Wednesday, July 28, 2010

"Српски филм (AKA: A SERBIAN FILM)" - A movie for his whole family...


A SERBIAN FILM

Directed by Srdjan Spasojevic

Written by Aleksandar Radivojević and Srđan Spasojević


The so called sub-genre known as “Torture Porn” is a dicey topic for cinema aficionados, film makers and critics both mainstream and whatever-the-hell-stream I'm rafting down alike. To me, it's most often a term of dismissal used by lazy critics and populist pundits vying for a pat on the head from the daytime talk show automaton circuit who love nothing more than to pass moral judgment on the most obvious targets (although that has a tendency to boil down to everyone past their own front step). Since the term was established as a mainstay in the public's limited cinematic vernacular I've been developing a suspicion that these sheltered, self-assured puppets are waiting with baited breath, twisting in their seats at the anticipation of the next hot-topic picture knowing that that the more debased the movie, the taller their soapbox. Populist power perverts if you'd like.

Much like the media conceived “Grunge” movement of the 1990's, none of the self respecting artists who have had this ridiculous title thrust upon their work have really warmed up to it as it only serves to cheapen and generalize. Unfortunately, the damage doesn't stop at the tarnished reputation of the artist, it can also effect those under their influence. Those with a discerning approach will easily separate the caviare from the canned tuna, but unfortunately these days a lot of genre film goers don't know the difference between Romero and W.S. Anderson, and when faced with a talking head cramming an anti-sex-and-violence rap down their throat are far more likely to turn around saying “Yeah, right on, Sex and Violence” than “Actually, you're missing the point entirely”. In a most unfortunate turn of events , it would seem that a crop of new filmmakers are beginning to surface who are helping the industry establish a new narrative low by adopting the most base level traits of certain touchstone pieces and then filling in the gaps with crass stereotypes not actually emanating from their influences themselves, but from the false perceptions and exaggerated projections of their influences as perpetuated by their critics.

So what happens when art stops trying to better itself in the face of its enemies and instead submits to their comically low expectations? More specifically in this case, what happens to the future of horror cinema when it is content behaving more like fodder for a dateline exposé than either art or entertainment in any capacity?

Milos(Srđan Todorović) is a retired porn stud who receives an enticing proposition to be involved in one last shoot that will provide a good life for him, his wife and his young son. Wouldn't you know it, Milos is strapped for cash, and as disinterested as he is in saddling up again it's the only logical solution to his family's financial woes. His wife Mariia (Jelena Gavrilovic) is open to the idea, encouraging even, and the job came to him through a former co-star who despite being seen last in a full-length remake of the third act of BACHLEOR PARTY seems to be on the level, so what could go wrong?

He soon finds himself regaled with projections of pornography's ascension to true art by the Mystery pictures eccentric architect (and “Coffin Joe” look alike) Vukmir (Sergej Trifunović), who has hand picked Milos as a kindred artistic spirit of sorts. Before Milos has time to re-consider his employment options he finds himself in an abandoned orphanage as part of some morbid psycho-drama with a gaggle of strange women who wouldn't be entirely out of place cruising with Frank Booth. He is walked through these strange events via radio as cameramen race around getting coverage of every angle. He starts his time on set playing the role of voyeur to a twisted mother-daughter duo and in short order finds himself in the middle of the action. Then the magic starts.

From there the brutality comes on hard, searing and in truckloads as a veritable smorgasbord of depravity, and I'll admit with no shame that on paper at least “A Serbian Film” is as nasty as I've seen them come in terms of its design. Liberal doses of child abuse, a mid-coital beheading and the classic struggle between penis and too much teeth are all tame scenery on the road towards the films more controversial fair, a full inventory of which may see de Sade snickering and looking away. It becomes quite clear though once this well is tapped that only a cursory understanding of people as emotional creatures exists and that maybe some basic notion of an audiences desire for tension was entertained but not entirely grasped by first time Director Srdjan Spasojevic, as he hits almost all of the right notes, but it's not until he starts broaching another taboo that he starts playing like he means it and any feeling shines through the viscera.

