Sin #51: Love and Marriage

On the surface, the Wheelers seem like an ordinary couple living in suburbia circa 1950. Frank works for a boring company (following his father’s example) and April stays at home acting like a proper housewife. Ever since they met at a party years ago, Frank has dreamt of becoming an artistic refugee in Paris and April has loved Frank’s rebel spirit that currently seems to have been crushed thanks to the ambitions of corporate life; she suggests moving to Europe but she knows, deep down, that that dream will never fulfill itself.

“Revolutionary Road” is a tragic story of loss and unspoken angst that is simply devastating to behold. The Wheelers aren’t bad people but we sense that Frank and April have given up hope on their understanding of each other; there simply isn’t a way out of their misery. The movie explores some of the same issues as the TV series “Mad Men” that also analyzes the hypocrisy of married life and stereotypes in the fifties, especially the intrinsic sexism found in society (its hero works on a male dominated advertising company). Sam Mendes directs “Revolutionary Road” with fearless directness that both skims the surface and, at the same time, cuts very deep into the psyche of its characters. The film is boosted by the amazing performances of Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet and Michael Shannon (in a staggering supporting role that shakes the foundation of the couple’s perception). This is a difficult and sad movie that brings a jolt of realism to the conventions of romance and married life on movies.

Now picture, on the other side of the spectrum, Burt and Verona, a happy and optimistic couple about to have a baby. They journey through the Unites States visiting friends and family, searching for a new home. In “Away We Go” Mendes lovingly portraits a couple that has found true happiness in each other’s arms, practically the antithesis of the Wheelers. The times have changed from the repressed fifties to a more open modern age and young and healthy people like Burt and Verona are allowed to enjoy a steadfast and communal life without the pressures of society’s burdens. They are young, smart and hip individuals unable to understand why other couples allow the kind of repressions that destroys lives or the bizarre methods of children’s education (seen in a hilarious and heartfelt sequence featuring Maggie Gyllenhaal). The movie works as a comedy but also as a touching story of hope.

“Away we Go” doesn’t carry the glum and depressing tone of “Revolutionary Road” and is more in touch with younger audiences with its criticism of snobbery. But Sam Mendes is a master of tone and never leaves his characters stranded in a plot on auto-pilot. With both films he shows a very distinctive view of relationships and its consequences. In one film it’s a tragedy and in the other it’s a blessing.

Sin #50: Crash of the Titans

Something happened during the screening of Louis Leterrier’s “Clash of the Titans”; as I was watching it I violently realized how different audiences were back in 1981, when the original premiered. The new movie shifts motivations and personalities in order to satisfy the hunger for overblown special effects and in the process sacrifices the humor, adventure and romance that made the original so entertaining and effective.

Let’s begin with Perseus, the hero in both versions. In the 1981 version he was played by Harry Hamlin as a stiff and awkward young man who doesn’t realize he is actually the son of Zeus and is caught in a journey where he falls in love with the princess Andromeda, about to be sacrificed to the Gods. It’s his love for her that makes him want to defeat the Kraken, a mythical creature, and save her.

In the 2010 version he is played by Sam Worthington, in a lazy performance that isn’t too far off from his Jake Sully in “Avatar” (he even gets to keep his modern haircut). In this movie he doesn’t even fall in love with the princess, his motivations for defeating the Kraken are purely egotistical as he seeks revenge against Hades, who was responsible for his family’s demise. The movie is so poorly written that there really is no emotional connection whatsoever.

Now, about the gods themselves; in the 1981 version there were a lot of scenes featuring Zeus, Thetis, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Athena and others. There really was a sense of true scheming and discussion around the council, but that Zeus ruled justly and firmly. In the 2010 version we barely get to see the council at all and virtually nobody has any dialogue except for Zeus and Hades (an unnecessary additional villain for the remake); there’s no sense of a dynamic within the council, it’s all about Zeus. In the first movie he was played gracefully by the great Shakespearean actor Lawrence Olivier and in the remake he’s played by Liam Neeson in an over-the-top performance that drifts between seriousness and campiness on equal measures. His Zeus is a confused deity who can’t decide if he wants to kill the humans or save them, if he loves his son or despises him. The movie also creates a character named Lo who is Perseus’s guardian but doesn’t really contribute anything to the plot (there’s a brief flirtation between them that never pays off).

