Well, hey there!

It certainly has been a while since I wrote one of these. I apologize sincerely for the delay. I spent the entire summer without internet; fortunately, though, there were only a few movies that interested me enough to want to write about them. Don’t get your hopes up - I didn’t write anything. All you have to look forward to in this blog is a brief overview of the movies you might have missed already during this Season’s Cinema 10 Line-up. To be honest, it’s looking better than ever to me, and I can’t wait to see the other selected movies.

The first movie offered for our viewing pleasure was John C. Reilly’s new film, “Cyrus (2010).” The comedy revolves around the budding relationship he pursues with a single mom played by Marissa Tomei, and her son’s (played by Jonah Hill) passive-aggressive attempts to keep them apart. From the introduction of Reilly’s character, who is caught by his ex-wife as he’s masturbating, the film becomes the definition of an indie-Comedy. The humor is unapologetic and frequently touches on how real sexual encounters are a lot less glamorous than Hollywood would suggest. Reilly and Hill are a fantastic pair, exchanging awkward glances and hushed threats not unlike those in “Step Brothers (2008),” though this film more often takes the high-road. It maintains the typical “happy ending” that would appear in any other comedy, distancing itself from a lot of the expectations put forth at the outset; it is a surprising and sophisticated film by the relatively unknown directors, Jay and Mark Duplass.



The film that followed trumps their efforts by far, however. “GasLand (2010)” made me lose any remaining faith I had in the powers-that-be. The film is director Josh Fox’s open letter to gas companies and the politicians that keep them in control; it is his attempt to expose the consequences of the “natural” and “better” solution; it is his plea for a god-damn good reason. He wants to know why his home, and those of countless others, is being destroyed for the gas that sits under his feet. More importantly, he asks why people have to get sick on tap water that is so toxic that it can be lit on fire. Told through Fox’s strikingly unsettling monotone, the documentary feels more like a horror movie than a depiction of facts. Perhaps it is that the landscape he shoots feels barren and dry, burnt even. Maybe it is the pacing or the mystery. Whatever the cause, I could not help but feel scared for the people that were interviewed. It’s like they’re being stalked down some alleyway, with the glaring exception that the villain isn’t some digitally imbedded figure, but rather is something very real and capable. It is a given that every documentary film-maker means to get across a point; he has an agenda. With all that the public is already aware of, however, this seems to be more proof that we are seen not as people, but as numbers and obstacles. We are either meant to be bought or to be run down. It is one of the most successful documentaries I can recall seeing in my life, in the sense that I was hurt and angry as I left the theater. I’m not promoting piracy, but do whatever you can to get your hands on this film.




And then there was “Looking for Eric (2010),” which I didn’t see. Heard good things, though. Oh well.

Verdict: So Far So Stoked. Glad to be writing again. Thank you, dear reader(s).

Clever title.

Sebastian Silva’s 2009 film “La Nana,” – or “The Maid,” for you non-Spanish speaking readers – is an awkwardly humorous drama that explores the life of an aging housekeeper that’s lost touch with the outside world. The picture opens on Raquel’s 41st birthday, which she accepts with a stern stiffness, receiving gifts and smiling with all of the enthusiasm of a stick figure (Ahem...) It is clear from the outset that she finds little to be happy about, and while she loathes her position, it is the only comfort she knows. And so Raquel paces the house and takes after children that she considers her own, making no verbal complaints and opts instead for the passive-aggressive route. In addition to doing the dishes and laundry, she takes it upon herself to tattle on the masturbatory habits of the son and terrorize the eldest daughter’s study-induced slumber. Needless to say, this creates some tension amongst the family members, which in turn causes more problems for Raquel, etc. etc. Making life hell for everybody proves to be too much and eventually Raquel collapses, turning herself into a heap of exhaustion. Then - although she’s been rotten to her adopted family - they hire on some new help that’s sure to relieve some of her stress. Instead of welcoming some much-needed relaxation, she retaliates by insisting her health and making life hell for each of the new maids. I could say that she finds a metaphor for her life by repeatedly locking every maid outside and turning a deaf ear to their cries from the garden, but I don’t think this movie calls for any of that. Really, all Raquel looks for during the first half of this film is a friend; not a child that she can admire or an employer, but a friend with whom she can share even the simplest of conversations that don’t revolve around the dirty clothes or the placement of pans. She finds this in the third maid, Lucy, who forces her kindness (/nudity) and refuses to be turned away by Raquel’s desires to eat alone. The two grow closer as the film comes to an end, and Raquel begins to take steps to ensure her own happiness.

