Film Festival: Opening Night

Young@Heart

A documentary about wicked old people who sing James Brown and Sonic Youth songs? Sounds a little too quirky doesn't it? Well, that's what I thought (and it totally was) but this movie is too feel-good to hate. I went through several stages while watching this film. From "this is too cutesy" to "okay, old people singing really is funny" to "I'm really starting to care about these people" and by the end I was at the "I can't believe I'm actually being moved by this". Charming old people, you've warmed my heart of stone and I can't wait for the rest of the festival!


And now, I must rush off to a swanky party with an open bar. Life is sweet my friends, life is sweet.

Addendum: A couple of the wicked old people were at the swanky party . . . on the dance floor. So cool.

The Rape of the Vampire: Not as pleasant as it sounds

I saw The Rape of the Vampire.

Usually pretentious vampire movies are right up my alley.

This time? Not so much.


That's how the movie made me feel.

Blood Diamond: These guys go through a lot of trouble for a rock

Blood Diamond is a solid film with a bit of an identity crisis. It's not sure if it wants to be a sincere message movie about the perils of conflict diamonds or an action movie about a man fighting for his family. To it's credit, the film delivers competently on both fronts but I felt like it could have been more successful if it choose one aspect and stuck to it. However, I am torn on this issue.

In principal, I really like the idea of using the standard action-movie format to create a blockbuster that deals with relevant sociopolitical issues. I guess there's a fine line between brilliantly subverting a genre by challenging the viewers to examining global injustice and making an action movie that's a little preachy. This film almost makes it into the first category.


Nothing good ever happens in the third world.

The Little Shop of Horrors: Without the singing

Roger Corman famously filmed The Little Shop of Horrors in only two days. At least, he completed principal photography in two days (there were some reshoots) but why quibble about details?

It's amazing that a feature film could be completed in that amount of time and nothing short of a miracle that the finished product is such a delightful little gem. Don't get me wrong, it's still a cheaply made B picture but it's surprisingly charming. It has so much character, so many inventive ideas and so much quirk that it practically begs to be turned into a musical with a proper budget.

Aside from the obvious man-eating plant, there's plenty of other weirdness going on here. All of the characters are so over the top that they shoot straight past "broadly drawn" on their way to some form of Kabuki-comedy. Mr. Mushnik is Jewier than fucking Tevye, Audrey speaks with an inhumanly high voice, and Dr. Phoebus Farb and Wilbur Force are a match made in somewhere I never want to visit. Basically, it's an insane little film with a shoestring budget.

And that's how I like my movies.


Why yes, that is an impossibly young Jack Nicholson.

Capturing the Friedmans: Ambiguity unbound

I think that great documentarians pick challenging subjects and aren't afraid of exploring the uncomfortable territory they lead to. And Capturing the Friedmans is filled to the brim with uncomfortable territory. It tells the story of Arnold Friedman who pleaded guilty to sexually
abusing and sodomizing the children that took his computer classes.

This case is especially complicated because the police failed to uncover any physical evidence and used questionable methods while interrogating the children. On the other hand, Arnold had a decent sized stack of kiddie porn hidden behind his piano and he admitted to molesting a minor on a previous occasion. It's quite possible that he is a pedophile who was wrongly convicted of child molestation.

The film consists almost entirely of gray areas and neither the Friedman family nor the police/prosecutors come off as very credible. The director, Andrew Jarecki, gives both sides enough rope to hang themselves. That the facts of what actually occurred remain so illusive is especially surprising considering that Arnold's son (and professional clown), David, made extensive recordings of the family as it went through this crisis. These home movies contain footage of incredibly personal moments of the family discussing the case, their legal options, the turmoil they're all going through and, most disturbingly, them just goofing around and having a good time.

It would have been easy for Jarecki to pick a side and make a film about how Arnold sexually abused entire classes of children or how a community fell victim to paranoia and began a witch-hunt that resulted with an innocent man in prison. But the director chose a more difficult path by presenting all of the confusing and contradictory evidence, trusting the audience to find their own answers to this mystery . . . or not, in my case.


So, who's the black sheep of the family? The admitted child molester or the professional clown?

Knocked Up: It's like Funny and Awesome had a baby

With Knocked Up Judd Apatow continues his frightening, almost Pixar-like, string of unmitigated successes. I'd really like to go deeper than that but, to be honest, I saw this movie a while ago and now I'm having trouble remembering it well enough to do it justice. Can I just say that it rules?


I am now convinced that Harold Ramis is the biological father of Seth Rogen.

Mr. Woodcock: Since both "wood" AND "cock" mean penis it's doubly funny!

The main problem with studios creating films is that they tend to be made by committee (I know, you're all impressed by my original insight). This results in movies that try to be everything to everybody but end up as generic works with no clear vision. I can handle a film with terribly misguided vision but one that just wanders from scene to scene with no apparent purpose? That's the worst. I just sit there thinking "Why was this made? There is no reason for this movie to exist. It's just taking up space."

