Friday Review: The Imposter (2012)

The Imposter is a documentary that promises a lot and delivers a lot, just not as much as you would like.

This true story revolves around the question: how much would a grieving family be willing to believe? As a discussion of this question the film is fairly effective but it falls short in other areas. The film follows the Barclay family, who, in 1994, lost their son and brother Nicholas. He vanished one afternoon and was never found. Three years later a young French man was found in Spain claiming to be Nicholas.  It was, in fact, Frédéric Bourdin a twenty three year old who had made something of a career out of impersonating missing children. The documentary makes this clear from the very beginning, having Bourdin tell his side of the story. And what a story it is. He discusses how he manipulated law enforcement and social services, and how he was an unwanted child, implying a sort of motivation for his actions. Thankfully, director Bart Layton doesn't send a lot of time trying to garner sympathy for Bourdin, something which would have been forced and unwelcome. Rather, the film focuses on the suspension of belief required for this family to accept someone who was clearly not their son as their own. Bourdin seems shocked too. While it is understandable that a family, mourning their loss, would want to believe that this stranger was their son, and it is even  plausible that overworked child care workers in Spain would believe his story, it seems incredulous that various Embassy officials and even the FBI believed his story. Bourdin concocts a story about being kidnapped by the military and flown from country to country, used as a sex slave and forced to speak only in Spanish. A horrifying story but an incredulous one, not  least of all because Bourdin speaks with a marked French accent  which a native speaker would never acquire (as someone thankfully points out) and could not be mistaken for a Spanish one, if he indeed was forced to speak Spanish,  nevermind such claims as  his claim that acid was poured on his eyes to make them change colour.  This story is wholly implausible, yet nearly everyone bought it. The question then becomes why the family would accept it, do they have something to hide? A private detective believes that they themselves killed Nicholas and even Bourdin agrees, but no body is even found and to this day the case remains unsolved. Bourdin is shortly found out and sentenced to 6 years in jail before moving to France and,  after continuing his impersonation career, finally settles down.The documentary doesn't have a conclusion because there is no conclusion, at least that the filmmakers and audience are aware of, yet the film is set u so you believe there will be some final answers, something which makes the ending oddly dissatisfying. It is however, a well made film and worth watching, if not for the cinematography and production (which is pitch perfect) then for the questions it asks. 

image credit

Friday Review-Doctor Who 'The Snowmen'

Doctor Who is a show that is, above all, irreverent as it completely disregards the standards and norms of Sci-Fi/Fantasy and television in general. That irreverence sometimes works brilliantly for the show but, at other times renders the show unwatchable and even pretentious. Luckily, however, this year's Christmas special was carefree and enjoyable even if it suffered a bit from the departure of Amy (Karen Gillan) and Rory (Arthur Darvill) after the first half of Season 7. Even though I haven't been a fan of some of the choices showrunner Steven Moffat has made regarding the past few seasons, I have greatly enjoyed Matt Smith's portrayal of the Doctor. He is charming and vulnerable, although "The Snowmen" finds him mostly in vulnerable mode as he lives above 19th century London, refusing to help since his help seems to go consistently unnoticed. However, thanks to an evil Doctor Simeon and a spunky governess (Jenna Louise Coleman) he gets his mojo back and, of course, saves the world.

Our villain, Simeon, was once a reclusive child with only an evil snowman to talk to. Now he's an adult and commands a whole army of evil snow beings, voiced by none other than Ian McKellan. Simeon seems to have frequent run ins with with Lady Vastra, a lizard woman who is set up as a Sherlock Holmes character along with her partner Jenny. When Simeon says that they are suspiciously close, Vastra retorts that she resents his implication of impropriety. Jenny and Vastra, are in fact, married. The advantage of fantasy and science fiction in general is that is has always been ahead of the pack in terms of societal norms. Star Trek was the first show to depict an interracial kiss and likewise, Doctor Who embraces it's gay and straight characters equally. More importantly perhaps is that the implication, at least in the past seven seasons is that, Doctor Who is, in fact, bisexual. Christopher Eccleston's Doctor had a flirtation with Captain Jack, while Matt Smith's Doctor has played with the same implication many times. And why not? He is an otherworldly being, why would he be held down by our prudish human notions of sexuality?

