre.
A lot of talk is thrown around these days about how horror fans need to support new, independent horror and quit their complaining that there is nothing new and good out there.
Well, seemingly, what horror fans actually end up doing, sadly, is throwing hard earned cash at remakes and then attacking anyone who says they don't want to see them because we shouldn't "pre-judge".
Justify it how you like but you are throwing money at marketing companies who make a tenth rate, weak sauce, copy of a previous classic, with no care or understanding as to what made the original so charming and ingenious, slap the same name on it, throw it into cinemas and sit back to watch the coin come rolling in.
One of the trailers before You're Next was the Carrie remake and oh dear oh dear oh dear that looks to be one of the most insipid, uninspired, pathetic looking, unoriginal and beige remakes yet. I think Carrie and Evil Dead are vying for the top spot of most redundant and pointless remake of 2013. The kicker is that, in the Carrie trailer, they even show, in slow-mo no less, the pigs blood at the prom scene and it's 'we-want-a-lower-rating-please' black. Sludgy, boring black.
Imagine my absolute sheer, fan boy, delight then when You're Next starts and the blood is thick, gooey, vibrant RED! YES! Hallelujah! YES!
So, please, GO SEE THIS FILM. NOW. Go and enjoy. This is what entertainment looks like. This is what new, independent, horror worth supporting looks like. Go out there, watch it and spread the word. Please. If the Carrie remake makes more than You're Next and if you bypass You're Next in the theatre but go and see Carrie, I don't care your excuse, you are a very very bad person and you should be utterly ashamed.
8.5 out of 10
A Single Shot
When it comes to plot and stylistic originality you won't find it here.
What you will find is an engaging and expertly, if sometimes a little too authentically, played character study disguised as a generic, backwoods, crime thriller.
So, my first piece of advice to you is to throw out the plot.
Put it out of your mind. It doesn't matter.
Don't engage, as you normally would, through what the characters are doing but more with who the characters are.
He's a simple, proud man of few words just trying to put his life back together.
While out hunting on this land one morning, trying to catch a deer, he accidentally shoots a woman who, he later finds out, is carrying a ton of cash with her. Despite being definitely distraught at his accidental actions, he knows that to report them would mean jail time for poaching on the land and a possible manslaughter charge. Instead he hides the body, takes the money and is determined to get his life, meaning his wife and child, back. However, the money, of course, is linked to a web of unsavoury characters who, one by one, try and get their hands on it.
Tobacco is chewed, lines are mumbled in thick, heavy accented drawls and bodies pile up. Will John Moon come out on top or is his demise inevitable?
It's too slow moving, too drenched in melancholy strings and blue, grey, damp photography. The characters aren't menacing or threatening enough and, more often than not, the tension is lost as you are straining to understand what the hell is going on as some terrific actors grumble, twitch and spit through thick beards and thicker accents.
I like to believe, though, that the film is more than that. More than a generic cat and mouse thriller about a bag of money and some grubby but pleasingly quirky hillbillies. It might just be his acting and his endless watchability, but I think the film is most successful as an in-depth and tragic character study of Sam Rockwell's John Moon. Studying and delving in to, as it does, ideas of lost opportunity, loss of love, pride coming before a fall, having the strength to survive, betrayal, fear, not being able to see the wood for the trees (which is indicated in several nice visual clues) and making your bed and damn well having to lie in it.
On this level the film succeeds handsomely and Rockwell, also serving as producer on the film, gives a, at first, gruff and almost monosyllabic and unsympathetic performance that grows, over the running time, into a tragic, sometimes heart wrenchingly unlucky and down trodden character that you root for to, some how, find a way out of his predicament, even though your brain can't find one and you probably know that an easy resolution will not be forthcoming.
He has surrounded himself well with the cream of character actors, the sort of 2nd tier players who are a sheer delight to just recline and watch act.
He is weasley, sinister, pathetic, dangerous, unnerving and humourous all rolled into one and the film could've used a lot more of him.
