Rubber

Director: Quentin Dupieux

Writer: Quentin Dupieux

Summary: A discarded tire mysteriously gains telekinetic powers and goes on a killing spree.  And then things get weird.

I don’t even know where to begin.  I’m not even really sure whether to recommend this movie – it really depends on you.  I thoroughly enjoyed it, as did Roz, but at the end some dude stood up and was just livid that he had watched such a terrible movie.  I’ve seen a lot of people talk about their dislike of a movie after a screening but I think this is the first time I’ve seen somebody actually appear angry.  And looking on the internet it appears that it is not an uncommon response.  But neither is mine and Roz’ response.  So there you go.  I think the one word of advice that I can give without spoilers is that if you are someone who likes “So bad they’re good” movies but not “artsy” movies you may not like it, as it is definitely one of the latter.  Kind of.  It’s not all heavy handed symbolism and religious imagery, but it is neither intentionally nor unintentionally poorly made either.  In fact, the writing is quite sharp, the directing skilled, and the cinematography is beautiful.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
Rubber is a commentary on the artificiality of storytelling, especially in the film medium, and sets out its thesis in the first few minutes of the movie (well, that’s what I got out of it at any rate).  Essentially, the idea seems to be that all plots are contrived and everything in a movie really just happens because the writer decides that that is what will happen, so why not create a movie where everything happens for no reason beyond the fact that the writer thought of it.  This is a neat idea on its own, but rather than just making a weird and random movie (which is how the trailer makes it look), Dupieux goes out of his way to deconstruct everything about the act of watching a movie, even going so far as to include characters who are watching the events of the movie we are watching and act as a commentary from and about the audience.  Some characters in the movie are aware that they are actors playing characters, while most are firmly committed to their role and have no idea that they are not really cops or motel managers.  As far as I can tell, what this all boils down to is that suspension of disbelief is all that matters.  Anything can happen in a movie because it will be real to the characters as long as there is an audience to watch them.  This can even be taken as a self-reflexive commentary on art films: as long as you have an audience you can do whatever you want, but if you push them so far that the audience disappears, what is the point of even making your movie?  Rubber definitely rides that line, but I think Roz and I will both agree that we are glad this movie got made and it was certainly worth our time.

A

originally posted July 12, 2011

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

The Room

Summary: Tommy Wiseau makes sweet love to his ego (and his girlfriend’s navel) as Johnny, the man who is loved by, yet somehow betrayed by, everybody.

Don’t watch The Room by yourself.  It’s bad.  Like, really bad.  But not cheesy, like Plan 9 From Outer Space, where it is poorly made but has such ridiculous sci-fi/horror elements that you can enjoy it alone in the dark.  The Room must be viewed with other people.   No single human being could survive the crushing weight of Tommy Wiseau’s vast, misguided ego.  I don’t even want to describe the movie much because it really just has to be experienced to be believed.
And the best way to experience the movie (and the way in which Roz and I got our first taste of this, whatever this is) is to view it in a theatre with a bunch of people who have seen it before and have come prepared with costumes, footballs, waterbottles and spoons.  Although it is not too old, The Room is already starting to develop a cult following similar to that of The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  This actually makes it a pretty fun era in which to see the movie, because although the rituals exist, they are clearly still developing, giving more of a sense of spontaneity to the proceedings than there is with RHPS.
The thing is, while it is certainly the best way to see the movie, I’m not sure this is the best atmosphere to see the movie for the first time.  It is not like you are going to miss any vital plot developments (there aren’t any) but some of the acting is just so bad that you have to hear it for yourself and that is not always possible with the crowd shouting out lines along with the movie.  Personally, I kind of wish I had seen it first with a small group of friends.  Either way you will have a great time, just for the love of god don’t watch The Room alone.

F (for "fun")

originally posted Apr. 15, 2011

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Sucker Punch

I’m starting to think that I should impose some sort of budgetary limit to the movies I review for The C Word.  This is the second movie in a row that has some pretty serious cash behind it - $85 million may not be on the level of Rango, but damn, that is a lot of money.  That is almost 3 times the amount it cost to make District 9 and I didn’t even review that!  But I can justify this, I swear!  After all, is it really the budget that makes a cult movie? No.  It is the lack of interest from the general population that marks a potential cult movie, and Sucker Punch has that in spades!  Therefore, it has a right to be here.  So there.

Anyone who has seen the trailer for Sucker Punch is aware that it is pretty much random collection of things geek love blowing each other up for 110 minutes or so.  The question then becomes: is that actually interesting for a full 110 minutes?  And the answer?  Kind of.  I think I can best summarise by saying that I want to like it more than I actually did.

HERE THERE BE SPOILERS!!!!

The first question to ask yourself is: Did you like Zack Snyder’s other movies?  If you had even the vaguest feelings that they were not substantial enough you are probably in trouble.  Zack Snyder is often criticized for being all style and no substance, and while I do not think that is necessarily true for his other movies, it is most definitely the case for Sucker Punch (and 300, if anything that movie is even more hollow).  Fortunately for me, I like Snyder’s style enough that Sucker Punch was still worthwhile.
It is hard to define exactly what Sucker Punch is trying to be.  The plot is very similar to Brazil and Pan’s Labyrinth, although in terms of execution it kept making me think of Scott Pilgrim Versus The World.  The structure of both movies is clearly inspired by video games, but Scott Pilgrim does a much better job of turning level based gameplay in to a cohesive narrative structure.  I think that is actually Sucker Punch’s biggest problem: the fantasy bits (levels) are really cool, but there is nothing compelling that links them together.  The actual story, and even the “real-life” goals being represented by the fantasy sequences, are a just so pedestrian that it can be hard to let yourself get carried away by the movie.  I mean, sure it is cool to watch scantily clad girls fighting steam-punk Nazi zombies, but the entire time you are still aware that all that is really happening is one girl photocopies a map while another dances.  The fact that the fantasy sequences are so fucking awesome ends up just emphasizing how lame the “real” events are.
Sucker Punch aims high, setting out to take the viewer on a fantastical journey through the subconscious, exploring what it truly means to be free, but it doesn’t quite get there.  If you want an insightful reflection on those themes go watch Brazil and Pan’s Labyrinth.   All three movies end up at a similar place, but only one gives you half-naked babes fighting orcs and dragons in a WWII bomber.  Take your pick.

C

originally posted Mar. 31 2011

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Rango

Summary: A lonely, sheltered chameleon is accidently dumped in the Mojave desert. Insert classic Western plot here.

