Marebito

Japanese director Takashi Shimizu made Marebito in a little over a week, during a break between filming his horror film Ju-On and its American remake, The Grudge. Unsurprisingly, it's a lot more interesting than either of those movies. This peculiar slice of meta-horror is like an alternate-reality remake of Little Shop of Horrors, written by H.P. Lovecraft and directed by David Cronenberg.

I can't say the movie is entirely successful. Although occasionally creepy, it's never all that scary, and it's a lot better than building up tension than it is at paying off any of the various terrifying revelations it sets up. Still, for a movie shot on the fly, with digital cameras, in a week between making other, larger films, Marebito works well enough. Any movie that's this imaginative, unsettling and interesting is worthwhile, even if it's overwhelmed by its own style and it stumbles in the final half-hour.



Japanese actor-director Shinya Tsukamoto (maker of Tetsuo: The Iron Man, and star of Miike's famed Ichi the Killer) stars as a Tokyo cameraman slowly losing his grip on reality. Yes, this is another one of those movies where the supernatural events may all be in the head of an unreliable narrator. This whole "twist" is kind of being played out, particularly in Asian horror films, and it's only one of the unoriginal tropes that forms the basis of Shimizu's story. Somehow, he's able to fuse a lot of rather tired concepts into a story that feels somewhat fresh, but he's not wholly successful.

The cameraman, Masuoka, is gathering footage in a subway when he happens upon a man committing suicide. He captures the man gouging out his own eye with a knife on film, ad watches the tape over and over again. The look of horror on the suicidal man's face becomes an obsession. A cold, unfeeling, emotionless individual in his own right, Masuoka wants to experience the object terror that he sees in this man's face.

The quest eventually drives Masuoka underground, to the hidden, mysterious wasteland lying beneath the surface of Tokyo. He finds, among other things, a feral girl chained up in a craggy environment called "The Mountains of Madness" (the film's lone overt reference to the horror stories of Lovecraft), and of course he brings her back to his apartment.

Masuoka ritualistically films everything on a digital camera, and Shimizu continually cuts from his film to this grainy, dimly-lit footage. There are a number of scenes cleverly cutting between the two types of film, and the technique is occasionally successful at generating scares, but it's way overused during the course of the film. By the end, Shimizu's constant cutting back and forth has become annoying, diluting the tension right in the midst of a theoretically-scary sequence.

I mean, I think I get what he was going for. Masuoka is incapable of experiencing the world directly, preferring to view people and places through a camera. His quest for "terror" indicates his strong desire to relate, in an immediate sense, to what's going on around him, without the filter of recording equipment. But this concept is expressed early on in the film - continuing to jerk the viewer back and forth between two types of film becomes a pointless exercize in style after a while.

I'm also not sure how this Cronenberg-ian, technological-paranoia thriller links up to the fairly-traditional horror story with the primal girl from Underground. The girl (Tomomi Miyashita), known to Masuoka as F, consumes only fresh blood, leading to several scenes that are, unfortunately for Shimizu's purpose, highly reminiscent of the hijinks from Little Shop of Horrors.

Masuoka discovers her forbidden cravings after he cuts his finger, and she begins to suck it dry of precious bodily fluids. (I think Shimizu meant for this scene to resemble oral sex, but all I could think about was little Audrey II). Later, Masuoka will have no choice but to prepare a freshly-murdered corpse for consumption in his apartment. (No, it's not a dentist).

Campy allusions aside, this stuff is all pretty silly, particularly when the albino sewer monsters are introduced. By the time Shimizu returns to his Grudge bag of tricks, resorting to creepy girls with bangs covering their eyes and ghosts appearing in elevators, I started to tune out. I much preferred the psychological horror stuff about the cameraman losing his shit, mainly because of Tsukamoto's eerily distant performance.

Still, you have to give the guy credit. This movie has a lot more going on than, say, that American Grudge remake. I mean, it had a few decent sequences, but the thing didn't really make sense at all. Also, as a general rule, you don't want to kill off Bill Pullman in the first scene, if your only other star is Sarah Michelle Gellar. Something to think about...

Go Ninja Go Ninja Go

They're really making a new, CG-animated Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (or TMNT, to those of us in the know) movie? Really?

Who is the imagined audience for this spectacle? People around my age, who grew up with the Ninja Turtles? Because, yes, like most nerdy males my age, I used to like the Ninja Turtles. I saw the first two films in theaters and even had one of the horrible Nintendo games, which consisted (if memory serves) almost entirely of driving around in a van and climbing in and out of sewers.

But surely an animated Ninja Turtles film can't be aiming for mainly 30 year old former fans. They must want to convert a younger generation, that can discover for themselves the joys of four juvenile humanoid turtles performing bad martial arts choreography in between bites of pizza and lame slang held over from Valley Girl.

Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe nostalgia alone will catapult this film to massive success. It's possible, I guess. I'm certainly curious about what an animated, harder-edged adaptation of the Ninja Turtle comic book would look like. But am I curious enough to actually shell out (har!) money to see a new Ninja Turtle movie? Probably not.

So, it seems that the long talked about CG NINJA TURTLES flick has nailed a pair of distributors. Warner Bros has it overseas and The Weinsteins are releasing it domestically, with a release date of March 30, 2007.

I think I'd be a bit embarrassed sitting in a theater, waiting to watch a film about ninja turtles. That sinking feeling of being a near-30-year old loser with nothing better to do than watch cartoon reptiles fighting inconsequential skirmishes against a tinfoil-clad weirdo named Shredder. I'll probably wait for DVD just to sidestep that rather unpleasant, introspective moment of shame.

Oddly, I wouldn't get that same pang of anxiety and self-consciousness waiting to see, say, a double-feature of trashy 70's exploitation films in a scummy hole in Hollywood. I cannot explain this blatant double-standard, and for that I apologize.

I'd also like to add that, if they were going to get Corey Feldman to return as the voice of Donatello, that would be an entirely different story.

[NINJA TURTLE TRIVIA OF THE DAY: Kevin Clash, the actor who voiced Splinter the Rat in the old Ninja Turtle films of the 90's now does the voice of Elmo for "Sesame Street." It's true!]

The Argument Clinic

I've really been having it out in the comments with this guy Ben over the past 2 weeks or so. First, he came and left a comment in one of my abortion rants, and we started to argue. (What had set me off, I think, was that Ben presented the notion that the pro-life movement makes some strong points, and dismissed the notion that the right to domain over one's own body makes a persuasive case for legal abortion.)

So, okay, no harm no foul. We argued but it remained as civil as possible, I thought. Then, yesterday, Ben started commenting in another column, about Paul Haggis and Crash. Again, we tusseled, but this time, for whatever reason, the conversation stuck with me. Ben had basically argued that I was being unneccessarily hostile, that I was haranguing him for no good reason and trying to pick a fight.

And looking back over our comments now...I think he's right. Ben came on here and made some general comments about an article I had linked to, and I bet his head off.

What made me go after him? Honestly, I have no idea. Here's some of what Ben said:

A friends girlfriend recently suggested I was homophobic because I didn't think Brokeback was any good and it really pissed me off. I thought then, as I do now, that such a criticism was not only unjustified, but was downright cowardly. Brokeback lost because it peaked too soon and oversaturated the market. If the Oscars were held a few weeks ago it probably would have won, but the facts were that the populist Brokeback wave had already started to roll back by the time people were casting their votes.

And here's how I replied:

Ben...you concern me. You really do. I feel like, every time you leave me a comment, you're trying to excuse your own intolerant, closed-minded point of view. Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of it.

Yikes. That's kind of personal and mean, and totally not appropriate for the tone of his initial comment. What got into me last night?

Ben does kind of say things in a roundabout way, and I can kind of see now why I got turned-around and flustered communicating with him. Sometimes, he'll make comments that seem connected to what I was talking about, but actually move things in an entirely new direction. Like, I was arguing that Brokeback Mountain should have won the Oscar because it was the far-superior, memorable and more important 2005 film, and then Ben came on and said that Brokeback had not lost because of the Academy's secret homophobia. A fair enough point, but not exactly the thing I was talking about. And most blog commenters don't do that, so I got taken off-guard.

Finally, Ben does one thing that I really really really don't like...He picks nits. Now, this isn't to say that I never make fun of some other blogger or commenter for messing up their spelling or grammar or something. But Ben likes to pull out sentences you've written and "correct" them for you, even if it's stuff you could never have actually known. I referred to him as "an American" once, because we were arguing abortion, and then he threw in my face that he's not actually American, so there.

Then, in our last discussion, I said "obviously, I didn't mean to offend you." And then he shot back "It wasn't obvious." Not exactly fostering smooth, open communication there.

But I don't want to turn this around on Ben. It's my fault. I was being a downright bad host. I'm never going to convince people to come on here and read this stuff every day if I bite their head off whenever they try to provide feedback. Criticism noted.