The film also features great but, sadly, tiny performances from Ted Levine, Jason Isaacs and Melissa Leo who, I doubt, get much more screen time, combined, than you'd be easily able to count on two hands. The only other stand out actor worth a mention being, the always worth the price of admission, Jeffrey Wright.
His performance, as a wild, reckless, drunkard friend of John Moon is fantastic and combines almost every tick, twitch and technique an actor can deploy to best portray an alcoholic red neck. Seeing him and Rockwell going at it you would believe neither of them had gone near a bath in 15 years. The only downside to this is, as the film enters its third act, Wright shows up to deliver some important plot information but it gets buried under piles of grime, dribble, tobacco, alcoholic slurring, an indecipherable accent and a crap flecked thicket of facial hair. As superb and as delightful as the mud smeared technique is, it's this scene that almost derails the film, that is if you are still trying to figure out what is going on but, I've already told you, the plot is not important. Simply enjoy the atmosphere, the sounds, the photography and the smelly, saliva drenched performance.
Much like the plot, though, the downfall in the direction is that the film feels all too familiar. From the colour palette to the score (which features the, too often used, discordant pizzicato strings) nothing here feels different from something you've seen a hundred times before and while the techniques on display are exemplary, the lack of anything new can make parts of the, already slow, film drag.
All that being said it does feel authentic and atmospheric. The set dressing, the costumes, the location and the lighting also do their part to help you feel the cold, the damp, the dirt and the drink.
If you're a fan of film-making for film-making's sake, if you're a fan of fine acting and fun dialogue and if you enjoy the slower work of The Coen Brothers then this is a definite recommend. I even intend to go back a second time as it wasn't till discussing the film after the screening, that I really started to appreciate all that was in there and what the film was trying to say.
You can hear our discussion, recorded directly after the press screening, over on The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
You can watch A Single Shot NOW on Video On Demand and the theatrical release is set for September 20th.
Blue Jasmine
Lots of people will tell you that he hasn't made a good film since the 80s and box office (and a lot of critics) will tell you Match Point, Vicky Christina Barcelona and Midnight In Paris are his best movies of recent times but I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with both those statements.
I watch every movie he makes, have done, every year, for years and my favourite to put on and watch of his recent period have been Whatever Works and Scoop but recognise he may not have bashed out a truly great film since 1999's Sweet and Lowdown.
You may, at this point, have stopped reading having thrown your hands up in disgust at the fact that I just mentioned, what are considered, two of his weakest films of recent years.
Well, if you have and you feel the rest of this review has no validity because of that then, sorry, I can only assume you are humourless and only believe what is fed to you from the pages of the colour supplements by snooty, strokey chin, attention starved critics which are quick to jump on bandwagons without seemingly really watching the films properly. If that's a snap judgement of who you are then I apologise but stop making snap judgements about me or Woody Allen, for that matter and go back and watch a few of the titles you may have missed. Scoop, for one, is a bit of a missed comedic gem in its own way. Ignore You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger with every fibre of your being as it's worse even than Match Point, which was woeful and while Midnight in Paris may have looked great and appeared, with the cinematography, to be Allen back on form, the writing and the performances were spectacularly lazy. Don't tell the financiers that though, it made a shed ton of money compared to Allen's other output.
With all that said and the usual myths about Allen, that critics are quick to repeat, dispelled let's get back to Blue Jasmine. Blue Jasmine is a Streetcar Named Desire inspired piece about the wife of a financial crook who, after the arrest, trial and the husbands suicide in prison finds herself, practically penniless, having to stay with her adopted sister, who has a much less glamorous lifestyle, in San Francisco.
Jasmine is a woman very accustomed to a certain, high-society, way of life that is unable to accept her situation and refuses to, in both a delusional way by lashing out at others, refusing to give up things like first class air fare and matching luggage and drinking while popping painkillers and antidepressants and in a defiant, noble, almost heroic way by trying to get her life back on track in as many ways possible like attending school, working reception for a dentist and aspiring to be an interior designer. She's also going slowly and sadly mad.
