This past Sunday I saw the movie House at Pacific Cinematheque, the first time I’ve been back to that theatre in many years. It was a bit muggy inside and it’s only mid-April. Perhaps it is a way for them to claim “hot movies” without having to rely on the quality of the film itself to back up the statement.
In any case, a recent acquaintance who volunteers there and at Vancity Theatre, was able to procure free tickets, so it was risk-free. I bought a bottle of water at the concession to assuage my guilt over not paying, as is my way, knowing full well my bladder would be scolding me in short order for having done so.
House is a 1977 Japanese horror film. There are clips of various scenes on YouTube and I had actually seen one such scene last year without having any idea what the context of it was. As with many scenes in the movie, it is pretty unmistakable. In this case, one of the school girls is getting her head chomped by a large lampshade.
Considering its age, the film surprisingly does not look particularly dated, mainly due to the timeless Japanese schoolgirl look. The story revolves around seven schoolgirls, each deliberately named after her defining characteristic (Gorgeous is beautiful, Melody plays the piano, Kung Fu – well, you can probably figure it out) going to Gorgeous’s creepy old aunt’s house for the summer after their original vacation plans fall apart. A freaky white cat with magic eyes, a dancing skeleton and the aunt herself play host to a macabre series of events that claim the girls one by one.
House is relentlessly energetic – the characters are constantly laughing and chattering with each other, even while their numbers dwindle as the house claims them, and the score plays near constantly in the background. As things continue to go terribly wrong for the girls, the ebullient tone of the film shifts toward traditional horror and it becomes more deliberately weird and disturbing. It never fully succumbs to being ‘serious’ fare, though. You can only draw so much solemn symbolism from a piano eating a girl or a man in a dune buggy that gets turned into a giant pile of bananas.
Visually, the film matches its audio portion, with an array of effects, filters and stylized painted backgrounds. Moments get played forward and back, one character has a constant breeze softly lifting her scarf for effect no matter where she goes.
My only real complaint here was the tone shift doesn’t fully work. You can’t really lay out something so utterly silly and then try to make it serious but House doesn’t try too hard, so it’s only a minor criticism. House is easy to recommend for the energy and striking composition alone. It is a wonderful piece of over-the-top storytelling that full embraces the medium of film and just has fun with it.
Four quickie movie reviews, one a rental, three in theaters and two of those in 3D.
Ringu
This is the original Japanese version of The Ring from 1998, the story of a weird videotape that, once viewed, will lead to the viewer’s horrific death exactly one week later. A reporter who comes across the story and falls victim to the tape launches an investigation against time to solve the mystery. And that’s essentially what this is — a mystery, albeit one that centers on a tortured spirit instead of something mundane. I have not seen the American version of The Ring but was told it is scarier than this one, which really isn’t scary at all. There’s a few minorly creepy bits but that’s it. The film is still well-crafted and interesting but this is a case where perhaps something really is lost in the translation (I watched a subtitled rental). Thumbs up but not hugely so.
Alice in Wonderland
In which the Mad Hatter gets an expanded role because you’re paying zillions for Johnny Depp so you’re going to use him, dammit. This is pretty much what you’d expect from Tim Burton but I found it a bit pedestrian and the usual Burton aesthetic didn’t quite work for Wonderland. The look was a little too dreary and dark, not funky and weird. The actors were fine and I especially liked the style Helena Bonham Carter brought to the Red Queen — an unexpected surprise. But the story, which imposes a not very interesting narrative onto a setting that works best without one, felt a bit limp. By the end where the Mad Hatter is fighting with a sword and Alice is decked out in a suit of armor you’re kind of wondering what the hell is going on. But the visuals were good. A feast for the eyes, not so much for the brain.