The special effects in the new version are better than the previous one but still there’s a sense of wonder and joy that is missing. While the original combined stop-motion and rear projection to create the menacing creatures, the new one overuses mediocre CGI. The sequence of Medusa is a thousand times more suspenseful in the 1981 version even though Medusa was basically a clay doll, but the way the filmmakers approached the design of her layer made it frightening. The new one feels like a dumb action sequences that lacks rhythm and falls flat. The same can be said about the Kraken who is too similar in design to the creature in “Cloverfield”; he never goes beyond an obvious effect.

“Clash of the Titans”, the remake, is a dumb action picture with bad performances and a cheesy script that turns the mythical journey into a bore. It’s proof that Hollywood likes to dumb down their blockbusters for audiences with short attention span. While special effects extravaganzas can be involving (like with the “Lord of the Rings”), most of the new films lack heart and soul; that’s why “Clash of the Titans” of 1981 is better in the areas that actually count.

Sin #49: The Critics

The general consensus among moviegoers is that film critics are pompous assholes who sit above the rest praising high art and demeaning popular entertainment. Since virtually anyone can write a review, why the hell do we need them, right?

Well, while it may be true that anyone can spurt an opinion about a movie, a critic will always have a more thoughtful criteria, merely because of the fact that he sees a lot more movies than the average moviegoer. A good critic will analyze different aspects of the production, reveal its emotional impact and state an opinion that doesn’t claim to be an indisputable fact (he has to acknowledge that there are people that may enjoy the movie even if it rebukes their personal assertion). My favorite critic, Roger Ebert, whom I not always agree with, is a terrific writer (winner of the Pulitzer Prize, no doubt) and always brings important points to his reviews that deserve to be considered.

The job of the critic is not to agree with the majority of the population’s view but to state an educated opinion, helping the viewer to come up with his own conclusions. The extent of their influence depends mostly on the education of their readers; casual moviegoers don’t even care in taking their time choosing worthy movies to watch on the weekend (this attitude helps turn fiascos like “Transformers 2” into huge box office hits).

It’s been a difficult time for critics. Todd McCarthy, the respected critic for Variety was recently fired and the show “At the Movies”, which a long time ago was hosted by Ebert and Gene Siskel, has been cancelled. Some blame the internet, since bloggers and web critics instantly publish their reviews on websites and offer a more convenient (and economical) approach than buying a magazine or newspaper. Technological advances like Facebook or Twitter have even enabled people to instantly publish comments, even during a screening in theaters (most of these comments however read something like: “OMG! The movie was awesome!! J”)

Still, I find fascinating reading “old-school” critics like Ebert (whose blog is also a marvelous example of fine and evocative writing), A.O. Scott, Peter Travers and Michael Phillips; of the web-based critics I enjoy James Berardinelli who is also a talented writer. I enjoy that they are smart people who write out of joy and enthusiasm for cinema and are mere observers of its evolution; it’s them who give film criticism a good name.

They can be read at their respective websites:

Roger Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

A.O.Scott: http://movies.nytimes.com/pages/movies/index.html

Peter Travers: http://www.rollingstone.com/

Michael Phillips: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/

James Berardinelli: http://www.reelviews.net/movies.php

Sin #48: Beatlemania!

