Sin #62: Life's a Stage

I’ve always admired the theater. I haven’t seen a lot of it since theater is pretty difficult to find here where I live. A couple of months back though I went to see a Mexican production of “The Good Canary”, directed by John Malkovich and starring Diego Luna. It wasn’t a particularly accomplished play (it had the obligatory clichés of addiction) but at least it amused me and presented me with a different kind of entertainment. Watching a local play however (without the pretentious flair of international acclaim) was a much better experience since I saw a hilarious story of comical farce entitled “The Story of the Polar Bear that got Stuck Inside the Bathroom of a Restaurant” (that’s the title more or less, in a rough translation).

I’m aware that mounting a stage production can be an awesome feat since it involves the labor of dozens of technicians and especially the actors who have to bring it to life. Orson Welles, before reaching fame with “Citizen Kane” (often considered the best movie of all time), worked in theater and was known for having one of the biggest egos in the business. In “Me and Orson Welles” he is portrayed as a womanizer and a drunk but also as someone who took his craft very seriously and had a grand vision.

It’s a shame that the movie chooses to focus on a young man named Richard Samuels, played by Zac Efron, instead of the great man. He is the typically idealistic actor who plunges himself, through mere luck, into an expensive production of Julius Caesar directed by Welles. Efron brings an unwanted modern sensibility that hurts the delicate nature of the movie and robs it of its real attention on Welles and Christian Mckay’s virtuoso performance.

The movie is also an odd choice for director Richard Linklater who’s one of the best of indie directors and whose films range from experimental (“Tape”) to the commercial antics of Jack Black (in “School of Rock”). “Me and Orson Welles” isn’t one of his best movies but it features a great performance and represents an interesting spotlight on the plays of the thirties and the craft involved.

My favorite movie about the theater is Mike Leigh’s “Topsy Turvy” which presents us with the genius of Gilbert and Sullivan, two brilliant composers of the 19^th century whose plays have been beloved by many but whose relationship wasn’t always as rewarding. The film is astonishing in giving us a full behind the scenes of every aspect of the production including actor’s rehearsals, choreographies, costume fittings and production design among others. Mike Leigh’s films are famous for being “crafted” in a tight collaboration between the director and his actors; there isn’t a script but more of an outline and the actors rehearse for months before stepping in front of the cameras. This dynamic gives his movies a special vibrancy and realism and the opportunity to witness terrific performances. The whole cast of “Topsy Turvy” is brilliant but a special nod must be given to Allan Corduner and Jim Broadbent who create two distinctive personalities that perfectly relate to each other on an artistic sense, albeit not on a personal one.

My favorite scene in the movie involves the singers around the piano rehearsing one of the songs (although it’s hard to pick a favorite scene since the film contains dozens of wonderful moments). It’s truly a fantastic movie.

I wish that I went to see more plays or enjoyed a musical or two every once in a while but for now I guess that I must be glad for the cinematic adaptations (the good ones that is).

Sin #61: The Pixar Legacy

The first “Toy Story” came in 1995, I was 10 years old. It was the first feature length to be made entirely on a computer but its technical merits were completely overshadowed by its characters. Suddenly Woody, Buzz Lightyear and the gang became iconic and Pixar Studio came out of the gate with an astounding adventure that captured the imaginations of both kids and adults alike.

We’re living in 2010 and now Pixar Studio has become synonymous with great storytelling and superb animation. Just this month they released the third installment of “Toy Story” and I’m glad to inform that they haven’t lost their Midas touch; “Toy Story 3” is a glorious closure to a popular and beloved franchise.

After the original “Toy Story” they had a sort of slump with “A Bug’s Life” which had the misfortune of having been released close to “Antz”, a Dreamwork’s feature that had an all star cast (including a main voiceover by Woody Allen) and, in my opinion, a superior storyline. “A Bug’s Life” remains a simple and unsophisticated fable and Pixar’s worst film but they quickly got back in shape with “Toy Story 2” an enchanting sequel that introduced new characters (like Jesse, the cowgirl or Zorg, Buzz’s nemesis).

