"North Face" DVD Review

“North Face” is nothing if not tenacious.

The German-language mountain climbing epic paints the Swiss Alps circa 1936 its looming antagonist, quietly intercutting the narrative with restless shots of the mountain’s dark wall; alluring, beautiful, and mortally dangerous—And this is before our heroes plant so much as a single piton in its cliff.

“North Face” excels as a visceral experience, but the palpable atmosphere is played almost to a fault. Maybe it was the blasting AC unit, but I found myself zippering up my sweatshirt and pulling over the hood as the alpine ascent unfurled. Director Philipp Stölzl batters his audience with the sheer relentlessness of the frigid conditions, which makes on one hand for an uncommonly authentic portrayal, while on the other, renders the film a difficult watch. Overtaking the two plus hour running time is a feat in itself.

It doesn’t help that “North Face” is historical fiction. The true story never squeezes quite comfortably into the confines of screenplay structure, and in juking audience expectation, robs the film of its potential impact. Without giving too much away, the first half of the film is about climbing up the mountain, and the second half is about climbing back down; happy ending or no, when the credits roll, it’s tough to walk away feeling entirely satisfied.

Maybe a part of that is that we don’t get to know the characters very well. German climbing duo Toni Kurz (Benno Fürmann) and Andreas Hinterstoisser (Florian Lukas) serve as our reluctant protagonists, renowned for their climbing prowess but whom must be coaxed into scaling so formidable a foe as the Eiger. They seem like two normal enough chaps—Maybe too normal. Scraps of personality are scattered across the first act, and despite a half-hearted attempt at a love interest, we never concretely understand what’s at stake for the characters on a personal level—That’s a huge hurdle to overcome in terms of caring what happens to them.

But if there’s one area in which “North Face” doesn’t disappoint, it’s in its cinematography. It’s a gorgeous film, with tremendous visual verve and an uncompromising aesthetic. Through camerawork, Stölzl portrays better than most the perilousness of the journey his heroes endeavor to undertake, underscoring the concessions made and the consequences of even the slightest misstep or equipment fault. It shows in key sequences that radiate suspense, with careful manipulation of the frame and superb audio editing.

“North Face” is not without its faults; for every technical achievement and beautifully captured moment, there seems to be an underdeveloped character or bit of perforated plot standing in its way. It’s an occasionally tense, exciting movie, though more often it’s an exercise in atmosphere, which it has in spades. From the whipping winds to the whiteout sheets of ice and snow that ceaselessly buffet Kurz and Hinterstoisser, “North Face” is a film that’s practically tangible.

Comparatively, its pacing and characters may sometimes feel uninvolving, but the most important character, the Eiger itself, is perfectly realized. And it’s one harrowing look.

3/5

"North Face" is available on DVD and Netflix instant queue.

"Cyrus" Review

“Cyrus” packs big names for a mumblecore flick, and kings of the movement, brothers Jay and Mark Duplass, owe their cast a debt of gratitude. The three key players (John C. Reilly, Jonah Hill, Marisa Tomei) enliven their material with funny, understated performances that shine through the murky direction, and the success of “Cyrus,” however marginal, rests on their shoulders.

I might not be so inclined to denigrate the Duplass duo had I not attended a Q&A with John C. Reilly after the screening, the permeating undercurrent of which was that the two directors are full of shit. In describing their approach, Reilly euphemistically emphasized their preference for first-take performances and improvised dialogue. Something rang a bell.

Lynn Shelton, director of the stillborn Sundance darling “Humpday,” which just so happens to star Mark Duplass in its leading role, detailed using the same methods on her film: naturalism, with a hands-off approach to direction. Sure, it makes for an easy, artsy-fartsy sound byte, but it’s lazy filmmaking, and comes across pretentious. “Cyrus,” like “Humpday,” suffers for this lack of a pronounced, unified vision, and the camerawork, which is rife with hasty snap-zooms and cut together with questionable motive, feels artificial and distracting.

It’s a flagrant rejection of the Hollywood norms, which I can appreciate at its base level, but only on the condition that it provokes a better film. The promise of “Cyrus’s” premise is squandered on the Duplasses’ nonchalant mentality that no choices are preferable to bad ones. It’s almost as if, by passing directing duty off to happenstance, the duo want to render themselves immune to criticism—But the choice to make no choices is a choice too. A bad one.

