White Christmas (1954)

White Christmas (1954)

One thing I love about having taken on this attempt to keep up a blog, is that not only am I doing something I wish I did formally long ago (reviewing movies) but it also forces me to step out of my normal "comfort" zone and watch movies I would normally be dismissive of. Case in point. White Christmas. A 1954 flick starring Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney and one Vera-Ellen (seriously that's her name). This is one of those films I have known about forever, but whether the underwhelming synopsis or my disdain for certain "classics" I was gun-shy about ever giving this film a reasonable chance. I am happy to say that it was a grievous error on my part for ever thinking such ridiculous thoughts.

The premise, while still underwhelming at first glance, is simple. A couple of army mates become famous.... um... variety musical broadway acts after the war, and they meet up with two sisters who also have an act. There is some chemistry and before we know it, we find ourselves in Vermont in a distinctly non-white (no snow) Christmas. Shenanigans ensue, everyone sings about it, and Vera-Ellen dances because she can't do much else. But really who cares about the story, this film is about a bygone era. Though the world itself may not have been as idealistic as it is in films of the time, but there is still a wonderful sense of whimsy and fantasy that escapes even the most visually advanced special effects of today's movies. These kind of films reassured the idea of hope and dreams that cynicism today is prevalent in media and saturates so much of our "escapism".

I will undoubtedly prove myself a hypocrite however, as it is the very same cynicism that made me irritated with such films as Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life." Sacrilege to many who may consider it to be the quintessential holiday film, I personally find it frustrating and.... wait for it.... annoying. Crazy right? I mean you can't get more whimsical or sappy as that flick right? Well except that it is way too neatly wrapped up and way too fantastical. I am all about adding the magic and whimsy that is lost in real life to folks in need of cheer, but films like Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" irritate me because you have a self-involved deadbeat who doesn't think about the atrocity he'd cause to his family by committing suicide, regardless of the divine intervention.

As per usual I digress....as I was saying, I enjoyed White Christmas. I still wasn't sold on the premise as I began watching it, but what actually sold me on it was a co-worker who explained that she was excited to see the stage version which is sort of the regular Christmas event in the city where I live. For her, it was a part of Christmas memories, a tradition. For me and my wife, the closest would probably be the stage version of A Christmas Carol, which has been a long running annual event where we are originally from. Hearing my co-worker talk about it made me want to give the film an honest effort. Still I was cautious given how many people unabashedly love "It's a Wonderful Life."

The good: The whimsy. The dance numbers. The song numbers. Unlike usual musicals where people just burst into song and dance in mid-conversation, that only happens once or twice here. The rest of it is explained away and justified by the variety show they are trying to put on to save the Vermont lodge their old retired general is running. Bing Crosby was surprisingly good. I say surprisingly because he started off a little wooden and I worried he was just going to be a crooner "acting" in this. But he was very enjoyable as the strongest singer of the cast. Danny Kaye who I can only describe as a mix between a member of the Weasely family from the Harry Potter books and Kramer from Seinfeld, is the all around singer/dancer combo. Romemary Clooney was fantastic. She portrays her character with mannerisms and nuance way ahead of her time compared to her peers. She's also pulls off the whole attractive but not in a classical sense form of beauty. You might describe it as an unconventional beauty that is beyond mere cosmetic appearances. Vera-Ellen is undoubtedly the weakest member of the cast. She's attractive in the standard Barbie-esque sense, but forgettable when she is not dancing. Like Brittney (the ditsy cheerleader in Glee), her personality only really comes out when she is dancing, in which she is obviously way more comfortable than acting or singing. Honourable mention goes out to Dean Jagger who plays the "General" for which the entire film revolves plot-wise. Watching this flick in HD and seeing the scene when everyone surprises him with the event to honour him (watch the movie, you'll understand what I am talking about), you can see him tear up and having witnessed him be such a strong confident male figure, getting misty at the show of affection, you'd be hard to not get a little misty yourself.

The bad: The little plot "contrivances" in which oh-so-many narratives revolve around. I mean I get it. I know why stories have to revolve around little miscommunication routines, but it is always rather tedious seeing drama for the sake of drama. Knowing that a simple pointed question can clear up all the confusion and yet we must bear witness to characters acting irrationally. Disregard my concern though, I think it stems from having watched one too many "Gossip Girl" episodes (my wife loves that show) which basically only has that one premise as a plot device.

Final Thoughts: To reiterate, I am very happy I had the opportunity to watch this show. I learned a valuable lesson of not treating all classics the same as any Frank Capra film. There is a lot to enjoy here, and only a few parts that aren't as fun. Definitely give it a go if you are looking for expanding your repertoire of classic film knowledge or you want another flick to enjoy with the family. Not a lot for kidlings to appreciate but still a good tale.

Add to the Vault? At this time, I don't think it needs to be added to the vault. It definitely has repeat merit but I am not to the point (like my coworker) where this is an essential Christmas tradition just yet. I definitely appreciate the film and will undoubtedly give it another gander in the future, but with it's "classic" status solidified long before I ever reviewed it, I highly doubt I will be under any pressure to add it to the vault before it disappears.


Look for it in your channel listings this holiday season, and brew up a nice cup of hot cocoa to enjoy while you watch. Without waiting for next Christmas, here is the trailer for Irving Berlin's White Christmas. 

 

Nothing Like the Holidays (2008)

Nothing Like the Holidays (2008)

Finally, a previously unseen holiday flick that was actually somewhat enjoyable unlike the drivel that was the last film. Kristin Chenoweth, I am disappoint!

Carrying on then, Nothing Like the Holidays enjoys a large ensemble cast of latino actors among whom audiences would recognize Alfred Molina, Luiz Guzman, Debra Messing, and an actor I personally feel is very underrated, John Leguizamo, though I am sure film lovers would recognize more of the cast.

The story revolves around a Puerto Rican family getting together for the holidays in Chicago at their childhood home. You have by all accounts the appearances of what could be a predictable family drama with the "prodigal son" who just arrived back from Iraq scarred and possibly traumatized, the successful son who harbors latent resent, the liberal actress daughter looking to make her break in Hollywood, the possibly cheating father, the frustrated and exhausted mother, and the rest of the ensemble.

I feel I must admit that I was in a bid of a mood before setting in to watch this flick, and really wasn't up for giving my attention to another holiday flick that could have been as stupid as the last one. But I feel I need to be diligent to keep this blog alive and for good or for bad I must endure. It didn't really help that I wasn't really sold on the synopsis which kind of sounded like the set up to another Lifetime movie. Boy was I pleasantly surprised. I was cynical thinking I knew how everything was going to play out, and lo and behold, I was wrong. It is the mark of a clever director that sets up the premise to make it feel like old and comfortable territory, only to throw it away at the last second while still staying in the realm of plausible and truthfully logical conclusions. It was a welcome change. No I am not Puerto Rican but being part of this family for 90 some odd minutes, felt familiar. The nuances and idiosyncrasies of each family member immediately makes it feel like they are a real family. Even Debra Messing's character who is the outsider of sorts being a caucasian wife to John Leguizamo, has her familiar habits that suggest a long history with this family and is not really an outsider at all.


Of course there is the necessary drama and latent frustrations that boil to the surface as the story transpires, but it is only further testament to the cast, in that they make you care for this family. As each secret is revealed, you shudder at the possibility of it tearing this family apart and yet they all bounce back, almost stronger. That kind of attention, that kind of devotion is rarely seen on screen anymore (unless overly sappy ala Lifetime) and instead the drama that typically unfolds destroys families, all in the name of being shocking and unique. 


The good: The entire cast. Very much an ensemble piece, I always credit the writing team and director when they are able to showcase all the talent equally and not feel like one person's story is overriding the others. Debra Messing gets special mention as she wasn't an annoying brat (e.g. every other acting role she's had). Here she was a complex character who at first glance definitely could have been a stereotype, but she played it real and made me believe she was as much a part of the family as the actual children. Luis Guzman was also tolerable here which is appreciated because when he's good he is good, and when he is just playing Luis Guzman, he can be bad. Does that make sense?