Next came “Monster’s Inc”, a funny film that somehow felt a little shallow; they would change that with “Finding Nemo”, a beautiful sea adventure that combined Pixar’s whimsical sense of humor with an emotional oceanic travelogue (it was, without a doubt, their most visually enthralling movie).

“The Incredibles”, Pixar’s next film, failed to engage me like “Nemo” did. Even though it featured some very good action sequences, the story felt like yet another variation on the superhero myth (fused with the dynamics of a regular family). It tried to introduce more mature elements but the story lacked a proper villain and its length made it feel a little bit tedious. With “Cars” however, Pixar returned to a gleefully un-ambitious comedy; even though it is geared for a sequel next year it isn’t a particularly inspired movie that necessarily demands it.

After “Cars” the studio hit a stride of amazing films. “Ratatouille” is a delicious and sophisticated dish of a movie that becomes the first story to target adults before their children; it’s a film that deals with deep themes, like the appreciation of food and the devotion of an artist for creation (and also the task of critics in art). I particularly adored the sequence where a critic is immediately transported to his childhood after he tastes a dish; it’s a striking and moving scene that encapsulates the message of the entire picture.

And then comes “Wall-E”, a science fiction parable about consumerism. The first 45 minutes virtually contain no dialogue and the characters have to convey strong emotions through beeps and robotic sounds. The film creates a touching love story and a surprising hopeful ending about a new beginning for human civilization. “Wall-E” is a joy to behold.

In this streak of amazing works there’s a very special movie called “Up” which may be Pixar’s most emotionally heartfelt movie (the opening sequence is a little masterpiece of emotion that shows an entire life in about 15 minutes). “Up” deals with themes of mortality, loyalty and bravery and combines them in a story of fanciful delight.

Pixar films feel lovingly hand-made and even the short films that precede each feature are brilliantly conceived. In a way their latter films are reminders of a time of innocence and purity, when we lacked the affliction of modern times (and still there are some underlying darker themes to be found). Whatever meditation and reflection they generate, the fact is that they are so much fun and each member of the family can take something completely different from them; for me that’s the mark of a great film.

Sin #60: Superhero Movie

We all know how it goes. A kid is stung by a radioactive spider or a scientist is exposed to gamma rays or maybe a rich man with a childhood trauma decides to put on a costume; everybody has a clear idea of the origin of superheroes. In a way their stories are very silly, basic juvenile fantasies about idealism and justice. When relieved of any rationale or psychological depth all they amount to are endless fights between good and evil.

Movies about superheroes resonate when they deal with darker themes. In Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins” we meet a man lost in his own guilt and obsession, he then begins his training and finds a way to channel his fears and create a symbol against the criminal underworld. He doesn’t put his mask for purely idealistic purposes, there’s a fetishistic element in his obsession, as if punishing the guilty will bring his soul some kind of redemption (his moral code, however, prevents him from killing). The further consequences of his action lead to dire results in Nolan’s brilliant sequel “The Dark Knight”, where Batman meets an enemy beyond his comprehension. The Joker represents anarchy and chaos, a force of evil meant to corrupt the ordinary and mundane and show the darker side of human nature. At the end of “The Dark Knight” Batman is on the run, becoming a fugitive from the very people he swore to protect.

There’s a movie in theaters right now that has caused some controversy for its depiction of violence and foul language involving minors, that movie is the aptly named “Kick-Ass” which is one of the most enjoyable takes on the superhero genre I’ve seen. “Kick-Ass” doesn’t have the panache of the Nolan films since it doesn’t take itself too seriously but it’s interesting in the way it collides naïve heroism with brutal cold-blooded realism. Yes, “Kick-Ass” is a high school nerd obsessed with comic books but there’s an element of truth to the character and the movie perfectly captures the teen spirit in a globalized internet frenzy media world (in which facebook, twitter, youtube and myspace have become a major aspect in the way we interact with each other).Even though the movie is named after its protagonist, the most memorable character remains Hit-Girl (in a star-making performance by Chloe Grace Moretz); she is a deadly weapon in the disguise of a sweet innocent child. All I’ve got to say about the movie is that it’s a lot of fun. Another recent example that cleverly parodies the genre is “Defendor” starring Woody Harrelson in a story about a mental patient who becomes a masked vigilante. It’s an unconventional film that starts funny but gradually becomes poignant and rather sad(and features yet another terrific performance by Harrelson).

