MY CALL: This movie is to exorcism movies what American Psycho is to slasher flicks—a well-done satire. Not as well-done as American Psycho, not by a long shot. But it’s a good satire. While scare-seekers will be disappointed, well-seasoned horror-goers should find this change of pace to be a fun ride. [B+] IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Duh…The Exorcist (1973).
Patrick Fabian is immediately likeable as a sensationalistic minister (Cotton) in this documentary-style horror. He is an exorcist who openly calls exorcism a scam and does not even believe in demonic possession, maybe not even in God. His son has a Novocain-y, cottonball-muffled voice which adds to the endearing set up that serves its purpose well as I begin to care about the protagonist and his family.
To prove his point before going legit, Cotton decides to have his camera crew follow him on one last exorcism job, which he picks randomly from an abundance of “save us” mail. His pick: Ivanwood, Texas. During the drive to the site of this last hoax he shares his observation that this poor, largely illiterate area is a breeding ground for the demons and superstition that fill the pockets of would-be exorcists. He is amused when he has the opportunity to support his point simply by chatting with some locals. It’s a bit mean to small-towners, but cutely done. Our exorcist is very charismatic and the movie has a foundation of humorous charm that keeps me grinning.
As we are introduced to our victem, a young girl named Nell from a shallow breeding pool, we are bombarded by nauseating innocence. Cotton asks to see the young girl’s room and he proceeds to “rig” it (unbeknownst to the victim and her family) like he’s a producer for an episode of Ghost Hunters. After performing a mock exorcism on the girl—with Cotton’s amusing behind-the-scenes commentary—he pockets what hard-earned cash her father managed to rustle up and leaves.
From this point on, the movie takes a more serious turn. Cue weird! Weird. But still not creepy or scary.
Despite the non-horrifying nature of this satirical horror, I’m gonna’ say see it anyway. The first half was REALLY well done in terms of developing a likeable antihero and the documentary within the movie was well-orchestrated. These two elements could not have worked without one another and their product was something noteworthy. The second half of the movie experimented with some things which, I think, blew up in the director’s face; especially the ending. But hey, perfect movies are rare.
Share this post:
MY CALL: Only die hard gore and horror anthology fans should even consider this schizophrenic mix of wildly inane short films. But I’ll bet you could make one Hell of a drinking game out of it! [C-/D+] IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Some other fun, decent and/or clever anthologies include (in order of release date): Black Sabbath (1963), Tales from the Crypt (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), Creepshow (1982), Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), Stephen King’s Cat’s Eye (1985), Creepshow 2 (1987), Tales from the Dark Side: The Movie (1990), Necronomicon: Book of the Dead (1993), Campfire Tales (1997), 3 Extremes (2004), Trick ‘r Treat (2007), Chillerama (2011), Little Deaths (2011), V/H/S (2012), The Theater Bizarre (2012) and The Profane Exhibit (2013).
This movie features a wide range of filming styles, varied and creative special effects, some nice use of slow-motion and all manner of gore. As a fan of gross-out gobs of gobbledy-gook horror and creative and/or funny and/or just plain awful twisted death scenes, I thought that this movie would NO MATTER WHAT be a big pleaser for the darker side of my soul. I was largely wrong.
Like a child’s ABC book, the film is comprised of 26 individual chapters, each helmed by a different director assigned a letter. Each director had total freedom to choose a word to create a story involving death; 26 directors from around the world have contributed all manner of random death clips.
I’m a huge fan of horror anthology movies. They get a little flack because they come from a range of writers, directors and production quality–but that’s what I like. It also makes horror shorts available to those of us who do not attend film school or genre-geared film fests (e.g., Fantastic Fest). If you don’t like a film in Creepshow (3 stories) you’d wait 20-30 minutes for the next story. With V/H/S (5 stories) one need wait only 15-20 minutes. However this has 26 stories, so you’d only have to wait what? Maybe 5 minutes? Sadly, because of generally low quality and uninspired shorts, you’ll find yourself waiting a lot.
For me the hands-down best short films were “D is for Dogfight”, “T is for Toilet”, and “X is for XXL.”