Ok, Rango is not the sort of thing that I usually review here in The C Word, but it is also not the movie you see in its advertisements.  Inspired more by Sergio Leone and Quentin Tarantino than Brad Bird and John Lasseter, Rango is the closest thing to a cult animated movie you will ever see from a major studio.  It is actually surprising that it ever got greenlit at all, let alone with a $135 million budget.  And we should all thank our lucky stars that it did because it looks fucking amazing.  The textures are phenomenal (although maybe not quite as detailed as the feathers in Legend of the Guardians – which you should also check out, since you probably haven’t) and there were times when I could have believed the scenery was real.
Alright, so the visuals are stunning, but it’s still just a kid’s movie, right? Not quite.  There are many pratfalls and other visual jokes that will keep the kiddies entertained, but a lot of the movie is surprisingly adult, as instanced by the opening narration that contains the line “the night was moist with anticipation”.  Chances are the kids won’t get that, but it is certainly not something you’ll find in Toy Story.  But unexpectedly dirty jokes are not enough to get me to review a big budget animated family movie in a spot reserved for cult movies.  No, I’m reviewing it because it was written for movie geeks and I don’t want anyone to miss it.  If you are reading this and it is still in theatres, stop right now and get your ass to the nearest cinema.  If, as is more likely the case, it is already out for rent, skip the rental store and go buy the bluray.
Almost every shot in the movie, every sound cue in this movie, is an homage to something.  And not just classic Westerns, there are scenes that jump from Apocalypse Now to Star Wars to WWII films.  The more you know about movies the more you will get out of this, which is not to say that those who are not as fluent in cinema history will not enjoy it.  Even if you haven’t seen all the movies referenced, you will probably know the clichés it is playing with.
And this leads to some of the criticisms that have been levelled at Rango.  Some people claim that the plot is too derivative (*cough* Chinatown *cough, cough*) and detracts from the rest of the film.  While I agree that there is nothing in the plot that we haven’t seen before, I think that is intentional.  The filmmakers are taking the tropes of Westerns (and let’s face it, there are like three plots for all Westerns), and using this familiarity to build a new experience.  The clichés are essentially a cinematic shorthand used to guide the character through his arc.  All Rango knows of the west is what he has learned through movies and so these things colour his vision and cause him to do the things he does and the audience’s familiarity with these conventions keep them right there with him.  But whatever, the most important thing is that this movie is crazy fun.  I loved it.  Go check it out and decide for yourself.

A+

originally posted Mar. 24, 2011

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Christmas On Mars

Summary: Uh... it is Christmas Eve on a recently established Mars colony and it seems like a baby is going to be born and a guy is trying to arrange a Christmas pageant and then an alien arrives and then it gets weird.

In the spirit of trying to get back in the website-updating-groove I have decided to write a review of this movie.  Let me start by saying that if you are planning on seeing it, don’t see it alone.  Some movies are so crazy they are fun to watch no matter what and some push beyond that to a point where they really need to be a shared experience.  This is one of those.

Spoilers! (if this movie can really be said to have spoilers.....)

I really wanted to like this movie.  I mean, it is billed as “A Fantastical Film Freakout Featuring The Flaming Lips”, so how could it be bad, right?  Well, it turns out it can.  To be fair, I can’t actually bring myself to call it “bad” – it was still entertaining, it just wasn’t what I wanted it to be.  Is it fair for me to fault a movie for not being the movie I wanted it to be?  Probably not, but I can’t help doing it at least a little.  So with that in mind, here is what I have to say.
Before the movie began I was under the impression that it was going to be something like a musical: new Flaming Lips songs strung together by some sort of plot riffing on 1950s B sci-fi movies.  And that sounds awesome!  What it was, however, was just the 1950s sci-fi part, but with lot of prosthetic vaginas (if you’ve been to a Flaming Lips concert you’re probably not surprised).  The Flaming Lips did indeed do the music for it, but it was really just a normal score with a tendency towards feedback and ambient noise.  And although the movie was pretty crazy (vagina headed marching band?) it was a little boring.  Not a whole lot happens and the plot, so to speak, makes no sense whatsoever.  Most of the entertainment value of this movie will come from sitting around, stunned, with your friends afterwards and talking about what the hell it was that you just watched.
All in all, Christmas on Mars is not bad – the DIY aesthetic and production values are fun, and the absurdity of the plot and characters  is entertaining – but it could have been so much more.  But then again, it is a movie written, directed and acted almost entirely by a band, so how much can you really expect?

C+

originally posted Dec. 13, 2010

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Splice

Summary: Two biochemists, Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley, secretly create a hybrid creature using DNA from a variety of animals including humans, but…. AT WHAT COST?!

SPOILERS

In previous C Word reviews I have talked a lot about how Japanese movies are crazy.  But what you may not realize, and what I have not really discussed previously, is that Canadian movies are fucking weird too.  Not in the same ways – they tend not to be hyperviolent, although they do not shy away from violence – but they tend to deal with very dark and strange themes and often use very dry, black humour.  And Splice, although people are not talking about it as a Canadian film, is very Canadian.  What you would expect to be (and was advertised as) a cool monster movie along the lines of Alien or Species if they were created by the Jurassic Park scientists, turns out instead to be something altogether darker, weirder, more interesting and definitely more daring.

Pissed off that they have lost the main funding for their lab, our two biochemist protagonists (they are actually molecular biologists, but I don’t think the writers know the difference and let’s not start splitting hairs) decide to go ahead and splice some human DNA into the chromosomes they have already made for some weird slug things, just to prove to themselves that it can be done.  And of course, in the grand cinematic/literary/biblical tradition, Clive (Brody) is not really comfortable with all of this but is pushed to go through with it anyway by Eve… er, I mean Elsa (Polley).  If there is one thing I have learned from fictional stories it is that if a woman ever tries to convince you to do something you are not sure about, run the fuck away!  Why won’t women stop destroying good men by tangling them up in their evil machinations?  Jeez.  Needless to say, things don’t go as planned.
Up to this point the movie is pretty much what you expect it to be: ethically deprived scientists playing god and unleashing something they don’t understand upon the world.  Now people are going to die, right?  Nope.  Clive wants to kill the little monster they have created, but Elsa’s motherly instincts kick in and she once again talks him out of doing what he knows is right.  And then the entire second act is devoted to them raising the creature (Dren) as, essentially, their child whom they need to hide from the rest of the world.
At this point the movie is largely about the perils of parenthood (it’s too perilous!) and the inevitability of becoming like your own parents.  Not what you expect from a movie billed as a horror.  Of course during all of this the filmmakers continue to toy with the idea of where the line between human and animal/monster: Dren cannot form words, only animalistic growls and squeals, but she has learned to spell and can communicate using Scrabble tiles.  She has a human torso and face (sort of) but no body hair, bird legs and a tail with a venomous barb.  Most of all, she progresses (albeit rapidly) in the same developmental steps as a human.  The creature design is phenomenal and shows these steps distinctly and believably, helped by an excellent mix of practical and CGI effects.  In fact, for a movie that only cost about $26 million, it is more convincing than a lot of big budget movies.  Delphine Chenéac, who plays Dren, is particularly impressive and does a great job of conveying Dren’s humanity and monstrosity (for lack of a better word) and switching back and forth between the two without it feeling jarring.  Natali has said that one of his goals in making this film was to create something believable and I think he succeeded admirably (well the science is crap, but it is science fiction so you have to suspend some disbelief).
But this blurred line is also where the movie will catch you off guard.  As I said above, Canadian movies like to take a familiar idea and go in a new direction, and in my Pontypool review I mentioned that this usually involves snow.  What I have not mentioned yet is the Canadian cinematic penchant for uncomfortable sex scenes (for an excellent overview read the book, or watch the documentary, Weird Sex and Snowshoes).  And on this front Splice delivers.  As Dren ages she inevitably hits “teenage years” and what do teens want to do?  Natali takes a good 20 minutes to build up to it and drops many hints that it will happen but I doubt many people, especially those unfamiliar with stereotypically Canadian movies, expected them to go there.  So when Clive and Dren inevitably have sex we were all taken a little by surprise.  It is not often I have seen a sex scene this awkward to watch (Kissed comes to mind: Molly Parker plays a necrophiliac and there is at least one graphic sex scene with a corpse.  Is it Canadian too, you ask?  Why yes it is) and this one is wrong on a number of levels.  1) The first is obviously that she is not human.  Lovely human breasts do not make up for the reptilian wings that pop out of her back and arms when she climaxes.  Yeah.  2) She is essentially Clive’s daughter.  Yes, she does not have his DNA, but he has played the father figure in her upbringing.  3) This one is debatable because it can also be argued as part of the reason he sleeps with her, but her human DNA is from Elsa.  Depending on how you look at it this could make her seem more like his wife or even more like his daughter.  Either way it is super creepy.