The film is somewhat touching and lighthearted, but doesn’t offer many layers. It’s much more of a comedy than it is a dramatic piece, and I think the advertisement for this film suggests otherwise. The title – while appropriate – is slightly cryptic, as is the trailer that accompanies it. With dark color schemes and increasingly malicious behavior that’s riddled with a subtle kind of humor that’s anything but overt, I was expecting to be caught off guard by violence. This never comes though, and I suppose that’s a good thing. It’s the kind of movie that a person can laugh at and enjoy in the moment, but probably won’t seek out to view multiple times. I don’t think any of the content warrants or necessitates that. Raquel’s character is easily digested; she’s a hard-nosed bitch that has been stuck inside another family's home for so long that she is apt to avoid cordiality and the bright colors of the world outside. She is certainly well rounded; though her mindset is static, her character is not. She changes throughout the course of the feature, and we finally see her loosen up and find a comfortable rhythm during the last minutes of the movie. Many of the others who are introduced are left to stand on their own with only a few lines or camera shots, however. It’s not that these characters are wholly under-developed, it’s just that maybe their numbers are too great. Clearly this suggests that Raquel is inundated with a flood of people, but maybe it’s too much for the audience. I wasn’t put off necessarily, but only the four characters I mentioned had any real effect on me.

Verdict: Stoked with a lowercase "s." This has got a high rating on IMDb, and I can see why: it is a quality film with interesting characters and an unconventional shooting style. It’s funny and surprising and the casting was wonderful, even with the younger actors. As a whole film, though, "La Nana" is mostly surface and doesn’t offer anything you’ll need to ponder for hours on end.

Crystal Meth Tweakers (Spoilers ahead):

I’m told I missed something in Werner Herzog’s rendition of "The Bad Lieutenant (2009)". A friend said that all of his other films have quirky, weirdly humorous parts that seem out of place but aren’t, and I’m willing to accept that. I was certainly entertained by this film and never once did I find myself dozing off or wondering what was going on in the other parts of the theater. In that sense, the film is an achievement. But I’m just not sure how great of a film it is otherwise; is it fine cinema or just pulp?

The primary issue with this film is that the conflict seems to be detached and insignificant; it comes into play only in the last ten minutes (which are phenomenal). This is because everything comes so easily to Nicolas Cage’s character, Terence McDonagh. That is not to say that no problems arise during the course of the film. McDonagh is plagued with back pain that causes him to seek out prescription and illegal drugs, both of which he abuses. He’s also forced to deal with an alcoholic father and a prostitute girlfriend who gets him in debt with some scumbags. To top it all off, he’s a raging gambling addict who cannot control himself, feeling sure that his next big win is one game away despite his horrible track record. For a normally functioning human being, this might seem like a downward spiral, but McDonagh seems completely unaffected by all of it. He remains calm and scheming throughout, and maybe that’s what Herzog’s message is: the junkie’s only real concern is his next score, and if everything falls to pieces around him, then so be it. Still – I’m not sure, in a cinematic sense – if I buy into this. By making any real conflict unimportant, Herzog fails to create a sense of tension and drama. In other films about junkies, like Danny Boyle’s masterpiece, "Trainspotting (1996)", there absolutely is a sense of fear and dread; we sympathize with the protagonist and cringe when he’s in the grips of his withdrawal-induced hallucinations. However, with Bad Lieutenant, there’s never a point where things don’t seem like they’re going to work out. It’s as if we’re watching an addict’s humorous and absurd dance with indifference, but the picture is out of focus. We can’t see whom we are watching and so we don’t know why we should care. In the end, it all works out just as McDonagh had apparently planned; every character with whom he is even remotely at odds comes crawling at his feet, rejoicing over the wonderful things he has done.