Below is an ABC guide to the shorts, their directors and their past work, a few components of the short and an occasional comment…
“A is for Apocalypse” by Nacho Vigalondo (Timecrimes, The Profane Exhibit)
Spanish language; dismemberment. This was not good. The violent gore was funny but brief. This was basically just a violent scene linked to nothing. Oh, and what apocalypse?
“B is for Bigfoot” by Adrián García Bogliano (Penumbra)
Spanish language; nudity. Awful on all accounts. This was basically about bad parenting folklore.
“C is for Cycle” by Ernesto Díaz Espinoza (Mandrill, Bring Me the Head of the Machine Gun Woman)
Spanish language. This one was senseless. Not good.
“D is for Dogfight” by Marcel Sarmiento (Deadgirl)
Well shot, largely in slow-motion. I really liked this one. They created a credible man-dogfight. Sort of a neat idea. And the filming and lighting–solid!
Goooood dog. Good dog. Nice pup.
“E is for Exterminate” by Angela Bettis (Roman)
Terrible CGI, terrible POV concept, terrible sound effects and music. This plays on a spider urban legend involving laying eggs “in” a human. Not played out well! Even the acting sucked ass.
“F is for Fart” by Noboru Iguchi (The Machine Girl, RoboGeisha, Mutant Girl Squad)
Japanese language; butt nudity. Disappointing. I normally like this director’s work. But this was a stupid, grossly perverted beyond standard exploitative means, lesbian sexualization (or fetishization) of deadly farts! That may sound funny, but it is not as funny as it should have been.
Super weird short film. Some love it, some hate it.
“G is for Gravity” by Andrew Traucki (The Reef, The Jungle)
POV. Random and I didn’t understand it really.
“H is for Hydro-Electric Diffusion” by Thomas Cappelen Malling (Norwegian Ninja)
Genital mutilation; semi-nudity (prosthetic); dog people; Nazi strippers. Extremely stupid, over the top ridiculous effects. But, when drunk, sufficiently entertaining on a WTF basis.
“I is for Ingrown” by Jorge Michel Grau (We Are What We Are)
Spanish language; vomit. Nothing to do with the title.
“J is for Jidai-geki” by Yudai Yamaguchi (Meatball Machine, Yakuza Weapon)
Japanese language; suicide; decapitation. Looney prosthetic effects–somewhat funny. The title means “samurai movie.”
“K is for Klutz” by Anders Morgenthaler (Echo)
Feces; toilet. Title makes no sense.
“L is for Libido” by Timo Tjahjanto (Macabre)
Full frontal female nudity; masturbation; semen; pedophilia; amputee fetishism; torture sex; vomit; mid-coital homicide.
“M is for Miscarriage” by Ti West (The Innkeepers, V/H/S)
Toilet; miscarriage. Pointless and hardly 60 sec!
“N is for Nuptials” by Banjong Pisanthanakun (Shutter)
Some foreign language (maybe Thai?). Stupid and sort of funny.
“O is for Orgasm” by Hélène Cattet (Amer) & Bruno Forzani (Amer)
Nudity. I have no clue what was going on here!
“P is for Pressure” by Simon Rumley (The Living and the Dead, Little Deaths)
Mascoticide. I honestly have no clue what I’m watching right now!
“Q is for Quack” by Adam Wingard (You’re Next, V/H/S)
Nudity. Funny reality thing.
“R is for Removed” by Srdjan Spasojevic (A Serbian Film)
VERY gory. I guess interesting. Made no sense.
“S is for Speed” by Jake West (Evil Aliens, Doghouse)
Injection; vomit. Grindhouse homage? VERY dumb. Maybe the worst dialogue of all the shorts.
“T is for Toilet” by Lee Hardcastle (claymation TV show Done in 60 seconds. With Clay)
Clay nudity. AMAZING clay gore.
“U is for Unearthed” by Ben Wheatley (Kill List)
Decapitation; POV; vampire. Shitty!
“V is for Vagitus” by Kaare Andrews (Altitude, Cabin Fever: Patient Zero)
Cool short film.
“W is for WTF?” by Jon Schnepp (Metalocalypse, The Venture Brothers)
Animated; nudity; decapitation; gory. WTF is right!