Anchoring artistic, lyrical and narrative violence should either be heart or philosophy, two aspects that this sadistic little squimer hasn't any time to consider as it rends decency limb from limb all throughout its third act. To clarify, I LOVE a movie that rends decency limb from limb, but that level of severity must be delivered with intelligence and an appreciation for it's aftermath, and if not that it had better be damned entertaining somehow. “A Serbian Film” is at no point clever, accountable or good for a chuckle, it just does doughnuts like a monster-truck in a gore bog for an hour and half , so drunk on its superiority-through-excess mind-frame that we're left cleaning excrement and blood out of our eyes wondering “When the fuck is this going to end?”

Believe it or not, a competent cast and technical side are present and put in a valiant effort trying to save “A Serbian Film” from falling in to “Wacky Shit to Freak Your Mom Out With” territory. All of the principles are game to drive every inch of suffering home with convincing and gut-wrenching gusto, succeeding in building a palpable concoction of disgust, paranoia, and perversion, for what its worth. Nearing the third act the pacing becomes more frantic and the film gains a few more points through some really slick editing as it succeeds where a lot of quasi-subliminal, MTV-paced horror films descend in to utter nonsense. Unfortunately, these aspects are just more frosting with no cake to put it on.

I realize as I near the end of this review that I've spent more time dissecting the current trajectory of underground horror than actually putting “A Serbian Film” to task, but frankly that felt like a waste of my time and yours. For all of its intended shock it is a bore, for all of its “mature content” it is so unfathomably infantile on every imaginable level, and ultimately for all the envelopes it pushes it is a trifle compared even to its most low-rent peers. It's a shame really that a picture so determined to stretch out every moral boundary (and every, and I mean every, available orifice) doesn't have a stronger statement to purvey because the genre enthusiast in me always wants to side with the underdog rather than the Oprah-panel-applause-generator, but the only thing worse than a pundit rubbing their moral agenda in our collective nose is a filmmaker doing their best to completely validate everything one of these pundits has to say, and at the end of the day “A Serbian Film” accomplishes that at best. For its efforts in plumbing the depths of thematic indecency this film will likely garner praise from the gorehounds and will in the upcoming years no doubt chart on many a “sickest movies of all time” list, but for anyone who bases their viewing time on more than morbid curiosity this is a picture easily missed.
It is less a movie than a very sad declaration that “Torture Porn” may in fact exist outside of “They Shoot Horses, Don't They?” and “The Passion of The Christ” after all.

-Skot Hamilton

Friday, February 26, 2010

Fear Thy Neighbour


THE CRAZIES
Director: Breck Eisner
Writers: Scott Kosar, Ray Wright
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell
2010 | USA | R | 101 mins
★★★½

You know, I've come to accept it, as it's just plain inevitable and it's already been happening for so many years now that there really is no stop to it. I'm not hating it any longer, but I'm not growing fond of it, I'm just accepting it as is. In a town where ideas are put through the meat grinder and then pulled out of a hat you just have to come to terms that they are just going to remake your favourite films from your favourite directors whether you like it or not. And you know what, I'm starting to become OK with that. And no, it's not because I don't care whether they remake my favourite films or not, it's really that no matter how good or how bad the remake turns out I know I still have the original film to go back to and it's not going to change on me. So let's get on with it and find out if The Crazies remake is worth going crazy over.

Welcome to Ogden Marsh, a quiet agricultural-based town in Iowa, where life is quaint yet the people are hard working. Where everyone knows everyone and life just moves along. That's all until Rory Hamill (Mike Hickman), a local farmer, interrupts a town baseball game with a crazed stare and a loaded shotgun. Town Sheriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant) tries to talk him down but it escalates quickly and Rory is shot dead after taking aim at the Sheriff. Something didn't seem right about Rory during the incident, and soon more townsfolk are exhibiting the same symptoms, almost as if they're all going crazy. But things get real crazy when the military quarantines the entire town under unknown motivations and mass confusion and hysteria set it. Now David, his wife Judy (Radha Mitchell) and a few other town's people must try to survive and find out what exactly is going on.