On the last few minutes: Flawed as the film which precedes them may be, the last two scenes of this film, which show us McDonagh before a table of cocaine and then at an aquarium, are brilliant. Pressed against a tank filled with sharks, he laughs at himself and the film goes black; it’s all some sort of sick, inescapable joke to the lieutenant. These last two scenes are the heart of the conflict – we see that Terrence will never change and that’s all there is to it. It’s tragic here but nowhere else – and if so, only in retrospect.

Verdict: Almost Stoked. The more I think about it, the more I liked this movie. I would watch it again if only because I feel that there are some things I probably missed as my friend has suggested. What I don’t need to see again is the lingering and drawn out shots of the different reptiles with which McDonagh shares a tweaked-out connection.

Sorry!

Unfortunately, I won't be able to provide my three or four faithful readers with a review of this week's latest Cinema 10 film, "Coco avant Chanel (2009)." I was only able to watch part of the movie, so I won't comment on what I did see. I'll try to put some other review up here in place of this one, as there won't be a Cinema 10 screening next week. Sorry to anyone that I've deeply hurt!

God I Love South Park

I'm trying to keep up to date with these reviews, but life seems to be getting in the way a little bit. So I apologize that these aren't as frequent as they could be. I plan on writing reviews for older movies, as well, but I guess I'm too busy to start up with that just yet. But anyway, here's some more food for thought:

It seemed like Cinema 10 had its biggest audience on Monday for the screening of the Academy Award Winning film "The Cove (2009)." People that I didn't think had any interest in attending independent film turned out in droves, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's the allure of the Academy's distinction. Or maybe people just really dig on dolphins and dolphin killing. Either way, I'm not sure that anyone walked away disappointed. I know that I had my reservations; activist films are often subject to some negative connotations and I was worried that this would be an hour and a half of how dolphins are the greatest creatures on the planet. Though the dolphin love provided the basis for this entire documentary, it wasn't a gushy, lovesong to our cetacean friends.

On the contrary, the documentary used a plot that at times reminded me of Hollywood thrillers, particularly the footage of the covert operation to place recording equipment at the sight of the dolphin slaughter. Much of the screen time was taken up by dolphin-trainer-turned-activist Ric O'Barry as he lamented his role in popularizing dolphins and thus creating a market for their services and meat. This film was clearly a very personal endeavor for O'Barry and the director, but O'Barry definitely steals the screen as he tries over and over again to make up for the colossal wrong he feels he has committed against the world.

More importantly, "The Cove" is influential and effective. The ending message to "Text DOLPHIN to 44144" is a little hokey and actually drew laughs from the audience, but aside from that, the film is serious and pointed, only straying from the central course once or twice. The Filmmakers undoubtedly turn the audience against the fisherman that hunt the dolphins and the politicians that enable them. And they don't have to use eerie music or menacing camera angles. Their method is simple: tell the audience that politicians are allowing children to be poisoned by the mercury that contaminates dolphin meat, which is being sold to schools as a substitute for other more expensive alternatives. Done. Instantly these people are evil mother fuckers. In the end it's all about money and corruption. The outcome of dolphin hunting isn't as important as the immediate influx of money. It doesn't matter that the industry is unsustainable and cruel and harmful to everyone, just as long as a few misguided people are compensated monetarily. Lately, it seems more and more documentaries are about the horrors of capitalism, and it seems appropriate considering the current economic climate. I don't think this is a theme that's going away anytime soon.

