by Mark Smith

Score: 3/4

I used to be a fan of Michael Bay’s. I knew that his films weren’t brilliant by any definition of the word but most of them knew exactly what they were and played to his strengths. (I am one of the few defenders of Bad Boys II and not only do I defend it, I honestly think it is Bay’s masterpiece.) I lost a lot of my faith in him after the last two Transformers films. They both seemed like they played to a boring and clichéd formula and it appeared that Bay was just going through the motions or better yet that he was sleepwalking while making them. So I was excited when he announced he would be returning to his Bad Boys roots by making a moderately budgeted, hard “R”, crime thriller called Pain & Gain.

Pain & Gain is based on a true story and it involves three bodybuilders (Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Anthony Mackie) at various stages in their lives, trying to achieve the American dream any way they can. Things predictably go horribly wrong for them after they kidnap a wealthy dirtbag businessman (Tony Shaloub) in an attempt to steal all of his assets.  That last sentence is probably an understatement as this movie gets so crazy that by the end of it I was questioning how “true” it really was.

I will start off by saying that I really liked this film and I actually would put it 4th in Bay’s filmography, behind Bad Boys II, The Rock, and the original Bad Boys, in that order. It was still a very frustrating movie though and mainly because it is so up and down. There are moments that are absolutely brilliant (mainly involving The Rock) and moments of sheer stupidity with huge plot holes and failed attempts at humor. The pacing was all over the place and it is a very bloated movie. As with most of Bay’s films it feels like there is a better cut of this movie had they trimmed it by a half hour.

Saying all of that though, the good and sometimes great, definitely outweighed the bad. The best thing about this film was The Rock’s performance. (I have always liked The Rock and in a fair and just world he would be on the same level as Schwarzenegger when he was in his prime.) Here, he is playing a character that I never would have guessed him playing before this film and I am not sure who picked him out for the role but whoever did is a genius. He completely steals almost every scene he is in and gives a really good performance on multiple levels. He is only getting better.

Besides The Rock, all of the other acting was pretty good and the chemistry Wahlberg, The Rock, and Mackie had was terrific and very believable that these guys would get themselves into this mess together. If they didn’t work as a trio, the movie would have fallen apart at the seams and it would have been a fatal flaw. Tony Shaloub was also really good, hamming it up as a sleazy and shrewd businessman and seemed to be having a lot of fun with this role.

It was really weird though to watch this film and not to have huge elaborate set pieces. Most of the action was scaled down but really brutal and at times hard to watch. I enjoyed this style because it seemed like Bay knew exactly the kind of film he wanted to make and he made it with no apologies or hesitation. The extreme violence does shift the tone a lot though so if you don’t enjoy films with big tonal shifts then you probably will hate this.

The other problem for most people is going to be that there really is not a protagonist in the film. Not at all, because all of the main characters are horrible, horrible people that continue to make stupid mistakes and have no regard for anybody but themselves. I don’t mind a cinematic story that doesn’t have anybody to really root for and in fact in Pain & Gain it felt refreshing and interesting. If you need a protagonist to root for though to enjoy a story then this probably isn’t going to be a film for you.

Overall, I would recommend this movie to anybody who liked either one of the Bad Boys films (especially the first one). Don’t be discouraged by the last few films Michael Bay has made because Pain & Gain seems like it was a passion project for him and a big step forward for him. Everyone one else involved with it seemed to be having a lot of fun making it. Pain & Gain is a crazy, intense, over the top, funny film and it being interesting is enough to distinguish Pain & Gain from most films that are currently in release.

This was the third year that we’ve put on the critics’ horror movie panel at the Horrorfest part of Starfest.  It has become a tribute to carry on the legacy that Denver critic Reggie McDaniel ran with for so many years at the convention.  While I get great guests to be on the panel, Barry has really thrown himself into organizing it and put together an amazing show.  Previous guests include Tim Schultz from the Mile High Horror Film Festival, Keith Garcia from The Denver Film Society and Christian Toto from Breitbart’s Big Hollywood.

This year, I had the great honor of being on the panel with Brad McHargue from Mile High Cinema and Michael Felsher, owner of Red Shirt Pictures.  It’s very easy to say that we all rocked the room and that we could have easily gone another hour, both points being true.  What made me really enjoy being on the panel, though, was the feeling like somehow I stumbled into the room and found myself with the best seat in the house.  Special thanks to Christopher Page from Jonja.net for the picture he took at the panel.

NOTE: This panel contains NSFW language.  You have been warned.

Remakes always give us pause because not very many of them are good. The Horror genre is especially remake crazy, especially in the last few years. Some of them have been great, ( 1982’s The Thing and David Cronenberg’s remake of The Fly), some of them have been decent, (2009’s Friday the 13^th remake and 2006’s The Hills Have Eyes) but most of them have been bad (Rob Zombie’s Halloween remake and the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street).

When it was announced that The Evil Dead was being remade I was cautiously optimistic. I love the original film and always have, but it is definitely dated and could be primed for an update. It was then announced that Sam Raimi, the creator and mastermind behind the original, was going to be producing the remake. The red band trailer then came out last year and I was really impressed with it and the buzz coming out of screenings of the film at SXSW was extremely positive. So I had some expectations for this film. I wasn’t going into it thinking that it was going to be another bad remake. Did it live up to those expectations?

The answer is slightly. While I think Evil Dead lived up to my expectations of its level of gore and gross out scenes, it also remade a very distinct and original film into a typical 21^st century horror movie with a ton of clichés. All of the characters are typical horror film victims. They are stupid and make every wrong choice that gets them killed off one by one. None of them possess the charm or charisma that Bruce Campbell did and so I didn’t really care or feel thrilled when their lives were in danger. That is always a major issue in any Horror film. The great ones make you care about the characters enough that it makes thrilling when they are fighting for their lives.

The only real reaction I had to Evil Dead was being grossed out during the gory scenes. That is a positive comment as it is delivering on what I expected after seeing footage. It seemed to me that for the most part they used practical effects which are always a nice surprise in today’s digital driven SFX world. I don’t want to spoil anything but there were several call backs to the original film with some really impressive visual effects. I am shocked that Evil Dead was even able to score an “R” rating and it makes most of the Saw films look like Sesame Street. I can’t think of a mainstream, wide release film that really pushed violence to this level before and for that it definitely deserves credit.

I did have a big problem with the tone of this film though. I was expecting a little more of the dark humor that was underlying in the original but it never showed up. This version of Evil Dead takes itself very serious. I know that this is probably better for mainstream audiences but for the diehard fans of the original, this will be a problem. I also thought the direction by Fede Alvarez was a little too polished. Evil Dead to me is supposed to be dark, dirty and gritty. I know that living in a digital age this is becoming harder and harder to do but I will still hold it against this remake. I will admit that, if it had been made with another title and wasn’t associated with the Evil Dead franchise I would have been extremely impressed with most of the direction. I am sure Fede Alvarez will be somebody you are going to hear from in the future.

To me though, Evil Dead is good enough to not be a disgrace to the original series, which isn’t high praise but I feel like it sums it up nicely. I did have a lot of fun with it but I am not sure I will remember anything about it other than the insane amount of gore in it. It probably plays a lot better if you have no admiration for the original series and aren’t constantly comparing the remake to it. It just didn’t do enough to differentiate itself or justify its existence. Now let’s finally get that Evil Dead 4 that Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi have been promising us for years.

I will start off by saying that there has not been a celebrity death in my lifetime that has ever brought me to tears or affected me like his death has. I had just read his blog post (entitled A Leave of Presence which you must read if you haven’t) that he posted two days ago about slowing down the amount of films he reviews. His last published words were “Thank you for going on this journey with me. I’ll see you at the movies.” Nothing could be more appropriate than that.

Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were the first film critics I followed when I was a very young child. I would watch their show on PBS every Saturday. I would think that their word on any movie was the truth and when they endorsed a movie I had to see it no matter what. My mom and dad would get sick of me always saying, “Well, Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs up, so it has to be good.” When my mom informed me that Siskel had passed when I was 10, at first I didn’t believe her. I was then devastated by it and is one of the most vivid memories I have of a celebrity passing away when I was a child.

 I continued to follow Ebert religiously both on television and online. I would spend hours reading his archive of movie reviews. He shaped the way I thought about movies more than anybody else. He is the reason my family and a lot of my friends refer to me as “a movie snob”.

One of my favorite memories involving Ebert was that one of my twin brother’s favorite movies growing up was Armageddon. I got into an argument with him about why I didn’t think it was a good movie and just read aloud Ebert’s review of the film. (You can find that here). I also remember reading his review of The Crow online and just feeling so vindicated that he gave a three and a half star review of my favorite movie.  He also gave a four star review to Dark City, which is a film that I consider to be better than The Matrix and most people thought and still do think I am crazy for.

When I was in the 7^th grade my parents bought me a version of Ebert’s Greatest Films for Christmas. So while my brothers spent the next few days playing their new video games, I sat around and read that book.  I made a list of all of the movies I had to see because of what Ebert had written. I discovered a lot of my favorite movies this way.

All of the above is just what he meant to me. I am such a small and tiny part of Ebert’s influence. I have spent most of today just reading stories like mine. It really is incredible what he has done for us as a community. He really did change the way movies were reviewed and he did it several times over the years. He embraced the internet at a time when so many of his colleagues refused to and looked down on him for doing so. This is why he was able to stay relevant and keep up with the times as print media and especially print film criticism were declining.  (Just look at his Twitter account and how interesting he was with it, he even replied to me three times on it!)

Maybe the biggest impact Ebert had was that he made it okay to just want to analyze and write about films. Growing up, people always assumed that I wanted to be a filmmaker but I didn’t. I have always wanted to analyze and write about films and explain my love or disdain for them. Roger Ebert made that acceptable and okay for that to be a goal. For that I will always be grateful for him and I could never properly explain the influence he has had on the way I watch movies. I will always be thankful and I will always credit him for that. My heart and condolences go out to all who are grieving for him and especially his incredible wife, Chaz Ebert.