Imagine the roaring crowds in the stadium so mighty that they drown the music you’re playing or dozens of girls chasing you through the already crowded streets of London while you’re making your way to rehearsals. Back in 1964 it was a pretty ordinary ordeal for the ultimate Fab Four, The Beatles. John, Paul, George and Ringo rose to fame pretty quickly and delivered some of the best music ever recorded. In “A Hard Day’s Night”, we meet them at the peak of their careers in a movie that isn’t really a documentary but more of a fun reimaging of their public personas; John was quirky and cynical, Paul was more serious and responsible, George was playful and smart and Ringo was kind of a hipster doofus (to steal a line from “Seinfeld”). As we watch them avoiding rehearsals and frustrating their manager beyond his point of sanity we realize that these guys are having the time of their lives (the “Can’t Buy Me Love” sequence perfectly summarizes their ultimate sense of joy).

Even though The Beatles were involved in several movies, their most memorable remains “A Hard Day’s Night” and “Yellow Submarine” (“Help”, which reunites them with director Richard Lester, is a mess, the only thing worth are the amazing songs; buy the album instead). Even though more than four decades have passed since the release of “A Hard Day’s Night” it hasn’t aged a day. It remains relevant thanks to its playful tone and all the more fascinating because it proves that the band members had engaging personalities and held our interest, also because we now know about Lennon’s tragic demise (he will forever remain as one of the great heroes for his message of peace and tolerance).

“Yellow Submarine” was a completely different endeavor for The Beatles. First of all, they weren’t even involved directly on the production of the animated feature (the voices belong to other actors who are remarkably convincing playing them) and it was only when it was finished that they saw the true potential for the movie (they finally appear as themselves at the end cracking some jokes and having fun). “Yellow Submarine” is an exhilarating psychedelic trip that seems crammed with hundreds of details worth exploring with multiple viewings. We follow a fantastical journey on the submarine against strange and obnoxious creatures called blue meanies and how they are defeated by the Fab Four’s great songs (with a few detours like the encounter with the Nowhere Man).

In today’s world The Beatles have become a pretty recognizable brand (the proof of this can be seen with the release of Rock Band: The Beatles, which I got to admit, is a pretty fun videogame) but they remain, nonetheless, terrific musicians with a great legacy of rock and roll albums.

Sin #47: Fathers and Sons

I’ve always had a problem with Tim Burton’s “Big Fish”. In it we encounter a man who neglected his family for many years and now, lying on his death bed, tries to make amends with his son, who barely knew him at all; all he knew about his father were his loony and contrived fantastical stories of his youth. I know we’re supposed to smile at the flashbacks and the wacky characters but I cringed knowing that the father was in reality a pathological liar and that not even at the end could he be honest with his family (his wife looks resigned looming over the man, as if she accepted a long time ago that some people really never do change). To this day I find “Big Fish” to be one of Burton’s lesser efforts (along with his ill-advised “Planet of the Apes” remake).

There are, however, more honest encounters of fathers and sons on film. One of the most powerful happens in Paul Thomas Anderson’s magnificent “Magnolia”, when a character played by Tom Cruise confronts his father, a man who abandoned him when he was very young. The scene is heartbreaking and the actors bring ferocious intensity; not only is it Cruise’s best performance ever but the movie is a tragic mosaic of regret and sorrow. It may be one of the most powerful dramas ever made and the scene between father and son (the father was played by a very sick Jason Robards, who passed away after filming) is among many unforgettable moments of explosive and corrosive emotion (another memorable scene is the singing montage featuring a song by Aimee Mann).

Recently I had the chance to watch a Hungarian movie called “Taxidermia” that, in a way, also deals with a relationship with a father and his son (this takes place in the movie’s third act). The film has a curious three-way structure; in the first act we meet the grandfather in his youth, a soldier with a very strong libido who gets shot after raping a large woman on a farm (the raping part could be debated, I guess), the second part is all about the father, an obese man who enters in extreme food competitions and is in love and finally the third act deals with the son who is a taxidermist, taking care of his father, who’s become so large that he can’t even stand up anymore.