She's a tragic character, a despicable character, a loser character, an inspirational character and a sympathetic character all rolled into one and yes it's Blanchett's unwavering tour de force performance that nails her but it's also Woody's astute, intricate writing and subtle directing that brings her completely to life.
Her sister, played excellently by British actress Sally Hawkins, is a different person altogether. She's working class, engaged to a mechanic, with no prospects and two unruly kids. She is also, in some ways, in awe of her adopted sister and believes strongly that helping her is the right thing to do as family is family, despite a greek chorus of her friends, boyfriend and ex-husband telling her that Jasmine's no good. In fact Ginger, Jasmine's sister, is one of the few characters in the film that actually defends Jasmine and even attempts, unsuccessfully, to emulate her and follow her lead, believing that the grass may, in fact, be greener and if she, as Jasmine prompts, applies herself, she could get more out of life. What the film partially examines is the idea that, is 'more' what she really wants or needs ultimately?
Despite Jasmine never, directly, having a hand in her husband's, Bernie Madoff like, exploits she is seen as culpable in the loss of some lottery winnings that her sister and ex-husband, Augie, invested with Alec Baldwin's white collar crook, Hal. Also there is some question of how much she knew and didn't know of the swindling, that returns throughout the film.
When she had the wealth, a period of her life we see interspersed throughout the film in flashback, she was a horribly selfish and self involved person, no more so than in a sequence where Jasmine sees a trip that sister Ginger and ex-husband Augie, played by the fantastic Andrew Dice Clay (seriously!), take to New York as a horrible imposition to her dinner plans.
It is in these 'before the bubble burst' flashbacks that Allen has any fun with the film, writing the opulent lifestyle and smug, arrogance of the wealthy with a quiet disgust that seeps through every exchange. The rest of the film's tone hovers around more sombre, ultimately doomed Husbands and Wives territory.
The film is not a comedy and although there are some funny bits in there the film is much more of a deep character study, the likes of which we haven't seen from Woody since Hannah and Her Sisters and, the aforementioned, Husbands and Wives. The characters in this are rich, developed, deep and you see each of their own personal dilemmas and can empathise or sympathise with each and every one of them, you can also condemn them just as fast. You watch, helplessly, as a combination of her own, often forgivable, mistakes, her own lies and a cruel-ish outside world impact on Jasmine's life and tear her down off the big steps she's desperately trying to climb up. The film's basic metaphor is that money can't buy you happiness. Jasmine is lost with or without wealth, it's just with money she is able to bury her unhappiness behind cocktail lunches and fine interior furnishings but really she has a philandering, crook husband, fickle friendships and an empire built on quick sand.
The other warning is do not go and see this movie for Louis CK as he is only in it for a very few minutes. It's an odd cameo to be honest. His sequence took me out of the film a little bit. Also the lack of a true comic relief, like Allen's own brilliant turn in Hannah and Her Sisters, to break up the serious side to the film it can grind you down just a little. The flashbacks are supposed to be the, slightly more, frivolous side of the picture but, really, post the financial collapse, it's difficult to do anything but despise these hollow cheats.
There is so much going on in this film and you can read a lot into it. There is also plenty to relate to in any one of the great ensemble of characters. It's not quite the scathing satire on the surface that you want it to be but look a little further into the subtext and its as scathing an attack on the fake wealth and opulence of Wall Street fat cats that you're likely to see.
The writing though, throughout, is fiercely and surprisingly good, the direction, as expected, is assured with an emphasis on simplistic realism and the performances are a little more uneven, but luckily the film focusses on Jasmine and Ginger, with both actresses who portray them being the best things in the film by a mile with Andrew Dice Clay very close behind them.
Apart from a couple of mild later-Woody-Allen style plot contrivances, that don't jar or annoy as much as they had the potential to do in less competent hands, you leave the theatre far from happy, this is a tragedy after all, but also wandering just where the hell THIS Woody Allen has been for so long and who either woke him up or, more exactly, who got him to do a few drafts of the script and get it right.
8 out of 10 very depressing but expertly made cocktails