The third act plays out more like the movie everyone expected to see.  People discover what they have done and show up at the farm where she is being hidden.  Unfortunately she has just died (accelerated aging, remember) and they buried her out back.  All’s well that ends well.  But no!  She has just changed sexes and is now a male monster!  So Dren systematically attacks Elsa, Clive, his brother and their boss.  Act 3 climaxes with male-Dren raping Elsa (another thing I saw coming but still wasn’t quite prepared for) and killing Clive.  By this point the audience is pretty much just thinking WTF? and the rest of the movie doesn’t really matter.
So what do I think overall?  Well, I really liked the exploration of what makes a human and how we project our own humanity on to other animals, especially pets.  I also thought the stuff about parenting was interesting, although I felt the plot tended to drag a bit in the second act.  I’ve come across a lot of complaints that the movie fell apart in the third act and seemed rushed and untrue to the vibe of the movie, and while I understand what they are saying I think it was a pretty good payoff to the suspense that is built through the entire movie.
I do have some issues, however.  The plot really did drag at times and there were a couple characters, like Clive’s brother, who should either have not been there or should have been more fleshed out.  There is also a whole subplot of Elsa’s history with her crazy mother who kept her locked in a room that ties in to the parenting themes but in the end doesn’t really go anywhere and just falls flat.  I also think Natali should have explored the ethics of this beyond simply “unchecked science can be hazardous to your health”.  How would the rest of the scientific community, let alone the populace, react to this sort of research?  What effect would this technology have on society?  He touches briefly on the larger ethics of this type of research but is content to let it sit in the background.  This certainly works for the movie he made because Dren would have to escape or be made public somehow, but maybe because I am a scientist, I think the larger ethics are more interesting than what we got.  After all, this leaves you with nothing more than we got from Jurassic Park, and that was a hell of a lot more fun.

B-

originally posted June 23, 2010

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Mother

Summary: After her mentally disabled son is convicted of murder, a middle-aged woman is determined to prove his innocence and is led down a path of darkness.

I’ll admit this right up front: I have had a really difficult time figuring out what I will write about this movie.  It’s not that it is a bad movie, or even that I’m ambivalent about it; indeed it was an excellent movie.  It is just hard to write about.
Anyway, go see this movie.  As long as you are not the kind of person who won’t watch a movie with subtitles (and I doubt you are, or why would you be here?) you should enjoy this movie.  Let me put this in the most clichéd way I can come up with: Mother is a taut thriller, gripping you by the lapels and pulling you down into the dark depths of the human heart.  Subtle and suspenseful, with a powerhouse performance from Hye-ja Kim as the Mother, this movie keeps you guessing right to the end.
Although Mother is not particularly gruesome, it certainly does not shy away from violence when it happens and is always tasteful (I think even my wife would be fine watching this movie).  The acting in this movie is great, but the direction and cinematography really steal the show.  Excellently paced, it is slow but never gets boring – I was drawn in completely through the entire thing.  And the movie is beautiful, particularly the opening and closing shots.  But the absolutely best thing about the movie is the mystery itself (this really should go without saying, but alas, in many movies it is not the case).  I did not guess the killer until just before the reveal, but that is not particularly impressive as I am pretty hit and miss at guessing in whodunits.  What should really get you off your couch and into the theater is that Roz had the same experience.  This is a woman who normally has to actively restrain herself from shouting out the killer 10 minutes into a movie, so if she didn’t guess right we should all sit up and take notice.

A+

originally posted June 4, 2010

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

House

Summary: A group of girls travels to the countryside to visit Gorgeous’ aunt, whom she has not seen in 10 years, only to discover things are not what they seem…

I’ve said it before, and now I have to say it again.  Japanese people are crazy.  I have seen some crazy movies in my day, many of them Japanese, and yet I was still not prepared for House.  Next time I go to one of these movies I need to create some sort of crazy contraption to hold my mouth shut because my chin is raw from scraping the floor and I hate swallowing bugs (and when you are watching movies somewhere like the Metro that is a serious concern (oh Metro, I kid because I love)).  Now this wasn’t crazy like Tokyo Gore Police – it is not very violent and certainly not gory for a horror movie – but I don’t have a clue what was going through the director’s mind.  Remember the acid scene in the cemetery at the end of Easy Rider?  It’s sort of like that but even more surreal and lasts the entire movie.  Every time you think it can’t get any crazier the movie cuts to an even more frantic and pointless scene full of bad picture-in-picture and ridiculous dialogue.  Eventually you have severed fingers playing a piano amidst weird flashing lights and the lower half of a torso attacking a possessed portrait of a cat.  I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around this movie, leaving me with little else to say.  If you ever get a chance to see this I think it is probably worth your time.

WTF-

originally posted May 19, 2010

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Antichrist

Summary: After the death of their child, psychotherapist Willem Dafoe takes his wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) to a cabin in the woods to help her get over her grief.

I’m going to start where I would normally finish the review.  Would I recommend people going to see this movie?  Probably not.  That is not to say that people should not see the movie, or that I wish I had not seen it.  Indeed it is an excellently made movie and a huge success in that it perfectly accomplishes what the director set out to do: make as many people as horribly uncomfortable as possible and generate discussion.  So I will say this: If that made you curious, then go see Antichrist.  But it is crazy.  Really.
Roz and I have been seeing a lot of movies lately, ranging from the supposedly ultra-violent Kick-Ass to trashier grindhouse fare like Switchblade Sisters and Chained Heat; movies we have been warned will shock or disturb us.  If you have read my review of Kick-Ass you know how well that turned out and the other movies we have seen have fared no better.  Because, really, once you’ve seen movies like Tokyo Gore Police and Neighbor you are pretty inured to further cinematic shock.  So when the opportunity arose to see Antichrist – the “most controversial movie at Cannes” – we clearly had to go.  If the artsy-fartsy audiences at the world’s most prestigious film festival were induced to walk out on the movie, surely it is worth a try?  That said, I doubt many of those people have seen either of the aforementioned movies, so they are probably a bunch of pussies.  Roz and I can take anything you throw at us.  And for that hubris we were made to suffer.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