“X is for XXL” by Xavier Gens (Hitman, The Divide)
French language; utterly disgusting food binging; SERIOUS self-mutilation. I LOVED this one. Gory, brutal, a little tough to watch even. Sick! Simple. Understandable.
“Y is for Youngbuck” by Jason Eisener (Hobo with a Shotgun)
Decapitation; pedophilia. If you could mix homosexual pedophiliac’s dream with a deer hunter’s nightmare you might end up with this.
This image should reveal all of the inappropriate nature of this short film.
“Z is for Zetsumetsu” by Yoshihiro Nishimura (Tokyo Gore Police, Vampire Girl vs Frankenstein Girl, Helldriver)
Genital mutilation; ejaculation; rape; weaponized penis and vagina; full frontal female and male nudity; Nazi. Cool gore and filming and effects. The title means “extinction.”
Share this post:
Fat Kid Rules the World
Fat Kid Rules the World is the story of a fat kid, a teenage hustler and a drum kit. It is observant where many are not because it was directed by punk aficionado Matthew Lillard. If you were into any kind of punk music in the 90s you probably came across the fantastic film SLC Punk. The 1999 film is about 20 somethings in Salt Lake City who are trying to figure out what it is to be a punk. The movie hit me at the right time and made a lot of sense. You didn’t have to dress like a punk to be a punk. What exactly was a punk?
SLC Punk went a different direction in its punkness. Nothing was black and white. Fat Kid Rules the World is similar in that it features some really neat relationships and family dynamics. The best part of this film is the relationship of the core family. Billy Campbell gives one of the best performances of 2012 as a tough father who loves his kids. He is tough but always has their best interests in order. Campbell’s father is a revelation amongst cinematic fathers. The patience he has with his large teenage son feel real. The Billings are good people who are still reeling from the death of their wife/mother. The younger brother is a star athlete and the oldest boy is a sad sack who eats too much and contemplates suicide. His attempt at killing himself via bus crunch is foiled when a teenage musician/conman rescues him from death. The two should be terrible for each other but instead start a band and help each other out. The changes are not drastic and that makes them believable.
The story never goes where you think it is going to go. Lillard has a great way with characters. The punk scene in Fat Kid feels real and the people who inhabit it I’ve met before. They are not hardcore angry little brats. They are kids who hang outside the system and have their own problems. There is a DIY aspect that many of them flock to. The movie does have it’s oddities though. For instance, the fat kid has odd visions that accompany him everywhere. These madcaps moments feel out of place amongst the grounded story. I understand why they are in the film but it adds a level of disjointedness.
I liked this film because Lillard adapted a popular book into a nice little film. Characters come first and because of this the odd visions are excused. It will find an audience and I know kids will latch onto it. It is a strange little thing but it never felt fake. The problems feel real and not overly melodramatic. I loved how when the loner finally finds a hobby his dad goes out and buys him a drum kit. The only rule is no playing after 10 PM. In a day and age of buffoon parents and precocious kids it is nice to see a realistic family dynamic and a legitimate punk scene.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Dark Skies (2013)
MY CALL: Worse than expected until you find out who made this movie. Then, it’s better than expected! This is nothing like Signs (2002) and everything like Paranormal Activity (2007). This should probably be re-titled Extraterrestrial Activity. [eh, I give it a C] IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Just watch the movies this film was trying to be; Paranormal Activity 1 & 2 and Poltergeist.
The Barrett family–Lacy (Keri Russell; FX’s The Americans), Daniel (Josh Hamilton; J. Edgar), and their two young boys–is going through a tough time. Both self-employed parents are doing poorly, their mortgage is months past due, their older son (12-14 yrs old) is beginning to learn more about girls and has a best friend they disapprove of, and they have recently been having some issues with their home security.
Overnight, strange things–very strange things–begin happening around the house. Household objects are stacked impossibly high (an unsubtle nod to Paranormal Activity and, by extension, Poltergeist), their alarm system goes off with no sign of a security breach, very weird sleepwalking, unvaluable things noticeably disappearing, their five year old is producing some strange artwork, kamikaze bird migrations… and the list goes on with each event seeming senselessly random and persisting without any explanation…like, at all…throughout the whole movie.