Avatar
What can be said about this that hasn’t been said already? It’s made over $2 billion worldwide, is still playing in theaters as its Blu-ray and DVD release nears, was nominated for a truckload of Oscars and perhaps formalized the mainstream acceptance of 3D in movies with most of its take carrying the $3 or so premium price that 3D films extract. I thought it was pretty good, though some of the early dialogue in particular was clunky and the story, of course, is nothing original. I don’t ding it for that because few stories are original and if it’s told well, that’s good enough for me. Cameron keeps things moving along and though predictable, I enjoyed the ride. The visuals are amazing. Sam Worthington, as the titular avatar, didn’t seem to be all that different here from his role in Terminator Salvation last summer. This leads me into…
Clash of the Titans
I heard the bolted-on 3D here was especially bad but we managed to catch an old-fashioned 2D version of the film. Reviews had been mixed at best so I didn’t have high expectations. Some good CGI, some decent action, that’s all I hoped for and the movie mostly delivers on that. It plays fast and loose with the mythology, just as the original did, but when you’re remixing stories that are made-up to begin with, how much can you really complain? This time Perseus is out for revenge after Hades wipes out his adopted family. Hades is played by Ralph Fiennes, who seemed to be channeling several different bad guys, among them Wormwood from The Lord of the Rings. Liam Neesson played Zeus about as well as one might hope for and his armor literally sparkled, like a Twilight vampire. The Medusa sequence was fairly brief and somewhat disappointing, though the Medusa design was striking — a huge serpentine body with a hauntingly beautiful face that transformed into a suitably haggish look when she got some face time with a hapless victim. My biggest complaints would probably be some of the dialogue (see Avatar), Sam Worthington’s bland Perseus (see Avatar) and the way Perseus was written, apart from Worthington’s specific portrayal. The character just wasn’t interesting. The giant scorpions, surprise “cameo” and general effects were all pleasing enough. Better off as a rental.
I saw Sherlock Holmes today and liked it. I knew there would be more action in it than what one might expect in a typical Holmes story but it wasn’t an action movie. Robert Downey Jr. stamps the character with his own style while still engaging in some of the classic Holmes behavior we expect — the logical deductions, the violin playing. Jude Law was terrific as Dr. Watson and I was pleased to see the character presented not as a well-meaning buffoon or comedy relief but as a worthy match for Holmes in many ways.
The story sets up a cult engaged in magic that will “change the world” and is neatly deconstructed (and thwarted, of course) by Holmes in the end. The perfect sort of tale for the confirmed skeptic. The remainder of the cast is fine, though no one especially stands out. Everyone does what they’re supposed to and Downey and Law remain the focus throughout.
There is the suggestion of a sequel by the end and that wouldn’t be an altogether bad thing, I’d say. Thumbs up.
I saw Star Wars at the Duncan Odeon shortly after it premiered in 1977. I was 12 years old, pretty much the ideal age.
I also saw it in the theater here in Vancouver when the special edition came out in 1997. I was 32 years old.
I watched it again last week.
What follows is the answer to the question: Can a magical film of my youth withstand the critical, nay, cynical eye of adulthood?
The short answer is: mostly yes. The longer answer follows.
I saw Star Wars before it became the most successful movie ever (for the time) and at the age of 12 I was old enough to understand everything but still young enough to be dazzled in the way only a child can. While the 70s are fondly looked back on by film purists, I think it’s important to remember that film has always been a combination of craft and commerce. When the serials of the 30s and 40s were being cranked out, no one was aspiring to high art. Likewise the exploitation flicks of the 60s and 70s were just mindless entertainment designed to titillate and little more.
Star Wars, though, was one of those films that tried both. In the context of the era, it was unheard of — a big budget science fiction movie complete with veteran actors like Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing to lend it credibility. It’s been well-documented how George Lucas drew from many sources for inspiration for the movie and somehow he made it all work. But how does it fare now?
I have the special edition on DVD. This was essentially a test-run of the CGI effects that would drive the Episode I-III prequels, adding extra bits of shiny and re-inserting a few cut scenes. The quality of the transfer is a bit strange — some parts of the film are very vivid while others still appear muddy and with “noise” in the film. While a few effects shots have been cleaned up, others still have the telltale transparent rectangles outlining TIE fighters that shows how they were overlaid on the backgrounds.
As to the additions and extras in the special edition, most don’t hold up and some even detract from the film. The best ones are a few quick shots that make Mos Eisley look like more than just “four overturned cans of paint” (as one critic dubbed the original). The scene with Biggs and Luke chatting before heading out to the Death Star is also a thoughtful inclusion.