The thing about the superhero narrative arc is that it becomes tiresome after a while; for example, I thoroughly enjoyed the first “Iron Man” in part because it is an economical and ingenious action movie and in part because Robert Downey Jr. remains one of the most charismatic actors in the movies. But the Iron Man sequel didn’t do it for me because it felt like a hollow and unplanned marketing plug. Contrary to “The Dark Knight”, the story didn’t expand its themes and give maturity to its characters. Since superhero movies are pretty common these days (ranging from the heroes of Marvel and DC comics) it’s pretty certain that we’ll see a lot of takes on the genre. Let’s hope at least one or two can shake the monotony.

Sin #59: A Lifeless Ordinary

When I was a kid I was a clear target for bullying; most of the times they made fun of my weight, my height, my glasses…hell, anything that made me look “abnormal” was an excuse for a tirade of verbal abuse. Still, I grew up ok (well, some might debate me on that) and now I can look back and feel a sense of accomplishment for surviving that period.

Although my childhood had its problems, it definitely wasn’t as tough as Dawn Wieners’, the heroine of “Welcome to the Dollhouse”. With her big glasses and ridiculous dress, she is repulsive even to other outcasts (and only has one friend in the whole world who, appropriately, she makes fun off with insulting homophobic remarks). At home things are even worse as her adorable little sister gets all the attention and all she can do is abuse and insult her mercilessly. But one day, things sort of change for Dawn as she falls in love with an older guy who sings in his brother’s band. The guy is a jerk but she doesn’t care, for her he represents an escape from her repressed reality.

Dawn is not a particularly appealing character but I liked her anyway, mostly because she resembles a real teen on a real school environment. While most movies create a glossy and artificial vision of youth, “Welcome to the Dollhouse” cuts to the bone and doesn’t sugarcoat its characters’ situations. And even though sometimes the movie borders on surrealism (especially with the incident about the sister’s kidnapping) it always stays focused on Dawn and her own perception on things around her (including a rather poignant if ambiguous final scene on a school bus).

While youth is all about exploration and maturity, adulthood is all about settlement and resentment. Most of the times it leads to an unhappy life, while sometimes it can lead to lust and depravity; basically any vice will do to take us far from the routine and mundane. Just look at the characters of “Happiness”, a wicked satire of American society that doesn’t blink in the face of taboos. We have the suburban family and their hypocritical facade that’s hiding a pedophile father, a man who makes dirty phone calls and lusts for his neighbor (only to be turned off when he discovers her kinky side) and the neighbor’s sister who is miserable and lonely and survives endless humiliations practically 24/7; and there are more, a lot more (including the sister’s parents and a Russian illegal immigrant).

The director on the films is Todd Solondz and both share a bleak tone with burst of very, very dark humor. While none are graphically explicit, they certainly deal with themes that will disturb a lot of viewers, especially on the implication of the character’s actions and their emotional corrosion. Both movies are fascinating and very sad, but also hypnotic since they evoke very strong reactions from us by creating compelling characters (the actors give wonderful performances, especially Dylan Baker who has a breathtaking scene where he confesses his sins to his son).

“Happiness” and “Welcome to the Dollhouse” are the kind of experiences where you don’t know whether to cry or laugh; its unsettling material that goes to places where most movies chose not to go. With both works Solondz establishes himself as one on the most audacious directors on the American independent front. While they are no easy films to take, they are definitely unforgettable.