As I said, the movie only strayed momentarily to preach some dolphin love with a heavy dose of anthropomorphism. Is that the right word? I think so. I buy that dolphins are smart and share connections with each other, but I don't really believe that they operate on the same level as human beings. Obviously as living, feeling creatures, dolphins don't deserve to be tortured or killed inhumanely, but that doesn't mean that they are the super beings that the film makers suggest them to be. There's a great episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! on the subject that you should check out. (And if you're confused by my title, make sure you check out South Park Studios and watch their "Whale Whores" episode.) But what do I know, really? I suppose I could be wrong.


Verdict: Fairly Stoked, but not Stoked beyond reason. I totally understand why this movie won an Oscar. It's powerful, engaging and entertaining in the sense that it keeps you on the edge of your seat. It sparks a weird sort of rage in people that are otherwise indifferent to the subject. I guess everyone can relate and sympathize with creatures that bare the brunt of greed and cruelty, though. Go see it.

Bright Star

To say that tonight's Cinema 10 film, "Bright Star (2009)", was anything short of beautiful would be a colossal misstep on my part. I can't say that my mind was totally blown or that I'm left absolutely speechless. If that were the case, I wouldn't exactly have much material for this blog entry. What I can say, however, is that Director Jane Campions' latest endeavor is a wonderful piece of art that might bridge on the "masterpiece" status.

The profound poetry that ran the course of this film about John Keats and his lover, Fanny Brawne was touching, but what made the film was the silence that broke up the emotional dialogue. On countless occasions since I've begun my college career, I've been fed a quote from an author whose name I've lost that runs something like this: "The hardest part about writing is trying to convince my wife that I'm working when I stare outside my window." This film captures this sentiment perfectly. Much of the picture is composed of shots of characters staring - gazing, even - at something or someone in the distance. The audience is forced to wonder at what they're contemplating. While much of the message is straightforward and precise, the audience must create their own meaning, just like they must with every piece of important literature.

Even masterpieces have their flaws, though, I suppose. The film is a little slow at the outset; the first few minutes are slightly boring and trite, but it unfolds into something incredible quickly. Every relationship presented in the film is significant and plays a role in the final outcome, and is therefore enjoyable and engaging. I was a little put off by the attire at first, as high class British dress tends to rub me the wrong way, but the film transcends the class war stereotype that is so often the subject of movies set in the 1800s and focuses instead on the conflict of expectations established in the aforementioned relationships. If that run-on sentence makes strikes a chord at all; sorry.

Verdict: Moving. This is the first and last time I'll sum up a movie without somehow using the word "Stoked." I think that while I find the word funny and useful, to say it now would almost be to sully what this film was about. I hate to say that "Bright Star" was moving because that's cliche and boring, but there aren't too many other words in my vocabulary that come to mind at the moment. Do whatever you can to get your hands on this.

Alice in Wonderland

So I've seen "Alice In Wonderland (2010)" twice now, once at a private midnight screening and once at a public midnight screening. I'm only writing this now because I need something to occupy the time between now and work in a half hour. It's one of those movies where you get about what you expect to get. It's a Tim Burton spin on an old Disney Classic, but frankly, the original is much more entertaining and profound. This one just seems to be full of a lot of clutter that detracts from the plot. Burton's use of CGI and 3D effects is so overwhelming that I often found myself confused about the plot because I was too busy looking at something else going on in that scene. Even more troublesome is the fact that sometimes it's hard to pick out the focus character of a given shot because there are so many distractions. The best part was Johnny Depp's take on the Mad Hatter which was nothing short of hilarious and troubling, making for a well-rounded, enjoyable character. Everything else just seems kind of boring and undeveloped; what I took away from both viewings was that it's a three-hour movie crammed into a two hour time slot.

What I keep finding myself coming back to is the 3D element utilized here. People are paying in excess of ten dollars a seat to see a 3D movie that doesn't really use 3D to its fullest potential. Since "Avatar (2009)" came out in December, a new bar has been set. James Cameron used 3D to create a world so vast and immense and beautiful that it was hard to distance one's self from the movie and the real world. Plot-wise, Avatar sucked. It was the same story that's been told four hundred times over. But god dammit, it looked fantastic. It was visually stunning and for that reason, any movie that uses 3D or creates some sort of new world has to be able to capture the sort of wonder that Avatar induced, or else it just cannot compare. In short: I found myself taking off my glasses at numerous points and didn't see too much of a difference.