Film figures pretty prominently in my life.  My uncle works in the business and loves movie history.  My grandfather had a great love of film, and I’m a geek.  Movies were always going to figure into my life one way or another.  As I got into high school and college, I really started getting into movies.  Of course I dug the silly guy flicks of the time like Tommy Boy, Wayne’s World and the Hot Shots! movies.  I also was touched by films like Schindler’s List and was intrigued by more independent films like Grosse Pointe Blank and Pi.  I started wanting to read about movies.

Of course, all of this was well before the internet was anything remotely resembling what it is today.  My only outlet of finding out about movies was the Friday edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph.  Every Friday morning, I’d go get the paper and see not only what was coming out, but what the reviewers (I didn’t like calling them critics at the time) were saying about those movies.  Unfortunately, the reviewers they had mostly sucked while I was in high school.  The one time I would get excited would be when I could read Roger Ebert’s critique of film.  Where the rest of the hacks they had writing did little more than spell out the plot and then go down talking points of what was good or bad, Mr. Ebert always had a way of getting to the heart of a film and really try to understand it.  Gone was the stodgy image I had of snobs who only liked “important” films.  He found a way to make me want to understand the art and beauty of film.

In an equally important way, he loved a good fun movie, too.  Roger Ebert showed me that it was possible to love the entertainment that a good movie can bring without ever stopping to seek important film that touches the soul and expresses the human condition in ways that I could never understand otherwise.  He’d also never shy away from the opportunity to take a literary baseball bat to a truly awful film, but there was a distinct difference between films he truly despised and films that he was thoroughly disappointed with because the film had so much potential to be more than the final product.  He had such a love of film that he rarely went into a movie hoping it would suck.  He understood why it was always better to have good movie over a bad one.

I don’t know that I will ever consider myself to be a film critic.  Roger Ebert has always been the gold standard of that word for me and I don’t see myself ever being on that level.  One thing he did help instill in me was a true love of the medium and a desire to show that love to other people.  THAT, I can do.

 Edit:  Just in case you were curious about the Beastmaster Jr. short that Mr. Coscarelli mentioned in the interview, I’m embedding it below:

It’s been about 3 years since Barry and I had the pleasure of talking with George Hardy and Michael Paul Stephenson about Best Worst Movie. We had a blast then and I couldn’t wait to talk to Mr. Stephenson again when The American Scream came out. Fortunately, we were able to meet up and talk about his new film and other upcoming projects. Enjoy!

Michael Paul Stephenson Interview

6″ />

by Dave Minkus
Score: 3.5/4

It just seems appropriate to write this review on November 5th, aka Guy Fawkes Day. For the past few years, the Guy Fawkes mask made famous in V For Vendetta has become the signature of hacker group extraodrinare Anonymous. If you look most mainstream media coverage, they are either a bunch of houligans making mischief or dangerous outlaws bordering on a terrorist organization. With no clear picture of the group available, We Are Legion: The Story Of the Hacktivists aims to tell the story of this group, and it’s absolutely fascinating.

Technology can be a very intimidating topic, whether in film or print. Try to explain an underground technology group to your average person and they’ll tend to run screaming from you. Director Brian Knappenberger found the best way to tell the story of Anonymous: start at the beginning. Portraying the group’s inception at notorious site 4chan, the group begins as a bunch of merry pranksters who thrive on posting content that no amount of mind bleach can ever wipe from your memory. By establishing this group as mostly normal people, you get a sense of belonging and are ready to take the ride to the darker side of Anonymous.

To go any further would be just to describe the film, which would be a huge disservice to the story told. Suffice it to say that the group gained a self-awareness that they can use their numbers for what they considered social good. By bluntly describing the pros and cons to having a collective without a single head leading the group, it’s easy for members to be sucked into jobs that are questionable ethically. What I found fascinating is the variety of operations the group embarked on, some you may have heard of, and some that were widely ignored in American media. The result of them changed political landscapes and corporate and religious policies.

The film is given an oddly personal feel by not only featuring technology journalists who have covered Anonymous over the years, but also current and former members of the group. Current members generally conceal their identities behind Guy Fawkes masks and former members are either known as the result of lawsuits or came out in public of their own volition. What is probably the most important part of this film is the fact that this group is motivated by a sense of social justice and freedom of speech. Whether it’s helping people in Tunisia and Iran circumvent their country’s internet restrictions or bombarding domestic websites with DDoS attacks, it’s all in the name of free speech. It’s in looking at this side of the group that a concept that needs to be more widespread comes to light. Whereas DDoS attacks are seen just as hacker attacks, the argument is made that they are actually a digital version of a sit-in like the civil rights movement had. Essentially, denying access to a website who you disagree with vehemently is akin to taking up all the seats in a restaraunt so nobody can come in and eat. Even if in the end you disagree with this definition, it gives the vague and menacing term DDoS a crystal clear analogy.

Everything isn’t rainbows and puppy dogs with Anonymous, though. The film is thorough and honest about the group and people who splintered off into the Lulzsec branch. Some people agree with what they did and others think they gave hackers a bad name. By presenting the entire story, it is left to the viewer to make their own mind up about the entity of Anonymous.

As a whole, We Are Legion is an incredibly entertaining film that is immensely informative and will open your eyes to the newest frontier of free speech. Whether you agree with what Anonymous does or not, the reality is that the internet is truly a frontier like the wild west where people are grabbing power wherever they can. The fact that it is a worldwide asset means it isn’t something that America or any other country can realistically regulate or control. For now, we have to rely on groups who do what is necessary to make sure it stays open.

Tickets are currently available for the screening at The Starz Denver Film Festival. It is also available for download from iTunes and the film’s official website.

To say that found footage films, or shakycam movies, have been hit or

miss in their relatively short history is a bit of an understatement. There have been a few strong entries, but the entire genre has been mostly dismissed as an annoying fad that needs to go away as soon as possible. Suddenly, out of Sundance comes v/h/s, and the rave reviews declared that the genre was legitimate and here was proof positive. So does v/h/s live up to the hype? Yes and no…unfortunately more no than yes.

The anthology is framed around a group of thugs who make a living videotaping them ambushing women and forcibly showing their breasts for “reality” fetish sites. They end up getting a job to break into a house and find a particular tape in that house. They don’t expect what they find and through various circumstances watch the tapes that make up this film.

Amateur Night follows three guys on a quest to get laid and videotape it. They make one guy wear a pair of glasses with a camera built in. Frankly, it’s a disgusting short that is offensive and plays to the lowest common denominator. When things take a REALLY bad turn, these guys deserve every single thing that happens to them.

Next up, Ti West brings his trademark slow burn to Second Honeymoon. This was the short that played on a segment of the found footage genre that hasn’t been tapped yet, but contained one of the more disappointing endings of the shorts. We’ve all shot home movies. Be it on a camcorder, cell phone or home 8mm camera, there’s something sacred about personal moments in our lives. When someone takes the instrument that was meant to record our lives and memories for posterity and uses it to invade our lives (in this case while we sleep), there’s something incredibly disturbing that left me feeling violated. It made for a very effective build up. Unfortunately, the payoff for the short was a huge disappointment. There are worse endings in the film, but the buildup leading into the ending was so good that it magnified the weak ending.

Tuesday the 17th follows the classic story of a group of teens heading up to the woods on vacation only to be slaughtered. The killer actually is shown in a creative way, only coming up as static on the tape. It leaves you guessing if what you’re seeing is natural video noise or the killer. Unfortunately, there was no real setup and the real reason that everyone was brought up there crossed me as idiotic.

The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger is the one short that is most out of place in this film, due simply to the caveat. If you are recording a conversation via Skype, why in the world would it end up on a VHS tape? I did eventually get past that and was treated to an incredibly creepy tale of a young woman being haunted. The only person she can turn to is her boyfriend who lives thousands of miles away. He does his best to comfort her, but there’s only so much you can do from so far away. As with Second Honeymoon, the short has a great premise with compelling characters only to let you down with an ending out of left field that was impossible for me to buy.

Finally, Radio Silence ends the film on a real high note in 10/31/98. In what appears to be complete opposition to the morons in Ameteur Night, this is a simple story of a bunch of guys on Halloween looking to have a good time at a party. One of the guys hides a camera in his bear costume, and they go in search of their ultimate party. Of course everyone’s intentions aren’t pure, but these are fleshed out characters who have a real charm to them. When they find what they think is the house and find out that they are SO in the the wrong place at the wrong time, you actually feel for them. The effects work in this segment was outstanding. While definitely standing out, they were in service to the story and definitely amped up the creep factor. This short was definitely the highlight of the film and makes the whole thing worth watching by itself.

By the time the thugs’ storyline plays out, you really don’t care anymore as the resolution makes as little sense as most of the shorts, so letting it end before the last short ended up being a brilliant decision that didn’t leave nearly as bad a taste in my mouth.

In case you haven’t figured it out, v/h/s is a very uneven film. It’s to be expected, honestly. Even the best anthology films have material that various people will find weaker than others. In my case, I ended up only being happy with one short, but it was a great short. This film is by no means as bad as last year’s Chillerama. The low score is due to the wasted promise the film has. There are themes and subgenres touched upon that show there is still promise when it comes to found footage films, but the execution has to be there from beginning to end. If you do end up seeing it, try to catch it on the big screen as the VOD experience won’t be as intense. I believe the good folks at the Denver Film Society will be showing it soon. Keep an eye out for it there, as that’s the place to see this kind of movie.

nkus
Score: 2/4

I’ve never shied away from the fact that I wasn’t the biggest fan of The Dark Knight. It’s not that I think it’s a bad movie. I just happen to think it’s vastly overrated. With that in mind, my expectations for The Dark Knight Rises were set fairly low to be sure, yet somehow it found a way to still disappoint me. By necessity for this review, I’m going to need to get into some spoilers. I’d highly recommend you skip those, so here’s your capsule review: the film looks gorgeous and takes full advantage of IMAX screens. The film is also incredibly convoluted and needed to be at least 45 minutes shorter. Anne Hathaway is great in it. It’s a decent film, but a severe disappointment as a Batman movie. Godspeed and I hope you enjoy the film.