Meanwhile, Clara, is a lovely and, of course, gregarious (how else would she get the Doctor's attention?) Governess/part time pub employee. She has a run in with one of the evil snowmen but the doctor tells her that they are dependent on her thoughts so she has to distract herself from thinking about them. Isn't that always the way it goes? After that he takes off to his home, that is, the newly refurbished TARDIS which is perched  atop a cloud. Clara heads off to her Governess job where the young girl in her charge is having nightmares about the previous Governess who tragically drowned in the pond and is now, we soon learn, the last piece in the puzzle for the evil snow which will soon become a fully realised villain. After a game with Lady Vastra where she is only permitted to give one word answers, Clara gets the Doctor's attention with the word (name?) " pond". Of course, everything gets wrapped up nice and neatly, with Clara's untimely death ultimately saving the day. Not to worry though, the Doctor fires up the TARDIS and heads to another time to find her and make her his companion.

It could be argued that a lot of the conflict as well as it's resolution felt contrived and implausible but this is Doctor Who we're talking about. A show that uses improbability as one of its main plot points. Still,  "The Snowmen"  wasn't one of the strongest Christmas specials, nor episodes. However it was enjoyable, and had several extremely well done moments. I just hope that the rest of season 7 shows more of the Doctor's sadness about losing Amy and Rory.

Friday Review-Martha Marcy May Marlene

Martha Marcy May Marlene is an indie film with leanings towards melodrama and B-movie horror; nonetheless, it’s a disturbing study of a mind destroyed by an abusive cult. Elizabeth Olsen gives a wide eyed performance as Martha, a cult member who flees and is taken in by her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and her husband, Ted (Hugh Dancy). Lucy doesn’t know where her younger sister has been and Martha doesn’t tell her. Instead her whereabouts are revealed through flashbacks that depict her time in a deeply misogynistic cult that glorified rape and group sex, and as all cults, was led by a charismatic, if not evil leader . As her actions become increasingly weird, Ted and Lucy’s frustration with Martha is palpable and it’s not hard to identify with their frustration, even anger. Still the innocence and naiveté with which Olsen portrays Martha make her actions seem, if not understandable at least understandable given the hardships which we know Martha has suffered.  Like a good melodrama the setting is Ted and Lucy’s lakeside cabin, it’s secluded and other characters rarely make an appearance and when they do the results are never good. As the film goes on we sense a violent ending is coming, and we become more convinced the more we learn about the cult and it’s troubling, although well played, leader Patrick (John Hawkes). Indeed violence escalates both in Martha’s past and perhaps in her present too as she becomes increasingly concerned that the cult is coming after her. Are they? We don’t know, which makes the final scene of the film all the more troubling and inconclusive. We never find out if the cult reclaims Martha but is this a credit or discredit to the film? On one hand, as the title suggests, this is a film about a fragmented personality, and as such is successful, however, I would argue that whether the cult is coming after Martha, and whether she is killed or forced to rejoin the cult is important and valuable information for the film and for the viewer’s interpretation of the film . Furthermore, Martha Marcy May, Marlene is arguably not a statement film. That is, it doesn’t say much about the kind of people drawn to the cult nor what the social implications of this are.  Nonetheless, it is a thought provoking and troubling film, one filled with great performances and certainly worth a watch.

image source

Friday Review (Sunday Edition)-Young Adult

I was never a fan of Juno, since I found it completely unsurprising and all the main "points" uninspiring. However, Young Adult, helmed by the same Jason Reitman/Diablo Cody duo was, for the most part, a moving and complicated film. Charlize Theron shines as a depressed writer, returning to her hometown in pursuit of a high school sweetheart. Theron is Mavis Gary, a ghostwriter for a young adult series that was once successful but is now on it's last leg. Like the characters in her books, Mavis a 37 year old woman, has a high school mentality. Despite her failures ( a failed marriage and obvious mental health problems) she still believes she is superior because she is beautiful. She subsists on a diet of coke and junk food, cares about no one and doesn't believe she has to do anything adults do, even neglecting her own dog. When Mavis finds out that her college boyfriend, Buddy (Patrick Wilson) has had a baby she decides to head to her home town to try and win him back.  It's clear from an opening scene that depicts Mavis and another high school friend in a McCafe talking about how lucky they are to have escaped their small town that Mavis isn't going to find the results she seeks back home. Back home she quickly becomes friends with a former classmate,  Matt (Patton Oswald). Matt was so severely beaten as a teenager that he now walks with a crutch and has, let's say, problems in the bedroom. The two spend most of the film getting drunk and discussing who has bigger problems  They are a likable duo but present one of the major flaws with the film. Certainly, both of these characters seem to be in need of growing up and letting the past go, but there is a glibness in the way their issues are discussed. Although Charlize Theron's performance is nuanced and emotionally complex  ranging from sympathetic to downright embarrassing, the film seems to believe, as it's characters do that she should just "grow up". If the implication is that Mavis is a depressed alcoholic, there is something troubling about this treatment of her. Furthermore, Matt's character doesn't have the power or depth he was, perhaps, intended to have. As a character study the film works and is emotionally moving, thanks to Theron,  however, it is not cheerful, nor does it provide a sound and satisfying ending. This isn't a problem if you want a realistic or semi-realistic film but if you're looking for something escapist this isn't the film for you.