For those unaware, The Crazies is based upon a 1973 film of the same name (or under it's alternate title 'Code Name: Trixie') written and directed by genre legend George A. Romero (Night of the Living Dead). Both the original film and the remake follow generally the same story and plot but the remake does update the context of the film and add a few new surprises and twists. As much as I enjoy the original, it does have its problems and can be a bit slow at times. The remake, also with its problems (some of which also stem from the original), however moves along quite briskly. It establishes it's characters and settings right away and also wastes no time at getting into the contamination factor that sets up the entire film. I was actually quite surprised and entertained at how it went straight to this and cut a lot of the fat out that it could potentially have had if it went the more traditional route we're used to with these types of films. Breck Eisner's direction is taut and he's able to get some genuine scares but he also does not let things get out of control. Initially, my reaction after first seeing the trailer was that they were going to overdo the crazies and have way too many of them and it would be too focused on the action and scare tactics, but instead it's perfectly balanced with the survival and escape plot of the few survivors. It's almost as if it's giving you time to breath in between the crazies attack sequences even though the scenes involving their seemingly impossible escape are tense and suspenseful in themselves.

Scott Kosar (The Machinist) is not unfamiliar with remakes since he also wrote The Amityville Horror and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes, and here he and his co-writer Ray Wright (Case 39) faithfully adapt George A. Romero's script without bastardizing the material. It was great to even see a cameo appearance from original cast member Lynn Lowry as a creepy 'crazy lady' riding her bike through town while humming a chilling tune, as well as a lot of great homages and sequences right out of the original. Also, while not award-winning performances, all the cast stand their ground and are all quite fitting into their roles. I usually don't care for Timothy Olyphant as he usually feels kind of stiff in his roles, but this is by far his best role. He plays the lead Sheriff with thought and conviction and finally we have a smart character in a horror film who can read between the lines and figure out what's going on at the same time we, the audience, are also figuring it out. Usually we're a step or five ahead, but here we're finally on the same page as the characters we are watching. Especially in horror films, this is very rare. Joe Anderson as Deputy Russell Clank is fun to watch as he's both a smart-ass snaky SOB and a tough guy who still knows his balance of power, and perfectly complimented David Dutton's character.

Overall, The Crazies is a highly entertaining and refreshing jolt in the horror genre as of late, especially when it comes to remakes. The story does have some issues, especially with logic (if a character's hand has been stabbed and he gets contaminated blood all over it, shouldn't he too eventually become a 'crazy'?). And the ending, too, does go little off the deep end but at least the overall film prior to that faithfully stayed true to its original source while updating it for today's audiences without hand-feeding them action and gore. The Crazies, while fast-paced, does take time to focus on telling a story and establishing characters and this is what is missing from most of these types of films. Here we have substance with our mayhem, and that makes an effecting, taut, scary film that doesn't dumb it down for the audience. The make-up effects are quite good, the direction and writing above par for remakes, and it's just plain old entertaining. If you're a fan of the original, or a fan of horror cinema in general, The Crazies is definitely worth a look.

All contents copyright 2010 Tyler Baptist

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Wolf's Bane


THE WOLFMAN
Director: Joe Johnston
Writers: Andrew Kevin Walker, David Self
Starring: Benicio Del Toro, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt
2010 | USA | R | 102 mins
★★½