We had both done our best to avoid any real knowledge of what was going to happen in the movie, or even what it was actually about – we wanted to be surprised, after all.  There were not too many other people in the theatre, but I am guessing that most of them were probably feeling similarly to us, especially the three younger people in front of us.
The film is divided in to 4 chapters (“Grief”, “Pain (Chaos Reigns)”, “Despair (Gynocide)” and “The Three Beggars”) plus a prologue and epilogue.  The prologue opens with gorgeous, soft black and white slow motion photography.  Willem Dafoe (whose character is only credited as “He”) and Charlotte Gainsbourg (She) are making love in the shower.  The scene is beautiful and silent and then von Trier cuts to a shot of unsimulated full penetration.  At which point a quiet giggle spreads through the audience – this is the shocking cinema we have come to see.  The rest of the scene continues without any more shocking elements, although the content is tragic.  As He and She make love their toddler son escapes from his cradle, manages to get up to a window and falls to his death.
Which brings us to Chapter one.  I will not go through the next bunch of chapters in any detail, because that would be pretty boring.  Needless to say, when your kid dies because you were too busy with your orgasm to notice he was playing in the window, there is an element of guilt associated with that and She does not deal with it very well.  Other than the couple seconds of unsimulated sex right at the beginning, the first three quarters of the movie are not particularly strange.  It is a powerful, artsy drama about dealing with guilt and fear and what that does to a relationship.  In his arrogance as a psychotherapist He decides to ignore common sense and ethics and treat his wife for her depression, eventually deciding to take her to their cabin in the woods to confront her debilitating fear of nature.  And we all know that is going to go good places.
The movie is a little strange at this point, with weird shots of a deer giving birth to a dead fawn and a fox disemboweling itself before looking at He and saying “Chaos reigns”.  She is using sex to distract herself from her pain, but starts to get weird about the entire thing and wants him to hurt her during intercourse.  Some of those scenes can be pretty uncomfortable and the audience started reacting with uncomfortable laughter and fidgeting.
The previous summer She had gone to the cabin with their child to work on her thesis (called Gynocide, about the perception of women as “evil” throughout history) and that was when she first became afraid of the place.  Now she is saying things like “Nature is Satan’s church”.  Ominous.  The movie manages to keep you on your toes the whole time and takes an interesting turn when She appears to be getting better and He starts to lose it a little.  But still I found myself wondering why people would ever walk out of the movie.  It was almost done and nothing too crazy had happened yet, so those people must just have weak stomachs.  Then He reads the coroner’s report and the shit hits the fan.
Turns out she started going crazy the previous summer and tried to hobble their child by putting his boots on the wrong feet, causing slight deformities.  When he realizes this She freaks out that he will leave her and starts attacking him, although this quickly turns to sex.  The she crushes his nuts with a log, rendering him unconscious, and proceeds to continue masturbating him until he ejaculates blood.  And then the movie gets crazy.
It is at this point that what was a tense psychological drama becomes a flat out horror movie, and a very good one at that.  It is as though Lars von Trier saw Hostel and said “You think that’s fucked up?  Let me show you kiddies how this is done”.  I have seen some awful things happen to penises in movies, and really it is hard to imagine anything worse or more painful.  Unless you are Lars von Trier.  You know what I haven’t seen in a movie?  A close-up of an actresses clitoris.  You know what else I haven’t seen?  A close-up of said clitoris being removed with rusty scissors.  Yeah.  What better way to show someone’s demented state than to have her circumcise herself with rusty scissors?
So, as it turns out, that is what it takes to shock Roz and me.  One of the most interesting parts of the entire experience was watching the changes in the audience and ourselves throughout the course of the movie.  At the beginning people are excited and curious, eating their popcorn and sitting up straight.  But as the movie goes on people sink further and further into their seats and the sounds of snacking cease.  By the final scenes you can actually feel the discomfort in the theatre and hear people squirming awkwardly and events play out onscreen.  By the end of the movie everybody, including Roz and me, has sunk as far into their seats as they can and are huddled close to the people they are sitting with.  As the theatre lights come back on there are no more sounds of merriment or excitement.  People file out of the theatre in silence.  Well, except for Roz and I.  We cannot help but laugh out loud at our naivete and cockiness going in to this movie.  “Shock us!”, we said.  Congratulations, Mr. von Trier, you truly are a master provocateur.

WTF+

originally posted May 3, 2010

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Kick-Ass

Summary:  Dave Lizewski decides to try being a superhero, calling himself Kick-Ass.  Unfortunately he has no powers or skills and ends up pissing off a local crime-boss.  He teams up with 11 year-old Hit Girl and her father, Big Daddy.  Some serious shit goes down.

I really have to learn to stop doing this to myself.  If you are a geek you have probably been hearing about Kick-Ass for a while now.  It was damn near impossible to avoid it if you frequent any movie/geek themed websites and they have been building the hype for months.  People saw it at Comic Con and raved. “It’s so vulgar and violent” they’d say,  “People won’t know what hit them”.  And then the trailers came out.  And damn did they ever look good.  And then the Red-Band trailers.  Holy Crap!  The movie looked even better!  Is that an 11 year-old girl calling people cunts and making some guy blow his own head off by spearing him in the hand with some rope-dart thingy and wrapping it around his head?! You’d better believe it is!  So, needless to say, I got excited.  I had all these expectations for a sweet looking ultraviolent movie that was going to knock my socks off.  I got in line early on opening night (after having some wisdom teeth pulled – yeah I’m hardcore.  I couldn’t even eat popcorn or use a straw) and waited with baited breath for the movie to begin.  And it was good.  But that’s it.

I think what I was most disappointed by was the violence.  Before I continue, let me make it clear that this is an exceedingly violent movie – I’m guessing Johnny-on-the-street probably hasn’t seen many movies that are so gleefully violent.  But that said, I was still underwhelmed.  Maybe Roz and I have just done too much damage to our brains by subjecting them to things like Tokyo Gore Police, but I don’t think that is all it is.  I think Kill Bill Vol. 1 was way more over-the-top violent and gory and that was seen by many people.  Even Watchmen was more violent.  Perhaps not as many people died (the body count in Kick-Ass is definitely respectable, even if its showpiece is no Showdown at the House of Blue Leaves), but Watchmen slowed down the violence and lingered on it.  Someone’s arm breaks in slow motion, bones popping through the skin; someone is blown apart and part of their skeleton is hanging from the ceiling; a silhouetted Rorschach goes to town on someone’s skull with a cleaver.  But the pacing of the fights in Kick-Ass is so fast that there is no time for anything like that.  Overall, this makes for some pretty sweet, fast-paced awesomeness, but often it feels like it is over too soon and you didn’t really see anything.  But that’s just me (and Roz).  I’m sure most people will be suitably impressed by the violence in Kick-Ass.

So you are probably thinking to yourself that that is not much of a flaw (some of you may think it is a strength), but that is by no means the only problem I have with Kick-Ass.  However, first I’d like to tell you what was awesome, because this movie really is a whole lot of cinematic good times.  I was very impressed by the acting of everyone involved, although Aaron Johnson and Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass and Hit Girl, respectively) particularly stand out.  Even Nicolas Cage is quite good as Big Daddy.  The comedic timing of the friends was excellent, which is very important because this movie had a lot more comedy than I expected.  And overall, the pacing was great, with the story zipping along and never giving you the chance to get bored.

However, I was surprised at the lack of style in the movie.  Many people have lamented the dominance of style over substance and directors like Zach Snyder, and even Quentin Tarantino, have been strongly criticized for this.  But the fact remains that a precedent has been set for this type of movie and it extends much farther back in cinema history than old Q.T.  The most egregious example of the disappointing style in Kick-Ass is in the music.  Nobody can deny the importance of music in film, but I think in these sorts of violent, but not gritty, movies music plays an especially big role.  Think back on old mainstream movies that were considered very violent in their time.  Things like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly or A Clockwork Orange (you don’t need to go much farther back than that, I’m not going to talk about any pre-Hays Code stuff, because I don’t know anything about it).  Sergio Leone and Stanley Kubrick were both masters at the art of putting music to film and this tradition has continued with directors like Tarantino and Snyder.  

Think of your favourite scenes from almost any of their movies and you can be sure that the music will play an integral part of that memory.  The violence in these movies is approached almost like a ballet and so the music is always well thought out and the scenes are planned around it.  Tarantino goes so far as to actually choose the music while he is first writing the screenplay, if not beforehand.  So this has trained us to have certain expectations.  Unfortunately the music in Kick-Ass feels almost like an afterthought and seems to start and end jarringly in scenes.  I also found that they kept using the same music as the trailer and it kind of pulled me out of the movie.  I’m not going to describe anything in detail because that would involve spoilers, but it is something that both Roz and I commented on when the credits stopped rolling.

On the whole, Kick-Ass is tons of fun.  It does a great job at playing around with the tropes of superhero/comic book movies, positing what it would actually be like for someone to decide to put on a costume and fight crime (either they’d get fucked up or they’d be psychos).  I say that Kick-Ass is well worth your time and encourage you to head out to your local Cineplex and have a grand time.