Weird, and will take forever putting all that stuff away.
Weird, and she won’t buy alien possession as an excuse to why you weren’t answering her.
Weird, and just crusty-gross!
Weird…that you boarded up your home in the ‘burbs. Your neighbors must think you’re nuts!
Unfortunately most of the weird goings on in this movie are just that–weird things that “happen” that we happen to watch because someone shoved them into the movie. As a whole, they don’t do anything for the movie or serve a solid purpose. Well, okay they should have, but they were handled (i.e., directed) poorly. While a few of these events come with eerie and/or jump-scare value, overall they were unsatisfying.
After a few calls to the police answered by some quippy accusations aimed at their children, Daniel installs six security cameras inside the house. Again, an unsubtle nod to Paranormal Activity and, by extension, Poltergeist. These scenes were necessary and handled realistically, but came off as equal parts sort of funny and boring. Again, I approve of the screenwriting and disapprove of the direction.
An under-utilized J. K. Simmons role.
As their investigations lead to more questions than answers, they turn to an alien specialist (calmly underplayed by J. K. Simmons; Contraband, Young Adult) who explains their situation to them, what to do, what to expect, etcetera. I love Simmons, but this whole down-played, one-scene segment was much less effective than the exciting introduction of a paranormal investigation team (e.g., Insidious) or a medium (e.g., The Pact) into the house for the entire third act.
Moments like this were scary, jumpy and done well.
Originally I had very high expectations for this movie. But later, after seeing it, I learned that this movie was written and directed by Scott Stewart, the man responsible for Priest (2011; director) and Legion (2009; writer and director). Now, being sorely disappointed with the director’s past work, I am actually very impressed. This film was far from what I had hoped but it marks some serious development on the director’s part.
Now I’ve been ragging on this movie quite a bit. But some major things that are often done poorly in horror were done very well here. 1) For example, like Paranormal Activity 1 & 2 and Poltergeist, I really gave a damn about the Barrett family. I may not have been impressed with the weird events, but I was concerned about what they meant to Lacy and her sons. 2) The social reaction to crazy claims and weird events was thoughtfully approached to produce “real” reactions that worked well for the most part, especially when the parents are assessing consequences for their actions. 3) Most suspense-driven horror is exciting for a while and then crumbles when it comes to neatly ending the story. Not the case here. The finale was neither disappointing nor impressive, but it smacked of something…good writing! In fact, not only was the ending thoughtful and quietly paved throughout the story, but the whole story struck me as well-written–even though I felt the execution of the “weird events” hamstrung the overall quality of the film. Scott Stewart: great ideas, great writing, still working out the kinks as a director.
See this. It’s not bad; it’s just that extremely similar movies have been done much better. This makes for an entertaining watch and should make for a good, jumpy date movie on the couch. Don’t let my critical nature scare you away from this. The better points of the movie are hard to rave about in a review and you should see and judge it for yourself.
Share this post:
Wreck-it Ralph
Wreck-it Ralph is the story of a video game character who is tired of being the villain. He sleeps in a pile of bricks, is loathed by many and on the 30th anniversary of his game isn’t invited to the big celebratory bash. So, he sneaks out of his console, ends up in a bug killing first person shooter and gets stuck in a Mario Kart type game called Sugar Rush. Along the way he attends meetings at Bad Guys Anonymous, meets a sweet little bugger named Vanellope von Schweetz and inadvertently brings a violent bug spawning robot to a helpless game.
John C. Reilly is perfect as Ralph. There is an intelligence and sweetness in his voice that blend well his occasional outbursts of anger and frustration. His journey towards being a good guy is a blast of new school meets old school. It is inevitable that he will become a better man and loved my many. However, like most Disney films the story is more about the journey in an interesting world and less about the destination. I loved how film set up cool parameters to the video game world. For instance, characters can only die when outside their game, people can eat the Pac-Man cherries and Q*bert is homeless.