Aaaahhhhwoooooo! Everyone enjoys a good werewolf picture from time to time and we've been given many classics to that specific sub-genre in the monster movie cannon. From the original The Wolf Man from '41 to John Landis' transformation of the genre with An American Werewolf in London to even memorable one-liners from cult hits like The Monster Squad with "Wolfman's got nards!" We all love seeing that inner beast unleashed and mauling people's faces off and I'm sure we've all imagined looking up at a full moon and ourselves becoming some kind of teen wolf or other such variation. But it's been quite a while and many lunar cycles since we've actually had a good werewolf picture. I think the last good werewolf movie to hit the screens was the Canadian coming of age horror mash-up Ginger Snaps, and that was a good 10 years ago. And apparently, at least according to www.werewolf-movies.com, there have been some 81 werewolf movies released between Ginger Snaps and The Wolfman, and of those I can only think or 3 or 4 worth checking out. So now let's find out if Joe Johnston's first R-rated feature can reset that cycle, or will we have to wait another 10+ years before there's a full moon worth howling over.

Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returns to his family estate in Blackmoor, England after hearing his brother Ben (Simon Merrells) has vanished. Upon arrival Ben's mauled body had been found in a ditch and the townsfolk believe it to be the work a dancing bear at a nearby gypsy camp. Lawrence is here to find the truth and ease his brother's lover Gwen's (Emily Blunt) loss, but along the way must battle his inner demons detailing his past with the death of his mother, his stay at a mental asylum, and his stone cold father Sir John Talbot (Sir Anthony Hopkins). But gypsy dancing bears are the least of the worry when superstition becomes fact and Lawrence is bitten by a werewolf. The townsfolk and Scotland Yard Inspector Abberline (Hugo Weaving) imprison Lawrence and take him back to London to prove the superstitions wrong and confirm insanity for all the recent murders, but with a full moon fast approaching there will be a werewolf in London!

Unfortunately this werewolf's teeth are dull and any attempts made to sink them in have been miscalculated. The main problem with this loose remake is pacing. The Wolfman sufferes horribly from creating any sense of dread or tension or suspense; scenes either run too long or too short for the audience to engage in either the characters or situations unfolding on screen. It just feels sloppily edited, which if you recognize the names attached in the editorial department is blasphamey! With Walter Murch and Dennis Virkler as the main editors and Mark Goldblatt serving as assistant editor you wouldn't believe they actually cut the film. How those behind the invisible cuts of The Godfather trilogy, Apocalypse Now, and Terminator 2: Judgement Day could chop The Wolfman up mystifies me. And then there are a few examples of terrible CGI involving a bear and an elk, but I won't even get into those... The film's problems don't just stem from post-production, but begin back in pre-production when the film was green lit.

The Wolfman officially began prep all the way back in 2006 and Andrew Kevin Walker (Se7en) and David Self's (The Haunting remake) script went through many rewrites. Even after countless tweaks they never ended up fleshing out an actual story, instead it seems more focused on the action which should be secondary to the story in these types of pictures since you're dealing with 'inner demons' so to speak. And when production was originally slated to start shooting they shuffled directors. Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo) was first attached but dropped out over budget issues and ended up being replaced with Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer) whom had never made an R-rated picture in his entire resume up until this point. And lastly to add to the production problems there were countless re-shoots. The film was supposed to hit theatres February of 2009 but because of the many changes its release was pushed back twice, first to November 2009 and then finally to February 2010. Just like the legend of lyncanthropy, The Wolfman appears cursed from the beginning.

With names like Benicio Del Toro and Sir Anthony Hopkins attached you'd at least hope that the acting can transport you, but here neither of them, nor the rest of the cast, can contribute to the audience engaging with their characters. Benicio is also not unfamiliar with playing a wolf-creature since he was Duke the Dog-Faced Boy in Big Top Pee-Wee but here he is in fact lost under the make-up. If the film does have any redeeming qualities it is the wolfman make-up itself, which looks great, and the soundtrack (which almost got scraped as well during the re-cutting phase and replaced!) and the sheer fact that they did go R-rated with the violence. There's a ton of carnage and mauling on display and those particular scenes were a lot of fun, but towards the end the action gets a little ridiculous, especially the showdown between father and son where they fight pata a pata so to speak. I for one, and I'm not the only one, saw that twist within the first five minutes of the film.