Losing Neverland

Years ago, when I used to read scripts for Cruise/Wagner Productions, I came across a screenplay called Neverland. It was kind of a modernizing of the Peter Pan legend, setting it in the world of Manhattan junkies and low-level criminals. In Neverland, Peter Pan was now a dope fiend, addicted to and occasionally selling a powerful narcotic called...

Well, why not guess. Ten seconds...

If you said the drug was called "fairy dust," congratulations. You might have the makings of a complete hack!

Anyway, Peter eventually brought into his crew ("The Lost Boys") an innocent young runaway ("Wendy"), who joined him in evading the cruel detective who lost his hand the previous year while pursuing Peter. Yeah, it was lame.

I wondered, at the time, why anyone would even attempt something like this. Adapting a really famous story into a modern context like this creates numerous problems. Sometimes, the material is just an awkward fit for a modern setting (particularly Tiger Lily, who in Neverland was an exotic dancer/informant). Also, your audience already knows the outline of the story, so it's hard to build suspense.

I understand that the Peter Pan allusion was the guy's hook (har!), and without that there was nothing compelling about yet another witless, gritty riff on Drugstore Cowboy. But if you want to write a story about cops and junkies, just write that story. If you want to write Peter Pan, write that story. But don't mix stuff that just doesn't mix. It never works.

Which brings me to this item from Ain't It Cool News today. Here's Garden State-lovin' Quint with all the details:

This one concerns a film called PAN, which is a sort of bizarro world take on the Peter Pan legend, where Hook is a cop hunting down a psychopathic villain with the supernatural powers of Pan. New Line has picked up this pitch by Ben Magid. I don't know more than that, but that sounds pretty effin' cool to me.

Effin' cool, eh? This new concept, Pan, is not at all like Neverland, really. It turns the Peter Pan story into a serial killer riff, with Pan as the psycho and Hook as the protagonist cop. How peculiar.

I guess that gets around the second problem I mentioned...Audiences won't really know the story in advance if it turns it around enough to make Captain Hook the hero. Hopefully, Magid will dispense with the tired, racist Tiger Lily storyline altogether (unless that actress from The New World has a spot open in her schedule, in which case she can be the coroner or something.)

The first problem, that Peter Pan remains an odd fit for a modern story, remains a considerable obstacle to writing a good movie. How can you turn Peter Pan into a serial murderer and still make it Peter Pan? Is Neverland now the nickname for his Basement torture chamber? When Peter asks Wendy to fly, is that really just code for rubbing the lotion on its skin and then putting it in the basket?

And I don't even want to know what will become of Tinkerbell in this new adaptation. Schizophrenic hallucination urging Peter to kill? Murder victim #1? Sassy female rookie cop? Guess I'll have to just watch the movie when it gets made, which should be a few months after never in a million years.

Haggistan

Okay, this will be the very last post about the Oscars, I promise. I'm even sick of hearing myself talk about the Oscars.

But there was some summing up to do, I felt, after last night's blitzkreig of disillusionment and disappointment. Yes, my least favorite film of 2005 has won the Academy Award for Best Picture. I'm learning to deal with it.

Some across the Web have implied that I care too deeply about such a triviality. Well, they are probably correct. It doesn't really matter, in a Big Picture way, what movie wins. But speaking as someone who works in a video store...The films that win these huge awards do remain in the public consciousness, do become a part of film history. People remember them.

It has not been an exclusive list for some time. Dumbass, unworthy winners like Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago and Gladiator have long-since tarnished the title of Best Picture of any given year (as if The Greatest Show on Earth and Oliver! hadn't done so already).

But still, Crash will stand as one of the notable, important films of 2005. This reflects poorly on the film industry and on the American public in general. It is a shamefully shallow, trite, meaningless piece of puffery. If this is where the American people are at, intellectually, on the issue of race, then we're all Doomed with a capital D.

Okay, so, I'm not the only one who thinks so. An Oscar attendee (who shall remain anonymous) told me today that the audience was not particularly in Paul Haggis' corner. I believe his exact quote was, "I don't know who all voted for Crash, but none of them were in that room." The mystery nominee also told me that Jake Gyllenhaal was visibly upset at Brokeback Mountain having lost to Crash. "Any of the other nominees would have been fine," he allegedly said. "But not Crash."

The real girlie, backstabbing bitch-fighting was between the makers of Best Picture Crash and those who brought us Brokeback Mountain, the clear favorite, up until a couple of hours ago.

I asked Crash producer Cathy Schulman backstage what she thought about the already sizeable bitterness I was hearing about her flick eclipsing Brokeback. "Well," she sniffed, holding her Oscar (which, if you ask me, says it all), "I loved their film. Sorry they can't feel the same for us."

Yeah, but, you see, Cat...their film was good. Right? So that's why you liked it. Remember? When words like "good" or "bad" actually line up with real-world concepts and qualities? They don't have to love your film just because you made it. You are not a beautiful unique snowflake. Deal with it.

And those are just the mean-spirited comments from other Academy Awards attendees. They have a good reason to be nice...They're standing 10 feet away from the people they're shitting on.

Accordingly, everyone in the general public seems equally dumbfounded and aghast in the cold light of day. Kenneth Turan at the LA Times essentially calls the Motion Picture Academy cowards for picking Crash and avoiding conflict about the gay themes of Brokeback.

I do not for one minute question the sincerity and integrity of the people who made "Crash," and I do not question their commitment to wanting a more equal society. But I do question the film they've made. It may be true, as producer Cathy Schulman said in accepting the Oscar for best picture, that this was "one of the most breathtaking and stunning maverick years in American history," but "Crash" is not an example of that.

I don't care how much trouble "Crash" had getting financing or getting people on board; the reality of this film, the reason it won the best picture Oscar, is that it is, at its core, a standard Hollywood movie, as manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long. And something more.

For "Crash's" biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions, but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul, when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed.

Folks, read this entire Kenny Turan article. He totally fucking nails it, right on the head. This is everything I've been thinking and saying about Crash since I saw it in the Fall.

It took the film winning Best Picture for me to discover that I'm not alone. I've been in my little bubble of Crash hatred, thinking the entire rest of the world adored this movie, and now that it has won real recognition, the truth is coming out. Morons have advocated this silly piece of shit for months, with sensible people simply remaining out of the conversation, not wanting to make people feel bad or start a fight. But now that the notion of Crash as a geniunely worthwhile piece of filmmaking has become a real possibility, the daggers are coming out.

There's always inevitable Best Picture backlash. All movies that take the prize become somewhat less esteemed in the years that follow - American Beauty, Million Dollar Baby, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, even Titanic...Can we say that any of these movies are still regarded as the absolute BEST of their respective years?

Is Haggis' film doomed to join the list of ludicrous Oscar flubs, along with Marisa Tomei's Supporting Actress Oscar for My Cousin Vinny and Ron Howard's bizarre win for A Beautiful Mind (compared at the time by Robert Altman to watching your mother-in-law drive your new car off of a cliff)? Probably. Only time will tell.

One more thing I'll mention about Crash. Today, I took a short break from work and went to move my car, to avoid getting a parking ticket. Turning the key in the ignition, it seemed like the engine was taking far too long to actually turn over. It was struggling. This was odd, because I had just taken the car in for service, so it should be working fine. When I accelerated, the vehicle lurched. I figured, though the dial said I had a little less than a quarter-tank left, that I must be out of gas.

I only made it halfway to the local gas station before the car lurched to a halt. Right in the middle of an intersection (Pico and Prosser, for locals). Before I even knew what was really happening, a group of five guys had all rushed over to help me push the car across the street and to the Shell Station. I didn't have to motion for help, ask a soul...nothing. (Okay, afterwards, one of the guys hit me up for a few dollars and another tried to sell me coloring books. But they didn't ask for anything before helping me, which is all that really matters).

These were strangers, of a variety of races and creeds, and they all pitched in to help me for no good reason. I didn't even have to ask. (And, no, I wasn't even blocking their cars. They were just helpful passers-by).

No one expressed any racist sentiments, or any anger at all. No motorists flipped me off or got in my face. Does this mean racism and misplaced anger doesn't exist in Los Angeles? Of course not. It just means that Paul Haggis is full of shit, and LA is nothing like the teeming cesspool of racial hatred that exists in his overripe imagination. If the real world were like Crash, I'd have been beaten up by angry motorists, sexually molested by the LAPD when they arrived in the scene and kidnapped by an evil old Chinese guy for use as slave labor.

Howl's Moving Castle

PIXAR Studios, the reigning kings of American animation, work with classic formulas and high concepts. What if toys came to life when kids weren't around? What if kids really did see monsters under their bed when parents turned out the lights?

That's why it's sort of surprising how much all the PIXAR guys worship Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki. Not that he's not an animator to be admired. Miyazaki's films rank among the most visually-impressive traditionally animated films of all time. It's just that his mode of storytelling is so far removed from what PIXAR does. Or what anyone else does, really.