The journey involves Street Fighter’s Zangief talking about smooshing heads, ridiculous car chases and a diet cola volcano fueled by mentos saving the day. Reilly is joined by Sarah Silverman, Jane Lynch and Jack McBrayer who all bring unique life to their respective characters. The foursome band together to battle the cantankerous King Candy voiced by Alan Tudyk.
Disney was smart to make this film because it appeals to people of all ages and they will be able to sell a plethora of toys. People over 20 will recognize many of the retro video game characters while kids will love the visuals exploding in front of their eyes. Pixar created a world of toys coming to life and now Disney owns the video game world. The gamble paid off and it collected 430, 000, 000 worldwide and collected an impressive 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. The sequel is in the works and nerdy folks like myself are hoping for team ups featuring characters from Tron, Pitfall or NHLPA 93.
Share this post:
The Man With the Iron Fists (read John’s much more in depth review here) succeeds and fails because of it’s director/writer/star RZA. The dude creates a wonderful world full of violence and interesting characters but then makes it borderline incomprehensible by being WAY too stylish. RZA was seemingly given free reign to the castle and he used every piece of brick and mortar to assemble the film. Instead of him being a kid in a candy store he is a Kung-Fu fan mentored by Eli Roth in a blood and guts store. He gathered a plethora of action stars and martial artists and then attached them to wires, spun them around and edited the film like he chugged 17 Monster energy drinks while watching Crank 1 & 2.
The reason I’ve included this film into the BMT ranks is because of what it could have been. It could have been a fight fest for the ages. However, it becomes an incomprehensible mess where you give up on plot and hope for more iron fists punching people. When you have no idea what is happening in front of you it is hard to be entertained. RZA brings the violent boom and when he is punching out eyeballs it is evident that he lost site of the bigger picture. Punching eyeballs out is cool but when it is unearned and forced it is boring. Violence works in film when it is urgent and necessary. For instance, action classics like Die Hard and Predator put their heroes in danger and violence is the only alternative. It wasn’t totally glorified because it had to happen.
The big moment of iron fisting is anticlimactic because RZA swings wild/slow haymakers that pulverize foes who know Kung-Fu but not rudimentary blocking techniques. The film reminded me of The Dark Knight Rises where two highly trained ninjas engage in a combat that can only be described as a bar brawl. Why bring in accomplished San Shou face kicker Cung Le and never let him kick? Also, WWE wrestler Dave Bautista is convincing as a big fella but all he does is pick people up and throw them twenty feet away. The throw always allows the person to escape or get off more offense. Why not crunch them in a trap of HGH and iron?
Sidenote: The Raid: Redemption might have wrecked action films for me. The Raid is a balls out brawl fest that feels real and bone crunching. I don’t see any action films being it’s equal anytime soon.
Iron Fists doesn’t let the camera linger and instead focuses on the gallons of blood exploding everywhere. In this film blood sprays, drains, mists, coagulates, streams and bursts in every conceivable way. Every kill is an excuse for blood to flow. The only thing I understood about the film was that the dialogue was bad and hair was huge. Also, whenever Russell Crowe was in the film it seemed like he was in another movie called “Thailand adventures.”
I think the plot is about stolen gold and various killers who want the gold. There are double crosses, flashbacks and ninjas who crawl through dirt. Somewhere along the way dudes have iron bodies, Cung Le has permed ha, Lucy Liu is Lucy Liu and blow darts are a plot device. Also, the violence is shot incredibly close and doesn’t allow for anybody to know what is going on. I kept wishing they would place the camera in one spot and just allow the people to kick each other in the face.
Sidenote: The town hairstylist must make a lot of money. The hair steaks alone must cost thousands.
Also, While watching RZA I could only think about his cameo in Coffee and Cigarettes. In that film he pulls off the confused stupor necessary when talking to a caffeinated, paranoid and table waiting Bill Murray. Watching RZA sit next to Murray as he chugs coffee from a pot was far more entertaining then watching people spin around on wires and face kick people. RZA needs to cast Idris Elba or Anthony Mackie next time he wants to put his alter ego on screen.