I’ll talk about the story here just to give people some filler space and not accidentally read some spoilery material. The film picks up eight years after The Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne has become a complete recluse. Crime is almost non-existant after The Dent Act is passed that automatically makes criminals ineligible for parole. Commissioner Gordon is still wrestling for throwing Batman under the bus in the last film and letting him take the fall for what Harvey Dent did. It’s seen as a necessary evil, but he’s having a very tough time living with what he’s done. Just when things are too quiet, Bane comes on the scene and wrecks havoc in Gotham, forcing Batman back onto the streets.

As I mentioned at the outset, this film looks GORGEOUS. The film has at least an hour of footage shot in IMAX and these shots make full use of the extra real estate. It’s impressive enough that I would recommend catching it on an IMAX screen if you can just to truly appreciate the scope of the cinematography. The acting is also solid across the board. In my opinion, Anne Hathaway steals the film with her performance as Selina Kyle.

My problems with the film come purely with the Nolan brothers and the choices they made in the film. FAIR WARNING!!! THAR BE SPOILERS AHEAD! I’m going to be all over the place with my issues about the film. This is completely ok because the film’s plot is all over the place, so I just look at it as payback.

I guess problem number one has to be with Bruce Wayne/Batman. Simply put, this is NOT Batman. He’s whining and pining after Rachel Dawes still. Once his self-sustaining energy project is a “failure”, he goes into hiding and becomes a recluse. He allows himself to become a broken man who relies on a cane to just get around. None of these failings are ever reflected or even hinted at in either the 70 years of comics or even in the previous two films. Batman is an angry man who uses that righteous anger to push him and never stop or give up. This Batman has completely given up on life, and that’s just not Batman. While we’re on the subject of this character, he never gives up. He just won’t settle for a happy ending of a life. It’s one of his failings as a character. That was one of the most BS endings for a character arc I’ve seen in a long time. It’s not that I don’t want a happy ending to my movies, it’s that Batman having a happy ending doesn’t make internal sense with everything that happened in the previous films, let alone in the comics.

Next, I have to talk about Bane. To be completely fair, this wasn’t the atrocity of a characterization that happened in Batman & Robin, but this still isn’t Bane. On one hand, I can understand not wanting to translate the idea of Venom giving him super strength because this universe is supposed to be more realistic. However, as you’ll see shortly, that’s a load of crap because this universe isn’t remotely as realistic as in the previous two movies. What made Bane so scary in the comics is that he’s as smart, if not smarter, than Bruce. Add in the Venom steroids and he’s an unstoppable monster. In The Dark Knight Rises, Bane really ends up being little more than a pawn again. He just gets to talk more and break Bruce’s back.

As for who the true head of The League of Shadows is, I had that figured out within the first 20 minutes. I don’t think they could have telegraphed that little nugget any more obviously. I’ll actually leave this one alone, but the reveal was a stunt, not a reveal. Nothing happened with the character and that character is freaking great.

I’m just going to lump my last complaints together here because I’ve got pretty big issues with various plot/filmmaking choices that Nolan made. First of all, I feel like this film was made pre-9/11. Yes, I’m going to talk about 9/11 in this review. It’s a quick point, I promise. If a terrorist group had just cut Manhattan off from the rest of the world, destroyed a football game (one of our country’s favorite pastimes), showed you a nuke and killed the one guy who could disarm said nuke in front of everyone on TV, then said he was liberating you, I’m fairly certain that two things would not happen:
-The people hiding in their homes
-The people celebrating anything, even if it’s a capitalization on class warfare
If there’s one thing that the attacks on 9/11 showed us, it’s that people aren’t ok with idly standing by while waiting for their doom. To portray the citizens as doing precisely both of these things is an epic miscalculation that borders on insulting. I would’ve been ok if there had even been a throwaway line about some people trying to take a stand and how they were dealt with severely.

Back to other inconsistencies, the Bane mask just doesn’t work. Even with punching up the audio on Tom Hardy’s performance, there were still several lines of dialog that were completely unintelligible. To make matters worse, Bane’s lines sound like they were recorded in ADR sessions while he was still wearing the mask, so the audio levels are on an entirely different level from everyone else in the movie. It’s so obvious and bad you’d think Tommy Wisseau had worked on this part of the movie. It’s really an example of being so committed to a costume choice that doesn’t work that it doesn’t matter how much the movie suffers as a result.

I have to also mention the crack unit of cops in Gotham. How in the world this crew of idiots actually cleaned up the streets, I’ll never know. This might have something to do with the fact that anyone not a detective can’t think their way out of a paper bag and even Gordon issued the brilliant order to send EVERY SINGLE COP IN GOTHAM into the sewer tunnels to track Bane down. How could that possibly go wrong?

Finally, we come to the “realistic” nature of this universe. I’ve already questioned the internal logic of Bane taking over Gotham. If you’re going to limit Bane by not giving him the tool that makes him an unstoppable wrecking machine while giving a crucial chink in his proverbial armor, then I’m pretty sure that Bruce’s broken back can’t be fixed by getting punched where his spine is jacked up and then hanging him up on a rope. When the prison doc tells Bruce that he has a freaking vertebrae severely out of place, my first thought was that his spinal cord was severed or badly damaged beyond repair without extensive surgeries. No, no, just let Bones the prison doc sock you on the vertebrae and you’ll be good in a week!

So yeah…I’ve got significant problems with this film. I’ll most likely never watch it again. I know I’ve essentially taken a baseball bat to Christopher Nolan for choices made in The Dark Knight Rises, but I still think he’s a phenomenally talented filmmaker. It can’t be stressed enough how beautiful this film is. Most of the action sequences (outside of the Batman/Bane fights) were thrilling and a blast to see on the screen. I’m sure I’ll probably be in the minority as far as my opinion goes, but that’s why it’s my opinion. If you weren’t enthralled with The Dark Knight, you should probably skip this movie. If you’re a diehard Nolan-Batman fan, I hope you find something to like.

Who doesn’t love a fiery redhead with strong character? Those of you who just raised your hands will be disappointed in the new CG-animated film, Brave, but the rest of us have been anticipating Scottish accents, slapstick humor, kilts, and a summer blockbuster that Pixar has done everything in its power to promote. Video games, featurette-length trailers, and an assortment of dolls and costumes hit the store shelves well before you could even get in line to buy tickets.

I betray nothing not already seen in the trailers by divulging that the story starts with young Merida learning she is about to become the trophy in a contest between the most eligible young men in Scotland. What you have already seen in the trailers, though, walks a careful line of half-truth editing, and the story soon takes a sharp right turn into the magical highlands of Scotland by following the recognizable trail of glowing bread crumbs now standardized by the video game industry.

At heart, Brave is a mother-daughter coming-of-age tale that explores the pitfalls of parenting and childhood dreams of adventure but, like its marketing tactics, we have seen this story before. It is a typical Disney princess fairy tale that will have little girls from the ages of three to thirteen desperate for dresses from the Middle Ages and wild red wigs for Halloween.

While the basic storyline itself follows no great deviation from its Disney predecessors, there are certainly some moments in the film which may be a bit much for young audiences. There are a few dark, rainy scenes hinted at in the pre-release clips that become quickly intense. My 6-year-old nephew, who is fairly sensitive and has not yet learned the word ‘macho,’ would likely find himself more nervous than usual to turn out the lights at bedtime after a romp through the bear-infested Scotland forests, and the recommended age of 10 and up marked on the video game feels appropriate for the movie, as well.

Aside from those intense moments hosted by Mother Nature, the film is exactly what you would expect from Pixar: clean, sometimes silly, certainly funny, surprising in moments (I recall most of the audience gasping audibly in dire anticipation at one scene), and heart-warming in all the right places. The characters are endowed with realistic expressions and impressive textures. The artwork is, as we have come to expect from Pixar, beautiful and even absorbing in capturing most details from the grand sweep of the Scottish countryside down to the flick of a horse’s tail.

However, the lack of newness to the plot, sidekicks, and even locations is a little disappointing in what is otherwise expected to be one of the summer’s biggest films for the under-18 crowd. While Brave is entertaining, amusing, and artful, it lacks an innovative story, leaving one with the feeling that the movie exists to promote a new video game, rather than the other way around.

I never quite know what I’m going to get with

Joss Whedon. I’ll be the first person to admit that he’s talented and has a certain charm. However, I’m not a card-carrying Whedonite. I adore Firefly and Dr. Horrible, but can’t stand Buffy, Angel or Dollhouse. His run on Astonishing X-Men was good until the big reveal, and then it lost me. I definitely don’t hate the guy’s work, but he isn’t a lock for me…until 2012. Between Cabin In the Woods and now The Avengers, I’m 100% sold on the man. I might not love everything he does, but I’m guaranteed to at least give anything he does a shot.

A little background is in order here. I really dig comics, but not the mainstream ones. I’ve never liked the Justice League or Avengers comics that much because it was just a bunch of heroes fighting villains without much story or character development. No, I went for The West Coast Avengers and Justice League International. Yes, they were mostly B-grade characters, but without the constraints of having to adhere to the same plot over and over and over and over, these books were able to find fun ways to explore their characters. Yes, the fought epic baddies and all, but the characters were front and center (ie. what the prime books never were from what I could tell). So, when I heard that not only were we finally getting an Avengers movie and that Joss Whedon was writing it, I was conflicted. Joss is known for writing great interactions between characters and developing those characters. I was worried that Marvel was going to shoehorn him into writing a stodgy movie that had no sense of fun. Please allow me to take this moment to say that I, David Minkus, was completely wrong for doubting Marvel/Disney or Mr. Whedon. They absolutely knocked this one out of the freaking park.