In another twist, although one which seems to be increasingly popular in mainstream American media, Mavis doesn't come home and find a wasteland of uncultured hicks, or if the people she meets do fit that stereotype, they are happy that way.  They might even be more culturally aware than she is, in a confrontation with a book store employee she is informed that her books are no longer as successful as they were, something she seems in denial about. While her high school classmates have had the chance to move on she is stuck in her high school glory days, unwilling to concede that the things that were important then, no longer are and that she will need to find new ways of defining her success. Sure, she is beautiful (and bitchy) but those things can no longer get her what she wants, as evidenced by her failure to lure Buddy away from his wife. Most significantly, though, is the fact that Mavis isn't portrayed as either good or bad, she just is. At times she's likable, at others heartbreaking and at others infuriating, but never one dimensional. The film doesn't reach a real conclusion, Mavis never sorts out her issues, to use a cliché and she certainly doesn't get what she wants. What she does get is encouragement from an unlikely source to carry on being herself. Whether this is good, bad or simply just is, we don't know.

Bottom Line: Theron has shown over and over again what a stellar actress she is and this film, is nothing else, is further proof of her genius on the big screen.

Friday Review-Kristen Stewart's Florabotanica Interview

Holy crap, y'all, there is a reason this interview is being mocked all around the internet. Not only is it completely ridiculous but also torturous to watch. Kristen Stewart bumbles her way through various questions about the fragrance, fashion and French style all the while insulting numerous people and raising many other questions, namely "Why would anyone choose to have Kristen Stewart as the face of their high-fashion brand?" Even Kristen Stewart must be wondering that as she makes comments about how the perfume doesn't smell old lady-ish, how French people really are stereotyped and how she never thinks about fashion. Despite the fact that she drops Nicolas Ghesquière's name many times it is clear she doesn't have a bloody clue what she is talking about.  Now, I don't like Kristen Stewart and I certainly do not like her "I'm too cool and individual to care about fashion, or, you know, smiling" attitude. The fact is, no matter how individual she thinks she is, she has received an amount of money that most of us can only dream of to represent a brand. Sure, we can criticize high fashion but like anything else it is a fantasy, it is an idea, and it's Kristen Stewart's job to sell that brand, something she did an absolutely horrible job of. If she wants to go home and fart around, drink beer and watch sports, that's her prerogative but when she's in a live interview for a perfume like this she should be elegant, classy and have a modicum of respect for her fans and for Balenciaga. Yes, some of the questions were obviously difficult for her but would those questions have been difficult for someone else, someone a bit more mature, a bit more interested in actually having their face as the face of a prestigious company like this? That said, it's a bit hard to blame Kristen Stewart for everything here. She clearly needed some guidance on how to answer the questions and her "people" or friends and family or, for heaven's sake the people at Florabotanica can, perhaps, be blamed for not counselling her a bit on how to act (ie: not to spend the whole interview acting like you are in an advert for restless leg syndrome) and what to say. Even if the questions really were a surprise (doubtful) they weren't  surprising and she could have been advised on how to answer them or similar questions.

Bottom Line: Not unlike watching a car crash.



picture source: canadiangiftguide.com

Friday Film Review-Something Borrowed (2011)

Since immediately upon finishing this film I regretted watching it, I wasn't going to review it but then I started thinking about how mad it made me and had to write about it.