Ultimately The Wolfman is not engaging. At times I found it actually quite boring and waiting for the moon to set and do wish they had fleshed out a decent story. Due to inept pacing the film lacks the bite it could have had and instead it hands you a silver bullet within the first few minutes. With all the problems that cursed its production unfortunatley there's no cure for this werewolf flick that ends up being pretty forgettable. Looks like we'll have to wait many more lunar cycles for a rebirth of the beast from within, so in the meantime rewatch the original version instead or just stick with the classics. Or if you want to watch an actually so-bad-it's-good werewolf flick, track down a copy of The Howling II: Your Sister Is a Werewolf. If only The Wolfman took a hint from that flick and had Sybil Danning added into the story and over their end credits would it maybe have been at least hilariously enjoyable.

All contents copyright 2010 Tyler Baptist

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

We are each our purest Hell.


ANTICHRIST
Director: Lars von Trier
Writer: Lars von Trier
Starring: Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg
2009 | Denmark | Unrated | 106 mins
★★★★★
Prologue
"For I have sworn thee fair and thought thee bright/ Who art as black as hell, as dark as night" Shakespeare ended his Sonnet 147 with these words, a sonnet about the grief, pain, and despair that goes along with any love lost. These are heavy, hurtful, emotional, and devastating stages to go through and these are exactly what you will also go through when you witness Lars von Trier's Antichrist. A film that garnered an anti-award at the 2009 Cannes film festival because it caused such an uproar for is perceived mysogynistic views. Critics have denounced it while others have hailed it, audience members have fainted during screenings, and even yelled out "Fuck you!" to the screen at the end of showings. This is a film polarizing audiences and challenging filmgoers around the world. True art divides people, makes them question and think, and Dannish filmmaker Lars von Trier is not affraid to take you to the darkest places and leave you there.

Chapter One: Grief
Antichrist is the descent of He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) who have lost their son after he fell out of a window, plunging to his death, while they were consumed by their passion. With loss comes depression and grieving and He, being a therapist, wants to cure Her by finding the root of her fears and getting her off the doctor's prescribed medication. Afraid of the woods known as Eden, where She and her son were staying prior while she worked, the couple travels there to try to unravel the pain and piece together their shattered relationship. But nature has other plans.

Chapter Two: Pain (Chaos Reigns)
Von Trier's Antichrist takes the viewer into a world of such raw power, emotion, and human evils with no promises of anything safe or subdued, it just bludgeons you scene after scene. You will be shocked, you will be shaken, and you will be disturbed. But most important of all, Antichrist will make you think and reflect. Walking out of the theatre I had so many questions given to me that the fallout from the haunting effects of the film stayed with me for days after, bringing to light subtleties that point out who really was hurting who: was it He or She? Or it will draw you darker into the numerous tangents the different metaphors the film possesses: is it about theology? Misogyny? The evil of man or nature? Or is there nothing to it all? Whichever conclusion you come to depends on what you got out of the film but ultimately what you brought going in. Antichrist is one of the most reflective pieces of cinema to come out in many of year and I believe to be the most important film of the past decade. It takes you to Hell, the one you've made for yourself.

Chapter Three: Despair (Gynocide)
Some have labelled the film misogynistic, but I can't see a film that is deliberately about the effects of misogyny to be remotely misogynistic. Von Trier even had a researcher specifically on the subject of misogyny while working on the film, as he also had researchers for therapy, theology, and horror. The film does contain scenes of explicit sexual violence, but this reinforces the intentions of the story and the meanings of the fear of loss and the history of He and She. These are not used to be shocking, they are organic to structure of the film and its tone. Both performances by Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe are harrowing and powerful, and the depths that these actors went to in order to bring the real grief, pain, and despair to the screen is unprecedented in film history. And to what degree is the other the one causing the harm? She has become mad and is letting her fear and belief in her gynocide research get to her, but He is using therapy to heal her when she needs her husband to be there for her. Each is dividing the other after their loss. Neither can deal with the grief, pain, and despair.

