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.

Review: A Serious Man

A Serious Man (2009)
starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed, Sari Lennick, Adam Arkin, Fyvush Finkel
dir. Joel & Ethan Coen

The Coen brothers have been two of the more interesting filmmakers to watch evolve over the years and A Serious Man is another step in that evolution. It may feel like the distant cousin to Barton Fink(1991), or contain some of the same visual style as Blood Simple (1984) and Fargo (1996), but this is a film of a different beast that may deliver one of the more theologically debatable endings in recent years.

The story revolves around Larry Gopnik and his decent into chaos. His wife is leaving him for another man, his tenure may not be approved and a student is threatening to sue over a bad grade. Plus his brother is getting into trouble, his kids are fighting over money stolen from Larry's wallet and every Rabbi that Larry seeks consolation from can't deliver.

The film feels like the story of Job with a new ending that asks the audience to think about our own actions in life. Every scene seems to push Larry further and further into a spiritual hole that he just can't seem to dig himself out of.

The glue to this film is an amazing performance by Stuhlbarg as Larry. You feel the weight of his shoulders as he suffers emotional blow after emotional blow. He's so good if he doesn't get a best actor nomination then I'll have lost as much faith as Larry does in the film.

The one thing that also needs pointing out is the sound design. It's a knockout! Complex, precise, and it adds to the atmosphere more than it has in the brothers past films. Which is saying a lot since all of their films have amazing sound design.

The Coen's have delivered another piece of art that my cause some Barton Fink flashbacks, but feels emotionally like the flip side off the No country For Old Men (2007) coin. This isn't a film for everyone and challenges even the more devout Coen fans. But it's a remarkable and seemingly personal piece of work that comes from the mind of two brothers who do nothing but surprise us time and time again.

9 out of 10

Review: Paranormal Activity

Paranormal Activity (2009)
starring:Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Michael Bayouth
dir. Oren Peli

It was exactly 10 years ago the The Blair Witch Project (1999) opened up and became one of the summers biggest hits. It introduced the movie going public to what would grow into it's own sub-genre. These micro-budget horror films shot in a pseudo-documentary style have become a part of our popular culture and have ranged from a giant monster movie like Cloverfield (2008) to the annoying couple become fish food film Open Water (2003).

Paranormal Activity has had a long and strange journey. The word of mouth from Anne Thompson back in 2007 was great but it couldn't find distribution. There was an offer to remake it, but not release it in the original form. No matter how well test screening did, offers never came in.

They finally secured a deal, with midnight screenings and the opportunity to sign an online petition to have it released nation wide. I'm not sure if it is a publicity stunt, but it seems to be working. The tally is around eight-hundred thousand and rising by the minute. The goal is one million. So everyone will have an opportunity soon.

As for the movie it self, it will be looked at the same way as Blair Witch. Those who got in early before the hype grows out of control will love it. Those who see it after buzz hits the tipping point will hate it. Those who enjoy seeing the process of how a horror film works at manipulating the audience will find it very educational.

Here's the plot: Boyfriend buys video camera to capture strange things happening in the house at night. Camera starts catching weird stuff that slowly grows and grows until the final shot, which is designed to deliver a sharp shriek of fear and an uneasy feeling that all is not well in the world.

It's does contain some forced moments to try and tie the plot together , but Featherston and Sloat make a convincing couple with all of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that make couples lovable and annoying. They're fun to watch and you feel for them as they dig themselves deeper and deeper into the paranormal world.

This is a movie for folks who love horror that isn't about gore but the slow build. Outside of that, it is a fascinating experiment to see a potential model for distribution.

7.7 out of 10

POV: Flicker

Flicker (1991)
by Theodore Roszak

If you are a lover of movies, movie history and a shadow history of film that casts a dark, ominous shadow over the light of celluloid, then this book is for you.

I first picked up a paperback copy back around 1996. Like most things, I was first attracted by the cover. I'm known to pick up any book that features sprocket holes as part of the artwork. I assume it has something to do with movies, though most of the time, it doesn't. This time though, I hit pay dirt. It took about fifty pages for me to find the rhythm, but suddenly I was engrossed. It's so well written and thought out that I'm shocked it hasn't caught on to be a bigger work than it is.

This sucker is an onion, you keep pulling back layers and layers, idea upon metaphor upon theme. I'm always fascinated how I find new and deeper meanings with each read. It makes me wonder if it has to do with me growing older, learning more about film, or both. I'll say both.

The main thread is about Jonathan Gates, a young college bound kid in the late fifties who stumbles upon a small movie theater run by cineaste Clare and her stoned out projectionist, Sharkey. Gates and Clare begin an affair that will lead to the discovery and appreciation of a lost filmmaker named Max Castle. But Castle's films are much more than just b-movies, there is an under-hold, a flicker, a mysterious something that hides underneath his images.

The book is a gothic thriller that uses real movie history as the building blocks for a religious cult that is out to destroy the world. However cheesy it sounds, the book works incredibly well.

I remember trying to track down the rights to it and there was a big legal battle at the time. They ended up at Regency Productions and for a while Darren Aronofsky was attached. The only outcome of that was the most recent printing in 2005 which states Aronofsky's involvement. He has since left the project.

Only time will tell if a great movie will be made from this. There is a great movie in the book, it just depends on who ends up making it. But for now we have the perfection that is the novel and as soon as you've finished the latest political biography, or Stephen King paperback, pick this up and give it a read. You wont be disappointed.