Every Miyazaki film is a completely original, unique, handmade creation. Personally, I think some of them work better than others. But every single one of the man's films contains elaborate flights of fancy, a tremendous outpouring of imagination and ingenuity, and beautiful, richly-detailed animation. Howl's Moving Castle is no different. In fact, along with Nausicaa: Valley of the Wind and Princess Mononoke, I'd say it ranks with Miyazaki's best work to date.

It's without a doubt the best animated film of 2005, and on the short list of the best animated films of the decade thus far. A total triumph.



This is the story of a girl named Sophie, who is turned into an old woman by an evil witch before stumbling upon the enchanted castle of a wizard named Howl, who uses the magic powers of a fire demon named Calcifer to fight against a twisted, tyrannical regime that would engulf the entire world in non-stop war.

Where does Hayao come up with this stuff?

Unlike Miyazaki's last film, Spirited Away, which practically required a Master's Degree in Japanese Folklore just to understand what the hell was going on, Howl's Moving Castle deftly bounces between exciting set pieces. Sure, it's confusing, particularly because most of the main characters have a tendency to morphn into other forms (a standard Miyazaki motif), but the film never gives you a chance to get lost. Carefully following the ins and outs of plot takes a backseat to tone and wild imagery, and even if it doesn't all make total sense, the movie eventually develops a curious logic all its own.

Howl's castle, lumbering on spindly mechanical legs and coughing smoke through a flat, grassy Wasteland, takes on a looming, ominous presence in the film. Like it's master, the castle seems to change its form throughout the film. Sometimes, it's like a small two-story home; other times, it's an amorphous, mysterious cathedral filled with shadowy corridors and secret, locked hideaways. Along with the non-verbal magical scarecrow, Turnip, and the silent dog, the castle demonstrates Miyazaki's amazing ability with character - using only subtle gestures and sound effects, his animation can breathe life into essentailly inanimate objects.

All too often, modern animated films are tempted to fall back on celebrity voice casts to give their characters personality. Honestly, do any of the characters in Shrek define themselves through their physical mannerisms and outward behavior? Even their facial expressions are kind of indistinct - the filmmakers rely on Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy to do the heavy lifting, to make their characters likable.

What Miyazaki and PIXAR share is a reliance on, and reverence for, the techniques pioneered in previous generations, largely by Walt Disney and his early team of animators. Really breathing life into still drawings using craft and careful, studied technique. It's truly something marvelous to see when done correctly. In one scene, Sophie is trying to pull a crashed helicopter (of sorts) out of the front end of the castle. As she pushes with all her force, the castle itself pulls in the opposite direction, and almost seems to wince from the effort. The animation captures the castle's "expression," the intense effort of pulling backwards to free itself from the plane. It's just one amazing sequence out of many.

Additionally, the level of detail in the film's animation is nothing short of remarkable. From the backgrounds teeming with trees, puffy clouds and mountain-side villages to the tiny observed details of Howl's bedroom to the endless grassy fields stretching out into the horizon, every shot of Howl's Moving Castle is downright painterly. A triumph of traditional animated (jazzed up, obviously, for the digital age), Howl's Moving Castle is one of those perfect little counter-points against those who would argue that CG Animation alone is the wave of the future.

So all that being said, if I had to guess as to what Miyazaki's trying to say with the film...I think it's probably something about the confusion of adolesence. Having been transformed into an old woman by the evil Witch of the Waste, Sophie discovers that with age comes certain handicaps and responsibilites, but also great wisdom and confidence. She discovers a world of activity and import beyond her own immediate, personal needs, and finds great satisfaction in helping others and joining with a cause and a community.

But you could probably make up any number of "explanations" for the story of the film. The point isn't so much what specifically is being said, but the way Miyazaki creates an entirely new universe from whole cloth, and populates it with bizarre characters and fascinating innovations.

Some Oscar Night Top Ten Lists

Top Ten Things Overheard in the ABC Control Room During the Academy Awards

10. I need more reaction shots from Jamie Foxx! Get me more Jamie Foxx reaction shots!
9. Odd that Dolly Parton would opt to actually have a facial peel in the middle of her Best Original Song performance.
8. What's that on Charlize's shoulder? Some kind of growth?
7. We should have a more animated, lively host next year. Like the corpses of Bob Hope and Johnny Carson.
6. Wait, Felicity Huffman's not a man?
5. No, running the Spartacus DVD on double-speed doesn't count as a montage.
4. Holy shit! Someone just drove a flaming car on stage...Actually, you know what? Let's run with it.
3. We're low on gay jokes. Get Vilanch in here!
2. Wait, Hilary Swank's not a man?
1. Paul Haggis is a Scientologist

I know that last one's not funny...But you all should just know that information.

Top Ten Films More Deserving of This Year's Best Picture Oscar Than Crash

10. My Date With Drew
9. Batman fan film Dead End
8. Daredevil: Extended-Edition Director's Cut
7. That shot-by-shot remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark that those kids put together
6. 50 Cent: Get Rich or Die Tryin'
5. The Game: Stop Snitchin', Stop Lyin'
4. 8 MM 2
3. R. Kelly's Trapped in the Closet
2. "Lazy Sunday"
1. David Cronenberg's Crash, awarded retroactively

Top Ten Comments Made by al-Qaida Members While Watching the International Broadcast of the Academy Awards in a Cave Near the Pakistani Border

10. How come when we criticize America, they try to kill us, but when Paul Haggis does it, he gets an award?
9. If this glamorous award show doesn't come off as planned, then we will truly have won.
8. I hope they give it to Reese! She's just as cute as a button.
7. Hey, guys...How come we aren't trying to bomb the shit out of them right now? All the famous, good-looking ones are gathered in one spot!
6. What the fuck happened to Dolly Parton's face? Did we do that?
5. I don't get it. How is Sound Editing different from Sound Mixing?
4. All of these Hollywood liberals and their anti-war, anti-Bush rhetoric have emboldened me!
3. I told you guys we should have called ourselves the Three 6 Mafia. Well, it's too late now!
2. Wait, Hilary Swank's not a man?
1. Any of you guys see Munich? Yeah, me neither.

Like Sweet Glorious Music

Lots of blog traffic here in the immediate aftermath of Oscar Night 2006. People are searching for the phrase "Crash sucks" and "Haggis bullshit" in record numbers, and they are again and again finding themselves here at Crushed by Inertia. I couldn't be more pleased. Keep hope alive!

Oh, and here's the brilliant immediate reaction of Brad at Sadly, No! to the Crash win.

Whoa. Crash won? That's, like, the least controversial movie they could chose. Wimps.

Agreed.

Jon Stewart's in Serious Trouble

8:24

Okay, so I had to take off from work and go home, and once I got here, I had basically missed a good deal of the end of the show. Then, my Internet connection didn't work because my roommate's router went out, so we had to reconnect and wait around until I could get back on line.

And then I get back and discover that Crash has just won Best Picture. You've got to be fucking shitting me. I mean, Original Screenplay...I saw that one coming. But Best Picture? Have you all lost your minds? You have now awarded this guy Haggis and his unique brand of painful, self-important horseshit the Best Picture award two years in a row.

Seriously, this is the worst back-to-back run of awarding in Oscar history, and Crash is...the single worse film...to ever win Best Picture. Mark my words. I'm ashamed to have watched the whole show. Sickened. And then they get up there and give this awful speech, calling this a "maverick" year in cinema and pretending to be these crazy, outspoken radicals.

Tell me...what subversive, maverick message was espoused by Crash? Please feel free to actually state, in plain English, what was maverick about Crash in the comments below, if you're a fan. This I've got to hear. That racism is weewy weewy bad? That people being mean to one another make baby Paul Haggis cry? Grow up, people.

Also, Memoirs of a Geisha won for Cinematography, which was a big surprise, and Reese Witherspoon won Best Actress, which was not at all a surprise.

Worst Oscars ever.

7:46

Way to go, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, winner of tonight's Best Actor award. "Capote" wasn't really one of my favorite films this year, but it was a good movie and he gave a great performance. It's really a career achievement award for a guy who has been pretty much the most consistant, most entertaining to watch character actor of the last decade.

7:41

"Crash" has won its first award of the night, for Best Editing. It was somewhat inevitable, and yet I'm still disappointed that, forever now, we'll hear about "Paul Haggis' Oscar-winning 'Crash'". Dang.

7:30

Why did Richard Pryor have to die? That sucks.

7:26

A guy just came into the store...A regular customer. British guy. He said he wasn't watching the Oscars this year because of all the glaring omissions. In particular, he was upset to see "Match Point" nominated for Original Screenplay. Actual quote:

"Speaking as an Englishman, that was a very offensive movie."

