MY CALL: This is a good film for those who like films whose content makes folks turn their heads, cringe, and walk out of movies. If you’re a Human Centipede fan, though, don’t expect a movie about a human centipede and let this sequel take you to a somewhat different land of moral paucity. I give this a thumbs up for gorehounds. IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: Movies from the Hostel(2005, 2007, 2011), Cube (1997, 2002, 2004) and Saw (2004-2010) series. In fact, if human centipedes are your style then maybe you should jump subgenres over to Tokyo Shock, a lunch box-budget, super gore porn, semi-exploitative style of movies that I introduce in my Beginner’s Guide to Tokyo Shock. Japanese flicks like Red Room (1999), Audition (1999), Strange Circus (2005) or the international collaboration 3 Extremes(2004) may be right your alley as well.
The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2010) really tried to test the limits of what Americans would sit through and claim to enjoy. It tackled some serious medical curiosities—chief amongst them being what happens when you staple someone’s mouth to someone else’s asshole? Can someone survive on a feces-only diet? And is it medically provable that it sucks the most to be the middle segment of a human centipede?
Our sequel begins precisely as the original ends. Except that in the sequel, the original is the “actual original movie” being watched by our new mad scientist. He is inordinately short, stout, balding, and has rather protruding eyes and cheeks; both child-like and off-putting. He makes an excellent sociopath. I won’t ruin the surprise, but Ashley Yennie (from First Sequence) makes a major appearance in this film and the way Martin encounters her is very funny.
When a dude with no lines invites you into his care–without using WORDS–you do NOT get in, ladies!!!
The First Sequence was told through the eyes of the victems, as most such stories would be. The Full Sequence tells the story through the eyes of our mentally retarded, obsessive amateur surgeon, Martin. Martin lives with his psychologically abusive (and rather demented) mother. He quietly tries to avoid her as he perpetually wheezes and sweats his way around the house. Working as a parking lot security attendant, Martin recruits centipede segments late at night. He doesn’t discriminate or target the weak; anyone will do. He’s also quite handy with a crowbar. You’ll wince.
Yeah, that’s a weird little guy.
Writer/director Tom Sixx had spoken some pretty strong words about how intense this sequel would be. He explained that part two would make part one look like the “my little pony” of human centipedes. Sixx did succeed at somehow making a very different-styled movie from the same idea with some interesting nuance, however I would contest that he completely failed at pushing the envelope and further testing our limits.
Sure, Martin is an awkwardly disturbing character—who never utters a word of dialogue, by the way—but the original dug its dirty fingernails into moral limits much more deeply. The First Sequence delivered the utter terror and rage of the victems when captured. Once assembled, the victems eyes, holding hands and muffled cries conveyed terror while also demonstrating their futile compassion for each other amidst this morally abject scenario. Again, I understand that First Sequence was told through their eyes and Full Sequence wasn’t. But what did Full Sequence give me instead? Other than a very cleverly architected and effective villain, nothing at all.
Despite this shortcoming and noting that I enjoyed the First Sequence, I very much enjoyed this movie. Martin is delightfully evil and somehow naively innocent at the same time. His obsessive mania for Tom Sixx’s First Sequence was a spiffy story device and his expressions of delight or frustration with his experiment made me recoil. The biggest flaw of this movie is that it’s really about Martin’s obsession and not his human centipede pet project. Fans of the first should be encouraged to watch this sequel, but do so expecting something quite different from a larger, more disturbingly macabre centipede. If you want that, then hang around for Human Centipede 3 (Final Sequence), which promises an irrationally long chain or patients linked by an irrational surgery.
Ah, Fantastic Fest. Perhaps the only place where the director and cast of this movie would be welcome–or even recognized.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: Hop
By: Megan Arnall
Mark almost missed his deadline for Bad Movie Tuesday because of this movie. He complained for a substantial amount of time while appealing to me to write this review…so, here I am. 🙂
We were pretty excited to watch Hop. We rented it just before Easter, thinking it would be a fun way to carry us into the holiday weekend. I had heard on a morning radio show that the movie was ‘cute’ and ‘an evening well spent.’ I mean, what is not to love about fluffy bunnies, dancing fat yellow chicks, Easter and candy factories? Hop looked like something right out of Cute Overload.
For the first five minutes (give or take), all of the previously mentioned evidence held true. Theeeeeeen things fell apart.
