March 29, 2009

An Evening with Kevin Smith in Vancouver

The Kevin Smith Q & A on Friday was awesome.



March 25, 2009

"The New Great American Director"

In a recent post on his blog, Roger Ebert has given the prestigious title of "The new great American Director" to film maker Ramin Bahrani.


"After three films, each a master work, he has established himself as a gifted, confident filmmaker with ideas that involve who and where we are at this time. His films pay great attention to ordinary lives that are not so ordinary at all."

It is certainly hard to disagree with Ebert, even though I have only seen one of Bahrani's films, Chop Shop, which is a film that nearly made my top ten list from last year. I have his other critically acclaimed film, Man Push Cart, which I plan to watch as soon as I finish this post. His upcoming feature, Goodbye Solo looks incredible and is one of my most anticipated films of this year. It begins it's limited release on Friday.

I also think Bahrani should be celebrated as important if only because he is a true auteur in an industry with so few left. Also, his characters are as fascinating and as interesting as any others being created today.

"Bahrani doesn't categorize his characters. I called them outsiders in one of our conversations at Toronto 2008, and he said he liked that. 'It's not just 'emigrant.' It's different. Their lives are asking, How should I be as a person, how should I be behaving, why is the world this way? You could put me in a room full of people who look just like me and I would feel like I don't understand. Those are the questions. It's in every Herzog film: How do you live in this world? How is the world like this? What else is there to think about?'"

I just thought I should bring attention to Ebert's post, as he has given directors this title before. He does it before the mainstream catches on. The other time I can think of was when he predicted that Scorsese would eventually be one of the most important American film makers.

You can find Ebert's full article here


You can find a trailer for Goodbye Solo here

March 20, 2009

I Love You, Man

New Movie Review.

Written by John Hamburg and Larry Levin

Directed by John Hamburg

Starring Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Rashida Jones, Andy Samberg


I've said it before, we are living in a truly wonderful era of comedy, and it has shown no signs of stopping. This is mostly attributable to Judd Apatow who has reinvented the adult comedy and is responsible for bringing attention to a new generation of comedic actors. Most of the great comedies of recent years have either been produced, written, or directed by Judd Apatow. His name is absent from the credits of I Love you, Man, but his influence is easily detectable. Also, the two stars of the film, Paul Rudd and Jason Segel, are Apatow regulars.

The plot is simple and at first glance, trivial. Real estate agent Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) gets engaged to Zooey (Rashida Jones). Peter realizes he doesn't have any close guy friends, and he begins a search for a friend he can make his best man at his wedding. He keeps this secret from his fiancee, but his mother and gay brother Robbie (Andy Samberg) actively try to help him and set him up on "man dates" which, of course, lead to some hilarious results. Meanwhile, Peter is trying to sell Lou Ferrigno's (TV's The Incredible Hulk, playing himself) House. At an open house he meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel), the first promising candidate for the best man position. He is not at the open house because he is interested in buying a home but rather to pick up girls and eat free food. Sydney is pretty much the opposite of Peter.

Peter gets along with women better than he does with men, as he is an honest, sensitive type. Sydney is open and in touch with his manliness, and perhaps in a way, is even more honest. Peter is about as awkward as possible, straining to act cool and failing miserably in every scene. Paul Rudd handles the comedic timing wonderfully, and manages to earn a laugh every time Peter tries to impress. Sydney is effortlessly cool. He invites Peter to his home, and shows him his garage which has been converted into "The Man Cave" complete with several TVs, every instrument needed for a rock band and even what Sydney refers to as a "jerk-off station". Essentially, Sydney is a guy friend we would all like to have. He is incredibly fun and helps Peter loosen up and enjoy himself. Sydney speaks frankly about everything, but not in an obscene way like this type of character might in a poorer comedy, rather he is open and helps those he speaks to to open up as well. It is remarkable that Jason Segel takes this hedonistic character and makes him into a plausible, human best friend.

Both lead actors do a tremendous job of making the movie feel authentic. Paul Rudd has established himself as yet another Apatow regular who can be a dependable leading man. Jason Segel finally departs from his sensitive guy character he has been playing since Freaks & Geeks, and is just as effective. We love these characters equally, and it's mostly because it is easy to relate to them. Some might relate more to Peter, some to Sydney. Either way, I think if you connect to the film personally, as I did, there is something behind the laughter worth discovering.