RZA will make a good film. He knows how to create interesting worlds populated with cool characters. However, he needs to turn the style down to 10 and focus on telling a story without gimics. The bell and whistles are loud and distracting which take away from story and plot development. I’m stoked for The Man With Iron Fists sequel told with a smaller budget.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Howling VI: The Freaks (1991)
MY CALL: Since The Howling (1981), it seems that this franchise has forever lost its way along with its impact. Yet another subpar, stand alone non-sequel. Yuck! IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Well, if you’re in the market for a great werewolf movie that has a sense of humor, then see An American Werewolf in London (1981)–hands down the best werewolf movie ever made! Second best would be The Howling (1981), which takes itself quite seriously. Another fun one is Cursed (2005), which is loaded with clichés and honors many past horror flicks. If you want another utterly ridiculous werewolf movie, then move on to Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf (1985) and Howling 3: The Marsupials (1987). Howling V: The Rebirth (1989) was a better horror movie than parts 2, 3 or 4, but less entertaining that parts 2 or 3. But you should really avoid Howling IV: The Original Nightmare (1988) and The Howling Reborn (2011) unless you’re one of those totalists who need to see everything like me.
Ian, cursed with lycanthropy, wanders into a small town and is only welcomed by a local minister and his underage daughter who really likes him. During a date with this 17 year old, Ian bumps into a traveling carnival freak show run by a shady Brit named Harker (Bruce Payne; Warlock III: Armageddon, Highlander: Endgame), who seems to be some sort of warlock-vampire. He is meant to be menacing, but I’m really not feeling it. VILLAIN-FAIL!
This movie really drags. A lot of effort is made to build up the characters, but I came to this carnival for a horror flick, not a drama–more Killer Klowns from Outer Space than Water for Elephants. But a drama is more of what I got, and it is hardly carried by this D-list acting troupe. HORROR-FAIL!
He looks like a were-shaggy, hobo burn victim.
This werewolf turns out looking like a member of Twisted Sister during an overdose and shares too much I common with a bad horror vampire to be taken seriously. He looks like a bearded, long-haired reaper from Blade II or one of those baggy-eyed ghoul-vampires in Subspecies or Dusk ’til Dawn. Whatever the case, if this wasn’t a werewolf movie I ‘d probably need someone to explain to me what he was supposed to be. This make-up is neither good nor creative. Terrible transformation scene, terrible looking werewolf, awkward canine legs; WEREWOLF-FAIL!
A house cat versus a werewolf…yup, definitely not exciting.
Similarly bad is Harker’s vampire form make-up, which looks like a blackish purple, hairless demon with a big skull and crazy claws; VAMPIRE-FAIL! That’s right. This werewolf movie was so bad that it managed to shoehorn a “vampire-fail” in with all the other awful. This monster reminded me of the creeper from Jeepers Creepers crossed with Scott Speedman’s half-lycan/half-vampire from Underworld.
This British guy is actually scarier than…
This weird, monster, creeper, reaper, vampire, ghoul thing with the dumb look on its face.
Needless to say, there is no shortage of stupid in this movie. But have no fear. In the end, the freak show’s alligator boy recites an incantation he learned from the warlock vampire to turn Ian into a werewolf so that he could defeat the warlock vampire (with a stake to the throat) so that he could live happily ever after with the local minister’s underage daughter. WTFF!!!!!?????
An awful poster warning of an awful movie.
FRANCHISE/SEQUEL NOTE: I find no story-based connection between this, The Howling (1981; the best of the series), Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf (1985; random and hilarious), Howling 3: The Marsupials (1987; still a lot of weird fun) or Howling V: The Rebirth (1989). Howling IV: The Original Nightmare (1988) tried to remake the excellence of part one while being more true to the book and The Howling Reborn (2011) was a reboot with a contemporary spin.
Share this post:
Bunraku (2010), one of the coolest meta-movies on the market!
MY CALL: Revenge is an act of style—one that no Kill Bill fan should miss. If you are careful about your expectations, this meta-movie could be a great pick for you. [B+] IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: Kill Bill (2003), The Good The Bad and The Weird (2008), The Warrior’s Way (2010), Sin City (2005)…maybe even Sucker Punch (2011; which wasn’t good, but had some great scenes and ideas). SIDEBAR: I have no idea what the name of the movie means. If they mentioned it in the movie, I missed it, and I miss little in movies.