I don’t mean to harp on why the Duplass brothers annoy me as directors. Maybe that “Cyrus” survives at all, despite the illusion that it was made practically by accident, is a testament to their talent as writers. It’s a simple premise; Reilly plays a man “in a downward spiral,” who meets Molly, a woman beyond out of his league. The only peculiarity is the uncomfortably close relationship she has with her grown, stay-at-home son, Cyrus.

Initially, Marisa Tomei feels out of place as Molly, but I guess when you’re casting the woman that comes between two men as ugly as John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill, you almost need a knockout as ballast. She colors the role, bringing dimension to a part that could otherwise have been swept aside and forgotten. Hill is also great, and more reserved than some may expect, in the title role, which calls for a loathsome, conniving manipulator. His rivalry with Reilly’s neurotic and sympathetic loser makes for a few really terrific scenes—And a couple that are probably too broad.

The tonal inconsistency of “Cyrus” is one of the reasons it ends up feeling not entirely satisfying. There aren't quite enough jokes to call it a comedy, and too few serious moments to call it a drama. Additionally, the decision to hire high profile actors, and the inclusion of some borderline “Step Brothers”-esque gags, appear to court a mainstream crowd that will likely be intermittently bored. Conversely, as a snooty art house film, it doesn’t dig deep enough, or get weird enough between Cyrus and Molly to really push any thematic boundaries.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I think that all falls squarely on the heads of the Duplass brothers, whose half-baked style and cloudy focus sabotage any chance for “Cyrus” to be a standout film. Their directorial absence and aggressive unconventionality detract from what could have been memorable as a more straightforward film.

Nevertheless, I’d still recommend “Cyrus” based on the strengths of its performances, but the mumblecore movement, as spearheaded by the Duplass brothers, underscores a lot of my least favorite qualities in filmmaking. Next time, guys, you may not have John C. Reilly to save your ass.

3/5

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" Review

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” is the sort of stupidly grinning blockbuster I might find intolerable if it weren’t so damn silly. Nearly every aspect is misguided, broken, corny, or all of the above, and yet when brooding melodrama is the status quo for summer releases, it’s refreshing to be able to laugh my ass off at the expense of a cheeseball like this.

Of course, I’m beginning to believe its many flaws were predestined; it is a video game adaptation, after all—And according to Rotten Tomatoes, the best yet. That I’m inclined to agree, despite its stagey references to the high-flying acrobatics of its virtual progenitor, speaks volumes. If there’s one thing the “Prince of Persia” film does right, it’s to downplay its video gaminess by crafting a story that isn’t exclusively a series of action sequences (historically, the problem with these adaptations is that they’re about as engaging as watching someone else play a video game).

Nevertheless, there’s still that wink and nod to the source material that I can’t imagine even fans care about. It’s as if, in adapting a book, a director felt the need to insert page-turn animations as scene transitions to remind the audience that his characters are adapted from a different medium. I don’t care what it used to be; it’s a film now.

Appropriately then, even more so than the somewhat-popular game series, “Prince of Persia” draws heavy influence from Disney’s other live-action flagship franchise, “Pirates of the Caribbean.” It’s painfully obvious that Jake Gyllenhaal is meant to be a charming scoundrel in the vein of Jack Sparrow, but that character and performance are a tough act to follow, especially when you’re doing the same routine.

Characterization is generally uninspired in the film, ranging from one-dimensional (Gemma Arterton as a feisty princess), to cliché (Sir Ben Kingsley as the Royal Council with an eye on the throne—Oops, spoiler), to the chin-scratching ridiculous (Alfred Molina as an ostrich racing bookie). It makes for a film that’s often funny in spite of itself, with earnestly delivered lines like, “You can’t organize an ostrich race WITH JUST ONE OSTRICH!” and curiously long reaction shots accentuating Gyllenhaal’s bizarre facial contractions.

But the Prince’s ultimate failure is that his film, in its transparent attempt at cinematic junk food, critically ignores its plot, which is as cavity-stricken as a decaying tooth. Granted, it may not consist of a string of forgettable action sequences, but “Prince of Persia” is instantly forgettable regardless because it never feels substantial, and its McGuffin—That is, the ‘dagger of time,’ which grants its carrier the ability to undo the present and travel a finite distance into the past—Is underutilized. In its stead are scenes chock-full of verbose and expository character herding devices, which for all their impatient roving, never manage to bring our heroes anywhere interesting or visually distinct. My whole experience with “Prince of Persia” is sort of a beige blur.