Hollywood seems to know that audiences don't really like cheaters and it solves this in one simple way. The character being cheated on is a vapid, self-obsessed asshole who wasn't really in love with his or her philandering partner anyway. The problem with this story line is that if someone was really such a cold-hearted and wretched person, what is  their partner  the all around good guy/girl doing with them in the first place? At least that's the issue with Something Borrowed. Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin-who has found her niche as the dowdy doormat) is 30 and single, meanwhile her best friend, Darcy ( Kate Hudson-who has found her niche as the bitchy airhead) is marrying her (Rachel's) longtime crush, Dexter (Colin Egglesfield). After some ill advised drinks Rachel and Dexter hook up and start a 'torrid' affair. The rest of the film is Rachel moping around, Darcy flitting around, Dexter sniffling and whining around and Ethan (John Krasinski), Rachel's friend and sole voice of reason, telling everyone what idiots they are (he's not wrong).  The issue is not necessarily that this film is about characters who have an affair, it's that it's impossible to like any of these characters. Rachel, Dexter and Darcy are all so childish and mean to each other, that at least this viewer really wished they would all end up alone. But the absolute worst moment in this atrocity passed of as a movie was the ending. Darcy admits that she cheated on Dexter and is pregnant, then finds out about Dexter and Rachel and is, understandably, angry, just not angry enough. By the end she's forgiven all and Dex and Rachel ride off into the metaphorical sunset with no consequences, doubts or apologies, into what will surely be the most boring relationship ever. Romantic comedies have never been the beacon of morality or genuine character studies but even the tiniest dose of reality would aid this film (if it can be called that) greatly. I do not know any woman (or man) who would return to being friends with someone who broke up their engagement. Even if everyone really was better off in the end there would still be raw emotions and some awkward meetings.  Furthermore, Rachel is as empty headed and cold as Darcy, so there is no reason for her to win the 'prize' that is Dex, and the fact that a man is a prize at all is questionable but that's a topic for another post. In the end this film is supposed to be about friendship but with friends like these, who needs enemies?

Bottom Line: Life is short, don't waste any time on this! Also, to Kate Hudson, next time your agent offers you a rom-com, back slowly away! Do it for us!

image source

Friday Review-I Don't Know How She Does It (2011)

Back in the 1980's it was hard to be a working mother and the good folks who made 9 to 5 showed us how to do it-with weed, humour and rat poison. 30 years later , guess what, it is still hard to be a working mother yet it is seemingly impossible to make a decent movie about it. I Don't Know How She Does it, the movie with the worst title ever, attempts to talk about the issues women face in the work place but is so conservative that I don't know exactly which women could possibly relate to this. Sarah Jessica Parker is Kate, a high powered executive with two children and a husband (Greg Kinnear). Kate tries to juggle all of this by being perpetually cheerful, buying pies from the market and then pretending she made them herself and bitching to her best friend (Christina Hendricks). Meanwhile,mean mom, Wendy (Busy Philipps) goes to the gym all day and brags about what a great mother she is. All the female characters get to share their innermost thoughts via monologues. Sadly these monologues are tired and rehashed. Things change when Kate gets promoted and she must spend more time in New York with the ever so handsome and charming Jack  (Pierce Brosnan) (damn, he really is handsome though). Naturally there are feelings and temptations but nothing happens nor even comes close to happening unless you consider lengthy discussions about what signing your messages with 'xo' means 'something'. Meanwhile, Kate's coworker, Momo (a show stealing Olivia Munn) who is a workaholic with no desire for children, accidentally gets pregnant. She intends to get an abortion (of course this is a Hollywood movie so there is no a-word mentioned) but a 'heartwarming' speech from Kate changes her mind and when she finally has the child she is overwhelmed with emotion, naturally and by the end of the film everyone has agreed that motherhood is the most important thing any woman can do. The problem I have with a film like this is that it pretends it's about the struggles women face, except that the women don't really struggle. Kate doesn't ever feel torn between her husband and Jack and has no problem deciding not to have an affair, glibly telling a heartbroken Jack that she is going to stay with her husband and that he'll find someone great (the most patronising statement ever heard by single ears) and Momo doesn't struggle at all with her decision to have the baby. Furthermore the mean girl antics between the working moms and the stay at home moms is ridiculous. Yes, women are competitive but I think if there's something that Hollywood movies should be promoting it is the idea that women can make completely different life choices and still get along, not the idea that women never cheat or have abortions. Even if you stand squarely against abortion and those who have affairs, it must be recognised that those things happen, and pretending that they don't doesn't do any favours to feminism or quality film making. If you want to watch  a film about women, I suggest any other film than this one (obviously excluding anything with Kate Hudson, especially that stinking turd "Something Borrowed", the only film I've watched this year that was worse than I Don't Know How She Does It).