Verdict: Meh... less than Stoked. If you think you're going to love this movie, you probably will. It will meet your expectations, and exceed them if you happen to have your standards set pretty low. This movie's nothing spectacular and fails to compete with its animated predecessor.

A Life in Images

Finally!, the theater for Cinema 10 was packed the way it should have been. I’d like to think that all my advertising and blogs and hype have helped a little bit, but that’s probably not the case. I don’t really care. I’m just glad that more people are coming out to support important independent and foreign cinema. I don’t know what compelled people to come to the screening of “Los abrazos rotos (2009),” but they certainly didn’t walk away disappointed, clapping at the screen as the credits began to roll. While it wasn’t the best film I’ve ever seen, Almodovar’s fourth venture with Penelope Cruz certainly waswas inspired, vibrant, and entertaining.

The film is a multi-layered and angled look at the life of blind film-maker Mateo Blanco who we instantly recognize as a charming and passionate dude that throws himself at whatever he wants. The other players are his production manager, Judit, and her son, Diego, who simultaneously propel and frustrate the plot throughout the course of the movie. They (and their actions) are, of course, catalysts for the change that must take place in order for Mateo to overcome the death of his tragic lover, Lena.

The film jumps back and forth between times and places, to Mateo’s brief-love affair with vision and to Lena’s struggle to help her dying father which results in being tied to a man whose obsession with her dilutes any feelings she could ever reciprocate. The refusal to focus is initially confusing, but ultimately deliberate; it feels like there are a million different ideas thrust forth at once - muddling the picture - but it all comes together beautifully in the end. Likewise, the film can be surmised in two brief moments: when Diego finds a heavy, full grocery bag in Mateo’s locked desk drawer, and secondly when he finally opens it, spilling its contents over a table in a jumbled mass. Offscreen, Diego begins the impossible process of piecing together the hundreds of thousands of torn photographs of Mateo and Lena. Onscreen, we catch only a sideways glance at the one picture that Diego has assembled, but it’s enough so that we get an idea of what Almodovar wants from us without his message being overt.

“Broken Embraces” is also a comment on the film making process. On the whole, the many layers create a story within a story within a story within a story, where different actions and aspects of each piece affect every other layer. The creative process is often subject to this complex relationship, so it’s kind of refreshing that Almodovar acknowledges this. Mateo’s blindness (and subsequent alter ego) allow him to take a step back and approach his art from a new angle, a frustrating necessity of all artistic endeavors.

As always, though, I do have some gripes; this is not as great a film as some of the other Spanish films I’ve encountered (Ahem…). Though most everything comes together, the plot does seem to meander at points, suggesting subplots that could have been omitted. There’s also a revelation at the end that is entirely unnecessary, as it’s hinted at nonstop for 2 hours prior and follows another revelation that is far more profound. I suppose I just mean that in a film that is otherwise so deep and clever, there are a few moments that leave me asking “so what?”

Verdict: A little more than Stoked. I'm starting to think that I should invest some time in Almodovar's other films. His ideas and directions are powerful and provocative, and he ends this one with the very profound suggestion that films (and art and life and love and and and and) should be finished, whether or not sight is a gift you possess.

My apologies!

So sorry that I haven't updated this in a while. It's been a crazy week, but I promise I'll have at least three updates done for Monday, including the upcoming Cinema 10 film, "Broken Embraces (2009)." Congratulations to SUNY Potsdam student, Brian Bond, on winning the Cinema 10 Season Pass by listening to my radio show on Friday.

Keep reading for an update on how to win the remaining Season Pass on my next radio show, this Friday at 2 pm.

