Saturday, November 21, 2009

"The Road" Review

There's "2012" and there's "The Road;" apocalypse and post apocalypse respectively. The unnamed event that leaves the world of the latter film under eternally windswept gray skies and the last dregs of humanity in utter desperation for sustenance is never seen nor explained. All the special effects happened ten years ago. The film stars a skeletal Viggo Mortensen as a father (like in Lars Von Trier's "Antichrist," his role is simply credited, Man) and Kodi Smit-McPhee (rolls right off the tongue) as Boy. The dynamic between the two: Mortensen as provider, partner, and teacher, proves a compelling emotional ballast to the horrific acts of violence that permeate the film's less tender moments. 'Cannibalism. That's the big fear,' Mortensen muses in voice-over. "The Road" is a bleak, somber film, often poignant and effective in the moment, but somewhat disappointing for its greater thematic ineloquence.

Perhaps by necessity, "The Road" seems broken down into distinct encounters, strung together on the loosest narrative thread, which lends the film a natural feeling of lawless wandering, but undermines the potential strength of the plot. The protagonists have an ultimate destination charted, to make it to the coast, but in general, a character or group of characters will interact with them for ten minutes and part ways. The screenplay by Joe Penhall, an adaptation of the novel by Cormac McCarthy, keeps this potentially redundant scene structure from growing stale with a usually fascinating and diverse array of character types, from bloodthirsty cannibals to a hobbling hobo (Robert Duvall) or a roving pack of bandits.

The other premise weaving these sequences together is Mortensen's deteriorating health. He wakes from dreams of his previous life, filled with the unfamiliar greens and blues of the living world, to uncontrollable coughing fits. It quickly becomes clear he must impart his worldly knowledge to the boy before his time comes. In doing so, he is presented with several morally compromising scenarios, involving the trust of a stranger or the punishment of a thief, and his cold calculation and instinct for self-preservation clash with the ideological selflessness of his son. We can hardly blame Mortensen's character for preaching distrust in the world the film depicts, but the sequences themselves inevitably prove the son correct, treating many of the encounters more as parables than legitimate ideological debate.

This premise, without spoiling it, comes to an underwhelming zenith in "The Road's" final moments. It's not that the ending is sappy, though alright, it's a little sappy. Smit-McPhee's character must crucially weigh the application of his trust, in a scene that should carry the emotional weight of the entire film on its shoulders. Instead, director John Hillcoat plays the moment merely for tension, which is displayed to great effect already in half a dozen previous scenes. Resultantly, the conclusion drawn is acceptable but largely unsatisfying. The audience is left to just sort of shrug it off.

Like "Children of Men," "The Road" posits a bleak future that doesn't feel stagey or pretentious. Both films are visually powerful, if in opposite ways, with Hillcoat's film favoring subtle, moody cinematography over the frenetic energy of its contemporary. Despite my issues with the structure of the film, I have no reservations using adjectives like 'powerful' or 'effective' to describe it, though I can't quite bring myself to call "The Road" 'great.' The distinction for me lies in that the piece doesn't speak as a whole so much as it does a series of interesting scenes that come very close to complementing one another.

Entirely watchable, and by no means worth avoiding, "The Road" offers uncompromising performances, and an unusually intimate take on the disaster film. After all, anyone can blow up the world, but not everyone can make us care.

3.5/5

Friday, November 20, 2009

"New Moon" Rises at Midnight

So Friday afternoon rolls around and you’re already reading about the records the second installment in the Twilight saga, New Moon, has broken. According to variety.com, the film grossed $26.3 million domestically during last night’s midnight screenings, ousting previous record-holder Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, which earned just $22.2 million in its midnight run.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised to see Twilight surpassing Harry Potter already, given that as far as I know, Potter is an adolescent franchise boys and girls can geek out over, where the Twilight series is geared more exclusively to the fairer sex (and the subset of men interested in hairless wolfman man-chests). It could be argued that there’s a certain ‘boyfriend’ element to the equation, but then again, most of the die-hards out at midnight are saving themselves for Edward, no?