If you’ve been following along with the previous Marvel movies, the setup isn’t anything you aren’t ready for. If you haven’t seen any of the previous Marvel movies, you really need to before seeing this film. I’ve read elsewhere that Marvel has pulled off the unthinkable. They’ve talked the moviegoing public into getting into a 5 year comic arc that cluminates in The Avengers. It’s absolutely true. While technically The Avengers could still be considered an origin film because it’s how the group gets together, the film makes the smart choice of assuming you’ve seen the rest of the Marvel films so they don’t have to go through and completely re-introduce every character. Loki (Tom Middleston) got free, he’s got buddies and he wants to take over the earth and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) needs to get some help to fight them off. There’s your set up. The film is two and a half hours of exploring that every way they can.

I know some people are going to say that the film is dialogue heavy and has too much exposition. I personally loved every second of this film, including when people weren’t brawling. The dialogue is classic Whedon filled with the perfect amount of humor, sarcasm and humanity brought to each character. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is the class clown and gets most of the best one-liners. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is a bad man, but is also the but of some great jokes. Captain America (Chris Evans) is the straightlaced soldier. Hawkeye is a bit of a mystery in the film and of course Black Widow is just downright awesome.

Oh yeah, and then there’s Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo). The character has been played by three different actors at this point and I was really worried that Ruffalo wouldn’t be able to pull it off. Again, I was wrong. Banner is a man who is in control and at peace with who he is, but he’s been beat down. He’s a bit haggard and he’s kinda done being the passive guy. He’s everything we need, especially in this group. Oh, and the Hulk. Dear, sweet Hulk. I’m not kidding when I say he completely steals the movie.

And then there’s the action. Oh, the action. Yes, you get heroes throwing down against each other in pretty epic ways, but when the film REALLY kicks into gear during the last 30-40 minutes, the action is absolutely frenetic and insane. The closest thing I can compare it to in terms of scale is the fights during the Transformers movies. There is one VERY important distinction to make, though. You can actually tell what the heck is going on and who is doing what. The pace is frenetic to say the least and incredibly satisfying. This is where you’ll have the crowd out of breath, but finding time to cheer almost constantly, moreso when The Hulk goes nuts.

I do have a few problems with the film, but they’re nitpicks more than anything else. There are logic leaps that don’t quite work about 3 times during the movie, but they aren’t major and they don’t detract from the spectacle of the movie. No, my big nitpick is with the 3D. If you can possibly see the film in normal 2D, please do. The 3D surcharge doesn’t bring anything new to the experience and is just an excuse to get more of your money. Save your money for when you go see the film again, because you’re going to.

This is a crass summation of the film, but it’s true. The Avengers is a fanboy wet dream in all the right ways. Every single character gets their time to shine, the interactions are very well written, and the action is just simply off the charts. Anyone who has ever said that Whedon can’t do action will be served a nice slice of humble pie upon entrance to the theater. This film isn’t a deep introspection into the human condition. It’s a summer blockbuster that actually earns the overused term “thrill ride”.

Now if only Warner Brothers would get him working on the script for Justice League International. I’m dying to see what kind of scheme he’d have Booster and Beetle cooking up and how they’d find a new way to piss Guy off…

After what I said in my review of online pharmacy cialis

ref=”http://www.screengeeks.com/2011/09/02/film-review-seven-days-in-utopia/” target=”_blank”>Seven Days In Utopia, I really couldn’t blame any Christian filmmaker for banning me from seeing their film in a preview capacity. Hopefully through the frustration and anger came the true point. I’ve spent my life being told Christian films are good because they talk about Jesus and are always rated PG at worst. I’ve always been of the opinion that Christian films need to relate to a non-Christian audience as well as a Christian one. When Pete’s Dragon is a darker movie than most films coming out of Christendom, we’ve got a problem. It’s this lifelong frustration that’s made me fall in love with Blue Like Jazz like I’ve never loved any other film from a Christian filmmaker before.

The film follows the journey of Don (Marshall Allman) as he spends most of his formative years in a church and is even the assistant to the youth pastor before he leaves for college. His parents are divorced, and his dad is anything but a religious person. His mom is alone and worrying about what’s going to happen when her only son leaves for school and she’s in an empty house by herself. Setting a stage that is all too familiar to many Christians, the film opens showing the fun as well as cheesy side of the church, ending with a scene of a cross-shaped pinata that bursts open to spill forth its sealed communion cups of juice (the symbol of the blood of Christ in the ceremony of Communion). After this point, Don discovers a revelation that completely turns his entire world upside down. Fortunately, his dad got him enrolled in a secular college, so he chooses to dump the scholarship he had at a Christian school and discover if what his dad says is true. Namely, that he only believes in all this God stuff because he doesn’t hang out with anyone who doesn’t believe differently.

What follows is an exploration of Don’s freshman year of college and discovering what all really is out there in the world. After stuffing that lifelong faith he’s had into the bottom of a pit, Don just tries to fit into a world he’s never really been in before. He makes friends, gets drunk, meets interesting people and generally experiences everything he possibly can that he was never exposed to in his sheltered life.

I have to stop here, because I can’t emphasize how wonderfully Don’s life is realized. In most Christian movies, the film would show him descending into a dark world of depravity (minus showing any of the depravity, because that’s not what Christians do), have him come to his glorious moment of return to God and then he gets the entire campus saved! YIPPEE!! I am SO happy that this doesn’t happen here. What makes Blue Like Jazz such a remarkable film is the fact that it shows Don’s life, whether it’s good, bad or ugly. Part of this obviously is credit to Don Miller, the author of the book, which is semi-autobiographical. On the other hand, Steve Taylor took the authenticity that was in The Second Chance and cranked it up to 11. To be fair, I haven’t read the book, but I think it’s fair to say that most Christian filmmakers wouldn’t have taken the risks that Taylor did. The story would’ve been sanitized for a “family audience”. Kudos to both men for not letting this happen.

Whether you look at this next part as good or bad is entirely dependant on your viewpoint. This movie is going to piss some Christians off. One of Don’s best friends in the movie is a lesbian. The film doesn’t make a single judgement about this fact. She’s a fully fleshed out character who is treated like a person. There is copious amounts of alcohol use and some drug use. This film has more profanity in it than any other film based on a Christian film I’ve ever seen outside of Machine Gun Preacher. Sorry, but I can’t be offended. Tania Raymonde brings a humanity to Lauryn and refuses to be simply classified as a lesbian. She’s a real person with real hurts, and I’m sad to say this is the first time I’ve seen a character treated this way in a Christian film. The fact that the morality of her sexuality never even comes into play in the film is absolutely refreshing. As far as everything else, I’ve always been of the opinion that life is at least r-rated, so let’s not pretend it isn’t. People swear. People have sex. People drink and do drugs. Why pretend it doesn’t happen?

This brings me to why this film resonated with me on such a basic level. Throughout the film, Don is struggling with the hypocrisy he’s lived with, the faith and Savior he came to love and with this new world that he’s been exposed to. Yes, it’s a Christian film, so Don does end up coming back to his faith, but it’s not a Brady Bunch, TBN kind of faith. Whether he knew it or not, he was following the the Biblical mandate to work out his salvation with fear and trembling. By forsaking that which he was taught to hold so dear for a time, Don comes to his own understanding of his faith. The film is an authentic look at the struggles that many Christians have and are afraid to even talk about. Were more Christians to find their own way to their faith than let it be spoonfed to them, Christians wouldn’t have the horrific stigma that we’ve so richly earned.

Sorry…I realize that pretty much came across like I was starting to preach, and that wasn’t my intention. So who should see this movie? The short answer is anyone with an open mind. Christians who want to see actual human beings on screen and someone who is relatable will find solace in this film. Non-Christians who want to see a thoughtful look into one man’s journey into his spiritual life while getting his first taste of worldly goodness at college are going to have a heck of a good time but hopefully also understand where some Christians are coming from. I loved part of the film where Don essentially says, “Look, I know this might be wierd to you, but this is what I believe”. It was open, raw and honest. I can’t recommend this film highly enough and I hope this is just the beginning of what’s to come from the Christian film industry. Blue Like Jazz is funny, sad, crazy, and more importantly, real.

SGR Episode 169

1/13 Theatrical Releases
-Haywire
-Red Tails

-Underworld Awakening

1/17 Home Video Releases
-Real Steel
-50/50
-Paranormal Activity 3
-Godzilla (Criterion
-Notorious (Blu)
-Rebecca (Blu)
-Spellbound (Blu)
-Manhattan (Blu)
-Annie Hall (Blu)
-The Woman

News
Dave
The Expendables 2 will be PG-13
CES Coverage of Home Theater stuff

Topic: Films We’re Looking forward to in 2012

1/20 Theatrical Releases
-The Grey
-Man On a Ledge
-One For the Money

1/24 Home Video Releases
-Drive
-Transformers: Dark of the Moon
-The Thing (2011)
-In Time
-To Kill a Mockingbird (50th Anniversary Blu-Ray and DVD)
-The Big Year
-The Double
-Into the Universe With Stephen Hawking
-Outrage: Way of the Yakuza

SGR Episode 168

1/13 Theatrical Releases
-Beauty and the Beast

3D
-Contraband
-Joyful Noise

1/17 Home Video Releases
-Courageous
-The Ides of March
-Abduction
-Belle Du Jour (Criterion)
-Traffic (Criterion Blu)
-Dutch
-License To Drive (Blu)

News
-Moonrise Kingdom Trailer

Topic: Best and Worst of the Year
Dave
Best
1.) The Tree Of Life
2.) Shame
3.) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
4.) The Descendants
5.) Attack the Block
6.) Haunters
7.) Patriocracy
8.) Submarine
9.) Holy Rollers: The True Story of Card Counting Christians
10.) Melancholia

Worst
Seven Days in Utopia
Paul
Burke and Hare
The Mechanic
Red Riding Hood
Suckerpunch
Green Lantern
Don’t Be Afraid Of the Dark
Dance City

Ethan
Best
01) The Tree of Life
02) Hugo
03) Melancholia
04) Drive
05) Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
06) Le Quattro Volte
07) Shame
08) A Dangerous Method
09) Weekend
10) A Separation

Worst
01) Battle Los Angeles
02) Like Crazy
03) Servitude
04) The Divide
05) Horrible Bosses
06) Abduction
07) Beastly
08) Paul
09) Green Lantern
10) Sucker Punch

1/20 Theatrical Releases
-Haywire
-Red Tails
-Underworld Awakening

1/24 Home Video Releases
-Real Steel
-50/50
-Paranormal Activity 3
-Godzilla (Criterion
-Notorious (Blu)
-Rebecca (Blu)
-Spellbound (Blu)
-Manhattan (Blu)
-Annie Hall (Blu)
-The Woman

There is no doubt

that the USA is becoming more polarized in terms of politics every day. Every day, we’ve got Republicans blaming Democrats for the state of the economy and Democrats blaming Republicans. Both sides say the other refuses to compromise. In this day and age, who’s at fault? Patriocracy dares to dig into the issue and come back with the truth. Both sides are at fault. That’s easy to say, but how do you show it?