This appears to be another take on genre-crossing in a genre-style movie. Previous examples include the wildly successful Sin City movies, popular western splices like The Good The Bad and The Weird and The Warrior’s Way, and the stillborn Sucker Punch. But all these movies were well-advertised and wide theatrical releases (in Asia, at least, for The Good The Bad and The Weird). Should I approach this lack of advertising as a snake’s rattle and keep my expectations low? When I stumbled across this I thought “This movie features Josh Hartnett, Demi Moore, Ron Perlman, Gackt, Woody Harrelson (Game Change, The Hunger Games, Friends With Benefits) and Kevin McKidd (Brave), and I had never heard of it or saw a trailer. How does that happen? Is this a weird little gem waiting to be discovered, or an utter Sucker Punch tragedy?”
The opening credits are cleverly presented during an animated story background. The style was much like that of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One or Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. When moviemakers really care about a movie, they make an effort to have the opening credits “affect” the viewer somehow. Even if it’s only music over a black screen, moods are set and pace is foreshadowed. I’ve commented on the great opening credits of The Good The Bad and The Weird, and that movie was awesome. This made for a promising start.
In this perhaps futuristic world guns have somehow been banned, making way for a resurgence in swordsmanship and a feudal yakuza-esque gang culture. A young, Doc Holidayish brawler (Hartnett) and a swordless samurai team up to exact their revenge against the ruthless king of the hill, “The Woodsman” (Ron Perlman; Pacific Rim). To do so, they must kill their way through leagues of henchman and his nine right hand men, one of which is played by a sleek Kevin McKidd.
This film is VERY stylistic. The effects and music smack of Scott Pilgrim versus The World with comic book stylings of villainy and a storyline much like Kill Bill. The combat follows suit, with choreography focusing more on a dance-like technical precision than producing a realistic fight; more like theater than cinema. In fact, the set designers erected intentionally artificial-looking structures in order to unsubtly accent this feeling. Sets and wardrobe contain elements of the present, the future, the old west, and the early 1900s. Many theatrical devices are employed as well. All of this synergistically produces an other-worldly-meets-Broadway feel.
The style of this movie is rare and difficult to execute. The fights are fun, the scenes are clever, and (with the exception of Demi Moore’s role) the characters were interesting.
You should probably give this a shot.
Share this post:
Tai Chi Zero (2012), the dawn of a kung fu steam punk trilogy
MY CALL: This genre-melder opens an Asian kung fu adventure trilogy with strong elements of humor, Hong Kong theater stunts and a videogame feel. Anyone tired of “the same old…” whatever should give this a shot! IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Other genre-melders sharing some of these elements and a strong sense of style include Shinobi: Heart Under Blade (2005), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), The Man with the Iron Fists (2012), The Warrior’s Way (2010), Bunraku (2010) and Kung Fu Hustle (2004).
During a playful flashback, we learn that Lu Chan was born with a small horn-like growth on his head recognized by a kung fu master as the crown of three blossoms, prophesying that he will one day become a great kung fu master. This master adopts Lu Chan after the death of his mother (Shu Qi; The Eye 2, The Transporter).
This “freak” side of our hero makes little appearance in this film, part 1 of the Tai Chi Trilogy.
Years later we find the young Yang Lu Chan (action newcomer Yuan Xiaochao) on the battlefield. He seems to have a gentle soul. However, “the freak” (as he is called) is capable of becoming a demon-eyed, super-charged menace. Master Dong (Siu-Lung Leung; Kung Fu Hustle) warns Lu Chan that if he does not learn internal kung fu from Master Chen (Tony Leung Ka Fai; Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame), that he will soon deplete his inner energy and die. Not a fan of this prognosis, Lu Chan seeks Master Chen.
However, Master Chen refuses to teach his Chen style kung fu to an outsider–it’s actually a village law. As Lu Chan persists, he is thwarted by the Chen style-savvy locals often in funny fight scenes. In fact, humor is a major, frequent component in this kung fu adventure.