Bottom Line: A 1950's advice book for women is more modern than this movie.

image source

Friday Film Review-The Hunger Games(2012)

Those of you who read my review of the book know that I am not a fan of The Hunger Games. What irked me most about the book was the feeling I had that the author, Suzanne Collins, was under the impression that she had created something new, when, in reality books  stories of dystopia  and stories about children being cruel abound. Secondly, if Collins was making a point I'm not sure what it was. Character development, inner turmoil, drama- these were things that were all absent from the book. Furthermore, I didn't like what the book had to say about feminism. Prim and her mother are both presented as weak, fragile characters while Katniss is only strong because she is 'like a man'. But, I digress.  Perhaps because it is a story about television and what we are willing to watch on television I thought that the book translated well to the big screen. In The Hunger Games what was once North America is now divided into 12 Districts, collectively called Panem. Each year, one teenage boy and one teenage girl from each district are sent to an arena where they must fight to the death, all on live television. This is to meant to keep the population under control, meanwhile in the Capitol the bigwigs live the high life. There are, for this reviewer, some issues with this plot in general. The logic of having children fight to the death is a bit convoluted. Nonetheless, this is a review of the film and in that sense the film was well done. The idea that we are desensitized by the images we are bombarded with came across nicely in scenes where the contestants were dressed up and paraded around days before they will be brutally killed. Jennifer Lawrence delivered a solid performance as Katniss and the rest of the cast was equally strong, or at least no one stood out as significantly better or worse.  The music and costuming were well done,although same as in the book, I'm not sure what the idea behind the absolutely ridiculous costumes was. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) was well done, and, in fact,made more painful by the fact that we could see the exression on Gale's (Liam Hemsworth). In the end it was details like this that made it a good watch. Some will argue that there were things from the book that were left out but I would not necessarily say, in this case, that that was a bad thing.

Bottom Line:  Not a masterpiece but certainly a good watch.
image source

Friday Film Review- Ted

Faithful readers know that films that are crass for the sake of being crass never get good reviews from me. That said, Ted is actually quite a funny trip through pop culture references and the trials of adulthood. John (Mark Wahlberg) is a 35 year old rental car company employee who smokes too much weed and is best friends with Ted, a teddy bear he wished to life when he was only 8 years old.  Ted is the best friend who gives bad advice and is generally the bane of any girlfriend's existence, certainly that of Lori (Mila Kunis), John's girlfriend. There's nothing particularly fresh about the plot, John is forced to make a choice between  Lori and Ted, but eventually gets to keep both anyway. For the most part Ted is spot on with its references, jokes and over-the-top style. Filled with racism, sexism and homophobia, the film is what you expect from director Seth McFarlane who also voices Ted. In the funniest scene of the film, Ted and John party too hard with Flash Gordon, get stoned, sing karaoke, get into a ridiculous fight and stab someone. Yet, despite the fact that there were some genuinely funny moments, a great narration by Patrick Stewart, and witty cameos from everyone from Norah Jones to Ryan Reynolds, at times Ted just tries to hard to push boundaries. I'm all for pushing boundaries, but only when it meets some end and several scenes, like Ted having sex with a cashier, had no redeeming qualities. Furthermore, as Ted goes on it only becomes shakier and more disjointed with an abusive and creepy father (Giovanni Ribisi) kidnapping Ted, a car chase, and of course, a final showdown. Everything ends happily, nonetheless, the last act feels like it was spliced in from a different and more poorly written film. Overall, Ted is not a great film but it does have some funny and spot-on moments, as such it's a passable summer watch, especially if you're a fan of pop-culture references and gross out comedy.

Friday Film Review- Elefante Blanco (2012)