…
Now, we have reached the point of inflection in this BMT post…
I could spend several paragraphs detailing the numerous aspects where this movie fails
OR
I could give you a few alternative options that would result in you and any companions actually having a good night.
Since I am not a particularly negative person, I’m going with the latter.
My ‘Hop Alternative Viewing Materials’
1. Tin Tin– This movie is pure Spielberg genius. Every ‘animated’ could learn from this movie. The details that go in to the plot, graphics, voices and shot construction are just magical
2. Who Framed Roger Rabbit– Watch it with the kiddies? No. However this is a fine, example of how to integrate live action and animation.
3. Puss in Boots– THIS is how you do cute overload material in a creative way that is appealing to children and adults alike. Movie industry, take notes please.
4. The Muppets– Fun, nice, you actually like the characters…wow, that is a crazy concept, no? It may not be Earth-moving but it is inoffensive and happy.
5. Wall-E- Proof that you can make a movie with very little dialogue. (Mute bunnies anyone?)
6. Finding Nemo– This movie illustrates what I feel is a very important aspect of movie-making. The audience MUST care about what is going to happen at the end of the movie.
7. Space Jam– Because of Bill Murray….and I am a child of the 90’s…and that catchy theme song (you have it stuck in your head now, don’t you?)
8. Polar Express– A holiday ‘animated’ movie that remembers people still like to be taken on a mystical journey and awed by the movies they watch
Eight, that sounds like enough right? Also, no jelly bean pooping bunnies. I call that a win-win situation. Now, it is past my bed time and I have to get to work bright and early. Enjoy and you are welcome.
🙂
Share this post:
Lockout
I knew Lockout would be a fun unpretentious blast of dumb awesomeness. Check out what I wrote about it earlier this month.
The plot goes like this. Guy Pearce travels to space to rescue the president’s daughter from a maximum security space prison. The prison is inhabited with angry inmates who have woken up extra insane due to the side effects of a chemically induced stasis. The plot moves along so quickly there is no time for logic, gravity or monologues.
All you need to know is that Pearce kills many angry prisoners and makes it to space and back within 90 minutes. He does all of this on Lockout’s meager $20 million budget.
Guy Pearce is wonderful as the bulked up Snow. He is a wise cracking force of nature who excels at blowing stuff up. He delivers powerful headbutts, funny quips and more headbutts. For instance, right after Snow is informed of the space mission he randomly headbutts a guard into oblivion. What I love is that he levels the guard and nobody cares. It was almost expected that the random guard would get concussed.
Faster than you can say “Apollo 18″ Snow is inside the prison rescuing a bratty yet practical Maggie Grace. Grace becomes endearing because without her Snow couldn’t deliver his cheesy yet beautiful one liners.
Snow: The communications have been cut
Grace: Who did it?
Snow: The transmission fairy.
Snow to Grace: Here is an apple and a gun. Don’t talk to strangers. Shoot them.
When he inspects Maggie Grace’s gun wound he grimaces and says “Ew. Yuck!.”
Lockout is a movie that knows what it is. It is a lean, mean and dumb action machine that wants to entertain the masses. The critics missed the point and dogpiled the obvious gaps in logic. I can imagine an angry film critic sitting alone in a theater and saying “you can’t smoke in space!”
You cannot sit by yourself and watch this movie. Enjoy Lockout with others. Do not cheat yourself out of a fun time.
Lockout is not a good film. It is borderline incoherent and features the worst CGI I’ve seen in a theatrical release since Season of the Witch. However, you will have a good time watching this movie if you choose to turn off your brain and appreciate the Snow fight.
Share this post:
Into the Abyss: A Tale of Death, A Tale of Life
Werner Herzog (Grizzly Man, Cave of Forgotten Dreams) is a wonderful documentarian. He has the ability to polarize the masses like nobody else. I find his high brow German narration to be a soothing force of intelligence and pretension.
Into the Abyss features a laid back Herzog who simply films his subjects and asks intelligent questions meant to inspire conversation. The doc focuses on two men who committed a triple murder in Texas. Michael Perry is on death row and Jason Burkett is serving life in prison. The horrible murder happened because they wanted to drive a red Camaro.
Herzog lets the interviews flow and allows the viewer to make up their own minds about capital punishment. It is clear that Werner is against the death penalty. However, he lets the prisoners, priests, police, families and murder groupies speak. He asks tough questions but they are meant to establish a commentary of why these two men committed such evil.