B

originally posted Apr. 20, 2010

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Cannibal Girls

Summary: A recently married couple (Eugene Levy and Andrea Martin) head to a small town in Ontario for a weekend vacation.  The locals tell them the story of a house of cannibal women, which may not only be a legend…. Dun, dun, DUN!

            So I didn’t really know what to expect when I went in to this movie.  I mean, a comedic horror movie from the director of Ghostbusters, starring a young Eugene Levy and Andrea Martin.  That has to have promise, right?  That said, who’s ever heard of this movie, given the names involved?  That doesn’t bode well.  It turns out there was not much to fear, although there is also nothing to be excited about.  The movie definitely has a couple laughs, but on the whole it is a lot less funny than I hoped for.  Fortunately, this is by design (I think).  Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t really work either as a comedy or as a horror.  It has some laughs and a whole load of creepy moments, but they fit together a bit awkwardly and it is difficult to get a good idea of how you are supposed to feel.  I think the funniest thing in the entire movie is Eugene Levy’s hair.  Roz giggled every time he was on screen.  I can’t think of a time when I have seen such a huge fro and mutton chops.  The only word for it was “spectacular”.  Anyway, there is not really anything else to say about Cannibal Girls.  The CGs are hot, you get to see their boobs and a bunch of people die, although not in especially gory ways.  If you get the chance to see it in a theatre with a bunch of like-minded people (as we did) then it is worth checking out.  But don’t go out of your way to find it.

D

originally posted Apr. 20, 2010

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Tetro

Summary: Tetro is the story of Bennie (Alden Ehrenreich), who travels to Buenos Aires to find out why his older brother, Tetro (Vincent Gallo), left their family years ago.

Let me start off by saying that this is not the type of movie that I would normally review for the C Word.  It has no violence, to speak of (although there are some boobs and a borderline lesbian scene, but it is set in South America, and if stereotypes aren’t leading me astray, you can’t have a movie in South America without nudity).  That said, it is a really interesting movie that people have like not heard of.  Also, I haven’t written a review in a while and am feeling kind of guilty.
As I said, Tetro is the story of Bennie, who travels to Buenos Aires to find out why his older brother, Tetro, left their family years ago.  As one might expect, Tetro does not want to see him and there is more to the story than it first appears.  Ok, ok, we’ve all seen that story before.  But it turns out Francis has a pretty interesting take on it.  I found that I kept going back and forth between thinking I knew what was coming and then realizing that I was wrong then thinking I had it all figured out.
From an acting point of view the movie is pretty darn good.  Much of it is subtitled Spanish, and I can listen to that all day long.  Maribel Verdú does a great job as Gallo’s sort-of wife.  I did find myself getting distracted by the fact that Vincent Gallo looked and sounded like Willem Dafoe and Quentin Tarantino’s love child.  Also, Ehrenreich looked like a Hispanic Leonardo DiCaprio.  Weird.
As for the look of the movie, it is filmed in black and white with colour for any flashbacks or dreams.  I thought this was a pretty cool twist on the regular way of doing things, but then I learned he actually did this in Rumble Fish (1983).  Either way, I wasn’t actually that impressed with the look of the black and white.  I felt that it looked as though it was filmed in colour and digitally turned black and white instead of that great look that real old B&W movies have.  I can’t really put my finger on what is different, it just feels off.  Other than that one quibble, I thought Coppola and the cinematographer, Mihai Malaimare Jr., did a great job of capturing the beauty of Buenos Aires and Patagonia.  I definitely caught a bit of the South American travel bug (fortunately not the kind that keeps you in the bathroom for a couple days).
Final thoughts: It is nice to see Coppola is back on his game.  This is the first movie that he has both written and directed since 1974’s The Conversation (which I have not scene [shamefully] but I hear it is pretty fucking good).  Anyway, if you have a chance to catch this movie, I heartily recommend it.  It will help you forget some of the later crap movies he did (although I thought Dracula was actually pretty cool).  Ciao.

A

originally posted Jan. 25, 2010

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Rampage

Summary:  A seemingly normal 20-something is fed up with the state of the world and decides to do something about it: by mowing down everyone who stands in his way.

I know, I know.  Why would anyone watch an Uwe Boll movie?  Normally, that would be a completely valid question, but in this case he actually managed to make a good movie.  Some of you might be thinking that “good” for Uwe Boll is not exactly a high bar, but actually, it is justifiably good, not just good for Uwe Boll.  And considering that he both wrote and directed the movie, I can only assume it wasn’t even an accident.  It seems like an odd passion project, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

The start of the movie is a bit slow, with only flashes of violence from Bill’s mind (he’s our rampager).  Instead of hopping straight into the killing spree, Boll actually takes a while to establish who his character is and why he does what he does.  This is the movie’s greatest strength and what sets it above the type of movie you would expect it to be.  The exploration of why someone would go on a killing spree and the obsessive lengths he goes to in preparing made this movie interesting as opposed to just violence for violence’s sake.  Boll is certainly not trying to excuse this behaviour, nor is he even saying that Bill’s reasons are valid.  He is just showing that these people do have reasons for what they do, even if they are not acceptable or even understandable to us.

Once Bill starts his rampage the action does not let up, but it is not enjoyable.  I would be upset if I thought the movie was trying to make someone going on a killing spree of innocent people seem fun.  In fact, I’m not even a fan of the word “spree” in this context because a spree sounds like a good time, like a shopping spree or something.  That is not to say that there aren’t some humourous moments included – the bingo hall is great. Like Shakespeare, Boll realizes that some humour is necessary to relieve the tension that he is building and he does this effectively, but most of the laughs are somewhat uncomfortable due to their context.  (Side note – I can’t quite believe I just wrote a sentence comparing Uwe Boll and Shakespeare.  That must violate some sort of universal law… somewhere I just ripped a whole in the fabric of space-time.)

I also want to say that the planning that Bill puts in to the rampage really pays off from a plot point of view.  I won’t say anything more because I don’t want to spoil it, but it is surprisingly clever.

So yeah… go see this Uwe Boll movie… why is there a strange, glowing rift appearing in the air above my monitor… and tentacles!  Oh god, what have I done??!!?!?!?!!

C+

originally posted Oct. 25, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Lesbian Vampire Killers

Summary:  After getting dumped by his girlfriend, an underachieving Brit and is bawdy buddy decide to go on a hiking trip in rural England.  Unfortunately they get mixed up with a nest of lesbian vampires and a crazy vicar.

Ok, full disclosure: I expected this movie to suck.  Hard.  After the disaster that was Wicked Lake at last year’s Deadmonton Festival, I was sure this was going to be complete and utter crap.  So when I say it was fucking awesome, I suppose you have to take that with a grain of salt.  But still…. awesome.
The movie starts off with a brief backstory, letting us know that there was a lesbian vampire queen Carmilla who was killed by a baron because she started nailing his wife while he was off at the crusades.  So he creates a big magic sword to kill her, but she casts a curse on the village that on their 18th birthday, all its women will turn in to lesbian vampires.  Best… curse… ever.
Jump to the present: Jimmy (Matthew Horne) is getting dumped (sorry, not dumped, she just needs some space - in which to fit some studly dudes) for what seems to be the billionth time.  We then cut to his buddy getting fired from his clown job (for punching kids – he just hates them).  So the two get together at their favourite little public house to get smashed and commiserate.  Long story short, they end up in rural Norfolk with a bunch of Swedish (?) babe stereotypes in a little cabin.  SPOILERS!  But they are sacrifices!!! Dun… dun… DUUNNN!!!!
So lesbian vampires show up and start feasting on the babes.  I don’t need to go in to the rest of the movie.  Hijinx ensues.
And hijinx is where this movie excels.  The humour is stupid and juvenile, but that doesn’t make it any less funny.  Jimmy’s best friend Fletch (James Corden) is great.  He is your standard horny sidekick and does a great job.  Bummed by a gay werewolf.  Teeheehee.  Jimmy is the geek who gets the nerdy Swedish babe and saves the day.
You know the problem with this movie?  Not enough T’n’A.  When you call your movie Lesbian Vampire Killers there are certain expectations that need to be met.  Specifically, lesbian vampire action.  You don’t even see vampire chicks making out with tongue until the last 15 minutes of the movie.  That’s bull shit.