Had the film been cut drastically shorter and thematically simplified, there may have been a cute little family action film here, but instead, it submits to the running time penis-measuring contest; any title under 100 minutes need not apply. “Prince of Persia” clocks in at just under two hours, and with so little narrative cohesion, it’s not hard to start picking out the extraneous chunks. What you get is a messy and dissonant sword-and-sandals wannabe epic that carries not a single distinguishing mark.

Well, there is the one. “Prince of Persia” dares to attempt fun in an age of doom and gloom gravitas, and it succeeds—Albeit at it’s own expense.

2/5

FARCE/FILM Episode 48: Prince of Persia, Karate Kid, Cyrus

--> Episode 48: 06/13/10 <--

Hosts: Colin George, Brian Crawford, Sonic Kim, Kevin Mauer, and Ben Wong

Intro – 00:00

Top 5 – 02:24

Prince of Persia – 05:09

Karate Kid - 27:54

Cyrus (spoilers) - 51:30

WMD - 01:05:13

(Hannah Takes the Stairs, Toy Story 1 and 2, Vantage Point, Deep Water, Drag Me to Hell, Waterworld, Justified)

Outro - 01:17:20

"Prince of Persia"

Colin:
Crawford:
Kevin:
Sonic:

"Karate Kid"

Colin:
Crawford:
Kevin:
Ben:

"Cyrus"

Colin:
Crawford:
Kevin:

--Weekly Movie Discussion--

This week the boys discuss the remake of "The Karate Kid," which has polarized some audiences on the basis of their nostalgia for the original. Does or should nostalgia carry any weight on one's opinion? What are some films whose merits have been warped (positively or negatively) by nostalgia?

"The Karate Kid" Review

Sure, I went through a brief martial arts phase as a kid—I just didn’t have the attention span to devote myself to the discipline (Really, I think I just liked the idea of colored belts). Consequently, my grazing interest in the eastern fighting styles took me only as far as the ninja turtles; I saw the original “Karate Kid” last week.

Its remake, which swaps sunny California for China and Ralph Macchio for Will Smith’s son Jaden, plays by the same basic rules as the 1984 version, and despite a strikingly similar screenplay, manages to feel distinct through its subtle updates in plot, protagonist, and setting.

Carefully arranged and deliberately paced, this new “Kid” is anything but a quick cash-grab. It’s a carefully, almost delicately constructed film, but like the original, one that overstays its welcome at two plus hours. The pacing is curious for several reasons, not the least of which (as I might once have whined) is the attention spans of its target audience.

Normally, I would defend a film that takes its time telling the story, but both versions of “The Karate Kid” suffer from thematic redundancy. Every scene with our hero fleeing from oppressive bullies, wooing the girl, or training under his enigmatic master (a respectable turn by Jackie Chan this time around) serves the same principle function, and when you ultimately shortchange the audience on a convincing progression anyway, there’s no reason not to trim the excess.

But those boring patches are generally made up for by the surprisingly intense fight sequences—Especially from an audio perspective. The impact of each blow is authoritative, loud, and visceral, and during key showdowns, my audience became a chorus of ‘oofs’ and applause. “The Karate Kid” is a crowd-pleaser, no question, and a lot of fun to hear a reaction to.

The brutality of the combat is also surprising because the film is made and marketed for children and their parents. I don’t think anyone who sits down to watch a movie about kids fighting each other has much elbowroom for offense, but many may be expecting something tamer. “The Karate Kid” also has a strong moral core, teaching the tried and true self-defensive approach to practicing martial arts. Above all, it’s nice to see a film with almost an entire cast of children that doesn’t talk down or pander to a young crowd.

Of course, it suffers like so many sports dramas do, from the inherent predictability of an underdog story—And doubly so as remake of an existing film. 2010’s “Karate Kid” suffers from a lack of genuine surprises, but polishes it’s tired archetypes to a like-new finish; which is fortunate, because Jackie Chan swatting a fly is about the extent of the filmmakers’ willingness to innovate.

Still, it’s a movie that’s just too adorable to stay mad at. Chan and Smith work well together, validating the latter as a genuine talent (even if it’s largely as a carbon copy of his father), and contributing to the former’s best performance in years. Their bond is convincing, and their relationship is the emotional anchor for this more serious take on the 1984 original.

It’s worth noting that 2010’s “Karate Kid” has no actual karate in it, since Chan and China dictate kung fu be the more socially relevant discipline. I imagine this may confuse inspired kids, who show up disappointed to their first week of karate class.