Sin #58: No Joystick Allowed

Videogames have come a long way since the early days of Pong and Pac-Man where people usually went to arcades, dropped endless quarters and obsessed about reaching the highest score (this obsession has nothing to do with age, just look at the rivalry between Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell to become the top scorer in Donkey Kong as seen in the amazing documentary “The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters”). As videogames became more sophisticated so did their storylines, and with the introduction of iconic characters like Mario, Sonic, Megaman and Link, the movie industry quickly took notice and began to find ways to adapt their stories to the screen.

The result however was astonishingly bad and after a series of fiascos, videogame garnered a pretty negative reputation. I admit that when I went to these movies I had somewhat decent expectations; after all I was a fan (I played a lot of videogames in my childhood, especially fighting games). But the filmmakers had no earnest respect for the material and were really more interested in cashing in a quick buck at the expense of our juvenile desires. A clear example can be seen with “Street Fighter”, which is based on the popular fighting game (that has had dozens of sequels and spin-offs); the movie is an atrocious adaptation that doesn’t even manage to pay homage to the original characters, it turns the whole enterprise into another one of those dreadful Jean Claude Van Damme action movies.

“Mortal Kombat”, based on another popular franchise, at least had a cheesy but more faithful transition to the screen. Even though it isn’t really a good movie, it’s a fun time waster (not the biggest appraisal, I know). The sequel though sucks out all the fun, it’s terrible.

Last weekend I saw “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” which is based on the videogame by the same name. Since it’s directed by Mike Newell (who made, arguably, the best Harry Potter movie) it was expected that it would break the videogame curse and become the first decent adaptation. Unfortunately the film sometimes forgets to play less like a cutscene from the game and more like a movie. It should be more playful by taking cue from Alfred Molina’s hilarious and tongue-in-cheek performance but still its way more fun that the awful “Clash of the Titans” remake. The problem, as with the “Silent Hill” movie (an atmospheric and haunting experience that manages to be truly scary), is that it tries to satisfy the fans by sticking to close to its original source without pulling off an accessible movie for audiences unfamiliar with the game.

On Roger Ebert’s website there was a bit of a controversy a while back after he claimed that videogames could never become art. Enraged fans debated for weeks that games had become sophisticated enough that they could stand against any movie and that games like “Metal Gear Solid”, “Final Fantasy” or “God of War” had merits enough on their own to be considered works of art. Ebert demurred and confessed he had never properly played any game and was afraid to become addicted to them. I understand both parties’ point of view but Ebert should have made some research before making such a bold statement.

Whether videogames are art is irrelevant when one has the task of adapting them to the screen. We still have to linger over the possibility of a truly successful adaptation. In the meantime grab a joystick, play the games and ignore their movies.

Sin #57: Modern Musicals

Ever since Al Jolson spoke the first words in a motion picture back in 1927 (with “The Jazz Singer”), Hollywood has had a dear affection for musicals. For a while they provided grand entertainment and audiences loved to see the elaborated choreographies backed up with catchy tunes. But then, they kind of fizzled out and musicals were deemed old-fasioned and corny, almost a relic from the past.

In 2001 there was a movie that single-handedly brought back the musical genre for a new generation. That was Baz Luhrmann’s “Moulin Rouge”, a movie that combined an ancient and well known story (the love affair between an artist and a dying prostitute) with several covers of modern pop songs; the effect was both delightful and awe-inspiring, finally there was a fresh take on the genre and the movie became a big hit leading to other movies to follow its example (a year later “Chicago” took home the best picture Oscar, although it pales in comparison to “Moulin Rouge”). Today, there are many musicals around the corner and most of them are stale and boring.

A few weeks ago I saw “Nine” from Rob Marshall (who also made “Chicago”) and was startled at the cast he managed to convince to appear in it; we have Daniel Day Lewis, Penelope Cruz, Marion Cotillard, Nicole Kidman, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren…these are some very talented actors (especially Lewis who burned the screen in “There Will Be Blood” and is known to be an extreme method-actor) but they are all wasted in a lousy remake of a Fellini classic that features not a single memorable song. “Nine” resembles a fashion shoot; it’s all glitz and glamour signifying absolutely nothing.