Some of the most powerful moments feature Burkett’s father discussing his sons terrible upbringing. Delbert Burkett is the sole reason that his son did not get the death penalty. His moving testimonial saved his son and is surprisingly eloquent for a career criminal/drug addict.
What I love about this doc is that Herzog became curious about the case and took a small camera crew to film the interviews. He filmed each person only once. Each interview feels organic and not staged. This documentary is a stark contrast to the beautiful vistas of Grizzly Man, Cave of Forgotten Dreams and Encounters at the End of the World. Those docs featured wonderful vistas and eccentric characters. Into the Abyss is simple, inquisitive and mesmerizing.
Herzog is not searching for facts because it is clear that these two men are guilty. This is a documentary that is curious to learn more about the situation. Herzog never comes to a big sweeping realization. He only lets people say what they have to say. Some say more. Some say less. He doesn’t dig but we understand more about these characters by how much they share.
Watch this documentary. Learn that less is more in Herzog land. He captures a wonderful dialogue that is rarely accomplished in much grander cinematic works.
http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111109/REVIEWS/111109971/-1/RSS
Share this post:
Puss in Boots
Amy Biancolli of the Houston Chronicle sums this movie up perfectly:
“Puss in Boots prances along on three basic truths. One, cats are funny. Two, vain Spanish cats in high-heeled musketeer boots are even funnier. Lastly, booted, vain Spanish cats voiced by a breathy Antonio Banderas are flat-out hilarious.”
Puss in Boots was my favorite part of the Shrek series and the perfect candidate to get the Dreamworks treatment. He is wonderfully voiced by Antonio Banderas and the visual flair of this film is astounding. Also, the movie features Puss as a precocious baby.
Puss in Boots is a wonderful film full of hilarious moments and an inconsequential plot. The movie revolves around Puss reuniting with his former best friend/arch nemesis Humpty Dumpty to steal magical beans from Jack and Jill so they can find a plethora of golden eggs. They are joined by famous thief Kitty Soft Paws who can steal anything but can’t dodge a guitar.
The movie moves along at a brisk pace and features dance fights, spectacular action scenes and a cat who strategically says “oooooohhhhhhhh.”
The voice work is inspired as Zach Galifianakis (Humpty), Salma Hayek (Kitty), Billy Bob Thornton (Jack) and Amy Sedaris (Jill) all bring unique personalities to the mix. The main problem I had with another Dreamworks film Kung Fu Panda 2 was the lackluster supporting voice work. (Angelina Jolie) It was nice to hear all the people having fun in Puss in Boots.
I loved watching this movie. The comedy is infectious and the characters three-dimensional. It is equal parts comedy, action and cute kittens. Puss in Boots makes for a lovely night for the entire family….and pets.
Dig this film. Love the cats. Say “OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH.”
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Nightwish (1990)
MY CALL: Watched alone, this will be a shamefully regrettable experience. Viewed with friends and your favorite adult beverage, this has the potential to bring you closer to your friends via bad movie-ness. IF YOU LIKE THIS THEN WATCH: John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness (1987) is similarly bad in theme, but bad-done-better to achieve so-bad-it’s-good status.
If you’re in the market for impossibly silly, non-existent technical jargon from a movie that manages to jam elements from every major horror genre into one, compact, 96-minute movie…at the expense of making sense or having an actual story—then this lobotomizingly mind-numbing flick is for you. Were it not for the unnaturally forced inclusion of frequent gore then this couldn’t have even qualified as a horror movie rather than the visualized mental shavings of a paranoid schizophrenic.
Everything unnatural that could possibly be out to get you is in this movie: zombies, malevolent aliens, oozing mutants, inbred hillbillies, disturbingly retarded people, mad scientists, evil Satanic spirits, psychic energy, séances and summoning, ectoplasmic entities, torture, over-sized mongoloids and melting corpses. The result of so much single-serving content is a compilation of cluttered scenes delivered with no more sense or sanity than that of a sprayed roach. That said, clearly lovers of cheesy horror idiocy will be nothing but pleased.
The story—if we’re being so bold as to call this a story—follows a graduate student-mentoring university academic who researches something radically unfundable but somehow manages to rally grant money to support the latest in mad science. This professor and his four brow-raisingly good-looking graduate students have been practicing guided dreams called visualizations. During these visualizations the goal of the dreamer is to utilize their own worst fears and envision their own death. So far they haven’t been able to do this. Why they would want to is beyond me and isn’t explained in the movie at all. I guess they’re abnormal psychologists?