Even as I write this I feel guilty for not enjoying Elefante Blanco more than I did. This Argentinian film centres on the slums of Buenos Aires where two priests, Father Julián (Ricardo Darín) and Father Nicolás (Jérémie Renier) are attempting to navigate the drug wars and poverty of the worst neighbourhood in the city. The title of the film comes from the name of the crumbling building that was supposed to be a hospital but remains an unfinished home to the homeless, an ever present feature of the film. The problem with Elefante Blanco is not that there aren't interesting characters or plots, the problem is that they all churn along while the audience is left wondering what the significance of each really is. A film like this has a lot to say, but Elefante Blanco doesn't seem to say anything. Nicolás starts a tabooed relationship with a social worker (Martina Gusman), for example, but while we feel that it must indeed be taboo, the film does nothing to dramatize or highlight this, leaving the viewers with the sensation that their romance is unneeded filler in an already heavy handed film. And the sex scene could have been plucked from virtually any other movie. Both Julián and Nicolás care deeply for the people of this neighbourhood but they take different approaches. Nicolás wants to get involved, perhaps because he still feels the trauma of a massacre he witnessed in the Amazonian jungles in one of the opening scenes of the film. Meanwhile, Julián takes a more peaceful approach, and certainly there are many comparisons drawn between him and the Marxist activist and priest Father Carlos Mujica who was shot in 1974 and who is also a mainstay of the film. Both priests have their faith tested by the violence and helplessness of their environment, but again the depiction of these trials doesn't seem to do justice to what the characters must certainly be feeling. Add in a brain tumor for Father Julián and you have a film full of plot lines that are loaded with potential, potential that doesn't go anywhere significant. There is no doubt that this is a beautifully shot and scored film filled with great performances. Director Pablo Trapero is evidently passionate for his characters, the church and Buenos Aires and as such this is a film certainly worth seeing. It is however, one that leaves one with more questions than answers.

Picture source

Friday Review-The Woman in Black (2012)

`
Daniel Radcliff is an actor that has made a valiant and successful attempt at leaving his Harry Potter days behind by making bold, varied choices regarding his projects. The Woman in Black is one of those projects, a horror film set in 1920's England. As much as this film as elements that I like and as much as I wanted to like this film it still fell flat, for me, in many ways. Radcliff plays Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer-and father- whose career is on the line. In a last ditch attempt to save his career he is sent to the northern coast of England,  a place filled with marshes, poor communication and, as we soon find out, ghosts. Arthur's job is to sort out the estate of an old family mansion, a place so creepy it's hard to imagine anyone going there willingly. It's this kind of old fashioned horror movie setting that works for The Woman in Black.  The house is full of ominous children's toys, papers and death certificates, peeling wall paper with writing underneath, candles and all the other horror movie paraphernalia that anyone could want. There are some genuinely creepy moments-three girls jumping out of a window simultaneously, other worldly screams and faces appearing at the window. But if there's a flaw with this movie it's the lack of exposition and a plot that seems to be held together by fragments. When Kipps arrives in town no one warns him about the dangers of heading to the abandoned manner. A driver refuses to take Kipps there but no reason is given and Kipps doesn't ask. Perhaps, unlike me, he hasn't been raised on a steady diet of scary movies but common sense would seem to say that if someone refuses to take you somewhere there's usually a good reason. Also, unlike numerous horror movie protagonists before him, Kipps doesn't seem to want to 'chase the shadows' he's warned about, he just doesn't see a reason not to go to the mansion. In fact, Kipps seems remarkably indifferent to everything that goes on.  While I was jumping out of my seat, barely a look of fear crossed Radcliff's face and he seemed to have little sense of self preservation. Perhaps though, this was intentional since Kipps is an unhappy character, mourning the death of his wife and struggling to raise his son. It's Radcliff's mournful eyes that made him so endearing as Harry Potter and makes him so sympathetic as Kipps.Mournful eyes aside, Kipps seems barely invested in finding out what's going on, coming up with a solution or even saving himself. Despite the chills that the film offers though, the mystery just isn't mysterious enough. The reason for the children's deaths is known to everyone and the back story of the villainous woman in black is too much, too soon-she lost her son and now is exacting revenge on everyone else's children.As a fan of the mystery element in horror films I was disappointed by this. In spite of this, though, the production is right on with great camera work, setting, music and costuming. It won't keep you up at night but it does serve up some good scares.

Bottom Line: The Woman in Black doesn't live up to it's potential but it is an enjoyable and aesthetically pleasing film, certainly worth a watch. 