A recent musical I did like was Julie Taymor’s “Across the Universe” that featured very well known songs from The Beatles to tell a love story in the hippie era. While not every cover is successful (I hated the “Let it Be” cover), the movie is powerful and visually inventive (especially during the “Strawberry Fields” sequence) and remains an entertaining tribute to the lasting power of The Beatles.

Some musicals, however, can be true endurance tests for audiences. Take “The Producers” for example; in the theater it became a massive hit and was even an integral part of season four of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” (resulting in hilarious situations for its star Larry David) but as a movie the musical is a complete stinker. Not only are the songs pretty bad but the performances are outrageously awful turning people into grotesque caricatures; the film is a mess.

Coming back from a trip I saw another awful musical called “Dreamgirls” that managed to be a unique musical in the sense that the stars didn’t actually sing but rather screeched the tunes as if paid by the decibel level. Everybody praised Jennifer Hudson’s performance (she even won an Oscar for it) but I found her annoying and irritating not to mention unbearable. “Dreamgirls” is the kind of film that gives musicals a bad name.

I don’t have anything against the musical genre, in fact two of my favorite movies of the last decade were musicals (“Sweeney Todd” and “Once”) but those films had great characters and their songs defined their personalities and helped tell a good story. Movies like “Nine” or “Dreamgirls” don’t care about anything except the technical aspect of their musical numbers, turning the whole venture into a cold, frivolous exercise. Musicals went in and out of fashion once and we are seeing it happen again. Every time I sense something bad about to happen I simply remember my favorite things and then I don’t feel so bad…

Sin #56: No Country for Young Men

Cormac McCarthy is the kind of author that takes the brutal, the heinous, the vile and painful as a poetic anchor for describing human misery. His stories are dark glimpses into the life of characters that are stuck in an endless purgatory of suffering. I’ve tried to finish reading his “Blood Meridian” but simply cannot; it’s an odyssey so harrowing that at times I’ve had to put the book down to catch a breather. McCarthy describes the violence in such startling detail that even the stench of a corpse is palpable through the pages.

This kind of despair is difficult to capture on film, where audiences expect to at least empathize with its hero (as a film “Blood Meridian” might feel like an endless slog through hell without a ray of sunshine to be found). When I heard “The Road” was being adapted I was afraid that Hollywood might glamorize the story and make it accessible for Cineplex-attending audiences (its trailers sold it as a post-apocalyptic action movie, almost a “Mad Max” clone). But then I remembered its director John Hillcoat, who made a stunning Australian movie called “The Proposition” a few years ago that felt positively McCarthian in the way its blood-soaked violence defined its characters and I knew that he was the right person to adapt this story to the screen.

After watching “The Road” I felt I’d gone on an unforgettable and painful journey to the heart of darkness, which is the right feeling for this story. Beyond the barren landscapes and the cannibalism, the story is really about a father and son struggling to survive in a world where hope has been completely forgotten. For it to work the movie needed brave actors and Viggo Mortensen and young Kodi Smit-McPhee deliver extraordinary performances. Their connection feels authentic and its closing scenes are heartbreaking.

On interviews McCarthy has said that “The Road” is really about him and his relationship with his son and in factual truth is more of a love story than merely a horror thriller; one could say there’s something of a happy ending in its final sequence (even though happy is a very poor word to describe it).

It’s curious how some filmmakers use a canvas of despair to entertain and excite while others use it to provoke thoughts about the human condition. Take two movies for example, “I am Legend” and “Children of Men”; the first is an ordinary action movie starring Will Smith as the last person on the planet (or so he thinks) and the second one is an equally action packed cerebral exercise in doomed fascination. “I am Legend’s” scenario happens after a mysterious vaccine turns people into crazed zombies (although they look nothing like the zombies from the George Romero pictures or “28 Days Later”, more like ugly avatars from a lousy X-Box game); on the other hand, in “Children of Men” there isn’t really a scientific explanation, we have to accept that there’s simply no more children being born. I hated “I am Legend” as much as I loved “Children of Men”, and that’s saying a lot (one thing that bothered me with “Legend” was how dim the violence seemed thanks to the filmmakers intent in making the movie family-friendly).

