Between the Seats

Capsule reviews: Cat Nine Tails, Maniac, Last House on Left

2012-02-14T12:55:00.000-05:00

HappyValentine's Day! In an attempt to totally forgo whatever warm andfuzzy emotions February 14^th typically inspires, here arethree reviews for films a colleague at work was kind enough to lendme on DVD, all three of which feature murder, mutilation, rape andtorture. Enjoy!

TheCat O' Nine Tails/Il Gatto a Nove Code (1971, DarioArgento)

TheCat O' Nine Tails is celebrated Italian director Dario Argento'ssophomore feature after The Bird with the Crystal Plumage,both of which fall firmly in the camp of Italian 'giallo', in otherwords, Italian crime and suspense thrillers. In Tails, theoddball team of an elderly, blind, retired journalist (Karl Malden)and a young, spunky reporter (James Franciscus), as well as theformer's young granddaughter (Cinzia De Carolis) investigate themysterious murders of people who all have links to a groundbreakingresearch programme in one of Italy's finest genetics facilities. Theresearch concerns a previously unknown chromosome, XYY, which existsin only a select few humans and compels them to commit the mostheinous acts of violence.

Suspiriais arguably this director's most revered work, but that film wouldonly come some years down the road and is characterized by a entirelydifferent tone, in which unbelievable lighting and the supernaturalshroud the proceedings, creating a prevailing sense of wonder andfear. Tails is far more grounded, functioning essentially as acrime mystery. Such films are not obligated to rely primarily on thecreativity and interest stimulated by the plot, provided they canmuster strengths in other departments, which is exactly the casehere. Notwithstanding the occasionally distracting dubbing whichmakes the artificiality of the speech too pronounced, theperformances are rather charming, working on some stereotypesviewer's have undoubtedly encountered before in a variety of othermovies. It is all in the fun of seeing two people who at first glanceto do not appear to have much in common come form an alliance tosatisfy their journalistic instincts. Thank goodness that thecharacters are as engaging as they are because the plot in of itselfis not very memorable. Argento makes earnest attempts at punctuatingthe story with little unexpected flares here and there, such ashaving one of the suspected scientists be a gay man who enjoysspending his evenings in bars where men cross dress. For a film whichplays out like a straightforward mystery, the director certainlydemonstrates his desire to make the killings feel as painful anduncomfortable as possible. It is a tactic which can catch the vieweroff guard in that these dramatically violent spurts are never hintedat and suddenly... All in all, The Cat O' Nine Tails is adecent little thriller.

Maniac(1980, William Lustig)

Thereis a sense of panic on the dingy nighttime streets of Manhattan. Acrazed killer is on the prowl for pretty young woman, destroying themmercilessly. What the unsuspecting viewer might not anticipate isthat the film, rather than adopt the vantage point of the victims orthe police tasked with investigating the matter, chooses to have thekiller (Joe Spinell) as its 'protagonist', if he can be described assuch. At various stages of the film, actor Spinell narrates theongoing mental dialogue the character struggles with. Evidentlyenough, this man is terribly disturbed, haunted by terrible memoriesand some sort of double personality.

Fromwhat information could be gathered prior to the writing of thisarticle, it would seem director William Lustig's picture has gainedthe status of cult favourite, which is fair enough. Truth be told,evaluating such movies is incredibly difficult, for what makesexhibit A a good picture while exhibit B less so? Readers who havebeen around for a while know that on more than one occasion in 2011,Between the Seats showered praise on Kim Jee-woon's I Saw theDevil, a film whose notoriety is not far removed of that whichManiac wears proudly on its sleeve. Maybe it is the difference incraftsmanship, maybe the acting, maybe the possible themes theindividuals movies explore (or only purport to explore, for those whoremain unconvinced), but there is surely something, anything thatgenuinely differentiates films like I Saw the Devil andManiac as far as overall quality. Devil is amazing.Maniac is a piece of garbage of the very worst kind. The worstcrime a film can commit is to cast a spell of boredom on the viewer.There is nothing remotely interesting that transpires Lustig's film.The victims are nothing more than a series of pointless tarts,undeserving of the audience's sympathy (this is an addition to thefact that the film spends films about 10 minutes building up thekills. 10 minutes to spend with these bimbos, only to see them hackedand slashed? Good grief...), but then again, nor is the titularmaniac. So he had mommy issues as a lad. And? The film lacks tension,it lacks any modicum of sophistication (and yes, such a film can,theoretically, exude a little bit). True enough, Maniac is anexample of pure cheese from the early 1980s, although said detailsshould never function as excuses for the endless, brainless scenesinvolving murders which are utterly devoid of...of anything quitefrankly. It revels too much in the graphic nature of the violence.Bill at his Movie Emporium often calls out films that useexploitation merely for the sake of it. Maniac is one suchfilm where the violence seems to be the all that matters. It wasquite funny to read on the DVD back cover that Maniacsupposedly features actor Joe Spinell's career defining performance.Now that is a bold claim, especially if the actor actually agreeswith that sentiment. Just, wow.

TheLast House on the Left (1972, Wes Craven)

WesCraven exploded onto the horror film scene in 1972 with one of themost shocking, disturbing films ever: The Last House on the Left.Mari (Sandra Cassel), as a celebration of her 17^thbirthday, tags along with her good friend from the city, Phyllis(Lucy Grantham) as they plan to head into town for a concert.However, little do they know the night has drastically differentplans in store for the both of them. Everything goes haywire from themoment they encounter a terrible foursome, escaped convicts wantedfor vile crimes against humanity (played by David Hess, Fred Lincoln,Jeramie rain and Marc Cheffler). The quartet kidnap Mari and Phyllisand engage in the utmost cruel acts on them in the woods and againsttheir will. When Mari's parents find out however, the game changescompletely. All the while two bumbling cops attempt to track down thevillains.

Forso many unexpected reasons, The Last House on the Left isincredible. It begins with making the two female leads sympathetic.They are young, lively, and overall simply decent people, as opposedto the brash, annoying characters which populate horror slasher filmsin our current day and age. The duress they are go under is extreme,yet all through it the actresses are capable of producing solidperformances. The viewer does honestly want to see them make it outalive. Even more surprising are the performances from the villains,with special mention going David Hess, as Krug, the leader of thegang, and Fred Lincoln, the paedophile. Both are outrageously meanspirited, yet just when the film looks to make them out to be nothingbut grim monsters, they are given personalities beyond theirvillainy. They are actually funny in some scenes. Granted, theirbrand of comedy is vulgar, but if it manages to tickle the viewer'sfunny bone, one can be in for a fun ride. Sometime the laughs emergefrom lines of dialogue, others times mere looks and movements.Speaking of comedy, Wes Craven is intent on making Last Housea quintessential horror-comedy. Unlike how some of the recent blendsfully merge those two elements seamlessly together in a very closemarriage (Shaun of the Dead being one such example), directorapproaches it in a different, far more shocking manner. One moment,the action depicted on screen is horrific and depressing, and thevery next the laughs are piled on in a completely different scenewhich seems disconnected from what happened moments prior. But theyare connected in the weirdest fashion, either because it involves thepolice who are after the criminals or the criminals themselves whoenjoy strange little moments of tranquillity and rest just aftereither mutilating or raping a victim. It's tough work being a rapist,after all. Obviously, this may appear very strange to anyone readingthis who has not seen the film, and rest assured, that reaction isjustified. Last House is a strange movie, make no mistakeabout it. To top things off, actor David Hess was also a singersongwriter. Craven had him contribute to the soundtrack, whichfeatures several songs played with a banjo type instrument and Hess'singing as if telling a great old amusing folk tale. They're rapingthese innocent teenagers! There are definitely moments in the filmwhen even this writer had to ask himself 'What in heaven's name isgoing on here?!' People all encounter, at least once or twice, filmsthat work for inexplicable reasons. There are plenty of reasons whyLast House should not work, but it continuously defiesexpectations and does work.

Comica Obscura: Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword of Vengeance

2012-02-12T12:31:00.000-05:00

LoneWolf and Cub: Sword of Vengeance (1972, Kenji Misumi)

Justas comics and cowboys have been staples of Western entertainment fordecades, samurai and manga have earned a rightful spot in Japaneseculture. In fact, the sheer number of stories created for theaforementioned black and white Japanese graphic novels is staggering.Many have earned themselves significant reputations beyond theborders of their native country, as have films depicting the exploitsof the samurai, be they of the legionary variety or master-less. Itcomes as no surprise that the two have merged into one for numerousbooks series. Among those that have reached degrees of popularity inthe West is Kazuo Koike's Lone Wolf and Cub, which shared thetale of a former government employee who, after a shocking betrayalleaves him without honour or a wife, traverses Japan on a quest toright the wrongs done to him and his infant son, whom he brings alongin a baby carriage. In 1972, only two years after the story's initialpublication, the series was brought to the silver screen by directorKenji Misumi, the first film titled Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword ofVengeance.

OgamiItto (Tomisaburo Wakayama) is the Shogun's Second, or executioner.Forget all notions of hooded, brutish oafs who dwell in the caves ofcastle while awaiting for their next victims, being the Shogun'sexecutioner is an incredibly enviable and prestigious. It is soprestigious in fact that members of a clan which rival's Ogami's, theYagyu, who apparently have legitimate links to the government (thisaspect of the tale is not explained very clearly, but one assumesmany people from many different families and clans align themselvestogether to form governments) have conspired together and framedOgami. Latter is immediately accused of treachery against the Shogunwhen law enforcement find an emblem of the Shogun planted on hispersonal shrine, a sign that Ogami would, if it were true, beingpraying for ills to befall their leader. Clearly this is all afabrication of the Yagyu clan, forcing Ogami to flee his own own withhis one year old son Daigoro, but not before his wife and servantsare butchered. Now, all that matters is destroying the Yagyu andits leader, Retsudo (Tokio Oki).

Afilm which, in the first five minutes, features a pseudorock-electronic score which announcing the passage of an uncleanronin waving uncombed hair and walking around with a baby in amakeshift wooden carriage decorated with a sign which reads 'Wolfwith Child in Tow: Child and Expertise for Rent' has made itsintentions plain and clear: Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword ofVengeance is not going to be a very serious movie. Granted, insome respects Akira Kurosawa's samurai films were not very serious,but they nonetheless exuded a level of class denoting a high mindedcraftsman was at work behind the camera. In the case of the filmunder review today, director Kenji Misumi also displays somecraftsmanship, although it is for the purpose of creating what canostensibly be described as the Japanese-samurai equivalent of agrindhouse picture. There is a griminess that covers the movie fromthe first frame to the very last, if not always in the visuals(although those do get quite grimy as well sometimes) then certainlyin the overall tone and attitude the film brings forth. Subtlety isfor the squeamish and the prudish. Misumi fully understands what sortof tale Sword of Vengeance is and how it should, in alllikelihood, be presented on screen. The film plays like a balancingact between being nasty and filthy while also pushing things, tonallyat least, in a direction which almost makes them comical. Much likewith the movies of grindhouse lore, the viewer might not always besure if the effect of a given moment is indeed supposed to be funnyor not. Limbs are sliced off in such cartoonish fashion, yet Swordof Vengeance is playing it with as straight a face as possible.Those looking for something fun if trashy should see their hungersatisfied for the most part.

KenjiMisumi and the cast construct a tale which fits comfortably into therevenge genre, which can ultimately be considered a genre unto itselfgiven the near incalculable amount of entries it now owns. Thecharacter of Ogami Itto is as stone faced as they come and does notoffer much in the way of dialogue, making a proper assessment ofactor Tomisaburo Wakayama performance somewhat difficult. He fits thebill nicely enough, although it is rather strange to see a man aschubby as him move like a cat against hoards of younger, leanerwarriors and thugs. Then again, that reality is probably more of atestament to the titular wolf's skills as a swordsman than hisphysical prowess. The only individual who seems to to giving anythingresembling a performance is actress Tomoko Mayam, who plays a whorein a small mountain village Ogami heads to for a mission to destroypotential usurpers to the throne. She is not in the film for verylong, but what little screen time is given to her, she uses as anopportunity to craft some sense of realism to her character. It makesfor an odd little role. On the hand, the effort is nice, but on theother, it feels peculiarly out of place in a film where almosteverybody is hamming it up to the tenth degree, such as Tokio Oki asthe chief villain Retsudo, who looks exactly the kung fu master whotrains The Bride in Kill Bill volume 2 (perhaps Tarantino'sprinciple inspiration for the character?), only he mumbles most ofhis lines, gets far more excited, and continuously gazes upon hisOgami with an unmistakably evil glint in his eyes.

Ifthere is anything that plagues Sword of Vengeance, it is thestory. Clocking in at a brisk 83 minutes, the director andscreenwriters invest a lot of energy in developing the backgroundstory to Ogami and Daigoro. The flashbacks are not problematic in ofthemselves, only that they eat up a lot of the running time, hence bythe time Ogami is actually sent on a mission, the film is literallyhalfway done. The goal he is tasked with in this episode ispresented, explained and achieved inside of 45 minutes. The filmwould have been better suited with more economical storytelling withregards to the protagonist's background information. As it stands,the film feels exactly like what it is: an introduction. Even thefirst instalments of Marvel comic book films or Star Wars episodeshave their own stories and complete character arcs within them eventhough audiences know future films will follow. For comparativepurposes, Sword of Vengeance is actually like Kill Bill,the first volume in this case. There is much more story to tell, butthe film already knows it will not get to it all even before it hasbegun, which is a bit frustrating, not to mention that, has much asdirector Misumi brings vim and verve to the proceedings, he is noQuentin Tarantino. Even if one was disappointed by the abrupt endingto Kill Bill 1, that film at least gave the viewer a prettywild ride, artistically speaking.

TheComica Obscura marathon is suddenly caught in an awkward position.Watching more of Ogami's adventures is not a possibility becausethere are other works left to discover in the months to come, meaningthat Sword of Vengeance must be evaluated on its own terms,which itself is frustrating because it barely hides the fact that itis the first in a series, thus giving us a clearly incomplete story.The conclusion is that the film fine, offering some deliciouslyviolent moments, both in terms of action and sex, has a curioussoundtrack and a comically pudgy leading man who can tear throughjust about anybody. Still, there is no purpose in hiding the factthat Sword of Vengeance is an incomplete experience and cannever be wholly satisfactory.

Done here? Find out how Bill would offer his 'Expertise for Rent' in his review at his Movie Emporium.

Films du Fleur de lys: Bestiaire

2012-02-11T14:37:00.002-05:00

Bestiare(2012, Denis Côté)

Itbarely over a year ago that Québec filmmaker Denis Côté charmedand mystified audiences with Curling, a lyrical, quiet andsubtle story about the relationship between a socially inept singlefather and his daughter, whom he preserves from ills of the world inhermit-like manner. Showcasing an enviable ability to surf from onegenre to another, director Côté returns with a documentary aboutthe animals which parade in and around Parc Safari (located justoutside the city of Montreal), both during the summertime when theycome out to strut their stuff and during the bitter winter periodwhen kept under close scrutiny by the caretakers in confined spaces.

Aplot synopsis or overview would serve absolutely no purpose in thecase of Bestiaire, notbecause it is a documentary, but because the film honestly depictsexactly what was written about the introductory paragraph. Côtécarefully chooses a series of locations to rest his camera in orderto catch something interesting in the frame...and the animals arethen permitted to do what they do, which limits itself to walkingaround, sniffling, eating, sleeping, observing what the viewerassumes are some people walking about, performing their ritualistictasks of keeping the establishment fully functional. This firstportion of the film, which transpires during the winter season withthe animals resting and playing in the park's Hemingford, Québecwinter compound. Bestiairequickly establishes itself as the sort of documentary that offers solittle information in terms of narration or interviews, given thattheir are strictly none whatsoever throughout the entire film, thatthe viewer is left to soak in the images and sounds and make do withthe picture in however way it speaks to them individually. It is abit of a gamble on the part of the director, especially whenconsidering that films of this nature rarely capture audiences tofullest degree. Documentaries that make it big are more along thelines of Bowling for Columbineand Super Size Me,which stuff the viewer with information and package it all in abeautiful, quirky presentation. There is nothing inherently wrongwith such documentary filmmaking techniques, they are merely beingmentioned in this review for comparative purposes in order for anyonereading this article and curious to discover Bestiaireto have a sense of what is in store for them. This is the polaropposite of such films.

Onthe topic of Côté's static frames and the animal movements withinthem, the picture's initial chapter does present some arresting andeven thought provoking imagery. The most striking aspect is withoutquestion the presentation of a tremendous wild animals, clearly notfrom this continent, roaming around on the snow around buildingsresembling boring farm factories. Immediately this brings to ourattention that the creatures are not where they should be. That beingsaid, Parc Safari, like all zoos, remains a business, with hundredsof people looking after the animals as best they can with as muchdedication as they can muster on a daily basis. Côté provides atotally objective insiders view how an enterprise such as thisoperates, Safari being a curious example precisely because it islocated in a region of the world where the temperature drops below 0degrees Celsius for a solid portion of the year, a climate lions,chimpanzees, hyenas, bison and tropical birds are obviously notaccustomed to. It makes for a strange juxtaposition of differentworlds and speaks to the complicated relationship between humans andtheir wildlife counterparts in the animal kingdom. Man can dominatesuch terrific beasts, yet even when apparently in control, thegreatest of precautions must always be taken. Perhaps 'dominate' isthe incorrect term, but the capability to artificially create a homefor wild animals which operates at the whim of Man is really afascinating notion if one stops to wonder about it even if only for amoment.

Thesecond and shortest portion of the film invites the audience toobserve employees hard at work in the creation of animals busts andstatues often seen in museums. Côté focuses especially on anindividual preparing a little loon statuette. The Styrofoam carved bodyawaits on the table as the man carefully, diligently peels of theskin and plumage from the deceased bird. The movements are calculatedand precise. No words are spoken, full concentration in invested inthe visually repulsive if endlessly watchable steps. In this room,animals are given 'new life'. After all, once the employees arecompleted what is asked of them and the statues are placed in naturemuseums, who does not stop to admire them? They appear clean, proud,majestic...and yet they are dead. All very strange, this business.

Finally,summer arrives and Parc Safari is open to the public. Vehicles arepermitted to take a slow drive down some specific roads where lessdangerous animals roam, visitors may walk through protectivesee-through hallways in a lion's den, monkeys lie around in theirparks and swing in their trees, families take rides on infantelephants. The culmination of the journey Bestiaireembarked on does not resolve the many provocative thoughts that may wrestlein the viewer's mind. So this is what it has come to? Lions growingridiculously lazy as kids walk by with their parents, chimpanzeeslooking away from visitors, either completely oblivious to theirpresence or bored out of their skulls, elephants following the samesimple path as instructed by their caretakers whenever visitors paymoney to hop onto their backs. The Parc Safari conclusion onlyfurther pronounces the oddity that is the life of these creatures,who are not permitted to being themselves, all the while living asecure life where humans dutifully serve their every need. The goodwith the bad, as always.

Thereis an irony to the fact that Denis Côté opens the film with a classof four or five art students each drawing their own versions of afawn statue that stands before them. They are making pieces of art,in essence artificial representations of a wild animal, the latternow an artificial presentation of itself. The wonderful employees atParc Safari and its winter hideout very much do the same, simulatinghomes for African beasts, although their profession is complicated bythe presence of real life animals. Here is Denis Côté, engulfingthe entire process through film, just another medium in our continuedquest to construct representations of real life that can speak to usin subtle and complex ways.

BBS Productions Presents: Drive, He Said

2012-02-07T13:31:00.000-05:00

Drive,He Said (1970, Jack Nicholson)

Thefurther the BBS Productions Presents marathon explores the company'sfilmmography, the more it becomes apparent that eventual mega starJack Nicholson was one of the driving forces behind its creativity.It began with a film stealing supporting role in Dennis Hopper's EasyRider,followed by a starring role as well as a writing credit for RobRafelson's FiveEasy Pieces.Then, in 1970, the time came to make the biggest leap of all: thedirector's chair. He would not return to said chair very often insubsequent years and decades of his career, yet that should not be asign that his work as a debutant was unimpressive. Just as he tookmany by surprise with his early acting work in the previous BBSfilms, Drive,He Saiddemonstrated that Nicholson possessed a tremendous amount of honestyand maturity as a storyteller from behind the camera.

Seton a college campus in the early 1970s, a tumultuous time epitomizinga climate similar to the one university and college campuses aroundNorth America in this early 21^st century (although withdiffering issues striking at the heart of the debates). The Vietnamwar is fresh in every American's mind, with cultural warfare opposingyouth and what can be subscribed as 'the establishment' havingreached a feverish pitch at the school where roommates Hector(William Tepper) and Gabriel (Michael Margotta) study. The former isthe on the college's basketball squad, a shining star in a growingindustry where the pressures of playing well for one's school areenormous, but also where the benefits, provided one rises to theoccasion, may be vastly rewarding, such as playing in a professionalleague. Gabriel's student career is ill defined, as he spends much ofhis time condemning the politics of his country, the lazy mindset ofits citizens who accept the aberrations practised by its federalgovernment, taking full advantages of the opportunities at college toraise awareness, such as highjacking a basketball game. Both arefriends, albeit driven by completely goals. Hector, however, is feeling unsure of his path, what with all the varying pressures, bothprofessional, academic and political, colliding in his mind, not tomention that he is currently sleeping with a professor's wife, Olive(Karen Black). Nobody said early adulthood was an easy job...

Forthis directorial debut, Nicholson decides to study a great manyimportant issues, such as the political and cultural climate of thetime and the life of a star college athlete with serious prospects ofearning a job in the pros, all through the eyes of an increasinglydisaffected young man, in this case the protagonist Hector Bloom. Ininterviews, Nicholson at the time expressed a desire to cast actualball players as members of the college squad as a way of easing thebelievability level during the match sequences. It was also the firstever role for 23 year old William Tepper. The newcomer's performanceis a delicate one to evaluate, most notably because there are atleast a few moments in which his inexperience clearly shows. Hiscapacity to fully emote appears somewhat limited in certain scenes,denoting poor command as an actor. More than once, he looks ratherdull-eyed, for lack of a better term, unsure how to approach thematerial. He is victim of some 'stupefied' looks in scenes that donot call for it.

Allthat being said, in a odd way it works in the character's favour whentaking into consideration the internal strife he wrestles with. Thestory takes him on a critical personal journey by which he mustre-discover his place and purpose in life, finding answers to themany heavy questions and doubts weighing down on him. In a nutshell,he is a worryingly confused young individual. His stardom of acollege athlete means he engages in interviews with reporters andcatches the interest of several people associated with the businessside of sports. On the other hand, there is his radical roommateGabriel, who continuously feeds him with ideas of the current rightsand wrongs of society. He is caught in the middle of two totallydifferent sides espousing notions about two totally different issues. Both havetheir respective merits, but as presented to Hector, both seem quiteunappealing at times too. Yes, the political and culture status quo ofcontemporary America probably should change, yet it doesn't help thatthe man trying to help him see the light is Gabriel (actor MichaelMargotta actually gives a very Nicholson-esque performance, playingup the part to the tenth degree in a wildly amusing if also very sadrole), a radically anti-establishment youth who is breaking down thebarriers of decency in order to prove his points. On the flip side isa possibly very successful future where money, fame and respect areall of the order, yet when compared to the real issues of the day,its importance diminishes significantly. It may therefore be arguedthat the confusion residing within Hector explains his behaviour and,by extent, the actor's performance, which is not poor, only limitedin range. The character of Hector is having trouble expressing whathe really wants because, in this tumultuous period in his life, he isunsure of what he wants.

Compoundingthe problems is his ongoing flirtations with Olive, playedwonderfully by Karen Black (who was seen in the previous film, FiveEasy Pieces). She is a nice person, but rather than provide somesort of adult-minded guidance, she leads him into emotionallyambiguous territory. After all, she is married, perhaps to a man shedoes not love as strongly as she once did, but married nevertheless.Her opinion of him is never fully revealed, although it can beassumed that she accepts their bond as purely flirtatious, somethingthat shall not and certainly should not evolve into anythinggreater. Yet it is precisely this acceptance on her part thatconfuses Hector all the more. She is one of many adult characters in themovie who play a dual role in both lending a supportive crutch, be itemotional or psychological, while also worsening Hector's condition.Olive exists as something he sees as nothing other than good, yet thein truth their relationship is destined to end in sooner rather thanlater. Another character whose efforts require time to bear fruit isHector's basketball coach, played by Bruce Dern. Coach Bullionevolves as the opposite of stereotypical film sports manager in thatrather than being ruthless, unforgiving and insanely demanding at thestart, only to soften as the hero's plight comes into full effect,the reverse occurs. He gives Hector some space to bee himself, evenwhen the latter under-performs or fails to abide by Bullion's wishes.Coach hopes this will reassure his star player and help him in some,but nothing of the sort transpires. As Hector's behaviour on and offthe court worsens, Bullion becomes increasingly enraged at the youngman's lack of discipline.

Nicholson'sdirection is spot on for the most part. The film rarely revels inshowmanship, and in the rare instances when it does (as with the slowmotion during critical moments of basketball matches), it feelsright, setting the tone and emotional context of givens scenesperfectly. Overall, the film has a naturalistic feeling about it. Hisunderstanding of character, in addition to knowing where and how totake his characters' arcs, is surprisingly effective, poignant even.Perhaps is Nicholson has chosen to direct more films of this ilk hisreputation in that regard would be greater than it is today(directing the deservedly maligned sequel to Chinatown did nothelp his case).

TheCriterion packaging for Drive, He Said mentions that indiscussion of BBS films, Nicholson's film is often the one peopleoverlook. True enough, when standing next to Easy Rider andFive Easy Pieces, Drive, He Said's stature is not asimpressive. Nonetheless, admirers of early 70s American cinema woulddo themselves a favour by seeking this one out.