If memory serves, I remember hearing mixed reactions from fans and snide cynicism from detractors regarding the original film, but it’s hard to argue with the numbers. Twilight brought in nearly $400 million worldwide, and has had continued success in the DVD market. Call it the Star Wars effect. We all pay to see them, if only to hop on the internet to complain about them. Twilight saga, you’re next!

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

My Podcast Alley feed! {pca-e2d526a03e017908b46f1c82f5791fab}

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

"2012" Review

Roland Emmerich gets his rocks off blowing up the world. Hey, whatever sinks your battleship. It's like the Tarantino foot fetish thing, you just have to shake your head and go, 'the guy likes feet.' But if destruction is Emmerich's erotica, then "2012" is a perverse shrine; it's disaster porn, a sweaty menage a trois of "Dante's Peak," "Titanic," and "Independence Day." "2012" distinguishes itself from those films only in its unabashed one-upmanship: bigger, louder, and more marginalized story.

The marketing admittedly piqued my interest, I think because it seemed so simultaneously silly and audacious. Highway billboards and movie theater stand-ups depicted iconic human art and architecture being pathetically splintered, smashed, or washed away. I imagined the lunacy of the digital disaster film coupled with an absurdist futility. I wanted "2012" to be genre satire, an unrelenting gleeful cataclysm without redemption. In retrospect, it was not wise to expect these things from Emmerich.

If anything, "2012" is torturously formulaic, layering state of the art special effects over the writer/director's decade-old story template. A renegade scientist discovers an inevitable global catastrophe, meets our always-noble president, and clashes with an evil cabinet member--it turns out 2012 is a whole lot like 1996. But perhaps most disappointingly, by any action movie standard, Emmerich breaks a cardinal rule: he never tops his first act. The five-plus minute sequence that arrives roughly forty minutes into the film involves John Cusack and company speeding through a crumbling Los Angeles cityscape by limousine and airplane while earthquakes topple skyscrapers and split the streets, swallowing countless fleeing innocents. It would have made a fantastically over-the-top finale, but Emmerich isn't content to simply shake things up when he could drown or pelt them with fiery balls of magma.

The majority of the disposable plot actually revolves around the struggle to reserve space on one of several 'arks' being built in China to house the lucky few chosen to repopulate the dying planet. The general public is never informed of their existence, but attention rich and famous: tickets can be purchased for just a few million Euro! The third act of "2012" then takes to the open water and devolves into everything I didn't want it to be, namely a countdown-clock movie in which the resilience of human ingenuity and spirit ultimately triumph over avers--

I'm sorry, I dozed off there for a second. Millions of people die in this film, so forgive me if John Cusack and his fickle ex-wife, son, and hat-loving daughter's survival aboard a ship loaded with billionaires and bureaucrats charting a course for the inexplicably unflooded African continent to, I'm sure, politely explain the concept of manifest destiny to any weary native survivors, fails to move me. Emmerich's ending is worse than cliche, it's insultingly euphemistic, backwards, and schmaltzy.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more apt that porn metaphor becomes. It's not difficult to tell which scenes exist solely to progress the plot, and which scenes set the stage for ludicrous action set pieces. Seeing a hanger full of Russian concept cars is like opening a scene in a porno with two girls on a couch. Come on. The film's primary function, as with feature length pornography, also makes the running time completely unnecessary. You know why you're watching.

As pure spectacle, "2012" occasionally succeeds, with some well-choreographed action sequences that straddle the fine line of utter ridiculousness and competently address their directive to entertain. The plot, however, is at best derivative and at worst short-sighted and masturbatory.

Can't wait for the sequel, Roland Emmerich's "Seamen."

