Review: Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans

Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans (2009)
starring: Nicholas Cage, Eva Mendes, Val Kilmer, Xzibit, Brad Dourif, Jennifer Coolidge
dir. Warner Herzog

Considering the film tends to have moments that meander, this is a blast, due in large part to some great performances. Cage has been getting some mighty praise for his balls to the wall drug addled, back spasming corrupt cop and he deserves the praise. As a mater of fact it's right up there with Richard Widmark's insane turn as Tommy Udo in Kiss Of Death (1947). I only bring that up since both characters torment elderly women in wheelchairs. It's a blast to watch Cage act (if he's acting) and reminds us that he is a great talent that has to take one to many pay check jobs. His Lt. Terrance McDounagh is one for the books

But there are a few stand outs that ned to be recognized as well. Jennifer Coolidge has lost her botoxed lips and delvers a fabulous serious turn as a drunk girlfriend to McDounagh's father who is struggling with his recovery. The other actor to mention is J.D. Evermore who is almost as off the hook as Cage. Never going over the top, Evermore delivers the word "Wow" with a variety of expression and a flabbergasted shake of the head that sells a character as well as a stunning piece of humor. It's a great bit and he is one of the few cast members that really holds his own against the tornado that is Cage.

Herzog seemed a head-scratcher of a choice when he wa selected to direct, but it makes sense when it is all put together. McDounagh runs the same route as most Herzog protagonists; driven, bordering on obsessive as well as self-destructive. The post Katrina New Orleans is a good place for Herzog as he allows his camera to find those places that are tucked away in the lower income districts of the city. He also get to throw in a few of his flourishes with imaginary iguanas, a water snake and a patient alligator. Cage even gets to perform the spin into frame that Herzog and Klaus Kinsky used in so many of their collaborations. Another director may have been able to make this movie, but only Herzog could make it as bat-shit-crazy as it is and make the audience feel as if it were real.

There is a lot of talent in this movie and the thing that really keeps it from being a classic is the middle portion that struggles to find it's feet, but finally does, for what becomes a text book lesson in irony by the third act.

If you can handle some dark humor and some dark situations, this is worth a look. Don't be expecting a Harcey Kietel and Abel Ferarra film here, this one belongs to Cage and Herzog.

7.7 out of 10

Review: Pontypool

Pontypool (2008)
starring: Stephen McHattie, Lisa Houle, Georgina Reilly, Hrant Alianok
dir. Bruce McDonald

Zombie movies are a dime a dozen these days and out of every ten movies maybe there are twenty minutes of decent filmmaking. And when it comes to originality, forget about it. There have been some stand-outs, but these tend to be comedies like Shaun Of The Dead (2004) or Zombieland (2009). Even the Father of the zombie film George Romero's recent output could be called at its best flawed, at its worst unwatchable.

Now there is Pontypool, an original zombie movie that is more than just a zombie movie. It's a film about language, the flow of information, and wordplay. What makes this such a great movie is its perspective.

The brilliant Stephen McHattie plays Grant Mazzy a morning DJ at a small radio station in the Canadian town of Pontypool. He's an instigator, a shock jock, relegated to reading off weather reports and local news. This is the bottom of the barrel for him. He continually battles with his producer, played equally as well by Lisa Houle while sneaking liquor into his coffee mug. Then the first reports start coming in that zombies are attacking. It's confusing to our heroes and made even more confusing that the story never goes outside of the station, almost like War Of The Worlds where we only learn from scattered reports leaking in from the outside. It's this limited perception that adds to the tension and McDonald's incredible choice in camera placement that drives the growing dread home.


And these aren't just your regular walking dead. The virus that turns our innocent townsfolk into blood spitting, rage filled zombies is a new one for the books of the undead. The concept isn't wholly original, but it is for the zombie film and that makes this an even bigger breakthrough.

Tight, tense, great acting and great characters make this mini universe movie a must see for horror fans and cineaste alike. A great piece of filmmaking from script to cast to execution. This is easily my favorite "least seen" film of the year and may even be in the top ten of the year.

9.5 out of 10

Review: 2012

2012 (2009)
starring: John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Amanda Peet, Amanda Peet, Danny Glover
dir. Roland Emmerich

I'm going to say up front that I thought this movie was a blast. It is utter garbage, but it is a blast. Perhaps long in the tooth by the time you reach the final half-hour, but getting to that point is a lot of fun. Now, whether this is a good movie or not depends on a single factor. Was this gigantic wheel of cheese rolling down a hill at mach 5 intentional or not? How did Roland Emmerich approach this?

For the actors, they are in on the joke. There is no way in hell a cast of this caliber didn't realize this movie was nothing more than crap melodrama wrapped in a CGI machine of gigantic proportions. For that they get credit. There is not a single wink at the screen. A performance never becomes comedic for any other reason than to deliver a surface level joke. Every actor knows they are simply dialog delivery devices to make the disaster sequences stick together. In some ways, this is Emmerich's masterpiece. He has been able to boil down character to the minimal amount of broth needed to support the effect houses in charge of blowing up the planet. You never feel for anyone, but understand you are supposed to. In this type of film that's all you need. I dare anyone to say they felt true emotion for a character in disaster epics like The Towering Inferno (1974), or Earthquake (1974). If you have, then look in the mirror and try some self-examination.