Comica Obscura: Rocketeer rebuttal

2012-02-05T00:24:00.001-05:00

Thisarticle will contain some mild spoilers.

Inorder to better understand what this article is discussing, please goread Bill's review of The Rocketeer, published last Sunday.

Itis with a decidedly peculiar twist that our Comica Obscura marathonbegan with last Sunday. What was obvious to anyone who paid a visitto your Movie Emporium and Between the Seats is that we eachpublished our respective The Rocketeerreviews, in which we espoused the merits of Joe Johnston’s livelycomic book adventure film heavily influenced by the adventures of aperiod long past our 21^stcentury hipster era. Indeed, those who read articles came away withthe idea that both us enjoyed the film. True enough.

WhatI did not overlook was the manner in which we both reacted to thefilm. In a sense, today’s article will not be in the spirit of atrue ‘rebuttal’, but rather a response, a bit of dialogue, a bitof intellectual masturbation, if you will. Facts are facts andnothing will change them. I am Canadian, born and living Montréalwhile you are a born and bred American, living near Chicago(correct?). We bring personal baggage to the films we watch, whichconsequently the ways in which we assess and digest them , and lifegoes on. Rather than pursue this ultimately useless posturing, Iguess I’ll get straight to the point of my ‘response.’

Youreally brought a particularly American perspective to your evaluationof The Rocketeer.

Again,there is nothing wrong with that (and to emphasize another point,this won’t be much of a rebuttal in the truest sense), you saw thefilm through the only eyes possible: your own. Briefly reading overmy own article, I do, in fact, mention the protagonist’s Americanquality. The gusto, the energy, the belief in himself to come out ontop (you astutely made reference to the proverbial ‘Americandream’, albeit not in exactly the same context in your review, butI think it applies in this case too), etc, etc. I wrote that downlast Sunday because I too felt to have come across that in TheRocketeer. That being said, theremainder of my review was obviously from a more, I don’t know howexactly to write this, ‘objective’, or non-American perspective.I guess what left me wondering was the extent to which you used anAmerican slant in the evaluation of the film. Also, and I insist thatyou correct me on this because I’d much rather not come across as abastard, it seemed as though that idea, that TheRocketeer embodied a lot of what‘Americana’ consists of, sufficed for you to appreciate the film.By that I mean that a more in depth evaluation of other aspects, likesupporting performances, or plot devices, or action, or music, wasnever really part of the plan. The movie was ‘fun and very Americanand that’s good enough for me’ was the overall idea that I couldextract from your article. Yes, there is some of that there, it ispart of the film's structural fabric, we are actually agreeing onthat matter, to an extent. I was merely taken aback by howmuch that drove your summation of thefilm.

Toget into specifics, you cite two scenes which struck you in thatfashion. The first the combat between Cliff and Sinclair in thezeppelin (which I erroneously called a ‘blimp’. That was dumb).The strategy by which he defeats Sinclair, gumption, was veryAmerican? I’m not sure I follow. A character from another nationwould not have demonstrated such a quality? Agent 007, a Brit, actswith gumption in almost every Bond movie. In fact, it actually prettydifficult to think of too many popular heroes, American or not, thatdon’t resolvechallenges with at least a bit of gumption. The Belgian Tintin?Frodo, Sam and the rest of the fellowship in TheLord of the Rings? The latter don’teven have a real country from this earth and they frequentlydemonstrate gumption.

Thesame goes for the second scene you pinpoint, that in which HowardHughes donates a gift to Cliff for his heroism but Cliff prefers hisreal prize: Jenny and what will most certainly be a happy marriage.This happy, emotionally driven conclusion would be, in your opinion,another slice of Americanism. Again, anybody, in any country (atleast in the Western world where we have a lot of money, food andconvenient roofs over our heads) could react the same way. How manyFrench and British novels have there been in which the protagonist(s)strive for love above all else? Three Musketeers, anyone? Hello, Allfor one and all for love (greatsong!... awkward silence…)? I guess what I’m saying that is that,while The Rocketeerdoes live and die by some individual qualities often associated withAmerican culture (or behaviour, however you choose to call it), theyare not restricted to said culture. I guess I just felt it odd thatyou held on to that idea in such a pronounced way in your review. Itpretty much dominated your review, even.

Iam desperately trying to come up with a fictional comparativestatement of opinion that might be help me get this notion across.This is the best I can come up with at the moment. What if I reviewedDavid Cronenberg's Videodromeand hammered home the point about how Canadian is it, specificallybecause it is unafraid it explores the relationship between sex andviolence (ratings about sex and violence are, in fact, comparativelymore lax in Canada than they are in the U.S.). What about anythingTakashi Miike has made (Japan), which maybe the exception of his twolatest films? How about Park Chan-wook, like in Thirst(Korea)? Oh, here's a real kicker: Lucky McKee's TheWoman, from non other than the UnitedStates of America? Suddenly my opinion seems to have taken on toonarrow a focus.

Settingaside this notion of perspectives, which is a tricky way to aboard arebuttal post anyhow (and I’m not entirely convinced I’m doing anadequate job at it either), you do overlook some of the film’sweird plot holes, like how Cliff becomes a master at manipulating therocket pack without any hints whatsoever as to how or when he becomesso good at it. Another eye rolling moment was when Howard Hughesshows Cliff and Peevy a German-made cartoon revealing why Nazis wereafter the rocket in the first place and how the planned to go aheadand use them as a military weapon. My immediate thought when watchingthe cartoon, as the characters in the film all had aghast expressionswhich read ‘My god!’, was: ‘I have an idea. Use planes. Done!’

Look,I admit that I was nitpicking somewhat in that last paragraph, buteven pulpy scripts need to hold up a little bit, and if a script aspulpy as The Rocketeer’shas moments where it lets me down, I’ll call the movie out on it. Iwon’t, however, back down on my comments about Timothy Dalton, withthe sort of character he plays in the film, bossing Paul Sorvinoaround like a dog. As much as I bloody love Dalton, and Bill, I’msure you know I do…I just don’t think so.

Thisarticle should come to an end right about now. For one, I am runningout of arguments to make and, second, I feel as though I haven’teven made much of an argument despite having now surpassed 1,000words. We came with different perspective and were influence by them,which all fine and dandy. I simply did not anticipate you evaluatingthe film strictly, or mostly, through the prism of Americana, inaddition to the fact that some of the critical points you make do notpertain to just America. Overall, it felt like a very, I don’t evenknow, simple (?) way to view the film.

Iguess you are a true (New England) Patriot after all.

…Ohmy god! The game is on! I’m out of here!

Opinion piece: Watch and learn on DVD and Blu-ray

2012-02-04T23:43:00.000-05:00

Afew days ago a fellow blogger you most surely know well, Bill fromBill's Movie Emporium, published an interesting article about his opinion on DVD and Blu-ray supplements, or 'bonus features' as theyare typically referred to on the back of packaging. It was a goodread, as is often the case whenever I happen to pay his site a visit,although it was mostly the case just because it allowed me to knowabout more about the side of things from someone who does not,in fact, care much for the added content on home video formats.

WhileBill and I frequently find common ground, I am of a different mindseton this topic. Granted, if a movie for which I have a deepappreciation for is available at reasonable price on DVD or BD, Iwill still make the purchase. Ironically enough, that was the casewith The Rocketeer, released on BD in December and the firstfilm in our Comica Obscura marathon. Other than a trailer, the discis what us DVD and BD fans refer to as a 'bare bones' disc. The truthof the matter is, the more quality supplements are produced for adisc, the more satisfied a customer I become.

Itgoes without saying that the single most important reason to purchasea DVD or BD, especially on street release Tuesday when prices arehigh until they begin to drop several months down the road, is one'sattachment to a given film. If a newly released BD is for a film onedoes not care for, then the quantity and quality of the supplementswill carry little weight in the purchase decision making process. Ifit is a film one loves, then the bonus material, especially when adisc is stacked, will mean the consumer gets a lot of bang for theirbuck. If one stops and thinks about it, it is interesting to considerthat said material is labelled as a 'bonus', a 'supplement, a'special feature.' After all, when done with the right amount ofattention and care (which, admittedly, is not often enough the casewith studio releases), a supposed bonus feature becomes a truecompanion piece, adding a wealth of informative and educationalknowledge for the film lover to dive into.

Thereinlies the principle reasons why I am a great admirer of bonusfeatures. Between the Seats offers a series of review every singleweek for the pleasure of you, the readers. Said articles consist ofmy opinions on each and every film, and via those reviews I do mybest at articulating and, at times, even intellectualizing what themeaning, purpose and effect of specific films and scenes might be. Itis a tremendously fun exercise and I am always thrilled to receive somany comments and page views from people who actually think thosearticles are worthy of their time. The opinions featured in them camefrom my mind and heart. The most important thing in a film review,what should come before anything else, is what the reviewer thoughtof, felt about, and how they reacted to said movie and why (thatsecond element, 'why', maybe being the aspect a few too manyreviewers do not invest sufficient time articulating, sadly). That'sthe gist of a review, no questions asked. Not critical analysis, butreviewing. When all is said and done, when the film has been viewed,when thoughts and emotions were digested, formulated into words andphrases and eventually published on a blog or whatever medium one hasas one's venue, I personally very much enjoy furthering the movieexperience. This can mean reading what others have to say on theinternet, which I do with decent frequency, but also learning about afilm's production history, from the screenwriting process all the wayto the marketing. This is where the bonus features come into play. Itis rare that learning about a film production will drastically changemy opinion of a picture. It may have occurred once or twice, but eventhen I am having difficulty recollecting a perfect example at themoment.

However,understanding how a movie was made and why it was made in a givenfashion can complement one's understanding of it, whether theyenjoyed it or not. It is not because, after listening to interviewsfrom the cast and crew about the titanic challenges faced, that oneshould suddenly have a change of heart and proclaim adoration for afilm they disliked. Of course not. That being said, the simple matterof knowing the various hurdles the filmmakers were forced to overcome(and may have utterly failed to overcome in some instances) can, atthe very least, provide some context as to the film's existence, itsstate. 'This film has a terrible script. It's horrendously uneven, tothe point of being schizophrenic.' Lo and behold, that mess of ascript went through the hands of three, four, five screenwriters whohad different opinions of where the story needed to take thecharacters. It remains a shamefully uneven script, consequentlybringing the movie's quality down a few notches, but at least youknow why now.

Whywere specific actors chosen for specific roles? What did they thinkupon first reading the script? What were the director's originalintentions? What were the studio's original intentions (sometimes aneven more powerful force than the director him or herself)? The filmwas made in Japan in the 1950s, and the country's post-war culturalshifts meant that so and so themes were to be explored. This wasadapted from a 1000 page novel, which was evidently far too dauntinga challenge to stuff everything into the script and therefore changes'x', 'y' and 'z' were made. So on and so forth... Some people do notfeel the need to know any of that. Truth be told, they don't need toknow it. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion. We all bring our ownbaggage to the films we watch anyhow. Still, that added layer ofcontext, which can be provided through great bonus features, issomething I happen to cherish. As a something of a history buff, Isort of have a gene for appreciating the context of things, eventsand the people involved in them, which of course includes films.Probably the best example of bonus features which enhanced myappreciation for a movie is the 5-disc Blade Runner set, which on itssecond disc has a three hour long documentary on the making of thefilm!

Whatis your stance on DVD and BD bonus features? Do you sink your teethinto them? Can they make or break a purchase? Or perhaps do you noteven flip to the back of the DVD packaging when picking up afavourite film at the store, unconcerned about whatever else otherthan the film is on the disc?

Thanksfor reading.

capsule reviews: Notorious, The Grey

2012-02-02T18:49:00.002-05:00

Notorious (1946, Alfred Hitchcock)

The film opens with Ingrid Bergman’s father being found guilty in court for treason. Bergman’s relation with her father was strained at best, and so rather than bemoan her parent’s condemnation, she has a lively dinner party at her place the very same evening. One of the guests is played by Cary Grant (whom the director reveals slowly at first, with only shots from behind his head), who, it turns out, is a spy for the United States government. His interest in Bergman may be professional on the surface, given that he and his superior (Louis Calhern) send her down to Brazil to seduce one of her father’s old friends (Clause Raines) because the latter is suspected of operating for Germans, but the sparks between the two are too much to suppress forever! Various espionage and romantically-themed shenanigans.

To put it bluntly, Notorious is an exquisite example of vintage Hitchcock filmmaking. Consider the following: he employed two powerhouse, charismatic, talented, beautiful actors in the lead roles, has allocated the supporting players to a series of familiar character actors, plays around with the cinematography and camera angles in fresh and unexpected ways to keep the movie’s attitude edgy, builds suspense in simple yet devilishly clever ways and makes use of the oldest of all the tricks in his book of storytelling: the famous Maguffin. Sure, there is some mumbo jumbo about Claude Raines using his image as a dedicated scientist to cover up some mischief related to chemicals and rocks (if I’ve even understood that part of the film at all), but as with the majority of the acclaimed director’s work, that element’s true purpose is not to create intricately weaved plotting as an excuse for adult-minded complex drama, but rather to set the stage for lovable, charming banter as Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman fall for each other.

There arguably is no possible way that a Grant-Bergman coupling could ever prove sour seeing as both have far, far too much natural charisma and acting chops. What makes Grant’s role a bit different than what some might automatically suspect heading into the movie is that, as a spy, he is under the obligation to withdraw too much attachment to the beautiful newbie secret agent. As a result, he plays the role with greater aloofness than he does many of his parts. Bergman has the most complicated part. She is a woman without purpose at the beginning (sipping her conscious away into drunken stupor), secondly a woman in love, and lastly a woman who has to make a third party believe she loves them back in a risky, deceitful game. She smartly juggles all of these personalities, helping relate to the audience that her character is a far more interesting person than what those early scenes indicate, even though Bergman plays a great drunken fool. Raines is amazing in the role of a sophisticated scientist who may or may not be in cahoots with former Nazis ex-patriots.

Hitchcock punctuates a great many scenes with tension in which characters are only ever seconds away from being found out. The simple creativity involved in developing such moments never ceases to amaze.

The Grey (2012, Joe Carnahan)

The unexpectedly great film of early ’12 (January typically being a dreary month for Hollywood) has Liam Neeson and a solid grouping of supporting actors, among them Dermot Mulroney, playing employees of an oil company returning home from Alaska via plane. Unfortunately for them, the craft fails to survive a passage of turbulence, crashing somewhere in the frozen Alaskan country. Fortunately for the viewer, the movie offers surprisingly effective suspense and a lot of worthwhile character explorations.

The trailers for Carnahan’s latest did little to suggest that it reserved any remarkable pretensions beyond supplying audiences with a series of perfunctory thrills, courtesy of some rather fake-looking wolves. The truth of the matter is entirely different, even with regards to those computer generated antagonists, who frequently look genuinely menacing. Dare it be written, the artificiality about them lends the beasts a level of unexpected artistry so far as visual presentation goes. What’s more, the audio quality is spectacular, especially when the fanged hunters make their presence known to the stranded humans. The howling, the growling, the barking, everything is presented in a way that makes the viewer think a pack has just entered the theatre. Unnerving stuff, to be sure.

Where the film really takes the viewer by surprise is in its patience and desire to add layers of depth to the nightmarish experience these men live and die through. The film will occasionally take breaks from the action and allow the protagonists to mull over their fate and what they hope to return to provided they ever make it home alive at all. These scenes appear more tranquil thanks to the absence of the animals, yet demonstrate Carnahan’s intent on getting into the psyche of these individuals under extremely stressful conditions. The film is virtually more drama than it is action, something many will not have foreseen.

The past few years have seen a curious change of pace in Liam Neeson’s career, having evolved from being a purely dramatic actor into the fascinating variation of an action star he is now. Prior to Taken, few would have envisioned the Irishman capable of being a total bad ass. What a difference a couple of films can make! The Grey continues the actor’s recent trend, a move that will undoubtedly satisfy those who were enamoured by his work in Taken and last year’s Unknown. His character’s tough guy qualities are muted by a sense of ominous danger which dominants. A scarred man, Neeson’s character is unafraid of appreciating the genuine risk of their predicament, nor admitting the side of him consumed by fear. It’s not Schindler’s List, but it remains effective in its own particular way.

review: Kshay/Corrode

2012-01-31T11:17:00.001-05:00

Kshay/Corrode(2011, Karan Gour)

Acommon fault among human beings is they all too frequently obsessover what they do not own. A particular object catches their eye, fora variety of reasons which may be well founded or not, and asubsequent desire to possess overtakes them. In some cases the desiremay be quenched rather simply, while in other instances the lack ofownership leaves a considerable void in their lives, be it true or afabrication of the mind. This human weakness can serve as inspirationfor filmmakers to study how people behave under the stress of createdby continuously seeking what is just out of reach. Indie (and Indian)writer-director Karan Gour uses this notion as the driving force forhis psychological thriller Kshay, which had limited releaselast year, playing at a variety of North American film festivals.

Chhayand Arvind (Rasika Dugal and Alekh Sangal) are a happily marriedcouple, who live in a very modest apartment. Their love keeps themclose together as they struggle to work their way through some tighteconomic times. Arvind is member of a construction team, employed bycontractor Bupa (Sudhir Pednekar). Bupa, although a long time friendof Arvind, will not give in to the latter's qualms about thedifficulties on the job. If the gang does not work faster, they willnot receive the sum originally owed to them. Chhay's job is much moreundefined, although the film demonstrates that she is an artist, orat least has an appreciation of art. On day, while waiting for herhusband to return from work, she steps into a sculpture workshopwhere she makes the discovery of what to her eyes appears to be astunning figure of the the Hindu goddess Lakshmi, who representswealth, prosperity (spiritual and material), light wisdom, among manyother ideals. Whether it is a trick of her own mind or that of foulspirits, the statue takes a hold of Chhay's conscious, as sheobsesses more and more over the object with every passing day.Henceforth the only certainty in her mind is that she must possessit, regardless of the monetary or human costs...

Discoveringimpressive independent productions is always a pleasure for anyself-respecting film reviewer. Karan Dugour, with what looks to be avery modest budget, succeeds in creating a terrifically moody,ambiguous little piece that remains gripping from beginning to enddespite a few slight miscalculations here and there. The most obviousaspect to the film is the director's decision to capture the eventswith sharp black and white photography. More than a few people ofalready espoused the wonders of black and white cinema and Betweenthe Seats agrees wholeheartedly, the technique is more often than notbeautiful to look at, adding a very classy texture to movies. In thecase of Kshay, the effect is twofold. Not only does itimmediately capture the attention, but it serves a purpose,thematically speaking. Upon making the discovery of the Lakshmistatue, Chhay's world does, figuratively, become black and white.There is no 'maybe', no 'but', no 'perhaps if'. Her one mind isfocused on a singular purpose: obtaining her Lakshmi (which isanother clever bit of direction. Chhay refers to the object of herdesire as her Lakshmi). Utilizing stylish cinematography is onething, but to do so with a purpose adds another layer of depth to thefilm. It is an art house film that actually does pay heed to thenotion of being artistic.

Kshayalso benefits from scintillatingsound design, making for a complete, sometimes unnerving sensoryexperience. The hushed tone with which the audience hears Chhay'sunethical thoughts, the whipping of her long, black hair under thehot morning sun after a shower, the other-worldly gargles emanatingfrom whatever visions plague the protagonist (the audience only seesthem from the mysterious vision's point of view), and of course asumptuously beautiful and haunting score which sharply tieseverything together. It goes without saying that from a technicalstandpoint, Kshay is asuccess from top to bottom. So far as the sights and sounds go, theviewer will have little trouble feeling immersed int he experience.

DirectorGour's skills are thankfully not limited to the technicalities. Asthe screenwriter, he has delicately put together a story which flirtsbetween some of the more traditional genre fair and astute characterpiece. With regards to the first point, the mere fact that this is amovie in which a statue has, ostensibly, 'taken over' the mind of awoman means that certain tropes of horror and thriller films are tobe embraced. More than once the picture frame will rest on Chhay'sappreciative face as she observes what the viewer can assume is anapparition of the sculpture since, clearly, the only place the statuecan be is back at the workshop. There is also an imaginative dreamsequence which relates to the protagonist's sad past, in which shelost a child during labour, a scene which would feel very much athome in a David Lynch or early David Cronenberg film. On the wholehowever, the genre aspects play second fiddle to the better thanexpected drama and solitary character moments which observe Chhay'sbehaviour as her mental condition grows worse by the day. In additionto actress Rasika Dugal herself putting on a swell performance, someof the best scenes in the film involve Chhay performing schemes toearn more money to pay for her Lakshmi, like entering her neighbour'shome to steal valuable furniture. Such moments lend an element ofwelcomed realism to the picture. Where the film plants the seeds ofdoubt is in the revelation of the loss of her baby during aconversation with a neighbour. The latter shares a tale of howanother woman suffered a similar fate and, after praying many monthsshe received non other than a small Lakshmi sculpture and soonthereafter gave birth to a healthy child. In the end, what is Chhayexperiencing? Is there actually a malevolent spirit operating hermind, or is this dark episode a result of long term trauma born outof her previous tragedy? The film plays on one side more than theother, but the inclusion of this bit of information is enough to makethe viewer think twice about the nature of the story.

WhileKshay plays things smartly most of the way through, it doesoccasionally indulge too much in some of the genre-heavy ingredients.The statue 'point of view visions' appear a bit too often and rarelyamount to much. One in particular has the vision swirl around Chhayas she stands alone in her apartment kitchen for several minutes.Later in the picture, perhaps in an attempt to answer the question asto whether or not this is really occurring or if it is merely aconcept of Chhay's mind, her husband Arvind has a traumatic encounterwhich leads to him having his own nightmarish vision. It is a curiousdecision. What leads up to that point is a bit weak in terms ofnarrative and the inclusion of a vision for Arvind confuses mattersmore than it does clarify them.

Notwithstandinga few miscues, Kshay proves to be well worth the time of anygenre film fan. It centres around an interesting protagonist(portrayed by a solid actress) and boasts plenty of truly artisticmerit to boot. Hopefully the film will gain further exposure viafuture film festivals. Karan Gour mat a director's name we hear moreoften in the future.

Comica Obscura Marathon: The Rocketeer

2012-01-29T12:53:00.002-05:00

TheRocketeer (1991, Joe Johnston)

Payingclose attention to the comic book movie landscape, the films thatfeature rather ordinary people taking on the role of great heroes arefar and few between. The protagonists are either blessed withintellectual and physical skills which far surpass what regularhumans can accomplish or, even when the hero in question is a meremortal, they do benefit from some obvious advantages, like how BruceWayne relies on his endless amounts of monetary funds to render hisnight excursions as Batman as easy as possible. It would berefreshing to see a truly simple individual benefit from circumstanceand perseverance to overcome the most dangerous foes. Someoneanswered that call. From the mind of Dave Stevens came, in the early1980s, a comic book which was a throwback to the pulpy Saturdaymatinee heroes of yore: The Rocketeer.

Setin Los Angeles of the late 1930s, the story follows Cliff (BillCampbell), a test pilot, who, with the help his father Peevey's (AlanArkin) knowledge of mechanics, take a variety of planes on testflights with the occasional participation in national competitions.Young, kind and driven by a sense of adventure, he just loves to fly.The apple of Cliff's eye is Jenny (Jennifer Connelly), who earns somemoney as an extra on film sets, although her greater goal would be toone day gain a starring role in Hollywood's big productions, like theactor at the centre of her current film, Neville Sinclair (TimothyDalton), the number 3 box office winner in the country. When Cliffand his father stumble upon a funny looking rocket pack, a wildadventure begins. Pretty soon the local mob, headed by EddieValentine (Paul Sorvino) are after the coveted object. The truth ofthe matter is that they operate at the behest of Sinclair, forreasons that go unexplained until later, as does a towering monsterof a man, Rothar (Tiny Ron Taylor). Even Howard Hughes himself (TerryO'Quinn, who is excellent in the role) has an interest in the engine.Rather than be docile and hand it over, Cliff, much against hisfather's wishes, straps on the rocket and, equipped with an eyecatching helmet, fights off the villains, earning his reputation asThe Rocketeer!

Wereeverything about Joe Johnston's picture, from its tone, charactersand plot to be summarized into a single word, it would be 'fluff.'The film is well intentioned, well spirited and driven by a desirefor some very old school adventure of the swashbuckling variety (onecharacter even whips around a sword in one scene!). Even though theprotagonists have reasonably well defined story arcs that the viewercan identify with, the picture has no grander pretensions about it.An X-Men allegorical study of race relations and closetedhomosexuals The Rocketeer is most certainly not. Nay, it ismore along the lines of another famous movie made by non other thanone of Johnston's film mentors, Steven Spielberg, Raiders of theLost Ark, which itself relies heavily on character charisma andfantastical set pieces to propel it self forward.

Whenbreaking down the good natured aspect of The Rocketeer, thediscussion arguably begins and ends with actors Bill Campbell andAlan Arkin, who play a charming, lovable, sometimes bickering fatherand son duo. While Campbell never made a big name for himself inHollywood, his career path afterwards concentrating mostly on theworld of television, there is a sense that he relishes every momentin The Rocketeer. His Cliff is the epitome of a young,American, gun-ho adventurer whose dedication to family and friends aswell as his courage give him the lift he needs to overcome the odds.It is a far more slippery performance to pull off than some mightbelieve. Spouting heroic lines does not suffice. Playing it cool doesnot suffice. There must be something genuine in the performance,something about the actor's heart that lends the role a level ofbelievability, not in a manner that should make the film realisticper say, but that the viewer can believe the in the character'sstruggle. Campbell pulls this off in spades, as does Alan Arkin,whose character is very different, but compliments his co-star quitenicely. Jennifer Connelly is reduced to being what so many femalecharacters are in films of this ilk, although no one can claim shedoes not give it her all. At the very least, the picture does allowher to outsmart one of its chief villains in a critical scene.