Offensive? Wanted to ask him if he meant it was actually offensive, like, to his nationality. Like if he meant it makes all Englishmen look like murdering dandies. Or if he just found it generally, aesthetically displeasing. Like, "offensive to the senses." But in that case, why add that it's particularly insensitive to an English person. Like, they have more elevated taste than we do, and thus would be more irritated by a poorly-conceived film set in their homeland? Nope, I'm sorry...I don't get it.

And I'd ask him, but I don't want to actually run the risk of getting into an extended, dumb conversation. Better to just let the silly comment pass and get back to the show.

7:20

If you're going to perform a song called "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" on the Oscars, you might as well just sing the word "bitches." Because the line "a whole lot of WITCHES jumping ship" in a song about pimping doesn't actually make any sense. Now, I understand that you want to make it appropriate for the whole family...BUT THE ENTIRE SONG IS ABOUT BEING A PIMP, YOU IDIOTS!

Congrats, though, on the big win. First hip hop song ever nominated for an Oscar, and the first win! Pretty cool stuff...The Three 6 Mafia are now Oscar-winners, and they managed to get bleeped AND give it up to George Clooney. And, did anyone else notice, they were the first winner of the night to thank Jesus? Take that, Christian Oscars!

7:07

No clips from "California Split" in the Altman montage...What the hell! One of my favorites of his films.

7:03

What Robert Altman movie featured Meryl Streep? I can't come up with it now, but she must have been in SOMETHING, because why else would they have her out there to honor him? Anyway, Altman...truly a guy worthy of an honorary award. One of the great modern directors.

6:51

Glad the "Brokeback" score won. Along with the unnominated "Batman Begins," probably my favorite original score of the year. Just can't shake the feeling that the show's particularly boring this year. I mean, it's always kind of boring. But this year just feels particularly like a slog.

Even the montages of clips from old films are kind of rote and pointless. And having all the presenters hype up "seeing movies on the big screen," as if Jake Gyllenhaal is going to convince people that shelling out $15 to see a movie is the way to go instead of downloading it free to your iPod.

Don't get me wrong...I like theatrical screenings of films as much as anyone. I personally prefer to see a big movie in a theater. But if you're not te kind of person who feels that way, an Oscar montage of big moments from all the expected EPIC-SIZED films isn't going to change your mind.

And "Around the World in 80 Days"? That movie's boring and lame no matter what format you watch it in. "Pearl Harbor"? "Apollo 13"? Pick some better examples of widescreen composition, would you please?

6:45

Who knew there was so much love for "Memoirs of a Geisha." We have one guy who comes in the store all the time who's always raving about how it was the BEST movie he saw this year, and how AMAZING it was on a technical level. But I just ignored him because he's a huge idiot. He may be on to something, though...

Ironically, with "Geisha" already taking two Oscars, it will probably overall do better tonight than Spielberg's "Munich." Steve was going to make "Geisha" years ago, but then dropped the project and chose to produce, focusing on other films instead.

6:25

More wacky teleprompter hijinks. J. Lo seems to have had trouble getting out her introduction. And, while we're on the subject, why is she there? Didn't she have to shoot an episode of TRL or something important today? Barely even in movies any more (and with good cause!)

And let me just say, even putting aside my feelings about the actual film, that interpretive dance/sketch/Burning Man recreation in honor of the "Crash" Original Song nominee "In the Deep" was just retarded. How exactly do minorities walking through smoke symbolize the film "Crash"? Hey, it has minorities! There is occasional smoke!

I thought we were done with the Interpretive Dance-based Oscar performances. Never a good idea.

6:11

Either Lauren Bacall can't read or the teleprompter guy was asleep at the switch. That was pretty embarrassing...I thought she was just going to give up about halfway through, but to her credit, she just kept plugging away. I think all the clips in this Film Noir montage are from movies the editors rented here at Laser Blazer...Dug the inclusion of Richard Widmark pushing the old lady down the stairs. Nice touch.

5:50

Did Colleen Atwood just thank "The people of Japan" for having geisha, so she could later win an award for designing their costumes? That's kind of a weird acknowledgement, right?

Also, it seems odd to have the characters from "Chicken Little" to present awards when it's not even nominated for animated film. I'm generally irritated by the character, only because he's voiced by Zach Braff. I hate that guy even in CG animated chicken form.

5:25

Just checking in from work here...I'll make a few live-blogging style posts tonight, I guess, as long as I have a chance.

First things first, Jon Stewart...yikes. What happened? Why didn't he write his own monologue, instead of turning it over to some intern throwing together Leno-style "ripped from the headlines" groaners.

Seriously, for those of you not watching, here's a sample J. Stewart line...

"Millions of people from over 50 countries are watching the Oscars tonight. And 25% of them are currently in the process of being adopted by Angelina Jolie." Ugh.

Also, George Clooney wins Best Supporting Actor for "Syriana," meaning (as he indicated on stage) that he won't win anything else for "Good Night and Good Luck." Too bad...it's better than most of the award-bound films tonight. Thankfully, "Crash" remains awardless thus far. I like Matt Dillon, but fuck that film.

Finally, why didn't anyone tell me Dolly Parton had fallen in a vat full of sulfuric acid? That's the kind of thing I'd like to hear about when it happens. Will she be playing Two-Face in the next "Batman" film? Cause that would be dynamite.

The Christian Oscars?

Judging from the number of times God and Jesus are name-checked per acceptance speech, I kind of figured the Image Awards already served as an unofficial Christian Oscar ceremony. (Seriously, God gets more props at the Image Awards than Russell Simmons and Biggie together. That's a lot of props.)

But, no, MovieGuide Magazine had to come along and stake out their own claim to the title of Christian Oscars. Why a Christian Oscar Ceremony, you may ask? What the hell does being Christian have to do with reviewing movies, anyway? Another interesting question. Here's one...Instead of bestowing meaningless awards on Hollywood types who already have dozens of award shows for their mutual glorification, wouldn't it be more Christian for this organization to spend their time and money helping the less fortunate?

Anyway, shut up with all the questions and let me get to the Christian Oscars because this shit is hilarious.

Disney and Walden Media's THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, the WB's 7TH HEAVEN, ABC-TV's EXTREME MAKEOVER: HOME EDITION, and PAX-TV's SUE THOMAS F.B. EYE won the three biggest honors at the 14th Annual MOVIEGUIDE® Faith & Values Awards Gala and Report to the Entertainment Industry, held in the Grand Ballroom of the Beverly Hilton Hotel last night.

The glittering event, also dubbed “The Christian Oscars,” was held just days before the 78th Annual Academy Awards in Hollywood and attracted more than 150 celebrities, Hollywood executives, producers, writers, and directors and their guests.

NOTE: This information is only credible if you consider Pat Boone to still be "a celebrity." If, like me, you consider guys like Pat Boone to be "a historical curiosity," then the number is probably a bit under 150. Anyway, the article doesn't go on to mention a single real celebrity who attended, leading me to believe that Boone and the kid from Millions was the best they could muster.

The main purpose of the annual event is to honor the studio executives, producers, directors, writers, actors, and actresses making the most morally uplifting, redemptive, inspiring movies and TV programs with positive Christian values and content, and to show Hollywood, and the world, that these kinds of movies and TV programs are among the most financially successful and popular every year.

So, that's the main purpose. The secondary purpose is to get really famous by bitching about "morality" and "values" and "content" publicly. By latching on to the enormous popularity of celebrities like once-semi-notable Chevrolet pitch-man and noted whackjob Pat Boone.

Since the MOVIEGUIDE® Awards began in 1992, the number of movies with positive Christian content and overt references to the Gospel of Jesus Christ has increased 374 percent (from 10.4 percent of the Top 250 movies produced by Hollywood to 49.3 percent of the Top 250)!

Holy shit! Those two occurances are definitely connected and not based around nonsensical, random numbers at all!

Also, if they're saying that 49.3% of Hollywood movies make overt references to the Gospels, that can't be a very strict definition of overt. If an alien surprises a Space Marine and he yells "Jesus Christ!," that does not count as an overt reference to the Gospels. Also, I guess you could count serial killer movies when the villain cites The Bible, but I'm not sure that's really the kind of Scripture the Movieguide Awards are hoping for.

Crystal Teddy Bear Awards were flying out the door at the special event. Every winning movie and TV program received one for each producer, executive producer, writer, director, and top studio executive responsible for producing it.

There were also a couple of special Crystal Teddies handed out.

Pat Boone, legendary singing star and actor, received a Special Lifetime Faith & Values Crystal Teddy Bear Award for Dedication to Redeeming the Values of the Mass Media of Entertainment. The Crystal Teddy was given to Pat for his "tireless and superior efforts over many years to redeem the values of the mass media and to present the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the mass media."

Values like hating fags and not complaining when your factory moves to Mexico, giving you and your long-time employee buddies the shaft. You know, Jesus stuff.