The Bad: Being such a large ensemble piece, some characters do drift to the background. Not a huge detriment but again it may have been a choice playing against expectations. 


Final Thoughts: I very much appreciated this film. It took me out of my slump somewhat by playing against my expectations. It was a comfortable film that I feel is what holiday films (at least contemporary ones) fail to encapsulate anymore. And given that the family was so unabashedly Puerto Rican and yet it could make some pasty white guy from Canada feel welcome like I have known this family all along is another testament to the writing, acting and directing. Kudos.


Add to the Vault? You are probably expecting me to say yes, but I am not going to. It was a good film, comfortable, but I don't feel it has the necessary repeat value to be added to the vault. I am definitely appreciative that I got to watch it and experience it, but I doubt I will need to re-visit it anytime soon. It was simply a good show and I recommend you give it a go if you are looking for a nice family holiday tale.




Enough of my yammering, here's the trailer for 2008's Nothing Like the Holidays!

Twelve Men of Christmas (2009)

Twelve Men of Christmas (2009)

Well, fresh off my sojourn to a Bavarian Christmas village in North Eastern Washington, I figured what better way to dive back into things than another holiday flick. 

Here we have a Lifetime movie with one of my secretly cherished actresses of late, Kristen Chenoweth. Actually two I guess with Anna Chlumsky (who was recently in The Good Guy) as well. Anyways, Chenoweth who I have loved since Pushing Daisies (underrated show that ended before it's time) stars as a New York commercial advertising big wig who finds her boyfriend or fiance or something fornicating with her boss at the office Xmas party. Jilted and subsequently fired, she goes all "woe is me" before swallowing her pride and moves to the midwest for some ridiculous reason and is hired to re-shape the towns postcard image.

Anyhow, despite being a hot shot advertising exec, the best idea she has is to make a nudie calendar with the men from the local search and rescue unit who could use the proceeds of the calendar to buy a helicopter or something. Except that given that this is a Lifetime movie the men aren't really nude (despite their reservations about their.... shortcomings) every dude is clothed. In fact it is more PG than the covers of most men's health magazines.

But really who cares. If you stayed awake through the explanation you just saved yourself 90 minutes you may have remotely (very remotely) wasted on watching this film. You know how it is going to end. Everybody finds love and the tough shell of the heroine is melted by the doting leading man who at first frustrates her before falling for her. It is like a visual Harlequin romance novel with much less sex.... not that I would know of course..... *cough*... anyhow....

The Good: Hmm. Not much. Kristen Chenoweth is enjoyable in most everything, but here she is supremely wasted as a walking New York archetype. Anna Chlumksy I guess is decent as Kristen's somewhat real assistant in the small town.

The Bad: Everything else. The story is bland, the town is pulled from a series of perfect postcard shots, undoubtedly meant to dazzle and amaze us with small town life, but for a community of 19000 (so sayeth the mayor) it looks to hold maybe 1500 people tops. There must be a lot of people in dem dar hillz.

Final Thoughts: I feel like I have been swindled. I watched this for the notion that it may be a holiday flick with the adorable Kristen Chenoweth, and instead I got this crapfest that wasn only tenuously a holiday flick. This may be the first film I watched where AFTER the character arc transpires the lead is even more vapid and empty than when they started.

Add to the vault? Good gravy no. There are better holiday movies, there are better romance movies. There are better holiday romance movies. Hell even if you are looking for a crap holiday romance movie there are still better ones than this. I think Matthew McConaughey has made a few no doubt.


If you are still here and INSIST on seeing the trailer for this flick, then by all means... .enjoy:

Scrooged (1988)

Scrooged (2003)

Wow, I saw the date on this and I can't believe it is over 20 years old. Man, I am getting old. This is undoubtedly one of my favorite holiday films. A goto film for getting firmly into the holiday season. It is by all accounts a retelling of the classic Dickens' A Christmas Carol, but oh what a retelling it is. Some may feel that this flick is dated, firmly embedded in the 80's, I however don't. This film for me is a timeless classic that is as relevant today (especially today) as it was back in the late 80's.

What's that? You don't know the Dickens' tale? Well Bill Murray plays Frank Cross a CEO type media mogul, who is a right bastard. Probably could give Billy Bob a run for his money. Cue ghosts, shenanigans and redemption.

But there is so much more going on. There are subtleties and hidden gems galore, which is why this film can be rewatched time and time again. Heck, I could probably give it another go one or two more times before Christmas gets here.

The good: Bill Murray, such a comedic goldmine he is! The effects! It was late 80's but such cool imagery, the ghost of Christmas Future is still creepy awesome to this day! The score! Danny Elfman has hints of some his most iconic work in this flick and hearing it as a taste of his future genius is cool.

The bad: The fashion. Ha ha.

Final Thoughts:  This is such a warm, fuzzy movie that I have nothing but good things to say. One of my all time favourites that has stayed with me since I watched it as a kid.

Add to the Vault: Undoubtedly. If it wasn't clear that you should run out and watch this movie immediately, you should go do so now. Well what are you waiting for?


What? You are still here? Gah, fine... here watch the trailer for Scrooged!

Bad Santa (2003)

Bad Santa (2003)

Ah nothing like a movie about a down on his luck criminal/department store Santa to truly get you in the spirit of the holidays. Our next holiday flick is one most assuredly a LOT of people have seen. It was marketed as slapstick comedy and I am sure many people were surprised at the final result. I for one loved this flick because it was so unabashedly honest in the story it wanted to tell.

For those not in the know, Billy Bob Thornton plays the absolute most vulgar, disgusting, pathetic Santa rendition this side of a B-Horror movie. Billy Bob's Santa is something everyone has feared to experience either as kids or as parents with kids, but thankfully one can assume there are many measures in place to prevent someone of his caliber ever getting close to your young 'uns. But as with most holiday flicks, we have at the heart of the story, a tale about redemption. This is a man so far gone that he only really has two options, kill himself or die in his own vomit. But the real exploration of the film lies in the hidden but obvious 3rd choice, that perhaps maybe, just MAYBE, this man can find some semblance of humanity before he is completely lost.

Billy Bob is also a small time crook, that we are to believe is capable enough that despite one brief stint in the clink pulls off heists with his little person partner that keeps him fed, sheltered and more importantly liquored until the next Christmas. At the time of the film, Billy Bob is pretty far gone and probably won't make it another year if he continues his ways. Cue the rest of the cast ala the possibly mentally challenged boy, the attractive and impossibly patient bartender, and the senile grandma. 

Joining Billy Bob is a cast that includes but is not limited the late great John Ritter, Lauren Graham, and the dearly departed Bernie Mac (who I have never really appreciated as an actor/comedian before, but I enjoy his role in this film). The bulk of the film is meant to have similar effect as a cheap horror film in that it tries to shock you at every turn with it's unrelenting filth, but in this day and age it is surprisingly (for good or for bad) tolerable compared to a lot of stuff television and film audiences get inundated with on a near daily basis. It gets points for trying though and the film is still charming enough that the desired effect is achieved, if only because we want to play along.


The good: The cast. Billy Bob takes top billing, but this film wouldn't be the same if it rested solely on his shoulders. The no-holds-barred (mostly) approach was also appreciated but...

The bad: ... I am not convinced that it is truly no holds barred. I think they stayed "safe" with a lot of content, and the true magic of the film is tricking the audience into thinking that it is the most foul thing that could EVER be a holiday flick. I am rarely ever a fan of slapstick, so when the film resorts to it in a couple of isolated spots it felt like it was a different movie (maybe one starring Chris Kattan?) The pacing is also a little clunky at times, the plot is straight forward but a couple of times it felt like they were just throwing scenes in for the sake of filler.

Final Thoughts: This film is ultimately a heart warming feel good holiday flick despite all the smoke and mirrors trying to convince you otherwise. Nothing witnessed on screen is truly terrible or outright evil, just bad. In that sense it more than sufficiently lives up to its name. In a good way of course.  Maybe don't watch it with the kidlings but keep it on the high shelf for you and your friends if you ever pull a Christmas flick marathon to get you in the festive spirit.