As you've probably guessed, Mr. Woodcock is one such film. There's nothing particularly awful about it, it just seems completely unnecessary. Part of that is that is has no focus. This is the kind of movie that introduces a romantic interest for the lead (Got to draw in the females aged 18-49!) only to get distracted and forget about her.

Other than that? Uh, I like Amy Poehler and Ethan Suplee. I mean, in general. Not so much in this.


Watching this film reminded me that Susan Sarandon is still really attractive. Am I developing a thing for cougars?

The Brave One: Jodi's got a gun, everybody is on the run

Here's something that I find really disconcerting when I see a film in a theater: The main character will perform an act of vengeance that is completely indefensible and then the audience cheers. Now, I don't mean a crappy action film or some other comic-book-come-to-life movie where the characters are cardboard and no one's meant to take their actions seriously. I'm talking a serious film where the lead makes a choice to end someone's life in cold blood at the expense of their soul.

It's a scenario that the filmmakers have clearly created to comment on how violence begets more violence and the only way to break the cycle is to abandon your quest for revenge and learn to cope with your grief in a more constructive way. When the protagonist chooses to kill, not only do they perpetuate this chain of suffering, but they themselves are forever changed. Murder is not something you can commit without sacrificing part of your humanity.

This is a bad thing. A very bad thing. It should not be applauded. Yet, it seems that every time I see it happen the crowd gives an enthusiastic response. I find myself filled with outrage that the audience could be so callous and that they could so completely miss the point of the film.

I don't know, maybe I'm taking things too seriously. Perhaps I should get off my high horse and talk about the picture at hand, The Brave One (Warning: Spoiler Alert).

This is an incredibly well-made film that I absolutely hated. I don't have a whole lot to say other than that I spent the whole movie fuming that my fellow moviegoers "just didn't get what this film is about" while they "inappropriately cheered on a demented killer" only to discover at the very end that I was the one who didn't understand. Apparently, Neil Jordan is totally for vigilantism . . . and not a huge fan of the rule of law. So, I guess I'm the asshole.

Oh, and I know that Jodie Foster is almost 45 and probably not that into penises but she is still smoking hot. As is the dangerously-close-to-my-mother's-age Mary Steenburgen, for that matter. Say, let's see what we can do about getting these two ladies together.


"I am dark, and you are light."
"You are blind as a bat, and I have sight!
Side by side, you are my amigo, Negro, let's not fiiiiiiiight!"

Woman in the Dunes: Dunes in the Woman

Sometimes a movie really catches me off guard and Woman in the Dunes did just that. It's another one that I got from Roger Ebert's Great Movies and I actually thought it was an Antonioni film. So, I was surprised to discover that, instead of a dour Italian movie with subtext about Architecture that I'd never understand, I had rented a Japanese film directed by someone I'd never heard of.

The movie begins with a young man who travels from the city to the shore in order to study insects. He then falls asleep on the beach as the lazy day drags on and ends up missing the last bus back to Tokyo. When he wakes up one of the locals offers to show him to a home where he can spend the night. The young man follows him down a rope ladder where he meets the woman who will host him for the night. The woman is attractive but she seems overly shy, as if she were frightened of something.

At this point the film gradually turns into a nightmare scenario for the young man who soon discovers that the ladder has disappeared and that he is trapped in a pit. He tries to climb out but the walls are made of sand that quickly gives way under his feet. And to make matters worse the pit is slowly collapsing on itself. The young man and the woman must work for hours each day to collect the sand that falls on them so that the other villagers can remove it using a device that functions like the barrel in a well.

This fantastic scenario is used to meditate on issues of freedom, responsibility and justice. I'm not sure that I agree with the filmmakers points (or even, that I have properly understood them) but this movie certainly forces you to confront them head-on seems capable of causing great debate. I'd recommend seeing it with someone who has a sharp mind. I wish I did.


Sure, that looks hot but think of all the places that sand is getting into while they're at it.

The Hottest State: Is love or maybe hate, wait-no, it's Texas

Ethan Hawke, apparently, wrote a book. He then adapted said book into a screenplay and directed it while also taking a minor, but significant, role for himself. The result is The Hottest State, a solid film which delves into some pretty well-worn territory without really bringing anything new.

The movie begins on a promising note when a Texas girl decides to get it on with a guy in the back of a car after hearing him tell a version of the "God Damn Fish" joke. The result of their coupling is a suspiciously Ethan Hawkeish young man played by Mark Webber. He eventually meets Catalina Sandino Moreno (the chick from Maria Full of Grace) and what follows is a lot of joy and a lot of sorrow for the two of them.

It's basically a "Life of an Affair" film that gets hijacked at the very end by a "Finding Yourself" film (yeah, I thought that was weird too). It's well acted and provides some charming moments of young love tempered by painfully awkward and occasionally hostile scenes to keep things interesting. I feel like Hawke has proven himself as a competent director with this movie but he needs a more inspired script to really shine.


Love hurts. Hey, somebody should write a song about that.