TEN BEST 2005 FILM FOR FAMILIES (Best is first, etc.)
1. THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
2. MADAGASCAR
3. DREAMER
4. MARCH OF THE PENGUINS
5. CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY
6. ROBOTS
7. CHICKEN LITTLE
8. THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED
9. SKY HIGH
10. VALIANT

Wow...Madagascar...Yikes. Not a great film. Kind of shrill, irritating. But I guess it's not a horrible list. Out of all these, I've only seen Madagascar, March of the Penguins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Valiant. I was going to watch Robots, but the first 5 minutes were so chaotic and noisy, I think I developed hypertension. So I turned it off.

TEN BEST 2005 FILMS FOR MATURE AUDIENCES (Best is first, etc.)
1. PRIDE & PREJUDICE
2. BATMAN BEGINS
3. MILLIONS
4. THE INTERPRETER
5. THE GREAT RAID
6. THE ISLAND
7. THE NINTH DAY
8. CINDERELLA MAN
9. HITCH
10. DOWNFALL

The Interpreter is kind of an odd choice, huh? What's that doing there? Just a random, so-so thriller from the middle of the year. Strange...Also, Pride and Prejudice? Is it just cause it's about women who want to get married to a nice man and settle down? I would have thought Cinderella Man for sure. THAT'S the official safe, asshole pick for Best Film of 2005.

Also...Hitch? It says "mature audiences" right there in the headline. I don't think any movie where Will Smith kicks a girl in the face getting on a jet ski counts as "mature."

A Special Faith & Values Crystal Teddy Bear Award for Dedication to Helping People Around the World Understand God's Love for the Physically Challenged goes to Deanne Bray, star of SUE THOMAS: F.B. EYE, for her winsome, faithful, gracious, and wise efforts to help audiences and entertainers understand God's Love for the physically challenged.

I don't know this show...I gather it's about a physically challenged Private Investigator. Not a horrible idea for a show...

But this is SO LAME, this write-up. "understand God's Love for the physically challenged?" What the hell does that mean? Wouldn't it be just like God's love for a non-physically challenged woman? (Yes, in that neither one exists, but you get what I'm saying...) Why would God love a crippled person less? What kind of fucked up, cruel bully-type God do these people believe in anyway?

[Big ups to Pandagon for the link.]

Jarhead

Sam Mendes' Jarhead presents us with an interesting conundrum. How does one make a successful film about boredom? Can a film communicate the frustration that comes with extended periods of extreme loneliness and boredom without itself becoming frustrating and boring? Jarhead would seem to suggest...no, no it can't.

It's hard to find specific fault with Mendes' adaptation of Anthony Swofford's best-selling memoir about serving in the first Gulf War. The film looks great, has a few solid performances and strikes me as a fairly accurate representation of the daily life of deployed American soldiers. It's also pretty thoughtful, too, unafraid to ask Big Questions about the American military machine and to depict men in uniform as complex, nuanced individuals.

But the 2 hour movie is just plain boring. Excruciatingly, at times. Choppy, frequently pointless and populated by a mainly-forgettable ensemble of background characters, Jarhead doesn't even seem to care about maintaining a viewer's attention. The entire enterprise is oddly distant and disengaged, not only from any sort of real emotion, but from reality. You would think Mendes was making a historical curio, rather than a movie about an important world conflict that's still going on in the present. The overall effect is like eavesdropping on a veteran discussing his wartime experiences at the table next to you in a diner. You hear a couple amusing anecdotes and get some surface details, but you miss how the story ties together while the noisy kids next to you whine for more ice cream.



In some ways, I guess that makes sense for an adaptation of a memoir. Our lives don't tend to unfold in screenplay format. Any retelling of actual events from a real life are bound to feel a bit more unpredictable and spontaneous and disconnected than a tightly-conceived fictional script. But screenwriter William Broyles Jr., rather than even try to fit Swofford's recollections of near-combat experiences into the framework of a story, has simply pulled out the best bits of the book and strung them together. The film lacks not only basic structure - there is no beginning, middle or end - but any kind of dramatic tension. The characters sit around and wait for a while, then they go for a walk, then they wait some more, roll credits.

We meet 20 year old Anthony (Jake Gyllenhaal) in basic training at Camp Pendleton. He's selected for a special scout-sniper program by Staff Sgt. Sykes (Jamie Foxx), who will lead his small unit when they are selected for the first wave of Operation Desert Shield. And once the film arrives in the desert, basically, nothing else happens.

None of this is really a knock on the movie. In many ways, it's the whole point - Marines train hard and get fired up, and then don't have any anything to do. These Marines are trained not simply to do a job, but to kill. To kill without mercy and without thought. That's the entire job of being a soldier - to be able to kill or not kill depending on what a superior officer tells you at a certain time. To turn homicidal instinct on and off like a light switch. And Jarhead seems to challenge this idea at its very root. Once a man has been trained to kill, has practiced the maneuvers and mechanics of killing for hundreds of days on end, there is no going back.

And it's this contradiction that drives all the conflict of Jarhead - men trained and prepared to kill are sent to a hostile area and told not to kill anyone. It's a feeling of intense uselessness and frustration coupled with an existential melancholy. Men with the skills and desire to kill, with millions of dollars of weaponry at their disposal and nothing to do, train by fighting invisible enemies. They run around in the hot sun for hours, and practice taking off and putting on their chemical warfare suits on the off chance Saddam decides to use some chemicals against them.

Swofford and his fellow soldiers, including his best friend Troy (Peter Sarsgaard), spend their days hydrating, training and masturbating. Among one another, they secretly yearn for the "pink mist," the cloud of blood and brain appearing behind a target's head that lets them know the work is done. It's gruesome, yes, and at times sadistic, but Mendes and Broyles try to make it understandable. These men don't want to kill. They just want to do their jobs. Their jobs just happen to involve killing.

Interesting ideas all, and Jarhead has many more insights to share. I liked how Chris Cooper's Lt. Col. Kazinski addresses his men like a motivational speaker at a high school assembly. Is something still condescending if everyone present knows it's supposed to be condescending? And though the film never really addresses the socio-economic situations operating behind the Gulf War, or any Middle East foreign policy at all really, it's not exactly apolitical either.

The military of Jarhead is like any other massive, beurocratic organization. It gets the job done, but at a tremendous cost and in a tremendously chaotic manner. The movie doesn't argue against military intervention, so much as it makes the case that in order to justify using the United States military to accomplish a goal, it must be an extremely important goal. In other words, any time several hundreds of thousands of high-spirited, heavily-armed and well-trained young American males are hastily shipped off to another country, there will be long-term ramifications. (NOTE: I say "males" because there are no female soldiers in the movie and because it comes from an entirely male perspective. Not because I don't think there should be female soldiers or anything like that. As long as I personally don't have to fight, I don't care who the hell they let in there. Take everyone who wants in, I say.)

With all this going on behind the surface, I just wish there was more happening on the surface. And I don't mean big actions scenes. Jarhead isn't an action film, and Swofford saw absolutely no action in the Gulf (he never fired his rifle until the war was already over). I mean conflict. Drama. The things that drive movies from Point A to Point B. Jarhead consists of a lot of sitting around, a lot of walking, a lot of uninteresting, profanity-laden inanities shared between soldiers. Like the actaul soldiers during wartime, Jarhead spends 98% of its time hanging out and bullshitting around in the desert. Captivating viewing, it ain't. Roger Deakins stunning cinematography helped to maintain my interest, and Jamie Foxx stands out as the only member of the ensemble to create a truly memorable, three-dimensional character (and that includes Jake Gyllenhaal).

A lot of people complained about this in Mendes' last film, Road to Perdition, that it was a nice-looking film with some good ideas that was unwatchably stifled and dull. It's mannered, yes, and a bit deliberate, but that film's about 20 times more entertaining than Jarhead. At least Perdition feels cinematic. This latest one feels like an audio book that keeps skipping after the first 2 chapters.

Search of the Day!

At one time, I was going to make this a regular feature. Bizarre Google searches that have brought people to my blog. I only ended up posting once, and then I forgot about it, but I think I'm going to start it up again.

Today's Search of the Day comes from just a few minutes ago. Someone arrived at my blog after entering the following into Google:

"strangle urinated into pantyhose panties"

Now, before you start wondering why a search for those words would land you at my blog, it was a movie review. In particular, a review of a Korean police procedural called Memories of Murder. Also, on that page, I confessed that I sometimes liked to steal women's pantyhose and panties, urinate into them, and then use them to strangle myself. It's just something I do.

Arts & Mad Sciences

Am I the only one who is generally disappointed with the way the technology seems to be advancing? I mean, yes, sure, there have been some amazing advances in the late 20th Century. In particular, we're getting extremely good at spying on Americans, blowing up brown people and making consumer electronics really small and thin.

In fact, I think most Americans would join me in saying to our large electronics purveyors..."Thank you very much. Those consumer electronic devices are extremely thin. Well-played. Is there any way you can, you know, make sure they work properly for more than 6 months? Now that you've got the whole really thin, small thing down?"