Add to the vault? I will say yes. I am going to add this title to the vault. There is enough in this film to forget and re-appreciate every year, which is about how often I feel I can enjoy this film. So as bad as this Santa is, it is in my good books.

Oy! Don't leave yet without enjoying the surprisingly relatively safe for work trailer for Bad Santa.

Christmas in Wonderland (2007)

Christmas in Wonderland (2007)

Well after a brief hiatus I return, hot on the heels of a slew of Halloween themed movies, with Christmas movies. New and old, good and bad, I will watch them. And first up for this season is Christmas in Wonderland, which really should be titled... Christmas Eve in West Edmonton Mall (aka Santa's house).

The film stars an uncanny cast of Patrick Swayze in his second to last movie filmed before his unfortunate passing, Chris Kattan, a nearly unrecognizable and forgettable Carmen Electra and Tim Curry phoning in another pay cheque. Oh how I will always love thee Dr. Frank-N-Furter, between Rocky Horror and Legend and your turn as Pennywise, you continue to do schlock as long as you want, I won't complain.

Anyways, back to the flick. Story in short. Typical paint by numbers holiday movie about a down on their luck family who have lost the Christmas spirit save for the little girl who holds Santa near and dear. Swayze is the dad who just lost his job after relocating his entire family to Edmonton, Alberta for his new career. Kids hate Canada, he is broke, and mom is stuck in an airport in L.A. until Xmas day. She tasks him with shopping for the family. He leaves the kids with the oldest son, while he shops. Kids find a bag of money, hijinks ensue.

SPOILER ALERT: In the end, family finds Christmas spirit, everything works out via Santa ex machina, and life is good yet again.

We all know how it is going to end, that is the point of the holiday flicks. What does this one have going for it that made it stand out? Well it featured my old stomping grounds of West Edmonton Mall being the sole location more or less for the majority of the flick. Granted this West Edmonton Mall, while still being the largest mall in North America, is drastically different in appearances (at least externally).

The movie version of West Edmonton Mall:

Compared to the rather drab and boring real version which is how I affectionately remember the mall I grew up with:

But really who goes to a mall for the exterior? So what if they took a little artistic liberty? The inside they faithfully captured, and as much as I generally despised the mall for the hordes of people and the annoying teeny boppers that saturated the place, there was a lot about the place that was pretty cool.



Like this:

So did I really just watch a movie because it was filmed in West Edmonton Mall in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada? Yep. The film doesn't have much else going for it. Like I said it is paint by numbers. You have the bumbling crooks (bonus points for the obese mentally deficient farting goofy one, they are always extra funny....), the bad cg parts, the doe-eyed little girl that believes enough for everyone, the wacky antics, the stereotypes, etc, etc.

This is what annoys me about these films though. They are obviously just a paycheque for most everyone involved, save for the child actors who are most likely looking for something to have on their demo reel. However, with a marginal bit of effort, the folks involved could have made a pretty decent flick. It wouldn't have been timeless necessarily but it may have been good. I miss the effort of films these days especially around the holidays. The latest CGI Christmas Carol may be a worthy addition (I have to re-watch it), but aside from that there hasn't been a half way decent Xmas flick in a long time. That's why people flock to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, Scrooged or even older fare. If you have recommendations let me know. You can see from my library list that I own Muppet Christmas Carol, which I hold in high esteem as one of the better versions of the Christmas Carol story.

The good: The locale. It was good to see the old mall, despite how much I avoid it, even if I were to visit today. Patrick Swayze was decent too, obviously happy to just be working at the time. The gent who played Santa was a charming fellow.

The bad: The rest. Who really finds slapstick humour funny without a decent story attached? I know, I know, it's obviously a kid's flick that is meant to be family friendly fare. But story needn't be sacrificed for that does it? Chris Kattan, such a wasted actor in my opinion. He's done some brilliant work when a director can rein him in (ala House on Haunted Hill). The stereotypes. My gawd. Not every flippin Canadian walks around saying ABOOT or EH? all the time. The RCMP is portrayed as bumbling buffoons, marginally less idiotic than the hapless crooks. And is Canada so bad that the only female the older brother can find attractive is another displaced girl from L.A.? And what's with her name being Shane? I can't say I have ever met a female Shane. But I digress.

Final Thoughts: A forgettable holiday film. Check it out only if you are a hardcore Swayze fan (which I'd recommend you re-watch Road House instead) or if you have a family and need a throw-away flick on the PVR to occupy the kids for two hours. I did find it amusing that it was Christmas Eve in the film and despite the movie talking about how busy the mall is, it wasn't even a fraction of how busy that damned mall can be on a regular weekend let along Christmas Eve. It wasn't that bad I guess, it was fine to have in the background while I put up the Christmas tree.

Add to the Vault? Not in the least. But take heart, I will be reviewing some other holiday flicks that I don't currently own and will most like be added to the list.

So to welcome you into the holiday season, I leave you with trailer for Christmas in Wonderland!

One Week (2008)

One Week (2008)

Interesting film. Once again I have to apologize to any American readers out there as this film is distinctly and proudly Canadian. It chronicles the "road-trip" journey our protagonist Ben Tyler (Joshua Jackson) takes across the country ala Jack Kerouac but with different motivating factors. Ben is disillusioned late-twenties aged teacher who is about to get married. But then Ben gets the news, quite literally, of his lifetime and finds out he is dying from a Stage 4 cancer that is in his blood and liver. The story is not so much about him dying as him exploring what it is to live and find contentment with life. Something he took for granted up until the news.

Joshua Jackson, who I will freely admit I am a fan of, is excellent here. He has the patience to not wear every emotion on his sleeve and can handle nuance quite well. It is essentially for the most part, a solo film, so that's a lot of weight on his shoulders as it can make or break the film. Now I've enjoyed most everything he's done from Mighty Ducks to the supremely excellent Fringe sci-fi series that I would encourage everyone to watch. Heck, at work I even saw him in person not too long ago as he was filming scenes for Fringe downtown. I never watched Dawson's Creek so I can't comment on that, but as he only a couple of years older than me, I can admit I envy his career and wish him all the best as a Canadian actor who isn't a comedian.

In One Week, he creates a very believable character, who runs the gamut of emotion as he tries to find that proverbial epiphany about life and death that should be obvious to him. Everything in his life is questioned from love, work, pastimes, to even something as simple as singing. At times it is wonderful, tragic or even both at the same time, as we become his invisible companion on this heart wrenching journey.

The good: There are lots of things to enjoy about this film. It's use of narration which can be frustrating in films sometimes, has a similar effect to the wonderful series Pushing Daisies but in delicate doses so as not to be annoying. Everything Canadian in the film is also enjoyable. We Canadians are a proud bunch, we don't often show it quite so overtly as our neighbours to the south, but seeing films like this it is no wonder that we are the biggest little village on the planet. Joshua Jackson also shows off some decent acting chops in this film, with a complex character that is both empathetic and yet frustrating just like real people are. I never feel the Hollywood effect (as we are entering into Oscar bait season with most cinematic releases). The music was fantastic as well. The ending of the film was perfect.

The bad: The film's pacing can be a little dragging at points but thankfully even if you are drifting with the story the scenery is always pretty to look at. I also have issues with how quickly he did one act in the film that I don't condone. I get why it happened, and it is even arguably foreshadowed from Saskatchewan onward, but that doesn't entirely excuse it in my books.

Final Thoughts: To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. 


Add to the vault? I am definitely mulling it over. It's not repeat viewing in the sense of a movie you can grab and it will never fail to entertain. But I can see this being a comfort movie when life or whatnot gets to you and you need a little reminder on what's important. 


So come on folks, buy a motorbike and join the ride. Here's the trailer for One Week:

From Paris With Love (2010)

From Paris With Love (2010)

Sorry reader Tim, I don't think this was the Paris movie you recommended. Instead we have a new installment in what could essentially be a genre unto itself, the buddy-cop flick. Or in this case, the buddy spy flick. Though really, there is very little spying. As with most action films a certain level of suspension of disbelief is required for any enjoyment to be had. It gets increasingly difficult when some films abandon any semblance of realism in favour of sensationalism.

