POV: Showgirls, Teen Wolves, and Astro Zombies

Showgirls, Teen Wolves, and Astro Zombies
author: Michael Adams

I originally thought that this was going to be more of a reference book. You know, a movie title followed by a brief plot synopsis followed by a snarky critique. Instead, I got a fun adventure into a year in the life of a man who is on a cinematic adventure into the dark waters of crap cinema.

Written like a memoir, Adams lays out his strategy for how he plans to discover the worst film ever made. What makes this a real winner is his sense of humor and lack of obnoxiousness. He's not some snob out to bring down Z-grade cinema. This is a celebration of low budgets, bad writing and directing.

Adams spent a small fortune accumulating a library of movies that most people would be embarrassed to admit they have even seen. Then using random selection through bingo balls, he attempts to watch a movie a day for an entire year. The results are a book that you can't really put down.

If I were to point out a weakness of the book, I do with he'd displayed his rating system. He explains it, but I would have loved an appendix that shows the full score cards for each film. That minor squabble aside, it's a blast.

POV: The Futurist

The Futurist:
The Life And Films Of James Cameron
Author: Rebecca Keegan



As far as biographies go, this one is fine. Keegan keeps the pace brisk, which is nice, but never gives a sense of a full human being. She was given access to the friends and family of Cameron, yet never seems to get any deeper than a few basic bullet points.


1. Cameron is a smart dude who loves real science as much as he loves film.

2. He has a drive that can cause a lot of friction but even when he seems like a jerk, he's a good guy.

3. He continues to push himself.

There is some discussion about the themes of his films and the tensions that it takes to continue to push the envelope, but never any deeper analysis than a few paragraphs that continually reference his other films to show how they link together.

The best part in the book is delivered by Cameron's friend and fellow genius director Guillermo del Toro. He discusses the kidnapping of his father and how important Cameron was at helping Del Toro not only help get his father back, but the real compassion and deep rooted support that Cameron delivered. It's a great story and is the one real glimpse into a man who is a lot more complex than the book wishes to explore.

This biggest shame is that Keegan was given access to Cameron's latest film Avatar, but we learn little more than what has been discussed on the internet or through making of videos. Even his other films are mainly discussed using information that can be found in the special features of DVDs.

There is also no discussion of the film Solaris (2003) which was produced by Cameron and directed by Stephen Soderbergh. These are two men who are the exact opposite when it comes to making movies. If you take the time to listen to the commentary on the DVD which features Cameron and Soderbergh, you get a real sens of how Cameron sees himself and how he respects and honors the way other filmmakers. It's a very solid commentary and feels like a better peek into the way the man operates than most of the book does.

That being said, it's a fast read and it is very enjoyable for what it is. It may not be the definitive biography of one of the worlds most powerful filmmakers, but it's an interestig peek that leaves the reader wanting to know more.

Review: Avatar

Avatar (2009)
starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Sigourney Weaver, Michele Rodriguez, 3D, Motion Capture CGI
dir. James Cameron


Not much to add to the debate, but I would like to breakdown this thing into the two separate elements that everyone is talking about/fighting over. Technical vs. Story.

Is this the best example of 3D that has come along? Yes, but what does that mean? At first I was so entranced by the depth and levels that Cameron and his team have created that I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the story. It was more of a "Wow!" distraction then anything else. As my eyes grew accustomed to it, the 3D simply goes away and I'm left watching a 2D movie. What's the point of that? It just becomes a massive piece of escapism that makes my nose itch from uncomfortable glasses. There are some amazing moments, but as a viewer, it made me lose sight of the story, which Cameron claims is the most important part.

Is this the best example of motion capture CGI? Yes, hands down. There is weight and a naturalism to the movement, the eyes seem to live and the power of the closeup retains its importance. The world is amazing, at first, but starts to ware thing over time and when the plot should be really ratcheting up, Cameron gives us more tribal rites that are meant to expand the depth of our alien race, but kept reminding me of a "spiritual" version of the "Tonight we dance" scene from The Matrix: Reloaded. Not a high point.

So what about the plot? This is a movie that wears all intentions on its sleeve. That is, for me, where the film really starts to feel thin. People can quote different sources from where Cameron got his inspiration, but it all boils down to something that is mildly derivative and doesn't add anything new to the debate. These types of wars over territory have existed since the first monkey beat up the second monkey. There is nothing new here. The symbols may change, but the theme remains the same. There is always an exploiter and an exploited.

Here is a test. Take the movie and imagine it on earth. For ease, turn it into a western. The industrialists attempting to take land from a peaceful Indian tribe. How does that play out in your mind? Does it have the same impact without Cameron's imaginative world to back it up?

The characters are caricatures, or drawn thin to the point of nonexistence. There is no reason fro Michele Rodriguez to be in this movie and her motivations are never backed up. She says, "I never signed up for this!" which is a lie. Yes you did, that is the purpose of the humans being on Pandora. You fly a gun ship, what did you think you signed up for?

(SPOILER)
My big problem is that this superior sensitive species that are the Na'vi are supposed to hold all life sacred. Yet they ship off the humans to die. They are allowing for the death of an entire planet. That feels like a false beat and an unearned victory on their behalf.
(END SPOLIER)

Avatar is an excellent technical achievement and Cameron still has the stuff of greatness. He just has a mediocre story that is relevant because of eternal relevance. A proven universality in which to hang the latest and greatest of technology on. Without all of the tech, this would be laughed at by critics as sub-par Oscar bait. But the genius of the film is in the execution and that is the one thing that fires on all cylinders.

Is this a game changer? No. There is no such thing. The Wizard of Oz didn't change the game, The Matrix didn't change the game, Avatar won't change the game. It's a great piece of bubblegum that will lose its flavor and be tossed aside for the next piece. But it's a flavorful piece right now.

7 out of 10

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.