Maybethe one department in which the film performs a slight miscalculationin terms of acting, be it because of the script, the direction or theperformers themselves, is in the dynamic between Paul Sorvino andTimothy Dalton. Both are solid actors, so the problem does not liespecifically with them as performers, but rather in the atmospherethey lend to their shared scenes coupled with how the film requiresthat they interact. It seems that between Sorvino and Dalton, if oneis to play a real intimidating antagonist, the advantage goes to theformer, yet it is the latter who takes the reigns. Anybody whovisited Between the Seats during the Definitive Bond Marathon knowsour favourable opinion on Dalton, but seeing an imposing figure likeSorvino submit himself to the Welshman seemed somewhat implausible.

Apartfrom the performances, the film rests on the adventure and sense ofexcitement it will or will not charm its audience with. DirectorJohnston wastes no time in setting characters up and thrusting themall into the thick of the action, juggling light comedy, impressivestunt work, visual effects of the early 1990s variety (anybodydiscovering The Rocketeer for the first time in 2012 is justgoing to have to deal with that reality) and staying true to thenature of the characters within those moments of thrills and chills.The set pieces themselves are varied enough to continuously impress,which is no small feat given that all Cliff can really do as the herois, well, fly. Two standouts are when Cliff squares off againstSinclair inside a night club and, unsurprisingly, the climax, whichhas Cliff and Jenny fight their way inside as well as on top of amassive blimp at night. That second piece is a fantastic example ofthe sort of action movies such as The Rocketeer are all aboutand, honestly, the type of action one wishes there was more of intoday's films. Despite what praise can be showered onto the directionthat went into the set pieces, those very scenes do make the physicsbehind the rocket a little puzzling. At the start of the film, asCliff and Peevy test its engine, the rocket demonstrates an out ofthis world level of power and speed, and yet later on Cliff is ableto hover gentle inside a room. Is this a glaring inconsistency? DidCliff have more time to practice using the rocket? If so, then when,since it does not seem like very much time elapses between theopening and closing scenes of the movie. Maybe those sorts ofquestions need be reserved for other movies, who knows.

Lastbut certainly not least, there is the Rocketeer's costume. There isan old expression which says that beauty is in the eye of thebeholder, so a grand elaboration of what makes the suit so stylish ismaybe out of order, but suffice to say that it is awesome, inparticular the helmet. Couple with that leather fighter pilot-stylejacket and one is left with pretty amazing looking hero.

TheRocketeer is the type of film in which the 'plot' is more of anafterthought than anything else (in fact, the more plot is revealed,the sillier it becomes), but the overall honesty and goodness aboutthe characters will help the viewer cheer the movie on. It is allrather silly, but when the big action packed climax occurs, we would,in fact, like to see Cliff and Jenny make it out alive and livehappily together. It is a little unfortunate that relations betweendirector Johnston and the studio soured during production and thatthe film failed to impress at the box office. A sequel would haveactually been a nice prospect. But what am I writing?! We can readDave Stevens' comics!

Done here? Find out if Bill knows how to operate a rocket pack over at his Movie Emporium.

BBS Productions Presents: Five Easy Pieces

2012-01-27T12:42:00.002-05:00

FiveEasy Pieces (1970, Rob Rafelson)

JackNicholson, so far as the most recent decade of his work is concerned,has earned a dubious reputation to say the least. The sarcasm, thebullish wisecracks, that widest of wide grins, all are hallmarks ofthe Jack Nicholson of the late 1990s and first decade of the newmillennium, so much so that he is mostly recognized for playinghimself as opposed to actual three-dimensional characters, joiningthe same undesirable club as the once great Al Pacino. As wasdiscovered last week in a review for Easy Rider, Nicholson'sfilm career began many, many years ago in the late 1960s. One of hisfirst starring roles and, arguably, one of his more complex roles,was in the film under review today, Five Easy Pieces, directedby BBS co-founder Rob Rafelson, who also made Head twoyears prior.

Robert'Bobby' Dupea (Nicholson) lives in a relatively small house with hisdiner waitress partner Rayette Dipesto (Karen Black). He is employedat a nearby oil drilling company, where physically taxing chores areasked of its employees day in and day out. The film establishes earlyon that Bobby is what some would describe as a drifter, an individualpossessing a variety of knowledge but having never put any of it totremendous use, hopping from one job to another. In his thirties, heremains unmarried and has no children, his current relationship withRay, a kind and loving if somewhat simple minded woman, not as solidas it maybe once was. Bobby definitely likes her, but refuses, in hisown brash way, to give in to true love, just just he once refused toremain with his eclectic family back home and just as he refused tomake a life for himself with his stunning piano playing skills.Evenings are spent with friends Elton (Billy Green) and his wifeeither at their place or at the bowling alley, where Ray makes a foolof herself more than anything else, much to Bobby's annoyance. Whenhe learns of Ray's pregnancy, Bobby feels to the need to get away fora while, quitting his job and meeting up with his pianist sister(Lois Smith) who warns him about the poor health of his estrangedfather. Despite himself, he and Ray drive their way up to the familyhome to revisit some old people Bobby would rather not seen again, aswell as some interesting new people, like his brother's beautiful,sophisticated, music loving fiancée, Catherine (Ausan Aanspach).

FiveEasy Pieces is, more than anything else, a character study, withof course Jack Nicholson's Bobby being the centre of attention.Whatever poignant moments the film has in store for the viewer,whatever surprises or emotional tugs it may elicit, they are squarelythe products the film's quiet, slowly paced drama where the people,their lives and how their interactions define one another mattermost. Director Rafelson, who made quite the impression with thevisually and aurally psychedelic Head, takes on an entirelydifferent role, letting go of any desires to dazzle audience withclever cuts or flash, preferring rather to invest the film's successin the script and acting. The piece's central figure, Bobby, is arepresentation of alienation in many ways. Even in his mid thirtiesis ill defined as can be, all things taken into account. He hascertain skills, certain charms, certain likes and dislikes, but putsthem to genuine good use only infrequently, preferring time spentwith his friend Elton drinking beer, bowling, watching television andjoking at work. Any impetus that sets him in motion is oftensomething he does not like or does not want to dealwith. In that respect, Bobby is an uneasy character to follow aroundfor 90 minutes since his attitude towards many things the majorityholds dear is borderline hostile, especially when confronted by themdirectly, exemplified by his outburst when Elton talks with him aboutRay's pregnancy. He is as far removed from the traditional Americanfilm hero as can be. In a strange way, he is the film's villain.

Onerecurring device the film handles with a great deal of success is thevery idea of Bobby's behaviour frequently being driven by whathappens to him without ever giving off the impression that thecharacter is nothing more than a blank slate onto which the scriptpiles on a series of convoluted events. Nay, his reactions topeople and events do, in fact, help define him. The tomfoolery heengages in with Elton, his ambivalent feelings towards the hopelesslyromantic Rayette, the counter-culture hitchhikers the couple picks upbriefly on their way up to see Bobby's father, the vastly differentpersonalities he is forced to reckon with once reunited with hisimmediate family, his complicated attraction to Catherine, thesnobbish intellectuals the latter invites one evening for dinnerwhich, after one of the guests scoffs at Ray's immaturity, actuallyprompts him to come to the defence of his partner even though hereally wants to bang Catherine (a contradictory emotional predicamentif there ever was one). All of these disparate elements help depictjust how psychologically wild Bobby is. He has heart, but will notlove. He has education, but likes to play dumb, He is a heartbeataway from leaving Ray, but will come to her defence is she is targetof verbal abuse. There really is no simple way of describing him,thus earning Five Easy Pieces a sense of emotional ambiguityboth in how the protagonist is portrayed and in how the audiencemight respond to him.

Whatcan be said about Jack Nicholson's performance? Put simply, it isamazing. Those mostly familiar with the actor's more recent workshould do away with any preconceived notions about the frequentobnoxious pomposity which plagues his style of acting. Here is asnuanced a performance as Nicholson has ever delivered in his entirefour decade long career. It is only a shame it came so early andreproduced only so often in the years afterwards. His portrayal ofBobby is what can, ultimately, get the audience on board behind thecharacter even though his behaviour and demeanour are less thansavoury. Nicholson manages to extract all the duality he can out ofthis ambiguous man. Yes, some of the vintage charm that would soonearn him considerable fame is on display, but it is much more subduedhere.

Itis a comforting thing to re-discover the often forgotten fact thatJack Nicholson can, when in the mood, be the appropriate emotionalanchor in a film. Everything in Five Easy Pieces is rightfullyearned, making it, at this point in the marathon, the clear leader asthe best film BBS produced.

Capsule reviews: Antichrist, Colombiana

2012-01-24T20:25:00.001-05:00

Antichrist (2009, Lars Von Trier)

Readers should be forewarned: this is Between the Seats' first Trier experience, hence no points of reference exist. Many discussions devoted to the director's work seem to employ comparative analysis, but that, of course, won't be the case in this snippet of a review.

The film's sumptuously beautiful opening scene, shot in slow motion and remarkably detailed black and white, has a man and wife (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) make love in the shower and in their bedroom. Unbeknownst to the couple, their young child escapes its baby crib, inexplicably walks through the window and fall to its death several stories below. From that point onwards the film depicts the progressively insane period of shock and mourning, during which time the husband, some sort of psychologist (the movie does not dabble with the details), decides to treat his own wife, who is in a dangerous flux of emotions. When they take these exercises to their cabin in the woods, that is when things go absolute haywire in demonic fashion. The wife may be experiencing something much more than just mourning...

Whatever thematic resonance Antichrist holds, and some of it may be the bane of many a viewer given how grim the picture is, there is no denying the genuine artistry that went into producing this movie. From beginning to end, Trier and his crack team give viewers a boat load of beautiful images which either surprise for their beauty when juxtaposed against the tragic events unfolding, or simply do a phenomenal job at making the world of Antichrist that much more nightmarish. The hues and colour palettes make the vast majority of the film seem like an unforgettable dream, albeit one many might want to forget. The sequence during which Dafoe has Gainsbourg imagine herself walking towards their cabin because that is a place she supposedly fears is freakishly beautiful, with a lot of emphasis put on the 'freakish' aspect.

As for what the story and character development is aiming for, that can be anyone's guess. When digging deeper for some clues, one might conclude that the narrative and its ideas come across as a rather mixed bag of things. The film begins like it will play out as a harrowing, twisted drama between a man who psychoanalyzes his own wife, an idea which in of itself may be the source for some potentially riveting and twisted drama, then delves into some more moody and mysterious scenes, only to conclude with what amounts to bold material much in the tradition of solid genre fair, with some deliciously disgusting moments that will make almost anyone squirm. In that sense, the journey is an unexpected one, which can obviously be seen as a positive, although the picture's focus, so far as story and theme go, is perhaps not its strongest element. Need it be, though? That is another discussion altogether.

Colombiana (2011, Oliver Megaton)

Straight out of the Luc Besson playbook (who co-wrote the script, which comes as no surprise), Colombiana follows one woman, Cateleya (Zoe Saldana), whose tragic past during childhood leads her to her uncle's (Cliff Curtis) line of business: assassinations via. While she does perform whatever her uncle's enterprise is contracted for, her personal side jobs are aimed squarely at those who murdered her parents many years ago, while simultaneously juggling a tenuous love affair with a hunky painter (Michael Vartan).

There are no true surprises when it comes to films such as these. Unless someone comes along and offers up some sort of intellectually provocative deconstruction of the assassination revenge genre, everybody walking into this movie should what is coming, honestly. Even Haywire, which this blog praised a few days ago, reserved no unexpected revelations in terms of plotting. The success of Colombiana, or any other picture of this ilk, boils down to how compelling the lead is, how badly the viewer wants the villain to get what is coming to him (or her) and how impressive the action is.

Unfortunately, in case of Oliver Megaton's film, only the first of those three aspects succeed, that is, the interest one might have in Zoe Saldana and the character of Cataleya. Somewhat defying expectations, Saldana does inject some heart and charm into an otherwise deadly serious role. Granted, the moments when emotions other than 'I'm going to kill you now' kick in are far and few between, but, surprisingly enough, they do work. An interesting spin on the love angle is that in the case of Colombiana, the gender roles are reversed, with the man being continuously left at home after a night of passion, wondering when the apple of his eye will ever commit to the relationship. Apart from that, neither the villains of the piece nor the action arouse much interest, the worse culprit of the two being the latter. Megaton, perhaps because he is not convinced by the training his actors went through in preparation for the physicality demanded of the roles, relies on an incalculable number of quick edits when the bullets and fists fly. The sense of geography about almost all the stunts and fights is messy and ill-defined, leaving the viewer with a blazé feeling about the entire affair. It may star Saldana, a very talented actress in her own right who does as well as she can under the circumstances, but Colombiana does not deliver the goods overall.

review: Haywire

2012-01-21T23:56:00.002-05:00

Haywire(2011, Steven Soderbergh)

Itseems as though every new Soderbergh film is an event, albeit not onethat necessarily brings movie goers to the multiplex in droves.Rather, the 'event' status the director's films benefit from concernchiefly the many cinema buffs who eagerly await what box of surprisesthey will be get next for no one every knows what to expect from onefilm to another. If there is something Soderbergh long ago, it is hisskillful capacity to adapt and meld his talents for the purpose ofvirtually any genre. In the case of Haywire, the principlebenefactor from the director's influence is newcomer Gina Carano,whose talents up until now were demonstrated on the mats of MMAfights.

MallaryKane (Gina Carano) is a stunningly effective gun for hire. Her careeras a covert operator in the private sector takes her from country tocountry in a variety of life threatening missions. Kenneth (EwanMcGregor) is the man who sets up the contracts for his highly skilledteam, which also includes Aaron (Chaning Tatum), young brash, anddefinitely has the hots for Mallary. The viewer is launched straightinto the thick of Mallary's current predicament from the very firstscene, in which she is savagely attacked by Aaron at a diner inupstate New York. She escapes with th help of a local (MichaelAngarano) with whom she drives off and shares her tale of betrayaland revenge. Things went 'haywire' 10 days ago in Barcelona duringwhat seemed at the time to be an extract mission for one Chinesejournalist, which, it turns out, was but the tip of the iceberg in aplot for one evil person, Rodrigo (Antonio Banderas) helpanother, Studder (Mathieu Kassovitz), with the help of Kenneth andone British (Michael Fassbender) called into to finish her off. Now,only her father (Bill Paxton) and a U.S. Government official (MichaelDouglas) can help her.

Themore one thinks about it, the more it seems silly to write down howHaywire is 'surprisingly' good. Has this director ever made afull-on action adventure piece before? No, not unless people aregenerous enough to categorize films such as the Ocean trilogyunder that moniker. Despite this, his continuing ability to provehimself capable of making good pieces of cinema despite whatevergenre restrictions might stifle his creativity has been demonstratedtime and time again. Therefore, it should come as no surprise thatHaywire is not only a fine action movie, but a fine movie,period. In fact, even though January releases are so often long lostin the memories of movie fans when the time arrives to construct endof the year lists, it may be rightful to suspect that those withinclinations toward the action genre will immediately call back tothis film and rightfully reserve it a cozy spot. 11 months to go forthat statement to be proven correct or false.

Sowhere do the picture's many envious qualities lie? Lest she beoverlooked in the immense list of Hollywood stars that shine onscreen, the discussion should commence with Gina Carano herself, andnot merely for her impressive physical presence, which is abundantlyclear anyhow at numourous moments. Her acting was, argubably, thegreat unknown heading into this film, It is one thing to rest hope inthe hands of a fully capable director, it is another to rest iit nthe hands of someone who has never acted and gets the role of thecentral figure. Any doubters are proven wrong very quickly. Caranobrings to the role of Mallary a special kind of focus and nuance, thesort which helps flesh out her character, emotionally at the veryleast if not plot-wise, and makes her memorable and worthy of theaudience's empathy. She is cool and aloof when need be, deadlyintense when in the line of duty, and also demonstrate a subtlysofter side in the few, make that very few occasions when she isafforded the briefest moments to relax her muscles and instincts. Itis not only a testament to the direction but equally to the charm andplausible acting chops exercised by Carano, making seem quiteremarkable that Haywire is her first major role. If the futureholds more fantastic films and roles for her, she may very well be aforce to be reckoned with alongside male stars such as DwayneJohnson, Vin Diesel and Daniel Craig.

Thereis no need to beat around the proverbial bush any longer than hasalready been:Haywire is filled to the brim with adrenalinepumping, bone crunching, realistically painful chases and fightscenes. Both should be understood as distinct, especially in thecontext of this film. Yes, both do, in fact, represent differentsorts of action, but the differences are not limited to the nature ofthe sequences, but also their presentation in Haywire. When achase occurs, Soderbergh and his team develop an incredibly dynamicarray of edits, camera angles and, in one case, even colour schemes.There is a sense of vitality to the pursuits which is all too oftenlacking in films of this kind. Experimentation was on the mind of thefilmmakers, unsurprising when considering the talent involved, andwhether or not it is experimentation for experimentation's sake, itnevertheless works with stunning smoothness. Scenes involving brawlsare no less impressive, albeit for entirely different reasons. Insuch instances, flash takes a backseat for a more grounded style offilmmaking, with the cuts chosen very judiciously so as to revealjust how intricately demanding the fights are. Here is a advice manydirectors fail to heed: show the audience how awesome the fights are,do not cut so quickly to make the audience think the fightsare awesome. Just let them happen...and let the good, if painful,times roll. Sound design when fists and legs crash into faces andchests excels at grounding the movie into a degree of reality.Powerful thuds express contact, not cartoonish 'pows!'

Notcontent with merely delivering a thrilling spy and action picture, Haywireoffers up some cleverly inserted character and story-based elements,all of which makes the experience that much more complete. The actualbare bones plot of the film is not the most engaging (it is actually abit mundane in certain respects), but the depiction of Mallary is,insofar as everybody else's opinion of her differs. There is somebrief commentary about her being such a talented female operativethat hits the right notes, as well as her relationship with herfather, expertly played by Paxton, whose character is himself anex-soldier, making the dynamic between the two that much moreinteresting and easy to accept.

Simplestory to follow, an endlessly fabulous cast, a surprisingly effectiveperformance from Carano, sumptuous action choreography andcinematography, and a catchy score from David Homes make for greatentertainment. Given how dry the Hollywood landscape traditionallyis in the first month of the year, people should do themselves afavour and at least check out Soderbergh's latest.

BBS Productions Presents: Easy Rider

2012-01-18T12:15:00.001-05:00

EasyRider (1969, Dennis Hopper)

Roadtrips can prove to be revelatory experiences, whether in subtlemanner or unexpectedly bold ways. The act of seeing different partsof one's country (or the world) one is unaccustomed to can,potentially, create many disparate reactions. What are other peoplelike? What is one's relationship to them and how might that modifythe notion one has of their country in their head? Will the vistasoutside the city impress or bore? There are so many interestingconnections to be made on such expeditions, be they with other humansor nature itself, that the popularity of such excursion comes aslittle surprise, nor does the frequency with which movie charactersembark on them. The storytelling possibilities are endless. Justwatch National Lampoon's Vacation as an example.

Giventhat Lampoon is not a BBS production, this review shall notconcern itself with that picture. Rather, the 1969 cult classic EasyRider comes under inspection today. American cinema legend DennisHopper directs the meandering if surprisingly revelatory tale aboutthe leather jacket adorned Wyatt (Peter Fonda), or Captain America ashe is also known as in the film, and Billy (Dennis Hopper) whoseattire is an apparent mishmash of cowboy and some Native Americaninfluence. Neither represents the orthodox protagonist, with theirearly drug deal involving some Mexicans making that abundantly clear.In one of the film's many moments in which expectations andpreconceived notions about certain characters are debunked, it isrevealed that this unique duo of friends have no intentions of makingsmuggling a full time job. In fact, the profit earned from their actwill serve them on their motorcycle road trip to Mardi Gras in NewOrleans, with the entirety of the film, notwithstanding those initialfew minutes, concerning itself with the trip itself and the peoplethey come across, such as a hitchhiker (Luke Askew) who needs a rideto his hippie-style community, a boozing lawyer (Jack Nicholson), andvarious other friendly or less than friendly, individuals.

Theremay very well have been road trip themed films which came before EasyRider, but there is little doubt that the vast majority of thosewhich arrived afterwards owe some sort of debt to this picture. Somany of the brilliant tropes of the genre make up this 1969 classic.In addition to several transitional sequences wherein the cameraadmires either the two riders or the many stunningly beautifullandscapes of the southern United States, and a rocking soundtrack toaccompany said sequences, the film is episodic in its nature,offering some brief misadventures which prove to be funny, dramatic,and philosophical, all depending on whom the protagonists encounter.Easy Rider is the grandfather of the road trip movie, butrather than being antiquated and eye-roll inducing, this grandfatheris a cool cat.

Ina smart and constant twist, one that in fact helps solidify one ofthe movie's many ideas, director Dennis Hopper continuously confoundsaudience's expectations with regards to the true nature of peoplethroughout the movie. In some cases, specific characters appear to beexactly whom the viewer believes them to be, while other examplesdemonstrate how one should never limit themselves to just the looksof a person. Billy, for one, does not change very much as the storymoves along. He is the quieter of the two riders (although neitherspeaks that much), the goofier one ( at times he seems morecomfortable when interacting with children than with adults), enjoysgetting high as a kite and speaks in a manner which likens him to afuture popular character in American cinema, Jeff Bridges' the Dudefrom The Big Lebowski. For all we know, Billy might very wellhave been partly the inspiration for that Coen Brothers cultfavourite. Despite that, he is by no means a despicable person. Thedrug deal at the start of the film belies his kind nature, thereforein that respect at least, Billy is not what he appears to be on thesurface. Wyatt is another beast altogether. His cool Americanaleather jacket, sunglasses and all around 'bad ass' first impressionis a far cry from the docile, thoughtful, respectful soul which livesinside him. More than once during their voyage he demonstrates asense of respect and admiration towards those totally different fromhimself, among them a farmer with about 10 kids who works hard on hisland, the generosity of a hippie community who have them over forlunch, and a lawyer who is far smarter than he initially seems. Thereare a whole lot more to Wyatt, reserved and quiet as he may be mostof time, than one is tempted to suspect. In essence, he is morerounded and fully developed than people who look like him usually aremovies.

Atthe top of the list is surely Jack Nicholson's southern lawyer GeorgeHanson. Wyatt, Billy and the audience first make his acquaintance ina jell cell. Is he a hardened criminal? Not exactly, although clearlyhe spent the night in a cell for drinking too much. Yet the guardstreat him nicely, as if they know him like a neighbour. Once thehangover slowly digresses, George proves to be tremendously wellspoken, educated, clever and a bit of a wild dude, southern accentand charm all included. In the continuing trend of deceiving initialappearances, George ends up being a strong companion and ally duringat least a portion of the road trip to New Orleans, even though thetwo parties probably shared few commonalities at first. It should benoted that this is one of Nicholson's first ever roles in a majorpicture. Seeing a young Hopper and Nicholson share the screentogether, before either knew the popularity that would help rise bothto eventual stardom, particularly in the case of the latter, wasquite special while watching Easy Rider. As an actor in thisrole, Nicholson is everything his character is: funny, quick wittedand demonstrating a fascinating attention to details. A wonderfullyrevelatory performance, especially if those reading this articlemostly know the actor for his work during the last decade or so.

Onthe other side of all these unexpected experiences are varioustownsfolk with whom the duo intermingle with sparsely who do not lookkindly to them. Small town America carries with it a great manyunfortunate stereotypes (meaning they are not all true, of course.Let us be rational), one of them being an aversion to greetingoutsiders. More than once Wyatt and Billy, because of what they looklike and above all because of what they might represent, are scoffedat, sometimes with unbridled venom. The reaction of some borders onhostile. With this in mind, one should consider a brief exchangebetween Billy and George around a camp fire one night. Billy isannoyed and confused that the freedom they exude is so poorlyreceived by the people they encounter. George, sharp as always,considers that it is precisely this freedom which results in thehostility. People are afraid of it. Granted, many like to espouseromantic notions of freedom, but when confronted with people whotruly live by it, confusion and fear reign, probably because someone'being free' would not be like them, with what they are familiar andmost comfortable with. This little bit of dialogue encapsulates thereal conflict at the heart of the film, albeit in a manner that feelsorganic as opposed to didactic. Being free, going againstexpectations, defying the stereotypes...these things situncomfortably with many despite however free nations like the UnitedStates, among many others in the western world, advertise themselvesas. When push comes to shove, one hopes that real freedom will emergevictorious, although more than four decades removed from EasyRider, the struggle is still far from over. Just ask ethnicminorities, religious minorities and homosexuals for example.

Thereis a saying which states that the destination is not what matters,but the rather the journey. The journey Dennis Hopper invites viewersto go along with is an experience few should miss. Easy Rideris well paced, well shot, well acted, booms with an amazingly iconicsoundtrack and brings some intelligence to boot. Just like the themeof the film itself, a quick glance at those two stoners on theirbikes does not tell the entire story.

SOPA and PIPA: two little devils

2012-01-18T11:02:00.001-05:00

Hello readers,

Some of you who visit, write for and enjoy blogs very much are aware that today is a day of striking among many of us. In the United States there is are significant bills currently being read and debated in what is known as the House of Representatives, SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property .Act). The bills concern themselves with notions of internet piracy, which in of itself is perfectly fine and noble, although due to certain clauses within the text, if passed, they risk making the United States federal government commit itself to grave instances of censorship, a very sticky subject to many of us who enjoy easy access to information over the internet. As a Canadian blogger, I may not be directly affected by this ordeal, although I do sympathize with my southern brethren.

Major websites are also partaking in the strike (like Wikipedia), further legitimizing just how important this debate is and what it can mean for freedom of information.

The image at the top of this article is used for exaggerated, humorous effect, but the issue at hand is very serious.

For more information, here is a link to a site with... a bunch of other links to help inform you.

Thanks.

review: A Dangerous Method

2012-01-16T11:55:00.002-05:00

ADangerous Method (2011, David Cronenberg)

Itseems like director David Cronenberg's entire career as a filmmakerhas partially been about poking around in the human psyche, findingstrange and creative ways via horror, suspense and drama stories tostudy what makes up humanity, both psychologically and, in some ofhis more genre-oriented fare, physically. In that respect, could hebe likened to the great early psychologists of the 20^thcentury, Sigmund Freud and Carl Yung? David Cronenberg ,thepsychoanalist of the film world! A bit too much? Fair enough. Thatbeing said, the director has been lauded numerous times in the pastfor his astute, provocative observations. How fitting it is,therefore, to see a new film of his, after a 4 year absence no less,that concentrates on the two aforementioned pioneers in the field ofmedicine.

ADangerous Method, based on a play which itself was based on abook, has its story take place during the decade preceding the firstWorld War in Austria, a time when new, inventive, provocative, anddare it be said, dangerous methods were explored in the field ofpsychology. New types of relationships were being formed betweenpatients and their doctors, as is evidenced by in an early scene whenSabina Speilrein (Keira Knightley), a gifted medical student plaguedby fearful episodes of psychosis, is brought to the careful attentionof one Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), who desires to practice a newmethodology: the talking cure. By asking simple questions which belietheir immeasurable complexity, Dr. Jung hopes to found out what mightbe wrong with her. The attempt proves worthwhile given Sabina'simpressive improvement, but Jung's road to medical breakthrough takea unique turn after meeting the famous Sigmund Freud (ViggoMortensen), equally brilliant with his techniques of psychoanalysiswhich predicates that most of a person's ills relate to Man'ssexuality in one way or another. While their initial meetings proveinspiring, their relationship eventually becomes strained, the causeof which is both professional and personal.

Acouple of years ago, this blog went through the vast majority ofdirector Cronenberg's filmmography in a summertime marathon. Oneconclusion of the marathon was that the Canadian filmmaker virtuallynever makes a poor film. The one exception was M. Butterfly,a movie that is by no means 'bad', yet failed to impress on the samelevels as most of his other efforts. Looking back on that movie, itfeels as though it was the beat by beat elements of the plot whichdragged the picture down a few notches. Some of them did not evolveorganically as is typically the case with Cronenberg material. Therewas a forced nature to some of the things that transpired whichhinted that the director, himself usually so unhinged with audaciousmaterial of that kind, was stifled by the necessity to remainsufficiently faithful to the source material. After spending aweekend thinking about A Dangerous Method,it feels apt to propose a similar conclusion. The director's latestremains a fine piece of cinema, a film that does, in fact, recollectmany ideas and themes he has loved to play around with in the past,but never truly soars when it should, especially in the second halfwhen the plot seems so much more timid compared to his usual work. Asirony would have it, this is another movie based on a play, hence the probable reason why Cronenberg feels as if his true creativityhis being limited in a sense. There is nothing inherently wrong withthe story, only that it does not come across as creative as one hopes,or , quite frankly, as ambitious as one hopes either. When the trioof protagonists, Spielrein, Jung and Freud, see their relationshipsenter troubled waters, the script pretty much goes through a seriesof motions that one would assume the story would go through undersuch circumstances, no more, no less.

That,however, merely concerns the plot-driven aspects of ADangerous Method. As previouslystated, this is not a poor man's film, with one of the manyentertaining aspects being the realization of how Cronenberg isrelating to tried, tested and true themes through historical figures.Looking back at The Brood,The Fly, DeadRingers, Crash,Videodrome, it isevident the director enjoys exploring the murky domain of humankind'ssexuality, how we identify with it, how it shapes us, as well as theever complicated relationship between the mind and our physicalselves. Each of those films tackles those themes via fictionalstories, often horror and sci-fiction related, a technique whichmakes perfect sense given how the horror and science-fiction genreshave, for as long as one can remember, been utilized as venues forexploring the deeper meanings of mankind. A DangerousMethod is a curious albeit àpropos turn for the director, in that here he relates the story oftwo real people who actually explored such ideas. In that respect,the idea of telling their story fits beautifully in the director's filmmography.Never one to keep things too tame, Cronenberg makes the icing on thecake the time at whichthe audience meets these important figures in the field ofpsychology, namely, when their ideas and methods were still notwidely accepted. At one point Freud even warns Jung about applyingthe notion of dreams and other such far too nebulous elements intotheir studies, otherwise they risk further exclusion from thecommunity. Just as Cronenberg's previous films shocked audiences withtheir sometimes graphic and thought provoking material, ADangerous Method is a very realmovie about very real doctors shocking people with previously unheardof tactics.

Furthercompounding how difficult it is to assess this picture and possiblyfurther driving the wedge between those who enjoy it and those who donot, there is the matter of how the first and second halves aredifferent in tone and style. This article has already elaborated onhow the script fails to impress in its second half. That is when thepurer dramatic aspects to the story kick in, when certain charactersmust go through certain obligatory hurdles in order to advance thestory. Some people enjoy such drama, and more power to them. Thefirst half concerns itself far more with the various discussionsbetween either Jung and Spielrein, or Jung and Freud. That is thesection of the film some can easily describe as tedious but whichthis movie reviewer adored. Knowing very little about the matters ofpsychoanalysis and psychology, it was fascinating to sit back andlisten to these two maestros' of their respective fields chatter awayabout various untested theories, not to mention that another famousdoctor makes a cameo appearance, Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel). Whatwere their own psychologies? What interested them? What were theycurious about? What exactly did they want to find out? Even though itis only actors portraying the doctors, there is nonetheless afantastic feeling that the audience is in the room with them as theseremarkably stimulating and, surprisingly enough, funny conversationsare being exchanged. The trio of stars help solidify thebelievability that these are the real people, with performances thatvary greatly all the while fleshing protagonists out. Knightley mightbe given the most difficult task, having to play the part of thementally unstable Speilrein. It is the sort of performance which isso often criticized for being showy, although in reality one is hardpressed to fault an actress for truly throwing herself into such anemotionally and , frankly, physically demanding role. The camerafrequently rests on her contorted facial expressions to the extentthat one completely forgets that when smiling and docile, Knightleyis actually a very pretty woman. Mortensen owns the role of Freud,playing the part with a mostly calm and friendly demeanour that hideshis reticence towards many of Jung's ideas. There is a smoothpomposity about him that reveals itself further as the story evolvesand their relationship deteriorates. Finally, Fassbender is caught inthe middle, playing the part of the man whom the audience followsmost closely. His is a more mannered performance than all hisco-stars, which in effect makes it the least memorable performance.Not a bad one (one doubts if Fassbender is even capable of deliveringa bad performance, even if the actor tried), just not carrying thesame impact as the others. It is fine and sufficiently convincing, ifnothing more.

Thedie hard Cronenberg fans risk leaving the film slightly underwhelmed,while those who seek great romantic drama risk leaving a little boredfor all the hard psychoanalytical jargon tossed around in thefirst half. In the end, no one leaves the film a true winner, leastof all Cronenberg, whose style, as argued in this review, is limitedby the source material. There is enough in it for the film to comewith a recommendation, albeit a mitigated one.

New joint marathon: Comica Obscura

2012-01-12T12:25:00.001-05:00

Helloreaders,

Itseems that these days everybody wants to see a comic book movie. Thesuccess of multiple franchises inspired from graphic novels over thepast decade has subsequently encouraged studios to produce andrelease what the public clearly wants in their heart of hearts: morecomic book movies!

Let'sgo see an X-Men film. Let's go see not one but two X-Men prequels,Let's go see Batman films, a Spider-Man trilogy and its reboot 5years later, let's see a Superman movie and after everybody chasesthe director out of town for making a 'boring' Superman movie we'llsee its reboot not long after, let's see two different Punisherreboots, let's go see film for each Avenger member and then go see anAvengers picture, etc, etc, etc. It all seems so terribly facile toproduce these franchises. They are a dime a dozen, one need merelydive into the near mythological cannon of superheros and take a pick.When rumour had it that a Black Widow movie might see the light ofday, some deemed that was too obscure.

Heh,that isn't obscure in the slightest.

Howabout a Fritz the Cat movie? Who? Yeah, Between the Seats hadno idea who that was either. What about the Sam Mendes film based onthe Richard Piers Rayner graphic novel, Road to Perdition?Didn't know that was from a comic? Neither did we.

Confused?Rest assured, dear readers, for two of the blogoshpere's most astuteand prolific writers will enlighten you about these films and manyothers. That's right, the time has come for another joint marathonwith Bill from Bill's Movie Emporium. We are calling it 'ComicaObscura', a marathon that will review a series of films that fewpeople know were inspired by graphic novels. In some instances, likewith Fritz, you might not even have heard about the movieitself! If you have followed along with us before, you know how Billand I roll. If not, here is a quick breakdown:

1-Onone Sunday, both Between the Seats and Bill's Movie Emporium post areview for a specific film.

2-Weeach give ourselves one week to read said reviews and pinpoint howludicrous the other person's arguments are.

3-Onthe following Sunday, rebuttal articles are posted in response to ourreviews.

4-Soon and so forth.

ComicaObscura begins on Sunday, January 29^th. The films are:

-TheRocketeer

-LoneWolf and Cub: Sword of Vengeance

-Fritzthe Cat

-Battleof the Warriors

-Roadto Perdition

-LadySnowblood

We hope you join along!

Thanks.

BBS Productions Presents: Head

2012-01-11T12:23:00.000-05:00

Head(1968, Rob Rafelson)

Inthe ever revolving cultural landscape of rock, rap and certainly popmusic, some bands are oft-maligned by those more savvy in decipheringwhat is genuine and what is not. While there are those bands whichresonate with the youth (as well as the not so young, occasionally)for perfectly admirable reasons, namely talent and ingenuity, othersare decried as nothing more than cynical industry productions,glossed up and heavily marketed products whose sole purpose is tomaking the studios' pocket books that much heavier. This has beengoing on for a long, long time already, with one of the mostmemorable cases in North America being the birth of The Monkeys, acreation from the minds of Rob Rafelson and Bert Schneider, twoAmerican filmmakers who , after witnessing A Hard Day's Nightstarring The Beatles, found a desire to make their own version television show of similar ilk. After the programmes cancellation, afilm was made, Head, which took the band's image an aradically different direction, or, one might say, made the membersjust plain radical!

Noattempts at a plot synopsis for Head could ever suffice forthere truly is no plot. Even a few weeks ago when the site gave abrief review of A Hard Day's Night therewas something to be written about what The Beatles did throughoutthat film even though they really did not do much at all. It didn'tseem possible to imagine, but Headgoes a few legs further into distorting all notions of sensible plot.Our picture opens on a sunny day, somewhere in the United States,where a new bridge is about to be christened. Out of the blue,running tearing through the bright red ribbon and spoiling theceremony, The Monkeys (Mickey Dolenz, Davy Jones, Peter Tork andMichael Nesmith) come running onto the bridge and jump into the waterbelow...thus propelling the viewer into the subsequent 85 minutes orso during which time the hip kids trot along a studio lot of ratherpsychedelic proportions. Appearances in a fake western, a fake warfilm, a fake boxing film, a fake horror film, a fake birthday bash,all the while offering biting commentary about the Western culture(with a mostly American slant of course) of the late 60s, as well asthe ongoing Vietnam war. Nothing is really what it seems in Head,with the exception of, maybe, the multifaceted messages the film tries to convey...perhaps(?).

Anevaluation of a piece of cinema the likes of Headbrings upon itself certain difficulties. There is now way to critiqueit by the traditional standards since this is not, in any shape orform, a traditional movie. Are the costumes nice? is the actinggood? Does the story hold up? Who cares. None of those aspects holdany water because they are not supposed to hold any water in thefirst place. A dissection of the film would be more à propos. Eventhen, Head launchesinto so many topical issues at such a rapid fire pace, one mightbeing to wonder if the film is actually being serious in any wayabout any of them in particular. Are the references to the Vietnamwar too flippant to be taken seriously? Are they insulting perhaps,given how quickly the topic is dropped? What about those referencesto commercialism and the consumerist culture the Western world hasidolized back then as it still does till this day? Does that scene atthe beginning, repeated again at the end, in which The Monkeys jumpof the bridge offer commentary about suicide? So many questionspercolating our minds and it is, honestly, a bit difficult to makehead or tails of it, pardon the pun.

Whethera viewer appreciates the dream like fluidity of Headwill come down to, essentially, if he or she can basically 'run' withthe concept director Rob Rafelson and co-writer Jack Nicholson (yes,that one) invite them to consider. Even in our early 21^stcentury day and age, not every commentary about war, consumerism,suicide and all of society's other ills are greeted with open arms.How often do we read reviews which scorn movies, television shows,books and songs for being 'too on the nose', for 'lacking subtlety'or 'not showing proper respect' to the people involved or the issueat hand? Our personal backgrounds and political ideologiesconstantly influence how we take in our culture and whatever fails tohit the right note, the right tone (according to our sensibilities,as always) will make it difficult to accept what might verywell be interesting experimentation, for experimentation is very much the nature of Head , insofaras cinema goes, and certainly as traditional North American cinemagoes. The creativity that went into and overall worth of Rafelson'spicture can be summed up in one simple phrase: hold on to your hats.No time whatsoever is spent on holding the viewer's hands to helpthem along the way. Was the previous scene a bit too strange for itssignificance to fully mesh? Well, one might as well press the 'previouschapter' button on your remote because The Monkeys are already doingsomething else entirely (while actually commenting on something elseentirely, get it?). The juxtaposition of specific sounds and imageseither against one another or immediately before and after oneanother make for some of the film's boldest moments. Early on, arabid fan base of young pretty women await the arrival of The Monkeysonstage, only for the movie to cut to a fake war scene in which theband members are stuck in the trenches of what might be either WWI orII, that is evidently beside the point. After some quick bickeringabout petty things, they charge on into combat in a tunnel, at whichtime the film cuts back to the concert, as if heading onto stage as asuper popular band faced with gargantuan expectations from its fansis like heading into war. The icing on the cake is when, as the bandplays a song for its adoring fans, the film cuts to quick although byno means terrible Vietnam War footage. Now, the film speaks to howsilly American youth concern themselves with a cheap productplacement band rather than the plight of youth elsewhere in the worldwho suffer at that very moment.

Thatis but one fine example of what Head asin store for the willing audience member. For all that can be known,the assumptions made in the above assessment are completely off base.Someone who has seen this movie might have read an entirely differentmessage. The movie's qualities go beyond mere socio-politicalcommentary however. There is some fun to be had in seeing the bandtraverse from one impossibly surreal studio set to another. Tributesare paid to classic film genres, in joke commercials are shot, andbringing some of those ideas to life is very colourful and very wellshot set design. For what it is worth, Headis a nice looking film, with a great variety of places and sounds tooffer its viewers, and director Rafelson keeps things fresh on aregular basis, making it feel as if we, along with The Monkeys, areexploring the weirdest studio ever conceived by man. As a matter offact, writing this review at this moment has given birth to yetanother notion: the movie takes place on at a studio lot, the preciselocation where things are fabricated, and what popular band of thetime was more fabricated than The Monkeys themselves? It all comesfull circle therefore...

Thosedisappointed with this sightly aimless review, Between the Seatsoffers an apology. This is the first of the BBS films to be reviewedover the next couple of weeks and it just so happened that we beganwith what will in all likelihood end up being the most off-kilter andpsychotic, which posed some problems when the time came to sit downand write something that made a lick of sense. Be that as it may,Head is a filmeverybody curious about experimental cinema should discover. Onenever knows if the results of an experiment will prove successful ornot despite all calculations beforehand. It is one of those filmsthat might be brave and intellectually exciting, which is the campthis reviewer falls into, or it might be really, really stupid andvapid, depending on who one asks.A blender of ideas that should produce a great many reactions. although no guarantees said reactions will be warm!

Far East Specials: Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall his Past Lives

2012-01-08T11:46:00.002-05:00

UncleBoonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives(2010, Apichatpong Weerasethakul)

Hereis a question that has stumped more than a few: what is the meaningof life? There is, realistically, no single correct answer to thatquestion, but whatever one’s own personal interpretation may be,the odds are that one has to fulfill that notion before death comesknocking at the door. Which begs another series of questions, chiefamong them: what happens once we’ve moved onto the next world? Is thereeven another world to pass onto at all? If yes, why should we be sofearful of death, as so many of us are whenever the topic is broughtup? So many profound questions, such little time and evidence toinvestigate them. That’s why there are movies which dwell on the subject matter, and, it may beargued, that is why Apichatpong Weerasethakul makes movies.

Inone of the most charming, curious and downright puzzling films of thelast few years, director Weerasethakul presents viewers with theeventful final few days of a friendly elderly man named Boonmee(Thanapat Saisavmar), who has chosen to rest in the countryside withsome family members around him as well as some decent hired folk whoprepare his food and look after his physical health as best they cangiven the terminal illness that has befallen him. But reminiscingwith family and eating lovely healthy dinners are not the onlypleasantries in store for this docile man. Two familiar individuals,his son Boonsong (Jeerasak Kulhong) and his wife Huay (NatthakarnAphaiwong),people whom he has not seen in many years, pay a visit ofsorts just before his passing, although they appear under shockinglydifferent guises. His son disappeared many years ago in the junglesof Thailand, now returning in the form of some human-ape hybrid,although characteristics of the latter dominate his physique. Hiswife passed away some time ago, and now revisits as a ghost. Togetherwith Jen (Jenjira Pongpas) and Thong (Sakda Kaewbuadee), dear Boonmeeis given time to gently expire and, with the help of some unexplainedforces, recall some past lives.

Ifthere ever was a film for which it is strongly suggested to sit backand soak in everything the director and actors are giving the viewer,without resorting to over-think things while the film evolves, thisis it. In truth, ‘over thinking’ is too strong a term even. Donot think, simply inhale the quiet, the amusing, the sounds, and thesights. One reason why it would not necessarily do the viewer anyfavours to focus on what is happening as it is happening is thatWeerasethakul's film is as odd as they come, playing by its ownmetaphorical, spiritual rules as it moves along. The filmsimultaneously shows and explains, as if showing was explaining in ofitself. To know what is happening if all this sounds too confusing,one simply need to observe. Only in the rarest of instances docharacters sit down and discuss the strange matters that unfold, andeven then they have already come to terms with them, readilyaccepting without too much difficulty. One such example is whenBoonmee's son Boonsong returns one night as the family is havingsupper. No longer a regular human being, Boonsong now looks like acostumed extra from the old Planet of the Apes films. Heexplains that on the day he vanished, he was attracted by a strangelooking creature that roamed not far away in the jungle. In order totake a picture he tried to approach the beast, which swung from treeto tree. Upon finding the beast, they mated together, which was thefirst process in his physical transformation. Yes, they mated (notshown in the actual movie, mind you). By any standards, such a storywould only be accepted as farce, although in Uncle Boonmeethis makes sense to the humans at the dinner table. They are devoutlyreligious, their world is grounded in a deep belief in the after lifeand in spirits. They pray to God, they pray to deceased loved ones,etc. Uncle Boonmee acts, in sorts, as the cinematic representation ofwhat the most complete version of a world filled with reincarnationand spirits would be like. Weerasethakul's cinematography enhancesthis experience, with some wonderfully old school visuals that bringall of this strangeness to life. Uncle Boonmee is a greatlooking motion picture, benefiting from some simple camera work andexquisite lighting techniques.

Whatsurprises the viewer is how Weerasethakul's picture can be astouching as it is bizarre. This is no easy feat, considering thesorts of elements that require some balancing out. At the core of thefilm's humanity is Jen, portrayed by Jenjira Pongpas. She iselderly, in the same age group as Boonmee, walks with a bit of alimp, and often has the funniest lines in the movie. Her lines arenot uproariously funny, but their delivery is so 'matter of fact'that that genuine quality makes her a funny character. She is themost genuine character in the film, almost taking the spotlight awayfrom Boonmee. Director Weerasethekul also extracts some emotions viascenes that on paper would seem ludicrous, like when the familyshares some photos with Huay's ghost and the ape-ghost Boonsong atthe dinner table. Despite the different incarnations some of theindividuals have adopted, they remain family nevertheless and familywill always have those special connections. The otherworldly featuresof Huay and Boonsong are nearly forgotten in those precious moments,if such a thing can be believed. Above all else, the film rarelytries to become uselessly melodramatic, which in other films can workwonders, but here would have felt stunningly misguided. He filmsscenes with a sense of emotional honesty. There is surprise whensurprise is required, but the quiet moments are more frequently thosewhich mean a lot. The lone scene that strives for a heightened senseof emotional gravitas is when Huay caresses Boonme is on his bed. Forthe first time in a long, long time Boonmess is awarded the privilegeof hugging his wife, even though she is really dead. As weird as itsounds, it is touching. The artifice of having ape people show up,ghosts hug and past lives relived melds itself seamlessly into adimension that all can understand and relate to. They compliment thefeelings expressed by Boonmee, Jen and Thong.

Anyanalysis of what Unclee Boonmee strives for thematically is anexercise on the most personal of levels. Because of the film'sriddle-filled story that combines notion of the after life, death,ghosts and previous lived stories, 'good luck' is arguably the bestthing to say to anyone who claims that he or she will really figurethis one out. That being said, the film did speak to this moviereviewer in a specific way, and much of it had to do with its overalltonal qualities. Weerasethakul does not present any of the strangeapparitions the audience meets as terrifying or freakish. Neitherdoes he seem interested in making death an especially scary or sadthing. Of course everybody would rather live than be deceased, butall humans carry an expiration date and the most sensible thing is tosimply accept and deal with that reality. Of course, the character ofBoonmee, as presented in the film, benefits from witnessing what canhappen to those who leave one singular lifetime (visions of a pastlife, the appearance of his wife's ghost). Ordinary folk in the realworld are not blessed with that sort of privilege, which mightexplain why people fear death so much, but there is a comfort to behad in Uncle Boonmee, that comfort being the courage to facedeath, since it really isn't that big of a deal after all, only onefurther step in the journey a soul takes. Who really knows if soulsdo actually find other bodies to inhabit or if they can continue toexist as paranormal mass, but watching this movie's interpretation ofthe matter was a relaxing, calming affair.

Hopefullythe enigma of Uncle Boonmee will live on as more peoplediscover the movie. It being a Pal D'Or winner at the 2010 Cannescertainly gave it a significant boost in terms of marketing duringthe remainder of that year and the first half of 2011, although notso much that it became a worldwide sensation. It never could be thatanyhow, not with its subject matter nor its presentation style. What will Weerasethakul come up with next?

New marathon! BBS Poductions Presents!

2012-01-06T22:56:00.001-05:00

Helloreaders,

Aspromised, Between the Seats, after keeping things nice and easy with'end of the year' lists and capsule reviews for about a week duringthe holiday break, is about to resume business as per usual, meaningtons of marathons to exploring various genres, directors and actors.

Tokickoff 2012, we have chosen to familiarize ourselves with a veryspecial time and studio in American cinema. It was the late 1960s andvery early 1970s when a young, talented and outspoken group ofdirectors, writers and actors came together to form what was known asBBS Productions. Their filmmaking style differed from much of whatcame out of Hollywood, and even though they were privy to a decentamount of funds to create their works, the resulting products feltcounter-cultural in comparison to the general cinematic landscape ofthe time. People whose names are now synonymous with great movies,like Jack Nicholson, Peter Bogdanovich and Dennis Hopper to name few,started their careers in earnest with these unique pieces of Americancinema.

Thepicture above, representing the cover artwork of the recent CriterionCollection Blu-ray set, tells you all you need to know about whichmovies the marathon will concern itself with. Many, if not all ofthese movies are unfamiliar to many self-described film buffs,including yours truly, who, in the case of at least a couple oftitles, had only heard of them for the very first time upon the set'srelease. The marathon will have as its title BBS Productions Presents. We hope you join Between the Seats over the next few weeksin watching, or possibly re-watching these under-seen classics andjoining in with some wise words in the comments section at the endof each review.

Asalways, thanks for visiting!

2011 year in review: top film scores

2012-01-04T11:46:00.001-05:00

Musicis discussed only infrequently here at Between the Seats, but I havementioned once or twice that movie music is something I hold dear,especially with regards to film scores as opposed to soundtracks.Whereas 2010 gave movie music lovers a plethora of fantastic materialto cherish in their IPods to relive the best moments of theirfavourite films, 2011 was slightly disappointing. A lot of 'good',very little 'great' and a lot of forgettable. Some efforts rose abovethe rest despite the overall lukewarm feelings I have towards 2011 infilm music. They are:

5-WarHorse, John Williams

Apredictable choice? Without question. Then again, when a composersuch as John Williams can be this predictably stellar, it has tocount for something. Not as rousing as his efforts for Tintin,the War Horse score is a call back to those great swellingscores of yesteryear. Oddly enough the film per say did not wrigglemuch emotion out of me, but the music is beautiful.

4-TinkerTailor Soldier Spy, AlbertoIglesias

Hereis a strange little choice. Strange mostly because Tomas Alfredson'smovie is so quiet, with plenty of scenes that omit any music choicesat all. That being said, the very classy pieces sprinkled here andthere set a very unique mood. One thinks for example of the jazzypiece which accompanies the opening credits, a sumptuous melodythat reinforces the hustle and tussle going on at MI6

3-TheEagle, Alti Orvarisson

Ifone listens closely, Alti Orvarisson's calmly epic score for TheEagle is reminiscent of whatHans Zimmer did 11 years earlier on Gladiator,but with less overpowering brass. It perfectly fits the tone and paceof Macdonald's film, which, while sprawling in some ways, is actuallyvery character driven and emotional.

2-Thor,Patrick Doyle

Arguablythe really unexpected choice in the bunch. Doyle's melodic scorebrings the world of Thor tolife in all its scale, its adventurous nature and its Norseflavouring. The main main is both rousing and touching, playing onthat dichotomy opposing Thor's brash and brave behaviour with theShakespearean emotional journey he embarks on. Wonderful musicoverall.

1-Hanna,The Chemical Brothers

Notthe sort of score I would normally place in the number 1 spot of anend of the year list. I like my music symphonic as opposed tosynthetic or electronic, but I also know what I like when I hear it,and there is little denying how cool and à propos themusic for Hanna is,courtesy of The Chemical Brothers. The entire tone of that film is sobizarre when compared to what we are normally served by Hollywoodwhen it comes to big action movies, so why would the score have beenconventional in any way? Bravo, Brothers, bravo.

Honourablementions:

Drive,Cliff Martinez

Greatrhythmic beats that 'drive' the beast within Gosling's character.

Super8 , Michael Giacchino

Theman never does anything wrong! Here he flexes his muscles with ascore that is both nostalgic and speaks to the innocence of the youngteenage characters.

Contagion,Cliff Martinez

Moretoned down than what Martinez did for Drive, but still in thesame vein and no less effective.

SourceCode, Chris P. Bacon

Verysimilar to the score of an Alfred Hitchcock film. Lots of fun.

2011 year in review: top male actors

2012-01-02T19:13:00.003-05:00

Manlymen, sensitive men, strong men, weak men, smart men, silly men,courageous men, dangerous men, broken men, rejuvenated men, lovedmen, hated men, here are the best male actors of the year that was2011:

5-KôjiYakusho in 13 Assassins

Inour day and age of action movies it seems that the most lovable,popular heroes are deemed 'bad asses.' Yakusho most certainly fallsin said category, but plays it with a sense of humility and strongleadership as well, not a loner bad ass, which makes him...an evenbigger bad ass.

4-NathanGrubbs in Brawler

NamingGrubbs as the fourth best male performer of the year is kind of funnyconsidering that a much higher profile MMA themed film came out thisyear too (Warrior). The star of Brawler is tremendous atshowing signs of wear and tear after so many fights, but alsohopefulness as his character tries to rebuild a new future. A verynuanced and charming performance from a great actor.

3-GaryOldman in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Therecan only be so much one can write about a performance in which theactor intentionally reveals as little as possible about his orcharacter. Oldman, for the vast majority of this movie, betraysabsolutely nothing to the audience or to his opposites in the film.Further proof that he is one of the greatest chameleon actors ever.

2-LambertWilson in Des hommes et des dieux/Of Gods and Men

Althoughit was tempting to give a spot to the legendary Michael Lonsdale,Wilson is at the heart of the story, playing the pseudo leader of thesmall band of Christian missionaries. The doubts, fears and thehesitation blend in effortlessly with warmth and friendliness. Anexquisite performance.

1-MichaelFassbender in Shame

Priorto Shame's release, there could not have been much doubtremaining towards Fassbender's abilities as an actor. Here theactor's decidedly more vulnerable side is on display, yet he mixesthat in with an uncanny sense of a bloodthirsty shark on the prowlfor his latest fix. For 'shame' to those who still aren't convincedabout the actor after seeing this movie.

Honourablementions:
Daniel Craig in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

AndersDanielsen Lie in Oslo, August 31^st

SeanBridgers in The Woman

A.J. Brown in A Horrible Way to Die

JoelCourtney in Super 8

Michael Lonsdale in Des hommes et des dieux/Of Gods and Men

2011 year in review: top female actors

2012-01-02T13:31:00.000-05:00

Nowarrives the time to recapitulate the most memorable performances from2011, both from the female and male actors. As stimulating as it canbe to write these two lists, it always hurts upon realizing how muchmore difficult it is to recount the great female performances of theyear. Either women still do not receive the same amount of solidroles as men or I'm just not going to see the right movies to make amore informed judgement call. Regardless, let us begin with thewomen:

5-RooneyMara in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Atricky pick given our collective propensity to criticize actors whoput on accents to further make their characters more 'authentic', butnot only is Mara's passable, she completely inhabits LisbethSalander, doing just enough tinkering to create her own version ofthe character.

4-AmySeimetz in A Horrible Way to Die

Superdramatic performance number 1 of the countdown. Amy Seimetz is givena pretty low life type of chatacter in A Horrible Way to Die,playing a recovering alcoholic trying to reconnect with the world.She is more than up to the task of making us want to do the rightthing, even if it kills her, literally.

3-ElleFanning in Super 8

Arguablythe biggest surprise of the year as far as mainstream cinema isconcerned. The entire cast of the film is very, very good, and yetFanning floors everybody nonetheless. Charming, touching, smartemotionally rich, Fanning's performance is one people will rememberfor a long time to come.

2-JenniferEhle in Contagion

Interestingthat the best performance in an all star cast comes from the oneactor most people were unfamiliar with. There is something to be saidwhen the most complete performance comes from someone other than MattDamon, Marian Cotillard, Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Lawand Gwyneth Paltrow.

1-HaticeHaslan in Vucut

Haslangave a stunningly gripping performance, playing a broken down ageingporn star who must wrestle with a new found connection she has in ayoung, rambunctious teenage boy. The power and fragility of thisfifty-something used and abused woman is amazing to behold.

Honourable mentions:

Geneviève Rioux in La Vérité

Carey Mulligan in Shame

Saoirse Ronan in Hanna

Juliette Binoche in Copie conforme/Certified Copy

Jenira Pongpas in Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives

2011 year in review : Top 10 films

2011-12-31T23:53:00.000-05:00

Helloreaders,

Let'sbring in 2012 with style by listing Between the Seats' favourite filmsof 2011. I'm sure every single blog out there has written up a nicelittle prologue to their lists, so I figured we should just skip thepleasantries and get on with it, no? Without further ado:

10-UncleBoonmee Who Can Recall his Past Lives (Apichatpong Weerasethakul)

Yes,this was a winner at the Cannes films festival in 2010, but not manypeople had the privilege to discover it before 2011. Weerasethakuloffers you a dream-like landscape in which the real and the surrealcombine effortlessly. It feels like that is the only way his worldscould possibly ever be. Have fun making out what is what andgenuinely laughing at the sharp, warm comedy that abounds.

9-Lavérité (Marc Bisaillon)

Afilm whose primary strength lies in building increasing suspensethrough the use of pure drama instead of cheap thrills. The pressuresof keeping a terrible secret are almost too hard to bear for theprotagonist, thus propelling him and the viewer into a drawn outstruggle about what is right and wrong.

8-TheTurin Horse (Béla Tarr)

Whenit comes to slow, near laborious, methodical, depressing dramas, itseems like no one really does it like Béla Tarr, most famous for his7 hour Satantango. The Turin Horse thankfully does notask as much time out of its viewers, but, fear not, still succeeds atdelivering the goods he is known for: stunningly beautiful if veryraw cinematography, delicately precise performances from the actors,and a metaphorical world in which mankind's fears and darkestquestions are exposed.

7-OfGods and Men (Xavier Beauvois)

Featuringan amazing cast of some of France's greatest actors, chief among themthe incomparable Michael Lionsdale, Beauvois' slow, meditative studyof how a group of Catholic priests come to terms with the reality oftheir situation in a war torn land is both harrowing and rewarding.Do they stay or do they abandon their mission? There really is nocorrect answer.

6-Contagion(Steven Soderbergh)

Provinghis flexibility yet again as a director, Soderbergh brings movielovers a film reminiscent of thrillers and horror stories of old,such the Andromeda Strain. Contagion brings togethereverything he is good at, like style, brains, a solid story, and astunning cast who all put in thrilling performances. An excellentscore heightens the prevailing sense of fear.

5-TheWomen (Lucky McKee)

Oneof the wildest films to come out of the Fantasia film festival thisyear, director McKee's allegorical story about the the frequentmisogyny involved in male-female relationships actually benefits fromnot playing things in subtle manner, but rather being incredibly raw.Top notch performances by both leading actors, especially 'the woman' helpmake the film haunting, as well as schlocky.

4-ISaw the Devil (Kim Ji-woon)

Theflurry of disparate opinions regarding this film before its eventuallimited theatrical release was enough to build the hype, and it didnot disappoint. Kim's film is unforgiving and relentless in itsstylish depiction of one man's mental, emotional and physical journeyinto evil. After all, in this sadistic world, only evil can defeatevil.

3-Super8 (J. J. Abrams)

Somuch was written about how director Abrams made this film as atribute to the Spielberg films of old, most notably E.T. Evenafter its release, that seemed to be all that was on people's minds.Between the Seats didn't care much for that aspect of behind thescenes material because, quite frankly, Abrams knocked this one outof the park. Great kid characters, great kid actors,and a compelling mystery to boot. This was the best thing that cameout in the summer of '11.

2-Vucut(Mustafa Nuri)

Arguablythe best film in 2011 that almost nobody saw, except the few who tooka chance on it at various film festivals (like the Festival des films inmonde in Montréal). A thunderously emotional and complex directorialdebut from Turk Mustafa Nuri, who explores the lives of one ageingporn star and one restless teenager when they crash into each other.Actress Hatice Haslan is phenomenal.

1-Moneyball(Bennett Miller)

Itdidn't seem possible for a baseball movie to really not be aboutbaseball, yet here we are. Interestingly enough, the original planwas to have Soderbergh direct this brilliantly written and acted filmabout the drama that goes on beyond the pitch and inside themanager's office. One can wonder what that film might have turned outto be, but few can complain with what Bennett Miller gave us. You like good drama? This is for you. You like baseball? This is for you. You like witty dialogue? This is for you. You like strong characters that are fun to tag along with? This is for you. If you like...

Capsule reviews galore!

2011-12-29T23:54:00.002-05:00

Helloreaders,

Hereis a sample of the films Between the Seats watched over the past fewdays. We hope you enjoy these brief reviews. Coming up over thecourse of the weekend and into next week is a series of end of theyear lists, much like what was done at this time in 2010. Reviews andmarathon will resume in regular fashion by late next week. Thanksagain for visiting!

TheArtist (2011, Michel Hazanavicious)

Inan artistically audacious move, director Michel Hanavicious decidedto not only make a film which pertains to the misremembered era ofsilent film, but to make it as a silent film no less. The story beginsin earnest in 1927, a time when the fictional silent movie legendGeorge Valentin (Jean Dujardin) was Hollywood's greatest star,appearing in a series of massively adored swashbuckling adventuresakin to those of Errol Flynn. A chance encounter with a fan, PeppyMiller (Bérénice Bejo), turns her into a movie star and sets inmotion the arrival of 'talkies', thus putting Valentin's career intremendous jeopardy.

Sincethe earliest reviews for the film (it played at a few festivals inlate summer), it was evident that Hazanavicious's The Artistwas going to be a critical darling. Having now seen the film a coupleof weeks after its Montréal theatrical release, it is quite plain tosee why so many people, not just critics, are eating this film up. Itis quite cleverly constructed, from the script, to the acting and thedirection. Probably if the sole purpose had been to make a silentfilm, one with no pretension of doing anything more thematically, thefilm still would have been a nice romp, but it has loftierexpectations than just that. The story is about a silent movie star,played with the right amount of physicality and wit by Jean Dujardin(whom I unfortunately only knew from Brice de Nice) who isconfronted with the changing times within the studio system as thesilent era makes way for that of sound, or 'talkies' as they aredescribed in the movie. The film is thus not merely a technicalexercise, albeit a handsomely crafted one, but a bit of a timecapsule even within its plot. Now whether Hazanavicious wantsaudiences to like the movie with a sense of artificial nostalgia(i.e. Liking it because we heartless 21s century people typicallytreat the silent era as an afterthought and shame on us) is anotheridea altogether, and one I am not prepared to accept as valid, but asa piece of cinema which not only tells a fun story but feels genuine,The Artist is arguably the film to see during your holidaybreak. Also, I didn't know who Bérénice Bejo was before headinginto this film, but I am going to explore her filmmography for sure.What a fantastic and seductively charming actress.

WarHorse (2011, Steven Spielberg)

Amere few weeks after the release of Tintin comes Spielberg'ssecond film of 2011, the unabashedly honest and heartfelt WarHorse. Transpiring just before as well as during the first WorldWar, Spielberg's romanticized epic follows the journey of a youngplow horse baptized Joey by his young master Albert (relativenewcomer Jeremy Irvine) who is determined to help his pa and ma(Peter Mullen and Emily Watson) save the family farm. The first war breaksout and Joey is sold off to the British army, from which point beginshis near fantastical story as he falls in and out of a great manycharacters affected in one way or another by the battles, among themBenedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hiddleston, Niels Arestrup, and DavidKross.

Ifthere is one thing Steven Spielberg cannot be criticized for, it isgiving into our current culture of dark and dreary war films. Thedirector makes a conceited effort into creating a very different sortof war film, one that has not been seen for many years even. Thenotion and the execution (mostly, not entirely) of the story israther compelling, with Joey never remaining in the same hands forvery long, either because his master(s) lose ownership by circumstance orbecause they simply die off. This is a war, after all. The result isa very episodic type of movie, something Spielberg proves to be adeptat juggling with, even though not all the moments land aseffortlessly as one would like. The first section when Joey meets hisfirst and true owner, young Albert, is amusing in its modesty, andanother all too short chapter has two soldiers, one Brit and anotherGerman, come together briefly to help free Joey from barbed wire onthe battlefield. Others feel oddly cheap, like when Joey and anotherhorse find refuge in the barn of an elderly Frenchman (admittedlyplayed very well by Niels Arestrup) and his granddaughter. Theaccents, the predictability of what happens in that episode, itsconclusion, not a lot works in that one. That being said, the film isbeautiful to look at, which is not a surprise since Spielberg is amaster at getting the most out of his cinematographers and specialeffects teams. War Horse does not 'wow' as Tintin does, butmight be worth your time. Just check your hip cynicism at the door.

TimeBandits (1981, Terry Gilliam)

TerryGilliam is not the sort of director whose work is easy to digest.One need only be told about his Monty Python background to get adecent enough idea of what might be expected from his films. I myselfam not the biggest Monty Python fan, although all of their films doindeed have some moments of brilliance. Here, he shares the story ofa young boy named Kevin (Craig Warnock) who loves reading up onhistory, but whose interests are ignored by his neglectful parents.One night, while falling asleep, a troop of 6 midgets (among themKenny Baker, known for playing R2-D2), time traveling thieves whotake Kevin with them as they voyage further and further back in timeto steal precious treasures of histories great figures like Napoleon(Ian Holm), Robin Hood (John Cleese) and Agmemnon (Sean Connery). TheEvil Genius (David Warner) is after them however.

Itis a little bit difficult to make heads or tails about TimeBandits, and the more thought isput into it, the more I am convinced that that is what lends it itscharm, among other things of course. It isn't as if the midgetsreceive any sort of valuable lesson by the end, or that even Kevin,the protagonist, has learned anything in particular. In fact, despiteshowing some reluctance in the early goings (stealing from Robin Hooddoesn't fit well with him), he helps them out pretty much all the waythrough, so the viewer is essentially having to follow and accept as heroes abunch of crude crooks as they make fun of and take bounty away fromfamous historic figures. The level of humour and adventure vary aswell, at times playing things which remind us this is essentially afilm for kids, other times taking things a step further, with somecreepy looking villains and unexpectedly violent deaths. At some point, becausethe tone is a bit all over the place, one doesn't really know what toexpect from the film anymore, which can be seen as a very good thing.A lot of kids films play things too safe and grow boring andpredictable because of that. Time Bandits is clearly playing fast andloose with the rules to making a family film at times, especiallynear the end when things do get pretty nutty. I myself came away fromthe movie with mixed feelings, but in a good way, if such a thing ispossible. It's weird and goes against the grain compared to so manyother kids films, but in a refreshing way nevertheless. Great endcredits song as well. Bless you, George Harrison.

TheEagle (2011, Kevin Macdonald)

KevinMacdonald has somewhat of an iffy track record in my books. After thecompelling, thrilling Last King of Scotland, hefollowed up with the immensely disappointing State of Play.What is more, this new effort starred Channing Tatum, an actor whohas earned his share of criticism, a lot of it very much deserved.The Eagle follows in the footsteps of Neil Marshall'sCenturion, functioning as aspiritual sequel of sorts (although that was never the intent), witha young Roman captain, Marcus Acquila (Tatum), who sees himselfposted in Northern Britain, where his father had been before him. Thelatter was part of the infamous Ninth Legion, which vanished offthe face of the Earth 20 odd years before, along with it the coveted Golden Eagle, asymbol of Rome. Marcus's desire to find the eagle takes a hit when hehimself takes a serious hit during battle, earning him an honourabledischarge. Not one to give up, he decides to travel beyond the mostnorthern Roman walls in Britain into the yonder with his slave, Esca(Jamie Bell), who happens to be a native of Northern Britain. Justhow much can Marcus trust him though?

Colourme tickled, The Eagleturned out to be a very solid movie. Tatum's presence was,admittedly, one of the factors which discouraged me from checking outthe film any earlier, as were lingering misgivings aboutdirector Macdonald's previous flop.There must be something about Roman epics that fails to resonate withcontemporary movie goers given the timid reception the film receivedupon its release. Its stay in theatres was not particularly longeither. I guess that Gladiatorboost is definitely over. What makes The Eaglea compelling film is its reliance on interesting characters asopposed to giving in to only epic action and sweep. Granted, there isa sense of sweep, but it lies more in the jaw dropping landscapesMarcus and Esca traverse in their search for the long lost titularobject. Macdonald and his cinematography crew should be given a roundof applause for this is a magnificently good looking movie. Asmentioned above though, the movie is definitely concerned with itstwo central figures, who find themselves in vastly differentpositions of power. How do they put their trust in one another andcan they even really do it at all? The film even takes it a stepfurther with our duo encountering a tribe of Esca's people, thusflipping the positions of power upside down. Both Jamie Bell and,yes, Channing Tatum, are good in their roles. Maybe Tatum is notgiven that much to do, but he handles the material rather well, or atleast a hell of a lot better than I was expecting.

AHard Day's Night (1964, Richard Lester)

Justfinished this a mere couple hours ago and I don't have all that muchto say. This is one of Lester's first feature length films, and whatbetter way to earn some name recognition then by directing whatamounts to a promotional piece for the hottest band on the planet atthe time, The Beatles (Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrisonand Ringo Starr). This space would be reserved for a plot synopsis,but Hard Day's Night truthfully does not possess much in termsof plot. The Beatles and their managing team go from one place inBritain to another by train because they have a televised show laterthat evening. Wild, British 60s humour ensues as do obligatorymusical numbers.

Nostory, just The Beatles being themselves around their managers,Paul's fictional grandfather and a bunch of girls. It is hard togauge how one approaches this sort of film. It looks pretty good,although that was never going to be an issue since it was promotingThe Beatles (it had to look hip regardless). The music rocks with theexception of a song or two. I think what makes this movie tick morethan anything else is that is presents itself as a fictional versionof what The Beatles went through on a daily basis. The screamingfans, the overbearing manager, the annoying studio televisionnewspaper people they had to deal with. It isn't as if Hard Day'sNight is making a whole lot of material up, yet this remains apiece of fiction. That meta aspect frees the cast to do what theywant in more ways than one while still remaining somewhat true to themselves, even though by the end the viewer has notlearned anything. They were very young in '64 and liked to goofaround as much as possible. The one stretch that is sort of unique iswhen Ringo leaves the band for a while in order to live a free life.It comes across as an unexpectedly touching few minutes, but whoreally thinks he won't be banging those drums later on that eveningfor the show?...

Bloggin' Around: End of the year

2011-12-26T12:33:00.000-05:00

Helloreaders,

2011will soon be over and, as a blogger, I have not really done my dutythis year. The real purpose behind everyone writing and publishingmaterial on their respective blogs, apart from satisfying our innercraving for everyone's attention because clearly each of our individual opinionsis the opinion the internet should be reading (clearly), is toshare thoughts on the art of film. You visit my blog, I visit yourblog, you comment on my blog, I comment on yours, and so on and soforth. I didn't understand this movie, did you? Oh, I should readthat post you wrote in the hopes that I will gain a betterunderstanding of said movie. Well written, blogger X, well written. Roger who? I like your blog more.

Ireally didn't visit all of your blogs often enough. In fact, thereare probably some of you reading this who think 'Hey, why the hellshould I care about Edgar?!? That dude don't stop by my place nomore!'. Well, I did, but I probably didn't comment and the visitswere all too infrequent. The final stretch of 2011 (October untiljust recently) was not a joyous time of year and I was, admittedly,just publishing a bunch of stuff to get my mind on other things. Theresult is that I have very little knowledge of what's been going onon so many other blogs since the end of the summer, if I'm beinghonest. Allow me a year to change that nasty habit of mine. Say,2012, alright? Shake of hands....good!

Hereare some of the stronger active blogs on the internet which discussfilm. If you have some time off, visit them. You might like what youfind. Guys and gals, this post is for you.

-JamesBlake Ewing's Cinema Sights. I know of very few movie afficionadoswho have such eclectic taste. James can watch just about anything andfind strong, sensible arguments as to why the film is good or bad.This is a guy who can write a poor review for a Herzog film(something few people dare) and make you go 'Yeah, I didn't think ofthat...' His writing abilities are of the highest order too, which isalways a plus when getting your ideas across. Aces.

-TonyDayoub who write at Cinema Viewfinder. This chap is highly respectedin the field of film criticism, as he share his time as a blogger, ascreenwriter, and a contributor for the online magazine Wide Screen.The guy pretty much knows what he's talking about when he writes. Doyourselves a favour and check him out

-RyanHelms at Life in Equinox is one of the most prolific online writerstoday. It is one thing who publish material on a daily, it is anotherthing entirely to make sure everything is witty, informative, funny,and articulate. More impressive still is the variety of articles heconcocts. Seriously, this guy should find a way to get paid for whathe does!

-Cinema du Meep. What a fantastic little sight. The subject is a restrictedto films of the 80s, but therein lies the websites utility:discovering long forgotten and even totally unknown gems from thatmemorable decade. A must for anyone looking for some views on 80sclassics...and the not-so-classics.

-Corndog Chats Cinema. Adam Khun (no relation to the Packers back. Unless...).This guy hasn't achieved the same status as some of the people I'vementioned so far, but he's getting there, trust me. The style ishonest, the writing easy to follow and the overall atmosphere verywelcoming. He also participated in the massive Definitive BondMarathon that took place at Filmspotting (as did James at CinemaSights), so check out the marathon section of his blog. He has somevery interesting views on the greatest film franchise of all time,objectively speaking.

-Bill's Movie Emporium. Bill, Bill, Bill...is there anyone doing what you doright now? It's always from the gut, always. There's no bulshittingaround when you publish something. Maybe that's what makes our buddymarathons work so well. Me, Mr pompous and you, Mr Keepin' it real.So real in fact that you admit to your wife knowing best. Bless yourlittle heart. I almost want to not like Christopher Nolan likeyou!!!*

*Acrap phrase added for dramatic effect. I freaking love Nolan.

-Alexat Film Forager. First and foremost, you should know that in additionto getting solidly written reviews, you'll also have the opportunityto view some wonderful movie inspired art work in a continuous columntitled Movie Sketch Project. She is is really good at this stuff. Aclever way to fuse two passions (writing about film and creating filmthemed artwork) into one single place. She is also a co-host of theSome Cast it Hot podcast. Check out the banner on the right side ofher page where she lists the LAMMYs she has won under 'Yeah,whatever.' Gold.

-Ah,CS from Big Thoughts From a Small Mind. I really hate myself for notvisiting this site as much as I used to. This is probably one of themore consistent blogs out there in terms of content and quality. Theanalysis is always astute and the replies to comments come quicklyand with a lot of class. Yeah, a Torontonian demonstrating class.It's a little weird, but facts are facts.

-Film Intel. This sight is a little bit like Life in Equinox in that itoffers tremendous variety in its content, although it earns someadded points in frequently reviewing movies lesser seen by mostpeople. It's a good place to visit to see what is new that maybedidn't get some play at your local multiplex.

-CoreyAtad's Just Atad blog. This is a different bread of film blogging.Rather than offer up a healthy of movie reviews, which is what thevast majority of us do already, he prefers to offer insights into themarketing, making and critical reception of films. Opinionated butalways fully capable of backing his arguments up, Corey mostresembles what one might call a columnist, or journalist. It is notjust if the movie is good, but what is the impact of the movie, whatis the context of the movie, where did it comes from and what is itsplace in today cinema landscape? Good stuff.

-RyanMcNeil at The Matinee. Nothing more need be said. Everybody who blogsknows this guy and there are very, very good reasons for that. Winnerof best blog and best podcast at the 2011 LAMMYs. Hello!

Othernoteworthy mentions: Toronto J-Film Pow-Pow (Japanese film from aT-dot point of view), The Lady's Eve Reel Life (all vintage, all thetime), Surrender to the Void (loves films and Nine Inch Nails. Don'tmess with'em!), Suspend Your Disbelief (you'll have to because youwon't believe how good this blog is! Ha!)

HappyNew Year!

review: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

2011-12-25T17:29:00.001-05:00

TheGirl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009, Niels Arden Opley)

Herewe are again, for the second time in a single week, discussing TheGirl with the Dragon Tattoo. This time it is the original Swedishversion, which erupted onto the cinematic landscape only two yearsago, in 2009. Its rise to fame was stratospheric, with film goersembracing its pulpy nature and the titular girl with the dragontattoo, one of the more unique characters to inhabit a mainstreampicture in some time. In fact, Montréal received the film a littlebit before everybody else in North America (although why is a goodquestion). If remember serves me correctly, it was an early summerrelease in '09 under the title Millenium, and the local presswas quite adamant this was the movie event of the year. The strangestpart is that the film came out again under the title The Girl withthe Dragon Tattoo. If one steps into an HMV store inMontréal, one can buy a Blu-ray of Millenium and The Girlwith the Dragon Tattoo even though they are one and the samefilm.

Neitherthe plots of the American or Swedish cinematic translations differmuch from the novel, and given that it was only a few days ago thatBetween the Seats reviewed the David Fincher interpretation, thisreview shall not invest much effort in providing a synopsis, otherthan stating that the movie centres around a murder mystery. HenrikVanger (Sven-Bertil Taube), once the CEO of Sweden's most powerfulmanufacturing corporation, hires disgraced Millenium journalistMikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) to investigate the possible murderof his niece, which happened 40 years earlier. The elderly mansuspects someone in his family to be the culprit. Eventually theprotagonist calls upon the help of one Lisbeth Salander (NoomiRapace), who is unfriendly, lacks any sort of social skills, dresseslike a goth punk, but possess truly phenomenal investigative andcomputer hacking skills.

NielsArden Opley's version of the Stieg Larsson story owes the vastmajority of its redeemable qualities to the actress whose name hasbeen on everybody's lips for the past two years: Noomi Rapace. It isthanks to the talented Rapace that a character like Lisbeth who,under almost any other circumstances, would be absolutely detestable,proves to be the most enjoyable person on screen and by quite a fairmargin at that. To genuinely make that character worthy of theviewer's interest and time could not have been an easy feat, for shehas to balance out sprinkles of humanity with the many qualitieswhich have earned her such notoriety. She is the nightmarish versionof Sherlock Holmes, if you will. Whereas Rooney Mara, who plays therole in Fincher's film (very, very well, mind you) embraced thetotally psychotic possible version of Lisbeth, Rapace succeeds atbalancing her out ever so slightly. She does look weird and she doesbehave weirdly, that much is true. Despite this, the finer details ofRapace's performance, from subtle glances, to the way she turns her headwhen something affects her, to her more regular manner of speaking(Mara mostly talks in standoffish manner throughout her film,although again, in a good sense), all of it creates a more humanizedversion of the Lisbeth character, someone who feels a little morebalanced. It could be safe to wager that mainstream audiences willfeel more 'comfortable' with the Noomi Rapace interpretation than theMara interpretation. This is by no means a slight against Rapace. Rather, it speaks to her strengths as an actress to play on all thecounterbalancing aspects that make Lisbeth who she is.

Truthbe told, Noomi Rapace's presence is so strong in this picture thatprovides virtually all of her scenes with a much needed lift,especially those involving her co-star, Michael Nyqvist. The latteris by no means a poor actor. He is doing what it appears the scriptis asking of his character, but therein lie two critical issues. Thefirst is that the script has nothing interesting to say aboutMichael, even though at the outset of his journey he is a man whofinds himself in the most difficult of situations, professionallyspeaking. Everything about a journalist hinges on his or herreputation and dependability. The film puts a decent amount ofemphasis on that notion, in addition to teasing the audience with thepossibility that Michael might have been framed. Such promise ofterrific development is never fulfilled, with script never givingthe viewer much to feed off of. The second issue at hand is that theactor, Michael Nyqvist, is himself unable to bring anything to thetable. If he just has to sit at a lit table and read off his computerscreen, then that is what Nyqvist does. If he is called upon to stareat a picture of the murder victim and ask aloud to himself in ashushed tone: 'What happened to you?...' that is what he does.Nyqvist is not the sort of actor who can elevate pedestrian material.It might be an unfair assessment because he is caught between a rockand a hard place. He is not, ultimately, the star of the show and thescript really does not give him much to do, but somewhere in themiddle the actor must (and the word must is stressed here)find something, anything, to work with. He appears a bit livelierwhen paired with Rapace, thankfully, yet the latter totally out actsthe former.

Watchingthis Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, itbecame clear by the midway point that is was content, much like therecent English language version, to stuff in as much material as itcould. The film lacks rhythm, even more so than its Americancounterpart. This is definitely a case where the story is merelygoing through the motions, from one scene to the next because clue Aleads to clue B which leads to clue C and so on. Moments ofunderstanding and discovery feel very perfunctory, something anymurder mystery should avoid at all costs. Perhaps the only momentthat carried serious weight, plot and theme-wise, was when Lisbethchases after the killer, now known to her and Mikael, and, havingcornered that person, is faced with a very personal dilemma as towhat to do. A great moment, a very well directed moment, but suchinstances are infrequent. A bland version of the story, overall.

Readingthe novel, it felt apparent what some of the book's deficiencieswere. It concerned itself with far too many subplots and failed tomake them all feel equally important. Still, a lot of materialexisted to make a solid mystery thriller., provided adequateadjustments were made. Does this Niels Arden Opley directed attemptfail on all accounts? No, but nor is it especially memorable either. It isthe type of film perfect for the conditions under which this reviewerwatched it: nothing to do and lots of time to kill prior to animportant engagement later that day. The story is serviceable,nothing more. If one is absolutely intent on catching it eitherbefore or after discovering the new English-language version, thehighest endorsement the film can receive is its extraordinary femalelead, both the character and the actress. If she plays her cardssmartly, Noomi Rapace will have a great career.

Exciting announcement! Between the Seats joins Sound on Sight

2011-12-24T16:15:00.002-05:00

Helloreaders,

Ihope you are enjoying this holiday season with friends and family.Today, Between the Seats comes to you with an exciting announcement.Last weekend on the Sight on Sound website, the editor in chief,Ricky D, posted an invitation to any writers who expressed desire injoining their writing staff. We may have mentioned Sound on Sight acouple of times in the past, perhaps more for their podcastingtalents than anything else, but they do in fact have a large,talented pool of writers who share thoughts and analysis on film, beit for new releases, festivals or cult classics. If there was onlyone tiny thing that made me hesitate before replying to the invite,some might recall that twice in the past Between the Seats hadassociated itself of other web sites and on both occasions the sitesin question did not stay up for very long.

Reasonsoon came back to the forefront in my mind. Sound on Sight has beenaround for a few years, well establishing itself one of Canada'sleading film related web sites and podcasts. As a matter of fact,they have contributors in the United Sates and Europe as well, whichenables them to offer coverage for festivals like Telluride, BFILondon and Cannes, so clearly these people know what they are doing.To top it off, there was a practical reason why writing for themcould prove to be enjoyable. The people who started the site arebased in my own city, Montréal, and, as I learned through emailcommunication with the editor, they were looking for more people tocover local festivals that get lost in the shuffle (Festival desfilms du monde and CineAsie came to mind). After a couple of days ofback and forth communication, I was accepted as one of their own!

EveryFriday, Between the Seats will contribute a film noir review andevery Saturday, we will contribute a Shaw Brothers review. This isstupendous given how much of an affinity we have developed for bothtypes of films in 2011, with a Shaw Brothers marathon and not one buttwo film noir marathons. The first two articles are alreadypublished. To make our beginnings a little bit easy, it was deemacceptable if the first two articles are re-edited version of tworeviews which have already appeared here earlier this year, On Dangerous Ground and Come Drink with Me. The columns are titled Friday Noir and Shaw Brothers Saturday.

Andbe sure to check out all the other interesting articles to be foundat Sound on Sight, as well as their swell podcast.

Thankyou for reading.

review: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

2011-12-23T15:56:00.002-05:00

TheGirl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011, David Fincher)

Thereare some phenomena in the entertainment industry which strike a nerveamong the populace with such ferocity that it creates a 'before andafter' effect. Star Wars (1977), Jurassic Park andAvatar are such films.They catch on like wild fire and never loosen their grip. It isdebatable whether or Stieg Larsson's The Girl with theDragon Tattoo book series fallin such an illustrious category, although attempting to minimize themagnitude of its popularity would be foolish. Since the first book'spublication in 2005, readers have devoured the stories ofanti-socialite, computer wizard Lisbeth Salander and grizzled veteranjournalist Mikael Blomqvist. The cultural impact of Larsson'ssprawling epics is not limited to the page, but expanded to thescreen as well. In 2009, a Swedish adaptation was incredibly wellreceived both in its native land and abroad (although its twotelevision bound sequels were not). Now arrives the bizarre Englishlanguage remake from David Fincher of Zodiacand Seven fame.

Takingcourse over a long period, Dragon Tattootells the story of the unexpectedly productive alliance between thetwo aforementioned characters, Lisbeth (Roony Mara) and Mikael(Daniel Craig). The latter is a goth attired private investigator ofsorts, receiving payments from big industry players who want as muchinformation as possible dug up on various competitors or otherindividuals which have caught their attention. At is revealed veryearly on that her latest subject is Mikael, veteran journalist forMillennium magazine whose most recent article, which tossed somelofty accusations towards a successful business man, proved to becomplete hogwash, and although that small embarrassing detail wasnever Mikael's intent, his career is now in considerable trouble. Itturns out that Lisbeth's investigation on Mikeal was for Mr. Vanger(Christopher Plummer), former CEO of a large and proud Swedishmanufacturer who lives on a small little island a few hours outsideof Stockholm who wants to uncover the long overdue truth behind hisniece's disappearance 40 years ago. Officially, Mikael will bepreparing the Vanger family memoir, whereas in reality, his skills asa journalist and investigator will be served to sniff who among theconniving, untrustworthy, Nazi-loving members of Vanger's familymight have killed her. When the going gets tough, Mikael acquiressome help in shape of the very person who had him brought to Mr.Vanger's attention, Lisbeth Salander.

ForgiveBetween the Seats for providing such a lengthy, wordy plot synopsisparagraph. It should be understood that if there is one thing DragonTattoo indulges in (both thisfilm and the novel, which we have read), it is plot, thus making anyattempts to sum up, even briefly, what the film promises, is nosimple task. In this review's introductory paragraph, this movie wascharacterized as 'bizarre.' A bit harsh, perhaps, but why bizarre?For one, it plays a very dangerous game, one that brought upon thequick and painless death of another recent English language remake,Let Me In. Equallysimilar to Matt Reeves' picture, this is a remake of a wildlysuccessful foreign language picture made very, very shortly after theoriginal. Another peculiar touch to Fincher's version of the samestory is that, unlike how most English language remakes (read:American, for the the most part) are translated, in which the settingis transported from whatever native country to the United States, theaction in this film still takes place in Sweden, only the charactersspeak English. Fincher's track record helps us forgive the creationof this movie, with the anticipation prior to its release achievingpretty significant heights among the film fanatic community.Nonetheless, making this movie, in particular with the way the storyis set, was a gamble.

WillDragon Tattoo receivethe same fate as the unfairly maligned Let Me In?Most likely not. The cast is strong and people enjoy good pulpy funsometimes. Does it deserve a quick death like many people feverishlybelieved Let Me Indid? Neither. In fact, David Fincher makes a surprisingly compellingand effective film despite the mountains of plot details that needbalancing out. Watching and listening to the movie (meaning payingattention to the plot, the cinematography, the colours, the score,the live action sounds and so on), one feels as if Fincher, in tryingto adapt Larsson's famous book, has chosen to produce a hybrid of twoof his recent films, Zodiacand The Social Network.The attention the investigators Lisbeth and Mikael must pay towardsthe details of the case and the lengths they each to go in order toreach the truth is reminiscent of the prolonged journalistic researchperformed in Zodiac. Thencome the visuals and sounds, which resemble, in subtle ways, the typeof film Fincher made with The Social Network.There is a peculiar darkness to a lot of the picture, even duringscenes which take place in very well lit locations. Sometimes it isomnipresent, other times it is barely hinted at, but that moodypastiche is there to be sure. It does not come as such a surprise asit did in his previous effort since this is, after all, a murdermystery story, but nor is it unwelcome or lack style. In a curiousway, there are visual similarities between another film which cameout just recently, Tomas Alfredson's TinkerTailor Soldier Spy,which also employed a subtle, reserved, beautiful visual tapestry tohelp tell the story.

Moreimpressive than the film's attractive pictures are the performancesfrom the two leads, Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig. Mara has never,until now, played anything character that remotely resembled theaudacious creature that is Lisbeth Salander. The difficulty inbringing someone like that to life as a protagonist is in making herthe least bit believable and worthy of the viewer's attention.Lisbeth, even though society has indeed treated her poorly, is a bitof a psycho and she does not shy away from demonstrating just whatsort of insanity she is capable of. Mara succeeds in making herimpressive, scary, impulsive, adding intelligence, humour (albeitslight and definitely off-kilter) and enviable determination in getting a job done. The girlwith the dragon tattoo is not the girl next door, let that be clear.In the capable hands of Rooney Mara, she is someone audiences cancheer for, even though she is freakishly weird. Craig is given whatmight be seen as the 'boring' role, the straight man to Lisbeth'sflamboyancy. Appearances are deceiving in this case, since Mikael isone of the more compelling mystery story protagonists in recentmemory. Considering the disastrous nature of his latest Millenniumarticle, he would be forgiven for coming across as a broken man. Thisis not at all what the film has in store however, instead providing avery honest, funny, charming and cunning investigator. The teaming upof Lisbeth and Mikael defies expectations, creating a fascinatingone-two punch of detecting skills. Craig's work in Dragon Tattoojust might be his very best.

Wherethe film falters is in its detail heavy script. The source materialis entertaining, yet suffers from being overstuffed with storythreads. Fincher, unfortunately, chooses not to be as economical inhis storytelling as he could have been and, maybe, should havebeen. The scenes which set up both Lisbeth and Mikeal (prior to theirunification) are fine individually, but there are so many of them andnone are ever genuinely connected to each other. Mikael simplydecides at one point, at least 50-60 minutes into the film, that heneeds help, which leads him to Lisbeth. 50-60 minutes is a lot oftime to be following two characters go on their separate ways whenthe audience obviously knows that they shall form an allianceeventually. Without giving too much away, there is yet another plotpoint which demands resolving even after our two heroes have crackedthe case. Here again, the scenes themselves are fine but feelultimately unnecessary, as if Fincher and the screenwriters were convinced that as much of the book as possible had to be included intothe movie. There was certainly a way to make a perfect 2 hour longcinematic version of this story. An opportunity missed, sadly.

Avisit to the multiplex this holiday season will provide a funnyselection of movies. Family entertainment like Tintin, thecrowd pleasing Mission Impossible, the adult minded TinkerTailor, and the dark, at times grizzly, gritty Dragon Tattoo.No lack of choice, that much is certain. However, is it the bestchoice? You do the investigating now...

review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

2011-12-20T22:17:00.001-05:00

TinkerTailor Soldier Spy (2011, Tomas Alfredson)

Oneof the defining English language novels of the 20^thcentury, Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy has earned a rightfulplace on a countless number lists which enumerate the mostartistically important novels of the past 100 years or so. Anyonewilling to venture into the spy genre in literature is immediatelydirected not only to the works of John Le Carré (pen name), butspecifically that novel. As most people familiar with the film worldare keenly aware, successful books typically lead to cinematic andtelevision adaptations, and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy hasnot been exempt from such a treatment. The 1970s saw the creation ofa BBC miniseries starring the legendary Sir Alec Guiness and,interestingly enough, the series itself has garnered near equalpraise to that received by the source material. Now, in 2011, over 30years after that BBS show, arrives the film adaptation, highlightedby, firstly, a remarkable cast that would make even Steven Soderberghblush, and secondly, by one of the most interesting new directors onthe scene, Swede Tomas Alfredson, who wowed just about everyone threeprior with the vampire tale Let the Right One In.

Thenovel is blessed (or cursed, depending on whom one asks) withstunning depth of psychological character study, thus making it achallenging read, especially the first time. Tomas Alfredson's filmattempts to keep the plot down to the bare minimum. Essentially, arecently retired British spy, George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is draggedback into service, temporarily at least, to investigate somedisturbing possibilities within the high ranks of the secret service.It is rumoured that a mole, or double-agent for those unfamiliar withspy linguistics, has infiltrated the Circus (MI6) some years ago andhas climbed his way up the echelon. The service's former chief,Control (John Hurt, playing a character the equivalent of 'M' in theBond pictures) believed, prior to his passing, that the enemy was oneof four top officials, among them Bill Hayden (Colin Firth), RoyBland (Ciaràn Hinds), Percy Alleline (Tobey Jones) and Smilerhimself. Links to the truth lie with field agent Ricky Tarr (TomHardy), back from a long defunct misison, as well as with anotherfield agent believed to be deceased, Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong).Smiley acquires himself an young assistant, Peter Guillam (BenedictCumberbatch), to help him swath through the lies, conspiracies andshadows.

Itseems quite amazing that a mere two films into what shall undoubtedlybe an illustrious career, director Tomas Alfredson has alreadyacquire and honed a style unto his own. He has a knack for creatingartistically noteworthy scenes, via both production design and simplecinematography. What Alfredson succeeds at is what those morefamiliar with cinema's academic language refer to as being an'auteur.' His visual style is not merely distinctive, but itsimultaneously sets a mood, which itself puts scenes into context,which subsequently helps advance the story. Let the Right One Inwas a vastly different motion picture, with scenes taking placearound snow, in schools, with children, in a different countryaltogether, although one can certainly detect the similaritiesbetween that horror story and this spy thriller. Nearly every sceneis inhabited by an austerity which exquisitely sets the tone for themoment and what is to follow. One need remember that when Le Carrécreated these stories, he was inspired by the experiences acquiredthroughout his own career. The omnipresent austerity reminds theviewer that spies need always be on their toes, do not reveal toomuch, do not truly be yourself. In fact, lose yourself altogether forthe greater good of whatever mission a spy is tasked with. Whatsurprises most is that the film can extrapolate moments of suspenseand genuine emotion, especially on the part of characters like Smileyand Ricky Tarr, this despite all the seriousness on display.

Alfredson'scamera is rarely, if ever, particularly flashy, preferring rather tomove quite smoothly from character to character, showing preciselywhat needs to be shown in order to convey whatever is required out ofa scene and nothing more. There are no wasted shots. A brilliantexample of this when Smiley recounts to Peter the time when he hadthe privilege of speaking to Control's Moscow opposite. Theconfidence Alfredson has in telling this story through a clever yetremarkably simple camera trick. Nothing supremely complex isrequired, just a small, unorthodox touch that sets the scene apartfrom so many other scenes in films where a character revealssomething that occurred in his or her past. What is shown, how it isshown and when it is shown are three elements Alfredson clearly takesinto consideration in very specific ways, playing with colours,lighting and angles in realistic yet powerful ways. As mentionedabove, from a visual standpoint, Alfredson's movies have genuineartistic merit to them, even though upon first glance they may appearmore grim and boring than anything else.

Obviously,an articles discussing this version of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spywould be woefully incomplete without mention of the cast. The film isblessed with three standouts. Chief among them is Gary Oldman, whoinhabits a spy like non other. This review briefly mentioned how aspy might intentionally lose him or herself in order to progress.Spying is a game of intentional, subtle games of trust and mistrust.Oldman's Smiley is one of the most difficult characters ever to readin a movie, not because the script gives the actor nothing to do, butbecause, as an old pro, he knows he must somehow be as detached aspossible, emotionally, speaking all the while remaining as attachedas possible, professionally, speaking There are fleeting moments,such as when Smiley learns that Control once believed Smiley himselfcould be the mole, when one can detect the slightest emotionalreaction, although it comes and goes so quickly one will miss it ifone blinks. To counter the near unflappable Smiley is Cumberbatch whoplays Peter Guillam. More youthful and energetic, his services arenot only plot related, but help to balance out some of the tone setwith the characters since we follow him nearly as much as Smiley.Finally, there is Tom Hardy as Ricky Tarr, the half disillusioned,half romantically desperate field agent who wants nothing more thanto ensure that the Russian woman he fell in love with while on hisfinal mission is admitted into Britain. While Hardy is not a centralcharacter, his performance does give many scenes a bit of a lift.

Afterdissecting so many positive aspects to the film, what could possiblyprevent Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy from being amasterpiece? In one word, the script. There are far, far too manycharacters played by actors who are far too fantastic for the twohour run time to ever cope with developing all of them sufficiently.The crux of the problem is that, by the end, it matters very littlewho the mole was since the people who get the shaft are the threeprime suspects. Now, arguments have been tossed around, admirably soeven, that the film is not really concerned with that matter.While that is a fair point, Alfredson's direction, in particularduring the moment of the reveal, suggest otherwise. His direction inthe scene when it is revealed that Control suspected Smiley ofpossibly being the traitor suggests otherwise. Plenty of superblydirected scenes suggest otherwise, leaving the script to limp forward instead of march confidently. There is a lot of time investigatingthrough interviews with other characters and by stealing secretdocuments from MI6 libraries. To top it off, the suspects are playedby Colin Firth, Tobey Jones and Ciaràn Hinds! In this regard, thereis, unfortunately, a lack of connection between the direction and thescript.

TinkerTailor Soldier Spy might not be remembered as the bestadaptation of Le Carré famous novel, but there are more than enoughgood things about it for those looking for some adult mindedentertainment to be satisfied.

Capsule reviews: Ghost Protocol, Groundhog Day

2011-12-19T12:41:00.001-05:00

MissionImpossible: Ghost Protocol (2011, Brad Bird)

BradBird leaves Pixar (temporarily I imagine) to film the next liveaction Mission Impossible spectacle. Tom Cruise returns asagent Ethan Hunt, although his is in something of a predicament atthe start of the film, prisoner in a Russian penitentiary. The restof the IMF team (Simon Pegg and Paula Patton) help him evade and areafterwards immediately tasked with infiltrating the Kremlin toretrieve some valuable missile launch codes which might be the appleof a terrorist's (Michael Nyqvist) eye. The mission is an utterdisaster (see trailer), leaving IMF, now including Jeremy Renner, togo out on their own to stop the terrorist before, well, uses thecodes to blow cities up. Crazy stuff in Mumbai and Dubai ensue.

Betweenthe Seats shall never tell a lie: the Mission Impossibleseries, while absolutely blessed with moments of brilliance in eachof its entries, is not a franchise we really love. It feelslike James Bond but with the filmmakers adamant that everything hasto be even more outrageous than in the world of 007, thus somehowproving that their series is better. Sorry, we're not biting. I thinkwhat the series lacks, with the exception of the very first film, aregreat villains. Michael Nyqvist (of Swedish Girl With the DragonTattoo fame) is a solid actor who knows how to have some funwith his role as the terrorist Cobalt, but honestly, stolen Russiannuclear missiles? Are we not past that sort of plot line? Wasn't thatthe sort of event that propelled early 1990s action movies when thecurrent Russian era was young and terrorists were taking advantage ofthe new, uncertain geopolitical status? This is 2011...We also don'tsee much of Cobalt, so for the most part he feels like an afterthought. In fact, the whole plot feels like an afterthought for thetruth of the matter is, a mere 4 days after seeing this movie, Idon't remember why the IMF team went to the various exotic locationstheir mission took them. Maybe it wasn't even important, I don'tknow.

Allthat being said, the film still manages to go a good action movie, ifmostly for, a) the action, and b) the cast playing the protagonists.Director Bird utilizes the IMAX format to the fullest extentpossible. There are moments that inspire awe for how impressivelymassive they are. It isn't just a matter of the picture being largerthan in regular cinema, it is what Bird chooses to put into the frameand how he moves his camera that makes the moments fantastic. Thesequence that makes the trailer so cool, the one when Hunt has toclimb a building in Dubai from the outside? It lives up toexpectations. The second aspect is the cast of heroes, which is good.Cruise can say whatever batshit crazy things he wants to ininterviews, he has incredible charisma on screen. Pegg provides somewelcome comedic moments, Paula Patton, an actress I wasn't at allfamiliar with, gives a nice performance (her character is given anokay back story) and Jeremy Renner is as good as he usual is, whichis very. The film goes for some emotional moments near the end, andunfortunately they don't mesh well with the tone of everything thatprecedes them, but all in all Ghost Protocol is a fun time.Just don't expect to remember much a few days afterwards.

GroundhogDay (1993, Harold Ramis)

Thiswas playing on MPIX HD (yes, there was an upgrade at my homerecently) on Saturday morning and, having not seen the film in someyears, I decided to sit through most of it. Bill Murray plays Phil, terribly grumpy, self aggrandizing weather man for a Pittsburgh newsstation who is sent out with his small crew to cover the groundhogday festivals in a small town outside of the big city. Neither hiscamera man (Chris Elliot) or editor (Andie MacDowell) find their starto be least bit pleasant. In fact, they are often the target of hissnide remarks. However, Phil is about to receive a lesson in humilitywhen, for unexplained reasons, he keeps living the same groundhog dayover, and over, and over, and over...

Thereare at least a few great things about this Harold Ramis and BillMurray 90s classic. The most obvious one is the actor at the centerof it all. There was a time when Bill Murray could carry a comedywith an uncanny effortlessness, almost in a literal sense. There is arelaxed nature to his vintage performances that have never beenreplicated since. What's more, his character were often sarcastic andsnarky, which made the performance all the better, because of playingit up, he'd actually play it down. It is as if he is notputting that much effort into it, and that is exactly why he is sucha memorable comedic actor. It also makes the moments when he doesplay things up even funnier (such as the second time he engages inthe snowball fight with the local kids and yells out how much hewants to be a dad and adopt them) The other terrific aspect toGroundhog Day is of course the structure of the story. Whileit might appear clear as daylight to anyone why Phil is condemned torelive the same day over and over again, there is something to besaid about the fact that the director never explicitly provides theanswer. In essence, it is up to both Bill Murray and the viewer tofind out what's going on and how he can how he can escape his fate,which is a very smart move on the part of the filmmakers. The journeyitself is plenty of fun, filled with the right touches of comedy butalso heartfelt moments. After a while, Phil does begin to change hisways in a genuine manner, but not enough to escape this bizarrevortex, which leads to a really, really touching scene with AndieMacDowell. Definitely a must for Murray fans who might have overlooked this one.

Shaw Brothers Marathon: The 36th Chamber of the Shaolin

2011-12-17T12:12:00.001-05:00

The36^th Chamber of the Shaolin (1978, LauKar-leung)

Andnow, after an epic and adventurous Shaw Brothers ride, our longjourney ends here. A 13 movie marathon than began way, way back inJune now concludes with the film many afficionados consider to be thegranddady of all martial arts films, let alone Shaw Brothers films,The 36^th Chamber of the Shaolin. Thepicture's influence on many kung fu films that followed inconsiderable, hence its deemed historical relevancy, but also beentouted as simply a great action movie, period. This marathon hasalready taken a brief look at director Lau Kar-leung's work (alsoknown as Liu-Chia-liang) earlier with our review of Heroes ofthe East, a film Between the Seats nearly praised to the highheavens. It also reunites him with that same film's star, theinimitable Gordon Liu. Clearly, there was no more fitting way tofinish off this massive undertaking. Without further ado, let usclimb the mountain leading the famous shaolin temple, where theworld's great masters of kung fu practice and perfect theirmultidisciplinary art form in its cleverly devised chambers.

Thecitizens of a small village under the rule of the Manchu suffer. Anydisobedience in the face of their harsh rulers is squashedimmediately and without mercy. San Te (Gordon Liu) is a young studentat a local school and son of an honest fish merchant. His teacher isa staunch supporter of the Tar Tar rebellion and has, for lack of abetter term, indoctrinated his classroom to join in as well. San andhis comrades are still young however,and possess few means to fightback effectively against their oppressors, although seeing publicexecutions of those who attempt to liberate them certainly helps fueltheir desire. Everything changes the say the Manchu general, Tien Ta(Lo Lieh, of King Boxer fame), make their move against SanTe's teacher, clearly an enemy of the state, which consequentlyhimself and those he loves in direct line of danger. After thebutchering of not only his classmates but also his father, San Te isdetermined to rid his region of evil the only way he believes ispossible: venturing to the famous Shaolin temple where, if the information is correct, many variations of kung fu are taught. TheBuddhist monks do not typically concern themselves with world mattersand rarely accept newcomers on a mere whim, yet it is a risk worthtaking...

Verylittle can be said in support of The36^thChamber of the Shaolinwhich has not already been written down. The movie is widelyentertaining, with a charismatic hero venturing on the ultimate,classic hero's journey. Something the film accomplishes handsomely isgiving the sense that San Te's path has been long enough and that ithas morphed him into a new person. While true that, according to histeachers, the five years the protagonist has required in order tograduate from each of the 35 original chambers is a record, directorLau nevertheless shifts the story into the future in a manner thathelps the viewer believe that the character is changing. It is noeasy trick to perform because, whether by budgetary constraints orlack of will, no specific work is done to make San Te any differentthan what he did five years ago other than shave his head intraditional Buddhist monk style. There are other venues used tocreate a convincing transformation however, such as attitude,posture, both of which clearly indicate that a few years removedfrom that fateful day when his father and teacher were executed, SanTe is now a totally different person. The boy who looked wide eyed inface of unmitigated threats now has a solid head on his twoshoulders, and actor Gordon Liu should receive credit, in part atleast, for helping the protagonist live this metamorphosis. Hedemonstrates a tremendous charisma and an understanding of the manydifferent faces his character takes on.

Speakingof differences within characters, director Lau Kar-leung apparentlyhas a knack for telling stories in which people are put into notmerely difficult situations, but situations which thrust them intomoral and psychological ambiguity. In Heroesof the East, problemsarised when national pride disrupted the marriage between a Chineseman and Japanese woman. International relations were at stake, eventhough nobody was a true villain in the piece, which the story allthe more interesting. The context obviously differs in the case of36^thChamberin that there are most certainly villains who need to be disposed of,and yet the director still finds way to complicate mattersthematically. It is one thing to how to confront one's enemies forprotection of those one loves (which is what San Te does, in fact,attempt in the film). However, the path chosen by San Te to go aboutputting that desire into concrete action is filled with murky waters.After all, it is to the Shaolin Monks that he pleads for help. Monks,by their nature, are not especially violent people and definitely donot kill people. The basic principles of Buddhism would not,normally, encourage any sort of gross acts of violence. San Tetherefore finds himself in a peculiar situation. There is no questionthat he will do whatever he can in his power to accomplish hisultimate goal, but his path is a strange one to say the least. It isnot as if, by becoming a Buddhist monk, general Tien Ta is suddenlygoing to sit down and have a chat with him in order to solve theissue by reasonable means. This reality makes the entire last act ofthe film, while still great fun, so strange. To see this Monl, in hismonk robes, absolutely go out in 'attack mode' is peculiar to say theleast. The movie tries to play down the oddity of the sight by havingSan Te express a second desire: the creation of a 36^thchamber in which he could teach the basic principles of kung fu toordinary citizens, thus providing the means to defend themselves. Thenotion is fantastic, although it does not take away from the factthat the third act has a wild and crazy feeling to it. This commentin meant in the best way possible, although it feels like the bestway to put it. It is 'great', but in a weird, weird way.

Thefinal act in question is a spectacle, to be sure. San Te is alone forthe most part when confront hordes of enemies. There one scene inparticular when a rather stacked garrison of soldiers and a captainattack San Te in town at night. The hero literally fights 10 peopleat once who are sometimes attacking him with completely differentinstruments. Some of swords, some have spears, some use their fistsand legs, etc. It is great to watch because San Te will react to onesort of attack, either by avoid contact or repelling the attack,while simultaneously taking care of someone else. All these skillsare acquired after the many years of training at the temples variouschambers, which is something else the viewers get to see a lot of.The film does not avoid poking a little bit of fun at the sillinessof the story (lines like 'the wall may be low, but Buddha's power ishigh' help), but never too much so as to make sure that audiencestill understands this is an adventure film, not a comedy.

Itmight not be possible that anyone seriously in love with kung fufilms has yet to see The36^thChamber of the Shaolin.It has plenty of the hallmarks the genre is known for today,including a story of revenge, long training to become the bestfighter possible and finally triumph. While there were other films inthe marathon the author enjoyed more, this Lau Kar-leung film isdefinitely among the finer Shaw Brothers movies.

review: The Adventures of Tintin

2011-12-14T13:10:00.001-05:00

TheAdventures of Tintin (2011, Steven Spielberg)

Theholiday movie season is now upon us, and first up to bat is thecomputer generated animated adaptation of a legendary comic book (or'bande déssinée' as they are known in French) from a legendarydirector. How is that to raise some stakes? North Americans are notas familiar with the character of Tintin and his funny lookinghairdo as they are with other mainstream stories. That is not terribly surprising, what with the gargantuan amountof home grown comic book stories from Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, Vertigoand so many other popular, successful publishers. It is true thatTintin, being a Belgian creation from the mind of one Hergé(pen name), reaches out to the sensibilities of European comicreaders more so than North Americans. The dominant reason why thismovie fan is familiar with the source material is his Québec, Canadaupbringing, that being an officially francophone province andtherefore a more interesting market for books such as Tintinthan elsewhere on the continent. Now comes the big budgetinterpretation of the material from a director who speaks no Frenchbut, in preparing the film, professed his love for the stories anddesire to bring something special to the big screen.

Summarizingthe plot of The Adventures of Tintin is strange businesssince, given the familiarity with the original books, it is clearthat multiple stories have been moulded into one, which is odd. Thatbeing said, this review will respect the art form at hand, that beingcinema, and treat it as such with as little comparisons to the comicsas possible. Onwards then: famous newspaper reporter Tintin (JamieBell), visiting market one day, finds a beautiful model ship for salenamed the Unicorn. The handsome vessel pleases him and he goes aheadwith the purchase, yet is immediately faced with odd warnings from anAmerican stranger as well as offers to buy the model off him from arich, mean looking aristocratic man named Sakharine (Daniel Craig!). Themystery surrounding the Unicorn grows ever more with death threatsand when Sakharine's less than savoury true nature reveals itself.Once Tintin reads up on the history of the Unicorn, his reporterinstincts get the better of him: he must get to the bottom of thestory as to why everyone is after the boat, although clues seem topoint towards a marvellous treasure somewhere! Along the way hisdetective friends Thompson and Thomson ( Simon Pegg and Nick Frost)help out as they can, and an unexpected friendship is formed with anold, alcoholic ship captain named Haddock (Andy Serkis) whom, itturns out, has an old score to settle with non other than Sakharinehimself. Of course, let us not forget Tintin's most trusted sidekickof all, Snowy the dog!

TheAdventures of Tintin is director Spielberg's first foray into theworld of animated film. Despite this new territory, the iconicfilmmaker finds his ground quite comfortably, especially with regardsto pacing, scale, stakes, and the near unlimited camera tricks whichcan be performed, be they during docile moments of dialogue orstupendously detailed and lengthy action sequences. For those whohave yet to see the picture and wonder what the previous statementis referring to, one need only look back to all the marvellousextended action scenes Spielberg and his teams have created in thepast. Examples include the fist fight next to the propeller plane inRaiders of the Lost Ark, the over the top battle at the nightclub at the start of Temple of Doom, the audacious chase inMinority Report when Tom Cruise is jumping off the tops ofsliding cars, the initial T-Rex attack in Jurassic Park oreven the double T-Rex attack from Jurassic Park: The LostWorld, just to name a few. Eachof those individual moments not only help serve story by driving thecharacters from one location to another and thus continuing theirquests, but in of themselves are prime examples of creativity, anappreciation of character behaviour (by the nature of how theythemselves behave within said action sequences) and intricate camerawork that bring the unfolding events to life. Take all of that,impressive enough to begin with in the hands of a master such asSpielberg, and then allow that director to unleash unlimitedimagination in an animated world. The results are wondrous to behold, vivacious even.The level of detail that has gone into the fabrication of the threeor four prolonged chases and action scenes, from the content to thepresentation, practically commands awe. There is a motor cycle chasewhich occurs in the streets of a Moroccan city which baffles the mindwith its juggling act of complexity, comedy and action world logic.There is so much happening on screen that it begs to ask how did thescene read on paper when Spielberg pitched his idea to the studio?Tintin is a reminderthat, as great as some other directors are at building tension andaction, one should absolutely forget Spielberg. This man knowsexactly what he is doing.

Thevisual awes are not merely limited to sequences of thrills, but alsoin moments when characters are merely recounting past stories, orwhen certain transition to others. There is a stunning moment whenthe Captain Haddock is revealing the story of one of his ancestors toTintin. This ancestor was a sea man whose ship was attacked bypirates one eventful night, but rather than simply have the picturecut from the past to the present, each transition is done in its ownunique way each and every time, such as having the camera zoom into apirate's sword (as we are in the past, living the battle on the seavessel), revealing Haddock's face (present day). The cameracontinuously zooms until we the viewers have 'broken the timebarrier' of sorts and have returned to the present, in the same roomas Tintin listens to the Captain. It is phenomenal. The animation,produced through the usage of the oft-maligned motion capturetechnology, brings each character to life with startling detail.Everyone looks like a cartoon character, yet they all look quitelifelike. It is a peculiar feeling to see such creatures prancearound and interact with one another. Much like Avatar stunnedpeople two years ago (at around this time of year, ironicallyenough), Tintin is a feast for the eyes, bringing live actionand animation even closer together still.

It is not all about the animation, mind you. There are living,breathing characters who populate this world. Granted, Tintinis an Indiana Jones type adventure, so those expecting extraordinarycharacter development might leave some disappointed, but all of theprincipal individuals involved have their stakes properly introducedand handled. Tintin himself is presented in quite interesting fashion,to be honset. He is the lone person in all of this hoopla who doesnot, in essence, have to be there. The catch is that, as areporter always on the prowl for the best story, he does feel asif he has to be there, which is a neat little character trait thefilm plays on every now and then. If handled improperly, questionsmight be warranted as to what purpose he serves, but such is not thecase, thankfully.

Whatimperfections exist lie in the plotting. The script was penned bysome very talented people, among them Edgar Wright (of Shaun ofthe Dead and Hot Fuzz fame) and Joe Cornish, whomade a name for himself earlier this year with Attack theBlock. Given their stellarprevious inputs into the world of cinema and entertainment, theflimsiness of the script shan't bring them down in the opinion of thearticle's author. It is not that the script is poor, only that aftera while, attention to the details of the clues becomes more and morea trying task. By the midway point, one simply wants to follow Tintinand Haddock as they proceed from point A to Z. That part is amazingand works as an adventurous epic. The 'why' gets a bit confusing aftera while and its overall importance, when weighed against all the funhappening, is minimized. Some characters makes appearances but intruth have no business being in the picture, as though, Wright,Cornish and Spielberg simply had to fit in as much from the books aspossible. Fan service, and nothing more, but the problem is that fanservice rarely, if ever, helps a story.

TheAdventures of Tintin shouldplease those seeking fun escapism. It is the sort of adventure filmonly Steven Spielberg knows how to share. Beautiful to look at, funcharacters to tag along with, and some inventive action sequencesshould make a worthy night out at the movies.

Shaw Brothers Marathon: Crippled Avengers

2011-12-11T14:14:00.001-05:00

CrippledAvengers aka Return of the 5 Deadly Venoms (1978, ChangCheh)

Bytaking a moment to look at Chang Cheh career as a director at theShaw Brothers studio, one might come to notice that several of thestories he shared employed unorthodox protagonists, namely for theirphysical attributes. In the late 1960s, there was The One ArmedSwordsman, which told theexploits of a talented young student whose misfortune in love led tohis arm being chopped off. Determination, practice and spirit proveddoubters wrong as he became a great hero, bringing justice back tothe land. Then came the many films starring David Chiang. While truethat his characters were never hampered by any physical deficiencyresulting from an accident or the malfeasance of others, he was shortand very thin by nature. Upon first glance, he looked like an easypushover. And yet that never played any sort of role in his films, ashis heroes were always the most skilled in combat and the bravest.Now comes Crippled Avengers,a film with a story and protagonists which harken back yet again tothe Cheh films of old. Interestingly enough, if one is not carefulwhen browsing Shaw Brothers titles, one can easily mistake this moviefor being a direct sequel to 5 Deadly Venoms,giving how its initial North American release title was, in fact,Return of the Five Deadly Venoms.

Changbegins his film in very interesting matter, making the viewer believethat the family man who is wronged in the opening scene, Do Tian-du(Kuan Tai Chen), will somehow become one of the titled 'avengers.'Three ferocious members of the Tigers Gang invade his home while hiswife and son are present, but before Tian-du can intervene, thebandits have chopped off the legs of his love and the arms of theyoung boy. The injuries take the life of the former but not thelatter, and after mercilessly vanquishing the Tigers Gang, Tian-dupromises his son Chang he will have iron arms built for him and trainhim in the deadliest martial arts. Thus, rather becoming the heroesof the piece, father and son, once Chang is a young man (Feng Lu),are a terrifying force to be reckoned with, intimidating and severelypunishing all those who dare oppose them, even inadvertently. Such isthe situation with the blacksmith Wei (Lo Mang), who is driven muteand deaf after scolding the father and son for their malicious ways.A travelling hawker is made blind after starring at Chang's strangeiron hands. A regular civilian sees the lower half of his legschopped off (ironic) and a young kung fu master, Wang Yi (ShengChiang) who tries to make Tian-du and Chang pay for their behaviouris tortured to the point that he becomes an idiot. Seriouslyhandicapped and with their lot in life now broken, these four newfriends make way for the school where Wang was taught kung fu totrain long and hard, in the hopes that one day the tables may beturned on Tian-du and his son.

Ifsome of the names of the actors mentioned above seem familiar, thereader has been paying attention. Many of the people involved inCrippled Avengers werealso the stars of 5 Deadly Venoms,hence its original North American title, Return of the 5Deadly Venoms. This group of menare often referred to as forming the Venom Mob. They had known eachother from very early ages, long before entering the film business,and the popularity of the Venomsfilm gave birth to such the group's name. It is interesting to notethat the actors frequently play the same sort of characters, such asFeng Lu, who plays the villainous Chang here just as he played theCentipede in the previous film. The same goes for Lo Mang, who inboth pictures takes on a very charismatic and emotional sort ofpersonality. Whatever criticisms may be aimed at the quality of thescripts, be it of this movie or its predecessor, it is difficult todeny that this group of actors does indeed work with a specialchemistry. The swagger they possess, the boastfulness when they marchtogether, even the odd moments when they can be peaceful, everythinghits the right notes, which is a rarity in films such as these, inwhich so much more emphasis in put on the action, costumes and setdesign rather than creating genuine chemistry between the actors.Then again, due to the deep familiarity amongst themselves, it can beimagined that Chang Cheh did not have to worry too much aboutbuilding any sort of chemistry. It was already there on set andbehind the scenes.

Whereasstrong chemistry might have been one of only a few genuinely strongaspects to Venoms,here it one of many. The best Shaw Brothers films are those thatdeliver on story, character and action. The weaker ones,unsurprisingly, only succeed at one of two of those three keyingredients. Crippled Avengersis aces in all three. The joy at watching the actors play their parthas already been elaborated on a little bit, so let us take a look atthe story. The stuff that occur in the movie and the sort of themesit explores are very, very familiar and easy to comprehend. So manyof these movies are about revenge and redemption, but provided a filmat least plays its cards right, it can still deliver thrills andemotion. It does not a degree in psychology to understand that muchof what Crippled Avengersrelates to is about overcoming one's own deficiencies and provingone's worth in the face of handicaps. The protagonists are all ratherglum when at first faced with the prospect of enduring blindness,deafness, or no legs. The film conveys, albeit not in tremendousdetail, the rehabilitation process, in which a character with no morelegs must learn to operate with artificial limbs while another whocan no longer see must learn to rely on his hearing. What's more,teaming up with their companion who has unfortunately lost some ofhis marbles is another challenge altogether. The training sequence, ahallmark of many a great kung fu film, takes on some addedsignificance with. On the flip side of things, the antagonist of thefilm is created under more unusual circumstances than normally isthe case, with a man whose personal tragedy has not created the urgeto set right society's wrongs, but rather a deep mistrust and evenhatred of any man who looks at him crossly. It makes for an delicioustwist, something these films are not known for.

Andthen there are the action scenes, among which are the best Cheh hasever directed. Here is where all the critical elements, story,character and action, come together to create beauty on film. Becauseeach of our heroes is limited in some way or another, nearly all ofthe action scenes require them to work together in unison, sometimesall four together, other times two by two. The higher the intensityand sense of danger of the fight, the greater the requirement thatthe crippled avengers coordinate their efforts and come to the aid ofwhichever ally is in need of help. Many of the Chang Cheh signaturetricks make appearances throughout, such as his undying love of slowmotion while a character jumps in the air while a crescendo syntheticwavy sound plays on the soundtrack. For all intents and purposes,the highlights of the film typically involve the blind warrior, whocombats with a stunning sense of grace. The fights are uninterruptedare nearly hypnotize the viewer. There are so many moves, all ofwhich have been calculated and prepared endlessly, and the actorsmove around so effortlessly and with a lightness that it begins toresemble a dance more than a fight. Not that such a comment should betaken as a negative, for above all else it impresses. There is greatjoy infused into these moments.

Themarathon is coming to an end and we have seen plenty of Chang Chehfilms, some good and some less so. The skillful direction on displayhere just might give this film the edge over his other efforts. Inany event, Crippled Avengersis one of the best Shaw Brothers out there.

Shaw Brothers Marathon: The 5 Deadly Venoms

2011-12-09T18:55:00.001-05:00

5Deadly Venoms (1978, Chang Cheh)

Despitewhat great films have been observed as the Shaw Brothers marathon hastrotted along, none, thus far, have been privileged with a gift thatmay only measured with time: contemporary cultural relevancy. It istaken for granted that admirers of martial arts and wu xia epics caneasily pay respects to the works of the studio currently underreview. That part is evident enough. By contemporary culturalrelevancy it is meant that a given film continues to permeate thecultural landscape of the times, regardless of decade, whether it beto the timelessness of the story, its unforgettable nature, andinfluence on various media in the following years. Chang Che's mostfamous film, possibly deemed a 'cult classic', is 5 Deadly Venoms,a picture that has beenreference countless times in other movies, television and music.Anybody remotely familiar with rap's Wu Tang Clan knows the group hasa particular fixation with said film. In fact, it would be a safe betto say that among any Wu Tang Clan fans, more people are aware of 5Deadly Venoms' existence thanthose who have actually seen the movie. Its inclusion in the marathonthus felt... obligatory, in a sense.

Thestory commences with a young martial arts pupil, Yang Tieh (ChiangSheng), attending to his fatally sick master (Dick Wei). The latteris the head of the infamous House of Venoms, a clan which teaches itsstudents some of the world's most specific martial arts techniques,those which replicate, in some ways at least, the reflexes, power andagility of various creatures. The House has caused ills in societyand its Head has, as his dying wish, a desire to see his nameredeemed. Aware that among of his previous students, Scorpion (SunChien), Geiko (Kuo Chui), Centipede (Lu Feng), Toad (Lo Mang) andSnake (Wei Pei), some wish to steal a great treasure he left to theattendance of an old friend, the aging master sends Yang Tieh todiscover the identities of those Venoms which seek to do good, andjoin them in preventing the rest from further giving in to vice. Themission is complicated by the fact that Yang does not know who theVenoms are, by face or by name.

Theintroductory scene, in which the old teacher reveals what sort oftechniques the individual Venoms have each mastered, is amusing andgripping. As the Head sings the praises of his former followers,director Cheh gives the viewer some flashback moments of theirtraining, with each fighter putting on quite the show. Granted, theirskills are enhanced significantly by wire work as to make them appearas even more fantastic than they should be in reality, but themessage is received loud and clear: these men are forces to bereckoned with and so young Tieh had best watch out. To furtheraccentuate the awe and mystery surrounding the venoms, each dawns asuperbly decorative mask representing which animal skill they haveperfected. All of this lasts only a matter of a few minutes, but assetup it works handsomely in raisin the stakes high enough for us tocomprehend the very large task asked of Tieh. When the hero finallyventures into the city streets where he is to locate his potentialenemies and friends, there a sense that what follows will bethrilling. And yet, funnily enough, something happens along the waywhich derails that potential for excitement. By the film's end,director Chang Cheh, while still providing a movie with its fairshare of fun moments and surprising martial arts action, somehownever lives up to all the promise the setup gave the viewer.

Forthe most part, the issues lie with the structure of the story and howsaid structure, in effect, makes use of its characters. There is thematter of the heist, the object of which are the riches the old Headsaid he had left with a friend. No problems there thus far, theVenoms will most likely use their cunning skills to acquire thebounty. What causes the quality of the story to deviate somewhat isthat the Venoms must go under other guises in order not to bediscovered (remember the foul reputation the House of Venoms hasearned). That in of itself is fair enough and makes sense given thenature of the circumstances. However, it takes away to some degreethe fun that could have been had with the Venoms running and hidingabout, plotting and fighting against one another. The resulting moviehas the Venoms rarely revealing themselves, neither to each other orout in open spaces for combat. There is some of that of course,especially in the final stages when all bets are off and the truerumble begins, but for the most part Chang Cheh is creating a policeprocedural with a mystery that never feels sufficiently important toretain interest. The master's old friend is murdered early on bySnake and Centipede, working in unison, but failing to discover thelocation of the goods, they must then escape and eventually corruptlaw enforcement in order to preserve their odds at striking gold.Scorpion shows up every now and then to speak with snake, althoughnever reveals himself, but not much else. Toad, of more virtuouscharacter, is revealed early on and helps a police constable bringthe other suspected Venoms to justice. At some point it should becomerather obvious to anybody paying attention who the constable probablyis, but the film somehow plays its cards as though it believes it hasa real secret to keep, hoping that audiences won't clue in.

Itwould be a stretch to say that such a plot spoils the fun, for, asmentioned previously, there is some fun to be had, yet it feels likean odd way to introduce people to these great warriors. Apart fromthe very end, there are few moments when the Venoms truly impresswith the skills which have earned them either high esteem ortremendous scorn. One wonders if there is possibly a previous, longlost 5 Venoms picture that tells the story of these characters intheir truer, warrior state, with this film being a sequel of sorts(what happens after they graduate from school). The film becomes soconcerned with its plot of corruption and deceit that the characterwhom we thought would be the audience's eyes and ears, Yang Tieh,gets totally lost in the shuffle. There are significant stretches ofthe movie when he utterly disappears, only to return near the end tocombat the forces of evil alongside his newly acquainted brethren. Ifhe was to become to unimportant in the middle section, could theirnot have been another way for the director to thrust the audienceinto the lives of the Venoms?