The film stars Jonathon Rhys Meyers (who I suppose is from the Tudors but I always think he looks like Jesus from True Blood) and John Travolta (here channeling every ego-maniacal character he has ever played all with the fashion sense of Steven Segal...  No really, he spends the entire movie bundled up like Paris is minus 50 degrees, for which I can only presume is because he didn't take the workout regime the studios offered prior to filming.) The plot centers around Jonathon's character who is apparently an aide to some U.S. diplomat/spy wannabe. He's looking to get his feet wet in "Black Ops" but instead he is tasked with playing chaperone to BADASS John. Capitalized because everything he does is BADASS!!! with three exclamation marks. So begins the whirlwind adventure that really could be set in any generic city aside from the random reminders that some folks are speaking French. Apparently this is from genius Luc Besson (The Fifth Element) but I prefer that it is only loosely connected to him, like someone got him drunk at a bar and asked him to tell them the most ridiculous spy story ever and then proceeded to jot the details down on a napkin.

Oh well, I suppose they all can't be hit out of the park. The problem I have is that there is really no semblance of reality in any of the film, while Jon and John proceed to travel around Paris blowing and shooting it up with reckless abandon, you get no sense of consequence. I mean isolated jungles, an evil villain's lair, or shady business mega-corps are one thing, but this film literally has random explosions and gunfire in multiple civilian locales and yet not one single sign of how quickly that kind of stuff would be shut down. John Travolta doesn't just have a license to kill, he has a license to commit genocide it seems if what we witness is supposed to be remotely feasible.

People often knock the Die Hard franchise as improbable action movie scenarios, but you know what Die Hard does that this film doesn't even care about? Establish linear plot development to explain how the situations occur and why or how the incidents on film are to transpire. Why aren't the cops raiding the tower? Well we saw the terrorists take care of that in the beginning. Here we bear witness to countless visible minority deaths with very little connection between them save for the drugs, no personal vendetta, no drugs again, no terrorism plot. Do we care about Jon and John? No, because since John is wearing Segal's outfit (no we are totally convinced you are rocking the six-pack under that parka) we know he is all but invincible. Long story short, crap happens, people die, John and Jon crack wise despite how inappropriate it may be given THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES they set up. Oh well. I have already wasted more thought on this than the entire developmental team in the film's creation process.

The good: Jon Rhys Meyers was surprisingly not as irritable as I thought he would be. I watched one episode of the Tudors and couldn't care to watch it again. Here I could actually see him have potential if given the right vehicle to show his chops. Oh the one progressive element was the whole female proposing to a guy. Don't see that much on film aside from romantic comedies.

The bad: Everything else. I didn't hate John Travolta and even wanted to like his character but he is still a little too one dimensional in his BADASS routine that he's ultimately unable to be related to or inspiring (ala James Bond or Jason Bourne). The plot was atrocious and not necessarily hard to follow, more so just irritating to follow. The ending... well it was intended to be dramatic but it came across as the stupidest contrived plot device seen in a long time. It almost would have been better if Jon woke up and it was all a dream. Oh and don't forget the subtle insinuation that love is wasted emotion. I all but expected John to utter "Bros before Hos" during the climax of the film.

Final Thoughts: If you are desperate for an action movie, or you really could care less about plot, then by means.... this is the film for you. I'd sooner go rewatch the Bourne series or if you are a Luc Besson die-hard fan then watch Leon: The Professional and thank me later.

Add to the Vault? The only thing this film makes me want to add to the vault are other more superior films written by Luc Besson.

And now for the BADASS trailer for "From Paris With Love":

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

So here we have the sequel to the Swedish (original) version of the The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (TGWTDT), not the Daniel Craig remake one that for some reason folks are supposed to be excited about. Much like the American version of "Let The Right One In" I am generally uninspired by Americanized versions of films made solely to pander the masses that are either ignorantly unwilling or threatened by watching something with subtitles. I mean I get it, the books are successful, which is great. But the people that are buying the books are obviously literate types who should be able to appreciate the Swedish version of the story right? I mean it takes place IN SWEDEN. Or is there really a multitude of people out there that are all sitting around thinking, "Damn that cover of that book looks mighty intriguing. I can't wait till they make it into a movie despite not knowing anything about it because I stopped reading when it was no longer necessary for school." As per usual, I digress.

The sequel continues where the TGWTDT leaves off with Lisbeth off on a much needed vacation and Mikael continuing to be the "celebrity" author for Millenium magazine. The party is short lived as Lisbeth catches wind that her rapist guardian (of sorts) is neglecting certain respects of their arrangement so she returns to set him straight. Unbeknowst to her, events are set into motion that bring her past into the present and before long we are witnessing a cat-and-mouse game to find out who is responsible for the deaths of a man and woman with ties to Mikael's magazine.

I won't go into much more detail as either you've seen the first flick and you are familiar with certain characters, or you haven't seen the first film, in which case I would be wondering why you'd be starting with the second film of a trilogy. I will say however that TGWPWF shares a lot in common with films like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Namely in the the first film worked as a decent standalone film, and it had a clear-beginning-middle end. You were introduced to the characters and the mystery was the primary story, and despite Lisbeth being an intriguing character nothing (save for the very end of the film) really suggests that the story NEEDS to continue into a trilogy. Much like the first Pirates film. Then you have the second film, with essentially only the characters tied back to the first film, you introduce a new story, new characters, but having dived full on into trilogy mode now, the story lacks punch and quite noticeably an ending. Much like the second Pirates film. Ah the curse of middle films in trilogies.

The good: Lisbeth is interesting enough to warrant a trilogy of films and because of Noomi Rapace's commitment to the character, I guess I just feel that an Americanized version is kind of insulting to her. But good to hear she's getting enough props to be the female lead in the next Sherlock Holmes flick with Robert Downey Jr. The giant borderline albino in the film is also intriguing enough despite the little material the actor has to play with, and the obvious correlations people will make to the DaVinci Code.

The bad: I don't really care for Mikael both as a character and the actor portraying him. We're supposed to believe the guy is a hot celebrity in Sweden but I think they may have different standards of what makes people attractive. Especially since several times we are told how ugly Lisbeth is supposed to be. Um pardon? The story is also hurting from the sequel curse. People are introduced and just as promptly forgotten about, and story threads are left dangling as well. I also didn't find myself very intrigued by the whole premise like I did the first film, which was much more of a traditional mystery whodunit. In this one the only real tension was at the very end, too little too late and only serves to leave on a cliffhanger for the final film.

Final Thoughts: I can't help but wonder the thought process behind wanting to make trilogies. Why not just make two films to tell the story, as inevitably (with very few exceptions) the middle story is usually lacking and subpar to the first and third tales to be told. In literature it's different and you can explore more themes and plots than film allows for, and usually doesn't suffer to the same degree. Also, as far as titles go, this title is wasted on such a mediocre film. With the conclusion being called "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest" it fails on the WOW spectrum as far as titles go.

Add to the Vault? No. Maybe if the 3rd film is insanely good and they are sold as a box set, but as of right now the second film feels like it could have been largely a montage intro to the 3rd film at best. I don't have too much interest in owning the first film either, but I do regard it to be the more superior film of the two so far.


Without further adieu, the trailer for The Girl Who Played With Fire:

The Good Guy (2009)

The Good Guy (2009)

Well here we have a different take on the "romance" genre. It's actually tauted as a romantic comedy, which is really misleading to unsuspecting film goers. Perhaps that's part of the schtick as we are also treated to the filmic equivalent oft seen in novels, which is the unreliable narrator.

The premise is simple enough, a well-to-do wall street guy is obviously at some pivotal point at his life, as he's ringing the buzzer or his girlfriends apartment. It is pathetic fallacy at its finest as it is also pouring rain, he has lost his wallet and locked out of his own apartment. But alas, we see his girlfriend in the arms of another man, and she is reluctant to let him in.

So what has transpired to make us arrive at this point? Cue the rest of the movie. I will potentially have already spoiled the movie for the more astute readers out there, but in the event you don't want me to go further into detail, I will simply say I didn't ultimately care for this story.

Now onward to the spoilers, consider yourself warned.