Still, “The Road” casts a spell unlike any post-apocalyptic film, mainly because it focuses intently on a relationship between father and son. McCarthy may see it as a love story and a hopeful one at that but it is unrelenting in its starkness. Still, the love comes through.

Sin #55: Naughty and Nice

Christmas has become a brand. It used to be a religious celebration and an opportunity for families to gather together for a chance to reminisce about their past year. In a way, shopping sprees sucked Christianity out of the equation and families cared more about presents, food and decorations than actually having a nice and quiet time with each other.

As a kid, I used to detach myself from the chaos of Christmas Eve (a thunderstorm of shopping, grooming and placing the damn lights on the tree) by watching movies on TV, most of which were, in fact, disguised morality tales (especially with the Scrooge formula in which an old man learns to be good again after he is visited by three ghosts who give him a glimpse of his past, present and future life).

At home one of our favorite Christmas movies is “A Nightmare Before Christmas” which not only is a visual marvel (result of an amazing stop-motion technique) but also a fantastic musical whose songs remain classics to this day (it’s definitely Danny Elfman’s finest score, so inspiring that even rocker Marylin Manson covered a song). Jack Skellington’s obsessions and failures always felt more poignant that any of the phony melodrama of those other holiday pictures and the movie has cemented itself as a cult favorite (ironically, also a popular recurring merchandise item) and certainly one of the best Tim Burton films (even though it was actually directed by Henry Selick, who later went on to make the brilliant “Coraline”, based on a book by fantasy novelist Neil Gaiman).

My favorite Christmas movie however is, in a way, a sort of “Grinch” knockoff, although it lacks any of the PC-elements found in family films. Terry Zwigoff’s “Bad Santa” is a dark and hilariously twisted black comedy that manages to entertain, offend and even reach some sort of poignancy at the end (just a little, I must admit). It features a manic performance by Billy Bob Thornton that reaches a kind of grandeur (it’s a blast watching him dressed as Santa Claus in a mall next to small children, completely passed out having pissed himself) and the movie never compromises from its dark origins. His relationship with Marcus, his tiny partner in crime, so to speak, is very funny and adding an obese kid to the mix only makes the movie seem even funnier.

In a way, “Bad Santa” is the perfect antidote from the hypocrisy of Hollywood movies that are merely vehicles to promote consumerism. Movies have become so earnest in their need to appeal to audiences that they never seem to risk anything. Even if you hated “Bad Santa” for its vulgarities, you have to admit that at least it reaches for the fences and never apologizes for its rudeness, to me that’s enough merit to recommend it (without ignoring that it’s very well written and acted).

As for the holiday season, well, it’s pretty clear that some traditions are hard to shake off. I guess that I’ll still be putting the damn tree on December, eating turkey and reminiscing about how crappy Christmas films are (or maybe I’ll just watch “Bad Santa” again and laugh).

Sin #54: Someone Can Hear You Scream

They say in space no one can hear you scream (pretty logical since no there are no air waves to carry sound). There’s been lots of screaming though, in the movies where a bunch of astronauts are haunted by a menacing extraterrestrial presence.

One of the best horror movies is Ridley Scott’s original “Alien”, a movie drenched in atmosphere and mystery; in it we’re introduced to the amazing creature design of Swedish artist H.R Giger, whose conceptual art resembles something between suggestive eroticism and decomposing organisms. The key to the movie is its pacing; it takes time to build and is reluctant to spoil the fun early on. The movie is wise in developing characters we care about (including the now iconic Ellen Ripley, played in all four films by Sigourney Weaver); once we see the creature (first, in the gasping chest-burster sequence, then as a fully grown specimen) we’re completely absorbed in the character’s ordeal. “Alien” remains a classic that stands out from the other sequels thanks to Scott’s taut direction; Cameron’s sequel is more action driven, Fincher’s is claustrophobic but ultimately pointless and Jeunet’s is more fantasy surrealism (the less said about “Alien vs. Predator” the better).