“Taxidermia” is such an audacious work that many will find it unbearable. It contains images that are repulsive and grotesque, morbidly fascinating and utterly repugnant, and yet there is something meaningful and artistic about the whole endeavor. At the end it left me baffled and confused (especially at the actions of the taxidermist at the end and its moral implications) and yet I was fascinated at how daring and provoking it really is, changing characters and tones between segments and juggling between black comedy, psychosexual drama and horror. It really is a unique piece of cinema even though most audiences wouldn’t dare give it a chance.

Sin #46: Road Kill

The Fireflys’ aren’t your typical run-of-the-mill family; they live in an old decrepit house that would settle in the” middle of nowhere” if only “middle of nowhere” were an actual address on the map. The mother is a screaming lunatic and her oldest son is a serial killer who loves to practice the art of vivisection with his victims (usually cheerleaders) and turn them into grotesque trophies; the less said about the rest of the family the better (and that’s not counting the depraved Dr. Satan who lives in the subterranean catacombs beneath the house).

When Rob Zombie released “House of 1000 Corpses” back in 2002 it was reviled by almost every critic. Since the horror genre has been paralyzed for some time thanks to hundreds of retreats and remakes, I pretty much thought Zombie’s debut (he began as a musician and a music video director) as a filmmaker would be a witless bore.

I was very wrong, “House of 1000 Corpses” is a manic and thoroughly entertaining freak show of a movie, and while the film is hardly scary or suspenseful it is amusing, funny and engrossing thanks to some of the most original characters I’ve seen in a while (Captain Spaulding has already become a popular icon). Zombie directs the movie with gusto using lots of visual trickery that includes split screens, old grainy footage, reverse negatives and psychedelic colors making the experience a kaleidoscopic wild ride. It may be shallow but it’s a lot of fun.

For the sequel “The Devil’s Rejects”, Zombie went for a more brutal, down-to-earth approach. Gone were the gimmicky visual tricks and instead there’s an unrelenting focus on these psychopaths and their journey towards doom. “The Devil’s Rejects” feels like a Grindhouse 70’s picture (right down to the barren landscapes, the violence and Lynyrd Skynyrd’s classic “Freebird”) and is a lot more disturbing than “House of 100o Corpses” thanks to its stark and realistic scenes of torture and overall mayhem. Even though the movie features some of the most despicable characters ever seen on the screen, Zombie achieves the difficult task of giving them dignity and empathy; the last frames even acquire an unexpected poignancy (he fails, however, to add any shred of credibility or interest to his “Halloween” remakes which make the mistakes “The Devil Reject’s” avoids).

Most movies focus on their heroes and forget about their villains; their motivations never go beyond punishing those who trespass their lands and they never get to become more than mere movie monsters. With “House of 1000 Corpses” and “The Devil’s Rejects” however we care about the villains and their destinies and have a blast watching them on their inevitable spiral of death. How many horror movies can claim to do the same?

Sin #45: Coming Attractions 2010

I’m taking a break from writing about great movies and filmmakers to delve into 2010’s most anticipated movies based on directors, actor’s or even trailers (there are some pretty good ones, surprisingly). So, here we go:

-Clash of the Titans (Letterier): The Original “Clash of the Titans” (1981) boasts some pretty dated special effects but it was simply a lot of fun, this new remake promises to be, at least, technically superior. Will it deliver some of the charm and entertainment value of the original? We can only hope so.

-The Ghost Writer (Polanski): Controversy has surrounded Roman Polanski for most of his life and now that he faces trial and conviction for his rape accusations more than 3 decades ago it’s unfortunate that his personal life has overshadowed his movies. “The Ghost Writer” seems like an interesting political thriller with a terrific cast; the reviews so far have been great.

-Kick-Ass (Vaughn): This ultraviolent movie about kid superheroes features one of the best trailers of the season. Watching the rapport between Nicolas Cage and his on-screen daughter may be worth the price of the ticket alone and, not only that, but it also features McLovin as a superhero. This I got to see.