The students are an interesting bunch and include the attractive Elizabeth Kaitan (Twins) and the muscle-bound Brian Thompson (Fright Night Part 2).
So the blatantly creepy professor arranges for his students to visit some dank mini-mansion to investigate paranormal activity. This sounds an awful lot like John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness (1987). And why do they suddenly seem to be paranormal psychologists? What happened to the whole dream-studying deal?
Of course, this house has a history of demonic presence, Satanist medium tenants, and a “psychic pattern…” whatever that means. The students set up all their spirit-detection gear—really they’re rather well-equipped ghost hunters and not dream clinicians—like in Insidious, Grave Encounters or Paranormal Activity, then they sit and wait for some creature from beyond to visit them. No, that’s literally what they do. They sit and wait—AND IT WORKS!!! As if it happened there every night, doors randomly slam about and some ectoplasmic slug-snake-thing emerges from the fireplace. They are all way too calm about it. Even the chick who freaks out and dematerializes the slug-ghost with her purse seems fine ten minutes later.
Cue the green-glowy shit!
They take some photos. There’s something weird about them. They do a terrible job of explaining it. Get used to it. Nothing goes explained in this random flick. There are suggestions of mass hysteria to explain various horrific sightings. They do a terrible job of explaining that, too. The students are charged with monitoring each other for irregular behavior because their “data” must be impeccable. However, we don’t know what their data is supposed to be. What happened to studying dreams!?! They’re not even sure if they’re hallucinating or encountering a supernatural force!
Is a girl this hot really into science or is it just the séance magic?
The events of this flick somehow make less and yet less sense. Some little boy’s ghost dies. Wasn’t creepy—just stupid. We learn a little history about the kid—pointless. They attempt a “summoning” while shackled. Yeah, ‘cause if I was going to summon a creature from another dimension I’d consider it to be the responsible decision to manacle myself in front of this likely-to-be-pissed entity. The summoning is a farce at best. They draw a star on the floor, light a candle, simply wait around for a while, and then a green cartoon cyclone appears while the professor utters some deplorably bad dialogue.
Yeah, that’s the movie. Horrible when viewed alone but, in hindsight, this probably would have been really fun with beer and some friends. Group mockery can be so fun. So if you watch this, do so with many well-imbibed friends.
Share this post:
The Three Stooges
The Three Stooges is a passion project that is impossible to hate. The movie seems strange in 2012 but has enough love behind it to give the viewer a few decent laughs. The 44% on Rotten Tomatoes is fair and everyone seems pleasantly surprised that the movie is not horrible. It is actually kinda/sorta/sporadically fun. This is a movie that is succeeding because it isn’t terrible. An added bonus is that the Farrelly brothers shot both Hall Pass and Three Stooges in Georgia so I have to support the Atlanta film scene.
The story features three 30 minutes stories and revolves around the stooges trying to save their beloved orphanage that is run by Jane Lynch, Jennifer Hudson and a bikini clad Kate Upton who is in the film for obvious marketing reasons.
In the process of saving the orphanage they battle Sofia Vergara, get a job on The Jersey Shore and hit a lion in the balls with a peanut that was shot from a dolphins blow-hole. The biggest issue against the film is the occasional infantile humor that culminates with the stooges using baby in a pee fight. The Stooges remain committed though.
The three actors give it their all. Will Sasso, Sean Hayes and Chris Diamantopoulos channel Larry, Curly and Moe impressively.
I’m sad and happy that the celebrity packed version with Jim Carey, Benecio Del Toro and Sean Penn didn’t work out. I’m happy because I don’t think I could have gotten over Sean Penn playing a stooge. I’m bummed because it would be neat to see if Del Toro could do it.
The Three Stooges features three big laughs. I won’t be giving away too much by telling you the jokes.
1. A guy “turtles” in his full body cast to escape dynamite.
2. Moe wears a Throwdown shirt and a Kangol hat while on the Jersey Shore.
3. The Three Stooges have an epic three-way battle that showcases the actors commitment to slapstick.
The Three Stooges is not a good movie. At times I wondered why I was watching it. However, I know that it was hindered by a revolving door of actors and a limited budget. The one thing that cannot be in doubt is that the Farrelly Brothers love the source material and made this to honor their stooge heroes. It was their goal to bring the stooges to a new generation of kids and rekindle the old folks love of yuck yucks and eye gouging.