“Alien” inspired countless retreads but one of the few worthy films it inspired was John Carpenter’s “The Thing” (even though it is a remake of an older movie, the film owes a lot to Scott’s movie). “The Thing” uses the isolated Antarctic as a location and instead of giving a fully formed creature, it uses a parasitic entity that possesses living organism and turns them into demonic and hideous mutations (the special effects for these creatures are astounding). The movie is a terrific exercise in suspense that has, unsurprisingly, become a cult classic and possibly Carpenter’s most accomplished film.

The first sequence in “The Thing” features a spaceship crashing on earth. Whether this ship contained the original aliens or were another race invaded by the parasites is one of the story’s many mysteries (similar to the origin of the infamous “space jockey” in “Alien”). Since the aliens need hosts, the movie bases its suspense on the audience (and the characters) guessing who might be infected next. There’s a sort of irony in the end and room for a lot of speculation (there are, in fact, many web pages dedicated to analyzing the movie in astonishing detail).

The formula of claustrophobic settings, a group of naive adventurers and horrible creatures has become a tired and worn out cliché. However, if done right they can be engaging and horrific (like with the amazing Spanish film “Rec”), if done wrong they can be predictable and laughable. Some are interesting in concept but fail to deliver the goods; “The Descent”, for example, is the story of a group of women exploring some mysterious caves in America where they find unspeakable horrors deep within the subterraneous caverns. The setting is stylish and the film sells its locations convincingly and yet, it lacks any substance; the characters are shallow, the creatures aren’t scary and the movie ends on a weird and unconvincing note (leaving the audience to exclaim WTF?!).

Still, “Alien” and “The Thing” remain prime examples of the genre and pure movie thrill rides. The news that Ridley Scott will be back to the franchise with a prequel brings a level of excitement that we didn’t think was possible with the franchise (thanks to the damage caused by “AvP”). We can only hope that if someone is screaming out there, if might be worth for us to take a look.

Sin #53: Sequelitis

Some movies warrant sequels, others conveniently force them. Good sequels expand their stories, add interesting characters and create a sense of an ever-growing mythology; bad sequels, on the other hand, repeat the same story and instead focus on refining the technical aspects so we get a sleeker packaging.

Something curious occurred to me after the screening of “Iron Man 2”; I sensed a distinct case of “sequelitis” (a common trait where the filmmakers try to give an epic feel to the picture by cluttering the screen with more characters and labyrinthine storylines). While the first “Iron Man” had a clean and crisp story with characters whose motivations we understood clearly, the sequel ads too many characters, a dumbed-down storyline and also crams as much external fluff to prepare us for a movie that’s two years away (“The Avengers”). I was disappointed because I found the original to be a funny and genuinely entertaining summer flick that gave us a terrific performance by Robert Downey Jr; “Iron Man 2” is by no means a terrible movie (some scenes are funny and the special effects are awesome, but the charm and originality are missing). I had a similar feeling with the “Pirates of the Caribbean” sequels; there’s simply too much stuff going on that either doesn’t make sense in narrative terms or isn’t very amusing.

There are, however, good sequels but they’re usually the result of a strong directorial vision. I remember having a blast with Guillermo Del Toro’s “Blade 2” even though I found the first one pretty mediocre. Del Toro understood the concept and elevated the premise with brilliant creature designs and an aggressive pacing that made the film way more fun that we thought was possible (and a lot better than the first and third movies).