So basically we have Thomas (Scott Porter, currently seen on The Good Wife), Beth (Alexis Bledel, who I guess was on Gilmore Girls), and Daniel (Bryan Greenberg, who I have never heard of before, but some may recognize from One Tree Hill I suppose). These are the main characters, two of which may or may not be the titular character in question. Rounding out the supporting cast is a plethora of bit characters, including most notably Anna Chlumsky.

...In the great words of an old drama prof I once had who hated my guts, SIDE BAR! I have to include this note because I would be ashamed not to admit that I was surprised to see Anna Chlumsky again after all these years. I had very nearly forgotten all about her, but seeing her again I was whisked back to time when I was a doe-eyed eleven year old boy, and having watched My Girl for the first time I developed a big crush on Anna Chlumksy. Since then she kind of disappeared from film except for bit parts here and there, but I definitely felt nostalgic after seeing her again. Okay, back to our regular scheduled programming...

Okay so we have a story revolving around three characters and we are supposedly meant to relate to at least one of them and hope for the desired outcome. The only props I will give is that this movie plays against convention only in terms of narrative. In actual plot development it plays EXACTLY to convention so much as to go out of its way to force you to hate certain characters if only to make you "like" the other characters by default because they aren't as despicable as others. One guy is so despicable that despite starting out as a facade of a complex character he grows increasingly more one dimensional as the film transpires. One girl is so tired looking and so obviously disinterested in the world around her, that I could honestly care less about who she winds up with. Another guy starts off so one dimensional that we are meant to see growth as the narrative plays out, but truthfully if you think about it, he's still a waste of time and effort in regards to character. Then unfortunately we have pretty much every other girl in the film who is a man-hating-but-ultimately-shallow-and-needy female who are little more than caricatures then real people.

That's a very vague and wordy spoiler if there ever was one, but I think you can figure out who's who. I mean we run the gamut for extremes in this film. The unabashedly confident cheating bastard, the heroine who we are told basically outright is as virtuous as Elizabeth Bennet, the socially awkward loser who is essentially Dudley Do-right with Asperger's. I mean seriously, the guy was more awkward in social situations than the guy PORTRAYING a man with Aspergers in the movie ADAM, and yet we are supposed to believe he is the Mr. Darcy of this film? Ridonkulous. Oh and the Pride and Prejudice references aren't subtle for fear of alienating the viewers who have never picked up a book before, so they inundate us with literary references abound. See that makes the movie SMRT. Only learn-ed folk can catch the nuance of the brilliant performances on screen.

But is it any good? No, I can see why some people would like it, but I think these people probably try and fit the world into tidy little categories where people are not multi-faceted human beings but rather paper cut-outs with arbitrary singular motivations.

The good: Anna Chlumsky. Why? Well it's great to see her on film again. Good for her. I also liked Aaron Yoo, an asian actor people probably wouldn't know unless to see him. I didn't care for the leads. Although I suppose given that my wife enjoys watching "The Good Wife" it's a testament to Scott Porter to say that he plays douchebag well.

The bad: The attempts the film makes to make it different, for all its efforts you can adequately predict the movie every bit of the way and you actually HOPE that there will be a twist that makes it redeemable. This is the filmic equivalent to a Stephanie Meyer novel that deludes people into thinking it is a great narrative. Oh whoops... disregard to all Stephanie Meyer fans out there.

Final Thoughts: I won't hold it against this film for being deceptive at the beginning. I thought I was going to get a romantic comedy (like it was listed) and then given some of the serious angles I thought we'd be treated to decent intellectual romantic drama. Then a quarter of the way into the film, once it hits it's stride, you see the film for what it really is and you wish you weren't under any obligation to watch crap shows because you started a movie blog. I think it would have been a far more interesting choice to start the film in the same fashion, but keep the protagonist somewhat likable. Make it conflicting to see the woman he adores end up being with the man who is the Great guy, because he is simply the Good Guy, because sometimes that's just how life is. Don't make him into a right bastard that you lose any and all empathy with, just for the sake of throwing the other two unrealistic characters at each other. Anyways...

Add to the vault? No. Sorry, just no. I don't have anything witty to add here.


In case you were curious, here's the trailer for 2009's, The Good Guy.

Leap Year (2010)

Leap Year (2010)

Romantic comedies are so hard for me to review, especially when I share the viewing experience with my wife. For the record, my wife seems to loathe romantic comedies and we find ourselves engaging in playful bickering back and forth about the absurdities in the film and her lack of romantic whimsy. This is where, I must admit that I am much more of a suck for romantic comedies than she is. Sacré bleu! This film was no different where for much of the film my wife was insistent that she would know what happened next and yet 9 times out of 10 she was wrong. Mwaha!

The story of the film Leap Year, involves a successful Boston woman (Amy Adams) who is fed up with her long-term boyfriend's inability to commit. He's a doctor or realtor or something and he gets whisked away to Ireland for some emergency thing.

Anna (Amy Adams) finds some ridiculous Irish tradition in which on leap years, February 29th, in Ireland women can propose to men and have it be all socially acceptable.Yay for progression! So off she goes on a impromptu journey to Ireland. But obstacle after obstacle hinders her attempts to get to Dublin in time to propose to her boyfriend. Along the way, she and we meet Declan (Matthew Goode) a jilted bitter owner/operator of a failing pub. He gets commissioned to take her to Dublin and high-jinks ensue and we bear witness to the magical transformation of Amy Adams from a prudish self-involved deluded woman, to spontaneous whimsical woman who can love.

So essentially a paint-by-numbers Rom-Com right? Well yes and no. It's predictable in the long run as most if not all Rom-Coms are, but as I described above, the clichéd moments you'd expect to see don't always occur as you'd expect. The film was self-aware enough to admit that some conventional plot devices would be too ludicrous in most real life situations, while ultimately still getting to the desired ending we all know and love.

The good: Amy Adams and Matthew Goode (not the singer) were enjoyable. The scenery alone is worth the film alone as we are treated to some gorgeous Irish locales. The attempts by the film, in places, to acknowledge that some situations would be too ridiculous to occur in real life.

The bad: The general portrayal of most Irish folk being annoying bastards willing to steal from ya, put you down, or generally just be annoying for a great portion of the film. Adam Scott was a waste as the initial love interest to spur Amy Adams into action while generally walking a fine line of not being dis-likable enough to cheer Amy Adams away from him into the arms of Matthew Goode.

Final Thoughts:  This film was good for what it was when I watched it. A pre-work, overcast matinee movie for a Sunday. Nothing spectacular or particularly memorable to raise it above the masses, but not stupid enough nearly to be amongst some of the serious dregs of the rom-com genre.

Add to the Vault? As much as I enjoy Amy Adams, this wasn't good enough to be added to the vault. A one off for sure, but maybe I will watch it again after a couple more leap years transpire.

Enjoy the trailer!

LEAP YEAR: Movie Trailer. Watch more top selected videos about: Leap Year (2010 film), Adam Scott

Weird Science (1985)

Weird Science (1985)

AHAHAHAHA what a dumb show. But it is so ridiculously enjoyably dumb that it is legendary. John Hughes, you were definitely dabbling in the wacky tobaccy when you concocted this one. I mean it is so diametrically different from the likes of Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Sixteen Candles or my personal favourite of the Breakfast Club, that presuming he was on possibly psychotropic drugs isn't as far fetched as you may think.

Okay maybe there are some similarities. Anthony Michael Hall (a Hughes regular) for one is back once again being the awkward loser character, joined by Ilan Mitchell-Smith (who?) as two teens who are hell bent on creating the perfect woman with computers. Something that many Warcraft nerds still aspire to today.

Kelly LeBrock (who many wouldn't know anymore, but back in the day she was hot stuff) is the proverbial perfect woman who joins our two misfits for the next 90 some odd minutes, which could easily be argued as Hughes' excuse to parade her in a variety of outfits that were presumably hot back in the mid-80s.

Like most Hughes stories, the overall intent is to share snippets of real teenage angst and frustration. Not daring to delve into Breakfast Club levels of seriousness, we are stuck with what essentially amounts to toilet humour (something that can be the entire focus of comedy movies these days) and one ridiculous scenario after another all thanks to the magic of Kelly LeBrock.