However, the background bits with exotic beasts fussing and farting and noisy little drones flying about are distractions that pull your eye away from the focus of the scene. The infamous “Greedo now shoots first” scene undercuts the character arc of Han Solo going from a mercenary out for himself to someone who actually joins the cause. The worst bit, though, is the re-insertion of the scene where Han is confronted by Jabba the Hutt. Not only was most of the scene reworked for the Greedo/Han confrontation, making its insertion gratuitous, Jabba looks like CGI and Han addresses him as if he was a person and not a giant slug. He even ends with, “Jabba, you’re a wonderful human.” This made sense when the scene was shot because Jabba was just some guy in a bad fur coat. Putting the scene back in was the first sign that Lucas’s ear had gone tin on what worked in the world he created.
But what about the rest of the movie, the parts unchanged from 1977?
For the most part, it still works. There is the sense that you are watching events unfold in a universe that is truly unlike ours, one where technology has advanced but is still grimy and gritty and prone to breaking down. The characters are all broadly and clearly delineated. Luke is the farmboy hero who fulfills his destiny, Han is the rogue, Kenobi the wise mentor, Vader the despicable villain and the droids the comic relief. The only real misstep among the cast is Carrie Fisher’s mysteriously appearing and disappearing British accent that seems to activate whenever she’s in a scene with Peter Cushing. Monkey see, monkey do, I guess. Of all the actors, Cushing seems to delight most in his role, coldly putting the leash on Vader (who else would do such a thing in any of the other movies?) or shrugging off the rebels’ chances of actually destroying the Death Star.
Lucas keeps the stakes high throughout — Luke’s guardians aren’t just killed by the stormtroopers, they’re reduced to charred skeletons, the Death Star destroys an entire planet to demonstrate its power — but deftly keeps things moving with lots of action and banter between the main trio as they battle their way through to the final showdown at the Death Star. Yeah, it’s not entirely believable that dozens of stormtroopers could all miss when firing at them but it’s part of the pulp serial fun of the movie. The heroes face impossible odds but somehow overcome them, anyway.
The original effects are a mixed bag. The Death Star trench runs hold up decently but there’s a certain wobbleyness to a lot of the others where they still work but just barely. Here, you do need to keep the film in context. Effects-wise, I’d say it holds up worse than, say, The Wizard of Oz. Even the special edition spiffing up only goes so far.
There is also throughout the film an earnest corniness than many today might find off-putting but again, it works in the context of the story. These aren’t just characters, they’re archetypes. Han isn’t just speaking for himself but for every guy who just wants what’s his and to keep his nose out of everything else.
One of the things I most notice now as an adult is how Lucas really isn’t very good with his actors. Those that know their stuff, like Harrison Ford and Cushing, manage just fine but the younger and less experienced actors like Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher offer uneven performances than a firmer directorial hand would have made more consistent. In this regard I think Lucas actually got worse in the prequels. Still, the lapses aren’t enough to detract from the film as a whole.
Overall, Star Wars still holds up fine. Its flaws are more apparent now and the special edition adds little of value to the film, but it’s well worth seeing. It’s amazing that over 30 years later so few other films have captured the science fantasy feel that makes Star Wars so appealing, even to where it largely eluded Lucas himself.
I saw Shaun of the Dead earlier this year and loved it. I’ve just recently watched 28 Days Later and it’s odd because Shaun, though a comedy, is a more “authentic” zombie experience, inasmuch as a zombie movie can be authentic, anyway. 28 Days Later is rather grim and I enjoyed it (I find Cillian Murphy a strangely mesmerizing presence) but the fast-moving infected in the film never struck me as frightening, more just crazed animals. You almost felt sorry for them — until they got their heads beaten in with baseball bats. This approach to the “enemy” took away from the overall mood of the film but then I realized that director Danny Boyle may have been creating, whether by intention or accident, an homage to The Day of the Triffids. Both stories start the same way — with a patient alone in a hospital after some catastrophic event has struck the world.
Each story then follows the protagonist as he bands with other survivors and ultimately comes into conflict with groups that have differing agendas, so in a way it’s not a zombie movie at all but more of a study in human behavior when people are forced into constant “do or die” situations and there is no longer any established authority to appeal to or seek shelter with.
The “bad boy” military also came off as a bit too convenient for the story and it was interesting to see in the deleted scenes a “radical alternate ending” that imagined the movie going off in a completely different direction with no military present at all (for the record, that ending would very likely have been worse).
It was refreshing to see they also went with a “happy” ending by having Cillian’s character of Jim survive. Several alternate endings were filmed where his character perishes after taking a bullet to the abdomen. Downer endings have become so de rigueur that a happy one almost seems to be bucking the system.
I finally got around to seeing the Get Smart remake that came out last year. I thought it was decent as remakes go and probably more deserving than, say, Starsky & Hutch or The Dukes of Hazzard but it wasn’t nearly as good as the source material.
Steve Carrell wisely chose not to do a full-on Don Adams impression. His portrait of Smart is more of a homage and works fairly well. The rest of the cast was fine but none of the other characters really felt much like the ones in the original series. Anne Hathaway’s Agent 99 comes across as snippy and not very likeable, the Chief, instead of being exasperated most of the time, is portrayed as a brawler, of all things. Weird. But the biggest disappointment had to be the villain, Sigfried. In the TV series he is played completely over the top, complete with outrageous German accent by Bernie Koppell (who gets a cameo here). In the movie he is played without a trace of humor by Terence Stamp, who apparently doesn’t do comedy even when he’s in one. Having a serious villain in a Get Smart movie is missing the point by about as much as you can possibly miss a point.
The plot also tried too hard to be a standard action film and all the derring-do detracted from the comedy (though they did include a few funny bits in some of the sequences). The dopey Bush-like president made the movie already feel dated but the biggest problem was the movie just wasn’t funny enough. I may be strange but that’s how I like my comedies — funny!
Still, now that they have the “origin” story out of the way (why do these movies do this? I don’t need to find out how Max became an agent — even the TV series doesn’t show that) I might be interested in watching a follow-up. Even if the cast isn’t as authentic, they are watchable and the potential is there. I give it 6 out of 10 shoe phones.
I saw 2012 tonight and the line-up beforehand was the biggest I’ve seen in awhile. Apparently the end of the world is going to be a big hit.
Rather than a traditional review, I will summarize 2012’s story in convenient list form. Follow the list and you, too, can write a globe-spanning disaster epic!
1. Make a list of great disaster movie scenarios, including:
earthquakes
volcanic eruptions
tidal waves
2. Combine all of the above.
3. Ask yourself, “Is this specific scenario ridiculous?” If the answer is no, make it ridiculous. If the answer is yes, go to 4.
4. Make the scenario even more ridiculous.
5. No one knows science anymore, so it’s okay to make everything up. When a character exclaims “That’s impossible!” cut to the next scene.
6. No one speaks French, either, so feel free to make that up, too.
7. Ramp up the urgency using the old “my calculations were off!” trick
8. Include at least one (1) each of the following:
plucky pet that barely makes it
noble sacrifice (ideally someone who becomes increasingly sympathetic as the story progresses)
wise old person who accepts death with quiet dignity
hero who appears to have died but wait — he’s OK!
1-3 plucky kids
a sacrificing and decent president
3-5 famous landmarks getting trashed (eg. White House, Sistine Chapel, Washington Monument, etc.)
a bad guy who gets his just rewards
a bad good guy who learns just what this whole humanity thing is all about
9. Pad out to 2 hours and 38 minutes.
10. Serve and enjoy!
They really took point #4 to heart. Spoilers follow but really, is it possible to spoil a Roland Emmerich film?
It’s not enough to have a colossal sea-going ark imperiled with an imminent collision with any old mountain, it must be Mt. Everest! This is a film that treats the supervolcano in Yellowstone erupting as a side event. You can’t have a tsunami wipe out the White House, you must have it struck by the USS John Kennedy aircraft carrier first — but not before showing the president looking up and literally saying his prayers.
The science was ludicrous, of course. #5 actually happens.
They had a cute Arnold Schwarzenegger impersonator doing a news conference in one scene. Too bad Schwarzenegger won’t be governor in 2012 due to term limits. The end of the world comes even sooner for him. For some reason they had the Italian premier decide to stay behind and pray at the Vatican (which, of course, gets destroyed in lavish detail, complete with the oh-so-subtle symbolism of a giant fissure appearing between David and the hand of God in the Sistine Chapel).
But despite all this, I still had a good time. As disaster porn goes, this movie delivered. Everything from collapsing freeways and skyscrapers to capsizing cruise ships and trains shooting through instant new canyons, 2012 had it all. California literally slides into the ocean.
Jon Cusack is a likable actor but he really doesn’t have much of a role here as a good-but-flawed father/husband/writer. His character (and many of the others, really) survive too many implausible situations to count and I guess it’s hard to really figure out how you’d react to the world coming apart. You’d be upset and kind of panicky, maybe. The kids were decent but forgettable and Woody Harrelson hams it up as a radio broadcasting end-of-the-worlder. Despite running over 2.5 hours, the movie surprised me by not feeling so long. It helps that once you start ravaging the planet it’s hard to buy time for touching, quiet moments.
In closing, if you ever want to see a movie that features giraffes and elephants being airlifted by helicopter across the Himalayas, 2012 is the movie for you!
Tonight I saw the Halloween-appropriate Paranormal Activity. Shot in a cinéma vérité style, this low budget effort featured a good cast and nicely ratcheted up the stakes as said activities became more and more invasive. I have to admit I’m a sucker for the pseudo-documentary style of film-making and I think this one did a solid job of portraying the demon-afflicted couple in a (mostly) believable* manner. Less satisfying were the people occasionally talking (nervously?) amongst themselves in the audience and a number who constantly got up from their seats, perhaps feeling some nausea from the occasionally tipsy camera work. The guy to my left spent most of his time literally on the edge of his seat leaning forward and then glibly said at the end, “I want the last hour and forty minutes of my time back.” You’re not fooling anyone, Mr. Fraidy Cat!
* okay, there were several not-so-believable bits. SPOILERS FOLLOW. LOOK AWAY TO AVOID! Micah and Katie document the manifestations in their home using a big-ass video camera and the film shows them regularly reviewing the footage via a laptop “hooked up by Firewire” as Micah states several times. At one point the couple leaves the house with a Ouija board on the coffee table, with the camera recording it. The planchette busies itself scooting across the board and then bursts into flames. This was not enough to make them think perhaps staying in the house might not be a wise idea. On the final day, Katie insist on staying and says everything will be fine, then goes to sleep with a, I daresay, devilish smile on her face. Apparently Micah never reviewed this clip because I’d get the freak away at that point. But maybe that’s just me.
After the movie we strolled down Davie Street and being the clever lad I am , I quipped about Halloween on Davie — could you tell the difference? There were a surprisingly large number of people in costume, ranging from ultra-basic (cat ears) to elaborately made-up vampires, zombies and overweight cowboys. And fireworks. Lots of fireworks that even as I write this are still exploding somewhere a few houses over. People seem very intent on getting their money’s worth this year. Interestingly, Nic said this kind of tomfoolery isn’t indulged in back east. Maybe they just eat pumpkin poutine instead.
Inglorious Basterds is good. If you’re a Tarantino fan, you should see it. If you’re not, you should see it, anyway, because it’s a fun ride that doesn’t feel anything like its 2 hour and 48 minute running time.
While a lot of the Tarantino trademarks are in place — talky characters, explicit violence — the WWII setting and lengthy subtitled exchanges give the film a texture that sets it apart from the likes of Pulp Fiction or Deathproof. A number of scenes expertly play off the tension of what the characters aren’t saying, pleasant conversation masking the fear of spies being exposed or plots getting unravelled. And how can you not like a movie that introduces Hitler wearing a flowing white cape like some kind of comic super villain?
Brad Pitt is terrific as the smart and calmly sadistic leader of the Basterds, approaching his tasks with a laid back, down home charm — right up until the scalping starts. His scene in the lobby of the theatre where he attempts Italian is hilarious, one of the few where the tension and comedy come together.
Without getting into spoiler territory, I had no idea how the final scene was going to play out. There comes a point where the story must turn one way or the other based on historical events, and the way Tarantino chooses to go is interesting, to say the least.