Another one of the great sequels is Richard Linklater’s “Before Sunset” which took more than a decade to be released. “Before Sunrise” was far from a hit in theaters but it acquired a new life on video where it became a cult hit. “Sunset” was clearly a labor of love for both the actors (Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke) and its director who actually collaborated together on the script. Both films form an amazing love story that deals with meaningful themes and actually chronicles two very specific moments in the lives of these characters (I’m hoping for a third movie, even if it takes another ten years).

These are examples of good sequels but usually we get terrible retreads. Take for example the ill-fated “Men in Black 2” which basically did everything wrong the same way the first one did everything right. The original was very original and funny and won us over with its story of a bureau than monitored extraterrestrial life on earth. It ended perfectly as Tommy Lee Jones trains Will Smith to be his replacement so he can enjoy retirement as a normal citizen; the second one brings back Jones (in a pointless decision that actually undoes the dramatic arc of the first one) and basically recycles the whole premise, except that the roles are sort of inverted.

Sequels are a tricky business to pull off; since most are cash in movies, writers refuse to give extra effort to story and characters. I felt this way with “Iron Man 2” and many other sequels. Maybe we need people like Del Toro or Christopher Nolan to show us how it’s done.

Sin #52: Bad Cop Routine

Picture this: You’ve been assigned to write a movie that features corrupt cops, drug dealers, prostitutes and a sleazy location (preferably in a decaying city), got it?

You might first want to introduce the characters. The hero could be a lieutenant with a bad drug habit who has a complicated relationship with a hooker (let’s make her preferably Latina). The cop begins to develop a partnership with the local drug dealers (preferably Afro-Americans) who use him as leverage in the precinct; slowly but surely he begins to lose his mind in a spiral of addiction. Pretty generic stuff, right?

Cop movies are a dime a dozen in Hollywood; most of them recycle clichés and formulas that strip them of any kind of originality, although every once in a while they can be a lot of fun (like with “Training Day” and Denzel Washington’s Oscar winning performance). Werner Herzog’s “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans”, however, doesn’t really resemble any of the other cop movies I’ve seen even though it features all of the elements previously mentioned. To begin with, Herzog is not a conventional filmmaker by any means and often deals with characters on the verge of madness. With this in mind, he lets Nicolas Cage roam wild in an exquisite performance of over-the top extremeness that at times borders on camp but that never breaks the reality of the situation. Now, about Cage; even though he has hurt his career by appearing in real turkeys lately (like “The Wicker Man”, “Ghost Rider” or “Bangkok Dangerous”), in the right movies (like “Adaptation”, “Matchstick Men” or “Bringing out the Dead”) he can be fearless, poignant and unforgettable. In this movie he is working without a safety net and relishing every minute of it; it’s really a joy to watch the character implode. The rest of the cast also works within the boundaries of clichés but always on the risky edge, making them more real and human (Jennifer Coolidge, in an unusual role, and Eva Mendes are very good).

There are two particular elements (besides the acting) that make “Bad Lieutenant” very different from your usual cop story. The first one is the location; by setting the characters in a devastated post-Katrina New Orleans Herzog has stripped the glossiness of cities like New York or Los Angeles (where these stories usually take place). The second element are those damn iguanas that fill the screen in intense close-ups that occupy the foreground as the characters mind their business.

According to Cage, Herzog owns those iguanas and really wanted them on the film (even though they weren’t in the script). As a staring iguana breaks the fourth wall we wonder about their meaning, are they there to add a surreal oddity to the film or merely for us to visualize Cage’s hallucinations?

It’s these kinds of puzzlements that make “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” such an odd and compelling movie; we don’t know what to make of it but we can’t forget about it either. Watching it we really sense that there’s nothing predictable in its story, especially about its ending that doesn’t go for the obvious solution but instead takes a more realistic approach (that final sequence left me with a giddy grin).

By the way, even though a while ago there was some controversy about this movie being some sort of remake of Abel Ferrara’s film starring Harvey Keitel (also titled “Bad Lieutenant”), it’s safe to say that there’s no semblance to the previous version except for its title. This is a Werner Herzog movie all the way.

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/