Aside from beginning the film showing what filmmaker Brian Malone credits as the spark of where we find ourselves today (Republican Newt Gingrich taking full advantate of the 24-hour coverage CSPAN brought by calling out his opposition in session), Malone is VERY deliberate in stating his case that our political system has been hijacked by the fringes of both parties as well as professional lobbyists. For every single point or video clip showing a Republican or Democrat undermining the system they’ve sworn to uphold, it is followed by a clip of a member of the opposing idea doing the exact same thing. The entire film refuses to let either party or ideology bask in the other side looking bad. Malone is relentless is proving ad-nauseum that both sides are culpable parties in the corruption of our government.

Not content to just show the corruption of politics, Malone brings in talking heads to further prove his point. CBS News’ Bob Schieffer comes in to talk about how press/media coverage has changed from the objective look at politicians that journalism demanded when he got into the game to the talking head shows found on the likes of Fox News and MSNBC. Politicians and former politicians like Mark Udall, Jim Cooper and Pat Buchannan prove that we have representatives on both sides of the aisle yearning for compromise for the good of the country. People on both sides say that the system has almost been taken hostage by the fringe parts of both parties, with the perverbial silent majority being stuck in the middle.

Add in a look at how busniesses and corporations have injected themselves into the political system, and Patriocracy could be seen as a very depressing film. However, there are two factors that keep this film from becoming a pity party. First of all, the film is incredibly entertaining. Alan Simpson is an absolute riot in the film. His diatribe about things not changing in this country until we raise up in one voice and yell, “BULLSHIT!” is both an anthem of response for the disenfranchised, and downright hilarious.

The second thing done is that the film provides an outline of things that can be done to change the system. While the steps make sense and do provide hope, I almost have to discount the film as a documentary because of this. Even though I am absolutely the target audience for this film and love it unabashedly, a documentary doesn’t do that. A doc may have a certain position on an issue and set about making its case, this film takes that a step further and provides suggestions for actions to actually be taken. I personally don’t have a problem with that, but this film should be considered more of a commentary than a documentary. Some may go as far as to call it propaganda. Honestly, I’d have a hard time arguing that point, even if it’s propaganda for “None of the Above”, to steal a line from Brewster’s Millions.

Patriocracy is a wonderful film that speaks to me on a very basic level as a disillusioned American voter. Pointing the finger at both parties and proving its point exhaustively, the only people who will be able to try and discredit it will be the fringes of both parties, as it makes them look like the selfish children who throw temper tantrums they are. If you are in the same boat as me and don’t see anybody who reflects your values in your government, see this film. You will walk out of it with a sense of hope and be thoroughly entertained.

Tickets can be purchased for the film’s second showing at the Starz Denver Film Festival by going to this link.

Short films can be

quite difficult to pull off. At a runningtime usually under 20 minutes,the film has to get to the storytelling immediately, get you invested in the characters quickly and tell a story leaving you satisfied before the credits roll. This is the first short film I’m covering for the 2011 Starz Denver Film Festival.

Terrebonne is the story of a college student (Dean J. West) visiting a young boy named Fry (Cullen Chaffin) who claims to have seen an incredibly rare ivory-billed woodpecker. The boy’s sister, Jean (Jessica Heap) decides to go with them into the bayou to find where the boy saw it. While on the trip, Jean’s embarrassing past comes to light. The films ends at a nice point that leaves you satisfied, while still wanting more.

Framed against the backdrop of Louisiana’s eroding coastline, Jeremy Craig has put together a wonderful short film exploring the family dynamic between a sister with a past and her younger brother. Heap and Chaffin’s chemistry lends to an honest relationship ranging from sibling rivalry to companionship in a beautiful way that feels completely natural.

Craig’s expert cinematography make sure that the bayou itself is also a star in this film, and deservedly so. The bayou of Louisiana offers sights that you can’t see anywhere else. Craig does them all justice by capturing the beauty of this overlooked part of the country.

Terrebonne is most definitely worth checking out if you get a chance. Apparently, Craig is working on a feature length version of this short, and I for one frankly can’t wait to see it. Honestly, he shows himself to be a filmmaker to keep an eye on.

Terrebonne is showing as part of the First Look Domestic 1 Shorts program. Tickets can be purchased at the SDFF website.

SGR Episode 161

SGR Episode 160

SGR Episode 159

I generally keep my faith out of ScreenGeeks.com. I’ve never shied away from the fact that I’m a Christian, but I’ve made a conscious decision not to base what we do around that fact. The point of this site is to talk about film and our love of this beautiful art form. With that in mind, I hope you’ll indulge me for this review as my thoughts when it comes to Seven Days in Utopia are directly affected by my faith, beliefs and convictions.

Christian movies have always had an uphill battle. The apparent train of thought held in the Christian filmmaking community is that the genre must always be in service to the message. This means that certain things can NEVER occur in a Christian movie. Things like swearing, violence, sexualization of any kind gore, crude humor, or anything relating to dark spiritual forces just don’t show up in Christian movies. The theory is that by even showing these things, you are glorifying them, which isn’t what good Christians do. Living by that one rule, most Christian movies end up sacrificing things crucial to the cinematic experience like solid set design, an engaging story and competent direction, writing and acting. If you were to look at most Christian movies, the problem doesn’t lie in the religious message. The problem is everything else.

Over the past ten years or so, though, some films have dared to buck that trend. This year’s Soul Surfer makes no bones that Christianity and faith are incredibly important to the Hamilton family, but they don’t make a display of gratuitous Christianity that crams that faith down your throat. The faith is always present and integral to the entire family, but it isn’t reduced to a spectacle. In 2006’s The Second Chance, writer/director Steve Taylor brought what I think is the most honest and powerful Christian film to date by turning the camera on the church and exposing us for what we are, human. Most importantly and shocking, though, is that it proved Michael W. Smith could act. Yes, there are a couple of swear words, but they reflect the world we live in and the movie questions the way we live as the Christian church in America.

So now we come to the movie I’m supposed to be reviewing. There’s just no nice way to put it; Seven Days in Utopia is a complete failure in every goal it could possibly be setting out to achieve. Outside of a performance by Robert Duvall that is fuelled by pure conviction, there isn’t a single thing to recommend about this movie.

The story is about a golfer named Luke (Lucas Black) who loses it while being at the cusp of becoming a superstar and finds himself in Utopia, Texas, where Duvall’s Johnny offers to help Luke get his groove back if he’ll stay in town for a week. Having nothing to lose, Luke accepts the offer and finds himself stuck in a town with what appears to be only one woman under the age of 50, an emotionally stunted Texas hick who is such a jerk he gives Texas hicks a bad name, and other one-dimensional characters who barely merit mentioning. Luke has a Bagger Vance-like experience with Johnny, goes back to golfing and I’ll let you guess how the movie ends. The worst part is that you’ll still be guessing even after the movie is over, but we’ll get to that later.

I’m purposely leaving out the names of the other actors involved in this film because I firmly believe the awful performances are not their fault. Exhibit A for this is just how wasted Joseph Lyle Taylor is. You might know him as Doyle Bennett in the FX show Justified. In that show, Taylor shows he has acting chops and can be compelling. In this movie, however, he’s relegated to being the overbearing dad without a single redeeming quality. I could go down the list of actors and give them a single trait like this ad nauseum, but I won’t. The point is that writer David Cook and writer/director Matt Russell have crafted a supremely boring movie that by most accounts would be (and should be) overlooked as harmless fluff.

The problem becomes that this movie also has Christian themes…or at least it’s supposed to. Being a G-rated movie geared toward adults means 99% of the time, it’s a Christian movie. It’s entirely possible to do this right. Disney’s The Rookie is proof positive of that. The filmmakers decided that they needed to make a movie that is as family-friendly and toothless as other Christian movies, but I guess they forgot to put the Christian part in there. Instead of having the message most Christians would expect, the movie ends up meandering philosophically throughout the movie and dabbling in themes that could be interpreted as Christian, but also qualify as Buddhist. It’s like they were scared to say the word Jesus. So we end up with a movie about golf, but is actually about how life is more than golf…yet doesn’t actually explain what the definition of what that “more” is. This results in an intellectually insulting piece of trash.

Say what you will about the Left Behind movies, Fireproof, or if you’re older like me, the Thief in the Night movies from the 70’s, but those movies have a definite message. Even if they are a complete failure of an artistic exercise, there is an integrity to them. You know that you’re going to get crappy acting and directing, but a positive Christian message, and that sells these days. It’s like watching a Troma movie. You know EXACTLY what to expect when that label is attached and you’re never disappointed. Yes, I just compared the Christian film industry to what could legitimately be called the only truly grindhouse studio around. I’m a little stunned I went there myself.