2/5

FARCE/FILM Episode 19: 2012, The Road

--> Episode 19: 11/16/09 <--
Hosts: Colin George, Brian Crawford, and Kevin Mauer

Intro -- 00:00
Top 5 -- 01:16
2012 (Spoilers) -- 05:09
The Road (Spoilers) -- 26:55
Events and Outro -- 51:21


"2012"
Colin:
Crawford:
Kevin:

"The Road"
Colin:
Kevin:


Thursday, November 12, 2009

"The Men Who Stare at Goats" Review

No, it's not a Coen brothers film, but it does a decent impression. The marks are clearly visible, foremost being the casting of veteran leads George Clooney and Jeff Bridges, and a plot that follows their reliable 'Joe-Local-gets-in-over-his-head' template. The film finds release just a year after the Coen's own "Burn After Reading," and the good news is that "The Men Who Stare at Goats," is just about on par with their espionage comedy, though I don't hold either in particularly high regard. Despite the misleading stylistic similarities, "Goats" was directed by a guy called Grant Heslov, who has a far more extensive resume as an actor than a director. He appeared in Clooney's "Leatherheads," last year and this appears to be the mutually beneficial returned favor.

Clooney brings an oomph to the film that Bridges or Kevin Spacey or even Ewan McGregor couldn't alone, and the script trades him one of the more legitimately charming performances of his career. As Lyn Cassidy, self-proclaimed 'Jedi warrior,' Clooney partners with a small town reporter (McGregor), for an undercover psychic mission on behalf of a secret branch of the U.S. Army. Their adventure is interspersed with a history of the 'First Earth Battalion,' a regiment with a freethinking spiritual approach to global conflict, based on information pulled from the supposedly real biography (also titled "The Men Who Stare at Goats") by author Jon Ronson. Experiments allegedly include, as advertised, the power to fell goats through channeled negative energy and the ability to pass through walls. The movie is prefaced with the phrase, "More of this is true than you would believe."

The bureaucratic satire of the snappy flashbacks makes for considerably better comedy than the majority of the present-day sequences, which often stumble in shoehorning the amusing suppositions, characters, and gags from the precursor scenes into a narrative. The issue comes to a head in a generally misguided third act, which fumbles for dramatic and comedic footing, delivering a largely disappointing finale on both counts. Still, the movie is as easygoing as the new-age hippies it depicts, and as such, stands a difficult film to dislike.

Where I do take issue with it, however, is in its depiction of Jedi ability. For the most part, the effectiveness of Cassidy's powers is a punch line, though I can imagine those who believe in the telepathic potential of the mind could read him at face value, pronouncing his psychic powers truncated by a hex cast by a rival solider. These sequences are left pleasingly ambiguous with two exceptions. The first is featured in the trailer, and the second I won't spoil.

Cassidy and Bob Wilton (McGregor as the surrogate Ronson), are driving across the Iraqi dessert when Wilton calls out Cassidy for a peculiar upward squinting. Cassidy explains the behavior as "cloud dispersing," and we cut to an effects insert from Wilton's point of view as the heavenly mass quickly dissipates. As near as I can tell, whether intentionally or not, the shot suggests that Cassidy isn't crazy and that he is legitimately paranormally gifted, which kills the quirky suspense moving forward. Others have suggested the shot represents a natural dispersion, which Cassidy merely perceives to have caused of his own volition, but the speed ramping applied to the image suggests otherwise to me. The same sequence without that single shot could easily have maintained an intriguing open-endedness.

The shot could hardly be said to spoil the film, which on the whole remains a fun, occasionally engaging diversion. My pre-existing interest in the strange is certainly a handicap not all audiences will share, and the proceedings favor subtle irony to joke-a-minute yuk-fests like this Summer's aggressively unfunny, "Hangover," which, no, I really won't get tired of bashing. "The Men Who Stare at Goats" is an acquired taste to be sure, and even under the right frame of mind has its share of problems, but nevertheless offers an entertaining ninety minutes with some great performances and hilarious individual scenes.

If the Coen brothers are inadvertently receiving credit for this film, they needn't be embarrassed.

3.5/5

Sunday, November 8, 2009

FARCE/FILM Episode 18: Men Who Stare at Goats

--> Episode 18: 11/8/09 <--
Hosts: Colin George, Brian Crawford, Maggie Ruder

Intro – 00:00
Top 5 – 02:34
The Men Who Stare at Goats (spoilers) – 20:21
Events and Outro – 42:52


"The Men Who Stare at Goats"
Colin:
Crawford:

Maggie: