May 31, 2011

Film Maker in the Water... And he's drowning.

Let's discuss my most hated filmmaker of all time, M. Night Shyamalan. I actually want to see everything he makes because his films really are so ridiculously bad in completely absurd ways. Here are his films given my point system 0 - 10, 0 being "Elizabethtown" and 10 being "The Fall"

Avatar: The Last Airbender- 7 points (WITH RIFFTRAX ONLY), 3 without rifftrax.



I am completely mystified why somebody thought it was a good idea to put this much money behind Shyamalan after his last two disasters. The money at least shows in some really awesome fighting sequences and special effects. But Shyamalan reigns in his trademark style of human interaction that makes me wonder if he's ever had a human conversation. The actors seem like they are trying to behave like Anime cartoons.... which of course just makes viewing it seem like you're watching some kind of training video for a cosplay living community. Every statement made is delivered like it is the single most dire piece of dialogue ever spoken. It's exhausting. The main character is played by Noah Ringer who makes Jake Lloyd as Anikin in Star Wars Episode I look like academy award winner Daniel Day Lewis. Ringer is like nails on a chalkboard for your eye balls. The movie is full of unexplainable film making techniques, such as, when cutting from one scene, he splices a random shot of a field before going to the next scene.  While looking at the field (which is unrelated to the last scene) we start to hear the voice over of characters talking for the next scene. You expect to see the people in the field somewhere, but instead, we cut to a whole different location where the characters are speaking. Why did we take time out of our film to see this banal meadow that had nothing to do with the two scenes that bookend it? Such are the mysteries of Shyamalan. I watched this movie with Rifftrax (recordings made by the cast of Mystery Science Theater 3000 for new films that you download and play as you watch the movie), which was so funny it gave me an asthma attack. I recommend seeing this movie with Rifftrax only, the effects are good, and you will laugh at M. Night, which is always a good time. No twist ending, but a set up for a sequel that will never happen after this belly flopped to its doom.

The Happening- 4

 
FACE FACE FACE

This movie is more packed with Shyamalan's utter ignorance to human interaction than any of his films. Something about Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschannel just feels so manufactured. The dialogue and direction is actually so funny it's almost worth watching for that reason alone (but that's the only reason). They spend most of the film running from the wind, and no matter where they end up, everybody inexplicably understands that Wahlberg is the best candidate to be in charge, even when he's standing absolutely still in the face of the killer wind and THINKING REALLY HARD about what to do when the only action anybody takes in the entire film is people running (and dying). Other characters are only ever there as filler and nobody's motivations make any lick of sense. One character is trying to escape the deadly wind with his daughter, and instead of staying with his daughter, he decides it's best to go on to what the audience knows is a suicide mission to a town that everybody knows is already decimated, to find his wife who everybody knows is already dead. Then we're expected to give a shit when he dies. Other character-less screen fillers are young teenagers who show up as "part of the gang" with no explanation, completely unconcerned with the well being or whereabouts of their parents or family. They are instead stoked about being able to run around being tough kids... until they get shot in the face. But all that aside, it's hard to get into a movie when the plot fundamentally makes no sense.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I can buy into the storyline of plants excreting something that takes away humans sense of self-preservation. That's actually an interesting, environmentally conscious storyline. But if you ask me, the loss of your sense of self-preservation wouldn't make you stab yourself in the throat or actively leap off a building. It would have been more interesting to see people have passive suicidal tendencies instead of actively committing suicide. Personally, I was rooting for the plants. Bonus points for showing a really annoying 14 year old kid get shot in the face.

Lady in the Water- there is no rating system that can properly grade this film other than the number of pieces every copy of this film should be smashed into. Which is millions.
"Is there a messiah out here. No. Just pretentious film makers and the stench of self importance."

"Lady in the Water" is tied with "Elizabethtown" for my two all time worst movies ever made. They not only don't contribute to society as films, but actually suck intelligence out of you. This pairing with "Elizabethtown" is particularly notable because I always loathe romantic comedies, but fantasy and horror are genres I can usually enjoy on a superficial level, if not really appreciate them. But LITW offended me in ways I didn't think was possible. It is one of those pieces of art that when people tell me they like it, I have to reconsider my relationship with them.

The plot is so far beyond contrived, but I will try to surmise it. Yes this will include spoilers, no you should not care. The setting is an apartment complex, full of tenants each of whom have their own desperate quirk. The maintenance man, Paul Giamatti finds a girl (Bryce Dallas Howard.... uuuuuugh) in the pool one night. He discovers that she is a nymph, only they call it a Narf, which is the nonsensical exclamation that the mouse Pinky from the cartoon "Pinky and the Brain" used to shout like he had tourettes. This NARF named Story is lost from her homeland and a monster is after her, Giamatti has to get home to reclaim the throne, blah, blah, blah. In order to get her home some kind of complex ritual has to be performed, and all of the tenants have to play various parts in it, Symbolist, Guardian, Guild, and Healer. Of course nobody questions the validity of a NARF because none of them saw "Animaniacs". They go ahead and perform the ritual, and it doesn't work. So we get to watch them scramble around the roles they all play and suddenly people are all disbelieving "No, I CAN'T be the GUARDIAN! That's CRAZY!" Now, to me, when you spend half the movie setting random quirky characters into these random positions to do some action, then spend the other half of the movie reshuffling the same undeveloped characters into the same random positions, that only counts as HALF a plot because you're just performing the same actions twice. Anyway, they do it, she leaves, and we're all better off without Bryce Dallas Howard.

You might think that the contrived, nonsensical and unnecessarily complex plot is the worst part of the film, but far from it. This was the film that informs the audience that Shyamalan thinks we're dumb. That's right, if we listen to what the movie tells us (and anything this movie tells us once, it tells us multiple times), then we, the audience, have no experience seeing films, have no intuition of genre or plot or theme or foreshadowing. In order to keep us informed of what Shyamalan thinks is his ever so deft and intricate film making, he writes in a film critic (of the quirky variety, of course). Through this character, Shyamalan takes every opportunity to let him TELL US what he is doing as a filmmaker. This is most evident in which the character narrates his own death scene, explaining to us that this is the point in the film when the unlikeable side character is confronted by his past deeds in the form of a CGI wolf-monster. Now, if that is not evidence enough for his arrogance, just wait. Trying to liken himself to Hitchcock, Shyamalan gives himself cameos in all of his films. Usually it is in a passing scene, but in "Lady in the Water" he gives himself a larger role. Not only a larger role, but he literally writes himself in as the SAVIOR OF MANKIND. Yes, you read those capitals correctly, he make himself the messiah. Shyamalan plays a writer who is writing a piece of nonfiction which will inspire some corn-fed Midwesterner who will in turn become a great leader and usher the world into a new Camelot or something. I have never felt like a filmmaker has to obviously insulted my intelligence while holding me upside down from my ankles and shaking my money out of my pockets.

What's astounding is that this script is what made him lose his contract with Disney. They wanted him to change it, and he absolutely refused to make any modifications... which got him fired. As it should have.

In conclusion, the moral of the story is that Shyamalan thinks that he's utterly brilliant and that you're too stupid to understand his obvious references and tropes unless he writes in a character who can literally tell you what his intentions are. What he has to tell us about himself in this film is loathsome and unforgivable. This movie just had too much ego filling up the theater, maybe that's why nobody went to see it and it flopped.

The Village- 2.5 points

Why is this blind girl looking at me?

Sigourney Weaver, Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody, Michael Pitt, and yet, they are not able to save this movie from Bryce Dallas Howard's pathetic attempt at trying to play a blind girl. I don't know if Howard was just not told what being blind means, or if she's just that feeble minded, but this blind girl somehow knows exactly where everything was, and looks right at it. I really didn't understand that she was blind for a good part of the film because she plays it so awfully. This film planted the seeds for my seething hate of Bryce Dallas Howard that I usually save for cheese and romantic comedies. The plot is uninspiring, the monsters in it are pretty creatively designed, but the surprise ending wasn't so much a surprise as much as it was a surprise that it was supposed to be a surprise. Bonus points for only having the Shyamalan cameo shown in a reflection.

Signs- 2 points



Mel Gibson, M. Night Shyamalan, lots of people looking at things in the dark and an ending that leaves any agnostic, atheist and anybody with a basic understanding of biology or common sense- unfulfilled. That pretty much sums up this one.

SPOILERS AHEAD

The movie's about aliens and the "twist" ending is that water burns the aliens like acid (and that god exists and sends cryptic messages). Why an intelligent life form able to travel millions of light years to come to our planet wouldn't take precautions against this substance that burns the shit out of them, AND covers 70% of the planet, only Shyamalan knows... And maybe God.

Unbreakable- 8 points

Picture by Alex Ross!

This is the one film of Shyamalan's that I not only find mostly tolerable, but is actually really good. I would argue that it's one of the best superhero films ever made, a very well structured origin story. The characterization and plot is subtle, but scores ahead of the contemporary superhero flicks that are out there today. Shyamalan's usually pretentious methods of film making are utilized here in a proper way, emphasizing duality, reflections and opposites all which are important to the story itself. His camera work is also interesting to watch, full of single perspectives, it keeps the viewer both detached and engaged. Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson both excel at their larger than life roles, giving them large doses of humanity accompanied with eccentricities to give them an edge. The ending is a somewhat predictable twist, but brings the movie to a good full circle. Still, the movie still would hold up without it, which is what's important with a twist ending, it can't be the one thing that makes the movie good. And what's best is that you can tell it is made from a perspective that really loves comics.

The Sixth Sense- 6 points

Shyamalan's breakout film was actually nominated for best picture, screenplay, director, supporting actor (Osment), supporting actress (Collette) and editing. It didn't win a single one. I never got what the big deal about this movie was. Haley Joel Osment is okay, and I'm usually down for some Bruce Willis, but as a fan of horror movies, this wasn't really anything special. The twist ending is interesting if you watch it with no intuition about film at all, and if you remove the ending you just have a half assed horror movie that never really "goes there" and has a single scary scene. But bonus points for Toni Collette, Olivia Williams and 1/9th of NKOTBSB.

May 11, 2011

Burlesque: The flop that could've been.

I tried not to blog about "Burlesque" but I realized I just couldn't help myself. When I first heard about "Burlesque", a musical that basically followed the plot of Showgirls but was about a burlesque club and starred Cher and Christina Aguilera, I was excited in spite of my better judgement to not trust today's mainstream entertainment industry. Of course it was going to be Camp Fest 2010, and of course Cher is fierce even if she comes across as an alien goddess, she can really pull anything off (see youtube video of her doing the ensemble reprise of "Tonight" from "West Side Story" while she plays and sings for EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER). Christina I wasn't so sure about, I've never really been a fan. And I was hoping that they wouldn't sacrifice the style of real burlesque for something more contemporary and pop oriented. But I was still curious and wanted to see it. Despite my efforts, not a soul would go with me to see it in theaters, so I waited for it to be available on Netflix and when it came in the mail I found that it actually exceeded my expectations!

The movie is "Showgirls", "Coyote Ugly" and "Cabaret" all mixed together and put through a Disney filter of good ol' fashioned fun.  The plot is basically the plot of Coyote Ugly or Showgirls (though more Coyote Ugly because the main character is "sweet" and not an "ex-crack whore"); small town girl with big town dreams, blah blah blah. Christina does a decent job in a simple role as a small town simpleton who moves to the big city. Simple, simple, simple. But when she hits the stage she really channels her inner Velma Kelly for a very fun display of old and new dance. Throw in a love interest with minimal conflict and a fierce mentor who just isn't sure about trusting this wild card and you've got a not-terrible 40 minute plot. Which is fine with me because the whole rest of the film (about an hour) is pretty much nothing but musical numbers in the burlesque club. And the musical numbers are actually done really well! The first number in the club is "Welcome to Burlesque" sung by Cher and from these first moments, I knew I was sold on the film. In a very "Cabaret- Wilkommen" inspired number, Cher's character Tess introduces the sultry dancers, welcoming the audience to the club, and once we're there we barely leave for the first hour of the film.


Tell me you don't see Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Chicago" right here!


What I love most about it is that it really pays tribute to the tradition of burlesque, vaudeville and cabaret performance.  Many of the songs are original but I appreciated that they reserved several musical numbers as strictly traditional dance to old standards like "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend". The original songs aren't spectacularly written, but from what I saw, it was much more about the look of the club and the dancers than the actual songs, which is appropriate for the kind of performance they showcase in the film. The movement and dance in it is very heavily influenced by Fosse, you see his signature poses and movement in every musical number throughout the entire film, and it's fun seeing how contemporary dance is very much inspired by his work. And if that's not enough for you musical theater dorks, it even has a cameo by Alan Cumming (who famously reinvigorated the role of the Emcee in the Broadway revival of "Cabaret") who does a vaudeville number with two dancers in which they find themselves in several compromising positions referencing the "Cabaret" song "Two Ladies". Christina even gets her "Maybe This Time" type ballad song as the love interest develops. It's almost like a less controversial homage to "Cabaret", which is great. I've often wondered, in this day in age when musicals are back in and "Chicago" wins Best Picture why there hasn't been a remake of "Cabaret" but until then, "Burlesque" is a good substitute.



May 4, 2011

Pic-centric (1)

First up is my favorite 10 year old pop star! Willow Smith. Doesn't she look exactly like like Will Smith in Baby Drag?


Trying to get into the slasher mood for Scream 4 (I'm not sure what I wanted out of it, my 14 year old self had high hopes, but it felt pretty meh to me) I recently watched the 1981 My Bloody Valentine for the first time. As I'm sitting there watching it I realize I not only have this exact same levi's denim jacket (really from the 80's too) but I also have the exact same cowboy shirt with the white trim and snaps! If you've seen the movie, it may make you wonder about my character. Apparently he is reprised by Kerr Smith in the remake whom you may remember from Dawson's Creek... not that I do. The movie is fun, a good classic slasher that I'd somehow never seen. Not the best slasher movie, but the Miner is pretty creepy. Bloody, campy, co-ed, murderous fun with creepy mine killing scenes on Netflix Streaming? Why suuuure!



This is a still from a commercial about cash back on a credit cared... I dunno, it seemed funny seeing this woman at a home supply store gleefully plucking money from the toaster she just purchased as the clerk just charmingly smiles and nods behind her.


Usually I hate Kiera Knightly and wouldn't see a movie she is in just because she bugs the HELL out of me. But I was really interested in Never Let Me Go, so much so that I was willing to put myself through 100 minutes of her. But the movie takes place over a large period of time, and she's only in about the third of the movie. And to my surprise, she didn't bother me in it. Despite all my misgivings with her, I really sympathized with her character, Ruth, even though she is kind of a bitch. Plus, I can't explain it, but somehow having bangs down to her eyelids make her more tolerable. I don't want to give away too much, because it really is worth seeing for a wide range of audiences. I always enjoy the kind of science fiction films that take a very realistic look at a simple but profound difference to an otherwise changed society and explore the possibilities. It is interesting as a science-fiction film because they make a point of telling us that there is a much darker side to the society, but we never see it. We still see darkness and sadness, but it is from a very unique perspective. There's no action sequences, no futuristic technology, and very little and purposeful blood and violence. The story is sad, and slow at times but the simultaneous somber and whimsical tones make it engaging from beginning to end.

These are stills from the 1928 French film The Passion of Joan of Arc. Without a doubt one of the best silent films and considered by some one of the best films of all time, it also features one of the best performances ever captured on film by Maria Falconetti as Joan of Arc (she only ever appeared in 2 films). I could go on and on about how marvelous this film is, but it really is one of those films you just must see. To say that praise for Falconetti as one of the greatest performances on film is deserved would be a gross understatement. The style of constant close up cinematography and direction was groundbreaking for its time and is still visually stimulating and beautiful throughout. It is based on the transcriptions from the actual trial, kept intact for centuries. I would be interested in seeing a stage adaptation of the film, I bet it could be really neat if done well, but it is also a treasure and perhaps shouldn't be trifled with.
And it's available on Netflix Streaming!