Now I would have been only 4 years old when this movie was released but I still have fond memories of enjoying this flick as a child and appreciating the goofiness long before I could fully understand the crudity transpiring on screen. Truthfully, the film is about two nerds who are basically attempting to create a cyber-woman to lose their virginity to. Oh sure you can argue that it is about gaining self-confidence, and getting people to like you for who you are, but you can't ignore the whole premise stemmed from two geeks that are trying to have sex with cyber woman. But oh ho ho, look how funny they are, they are so socially awkward that even when presented with the "perfect" woman who will do ANYTHING for them if they merely say the word, they can't muster the spunk to do the deed. Hearts of golds ladies, these two dweebs have hearts of gold!

So as ridiculous as the film is, it is a wonderful movie that although has aged terribly with its glorification of the 80s in any and all respect, it is still able to resonate with folks born in the 80s and I imagine most others too as it does touch on some universal themes.

More importantly, this film is as much about the peripheral characters as it is about the wacky geeks we are forced to follow around. Bill Paxton as older brother Chet practically steals the show, and a very young Robert Downey Jr. (lacking the Jr. in credits) makes an appearance as one-half of the antagonistic foils to our hapless heroes.

The good: Toad Chet is and will always be the highlight of the film for me. I could watch an entire film of Toad Chet's adventures. The fashion is so bad it's good. The party scene at Wyatt's house (btw did I mention Wyatt is apparently rich? So rich and a geek. I feel so sorry for him...) and the attempt to create Kelly LeBrock 2.0. Vernon Wells, who some cinephiles will remember from Mad Max or Commando, makes a decent appearance in this film as the baddie to act as a catalyst to turn our zeros to heroes.

The bad: The tedious bar scene was completely unfunny. Was Anthony Michael Hall trying to sound like a black man? Wow. Just wow. And no offence, but I can see why Ilan Mitchell-Smith kind of disappeared out of films after this one. Apparently according to Wikipedia he's an assistant professor somewhere and has a wife and two kids. Good for you Ilan. Wise choice. Oh and I have to be honest, some of the jokes are so dumb that you can't help but roll your eyes. Risk of severe eye strain should be a disclaimer at the start of the show.


Final Thoughts: A cheesy movie, but more importantly for me, an iconic movie. Movies like this inspired the imagination in me as a wee lad, and as such I can't knock it too hard. It has some scenes that I have been able to remember clear as day for most of my life and can always elicit a smile.

Add to the Vault? Yes. Another film I believe should be preserved and cherished from time to time. I hope that if I have any kids of my own, I can dust this film off someday, borrow a bra or two to wear on our heads and dive head first into the ridiculous.


Till next time, here is the Weird Science trailer from 1985.

Question...

Should I keep the current format of reviewing any and all movies that come my way including requests? Or should I stick to merely movies that conventional movie watchers will likely watch, just with the occasional oddity thrown in due to requests and such?

I ask because I have a ton of movies waiting on the PVR but likely no one has ever heard of them as most are probably direct to video. So the three of you out there that read this.... what sayeth you?


To make this worth your while here is a movie I am looking forward to:

The Reflecting Skin (1990)

The Reflecting Skin (1990)

Well folks, you asked for it. I have to start off with an apology though, words do not describe how gloriously f***ed up this movie is. I remember catching this flick originally on some late night channel, probably only 11 or 12 years old, and truly I have never been the same since. This is the one movie, that no matter how many times I watch it, it is pure and simply messed up.

In contemporary film where once brilliant auteurs like Lynch have become veritable hacks of their former selves, I can only imagine that Philip Ridley (who wrote and directed this film) is of the same cloth as Sartre. Lynch could only dream of being as screwed up as this film is.

Well what is so messed up about this film you say? Alright, I will give it the good ol college try here.

The film takes place in rural Idaho (as per wikipedia though I don't recall it ever being mentioned in the film) in the 1950s. We follow our young (10-11 year old) protagonist Seth Dove. Seth is the epitome of a serial killer waiting to happen as the screwed up stuff he experiences and does is definitely there to scar him for life.

But is Seth entirely innocent prior to what he witnesses? Nope, he's already well on his way to being screwed up. We first see him and his two friends inflating a bullfrog they find to the point of rupture. Instead of killing the frog immediately they set it on it's back on a hot rural road where a woman is approaching from the distance. When the woman nears and inspects the frog, our young protagonist Seth takes out his slingshot and shoots the frog, exploding it all over the woman and the road.

And that is pretty much the end of all semblance of reality in this film. Seth becomes obsessed with vampires after hearing his dad speak about a novel he's reading. More importantly, Seth becomes convinced that the woman from before, Dolphin Blue is her name, is a vampire herself.

In a nutshell, Seth experiences religious zealotry, self-immolation, murder, possible remnants of infanticide or a still-born baby, dead angels, possible pedophilia peripherally, homophobia and radiation sickness. Jury's still out on the whole vampire angle and I am sure entire papers can be written on the murmuring chirping twin ladies.

That's not a synopsis, you say? Fine. Seth is the central figure to a mysterious set of murders that begin with the children of his small rural community. Seth's brother Cameron returns about half way through the film (played by Viggo Mortensen) and is definitely affected by his time in the war, hinting at being in or near Japan after Nagasaki or Hiroshima.  This is not the 1950's of "Greece" or "Happy Days" this is more like the 1950's of the apocalypse meets the twilight zone.

Some readers on IMDB boards seem to suggest that the imagery in the film is an allegory for Seth's innocence slowly becoming lost, which is an admirable take on the whole thing, but I don't think that explains enough. I think Seth is already a lost soul, there is nothing absolutely nothing redeemable about any of the characters. Each are bitter, twisted shadows of human beings, but life has been a long time gone from these folks.

If you want purgatory, this is my definition of it. These is bleaker than The Road in many respects.


The good: Well, I've mentioned that the film is bleak and messed up, but is it any good? Yes, it still is. This is a film I could never fully de-construct. I would challenge both many of my former University peers, and established film critics alike to try and make sense of this film. I would love to have lengthy discussions about what transpires in the 95 minutes on screen. Standouts though? Seth. Creepy creepy Seth. Viggo is always good (*coughRolandtheGunslingercough*) and just for sheer absurdity the Sheriff is great too. Oh and creepy dead angel babies. Yep you read that right.

The bad: Sanity as we know it, has no place in this film. That can make for a paradoxical viewing experience in which you simultaneously are revolted, apalled and intrigued by what happens next.

Final thoughts: Not one for mom and dad or your kids. Know that if you put this into your dvd player or watch it on your computer (Authors Note: I don't condone that!) you will bear witness to one of the greatest wtf moments in film that I have ever known. Forget Eraserhead, forget Gummo, forget Blue Velvet. You'd have to go as far back as Un Chien Andalou (1929) for a film on par with The Reflecting Skin.

Add to the Vault? You know what? Yes. For the mere fact that this film is like a drug. How I imagine heroin would feel, getting under your skin and forcing you to want more despite the horrors you experience from it. Perhaps too strong of an allusion but I don't care, I have never done heroin and never will, so I will invoke creative license here. This film definitely should not disappear, but rather serve as the proverbial bar for films aspiring to be messed up pieces of art.

Dance Me Outside (1994)

Dance Me Outside (1994)

Not to inundate the U.S. readers with Canadiana films, but I go in order of what I watched. So forgive me. This film, an older film now, is based on the characters of several W.P. Kinsella novelettes. That's right, the same W.P. Kinsella who wrote Shoeless Joe Jackson Comes to Iowa which became "Field of Dreams" starring Kevin Costner.

Now given that I had great parents who encouraged me to be as much of a bibliophile as a cinephile, I read a few W.P. Kinsella stories predominantly The Fencepost Chronicles and The Moccasin Telegraph. The characters Kinsella revisits are also the stars of this film being Silas Crow (changed from Silas Ermineskin in the stories) and Frank Fencepost. Not knowing how politically correct such subject matter would be considered in this hypersenstive world of today, I do remember fondly enjoying the exploits of Silas and Frank in rural Alberta (which is changed to near Toronto in the film).