Abit like another film about a group of super fighters this reviewerhas a difficult relationship with, The Expendables, the finalpractically makes up for all of the previous missteps. The finalcombat sequence, when all the Venoms are revealed (even though in thecase of one there really was no surprise at all) and Yang Tieh isback into the fold, the killers jump at each others throats in afight that should mesmerize just about any movie buff who enjoys astrongly choreographed fight. It is a great finale, if only it hadfollowed a more stimulating buildup. Special mention should also goto the strongest actor of the bunch, Lo Mang, who also appears in afew other of Chang Cheh's movies (such as The Water Margin,reviewed earlier this year). There is a wonderful sense of youthfulexuberance about him. Acting was not always the top priority in filmsof this ilk, but Mang always manages to bring a great sense of energyto his fun and oftentimes prideful characters.

Whateveris argued in this review matters little in the grander scheme ofthings. The film long ago achieved his revered status in manycircles, not even always film buff circles. The reasons are thereafter all for viewers to get a sense of cool out of it: a secretsociety of trained killers who perfect a variation of martial artsbased on animal behaviour and put on amazing masks. It is a neatidea, no argument here. Is it all the many other Shaw Brothers moviesseen this year, many of which were excellent, which have aided increating this lukewarm reception for Cheh's most recognizable outing?Or is the movie simply not as good as its reception makes peoplebelieve it is? That is another debate altogether. For completists whobreath martial arts films, 5 Deadly Venoms should be seen(although it can be assumed that youalready have), but for the casual fans, there is bettermaterial out there.

Definitive Bond Marathon: Quantum of Solace (2008)

2011-12-03T19:03:00.001-05:00

(directed by Marc Forster)
In the aftermath of 007’s (Daniel Craig) mission to trap Le Chiffre, Her Majesty’s Secret Service received a rude awakening concerning the existence of a new terrorist organization: Quantum. How was it that this seemingly sophisticated, well funded and fully operational group could come to be without our knowing was baffling to say the least, but reality hit home when, upon interrogating one of its high ranking associates Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) in Siena Italy, an MI6 traitor attempted to assassinate M (Judi Dench). 007 chased down and liquidated the thug, but the event created new clues to the whereabouts and goals of the terrorists.

Haiti was Bond’s next destination where curious discoveries were made. First, almost all the leads on hand at the time led 007 to a certain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a successful business, philanthropist and environmentalist who was shaking hands with the devil: exiled Bolivian general Medrano (Joaquin Cosio). The reason behind this alliance remained a mystery for a while, but things grew ever more interesting when a renegade Bolivian agent, the stunning and headstrong Camille (Olga Kurylenko) not only made her presence known but demonstrated her own vested interests in getting close to Greene. She was, at first glance, the entrepreneur’s current lover, but Bond’s association with her helped reveal some of the truth behind Greene and General Medrano. Camille in fact wanted Greene dead for some very personal reasons, and 007 needed to stop him before controlling one of the world’s most precious resources...

Following the titanic success of Casino Royale in 2006, the producers felt it smart to directly continue Bond’s mission from that very film. After all, he had not been entirely successful. The organization behind Le Chiffre was still at large and the mystery behind Vesper’s betrayal remained unsolved. For the first time ever, therefore, the James Bond franchise would be venturing into direct sequel territory. It was a bold move considering that part of the series’ strength was its continued ability to deliver fresh, stand alone adventures for over 40 years. Nonetheless, the fans wanted more, so it was decided to acquiesce.

The fruit of their efforts produced mixed reactions among the fans, general movie goers and critics. It certainly was interesting to see a direct sequel to a Bond film, but it felt vastly different from its immediate predecessor. The tone, the adventure, the visual style, it felt like there was a disconnect between the two films rather than a strong connection, the latter being what one would come to expect from a sequel. Yours truly had a similar immediate reaction when seeing the film back in the fall of ’08. Indeed, it was somewhat puzzling to witness a movie that supposedly picked up where the previous one left off and yet feel as if it might have belonged in a different franchise. But that was the gut reaction and, if I am to be honest with myself and the readers, it was result of a wave of negativity that washed over me. I went with the flow and thought, like the majority of people, that the film was not very good, or at the very least a major letdown. As is so often the case, time is the best judge of how good or bad a film really is. This is a Bond movie, meaning I’ve watched multiple times even though it’s only a few years old. I certainly have not seen it as many times as the other instalments, but a good handful of times.

Now, I think we still a long way from realizing that QOS is another OHMSS, which was not so well received back in 1969 yet today is regarded as one of the best episodes in the series. There are, let’s say, some aspects to the film that go against some of my own cinematic principles, but underneath it all I now understand that QOS is actually...not bad. Three principle reasons are the source of QOS’s ability to redeem itself despite its flaws.

The first and second reasons go hand in hand. They are Daniel Craig and the journey James Bond goes on. The actor at the center of it all is just as good in QOS as he was in CR, even though he gives a decidedly different performance. It is a shame that we’ll have waited 4 years for SkyFall (I love that I can actually write the title of that movie. No more Bond 23!) because Craig has an incredible presence as the famous secret agent. More adventures with his type of Bond are a must. That magnetic look of his is back this time, as is his undeniable physical presence. Some might argue that he is a bit too one-note, not demonstrating too much emotion, but I beg to differ. His interpretation of the character is more serious, but also more humane than many previous versions of the character, and to see him work with a script that thrusts Bond into very dark, ambiguous emotional territory is really quite interesting. Which brings us to the story, and by story I’m not referring to the villain’s plot, which we shall discuss a bit later on, but rather the personal journey of James Bond. It is reminiscent of LTK in way, with Bond going rogue, somewhat, in a personal attempt to learn what truly guided his now deceased lover Vesper Lynd to betray him at the end of CR. It is darker territory than usual, thus giving the protagonist fewer moments of wit and charm than he normally gets. There is a little bit of that (like the scene where he pretends to be a teacher to get the nice hotel room in Bolivia), so all is not lost, but overall, one should realize that QOS is not the kind of Bond adventure in which a lot of jokes and wit is required. This isn’t TSWLM or YOLT. This adventure sends Bond on dangerous ground, and not just because of the hordes of villains he encounters. He operates directly against some of M’s orders, killing people left and right, even potential informants. That recklessness we saw in CR is back, but now it is driven by far more personal reasons, which in a way makes 007 even more dangerous. In that respect, even though the screenwriting trio of Wade, Purvis and Hagis don’t deliver on the same level as they did in the previous film, they nonetheless produce a good enough script in regards to Bond’s inner demons.

The third reason that lifts Marc Forster’s film from mediocrity is one that many people criticise, that is, the leading Bond girl, Camille, played by relative newcomer at the time Olga Kurylenko. I remember reading and listening to reviews of the movie and witnessing people’s real disappointment with the character and the actress. I never had a problem with either of those aspects. Is Kurylenko one of the best actresses to play a Bond girl, No, I don’t think so. That being said, she puts on a solid performance as an especially dangerous women living the same situation as Bond is. There is some grit to her performance and one can tell that the emotional baggage has created an unmatched determination, discounting Bond himself of course. While it might have satisfied the masses if Camille and Bond had shared a vintage moment of 007 lovin’, it would never have felt right for the picture. Forster wisely understands this and refuses to give into tradition. There that single moment near the end when they share a quick kiss, but the moment passes as quickly as it arrived. Given their near-identical journeys, both characters work well with one another. Seeing Camille go rogue to punish general Medrano is like Bond seeing himself in action. At that point he has to wonder which of the two, the mission or the vendetta, means more.

Now that the film has received its fair share of praise, the time comes to study what does not work as well. Well, for one, those title cards whenever Bond visits a new location. Just kidding! I actually kind of like those. In all seriousness, there are some incredibly important aspects of QOS which unfortunately don’t jell well together. There is a saying, I believe, which states that a hero is only as good as his villain. While Bond can afford to be the exception because of his iconic personality and style, that does not excuse the existence of a villain as boring as Dominic Greene. Let us be clear, Mathieu Amalric is a fine, fine actor, maybe one of the best actors working today. Suffice to say, he does not really work as a Bond villain. It feels as though Forster was trying to replicate the success of Le Chiffre, who was physically strange, very smart and conniving. One might be led to believe that Amalric fits the bill, but the performance simply never feels as convincing as it should. He has a good stare, true, but that is essentially the end of it. Him going toe to toe with Bond at the end is completely ridiculous. In all honesty, Craig should be totally crushing this little man. His plot is equally disappointing, what with Quantum desiring to control Bolivia’s water resources. Sure, water is precious and in our day and age of environmental sensibility, its worth has taken on an entirely greater meaning, but that’s a rather paltry goal, is it not? Zzzz....

One other miscue, or miscues, is the erratic editing chosen by Forster and his team to show off what could have been outstanding action sequences. I distinctively recall watching the video diaries during all of ’08 in anticipation of the film’s release and seeing all the remarkable preparation that went into the stunts. Co-producer Michael G. Wilson was excited about using an old cargo plane for a dog fight in the sky, there was going to be an insane boat chase, a hotel was going to blow up in the middle of the desert, Bond would chase someone on rooftops in Siena, Marc Forster was thrilled to be directing an action film for the first time, etc. This was supposed to have better action than CR and on paper, it does. The variety of crazy things Bond performs in the film is impressive on paper. On film, much of it is an incomprehensible mess. For the number of times I’ve watched this movie, I could not tell you what happens, beat for beat, in that opening car chase. A gun is fired, Bond swirls his car, his driver side door is ripped off at some point by something, maybe, I don’t know. It really is a massive letdown to witness such dedicated preparation not pay off on film because of the editors and director. There are moments of hope, glimmers of brilliance, but on the whole QOS is terribly below par when it comes to the action.

By the time all is said and done after 110, my general feelings are that some critical opportunities were missed, ones that just might have made the best Bond film ever. A strong character piece mixed with some stunning stunt work. Plus, there was a female version of Bond living the same turmoil as him, thus offering our hero with a mirror view onto himself. It is strange that one of the aspects that drag the film down happens to be something the series has always prided itself on: incredible action to thrill audiences. That is the single biggest disappointment. Bond films have offered subpar villains before, but never has the action been as poorly showcased as it is in QOS. And yet, despite what holds the film back, I believe there is a fair bit of merit to be found here.

B-

December preview

2011-12-02T00:11:00.001-05:00

Hello readers!

A little preview for what is to come in December, this beingthe final month of the year and all.

First and foremost, not a lot of activity should be expectedover the next week or so. The reason is simple and a little embarrassing. A fewmonths ago someone lent me Rome, thecomplete series, on Blu-ray and it has been sitting on my shelf ever since. Ihave already seen the first few episodes and liked what I saw, but it’s hightime I actually get through the rest of the show! The next few days will thereforebe reserved exclusively for Rome, sono movie reviews.

With one exception. In order to make sure the blog does notappear as totally dead, this weekend shall see the appearance of the finalreview in the Definitive Bond Marathon, Quantumof Solace. It is already posted over at the Filmspotting message boards (insert obligatory: have you been there yet?), sothe heavy lifting is done. But, as per usual, I shall publish it here as wellfor those who prefer the cozy confines of Between the Seats.

By the 7^th or 8^th of December, readerscan expect, in rapid succession, reviews for the final three films left to bediscussed in the Shaw Brothers Marathon: FiveDeadly Venoms, Crippled Avengersand 36^th Chamber of the Shaolin. The purpose is to ensurethat no marathons which began in 2011 are carried over into 2012. A simplematter of keeping things tidy and organized, if you catch my drift. Thetwo-part Film Noir Marathon (already finished just a few days ago on November30^th), Definitive Bond and Shaw Brothers will have all concluded bymid-December.

After which we enter the end of the year rush. There arebig, big movies coming out over the course of the final two weeks of the month,such as Mission Impossible: GhostProtocol, Tintin, War Horse, A Dangerous Method (in myneck of the woods anyways) to name only a few. Of course Between the Seats willbe part of the action with reviews for a few of them. Then there are the lists,those obligatory but still rather fun lists to compile: favourites of 2011,least favourites of 2011, and so on and so forth. There may even be a veryspecial Bloggin’ Around post before the year is done... Ooh, exciting!

There you have it, a plan for the entire month. Given thatwork (the type I actually get paid for, not this) is demanding some pretty intensehours , I pretty much don’t have a choice but to follow this sort of schedule forthe month! As always, your visits and comments are much appreciated, theyreally are, even if sometimes I only respond to them a few days later.

Take care fellow bloggers!

Capsule reviews: Batman, Moneyball, Piel que habito

2011-12-01T13:19:00.001-05:00

Holy captivating capsules, readers! It’s another series ofcapsule reviews!

Batman (1966,Leslie H. Martinson)

Recently I have stumbled upon a television station namedTeletoon Retro, which runs a series of family oriented cartoons dating back tothe 90s, 80s, 70s and even the 60s. For some weird reason they also show a fewlive action programmes, one of them being the 60s Adam West Batman series.Seeing a few episodes brought back happy memories, and when I saw the blu-raymovie for a few bucks, I picked it up as a blind buy, no hesitation.

Batman (Adam West) and Robin, the Boy Wonder (Burt Ward)must face their tallest challenge yet: all four of Gotham’s most fearedcriminals at once, as they have aligned their maniacal minds together andcaptured a submarine off the coast of Gotham which carried a new secret weaponwhich may change the face of the Earth forever! The villains are the Joker(Cesar Romero), The Penguin (Burgess Meredith) Catwoman (Lee Meriwether) andthe prince of puzzles, the Riddler (Frank Gorshin).

This movie is absolutely ridiculous. Even more so than thetelevision series upon which it is based. The programme had its moments ofsheer tongue and cheek comedy and cheesy attempts at action, but I felt thefilm amped the ante in those two departments exponentially. Batman, the film, seemed way, way dumberthan Batman, the programme. Granted,I loved almost every moment of it, only that there was a clear distinctionbetween the levels of ridiculousness in both versions. The larger budget, whichallowed for more silly props and simply more time to make a silly world feellarger than it ever was on tv, most likely played a large role in producingsuch results. Suddenly the Dynamic Duo have a Batcopter, a Batbike, a Batboatand they still find the time to use the good old Batmobile. For crying outloud, the Batbike is hiding out in the middle of nowhere under some fakelooking leaves! It’s just sitting there!!! The dialogue, character interactionsand quirks are unquestionably the highlight of the movie, again, upping theante of childish tomfoolery. Batman and Robin are in Commissioner Gordon’s(Neil Hamilton) office after a failed initial attempt to intercept the capturedsubmarine:

CommissionerGordon: It could be any one of them... But which one? Which ones?
Batman: Pretty *fishy*what happened to me on that ladder...
Commissioner Gordon:You mean where there's a fish there could be a Penguin?
Robin: But wait! Ithappened at sea... Sea. C for Catwoman!
Batman: Yet, anexploding shark *was* pulling my leg...
Commissioner Gordon:The Joker!
Chief O'Hara: All addsup to a sinister riddle... Riddle-R. Riddler!
Commissioner Gordon: Athought strikes me... So dreadful I scarcely dare give it utterance...
Batman: The four ofthem... Their forces combined...
Robin: Holy nightmare!

If you thought that was too stupid for you to enjoy, skipthe film. If you laughed at that (as I did), you have to see this thing.

Moneyball (2011,Bennett Miller)

Following a solid if ultimately unsuccessful 2001 campaign, Americanbaseball Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) pleads with histeam’s owner for more funds, especially given that many of his squad’s finestplayers have been picked up by larger market clubs in New York and Boston.Given what sort of market Oakland is, the money simply isn’t there. Beane’shopes of building a championship season in Oakland seemed destined to remain anout of reach dream, that is until a fateful meeting with a rival generalmanager during which he makes the acquaintance of the quiet mathematician,Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), who has some ideas of how to build a truly successfulball club with as little money as possible. He immediately hires young Peterand together work to rebuild the A’s in a way nobody seems to agree with. Timeto play some moneyball!

Moneyball caughtme off guard. The hype surrounding the film prior to its release was sky high,and yet the reception it receive was lukewarm for the most part, withnonetheless a decent amount of people championing it. I intended to see for thelongest time, yet kept putting it off. Having now finally watched the darnthing over two months after its release, I stand firmly in the camp of thosewho love it. The fact that it is about sports helps, seeing that I am bigsports fan (although baseball is far from my top priority), but the film goessuch a further distance than any typical sports story would. In fact, it can beargued that Moneyball is not really asports themed film. It’s a film about running a business, about finding newways to be successful and overcoming difficult odds along the way. It’s aboutthe adversity one can face when adopting new strategies to an old game, andabove all else, it’s about the inherent drama that exists in backroom businessdealing. Are these people dealing with piles and piles of money on a dailybasis for something that, in the grander scheme of life, does not mean much atall? Yes. Does it make for great drama? Yes! The whole ‘baseball’ angle isthere from start to finish, but it never becomes the film’s true focal point,which is why I believe just about anybody can enjoy the picture. Pitt, as therambunctious and temperamental Beane, gives a swell performance, as does JonahHill, playing a character unlike he has ever had to play before in his career. BennetMiller directs superbly, never being too showy, but still making the film lookvery, very handsome with some simple lighting tricks and editing.

La piel que habito/TheSkin I Live In (2011, Pedro Almodovar)

The film tells the complicated, emotionally disturbing taleof a rich and revered plastic surgeon named Robert Ledgard (Antonio Banderas),who uses one of the second story rooms of his private home as a chamber for anincredibly special patient of his, Vera (Elena Anaya). His mother (MarisaPeredes) works around the home as a maid of sorts, but she has he reasons formistrusting her son’s entire operation. Clearly, there is something bizarregoing on between Robert and Vera, but what exactly?

This is only the second Almodovar film I have seen, theother being 2002’s Habla con ella/Talk to Her. While I recognize he haswritten and directed many other films, having watched two entries of hisoeuvre, it feels safe to start drawing conclusions about sort of stories helikes sharing and the manner by which he goes about telling them. The Skin I Live In is so amped up onemotions and the venues the director chooses to pump those emotions into theaudience are so frequently audacious that one might wonder is anything he doesshould be taken seriously at all. The funny thing is, it still comes off asfine entertainment. Not all of the director’s little quirks suite me, but onthe whole the man knows how to get his points across, or, should I say, how toget the significant dramatic beats of his stories across. His latest is verywell acted (it was nice to see Banderas, an actor I’m fond of, be in a moviethat’s actually good for once), looks very pretty and has a great score. Ifthere is something I take issue with, it is the structure of the story. Thefilm is ostensibly split into two halves, with the second revealing everythingthat has led the characters (and the audience) up until the midpoint of thepicture. By the halfway mark, we sort of know what is going on, but the secondhalf reveals what’s really going on,and, now a few days removed from my viewing experience, I’m not sure that sitsas well with me as it did immediately after the film. The only reasons why thesecond half provides such stellar punch is because of what is explains aboutthe first half. If the story had been told in normal, chronological order, Idoubt the film would have made such an impact on me. Its success is adeliberate, manufactured decision on the part of the filmmaker to screw withthe chronological order of events, little else. I still think it’s good, and ifone enjoys genre-esque films (Skin I LiveIn is kind of a genre picture, no?), I’d say seek it out.

Forgotten Film Noir: The Asphalt Jungle

2011-11-30T12:47:00.001-05:00

The Asphalt Jungle(1950, John Huston)
*mild spoilers*

How many ways can a team of filmmakers create a heist film?More to the point, what can matter in such a movie, where can the stakes becreated, and where might they bring the characters? The question appearsdeceptively simple, for what might be at the forefront of a film lover’sthoughts when someone mentions ‘heist film’ is the heist itself, both itspreparation and execution, which is a reasonable reflex, if a decidedly easyone. So much more can enrich a story surrounding a heist. Who is committing theact, why are they doing it and, what further hurdles might the group ofanti-heroes encounter after the completion of the mission, for, as one shouldhave realized, the heist is not over until they have truly escaped theauthorities. For a full experience, a heist need concern itself with thebefore, the act itself, and the aftermath.

It is difficult to say which character The Asphalt Jungle concerns itself most with, for there areliterally three to four people who receive near equal screen time. There is Dix,played by Sterling Hayden, a small time hoodlum in his mid thirties who hasalready done time in jail for some petty to mid-serious crimes. At the start ofthe film he is already on the run from the authorities for armed robbery. Healso has a taste for betting on horses with a bookie, Cobby (Marc Lawrence),although his attempts at quick earnings always conclude in failure. Cobbyhimself is a special character, a man with some close connections to the policeforce which enable his little operations to continue in effect, actions whichfrequently involve illegal actions as well as illegal persons. Newly released formerinmate Doc Riedenschneider (Sam Jaffe), a genius tactician when it comes toheists, has spent the last few years in prison concocting his next hit withgreat detail. All he needs now are some new allies and the funds to prepare andexecute. Said funding will come from upper class lawyer Emmerich (LouisCarlhern), a successful man whose looks can be deceiving, for beneath the fineclothing and beautiful house are ruined finances, mostly due to his carelessand lavish spending, both for himself and his mistress, a young blonde firecrackerplayed by none other than the legendary Marilyn Munroe in of her very firstscreen roles. Together, all these characters and more will venture into a heistso perfectly planed, it is any wonder how something could have gone wrong...

John Huston, one of the great American directors of his timeand quite frankly of all time, whose brilliant storytelling brought such gems The Maltese Falcon and The Treasure of Sierra Madre to life,brings his talents to the fore of this 1950 slow burn of a film. Similar to thetwo aforementioned classics, close inspection of The Asphalt Jungle’s plot create the impression that is it ratherrun of the mill material. In a film such as this one, the individuality of thecharacters, the interaction of their personalities, their histories and howthey react to everything happening truly make the movie. It would not beentirely wise to argue that if one has seen one heist movie, then one has seenthem all, but there is not much variety surrounding the overall story formovies of this ilk. Still, for an audience to care one iota about the proceedings,it is prerequisite that at least some effort be invested in building a completeenough story arc. Huston and the screenwriter and are up to this task, and infact they do not merely content themselves with setup and execution of theelaborate theft, but also what transpires afterwards. In that sense, The Asphalt Jungle can be considered acut above the sea of heist films for it provides a ‘fuller’ experience, or amore complete experience if you will.

It is rather obvious why the characters like Dix, Doc,Cobby, Emmerich, Gus (James Whitmore) and Louis the safecracker specialist(Anthony Caruso) would want to participate in the event. In everyone’s casethey want and even need money, desperately so. In the case of Doc, he additionallywants to get back into the game of what he does best, that is, plan and perfectgreat thefts. So far, so good. The heist requires various details to beunderstood and put into effect with great precision, which the characters do tothe best of their abilities, but certain unforeseeable variables cause the planto go off the rails, and here is where the film truly begins to shine. For asgreat a planner as Doc may be, the fact remains that he has recently spent timein prison, meaning that he cannot be infallible. Whether the hurdles thatpresent themselves can be mostly attributed to Doc or not is an interesting debate. Doc receives word, through a datewith a pretty girl no less, that the lawyer Emmerich may not be as honest as heportrays himself to be (ironic, no?). This worries Doc, but he goes along withCobby’s reassurances that the funding is intact. Another silly event is how theexplosives utilized to bust open the safe where the museum jewels lie produces,unsurprisingly, the building to shake a little. This shake in turn causes thealarms to go off and thus alert the police, who are quick to make their wayover to the scene of the crime. Even though that in of itself is not whatundoes the team, it nevertheless causes certain complications, especially forLouis, who does not even make it out of the museum looking all that goodanymore. The character of Doc, who looked near infallible at the beginning, isbeginning to seriously show cracks in the armour.

It appears as though every wilful action the characterstake, be it at the command of Doc or not (most are) further worsens their odds againsteither the law or the treacherous Emmerich. This plays into the final third ofthe movie, the most interesting section in the opinion of this reviewer. Wementioned earlier how The Asphalt Junglegives viewers a fuller heist film experience seeing how it deals with theaftermath of the crime, and even though the setup is more than serviceable withsome nice character moments and the manner in which the protagonists put theplan into action once they arrive at the museum, the film really kicks intohigh gear the moment Doc, Dix and Louis walk away with the jewels. Right thereand then it seems as if everything they attempt to get away scot free withtheir prize only makes the dark clouds of doom more ominous. In almost all instances,their actions can be seen as functions of who they are as characters, whichreally makes it all the more fascinating to witness. In order not to providetoo many details of what transpires during the last 30-40 minutes, this portionof the review shall remain as vague as possible, but suffice to say thatwitnessing these characters try to escape all the hurdles present before makeup some of the movie’s stronger scenes. With the stakes and the tension raisedto an incredibly high degree, the characters are forced to make some moves, notall of which produce the desired results.

The quality direction certainly helps in conveying the senseof suspense and drama involved in such a caper, as well as creating a grittymood to the overall picture. However, the wonderful cast is so pitch perfectand eclectic that it succeeds in outshining whatever John Huston brought to thepicture. Not that was any sort of goal in mind, but it is mostly the idiosyncrasiesof the people involved which make all three portions of the picture stand astall as they do. Who better to cast than Sterling Hayden as a man who comes offas a brute at first but posses a bit more smarts than people would give himcredit for? Sam Jaffe is unforgettable as Doc, a polite and intelligent littleman but who holds the answers to how terrible things can be done. Louis Calhernis sublime as Emmerich, an aging man who is now facing the prospect offinancial ruin after years of prosperity. They say lawyers are a bunch of bloodsuckers, and Emmerich fits the bill perfectly when he is invited to partake inDoc’s plan. Even the smaller cast members are exquisite, such as Marc Lawrence,who lends a comical nervousness to Cobby, Anthony Caruso as the laid backsafecracker, and even Jean Hagen, whom we haven’t mentioned at all in thisarticle so far. She plays Doll, a down on her luck acquaintance of Dix’s whospends a few days at his apartment until she can pick herself up again.

While not the best Huston film (both Falcon and Sierra Madreare superior), The Asphalt Jungle isstill very good entertainment for those who enjoy the genre.