Better than expected. Still not good. Fun in moments. Watch it while getting an oil change or because you are waiting to watch Lockout with your girlfriend.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: New Year’s Eve
New Year’s Eve deserves the 8% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. However, it didn’t deserve the amount of critical hatred that was heaped upon it. Movie critics unleashed fury buried since their childhood on this film. They watched the movie, loaded up all their vitriol and then spewed hellfire and damnation upon it. The critics were Joffrey Baratheon and the movie was Ned Stark.
I say New Years Eve is like Ned because it tried to be nice and noble but it made all the wrong decisions and lead to a critical smooshing.
I watched New Year’s Eve on a plane headed for Toronto. I told the man next to me I was watching it for a Bad Movie Tuesday post and he wished me luck and started Mission Impossible Four (wonderful movie). A random thought got me through the movie. If Lance Armstrong could survive cancer and become the world’s greatest cyclist I could survive a two-hour movie. I quickly learned that watching this movie was the equivalent of an insane uphill climb on the Tour de France. No matter how far you advance it is never as much as you’d like.
The best reason to watch this film is to go against the hateful critics and try to find a silver lining amidst the drudgery. Why watch a film when all you want to do is be angry with it? I went into the film looking for positives.
I stopped looking for positives roughly three minutes into the film when Michelle Pfeiffer’s naive character does a nose dive into some garbage and is rude to a man who tries to help her. I began to feel the sudden urge to turn this movie off and watch MI4.
SIDENOTE: My girlfriend Megan and I tried to watch New Year’s Eve in the theaters but we bolted during this scene so we could watch the lovely War Horse. Greatest cinematic/date saving decision ever.
So, instead of heaping praise or hate on this film I’m going to explain how it went wrong in a logical manner.
First and foremost the film is a knock off of Valentine’s Day which is a rip off of Love Actually. There was a bit of anticipation for Valentine’s Day but it was quickly washed away when people saw the film. It was a box office success and director Gary Marshall quickly hired every actor he could find so he could capitalize on the success.
The problem is that the film feels hasty. The characters are underwritten two-dimensional stereotypes who have names like Jensen and Kominski. No movie can be good if it has those names in it.
If you put the actors names in a hat and put them in any of the various roles the movie would work. their characters are so interchangeable the audience wouldn’t care if you mixed them up. Actually, the movie needed a mix up. I’d love to see a DeNiro/Biel marriage, Jon Bon Jovi playing Zac Efrons character and Katherine Heigel stepping in for Ludacris. Love Actually messed with the rules and people are building statues for it on Easter Island. New Year’s Eve stuck to the rules and NPR called it a “soup made of rocks.”
Here are the eight stories.
1. Michelle Pfeiffer channels a mousy Rain Man and Zac Efron takes her on a road trip.
2. A depressed Kutcher gets stuck in an elevator with Lea Michele.
3. Hilary Swank goes to a dictators birthday……
4. Katherine Heigl yells at Jon Bon Jovi whilst he looks to be reversing in age.
5. Robert DeNiro is a dying dude who is taken care of by the nicest human being in the history of the world played by Halle Berry.
6. Sarah Jessica Parker is a single mother who does lots of single mothering.
7. Josh Duhamel wears a tux and rides in an RV while a horny old guy pesters him.
8. Jessica Biel threatens a pregnant woman while Seth Myers surprisingly doesn’t get beat up by an odd hat wearing Hugo Stiglitz.
New Year’s Eve is not a terrible film worthy of condemnation and scorn. It will find an audience on TNT and is perfectly non-offensive. However, it is not a good film. I’ve never witnessed such underwritten characters and I’ve seen the movie Sand Worms.
Do not watch this film. Watch Mission Impossible IV or War Horse instead. They have nothing to do with this film but I didn’t haven’t to channel Lance Armstrong to get through them.
Trailer Talk: Chernobyl Diaries (2012)
CLICK HERE to go to the review of Chernobyl Diaries.