Soul Power

I literally just sat down to my computer after leaving the theater for tonight's Cinema 10 screening of "Soul Power (2008)," a film that's been delayed since last semester. My review for the first film of the season took a few days to be published because I felt like the other things I was doing were much more important. But I could not wait to get back to my computer so I could write down my thoughts on this powerful, awe-inspiring movie. As a matter of fact, I'm currently in the process of scouring all free-sources available for James Brown and BB King music - something I never imagined myself doing. I've never really been fond of blues or soul or funk or anything to that effect until tonight. I wish now more than ever that this film hadn't been delayed so I would have been moved by this music before my last few months as an undergraduate. I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll actually say something about the movie's content.

"Soul Power" documents a 1974 music festival that took place in Zaire featuring the legendary James Brown, BB King, Bill Withers, and a slew of others. The three day event was meant to coincide with a heavy-weight boxing match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, but that was ultimately postponed. At first, the film is just a bunch of musicians and promoters talking about how important this music festival is, some interviews, and some footage of stages being erected and sound equipment being tested. There are beautiful shots of women carrying their children sandwiched between scenes of press conferences, while any type of music places throughout. This is all entertaining, certainly, but the film really picks up as the bands begin their journey across the ocean to Zaire; it's a plane ride filled with loud, improvised music, and more uplifting back-and-forth about how important the movement we're all about to witness is. From that point on, almost all of the time is taken up by concert footage, and I haven't a single gripe with that. Whether or not I had any knowledge of the artist performing didn't matter; each musician played their instrument so skillfully and confidently that to snub would surely be a sign that you hate fun.

I've found with Cinema 10 films that a common theme is the idea of the language barrier. That is: our different languages keep us from forming meaningful connections. Whether this is present in the film itself (between two characters from different-speaking countries) or between the film and the audience (an English speaking viewer reading subtitles and missing the subtleties of a foreign film), the language barrier seems to be a constant. This film seems to reject this notion, though. At numerous points throughout the film, one person or another comments on the fact that many of the musicians performing speak English, while the bulk of the audience is French-speaking. Despite this, they say that everyone listening knows every lyric to every song. They dance and sing like the music was written just for them. It is the music that brings them together and allows them to embrace one another. It sounds almost hokey when you put it in writing like this, but there's no other way to put it: this film is about people joining together through the power of music and the happiness it can bring without regard for race or beliefs.

Verdict: More Stoked than I have ever been. This is one of the best films that Cinema 10 has brought to Potsdam, second only to "Synecdoche, New York (2008)", and was by far the most fun film they have ever had. From start to finish, this film is nothing short of fantastic and wonderful. I only wish more people had attended so that more people would know about this great piece of art we have. Ignore the relatively low rating that IMDb gives it. Do anything you can to get ahold of this movie, and then find all of its music (preferably on Vinyl).

A Series of Sappy Events

Watched "Dear John (2010)" last week at a midnight screening just because it was free and I had nothing better to do. How wrong I was. I absolutely had better things to do than sit through this absurd, plotless, meandering joke of a film. Having seen and enjoyed one other Nicholas Spark adaptation, I expected to be entertained at the very least. And I was, but only by the comments my friends and I shouted at the screen. Literally nothing happens in this movie. There are four hundred little conflicts that are as resolved as quickly as they appear, and a million loose ends that no one bothers to tie up. The acting is boring and totally uninspired (except for that of Richard Jenkins), allowing for characters that are purely surface.

Verdict: So unStoked, it's unreasonable. Do not go see this movie. Don't even see this movie to laugh at it. It is a boring, insulting, and trite movie that a friend could only describe as "A series of Sappy events." Fuck "Dear John" and protest the fact that all of his other books are going to get optioned because it took the number one spot over "Avatar (2009)" after two months. God dammit.

Amreeka!

Monday night was the season opener for the Spring session of Cinema 10. Attendance was a little lower than I had expected, as people generally come out in droves for the first film of the season. People seemed in good spirits, though, responding well to Holly's pleas for the audience to do well by their garbage and to support local businesses. The mood of the film was appropriate for a season opener: light-hearted but somewhat commanding.