There's just a whole lot of dreary, actual science and not nearly enough mad science. I feel like, every time I read a news article about the latest scientific discovery, they've found out something else that's simultaneously both dull and seemingly-impossible.

"Researchers from the Kochakahotchee Observation Center have announced their discovery of a distant quark that strongly resembles actor and noted philanthropist Jerry Lewis. If accurate, their discovery provides us with new insight about space, and how occasionally, heavenly bodies will resemble beloved celebrities.

"'Obviously, because of Kreishlachler-Meindorff's Second Principle of Applied Meta-Computational Super-String Quantum Mechanics, we can't be sure if the quark looks more like the nerdy Jerry Lewis of The Delicate Delinquent or the sassy, suave Jerry Lewis of The Ladies' Man and half of The Nutty Professor,' said Elizabeth Jane-Downingford, a member of the team reporting the discovery. 'But at the very least, it's a find of equal magnitude to that nebula that kind of looked like Jesus surfboarding that we spotted last year.'"

You know what I'm saying.

Microchips and super-colliding superconductors and bullet trains...That stuff's all neat, but I can't have been the only one really hoping for flying cars and teleportation machines and time travel, right?

And then I see a photo like this one, and I'm reminded that we're still just a bunch of stupid, backwards-ass apes.



No, I'm not objecting to Miss Emma Watson's brand of beer, although drinking Corona is a touch barbarian. I just feel like we're advanced enough as a species to have developed some sort of ray or whatever to prevent child actors from getting old.

See, here's the thing...Emma Watson plays Hermione in the Harry Potter films. And I was already in my 20's when the Harry Potter books were first published in the United States. That means that, seeing the young actress hired to play one of the characters from those books in the ensuing series of movies growing up and enjoying the fruits of adult life makes me feel goddamn ancient.

Surely, I'm not the only person to feel this way. It would be the same, I suspect, for someone of the previous decade seeing the young cast of "Saved by the Bell" blossom into active, successful...well, into adults, anyway.

What I'm saying is, surely if we're going to make advancement in any major field of research, it should be in the Anti-Child-Actor-Aging Ray Gun Department. Or any actor aging, really, because it's totally depressing to see good-looking people get old and saggy.

And if there are any scientists reading the blog right now, here are some more totally brilliant suggestions:

No-Spill Port-a-Potties

Watching the film North Country recently, in which a group of brutes overturn a portable john with a meek little female inside, I was struck by the fatally-flawed design of these contraptions. Now, obviously, I understand that, by definition, there is no way to actually dispose of human waste within the confines of a portable toilet. But at the very least, could there not be some sort of valve or one-way flap preventing the waste from coming back up in the unfortunate event of a topple? No Mr. Wizard's out there capable of rigging up such a device? You know this has happened to people in real life...I would think the very first victim of such an accident would invent something to ensure that there was never, ever, ever a repeat episode.

Leaf Blower Silencers

I've spoken about my hatred for leaf-blowers on the blog before. (Here, if you must know). What I don't understand is, if we're capable of devising a silencer for a gun - surely among the more noisy contraptions - why not the machine that blows leaves and dirt around?

Stay-Put Socks

They never fall down.

A Computer Operating System That Looks Like the Kind Hackers Use in the Movies

You know how, when people are hacking into computer systems in movies, it always looks like they're exploring this futuristic, 3D computer environment? That's a really cool idea! It would sure make hacking easier, right? Like playing some 80's PC game...you just walk down the right hallway, hide from the cyber-guard, and get in to grab whatever information you need. Make it work in tandem with a Nintendo Power Glove for even better results.

The Hangover Pill

Okay, some of these entires have been jokes (particularly the "Ren and Stimpy" reference). But I'm totally 100% serious about this one. Not only do we know the immediate cause of hangovers - excessive drinking - but we even know the physiological reason for hangovers - dehydration. So how come we don't have a way to just not get hangovers? Everyone has their own remedies - I myself only start to feel better after eating the greasiest-possible meal, a habit started back in my days at the UCLA dorms, when nights of excessive drinking were typically followed by cafeteria Monte Cristo sandwiches and bad coffee. But these are really just rituals to ease the suffering, not actual cures.

Superheroes

I can't tell you how disappointed I am in science for never having once produced a superhero, even accidentally. Isn't anyone randomly messing around with gamma radiation any more? What about mutant spiders? Robotic arms fused into spinal cords? Not only hasn't anyone ever developed crazy powers, but we don't even have any brilliant inventor/vigilantes! You're telling me not one single dot-com billionaire thought to invest in military-style armor, sleek bullet-proof vehicles with mounted machine guns and high gliders emblazoned with his or her personal insignia?

Sexy Robots

I mean, do I even need to explain the dire societal need for this one? We already have robots, but they always look like Hondas with legs. If we're going to bother building humanoid robots at all, then someone needs to get started on building some that are really hot.

Child Forcefields

Okay, let me explain this one...By forcefield, I simply mean some sort of protective zone that would hover around a child, one that could only be penetrated by a parent or guardian holding on to a specialized remote control. This thing would have two main uses:

(1) It keeps kiddie fiddlers, kidnappers and other undesirables away from your kids during those few moments when you aren't looking AND
(2) If properly sound-proofed, it would allow you to shut out your child's irritating and constant noise emissions, thus salvaging your own sanity and earning you the appreciation of any and all persons in your immediate vicinity

Don't ask me how it would work. I don't have a mind for that sort of thing. I'm just an idea man.

Creep

This 2004 British horror movie has received pretty much no attention whatsoever, at all, from anyone. I had not heard of it at all until the DVD came into the store a few weeks ago. The cover is a pretty generic horror movie image, a subway car at night with a red hand pressed against the window. Nothing about it jumped out at me, and I had not (and still haven't) heard anything about the movie from any movie website or fellow cineaste.

But it is, after all, a horror film. And it does star Franka Potente, known to fans of foreign horror films as the star of the German mega-hit Anatomie and to fans of red-headed trotting girls as the star of Run Lola Run.

Last night, I finally got around to checking out Creep, and was surprised to discover that it isn't half-bad. An entirely competant throwback to the simple, exploitation horror films of the 70's, Christopher Smith's Creep does nothing more or less than tell a very old-fashioned horror story well.



Checking out the first bit of Andrzej Bartkowiak's video game adaptation Doom recently (I didn't write a review because I turned it off after a half hour), I was surprised not by how dumb or pointless the movie was, but by its sheer tedium. You would expect a movie based on a game where all you do is wander around and shoot at demons to be simplistic and predictable, but you'd at least expect it to have a certain amount of action, an unsettling atmosphere, some degree of visceral impact. Doom consists almost entirely of people standing around dark hallways in silly suits looking for invisible stuff. I don't ever need to see The Rock turn around a corner while shining a flashlight again, thanks all the same.

Creep doesn't make that mistake. A film with a small cast set almost entirely in the London Underground, it manages to subvert your expectations more than once. Even different sections of the subway system and sewers seem to take on increasingly nefarious personalities, as the hero descends ever-deeper into the dank, forgotten recesses of the city's infrastructure.

Self-absorbed model Kate (Frank Potente) isn't much of a hero at all, really, at least at the film's opening. Callous towards the needy, pissy towards her friends, and convinced that she should be dating George Clooney, Kate's not really the sort of person you'd be likely to sympathize with under normal circumstances.

But the fate that awaits her when she misses the last train, you woulnd't wish on anyone, no matter how bitchy they may be. Kate awakens to discover that she has become locked in the Tube overnight. In a nice little bit of misdirection, writer/director Smith has us believe that it's all a scheme by her perverted co-worker (Jeremy Scheffield), luring her into the abandoned station for a bit of the ol' in-out.

Once Jeremy is disemboweled by a strange, unseen and terrifically powerful foe, however, it becomes clear to Kate and the viewer that something far more disturbing is afoot. The rest of the film finds Kate evading a nasty little specimen known as Craig (Sean Harris), a bloodthirsty monster of sorts whose background never becomes entirely clear. Like Tobe Hooper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes (the remake of which opens this week), Creep prefers to keep the actual details of the villain's origin secret, perhaps for inclusion in a sequel?

Anyway, we piece together that Craig is the product of either some sort of gruesome medical experimentation or some back alley abortion gone horribly wrong. His body is disfigured and warped. He occasionally emits a weird, banshee-like screech. He's obsessed with unneccessary surgery and mutilation. As Radiohead once said, What the hell is he doing here? He doesn't belong here.

To his credit, Smith handles the violence exceptionally well. Creep features enough on-screen blood-letting to satisfy gore fans, but also remembers that sometimes a substantially moist, crunchy sound effect or well-timed cut-away provides more impact than 20 shots of fake intestines. One intense sequence, probably the best in the film as well as the most disturbing, finds Craig preparing to vivisect a homeless junkie (Kelly Scott), and features very little actual on-screen violence.