B-

originally posted Oct. 25, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Zombieland

Summary:  The zombie apocalypse has occurred and all you need to do to survive is follow the rules.  Obsessively.  And Purel helps. SPOILERS!

How do you spell awesome?  If you guessed Z-O-M-B-I-E-L-A-N-D you would be dead wrong. It’s right there in the first sentence dummy.  Zombieland is so much more than awesome, there are not even words to describe it; I lurve it.
I went in to Zombieland with some pretty high expectations and right off the bat I knew it would deliver.  The opening scene where Columbus sets out his rules for survival in the zombie apocalypse is awesome and sets up the comedic aspects of  the movie perfectly.  This is followed by the opening credits, which are set to people being graphically killed by zombies in slow motion with the rules appearing to point out their errors.  Highlights: woman neglects to wear seatbelt and flies through the window of her car, leaving a smear of blood as her face drags across the ground, and zombie stripper tassels.  So that sets up the gruesome violence/comedy blend.  Excellent.
At this point we get to learn about Columbus’ background.  It turns out he was quite the socially challenged geek, spending most of his time avoiding people and playing World of Warcraft.  Three cheers for WoWers!  We have plenty of experience slaughtering the undead.  Columbus is able to make his way through the world alone and eventually meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a zombie killing redneck.  Best. Character. Ever. Well, at least in zombie movies.  I suppose Charles Foster Kane is pretty good too.  But he’d be better if he killed zombies with banjos.  Tallahassee is the heart and soul of Zombieland – hilarious and brutal.
Moving on to the other characters: Wichita and Little Rock are sisters specializing in con jobs.  After getting the best of Tallahassee and Columbus an embarrassing number of times, they pretty much decide to team up and head to an amusement park in LA.  The middle section of the movie is pretty light on zombie kills, but the ones you get are doozies and the humour keeps you going.  When they get to LA the viewer is treated to one of, if not the, best cameo of all time.  I won’t say anything more, but it is awesome.
On the whole, it was the comedy that impressed me the most.  I expected the movie to be funny mostly based on silly gore and zombie kills, but it was genuinely funny with genuinely witty, well-written dialogue.  Who’d have guessed?  Jesse Eisenberg’s role, unfortunately seems like it was written for Michael Cera, and at times is almost a Michael Cera impression.  However, Eisenberg is still awesome and probably a better choice (I like Michael Cera but I’m not sure about his actual acting chops, whereas Eisenberg proved himself in Adventureland).  At the time I had a criticism that I wanted to write about, but I no longer remember what it was, so it clearly was not important.  Final though: get your ass to the theatre and check this out.

A+

originally posted Oct. 6, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Strigoi

Summary:  A young man returns home to a small Romanian town only to discover that a number of people have died under mysterious circumstances and seem to have come back for revenge.

Vampires seem to be all the rage these days (this is the second I’ve seen at the Edmonton International Film Festival alone).  Amidst the current glut of vampire media it is difficult to do something original and stand out.  Some people rely on sparkles and abstinence (how that worked out so well I’ll never know), some rely on excessive sex and intrigue (this is pretty standard, but Sookie, you did take it up a notch), some rely on style (see my Sodium Babies review) and some rely on humour and obscure interpretation of myth.  Welcome to Strigoi.
Although the movie is from the UK, it is set in Romania to give it that creepy gypsy authenticity and is surprisingly funny.  I was not really sure what to expect when we sat down (I neglected to actually watch the trailer) and I figured it would be funny, but it turns out not to be a horror movie at all.  The vampires are quite unlike the vamps we know and love.  Honestly, I found them to be more like zombies that can only go out at night.  They don’t just eat blood, it seems to be a last resort when they run out of other food (the compulsive gluttony is pretty inconsistent too) and there are also “living vampires”.  As far as I can tell that is just a dude that drinks blood.  It is not clear whether they require blood or are immortal, or what.  Anyway, it does not really matter.  What matters is whether the movie is entertaining or not and for the most part it is.
I found the last 20 minutes or so to drag bit and I never did figure out if the main mystery was resolved, but it was not nearly as baffling as the ending of Sodium Babies.

B

originally posted Oct. 6, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

William Shatner's Gonzo Ballet

Summary: A documentary about the making of a ballet based on William Shatner and Ben Folds’ album “Has Been”.

I was not really sure what to expect going in to this.  How, exactly, do you make a ballet out of a spoken word album, even if the music is by Ben Folds (who has brought us hits such as “Brick” and “Rockin’ the Suburbs”)?  Turns out, without too much difficulty.  This documentary consists of footage of the ballet with interviews of William Shatner, Margo Sappington and various other people interspersed.  The interviews with people involved on the ballet side of this production were the least interesting portions of the movie, IMHO.  Mostly it was just a group of people all agreeing that their immediate response, upon being told about a ballet to a William Shatner album, was “That sounds great!”.  Really?  Nobody had any doubts?  I find that a bit hard to believe.  I guess those people probably were just not interviewed, but I would have liked someone to say “I thought this was a stupid idea.  Who wants to watch people dance to William Shatner?”.
The most interesting parts (aside from footage of the actual ballet, which was very cool – I enjoyed that all the costumes are in very TOS colours) were the interviews with William Shatner.  He speaks on a wide range of subjects including general ballet, love and other themes of the music, his past, his previous albums and other poor decisions, and the making of “Has Been”.  The only problem is that no matter what Shatner is talking about it comes off as hilarious and slightly pompous.  And that is too bad because, while it makes for entertaining viewing, he actually has some very interesting insight and poignant stories.  That said, I’m pretty sure that is what we all love about Shatner and he delivers in spades.  The song “Familiar Love” is particularly tender and humourous (intentionally).  “I Can’t Get Behind That” is also hilarious and features Henry Rollins in a shouting match with Shatner.  I found it odd that they only introduced Rollins as a contemporary spoken word artist without mentioning his past as the lead singer for the hardcore punk band Black Flag.  It would have emphasized the strange juxtaposition of Rollins and Shatner.  But that is just nitpicking.  The interviews with Rollins and Ben Folds regarding the making of the album are also excellent.  Even if you are unfamiliar with Shatner and Star Trek, I recommend checking this documentary out.  William Shatner FTW.

A

originally posted Oct. 6, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Sodium Babies

Summary: Your guess is as good as mine.  There are vampires involved.