A strangely packed week of movies, as I saw three (!):
District 9: This gorily violent science fiction film starts with a mothership containing a million or so “refugee aliens” parking over Johannesburg, South Africa. Defenseless, the aliens (derisively referred to as prawns) are put into a camp below the ship known as District 9. 20 years later the district is a huge slum and a private military contractor is tasked with moving the aliens to a new camp 200 miles away from the city (and conveniently out of sight). The movie starts with the mass eviction and follows as the head of the eviction plan gets a little closer than he’d like to the aliens and ultimately finds himself sympathetic to their plight.
Shot in a pseudo-documentary style, the movie is brutal, at turns funny and pulls off the neat trick of engaging and holding the viewer when none of the characters initially are even likable. Smart and incisive (especially in its portrayal of the ugly world of private military contractors and their ethics — or lack thereof), the only criticism I have of the film is the way it relies on a few “in the nick of time” moments to keep things moving along but these are quibbles. Highly recommended.
9: This animated post-apocalyptic film features an alternate history where machines built for war turn on their human masters, Terminator-style, wiping out all life. The only “survivors” are nine small burlap dolls who are strangely sentient. The movie follows as they fight to survive against the few remaining machines and ultimately explains how they came to be. Each of the nine is a stereotype — the set-in-his-ways old leader, the cruel, unthinking muscle, the “crazy” guy (voiced by Crispin Glover, naturally) and so on — but by movie’s end the stereotypes are actually explained in a way that works. What may not work for some is the somewhat esoteric ending that veers toward metaphysical, leaving a lot up to the viewer to decide. I actually found myself agreeing with a fairly solid criticism of the ending and yet it didn’t hurt my reaction to the film overall. The world it creates is dazzlingly presented and the machines are a nightmarish blend of mechanical and organic, with spiders, skulls, scissors and sinewy red string leading the way. Any parent taking a young kid to this film probably guaranteed the little bugger having nightmares for a week. 😛 Recommended.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: (some spoilers follow, if you care about that sort of thing) I have not read the books so I don’t know what’s been left behind in adapting them to the screen, though I understand with each successive novel getting longer, the writers are being more challenged in what to keep in the films to present a coherent story. Since the title mentions a Half-Blood Prince, I figure he’s going to be prominent to the story. Eventually there is a scene where Harry grabs a potion book and the inside cover reveals it is the property of the Half-Blood Prince. A-ha, I think! I wait for an elaboration on this. Late in the movie Snape, waving his wand all nasty-like at Harry, reveals that he is the Half-Blood Prince. And that’s pretty much it. It felt like a major chunk of the story went missing and we got a Quidditch game thrown in instead. Dumbledore’s demise was also telegraphed so blatantly I almost expected to see a bullseye painted on his robes. The least-satisfying Harry Potter movie to date. It’s not horrible, though, and the young cast remains capable and engaging.
Last week I went to four films at the Vancouver Queer Film Festival and as one might expect, it was a mixed bag (or fruit basket, if you prefer). Below are my reviews.
Ciao
Here’s the description from the VQFF website: “When Jeff’s lifelong best friend Mark dies, he is left in charge of handling Mark’s possessions and tying up loose ends. Through a trail of Mark’s email correspondence, Jeff learns of Mark’s secret online romance with Andrea, a handsome Italian who is scheduled to visit the United States and meet Mark for the first time. With the trip already booked, Andrea decides to come anyway and learn more about his recently departed friend. In the midst of grieving, these two strangers share a single night of intimate conversation, good old American country music and sexual tension that leads to perhaps what is the most tender (yet still steamy) brief encounter ever portrayed in queer cinema.”
And my take: The premise is interesting but the execution is thwarted by stiff acting and a script filled with wooden dialogue and lots of not much happening. There are three main characters: Jeff, his adopted Asian sister and Andrea, the man from Italy. Jeff is an earnest but bland character and Adam Neal Smith’s portrayal isn’t bad per se, he just shows no real emotion until the very end and I suppose it’s meant to be seen as a cathartic release but it falls flat instead. Alessandro Calza fares better, perhaps because he can hide behind the facade of a character handling a non-native language. The sister has some amusing lines but again the acting feels rather wooden. As the tone is consistent across all actors, I wonder if it may have been an issue with the director’s handling of them.