"Amreeka (2009)" follows a Palestinian woman (Muna) and her son (Fadi) as they travel to America to seek out better lives for themselves. We're introduced to them by way of their cramped, uncomfortable home life that is constantly interrupted by military check points and nagging mothers; it's a life that the viewing audience does not envy. Pathos is established here - blah, blah, blah. It's a relatively tame opening and offers nothing fresh to the cinematic world (though experiencing their plight alongside them is frustrating). Where the film gets interesting is when they finally arrive in America and are immediately subjected to culture clashes that make our pair long for the home they so desperately fled. But the politics p`resent in this type of film are set aside for the most part, and that's why this film is refreshing. It becomes less about a woman being of foreign descent, and more about trying to fit into a world that does not want anyone new.

Muna, a banker in her homeland, seeks out employment at any of the 400 banks surrounding her now house, only to find that the language barrier stops all her efforts dead. Naturally, she resorts to a fast food restaurant. Despite her success, she feels a great deal of shame and so hides the fact from all those close to her. Meanwhile, her son becomes involved in disputes with local racists, and the plot unfolds from there in a predictable way that is both satisfying and disappointing. I won't spoil anything, because it's a film that is definitely worth watching, and almost certainly worth re-watching. That is not to say that the political lining (which is ever-present) is so dense that it cannot possibly be comprehended in a single viewing. I just mean that the film was entertaining and suggested a political agenda in a way that wasn't overwhelming.

Also noteworthy is the film's camera work. It seems as though the film makers employed hand-held cameras for the majority of this film, and the way they utilize them gives the audience the feeling that they're not only watching, but experiencing. The shots feel as though they're from the perspective of a member of the family standing just in the background.


Verdict: Just Stoked. While I probably won't buy this movie, I would watch it again should the opportunity present itself. There are certain movies that are so dense and depressing that I can only condone a single viewing per year (Ahem...), and this definitely doesn't fall into that category. One friend said that this is on her on-demand list on Cable where she lives. Check it out if you've got the luxury.

Brutal Fucking Justice

Ya know, everyone gives Mel a hard time. Maybe it's the hate-on he's got for one particular group of people. It's okay if you don't like Mel Gibson for that reason. That's just fine. There's one thing you've got to remember about good ol' Mel, though: when someone fucks with his proverbial shit, he won't stand for it. When he gets the word "revenge" in his head, he doesn't rest until he's got a scumbag's decapitated head mounted on his mantel. So to speak.

What I mean to say is that despite all of his shortcomings, Mel Gibson doesn't fuck up when it comes to his fictional characters getting what's coming to them. He proved this in the 90s (Ahem...), and is proving it again in 2010. Caught a midnight screening of "Edge of Darkness," tonight, and all I can say is that I honestly forgot that it was titled as such. I had convinced myself that it was called "Brutal Justice," because that's what this movie was. Everyone gets shot or run over or punched. And while there are parts (and conspiracies) that are mildly hokey (and utilize the hot words "turrrrr" and "turrrist"), the movie is incredibly entertaining. It's really just another movie about how corporations are awful and will do anything for money, but most other movies don't utilize brutal justice to the degree that Mel Gibson does.

Verdict: Brutally Stoked.A friend told me he couldn't wait to see this because he thought it was going to be comedy of the year. Certainly there's a fair amount of unintentional humor, but it's really only the result of failed attempts at one-liners. In actuality, this was by far one of the better thrillers I've seen in the last few years. I could have gone without "terrorist" and "threat to America" business, but that seems to be what movies use these days and it's not going to stop anytime soon. Mel doles out brutal justice with ease throughout the course of the movie, but nothing is as satisfying as his use of dairy products in the final showdown. Great revenge flick.