This movie is all about style.  That is how it is advertised and on that front it certainly delivers.  This is probably the most stylish movie I have seen in a long time and that is both its strongest point and biggest flaw.  What makes it strong is that it is really fucking cool.  It flashes back and forth between surreal flashbacks (maybe?) and hallucinations (definitely).  I guess almost the entire movie is a flashback, but within that there are other flashbacks that may or may not be real.  Some of the transitions between scenes are done comic book style, with the picture switching to a hand drawn look and narration written in text blocks (this is actually just kind of a rip-off of the Max Payne video games).  Unfortunately, these transitions are not consistent and so it usually is kind of jarring and pulled me out of the movie even as I was thinking “that is fucking cool”.  And that is pretty much the story of the movie.  Some movies are style over substance, and I can respect that, as long as there is still some substance and the style doesn’t interfere with the it.  With Sodium Babies there is just so much style that I could not even tell if there was substance to interfere with.  My feelings at the end of the movie can best be summed up as “Guh?”.
There is not much in the way of a story to talk about, or at least I don’t think there is, so I won’t even really try.  Probably the coolest and most original thing in the movie is the idea of ghouls – people who are not quite vampires but are no longer human and can serve as slaves to the vampires.  In this movie when you are fed (or injected) with the blood of a vampire you cease aging and become exceptionally strong but can still walk in the daylight, so ghouls are used to bring food to the vampires.  There are really only two vampires in this vampire movie and they seem to be mortal enemies.  The main character, Dead Dog, is a servant of The Prince, but really we only see his immediate superior, another ghoul named Max.  Max is easily the most entertaining character in the movie and is just insane and has some sweet disco moves.  I think my favourite scene is a hallucination where Dead Dog is on a game show hosted by Max… don’t even ask.  So anyway, The Prince’s mortal enemy is The Duke, whom he has expelled from their little vampire clique.  All of this leads to a climax that doesn’t really make sense and is mostly lacking in gore.
All in all, I was kind of disappointed in this movie.  Lately the French have been making a good show of cinematic insanity that gives the Japanese a run for their crazy money and I was really hoping for something along the lines of Man Bites Dog or Baise Moi (maybe not that far, it is the only movie to date that I have turned off because it was just too much, and I sat through Tokyo Gore Police).  And while this movie delivered on the visual insanity it did not deliver on the uberviolence I had prepared myself for.  This is not always a bad thing, as evidenced by Inglourious Basterds, but that movie at least turned out to be a compelling story, not just a sloppy mélange of weird pictures and allusions to drug abuse.

C-

originally posted Oct. 6, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Sundown: The Vampire In Retreat

Summary:  After tiring of living in hiding, a mysterious elder vampire leads the remaining vampires to a small town in western United States where they are developing a blood substitute.  But not all the vampires are content….

Between True Blood and Twilight, it seems like these days everyone wants stories of vampires trying to fit in with humans and when I realized that was the premise of Sundown my immediate reaction was “Great, another one of these”.  But then I remembered that this is from 1990 (the poofy hair and pants that stop just below the boobs helped with that), so I think it can be forgiven.  If anything True Blood is just ripping off some lower-than-B-movie nobody has ever heard of.  And good for it, because at least someone is getting good mileage out of a great idea.
Although this is nowhere near the worst movie I have reviewed for you, my gentle readers (I still have nightmares of Alien Vs. Hunter), it does commit that most heinous of bad movie sins: it is kind of boring.  I know, it’s shocking.  How could you possibly make a boring revisionist vampire/western movie?  Well, they managed it.  As with AVH, much of the acting is bad but not so bad it’s good.  Fortunately, this movie has some ringers in it: Bruce Campbell and David Carradine.  They are really the only reason I watched this movie and they are definitely all that is worth watching.  Actually, there is also one of those actors you love but have no idea who they are – M. Emmet Walsh (Blade Runner, Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Arthur Dales on The X-Files).  It saddens me to say it, but Bruce Campbell is actually the worst of the three, although it is not his fault.  He is completely miscast as the great grandson of VanHelsing, a nerdy, bookish type with a cravat and terrible mustache.  I kept waiting for him to kick some ass, Ash style, but it just never happened.  Bruce does the best he can and is always fun to watch, but it is just not the role for him.  David Carradine owns his role as the head vampire, leading them to live in harmony with the humans.  That man can sell the absolute worst dialogue you can give him.  Alas for Bangkok.
For a vampire movie there is almost no gore.  The best that you get is M. Emmet Walsh backhanding a guy and knocking his head clean off.  All through the movie there is also a story (arguably the main story) about a human and his family’s dark past with one of the vampires, but I couldn’t really care less about that plotline.

C-

originally posted Sept. 7, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Doomsday

Summary:  A viral plague breaks out in Scotland, killing with massive loss of blood and pus, resulting in militarily enforced quarantine.  After 30 years a Kate Beckinsale lookalike (Rhona Mitra) is sent in to find a cure, only to discover a crazy Mad Max world.

I have to start off by saying that I did not expect much of this movie, so all opinions are coloured by low expectations.  That said, “Mad Max meets 28 Days Later” has the definite ring of potential.  If you like post-apocalyptic (check), goo-splattered (check), violence (check) with sexy, ass-kicking babes (big check), then you may want to check this out.  Oh yeah, Malcolm McDowell is in it too.  That in itself is almost enough reason to watch a movie.  As far as I’m concerned, if you can’t get Dennis Hopper as your bad guy, then Malcolm McDowell is the next best thing, so thumbs up casting director (although Dr. Bashir from DS9 as the prime minister is a bit odd).
So what is there to say about the movie itself?  Objectively speaking, there is nothing particularly special about the skill with which the movie is put together.  The directing is better than I expected and the editing is such that you can actually tell what is going on in a fight.  The acting is adequate.  Not much is asked for, but everyone delivers.  But I don’t think that is why you are reading this review or considering watching this movie.  We all want blood, don’t we?  And that is where this movie is a Viking.  On display, for your viewing pleasure, is an excellent array of severed limbs, decapitations, gaping wounds, blood and pus-filled boils, and even a body bursting like a water balloon, a la Planet Terror.  Now, all these things are not on the scale of something like Planet Terror, but there is a healthy volume of goo nonetheless.  I don’t want to spoil it for anyone, but about 2/3 of the way through there is even a WTF moment, worthy of our podcast (Ep. 7).  I think you will all be pleased.
The one thing this movie doesn’t have going for it is nudity (although that might be a plus for the ladies out there).  Not even side-boob.  I’m afraid I can’t really take this movie completely seriously without at least some skin.  I’d even be happy with male nudity (well, not happy… content and satisfied are poor choices too… well, I think you know what I mean).  A proper B-movie should have gratuitous violence AND gratuitous nudity.  I guess Evil Dead has no nudity, but it has tree-rape, so that more than makes up for it.  But I digress, and I really should finish this up.

Overall, this movie is a good time and I recommend giving it a try.  It doesn’t live up to either of the movies it melds, but it leaves the viewer satisfied and just a touch nauseated.  And isn’t that what entertainment is all about?

C+

originally posted July 9, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Saw (1 - 5)

Summary: Psycho named Jigsaw thinks he is teaching people to value life by playing games with them where he puts them in a trap and challenges them to get out.  Some of the most stomach churning violence ever filmed ensues.