Friday Review-Midnight in Paris

When it comes to Woody Allen it's hard not to have mixed feelings, somehow he manages to be both insightful and annoying, yet Midnight in Paris manages to be 99% charming. Owen Wilson stars as Gil, a writer who is obsessed with the Paris of the 1920's. His dialogue is definitely Woody Allen-esque, at times too much so. However, Gil is also sweet and it's hard not to root for him. Gil is engaged to Inez (Rachel McAdams)  who is having an affair with Paul (Michael Sheen), and these two are insufferably pedantic, to use the word provided by Carla Bruni's tour guide role. To escape his ridiculous in laws, who spend most of their time talking about money and supporting conservative politics,  Gil wanders the streets of Paris at night, only to be magically transported to the 1920's Paris he so longs for. There he meets F. Scott Fitzgeald, Salvador Dalí (hilariously portrayed by Adrien Brody), Ernest Hemingway and many other icons of this age. It's not hard to be, like Gil, completely lured into this world of writers and artists, the sense of being at a time of great change and great art. The art direction is truly stunning and every detail glows. But Midnight in Paris is brutally self aware and knows all to well that nostalgia is a weapon at worst and at best misguided. According to the film, we are always at a time of great change and great art. While time traveling Gil meets and falls in love with Adriana, a charming and irresistible muse (Marion Cotillard). Adriana does not see anything magical about the 1920's and yearns for the Belle Époque, which she feels is the real time of perfection for Paris. One night the two are transported back to the Belle Époque where Adriana decides to stay but Gil, and a begrudging audience, learn their lesson. Every age appears great from the outside but nostalgia leads to missing what's important in the present. While the lesson seems preachy writing it here, Midnight in Paris is anything but preachy, rather it's a charming homage to a beautiful city in all it's ages. It also creates a world in which innocence and enthusiasm are the only two things required to experience such a magical city, while quasi-intellectualism and excessive wealth are only hindrances. Allen has created a film that is a love letter to a city, an age and to art and travel in all it's forms, and it's an enjoyable one at that. 

Friday Review-Jar City (2008)

People have mixed feelings about Netflix but if there's one thing that can be said for the TV and Film website it's that it has a wealth of foreign films that might otherwise go unnoticed and Jar City is one of these. An Icelandic film that is part murder mystery, part cop drama and all very dismal. When a murder is committed, tired detective, Erlendur (Ingvar E. Sigurdsson), finds a mysterious clue at the scene- a picture of a grave marker with the name of a young girl who died some thirty years earlier. Meanwhile, a young employee at a genetics lab  (Atli Rafn Sigurdarson ) is in mourning after the death of his young daughter from a genetic disease, a disease that shouldn't be in their family in the first place. In this small town these two stories intersect in ways that seem at once improbable and simultaneously realistic. Erlendur must also deal with a pregnant daughter who happens to be a drug addict as well, an alarming and realistic problem, especially in climates like these. The striking scenery of the film, the marshes of Iceland and the seemingly ever present cold and gray give this film a sort of mellow feel, not bombastic or over the top. There's no gore and most of the deaths, minus the original murder, seem to come about as the result of poor choices and/or disease and yet the film does not seem judgmental of it's characters, in fact, at times some more judgement seems necessary. Overall, Jar City is an enjoyable, although dark, film and a refreshing break from the sensationalism of its Hollywood counterparts. The juxtaposition of a genetics lab with the harsh reality of the injustice of death and suffering seems timely. Jar City is based on a book by  Arnaldur Indridason and I wouldn't hesitate to give it a read myself. If there's one thing that can be said about us Northern Climates (as one Netflix reviewer aptly noted, at times Iceland could easily pass for Manitoba) it is that we sure know how to make depressingly realistic crime drama (see also DaVinci's Inquest).

Friday Review-Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol (2012)

Friday, 10 February 2012

I love movies and every now and then I get in the mood to see something that involves minimal plot and maximum blowing up of things. If you are in a mood for such a film then Mission: Impossible is the perfect movie for you. As far as I can detect, like it's predecessors, Ghost Protocol, had a lot of cool technology, Russian accents, nukes and an almost indiscernible plot. Ethan (Tom Cruise, derr) is busted out of a Russian jail by Benji (Simon Pegg) and Jane (Paula Patton), who has a huge chip on her shoulder due to the fact that her hottie, (Josh Holloway) has been killed by a supermodel assassin. From there things get a bit murky. A rogue Russian has broken into the Kremlin and gotten nuclear launch codes and, presumably, has some nuclear bombs( to go with said codes) somewhere. What follows is a high speed chase that leads them from Russia to Dubai to India, all while dressed in slick costumes, using the latest technology (and Russian accents) and implementing some wicked stunts. Despite the fact that the Cold War has ended everywhere except for Hollywood, Ghost Protocol really is an enjoyable action film that works. Tom Cruise proves that he's still an action star, Simon Pegg is hilarious, Paula Patton is both gorgeous and clever as the female lead and Jeremy Renner is funny, suave and an action star in his own right. The stunts and special affects are visually thrilling and the twisty plot doesn't leave much to be desired, there's the classic switcheroo, sandstorms, car chases, Bollywood and lots and lots of fun technology. Most importantly though, Ghost Protocol doesn't take itself to seriously, sticks to being a Mission: Impossible film and is funny and charming enough that even the 2 hours and some time doesn't feel too long. Overall I was quite surprised at how easy to watch and how enjoyable Ghost Protocol was. If you're in the mood to watch something that is just simply a great time I highly recommend it.