Before I get to my main problem, the ludicrous amount of product placement must be addressed. I’m pretty sure Calloway Golf must have paid for at least half the budget of this movie. I found myself yearning for the subtlety of Snakes on a Plane and how they discreetly placed products in scenes. If there is ANYTHING golf related, Calloway is there. If someone is wearing a baseball hat, it’s a Calloway hat. When Daddy Dearest tries to make up with his boy? He said he was sorry with “Calloway’s latest and greatest driver”. I also found out after the movie from one of my coworkers that every single pro golfer who appeared in the movie is sponsored by the same company. I’ll give you two guesses who that company is and the first two don’t count. Seriously people, have a little dignity.

I think I would’ve been willing to just write Seven Days in Utopia off as just another failed attempt at a mainstream Christian movie, but I haven’t reached the ending yet. Yes, I am going to spoil the end of the movie. I am usually vehemently against spoilers, but I feel a responsibility to you, the reader, to warn you of what you have ahead of you should you decide to buy a ticket and catch this atrocity over the weekend. I’d warn you to stop reading if you don’t want spoilers, but this is important enough that you need to read the next bit.

The movie doesn’t end. No, seriously. It doesn’t have an ending. There’s a scene with Duvall narrating that puts a perfect bow on the film that is in keeping with everything else that has happened previously and is in the spirit of the movie. Any crappy filmmaker would have let the fade out happen and then role the credits. Apparently THESE filmmakers decided they hadn’t insulted the audience enough. After said fade to black after they establish that what happens in the climactic moment doesn’t matter, we get two lines of text, each followed by a fade out.

“Want to see how the story ends?”

“Go to http://www.didhemaketheputt.com”

roll credits

A better ending would have been a terrorist running onto the golf course, detonating a suicide bomb and killing the entire cast followed by a grand finale consisting of a crane shot widening out and the maimed corpses breaking out into a chorus of “Always Look On the Bright Side of Life”. It sure would have been in better taste. You don’t take people’s hard earned money and then tell them to go to a freaking website that ends up being proselytizing tool. Here’s tip for the filmmakers: If you want to make this movie a pathetic attempt to be an evangelism tool, don’t take people’s money and then pull a scam like this. At its best, you are telling the audience that you’ve just wasted their time because you don’t know how to end a movie. At its worst, you are cheating the people you’re trying to reach out of their hard earned money in quite possibly the most despicable way possible. With the purchase of a ticket comes the implied agreement that the movie I am about to walk into will end on screen. The ending might be awful, but it WILL end. Had I purchased a ticket to see this movie, I would not have left the theater until my money was refunded. As it is, I think the studio owes me gas money for my drive from Colorado Springs to Denver and back to see it in the first place.

In my opinion, what these weasels did was undermine the tenants of the faith that I hold as sacred and dear. If you have to pull a gag that would make P.T. Barnum slap his head in disbelief that he never thought of pulling a stunt like this in order to do what can only be called tricking people into Jesus while taking their money, the message can’t be that good in the first place. The fact that these vultures can actually sleep at night while releasing this movie for a profit is appalling. Robert Duvall’s performance would have scored this movie as a 2 out of 4, but this disgusting display brought it down to a 1 out of 4 and might spur me to open up the mythical 0 out of 4 for debate.

I feel it’s important to say that I don’t point to Seven Days in Utopia as being an example of Christian cinema. Films like Soul Surfer and The Second Chance show glimpses of what the genre could become. I’d argue that films like Kevin Smith’s Dogma and Terrance Malick’s The Tree of Life should be included in the genre, even if they are films that don’t fit the typical Christian movie mold. That’s kind of the point, though. Until Christian filmmakers understand it’s possible to make a movie where there message is in service to the story/genre without compromising the message, we’re never going to the greatness I see as possible, and that’s a shame. I’m never going to stop my search for the great Christian film, but I can tell you that it isn’t even worth stopping to see the scenery in Utopia.

Not content with just doing audio releases, the Rifftrax took an interesting leap in teaming with Fathom Events to do a live broadcast riffing a movie to theaters across the country. While a ton of fun to catch (I bought the Plan 9 live DVD and have it signed by Jonathan Coulton so far), the biggest criticism leveled against the gentlemen is that they were covering old material. I believe that the previous shows of Reefer Madness, Plan 9 and House on Haunted Hill have all been released at least one or two times. This has made some of the hardcore fans a little cautious of spending the money on a theater ticket for something they have already seen in another format.

Well, it looks like the guys have listened and are doing something to make the faithful rejoice. Tonight, the Rifftrax crew will be riffing the 60′s not-really-a-classic, Jack the Giant Killer. From everything I’ve been able to find, this is the first time that this movie will have been riffed by the gang. Even though I’ve never seen the film, it’s Rifftrax doing something for the first time and it’ll be live. I just can’t possibly miss this experience. You can find out more about where it’s playing tonight at the Fathom page for the event. It will be airing at 8pm EST/7pm CST/6pm MST/8pm PST (on a tape delay).

And before you ask, yes, I was asked to write about this event, but I had already started writing this a couple hours before being contacted. I love the Rifftrax crew and will always be doing what I can to expose them to more people. There’s really nothing quite like hanging out in a theater with a bunch of other fans enjoying the fun on screen and wishing they’d do a broadcast in your town.  If it’s playing near you, I think it’ll be worth checking out.

By Dave Minkus
Score: 3/4

Apparently, The Help is a best-selling book that everybody loves.  Not always do good books translate into good movies.  Ok, let’s be honest.  For every good book-to-movie translation, there are at least a hundred crappy ones.  So is The Help the exception to the rule, or another in a long line of stinkers?  The truth lies somewhere in between.

Taking place at the beginning of the civil rights movement, Skeeter (Emma Stone) is home from college an enlightened young woman with the goal of becoming a journalist.  After landing a gig doing a housekeeping column, she goes to a party being thrown by her old high school friends.  While there, she notices how poorly the titular help are treated.  Moved by the injustice, she decides to write a tell-all book from the help’s perspective.  Will it change the world or get everyone killed?

I’m just going to get the bad part out of the way.  This film most definitely has its heart in the right place.  The setting of the time is dead on accurate and the mentality of people is fairly true to the time.  Unfortunately, The Help commits a crime that keeps it from being great.  The film plays with the time’s rules just a little too much.  While women had the right to vote and were equal in the eyes of the law, the prevailing mentality of the time was that a woman was meant to be a man’s “little woman” and was supposed to stay in the kitchen or at home raising babies.  Anything outside of that would be more than a little frowned upon.  With that in mind, I find it hard to believe that Skeeter wouldn’t be run out of town for being such a free thinker, especially in this town.  Compounding the problem, though, is the publication of the book.  Playing by the film’s rules, the reason nobody talks about it makes enough sense.  However, I’m also fairly certain that there is no way everybody would have gotten away with it completely.  That time period is notorious for people, both black and white, getting beaten to death or within an inch of their lives for daring to even talk about what racial injustice, let alone publishing a book about it.  It’s also important to note that a lot of those lynchings/beatings were never prosecuted.  As soon as thought it put into the plot, it falls apart.

Oddly enough, those gaping logic holes don’t keep it from being a good movie.  The performances in this film are nothing short of outstanding.  Emma Stone continues to show that she’s the real deal.  She makes Skeeter the kind of person you root for.  I understand that this was obviously the goal, but another actress easily could have made her the most annoying and angsty character in the film.  The way she brings a heart to her character on screen is fun to see.  Bryce Dallas Howard takes a departure from most of her previous performances to be the films villain, Hilly Hollbrook.  Her performance is just short of moustache-twirlingly evil, but she becomes a woman you love to hate, and her performance makes her character’s payoff work brilliantly.

I have to point out Jessica Chastain’s performance, though.  Her character is so completely different from the mom in Tree of Life that I didn’t recognize her initially.  Instead of just playing a man-stealing floozy, she brings a depth to her character of Celia Foote that she absolutely steals every scene she appears in.  Between The Help and Tree of Life, it really seems like 2011 has become her coming out party.  I will be keeping an out to catch anything she’s in from this point on.

The biggest thing that The Help needed to do was keep a low profile historically speaking.  The film has heart and wonderful performances, but it gets caught up in its own grandeur and importance.  It’s one thing to make a film about the south during the civl rights movement that talks about small cultural steps that were taken and showing the cruelty that African Americans had to endure.  It’s another thing entirely to create an event that gets fictionalized national attention and make the fact it happens more important than looking at if it’s realistic to the time period in that it could have happened.  I recommend catching the film, even though it’s difficult to categorize.  It isn’t realistic enough to hold up to scrutiny after seeing the film, and it tackles the tough subject matter of the time more than a light comedy would.  The performances alone warrant checking it out, though.  We’ll be hearing about the wonderful performances for the rest of 2011.

SGR Episode 158

SGR Episode 157

SGR Episode 156

SGR Episode 155

SGR Episode 154

SGR Episode 153

SGR Episode 152

SGR Episode 151

I know this trailer has been online for a couple weeks via Yahoo! Movies, but it’s so good I had to post it here.  A lot of horror movies recently have been trying to make their mark either with the most twisted and jacked up imagery possible, an overload of jump scares or trying to more of a dark comedy than a horror film.  Fortunately, films like Insidious and House of the Devil have been raising the bar for horror by doing what makes for a truly effective fright flick:  You build the tension continually, have legitimate scares (jump scares or otherwise) and don’t let the audience off the hook with much humor.  I get the exact same feeling when watching the trailer for Don’t Be Afraid Of the Dark.  If you like horror but haven’t given this a chance, you really owe it to yourself to check this out.  It’s not too often that a trailer can freak me out, but this one does it perfectly.

It’s just another night in South London, when a nurse named Sam (Jodie Whittaker) is mugged by a teen gang, lead by the imposing Moses (John Boyega). As if things weren’t bad enough for Sam already, an alien invasion takes place just moments later, just outside of her apartment. Suddenly, everyone must work together to overcome a vicious attack from creatures whose mission isn’t initially clear.