Now the bigger questions lay in what Emmerich is trying to say with this type of movie. He is the reigning Irwin Allen and is able to tell a story clearly and cleanly unlike the blurry epilepsy inducing visuals of Michael Bay (I am using the word story loosely here). But does he want there to be more to it than just explosions? Right off the bat, I want to say no. It appears that Emmerich has resigned himself to making giant escapist cinema that wants to wow audiences with explosions and crumbling landmarks. He attempted to dig a little deeper with The Patriot (2000) when it came to exploring father son relationships or (less so) with the crapfest 10,000 BC (2008) as a love story. With 2012 he has tossed out any form of depth and stuck with what he knows best, spectacle. On that level alone he is successful.

But, if Emmerich's goal was to delve into the goodness of humanity and how our willingness to risk our lives to help others, he has failed completely. The relationships are shallow, the dialog clunky, and subtlety is a rock bashing us over the head. So it simply comes down to what is it that Emmerich is shooting for here. Is it possible to enjoy this movie? Of course. The X generation has firmly implanted a sense of irony into the human condition and we can scream, "This is a great movie" with no sense of shame. The film lover in me, the one that believes that cinema is worth more than two hours of explosions and lazy cliches knows it's just a piece of junk. So If Emmerich is in on the joke, good for him. If he sees himself as a serious filmmaker subverting content with CGI to lure in an audience, sorry Emmerich, no sale.

(Irony) 8.5 out of 10
(Legit) 4 out of 10

The Eclectic Choice: Return To Oz

Return To Oz (1985)
dir. Walter Murch


Man did this movie take a beating when it was first released. There was all kinds of flak over the fact that Disney was making a "sequel" to such a beloved film. Not to mention this one wasn't a musical. For shame. Never mind the fact that the original film was a perversion of a book by L. Frank Baum.

Return To Oz did exactly what it should have done. Go back to the original source material. By doing so, legendary editor and sound designer Walter Murch made his first and only foray into directing a memorable one. This isn't our parents Oz.

Darker, twisted and a lot of fun, Dorthy is sent to a hospital for delusions after she has talked up her first visit to Oz. The cure is going to be electroshock, but she is rescued by a mysterious patient and they escape into a storm that eventually leads a lone Dorthy back to Oz. There she discovers a destroyed Emerald City, A Gnome King who can move through solid rock and a Wicked Queen who has a variety of snap on heads to choose from.

She is also joined by a new cast of side kicks include a wind up robot, a living jack-o-lantern and a talking chicken. Together they seek to rescue the Scarecrow and return Oz to the pristine state it once was. It's a quest of the bizarre and a real cinematic treat.

Were this movie made in the franchise minded culture of today, it could be a big hit. Baum had written 14 Oz books, and the idea of a female protagonist running around a magical world could be a real hit amongst the Harry Potter lovers. Alas it was not meant to be. But we do have this adventure to enjoy and it's well worth the trip. I wouldn't recommend it for younger viewers, it does have a more macabre edginess to it and the effects, though good for the time, are showing their age.

This is another entry of a Disney struggling to find an audience. Along with other risks of the era like The Black Hole (1979), or Tron (1982), Oz was a failure at the box office, but now has more than a few aspects that make it an overlooked flick that's worth a second look.

POV: Good Ol' Days

I had moved from the small town to the medium city to start college. It was perfect timing. The popularity of independent film was starting to boon and no one had more of an influence on bringing the indies to the masses like Miramax. I was introduced to them through the breakout sex, lies and videotape (1990) and stuck with them through the amazing run of the 90's. The Crying Game (1992), The Piano (1993), and Pulp Fiction (1994) helped Miramax become a giant among production and distribution companies.

When the word came down that Disney was going to buy them up, it set off alarms. But Bob and Harvey Weinstein (despite reputations) were geniuses at getting what they wanted made and reinforced up the Miramax Brand. It wouldn't be until the new century that their Midas touch seemed to be hitting some bumps. Everyone does at one point in time, this doesn't mean they can't come back, but it caused a growing rift with their parent company. Then they left, forming the Weinstein Company which has been struggling to find it's feet.


So where did this leave Miramax? Well, unfortunately the name that helped define a generation of movies and movie goers has been relegated to the basement of Disney. They have announced they will only be releasing three films a year and let go of a majority of staff. What does it mean for the future of the once great indie champion? Probably a slow and painful death until the word Miramax sinks into history like AIP or Monogram. I hope it doesn't. They had such a mark of quality for so many years, it seems a waste to let it fuck off to hospice.

Maybe Disney will reevaluate at some point, bring in fresh blood that will be the new Harvey and Bob and resuscitate. Maybe the Weinsteins will see a banner year and bring back that old feeling of greatness to the movie screens. Or maybe, most probably likely, a new name will emerge from the ether and capture my heart.