Friday Film Review (Thursday Edition)-Dragon Crusaders

Thursday, 22 December 2011

I would like to preface this review with a conversation that I had with my cousin this week. More or less it went like this: "I love netflix" "me too, it has so many bad movies. Megashark Vs. Giant Octopus for example" "What about Blood Monkeys?" "That one was good too". This just proves that a passion for bad, even, really bad movies runs in the family. Dragon Crusaders was new on Netflix this week and yikes, this is one for the books. The first 5 minutes or so mainly consisted of various actors grunting and stabbing each other for no apparent reason. I would love to give some rundown of the plot but,er, I can't. Basically there are some Templar Knights who a.) can't speak (for real, I don't think any one of them gets more than 3 lines )and b.) have been banned from the Kings realm for some reason. They are out surveying the land or something when they find a town being slaughtered by pirates. The pirates do not get any lines. By the time our 'heroes' have arrived the town is dead so they do what anyone would do and chase the pirate boat. When they arrive there they find a girl doing some magic spell that will turn them into flying gargoyles. As one knight and my sister points out-why would you turn your enemies into giant flying monsters capable of way more damage than before? Anyway, they are all about to become gargoyles now. In the meantime the pirates come back to life as zombies and some woman with no pants shows up to help them with her super awesome fighting skills. They annihilate the zombies with their bad dialogue and then learn that they have to kill the evil...Black dragon, who controls  seven dragons, an extra black dragon and the gargoyles. They go to kill the Black Dragon and end up killing, basically everyone else they encounter before turning into gargoyles. Then turning back! Holy crap. I have seen some (a lot) of bad movies but this one was especially bad. Usually I reflect to myself "WHO WROTE THIS"? but I didn't even have to wonder who wrote this because I don't think anyone did. I mean, my dog could come up with more compelling dialogue, when there was any dialogue at all that is. Just like Shakira's lyrics are 85% nonesense, this film was 85% grunting and gibberish. The special affects were horrible and most homemade youtube videos are better edited than this "movie".  But since I think we should judge movies by what genre they belong to I think Dragon Crusaders deserves a 10/10 for complete fuckwittery. Let's consult the WHAT THE CRAP-O-METER.

Friday Review-La Ragazza Del Lago (The Girl by the Lake, 2007)

La Ragazza del Lago is an Italian melodrama set in a small mountainous village. According to IMDB it is set in the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region of Italy.  Here is a map in case you are like me and don't know where that is.

After  a young girl in her late teens-early twenties is found dead by a lake, everyone in the small village is suspect. An inspector from a larger city is called in to investigate. In true melodrama form there are many long shots of the, it must be said, beautiful village and a score filled with perfectly timed and seemingly anachronistic electronic music. The setting is well suited to a melodrama, indeed all the other recent melodramas of recent years that I can think of off the top of my head (The Deep End, In The Bedroom) also took place near water. The characters are brooding and mysterious, except for a few brief glimpses into their personal lives we don't get much information about them. The drama centers around the girl, Anna, and the family she used to babysit for until the tragic death of their son. The film deals strongly with issues surrounding mental illness. The inspectors own wife is ill and does not recognize him nor their daughter. The man who discovers the body of Anna is also mentally ill  and has a strained relationship with his father. Angelo, the boy Anna babysat was so severely ill that his death was something of a relief to his parents. Illness and our ways of coping with becomes the main theme as the film churns slowly to it's conclusion. By the time Anna's killer is revealed it is neither a surprise, nor a relief. Instead this film leaves you pondering what you would do if you were put in any of these characters' situations. 

Bottom Line: A well written, constructed and acted film La Ragazza Del Lago is an enjoyable and thought provoking watch. It's on netflix as well so if you have an account and a free evening/afternoon/morning this weekend and are trying to find something to watch this should be a contender.