While fan boys may note that this is from the producer of Shaun of the Dead, it isn’t a comedy. In fact, it’s kind of like An American Werewolf in London, which was also a horror film that just happened to be wildly funny. Writer/director Joe Cornish, who wrote the screenplay to Steven Spielberg’s upcoming The Adventures of Tin Tin, is a talent on the rise; this sleeper mixes genuine scares, pulse pounding excitement, social commentary, laugh out loud moments and really inventive monsters in a way I haven’t seen since Tremors.

This is a great monster movie. It has attitude and energy to spare and just keeps getting better and better. Of the gifted ensemble cast, Whittaker and Boyega are the break out stars but Nick Frost, playing the neighborhood weed dealer, is bang-on funny in a key supporting role.

The subtext is that this story would be interesting without the monsters showing up but the need for this rag tag community to work together, in a way they normally never would, provides insight on how connected and collaborative we all truly are. This scenario is a proven formula, whether it’s with mall zombies in Dawn of the Dead or punk vampires in The Lost Boys. The set-up for this movie will remind many of Skyline but, whereas that stinker did seemingly everything wrong, this one begins in offbeat fashion, picks up momentum and gives audiences a thrilling 90 minutes of jolts and you-won’t-believe-what-you’re-seeing imagery.

Initially, the thick London accents were a concern and I wondered if subtitles would have helped. However, I never missed a single plot point and, if anything, I only missed pieces of dialogue from how loud the audience was laughing.

It appears that movie monsters will never top H.R. Giger’s horrific creations for Alien and the creatures on hand here bear a superficial resemblance to those giant bugs with teeth. However, there is a huge variation on what you’d expect from outer space invaders: I won’t spoil it but, whether you see them clearly or in shadows, the beasts on the prowl here are seriously scary and kind of novel. The effects are so good, I could never tell if I was looking at a CGI effect or someone in a suit. In any case, the big reveal in a night time park is a creeper, and so is the line that accompanies the moment: “those aren’t its eyes!”

The budget looks to have been small but there’s more entertainment value here than most big budget 2011 releases. Like Insidious, this shows how far a small budget, genuine imagination and film craftsmanship can go to shaping a first-rate horror movie. The R-rating is more for the language than violence, though there are some brief but potently gory shocks I didn’t see coming.

This one plays like gangbusters in a crowded movie theater and deserves to be a word of mouth hit. If you like being scared, on the edge of your seat, and laughing the whole time, see this one, bring someone you want to get close with and a bunch of your rowdiest friends.

Looking at the poster and trailer for Attack the Block, I don’t blame people for not being more excited about this movie.  When the buzz around it started building (especially the audience award at SXSW), I didn’t understand it.  Obviously I was missing something, so I was more curious than anything when I got the invitation to catch a preview screening last night.  What I couldn’t have possibly expected was a film that is a direct descendant of films from John Carpenter, Wes Craven and even Cliver Barker from mostly the 70′s and 80′s.  If you’re not sure if that’s a good thing or not, believe me, it’s a VERY good thing.  When the opening shot of the movie was a static shot of a starry night and a synth score that John Carpenter could have easily written in the 80′s started up as a meteor fell to earth, I immediately got an idea of what I was in for, and this movie met every single one of my expectations.

Attack the Block’s very simple plot is that aliens have landed on Earth and have decided to converge on a single urban block in South London.  Ok, there’s a little more to it than that, but to explain much more would venture off into spoiler territory, and this film need to be experienced knowing as little as possible.  The story starts with a group of 5 hooligans robbing a girl on her way home from work.  She calls the cops, the cops catch one of the kids, and then things get very interesting VERY quickly.

There are a lot of things to like about Attack the Block, honestly.  I think the most impressive thing is the fact that writer/director Joe Cornish has crafted a film that definitely is influenced by films like Attack on Precinct 13, The Fog, The People Under the Stairs, and even the urban feel of Candyman all while making a film that is different and unique without being just a rehash of other movies.  Like Assault on Precinct 13, the film features a cast made up mostly of unknown actors outside of Nick Frost, who puts in a great performance as Ron.  Had Cornish and his team not cast a team of solid young actors, this movie would’ve fallen apart from the beginning.  Since you don’t know these actors/characters at all, you are unsure of them at the beginning, but you begin to relate to these hoodlums the more they transform from a loose group of kids up to no good into a tight-knit group of friends who will do anything for each other.

The standout performance comes from John Boyega as Moses, the leader of this particular ragtag group of micreants.  The film wouldn’t have suffered terribly had Moses been played merely by a servicable actor, but Boyega’s acting also makes this film a bit of a coming of age story.  Boyega becomes increasingly riveting as the film goes on and Moses transforms from just another street thug into a man ready to face the consequences of his actions at the end of the film.  He brought enough nuance that you almost don’t notice the transformation because of just how naturally Moses matures.  Everyone is solid in this film, but Boyega is definitely one of the biggest highlights of the film.

When you get a cast this solid together, you need to have an equal opponent, and the aliens in this movie prove to be more than up to the task.  This is an area where the filmmakers took advantage of a lower budget.  Creature effects have always been by default been an area that will make or break a movie.  Make the creatures too elaborate and they dominate the film and it suddenly becomes a glorified tech demo.  Skimp too much and there’s no way your audience will take you seriously.  The GWMF’s (Gorilla-Wolf-Mother-Effers, as the film refers to them quite often) are pitch perfect for this movie.  Humanity has always been scared of what it can’t see or understand.  A fully detailed and elaborate alien is scary enough, but make a creature that your brain can’t process completely except for its teeth when it’s standing right in front of you, and you’ve got something truly terrifying.  I don’t know how much of the creature work was practical or CG, but the team that brought these things to life deserves some serious props.

Back to the films influences, there are scenes in the film that no doubt borrow from other films, but effectively use the chosen gimmick and make it the film’s own.  The scenes in the smokey hallways after fireworks have been set off are used to remarkable effect and make you feel like you’re in The Fog.  I mentioned the synth score at the beginning of my review that is eerily reminiscent of the scores Carpenter used in the 80′s, and it shows up here and there, but morphs into modern hip hop.  My point is that this movie doesn’t shy away from its influences, and it doesn’t make these nods a giant wink at the audience.  It takes inspiration from the past and remakes it into something entirely new.

If I have one single criticism of the film, it’s the copious use of the fact that this movie is brought to you by the producers of Shaun of the Dead.  This is because while it definitely generates interest in the film, there is also the huge potential to set up the wrong expectations.  There are big laughs to be had for sure, but you are certain to be disappointed if you’re expecting this to be a comedy.  Make no mistake, Attack the Block is a sci-fi survival monster movie at its core.  It uses humor and big laughs as a mechanism to release tension throughout, which helps make this such a fun monster movie, but it isn’t the focus at all.

If what I’ve written about even remotely piques your interest, you need to see this movie.  It’s such a unique film the likes of which we haven’t seen in a long time and might not see again for a long time that you seriously need to take advantage of catching this if you can.  As of right now, I believe the film may be releasing in August, but I can tell you right now that I seriously want to see this movie again more than coming blockbusters like Captain America, X-Men: First Class or Green Lantern.  There’s a reason why people like Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg have been extolling the virtues of Joe Cornish for years.  In his first feature film, he’s already proven himself to be the real deal and definitely a director to keep an eye on.

high school. How else can you explain the film’s delirious action sequences, moments where both actors and cars zoom across the screen as if untethered by gravity?

The film’s signature chase (mild spoiler alert!) involves two cars dragging a massive safe across the highway. You don’t need an abacus to realize they probably wouldn’t get very far doing that in real life, let alone out-race a squadron of cop cars in hot pursuit.

Audiences clearly don’t seem to mind the liberties taken by Vin Diesel and co. The film hauled in $85 million in its first weekend and continues to rake in the cash.

But Fast Five isn’t alone in tweaking the natural laws to goose our adrenal glands. Movies have done just that for decades. Did you really think James Bond could do all the things he does and not have a little help in the physics department?

Lately, filmmakers are getting better at shoving science aside. It’s all about more, more more, and the only way to up the ante on, say, four previous Furious installments is to trot out even hairier stunts.

The same holds true for recent movies like Knight and Day, Salt and The A-Team.

It’s part of the aesthetic landscape, and the better directors know how to use it their advantage. Count Lin in that category, although it’s a safe bet he giggled up his sleeve watching the film’s dailies.

So why don’t audiences mind when the on-screen action takes a turn for the absurd?

It’s all about consistency of presentation. There’s barely a moment in the Furious films that feels stripped from real life. Surely no one boasts biceps as big as Diesel’s or, in the latest film in the franchise, those belonging to Dwayne Johnson. And every scene pushes the proverbial envelope, so that by the time we watch those cars pulling a safe we’re almost numb to how surreal it really is.

A few films tweak this trend with giddy results, like the underrated Clive Owen film Shoot ‘em Up.

But modern filmmakers understand audiences are a forgiving lot. Throw a few engaging characters our way and stunt personnel who make the impossible a reality and we’ll tag along for the ride.

Even if it means swallowing hard as all those high school lessons flash before our eyes.

SGR Episode 150

nGeeks UK joins us for the discussion.

SGR Episode 149

Shane
Score: 2/4

I don’t know if any film series has had quite the same journey that of Pirates of the Caribbean. Starting off as a film based on a theme park ride, nobody thought the first film had a snowball’s chance in hell of being a good movie. Little did we know that the combination of a solid script, the imaginative hiring of Gore Verbinski (fresh off the only good J-Horror remake, The Ring), and a solid cast including Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush hamming it up and playing off an unlikely straight man in Orlando Bloom would bring us one of the great adventure movies of at least the past decade. The film brought the swashbuckling fun of an Errol Flynn classic and updated it with a good supernatural story and solid CG that was in service to the story.

The second two films pretty much threw everything that worked out the window and turned into a cash grab. The CG took over the spotlight of the films and Disney inexplicably decided to stretch a story that should’ve been in a single 120-150 minute movie over two movies totaling just over FIVE AND A HALF HOURS. Character development somehow found a way to take a backseat to the effects and mugging for the camera. The story was far more convoluted than it needed to be and turned into a complete waste of my time outside of the scene on the beach of crabs in Davy Jones’ Locker that would have been right at home in a Terry Gilliam movie. After the third film barely made its budget back at the box office, geekdom hoped that would be the end of the Pirates movies. The story finally ended and we all hoped the series was thankfully over.