I Love You, Man is consistently burst out laughing funny as well as somewhat serious and real. It's very exciting to see that there are other film makers and writers who can maintain the level of quality that Judd Apatow has introduced to the genre. Using actors familiar with this style helps, I imagine, but more importantly it is that Apatow has shown that making comedies shouldn't be about grossing people out, or creating ridiculously silly situations, or having the most gratuitousness possible. It's about making something real, connecting with the audience, and finding things we can all laugh about.

March 06, 2009

Hack Snyder

"Snyder’s take on “Watchmen” is like a karaoke singer who hits most of the notes but doesn’t understand the lyrics to the song. The filmmaker has recreated a majority of the panels from his source material, but he’s compiled them in such a way that makes for a brutal, disjointed, misguided experience."

-Adam Fendelman

http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l342/hongkongaton/Watchmen-Zack-Snyder_l.jpg
"I'll only screw it up this much, Dave"

Zack Snyder explains his intentions to Watchmen co-creator/illustrator Dave Gibbons. All Dave does is confusedly stare in to the abyss of stupidity.

March 05, 2009

Watchmen

New Movie Review.


Written by David Hayter and Alex Tse
Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, Patrick Wilson, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode, Jeffery Dean Morgan

Watchmen was the most frustrating movie experience of my life. It is adapted from my favourite work in comics, that also happens to be one of my favourite works in fiction, period. My lofty expectations, admittedly, may have been impossible to satisfy, but at first, it seemed a possibility. The opening sequence of the film is quite good. Then the opening credits, which are accompanied by Bob Dylan, are some of the best I've seen. It isn't long after that when cracks start to show. The original score is, for the most part, very poor. The musical cues are laughable. The acting seems top notch until a couple characters are introduced. The second half completely falls apart.

The score is so standard and out of place, it takes you right out of the film. Stupid action music that should stick to Mortal Kombat and the like. Horribly cheesy guitar twangs. Generic ominous music underlining the emotions so Mr. Snyder doesn't actually have to bring them to life. One piece of music actually works quite well though. The character Dr. Manhattan has a brilliant sequence, and I mean brilliant, where we see time through his perspective. He describes different things happening in his life as if they were all occurring at once. The music during this scene is restrained, cold, but beautiful, much like Dr. Manhattan himself. That success is, of course, undone by the numskull choices throughout the remainder of the movie.

It is a shame that the actors give such noble performances for this movie. Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley bring the incredible characters of Nite Owl and Rorschach to life in an extraordinary way. It is Billy Crudup's turn of Dr. Manhattan that impresses the most, however. His voice is distant, calm, with the slightest hints of empathy and power, exactly how it should be. The rest of the main cast are also great, Malin Akerman, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan have tough roles to play, and they admirably succeed. I am sure that Matthew Goode's performance is also very good, but his role suffers from editing, and lack of execution in the final act which is hardly his fault. It is in the supporting cast that we find some really bad acting.

First off, Robert Wisden as a caricature of Richard Nixon. He has the most ridiculous makeup on, intended to increase his likeness to Nixon, but what it does is look fake and cartoonish. What makes it worse is that there isn't supposed to be a single scene with Nixon. Such an addition is absurd and ill-advised. That is outdone, believe it or not, with what I am claiming to be the most embarrassing performance in a serious movie ever. Carla Gugino plays Sally Jupiter, the mother of Laurie (Akerman) who resides in a rest home in California. In actuality, Gugino is 37, but her character must at least be in her late 60s. The makeup here, is even worse. The acting, is even worse than that. She completely misfires, failing to bring any aspect of the original character to life. In the comic she came off warm, sad, and a little pathetic. Gugino plays her bitchy and spunky, and appears to be as able-bodied as they come. In flashbacks, she gets to play her own age and she is just as bad. I even went a bit red in the face when watching her read her lines. Her screen time is minimal, but her performance is poisonous enough to infect the film even when she isn't there.