Nevertheless, the film, like the values it teaches, is well balanced and focused. Maybe it would be more fun if it were aggressively on the narrative offense—But I guess that would be against the rules, wouldn’t it?

3/5

"Splice" Review

“Splice” is a step in the right direction for horror.

Every so often, I find myself pleasantly surprised by intentionally misadvertised entertainment, and writer/director Vincenzo Natali’s genetic genre mash-up is the latest such example. From a marketing standpoint, its scare-tactics are clearly the easy sell, despite their comprising only a tiny percentage of its thematic intent. ‘Hard sci-fi parenting metaphor’ is, after all, a much tougher pitch.

So expecting the tasteless creature feature from the trailer, “Splice” impressed me in its pursuit of a more complex emotional response than fear, and is successful in burrowing into your subconscious and picking at your psyche. It’s a thinking man’s B picture, which plays with the idea of morality on both a scientific and personal level. That it remains intellectually stimulating, even when the surface-area film dips into more traditionally hokey horror territory, is its greatest strength.

What’s so interesting about the story, in spite of what the trailer suggests, is that the creature artificially spawned by genetic engineers Clive and Elsa (Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley) is not an antagonist for the vast majority of the film. “Splice” isn’t about a monster—It’s about parenthood, and like with “Rosemary’s Baby” or “Eraserhead,” taking the associated fears and filtering them through a horror lens.

Besides the tail and the pronounced facial cleft, test-tube baby Dren (‘Nerd’ backwards, heh) is essentially human, and a big part of “Splice’s” inherent creepiness is that she’s treated in turn as a subject and a child—Warmly received, but caged and abandoned for significant stretches of time. The realization of this character by French actress Delphine Chanéac is another of the film’s triumphs. Her general lack of dialogue sometimes forces the performance to rely a little too heavily on pantomime, but that we can both feel for and fear Dren simultaneously is a testament to the range of the actrice.

Perhaps it's because “Splice” nails the big performances and the big ideas, and because the gears turning behind the action are so consistently fluid, that it’s all the more apparent when it stumbles over little things, like stilted motivation issues, and superfluous, grating secondary characters. Clive’s brother (Brandon McGibbon) and boss (David Hewlett), for example, are flat placeholder roles that transparently progress the plot instead of enriching it. The triangular relationship between Clive, Elsa, and Dren, and its weird morphing emotional permutations, is what “Splice” is at its core. It is a film with very few characters, but every moment not spent on that central dynamic feels like time wasted.

Still, that minor gripe is forgivable because “Splice” has two hugely important and rare qualities for modern horror—Original thought and fearless storytelling. The undercurrent of sexuality in the film, the internal dialogue on gender roles, is apparently one of the reasons no studio wanted to touch the script last year, but Natali’s film is a cut above the rest precisely because it isn’t afraid to make an audience uncomfortable. And it gets uncomfortable.

“Splice” gets a lot of credit from me in the abstract. The concrete film doesn’t quite live up to the incredible promise of the ideas behind it, but the very presence of those ideas is reaffirming to a degree, and that “Splice” received a wide domestic release is more encouraging still. Granted, it went on to perform below expectations at the box office, but was positioned against more breezy summer fare like “Shrek” and “Get Him to the Greek.”

The other possibility, and this suggests more consumer confidence than an ad man may be inclined to grant, is that “Splice’s” scare-tactics aren’t the easy sell. Maybe, like me, potential moviegoers just saw a trailer for another shitty horror movie instead of the interesting, offbeat experiment it is.

It’s Warner Brother’s loss, and the audience’s.

3.5/5

FARCE/FILM Episode 47: Ondine, Splice

--> Episode 47: 06/06/10 <--

Hosts: Colin George, Brian Crawford, Kevin Mauer, Brian Johanson

Intro – 00:00

Top 5 – 03:17

Ondine (spoilers) – 09:12

Splice – 25:36

WMD – 36:06

(The Box, City of God, The Incredibles, The Princess and the Frog, Jurassic Park)

Outro - 58:18

"Ondine"

Colin:
Crawford:
Kevin:
Brian:

"Splice"

Colin:
Kevin:

--Weekly Discussion--

Next week, the Farce/film crew will be catching up on the summer movie season, seeing Prince of Persia and the Karate Kid remake. What are some of your most anticipated films of the summer? What are some of the all-time classics?