The story is simple enough (spoilers ahead though!!), Silas and Frank welcome a friend, Gooch, who is recently released from prison after serving a three year stint. The film initially plays out as a simple "day in the life" of Silas and Frank on the reserve (introducing other memorable characters from the books as well like Sadie, Silas' on and off again girlfriend). One night at the bar, while Frank and Silas are up to their shenanigans, one of their female friends leave with a white guy. Cut to the next morning while Frank and Silas are nursing their hangovers on boat ride, they find their friend dead under a bridge. So begins the real story of vengeance on the reserve and the journey's each of the characters take.

The film has a lot of humour in it, and I guarantee you've probably all seen some of the actors in some capacity or another, notably Frank Fencepost who is played wonderfully by Adam Beach. Adam Beech is next to appear in Jan Favreau's Cowboys and Aliens, but he has also appeared in films such as Windtalkers and Flags of Our Fathers. The film's real charm lies in the quiet dramatic moments. Subtlety taking precedence over the bluntness of contemporary drama, and how even with humour there lies a dynamic level of depth and gravity to some scenes that can be very nearly painful.

I found myself enjoying these characters immensely, and though I never watched the resultant TV series, The Rez, I can see how the show led to the series. The lives of these characters don't end at the credits. Some films you feel content that the story has been told and that is suffice, whereas others, like Dance Me Outside, the characters are rich enough that they continue on.

The good: The nuances of life on the reserve. The delicate balance of celebrating cliché and avoiding exploitation. The richness of the characters. And the music! Great music!

The bad: One little thing irked me, and it was a plot detail concerning Silas' sister and her meeting with Gooch while her white husband was trying desperately to gain the approval of Silas and others from the reserve. Her actions, while I get the intention behind them, don't really make them acceptable in my eyes, and immediately made her an unsympathetic character.

Final Thoughts: A very decent film. A very Canadian film, but that shouldn't scare of any Yanks that may find this on television sometime in the future. Give it a try.

Add to the vault: I don't feel it needs to be added to the vault. It does make me want to find the old stories and give them a re-read though. Which is more than of a credit to how good the show is then one might think.

Oh right, seeing as I dropped the ball on the last few reviews... here is the trailer for Dance Me Outside. Enjoy.

deadend.com (2003)

No picture available!!!

deadend.com (2003)

So in wake of Wristcutters: A Love Story, I bring to you a Canadian independent film I doubt ANY of you have ever heard of, let alone seen. You can download the movie at the link above, and I welcome any of your thoughts or opinions about it.

Here is a film that tries desperately to address the issue of teen suicide without being heavy handed in preachy detail. You have three teens that for a variety of reasons never fully explained or understood, set out on a road trip across Canada so that they can end their lives on the beautiful coasts of British Columbia.

Now I won't get into my views on suicide again (see the Wristcutter's review for that) but I definitely support any and all attempts to reach out to troubled kids who may entertain suicide as an option, and give them the help they need. And that is what I believe is at the core of this film. A tale that resonates with most troubled youth in a variety of ways. Does it entirely succeed? I don't know. There's a lot going on here. It seems like it wants to be a road trip movie, but it doesn't have a destination in mind (figuratively speaking). The trio of teens stop at a variety of places, and experience a variety of situations (both good and bad) and it gets progressively more bleak as it reaches BC. We are expected to believe that the progression of the tale takes 11 days, in which we see an escalation towards hardcore drug use, violence, crime and worse. I suppose it's all in an effort to go out with a bang, but are we really convinced these kids have it in them to do it when the time comes?

At the heart though, the film is good at convincing us that these kids are inherently good kids, that have simply gone awry. They aren't beyond hope and yet their self-destructive ways literally take them as far away from the potential for help as they could be, and the self-reliance of the teens is all that we are left with when we get to the proverbial zero hour.

The film gets points from not shying away from dark material, being very blunt and graphic in some depictions of the shadier side of life, however the situations at times are borderline ridiculous. The style of film is documentary-like with handheld footage like a camera crew follows the trio around, but without addressing it, it becomes a jarring device that removes the viewer from the seriousness of the material. Why is there an invisible film crew following this trio around who are never addressed, and why do the characters seemingly act like the camera is there, while other times we are to believe it is meant to not be there? Even in the beginning one of the characters explains a handheld camera that he stole from school, but then we simultaneously see the scene from another handheld camera perspective like someone else is taping the teen with the tape.

So when really critical moments occur, it removes us from the seriousness of the situation which is ultimately a detriment because it feels staged when we need it to feel live and dangerous.

That being said, the film doesn't glorify suicide and though the story is muddled, it gets a message across. It is an ambitious effort with obviously a lot of heart behind it.

The good: The initiative to try and tell a story about something no one really wants to address.

The bad: The indie film aspect doesn't always work for the story. As well the story gets muddled, not always certain of what it wants to do.

Final Thoughts: An ambitious movie, perhaps too ambitious but decent enough to not be written off as some pretentious independent film.

Add to the vault? Not mine. It is a specific audience for the film and I am not the target audience obviously. But if the film or the efforts behind the film can aid youth in trouble then by all means.

As an added thing, because it is pertinent in the media today, I want to add the following video.

Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006)

Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006)

At the request of the masses who read this site, I have been tasked with reviewing this film. I watched it originally back in 2008 I think, and re-watching it I find the same issues and positives as the first time around.

The premise of the film is as such, obviously playing with the religious angle, in that if one takes their own life they end up in limbo rather than some satisfactory afterlife. As such, we follow Zia a recent inductee into Limbo, who cut his wrists (hence the title). Now Limbo isn't that much different from regular life, aside from some washed out colours, a perpetual inability to smile by it's inhabitants and some off-kilter reality bending oddities just to keep it different.

Now Zia and his pal Eugene (the obvious comic relief in the film) are enjoying their non-lives as best they can, when Zia finds out his old girlfriend might also be a resident of Limbo. Cue roadtrip and enter "cute" hitchhiker Mikal (Shannon Sossamon) who shakes up Limbo. She's convinced she is wrongly a resident of Limbo due to a technicality. So without going further into details, the plot quickly becomes a "roadtrip" movie and aside from the oddities and Limbo and the whole "dead" thing, it is quite frankly a paint by numbers road trip movie.

Now I am sure I will ostracize one of the two readers of this blog by saying this, but this movie isn't THAT great. I will give it props for taking a whole warped twist on the roadtrip movie, but I can not help but feel that it doesn't really do anything with the premise. It's a tough gamble, it was already guaranteed to not be a commercial success because no distributer would let a suicide-centric movie hit the theatres, and the religious masses would no doubt be a tough sell as well. That being said however, if you are going to run with a premise, I feel like it should have gone farther. I get that Limbo is supposed to be just like life but even more mundane, but there are cool aspects that are hinted at. Things like the "miracles" or the beach scene, are interesting and could have been explored further, but instead we get a secondary plot involving a "suicide cult" (ho ho funny!) with Will Arnett and then whole angle that life and death is really just more paperwork and bureaucracy.

Or maybe I didn't get it. Maybe the whole purpose of having a movie set in a boring existence was meant to be boring? A couple of things I have to be honest about though, and this may render my opinions null and void. First of all, I don't like Shannon Sossamon. I find her a weak and wooden actress that was touted as the next "It" girl when she first hit the theatrical stage, but thankfully it would seem that Hollywood realized her ineptitude and she's been reduced to non-roles and indie films instead (something I still wait they would do with Megan Fox). So her role here, which is essentially a self-involved "love" interest, broke the movie for me at the core as I couldn't invest in her as a viable love-interest for Zia. She's in the same category as Zooey Deschanel for me and it's probably a disservice to me as an aspiring reviewer that I can't get past such issues.

Secondly, the suicide angle on a whole, while interesting and a neat twist, doesn't really work for me. I have zero sympathy for suicide in general. It's a selfish act and I can't empathize with it. I didn't really think the whole uplifting angle was warranted without making the world of Limbo something to really abhor. The fact that Limbo was just like reality for the most part, and that there may be a "get out of jail free" card, kinda makes the whole ordeal amount to little more than "meh". It comes across that it's really not THAT big of deal if you commit suicide, because in the end, if you want something enough, you can get it.