Unfortunately, as these films tend to do, Creep feels kind of anti-climactic. It's at its best when first revealing the gruesome Craig and his homicidal ways. Once he's captured Kate in his underwater cage, and she joins forces with a trapped city employee (Vas Blackwood), the movie kind of goes on auto-pilot, falling back on genre conventions on its way to a predictable conclusion. And though Smith's direction is capable, he's not really bringing anything new to the horror film. Everything from the decor (which definitely resembles Mimic and Kontrol) to the lighting to Craig himself feels familiar, like a remix of older films rather than a reinvention or reconsideration.

Also, he makes a classic rookie mistake. Early on in the film, Kate expresses concern about being electrocuted by the subway tracks. We then get a long speech about how you should avoid all of the rails, but particularly the one in the middle. And then...nothing. You can't introduce the concept of someone being electrocuted by a third rail, and then never actually have it happen. Screenwriting 101, dude.

Git R Dud!

[UPDATE: So, how's this for weird. I write a post about how there's a lot of bad movies coming up in the next year, and that very same day, Quint at Ain't It Cool News posts an article about the new Zach Braff movie. It's just as Dr. Thompson said...All energy flows in accordance with the Great Magnet. What a fool I was to defy it.

Anyway, Quint starts the article with this delicious bit of slack-jawed idiocy.

I loved GARDEN STATE. Loved, loved, loved it. Natalie Portman has never been cuter onscreen and that's saying something.

That's nice, Quint. Now why don't you go outside and play? Adults are talking.

Here's the meat of the story:

OPEN HEARTS is a remake of a 2002 Danish flick called ELSKER DIG FOR EVIGT about a man who is paralysed in a car accident and his fiance who ends up having an affair with a doctor in the hospital where he's recovering. To add another twist onto things, the Doctor's wife is the one responsible for the accident which paralysed the poor bastard. I haven't seen the flick, but it sounds complex and right up Braff's alley. A Zach Braff romantic comedy is proving to be a treasure to film, a breath of fresh air to the genre.

Yeah, sounds right up Braff's alley. It's set in a hospital...just like his dim-witted sitcom, "Scrubs"! It's structured around ludicrous turns of fate, odd coincidences and accidental connections...just like his dim-witted feature Garden State! Plus, the original film isn't in English, which could only benefit a Zach Braff feature. Let's hope he'll stick to that in the remake, so I don't have to hear any more painful dialogue about hamster burials and the life-altering greatness of The Shins!]

So far, 2006 doesn't exactly seem to be blowing away the competition in terms of overall movie quality. And I'm not just saying that because there hasn't been a single film released in theaters yet that I've had any desire whatsoever to see. I mean, I know January and February are slow months...but come on, Hollywood, I know you can do better than Madea's Family Reunion and a Steve Martin Pink Panther remake that was held over from Summer 2005 because it's so noxious. I know you can.

I'm also kind of down on 2006 this week because all of the news on upcoming releases is so dire. There are some bright spots on the horizon, particularly in terms of science-fiction, and this Winter does bring us a new Martin Scorsese film starring Jack Nicholson, but overall, 2006 feels kind of bleak. Even a lot of the upcoming films that do sound intriguing don't actually open until 2007 (like, for example, Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers' adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are).

In addition to that atrocious X3 nonsense I wrote about yesterday and Bryan Singer's thus-far-questionable Superman spin-off and Michel Gondry's apparently-disappointing Eternal Sunshine follow-up, The Science of Sleep, check out some other anxiety-causing 2006 releases:

- John Travolta has written a romantic comedy in which he hopes to co-star with Olivia Newton-John. Okay, go throw up, I'll wait until you get back...All better? Okay, good. Anyway, it seems that he is also writing a theme song for the film which he will sing himself. But don't worry...John assures Sky News that "fans will love it." My only question is: Fans of what?

- Ben "Bull Cow" Affleck will write and direct an adaptation of Mystic River author Dennis Lehane's mystery novel Gone Baby Gone. It's about a husband-and-wife team of private detectives investigating how the hell Ben Affleck managed to get himself cast as Jack Ryan in Sum of All Fears. Oh, sorry, I meant they're investigating the disappearance of a little girl. And how Ben Affleck managed to get himself cast as Daredevil.

- Check out the trailer for Larry the Cable Guy's movie debut, Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector. Now, those of you who aren't currently enjoying a wicked glue buzz may notice that this title gives one man, Larry, two different jobs, which is kind of confusing. If he switches occupations, wouldn't he then cease to be "Larry the Cable Guy," and become "Larry the Health Inspector"? Just like how that guy changed his name from "Cedric The Entertainer" to "Cedric the Bloated Overpaid Waste of Life."

- A sequel to Bruce Almighty is in the works, with Jim Carrey out and Steve Carrell reprising his role as "Evan the Forgettable Supporting Character" from the first film. I don't have a good joke here, I'm just stupefied that Steve Carell would want to kill off all his career momentum right now by doing a lame sequel to a Jim Carrey movie that's too stupid for even Jim Carrey. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like him in Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine and The Cable Guy (in which he did NOT play a Health Inspector!)...but this is a man who found Ace Ventura 2 to be a perfectly acceptable follow-up project. How dumb does a movie have to be before Jim Carrey goes, "Hey, you know what? I'm above this. I'm going to go do Fun With Dick and Jane 2, then something arty, and then some different movie where I cram asparagus down my nose and move my asscheeks to make it appear that my butt is speaking."

- Did you know that Lindsay Lohan is making not one but two different films about historical assassinations? She's playing one of the 22 bystanders at the Ambassador Hotel the day RFK was shot in Emilio Estevez's Bobby AND a friend of John Lennon's killer Mark David Chapman (Jared Leto) in Chapter 27. Here are a few other assassinations I think it would be fun to see Lindsay Lohan recreate:

• After an evening of partying at the Lotus, Lindsay stabs, poisons, burns, castrates and finally drowns Rasputin (Christopher Lee)
• While spending an exotic, coked-out weekend with Gavrilo Princip (Vincent Gallo) in Sarajevo, Lindsay witnesses firsthand the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, sparking the first World War
• Driving home, and having enjoyed a few too many chocolate martinis at a Golden Globes after-after-party, Lindsay is horrified to discover that she has hit Jimmy Hoffa (Jack Nicholson) and Natalee Halloway (Mary Kate Olson) with her car, killing him instantly. She, her ex-boyfriend Wilmer Valderama and her former rival Hilary Duff must concoct a scheme for hiding of the bodies.
• Three words: Lindsay Kills Biggie

- You just know Dave Chappelle regrets ever doing that Rick James episode. Don't get me wrong...I, like everyone else on Earth, find it hilarious. When I first saw that "Chappelle Show," I laughed non-stop. I mean...come on..."I'm Rick James, bitch!" That's gold! But now, everywhere he goes, people yell that shit at him. That sketch has become, in its own way, as popular as Rick James and his music. An entire generation will automatically associate that man and his life's work with the phrase "cocaine is a hell of a drug" and Dave Chappelle in a bad wig saying "bitch." This is the challenge that will face Terrence Howard should he go through with the decision to play Rick James in a movie. That article, by the way, mentions other real personalities Howard might play in films, like boxer Joe Louis or judge Thurgood Marshall.

What's interesting is how much his Rick James character might resemble his pimp character DJay from Hustle and Flow. It's hard out here for a superfreak.

I Think I Smell a Ratner

Is there anyone left who thinks X-Men 3 has any chance of working? Anyone?

Okay, good. I'd hate to ruin anyone's hopes and dreams or anything. Because make no mistake...This photo represents the very last nail in Brett Ratner's cinematic coffin. Incontrovertible proof that this summer's upcoming, and not-surprisingly-final, installment of the X-Men franchise will be among the year's most embarrassing, um, kerfuffles.



Oh, I'm sorry...Didn't mean to spring that all on you at once.

Let's try again. Take a few slow, deep breaths. Maybe close your eyes for a moment and try to calm yourself down.

Okay, now slowly scroll down the page, stopping if you feel any numbness or tingling in your extremities...



That's British hooligan/pseudo-actor Vinnie Jones in his Juggernaut outfit. I'm hoping that's his trailer or something, and not an actual set from the film, but with Brett Ratner...you never know...Maybe the X-Men make a pit-stop at Big Momma's House in this new film or some shit. I mean, that guy's an idiot. He's capable of anything.

He thought Rush Hour 2 was funny and worthy of a theatrical release.

Anyway, there were rumors that the X-Men costumes and make-up int his installment would be disappointing after the sleek professionalism of X2. And, of course, previous photos appearing around the Web didn't exactly inspire great confidence.

This was my previous look at ex-tough man Jones as Juggernaut. (I say "ex-tough man" because, once you've paraded around in a major motion picture dressed as He-Man, you're no longer considered a true "tough man." Ask Dolph Lundgren.)



Wait, is this a sequel to X-Men or Near Dark? Now, I'm confused...