I guess it was about time somebody capitalized on the horrors left in the wake of this historical event: Chernobyl, named after the city with the poor nuclear reactor of the same name. On April 26th, 1986, the Ukrainian power plant had a bit of a bad day when reactor 4 was getting a bit wonky from a power surge. What ensued was an emergency shutdown attempt, a series of explosions, the fall of the Soviet economy, and ultimately (evidently) some tribal-gone-cannibal locals waiting to prey on 20-something tourists.
CLICK HERE to see the trailer.
Release Date: May 25th
This trailer doesn’t show us a whole lot in terms of estimating what kind of horror this will be. Really, we see just enough to know that the acting doesn’t suck (actually it looks quite good for horror) and the production value is competitive. But are there special effects—like, at all? That’s the wild card. Depending on the horror style they may not need any (e.g., Paranormal Activity had minimal FX). Contrarily, movies in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre vein rely heavily on excellent make-up artists and mutant movies need solid mutant concepts that keep us from saying “hey that’s just like in that other movie with that guy in it that came out last year.”
The tour guide is charmingly funny. He has his little Geiger counter and puts on a nice show.
What do you mean the car won’t start?
Jonathan Sadowski (S%#! My Dad Says (2010-2011), Friday the 13th (2009)) is charmingly funny and he brings that to the screen here. Characters like his are fun to watch when the shit hits the fan. Makes me think of Grave Encounters (2011), where the jokester finds himself freaking out as he learns “it’s not a joke.” This flick also features Nathan Phillips (Wolf Creek, Snakes on a Plane), Ingrid Bolsø Berdal (The ABCs of Death, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters), Olivia Dudley (Chillerama, The Dictator), and Jesse McCartney (Greek).
Such a lively bunch. They have no idea…
Producer Oren Peli (Paranormal Activity director/producer; PA 2 and PA 3 producer) has a great mind for creepy suspense. I hope he does for Chernobyl Diaries what he did for Insidious (2010) and the PA series (2007-2011). I love slow-building, super-high tension creeper flicks like White Noise (2005, 2007 sequel). This trailer, however, is more suggestive of The Hills Have Eyes in an abandoned fallout city—Chernobyl. But are we going to see radiation-mutated Wrong Turn abominations or will The Crazies hunting these tourists down? Will we see any more than silhouettes of our perpetrators throughout the movie at all, or is this more about the social breakdown of our victems?
It says WHAT about mutant Chernobyl residents in the guide book!?!?!
Everyone knows that you never–NEVER–approach the weird little girl in the dark!
Director Bradley Parker is an effects guy-turned rookie director, which makes me think there will be less action than most hillbilly, inbred, anthropophagy-themed flicks. His effects background and Peli’s fear-instilling skills could make for one Hell of an eerie, jumpy mood!
Don’t miss this one. I have a good feeling that this apparently mundane-made-funny trailer represents a better movie than you might think.
RUMORMILL: There a lot coming our way to get excited about. 1) Paranormal Activity 4 is in the works. 2) Area 51 (2012) was written and directed by Oren Peli. He recruited only fledgling and television actors to fill his cast. I think they lend a special something to his understated characters in creepy settings. They’re also cheap and still trainable to his unique style. I sooo hope this rocks. 3) Insidious 2 (2013) is in development.
Share this post:
The Swell Season
If you are a fan of The Swell Season and Once you will dig this documentary. The Swell Season focuses on the dissolving relationship between Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova. The two met in 2005 during the filming of the film Once. The movie was a hit and the song Falling Slowly won an Oscar for best original song.
The music is beautiful and the break up bittersweet. You love seeing these two together but you understand why they broke up. Glen Hansard is 42 and Marketa Irglova is 24. Glen is a veteran of the road and Marketa is the quiet musician coming into her own.
The break up is inevitable but not sad. As people grow up they grow apart. The two were united by their amazing skill and love of music. However, Marketa was young when they met in 2006. It was easy to adopt Glen’s worldview until she started to develop her own. Nobody is wrong or right in this doc. There is no one directly responsible for the break up. They just grew apart. However, music still keeps them together.
The musical performances in this documentary are thrilling and will make you want to buy another copy of the Swell Season and Frames albums. I’ve heard the songs many times but seeing Glen and Marketa perform them is beautiful and timeless.
My favorite part of this documentary is when Glen deals with his mother and father. The scene where Glen talks about his dad’s final days helps explain his personality, love of alcohol and moody demeanor.
This black and white documentary is a must see for Swell Season fans.
Movies, Films & Flix 