Youth In Revolt

I loved Michael Cera in "Superbad (2007)". I think he, Jonah Hill, and every other cast and crew member of that film worked together to make one of the best comedies I've ever seen. And then Cera played the same character that year in "Juno". Then last year that same character had long hair in "Year One". He seemed to have found a niche in playing awkward teenagers, but after he knocked up Juno, I felt the character was a little played out. So you can understand my nervousness when making the trip to see "Youth in Revolt (2009)". But my fears were for nothing. Turns out Michael Cera can play more than one character, quite literally. While "Revolt" wasn't the best comedy I've seen (and it certainly was no "Superbad"), it had moments that left me in hysterics.

From the beginning of the film, Cera's character Nick Twisp speaks in a much more calm, certain, and intellectual manner, though he certainly lacks what could qualify him for maturity. His interaction with his less-than-gifted peers and family members is great, but where the movie really picks up is when he creates the supplemental persona in "Francois Dillinger" so that he may better cater to his lady's desire for danger. The character is fantastic, doing all of the things Nick's subconscious demands, rudely shunning his mother and burning down half of Nick's town to impress Sheeni. While often an actor portraying two roles is campy and boring as shit (and generally just the same character with two different sets of clothing), Cera's portrayal is hilarious. Nick and Francois play off of each other in such a way that one needs constant reminder that they are both part of the same person. Cera plays a cocky, risk-taking asshole so well that I hope he continues to do so in later roles.

Mostly, though, I'm just glad to see that such a funny guy isn't a one-trick pony.

Verdict: Just Stoked. I will absolutely see this movie again. It's been a while since my friends and I saw a movie that we quoted immediately after leaving the theater. Maybe so long ago as "Inlgourious Basterds (2009)." While out of context the quotes are fairly nonsensical, they are wonderful and funny, nonetheless. Like "Basterds," it ends with a line that sums up the previous celluloid perfectly.

Double Feature

Saw two movies tonight, "The Book of Eli (2010)" and "Youth In Revolt (2009)". Had to drive twenty miles to see the latter, and caught a midnight screening of the former. Neither were the movie I expected to see, but I don't have time to write about either of them. So I promise you I'll do them tomorrow.

As always, though, don't listen to anything I have to say and go see the movies for yourself.

Non-sparkly Vampires

Got a chance to see "Daybreakers (2009)" last night and as a result of sheer hatred for the other work I have to do, I'm writing a review instead. The trailers and tv spots expose the premise very well, and I wasn't shocked when the movie started. The set up involves a strange virus that's transformed humanity into a bunch of blood sucking bastards. But whereas with most vampire flicks, the creatures are the "others," they are the norm in this world. One large corporation for which the protagonist, Edward, works specializes in farming the last remaining humans for their blood. But, oh no! The supply is running thin, and it's up to some crafty vampire scientists to find a blood substitute. The acting and not-horrible script produce a movie that is less like its Vampire-flick counterparts of today and more like classic (and totally awesome) Vampire-flicks of another decade entirely (Ahem...)

While there's certainly a little extra cheese than necessary, it certainly doesn't use melodrama as a plot device like every other fanged release in the past few years. This movie's full of old-school Vampires with no reflections and self-destruct buttons implanted in places that only stakes can reach. Sure, there's the sex appeal, but it doesn't cause sexual tension that can never be resolved because the Vampires are 14. It even pushes the genre forward by suggesting a cure that has always only been the cause of destruction in the past.

Verdict: Fairly Stoked. I would see this again, but it's nothing to rave about. A little social commentary is tossed in for flavor, but it's almost too overt; everybody knows that corporations are evil. The message is a little played out dramatically. Go see it if you still have a chance but don't wear your Team Edward shirt and boots and hairband and gloves and eyeliner.

Whoa!

Where have I been?! I don't know. But I haven't had internet for a few weeks, that's for sure. So I apologize wholeheartedly for my absence. I'll hopefully be able to get back to writing these blogs soon; I've got a lot of catching up to do. Saw quite a few movies (some more than once) over the break, and now I'm ready to praise and/or tear them apart. Stay tuned but don't hold your breath for the next review.