Chapter Four: The Three Beggars
Theology. Misogyny. Nature. There is no finite answer to what Antichrist is fully about or where it wants you to go looking for its meanings, messages, and/or morals. Lars von Trier has unleashed a beast of cinematic brilliance that expertly makes the audience react to avenues they didn't want to explore. Because of this, you will either love it or hate it, you'll get it or think it's tripe. But even if you think you know what it's about, more questions will arrive long after you've viewed it bringing you to think more about it's effects and you will end up looking for the answers within yourself. Within your own purest Hell.

Epilogue
Von Trier has crafted a film of such haunting emotions and the fear that we each possess individually and transpire with others that Antichrist is a film of devastating beauty. It demands to be seen more than once, and because it is such a polarizing film, it will be discussed, debated, hailed and shunned, as an astounding work of cinematic art for years to come. Even after a second viewing I was actually left with more questions than answers and that's why it's so important - it challenges the viewer - and that is the purpose of art.

All contents copyright 2010 Tyler Baptist

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Interview with director Karen Lam



In November I was able to get a quick interview with director Karen Lam on her first feature length film "Stained".
The film is an intense thriller about a lonely bookseller’s obsessive love affair, and her protective best friend, who alone knows the horrible truth about her obsession. 
Click on the link here to check it out.


Scott Gowen

Thursday, January 7, 2010

James Cameron's Na'vi Democracy


AVATAR
Director: James Cameron
Writer: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver
2009 | USA | PG-13 | 162 mins
★★

The hype machine kicked into full swing as soon as James Cameron confirmed he was going forth with bringing Avatar to the big screen. Geeks squealed with giddy delight as they quickly amassed online to pollute the Internet with their musings, expectations, and hopes the film would become. For those out of this loop or unaware of the buzz behind Avatar, this is James Cameron's cinematic equivalent to the Guns N' Roses album Chinese Democracy in the fact that it's taken over 14 years to fully come to fruition. First conceived, in script form anyway, in the early-to-mid 90's, Avatar has had plenty of time to mature until Cameron was ready and happy with the technological advancements to actually bring his vision of the alien planet Pandora and it's inhabitants to the giant screen (it was intended for IMAX 3-D after all). When the trailer finally hit the interwebs earlier this year it just looked unfortunately like a live-action version of Fern Gully set on another planet... but Cameron promised that it would change movie-going forever.

The year is 2154 and the planet Earth has gone to shit (even worse than it is now, snicker). Humankind failed at nurturing Mother Earth and big business has extended it's greedy hands to now reach into the universes' many pockets. Colonists have set up on Pandora, an Earth-like moon of the planet Polyphemus, where they are mining unobtanium, a very profitable mineral that is needed to sustain life on Earth. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic marine, arrives on Pandora to replace his deceased twin brother in an experiment involving Avatars - genetically engineered hybrids that resemble Pandora's indigenous population, the Na'vi. Untrained, but with an attitude, Jake plunges feet first (no pun intended) into the role of an Avatar operator despite the lack of trust from Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), the leading human authority on the Na'vi.

When the head of the RDA corporation (Giovanni Ribisi) responsible for the mining wants the indigenous population moved from their home, which is right on top of the richest deposit of unobtainium, Jake is selected by macho maniac Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) to be the wolf in sheep's clothing. As Jake proceeds with his orders he slowly finds himself siding with the Na'vi when he falls in love with Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña) and immerses himself in their way of life. Now with the help of the Na'vi and some friends from the colony, he's out to stop the marines and big bad business from pillaging their land and its people.