I resisted seeing Saw for a long time, but was always kind of curious about the first movie at least.  You might say that I see-sawed about whether I should see Saw, but recently I finally saw Saw.  Ok, those jokes are done now, I just had to get them out of the way.  Moving on, I had always heard that the first Saw was actually quite interesting and not nearly as stupid as it looked.  And I would have to agree.  Admittedly it is not a very high bar to jump as it looks pretty damn stupid, but it surpassed my expectations quite a bit.  Lacking any sort of real budget the filmmakers had to really pick and choose where they would spend their money and it made for a movie more focused on the psychology of torture rather than on the gruesomeness itself.  While watching Saw 1 I felt as though it really wanted to be Seven.  It is not as smart or well made as Seven, but there was still enough meat to it to bring it above the level of torture porn.  This cannot be said for the next four movies.  The basic idea behind the first movie is that a serial killer, Jigsaw, captures people whom he believes have been wasting their lives and puts them in traps where they can survive if they want it bad enough and are willing to make extreme choices, which usually involve incredible amounts of pain.  In the first movie, this is often psychological pain, which while not as gross as some of the physical torture involved, are really much more disturbing.  Being forced to slowly kill people to keep yourself alive is really much worse than simply having to cut your foot off.
I said that this was the basic idea behind the first movie because, although Jigsaw is ostensibly doing things for the same reason, the filmmakers have forgotten that throughout the next 4 movies.  Once they got a budget the movies became all about “What is the grossest thing we could possibly show the audience?”, and boy do they come up with some doozies.  THERE WILL BE SPOILERS APLENTY FROM THIS POINT FORWARD.  To me, the worst is the pit of needles in Saw II, but the bone splinterer in Saw III is pretty awful too.  By Saws IV and V the traps are actually starting to get kind of boring and the plots are just too ridiculous be scary.  In the second movie we learn that Jigsaw has an apprentice, who plays a major role in the third movie.  At the end of the third movie everybody dies, including both Jigsaw and his apprentice (and in a definite, no coming back kind of way).  So how are there two more movies, we all wondered (I saw these over the course of two marathons with Roz and some friends)?  Well, apparently Jigsaw left a whole bunch of tapes around and had ANOTHER apprentice we knew nothing about who is also a cop!  And it turns out the third movie starts at the end, so even though you see Jigsaw on an autopsy table with his brains in a pan, the movie can continue as normal.  But you don’t learn this until the end of the movie, at which point you are kind of pissed, because that was a cheap, albeit effective, plot twist.  And it perfectly sets up the fifth movie, which is the worst of the bunch, and that is saying something.  I don’t even really want to talk about it much other than to say it is the most derivative of the bunch.  The traps are not even that creative.  One is ripped off of The Pit and the Pendulum, and one is ripped off of a Radiohead video.  The best part is the special features, where they go on and on about how awesome the traps are and who thought of them, but no mention of Poe anywhere.  They also go on about how clever they are for constructing a helmet that fills with water and can be drained quickly for safety.  Yeah, you guys are really clever, oh wait, it was done 12 years ago in a Radiohead video.  I used to wonder who enjoys these movies enough to pay and see them, but since watching the special features I mostly wonder about the people making them.  The director of Saw V talked about designing traps with his 9 year old kid.  That’s kind of sick.  Whatever.  There is not much else to say about these.  I’d say the best part about watching them is watching your friends cringe at the traps, the movies themselves don’t offer too much else.  That said, I’m sure I’ll rent Saw IV when it comes out – I’ve already wasted this much time with it, I might as well keep going.

Saw C+, Saw 2 - 5 D

originally posted  Mar. 29, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Pontypool

Summary: A strange viral outbreak hits the rural Ontario town of Pontypool, as witnessed by Grant Mazzy, a local radio personality.  I don’t really want to say more than that.  It is weird.

So this review will be difficult to write as I don’t really want to give anything away and feel that the best way to see this movie is to just walk in knowing next to nothing.  Roz and I got tickets to a screening of it through a local radio station (kind of funny when you actually see the movie) and didn’t really know what to expect other than a friend of mine from Toronto telling me about it last fall when it played at the Toronto International Film Festival.  So if you want the best viewing experience know that it is kind of a zombie movie, stop reading this and go find a theater where it is playing.
For those of you who are still here, I will do my best to avoid anything even resembling a spoiler.  The first thing you should know is that this is a Canadian movie (fairly obvious considering it is set in rural Ontario).  If you are unfamiliar with Canadian movies, they are weird.  They also revel in taking something established (like a zombie movie) and just walking off in a new direction, preferably into a blinding snowstorm.  So the movie starts with the main character driving to work on Valentine’s day in a snowstorm.  Business as usual.  As the morning continues there are reports of strange crowds of people and rioting.  The all hell breaks loose.  But you never see it, and that is where this movie diverges and where its greatest strength lies.  For a zombie movie, there is almost no gore (although there is a little bit and of course there is the requisite shot of many hands pressed against a frosted glass window – you do need to know it is a zombie movie after all) and the entire thing takes place in a basement.  Most of the typical zombies scenes are recounted over the air by the field reporter and you just watch Grant, his producer and the assistant react to the news.  It might sound boring, but I have rarely been so tense watching a horror movie.  With nothing else to go on the actors have to be at the top of their game and they do a great job, especially Stephen McHattie, who plays Grant Mazzy.  There is not really anything else for me to say that won’t give stuff away so I will just finish by saying that if you are looking for an uber-gore-zombie-kill-fest, look elsewhere, but if you want a tense, edge-of-your-seat drama that happens to include zombies this is your movie, baby.

B+

originally posted Mar. 18, 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Plan 9 From Outer Space

Summary: Umm, some aliens are upset about being snubbed by earth and decide to preemptively destroy humanity before we discovered some ultimate bomb that will start a chain reaction destroying the universe.  This will be accomplished, somehow, by Plan 9: raising the dead one by one to make an army that will march on Washington.

“Future events such as these will affect you in the future.” – Narrator

So I came to the Plan 9 party a bit late.  Last night was the first time I’ve watched Plan 9 and it is the only Ed Wood movie I’ve seen (most of my experience with Ed Wood comes from the Tim Burton movie, which I also have not seen).  Needless to say, I have heard many stories of “The Worst Movie Ever Made” and had some pretty high expectations of crap.  And I was only kind of disappointed.  To be sure, it is a really shitty movie with the worst production values I have ever seen, terrible acting (although I think the acting in Alien Apocalypse is worse), terrible writing (I think I can give it the honour of worst writing ever), and terrible directing (even Alien Vs. Hunter has marginally better directing – at least it attempts continuity).  But I think I need to watch it again to really notice the more subtle awful touches.  I’ve heard that people knock over cardboard tombstones and point pistols at themselves, but I can’t say I noticed these things.  So let’s talk about what I did notice, because this movie is fucking funny.  First of all there is the writing, which doesn’t even attempt to make sense.  I think my favourite part of the quote above is that the narrator then goes on to talk about how the story is based on the testimony of survivors, implying that this happened in the past (although I think he is a psychic, so maybe he spoke to people from the future…. whatever).  He then goes on to narrate the movie by saying exactly what the characters are doing, like “the woman walked into the room and picked up the phone” as a woman walks into a room and picks up a phone (I don’t think this specific instance actually happened, but you get the idea).  Other logical inconsistencies include needing to invent a “language computer” to translate the alien messages but then just having English conversations when they meet.  As far as production values go, individual scenes will alternate between day and night from shot to shot and Ed Wood only managed to film a couple minutes of footage of Bela Lugosi before he died, so he just has someone walk around holding a cape over his face for all the other scenes.  I won’t even go into set design.
So why would anyone want to watch this?  Because through it all you can feel the passion of Ed Wood just wanting to get this movie made, come hell or high water.  Can’t afford a cockpit?  Just have two guys wear uniforms and sit in front of a shower curtain.  Can’t afford alien make up?  Screw it, give ‘em silk shirts and tights and call them aliens.  Can’t afford actors?  Just get some people from your church and tell them to read lines.  I actually find it kind of reassuring that a movie like this can get made.  I mean, if he can do it, why can’t I? Because I’m lazy, but that is beside the point.  Wait, what is my point?  I’m not really sure anymore, but when it comes down to it we all love to revel in someone else’s incompetence and this movie is nothing if not gloriously incompetent.

F- for quality
B- for hilarity

originally posted Mar. 8 , 2009

www.squirrelsofdoom.com