As someone who adores the source material, the first half wasn't all that bad. Much of the dialogue and narration is word for word accurate. The set design is wonderful, with an awe-inspiring attention to detail. However, to say, like so many have, that Zack Snyder is faithful to the source material is absolutely incorrect. For the most part he is faithful to the surface of source material, but he isn't as true to the tone, the themes, the grit, and sometimes even the characters. The ending is changed, which is beyond unforgivable. The new ending presents a plot-hole so large it is appalling.

I have to give credit, where credit is due. Zack Snyder's visuals, although hardly appropriate for the movie, are astounding. There is a place for him in the industry, and despite my current homicidal fantasies, I actually think the guy will make some good stuff, at least to look at. Tackling the intellectually complex Watchmen? Bad idea. Zack Snyder's movie occasionally feels like a 12 year old's book report come to life.

Thankfully, the source material is so strong, that some of it's richness comes through in the movie. Dr. Manhattan's scenes work like magic. The film is somewhat thought-provoking, even if the-supposed-to-be-a-shocker ending is glossed over. Most critics are discussing the themes of the story in their reviews, something I'll only do if talking about the comic. Several sequences are a joy to behold, seeing the comic come to life. Alas, the (mostly) superb acting, and several well-executed parts are not enough to redeem what this film really is, a revolting failure.

Snyder's brash, overdone style is so wrong for the movie. Everything looks artificial, but the comic book felt so gritty and real. A Kubrickian approach would have been better suited (Watchmen is more Clockwork Orange than it is 300), but still, the comic should never have been adapted to the screen. The original Watchmen is a master work, the crowning achievement of it's medium, the Citizen Kane of comics, and here it has been sullied. I demand retribution.





The Auteurs Poll Results

The results for The Auteurs Poll I conducted are in. You can go to the site where I posted them to see detailed results and discussion.

As voted by 95 users on The Auteurs.com, here are the 10 best films and directors:

The Top Ten Films

1. Citizen Kane – Orson Welles (1941) USA

2. 2001 A Space Odyssey – Stanley Kubrick (1968) USA

3. 8 ½ – Federico Fellini (1963) Italy

4 (tie). The Rules of the Game – Jean Renoir (1939) France

Seven Samurai – Akira Kurosawa (1954) Japan

6 (tie). The 400 Blows – Francois Truffaut (1959) France

Vertigo – Alfred Hitchcock (1958) USA/UK

8. The Passion of Joan of Arc – Carl Theodre Dreyer (1928) France

9 (tie). The Godfather – Francis Ford Coppola (1972) USA

Rashomon – Akira Kurosawa (1950) Japan

Stalker – Andrei Tarkovsky (1979) Russia

Taxi Driver- Martin Scorsese (1976) USA

—————————————————————————————————————————-

The Top Ten Directors

1. Stanley Kubrick

2. Federico Fellini

3. Alfred Hitchcock

4 (tie). Ingmar Bergman

Akira Kurosawa

Orson Welles

7. Francis Ford Coppola

8. Andrei Tarkovsky

9. Martin Scorsese

10. Jean-Luc Godard

March 02, 2009

The Auteurs Poll: My Submission

For The Auteurs Poll, which I have mentioned on this site before, I had to compile a top ten list of, what I think are, the ten greatest films. It wasn't easy. I've been working on my list since the beginning of February and have only just recently finished it. Currently, I'm working on counting everybody's lists (over 90 sent in so far), and will soon be publishing the results. In the meantime, here is my submission:

The 10 Greatest Films, listed in alphabetical order:

8 ½ – Federico Fellini (1963) Italy

2001: A Space Odyssey – Stanley Kubrick (1968) USA

Aguirre, the Wrath of God – Werner Herzog (1972) Germany

Apocalypse Now – Francis Ford Coppola (1979) USA

Citizen Kane – Orson Welles (1941) USA

The Decalogue – Krzysztof Kieslowski (1989) Poland

Fitzcarraldo – Werner Herzog (1982) Germany

Princess Mononoke – Hayao Miyazaki (1999) Japan

Seven Samurai – Akira Kurosawa (1954) Japan

Synecdoche, New York – Charlie Kaufman (2008) USA