Disney apparently ran out of ideas for live action movies after The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, and decided to blow off the mothballs and bring the franchise back. To their credit, Disney and new director Rob Marshall brought the series back to its roots by telling the complete story in a single film with a reasonable running time and made the CG take a backseat to the overall story. Would that be enough to make me as an audience member love Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and bring me back to the series? Unfortunately not.

The setup in a nutshell is that the Spanish, English and pirates are all looking for the Fountain of Youth. You’d think that would be a simple enough thing to put together, but the first 30-45 minutes become increasingly convoluted in establishing everyone’s motives before finally getting on the road. Amusingly enough, that part of the film is wrapped up with a chase scene involving British soldiers doing their best Keystone Cops impression while chasing Captain Jack Sparrow through the streets of London on foot and on top of various carriages and carts, which incidentally happens to be easily the highlight of the film. It was just as convoluted as the first 30 minutes, but was far more entertaining. With the film moving on to Blackbeard, killer mermaids, jungles, snakes, sword fights, and chases, you’d think that this would be a highly entertaining film. Unfortunately, it comes across mostly as just mediocre.

I’ll just get out of the way that I’m not the biggest fan of Rob Marshall. Outside of the Mr. Cellophane number in Chicago, I unequivocally hate that film. It’s mean spirited and gives you exactly one character to actually like, and he’s barely in the film. Memoirs of a Geisha was pretty to look at, but I have to keep reminding myself that I’ve seen it. Throw in a Disney version of Annie that couldn’t hold a candle to the original and stinker reviews of Nine, and you see why his name didn’t exactly make me hopeful for this to be a good movie. I have to give him some props, though, and say that the action sequences were were well shot and choreographed. I think the biggest issue of this movie is that it’s just a rehash for the sake of making it.

It’s still very fair to compare Johnny Depp to Errol Flynn and his swashbuckling adventures of the 30′s and 40′s. Unfortunately, we’re not living in that time anymore. There wasn’t anyone comparable to Flynn back then because there weren’t as many relatively high budget action/adventure movies being made of that quality. Now, Depp is one of at least a dozen stars who have the capability to draw in a crowd of both men and women. If you are going to bring back a character or archetype over and over, you have to find something interesting to do with him, and that simply didn’t happen in this movie. Steven Soderberg learned this lesson the hard way when he made Ocean’s Twelve. Eleven introduced us to these guys who are cooler than the other side of the pillow, but didn’t do anything interesting in the second film. Having learned from that mistake, he gave the crew something to unite over, specifically someone attacking and hurting Ruben. That ends up being the biggest fault of On Stranger Tides. The filmmakers just didn’t give me any reason to care that what’s left of the gang is back together.

Other issues I have with the movie are Hans Zimmers liberal…BORROWING of the score from The Fountain once everyone finally gets to the fountain of youth and the missionary who starts out as a very promising straight man to the insanity going on around him who turn into a fool falling in love with a mermaid and inadvertently becomes an “As you wish” short of completely becoming Westly.

I know I’m being hard on this movie, but it’s because I’d like to see another good Pirates movie, and it hasn’t happened yet. Yes, it’s absolutely the best sequel by a long shot, but that statement is pretty much the definition of the term damning with faint praise. Four movies into this franchise, I’m beginning to think that the first film was a fluke in the same way that Casablanca was just another movie in the studio system that chanced upon the perfect storm of cast, writer and crew. Oh, one more thing. Don’t waste your money on the 3D. It’s pretty much non-existant in this film except for a few poorly executed swords point out of the screen. If you’re a completionist and HAVE to see this movie, catch it at a matinee at the very best.

/” target=”_blank”>Mile High Horror Festival last year and fell in love with it. This 60 minute zombie masterpiece even made my 2010 Top Ten list. I just hoped that people would have a chance to see this special film, and starting today you can.

Filmmakers Marvin Kren and Benjamin Hessler have given us Germany’s first foray into the Zombie genre with RAMMBOCK: BERLIN UNDEAD, an unlikely tale of love, terror and survival set against the dystopic backdrop of a zombie-infested Berlin. We’re partnered with 43KIXDenver to give away FREE passes to see the film – text the word GEEKS and your ZIP CODE to 43549 for your chance to win. Example text: GEEKS 80256. Entry deadline: Sunday, May 8

If you can’t get to Denver to see Rammbock, check the official site to see if it’s playing near you and catch it while you can!

Barry was lucky and got to talk to the man at the top of his interview wishlist for StarFest this year as well.

Jeffrey Combs is known for being in everything from Star Trek:  Deep Space Nine to Re-Animator to The Frighteners and a million other things.  Mr. Combs was generous to spend some time talking with Barry about his acting background and some of his stage work as well.

StarFest Interview with Jeffrey Combs

I may have only been able to do one interview at this year’s StarFest, but I’m thrilled that I got to talk to the gentleman at the top of my wish list for the year.

I’ve always admired Mark Sheppard’s work, whether it be as Badger on Firefly, Crowley on Supernatural or as Jim Sterling on Leverage.  What made me a lifelong fan of his, though, was the discovery that he’s a geek like us.  It was apparent in all of his interviews and even moreso during his interactions with fans at the convention.  He made a point of talking with every fan in his autograph line and went out to hang with the geeks during the gigantic party known as Saturday night.  I hope you enjoy the interview.

Starfest Interview with Mark Sheppard

Check out these sites for their StarFest coverage as well:
canadain viagra

aily.com” target=”_blank”>Geek Radio Daily
Jonja.net
Twisted Geeks

SGR Episode 147

s frequently referred to (and played for comedy) as a “quest” is aggressively-episodic and thus feels like a 102-minute sketch. A Saturday Night Live sketch? An In Living Colour sketch? A god forbid it, Cedric The Entertainer Presents sketch? No, the kind of short-form comedy a bunch of friends perform to crack each other up; even if they’re the only ones actually laughing in the very-full high-school auditorium. Being that David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and James Franco are doing this with tens of millions of dollars that could be spent towards I dunno, cancer research or funding like ten Harmony Korine movies, it may seem a little upsetting and somewhat of a waste of time. Truth be told though, despite it not being overtly funny, Your Highness is purely able to float by through its utter eccentricity.

[youtube FplWxtPzWY8]

Not as much spoofing as it is lovingly emulating 80′s fantasy “classics” such as Beastmaster and Krull, Your Highness provides the same difficult terrain for David Gordon Green to map his stylistic tendencies on as his last effort, the stoner-film Pineapple Express. That film if anything provided more of a challenge being that producer Judd Apatow had already carved out an auteurship of sorts on his own through his revitalization of the raunch-with-heart subgerne. Green though, with his reliable collaborator, director of photograph Tim Orr, was able to craft a film that bore many of his visual signatures and even with the humour being somewhat less subtle than that of some of his previous films such as George Washington and All The Real Girls, proved that he was someone who could successfully balance the art-house with the mainstream. Now having done two stoner comedies in a row, suspicions have arisen of Green having sold-out, but that is simply not the case. While Your Highness contains very few David Gordon Green-isms (though watch out for a great slow-motion sequence of Danny McBride getting high interspersed with a wedding), there remains artistic credibility in a film that despite homaging shallow popcorn films, remains as far removed from the modern mainstream as possible.

While the film does embrace the use of computer-generated effects, a good portion of the creatures and sets are practical. The scene in which McBride and Franco go to a pot-smoking miniature wizard is funny on its own, but in making it a Jim Henson-esque puppet, the implication of it once molesting James Franco actually becomes far more amusing. Scenes like this, and specifically one involving a Minotaur are not only bucking a trend by being practical, but the pure bizarreness of them only reinforces the idea that nobody else in Hollywood would be doing this. So while Your Highness has none of the introspection, beauty and character-work of his previous films, it at least remains the work of someone thinking about more than pleasing the mall-crowd. The film’s biggest embrace of digital effects is probably the use of blood, which actually works to add comical fakeness, the only thing that probably wouldn’t have been achieved by practical effects. All the sets and costumes though actually feel like they could be a part of a fantasy film, one of the film’s few aesthetic choices that doesn’t inhabit irony. Stuck in between irony and genuine use though is the score by frequent Michael Bay-collaborator Steve Jablonsky, whose often cheap Zimmer-theft makes it confusing whether it’s on the side of the irony of the puppet or the authenticity of Danny McBride’s armour.

To get away from the technical side though, is the film funny? Well…kind of sort of not really but a bit. Almost the entirety of the humour is based on vulgarity of sorts, but this is where it gets interesting. Such as with Danny McBride’s character from Eastbound and Down, Kenny Powers, the joke isn’t as much what foul things he says but THAT he says them. No, just saying “fuck” isn’t funny, but being used by a British-accented Danny McBride as a medieval prince wielding a sword, it is sort of amusing. Your Highness draws frequent attention to all its aforementioned technical choices by making its humour based almost purely on the contrast between it. The supporting cast being full of British characters actors playing it straight such as Toby Jones, Damian Lewis and Charles Dance reflects this entirely. Though, playing it the straightest is Natalie Portman, who you genuinely think could kick ass and gives a surprisingly grounded and driven approach to her character. Compare it to McBride gross-pompousness shtick (funny, but still shtick), Franco’s goofy earnestness and Justin Theroux’s self-aware mugging and it sticks out. Her utter gameness for the material though certainly succeeds in making the film just a little more enjoyable.

While I personally enjoyed Your Highness, I’ll admit to being a part of the film’s completely-niche audience. As said before, Green, McBride and Franco are clearly enjoying this far more than any audience will, but I like to imagine myself on set, laughing along with them at the fact that Danny McBride is wearing a necklace of a Minotaur penis and a studio payed for him to do so.