Another negative was not that the film was low budget but that it didn’t acknowledge that and work within its limitations. There is a scene with Jeff and Andrea driving to the cemetery and apparently the production could not afford to have the car towed on a trailer. Instead the camera is placed in the backseat. While Calza is seen in profile while chatting, Smith never looks anywhere except at the road — which is understandable because he is actually driving — but as a result you never see his face for the entire scene. Why not shoot the scene with them walking in the cemetery instead or somehow frame it so you could properly see the actors? There were also a series of long framed shots or tracking shots of the city skyline at night that didn’t serve any purpose but to pad out the film’s length.
Perhaps the highlight of the film came during that “brief encounter”. When Jeff and Andrea started kissing some guy in the audience began applauding loudly, as if this heralded a great moment in gay cinema or something. Definitely the best laugh in the movie. 🙂
The Coast is Queer
“This year’s local shorts program could have been renamed The Coast is Brave and Outrageous due to the bold and shameless stories, like lisa g’s look at women in Riverview Mental Hospital in the 1940s and Clark Nikolai’s exploration of foreskin ‘docking’.”
My take: This is a collection of 13 shorts. I’ll highlight the ones I found most memorable (for better or for worse). Asylum is a surprisingly sympathetic look at the long-closed Riverview mental facility narrated by a former staff member, ending with a “twist” as a lesbian inmate checks out with one of the female staff, a rather surprising event during the 1940s. Another tale set in the 1940s (1948) is Caught, a silent look at two high school students — one a member of the drama club, the other a Bible group — whose innocent sleepover ends up being not so innocent. This is a wistful and well-shot drama, combining moments of comedy with the crushing pain of a love — and life — denied. Withchrave struck me as a pointless visual exercise, showing “witches” in various states of dress and undress cavorting, smoking and doing “witchy” stuff. Did I need to see a full frontal shot of a nude woman peeing? No, I didn’t. But hey, one more thing to scratch off the list of “things I never planned on seeing but saw anyway”. I guess this film was meant to evoke a feeling of sensuality or something so it’s perhaps not surprising that it didn’t click with me.
Galactic Docking Company was a rather randy but very funny short that combined stock NASA footage (mainly from Mission Control) with dockings involving rockets and love rockets, if you know what I mean. The combination of music and perfectly timed editing showing the reactions of the various NASA engineers made this a bawdy ol’ good time. Swans was essentially penis worship set to music that I found uninteresting despite being a personal fan of the subject. The lowlight of the collection was Cindy Doll. Before the shorts began, a number of directors spoke about their films and the director of Cindy Doll warned that her piece tackled a taboo subject and it might offend or make people uncomfortable. She invited people to discuss the film with her afterward. I correctly pegged it as a take on child abuse before it started. The film consisted of the director naked in a bathtub with the titular Cindy Doll. As the horrors of child abuse were depicted with the doll being stripped and spanked among other things, loud, discordant noises would occasionally blare out for some kind of effect (maybe this was the uncomfortable part the director referenced, as my ears were not experiencing what I would call pleasure). The director would regularly begin pleasuring herself with the doll, looking up at the camera with (guilty?) eyes. Um, symbolism! Maybe. The whole thing came off as self-indulgent twaddle. The only part that offended me was knowing I’d not get back the time I’d spent watching it. Here’s my advice: If you were abused as a child, see a therapist, don’t make a short film about it.
I’ll end with the highlight of the show, Coffee. This was one of the few professionally-shot pieces (several were done specifically for a Super 8 competition or by high school students as part of an anti-homophobia campaign — and those were well-done for what they were). The premise is simple — a lesbian and gay friend are having coffee at a cafe and it quickly becomes apparent that the woman’s recent failed relationship has pushed her off the deep end, as she has become obsessed with Kate Walsh from “Grey’s Anatomy”. The writing is sharp and funny and the two actors deliver their lines with expert timing. It was inspiring enough to make me want to finish “The Famous Polka”. It’s one of 10 different vignettes culled from a longer piece and can be viewed here. Highly recommended.