-Iron Man 2 (Favreau): The first “Iron Man” was a pleasant surprise, a smart superhero movie that cemented Robert Downey Jr. as one of cinemas most charismatic actors. This sequel adds terrific actors to the mix, like Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell and Scarlett Johansson. Let’s hope the movie lives up to the original.

-Robin Hood (Scott): Even though it looks like Gladiator-redux, “Robin Hood” at least promises awesome battle sequences from Ridley Scott, who is the master of this kind of thing. This movie is also in charge of opening the prestigious Cannes Film Festival, so we can hope it delivers rousing entertainment.

-Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (Newell): Ok, most of videogame to movie adaptations have really sucked (sometimes to epic levels of awfulness) but this movie at least looks visually interesting and a lot of fun. Director Mike Newell might just succeed in making a worthy adaptation, we’ll have to wait and see.

-Micmacs (Jeunet): Every Jeunet movie (except for “Alien Resurrection”) is a fantastic work of art and “Micmacs” doesn’t seem to disappoint. With quirky characters and a stylized look reminiscent of “Amelie”, this movie promises to be one of the most imaginative works of 2010. Can’t wait to see it.

-Splice (Natali): From the director of the original “Cube” (which is really an original and underrated thriller) comes this new horror movie about a couple of scientist who create a new kind of organism. The reviews have been mixed so far, but at least it looks interesting and features two engaging actors, with Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley.

-Toy Story 3 (Unkrich): After more than a decade since the release of the second film, “Toy Story 3” is one of the most anticipated sequels of the year and surely a guarantee for box office success. The most promising aspect (besides the return of all our favorite characters) is that the screenwriter is the man who wrote “Little Miss Sunshine”, so expect bittersweet delight.

-Predators (Antal): This might not look like a great movie but it features a good cast and promises plenty of predator action. With Robert Rodriguez as producer it might even be fun; it certainly can’t be worse than those horrid “Alien vs. Predator” movies.

-Inception (Nolan): This is my most anticipated movie of the year (it could potentially be one of the very best, too). Although the plot remains a mystery, the cast (which is one of the great ensembles I’ve seen) and with the presence of director Christopher Nolan, it promises a wild ride.

-Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Wright): The first trailer for this movie is awesome. With a stunning visual style that remains very close to its comic-book source and the talent of director Edgar Wright (of “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” fame), this might be one of the most exciting movies of 2010.

-The Expendable (Stallone): Yes, this might be one big steaming pile of shit (or surprisingly entertaining like Stallone’s “Rambo IV”) but just look at the cast! It’s like a flashback to the 80s all the way.

-The American (Corbijn): Anton Corbijn is an amazing music video director who debuted in movies with “Control”, the story of Ian Curtis, leader of Joy Division. “The American” teams him with George Clooney. Let’s hope the results are as intriguing as they sound.

-Buried (Cortes): “Buried” has the gimmick of being completely shot inside a coffin and only featuring the performance of Ryan Reynolds (the rest of the cast is only overheard). At Sundance it got rave reviews and it certainly promises to be a tense thriller reminiscent of “Phone Booth” or “Cellular”.

-Machete (Rodriguez): For anyone who has seen the brilliant fake trailer for “Machete” on the “Planet Terror” DVD you can easily figure out what this movie is about (“You don’t fuck with this Mexican”, says it all). Surprisingly enough, “Machete” features a strange cast that ranges from Lindsay Lohan to Robert Deniro. Might be great.

-“Tron Legacy” (Kosinski): Even though the original “Tron” was made more than 30 years ago, this sequel seems destined to update its effects in glorious 3D(…). The teaser trailer is intriguing and the visuals are pretty hallucinatory (not to mention the soundtrack is by Daft Punk). This looks like one trippy ride.

And for those into art cinema here’s a list of potential masterpieces.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/cannes_film_festival_wish_list_2010/