Lu Chan’s dedication earns him the admiration of many villagers, but it is when he helps save the village from a giant, steampunk, iron menace and teaming British soldiers that he earns acceptance by the villagers, and the love of one in particular.
There are strong, oddly-toned humorous elements in this stylistic genre-melder. Very dramatically scored, this movie is filmed beautifully and utilizes many unique, artistic effects, including a comicbook-style animated short mixed with live footage during the opening credits. The inclusion of stempunk elements and written captions identifying objects, landmarks, characters and techniques creates a strong fantasy videogame feel as well.
The fighting includes some well-timed slow-motion in the style of 300 as well as some classic overuse of wire stunts. Strong female characters capable of humor and handling themselves physically–but not at the expense of their emotional vulnerability or loving nature–contribute to a more positive tone as well, providing more of an adventure movie experience than a martial arts action movie.
This entire movie is about Lu Chan trying to learn Chen style kung fu and when the movie is over, he still hasn’t. During the credits we see a “preview” of sorts to Tai Chi Hero, the second movie of the Tai Chi trilogy, in which the British invasion on Master Chen’s village escalates.
So stay tuned for the next installment.
Share this post:
Side Effects (2013), a drug-induced, sensory-sensitive sensation
http://collider.com/stoker-poster-incredible-burt-wonderstone-poster/
MY CALL: This psychological crime mystery doesn’t leave its audience confused from overzealous efforts to be intelligent and twisty. This film is slow but constantly intriguing, followable and clever. A heavy, sensory watch. [A] IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Contagion (2011) and Haywire (2011), both of which are also heavy, well-scored Soderbergh hits.
http://sosreelthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/02/side-effects-2013-stills.html
“Frailty, thy name is woman.” [–Hamlet]
Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) haunts this film as the vacant Emily Taylor, the fragile wife of a convicted felon (Channing Tatum) who is just released from prison for insider trading. Assimilating to their normal life doesn’t come easy as while he is optimistic about their future, Emily becomes depressed and suicidal.
Initial attempts at medicating Emily’s condition come with harsh side effects until, based on her friend’s recovery, she suggests that psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Jude Law; Contagion, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows) prescribe Ablixa. Afterwards, their recent problems start to melt away until Emily exhibits a new side effect. This side effect spawns behavior which she doesn’t recall and that threatens the well being of her loved ones and Dr. Banks’ career. Her previous doctor (Catherine Zeta-Jones; Rock of Ages) shifts from helpful to accusing, matching the tides of Emily’s quivering psyche. But most intriguing is that, over the course of the story, as Emily’s condition improves Dr. Banks’ ethics and sanity are called into question!
http://sosreelthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/02/side-effects-2013-stills.html
Even hiding behind eyeglasses, a conservative ponytail and a powersuit, I still see that saucy minx under there! You’re not fooling anyone, Catherine Zeta-Jones.
As Martin, Channing Tatum (The Vow, Magic Mike, 21 Jump Street, Haywire, 10 Years) comes off as sweet, understanding and pragmatic. But because of his depressed wife’s passive nature, providing no resistance or demand of compromise, this pragmatism functions as subtly controlling. This serves the story perfectly because Martin is appropriately depicted as nice, but viewers will have conflicted feelings about what lies ahead for him.
http://blacksheepreviews.blogspot.com/2013/02/side-effects.html
A smart exchange of powerplays, frail vulnerability, betrayal and mystery kept me intrigued throughout and, while rather clearly guided by the actors, I didn’t feel like my hand was being held all from one reveal to the next as the audience learns bit by bit the truth behind Emily, Dr. Banks, and her “side effects.”
Clever camera work alternates its focus between the character of the foreground and the background–one never in focus without the other obscured, as if the audience’s eyes are overcoming an anesthetic blur. Further drugging the film’s viewers is the soft, but bleeding overexposed lighting, as if the viewers’ eyes were dilated and photosensitive.
Director Steven Soderbergh (Magic Mike, Contagion, Haywire) lands another winner with this sensory-sensitive, intoxicated film. Don’t miss this!
http://blacksheepreviews.blogspot.com/2013/02/side-effects.html
Movies, Films & Flix 