Otto; Or, Up With Dead People
“Film theorists claim that the zombie genre is a form of social commentary, relevant to our consumerist and apathetic present times. If so, then what comment does Bruce LaBruce make with his gay zombie flick? Attack the heteronormative establishment? Fuck your brains out (then eat them)? Whatever social messages might be gleaned from LaBruce’s work, the Canadian director brings us a perverse and satirical cinematic original.
Otto is a young neo-Goth loner and pretty hot for a dead guy. Wandering the streets of Berlin, Otto stumbles upon a casting call for a zombie film. After seeing his half-hearted audition, radical lesbian filmmaker Medea Yarn not only becomes convinced that Otto will be the next big underground movie star, but forces the lead actor, Fritz, to take Otto home with him. While Medea and Fritz struggle to finish their film, Otto searches for the human beneath the zombie.”
This was both a send-up and an affectionate (?) homage to zombie movies, gay porn and pretentious art films. Shot in Germany with a local cast, Otto features plenty of gore (mostly disembowelment and entrails, as one would expect in a zombie film), fleeting but explicit sex scenes and at times a hilarious take on the self-styled film auteur personified by Medea as she works to finish her underfunded “masterpiece”, “Up With Dead People”, a film chronicling the rise of gay zombies. Into this comes Otto, who fails to convince the director that he is in fact an actual zombie but gets cast in the lead role, anyway.
The film starts rather slowly and for the first 20 minutes or so felt more like a clumsy homage to art films than anything else but when the various characters intersect it pulls together and the rest of the ride is pretty enjoyable. There’s a graphic scene of zombie penetration that will likely put you off your lunch for a week or so and a sex orgy that is the film-within-a-film’s conclusion also has some very naughty bits that, while enticing, seemed gratuitous in the given context. I found the ending a bit confusing as it strongly suggests Otto is no longer a zombie, then seems to revert him back to a more undead state. As expected, the film’s ending is not exactly happy but appropriate. The actress that played Medea was probably my favorite, if only because she was so appropriately over-the-top with her views on the terrible capitalist society she is part of. She also gives a small girl eating chocolate the what-for in what may have been the film’s funniest moment.
Boycrazy
“Everywhere I go there’s a guy to catch my eye. It makes me kinda crazy, like I’m back in junior high.” Is Corey—the dreamy lead in Boycrazy—singing your song? If so, there are plenty of guys to catch your eye in this lineup of men’s short films.
Serving up the first piece of eye candy is Zak, an underappreciated topless waiter in Dinx. Filmmaker Michael Mew treats us to some homegrown guys, co-starring local drag diva Symone, in his new science fiction romance Q-Case. A chorus line of “show bears” dances in King County. And the quirky musical Boycrazy explores the pros and cons of single life.”
As noted above, this was four short films. Dinx features a cute and short protagonist who seems to suffer a dimensional rift that takes him back to his childhood while still dressed as a topless waiter. Much like that character, this film was cute and short, amusing but not laugh-out-loud funny. Q-Case is a parody of the X-Files with a definite queer twist. Perhaps not surprisingly, the central premise centers around anal probes. This was a solid effort, although the acting of several of the characters was leaning more toward the amateur side. The love interest of the alien/clone handled his part well and reacted perfectly to his precious shoe collection getting vaporized. I admit I also enjoyed the idea of the Mulder character getting a giant black drag queen as his temporary partner and voice of reason. King County is a series of scenes centering around a theater group auditioning actors for movies turned into stage musicals. Among some of the entries: Mommie Dearest, Fame (with bears) and most hilariously, a musical version of Top Gun featuring “butch lesbians” that has Maverick and Goose (or was it Ice?) singing and dancing on the flight deck. The actress playing Maverick looked similar enough to Tom Cruise to be somewhat disturbing. The final and longest piece was Boycrazy, featuring James May, an actor who could be Neil Patrick Harris’s younger brother. This is a musical about dating and relationships (online and otherwise) and is done in a style very similar to Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog. The singing is uniformly excellent and the dance numbers, though not flashy, are energetic, as is the film as a whole. I really enjoyed this funny and sometimes insightful look at the trials and tribulations of men dating men — and not just because I have gone through some of my own recently (none set to music, alas).