Sounds a bit like an old beaten horse, doesn't it? Story wise I mean. As you can easily tell, and I'm sure you've most likely heard by now, Avatar is very simply the story of one colonization taking over and dominating another for personal gain. And the obligatory love story that always tags along. This plot has been done to death, and even better in films such as Pocahontas and The New World. Clocking in at just shy over 3 hours you'd expect at least some form of complexity or original structural narrative to warrant the running time, but James Cameron spent all those years developing the technology he required to tell the story rather than letting the story take us somewhere new. So we're left with a piss poor script with one-dimensional characters where the spectacle of the experience has been placed forefront.

As promised to be a game-changer, Avatar does in fact take us somewhere new technologically. With a lot of time and money (a lot of money) James Cameron created and engineered a brand new 3-D camera system (the Pace/Cameron Fusion 3-D camera) specifically for the film. Prior, we've always been fed 3-D as a gimmicky "look what's popping out at you from the screen" effect. With Avatar, the 3-D is used to create depth and immerse you into the landscape and setting of the movie. And it's here, in the visual splendor, that Avatar has it's strengths. It's an effects movie to demonstrate where the industry is heading technologically, with photo-realistic CGI and immersive 3-D. When I first saw the film I have to admit I was pretty blown away by what was achieved, and this coming from someone who is really opposed to the use of CGI other than to sweeten a shot or remove unwanted 'artifacts' (VFX breakdown example), but here the motion capture and CGI has been taken to the next level. However, there is still plenty of work to be done to get me jumping on the CGI bandwagon.

Just like Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy the wait for Avatar unfortunately was not worth it. With all the time and money it took to make the film audiences are just left emotionally unattached to an age-old tale with no character development or intrigue. It's all visual fluff, where the art has been replaced by the "wow" factor. The best way I can describe Avatar is it's just a demo reel of the next film fad, but one that can only be experienced on the big screen and in 3-D. If all you want is to experience a new technology where Hollywood seems to be heading, go check it out, but I can only recommend seeing this in 3-D on the big screen. It just would not work at all on a home theatre setup, it's a limitation of this technology even if there are 3-D TVs and Blu-ray players forthcoming. I do think that Cameron's version of 3-D has potential theatrically, but the story needs to come forefront. If the story telling is not immersive, the film is still flat. And that's exactly what Avatar ends up being.

All contents copyright 2010 Tyler Baptist

Monday, December 28, 2009

Tyler's 2009 Year in Review



Best Films of 2009:
Antichrist (Director: Lars von Trier)
Inglourious Basterds (Director: Quentin Tarantino)
Polytechnique (Director: Denis Villeneuve)
Lymelife (Director: Derick Martini)
Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! (Director: Mark Hartley)
The Brothers Bloom (Director: Rian Johnson)

Honorable Mentions:
Pontypool (Director: Bruce McDonald)
Thirst (Director: Chan-wook Park)
Bronson (Director: Nicolas Winding Refn)
Tetro (Director: Francis Ford Coppola)
The Damned United (Director: Tom Hooper)

Best Performances of 2009:
Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa in "Inglourious Basterds"
Charlotte Gainsbourg as She in "Antichrist"
Willem Dafoe as He in "Antichrist"
Tom Hardy as Charles Bronson (aka Michael Peterson) in "Bronson"
Michael Sheen as Brian Clough in "The Damned United"
Sam Rockwell as Sam Bell in "Moon"
Timothy Hutton as Charlie Bragg in "Lymelife"

Worst Films (If you can even call them films...) of 2009:
2012 (Director: Roland Emmerich)
The Twilight Saga: New Moon (Director: Chris Weitz)
Observe and Report (Director: Jody Hill)
Brüno (Director: Larry Charles)
Halloween II (Director: Rob Zombie)

Films I'm still waiting for the chance to see from 2009:
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (Director: Werner Herzog)
The Road (Director: John Hillcoat)
Collapse (Director: Chris Smith)
[Rec] 2 (Directors: Jaume Balagueró, Paco Plaza)
The Loved Ones (Director: Sean Byrne)

Here's hoping we get some great films in 2010 as well!

*Updated: Finally took in "Antichrist".

- Tyler