Also, there was this promotional shot of Kelsey Grammar made up as Beast, which looked like an ad for the stage production X-Men: The Sassiest, Brassiest, Most Mutated Little Show on Broadway!



Oh, let me tell ya 'bout mutants, baby
We've got crazy powers and skills, oh baby
I mean, look at me, I'm all blue and hairy
Let's just hope Wolverine don't go berzerky...

And the best part is, the entire cast is already filled up with musical theater veterans like Hugh Jackman and Alan Cumming, so there's no need to refill the major roles! It's an all-singing, all-dancing, all-sucking extravaganza...

I mean, I'm not saying that promotional photo is gay...but Heath Ledger is thinking about moving with it to a small sheep ranch in Wyoming, far from the prying eyes of the public. That's all I'm saying.

But now, this shot of Vinnie in the trailer...I mean, it's getting sad. Maybe this is all a big hoax, a promotional gimmick, a spoof of a marketing campaign for the worst movie ever. And then, at the "premiere" of X3, Ratner will come out with Bryan Singer and they'll reveal that this whole version of the movie doesn't actually exist, and a real follow-up to X2 is hitting theaters May 2007! That would be awesome. Think about it! It has never been done before.

For an entire year, people would be talking about how bad that alternative "Brett Ratner" cut of X-Men looked...and how comparatively awesome the real footage appears!

And, of course, the real, Bryan Singer-directed X3 would clearly contain Sentinels.

Tom Rothman, if you're reading this...it's not too late to shitcan Ratner and start over. I'm telling you, people would go for it...

A Rare Three-Peat

I've been on something of a bad run, DVD-wise. It seems like all my rentals from the past few weekends - on films and new - have either been mediocre or excruciatingly terrible. Films like Domino, Elizabethtown, Ice Harvest, Doom, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, Mirrormask, Into the Blue and Rent...I don't mean to say they're all bad, but collectively, they have kind of cooled my film-related enthusiasm recently.

But then, this week, I have been refreshed by a run of awesomeness. It seems like every single DVD I've popped in the last few days has been a delightful surprise just waiting for me. Seriously, these days, I can do no wrong. It has been quite a run.

Here, for example, are three new releases coming to stores today, and all three are very good-to-great films.

Network



Sidney Lumet's film turns 30 this year, and what's amazing isn't so much how correctly it predicted the future of television, but how much worse everything actually turned out. I'm sure, in 1976, the film was a jolt to the system, a horrifying vision of how things might go for American's Favorite Medium. Now, the movie feels quaint, like a naive relic from a time when there might have still been hope for TV as a communication tool and learning aid, rather than a politico-corporate propaganda machine.

I don't mean that as a knock on the film. Lumet's mesmerizing adaptation of Paddy Chayefsky's rightfully-lauded screenplay (surely among the most droll ever written) remains a vital, funny, entertaining and insightful film about the collision of business, news and entertainment. It's just that, in their odd sort of optimism, Lumet and Chayefsky failed to predict how rapidly and easily corporations could actually take over total control of the American media.

The sad-funny saga of crazed news man Howard Beale (Peter Finch) touches on so many interesting points about the downfall of American broadcasting, it's hard to know where to begin in discussing everything. Network touches on, of course, corporate control over the media, scrutinizing the merger of the UBS Network with the international conglomerate CCA, personified by the villainous suit Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall, as sinister as he's ever been). We see how the news division's message becomes watered down, and eventually eliminated, by selfish corporate interests and an obsessive quest for ever-greater ratings and advertising revenue.

As well, the film quite astutely predicts the Reality Television craze. Once Howard Beale has a complete mental breakdown on the air, the public becomes fascinated by him, tuning in every week in greater and greater numbers. His collapse thus becomes their entertainment. Is this any different from watching the latest eliminated contestant on "The Bachelor" come apart in the limousine ride to the airport?

One last thing I'll mention is the film's take on post-modernism. Once something has been established on television before a large-enough audience, Network seems to posit, it becomes true regardless of any facts proving otherwise. Beale, in one of his many on-air rants, insists to his audience that they are the real people, but that television has supplanted their notion of reality. They base their actual behavior on the scripted behavior of people they see on television, turning a simulation of life into a replacement for life. It's what Baudrillard would call a simulacrum.

It's not often you can work the word "simulacrum" into a film review, but that's just the kind of movie we've got here. It's one of three amazingly great 70's films being released in a box set this week, along with Lumet's similarly outstanding Dog Day Afternoon and, one of my all-time favorite movies, Alan Pakula's Watergate drama All the President's Men. I haven't checked out those other discs yet, but if the transfers are as good as this Network DVD? Wow. It might actually be worth your hard-earned money (or, if you play poker online for a living like my roommate, your easily-earned money).

Scum



Director Alan Clarke originally made Scum, a gritty, mainly unpleasant film about the conditions in a juvenile detention center (or "borstal"), for British television. It aired once and was promptly banned due to its graphic violence and so-called sensationalism. Two years later, Clarke reunited his cast and crew to turn the 70 minute film into a more professional 90 minute feature.

The result is this 1979 underground classic, a film that proposed to show the reality of the British borstal system of the 1970's. Clearly influenced by Milos Forman's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Clarke and screenwriter Roy Minton see the borstal as a conformity factory, a horrifying institution focused on brainwashing its residents through violence, intimidation, cruelty and institutionalized racism. It's not hard to see why the BBC might not want to show this side of British society on prime-time television, but if this was the reality of the borstal system at the time (and I have no way of really knowing if it was), it's clearly a story that needed to be told.

We follow a few offenders as they do their time, but the focus of Scum is on two inmates in particular: the newly-admitted "hard man," Carlin (Ray Winstone of Sexy Beast, in his first starring role) and the crafty free spirit Archer (Mick Ford, in the film's best and most heart-breaking performance). At first, Carlin minds his own business and tries to stay out of trouble, but when he's attacked both by the guards and fellow inmates, he takes matters in to his own hands. During the film, he will transform from a taunted newcomer to the "daddy," the top dog among all the offenders.

Archer, on the other hand, survives by making the other prisoners think he's insane, and taking every opportunity to taunt and irritate his captors. That both of these young men are capable of living worthwhile lives outside of an institution becomes clear. That neither of them have such a happy ending awaiting them is inevitable. The film chronicles the ways in which misplaced power and systematic cruelty slowly wears down their humanity. It's both fascinating and extremely difficult to watch.

Kind Hearts and Coronets



Okay, first things first. In any discussion of Kind Hearts and Coronets, one of the best British comedies of all time, you have to talk about Alec Guinness and his unbelievable, audacious performance as 8 different members of the d'Ascoyne family. Not only are the make-up effects seamless, but Guinness himself subtly creates 8 wholly separate, yet related, individuals. And they're all funny!

But perhaps what's most amazing about Kind Hearts and Coronets is that it's a really good movie beyond this gimmick. I mean, none of the Guinness characters is even the main character in the film! It's like there was already this really funny, dark, fiendishly clever story about a man methodically killing off an entire family, and then on top of that, someone had the great idea of casting one terrific actor as all of the family members.

It's almost too much greatness for one movie. If they redid this movie today (and Mike Nichols was considering doing just that a few years ago with...ugh...Robin Williams in all the Guinness roles), the entire film would revolve around the gimmick.

But in Robert Hamer's delirious 1949 film, the focus remains squarely on the resolute Louis Mazzini (Dennis Price), who would have been heir to the d'Ascoyne fortune and title, if only his father had not been a poor Italian. As it is, he's been disinherited, and must live in squalor while working a thankless job as a tailor. Once his loving mother dies, however, Louis sets about his plan, to kill every living d'Ascoyne standing between him and his rightful inheritance!

We follow him as he murders several family members, and observe with him the accidental deaths of several others. There's a really surprising amount of voice-over by Price in the film...Because the action extends over the course of several years, and jumps around from family member to family member, the narration is essential to keeping everything straight. But the writing itself (by Hamer, adapting a novel by Roy Horniman) is very dryly funny in its own right.

And the movie is just so wonderfully dark! Like a lot of classic British films, it takes a kind of sick glee in the gentle art of murder. I'm reminded of a Mike Hodges BBC miniseries called Dandelion Dead, that I think I've mentioned on the blog before because it's so awesome and no one has seen it. Hodges spends 4 hours slowly unfolding the true story of a turn-of-the-last-century Welsh lawyer who poisoned his wife over the course of two years. Clearly, he's fascinated by the kind of evil that could inflict prolonged suffering on a supposed "loved one."

And in this film, too, Hamer almost seems to celebrate Mazzini's spirited, cheerful amorality. Whereas Guinness' d'Ascoynes tend towards broad caricatures (particularly the women's libber Lady Agatha d'Ascoyne), Mazzini is allowed the full breadth of emotions. The film's on his side, as is particularly evident during the ambiguous conclusion, which renders the entire enterprise considerably subversive for '49.