I don't know. I figure for that kind of payoff, I better see Divine Comedy level of ambiance and personal growth.


The good: Patrick Fugit as Zia and Shea Whigham as Eugene are enjoyable leads. I wish instead of Michael Cera, Patrick Fugit could get more roles as I can relate to his confident off-beat sardonic inherent nature more than Cera's "Oh look at me I'm awkward and witty in EVERY FRIGGIN FILM". Did I mention that Cera made me not like Scott Pilgrim as much as I wanted to? Anyhow, what else was good? Oh yes, some imagery thrown in like the beach scene. It made you feel dirty and itchy. That kind of imagery was something they could have really run with. I felt like the director watched a Terry Gilliam movie and tried to emulate the wierdness without really getting the weirdness. I see that the film had a $1,000,000 budget, which isn't much by Hollywood standards, but for an indie film it's quite a bit. If you ditched the suicide cult storyline you could have had some more dough to play with imagery. It would be remiss of me to not include Tom Waits, who I also thoroughly enjoy in most everything in. That guy could read the phonebook and it would be interesting. He also appeared recently as the "devil figure" in Terry Gilliam's Doctor Parnassus interestingly enough.

The bad: Shannon Sossamon. Wooden. Not like how everyone jokes Keanu Reeves is wooden but he can still make a decent movie, I mean wooden like why is she in film at all? The premise was interesting as well, but I didn't like how it almost too lightly handled the issue of suicide. It was either too light or not light enough, and without committing to it either way, it feels like a premise they wanted to explore but really were too scared to tackle head on.

Final Thoughts: Overall not bad, but I can't help but feel it could have been a REALLY interesting tale. Hell, ditch the comedic angle entirely (since a lot of the forced jokes didn't pan out anyway) and run with the whole romance and fantasy bits, and you may have a really decent movie.

Add to the vault? Not mine, I get why some people would enjoy it. It's definitely a dark twist on an otherwise conventional story. Does the subject matter automatically make it gold? No. Definitely not. So while I can appreciate other people's interest in it, it is only mediocre for me. E for effort though!

Adam (2009)

Adam (2009)

Now that we are firmly into November, I will presumably up the rotation of non-horror films. I am still open to recommendations if anyone out there in cyberspace actually reads this blog, but in the meantime you will get the random shows that pique my interest on the movie channels I get. Films I have never seen before and for good or for bad, for your reading enjoyment and to serve as a guide to know which films deserve to stand the test of time or be destined for the scrap heap.

Today's film was a film that easily could have been exploitative and insulting. Many films that deal with the topic of mental illnesses and such, run the risk of being so overly dramatic so as to be insulting or ham-fisted. Others are so far removed from our world that they exist solely in the realm of Hollywood and earn Academy Awards.

This film deals with Asperger's Syndrome, which, and forgive me for being blunt, feels like such a convenient disorder these days. Almost a flavour of the week condition, where hypochondriacs everywhere suddenly felt that they must have Asperger's Syndrome merely because they were socially awkward. Disorders are not something you should aspire to, folks, just to be different. I am not saying that it isn't a real and valid disorder, just that it seems awfully convenient in how quickly it is brought up as a plot device, or explanation.

But I digress, the protagonist of this film is titular character, and we meet him at his father's funeral. Immediately, we are thrust into his world and accept it. We are, in the span of minutes, able to understand his routine and in turn we can anticipate the disruptions easily, while simultaneously being surprised at what he is able to deal with rationally.

Enter Beth, a woman who moves into the same building as Adam and finds him... intriguing. So begins what starts as a gradual, hesitant friendship blossom into something more, reiterating that the misconceptions about are not in fact a reality. The film, much like (500) Days of Summer, shows us stages of what would would be a normal relationship with the sole exception of an added obstacle that both parties in the relationship try to work around.

If anything, this film shows that Asperger's could be synonymous with any other issue. It could be alcoholism, it could be a handicap of some sort, it could be PTSD or who knows what. And really it isn't important. Well it is in terms of providing enlightening information about the condition, and how to live with it and understand it. The truth is that it is just as important that at the heart of a story we get to know two people in a relationship and they work at it like any other couple. We end up caring for both these people respectively and appreciate them.

It is a refreshing tale. It has its ups and downs and it isn't listed as a romantic-comedy for a reason. Is it flawless? No course not. But it is a decent story that was as far away from a horror movie as one could get.

The good: New information on Asperger's, a nice story about love and life, and real honest portrayals of people as opposed to caricatures that we are so used to.

The bad: Some bad pacing issues. As for Asperger's I have no idea how accurate the movie is or isn't. Welcome feedback in that area.

Final thoughts: Definitely go watch it. Those of you interested in dramas, or those of you who can appreciate a decent story. Don't watch it as the definitive Asperger's information guide, or if you are a socially awkward hypochondriac looking to find something to emulate.

Add to the vault? I am still mulling it over. I did really like the story and for a couple of relatively unknown actors I feel I want to support the cause and show that the film is appreciated, but at the same time I am okay not watching it for awhile too. We'll see. I'm also partial to the fact it has such an awesome title.

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

Ah Halloween. Such an under-appreciated time of year. Most people say they like Halloween, some even say they love Halloween, but few people LOVE Halloween. Don't get me wrong, I get it, I know I am old now, and I am not hip or cool, but very few kids these days seem to put in the effort to really warrant that bag full of candy. A hoodie or pony-tail on the side of your head does not make you a "gangster" or "80's girl" (both of which were observed in multitudes this year from the trick or treaters). I may have been the odd kid though who actually appreciated the mythos of Halloween, the merit of a costume you slaved over for the entire month, the fine details of pumpkin carving, and the splendour of a well decorated house. You can always pick out those who like Halloween more than others. They'll be the kids with really damned good costumes rather than store-bought discount masks. They'll be the youths in the group of ne'er-do-wells that has the actual costume in the bunch. Or they'll be the mothers or the father's that are wearing more elaborate costumes than the little princess or pumpkin they are carrying in their arms.

Where am I going with this you ask? Well this movie is made by folks who love everything about Halloween. This movie exists simultaneously as an homage to all horror films, Halloween lore and tradition, and a careful warning to those who dare disrespect the Halloween spirit.

By far one of my favourite films, the greatest travesty was that this film didn't make it to theatres. I can appreciate the SAW movies or the Paranormal Activity movies and how they are drivel to be tossed in to theatres to make a buck or two under the illusion of horror, but would it have so bad to have a clever, well-written tribute to Halloween be shown en mass in lieu of commercialized tripe?

Alas I digress, the show. So we know it's a tribute, but to offer you more detail, the movie takes place in the absolute coolest town in America (some place in Ohio I think) that goes absolutely hard-core for Halloween. It is several stories told and interwoven into one another. You have tales of the supernatural, you have tales of regular human horror, and you have tales that are so uniquely Halloween that they deserve their own category. All of them told together are a celebration of Halloween, and if anything deserves a franchise it would be this movie, with the only stipulation being an open invitation for directors to tell a better spooky story in keeping with the Halloween theme. Cinephiles will recognize a few faces including but not limited to Brian Cox and Anna Paquin who both turn in great performances (which is a lot to say about Anna, because though I am a fan of True Blood, Sookie is often an irritating character).


The good: Nearly everything in this movie. It is cinematic gold.


The bad: The fact YOU haven't already watched it.

Final Thoughts: This is the preeminent film devoted to all things Halloween. Forget the Michael Myers flicks, forget standard horror-movie-a-thons, and forget Romero-fests (another overly appreciated director who has not done anything decent since the late 70's). Add this film to your Halloween repertoire and be sure to show it to all your friends.

Add to the vault: As if you didn't already know, yes. Hell yes! Buy this movie before you watch it. You won't be disappointed and best case scenario it will send a message to Hollywood that quality over quantity will be better appreciated by audiences. At the very least, make this film a part of your Halloween traditions.